Italy. July 10, 1848

We have before us an instruction of the Neapolitan Minister of Foreign Affairs, dated the beginning of this month and addressed to the consular agents, in which, with regard to the volunteers returning from Lombardy, very neat instructions are given.

That document reads:

“Five battalions of volunteers departed for Lombardy; two of them asked for nothing, three demanded and received pay from the local royal government. Neither to the former nor to the latter, should they return from the field, will you grant any compensation under any pretext; on the contrary, you will report the latter 3 battalions to the local authorities as deserters; whereas His Majesty has recalled the regular troops, he desires that the volunteers continue to take part in the struggle for independence.”

The perfidy of this circular is obvious even to the blindest. The brave youths who marched to Lombardy were the core of the Neapolitan patriots. They felt, as we do, that Italy extends from the Alps to Cape Lilibeo; they know, as we do, that the King and his government have betrayed the cause of Italy; — and for that reason they are not to return to the Kingdom; that is the idea of the circular, which with unheard-of impudence puts on the mask of His Majesty’s love for the cause of independence. (In Germany, regarding the volunteers who marched to Schleswig, we could tell similar neat, indeed far worse, Camphausen-Auerswald-Schreckenstein stories.)

Mayr finds that the draft law lacks the requisite courage. Much in it is veiled; the people must be told openly what their representatives really are. He demands that the address speak of the secularisation of the government, of the unity of Italy through the creation of a federal state; and that this proposal must come precisely from Rome. He misses in the address mention of the demand for an Italian customs union and for railways. Farini speaks in favour of the draft. Although partly in favour of it, Sterbini nevertheless sees two significant defects. One consists more in the form. The Commission has too slavishly adhered to the hackneyed practice in other constitutional countries, where the so-called speeches from the throne are followed sentence by sentence. The second, greater defect is that it lacks clear, precise language, which again makes explanations necessary. The ideas which we wish to express are wrapped in a pretty fog of phrases. But especially lacking is the idea, contained in the wishes of all of us, of convening here in Rome an Italian Reichstag of deputies from all the legislative assemblies of the various parts of Italy under the presidency of the Pope. With regard to Naples, I should have liked more indignation and stronger censure for the breach of word and the injury inflicted upon the Italian cause. As for the fetters on landed property dating from the Middle Ages, there is hardly a mild remark, as though one had feared to tread on the toes of a certain class of society. Pantaleoni misses in particular the mention of the social question – this question which is debated in all parts of Europe, which overturned the French throne and which, ever more menacing like a dark thundercloud, is looming on the horizon. He goes into the details of the question from its material and moral side, and demands that provision be made against the consequences of the neglect of the poorer classes. The President Sereni, also a member of the Commission, seeks to defend the draft against the objections raised. After some further remarks by other speakers, the debate is adjourned to the next sitting.