Speech in the Chamber, May 13, 1929

On the Lateran Accords

By Benito Mussolini

Honorable comrades!

[...]

I regret not having been able to listen to all the speeches. However, I read the shorthand texts and they will all be carefully collected by me and published by the Lictor Library. The Italian Nation must know that the discussions took place with great doctrine, with fervent passion, and that it was worthy of the political temperament of this Assembly. I say 'political', because that is the word that defines this Assembly. The day when this word no longer makes sense, the fate of the Assembly would be sealed.

However, permit me to correct the formula with which the Hon. Solmi closed his speech at Saturday's session. He said: "Free and Sovereign Church; Free and Sovereign State". We may find ourselves faced with a misunderstanding; therefore, it is urgent to clarify these impressions. This formula might lead one to believe that there are sovereignties coexistent, but they do not coexist. On the one hand there is Vatican City, and on the other hand there is the Kingdom of Italy, which is the Italian State. It is necessary to understand that between the Italian State and Vatican City there is a distance which can be estimated at a thousand kilometers, even if perhaps it only takes five minutes to go and see this State and ten minutes to walk around its confines.

There are, therefore, two distinct, well-differentiated, but perfectly and mutually recognized Sovereignties. But, in the State, the Church is not sovereign and is not even free. She is not free because in her institutions and in her members she is subject to the general laws of the State and also subject to the special clauses of the Concordat. For this reason the situation can be defined as follows: a sovereign State in the Kingdom of Italy; a Catholic Church with certain preeminences, loyally and voluntarily recognized; free admission of other cults. That said, and I believe that this clarification is pleasing to everyone, let me move forward in my preamble.

[...]

It had been previously concluded that the Roman Question was one of those static, chronic problems which had no solution, like squaring the circle. Furthermore, it was argued that a solution could not take place under the Fascist Regime, because ours is a dictatorial regime, because it has made a clean sweep of many ideologies, and because the old Vatican diplomacy—owing to its two millennia of experience—would never give credence to a Regime with only ten years of history and seven years of government life.

On the very day in which the Lateran agreements were signed, a certain person, filled with supreme and enormous stupidity, and with almost dogmatic certainty, proclaimed that he did not believe in the possibility of such an agreement. Little did he know the agreement had already been achieved. Surprise, jubilation, emotion, bells, fanfare, flags! Three months have passed and these ardors naturally have subsided. I will thus give you the least lyrical speech possible, the most straightforward possible, and I am sure that you will not be astonished if here and there you see the claws of controversy showing.

It should be further premised that there has been no improvisation, no precipitation, no miracle; the agreement was the logical result of determined historical, moral and political premises. I have followed the path which many others had traveled, up to a certain point. They did not arrive at the end. Fascism has arrived at it! Everything is found in history, and if nature does not take leaps in the physical world, neither does it take them in the history of men.

Italy has the unique privilege, which we should be proud of, of being the only European nation which is the seat of a universal religion. This religion was born in Palestine but became Catholic in Rome. If it had remained in Palestine it probably would have become one of many sects which flourished in that heated atmosphere, like that of the Essenes or the Therapeutae, and probably would have flickered out without a trace. Our colleague, Orano, does not love precursors and courageously fights against precursorism. He will therefore not complain if I, who have read the first and second edition of his noteworthy book "Cristo e Quirino" should remind him that he found a precursor of Christianity in the poet Horace. (Laughter). Recently a well known writer who has written a very famous history, but perhaps not very Christian, in his book "Gli Operai della Vigna", holds that there were two other precursors of Christianity: Virgil, whose name should not astonish you; and Julius Caesar, whose name perhaps would astonish you more.

Having reconsidered the life of this singular and extraordinary captain, conqueror of Gaul, and having had occasion to read again in recent times the apology for Julius Caesar made by Guarino, I have become convinced that this man was really of unique goodness, and perhaps the first Roman who had a feeling for his neighbour. Those formidable English of ancient times, who were the Romans, had the formula: "Myself, again myself, then my dog, and finally my neighbour." (Laughter). It is not true, however, that this is the formula of our contemporary English friends?

Roman altruism did not go beyond the confines of the "gens romana"; all the remainder were barbarous, despicable. However, it is a fact that—and upon this statement we can all agree—: that Christianity finds its favourable atmosphere in Rome. It finds it first of all in the lassitude of the ruling classes and of the Consular families, who in the time of Augustus had become effete, fat and sterile; it found it, above all, in the teeming anthill of Levantine humanity which afflicted the social subsoil of Rome, and for whom a speech like the Sermon on the Mount opened up horizons of revolt and revindication.

From these statements it is not necessary, however, to draw any inferences of a contemporaneous nature; herein lies the mistake of some polemicists who on this point have recently discoursed. It is necessary to distinguish the aims and functions of the proselytism of the churches from the ideals of our imperial conquest.

Another observation: in the first eight centuries of Christianity there was no trace of any civil principality in the history of the Church; during and after Constantine there are only some more or less vast properties that form the primitive nucleus of the Patrimony of St. Peter. Documents of the time show that these properties were left by pious persons not only in Rome, but in various parts of Italy, and even by individuals who needed to be forgiven for their crimes and their robberies.

Moreover, the most summarized version of history tells us that in the first three centuries Christianity was the religion of a minority that was little-known, little-tolerated and intermittently persecuted by the emperors. And only in the years 311-313, with the famous Edict of Milan, was religious freedom finally bestowed upon Christians: first by Galerius, then by Constantine and Licinius. This event coincided with the terrible massacre of all the descendants of the old imperial families—men, women, children—ordered by Licinius, after the defeat and suicide of Maximinus. Fifteen centuries later, something similarly horrible happened in Russia, with the massacre of the entire Romanov family.

It was Constantine who introduced the ecclesiastical court. Some of the benefits granted to Christians in civil matters gave substance to the future concordats stipulated by the Church with the civil authorities. And only through the negotiations and acts between Charlemagne and Leo III was the civil principality of the Roman Pontiffs constituted. This lasted for ten centuries. But in the meantime, what was the situation?

Rome was no longer the capital of the Empire, nor the political capital of Italy; it was the religious capital of all Italians, of all the Catholics of the whole world, and the political capital of that small State which was called the Papal States. Ten centuries of war, of peace, of disorder, of tumults, of great things, of great miseries. Three events prevailed in this long historical period: the Reformation, the Council of Trent, and the Avignon Captivity. At the end of the 18th Century, after the French Revolution, two States in Italy were suffering through consumption of their organic textures: the Republic of Venice and the Papal States.

The French Revolution, after having eliminated all religious institutions in France, naturally had to clash against the Papal States: and this happened in 1796.

It was General Bonaparte who aroused the unitarian enthusiasm of the Italians, and he aroused them by accompanying them with bayonets.

It was General Bonaparte who, on the September 26, 1796, sent a very ardent message to the Senate of Bologna, and who wrote on the October 7th to the inhabitants of Reggio:

"Courage, brave inhabitants of Reggio! Form into battalions, organize yourselves, take up arms; at last the time has come when Italy will be counted among the free and powerful nations."

And on December 10th of the same year he sent to the Congress of the State of Lombardy a proclamation:

"If Italy wants to be free who can ever prevent it?"

And on January 1, 1797, at the Cispadano Congress:

"Miserable Italy has been for a long time struck out from the map of the European Powers. If the present-day Italians are worthy of recovering their rights and being a free Government, their country will find itself gloriously appearing some day among the powers of the world. But do not forget that laws are worthless without force."

These proclamations aroused immense enthusiasm. Ugo Foscolo, not yet twenty years of age, wrote the ode to "Bonaparte the Liberator". Notice the contrast between these forces resulting from the Revolution and the Papal States: a contrast which led to the Armistice of Bologna, to the peace negotiations in Florence, afterwards disavowed by the Pope who was hoping for the aid of Austria, which was constantly being beaten, and for the aid of the Bourbons of Naples, who withdrew feeling how the wind blew. The Supreme Keys were in the hands of an uncertain and vacillating Pope who did not realize what the events were, of a Cardinal who was called Busca, and of some rather peculiar generals. One of them, Colli, forgot the battalions as we might forget our house key. (Laughter).

It happened that on the River Senio, in the neighbourhood of Castelbolognese, the two armies were collected: the Pontifical army now gathered together without cadres. There was a proclamation whereby idlers and vagabonds were required to join these flags, which were taken and blessed at St. Peter's Basilica; one of them bore the motto of Constantine: "in hoc signo vinces." Some officers presented themselves before the Franco-Italians, (for we must not forget that there were already present some Napoleonic troops), and they made it known that if the French troops crossed the river on the next morning, then they would open fire.

The officers replied that they took note of this kind communication (laughter), that in the meantime they were going to sleep, and that the matter would be spoken of again in the morning. In the morning there occurred such a stampede that everything was lost: canons, men, banners. The army melted away like snow under an August sun. Where was the General? Having breakfast in Rome with Duke Braschi, whilst the other General who was to defend Ancona could be found only after many laborious searches at house of noble gentlemen whilst he was dressing his plentiful locks of hair. (Laughter).

This shows you that there was no longer any consistency in the fabric, that everything was disappearing and being lost. The Peace of Tolentino of February 19, 1797 should be considered as the first tolling of funeral bells, which marked the beginning of the agony of the civil principality of the Papacy. It is necessary to pause for a few minutes in order to examine what was the attitude of Napoleon towards the Holy See. Initially he respected it; he did not occupy Rome, he stopped at Tolentino; in spite of the atheistic and anti-clerical requests of the Directory, he did not push his action to the end. In fact, in the Concordat of 1801, pacts were made between Pius VII and the French Republic. The Church at that time was so weak that it renounced the appointment of Bishops, in favour of the first Consul, as is clear from Article 4 of the Concordat. The Concordat made two years later with the Italian Republic said:

"The Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion continues to be the religion of the Italian Republic."

In the second period, Napoleon believed that the Pope could be useful for his plans for worldwide hegemony, but Pius VII told him:

"I remain in Rome I am the Pope, but if you remove me to Paris you will only have the monk Bernabo Chiaramonti."

It was at that time when the Pope went to Paris to crown the Emperor.

Everybody remembers the phases of this unique journey; the casual meeting between Napoleon and the Pope, the ceremony of the Coronation when Napoleon kept people waiting one and a half hours and seemed to be exceedingly amazed during the whole time of the ceremony. He did not want the crown from the Pope, but he himself put it on his own head. At this moment Napoleon considered that the Papacy might be of use to him. When he made the negotiations he stated to his ambassadors:

"Assume that the Pontiff has behind him two million men."

But then, the Pontiff's principality was a civil principality with territories, with ports, with a neutrality which was more or less respected and about which Napoleon in any case watched most carefully, and such being the case we now enter into the third phase of the relations between the Papal States and Napoleon: the phase of total, resounding, complete rupture.

I beg you, however, to consider that when Napoleon issued his famous proclamation from Schönbrunn in May 1809, not even then did he go so far as Rome. In fact, he said in Articles 1, 2 and 6:

"The Papal States are united to the French Empire. ... The City of Rome, the original seat of Christianity and so famous for the ancient memories and great monuments which it still preserves, is declared an imperial and free city. The government and the administration thereof shall be determined by a particular statute. ... The property and the palaces of the Pope will not only not be subject to taxation, jurisdiction or to any inspection, but shall also enjoy special immunities."

You will see in this project of law something which will remind you of the Law of Guarantees of 1871. Pius VII responded with excommunication, and on July 6th of the same year Napoleon replied with the violent capture of the Pope. However, Napoleon seems to recognize his mistake when he considers that the Pope should be left in Rome. He says:

"The Pope must be in Rome. Especially because I do not wish to be the ecclesiastical head of the nation. Following Robespierre is too ridiculous. But, above all, because the Pope is the only one who can help me in my work of internal pacification and of expansion abroad. The Pope is the man who is in the Vatican: he is not the same if he is in Berlin or Vienna, and he's not the same if he is in Paris. If the Pope was in Paris, would the Viennese and the Spaniards follow his decisions? And would I follow them if he were in Vienna or Madrid?"

In 1813 we had the last Concordat between the Holy See and Napoleon, but it is interesting to note that this Concordat did not last more than two months. Pius VII denounced it, admitting, with great lamentations, that he had made a "mistake".

The opinion of the ecclesiastical policy of Napoleon was given by Minister Talleyrand, the wily and astute Talleyrand, who can not be separated from the exceedingly interesting history of that period. He says in the second volume of his memoirs:

"The destruction of the temporal power of the Pope, with the absorption of the Roman State into the Great Empire, was, politically speaking, a most serious error. It is clear to the eyes that the head of a universally spread religion, such as the Catholic religion, needs the most perfect independence in order to impartially exercise its power and influence. In the actual state of the world, in the midst of the territorial divisions created by time, and of political complications resulting from civilization, this independence can only exist if guaranteed by a temporal sovereignty. It would be as absurd to wish to return to the times of the primitive Church, when the pope was only the Bishop of Rome, because Christianity was included within the Roman Empire, as it was senseless in Napoleon to pretend to make a French bishop of the Holy Father. What then would have become of Catholicism in all the countries which were not a part of the French Empire?"

In any case, Napoleon himself in his instructions to the King of Rome ruled thus:

"Religious ideas have still great force, more than might be thought by some philosophers. They can render great services to humanity. By being in agreement with the Pope, the consciousness of a hundred million persons is dominated today."

There followed the fall of Napoleon, the Congress of the Holy Alliance and the restoration of the temporal power of the Pope. But already this power has its wings clipped; it is already condemned by the Italian Revolution, which continues, and which has its glorious episodes of 1820, 1824 and 1831. Nor does the very severe repression of Cardinal Rivarola in Romagna suffice to stop the movement. It is in 1843 that Gioberti prints in Brussels his famous book: "Del Primato Civile e Morale degli Italiani". In 1844 the Bandiera brothers have the sublime melancholy of courting death by fighting against the Bourbons in Calabria. In 1844 Balbo's book comes out: "Le Speranze d'Italia", and that of D'Azeglio: "Sugli Ultimi Casi di Romagna." In 1846 Pius IX ascends to the Throne.

You certainly know the immense enthusiasm which the first acts of this Pontiff created in the Italian and Catholic world, and the delusions which followed it when the Pope, in the winter of 1848, after the assassination of Pellegrino Rossi, fled to Gaeta. All the European Powers offered him hospitality: the French Republic offered him shelter; the General Council of Vaucluse offered him shelter; at Avignon the King of Sardinia instructed the Bishop of Savona, Monsignor Ricci di Netro, and the Marquis of Montezemolo to offer him Nice; the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Don Pedro y Pidal, sent a note to the Powers to convene a Congress to fix the Seat of the Pope; other States such as Brazil, Mexico, Australia, offered him hospitality.

In 1870 no State offered hospitality to the Pope, as I will explain to you shortly, but in the meantime the Roman Republic, which had organized a Government, found itself again faced with the difficulty of the co-existence of two Powers in the same capital.

Let us see how this problem was addressed. At 1 a.m. on February 9, 1849, under the Presidency of General Galletti (and among the secretaries of the Constituent Assembly, there were egregious persons, and, among others, Quirico Filopanti, whose name still arouses some echoes in the lands of Bologna), it was decreed:

"The Pope has forfeited by right and by fact the temporal Government of the Roman State."

Quite right. But Article 2 of the Decree added:

"The Roman Pontiff shall have all the necessary guarantees for independence in the exercising of this Spiritual Power."

This seemed too much for Signor Cabussi, a member for Civitavecchia at the Constituent Assembly, who thus rebelled:

"To recognize and consecrate on the Pope the right of sitting in Rome as Pontiff was an exceedingly terrible and ruinous precedent."

Also interesting is what appears in the draft Constitution of the Roman Republic, discussed in June 1849, when the French were already under the walls of Rome and heroic fighting was taking place. In those sessions, the Preliminary Mixed Commission had proposed an Article, the 7th, conceived as follows:

"The Catholic Religion is the religion of the State. The exercise of civil and political rights does not depend on religious belief."

There was a lengthy discussion. The first clause of the Article was rejected by a majority; on the other hand, Article 8 of the Constitution of the Roman Republic was passed, which said as follows:

"The Head of the Catholic Church shall have from the Republic the necessary guarantees for the independent exercise of the Spiritual Power."

You see that Napoleon in the first clash, and the Roman Republic in the second clasg, always had this problem before them: what should be done so that the Pope should not be the subject of any Power, because—as De Maistre says—the Pope is born a Sovereign. The few months of the Roman Republic also further clipped the wings of the Civil Principality of the Popes. We are in a dark and anxious year: 1849. The Italian Revolution was at a standstill for a time; but even before the Crimean Expedition there were the unfortunate Milan uprisings and the heroic and Christian sacrifies at Belfiore. Cavour made a stroke of genius when he decided to send his troops to the Crimea. Which of the two was wrong? Cavour, who said: "Send the Piedmontese to the Crimea if you want to count as something in the world", in which he was supported by the most powerful apparition of all Italian Renaissance history (I speak of Giuseppe Garibaldi)? Or Mazzini, who was so hostile to the expedition to the Crimea that he went so far as to print a manifesto in which he advised the Piedmontese soldiers to desert? Cavour was right. Garibaldi was right. If Piedmont had not gone to the Crimea, it would not have gone to Paris; and if it had not gone to Paris, it would not have had any voice in the convention of European Powers. It may be said that by going to the Crimea, the subsequent development of the Italian Revolution was assured.

We are at the period of the 10th year of our Italian history, which may be called fantastical for the rapidity of events and for their importance. In the year 1860 the Expedition of the Thousand; the Plebiscites; the fall of Marches and Umbria. The temporal power of the Popes is thenceforth reduced to Lazio. In October 1860 it may be said that the unity of the Nation was accomplished.

In this respect it is necessary to open up a parenthesis. We have accomplished this unity many times! (Laughter). In 1870 it was said that we had accomplished it, and it was true; but afterwards we realized that in 1918 there was still something to do... (Repeated applause).

But precisely because at the end of 1860 we lacked only Venetia and Lazio for the unity of the Fatherland, the problem of Rome became increasingly urgent. Projects abounded. The Tuscan liberals, for example, led by Salvagnoli, went to Paris to propose to Napoleon III to leave Rome to the Pope, plus a strip along the sea. In February-March 1860 Victor Emmanuel II, through the Abbot Stellardi, court almoner, with the aim of reorganizing the Papal State, proposed that "the King of Sardinia should exercise the executive power in Romagna, Umbria and Marche under the high dominion of the Pontiff, whose supreme authority will be formally recognized and respected.

On October 11, 1860, Cavour pronounced a speech and said:

"For the last twelve years the fixed star of Victor Emmanuel was aspiration after national independence. What will be this star as regards Rome? Our star, I say it to you openly, is to do in such wise as to make the Eternal City, over which twenty-five centuries have accumulated every kind of glory, become the splendid capital of the Italic Kingdom. I affirmed and I repeat that the problem of Rome can not, in my opinion, be solved by the sword alone."

In December 1860, the Chamber was dissolved; on January 27, 1861, there were electoral rallies throughout the peninsula, excluding Lazio and Venezia Euganea; on February 19, 1861 the eighth legislature opened, the first of the Italian Parliament; on February 26, 1861, a bill was passed in the Senate, with only two votes against it, proclaiming Victor Emmanuel II as King of Italy. On March 15, 1861, the same bill was approved unanimously by the Chamber. On April 15th, Cardinal Antonelli sent a protest to all the States on behalf of the Pontiff. But in the meantime Cavour, as will be more fully documented in the volumes that are in the process of being printed, truly had the anguish of reaching a conclusion in the negotiations with the Supreme Pontiff.

Between February 2-3, 1861, Cavour proposed the following to Cardinal Antonelli, through Omero Bozini of Vercelli:

"a) that the Roman Court recognize and consecrate Victor Emmanuel as King of Italy;

b) that the Pope should retain the right of sovereignty over the Patrimony of St. Peter, which, however, would be governed civilly by Victor Emmanuel and his successors as vicars of the Supreme Pontiff."

Other major negotiations, as each of you know, were attended by Father Passaglia, Diomede Pantaleoni, Antonino Isaia. These negotiations failed. On March 18, 1861, Pius IX solemnly declared in the Consistory that any conciliation must be rejected. The tensions accelerated even more. On March 25, 1861, Cavour was challenged by the deputy Audinot in that session and a subsequent session he delivered two speeches that placed him in the empyrean of all time politicians of all nations. This cold Piedmontese man raised a solemn and passionate voice proclaiming Italy's right to Rome, a proclamation that was so bold that even today, after sixty years, you can not read those lines without being overcome by an intimate, intense, deep emotion. However, he did not despair of the end. Until his last moment, when he was on the verge of death, he said to the friar who administered his confession: "Friar, friar, a free Church in a free State!"

The discussion ended with two orders of the day.

The one presented to the Chamber by the Hon. Boncompagni said:

"The Chamber, having heard the declaration of the ministry, and being confident that, after having insured the dignity and independence of the Pontiff, and the complete freedom of the Church, the principle of non-intervention will, in concert with France, be applied to Rome, and that Rome, acclaimed capital by national opinion, will be made the capital of Italy, passes to the order of the day."

The one presented to the Chamber by the Hon. Matteucci said:

"The Senate, trusting that the declarations of the King's Government concerning the full and loyal application of the principle of religious freedom will satisfy France and the whole Catholic world, that the union of Italy and Rome, its natural capital, will be fulfilled, ensuring at the same time the decoration and the dignity of the Church and of the Pontiff, passes to the agenda."

Both explicitly speak of guarantees for the independence of the Pope.

What was Cavour's thesis? First of all Cavour was a Catholic, both a believer and a practitioner. His thesis was this: one must not enter Rome with violence; violence must be a last resort; Italy must get along with France (because it is difficult to separate Cavourrian politics from the alliance with France); the Pontiff must be left with a large piece of territory over which he would be sovereign; that his sovereignty be anchored in a territory, namely the Leonine City. Then, finally, the formula: free Church in free State.

I have reflected on this formula very deeply; but I believe that Cavour himself did not realize what, in reality, this formula might mean. Free Church in free State! Is it possible? In Catholic nations, no. Protestant nations have solved that problem by seeing to it that the Head of State is also the head of their religion, and they have created national churches. There is only one country among those of the white race where the Cavourrian formula seems to have found its application: the United States. There indeed the State is free and sovereign, and the churches are free. But why? Because, as a certain scholar of these problems has pointed out, in the United States there is a heap of religions for which the State can not choose any, nor protect any. I believe instead that Cavour meant that the State should be completely free and sovereign in what are its own responsibilities, not only of a material and practical nature, as some would like to interpret—and we will return to that subject shortly—and that the Church should be free in its magisterium and in its pastoral and spiritual mission.

We can not fathom an absolute separation between these two bodies, because the citizen is Catholic and the Catholic is a citizen. It is therefore necessary to determine the boundaries between these overlapping spheres. On the other hand, the struggle between the Church and the State is centuries old: either it is the Emperor who dominates the Pope or the Pope who dominates the Emperor. In modern States, in States with a solid modern constitutional organization, given the development of the times, it is preferable to live in a concordat regime. I believe that Cavour just wanted to find precisely this type of solution to the problem of relations between the Church and the State.

We arrive at the final decade, that of 1860 to 1870. There was the desperate battle of Aspromonte. Two years later there was the September Convention and the subsequent conflict between the men who led the Italian revolution...

Meanwhile, what was the September Convention? It was a pact signed in Saint Cloud on September 15, 1864 between the Italian Government and France, which contained these three clauses:

1. Italy pledged not to attack the territory left to the Pope after 1860 and to prevent, even by force, any external attack on this territory.

2. France would withdraw its troops within three years, while the papal army was reorganized.

3. The Italian government contented to the establishment of that army, which was composed of foreigners.

At that moment it seemed like the Italian Government, which was about to move its capital to Florence, had renounced the conquest of Rome. Garibaldi revolted from Caprera and, on October 10, 1864, wrote:

"That criminals seek accomplices in their crimes is natural, but that they should try to throw me in the mud with the men who have defiled Italy with the convention of September 15, this I did not expect. With Bonaparte there is only one possible convention: let our country be disinfected by his departure, not in two years, but in two hours."

Naturally Mazzini, frantic and prophetic as always, said:

"Few and clear words, the convention between the National Government and Louis Napoleon concerning Rome betrays the declarations of Parliament, betrays the government declarations repeated subsequently by the ministers who followed Cavour, betrays the statements contained in the plebiscites that formed the Kingdom of Italy: plebiscites, Government, Parliament, have all decreed that Italy would be one and that Rome would be its metropolis."

And further:

"The arbitrary choice of Florence as the metropolis rightly irritates Turin, whose tradition must not yield to the historical Italo-European tradition, identified in Rome. The Government had considered Naples, but it was necessary for the triumph of Louis Napoleon to have no end."

Once again, in hindsight, who was right? The Right was right, that is to say the Italian Government. The Right was right to move to Florence, because it was approaching Rome. The Right was right in the pact with France, because it was important that, in the event of entering Rome, the French army should not be encountered, but a voluntary army gathered here and there from all the countries of Europe. This naturally facilitated the task of national revolution. However, in 1867, the battle of Mentana ended in misfortune.

Having come now to 1870, we are at the conclusion—the first conclusion.

What happened?

On August 2nd France withdrew its troops, those it had sent before and after Mentana. Rome was guarded by an army of foreigners—very few Italians—led by a foreign general: Kanzler. On September 8, Ponza di San Martino went on a mission to Rome to bring a letter to the Holy Father. The President of the Council, in the accompanying letter, stated:

"The King's Government and his forces will confine themselves exclusively to conservative action, and to the protection of the imprescriptible rights of the Romans, and of the interest which the Catholic world has in the complete independence of the Supreme Pontiff. Leaving without prejudice to any political question that can be raised by the free and peaceful manifestations of the Roman people, the King's Government is firm in ensuring the guarantees necessary for the spiritual independence of the Holy See. The Head of Catholicism will find in the Italian population a profound devotion and will preserve on the banks of the Tiber a glorious See independent from every human sovereignty."

This was the written by Prime Minister Giovanni Lanza. His Majesty King Victor Emmanuel said the same things. In his letter to the Supreme Pontiff, he spoke of the "Head of Catholicism, surrounded by the devotion of the Italian people, who shall preserve on the banks of the Tiber a glorious See independent from every human sovereignty."

All the newspapers of the time felt that it was time to reach a conclusion and that, since all the civil powers were represented at the Vatican, it was now truly grotesque that the Italian power was not represented. Interesting pamphlets were published during that period of time. One of these pamphlets, signed by a certain Constantinus (someone wanted to believe that this was an eminent figure at the Vatican Court, but in reality, although he was indeed an important figure, he was a laicist), announced and proposed a peace treaty between Italy and Holy See.

Article 2 said:

"The high contracting parties express their mutual and peaceful recognition of the territorial situation created after that time, except for what is established in the following treaty."

Thus, a de facto state of affairs that was to become a de jure state of affairs.

Of great importance is a pamphlet entitled: "The People's Party and the Roman Question" (a now defunct party), in which it was affirmed that it was necessary to recognize the sovereignty of the Holy See over the Vatican Palace.

Another event of great importance was the resolution by which the Pope no longer protested the visits of Catholic sovereigns to Rome. We had entered into a period where tensions were calmed. This calm grew with the ascent of Pope Achille Ratti to the Supreme Pontificate, when, for the first time since 1870, the Pope appeared in the external loggia of St. Peter's to bless the immense crowd.

The Italians had the impression that a conclusion would be reached under this Pontiff. And, naturally, hope preceded the events and it was believed that it would be easy, simple, quick. It was thought that the new Pope would not have insist upon the now traditional position of all the Popes. They were mistaken. Indeed, in Pius XI's first encyclical, the point of view continuously reaffirmed by the Holy See was once again illustrated. The encyclical recalled the divine nature of papal sovereignty, the inviolable rights of the consciences of millions of faithful throughout the world, and the necessity that this same sovereignty would not appear subject to any human authority or law, even a law that would bring about a guarantee for the freedom of the Roman Pontiff...

He said:

"We, who are now the heirs and depositories of the ideals and sacred duties of Our Venerated Predecessors, and like them alone invested with competent authority in such a weighty matter and responsible to no one but God for Our decisions, We protest, as they have protested before Us, against such a condition of affairs in defense of the rights and of the dignity of the Apostolic See, not because We are moved by any vain earthly ambition of which We should be ashamed, but out of a sense of Our duty to the dictates of conscience."

Meanwhile, Fascism had a religious policy; very religious. The facts of this policy have been presented here by many speakers; we had no phobias nor scruples. The Hon. Farinacci rightly pointed out that Fascism was the first to protect the processions; great centenaries were held with the greatest tranquility; the year of Jubilee was perfect. Fascists of the first hour, such as the Hon. Arpinati, participated in the committee for the Eucharistic Congress in Bologna. Our sincere policy is the result of clearly established doctrinal positions.

We went even further: we tried to review the whole matter of ecclesiastical legislation. To be fair, we must recognize that the Popes were grieved by the anti-ecclesiastical legislation of the old Piedmont. This lasted from when Siccardi, in June 1850, wanted to abolish the ecclesiastical courts, until 1873 when the last Faculty of Theology was suppressed in the Royal Universities. The Holy See had some reason to be suspicious in the face of such manifestations of absolutely anti-religious and anti-ecclesiastical policy and legislation.

However, just when it seemed a conclusion was about to be reached, the Pope, on February 18, 1926, referring to the work done by the Joint Commission for the Reform of Ecclesiastical Legislation, stated that:

"No convenient negotiation nor legitimate agreement has taken place, nor could it take place, as long as the unjust condition imposed upon the Holy See and the Roman Pontiff persists."

You see from these quotations that the intransigence of the Popes from this point of view has always been immutable.

That last statement by the Pope is dated February 18, 1926. That is the the year in which the negotiation began. In the summer of 1926, to be quite honest, solving the Roman Question was not on my mind. There was a different problem that was troubling me at the time: the problem from the lira. I felt that problem was a problem of the Regime: of the prestige, dignity and stability of the Regime. And even today I am intractable to inexorable in that regard.

Allow me to digress for a moment to send a reverent salute to the memory of Professor Barone, member of the Commissione dei Diciotto, highly-esteemed jurist and Fascist, who devoted himself to these negotiations with the anxiety, fervor and diligence of an Italian and of a truly admirable Fascist.

It can be said that he died in the breach, such was the anxiety with which he followed these long strenuous negotiations.

From his diary, which I possess, it appears that on August 5, 1926 a Monsignor informed Professor Baron of the possibility of starting negotiations to resolve the Roman Question. In August 1926, a conversation took place between Barone and Pacelli. On August 23, 1926, Councilor Barone, following two previous conversations, explains, in a written report, which the cornerstones of the Holy See's intentions are regarding the settlement of the Roman Question. On October 4, 1926, Mussolini gave Councilor Barone a hand-written letter in which he instructed him to ask the Holy See on what conditions it was prepared to arrive at a friendly, general, definitive arrangement of its relations with the Italian State. On October 6th, Cardinal Gasparri wrote to Pacelli answering positively to the request. Negotiations took place in October, November, December. On December 10, 1926, His Majesty the King authorized the opening of official negotiations. On August 30, 1926, the late Baron informed me:

"I think it my duty to draw Your Eminence's attention to the possibility of an agreement about the regulation of relations between the Italian State and the Holy See. I did this on the basis of a report I had received from a prelate who has a high position in the Vatican and on the basis of the talks I had with the advocate Francesco Pacelli on his initiative. The latter is, of the legates of the Holy See, the one who most directly enjoys the complete confidence of the Supreme Pontiff."

Further on:

"Your Excellency has cited only one preliminary ruling, namely that, reaching an agreement, the Holy See recognizes with it the definitive settlement of the Roman Question and therefore accepts the state of affairs marked in 1870, when the Kingdom of Italy was formed with Rome as its capital. Your Excellency therefore requires an explicit renunciation, on the part of the Holy See, of any temporal claim against the Kingdom of Italy. The Pontiff, informed of these premises, has proved willing to accept the substance without issue in the hope that it will lead to a definitive arrangement of relations with Italy and not just the stipulation of a temporary modus vivendi."

Naturally, in August 1926, the Holy See posed the following counter propositions: the initiative must come from the Italian Government; the Italian Government must declare that the negotiations will take place regardless of the Law of Guarantees; the negotiations must be kept absolutely secret. And indeed it is clear that if we reached an agreement, we owe it to the magnificent discipline that we have imposed on the Italian people. Can you imagine what would have happened in any other time? There would have tumults, disorder, chaos! Such a delicate and lengthy diplomatic negotiation needed to be kept secret, and for my part, I kept it a secret until the end. I will read you some documents. There are many others, which will be read in 1951. (Laughter).

The ones I will read are important, and you will understand why without me having to insist too much. Here is a letter I wrote:

Rome, October 4, 1926.

National Feast of St. Francis of Assisi.

"Dear Barone,

With reference to the conversations I have had with you, I confirm my conviction regarding the advisability of finally seeing the elimination of every cause for disagreement between Italy and the Holy See.

I desire you to place yourself in communication with the representatives of the latter in order to find out on the basis of what conditions the Holy See is prepared to arrive at an amicable, general and definite arrangement regarding its relations with the Italian State. This mission which I entrust to you is neither of an official nor unofficial nature, but strictly confidential, being directed to prepare the basis for official agreements. I hope that this preparation will be such as to facilitate subsequent developments."

In a letter sent to Advocate Pacelli by His Excellency the Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Gasparri, the latter concluded:

"You can assure this from now: that the convictions regarding the advisability and the importance of eliminating every cause of dissension between Italy and the Holy See could not be either more deep or more desired by the latter, as appears from repeated solemn documents."

On the date of October 24, 1926, the Cardinal Secretary of State stipulated the following points:

"1. The condition in which it is desired to place the Holy See must be in accordance with its dignity and with Justice.

2. Therefore it must be such as to guarantee to the Holy See full liberty and independence, not only real and effective, but also visible and manifest, with territory of its full and exclusive property both in right of ownership and possession and in jurisdiction, as required for real sovereignty, and inviolable in any event.

3. For these reasons, and also because it is a matter which evidently goes beyond the confines of Italy, it is necessary that the new territorial political arrangements be recognized by the Powers.

4. It shall be the responsibility of the Italian Government to secure on principle such recognition, at least on the part of the European Powers with which the Holy See and Italy have diplomatic relations, before opening the official negotiations.

5. It is advisable to join to the political convention a Concordat convention regulating ecclesiastical legislation in Italy.

6. It is hardly necessary to add that any conventions must always be approved by the political and constitutional authority in Italy, that is to say, by the King and by Parliament."

Finally, on December 31, 1926, I wrote the following letter addressed to His Eminence the Cardinal Secretary of State:

"Your Eminence! With reference to the exchange of ideas which took place through our representatives , Councilor Barone and Professor Pacelli, with regard to the possibility of arriving at a definitive and irrevocable arrangement of the relations between the Kingdom of Italy and the Holy See, an arrangement which, by assuring for the Holy See a position to its satisfaction, will lead to the recognition on the part of the Holy See of the events which culminated in the proclamation of Rome as the capital of the Kingdom of Italy under the dynasty of the House of Savoy, I have pleasure in sending to you the aforesaid Councilor of State, Dr. Barone, to whom I confer the official mission of negotiating for the formal arrangements of the said relations.

These negotiations, for which I am authorized by His Majesty the King, will be carried on by Councilor Barone, with the utmost secrecy and ad referendum. Trusting that they will lead to a favourable solution and that thus a new era may be entered into with regard to the relations between Italy and the Church, I have pleasure in reiterating to Your Eminence the expression of my profound respect."

We are now at the end of 1926, and you have seen how the pillars for these negotiations have been made. It is thus that at the end of 1926 I found myself faced with one of those responsibilities which cause the veins of man to tremble and the pulse to beat more quickly. A tremendous responsibility which not only solved the situation of the past, but also bound the future. And I could not ask for advice from any man! Only my conscience was to show me the road through the difficult and lengthy mediations.

But I reflected that a revolution is only a revolution in so far as it faces and solves the historical problems of a people. The Risorgimento is called a revolution because it faced the capital problem of Italian unity and independence. The Fascist Revolution is a revolution which creates the feeling of the State, and solves one by one, as they present themselves, the problems which were left to it by the past. The Revolution had to face this problem, or show its impotence. The solutions were these: either declare the law of guarantees abolished and say "the Fascist Revolution considers the Supreme Pontiff on a par with the Moderator of the Waldensians or the Chief Rabbi", or else maintain the status quo and continue in this agony and in this exasperating chronic condition unworthy of a revolution.

The third course was to face the problem head on. Because, when it was said: "A sovereignty is necessary", it was not known what limits this sovereignty should have. It went from the Po to the Garigliano. Was it the City Leonine? Was it only the Vatican? Nobody could answer these questions before posing them to those who are competent to answer.

Well, gentlemen, we have not resurrected the temporal power of the Popes; we have buried it. With the treaty of February 11th, no other territory goes to Vatican City beyond that which it already possesses and which no power in the world and no revolution could have taken away. The tricolour flag is not lowered, because it was never hoisted there.

When the English left us Jubaland, at the time of lowering the flag they put it in a barrel of earth because they wished the English flag to be lowered into earth which they could take with them. This tells you what a flag is; what the flag represents in the mind and in the spirit of a Nation.

And if there is no cession of territory, can there be a passing of subjects? Nobody, no Italian, who does not wish it of his own free will, will become a subject of that State which we have created by a spontaneous act of our own will as Fascists and as Catholics! (Applause).

Now, I decided to continue the negotiations. It must be recognized that on the other side the difficulties were considerable. There was quite an uninterrupted tradition of Popes who had claimed at least Rome; and a Pontiff had to take upon himself the truly tremendous responsibility of altering course towards this action. Even the Holy Father had to consult his own conscience, because probably if he had asked for advice among his surroundings, many—those who still dream of the old times, those who still have in their ears the sound of the Orenoque, or nostalgia for foreign intervention—many of those men would have tried to dissuade him.

We have had the good fortune of having before us a truly Italian Pontiff. (The Ministers and Deputies rise in enthusiastic and repeated applause). He will not be displeased, I believe, by the Fascist Chamber having given him this sincere applause. He is the Head of all the Catholics, his position is supernational; but he was born in Italy, in the land of Lombardy, and has the sound, practical ways and the courage of initiative of the Lombard people. He is a man who has lived long abroad. That has increased, not lessened, his sense of being an Italian. He is a studious man who combines, with an exceedingly intense feeling, a formidable doctrine. He above all knows that the Fascist Regime is a regime of force, but that it is loyal: it gives what it gives and no more, and gives it plainly, frankly, without subterfuges. He knows that there are questions in which we are as intransigent as he is, and if during the whole of 1927 matters remained stagnant and everything was reduced to maintaining personal contact, this was due to the dissension which arose on account of the education of the young generations, concerning the question of the Catholic Boy Scouts , the solution of which question you know.

Any Regime other than ours, a demo-liberal Regime—a kind of regime that we despise—may consider it useful to renounce the education of the young generations. With us it is the contrary.

In this sphere we are intractable! Teaching must be our task. These children must be educated in our religious faith, but we must supplement this education, we must give these children the feeling of virility, of power, of conquest; above all, we must transmit to them our faith and inspire them with our hopes.

In 1928, after the "Scoutist" matter was finished, the negotiations were resumed. The Holy See had asked not really for any Sovereignty, but ownership, of the intermediate land called "Valle del Gelsomino" and the Villa Doria Pamphili. It was thought of accommodating in the Villa Doria Pamphili all the Legations and the Embassies. This hurt my feelings. I proposed, that if the Holy See really wanted this Villa, that it should recognize, in an undoubted and unequivocal manner, the Sovereignty of the State, paying the annual royalty of one lira. That is the usual royalty when one wants to be kind. During the same period of time, I went to Racconigi and fully informed His Majesty the King.

It was from November 8, 1928 that the negotiations turned, it may be said, toward completion, for the Pope made known to me that he renounced the Villa Doria Pamphili and the intermediate territory. In fact, whilst the cession of the Villa would have hurt our feelings as Italians, of what avail would it have been to the other side? The City of the Vatican is large because of what it is and because of what it represents, not because of a square kilometre more or less. It should be recognized, that from this point of view, the Holy Father was quite against the desire of the Italian Government. I may say more: That at the last moment, on February 10th, on the eve of the signing of the agreements, when it was a question of surrendering 500 square metres so that a railing could be erected before the Holy Office, when the Holy Father heard that this hurt my conscience as the zealous guardian of the territorial integrity of the State and that I could never think otherwise but to increase such territory and never to decrease it, the Holy Father went even beyond my wishes; and as it would be somewhat grotesque that the frontage of a building should be put on the boundaries of a State, he renounced the whole of the building and the annexes and brought it into the group of the others which enjoy diplomatic immunity.

After the death of the late Barone, I felt almost a warning of destiny. Because the matter had already become public knowledge all over the world, I felt that it was necessary to hasten matters. In January of last year the conclusive meetings took place, at which our colleague, the Keeper of the Seals, Hon. Alfredo Rocco took part, giving me the assistance of his high doctrines and of his indubitable faith as a patriot and Fascist. On February 11th the accords were signed.

Certain residual Masonic cells, which I have identified in all the cities where they exist, had through certain publications of newspapers and more or less similar vociferous manifestations, begun to be surprised at seeing that the texts of these agreements contained, by way of preamble, an invocation to the Most Holy Trinity. But permit me to enlighten you. There is nothing extraordinary whereby it may be thought that the State in any way has forgotten itself and its dignity. We naturally do not wish to go back to Justinian because we would have to go back to the year 533; but it is a fact that even in public treaties between secular powers it is usual to permit this formula.

Examples abound. Among the most characteristic we have the two treaties of Passarowitz on July 21, 1718, made with the Turks: one by the Emperor and the other by the Republic of Venice, in which the former of these we read: "In nomine sanctissimae ed individuae Trinitatis", and the latter: "In nomine sanctissimae Trinitatis". A few years earlier, in 1712, even in a Treaty between the Sultan and the Tsar there was adopted this same formula. The Concordat between Innocent VIII and King Ferdinand of Naples of February 7, 1492 contained the same formula. In more recent times, in the Concordats concluded by Pius VII with the King of Bavaria and with the King of the Two Sicilies in 1818, we have the formula: "In nomine sanctissimae Trinitatis." The same thing may be said of the Concordat concluded with Louis XVIII of France. This formula moreover appears in the Treaty made between Leo XII and the Lutheran King of Holland, William I, on June 18, 1827, and in the Treaty between Gregory XVI and Carlo Alberto on March 27, 1847. The same formula, mostly in Latin, rarely in Italian, twice in French, is found in the Treaties concluded by Pius IX and by his successors.

Likewise, all the Concordats signed by Leo XIII have the same formula. But let us come to our time. The same heading is put at the beginning of the Concordat concluded on the 24th of June, 1914, by the Pontiff Pius X with the schismatic Kingdom of Serbia and in the one concluded after the war with the Republics of Poland and of Lithuania by the present Pontiff, dated February 10, 1925 and September 27, 1927. This slight show of retrospective erudition may therefore appease the conscience of those who have found peculiar, and I may venture to say perilous, such a preamble.

The negotiations lasted thirty months. Advocate Pacelli, who had taken a great part in these negotiations and who had revealed himself to have the spirit of a strong Italian and a fervent Catholic—this Advocate Pacelli, as he himself has stated, was received no less than 150 times by the Supreme Pontiff. The Treaty was drafted 20 times before being authorized in its definitive form.

You know all the acts. There is a Political Treaty, a Financial Convention and a Concordat. I shall address each of these agreements.

The most important obviously is the Treaty. By it the Roman question is addressed. Thus, as the text makes clear, it is irrevocably solved and eliminated; it is over with, it is buried. No longer will it be spoken of. And the City of the Vatican is created. Opposite of this creation, there is the explicit and solemn recognition by the Supreme Pontiff of the Kingdom of Italy under the Monarchy of the House of Savoy, with Rome as the capital of the Italian State.

Take note, therefore: there is Vatican City, and then there is Rome. From the time of Augustus we come to 1870 in order to find Rome once again as the capital of Italy; but from 1870 to 1929 there was still a reservation, there was still a mortgage of a moral nature. This mortgage and this reservation by the highest religious authority in the world has now disappeared. Rome is only of the Kingdom of Italy and of the Italians.

I hope you will acknowledge the enormous importance of this fact; and on the other hand, leaving aside the fact that there was never any act of Italian sovereignty over the Vatican, no one, not even the most fanatical about territorial integrity, can feel himself injured by the 44 hectares which form Vatican City. Then when you take away the enormous St. Peter's Square and the exceedingly vast church, which remain for promiscuous use, the area of this Divine City, of this State, is further reduced in terms of size. It is really irrelevant in terms of magnitude: the Republic of Andorra, which has an area of 452 square kilometers, and the Republic of San Marino, which has 59 square kilometers, are Empires compared to it. Naturally Vatican City is unique because of the fact that it is surrounded on all sides by another State, because of the fact that there are elements in its own territory of promiscuous use by the neighboring State, and because of other peculiarities which will be the delight of commentators for some time.

I foresee another abundant literature concerning the solution arrived at regarding the Roman Question. But the important thing is this: first, that in spite of certain initial reservations which you will have noticed in the letters I have read, the solution is Italian, and no other Power has had a word in it. Moreover, the City of the Vatican declares itself, and we also declare it—and because the text bears also the signature of the Italian Government—neutral and inviolable territory. It is obvious that we shall be the guarantors of such neutrality and of such inviolability, because in the remote chance that anyone wanted to hurt it, he would first have to pass through our territory.

In any case, it will be to our utmost interest that the Pontiff should be able to exercise that which is justly defined in the Treaty as his "pastoral mission" in perfect independence of spirit and with the sympathy of the whole of the Italian people.

Finally, there is another condition in the Treaty to which I call your attention, and it is the following: that the City of the Vatican declares itself from this very moment—and we have set our signature to it—extraneous to all competitions of a temporal nature which might arise between the States, and extraneous to all Congresses directed for that purpose, hence not only the extraordinary Congresses, but also for the ordinary Congresses, such as the League of Nations is. (Laughter).

In fact, the opinion regarding the Treaty is unanimous. Even those few cells whom I mentioned a moment ago recognize that the Treaty is good and fully safeguards the integrity of the State. There is no danger in itself. Think about the Papal States when it included Romagna, Umbria, Marche and Lazio, when it had to carry on the policy of peace and war with various States in order to maintain itself!

Today, justly, the Holy Father can affirm that the best protection for His Sovereignty lies in the limitation of the territory of Vatican City. He was thus not very anxious to have subjects, perhaps thinking that the most tranquil Sovereign is the one who has no subjects, who has requested to go away all those who for centuries had infiltrated the crevices of the Vatican. The citizenship of the new State is a somewhat paradoxical citizenship. Citizens are not born in that city, where naturally few will be born. (Laughter). One becomes and remains a citizen by an act of his own will, provided he has a permanent domicile therein. Upon the ceasing of the permanent domicile, he belongs to another nationality. On the other hand, the numerical limitation of these citizens is due to the territorial capacity of this State. One can calculate how many citizens can inhabit 44 hectares of land! All anxieties are therefore perfectly groundless.

I come now to the Financial Convention and the Concordat. When it became known that there existed a financial convention, first of all, to round off the figures, it was said that it was a question of two billion. It is much less. It is a question of 750 million in cash and one billion in bonds, which, however, can be bought today for 800 million (which is not pleasant to say).

There is therefore 1.5 billion, but all in paper lire. We must divide by 3.66: we have 400 million in gold lire. When you think, and I wager you will be astonished in fact, that we have a 200 billion debt—the figure is one of those which makes one shudder, but we postpone shuddering for a better time—what is 400 million gold lire? However, the inquisitiveness of the public has manifested itself and asks: How will you manage to pay? Above all, how will you manage to find one billion in bonds? I will reply to these questions, which I consider legitimate. The arrangements which are being made at the Ministry of Finance are such that it will allow us to meet the undertaken commitments without increasing the public debt and without having recourse to the market. I will explain how.

With regard to the one billion of public debt bonds, 5 percent, to the bearer, to be paid upon the ratification of the Lateran Treaty, the Government by means of a treasury transaction will obtain the said bonds from the "Cassa Depositi e Prestiti", which has plenty of them, which will take them from its own available assets without in the least touching either the reserves or the assets of the various institutions administered by the Cassa. The State, on its part, undertakes—that which constitutes the greatest guarantee—to return them to the said Cassa within a period not exceeding 10 years, by purchasing them on the market at the rate of not less than 100 million nominal value annually.

For this purpose there will be set aside in the budget for next year and for subsequent years, the sum required both for such purchase and for the interest on the corresponding half-yearly coupons, to the amount of 50 million for the first year decreasing by 5 million per annum.

Thus, by a comparatively slight sacrifice on the budget, the market of our securities is not disturbed, but on the contrary it is maintained. This means that we shall buy 100 million "Littorio" per year for 10 years and we shall set aside this sum in the budget. Upon ratification we shall deliver 750 million in cash. The necessary means are already in our coffers, which, at the end of April, had an available fund, that is to say, liquid—I recommend this word to you—and for immediate outlay the sum of over 2 billion.

Regarding the posting of this expenditure in the State budget, the results of the latter to April 30th, and the estimates for the months of May and of June ensure that a great part of the 750 million can be covered with the surplus of the present year. Here I may add, that at the end of April our surplus had risen from 106 million to 363 million.

There is still more. Some may think that the giving of 750 million of liquid assets would cause the circulation to increase, this being one of my nightmares. Nothing extraordinary or even catastrophic will occur. Whilst the payment of such a sum will be actually made from the Royal Treasury on the fixed date, the Holy See (and here also it should be recognized that the Supreme Pontiff has met our desires most liberally) on the basis of agreements made exclusively for the purpose of avoiding difficulties to banking transactions will only draw gradually on the coffers of the Bank of Italy. Further assurances have been given by the Holy See regarding the use of the billion of public debt, thus confirming the faith in our leading security shown by the signing of the financial agreements.

I may further say that I am not displeased to use this sum as indemnification for the past and as guarantee for the whole future.

Now, the Concordat. Here at a certain moment criticism from within our country and from abroad has directed and sharpened its dart. Wrongly so, however, as I shall show that the Concordat concluded with the Holy See is the best from the point of view of the State. I would prove to you, gentlemen, and above all I will prove it to those who have revealed a unique ignorance of the situation. I will compare our Concordat with the four Concordats made after the War by the Holy See: with Latvia, which is a Baltic Republic and which has only 23 percent of Catholics; with Lithuania, another republic, which has 85 percent of Catholics; with Poland, which out of the 30 million inhabitants, has only 63 percent Catholics of the Latin Rite and 11 percent of the Greek Rite; and with Bavaria, which is Catholic but which belongs to the Reich Republic.

Article 1 of our Concordat says:

"Italy, according to Article 1 of the Treaty, assures the Catholic Church the free exercise of her spiritual power, the free and public exercise of worship, as well as its jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters, in conformity with the norms of the present Concordat; and if necessary, it accords to the clergy, for the acts of their spiritual ministry, protection on the part of its authorities. In consideration of the sacred character of the Eternal City, the Episcopal See of the Sovereign Pontiff, centre of the Catholic world and place of pilgrimage, the Italian Government will take care to prevent in Rome anything that may be in contrast with its said character."

I join this article to all I have said at the beginning of my speech, as to the relations between the two Sovereignties.

Article 1 of the Latvian Concordats says:

"The Catholic Religion shall be freely and publicly exercised in Latvia. It shall be given juridical standing with all the rights that the civil code of Latvia recognizes in other bodies of juridical standing."

The Bavarian Concordat of May 29th, Article 1, says:

"The Bavarian State guarantees the free and public exercise of the Catholic Religion."

Article 2:

"It recognizes to the Church the right of issuing, within this sphere of its competence, laws and decrees binding on its own members, and will not prevent or render difficult the exercising of its right."

Article 3:

"It assures to the Catholic Church the undisturbed exercise of religion. In the acts of their ministry, the clergy have the protection of the State."

The Polish Concordat of February 10, 1925 says:

"The Catholic Church, without distinction of rites, shall enjoy full freedom in the Republic of Poland. The State guarantees the Church the free exercise of its spiritual power and of its ecclesiastical jurisdiction as well as the free administration and management of its affairs and of its goods, in conformity with the divine law and canon law."

The Lithuanian Concordat of September 27, 1927 is identical to the Polish one.

But in our Concordat there is an addition, and all the doubts about this addition have been dispelled:

"In consideration of the sacred character of the Eternal City, the Episcopal See of the Sovereign Pontiff, centre of the Catholic world and place of pilgrimage, the Italian Government will take care to prevent in Rome anything that may be in contrast with its said character."

We were asked to say, instead of "take care," that we would "undertake." I preferred the general formula because, when undertaking obligations, a bill is signed, and bills must be paid.

But I find that the astonishment of those who have made a point of this second part of the Article is stupefying. Where is the Barbarian who can deny the sacred nature of Rome? If you take away from the world's history the history of the Roman Empire little, very little, will remain! If the Romans had not left their monuments, from Morocco to Angora, the new capital of the young and friendly Turkey which still preserves the stone tablet with the testament of Augustus— the whole of Roman history would appear as a fantastic legend. But Rome is sacred, because it has been the capital of Empire. It has left us its venerable and memorable relics which still impress us, which rise at any moment from the earth immediately it is stirred. And then it is again sacred because it has been the cradle of Catholicism. All the poets of all times and men of all Nations have recognized the sacred character of Rome!

The fact that in this small territory, lying between seven hills and a river, there has developed so much of the world's history, with men like Caesar Augustus and Marcus Aurelius, is a matter for reflection and pride! Rome has a sacred character also because they brought the Unknown Soldier here, being symbolic of all the sacrifices of four years of our victorious war. Further, it will be necessary to recollect that on the Campidoglio, on the Sacred Hill of humanity, there is an Altar in remembrance of the fallen of our Revolution!

We respect this sacred character of Rome. But it is ridiculous to think, as has been rumored, that we are going to begin closing all the synagogues. The Jews have been in Rome since the times of the Kings. Perhaps they furnished the frocks after the Rape of the Sabines. (Great laughter). There were fifty thousand in the time of Augustus, and when they wished to mourn on the mortal remains of Julius Caesar they were undisturbed. Those who believe in some other religion will likewise remain undisturbed.

Neither should it be imagined that Rome will become a gloomy city where it will be impossible to have honest entertainments. In the meantime, I declare to you that I am not displeased at Rome having its own character of seriousness. That is precisely what Cromwell was reproached for when Puritanism struggled against realism. The Puritans were reproached for having a serious attitude. They had it because they were defending the life of England, because they defended its character and prepared its future, albeit through terrible civil wars, in which kings and ministers perished.

After all, during the rule of the Popes people amused themselves quite well in Rome. (Laughter). Sixtus V, the terrible Sixtus V, the one who hung a parricide 40 years after he had committed the crime, gave an exceedingly brilliant carnival life to Rome, but sacrosanctly and bloodily whipped those men who dressed as women. (Comments and laughter).

It is said: in this Concordat you make special concessions to the clergy, exempting them from military obligations. Well, these concessions appear also in all the previous Concordats from which I, the representative of a predominantly Catholic Nation—in fact a completely Catholic Nation—could not depart. Article 5 of the Polish Concordat is almost word for word the same as Article 3 of the Italian Concordat, while Article 5 of the Lithuanian Concordat goes even further:

"The clergy who have received religious orders, religious who have made their vows, seminary students and novices of the novitiates, if continuing in their ecclesiastical and religious state, shall be exempted from military service even in the case of war or of general mobilization."

This does not happen in Italy, except for parish priests, as was the case also in the last war.

We come to Article 5 concerning apostates and censured persons. Regarding this article there has been a rather lengthly discussion. In the meantime, it will not have retrospective value. There are a thousand of these individuals who are in such a peculiar position. They will remain where they are. On the other hand, if you consider all that is stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 3 of the Bavarian Concordat, you will find a much more serious clause:

"If any of the teachers are declared unfit by the diocesan Bishop for serious reasons concerning his doctrinal or moral conduct, the Government, without prejudice to the rights of the State, will order without delay that he be substituted in his office by another suitable person."

The same clause appears, with regard to teaching, in Article 13 of the Polish Concordat.

As regards Article 8, mention has been made of an ecclesiastical forum. No, there is no ecclesiastical court; only a civil court exists in the Italian State. Article 8 of the Italian Concordat is much less serious than the corresponding articles of the other concordats which I am comparing ours to.

Articles 18 and 19 of the Latvian Concordat say:

"If ecclesiastics are accused of secular criminal offenses according to the Code of Latvia, the archbishop or his delegate will be advised in due time, and he or his delegate may attend court sessions or trial proceedings. Ecclesiastics condemned to detention will carry out their sentences in a monastery. In other cases they will carry our their sentences, like other condemned men, after the archbishop has deprived them of ecclesiastical dignity."

Article 22 of the Polish Concordat says:

"If ecclesiastics or religious are accused in the tribunals of the crimes laid down by the penal laws of the Republic, these tribunals will immediately inform the competent Ordinary of any such affair and will send him, where appropriate, the indictment and judicial detention for his examination. The Ordinary or his delegate will have the right, after the conclusion of the judicial procedure, to become acquainted with the procedural incidents. In cases of arrest or imprisonment of the aforementioned persons, the civil authorities will proceed with the consideration due to their status and their hierarchical rank. The ecclesiastics or religious will be detained and will carry out their sentence in rooms separated from the premises intended for the laity, unless they have been deprived of their ecclesiastical dignity by the competent Ordinary. In the event that they were sentenced to imprisonment, they will carry out this sentence in a convent, or in another religious house in premises intended for this purpose."

Article 20 of the Lithuanian Concordat is exactly the same as Article 22 of the Polish Concordat.

What do we do? We communicate the event to the Diocesan Ordinary, so that he may make his decisions regarding the ecclesiastical hierarchy. But then there are two cases: either it is a common offense and then the clergyman is reduced to the lay State and is treated like all ordinary condemned persons, or it is a political offense and then he will be treated as we have treated all those who are guilty of political offenses.

A foreign journalist has said that by this Article Italy is at the mercy of the Vatican, and that nobody, other than the clergy, will be able to have such a privilege. Is it therefore necessary to point out that the Grand Master of Freemasonry, Domizio Torrigiani, when suffering from incipient blindness, was released from confinement and put in a clinic of Central Italy? And then what would there be to marvel at if tomorrow a cardinal—a hypothesis which I consider absolutely exaggerated—or a bishop or a priest convicted of a political offense were treated with the consideration that all the governments have for these kinds of offenses?

There was talk of right of asylum. If a delinquent flees into a church, the carabinieri will chase after him and catch him. On the other hand, it is known that criminals have a sacred terror of in churches. Perhaps they fear divine lightning, as well as the carabinieri's handcuffs! It is evident that, except in these urgent cases, the public forces have no particular interest in entering the church, if there is no call. But in the Latvian Concordat, Article 15 speaks clearly of "the immunity of churches according to the norms of canon law". In Article 6 of the Polish Concordat, the same formula is repeated, with the addition "provided, however, that public safety is not disturbed". The Lithuanian Concdordat says the same thing.

Everything pertaining to military assistance is already underway. The same clauses are included in the Polish and Lithuanian agreements. As far as the choice of archbishops and bishops is concerned, we have only adopted the clauses of previous concordats. As for the oath, we have adopted the so-called favoured-nation clause, that is to say, the formula of the Polish oath. For all that concerns the new arrangement of the ecclesiastical entities and assets, our colleague the Keeper of the Seals will speak to you about this, since that is his expertise.

Now we come to Article 34, the article regarding matrimony. You know what civil marriage has been reduced to in modern times. We Fascists have at least given it a bit of style. In the smaller countries, at times, it was an absolutely farcical thing, having very little dignity, with witnesses gathered at the last moment.

It seemed that the whole the State was included in this article of the Civil Code. You know, however, how many discussions have been carried on in Italy about this subject. Now, honorable comrades, in almost all civilized countries the religious marriage has civil effects. In Austria religious matrimony amongst Catholics is valid for civil purposes with the need for any formality; civil marriage is reserved only for Konfessionslos or for spouses of a different religion.

In Bulgaria, religious marriage amongst Catholics is valid in itself according to civil law, the only formality required being entering the act in the civil register.

In Czechoslovakia it is valid according to civil law without the need of any formality. The parish priests notify the marriage to the competent civil authorities only for statistical purposes.

Denmark. Religious marriage between Catholics is recognized as valid according to civil law. The only formality that is required is a nihil obstat by the civil authorities, which is issued fifteen days after publication. A single publication is required, and can be done either by the church or by the town hall. The ecclesiastical authorities must report marriages to the civil authorities on a quarterly basis.

Greece. Religious marriage is the only form of marriage permitted by Greek law. According to this, marriage celebrated in Greece between Catholics, Greeks or foreign subjects, is considered valid according to civil law.

England. Religious marriage between Catholics is valid according to civil law, provided that: a) the announcements have taken place, or the competent Civil Registry Office has dispensed them by issuing a license; b) the celebration took place in an expressly authorized place, which may also be the church, and in front of a person authorized by the Civil Registry Office, who may be the celebrating priest himself; c) the authorized person has registered the marriage in the records of the competent Civil Registry Office. (This last condition is not essential, provided one is able to prove the marriage with the usual of legal proof).

Ireland. Religious marriage between Catholics is valid according to civil law. The spouses must, under penalty of fine, return the marriage certificate to the Civil Registry Office within three days from the date of the celebration.

Yugoslavia. - Religious marriage is valid according to civil law throughout the whole territory of the State, except in the former Hungarian province of Vojvodina.

Latvia. Religious marriage between Catholics is valid in civil law. Within fifteen days the parish priest must send the marriage certificate to the Civil Registry Office for registration.

Lithuania. Civil marriage does not exist. Marriages celebrated by different churches according to their canons are recognized. The head of the Civil Registry is the priest of each church, which draws up two copies of the act. At the end of each year the priest sends a copy of the Civil Registry act issued by him to the Council of his church. Concerning divorce and separation, this depends on the canons of the church to which the interested parties belong.Norway. Religious marriage between Catholics is fully valid according to civil law.

Poland. - Religious marriage between Catholics is fully valid according to civil law, the parish priest also being also the head of the Civil Registry.

Spain. Canonical marriage is obligatory for those who profess the Catholic religion, and the Code of Canon Law, in so far as it pertains to marriage, is recognized as the law in force in the Kingdom. Religious marriage is valid according to civil law. However, it is an indispensable condition for the head of the Civil Registry to attend the celebration, in order to be able to register it in the records of the Civil Registry. At least twenty-four hours before the wedding ceremony, the contracting parties must give notice to the Civil Registry Office, indicating the date, time and place of the celebration, under penalty of a fine. The Civil Registry Office issues the receipt of the notice, and this receipt is necessary for the celebration of religious marriage.

Sweden. Religious marriage is equal to civil marriage according to civil law.

United States of America. Religious marriage among Catholics is identical to that between Protestants and other religions. The subject is regulated by individual State legislations. Religious marriage is a valid according to civil law, but in some States it can not be celebrated without prior authorization to contract marriage by the civil authority. Canada. Religious marriages celebrated in Canada by a minister of any religion are also valid according to civil law.

We are therefore not alone in this decision to give, with appropriate precautions, a civil validity to religious matrimony. Many have looked at this problem from the metaphysical point of view. I look at it from the point of view of convenience. In Italy the number of municipalities is 8,000, and the number of parishes is 15,000. What have we done? We have given to each Catholic the possibility, if he wants it, of doing the same thing, at the same time, and with the same people. If this, together with the reduced age, encourages matrimony and if from such matrimony there is abundant offspring, I shall be particularly happy.

We come now to religious teaching, contemplated in Article 36 of our concordat. Article 10 of the Latvian Concordat says:

"The Catholic Church has the right to establish and maintain its own confessional schools. The Latvian Government undertakes to respect the confessional character of these schools."

The Bavarian Concordat, in Article 4, says:

"Religious instruction remains in all the high and intermediate schools as an ordinary matter, at least on the scale at present in force."

And Article 8:

"Lessons in religious teaching at the elementary, intermediate and high schools are guaranteed."

Paragraph 2 of the same Article:

"In the event of any drawbacks occurring, or of any difficulties being found in the religious and moral life of the Catholic students, and particularly anything offensive to their religious faith or feeling, the bishop or his delegate shall be entitled to apply to the scholastic authorities of the State, who shall endeavour to set right the difficulty."

Observe now that I have opposed in the most categorical manner the request to introduce religious teaching in the Universities. At the time of the proceedings, the Holy See became convinced that it would have been a serious error.

Article 13 of the Polish Concordat says:

"In all public schools, except high schools, religious education is obligatory. The competent ecclesiastical authorities will attend to the religious teaching, in so far as concerns its content and the morality of the teachers."

Article 13 of the Lithuanian Concordat:

"In all public schools or schools subsidized by the State, religious education is obligatory. The competent religious authorities will establish the program and choose the texts. The appointment of teachers and the supervision of religious education, in so far as concerns its content and the morality of the teachers, will be carried out according to canon law."

Paragraph 3:

"In all public schools or schools subsidized by the State, the State, in agreement with the Ordinaries, will see to it that students are able to conveniently fulfill their religious duties."

Paragraph 4:

"With regard to the education of Catholic youth, the State recognizes the rights of the Ordinaries established by canon 1381 and will follow up the justified grievances of the Ordinaries."

Canon 1381 says:

"Local Ordinaries have the right and duty to watch that nothing is taught contrary to faith and good morals in any schools of their territory."

The Italian Article 37 corresponds (more extensively) to Article 7, Paragraph 2 of the Bavarian Concordat:

"The pupils of the middle schools and high schools must be given, in agreement with the superior ecclesiastical authorities, an opportune and convenient way to fulfill their religious duties."

As you see, again in regard to this clause nothing can be said which can be interpreted as reducing the jurisdiction and Sovereignty of the State. The religious teaching from the University being excluded, there remains to be determined how such teaching, which on the other hand is optional, shall be applied in the middle schools. It is evident that it cannot be applied in simple catechismal form, and it will be necessary to apply it in a moral and historical form, because it must be attractive and interesting, otherwise the contrary effect might be produced.

I have arrived at another interesting point of the Concordat, that which concerns "Catholic Action".
Meanwhile, Article 43 of our concordat figures in Article 13 of the Latvian Concordat, which says:

"The Republic of Latvia will not impede the activities of the Catholic Associations of Latvia—controlled by the Archbishop of Riga—which will have the same rights as the other Associations recognized by the State."

On the other hand, Article 25 of the Lithuanian Concordat is more explicit and says:

"The State will grant full freedom of organization and functioning to Associations having mainly religious purposes, forming part of Catholic Action, and as such, dependent on the authority of the Ordinary."

There is no doubt that after the Lateran Concordat not all the voices which were raised in the Catholic field were directed to the same purpose. Some have begun to attack the Risorgimento process, some have found that the statute of Giordano Bruno in Rome is almost offensive. I must state that the statue of Giordano Bruno, unfortunate as it is, like the destiny of this friar, will remain where it is. It is true that when it was erected at Campo di Fiori there were most violent protests. Even Ruggero Bonghi was against it and he was booed by the students in Rome; but I have now the impression that this would seem to be harsh against this philosopher who, if he erred and persisted in that error, he paid for it.

Of course it is not to be thought that the monument to Garibaldi on the Janiculum can have a different position, not even from the point of view of the horse's neck. Not only will it remain there, but in the same zone there will arise, under the care of the Fascist Regime, a monument to Anita Garibaldi.

It has been noticed that some Catholic elements, especially those who have not yet burned all bridges with the ideas of the People's Party, undertook to put the Risorgimento on trial. Appeals of this kind appeared: "Let us multiply the files, close the ranks, close the formations", etc. Naturally, in view of this phraseology, one should ask: what is happening? It is absurd that in the last three months I have had to seize more Catholic newspapers than in the previous seven years! It was the only way to bring them back to the correct path!

Gentlemen!

Those individuals who always have the air of energetically breaking down doors which have already been energetically broken down, do not please me. These people had a worried, tragic appearance as if they had to defend themselves from dangers which do not exist. For which reason it is appropriate at this gathering to make it known to everyone that the Regime is watchful, that it observes, that nothing escapes it. Let nobody think that the slightest leaflet issued by any parish is not known by Mussolini. We shall not allow the resurrection of parties or of organizations which we have destroyed forever.

Let everyone remember that when the Fascist Regime enters into a battle it carries it out to the end, leaving scorched earth behind it. Let no one think of denying the moral character of the Fascist State, for I would be ashamed of speaking from this Tribune if I did not feel that I represent the moral and spiritual force of the State. What would be a State if it had not its own spirit, its own morality, which is what it gives forth in its own laws, and through which it succeeds in getting itself obeyed by the citizens? What would the State be? A miserable thing which the citizens would have the right either to revolt against or to despise. The Fascist State fully proclaims its ethical character: it is Catholic, but it is Fascist. Indeed, it is above all, exclusively and essentially Fascist. Catholicism is an integral part of it and this we openly declare; but let no one think that under some philosophic or metaphysical formula the wool can be pulled over our eyes.

Let no one think that he is dealing with an agnostic, demo-liberal State, a kind of mattress on which all sleep together; rather he has before him a State which is conscious of its mission and which represents a forward-looking people, a State which transforms the people continually even in their physical aspect. To these people the State must speak in great words, to put forward great ideas and great problems—not merely carrying on the ordinary administration. For ordinary administration even the petty ministers during those petty times were sufficient.

Honorable comrades!

You have heard and, above all, the Italian people must have heard, our Fascists must have heard—the best of our comrades, who always constitute the backbone of our Regime. I have spoken plainly and clearly for the Italian people. I believe that the Italian people will understand me.

With the Acts of the February 11th, Fascism commends its name to future centuries to. When, at the culminating point of his negotiations, Camillo Cavour anxiously urged Father Passaglia: "Bring me the olive branch before Easter", he felt that this was the supreme demand of the national conscience and of the future of the national revolution. Today, honorable comrades, we take this olive branch to the tomb of the great builder of Italian Unity, because only now his hope is realized and his vow is accomplished!