ken place, the French people dreaded lest there
should not have been enough done.

Cialdini, indeed, had been able to withdraw his troops, not with honor but
without molestation, within the Italian frontier, whilst no account was
required of his violation of the September convention. The ministers
continued to discuss Italian unity as freely as they had been in the habit
of doing for eight years, and the officious demagogue papers which were
devoted to Prince Napoleon began to demand the speedy return of the French
troops from Rome, and that by virtue of the famous convention which,
according to these politicians, was binding on France, but not on Italy.
The legislative body was moved. Not only the deputies who were declared
Catholics, and who always divided against the government on the Roman
question, but a great number of those also who had never until that time
shown any indocility at the moment of voting, resolved to force the
government to make a clear and public declaration of its intentions. The
debate was opened by M. Thiers in an eloquent speech at the sitting of 4th
December. He proved, and the proof was not difficult, that no reliance
could be placed on the word of Victor Emmanual or Italian promises. "The
House of Savoy," said he, "goes to a falcon hunt with Garibaldi. If the
latter fails he is taken to Caprera. If he succeeds, and takes a kingdom,
they say to him, you are the revolution: your prey does not belong to you;
it is ours, who are order and legality." Jules Favre, a barrister,
shamelessly spoke in a contrary sense, and endeavored to justify Italy.
His sophistry met with no response.

The minister, M. Rouher, could not retreat. He made a long speech, in
which he defended the policy of Napoleon III. against the two former
speakers, and involved himself once more in the inconceivable idea of
neither sacrificing Italian unity to the Pope's temporal sovereignty nor
that sovereignty to Italian unity. (On the one hand, M. Jules Favre
objected that Italy, and chiefly amongst others, Menabrea, the actual head
of the Florence Cabinet, whose wisdom and moderation had just been praised
by the French minister, ceased not to declare that the possession of Rome
was indispensable.) On the other hand, there were loud murmurs which
protested against the iniquitous equality which was sought to be
established between the victim and his executioner. M. Rouher perceived
that the majority which the Imperial government