The Editor of THE NINETEENTH CENTURY cannot undertake to return unaccepted MSS.

THE

NINETEENTH

CENTURY.

No. CLI. SEPTEMBER 1889.

ITALY DRIFTING.

It was believed on the Continent that during the Crimean war Prince Albert had declared 'parliamentary government to be upon its trial.' If that could have been said over thirty years ago, how much more has the question been developed since, and with what apparent strength are the reactionaries everywhere now seeking to deny the efficacy of free institutions-that is, of Liberal rule based on public discussion-in presence of the Reign of Democracy made supreme by universal suffrage! Democracy is one thing, Jacobinism another; Jacobin Radicals can, and do, join hands with the most violent autocrats in the attempt to subvert genuine public opinion and override despotically the calm judgment of such citizens as those who, in their majority, have alone in view the welfare of the nation. Representative government served and interpreted by Parliament may be largely -nay, entirely-democratic; for, be it always remembered, the attainment of power by merit well approved is the foundation of true democracy-whereto nothing is more opposed than the Jacobin creed of despotic sway in the hands of a few, under the pretext that these few understand better than others what are the more advanced notions and desires of the 'people.' The arguments derived from the divine right of kings,' the 'temporal power of the papacy,' or from the equality of the capable or incapable,' or the 'legality of employment and enjoyment indiscriminately for all' are equivalent in their total inapplicability and absurdity, and for that very reason have representative institutions served by parliamentary VOL. XXVI.-No. 151.

DD

discussion hitherto been admitted as the mean term between the two extremes, and as the most reasonable form in which to secure to nations the utmost amount of that freedom without which neither nation nor individual is possessed of true dignity, or, in the long run, entitled to respect.

We, in Italy, have found to our cost what is meant by the divergence from the real spirit of our original institutions, when exactly thirty years ago we became a national unity under the impulsion, as wise as it was energetic, of the master mind of Cavour.

In the name of Cavour have we received life, in his name alone can we hope to resist the unhealthy tendencies of the present hour. The Italian Government is drifting; of that there can be no doubt, and a determined return to the true spirit of its constitution, a resolute reconstitution of what it was in the beginning, is the sole opening of the road to salvation.

What Cavour established, and meant should endure, was not particularism of any sort, or the recurring warfare of one race against another; local interests or desires were with him a part of internal government details, not a predominance in State policy of one nationality to-day and another to-morrow; he knew (and proved dearly that he did so) of no Tuscan supremacy, or Roman influence, or Neapolitan interest, or Piedmontese dynastic advantage. He knew of Italy' administered, directed, governed by a parliament in which every separate influence or interest should be honestly represented; and what is now in our day passing in Rome, the concessions dreamt of to particularist encroachments, the revival of such obsolete chimera as the temporal power,' with other anachronisms equally remarkable, show to what a degree the lessons of the past have been forgotten.

6

The doctrine of Cavour, who was the farthest removed of all men from what is called a doctrinaire' (as far as he was from being a revolutionist), his creed was the rule of law. He admitted no 'accidents' in government, no suspensions, no coups d'état; if the law was faulty, change it, but change it by loyal parliamentary discussion, not by the arbitrary intervention of decrees or the votes of packed majorities obeying personal interests. If in the present onslaught on parliamentary government a champion is required, it is to Cavour appeal must be made. His belief was in no 6 one man theory,' in no passing expedient of the hour; his belief was in Acts of Parliament. Cavour was so conscious of his mission'—if one must use a word which has its proper meaning now, though it perhaps had not so a quarter of a century ago-that no statesman has left a more ample supply of documentary evidence as to not only what he did, but as to what he meant to do; but unfortunately his own best testimonies, the records of his own resolves, written with his own hand, the proof not alone of his thoughts, but of his forethoughts, are

now forgotten, and, as a matter of fact, no longer to be found in their authenticated printed form as they were given to the public five-andtwenty years ago. Cavour must be judged, not alone by his internal, but by his external policy; his home policy concerns us, and rests on liberty; his foreign policy concerns the world and means-Peace.

When those who knew the facts, and could bear witness to the convictions that inspired them, seek to vindicate the now so imperfectly realised grandeur of Cavour's conceptions, they must adduce the confirmation of their statements from the publications of his own journals and diaries, the most valuable of which are (let me repeat it) no longer to be obtained. The most valuable of all are the various documents published by his relative, M. William de la Rive.1 Although edited in 1863, almost on the morrow of the illustrious statesman's death, there has, in truth, been since then nothing more indispensable to his memory given to the world. Volumes of his correspondence, despatches, and what not have been published since that date; all confirm what M. de la Rive's little book contains, whereas it constitutes, as it were, the épreuve avant la lettre, and holds up, in his own hand, what Cavour, in the very origin, meant that Cavour should be. It is in this publication only that can be sought the positive evidence of the facts certified in regard to Cavour by the witnesses of those facts. For the persons who wish to show what Cavour intended his work should be, and its consequences to Europe, for those whose object it is to designate where, when, and by whom that work has not been carried out, M. de la Rive will always remain the prime source of indisputable reference. In it you have the seer noting down what he really foresaw, and the non-execution whereof for so many years embittered his life, though it never shook his faith in the future. Here you have the living likeness of the man—the résumé, clear, concise, yet substantial, of his doctrine, the true exposition of his theories and creeds, of his modes of action, his ideas of government, and his parliamentary conduct; above all, of his manner of shaping and directing the foreign policy of his country. The innumerable documents extracted from State archives, or from more or less intimate sources, that have seen the light within the last few years; above all, the correspondence published by M. Chiala 2 and the two volumes of M. Domenico Berti,3 simply bring forth a minute corroboration of the facts enunciated, and the judgments and appreciations furnished by the Genevese historian. In the work, therefore, of showing what Cavour meant, and what he firmly believed to be for the salvation of Italy and the peace of Europe, I am content to appeal for confirmation of my statements to what I have called the épreuve avant la lettre of M. de la Rive.

2

1 Le Comte de Cavour: Récits et Souvenirs. Paris, Hetzel, 1863. *