against annexation, and in Umbria, 97,040 for, and 380 against.1 The votes were formally presented to the King in the same manner as those of Naples and Sicily and the provinces were incorporated in the kingdom with the same formula.

Cardinal Antonelli sought by energetic protests to awaken the Catholic countries in the interests of the Holy Father. In a letter of November 4, he said it was not a question of the conditions surrounding the vote, but the vote itself. He condemned the politics of Sardinia in seeking to introduce a principle eminently revolutionary and destructive of legitimate sovereigns.2 But much as this argument appealed to Austria and Prussia, it was of no avail against the overwhelming testimony of the vote itself. The protest of Lord John Russell was of another order. On October 27 he had won the adoration of the Italian patriots by defending, against the protests of Austria, France, Prussia and Russia, the action of Sardinia in support of the Sicilian and Umbrian expeditions, taking the ground that the people of the Roman and Neapolitan States were the best judges of their own interests.3 He required, however, that that judgment should be clear and free from pressure. In a letter to Hudson on January 21, he says that the votes of Naples, Sicily, Umbria and the Marches, cast by universal suffrage, had no great value in the eyes of the British government, as they were nothing but a formality following upon acts of popular insurrection, or of successful invasion, and did not imply in themselves any independent exercise of the will of the nation in whose name they were given. He, however, waived further objections, should representatives of the several different Italian states convoked for February 18 by a deliberate act constitute those States into one State. "When the formation of the State shall be announced to Her Majesty," he wrote, “it is to be hoped that the Government of the King will be prepared to show that the new monarchy has been erected in pursuance of the deliberate votes of the people in Italy and that it has all the attributes of a government prepared to maintain order within and relations of peace and friendship with

Out." 4

On February 18 the first Italian Parliament met in Turin, and, on February 26 gave the sanction desired by Lord John Russell. Victor Emanuel was voted King of Italy by a vote of 129 to 2 in the Senate and 292 to 1 in the

1 Documents, post, pp. 667 and 670. The population of the Marches in 1861 numbered 883,073. That of Umbria was 513,019. Statistica del Regno d'Italia.

2 Archives diplomatiques, 1861, part 1, p. 93.

3 Parliamentary Papers [2757], p. 125.

♦ Ibid., Affairs of Italy, 1861, vol. 67 [2804], p. 1. Cavour in a letter to Azeglio at London from Turin, March 16, chose to construe this as a question of the principle of universal suffrage and not of the conditions surrounding the vote. Ibid., p. 3.

Chamber. The royal title was declared on March 17 to be " Victor Emanuel, King of Italy, by the Grace of God and the will of the nation.” 1

The new kingdom was recognized by Great Britain within a fortnight and by France some three months later. The other Powers, though protesting the lack of validity of a sovereignty based on universal suffrage, could do no less than follow.2

Venetia, 1866

Cavour died on June 6, 1861. By his statesmanship all of Italy had been united save Rome and Venetia: in the further movement towards Italian unity the policy he had made his own was undeviatingly followed.

The foreign aid necessary to gain Venetia came in 1866, when Bismarck, in order to obtain Italy's support against Austria in the Schleswig-Holstein matter, promised Venetia to the Italians. On July 5, after the defeat of Königgrätz, Austria, accepting Napoleon's mediation, ceded Venetia to him with the understanding that it should be handed by him to Italy. Napoleon then induced Prussia, without consulting Italy, to sign a separate armistice with Austria. Italy was thus forced to sign one also, a bitter disappointment, for it meant that Garibaldi must evacuate the Trentino.

The treaty by which Austria ceded Venetia to France was signed on August 24.4 It is said that Napoleon endeavored to insert a clause providing for a plebiscite to carry out the tacit understanding as to the making over of the kingdom to France, but that the Austrian Emperor again refused, as he had done in the case of Lombardy. Ricasoli, now Prime Minister of Italy, was bitterly opposed to accepting Venetia as a gift from France. Rather than suffer such a humiliation he preferred to continue the war. He was induced, however, to sign the armistice on the basis of uti possidetis, but insisted that France agree to the stipulation that Venetia should come to Italy without dishonorable conditions and after a plebiscite. This would enable Italy to base her claim on the will of the people, and not on the generosity of France. Napoleon, accordingly, promised to cede Venetia to Italy under the reservation of the "consent of the people duly consulted," a reservation

1 Archives diplomatiques, 1861, part 2, p. 100. Le assemblee del risorgimento, vol. 1, pp. 800-802.

2 On the assumption by Victor Emanuel of the title of "King of Italy" in 1861, protests, reserving their rights, were issued by the Duke of Modena on March 30 from Vienna, by the Duchess Regent of Parma on April 10 from Switzerland, and by Francis II of the Two Sicilies on May 6 from Rome. Archives diplomatiques, 1861, part 1.

3 The Trentino was refused as being comprised in the territory of the Germanic Confederation. It is said, however, that Bismarck made answer that what could be stipulated before war might become possible during or after it, and urgently suggested that the people should demand a plebiscite. Le assemblee del risorgimento, vol. 2, p. 1, quoting from Genova di Revel, La Cessione del Veneto, p. 5. Revel was the Italian commissioner in Venetia. * Documents, post, p. 679.

which the Austrian Emperor, inconsistently enough, allowed to be mentioned in the preamble of the treaty of peace signed between Austria and Italy on October 3.1

On October 19, General Leboeuf, representing Napoleon, formally delivered Venetia over to a commission representing the province. The delivery occurred at eight o'clock in the morning and under conditions which point to a desire on the part of the Emperor to prevent any public demonstration. Leboeuf, after a statement of the devotion of Napoleon to the right of selfdetermination, declared that Venetia was now mistress of her own destinies, in order that the people should freely express their wishes on the subject of the annexation of Venetia to the Kingdom of Italy.

According to understanding the vote was to be taken under the direction. of the Venetian municipal bodies without direction from the Italian government. On the same day of the delivery, however, a royal decree was promulgated convoking the electoral assemblies and providing minute regulations for the conduct of the vote. This appeared to be a denial of the agreement with France whereby the municipalities were to draw up their own regulations and accordingly called forth a protest from Leboeuf. The French were, however, satisfied by the explanation that the decree was unofficial in character and was meant rather to serve as a model which the municipalities might follow, than as a form imposed. The decree was, of course, followed minutely. There was no further interference by the Italian government. The administration of the vote was in the hands of the municipal officials who were those elected in the previous May, while Venetia was still in Austrian hands.3 The provisions of the decree are similar to those of the previous plebiscites.

The plebiscite was held on October 21 and 22 without event. There was no doubt of the result. Out of the 647,315 voting, 69 voted "no" and 371 votes were void. The result was such a foregone conclusion that the fact that the province had been erected into a military department a few days before the vote had no significance as affecting it.

The result was published by the Court of Appeal sitting in special session in the Doges Palace, and, on November 4, the votes were formally presented to the King at Turin by delegates from the municipalities. He received the delegates in state, accepted the votes, and by royal decree, "in view of the result of the vote of the citizens," incorporated the provinces of Venetia and Mantua in the Kingdom of Italy.5

1 Documents, post, p. 681.

2 Documents, post, p. 686.

Le Assemblee del risorgimento, vol. 2, p. li.

+ Documents, post, p. 694.

5 Documents, post, p. 701.

Rome, 1870

Another four years went by before Rome could be added to the Italian union. Guarded by French troops and protected by an agreement between Napoleon and Italy, the Temporal Power was secure for the time being. The opportunity came, however, with the Franco-Prussian war of 1870.

The French troops were withdrawn in July. On September 11 General Cadorna in command of the Italian forces entered the papal territory with sixty thousand men and advanced without opposition to the walls of Rome. Here there was a show of resistance, the Pope wishing to appear to yield only to force. A breach having been made in the walls, he ordered the resistance. to cease, and on September 20, Cadorna, followed by thousands of Roman exiles, marched into the city.

Cadorna, on the day after his entrance, had issued a proclamation promising that the question of future sovereignty should be decided by a free vote of the inhabitants of Rome and its provinces. The Italians, wishing to give every appearance of freedom, had ordered that in each province and commune giuntas should be erected, which should have charge of the administration of the plebiscite. These giuntas were to be convoked by the military commanders placed over the provinces. The military officials were to merely lend their influence toward the establishment and prestige of the giuntas and to aid in giving them a common form.1 There were in Rome three parties: those loyal to the papal government; the republicans who were still mindful of their success under Mazzini and Garibaldi in 1848; and the party for union with the Kingdom of Italy. Immediately on Cadorna's entrance the republicans at once became active. On the next day a great assembly called by the republican leaders met in the Coliseum and elected a giunta of fortytwo persons, which was superseded, however, by another and smaller one, appointed on the same day by Cadorna. Practically all of the eighteen names on Cadorna's giunta had been included in the forty-two selected by the republicans but the republican leaders had been omitted. In spite of its origin this second giunta did not exhibit the quiescent obedience which was, perhaps, expected, but protested against both the administrative officials and the wording of the vote for the plebiscite which was sent from Florence. The formula which had contained a guarantee of the independence of the Pope having been changed to that used in the other plebiscites, the vote, by a decree of September 29, was fixed for October 2.

1 Raffaele Cadorna, La liberazione di Roma, p. 232.

2 Documents, post, pp. 705 and 706.

3 Dispatches of Mr. Jervoise to Earl Granville, Documents, p. 535. Florence was at that time the capital of Italy.

The vote was to be by universal suffrage. The list of accredited voters was to be furnished by the priests and by the presidencies of Rome. The further provisions of the decree are similar to those of the other plebiscites. It appears that the ballots were to be distributed before the voting, possibly to obviate the criticism brought against the vote of Naples and Sicily.

The final registration was put in the hands of a special committee of twelve which was to appoint sub-committees to preside at the registration booths and there verify the claims of the registrants and furnish them with certificates as electors. Rome was divided into sections for both registration and vote. In the provinces the vote was taken in each communal headquar

ters.

There are two stories with reference to the vote of Rome. The Italian version is that the vote was a spontaneous expression of national enthusiasm. The Gazzetta ufficiale of Florence for October 3rd gives dispatches containing accounts of the vote in the different towns. The lame and sick, it reported, were being carried to the voting places in Viterbo and Rome. The tradesmen and craftsmen were marching with bands and flags to the polls. In Labrica the polls opened at 9 o'clock. By 10 o'clock more than one-half of the population had voted. In Terracina the National Guard and all the city officials marched in a body in which the clergy were represented. The order was perfect, the enthusiasm indescribable.1 Cadorna, writing from Rome on the day of the voting gives a description of the scene there. "It is the day of the plebiscite," he wrote. "It is an admirable spectacle. The people, marching in bodies, have passed under the balcony with flags flying, acclaiming the King of Italy the liberator of Rome, on their way to the Campidoglio to deposit their votes in the urn. I have exerted not the least pressure. It will be a solemn plebiscite." 2

The papal story is, however, far different. According to this version the support of the Italian cause was due to Italian money which was plentiful, and to the presence of the troops, which the papal authorities accused of looting and violence. Appearance of wide support was given by the numbers of returned émigrés and men from all parts, who had poured into Rome with Cadorna. The Pope had issued an order prohibiting all Roman Catholics from taking part in the election on the ground that participation would seem to authorize the invaders to question the sovereign right of the Papacy.3 To 1 Gazzetta ufficiale del Regno d'Italia.

2 Letter of Cadorna. Le assemblee del risorgimento, vol. 6, p. lxxxii.

3 Count de Beauffort Histoire de l'invasion des Etats pontificaux. Rev. James MacCaffrey History of the Catholic Church in the Nineteenth Century, vol. 1, 2d ed., p. 432. A Guggenberger — A General History of the Christian Era, p 340. Donat Sampson. - The Last Ten Years of the Temporal Power-American Catholic Quarterly Review, vol. xxiv, p. 170. As most of the Papal historians make this statement, it is doubtless accurate.