The fault which the Hon. Labriola lays on us, finding an analogy between the methods and the evolution of the Russian and of the Italian revolution, does not exist. And here I make a simple statement of historical order. It is a fact that both revolutions tend to destroy all the ideologies and in a certain sense the Liberal and Democratic institutions which were the outcome of the French Revolution.
Italy pulled herself together after Caporetto, because the necessary Discipline of War was imposed on her. During the last few days use and abuse of a polemic method have been made, that of unearthing the writings and opinions of the past to employ them as a weapon in the present dispute. This is a very wretched system which I am going to use against those who have adopted it.
In his speech the Hon. Alessio has stated that the defeat of the Central Empires was due to the deficiency of their representative organs. This is a totally one-sided explanation. There has been a war; millions of men have fought against the Central Empires and defeated them. Another mistake is to say that after Caporetto Italy pulled herself together because she had regained her liberty. Nothing of the kind! The reason is that the necessary war discipline was imposed upon her. (Loud applause on the Right.) I am not one of those who think that Caporetto was due entirely to the disintegration of the country in rear of the fighting front. It was a military reverse in its causes and development; but there is no doubt that the atmosphere of the country, an atmosphere of leniency and of excessive tolerance, has produced disturbing moral phenomena which must have contributed to our reverse.
The Dawn of Italian Risorgimento came from the Bourgeoisie of Naples. The other statement made by the Hon. Alessio, that the Italian Risorgimento represented the efforts of the Italian lower classes, is superficial. Alas! it is not so. The Italian lower classes were absent and often hostile to it. The first dawn of the Italian Risorgimento came from Naples, from that bourgeoisie of intelligent and gallant professional men which in Southern Italy represents a class historically, politically and morally well-defined. (Applause and assent.) Those who at Nola in 1821 hoisted the standard of revolution against the Bourbons were two cavalry officers. All the noble martyrology of the Italian Risorgimento is formed out of elements of the bourgeoisie. Nothing is sadder than the useless sacrifice of the Bandiera brothers. And when you think of the tragedy of Carlo Pisacane you are thrilled! (Applause.) I should like to deny that Giuseppe Mazzini himself can be included in Democracy. His methods were certainly not democratic. He was very consistent in his aims, but how many times was he not incoherent and changeable in his means?
The Expedition to the Crimea really prepared the way for the Unity of Italy. And what about Cavour? I think that the event which really prepared the way for the unity of the country was the expedition to the Crimea,—(Comment.)—which represents one of the most noteworthy in history. I recall it because it shows how in solemn hours the decision is left to one man, who must consult only his own conscience. (Applause and comment.) When General Dabormida refused to sign the Treaty of Alliance with France and with England, Cavour, on the same evening of the 1st of January 1855, signed it without consulting Parliament or the Council of Ministers, and signed it above all at his discretion without imposing any condition whatsoever. It was a stroke of rashness that you might call sublime. Cavour himself recognised it, and when writing to Count Oldofredi, he said: “I have taken a tremendous responsibility on my shoulders. It does not matter. Let happen what may. My conscience tells me that I have fulfilled a sacred duty!”
When the soldiers of the small and valiant Piedmont were on the point of leaving, the discussion in the Subalpine Parliament took place, and Angelo Brofferio, a kind of Cavallotti of the time,—(Comment.)—accused Cavour of not having a definite political line of conduct. It is really worth while to read part of this speech, because it closely recalls the speeches which during the present week have been made in this hall.
“Our Ministers,” said Angelo Brofferio, “represent all ideas and all convictions. At one time they become Conservatives and withhold the Jury from the Press; another time they ape the Democrats and raise cries against usurpations of Rome; still another time they throw off the mask and become retrogrades in order to unite with Austria!”
Angelo Brofferio ends with these really singular words: “Where is in this system respect for convention and for constitutional morality?” and, referring to the Treaty, he added: “May God preserve us from that sinister eventuality! But if you agree to this Treaty, the prostitution of Piedmont and the ruin of Italy will be accomplished facts!”
It is curious, also, that another powerful ideologist, certainly sacred to the memory of all Italians, Giuseppe Mazzini, was very much against this Treaty, even to the extent of calling “deported” the Piedmontese soldiers who were leaving for the Crimea and of inciting them to desert! But Garibaldi, a far more practical leader, had an intuition of the fundamental importance of the Treaty of Alliance between Piedmont and Western Powers. “Italy,” said Garibaldi, “should lose no opportunity of unfurling her flag on the battlefield which might recall to European nations her political existence.”
To-day you certainly all agree in recognising that history has shown that Angelo Brofferio was in the wrong and Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour, was entirely in the right. (Assent.)