Senate of Piedmont and Revello case (1723). An institutional conflict at the top of Kingdom of Sardinia in the context of Victor Amadeus II's reforms: Peer reviewed article ; Il Senato di Piemonte e il caso Revello (1723). Un conflitto istituzionale al vertice dello Stato sabaudo nel contesto del riformismo di Vittorio Amedeo II: Articolo sottoposto a procedimento di peer-review

Abstract

Victor Amadeus II is generally recognized by historiography as the initiator of a major administrative and judicial reorganization, begun after the Peace of Utrecht and the conclusion of the War of the Spanish Succession. This has been a long and complex process, which also led to the issuing of a new body of laws: the Leggi e Costituzioni di Sua Maestà il Re di Sardegna of 1723. Victor Amadeus II's action also involved the Savoy judicial system. Recent studies have analysed the reforms carried out by this sovereign during his long reign on the most important existing magistracies in the Kingdom of Sardinia (the Senates and the Camera dei Conti). This article aims to examine one of the most critical episodes in the institutional and legal history of Savoy, namely the conflict between 1722 and 1723 between Victor Amadeus II and the Senate of Piedmont.This clash led to the replacement of a significant number of Turin senators including President Paolo Francesco Leone. The king came into conflict with his Senate due to the acquittal that this magistrate gave to Carlo Lorenzo Revello, a country guard who was caught armed near Mondovì. In fact, an edict of 1699 punished the conduct of carrying weapons in those places with the death penalty. The Senate, however, ignored the king's rule and did not condemn Revello: according to the judge's reasoning, Revello exercised a profession that made it necessary to carry arms. Thus, a close correspondence between the Senate of Turin and the king began: on the one hand, the sovereign insisted on the application of his edict of 1699, on the other, the judiciary of Turin upheld Revello's innocence and good faith.The issues that were at the basis of this institutional dispute were two. One of a legal nature and one of a more political nature. The legal one contrasted two opposing views of law: on the one hand the Senate, in favour of the use of equity in the application of law, and on the other the king interested in imposing his will without further discussion. In practice, we have a more formalistic and stringent vision of the law that seeks to impose itself on the Savoy judiciary, used to exercising a certain arbitrariness in the interpretation of laws.However, this clash at the top of the Savoy state was not caused only by legal reasons. This strong contrast also concealed a political question: Victor Amadeus II was a reforming sovereign, but with absolutist and centralizing tendencies; it was certainly among hisobjectives to reaffirm his position of strength against a Senate that claimed to have a lot of freedom.A fairly minor legal question became a very sensitive political issue. Several members of the Senate were in fact convinced of the specious nature of the affair and of the accusations made by the king. For example, Maurizio Ignazio Graneri, one of the senatorsdirectly affected by the Victor Amadeus II's sanctions, argued that the Revello case was just the king's excuse to dissolve the Senate and fill it with new, more loyal members. The article begins with an analysis of this conflict at the head of the State and then extendsthe study to the complex relationship between political and judiciary power during the reign of Victor Amadeus II. The sovereign grievances, the defences of the senators and the opinions of other jurists consulted by the king allow us to reconstruct this clash butalso to investigate a more important question: how far could the interpretative power of a sovereign court on royal legislation go? ; L'articolo intende approfondire la contrapposizione che si ebbe a cavallo tra il 1722 ed il 1723 tra Vittorio Amedeo II e il Senato di Piemonte a causa dell'assoluzione che questa magistratura diede ad una guardia campestre che era stata sorpresa armata nel mandamento di Mondovì in violazione di un editto regio. Le rimostranze sovrane, le difese dei senatori e i pareri degli altri giuristi interpellati dal re consentono di ricostruire questo scontro ma consentono anche di indagare una questione più importante: fino a che punto poteva arrivare il potere interpretativo di una corte sovrana sulla normativa regia?