The immediate occasion of the prorogation of parliament, and finally of
the dissolution of the late chamber of deputies, as well as of the
resignation of several ministers, events doubtless already known to you
through the telegraph, was the action of the government in suppressing
meetings called for the purpose of discussing the measures proposed by
the ministry upon the great question of the relations between church and
state in connection with the finances. A resolution equivalent to a
declaration of a want of confidence in the ministry was carried in the
chambers by a decided majority, and the prorogation followed immediately
after. I enclose a slip from a journal containing the debate on this
question, which, as you will perceive, is, in some respects, of a
remarkable as well as unexpected character. The recent discourse of the
Emperor Napoleon has excited a good deal of feeling in Italy, because it
is the first occasion on which he has pronounced himself unequivocally
in favor of maintaining the temporal power of the Papacy. I forward by
this post a copy of two Italian journals of the 16th of this month, one
of which, the Nazione, is generally understood to be semi-official, the
other strongly in the French interest, both containing editorial
articles on this subject. The construction given by the latter to the
passages of the imperial discourse which refer to the relations between
Rome and Italy, is not, I imagine, by any means an authorized
interpretation, but is simply adopted to ward off the unfavorable
impressions which these passages, taken in their most obvious sense,
could not fail to produce on the Italian people.
It is worthy of remark that the political excitement in Italy has
produced little effect on the price of government funds, and none at all
on that of gold, which scarcely commands five per cent, premium. It is
evident, therefore, that capitalists do not regard the present crisis as
threatening any serious derangement of the finance or the currency.
[From the Diretto,
Florence, February 14,
1867.—Translation,]
Debate on the Venetian meetings.
We publish in full, from the minutes, the speech of Mr. Cairoli, with
Mr. Rieasoli’s reply, in the session of the 11th of February.
The President. The election returns are
properly the order of the day; but as the minister of the interior
says he is ready to reply to Messrs. Cairoli and Be Beni, with leave
of the house, I will give Mr. Caroli the floor.
Mr. Cairoli. I will make no apology for
myself and colleague, Mr. De Beni, on proposing to discuss the
question now before the house. I know the aversion you have to
debates, for they are generally nothing more than criminations and
blame without any good result; but when the violation of a law is in
question, when our liberties are endangered, then it is our duty to
fly to the rescue of principles dear to all of us, without regard to
party.
I regret that Venetia has furnished the sad theme for this
discussion. The authorities there have prohibited the exercise of a
dear right in those provinces that have been restored to the family
of Italy, after along and glorious martyrdom; and it has been done
in the name of the government.
I will not proclaim the right of public meetings, as all know their
benefits. They educate the people, they tell the government its
wants, they spread public opinion, they discuss what is legal, and
the people are not forced to take refuge in the secrecy of
conspiracies. The privilege of popular assemblies is an inalienable
right sanctioned by the laws of all constitutional governments; by
England, Belgium, France, and especially by article XXXII of
[Page 607]
our own statate. Now this
right, precise as an axiom, not subject to many interpretations, was
violated by Venetia, in the dawn of her liberty, through a law that
had for a title, liberty of the church, while
Ricasoli was minister.
I will give the particulars, as I heard them yesterday: A meeting was
called in Venice to consider that law. A committee invited the
deputies of that city to attend. The civil authorities forbid the
posting of the call, and prohibited the meeting. The committee
insisted on their right to assemble, but the keys of Malibran
theatre, where the meeting was to take place, were secured by the
authorities.
The prefect of Padua, as soon as he heard of the meeting, issued an
order, which I will read :
“Notice of a public meeting appeared, in the journal of the 30th, to
assemble in the theatre on the 10th instant, for the purpose of
protesting against a bill presented in the chamber of deputies by
the minister, to regulate the relations between church and
state.
“Under present circumstances the royal government sees danger in
these popular assemblies of undue excitement and disorder.
“Therefore, the local authorities advise the promoters of the meeting
not to carry out their designs, for fear of exciting a clamor on a
serious question that will soon be settled by the legislative
assembly.
“The authorities hope the citizens, in respect for their parliament,
and for the sake of peace, will refrain from such demonstration, and
thus prevent the unpleasant necessity of resorting to force to
prevent them.”
Thus you see this precious right of making known the people’s will,
in a legal and peaceful manner, is only allowed when there is no use
for it, and on trivial questions that are not to be heard in the
house. Such an interpretation is equivalent to annulling the
article, as it is entirely at the mercy of a small prefect.
The rights of civil officials are prescribed by the laws for public
safety. They can watch over popular assemblies; can break them up
when public order is disturbed; but under no pretext have they the
right to prevent the meetings. Are there indications of any such
disturbance in Venetia ?
Against this misinterpretation of the local authorities in Venetia I
will quote the words of the president of the council, proving that
article XXXII of the statute not only sanctions the absolute right
for all kinds of public meetings, both transitory and permanent. In
the first place, he shows that in Piedmont the restrictive laws in
regard to the right of assemblies had been abolished. They were
never violated in that little subalpine kingdom, not even while the
Austrians were camped on the Ticino. When the state council was
questioned in regard to the laws of public assemblies, it answered
that it was the duty of a free government to watch over its people,
but not to restrain them. And the president of the council continues
thus: “Although the preventive system may not be suited to a free
country, it is certainly proper in a despotic government. A free
government should always have the power at hand to suppress evils in
time, for abuses will exist; but if this power is made use of to
restrain liberty, the nation is endangered, and liberty is gone.
“The first duty of a free government is to correct, but not to
prevent the public expression of opinion. Thus by lawful means that
liberty which has been lately replanted in Italy may be made to
flourish.
“I am interested in that public spirit now felt all over Italy, for
it is my duty to care for the country; and how can I do that, unless
I know the sentiments and wishes of its people ?”
Mr. Depretis, now minister of marine, added these memorable words:
“In treating of political rights, or the exercise of those rights,
the power of the legislator is limited to the regulation of that
exercise of rights, but in a free country he cannot prevent it
legally. All agree on this maxim, which is a principle of free
legislation.” [Applause.]
Finally, Ricasoli’s proposed resolution was taken into consideration
by the unanimous consent of the house. After that session he
withdrew from Parliament, and left the pleasant memory of that
honest and loyal profession of faith which was applauded even by his
adversaries. How I hope he will remember those words, and not repent
of them.
The President. The minister of the interior
is now entitled to the floor.
Ricasoli, minister of the interior. I
cannot blame the acts of the prefects, for they obeyed instructions
from the interior department. The quotation, by Mr. Cairoli, of my
former words, shows that questions of liberty or right are not now
in discussion. The question is of particular events, of which the
person who has the care of public order must give an account.
The house will decide. The government is conscious of the importance
of rights belonging to citizens by virtue of our institutions. I am
as careful of these rights as any one, as I am their proper
guardian. Article 32 of the statute, granting the right of meeting
peacefully and unarmed, regulates that right by law. As there is no
special law to determine the manner of exercising that right, it
must be subject to general laws that regulate public safety.
If, on the one hand, the statute grants to citizens the right of
assembling according to law, many other laws instruct the
government, and particularly the minister of the interior, to
prevent the disturbance of public order, and to suppress any meeting
that might endanger the safety of the state, within or without.
Since my first speech on that subject in this house, a code of laws
has been formed which specify the manner in which these meetings and
assemblages may take place. The government, the legislature, and
courts of justice
[Page 608]
have all
decided the limits of the exercise of this right, as long as there
was no special law for it; and it is the duty of the government
towards Parliament and the country to preserve public order and to
judge at any time whether these public meetings are dangerous to the
peace or not.
Yes, I repeat it, in matters of public safety the government must be
the judge, and the only judge, for the government is
responsible.
Mr. Miceli. Those are Russian theories.
The Minister continues: They are facts. I
cannot remain in a place where I am not permitted to follow the
dictates of my head and heart for the good of the country. The house
can act as it will, but I know my duty to the country. [Good.]
This principle is universally acknowledged—that when a right is not
regulated by special laws it is subject to the common law, and the
government is responsible for all disturbances or harm that arise
from an abuse of that right; and in matters of public safety the
government is to judge of what may be hurtful of public order or
dangerous to the safety of the state, I am now governed by those
same principles, solemnly approved by the legislature and formed
into a code of laws. As soon as I learned that public meetings were
to be called throughout Italy, for the purpose of censuring the
taxes, of convincing the people of the necessity of the distribution
of the church property among the communers and provinces of
defending the liberty of the church, I calmly considered what part I
should take, as minister of the interior, to do myduty in
maintaining peace and order.
I have watched over the whole of Italy, and when I saw a ferment
everywhere, dissatisfaction among the laboring classes, suffering
from hunger in many places, the people in present want, doubtful
about the future, I did not doubt my duty to do what I thought best
for the country, and I despatched instructions by telegraph to all
parts of the kingdom. I could make no distinction between cities. I
could not subject Venetia alone to the regulation. I was obliged to
look over the whole country, and decide, from the general condition
of the country, what was best to be done. Perceiving the crisis that
threatened the nation, on the 2d of February I sent this telegram,
which I will read, because I desire to be judged by this house with
full cognizance of my acts; I will not be a public minister if I am
not supported by Parliament, and cannot do my duty according lo my
convictions and in conformity with my patriotism.
This telegram, based upon the ideas of the circular of the 15th of
November, declared in a solemn and formal manner that the Roman
question could not be discussed in public meetings.
I believed that my opinions and convictions were approved by this
house and the country.
Here is the substance of the telegram in substance :
“The minister, insisting on the ideas expressed in the circular of
the 15th of November, reiterates the instructions to prevent public
meetings by suasion if possible; if not, to use force in this
province.
“If the proposed meeting is on account of the Roman question, it must
be prevented as stated in the circular; if on account of taxes or
division of church property or legislative acts, all good citizens
must know that such meetings, by exciting the people’s passions, may
cause serious disturbances of public order, under present
circumstances, and that such questions are to be discussed in
Parliament and not in the public squares. If the meeting is for
other purposes the authorities will endeavor to put off the
assemblage and telegraph to the department for further
instructions.”
Thus, with due regard to the dispositions of the statute granting the
right of public assemblages, I intended the order to prohibit only
meetings to discuss certain questions. I have as much respect for
personal liberty as any one. Now, I ask this house if, under present
circumstances, while the whole country is agitated, after the sad
instances of riot and disorder in public meetings, it is not the
duty of the minister of the interior to take into serious
consideration the convocation of popular assemblies? I am conscious
of having done my duty. I think what I have done will settle
difficulties and prevent future disturbances; it will keep order in
the country, if it does not satisfy the people. Acting differently
would foment disturbances, though intending to promote quiet, and
might produce serious consequences, considering the present state of
excitement in the minds of the people. And I will add, that it is
dangerous to trust such a delicate subject as the relations between
the church and the state to the incoherent declamations of public
meetings. Now, this question is discussed at present in the house,
and we must remember that, on matters purely ecclesiastical, an
envoy of the government is at this moment negotiating in Rome, and
it would be neither respectful nor expedient to interrupt these
attempts to settle great questions.
I repeat, then, gentlemen, that I am conscious of having fulfilled my
obligations towards the state; I have done my duty, after serious
meditation, after attentive examination, and I am perfectly
satisfied with the justice of my conduct.
