Cavour came of this race and understood it. But he was a man of exceptional quality. He had the genius of statesmanship—a practical sense of what could be done, combined with rare dexterity in doing it, fine diplomatic and parliamentary tact, and noble courage in the hour of need. Without the enthusiasm, amounting to the passion of a new religion, which Mazzini inspired, without Garibaldi’s brilliant achievements, and the idolatry excited by this pure-hearted hero in the breasts of all who fought with him and felt his sacred fire, there is little doubt that Cavour would not have found the creation of United Italy possible. But if Cavour had not been there to win the confidence, support, and sympathy of Europe, if he had not been recognised by the body of the nation as a man whose work was solid and whose sense was just in all emergencies, Mazzini’s efforts would have run to waste in questionable insurrections, and Garibaldi’s feats of arms must have added but one chapter more to the history of unproductive patriotism.
While, therefore, we recognise the part played by each of these great men in the liberation of their country, and while we willingly ignore their differences and disputes, it is Cavour whom we must honour with the title of the maker of United Italy.
POPE PIUS IX AND HIS LIBERAL POLICY
[1846-1848 A.D.]
From this digression, which was necessary in order to make the next acts in the drama clear, we now return to the year 1846. Misrule had reached its climax in Rome, and the people were well-nigh maddened, when Gregory XVI died and Pius IX was elected in his stead.[31] It seemed as though an age of gold had dawned; for the greatest of all miracles had happened. The new pope declared himself a liberal, proclaimed a general amnesty to political offenders, and in due course granted a national guard, and began to form a constitution. The Neo-Guelfic school of Gioberti believed that their master’s utopia was about to be realised.
Italy went wild with joy and demonstrations. The pope’s example proved contagious. Constitutions were granted in Tuscany [February 11, 1848], Piedmont [March 4th], and Rome [March 14th]. The duke of Lucca fled, and his domain was joined to Tuscany. Only Austria and Naples declared that their states needed no reforms. On the 2nd of January, 1848, a liberal demonstration at Milan served the Austrians for pretext to massacre defenceless persons in the streets. These Milanese victims were hailed as martyrs all over Italy, and funeral ceremonies, partaking of the same patriotic character as the rejoicings of the previous year, kept up the popular agitation. On the 12th of January Palermo rose against King Ferdinand II, and Naples followed her example on the 27th. The king was forced in February to grant the constitution of 1812, to which his subjects were so ardently attached.[g]
FOOTNOTES
[25] [With regard to Naples there was an interminable and difficult debate about the documents which were found in Paris, and which clearly proved the treacherous thoughts of Gioacchino [Joachim Murat] against the allies. The final result was that even Austria which had upheld him detested Murat, and on the 10th day of April declared war against him as we have seen. After these proceedings there was nothing to prevent the congress of Vienna from taking possession of Naples also. It was again adjudged to King Ferdinand IV. He was already in possession of the kingdom when the congress restored it to him.[c]]
[26] [Stillman calls it still less—only a “diplomatic expression.”]
[27] [Literally “charcoalers,” charcoal-making being a prominent industry in the wilds of the Abruzzo and Calabria where Carbonarism found its refuge. The ritual of the organisation was founded on charcoal-makers’ terms, thus meetings were called vendite or “sales.” The idea spread to France, where La Fayette was a prominent member. See volume XIII, chapter I.]