the principle. It appears, however, that in this instance Napoleon, though giving assurances to the Powers that no constraint would be used, was actually opposed to the presence of the stipulation in the treaty. The reason for this, it has been suggested, was that Russia's acquiescence could be counted on only if there were no mention of a popular vote, and Napoleon needed Russia's support.2 Certainly in the official announcement of the signing of the treaty in the Moniteur no mention is made of the vote, nor is it referred to in the Senatus Consulte of Union. It is apparent that this clause was inserted and insisted on by Cavour.a

3

The treaty had utterly disregarded the claims of the Swiss Government and of the inhabitants of Northern Savoy. There was to be no third alternative to the vote for France or Sardinia. The only protection to Swiss interests was the clause perpetuating the neutrality of the Northern provinces. The only protection of the minority was the clause of option in Article 6, by which those wishing to preserve Sardinian citizenship might have a year's time in which to remove themselves and their property to Sardinia.

The treaty left the method of the vote to an agreement between the two sovereigns. Napoleon, yielding the point of popular consultation, next appears to have made an effort to have the vote taken not by universal suffrage but by the provisional or municipal councils already in existence. This was likewise the desire of the leaders of the French party in Savoy. This is, at any rate, the statement of Grivaz who gives authority. He adds that it was on the demand of the people themselves, presented to the Emperor on April 1, that the governments, with common accord, adopted universal suffrage. Cowley, however, writing to Russell from Paris on April 6, says that the Emperor had proposed universal suffrage to the King.

5

1 In transmitting the speech of March 1 to the French representatives abroad, Thouvenel said, "I hasten to add that the government of the Emperor has no wish to hold the guarantees which it demands except with the free assent of the King of Sardinia and of the populations. The cession, therefore, which will be made to it will remain exempt from all violence and from all constraint." From a translation in British Parliamentary Papers, Affairs of Italy, 1860, vol. 67 [2656], p. 5, March 13.

2 Grivaz in Revue générale de droit international public, vol. 3, p. 579.

3 Documents, post, p. 619.

4 Cf. Cavour's speech in the Chamber of Deputies. Documents, post, p. 611.

5 Grivaz, in Revue générale de droit international public, vol. 3, p. 578, cites the Journal des débats of March 16, 1860 and the Courrier des Alpes to further substantiate his statement. He repeats the following quotation taken from Chiala, vol. 4, p. lii, from an inspired article in Le constitutionnel of March 30 regarding plebiscites: un tel principe (la souveraineté du peuple) pourrait devenir pour l'Europe, par une fausse extension, la cause de troubles et de dangers incessants. Le suffrage universel peut s'appliquer seulement à l'intérieur du pays, mais non servir à modifier l'exercice de la souveraineté dans les rapports avec l'étranger, ni pour un accroissement de territoire."

Chiala, vol. 4, p. 1xxx. Cavour to E. d'Azeglio, April 6, 1860. Ibid, vol. 3, p. 35. Thayer quotes Bianchi La politique du comte de Cavour, p. 342, “cependant nous avons pu,

On March 25, were held the first parliamentary elections of the new kingdom of Italy. The citizens of Savoy and Nice voted for their deputies as if no treaty had been made. To the protest of the French government, Cavour answered that as the treaty had not been ratified the inhabitants were still subjects of the King. The elections in the rest of Italy gave added reason for the conservative and clerical Savoyards to wish for separation, whereas the radicals were shorn of their strength. The clericals were almost wiped out and the Cavour ministry endorsed by an overwhelming majority. Of the eighteen deputies elected in Savoy all but two were conservative annexationists. Of these two one had not declared himself and the other was hostile. It is improbable that the vote represented the work of a powerful organization, for the French party had not been organized, as is seen from their appeal to Napoleon to prevent this election because they had not had time to develop a propaganda. All but two of the Savoyard deputies refrained from taking their seats in the Subalpine Parliament on the ground that as the vote on the cession had been decreed and as the French character, habits, language and commercial relations of Savoy left no doubt of the outcome, they thought it their duty to abstain from voting in the Italian Parliament until after the election. There are points to be observed, however, about this election. The suffrage was not universal but on a tax-paying qualification and there had been many abstentions due to failure to realize the significance of the vote. It is especially interesting, however, that Thonon, one of the chief communes of Chablais and near Geneva, had given a vote of 272 to 112 for the unionist candidate, and Bonneville had gone for annexation by 370 to 168.3

2

On April 1, Victor Emanuel absolved the inhabitants of Savoy and Nice from their allegiance, insisting, however, that the cession depended on their free consent.* The Piedmontese officials were recalled and replaced by native Savoyards. This was to remove all suggestion of direct pressure by the Sardinian governors against annexation. The appearance of perfect neutrality, however, was not attained as the appointments, save in rare instances, were of known leaders of the French party, whose names occur on the list of those who had been recommended to Napoleon by the Savoyard deputation in Paris as being friendly to the annexation. This was not true, however, non sans peine faire insérer les deux clauses de la sanction du Parlement et du vote des populations."

1 Saint Genis, p. 360; Thayer, p. 214. It should perhaps be mentioned that Cavour had in February called to the Senate the chief pro-Sardinian delegate from Savoy, in order to give evidence of good faith to the Emperor.

2 Trésal, p. 251.

3 Only 390 had voted out of 857 registered, however. Trésal, p. 255, gives the votes by electoral districts, of which there were twenty-two, and says that Chablais and Faucigny had been won by the French promise of a zone.

Cf. Documents, post, p. 569.

of Lubonis the provisional governor appointed for the city and county of Nice, for his name is signed to the protest against the cession to France, addressed by the municipality of Nice to Victor Emanuel on March 21. The syndics of the communes who were appointed officers, and supposedly native Savoyards or Niçois, were not removed but were allowed to retain their offices. The communal councillors, who were to aid the syndics in carrying out the vote, were elected officers. They too were retained.

Immediately on installation, the provisional governors proclaimed the plebiscite. The proclamation of Lubonis fixed the plebiscite for Nice and its district for April 15; that in Savoy was fixed for April 22. With the publication of these decrees the storm which Cavour had foreseen broke in the Sardinian Chamber. The difference in date and the haste in holding the vote in Nice were the chief bases of the attacks on the government. Garibaldi in his famous interpellation, on April 12, after utterly repudiating the cession of his native city, bitterly criticized the unseemly haste which did indeed give a ridiculously brief period for the compilation of the lists, and urged delay; Mamiani offered a resolution providing for delay and also for a committee of inquiry to be sent by the Chamber to watch the conduct of the vote. These amendments were defeated, Cavour insisting that party feeling was running too high in Nice to make delay advisable, a defense in all probability not altogether disingenuous. The tone of Lubonis' proclamation was also savagely criticized in the Chamber, and the justice of the attack was admitted by the government. Certainly there could be no defense of its utter lack of neutrality. Every phrase had been framed with the purpose of insistence on the inevitable character of the cession and the desire of the King that it should be carried out. Lubonis had explicitly urged a vote of affirmation of the treaty.1 Malaussena, the syndic of Nice, whose name, like that of Lubonis, had appeared on the protest of the 21st of March, in his manifesto published on April 8, used language as unneutral and pro-annexation in tone as that of Lubonis.

By the decrees of the governor and of the syndic the polls were to be opened in each commune of Nice and its district on Sunday, April 15 and on Monday the 16th, from nine to four. The vote was to be by written or printed ballots with the word "yes" or "no." All male citizens over twenty-one, belonging to Nice by birth or origin and living in the commune for the last six months, were given the right to vote. Latitude as to the period of domicile was allowed those away from the city but known to be Niçois and returning to vote. The compilation of the electoral lists was entrusted to a committee in each commune composed of the syndic and four municipal councillors. This 1 See Proclamation of the Governor Regent of the City and County or Nice. Documents, post, p. 574.

committee was all-powerful. Not only were its decisions to be final, but the unusual provision was included that the committee should, without waiting for applications, transfer from the old lists the names of any who were known to have the right to the vote in this election, whereas others were to present themselves before the committee. This provision naturally gave rise to charges of partisanship which were probably well merited, for it was in this way made only too easy for the committee to inscribe French sympathizers without application and to insist that the anti-annexationists must register in person.

The French government had sent a commissioner to Nice, as well as one to Savoy, to watch over the preliminary arrangements and to see that the interests of France were protected, a measure which though surely legitimate, has also been made a subject of reproach.

The vote was held in Nice and the district on the days appointed. The official figures are 25,743 affirmative votes, 160 negative, and 30 void. The results were overwhelmingly for France. Even the soldier vote had gone for France by a large majority.1 There is small wonder that there has been scepticism as to the returns, and, indeed, they must have been tampered with, if the assertion is correct that, in Levenzo, 74 more votes were cast than there were voters, an assertion made in the Italian Chamber on May 25 by LaurentiRabaudi, and not denied. The official returns naturally do not show this discrepancy. This is the only specific accusation of the kind, however, nor is it necessary to consider it as proved, although Fusinato, in writing of the plebiscite, repeats the statement as to Leyenzo and admits that the charges. made by Laurenti-Rabaudi and the other opponents were for the most part true. But, he adds, on the other hand, it is necessary to agree that in the face of such a unanimity of votes it is not possible to admit that those illicit schemes alone were powerful. "If it were so," he says, "those populations were so utterly corrupted as to make us almost glad that they were torn away from our nation." 3

The points made in defence of the vote of Nice by Cavour as President of the Council in his several speeches before the Sardinian parliament are of varying conclusiveness. His picture of Nice as a French city he afterwards admitted to have been contrary to his own convictions. The impropriety of the acts of Lubonis he acknowledged from the first. The argument that what

1 The figures given out on April 28 gave 1200 for union and only 186 against. Documents, post, p. 597. According to the census of 1858 the total population of the city and county of Nice numbered 246,731. Of these 122,421 were male. Statistica del Regno d'Italia, Popolazione, Censimento degli antichi stati Sardi, January 1, 1858.

2 Documents, post, p. 614 and table on pp. 423-5.

3 Fusinato, p. 113.

• Documents, post, pp.435-443.

ever pressure the civilians were under in Nice, the soldiers, who were not in one organization but were scattered throughout the Italian forces, had been under precisely the opposite influence, namely, that of their Italian companions, merely suggests that their officers had exercised pressure. The opportunity to lessen their term of service with the army from the eleven years required by Sardinia to the seven required by France, must, however, have played a great part in their decision. Aside from the vote of Levenzo the reproaches most often heard are that Lubonis and the bishop exerted all their eloquence, the bishop asserting that it was the will of God that they vote for union, and Lubonis insisting that it was also the desire of the King. With a loyal and Catholic community these arguments may have had great weight, but can scarcely be regarded as rendering a vote by secret ballot valueless. There is probability that the French offers of development of the city as a pleasure ground and the prospect of other benefits from annexation played their part and a legitimate part. The assertion that there were French troops in the district at the time of the vote seems unfounded. In view of the apparent content of the population of Nice with their fate, and the scarcity of proof to support the assertions so hotly made, it is arguable that these have been exaggerated by the several Powers and parties whose interests were involved and too easily credited by those who distrust universal suffrage and the doctrine of national self-determination.

The vote of Savoy was held a week later than that of Nice. The provisional governor of Chambéry, in a circular of rather more seemly unneutrality than those of Lubonis, had announced on April 7 that the polls of Savoy would be open on Sunday, the 22nd, from 8 A. M. to 7 P. M. for a vote on the question: "Does Savoy wish to be united to France? The suffrage was given to all citizens over twenty-one, born in Savoy, or of Savoyard parents out of Savoy, who were in enjoyment of civil rights and had lived in the commune for over six months. The registration lists based on the census and tax lists were to be drawn up by communal committees composed of the syndic and the four senior members of the giunta, and were to be posted by April 15, at latest.2 On the 9th this proclamation was supplemented by one wholly unneutral in tone, addressed to the syndics of the district of Chambéry, urging them to explain to their subordinates that the choice was no longer between France and Sardinia, but between France and an unknown fate. The Intendent Regent of Faucigny issued a similar circular pointing out that there was no question of union with Switzerland involved in this vote and that a negative vote would not advance such a desire. The various

1 Cf. Documents, post, p. 585.

2 By a later proclamation, it was provided that agents should visit all houses of the commune in order to enter the names of all the inhabitants not on the census and tax lists.