ITALY. 



397 



a new Cabinet was constituted as follows: Pre- 

 mier and Minister of the Interior, Lieut.-Gen. 

 Luigi Pelloux; Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mar- 

 chese Emilio Visconti Venosta; Minister of Jus- 

 tice, Conte Bonasi ; Minister of the Treasury, Prof. 

 Paolo Boselli; Minister of Finance, Pietro Car- 

 mine; Minister of War, Lieut.-Gen. G. Mirri; 

 Minister of Marine, Rear- Admiral G. B. Bettolo; 

 Minister of Public Instruction, Prof. Guido Ba- 

 celli; Minister of Public Works, Pietro Lacava; 

 Minister of Agriculture, Commerce, and Industry, 

 Antonio Salandra; Minister of Posts and Tele- 

 graphs, Marchese di San Giuliano. This Cabinet 

 was the opposite of its predecessor in political 

 principles. Besides the Premier, two Moderate 

 Liberals were retained from the outgoing Cabi- 

 net, Prof. Bacelli and Signor Lacava. All the 

 new ministers were either Extreme or Moderate 

 Conservatives. The Liberals and Radicals of all 

 shades were indignant at the disregard of par- 

 liamentary principles shown in the formation of 

 a ministry opposed to the indicated majority, 

 although the Conservative Cabinet of the Mar- 

 chese di Rudini had furnished a precedent in 1896 

 by allowing the Radicals who followed Cavalotti 

 to shape its policy. 



The Chamber, which had adjourned during the 

 ministerial interregnum, reassembled on May 25. 

 Signor Zanardelli insisted on resigning the presi- 

 dency of the Chamber, and on May 30 the Gov- 

 ernment, with the support of the Moderate Left 

 and the entire Right, elected its candidate, Signor 

 Chinaglia, by 223 votes against 193 cast for 

 Signor Zanardelli. The Rudinians rallied to the 

 support of the Government when the Marchese 

 Visconti Venosta gave a pledge not to undertake 

 any steps in China without consulting Parlia- 

 ment. The accounts for the year showed a small 

 surplus, and Signor Boselli promised economies 

 sufficient to avoid the imposition of new fiscal 

 burdens. The condition of industry and agricul- 

 ture was unusually prosperous, and therefore the 

 usual incentives to revolutionary disturbances 

 were absent. In the municipal elections that took 

 place in June the Socialists and the irreconcilable 

 Clericals were victorious, owing partly to the 

 determination of the Government to push through 

 the public-safety bill, which the Socialists and 

 Radicals obstructed at every stage of its progress. 

 The Government amnestied political prisoners, 

 but only partially, leaving the political and civil 

 disabilities of the liberated prisoners still in force. 



The obstructive tactics of the Extreme Left in 

 opposing the public-safety bill led to scenes of 

 violence and turmoil. Proposals to amend the 

 rules could no more be discussed than the public- 

 safety bill. The Prime Minister made scarce an 

 attempt to check the turbulent disorder, but 

 waited until the extremists had demonstrated 

 completely the impossibility of proceeding with 

 parliamentary discussion. Then, on June 22, the 

 Government prorogued Parliament for six days, 

 and on the following day promulgated the public- 

 safety bill by royal decree, announcing that it 

 would have the force of law on July 20, thus 

 leaving a sufficient interval to secure a vote of 

 indemnity from Parliament. The bill empowered 

 the police to forbid public meetings for reasons 

 of public order. A month's imprisonment or a 

 fine is the penalty for infraction of the police 

 orders, and a similar penalty is prescribed for 

 those who carry or show seditious 'emblems in 

 public. Associations tending to subvert by force 

 the Constitution of the state or social order may 

 be dissolved by ministerial decree, against which 

 appeal may be taken. Persons who reorganize 

 dissolved societies, though under another name, 



are liable to three months' imprisonment. Pub- 

 lic servants who by previous agreement strike 

 work are liable to three months' imprisonment, 

 and ringleaders in strikes of railroad, post-oflice, 

 telegraph, gas, or electric-light employees are pun- 

 ishable with six months' imprisonment. The 

 press law was altered so as to make the writer 

 of an incriminating article and his collaborators 

 amenable to the law as well as the responsible 

 editor, who has often proved a man of straw, 

 and when the authors are brought to punishment 

 the nominal editor escapes. Proprietors and print- 

 ers of newspapers are made jointly liable with 

 writers and editors for damages, costs, and fines 

 inflicted in connection with publications contained 

 in their newspapers. The law of libel is mitigated 

 in case retractation is made in the press prior 

 to prosecution, the maximum penalty being re- 

 duced for such cases to 2,000 lire fine or imprison- 

 ment for six months. The publication of libel 

 proceedings is forbidden except in cases affect- 

 ing public officials or members of Parliament in 

 the exercise of their public functions. Proceed- 

 ings for lese-majeste affecting foreign sovereigns 

 can only be undertaken by authority from the 

 Minister of Justice, and the penalties shall only 

 be inflicted at the request of the foreign sover- 

 eigns themselves, and proceedings for defama- 

 tion of foreign diplomatic representatives accred- 

 ited to the Quirinal shall only be undertaken on 

 the initiative of the diplomatists affected. 



The clauses in the new law relating to the sup- 

 pression of public meetings and seditious emblems 

 and the dissolution of subversive societies em- 

 body the rules of action that ministers have fol- 

 lowed in recent years; the one dealing with 

 strikes of public servants is copied from the 

 English law on the subject. The new law was 

 submitted to the Chamber on June 28, with the 

 explanation from the Premier that it was still 

 subject to modification or amendment. He de- 

 clared that the Government would interpret com- 

 pliance with his request to refer it to a commit- 

 tee as equivalent to a bill of indemnity. Many 

 members who censured the conduct of the Gov- 

 ernment and considered the promulgation of the 

 law by royal decree a violation of the Constitu- 

 tion nevertheless were willing to grant a bill of 

 indemnity, in order to avoid a ministerial crisis 

 on a grave constitutional question. After a spir- 

 ited debate, the motion to refer the decree to a 

 committee was carried by 208 votes to 138. The 

 opponents of the act, who regarded it as a blow 

 at representative institutions and a denial of 

 guaranteed popular liberties, were determined to 

 prevent it from obtaining the sanction of Parlia- 

 ment. On June 30, when President Chinaglia de- 

 clined to call the roll on the adoption of the 

 minutes, the Socialists protested against his vio- 

 lation of the standing orders, and seized the vot- 

 ing urns to prevent further proceedings. The 

 Conservatives rushed down to the floor to stop 

 them, and the sitting ended in a physical com- 

 bat. The Government issued a royal decree clos- 

 ing the parliamentary session. The public-safety 

 bill was .thus left to acquire the force of law 

 without parliamentary sanction, although the 

 Court of Cassation on former occasions had re- 

 fused to recognize legislation by decree. Decrees 

 enacting urgent financial legislation have been 

 allowed, but not decrees affecting the liberty and 

 property of citizens. The Government refrained 

 from putting the law into execution, and thus 

 gave the Court of Cassation no occasion to ex- 

 amine and pronounce upon the constitutionality 

 of the decree. 



The people of Italy were inclined to view the 



