our own statute. Now this right, precise as an axiom, not subject to many interpretations, was violated by Venetia, in the dawn of her liberty, through a law that had for a title, liberty of the church, while Ricasoli was minister. I will give the particulars, as I heard them yesterday: A meeting was called in Venice to consider that law. A committee invited the deputies of that city to attend. The civil authorities forbid the posting of the call, and prohibited the meeting. The committee insisted on their right to assemble, but the keys of Malibran theatre, where the meeting was to take place, were secured by the authorities. The prefect of Padua, as soon as he heard of the meeting, issued an order, which I will read: "Notice of a public meeting appeared in the journal of the 30th, to assemble in the theatre on the 10th instant, for the purpose of protesting against a bill presented in the chamber of deputies by the minister, to regulate the relations between church and state. 66 Under present circumstances the royal government sees danger in these popular assemblies of undue excitement and disorder. "Therefore, the local authorities advise the promoters of the meeting not to carry out their designs, for fear of exciting a clamor on a serious question that will soon be settled by the legislative assembly. The authorities hope the citizens, in respect for their parliament, and for the sake of peace, will refrain from such demonstration, and thus prevent the unpleasant necessity of resorting to force to prevent them." Thus you see this precious right of making known the people's will, in a legal and peaceful manner, is only allowed when there is no use for it, and on trivial questions that are not to be heard in the house. Such an interpretation is equivalent to annulling the article, as it is entirely at the mercy of a small prefect. The rights of civil officials are prescribed by the laws for public safety. They can watch over popular assemblies; can break them up when public order is disturbed; but under no pretext have they the right to prevent the meetings. Are there indications of any such disturbance in Venetia ? Against this misinterpretation of the local authorities in Venetia I will quote the words of the president of the council, proving that article XXXII of the statute not only sanctions the absolute right for all kinds of public meetings, both transitory and permanent. In the first place, he shows that in Piedmont the restrictive laws in regard to the right of assemblies had been abolished. They were never violated in that little subalpine kingdom, not even while the Austrians were camped on the Ticino. When the state council was questioned in regard to the laws of public assemblies, it answered that it was the duty of a free government to watch over its people, but not to restrain them. And the president of the council continues thus: " Although the preventive system may not be suited to a free country, it is certainly proper in a despotic government. A free government should always have the power at hand to suppress evils in time, for abuses will exist; but if this power is made use of to restrain liberty, the nation is endangered, and liberty is gone. "The first duty of a free government is to correct, but not to prevent the public expression of opinion. Thus by lawful means that liberty which has been lately replanted in Italy may be made to flourish. 66 I am interested in that public spirit now felt all over Italy, for it is my duty to care for the country; and how can I do that, unless I know the sentiments and wishes of its people?" Mr. Depretis, now minister of marine, added these memorable words: "In treating of political rights, or the exercise of those rights, the power of the legislator is limited to the regulation of that exercise of rights, but in a free country he cannot prevent it legally. All agree on this maxim, which is a principle of free legislation." [Applause.] Finally, Ricasoli's proposed resolution was taken into consideration by the unanimous consent of the house. After that session he withdrew from Parliament, and left the pleasant memory of that honest and loyal profession of faith which was applauded even by his adver saries. How I hope he will remember those words, and not repent of them. The PRESIDENT. The minister of the interior is now entitled to the floor. RICASOLI, minister of the interior. I cannot blame the acts of the prefects, for they obeyed instructions from the interior department. The quotation, by Mr. Cairoli, of my former words, shows that questions of liberty or right are not now in discussion. The question is of par ticular events, of which the person who has the care of public order must give an account. The house will decide. The government is conscious of the importance of rights belonging to citizens by virtue of our institutions. I am as careful of these rights as any one, as I am their proper guardian. Article 32 of the statute, granting the right of meeting peacefully and unarmed, regulates that right by law. As there is no special law to determine the manner of exercising that right, it must be subject to general laws that regulate public safety. If, on the one hand, the statute grants to citizens the right of assembling according to law, many other laws instruct the government, and particularly the minister of the interior, to prevent the disturbance of public order, and to suppress any meeting that might endanger the safety of the state, within or without. Since my first speech on that subject in this house, a code of laws has been formed which specify the manner in which these meetings and assemblages may take place. The government, the legislature, and courts of justice have all decided the limits of the exercise of this right, as long as there was no special law for it; and it is the duty of the government towards Parliament and the country to preserve public order and to judge at any time whether these public meetings are dangerous to the peace or not. Yes, I repeat it, in matters of public safety the government must be the judge, and the only judge, for the government is responsible. Mr. MICELI. Those are Russian theories. The MINISTER continues: They are facts. I cannot remain in a place where I am notpermitted to follow the dictates of my head and heart for the good of the country. The house can act as it will, but I know my duty to the country. [Good.] This principle is universally acknowledged-that when a right is not regulated by special laws it is subject to the common law, and the government is responsible for all disturbances or harm that arise from an abuse of that right; and in matters of public safety the government is to judge of what may be hurtful of public order or dangerous to the safety of the state. I am now governed by those same principles, solemnly approved by the legislature and formed into a code of laws. As soon as I learned that public meetings were to be called throughout Italy, for the purpose of censuring the taxes, of convincing the people of the necessity of the distribution of the church property among the communers and provinces of defending the liberty of the church, I calmly considered what part I should take, as minister of the interior, to do my duty in maintaining peace and order. I have watched over the whole of Italy, and when I saw a ferment everywhere, dissatisfaction among the laboring classes, suffering from hunger in many places, the people in present want, doubtful about the future, I did not doubt my duty to do what I thought best for the country, and I despatched instructions by telegraph to all parts of the kingdom. I could make no distinction between cities. I could not subject Venetia alone to the regula tion. I was obliged to look over the whole country, and decide, from the general condition of the country, what was best to be done. Perceiving the crisis that threatened the nation, on the 2d of February I sent this telegram, which I will read, because I desire to be judged by this house with full cognizance of my acts; I will not be a public minister if I am not supported by Parliament, and cannot do my duty according to my convictions and in conformity with my patriotism. This telegram, based upon the ideas of the circular of the 15th of November, declared in a solemn and formal manner that the Roman question could not be discussed in public meetings. I believed that my opinions and convictions were approved by this house and the country. Here is the substance of the telegram in substance: "The minister, insisting on the ideas expressed in the circular of the 15th of November, reiterates the instructions to prevent public meetings by suasion if possible; if not, to use force in this province. "If the proposed meeting is on account of the Roman question, it must be prevented as stated in the circular; if on account of taxes or division of church property or legislative acts, all good citizens must know that such meetings, by exciting the people's passions, may cause serious disturbances of public order, under present circumstances, and that such questions are to be discussed in Parliament and not in the public squares. If the meeting is for other purposes the authorities will endeavor to put off the assemblage and telegraph to the department for further instructions." Thus, with due regard to the dispositions of the statute granting the right of public assemblages, I intended the order to prohibit only meetings to discuss certain questions. I have as much respect for personal liberty as any one. Now, I ask this house if, under present circumstances, while the whole country is agitated, after the sad instances of riot and disorder in public meetings, it is not the duty of the minister of the interior to take into serious consideration the convocation of popular assemblies? I am conscious of having done my duty. I think what I have done will settle difficulties and prevent future disturbances; it will keep order in the country, if it does not satisfy the people. Acting differently would foment disturbances, though intending to promote quiet, and might produce serious consequences, considering the present state of excitement in the minds of the people. And I will add, that it is dangerous to trust such a delicate subject as the relations between the church and the state to the incoherent declamations of public meetings. Now, this question is discussed at present in the house, and we must remember that, on matters purely ecclesiastical, an envoy of the government is at this moment negotiating in Rome, and it would be neither respectful nor expedient to interrupt these attempts to settie great questions. I repeat, then, gentlemen, that I am conscious of having fulfilled my obligations towards the state; I have done my duty, after serious meditation, after attentive examination, and I am perfectly satisfied with the justice of my conduct. Mr. Marsh to Mr. Seward. [Extract.] No. 191.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, * Florence, November 2, 1867. * * * SIR: Of political intelligence I have at this moment nothing to communicate, except a rumor to the effect that the French troops have entered Viterbo, and that another detachment is marching upon Valletri, both of which points have been occupied by the Italian royal forces. Whether the purpose of this movement is to dislodge the Italian troops, or to act in concert with them, does not appear, but I think it most probable that the royal army will be obliged to retire. The pontifical troops are said to be charged with the unpopular task of besieging Garibaldi in his intrenchments at Monte Rotondo, while the Emperor reserves for his own forces the less obnoxious measures connected with the restoration and maintenance of the papal government. It is, however, not improb able that the Italian army may be brought to co-operate with the pontifical soldiery in the movements against Garibaldi, but I do not believe that it will be allowed to enter into a joint occupation of Rome or its territory with France. In any event, the present state of things must be of brief duration. Thus far I see no indication of a determination on the part of the Italian government to resist France, and I think that some temporary arrangement, which will secure quiet for the present, will be entered into. But no terms dictated by France will be acceptable to the Italian people, and if the Italian government accedes to such conditions as the Emperor shall think fit to impose, an agitation will follow which may have serious and wide-reaching political consequences, and will certainly do much to weaken the moral and spiritual authority of the Papacy. The convention of the 15th of September is now producing its logical and legitimate results, and I have never been able to understand how any Italian statesman could have expected, from a treaty which tied the hands of Italy but bound the Emperor to nothing beyond a momentary evacuation of Rome, any better points than this country is now reaping from that arrangement. I see little reason to apprehend that public tranquillity in Italy will be disturbed at present, in any such way as to endanger the security of American travellers or injuriously to affect our commercial or political relations with this kingdom. In connection with this point I may mention, as an illustration of the apparent calmness of the people at this moment, that, while I have abundant evidence that very deep feeling exists, I did not, in travelling by public conveyances from the Italian border on the Simplon road to Florence, hear from the lips of any person around me a single allusion to the important events now occurring in Italy, except in answer to my inquiries for the latest intelligence from the pontifical frontier and the Italian capital. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 39 D C GEORGE P. MARSH. BELGIUM. No. 396.] Mr. Sanford to Mr. Seward. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: A royal decree appears in the Moniteur of this morning appointing Lieutenant General Baron de Goethals, aide-de-camp of the King, as minister of war. This appointment has no political significance. General Goethals is an amiable and popular officer, whose duties for years past, as aide-de-camp to the Duc de Brabant, have kept him almost constantly near the court; has been identified with no party, taken no prominent part in politics, and, I believe, has never been in the national legislature. The initiative of the appointment came from the cabinet, who recommended it to his Majesty, and, in pursuance of the course of conciliation towards the opposite party which has been adopted, I think it is of good policy. This government, like its neighbors, is occupied with the subject of reorganization of the armed force, and of providing them more efficient weapons, and the new minister of war will probably have to bring forward before the end of the session a plan for more effective defence, and a budget based upon it. General Chazal, his predecessor, is now absent on a mission, having for its object to study this subject of armies and armament in other countries, and his report is looked for with interest, and will probably have considerable influence in the decisions of the government. I have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Mr. Sanford to Mr. Seward. No. 397.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: The discussions in Parliament proceed with calmness, and business is rapidly disposed of. In addition to the budget of ways and means, and of finances, mentioned in a previous despatch, those of the interior and of justice have also been voted in the house. The war budget will not, probably, be presented till the end of the session, when a decision will have been arrived at by the government touching the changes to be made in the army and militia and their armaments, in order to place Belgium in a position more efficiently to defend itself in case of danger, a subject which is occupying seriously the attention of the government in view of the armaments going on around them, and recent events in Europe. The Belgian legion of volunteers in Mexico are to be brought home on a French transport, the French government having determined, it seems, to give not alone to Austrian and Belgian volunteers but to French civilians who followed its armies to Mexico transportation home if desired. I have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Mr. Sanford to Mr. Seward. No. 398.J LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES. SIR: A report to the King, under date of the 19th instant, appears in the Moniteur, in which the new minister of war, General de Goethals, states that "the new system of defence adopted by the country, and the progress realized in the art of war, demand that investigation be made with the view to see if the present condition of the organization of the army yet responds to the necessities of the national defence;" and in order to enlighten the government he proposes to submit this important question to the examination of a commission. A royal decree follows appointing the commission nominated by the minister, and which consists of 28 members, one-half military and one-half civilian, the latter representing both parties in Parliament; I enclose the document herewith. It was made the subject of an interpellation the same day in the house, and the cursory debate that followed indicates the probability of considerable opposition, irrespective of parties, to any project looking to increase of the Belgian army. This question will doubtless occupy a prominent place in the discussions in Parliament when the budget of the war department, based upon the decision of the commission, is presented. While the future is generally looked forward to here with some apprehension, in view of the extensive preparations for war by France and Prussia, public opinion seems to be divided as to the expediency and practical value of increasing the army, or very notably the expenses of the war department. I think it probable, however, that the views which have led to the formation of the commission will be adopted, and that the same pernicious results which are following thoughout Europe upon this contagion of mistrust, even in Switzerland, which is arming and borrowing twelve million francs to buy new guns, will arrive here, viz: increase of the draft upon the men and resources of the country to augment the means of warfare. I propose to refer to this subject more in detail in a future despatch. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Mr. Sanford to Mr. Seward. No. 400.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: The message of the President has been awaited with great interest, and has received great attention and favorable comment here. The general sentiment, in so far as it comes within my observation, favors the policy laid down by him towards those lately in rebellion, and in this, not only those whose sympathies rather incline to the south, but those who are our |