Wilting of the Crimean War in after days, Louis Kossuth observed that never did a statesman throw down a more hazardous and daring stake than Cavour when he insisted on clenching the alliance after he had found out that it must be done without any conditions or guarantees.  Cicero’s Partem fortuna sibi vindicat applies to diplomacy as well as to war, “but the stroke was very bold and very dangerous.”

CHAPTER VI

THE CRIMEAN WAR—­STRUGGLE WITH THE CHURCH

The speeches made by Cavour in defence of the alliance before the two Houses of Parliament contain the clearest exposition of his political faith that he had yet given.  They form a striking refutation of the theory, still held by many, especially in Italy, that he was lifted into the sphere of high political aims by a whirlwind none of his sowing.  In these speeches he is less occupied with Piedmont, the kingdom of which he was Prime Minister, than an English statesman who required war supplies would be with Lancashire.  “I shall be asked,” he said, “how can this treaty be of use to Italy?” The treaty would help Italy in the only way in which, in the actual conditions of Europe, she could be helped.  The experience of the last years and of the past centuries had shown that plots and revolutions could not make Italy; “at least,” he added, “in my opinion it has shown it.”  What, then, could make her?  The raising of her credit.  To raise Italy’s credit two things were needed:  the proof that an Italian Government could combine order with liberty, and the proof that Italians could fight.  He was certain that the laurels won by Sardinian soldiers in the East would do more for Italy than all that had been done by those who thought to effect her regeneration by rhetoric.

When Cavour spoke of himself in public, it was generally in a light tone, and half in jest.  Thus in the debate on the treaty, he said that Brofferio and his friends could not be surprised at his welcoming the English alliance when they had once done nothing but tax him with Anglomania, and had given him the nickname of Milord Risorgimento.  He could easily have aroused enthusiasm if, instead of this banter, he had spoken the words of passionate earnestness in which he alluded to his part in the transaction in a letter to Mme. de Circourt.  He felt, he said, the tremendous responsibility which weighed on him, and the dangers which might arise from the course adopted, but duty and honour dictated it.  Since it had pleased Providence that Piedmont, alone in Italy, should be free and independent, Piedmont was bound to make use of its freedom and independence to plead before Europe the cause of the unhappy peninsula.  This perilous task the king and the country were resolved to persevere in to the end.  Those French liberals and doctrinaires who were now weeping over the loss of liberty in France, after helping to stifle it in