Macroeconomics Principles and

Practice Australian 2nd Edition

Littleboy Solutions Manual
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankdeal.com/download/macroeconomics-principles-and-practice-australia
n-2nd-edition-littleboy-solutions-manual/
Macroeconomics Principles and Practice Australian 2nd Edition Littleboy Solutions Manual

Chapter 2
Macroeconomics: getting started

Suggested solutions for end-of-chapter ‘Review the

basics’
1 What is the difference between economic growth and economic fluctuations?

Suggested solution:
Economic growth refers to the upward trend in real GDP, reflecting expansion of
the economy over time. In contrast, economic fluctuations (or business cycles)
refer to swings in real GDP that lead the economy to deviate from its long-term
growth trend.

2 What is potential GDP?

Suggested solution:
Potential GDP refers to the long-term trend value of real GDP.

3 What does the PPC represent and why is it important?

Suggested solution:
The PPC is a curve showing the maximum possible combinations of sustainable
(or normal, or efficient) production of two goods, given the economy’s resources
and level of technology. Its slope (its outward bow) reflects increasing opportunity
costs.

[Note to instructors: This textbook differs from others. Normal, target or trend output is
on the PPC. Thus economies can overheat and move beyond normal production; that
is, move temporarily outside this PPC. The position of the PPC is affected by
institutions, culture, laws and incentive structures. These affect how much output a
given amount of inputs can normally produce. The PPC here does not refer to
maximum production in a frictionless economy with perfect knowledge and optimal
institutions. In a macroeconomics course, the two goods should represent investment
and consumption goods respectively; that is, properly represent total output and thus
foreshadow Chapter 4’s account of raising the I share to shift the PPC outwards
faster.]

© Cengage Learning Australia Pty Ltd 02-1

Visit TestBankDeal.com to get complete for all chapters

Chapter 2: Macroeconomics: getting started Solutions manual

Suggested solutions for end-of-chapter ‘Questions

and problems’
1 Suppose the Australian economy is currently at the trough of a business cycle.
What is the relationship between real and potential GDP? Is it likely that real GDP
will stay in this relative position for a long period of time (say, 10 years)? Explain
briefly.

Suggested solution:
Potential GDP refers to the long-term trend value of GDP. Deviations of real GDP
from potential GDP reflect ‘short-term’ economic fluctuations (or business cycles). It
is rare for the real GDP to stay at the trough end of a business cycle for an extended
period of time, but the post-GFC malaise has already lasted several years, especially
in parts of Europe.

2 Browse this week’s newspapers and list several economics topics that are
examples of macroeconomic issues. Which of the issues are related to economic
growth? Which of these issues are related to economic fluctuations and which are
related to economic policy?

Suggested solution:
There will never be a shortage of relevant news items.

3 Suppose that people start retiring at a later age because medical technology
improves. How does this affect the economy’s potential GDP? Why might the
government want to encourage later retirement?

Suggested solution:
Encouraging people to retire at an older age increases the size of the labour force,
which raises potential GDP. The PPC will be further out than otherwise. From the
government’s perspective, it increases trend income per capita and permits cuts in
income support for the old or the sick. It also increases the tax base needed to support
government spending on aged care in the future.

Use the following figure to answer questions 4–7.

© Cengage Learning Australia Pty Ltd 02-2

Chapter 2: Macroeconomics: getting started Solutions manual

4 Suppose the economy is at point C on the PPC. The output of machines is 70 and
the output of food is 70. The production mix moves to D, where the output mix is
60 machines and 80 units of food.
a. In moving from C to D, the opportunity cost of gaining 10 units of food is
_______________ machines.
b. In moving from C to D, the opportunity cost of gaining each unit of food is
_______________ machines.

Suggested solution:
a. 10 machines
b. 1 machine

5 Suppose the economy is at point D on the PPC. The output of machines is 60 and
the output of food is 80. The production mix moves to E, where the output mix is
35 machines and 90 units of food.
a. In moving from D to E, the opportunity cost of gaining 10 units of food is
_________________ machines.
b. In moving from D to E, the opportunity cost of gaining each unit of food is
__________________ machines.
c. Compare these answers with the answers to problem 4. As the economy
moves to the right along its PPC, what is happening to the opportunity cost of
producing food?

Suggested solution:
a. 25 machines
b. 2.5 machines
c. As the economy moves to the right along its PPC, the opportunity cost of
producing food is increasing.

6 Suppose an economy is inside its PPC and there is a policy that can push the
economy towards the PPC by increasing the production of machines or food.
(Chapters 6 and 7 give examples of such a policy.) When inside the PPC, it is

© Cengage Learning Australia Pty Ltd 02-3

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
poorer and more ignorant and excitable of the brethren. The Vatican
affected to believe that Carbonarism was an offshoot of freemasonry,
but, in spite of sundry points of resemblance, such as the engagements of
mutual help assumed by members, there seems to have been no real
connection between the two. The practical aims of the Carbonari may be
summed up in two words: freedom and independence.
A Genoese of the name of Malghella, who was Murat’s minister of
police, was the first person to give a powerful impetus to Carbonarism,
of which he has even been called the inventor, but the inference goes too
far. Malghella ended miserably; after the fall of Murat he was arrested by
the Austrians, who consigned him as a new subject to the Sardinian
government, which immediately put him in prison. Whatever was truly
Italian in Murat’s policy must be mainly attributed to him. As early as
1813 he urged the king to declare himself frankly for independence, and
to grant a constitution to his Neapolitan subjects. But Malghella did not
find the destined saviour of Italy in Murat; his one lasting work was to
establish Carbonarism on so strong a basis that, when the Bourbons
returned, there were thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of
Carbonari in all parts of the realm. The discovery was not a pleasant one
to the restored rulers, and the prince of Canosa, the new minister of
police, thought to counteract the evil done by his predecessor by setting
up an abominable secret society called the Calderai del Contrapeso
(Braziers of the Counterpoise), principally recruited from the refuse of
the people, lazzaroni, bandits, and let-out convicts, who were provided
by government with 20,000 muskets, and were sworn to exterminate all
enemies of the church of Rome, whether Jansenists, freemasons, or
Carbonari. This association committed some horrible excesses, but
otherwise it had no results. The Carbonari closed in their ranks, and
learned to observe more strictly their rules of secrecy.
From the kingdom of Naples, Carbonarism
[1816-1821 . .] spread to the Roman states, and found a congenial
soil in Romagna, which became the focus whence
it spread over the rest of Italy. It was natural that it should take the
colour, more or less, of the places where it grew. In Romagna, where
political assassination is in the blood of the people, a dagger was
substituted for the symbolical woodman’s axe in the initiatory rites. It
was probably only in Romagna that the conventional threat against
informers was often carried out. The Romagnols invested Carbonarism
with the wild intensity of their own temperament, resolute even to crime,
but capable of supreme impersonal enthusiasm. The ferment of
expectancy that prevailed in Romagna is reflected in the Letters and
Journals of Lord Byron, whom young Count Pietro Gamba made a
Carbonaro, and who looked forward to seeing the Italians send the
barbarians of all nations back to their own dens, as to the most
interesting spectacle and moment in existence. His lower apartments, he
writes, were full of the bayonets, fusils, and cartridges of his Carbonari
cronies: “I suppose that they consider me as a dépôt, to be sacrificed in
case of accidents. It is no great matter, supposing that Italy could be
liberated, who or what is sacrificed. It is a grand object—the very poetry
of politics. Only think—a free Italy! Why, there has been nothing like it
since the days of Augustus!” The movement on which such great hopes
were set was to begin in the kingdom of Naples in the spring of 1820.h

THE INSURRECTIONS OF 1820-1821

In 1820 and 1821 the discontents of the people, and the

disappointment of many in the educated classes, broke out into
insurrection, first at Naples, and then in Piedmont. There were no
symptoms of concert, even between the Neapolitans and the
Piedmontese; and the plots which arose elsewhere seem to have been
produced by causes altogether local. But the immediate encouragement
of the Italian revolt was furnished by the revolution in Spain,[28] and by
the principle of non-intervention, which the allied sovereigns had
adopted in reference to that country. The Italians vainly hoped that the
same rule would be followed in their case.
On the 2nd of July, 1820, there broke out a mutiny among the troops.
The insurgents were headed by two or three subaltern officers, who were
Carbonari; and the whole army, having deserted the king, placed itself
under its own generals. The revolt was joined by the people from all the
provinces, and a remonstrance was sent to the government, demanding a
representative constitution. The old king deposited his power in the
hands of the crown prince Francis, as vicar, having first, however,
promised to grant the nation their request, and to publish the charter in
eight days. Unfortunately, the ultra-party, who were at this stage in
possession of all the power, came forward instantly with a demand that
the constitution should be that of the Spanish cortes, first published in
1812, and recently reinstituted. The prince-vicar acceded to this
proposal.
 A new difficulty soon arose. The Sicilians revolted and demanded a
separate constitution and parliament, which the government refused to
grant. Bloody disturbances took place at Palermo, which the Neapolitans
suppressed by sending across an armed force.
The Neapolitan parliament was opened on the 1st of October, 1820, by
the king in person, in the large church of the Spirito Santo. In the same
month the three crowned heads who formed the Holy Alliance, attended
by ministers from most of the other European powers, met at Troppau.
The sovereigns of Russia, Austria, and Prussia resolved to violate their
own late precedents of non-intervention, and to put down the Neapolitan
constitution by force of arms. The weak monarch was easily convinced
that his promises had been extorted and therefore were not binding, and
the Neapolitans did not learn their danger until the Germans, 43,000
strong, were within a few days’ march of the frontier. A skirmish took
place near Rieti, on the 7th of March, 1821; and next morning Pépé’s
army had melted down to a few hundreds. The war was at an end.
On the 15th of May the king returned to Naples; and the Austrians left
him strong garrisons, both on the mainland and in Sicily. The promise of
complete amnesty, which had made part of his message to the
parliament, was instantly forgotten. Courts-martial and criminal juntas
were set down everywhere; a hundred persons at least were executed,
among whom were Morelli and Silvati, two of the officers who had
headed the first mutiny. Carrascosa and Pépé escaped; and Colletta, and
two other generals, were allowed to live under surveillance in remote
provinces of Austria.
The Neapolitan constitutionalists had hardly dispersed, when another
military insurrection broke out in Piedmont. It was headed by several
noblemen and officers of rank, and secretly favoured by Charles Albert,
prince of Carignano, a kinsman of the royal family, who later became
king of Sardinia.
On the 10th of March, 1821, several regiments
[1821-1824 . .] simultaneously mutinied. On the 12th the
insurgents seized the citadel of Turin, and on the
13th the king abdicated in favour of his absent brother, Charles Felix,
appointing the prince of Carignano regent, who next day took the oaths
to the Spanish constitution. On the 16th the new king, Charles Felix,
repudiated the acts of the regent; and in the night of the 21st Charles
Albert fled to the camp of the Austrians. On the 8th of April the German
army joined the royal troops at Novara, and beat the insurgents; the junta
dissolved itself on the 9th; and on the 10th the king was in possession of
Turin and of the whole country.
While these stormy scenes were acting in the two extremities of the
peninsula, no district of Italy remained altogether undisturbed.
Arrests took place in several quarters of the papal state, but most of all
in the eastern provinces. In the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom, the
government professed to have discovered dangerous plots, as to which
we know nothing with certainty except the existence of an association of
well-educated and high-principled men at Milan, who laboured in the
cause of education by instituting schools, and attempted to aid public
enlightenment by a periodical called the Conciliatore, which the
Austrians speedily suppressed. Those members of this society who
became best known to the world were the counts Porro and Confalonieri,
and the poet Silvio Pellico. These with many others were seized, and
several were condemned to die. None of them were actually put to death,
but whatever may have been the political offences of those unfortunate
Milanese who, like him and Pellico, pined or died in the dungeons of
Spielberg, it is at least certain that there was no truth whatever in most of
the charges which the Austrians at the time allowed their journals to
propagate against them.

THE REVOLUTIONS OF 1831

The effect
[1821-1832 . .] produced by
those abortive
revolutions was very disastrous to Italy.
They introduced over the whole
country a hateful system of espionage,
caused by suspicion in the rulers and
dislike in the subjects, which was not
soon relaxed, and has still left painful
traces. However, the measures of this
sort which were adopted, with some
which occasionally removed causes of
complaint, were effectual in keeping
the people tolerably quiet for about ten
years. In Sicily a conspiracy broke out
in 1822, and in 1828 a weak P L XII P R
insurrection at Salerno was suppressed.
Tuscany and Lombardy remained
tranquil under a mild despotism and thirty thousand Austrian bayonets;
but the French Revolution of 1830[29] gave an example which was
followed next year by the states of the church, by Modena, and by
Parma.
We may be assisted in discovering causes for the insurrection in the
papal states, by examining one or two of the principal acts of the
government after the death of Pius VII, which took place in 1823. On the
5th of October, 1824, the new pope Leo XII issued a motu-proprio which
annihilated at a blow the charter of 1816. The administration both of Leo
and his successor, Pius VIII, was conducted in accordance with the spirit
thus indicated. The arbitrary proceedings of the police became a
universal pest; the administration of criminal justice was again secret,
irresponsible, and inhumanly tedious; and, both in that department and in
civil causes, the judges were openly charged with general venality.
Besides all the old burdens, some new or obsolete ones were imposed,
especially the focalico, a tax on every hearth, which weighed very
heavily on the peasantry; and the customs were increased exorbitantly,
while the government-monopolies were extended.
In Modena, it seemed to have been resolved to sweep away every
vestige that the French had left behind them. The old laws of the Este
had been re-enacted, but were every day infringed by edicts of the
prince, and by special commissions of justice. The taxes were raised to
nearly five times their amount under Napoleon; and for the elective
functionaries of the communes, the sovereign substituted young
noblemen, chosen by himself.
The insurrection began in Modena, where, in the night of the 3rd of
February, 1831, a body of conspirators were arrested in the house of Ciro
Menotti. The people rose, and the duke fled to Mantua. On the 4th, being
just two days after the election of Pope Gregory XVI, Bologna was in
open revolt. The rebellion spread over the greater part of the Roman
state. At the same time, the ex-empress Marie Louise fled from Parma,
which was likewise in tumult. The subjects of the papal provinces
declared openly against the temporal sovereignty of the pope, and on the
26th of February, deputies from all the revolted states united in
proclaiming a new republic. The allied sovereigns did not lose a day in
putting down the insurrection. On the 9th of March the duke of Modena
with an Austrian army retook his capital; and, after some resistance, the
Germans, before the end of the same month, had restored to the holy see
all its possessions. In Modena, Menotti and Borelli, the leaders of the
revolt, were hanged, and more than a hundred others were imprisoned
for life. In Parma, Marie Louise acted mercifully, and voluntarily
redressed some of the grievances of which her subjects, perhaps with less
reason than their neighbours, had complained. In the papal states no
executions took place, but many men were condemned to imprisonment
for longer or shorter periods.
The leading powers of Europe interposed to recommend concessions
by the pope to his subjects; and, on the 5th of July, 1831, the holy father
issued a motu-proprio, which, for the third time since 1814, altered the
administration. It resumed much of the charter of 1816, retaining the
division into delegations, and the subdivision of these into districts; but it
narrowed greatly the functions of the congregations, which were merely
to have a consultative voice. And the new act did not give to the people
even that share in election which, as to the communal boards, the decree
of Consalvi had bestowed on them.
The subjects of the papal state did not conceal their disappointment at
the pretended reforms. In January, 1832, the eastern districts were again
in insurrection; and the slaughter of forty inhabitants of Forlì, men,
women, and children, drove the people of the country nearly mad. Before
the end of the month, the revolt was again suppressed by the Austrian
grenadiers. This new interposition, however, at length aroused the
French king, Louis Philippe, probably a little ashamed of the part he had
already acted. On the 22nd of February, 1832, a French squadron,
anchoring off Ancona, landed troops, which seized the town and citadel.
Austria and its satellites professed high indignation at this interference;
but the act seems to be quite defensible on diplomatic grounds, in the
position which France occupied as a guarantee of the papal kingdom. In
the kingdom of Naples, Francis, the prince-vicar of 1820, succeeded his
father, and ruled feebly but not unkindly for a few years, after which his
throne devolved on his son, Ferdinand, then a youth of twenty-one.d
Thus the enterprise of 1831, though extensively supported, had been
undertaken without any fixed plan and, as we have seen, ended in
complete discomfiture. The scattered and persecuted sette [societies],
when once more rallied and united, carried on their operations under a
new name; and the ill-starred faction, which was destined to mislead and
vitiate the national impulse of 1848, assumed the title of Young Italy.
“Austria,” says Gualterio, “acquired in this society a new ally.”
In 1831, a young Genoese, Giuseppe Mazzini
[1831 . .] [born in 1808], obtained celebrity by the
publication of a letter in which he exhorted
Charles Albert, who had just succeeded to the throne, to undertake the
liberation of Italy. The boldness and self-confidence displayed in this
production was admired by the cervelli bollenti of the day; and the exiles
and refugees, whose disappointment was recent and who were smarting
under persecution, were predisposed towards one whose counsels were
uttered with oracular authority, and who cheered them with new and
undefined hopes.
Mazzini soon became the acknowledged centre of the new sect, of
which the establishment was contemporary with that of “Young France”
and “Young Germany,” and which was intended to transform and
assimilate those already in existence, and to give them unity of purpose
and command.[30]f

SASSONE ON MAZZINI AND “YOUNG ITALY”

To reconstruct a nation torn and bowed

down under the most enervating of clerical
and monarchal despotisms requires first of all
the creation of citizens and the organisation
of a large and strong association based on
national right. An association depending on
the entire people and opening up to them at
the same time a larger horizon than the
miserable position they had occupied in the
peninsula—such was the generous idea
which fermented in the head of Mazzini, that
great exile of Italian independence, when he
took up at Marseilles his idea already
elaborated during his captivity at Savona and
G M founded the society and paper of “Young
Italy.” It was under the influence of the same
(1808-1872)
principles, and driven by his unshakable faith
in the future of Italy, that he, with several
friends devoted like himself to the popular
cause, undertook to develop the intelligence of poor Italian workmen in
London.
The statutes of the new society destined to replace the Carbonari, and
created by Mazzini and a group of exiles, was based on national law and
accessible to all Italians. By its strong popular organisation it was
destined to keep the Austrian forces in perpetual check over the whole
peninsula until the day of help. And thus by the simplicity of its
resources it would defy the surveillance of a most vigilant police.
Religious ideas and patriotic thoughts were blended and confounded in
the thoughts of this apostle of Italian liberty. They might be summed up
in two words—Dio e popolo.
The object of Young Italy was inscribed on its national banner of red,
green, and white: on one side it bore the words, “Liberty, Equality,
Humanity;” on the other, “Unity, Independence.”
All initiates into Young Italy were obliged to pay into the society’s
funds a monthly contribution of fivepence, or more, if they were able.
When initiated each new associate had to pronounce the following
promise in the presence of the initiator:

“In the name of God and Italy; in the name of all the martyrs of the holy Italian cause
who have fallen under the blows of foreign or native tyranny: by the duties which bind
me to my country, to the God who created me, and to the brothers God has given me;
by the innate love in all men for the spot where his mother was born and her children
have lived; by the shame I feel before citizens of other nations in having neither the
name nor the rights of a citizen, neither national flag nor fatherland; by the memory of
ancient power; by the consciousness of present abjection; by the tears of Italian mothers
over sons dead on the scaffold, in dungeons, or in exile; by the misery of Italian
millions: believing in a God-sent mission to Italy and the duty of every Italian born man
to contribute to its accomplishment; convinced that wherever God has wished a nation
to be there the necessary forces exist to create it—that the people are the depositary of
this force, and in the guiding of this force by the people and with the people rests the
secret of victory—I adhere to Young Italy, an association of men holding the same
faith, and I swear:
“To devote myself entirely and forever to constituting a national Italy, one,
independent, free, and republican; to help in every way my associated brothers; now
and forever (Ora e sempre); I also swear, calling on my head the anger of God, the
horror of men, and the infamy of perjury, if ever I venture to betray all or part of my
oath.”

The arrangement of degrees was as simple as possible. Rejecting the

interminable hierarchy of Carbonarism, the society had only two
degrees: initiator and initiated. A central committee resided abroad to
league themselves together as much as possible with democratic foreign
elements, and generally to direct the enterprise. Signs of recognition
between the affiliated were suppressed as being pre-eminently
dangerous. The order word, a cut card, a special handshake, sufficed to
accredit those travelling for the central committee to provincial
committees and reciprocally. These signs of recognition were renewable
every three months. A cypress branch (in memory of martyrs) was the
symbol of the society. The general word of order, Ora e sempre, alluded
to the constancy necessary to the vindication of Italian rights.j

FYFFE’S ESTIMATE OF MAZZINI

At a time not rich in intellectual or in moral power, the most striking

figure among those who are justly honoured as the founders of Italian
independence is perhaps that of Mazzini. Exiled during nearly the whole
of his mature life, a conspirator in the eyes of all governments, a dreamer
in the eyes of the world, Mazzini was a prophet or an evangelist among
those whom his influence led to devote themselves to the one cause of
their country’s regeneration. No firmer faith, no nobler disinterestedness,
ever animated the saint or the patriot; and if in Mazzini there was also
something of the visionary and the fanatic, the force with which he
grasped the two vital conditions of Italian revival—the expulsion of the
foreigner and the establishment of a single national government—proves
him to have been a thinker of genuine political insight. Laying the
foundation of his creed deep in the moral nature of man, and
constructing upon this basis a fabric not of rights but of duties, he
invested the political union with the immediateness, the sanctity, and the
beauty of family life. With him, to live, to think, to hope, was to live, to
think, to hope for Italy; and the Italy of his ideal was a republic
embracing every member of the race, purged of the priestcraft and the
superstition which had degraded the man to the slave, indebted to itself
alone for its independence, and consolidated by the reign of equal law.
The rigidity with which Mazzini adhered to his own great project in its
completeness, and his impatience with any bargaining away of national
rights, excluded him from the work of those practical politicians and men
of expedients who in 1859 effected with foreign aid the first step towards
Italian union; but the influence of his teaching and his organisation in
preparing his countrymen for independence was immense; and the
dynasty which has rendered to united Italy services which Mazzini
thought impossible, owes to this great republican scarcely less than to its
ablest friends.k
 SYMONDS ON THE PROBLEMS AND THE LEADERS

Though the spirit infused into the Italians by Mazzini’s splendid

eloquence aroused the people into a sense of their high destinies and
duties, though he was the first to believe firmly that Italy could and
would be one free nation, yet the means he sanctioned for securing this
result, and the policy which was inseparable from his opinions, proved
obstacles to statesmen of more practical and sober views. It was the
misfortune of Italy at this epoch that she had not only to fight for
independence, but also to decide upon the form of government which the
nation should elect when it was constituted. All right-thinking and
patriotic men agreed in their desire to free the country from foreign rule,
and to establish national self-government. But should they aim at a
republic or a constitutional monarchy? Should they be satisfied with the
hegemony of Piedmont? Should they attempt a confederation, and if so,
how should the papacy take rank, and should the petty sovereigns be
regarded as sufficiently Italian to hold their thrones?
These and many other hypothetical problems distracted the Italian
patriots. It was impossible for them, in the circumstances, first to form
the nation and then to decide upon its government; for the methods to be
employed in fighting for independence already implied some political
principle. Mazzini’s manipulation of conspiracy, for instance, was
revolutionary and republican; while those who adhered to constitutional
order, and relied upon the arms of Piedmont, had virtually voted for
Sardinian hegemony. The unanimous desire for independence existed in
a vague and nebulous condition. It needed to be condensed into workable
hypothesis; but this process could not be carried on with the growth of
sects perilous to common action.
The party of Young Italy, championed by Mazzini, was the first to
detach itself, and to control the blindly working forces of the Carbonari
movement by a settled plan of action. It was the programme of Young
Italy to establish a republic by the aid of volunteers recruited from all
parts of the peninsula. When Charles Albert came to the throne, Mazzini,
as we have seen, addressed him a letter, as equal unto equal, calling upon
the king to defy Austria and rely upon God and the people. Because
Charles Albert (who, in spite of his fervent patriotism and genuine
liberality of soul, was a man of mixed opinions, scrupulous in his sense
of constitutional obligation, melancholy by temperament, and
superstitiously religious) found himself unwilling or unable to take this
step, the Mazzinisti denounced him as a traitor to 1821, and a
retrogressive autocrat.
In his exile at Geneva, Mazzini now organised
[1831-1846 . .] an armed attempt on Savoy. He collected a few
hundred refugees of all nations, and crossed the
frontier in 1833. But this feeble attack produced no result beyond
convincing Charles Albert that he could not trust the republicans.
Subsequent attempts on the king’s life roused a new sense of loyalty in
Piedmont, and defined a counter-body of opinion to Mazzini’s. The
patriots of a more practical type, who may be called moderate liberals,
began, in one form or another, to aim at achieving the independence of
Italy constitutionally by the help of the Sardinian kingdom. What rank
Sardinia would take in the new Italy remained an open question.
The publication of Vincenzo Gioberti’s
treatise, Il Primato morale e civile degli
Italiani, in 1843, considerably aided the
growth of definite opinion. His utopia was a
confederation of Italian powers, under the
spiritual presidency of the papacy, and with
the army of Piedmont for sword and shield.
This book had an immense success. It made
timid thinkers feel that they could join the
liberals without sacrificing their religious or
constitutional opinions. At the same date
Cesare Balbo’s Speranze d’Italia exercised a
somewhat similar influence, through its
sound and unsubversive principles. In its
pages Balbo made one shrewd guess, that the C C
Eastern question would decide Italian
(1810-1861)
independence.
Massimo d’Azeglio, who also was a
Piedmontese; the poet Giusti, the baron Ricasoli, and the marchese Gino
Capponi in Tuscany; together with Alessandro Manzoni at Milan, and
many other writers scattered through the provinces of Italy, gave their
weight to the formation of this moderate liberal party. These men united
in condemning the extreme democracy of the Mazzinisti, and did not
believe that Italy could be regenerated by merely manipulating the
insurrectionary force of the revolution. On political and religious
questions they were much divided in detail, suffering in this respect from
the weakness inherent in liberalism. Yet we are already justified in
regarding this party as a sufficient counterpoise to the republicans; and
the man who was destined to give it coherence, and to win the great prize
of Italian independence by consolidating and working out its principles
in practice, was already there.
The count Camillo Benso di Cavour had been born in 1810, two years
later than Mazzini. He had not yet entered upon his ministerial career,
but was writing articles for the Risorgimento, which at Turin opposed the
Mazzinistic journal Concordia, and was devoting himself to political and
economical studies. It is impossible to speak of Mazzini and Cavour
without remembering the third great regenerator of Italy, Giuseppe
Garibaldi. At this date he was in exile; but a few years later he returned,
and began his career of popular deliverance in Lombardy.
Mazzini the prophet, Garibaldi the knight-errant, and Cavour the
statesman, of Italian independence, were all natives of the kingdom of
Sardinia. But their several positions in it were so different as to account
in no small measure for the very divergent parts they played in the
coming drama. Mazzini was a native of Genoa, which ill tolerated the
enforced rule of Turin. Garibaldi came from Nice, and was a child of the
people. Cavour was born in the midst of that stiff aristocratical society of
old Piedmont which has been described so vividly by D’Azeglio in his
Ricordi. The Piedmontese nobles had the virtues and the defects of
English country squires in the last century. Loyal, truthful, brave, hard-
headed, tough in resistance, obstinately prejudiced, they made excellent
soldiers, and were devoted servants of the crown. Moreover, they hid
beneath their stolid exterior greater political capacity than the more
genial and brilliant inhabitants of southern and central Italy.
Cavour came of this race and understood it. But he was a man of
exceptional quality. He had the genius of statesmanship—a practical
sense of what could be done, combined with rare dexterity in doing it,
fine diplomatic and parliamentary tact, and noble courage in the hour of
need. Without the enthusiasm, amounting to the passion of a new
religion, which Mazzini inspired, without Garibaldi’s brilliant
achievements, and the idolatry excited by this pure-hearted hero in the
breasts of all who fought with him and felt his sacred fire, there is little
doubt that Cavour would not have found the creation of United Italy
possible. But if Cavour had not been there to win the confidence,
support, and sympathy of Europe, if he had not been recognised by the
body of the nation as a man whose work was solid and whose sense was
just in all emergencies, Mazzini’s efforts would have run to waste in
questionable insurrections, and Garibaldi’s feats of arms must have
added but one chapter more to the history of unproductive patriotism.
While, therefore, we recognise the part played by each of these great
men in the liberation of their country, and while we willingly ignore their
differences and disputes, it is Cavour whom we must honour with the
title of the maker of United Italy.

POPE PIUS IX AND HIS LIBERAL POLICY

From this digression, which was necessary in

[1846-1848 . .] order to make the next acts in the drama clear, we
now return to the year 1846. Misrule had reached
its climax in Rome, and the people were well-nigh maddened, when
Gregory XVI died and Pius IX was elected in his stead.[31] It seemed as
though an age of gold had dawned; for the greatest of all miracles had
happened. The new pope declared himself a liberal, proclaimed a general
amnesty to political offenders, and in due course granted a national
guard, and began to form a constitution. The Neo-Guelfic school of
Gioberti believed that their master’s utopia was about to be realised.
Italy went wild with joy and demonstrations. The pope’s example
proved contagious. Constitutions were granted in Tuscany [February 11,
1848], Piedmont [March 4th], and Rome [March 14th]. The duke of
Lucca fled, and his domain was joined to Tuscany. Only Austria and
Naples declared that their states needed no reforms. On the 2nd of
January, 1848, a liberal demonstration at Milan served the Austrians for
pretext to massacre defenceless persons in the streets. These Milanese
victims were hailed as martyrs all over Italy, and funeral ceremonies,
partaking of the same patriotic character as the rejoicings of the previous
year, kept up the popular agitation. On the 12th of January Palermo rose
against King Ferdinand II, and Naples followed her example on the 27th.
The king was forced in February to grant the constitution of 1812, to
which his subjects were so ardently attached.g

FOOTNOTES
[25] [With regard to Naples there was an interminable and difficult debate
about the documents which were found in Paris, and which clearly proved the
treacherous thoughts of Gioacchino [Joachim Murat] against the allies. The
final result was that even Austria which had upheld him detested Murat, and
on the 10th day of April declared war against him as we have seen. After
these proceedings there was nothing to prevent the congress of Vienna from
taking possession of Naples also. It was again adjudged to King Ferdinand IV.
He was already in possession of the kingdom when the congress restored it to
him.c]
[26] [Stillman calls it still less—only a “diplomatic expression.”]
[27] [Literally “charcoalers,” charcoal-making being a prominent industry
in the wilds of the Abruzzo and Calabria where Carbonarism found its refuge.
The ritual of the organisation was founded on charcoal-makers’ terms, thus
meetings were called vendite or “sales.” The idea spread to France, where La
Fayette was a prominent member. See volume XIII, chapter I.]
[28] [The Spanish Revolution, which originated in Cadiz in 1819, resulted
in the establishment of a constitution accepted by the king, and sworn to by
the king of Naples himself as an infante of Spain. This event was full of
interest to the Neapolitans, who felt their own need of a similar guarantee.—
W .f]
[29] [The influence of French politics on Italy has been remarkable. We
have seen the effect of the spirit of 1793 and the Napoleonic idea. The French
revolutions of 1830 and 1848 had like influence.]
[30] [Shortly after the July Revolution of 1830 Mazzini, having been
entrapped by a government spy into the performance of some trifling
commission for the Carbonari, was arrested and imprisoned in the fortress of
Savona on the western Riviera. “The government was not fond,” so his father
was informed, “of young men of talent, the subjects of whose musings were
unknown to it.” After six months’ imprisonment Mazzini was acquitted of
conspiracy, but was nevertheless exiled from Italy.—M .e]
[31] [“Pius IX had a heart and mind of sufficient calibre to comprehend the
line of conduct he must follow in the midst of these circumstances. He hoped
to realise gradually in his own territory and to second elsewhere all that the
present asked for, but not to let himself be dragged further. “It will take ten
years,” he said, “for the national and political spirit to penetrate the masses.”
He worked for this end from the first day with his minister Gizzi. He called
upon the municipal and ecclesiastical bodies for the best means of inspiring
popular education; he established commissions to investigate the condition of
all branches of the administration, but he took care to meddle with nothing
that directly concerned politics. The respect and sympathy of popular opinion
encouraged Pius IX’s work. Following his example the other sovereigns took
up reforms. But what Pius IX lacked was promptitude of resolution and the
assistance of men practical enough to carry out the aspirations of his heart.”—
Z .l]
 CHAPTER XX. THE LIBERATION OF ITALY
The Italian kingdom is the fruit of the alliance between the strong monarchical principles of
Piedmont and the dissolvent forces of revolution. Whenever either one side or the other,
yielding to the influence of its individual sympathies or prejudices, failed to recognise that thus
only, by the essential logic of events, could the unity of the country be achieved, the entire
edifice was placed in danger of falling to the ground before it was completed. When Garibaldi
stood on Cape Faro, conqueror and liberator, clothed in a glory not that of Wellington or
Moltke, but that of Arthur or Roland or the Cid Campeador; the subject of the gossip of the
Arabs in their tents, of the wild horsemen of the Pampas, of the fishers in ice-bound seas; a solar
myth, nevertheless certified to be alive in the nineteenth century—Cavour understood that if he
were left much longer single occupant of the field, either he would rush to disaster, which would
be fatal to Italy, or he would become so powerful that, in the event of his being plunged,
willingly or unwillingly, by the more ardent apostles of revolution into opposition with the king
of Sardinia, the issue of the contest would be by no means sure. To guard against both
possibilities, Cavour decided to act.—C C .b

Only two powers, a spiritual and a worldly, the Jesuits

[1848-1866 . .] and the Austrians, seemed to stand in the way of
attaining Italian unity. Consequently the glowing hatred
of the Italians directed itself against both. “Evvivas” for Gioberti, the enemy of
the Jesuits, and “Death to the Germans” (Tedeschi) against Austria, mingled
with the cries of acclamation for “Pio nono.” Irritation in the commercial
dealings between Italians and Austrians in Padua, Milan, and the whole of
upper Italy, mockeries, jests, scornful songs, and threats against the “Germans,”
associations to repress tobacco and the lottery, in order to diminish the Austrian
income, hostile demonstrations, and insulting agreements, increased the
bitterness and anger of both nations to such a degree that the Austrian soldier
lived in the cities of the Lombardic-Venetian kingdom as in the land of an
enemy. Tumults and insulting demonstrations resulted in sanguinary scenes, so
that the Austrian government finally declared martial law in Lombardy, in order
to be able to put down the excitement and rebellion by force.
The February revolution of 1848 in Paris, incited those
[1848 . .] states in which military and revolutionary revolts were
already under way to new efforts, and brought the
fermentation to an outbreak in other states where the excitement had not yet
ripened into action. In Italy the ideas of independence and national unity which
had so long appeared in literature came to the surface and aroused the
revolutionary spirits. When Charles Albert, king of Sardinia and Piedmont,
without an actual declaration of war, sent his army into Milanese territory and
drew his sword against Austria, the whole peninsula was seized by the warlike
movement. Not only were the Italian governments carried away by the force of
public opinion to send troops and to preserve a constitutional attitude; armed
troops of volunteers also marched into the field so that the whole land of the
Apennines was under arms against Austria.
Soon a double trend of opinion became perceptible; whereas Mazzini and his
associates urged a popular war and republican institutions, the more moderate
sought to establish national independence under the cross of Savoy, in
conjunction with the constitutional king Charles Albert. The latter tendency
prevailed after some wavering; in Milan and Venice the union with Piedmont
was resolved upon. The princes of Parma and Modena who had allied
themselves with Austria had to leave their states; even the grand duke of
Tuscany, although giving way to the national and independent impulses, had to
surrender his land to democrats and republicans for a short time. The pope also
agreed to a constitution and appointed a lay ministry with advanced views;
nevertheless the government and the body of popular representatives were to
concern themselves only with the worldly and political matters of the papal
state.

THE WAR BETWEEN NAPLES AND SICILY

A state of war of insupportable animosity and irritation

[1848-1850 . .] reigned over the whole of the Subalpine dual monarchy,
when the February revolution of 1848 in Paris threw a
firebrand into this inflammable material. In 1847, Metternich is said to have
written to the field-marshal Radetzky: “It is not easy to fight larvæ and fantastic
shapes and yet this is our ceaseless warfare, ever since the appearance of a
liberal pope upon the scene.” These larvæ and fantastic shapes were now to gain
body and substance.
In Sicily, where already a provincial government under the leadership of a
few heads of the nobility like Ruggiero Settimo, Peter Lanza, Prince of Butera,
etc., had taken charge of public affairs in Palermo and other places, negotiations
with King Ferdinand, with Lord Minto as an intermediary, led to no agreement.
A union of the two kingdoms, which according to the “ultimatum” of the
Sicilians could have its only bond in the person of the monarch, was in
opposition to Ferdinand’s desire for rule. Accordingly Sicily held to its
outspoken independence from Naples and rejected every approach to an
understanding with King Ferdinand II.
The Sicilian national representatives, divided into two chambers, elected the
popular and respected noble Ruggiero Settimo, as president of the provisory
government, and on April 13th adopted the resolution: “The throne of Sicily is
declared vacant. Ferdinand Bourbon and his dynasty are forever removed from
the Sicilian throne. Sicily shall be governed constitutionally and as soon as its
constitution has been revised an Italian prince shall be called to the throne.”
When Ferdinand, under the stress of events before Verona and in Rome,
allowed himself to be moved by reactionary influence to dissolve the chambers
of deputies on the very day of their opening “on account of their assuming
illegal authority and exceeding their limits of power,” when he suppressed an
uprisal of the militia and of the radicals by his Swiss guards and by the
unloosed populace in a barricade battle, and, as Queen Caroline had done fifty
years before, gave up the well-to-do population of his capital to the murderous
and plundering greed of crowds of lazzaroni, then the cloth which had covered
the two kingdoms was completely torn asunder. The frivolous, uneducated, and
powerless people of Naples endured the hard yoke of military despotism and of
a reactionary camarilla; but Sicily held all the more firmly to the exclusion of
the Bourbons and proceeded to elect a new king after the new constitution had
been rapidly revised in favour of democratic views. After many proposals, in
which foreign influences also had a hand, the highest state authorities, the
government, senate, and commune, united in the resolve to call the second son
of Charles Albert, Prince Albert Amadeus of Savoy, duke of Genoa, to be the
constitutional king of Sicily. But the fate of the beautiful, unfortunate island was
not yet fulfilled, the sanguinary drama not yet played out. The news of the
election reached the royal camp when the star of the Italian army was already in
the descendant.
Charles Albert consequently declined the crown for his son in order not to
incense France or England against him. Ferdinand, however, swore to preserve
the integrity of his kingdom and took measures to subjugate the island from the
citadel of Messina [Sept. 7th-9th], where there was a strong and well-equipped
Neapolitan garrison. There now broke out a civil war full of horror, and with
scenes of wild barbarity, patriotic heroism, and fanatic passion. General
Filangieri, an energetic warrior from the time of Murat, bombarded Messina, so
that thousands of dead bodies lay in the streets, many houses were burned, and
the greater part of the surviving inhabitants sought safety and protection on the
foreign ships in the harbour. From that time on Ferdinand II was designated as
“King Bomba.”
After some time a truce was brought about through the intervention of France
and England. In April, 1849, however, the war broke out anew. A numerous
company of foreigners, commanded by the Pole, Mieroslawski, came to the aid
of the Sicilians, but the military training and the better equipment of the
Neapolitan mercenaries, especially of the Swiss, carried the day in the battle of
Catania (April 6th, 1849).
On May 14th the Neapolitan army made its entry into Palermo, the capital of
Sicily, and the unfortunate island, over which the tricoloured flag had waved for
more than a year, became again enchained to the military dominion of the
Bourbons. The heads of the provisory government, all of them men of culture
and of noble birth and character, sought refuge among strangers. Filangieri,
elevated to the rank of duke of Taormina, became governor of Sicily.
 REVOLT AGAINST THE POPE; ROME A REPUBLIC

In the papal states, the enthusiasm for the pope declined when he did not
satisfy the exaggerated demands quickly and completely enough, and when he
earnestly rejected the desired declaration of war against Austria as incompatible
with his position and religious dignity. Even the expulsion of the Jesuits, who
were oppressed and threatened in all the Italian states, and the maintenance of a
constitution as the “fundamental principle for the worldly rule of the papal
state,” did not succeed in winning back his former popularity. The celebrated
allocution in a consistory of cardinals, with the determined declaration that he
would not wage war with Austria, was generally interpreted as the beginning of
a reactionary change. What was the position, then, of the Roman troops and
volunteers under the able general Durand which the liberal government had sent
to join the army of fighters for independence across the Po? They were looked
upon as rebels until Pius himself placed them under the protection of Charles
Albert.
The allocution was the first backward step from
the flag of national uprisal. Pius IX, therefore, soon
became as much an object of hatred and enmity on
the part of the patriots as he had before been their
idol. In vain did he nominate the liberal champion
Mamiani as president of the ministry, a position
which as yet only clericals had held, and the
historian Farini as under secretary of state; the
feeling that the head of the church had been faithless
to the national cause alienated the hearts of the
Roman people more and more. He also had to
endure the mortification of having his peace
proposals rejected by Austria, proud over her new
successes at arms. The reactionary coup d’état in
Naples was regarded as the direct result of the
allocution, and influenced the popular passions more
and more against spiritual rule.
The clever Italian Rossi of Carrara, who had once
taught law in Geneva, and had then occupied an
influential position in Paris with Louis Philippe and
O E S . Guizot, and had executed important diplomatic
P ’ ,R missions, was called by Pius IX to form a
constitutional ministry, in order more tightly to seize
the reins of government which threatened to slip out
of the weak hands of the princes of the church. But, by his energetic measures
against the increasing anarchy, Rossi so drew upon himself the hatred of the
Roman democrats that at the opening of the chambers he was murdered on the
steps of the senate on the very spot upon which Cæsar once fell.
Thereupon the unrestrained populace, led by the democratically inclined
Charles Lucien Bonaparte, surrounded the Quirinal and forced the pope,
through threats, to name a radical ministry, in which the advocate Galletti and
the old democrat Sterbini had the greatest influence, next to Mamiani who had
been recalled. From that time law and order disappeared from the holy city. The
chamber of deputies was without power, and became so weakened by the
withdrawal of many members that it was scarcely competent to form legal
resolutions; the democratic popular club, together with the rude mob of
Trastevere, controlled matters. Many cardinals withdrew; Pius IX was guarded
like a prisoner.
Enraged at these acts and threatened as to his safety, the pope finally fled to
Gaeta, in disguise, aided by the Bavarian ambassador Count Spaur. Here he
formed a new ministry and entered a protest against all proceedings in Rome.
This move procured at first the most complete victory for the republican party
in the Tiberian city. A new constitutional assembly was summoned, which in its
first sitting deprived the papacy of its worldly authority, established the Roman
republic, and resolved to work for the union of Italy under a democratic-
republican form of rule. A threat of excommunication from the pope was met
with scorn by the popular union. A provisory government under the direction of
three men undertook the administration of the free state, while the constitutional
assembly laid hands on the church lands in order to form small farms out of
them for the poor, and Garibaldi organised a considerable militia out of
insurrectionary volunteers and democrats.
Garibaldi of Nice (born July 4th, 1807) was a bold insurrectionary leader who
had wandered about in America and elsewhere as a political refugee for a long
time, and who, on his return to his native country, had taken an active part in the
struggle of the Piedmontese and Lombards against Austria. The unfortunate
outcome of the renewed war in upper Italy, which had brought a large number
of refugees to Rome, and the arrival of Mazzini, who for so long had been the
active head of the “young Italy” party and the soul of the democratic
propaganda, increased the revolutionary excitement in Rome. The union of
revolutionary forces determined the powers protecting the papal states, whose
help the pope had summoned, to common action and armed intervention.

THE FRENCH RESTORE THE POPE

While the Austrians after severe battles took possession of Bologna and
Ancona, the Neapolitans from the south entered Roman territory, and a French
army under General Oudinot, the son of the marshal, landed in Cività Vecchia
and surrounded Rome, which was in a state of intense excitement. It was in vain