The Sun.
London, England, 1865-04-15 00:00:00

M. Thiers on the Italian Question.

PARIS, April 14.

The following is a summary of yesterday's debate
in the Corps Legislatif upon the paragraph of the
address relative to the September Convention be-
tween France and Italy :
" M. Thiers rose to address the Chamber upon the
second amendment to paragraph 19 relative to the
September Convention. He said this grave question
comprised two questions, the Italian and the Ro-
man—one having given rise to the other. To sepa-
rate them would be to separate the effect from its
cause. It is necessary, then, td unite them in this
debate.' The speaker said that, in taking his seat
on the benches of the Chamber, his idea had been
to contribute to the re-establishment of political
liberties. M. Thiers continued :—When one pursues
a great end secondary differences should be sacri-
ficed to it. To-day I shall not speak, and shall not
vote as the other members of the Opposition. M.
Thiers respected their opinions, they respected his,
and this frankness upon the points on which divided
them would prove their sincerity upon the points
on which they were in unison. The hon. member
first touched upon the Italian question. Italy was
one of the countries he had most visited and most
loved. He comprehended, therefore, the wish to
advance its welfare, and to bestow upon it the most
urgent good, that of liberty. But after the Crimean
war the sympathy of the Western Powers sufficed
to insure the liberty of Italy. What made the Ita-
lian princes resist their subjects was that they felt
Austria and Europe at their back. After the Cri-
mean war Austria found herself isolated and they
would have yielded. The King of Naples was dead.
The Grand Duke of Tuscany had abdicated, and
constitutional government was about to be esta-
blished in two principal States of Italy. It already
existed at Turin. If Piedmont had been aggran-
dized in consideration of indemnities, Italy constitu-
tionally governed would have entered upon a better
course than that in which she is
,now engaged.
Without doubt there was a means, if not surer,
at least more prompt, of labouring for the regene-
ration of Italy—war. But war must immediately
lead to attempts at unification. Now Italian unity
is not desirable for France, and is hardly so for
Italy herself. It is not desirable for France—the
parallel of a Power raising up on her frontiers a
Power almost equal to herself would be vainly
sought in history. None but contrary instances
would be found. It is Sweden struggling against
Russia to prevent the development of the lat-
ter ; Austria struggling against Prussia striving to
aggrandize herself ; England' against Spain wishing
to conquer Portugal, and against France to shut
her out from the mouths of the Scheid. It
is not an old policy, but an eternal policy, which has
always led States not to create around them great
new'States. It is said that Italy will be for us a
useful and devoted Power. This M. Thiers did not
credit. Her fidelity would endure so long as she re-
mained weak, and Italy would be right. Itwould be
iniquitous to create a Power in order that it might
be eternally dependent. The future history of Italy
is written in the past House of Savoy, which has
never consulted any but the interests of the day.
The unity of Italy falsifies besides the whole policy
of France. Everybody now wishes for peace in
Europe ; but there are upon the horizon three ques-
tions which may become perilous :—The ambition of
Prussia tempted by the example of Victor Em-
manuel, and looking to the realisation of German
unity,—a serious danger for France ; the Eastern
question, which can only disturb the equilibrium of
Europe to the profit of the Northern Powers ; and,
finally, the tendency of the Continental Powers to
re-establish their ancient union, destroyed by the
Crimean war. In view of this state of things, who
was the essential, the necessary ally for France ?
This was Austria. But the unity of Italy renders
France the antagonist, perforce, of Austria. The
war in Italy, therefore, is a misfortune for France,
at least, in its consequence. Little desirable for
France was Italian unity, continued M. Thiers,
more so for Italy. Without doubt it was the wish of
some generous spirits beyond the Alps, but the mass
of the people did not partake this idea. What natu-
ral bond was there, in fact, between Venice, with
its aristocratic traditions, and the despotic• Florence
of the Medicis, with its fortunes embellished by art ;
between the Monarchy of Savoy, Italian only by
finesse, and the monarchy of Naples, by turns Aus-
trian, French, and Spanish ? How fuse these va-
rious metals in the fire of revolution ? It was first
necessary to make Florence, Turin, Milan, and Ve-
nice provincial cities, and afterwards necessary to
impose upon all those two great burdens of monar-
chies—the conscription and the millairds. This was
not all. The principal elements of this unity has
been :obtained. Rome would have to be wrested
from Catholicity, Venice from Austria, from Eu-
rope. It was impossible to found unity without ar-
riving at these two formidable questions of Rome
and Venice. M. Thiers then traced out the events
which had arisen since Italy had been in the travail
of unity, and pointed out her tormented existence,
tormenting that of France. Not being able to wrest
Venice from the Austrian arms, it was desired to
obtain Rome. The speaker proceeded to discuss that
part of the September convention destined, it' was
said, to reconcile Rome with Italy. He did not be-
believe a reconciliation possible between Italy, who
desired Rome, and the Pope, who could not aban-
don it."

The sitting was here suspended for a fewminutes.
Upon the members re-assembling—
" M. Thiers resumed his speech,entering upon:the
Roman question. The danger and the salvation
of the Pope are, he said, in the hands of France,
who in the eyes of the world is responsible for
his destiny. Is there an interest for the greatness
of France, an interest for her principles, is there
even a right of the Romans to which we here do
violence ? M. Thiers proceeded to discuss these
three points. He showed first that all nations make
it a duty to protect their national faith, and wish,
independent of the fact, to have that appearance.
Now it is France that now has the patronage of the
Catholics in the world. There could be no interest
of greatness for France in afflicting the Catholics of
the whole world. Are her principles concerned in
the abandonment of the Head of the Church ? M.
Thiers regretted the publication of the Encyclical ;
but he feared it was the friends of liberty who, by
disquieting the extreme Catholic party, the Ultra-
montanes, and urging it to exasperation, had
made the Encyclical. (Laughter.) It is said that
extremes meet : they do more ; they generate.
(Fresh laughter.) If, just at present, the great
and glorious Church of France, the Galilean Church,
inclines towards Ultramontanism, it is because it
sees its Chief threatened, and rallies round him. If
it be wished to recall it to its ancient traditions, it is
necessary to give it security. R will then again
become what it has always been—united and inde-
pendent. Is it then true that the Catholic Church
is in fact contrary to the human mind ? Have we
not the liberators of human thought in modern
times, Descartes, Bossuet, Pascal, Kepler, and
Newton—were not these at the same time illustrious
thinkers, and good Catholics ? The Catholic Church
only debars those from thinking who are not fit to
think. It is in this cradle of the Church that the
human mind has passed its infancy and part of its
riper age. No doubt it is not wished to destroy the
Catholic Church, but it is desired to effect a revo-
lution in its Government. Would such arevolution
be at least favourable to our principles? But the
central unity of the Church once destroyed, its
debris would be conveyed into the different Catholic
countries of the world, there to form national
churches. It would be a strange solution of the
Roman question for the friends of liberty to see the
translation of the religious authority into each, of
the capitals of Europe. As far as regards France,
M. Thiers expressed his opinion that Notre Dame
was too near the Tuileries. He deprecated seeing
the same hand wield the sceptre of religion and of
political power. He did not forget the fate of the
Eastern Church, when Constantine, in order to
resist the Barbarians, transported to Constantinople
the material force of the Roman Empire. The
moral force remained at Rome, and the Roman
Church, representative of that force, became the
Western Empire, and continues to sway the souls
of men. The Church has always preserved her
spiritual independence, while the Greek Church