Chapter 16

Authorities.—1. Britain: Boyd Dawkins,Cave-hunting(1874);Early Man(1880); Mattel,Irlande et cavernes anglaises(1897); Buckland,Reliquiae Diluvianae(1821);Brit. Assoc. Reports(1860-1875);Journ. Anthrop. Inst.(1870-1876);Quart. Geol. Journ.(1860-1875); Pengelly,Trans. Devonshire Association. 2. The European Continent: Martel,Les Abîmes(1894); Cartailhac and Breuil,L’Anthropologie, xv., xvi.; Lartet and Christy,Reliquiae Aquitanicae; Internat. Congress of Prehistoric Archaeology; Marcel de Serres,Les Ossemens fossiles de Lunel Viel; Dupont,L’Homme pendant les âges de la pierre dans les environs de Dinant-sur-Meuse; Schmerling,Recherches sur les ossemens fossiles découverts dans les cavernes de Liége; Merk,Excavations at Kesserloch, transl. J.E. Lee (1876). For the chief American caves, seeLuray Cavern,Mammoth Cave,Wyandotte Cave,Colossal Cavern,Jacob’s Cavern.

(W. B. D.)

CAVEA,the Latin name given to the subterranean cells in which the wild beasts were confined prior to the combats in the Roman arena. The term is sometimes applied to the amphitheatre (q.v.) itself.

CAVEAT(Latin for “let him beware,” fromcavere), in law, a notice given by the party interested (caveator) to the proper officer of a court of justice to prevent the taking of a certain step without warning. It is entered in connexion with dealings in land registered in the land registry, with the grant of marriage licences, to prevent the issuing of a lunacy commission, to stay the probate of a will, letters of administration, &c. Caveat is also a term used in United States patent law (seePatents).

Caveat emptor(“let the buyer beware”) is a maxim which implies that the responsibility for making a bad bargain over a purchase rests on the purchaser. In an ordinary contract for the sale of goods, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of the goods supplied, with certain exceptions, and, therefore, the buyer takes at his own risk. The maxim does not apply (a) where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgment, and that the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller’s business to supply; (b) where goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description, for there is an implied condition that the goods are of merchantable quality, though if the buyer has actually examined the goods, there is no implied condition as regards defects which the examination ought to have revealed; (c) where the usage of trade annexes an implied warranty or condition to the goods as to their quality or fitness for a particular purpose. The maxim ofcaveat emptoris said to owe its origin to the fact that in early times sales of goods took place principally in market overt. (See furtherSale of Goods.)

CAVEDONE, JACOPO(1577-1660), Italian painter, born at Sassuolo in the Modenese, was educated in the school of the Caracci, and under them painted in the churches of Bologna. His principal works are the “Adoration of the Magi,” the “Four Doctors,” and the “Last Supper”; and more especially the “Virgin and Child in Glory,” with San Petronio and other saints, painted in 1614, and now in the Bolognese Academy. Cavedone became an assistant to Guido Reni in Rome; his art was generally of a subdued undemonstrative character, with rich Titianesque colouring. In his declining years his energies broke down after his wife had been accused of witchcraft, and after the death of a cherished son. He died in extreme poverty, in a stable at Bologna.

CAVENDISH, GEORGE(1500-1562?), English writer, the biographer of Cardinal Wolsey, was the elder son of ThomasCavendish, clerk of the pipe in the exchequer, and his wife, Alice Smith of Padbrook Hall. He was probably born at his father’s manor of Cavendish, in Suffolk. Later the family resided in London, in the parish of St Alban’s, Wood Street, where Thomas Cavendish died in 1524. Shortly after this event George married Margery Kemp, of Spains Hall, an heiress, and the niece of Sir Thomas More. About 1527 he entered the service of Cardinal Wolsey as gentleman-usher, and for the next three years he was divided from his wife, children and estates, in the closest personal attendance on the great man. Cavendish was wholly devoted to Wolsey’s interests, and also he saw in this appointment an opportunity to gratify his master-passion, a craving “to see and be acquainted with strangers, in especial with men in honour and authority.” He was faithful to his master in disgrace, and showed the courage of the “loyal servitor.” It is plain that he enjoyed Wolsey’s closest confidence to the end, for after the cardinal’s death George Cavendish was called before the privy council and closely examined as to Wolsey’s latest acts and words. He gave his evidence so clearly and with so much natural dignity, that he won the applause of the hostile council, and the praise of being “a just and diligent servant.” He was not allowed to suffer in pocket by his fidelity to his master, but retired, as it would seem, a wealthy man to his estate of Glemsford, in West Suffolk, in 1530. He was only thirty years of age, but his appetite for being acquainted with strange acts and persons was apparently sated, for we do not hear of his engaging in any more adventures. It is not to be doubted that Cavendish had taken down notes of Wolsey’s conversation and movements, for many years passed before his biography was composed. At length, in 1557, he wrote it out in its final form. It was not, however, possible to publish it in the author’s lifetime, but it was widely circulated in MS. Evidently one of these MSS. fell into Shakespeare’s hands, for that poet made use of it in hisKing Henry VIII., although it is excessive to say, as Singer has done, that Shakespeare “merely put Cavendish’s language into verse.” The book was first printed in 1641, in a garbled text, and under the title ofThe Negotiations of Thomas Wolsey. The genuine text, from contemporary MSS., was given to the world in 1810, and more fully in 1815. Until that time it was believed that the book was the composition of George Cavendish’s younger brother William, the founder of Chatsworth, who also was attached to Wolsey. Joseph Hunter proved this to be impossible, and definitely asserted the claim of George. The latter is believed to have died at Glemsford in or about 1562. The intrinsic value of Cavendish’sLife of Cardinal Wolseyhas long been perceived, for it is the sole authentic record of a multitude of events highly important in a particularly interesting section of the history of England. Its importance as a product of biographical literature was first emphasized by Bishop Creighton, who insisted over and over again on the claim of Cavendish to be recognized as the earliest of the great English biographers and an individual writer of particular charm and originality. He writes with simplicity and with a certain vivid picturesqueness, rarely yielding to the rhetorical impulses which governed the ordinary prose of his age.

(E. G.)

CAVENDISH, HENRY(1731-1810), English chemist and physicist, elder son of Lord Charles Cavendish, brother of the 3rd duke of Devonshire, and Lady Anne Grey, daughter of the duke of Kent, was born at Nice in October 1731. He was sent to school at Hackney in 1742, and in 1749 entered Peterhouse, Cambridge, which he left in 1753, without taking a degree. Until he was about forty he seems to have enjoyed a very moderate allowance from his father, but in the latter part of his life he was left a fortune which made him one of the richest men of his time. He lived principally at Clapham Common, but he had also a town-house in Bloomsbury, while his library was in a house in Dean Street, Soho; and there he used to attend on appointed days to lend the books to men who were properly vouched for. So methodical was he that he never took down a volume for his own use without entering it in the loan-book. He was a regular attendant at the meetings of the Royal Society, of which he became a fellow in 1760, and he dined every Thursday with the club composed of its members. Otherwise he had little intercourse with society; indeed, his chief object in life seems to have been to avoid the attention of his fellows. With his relatives he had little intercourse, and even Lord George Cavendish, whom he made his principal heir, he saw only for a few minutes once a year. His dinner was ordered daily by a note placed on the hall-table, and his women servants were instructed to keep out of his sight on pain of dismissal. In person he was tall and rather thin; his dress was old-fashioned and singularly uniform, and was inclined to be shabby about the times when the precisely arranged visits of his tailor were due. He had a slight hesitation in his speech, and his air of timidity and reserve was almost ludicrous. He was never married. He died at Clapham on the 24th of February 1810, leaving funded property worth £700,000, and a landed estate of £8000 a year, together with canal and other property, and £50,000 at his bankers.

Cavendish’s scientific work is distinguished for the wideness of its range and for its extraordinary exactness and accuracy. The papers he himself published form an incomplete record of his researches, for many of the results he obtained only became generally known years after his death; yet in spite of the absence of anything approaching self-advertisement he acquired a very high reputation within his own country and abroad, recognized by the Institute of France in 1803 when it chose him as one of its eight foreign associates. Arsenic formed the subject of his first recorded investigation, on which he was engaged at least as early as 1764, and in 1766 he began those communications to the Royal Society on the chemistry of gases, which are among his chief titles to fame. The first (Phil. Trans., 1766) consists of “Three papers containing experiments on Factitious Airs,” dealing mostly with “inflammable air” (hydrogen), which he was the first to recognize as a distinct substance, and “fixed air” (carbon dioxide). He determined the specific gravity of these gases with reference to common air, investigated the extent to which they are absorbed by various liquids, and noted that common air containing one part in nine by volume of fixed air is no longer able to support combustion, and that the air produced by fermentation and putrefaction has properties identical with those of fixed air obtained from marble. In the following year he published a paper on the analysis of one of the London pump-waters (from Rathbone Place, Oxford Street), which is closely connected with the memoirs just mentioned, since it shows that the calcareous matter in that water is held in solution by the “fixed air” present and can be precipitated by lime. Electrical studies seem next to have engaged his attention, and in 1771 and 1772 he read to the Royal Society his “Attempt to explain some of the principal phenomena of electricity by an elastic fluid,” which was followed in 1775 by an “Attempt to imitate the effects of the Torpedo (a fish allied to the ray)” (Phil. Trans., 1776). But these two memoirs contain only a part of the electrical researches he carried out between 1771 and 1781, and many more were found after his death in a number of sealed packets of papers. The contents of these for a long time remained unknown, but ultimately by permission of the duke of Devonshire, to whom they belonged, they were edited by James Clerk Maxwell and published in 1879 by the Cambridge University Press as theElectrical Researches of the Hon. Henry Cavendish. About 1777 or 1778 he resumed his pneumatic inquiries, though he published nothing on the subject till 1783. In that year he described a new eudiometer to the Royal Society and detailed observations he had made to determine whether or not the atmosphere is constant in composition; after testing the air on nearly 60 different days in 1781 he could find in the proportion of oxygen no difference of which he could be sure, nor could he detect any sensible variation at different places. Two papers on “Experiments with Airs,” printed in thePhil. Trans.for 1784 and 1785, contain his great discoveries of the compound nature of water and the composition of nitric acid. Starting from an experiment, narrated by Priestley, in which John Warltire fired a mixture of common air and hydrogen by electricity, with the result that there was a diminution of volume and a deposition of moisture,Cavendish burnt about two parts of hydrogen with five of common air, and noticed that almost all the hydrogen and about one-fifth of the common air lost their elasticity and were condensed into a dew which lined the inside of the vessel employed. This dew he judged to be pure water. In another experiment he fired, by the electric spark, a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen (dephlogisticated air), and found that the resulting water contained nitric acid, which he argued must be due to the nitrogen present as an impurity in the oxygen (“phlogisticated air with which it [the dephlogisticated air] is debased”). In the 1785 paper he proved the correctness of this supposition by showing that when electric sparks are passed through common air there is a shrinkage of volume owing to the nitrogen uniting with the oxygen to form nitric acid. Further, remarking that little was known of the phlogisticated part of our atmosphere, and thinking it might fairly be doubted “whether there are not in reality many different substances confounded together by us under the name of phlogisticated air,” he made an experiment to determine whether the whole of a given portion of nitrogen (phlogisticated air) of the atmosphere could be reduced to nitric acid. He found that a small fraction, not more than1⁄120th part, resisted the change, and in this residue he doubtless had a sample of the inert gas argon which was only recognized as a distinct entity more than a hundred years later. His last chemical paper, published in 1788, on the “Conversion of a mixture of dephlogisticated and phlogisticated air into nitrous acid by the electric spark,” describes measures he took to authenticate the truth of the experiment described in the 1785 paper, which had “since been tried by persons of distinguished ability in such pursuits without success.” It may be noted here that, while Cavendish adhered to the phlogistic doctrine, he did not hold it with anything like the tenacity that characterized Priestley; thus, in his 1784 paper on “Experiments on Air,” he remarks that not only the experiments he is describing, but also “most other phenomena of nature seem explicable as well, or nearly as well,” upon the Lavoisierian view as upon the commonly believed principle of phlogiston, and he goes on to give an explanation in terms of the antiphlogistic hypothesis.

Early in his career Cavendish took up the study of heat, and had he promptly published his results he might have anticipated Joseph Black as the discoverer of latent heat and of specific heat. But he made no reference to his work till 1783, when he presented to the Royal Society some “Observations on Mr Hutchins’s experiments for determining the degree of cold at which quicksilver freezes.” This paper, with others published in 1786 and 1788, is concerned with the phenomena attending the freezing of various substances, and is noteworthy because in it he expresses doubt of the supposition that “the heat of bodies is owing to their containing more or less of a substance called the matter of heat,” and inclines to Newton’s opinion that it “consists in the internal motion of the particles of bodies.” His “Account of the Meteorological Apparatus used at the Royal Society’s House” (Phil. Trans., 1776) contains remarks on the precautions necessary in making and using thermometers, a subject which is continued in the following year in a report signed by him and six others.

Cavendish’s last great achievement was his famous series of experiments to determine the density of the earth (Phil. Trans., 1798). The apparatus he employed was devised by the Rev. John Michell, though he had the most important parts reconstructed to his own designs; it depended on measuring the attraction exercised on a horizontal bar, suspended by a vertical wire and bearing a small lead ball at each end, by two large masses of lead. (SeeGravitation.) The figure he gives for the specific gravity of the earth is 5.48, water being 1, but in fact the mean of the 29 results he records works out at 5.448. Other publications of his later years dealt with the height of an aurora seen in 1784 (Phil. Trans., 1790), the civil year of the Hindus (Id., 1792), and an improved method of graduating astronomical instruments (Id., 1809). Cavendish also had a taste for geology, and made several tours in England for the purpose of gratifying it.

A life by George Wilson (1818-1859), printed for the Cavendish Society in 1851, contains an account of his writings, both published and unpublished, together with a critical inquiry into the claims of all the alleged discoverers of the composition of water. Some of his instruments are preserved in the Royal Institution, London, and his name is commemorated in the Cavendish Physical Laboratory at Cambridge, which was built by his kinsman the 7th duke of Devonshire.

CAVENDISH[Candish],THOMAS(1555?-1592), the third circumnavigator of the globe, was born at Trimley St Martin, Suffolk. On quitting Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (without a degree), he almost ruined himself by his extravagance as a courtier. To repair his fortune he turned to maritime and colonial enterprise, and in 1585 accompanied Sir Richard Grenville to America. Soon returning to England, he undertook an elaborate imitation of Drake’s great voyage. On the 21st of July 1586, he sailed from Plymouth with 123 men in three vessels, only one of which (the “Desire,” of 140 tons) came home. By way of Sierra Leone, the Cape Verde Islands and C. Frio in Brazil, he coasted down to Patagonia (where he discovered “Port Desire,” his only important contribution to knowledge), and passing through Magellan’s Straits, fell upon the Spanish settlements and shipping on the west coast of South and Central America and of Mexico. Among his prizes were nineteen vessels of worth, and especially the treasure-galleon, the “Great St Anne,” which he captured off Cape St Lucas, the southern extremity of California (November 14, 1587). After this success he struck across the Pacific for home; touched at the Ladrones, Philippines, Moluccas and Java; rounded the Cape of Good Hope; and arrived again at Plymouth (September 9-10, 1588), having circumnavigated the globe in two years and fifty days. It is said that his sailors were clothed in silk, his sails were damask, and his top-mast covered with cloth of gold. Yet by 1591 he was again in difficulties, and planned a fresh American and Pacific venture. John Davis (q.v.) accompanied him, but the voyage (undertaken with five vessels) was an utter failure, much of the fault lying with Cavendish himself, who falsely accused Davis, with his last breath, of deserting him (May 20, 1592). He died and was buried at sea, on the way home, in the summer of 1592.

See Hakluyt’sPrincipal Navigations, (a) edition of 1589, p. 809 (N.H.’s narrative of the voyage of 1586-1588); (b) edition of 1599-1600, vol. iii. pp. 803-825 (Francis Pretty’s narrative of the same); (c) edition of 1599-1600, vol. iii. pp. 251-253 (on the venture of 1585); (d) edition of 1599-1600, vol. iii. pp. 845-852 (John Lane’s narrative of the last voyage, of 1591-1592); alsoStationers’ Registers(Arber), vol. ii. pp. 505-509; the Molyneux Globe of 1592, in the library of the Middle Temple, London, and the Ballads inBiog. Brit., vol. i. p. 1196.

CAVENDISH, SIR WILLIAM(c. 1505-1557), founder of the English noble house of Cavendish, was the younger brother of George Cavendish (q.v.). His father, Thomas, was a descendant of Sir John Cavendish, the judge, who in 1381 was murdered by Jack Straw’s insurgent peasants at Bury St Edmunds. Of William’s education nothing seems known, but in 1530 he was appointed one of the commissioners for visiting monasteries; he worked directly under Thomas Cromwell, whom he calls “master” and to whom many of his extant letters are addressed. In 1541 he was auditor of the court of augmentations, in 1546 treasurer of the king’s chamber, and was knighted and sworn of the privy council. Under Edward VI. and Mary he continued in favour at court; during the latter’s reign he partially conformed, but on the occasion of the war with France he with other Derbyshire gentlemen refused the loan of £100 demanded by the queen. He died in 1557. Cavendish acquired large properties from the spoils of the monasteries, but in accordance with the wish of his third wife Elizabeth he sold them to purchase land in Derbyshire. This wife was the celebrated “building Bess of Hardwick,” daughter of John Hardwicke, of Hardwicke, Derbyshire; she completed the original building of Chatsworth House,—begun in 1553 by her husband,—of which nothing now remains. Her fourth husband was George Talbot, 6th earl of Shrewsbury. By her Cavendish had six children; an elder son who died without issue; William, who in 1618 was created earl of Devonshire; Charles, whose son William became 1st duke of Newcastle;Frances, who married Sir Henry Pierpont, and was the ancestress of the dukes of Kingston; Elizabeth, who married Charles Stuart, earl of Lennox, and was the mother of Arabella Stuart; and Mary, who married Gilbert Talbot, 7th earl of Shrewsbury.

CAVETTO(Ital. diminutive ofcavo, hollow), in architecture, the term given to a hollow concave moulding sometimes employed in the place of the cymatium of a cornice, as in that of the Doric order of the theatre of Marcellus. It forms the crowning feature of the Egyptian temples, and took the place of the cymatium in many of the Etruscan temples.

CAVIARE,orCaviar, the roe of various species ofAcipenseror sturgeon (q.v.), prepared, in several qualities, as an article of food. The word is common to most European languages and supposed to be of Turk or Tatar origin, but the Turk wordkhavyahis probably derived from the Ital.caviale; the word does not appear in Russian. The best caviare, which can only be made in winter and is difficult to preserve, is the loosely granulated, almost liquid, kind, known in Russia asikra. It is prepared by beating the ovaries and straining through a sieve to clear the eggs of the membranes, fibres and fatty matter; it is then salted with from 4-6% of salt. The difficulty of preparation and of transport has made it a table delicacy in western Europe, where it has been known since the 16th century, as is evidenced by Hamlet’s “His play ... pleased not the million, ’twas caviare to the general.” It is eaten either as anhors d’oeuvre, particularly in Russia and northern Europe with kummel or other liqueurs, or as a savoury, or as a flavouring to other dishes. The coarser quality, in Russia known aspájusnaya(frompajus, the adherent skin of the ovaries), is more strongly salted in brine and is pressed into a more solid form than theikra; it is then packed in small barrels or hermetically-sealed tins. This forms a staple article of food in Russia and eastern Europe. Though the best forms of caviare are still made in Russia, and the greater quantity of the coarser kinds are exported from Astrakhan, the centre of the trade, larger amounts are made each year for export in America and also in Germany, Norway and Sweden. The roe of tunny and mullet, pickled in brine and vinegar, is used, under the name of “Botargo,” along the Mediterranean littoral and in the Levant.

CAVITE,a fortified seaport, the capital of the province of Cavite, Luzon, Philippine Islands, and the seat of the principal Asiatic naval station of the United States, on a forked tongue of land in Manila Bay, 8 m. S. of the city of Manila. Pop. (1903) 4494; with the barrios of San Roque and Caridad (on the main peninsula), which are under the municipal government of Cavite (15,630). Cavite is the terminus of a railway which follows the shore of the bay from Manila. The northern part of the town, Sangley Point (one of the two forks of the main peninsula), is the principal coaling station of the U.S. fleet in Asiatic waters. The naval station proper and the old town of Cavite are on the south fork of the peninsula. Cavite’s buildings are mostly of stone, with upper storeys of wood; its streets are narrow and crooked. It has five churches (one of these is an independent Filipino church), and is the seat of a provincial high school. Cavite has long been the principal naval base of the Philippine Islands, and one of the four Spanish penitentiaries in the Islands was here. During the 19th century Cavite was the centre of political disturbances in the Philippines; in 1896 on the parade ground thirteen political prisoners were executed, and to their memory a monument was erected in 1906 at the head of the isthmus connecting with the main peninsula. The town was nearly destroyed by an earthquake in 1880. It was taken from the Spanish by an American squadron under Commodore George Dewey in May 1898.

CAVOUR, CAMILLO BENSO,Count(1810-1861), Italian statesman, was born at Turin on the 1st of August 1810. The Bensos, who belonged to the old Piedmontese feudal aristocracy, were a very ancient house, said to be descended from a Saxon warrior who settled at Santena in the 12th century and married a Piedmontese heiress; Camillo’s father, the marquis Michele, married a noble Genevese lady, and both he and his wife held offices in the household of Prince Borghese, the governor of Piedmont under Napoleon, and husband of the latter’s sister, Pauline Bonaparte. Being a younger son (his brother Gustavo was the eldest) Cavour was destined for the army, and when ten years old he entered the military academy at Turin. On leaving the college at the age of sixteen he was first of his class, and received a commission in the engineers. He spent the next five years in the army, residing at Ventimiglia, Genoa, and various Alpine fortresses to superintend defence works; but he spent his leisure hours in study, especially of the English language. He soon developed strongly marked Liberal tendencies and an uncompromising dislike for absolutism and clericalism, which, as he had not acquired the art of reticence, made him a suspect in the eyes of the police and of the reactionaries; at the same time he does not seem to have joined any secret society, for he was too loyal to conspire against the king whose uniform he wore, and he did not believe that the time was yet ripe for a revolution. But after the accession to the throne of Charles Albert, whom he always distrusted, he felt that his position in the army was intolerable, and resigned his commission (1831). From that moment we find him in the ranks of the opponents of the government, although his was always a loyal and straightforward opposition which held aloof from conspiracies. During the next few years he devoted himself to the study of political and social problems, to foreign travel, and to acquiring a thorough knowledge of practical agriculture. Cavour’s political ideas were greatly influenced by the July revolution of 1830 in France, which proved that an historic monarchy was not incompatible with Liberal principles, and he became more than ever convinced of the benefits of a constitutional monarchy as opposed both to despotism and to republicanism. But he was not affected by the doctrinaire Liberalism of the time, and his views were strengthened by his studies of the British constitution, of which he was a great admirer; he was even nicknamed “Milord Camillo.” He frequently visited Paris and London, where he plunged into the political and social questions of the day, and contributed among other essays two admirable and prophetic articles, one on the Irish question, in which he strongly defended the Union, and another on the Corn Laws. He applied his knowledge of agriculture to the management of his father’s estate at Leri, which he greatly improved, he founded the Piedmontese Agricultural Society, and took the lead in promoting the introduction of steam navigation, railways and factories into the country.

Thus his mind gradually evolved, and he began to dream dreams of a united Italy free of foreign influence, but owing to the reactionary policy of the Piedmontese government he was unable to take any active part in politics. In 1847, however, the psychological moment seemed to have arrived, for the new pope, Pius IX., showed marked Liberal tendencies and seemed ready to lead all the forces of Italian patriotism against the Austrian domination. The hopes of the Italian Liberals rose high and the so-called neo-Guelph party, represented by such men as Vincenzo Gioberti and Cesare Balbo, believed that an Italian confederation might be formed under the presidency of the pope. Cavour, although he realized that a really Liberal pope was an impossibility, saw the importance of the movement and the necessity of profiting by it. Together with Balbo, P. di Santa Rosa, and M. Castelli, he founded a newspaper at Turin calledIl Risorgimento, which advocated the ideas of constitutional reform in Piedmont, with a view to preparing that country for an important role in the upheaval which seemed imminent. In January 1848 the revolution first broke out in Sicily. Cavour, in a speech before a delegation of journalists, declared that the king must take a decided line and grant his people a constitution. Strong pressure was brought to bear on Charles Albert, and after much hesitation he was induced to grant a charter of liberties (February 8, 1848). Cesare Balbo was called upon to form the first constitutional ministry; but Cavour was not offered a seat in it, being suspected by Liberals and Conservatives alike. He continued his journalistic activity, and his articles in theRisorgimentocame to exercise great influence both on the king and on public opinion. When the news of the revolt of the Milanese against the Austrians, known as the Five Days, reached Turin on the 19th of March, Cavour felt that the time for Piedmont to act with energy had come, and advocated war against Austria. “After deliberately weighingeach word,” he wrote, “we are bound in conscience to declare that only one path is open to the nation, the government, and the king: war, immediate war!” Piedmont was the only part of Italy enjoying a government at once national and independent, and if it did not hasten to the assistance of the Milanese in their desperate struggle, if possible before the Austrians were expelled, the monarchy could not survive. The situation was most critical, and even the British government was not friendly to Piedmont; but Cavour was prepared to face any danger rather than see his country inactive. In an article in theRisorgimentohe declared that, while he never believed that material help was to be expected from England, he was convinced that she would not actively help Austria to crush the revolution, but that if she did “she would have against her a coalition not of princes, but of peoples.” Cavour’s article made such an impression that it put an end to the king’s vacillations, and a few days after its appearance war was declared (March 25).

For a few months patriotic and revolutionary enthusiasm carried all before it. In Hungary, in Germany, in Paris, in Vienna itself the revolution was triumphant; constitutions were granted, dynasties tottered and fell, and provisional governments were set up. In all parts of Italy, too, revolts broke out against the established order. But the Piedmontese army, although the troops behaved with gallantry, was no match for Austria’s veteran legions, and except in a few minor engagements, in one of which Cavour’s nephew Gustavo was killed, it was generally unsuccessful, and an armistice was concluded in the summer. In the meanwhile the elections were being held in Piedmont. Cavour himself was not returned until the supplementary elections in June, and he took his seat in parliament on the right as a Conservative. His parliamentary career was not at first very successful; he was not a ready speaker; his habit of talking French made Italian difficult for him, and, although French was at that time allowed in the chamber, he preferred to speak Italian. But he gradually developed a strong argumentative power, his speeches became models of concise reasoning, and he rose at times to the highest level of an eloquence which was never rhetorical. After the dissolution in January 1849, Cavour was not re-elected. The new parliament had to discuss, in the first instance, the all-important question of whether the campaign should be continued now that the armistice was about to expire. The king decided on a last desperate throw, and recommenced hostilities. On the 23rd of March the Piedmontese were totally defeated at Novara, a disaster which was followed immediately by the abdication of Charles Albert in favour of his son Victor Emmanuel II.

Although the new king was obliged to conclude peace with Austria and the Italian revolution was crushed, Cavour nevertheless did not despair; he believed that so long as the constitution was maintained in Piedmont, the Italian cause was safe. There were fresh elections in July, and this time Cavour was returned. He was still in the difficult position of a moderate Liberal at a time when there seemed to be room for none but reactionaries and conspirators, but by his consummate ability he convinced men that his attitude was the right one, and he made it triumph. His speech on the 7th of March 1850, in which he said that, “Piedmont, gathering to itself all the living forces of Italy, would be soon in a position to lead our mother-country to the high destinies to which she is called,” made a deep impression, for it struck the first note of encouragement after the dark days of the preceding year. He supported the ministry of which Massimo d’ Azeglio was president in its work of reform and restoration, and in October of the same year, on the death of Santa Rosa, he himself was appointed minister of agriculture, industry and commerce. In 1851 he also assumed the portfolio of finance, and devoted himself to the task of reorganizing the Piedmontese finances. By far the ablest man in the cabinet, he soon came to dominate it, and, in his anxiety to dominate the chamber as well, he negotiated the union of the Right Centre with the Left Centre (a manoeuvre known as theconnubio), and promoted the election of Urbano Rattazzi to the presidency of the chamber. This, which he accomplished without d’ Azeglio’s knowledge, led to a split between that statesman and Cavour, and to the latter’s resignation. Cavour has been blamed for not informing his colleagues of the compact, but for public reasons it was not desirable that theconnubioshould be discussed before it was consummated. D’ Azeglio indeed bore no malice, and remained Cavour’s friend. Cavour made use of his freedom to visit England and France again, in order to sound public opinion on the Italian question. In London he found the leaders of both parties friendly, and Lord Palmerston told him that if the constitutional experiment in Piedmont succeeded the Italian despots were doomed. At this time Sir James Hudson was appointed British minister at Turin, where he became the intimate friend of Cavour and gave him valuable assistance. In Paris, Cavour had a long interview with Prince Louis Napoleon, then president of the republic, and he already foresaw the great part which that ruler was destined to play in Italian affairs. He also met several Italian exiles in France.

On Cavour’s return he found the country in the throes of a new cabinet crisis, in consequence of which, on d’ Azeglio’s recommendation, he was invited to form a ministry. By the 4th of November he was prime minister, a position which he held with two short interruptions until his death. He devoted the first years of his premiership to developing the economic resources of the country; but in preparing it for greater destinies, he had to meet the heavy expenditure by increased taxation, and some of his measures made him the object of hostile demonstrations, although he soon outlived his unpopularity. Cavour’s first international difficulty was with Austria; after the abortive rising at Milan in February 1853, the Austrian government, in addition to other measures of repression, confiscated the estates of those Lombards who had become naturalized Piedmontese, although they had nothing to do with the outbreak. Cavour took a strong line on this question, and on Austria’s refusal to withdraw the obnoxious decree, he recalled the Piedmontese minister from Vienna, thus by his very audacity winning the sympathy of the Western powers.

Then followed the Crimean War, in which Cavour first showed his extraoidinary political insight and diplomatic genius. The first suggestion of Piedmontese co-operation is usually believed to have come from England, who desired the Italian contingent, not only as material assistance, but also in order to reduce the overwhelming French preponderance. From the Piedmontese point of view there were several reasons why Cavour should desire his country to participate in the campaign. Firstly, it was advisable to use every opportunity of making the Italian question an international one; secondly, by joining the alliance Piedmont would place the Western powers under an obligation; thirdly, Cavour, like Balbo, believed that the Italian question was bound up with the Eastern problem, and as Austria was demanding the permission of the powers to occupy Alessandria, as a guarantee that Piedmont would not profit by the war in the East to create trouble in Italy, Piedmontese participation would in itself prove the best guarantee; and finally, as he always looked to Italy and not merely to Piedmont, he felt that, having proved to Europe that Italians could combine order with liberty, it remained to show that they were capable of fighting as well. But there were serious difficulties in the way. Had Austria joined the allies, as at one time seemed probable, Sardinia’s position fighting by her side would have been an impossible one. On the other hand, Piedmont could not demand definite promises of future aid from the Western powers as some politicians desired, because these would never have been given, lest Austria should be offended and driven into the arms of Russia. Then, both the extreme Conservatives and the extreme Radicals were opposed to expenditure on foreign adventures for which they could see no use. In all these difficulties, however, Cavour was loyally supported by the king, who saw the advantages of Piedmontese participation, even if unattended by definite promises. General Dabormida, the minister of foreign affairs, disapproved of this policy and resigned. The vacant portfolio was offered to d’ Azeglio, who refused it; whereupon Cavour assumed it himself. On the sameday (January 10, 1855) the treaty with France and England was signed, and shortly afterwards 15,000 Piedmontese troops under General La Marmora were despatched to the Crimea.

Events at first seemed to justify the fears of Cavour’s opponents. Cholera attacked the Piedmontese soldiers, who for a long time had no occasion to distinguish themselves in action; public opinion became despondent and began to blame Cavour, and even he himself lost heart. Then came the news of the battle of the Tchernaya, fought and won by the Italians, which turned sadness and doubt into jubilation. Joy was felt throughout Italy, especially at Milan, where the victory was the first sign of daylight amid the gloom caused by the return of the Austrians. Everyone realized that the Piedmontese contingent was fighting Italy’s battles. But to Cavour the announcement that Russia had accepted Austrian mediation (January 16, 1856) was a great disappointment. He had always hoped that if the war continued Austria would be forced to side with Russia in return for the aid given by the emperor Nicholas in suppressing the Hungarian revolt in 1849, and the Western powers would then have an opportunity of helping the Italian cause. He sent a memorandum, at Napoleon’s request, to Count Walewski, the French minister of foreign affairs, setting forth a kind of minimum programme of Piedmont’s claims. On the summoning of the congress of Paris at the conclusion of the war, Cavour first proposed that d’ Azeglio should represent Piedmont, and on the latter’s refusal decided to go himself. After much discussion, and in spite of the opposition of Austria, who as mediator occupied a predominant position, behaving “as though she had taken Sevastopol,” Cavour obtained that Piedmont should be treated as one of the great powers. Although he did not expect that the congress would liberate Italy, yet by his marvellous diplomatic skill, far superior to that of his colleagues, he first succeeded in isolating Austria, secondly in indirectly compromising Napoleon in the Italian question, and thirdly in getting the wretched conditions of Italy discussed by the representatives of the great powers, who declared that some remedy to that state of things was necessary, not in the interests of Italy alone, but of all Europe. A scheme of reform proposed by Count Walewski gave Cavour the opportunity to plead the Italian cause, and from that moment it was manifest to all that the liberation of Italy was personified in him, the statesman who came to hold all the strings of European politics in his hands.

Cavour’s chief measure of internal reform during this period was a bill for suppressing all monastic orders unconnected with education, preaching or charity; this aroused strong opposition from the extremists of both parties and also from the king, and led to the minister’s resignation. But he was soon recalled, for the country could not do without him, and the bill was passed (May 29, 1855).

Cavour now saw that war with Austria was merely a question of time, and he began to establish connexions with the revolutionists of all parts of Italy, largely by means of La Farina; but it was necessary that this policy should not be advertised to Europe, and he strongly discountenanced Mazzini’s abortive revolutionary attempts. He continued to strengthen Piedmont’s military resources, and the army soon grew too large for the country and was obviously destined for more than merely defensive purposes. But he well knew that although Piedmont must be made as efficient as possible from the military point of view, it could not defeat Austria single-handed. He would have preferred an alliance with Great Britain, who would never demand territorial compensation; but although British sympathies were wholly Italian, the government was desperately anxious to avoid war. From Napoleon more was to be hoped, for the emperor still preserved some of his revolutionary instincts, while the insecurity of his situation at home made him eager to gain popularity by winning military glory abroad; but he still hesitated, and Cavour devoted the whole of his ability to overcoming his doubts. In the midst of these negotiations came Orsini’s attempt on Napoleon’s life (January 14, 1858), which threatened to alienate his Italian sympathies and cause serious embarrassments to Piedmont. But after some remonstrances to Piedmont for not acting with sufficient energy against the revolutionists, the incident was settled: and Napoleon was, in fact, afraid that if he did not help the Italian cause more such attempts would be made. A month after the Orsini outrage he laid before Cavour a proposal for a Franco-Piedmontese alliance and the marriage of Prince Jerome Bonaparte with Princess Clothilde, the daughter of Victor Emmanuel.

An “accidental” meeting between Napoleon and Cavour was arranged and took place at Plombières in July, and although no one knew what passed, the news of it fell like a bombshell on the diplomatic world. No definite treaty was signed, but the basis of an agreement was laid, whereby France and Piedmont were to declare war against Austria with the object of expelling her from Italy, and a north Italian state was to be formed; in exchange for this help France was to receive Savoy and possibly Nice. But the emperor still hesitated, and refused to decide on war unless Austria attacked Piedmont; the British government, too, in its anxiety to preserve peace, was not very friendly to the Italian cause. Cavour saw that the only way to overcome all these obstacles was to force Austria’s hand. Then there was the danger lest an Italy freed by French arms should be overwhelmed under French predominance; for this reason Cavour was determined to secure the co-operation of volunteers from other parts of Italy, and that the war should be accompanied by a series of risings against Austria and the local despots. It was also necessary that the risings should break out in the various provincesbeforethe Piedmontese and French troops arrived, so that the latter should not appear as invaders and conquerors, but merely as liberators.

The moment war was seen to be imminent, parties of Italians of all classes, especially Lombards, poured into Piedmont to enlist in the army. Cavour also had a secret interview with Garibaldi, with whom he arranged to organize volunteer corps so that the army should be not merely that of Piedmont, but of all Italy. Every day the situation grew more critical, and on the 10th of January 1859 the king in his speech from the throne pronounced the memorable words “that he could not remain deaf to the cry of pain (il grido di dolore) that reached him from all parts of Italy”—words which, although actually suggested by Napoleon, rang like a trumpet-call throughout the land. In the meanwhile the marriage negotiations were concluded, and during the emperor’s visit to Turin a military convention was signed between the two states, and Savoy and Nice were promised to France as a reward for the expulsion of the Austrians from Italy. But the British government was still unfavourable, and Napoleon, ever hesitating, again sought an excuse for backing out of his engagements; he jumped at the Russian proposal to settle the Italian question by means of his own favourite expedient, a congress. To this Austria agreed on condition that Piedmont should disarm and should be excluded from the congress; England supported the scheme, but desired that all the Italian states should be represented. Cavour was in despair at the turn events were taking, and appealed to Napoleon, actually threatening to emigrate to America and publish all his correspondence with the emperor if the latter did not keep his engagements. He decided at last most reluctantly to accept the English proposal, lest Piedmont should be abandoned by all, but clung to the hope that Austria would reject it. On the 19th of April the Austrian emperor, on the advice of the military party, did reject it; and on the 23rd, to Cavour’s inexpressible joy, Austria sent an ultimatum demanding the disarmament of Piedmont. Cavour replied that his government had agreed to the congress proposed by the powers and that it had nothing more to say. On quitting the chamber that day he said to a friend: “I am leaving the last sitting of the last Piedmontese parliament”—the next would represent united Italy. France now allied herself definitely with Piedmont, and England, delighted at Cavour’s acquiescence to her own proposal and enraged by Austria’s ultimatum, became wholly friendly to the Italian cause. A few days later Austria declared war.

As La Marmora now took the chief command of the army, Cavour added the ministry of war to the others he already held. His activity at this time was astounding, for he was virtually dictator and controlled single-handed nearly all the chief offices of the state. The French troops entered Piedmont, where they were received with enthusiasm, and the allies marched into Lombardy; the victory of Magenta, which opened the gates of Milan to them, was shortly followed by that of Solferino. The people rose in arms at Parma, Modena, Florence and Bologna, which had been occupied by Austria for the pope since 1849; the local princes were expelled and provisional governments set up. Cavour sent special commissioners to take charge of the various provinces in Victor Emmanuel’s name. But these events, together with Prussia’s menacing attitude, began to alarm Napoleon, who, although he wished to destroy Austrian influence in Italy, was afraid of a large and powerful Italian state. Consequently, after Solferino, he concluded an armistice with Austria at Villafranca on the 8th of July, without previously informing Cavour. When Cavour heard of it he was thunderstruck; he immediately interviewed the king at Monzambano, and in violent, almost disrespectful language implored him not to make peace until Venice was free. But Victor Emmanuel saw that nothing was to be gained by a refusal, and much against his own inclination, signed the peace preliminaries at Villafranca, adding the phrase, “pour ce qui me concerne,” which meant that he was not responsible for what the people of other parts of Italy might do (July 12). Lombardy was to be ceded to Piedmont, Venetia to remain Austrian, the deposed princes to be reinstated, and the pope made president of an Italian confederation.

The cabinet resigned the next day, but remained in office provisionally, and Cavour privately advised the revolutionists of central Italy to resist the return of the princes, by force if necessary: “for we must now become conspirators ourselves,” he said. His policy was thus continued after he left office, and Palmerston, who had meanwhile succeeded Malmesbury as foreign minister, informed France and Austria that Great Britain would never tolerate their armed intervention in favour of the central Italian despots. The new Piedmontese ministry, of which La Marmora was the president, but Rattazzi the leading spirit, hesitated between annexing central Italy and agreeing to the terms of peace, but on the 10th of November peace was signed at Zürich. Napoleon proposed a new congress, which never met, and on the fall of the Rattazzi-La Marmora cabinet the king, in spite of the quarrel at Monzambano, asked Cavour to take office again. By January he was once more premier, as well as minister for foreign affairs and of the interior. His first act was to invite the people of Italy to declare their own wishes with regard to annexation to Piedmont; but Napoleon still refused to consent to the union of Tuscany with Piedmont, for he contemplated placing one of his own relatives on the throne of the grand-duchy. Cavour now saw that Napoleon might be ready to deal, and, although the bargain of the preceding year had not been exactly fulfilled, as the Austrians were still in Venice, he again brought forward the question of Nice and Savoy. To Cavour no less than to the king the loss of these two provinces was a cruel wrench, but it was a choice between them and central Italy. The plebiscites in the latter region had unanimously declared in favour of union with Piedmont, and Napoleon became more pressing, going so far as to threaten that unless the cession were made, the French troops would leave Lombardy at the mercy of Austria and occupy Bologna and Florence. On the 24th of March the treaty was signed and the emperor’s opposition to the annexation of central Italy withdrawn. On the 2nd of April the parliament representing Piedmont, the duchies of Parma and Modena, Tuscany and Romagna, met, and Cavour had the difficult and ungrateful task of explaining the cession of Nice and Savoy. In spite of some opposition, the agreement was ratified by a large majority.

The situation in the kingdom of Naples was now becoming critical, but there seemed as yet little chance of union with upper Italy, for the Bourbon government was a more or less regular one, and, although risings had broken out, there was no general revolution. Cavour therefore had to follow a somewhat double-faced policy, on the one hand negotiating with the Bourbon king (Francis II.), suggesting a division of Italy between him and Victor Emmanuel, and on the other secretly backing up the revolutionary agitation. Having now learnt that Garibaldi was planning an expedition to Sicily with his volunteers, he decided, after some hesitation, not to oppose its departure; on the 5th of May it sailed from Quarto near Genoa, and Cavour was only deterred from declaring war on Naples by the fear of foreign complications. Garibaldi with his immortal Thousand landed at Marsala, and the whole rotten fabric of the Bourbon government collapsed. At Palermo they were welcomed by the Piedmontese admiral Persano, and soon the whole island was occupied and Garibaldi proclaimed dictator. The general now proposed to cross over to the mainland, and this placed Cavour in a serious dilemma; Russia and Austria protested against the expedition, France and Prussia were unfriendly, Great Britain alone remained warmly pro-Italian. He still hoped for a revolution in Naples, so that King Victor’s authority might be established before Garibaldi’s arrival, but this proved impossible. When Garibaldi crossed the straits of Messina the Neapolitan government fell, and he entered Naples in triumph. But there was still danger that he might be subsequently defeated, for the Neapolitan army was still a force in being, and Cavour feared, moreover, that, although Garibaldi himself had always loyally acted in the king of Italy’s name, the red republicans around him might lead him to commit some imprudence and plunge the country into anarchy. The cession of Nice, Garibaldi’s birthplace, had made an impassable gulf between the two men, and neither quite trusted the other. Cavour also feared that Garibaldi might invade the papal states, which would have led to further international complications. In any case, Rome must not be touched for the present, since Napoleon was pledged to protect the pope; but as the latter had made large armaments, and his forces, consisting largely of brigands and foreigners under the French general Lamoricière, were in a menacing attitude on the frontier, Cavour decided on the momentous step of annexing the papal states with the exception of the Roman province. The Italian army crossed the frontier from Romagna on the 11th of September, whereupon every power, except Great Britain and Sweden, withdrew its minister from Turin. But the troops advanced and were everywhere received with open arms by the people; Ancona was taken, Lamoricière was defeated and captured at the battle of Castelfidardo, and on the 20th King Victor marched into the Neapolitan kingdom. On the 1st of October Garibaldi defeated the Neapolitan troops on the Volturno, and Gaeta alone, where King Francis of Naples had retired, still held out.

New difficulties with Garibaldi arose, for he would not resign his dictatorship of the southern provinces, and wished to march on Rome. Cavour had to use all his tact to restrain him and at the same time not to appear ungrateful. He refused to act despotically, but he summoned parliament to vote on the annexation, which it did on the 11th. Two days later Garibaldi magnanimously gave in to the nation’s will and handed his conquests over to King Victor as a free gift. Gaeta was invested, and after a siege prolonged through the action of Napoleon, who for some reason unknown kept his fleet before the town, preventing any attack by sea until England induced him to withdraw it, the garrison surrendered on the 13th of February, and King Francis retired to Rome. Parliament was dissolved once more; the new chamber showed an overwhelming majority in favour of Cavour, and Victor Emmanuel was proclaimed king of Italy.

The last question with which Cavour had to deal was that of Rome. For some years past the pope had only been able to maintain his authority by the help of foreign troops, and Cavour saw that as long as this state of things lasted there could be no united Italy. In October he declared in parliament that Rome must be the capital of Italy, for no other city was recognized as such by the whole country, and in January 1861 a resolution to that effect was passed. But owing to Napoleon’s attitude he had to proceed warily, and made no attempt for the present tocarry out the nation’s Wishes. At the same time he was anxious that the church should preserve the fullest liberty, and he believed in the principle of “a free church in a free state.” His great dream, save for Rome and Venice, was now realized, and Italy was free and united. But the wear and tear of these last years had been almost unbearable, and at last began to tell; the negotiations with Garibaldi were particularly trying, for while the great statesman wished to treat the hero and his volunteers generously, far more so than seemed wise to the Conservatives and the strictly military party, he did not wish the Italian cause to be endangered by their imprudences, and could not permit all the Garibaldian officers to be received into the regular army with the same grades they held in the volunteer forces. This question, together with that of Nice, led to a painful scene in the chamber between the two men, although they were formally reconciled a few days later. For some time past Cavour had been unwell and irritable, and the scene with Garibaldi undoubtedly hastened his end. A fever set in, and after a short illness he passed away on the 6th of June 1861. He was buried at his ancestral castle of Santena.

The death of Cavour was a terrible loss to Italy; there remained many problems to be solved in which his genius and personality were urgently needed. But the great work had been carried to such a point that lesser men might now complete the structure. He is undoubtedly the greatest figure of theRisorgimento, and although other men and other forces co-operated in the movement, it was Cavour who organized it and skilfully conducted the negotiations which overcame all, apparently insuperable, obstacles. “That which in Alfieri and Gioberti was lacking,” wrote T. Artom, his private secretary, “a deep and lively sense of reality, Cavour possessed to a supreme degree. He was not alittérateur; he was never a political dreamer. His views broadened progressively; at each stage he discovered a new horizon, and he followed his path without ever seeking anything save what was real and possible.” He was gifted with pronounced political genius and with an astounding power of foresight. In his ideas he was always a moderate Liberal, and although he disapproved of republicanism, he was an ardent constitutionalist, ever refusing to resort to arbitrary methods, for he felt that, the Italian character being what it is, Italian unity could not last if unsupported by popular feeling. In meeting opposition he could not, like Bismarck, rely on a great military power, for the Piedmontese army was a small one; Austria must first be isolated and then an alliance had to be obtained with some other power. Some of his acts, especially his policy towards the Neapolitan kingdom, have been criticized as politically immoral; but apart from the fact that few revolutions—and Cavour, after all, was a revolutionist—can be conducted without attacking vested rights, it is hard to see that any policy which led to the destruction of a government, rightly described as the “negation of God on earth,” could be deemed immoral. He has been accused of changing his views, but what statesman has not? Moreover, in the extremely complicated and difficult diplomatic situations which he had to face, what was impossible or dangerous one day became possible and desirable the next. This was particularly the case with the Neapolitan question. Cavour’s one absorbing passion was the liberation and regeneration of Italy, and to this he devoted his whole life and talent.

Back to Index Next