account, but he generally quotes the opinions of those who disagree with him as well. Another voluminous but less valuable work is F. Bertolini’s Storia d’Italia dal 1814 al 1878, in 2 parts (Milan, 1880–1881.) L. Chiala’s Lettere del Conte di Cavour (7 vols., Turin, 1883–1887) and D. Zanichelli’s Scritti del Conte di Cavour (Bologna, 1892) are very important, and so are Prince Metternich’s Mémoires (7 vols., Paris, 1881). P. Orsi’s L’Italia moderna (Milan, 1901) should also be mentioned. N. Bianchi’s Storia della diplomazia europea in Italia (8 vols., Turin, 1865) is an invaluable and thoroughly reliable work. See also Zini’s Storia d’ Italia (4 vols., Milan, 1875); Gualterio’s Gli ultimi rivolgimenti italiani (4 vols., Florence, 1850) is important for the period from 1831 to 1847, and so also is L. Farina’s Storia d’ Italia dal 1815 al 1849 (5 vols., Turin, 1851); W. R. Thayer’s Dawn of Italian Independence (Boston, 1893) is gushing and not always accurate; C. Cantù’s Dell’ indipendenza italiana cronistoria (Naples, 1872–1877) is reactionary and often unreliable; V. Bersezio, Il Regno di Vittorio Emanuele II (8 vols., Turin, 1889, &c.). For English readers Countess E. Martinengo Cesaresco’s Liberation of Italy (London, 1895) is to be strongly recommended, and is indeed, for accuracy, fairness and synthesis, as well as for charm of style, one of the very best books on the subject in any language; Bolton King’s History of Italian Unity (2 vols., London, 1899) is bulkier and less satisfactory, but contains a useful bibliography. A succinct account of the chief events of the period will be found in Sir Spencer Walpole’s History of Twenty-Five Years (London, 1904). See also the Cambridge Modern History, vols. x. and xi. (Cambridge, 1907, &c.), where full bibliographies will be found. (L. V.*)
F. History, 1870–1902
The downfall of the temporal power was hailed throughout Italy with unbounded enthusiasm. Abroad, Catholic countries at first received the tidings with resignation, and Protestant countries with joy. In France, where the Government of National Defence had replaced the Italian occupation of Rome. Empire, Crémieux, as president of the government delegation at Tours, hastened to offer his congratulations to Italy. The occupation of Rome caused no surprise to the French government, which had been forewarned on 11th September of the Italian intentions. On that occasion Jules Favre had recognized the September convention to be dead, and, while refusing explicitly to denounce it, had admitted that unless Italy went to Rome the city would become a prey to dangerous agitators. At the same time he made it clear that Italy would occupy Rome upon her own responsibility. Agreeably surprised by this attitude on the part of France, Visconti-Venosta lost no time in conveying officially the thanks of Italy to the French government. He doubtless foresaw that the language of Favre and Crémieux would not be endorsed by the French Clericals. Prussia, while satisfied at the fall of the temporal power, seemed to fear lest Italy might recompense the absence of French opposition to the occupation of Rome by armed intervention in favour of France. Bismarck, moreover, was indignant at the connivance of the Italian government in the Garibaldian expedition to Dijon, and was irritated by Visconti-Venosta’s plea in the Italian parliament for the integrity of French territory. The course of events in France, however, soon calmed German apprehensions. The advent of Thiers, his attitude towards the petition of French bishops on behalf of the pope, the recall of Senard, the French minister at Florence—who had written to congratulate Victor Emmanuel on the capture of Rome—and the instructions given to his successor, the comte de Choiseul, to absent himself from Italy at the moment of the king’s official entry into the new capital (2nd July 1871), together with the haste displayed in appointing a French ambassador to the Holy See, rapidly cooled the cordiality of Franco-Italian relations, and reassured Bismarck on the score of any dangerous intimacy between the two governments.
The friendly attitude of France towards Italy during the period immediately subsequent to the occupation of Rome seemed to cow and to dishearten the Vatican. For a few weeks the relations between the Curia and the Italian authorities were marked by a conciliatory Attitude of the Vatican. spirit. The secretary-general of the Italian foreign office, Baron Blanc, who had accompanied General Cadorna to Rome, was received almost daily by Cardinal Antonelli, papal secretary of state, in order to settle innumerable questions arising out of the Italian occupation. The royal commissioner for finance, Giacomelli, had, as a precautionary measure, seized the pontifical treasury; but upon being informed by Cardinal Antonelli that among the funds deposited in the treasury were 1,000,000 crowns of Peter’s Pence offered by the faithful to the pope in person, the commissioner was authorized by the Italian council of state not only to restore this sum, but also to indemnify the Holy See for moneys expended for the service of the October coupon of the pontifical debt, that debt having been taken over by the Italian state. On the 29th of September Cardinal Antonelli further apprised Baron Blanc that he was about to issue drafts for the monthly payment of the 50,000 crowns inscribed in the pontifical budget for the maintenance of the pope, the Sacred College, the apostolic palaces and the papal guards. The Italian treasury at once honoured all the papal drafts, and thus contributed a first instalment of the 3,225,000 lire per annum afterwards placed by Article 4 of the Law of Guarantees at the disposal of the Holy See. Payments would have been regularly continued had not pressure from the French Clerical party coerced the Vatican into refusing any further instalment.
Once in possession of Rome, and guarantor to the Catholic world of the spiritual independence of the pope, the Italian government prepared juridically to regulate its relations to the Holy See. A bill known as the Law of Guarantees was therefore framed and laid before The Law of Guarantees. parliament. The measure was an amalgam of Cavour’s scheme for a “free church in a free state,” of Ricasoli’s Free Church Bill, rejected by parliament four years previously, and of the proposals presented to Pius IX. by Count Ponza di San Martino in September 1870. After a debate lasting nearly two months the Law of Guarantees was adopted in secret ballot on the 21st of March 1871 by 185 votes against 106.
It consisted of two parts. The first, containing thirteen articles, recognized (Articles 1 and 2) the person of the pontiff as sacred and intangible, and while providing for free discussion of religious questions, punished insults and outrages against the pope in the same way as insults and outrages against the king. Royal honours were attributed to the pope (Article 3), who was further guaranteed the same precedence as that accorded to him by other Catholic sovereigns, and the right to maintain his Noble and Swiss guards. Article 4 allotted the pontiff an annuity of 3,225,000 lire (£129,000) for the maintenance of the Sacred College, the sacred palaces, the congregations, the Vatican chancery and the diplomatic service. The sacred palaces, museums and libraries were, by Article 5, exempted from all taxation, and the pope was assured perpetual enjoyment of the Vatican and Lateran buildings and gardens, and of the papal villa at Castel Gandolfo. Articles 6 and 7 forbade access of any Italian official or agent to the above-mentioned palaces or to any eventual conclave or oecumenical council without special authorization from the pope, conclave or council. Article 8 prohibited the seizure or examination of any ecclesiastical papers, documents, books or registers of purely spiritual character. Article 9 guaranteed to the pope full freedom for the exercise of his spiritual ministry, and provided for the publication of pontifical announcements on the doors of the Roman churches and basilicas. Article 10 extended immunity to ecclesiastics employed by the Holy See, and bestowed upon foreign ecclesiastics in Rome the personal rights of Italian citizens. By Article 11, diplomatists accredited to the Holy See, and papal diplomatists while in Italy, were placed on the same footing as diplomatists accredited to the Quirinal. Article 12 provided for the transmission free of cost in Italy of all papal telegrams and correspondence both with bishops and foreign governments, and sanctioned the establishment, at the expense of the Italian state, of a papal telegraph office served by papal officials in communication with the Italian postal and telegraph system. Article 13 exempted all ecclesiastical seminaries, academies, colleges and schools for the education of priests in the city of Rome from all interference on the part of the Italian government.
This portion of the law, designed to reassure foreign Catholics, met with little opposition; but the second portion, regulating the relations between state and church in Italy, was sharply criticized by deputies who, like Sella, recognized the ideal of a “free church in a free state” to be an impracticable dream. The second division of the law abolished (Article 14) all restrictions upon the right of meeting of members of the clergy. By Article 15 the government relinquished its rights to apostolic legation in Sicily, and to the appointment of its own nominees to the chief benefices throughout the kingdom. Bishops were further dispensed from swearing fealty to the king, though, except in Rome and suburbs, the choice of bishops was limited to ecclesiastics of Italian nationality. Article 16 abolished the need for royal exequatur and placet for ecclesiastical publications, but subordinated the enjoyment of temporalities by
