Vanished Kingdoms: The Rise and Fall of States and Nations (76 page)

Over the next two years Italian politics evolved rapidly, and all the while the agreement of Plombières was kept conveniently secret. In June 1859 the French army marched ‘to free Italy’ from its oppressors – the Austrian imperialists, the pope and other ‘reactionary’ rulers. At Magenta, San Martino and Solferino it won decisive but particularly bloody victories against the Austrians. (The terrible suffering of the soldiery at Solferino prompted the creation of the Red Cross.) The Sardinian army, assisted by Garibaldi’s volunteers, the
Cacciatori d’Italia
, had played a supporting role. The Austrians, despairing, agreed to withdraw from Lombardy. As they left Milan, the ‘Sardinians’ marched in. The House of Savoy was preparing to form its third kingdom, just as Cavour had planned.

Yet several things did
not
go to plan. Shortly after Solferino, Napoleon III made a separate peace with Austria at Villafranca di Verona, failing to consult Cavour and sorely displeasing his Italian clients. He was said to be traumatized by the appalling battlefield bloodshed, and appeared to be abandoning the scheme for an expanded Sardinian kingdom in favour of a French-protected Italian confederation. Cavour resigned in disgust, and for six months the path towards a mutually agreed solution became severely fogbound.

In the second half of 1859 developments in north-central Italy came to the fore. Having lost the protection of their Austrian allies, the dukes of Parma and Modena and the grand duke of Tuscany were all overthrown by local revolutions. In Florence, Grand Duke Leopold II, who had rescinded Tuscany’s constitution in the way that Vittorio Emanuele had not done, was forced to abdicate. Papal administrators were driven out of the Romagna, the northernmost section of the Papal States. All the liberated territories then joined forces in a pro-Sardinian grouping called the United Provinces of Central Italy. They elected one Sardinian governor, only to find that Vittorio Emanuele insisted on appointing a different one. Confusion reigned. Napoleon III in particular had lost his way.

At this juncture, Cavour realized that an opportunity for diplomatic action had reopened. Returning to office in January 1860, he determined to mend fences with the French and to resuscitate the Plombières agreement. Essentially, if Paris were prepared to approve a series of plebiscites in the United Provinces of Central Italy with a view to their incorporation by Sardinia, Turin would agree to hold parallel plebiscites in Nice and Savoy with a view to their cession to France. These terms were drawn up and signed in Turin at the Franco-Sardinian Treaty of 24 March 1860.
⁴³

The difference between a referendum and a plebiscite is a fine one. Both pertain to collective decisions made by the direct vote of all qualified adults. The referendum, which derives from Swiss practice, involves an issue that is provisionally determined in advance, but that is then ‘referred’ for a final decision by the whole electorate. This would have suited the circumstances envisaged by the Treaty of Turin, but ‘plebiscite’ was the term that the treaty used.

Plebiscites were common in nineteenth-century Europe, especially in France. The
scitum plebis
or ‘people’s choice’ had its roots in ancient Rome and was revived during the French Revolution, when popular support was sought for successive constitutions. Louis-Napoleon’s
coup d’état
was approved by plebiscite in 1851, as was the restoration of the French Empire in 1852. The plebiscites in Nice and Savoy were to form part of a series starting in Parma, Modena, Tuscany and Romagna. Plebiscites are often criticized for being open to manipulation. The wording, the timing, the local circumstances and the degree of impartial supervision can all affect the outcome. In 1860 in Nice and Savoy, none of the basic safeguards were in place. The plebiscites were staged for the purpose of obtaining a preconceived result; Napoleon III aimed to keep procedures under close French control; the press was subjected to censorship; and the ‘Sardinian’ government obligingly resigned all responsibility.

The inhabitants of Savoy were told nothing of what was being prepared until some astonishing posters, dated 10 March 1860, were put up in all the main localities. In Chambéry, Governor Orso Serra announced the referendum and appealed for calm: ‘HABITANTS DE LA PROVINCE DE CHAMBéRY.
Envoyé ici par le Gouvernement du Roi
  …,’   he began. ‘Sent here by the king’s government in order to strengthen the ancient ties which unite the populations of the monarchy, I could not foresee the events which… are rendering the accomplishment of my mission very difficult.’ He then blamed ‘the events’ on a
sourde agitation –
literally on ‘deaf’ or ‘thoughtless trouble-making’ – and gave the distinct impression that the government had been forced to organize the referendum against its better judgement. His summary of the king’s attitude was, at best, curious:

You will be called on to choose between this ancient monarchy of Savoy, to which you are united by the affection of centuries and by limitless devotion, and the Nation, which has so many claims to your sympathy… However keen would be the regret experienced in the king’s heart if the provinces which were the glorious cradle of the monarchy were to decide to separate… he would not refuse to recognise the validity of the peaceful and orderly manifestation [of your will].
⁴⁴

The terms of the Turin Treaty were then published and ‘Sardinian’ troops were ordered to withdraw from the plebiscite areas. On 1 April 1860 Vittorio Emanuele formally released his Savoyard and Niçois subjects from their oath of allegiance. The voters could hardly have failed to guess that the monarchy intended to abandon them.

They also knew that the French emperor believed the outcome to be a foregone conclusion. He had ignored a petition sent to him from northern Savoy asking for wider consultations, and on 21 March his words to a delegation of well-known Savoyard Francophiles were made public. ‘I am able without failing in any international duty to testify to you my sympathy,’ he told them. ‘It is neither by conquest nor by insurrection that Savoy and Nice will be united to France, but by her legitimate sovereign supported by popular consent.’
⁴⁵

In the brief period when debate was permitted, the plebiscite organizers did not reinstate suspended newspapers, such as the
Courrier des Alpes
, which had been demanding that all options be openly discussed. In theory, the options in Savoy were fivefold. The first was for the status quo to be maintained. The second would see Savoy become an independent state. The third would see Savoy joined to Switzerland. The fourth would allow districts with pro-Swiss, pro-‘Sardinian’ or pro-French sentiments to decide for themselves. The fifth was that the whole of Savoy would be taken by France. In the event, only one question was put: ‘
La Savoie, veut-elle être réunie à la France?
’ (‘Does Savoy want to be reunited with France?’) The word ‘reunite’ was in itself obviously provocative.
⁴⁶
The voters were only able to choose between ‘
Oui
’ and ‘
Non
’.

In the spring of 1860 the Italian peninsula found itself in almost total turmoil. As yet, no Kingdom of Italy existed. The future of the United Provinces of Central Italy hung in the balance; and, though nationalist ferment was spreading to Sicily, Garibaldi and his ‘Thousand’ were still waiting to sail into the fray there. The autocratic King ‘Bomba’ – Ferdinand II – was still entrenched in Naples, as was the pope in Rome. Despite much criticism, Austria was holding on both to Venice and to the surrounding
Terraferma
. To hold a plebiscite amid such uncertainty was tantamount to offering a choice, not between France and Italy, but between France and chaos.

The plebiscite planners were especially worried about pro-Swiss sentiment. Switzerland, unlike France or Italy, was both stable and democratic. The Swiss cantons adjacent to Savoy, having the same Burgundian origins, were French-speaking, and the northern Savoyard districts of Chablais and Faucigny were known to possess a clear, pro-Swiss majority. So the planners added an extra ‘box’ headed ‘
oui et Zone
’ to the voting paper. This gave voters who accepted annexation to France the extra possibility of supporting a ‘Free Trade Zone’ in the northern districts. There was no extra box marked ‘
Non et Zone
’, and no opportunity to opt for incorporation into Switzerland. Women (as usual) were excluded.

April 1860 provided the occasion for popular poetry. One of the less gruesome verses was written by a M. Turbil, the inspector of elementary schools in Savoy, who expressed appreciation of the ‘Sardinian’ past along with fervent expectation of the French future:

Nous l’aimions cependant l’antique dynastie

Dont nos superbes monts couvrirent le berceau,

Et le Roi-Chevalier qu’acclame L’Italie,

Et notre vieille croix, et notre vieux drapeau!

Aujourd’hui le Piémont, trouvant pour sa couronne

Un plus riche fleuron, déserte nos firmas…

O mon charmant pays! Volontiers on pardonne

Quand la France nous tends les bras!

(‘We loved the ancient dynasty / whose cradle is surrounded by our sublime peaks, / and the knightly king, whom Italy now acclaims, / and our old Cross and our old flag. / But today, finding a richer emblem for its Crown, / Piedmont is deserting our frosty land… / Oh, my charming country! One freely forgives / when we are offered France’s embrace.’)
⁴⁷

The plebiscite in Savoy did not take place until voting in Central Italy and in Nice had been completed. Parma, Modena, Tuscany and Romagna, which all voted on 22 March, showed strong majorities for incorporation into Piedmont, thereby creating a setting where the traditional Franco-Italian balance in the
Stati Sardi
had already been overturned. The County of Nice voted on 15/16 April in an event marked by a low turnout and a high rate of abstentions. Nonetheless, the French were able to claim that 25,743 Niçois had voted ‘
Oui
’ and only 100 ‘
Non
’. Presented as a 99.23 per cent victory for France, the result gave the impression of an unstoppable trend. Garibaldi, for one, was furious at the cession of his native town. He voiced his outrage loudly in the subalpine parliament, before returning home to Caprera.

Voting in Savoy was organized collectively, inhibiting dissent. It started on Sunday, 22 April. Parishioners were led to the voting booths by stewards. Cards marked ‘
Oui
’ were distributed for men to stick on their hats. An engraving from Chambéry shows voters lined up by profession in front of the Grenette (today the Musée des Beaux-Arts). Doctors and lawyers wore their academic robes. The band of the National Guard was playing cheerful music. French flags waved on all sides. The first group of voters, the customs officers, were brought in at 7 a.m. At nine o’clock it was the turn of the archbishop and his chapter; at 9.30, the farmers from the suburbs. Secret balloting was not practised. Scrutiny of the votes proceeded on the 23rd and the 24th, and the final count for the whole of Savoy was proclaimed on 29 April: Registered voters: 135,449. Votes cast: 130,839. Favourable: 130,523. Against: 235. ‘
Oui et Zone
’: 47,000. Abstentions:
c
. 600. Spoiled papers: 71. Majority: 99.76 per cent.
⁴⁸