During the accomplishment of these and other reforms the condition of parliament underwent profound change. By degrees the administrations of the Left had ceased to rely solely upon the Liberal sections of the Chamber, and “Trasformismo.” had carried their most important bills with the help of the Right. This process of transformation was not exclusively the work of Depretis, but had been initiated as early as 1873, when a portion of the Right under Minghetti had, by joining the Left, overturned the Lanza-Sella cabinet. In 1876 Minghetti himself had fallen a victim to a similar defection of Conservative deputies. The practical annihilation of the old Right in the elections of 1876 opened a new parliamentary era. Reduced in number to less than one hundred, and radically changed in spirit and composition, the Right gave way, if not to despair, at least to a despondency unsuited to an opposition party. Though on more than one occasion personal rancour against the men of the Moderate Left prevented the Right from following Sella’s advice and regaining, by timely coalition with cognate parliamentary elements, a portion of its former influence, the bulk of the party, with singular inconsistency, drew nearer and nearer to the Liberal cabinets. The process was accelerated by Sella’s illness and death (14th March 1884), an event which cast profound discouragement over the more thoughtful of the Conservatives and Moderate Liberals, by whom Sella had been regarded as a supreme political reserve, as a statesman whose experienced vigour and patriotic sagacity might have been trusted to lift Italy from any depth of folly or misfortune. By a strange anomaly the Radical measures brought forward by the Left diminished instead of increasing the distance between it and the Conservatives. Numerically insufficient to reject such measures, and lacking the fibre and the cohesion necessary for the pursuance of a far-sighted policy, the Right thought prudent not to employ its strength in uncompromising opposition, but rather, by supporting the government, to endeavour to modify Radical legislation in a Conservative sense. In every case the calculation proved fallacious. Radical measures were passed unmodified, and the Right was compelled sadly to accept the accomplished fact. Thus it was with the abolition of the grist tax, the reform of the suffrage, the railway conventions and many other bills. When, in course of time, the extended suffrage increased the Republican and Extreme Radical elements in the Chamber, and the Liberal “Pentarchy” (composed of Crispi, Cairoli, Nicotera, Zanardelli and Baccarini) assumed an attitude of bitter hostility to Depretis, the Right, obeying the impulse of Minghetti, rallied openly to Depretis, lending him aid without which his prolonged term of office would have been impossible. The result was parliamentary chaos, baptized trasformismo. In May 1883 this process received official recognition by the elimination of the Radicals Zanardelli and Baccarini from the Depretis cabinet, while in the course of 1884 a Conservative, Signor Biancheri, was elected to the presidency of the Chamber, and another Conservative, General Ricotti, appointed to the War Office. Though Depretis, at the end of his life in 1887, showed signs of repenting of the confusion thus created, he had established a parliamentary system destined largely to sterilize and vitiate the political life of Italy.
Contemporaneously with the vicissitudes of home and foreign policy under the Left there grew up in Italy a marked tendency towards colonial enterprise. The tendency itself dated from 1869, when a congress of the Italian chambers of Colonial policy. commerce at Genoa had urged the Lanza cabinet to establish a commercial depôt on the Red Sea. On the 11th of March 1870 an Italian shipper, Signor Rubattino, had bought the bay of Assab, with the neighbouring island of Darmakieh, from Beheran, sultan of Raheita, for £1880, the funds being furnished by the government. The Egyptian government being unwilling to recognize the sovereignty of Beheran over Assab or his right to sell territory to a foreign power, Visconti-Venosta thought it opportune not then to occupy Assab. No further step was taken until, at the end of 1879, Rubattino prepared to establish a commercial station at Assab. The British government made inquiry as to his intentions, and on the 19th of April 1880 received a formal undertaking from Cairoli that Assab would never be fortified nor be made a military establishment. Meanwhile (January 1880) stores and materials were landed, and Assab was permanently occupied. Eighteen months later a party of Italian sailors and explorers under Lieutenant Biglieri and Signor Giulietti were massacred in Egyptian territory. Egypt, however, refused to make thorough inquiry into the massacre, and was only prevented from occupying Raheita and coming into conflict with Italy by the good offices of Lord Granville, who dissuaded the Egyptian government from enforcing its sovereignty. On the 20th of September 1881 Beheran formally accepted Italian protection, and in the following February an Anglo-Italian convention established the Italian title to Assab on condition that Italy should formally recognise the suzerainty of the Porte and of the khedive over the Red Sea coast, and should prevent the transport of arms and munitions of war through the territory of Assab. This convention was never recognized by the Porte nor by the Egyptian government. A month later (10th March 1882) Rubattino made over his establishment to the Italian government, and on the 12th of June the Chamber adopted a bill constituting Assab an Italian crown colony.
Within four weeks of the adoption of this bill the bombardment of Alexandria by the British fleet (11th July 1882) opened an era destined profoundly to affect the colonial position of Italy. The revolt of Arabi Pasha (September 1881) The Egyptian Question. had led to the meeting of an ambassadorial conference at Constantinople, promoted by Mancini, Italian minister for foreign affairs, in the hope of preventing European intervention in Egypt and the permanent establishment of an Anglo-French condominium to the detriment of Italian influence. At the opening of the conference (23rd June 1882) Italy secured the signature of a self-denying protocol whereby all the great powers undertook to avoid isolated action; but the rapid development of the crisis in Egypt, and the refusal of France to co-operate with Great Britain in the restoration of order, necessitated vigorous action by the latter alone. In view of the French refusal, Lord Granville on the 27th of July invited Italy to join in restoring order in Egypt; but Mancini and Depretis, in spite of the efforts of Crispi, then in London, declined the offer. Financial considerations, lack of proper transports for an expeditionary corps, fear of displeasing France, dislike of a “policy of adventure,” misplaced deference towards the ambassadorial conference in Constantinople, and unwillingness to thwart the current of Italian sentiment in favour of the Egyptian “nationalists,” were the chief motives of the Italian refusal, which had the effect of somewhat estranging Great Britain and Italy. Anglo-Italian relations, however, regained their normal cordiality two years later, and found expression in the support lent by Italy to the British proposal at the London conference on the Egyptian question (July 1884). About the same time Mancini was informed by the Italian agent in Cairo that Great Britain would be well disposed towards an extension of Italian influence on the Red Sea coast. Having sounded Lord Granville, Mancini received encouragement to seize Beilul and Massawa, in view of the projected restriction of the Egyptian zone of military occupation consequent on the Mahdist rising in the Sudan. Lord Granville further inquired whether Italy would co-operate in pacifying the Sudan, and received an affirmative reply. Italian action was hastened by news that, in December 1884, an exploring party under Signor Bianchi, royal commissioner for Assab, had been massacred in the Aussa (Danakil) country, an event which aroused in Italy a desire to punish the assassins and to obtain satisfaction for the still unpunished massacre of Signor Giulietti and his companions. Partly to satisfy public opinion, partly in order to profit by the favourable disposition of the British government, and partly in the hope of remedying the error committed in 1882 by refusal to co-operate with Great Britain in Egypt, the Italian government in January 1885 despatched an expedition under Admiral Caimi and Colonel Saletta to occupy Massawa and Beilul. The occupation, effected on the 5th of February, was accelerated by fear lest Italy might be forestalled by France or Russia, both of which powers were suspected of desiring to establish themselves firmly on the Red Sea and to exercise a protectorate over Abyssinia. News of the occupation reached Europe simultaneously with the tidings of the fall of Khartum, an event which disappointed Italian hopes of military co-operation with Great Britain in the Sudan. The resignation of the Gladstone-Granville cabinet further precluded the projected Italian occupation of Suakin, and the Italians, wisely refraining from an independent attempt to succour Kassala, then besieged by the Mahdists, bent their efforts to the increase of their zone of occupation around Massawa. The extension of the Italian zone excited the suspicions of John, negus of Abyssinia, whose apprehensions were assiduously fomented by Alula, ras of Tigré, and by French and Greek adventurers. Measures, apparently successful, were taken to reassure the negus, but shortly afterwards protection inopportunely accorded by Italy to enemies of Ras Alula, induced the Abyssinians to enter upon hostilities. In January 1886 Ras Alula raided the village of Wa, to the west of Zula, but towards the end of the year (23rd November) Wa was occupied by the irregular troops of General Gené, who had superseded Colonel Saletta at Massawa. Angered by this step, Ras Alula took prisoners the members of an Italian exploring party commanded by Count Salimbeni, and held them as hostages for the evacuation of Wa. General Gené nevertheless reinforced Wa and pushed forward a detachment to Saati. On the 25th of January 1887 Ras Alula attacked Saati, but was repulsed with loss. On the following day, however, the Abyssinians succeeded in surprising, near the village of Dogali, an Italian force of 524 officers and men under Colonel De Cristoforis, Disaster of Dogali. who were convoying provisions to the garrison of Saati. The Abyssinians, 20,000 strong, speedily overwhelmed the small Italian force, which, after exhausting its ammunition, was destroyed where it stood. One man only escaped. Four hundred and seven men and twenty-three officers were killed outright, and one officer and eighty-one men wounded. Dead and wounded alike were horribly mutilated by order of Alula. Fearing a new attack, General Gené withdrew his forces from Saati, Wa and Arafali; but the losses of the Abyssinians at Saati and Dogali had been so heavy as to dissuade Alula from further hostilities.
In Italy the disaster of Dogali produced consternation, and caused the fall of the Depretis-Robilant cabinet. The Chamber, eager for revenge, voted a credit of £200,000, and sanctioned the despatch of reinforcements. Meanwhile Abyssinia. Signor Crispi, who, though averse from colonial adventure, desired to vindicate Italian honour, entered the Depretis cabinet as minister of the interior, and obtained from parliament a new credit of £800,000. In November 1887 a strong expedition under General di San Marzano raised the strength of the Massawa garrison to nearly 20,000 men. The British government, desirous of preventing an Italo-Abyssinian conflict, which could but strengthen the position of the Mahdists, despatched Mr (afterwards Sir) Gerald Portal from Massawa on the 29th of October to mediate with the negus. The mission proved fruitless. Portal returned to Massawa on the 25th of December 1887, and warned the Italians that John was preparing to attack them in the following spring with an army of 100,000 men. On the 28th of March 1888 the negus indeed descended from the Abyssinian high plateau in the direction of Saati, but finding the Italian position too strong to be carried by assault, temporized and opened negotiations for peace. His tactics failed to entice the Italians from their position, and on the 3rd of April sickness among his men compelled John to withdraw the Abyssinian army. The negus next marched against Menelek, king of Shoa, whose neutrality Italy had purchased with 5000 Remington rifles and a supply of ammunition, but found him with 80,000 men too strongly entrenched to be successfully attacked. Tidings of a new Mahdist incursion into Abyssinian territory reaching the negus induced him to postpone the settlement of his quarrel with Menelek until the dervishes had been chastised. Marching towards the Blue Nile, he joined battle with the Mahdists, but on the 10th of March 1889 was killed, in the hour of victory, near Gallabat. His death gave rise to an Abyssinian war of succession between Mangashà, natural son of John, and Menelek, grandson of the Negus Sella-Sellassié. Menelek, by means of Count Antonelli, resident in the Shoa country, requested Italy to execute a diversion in his favour by occupying Asmarà and other points on the high plateau. Antonelli profited by the situation to obtain Menelek’s signature to a treaty fixing the frontiers of the Italian Treaty of Uccialli. colony and defining Italo-Abyssinian relations. The treaty, signed at Uccialli on the 2nd of May 1899, arranged for regular intercourse between Italy and Abyssinia and conceded to Italy a portion of the high plateau, with the positions of Halai, Saganeiti and Asmarà. The main point of the treaty, however, lay in clause 17:—
“His Majesty the king of kings of Ethiopia consents to make use of the government of His Majesty the king of Italy for the treatment of all questions concerning other powers and governments.”
Upon this clause Italy founded her claim to a protectorate over Abyssinia. In September 1889 the treaty of Uccialli was ratified in Italy by Menelek’s lieutenant, the Ras Makonnen. Makonnen further concluded with the Italian premier, Crispi, a convention whereby Italy recognized Menelek as emperor of Ethiopia, Menelek recognized the Italian colony, and arranged for a special Italo-Abyssinian currency and for a loan. On the 11th of October Italy communicated article 17 of the treaty of Uccialli to the European powers, interpreting it as a valid title to an Italian protectorate over Abyssinia. Russia alone neglected to take note of the communication, and persisted in the hostile attitude she had assumed at the moment of the occupation of Massawa. Meanwhile the Italian mint coined thalers bearing the portrait of King Humbert, with an inscription referring to the Italian protectorate, and on the 1st of January 1890 a royal decree conferred upon the colony the name of “Eritrea.”
In the colony itself General Baldissera, who had replaced General Saletta, delayed the movement against Mangashà desired by Menelek. The Italian general would have preferred to wait until his intervention was requested Operations in Abyssinia. by both pretenders to the Abyssinian throne. Pressed by the home government, he, however, instructed a native ally to occupy the important positions of Keren and Asmarà, and prepared himself to take the offensive against Mangashà and Ras Alula. The latter retreated south of the river Mareb, leaving the whole of the cis-Mareb territory, including the provinces of Hamasen, Agameh, Seraè and Okulè-Kusai, in Italian hands. General Orero, successor of Baldissera, pushed offensive action more vigorously, and on the 26th of January 1890 entered Adowa, a city considerably to the south of the Mareb—an imprudent step which aroused Menelek’s suspicions, and had hurriedly to be retraced. Mangashà, seeing further resistance to be useless, submitted to Menelek, who at the end of February ratified at Makallé the additional convention to the treaty of Uccialli, but refused to recognize the Italian occupation of the Mareb. The negus, however, conformed to article 17 of the treaty of Uccialli by requesting Italy to represent Abyssinia at the Brussels anti-slavery conference, an act which strengthened Italian illusions as to Menelek’s readiness to submit to their protectorate. Menelek had previously notified the chief European powers of his coronation at Entotto (14th December 1889), but Germany and Great Britain replied that such notification should have been made through the Italian government. Germany, moreover, wounded Menelek’s pride by employing merely the title of “highness.” The negus took advantage of the incident to protest against the Italian text of article 17, and to contend that the Amharic text contained no equivalent for the word “consent,” but merely stipulated that Abyssinia “might” make use of Italy in her relations with foreign powers. On the 28th of October 1890 Count Antonelli, negotiator of the treaty, was despatched to settle the controversy, but on arriving at Adis Ababa, the new residence of the negus, found agreement impossible either with regard to the frontier or the protectorate. On the 10th of April 1891, Menelek communicated to the powers his views with regard to the Italian frontier, and announced his intention of re-establishing the ancient boundaries of Ethiopia as far as Khartum to the north-west and Victoria Nyanza to the south. Meanwhile the marquis de Rudini, who had succeeded Crispi as Italian premier, had authorized the abandonment of article 17 even before he had heard of the failure of Antonelli’s negotiations. Rudini was glad to leave the whole dispute in abeyance and to make with the local ras, or chieftains, of the high plateau an arrangement securing for Italy the cis-Mareb provinces of Seraè and Okulè-Kusai under the rule of an allied native chief named Bath-Agos. Rudini, however, was able to conclude two protocols with Great Britain (March and April 1891) whereby the British government definitely recognized Abyssinia as within the Italian sphere of influence in return for an Italian recognition of British rights in the Upper Nile.
The period 1887-1890 was marked in Italy by great political activity. The entry of Crispi into the Depretis cabinet as minister of the interior (4th April 1887) introduced into the government an element of vigour which had First Crispi Cabinet. long been lacking. Though sixty-eight years of age, Crispi possessed an activity, a rapidity of decision and an energy in execution with which none of his contemporaries could vie. Within four months the death of Depretis (29th July 1887) opened for Crispi the way to the premiership. Besides assuming the presidency of the council of ministers and retaining the ministry of the interior, Crispi took over the portfolio of foreign affairs which Depretis had held since the resignation of Count di Robilant. One of the first questions with which he had to deal was that of conciliation between Italy and the Vatican. At the end of May the pope, in an allocution to the cardinals, had spoken of Italy in terms of unusual cordiality, and had expressed a wish for peace. A few days later Signor Bonghi, one of the framers of the Law of Guarantees, published in the Nuova Antologia a plea for reconciliation on the basis of an amendment to the Law of Guarantees and recognition by the pope of the Italian title to Rome. The chief incident cf the movement towards conciliation consisted, however, in the publication of a pamphlet entitled La Conciliazione by Father Tosti, a close friend and confidant of the pope, extolling the advantages of peace between Vatican and Quirinal. Tosti’s pamphlet was known to represent papal ideas, and Tosti himself Tosti and conciliation. was persona grata to the Italian government. Reconciliation seemed within sight when suddenly Tosti’s pamphlet was placed on the Index, ostensibly on account of a phrase, “The whole of Italy entered Rome by the breach of Porta Pia; the king cannot restore Rome to the pope, since Rome belongs to the Italian people.” On the 4th of June 1887 the official Vatican organ, the Osservatore Romano, published a letter written by Tosti to the pope conditionally retracting the views expressed in the pamphlet. The letter had been written at the pope’s request, on the understanding that it should not be published. On the 15th of June the pope addressed to Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro, secretary of state, a letter reiterating in uncompromising terms the papal claim to the temporal power, and at the end of July Cardinal Rampolla reformulated the same claim in a circular to the papal nuncios abroad. The dream of conciliation was at an end, but the Tosti incident had served once more to illustrate the true position of the Vatican in regard to Italy. It became clear that neither the influence of the regular clergy, of which the Society of Jesus is the most powerful embodiment, nor that of foreign clerical parties, which largely control the Peter’s Pence fund, would ever permit renunciation of the papal claim to temporal power. France, and the French Catholics especially, feared lest conciliation Terms of the “Roman Question.” should diminish the reliance of the Vatican upon France, and consequently French hold over the Vatican. The Vatican, for its part, felt its claim to temporal power to be too valuable a pecuniary asset and too efficacious an instrument of church discipline lightly to be thrown away. The legend of an “imprisoned pope,” subject to every whim of his gaolers, had never failed to arouse the pity and loosen the purse-strings of the faithful; dangerous innovators and would-be reformers within the church could be compelled to bow before the symbol of the temporal power, and their spirit of submission tested by their readiness to forgo the realization of their aims until the head of the church should be restored to his rightful domain. More important than all was the interest of the Roman curia, composed almost exclusively of Italians, to retain in its own hands the choice of the pontiff and to maintain the predominance of the Italian element and the Italian spirit in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Conciliation with Italy would expose the pope and his Italian entourage to suspicion of being unduly subject to Italian political influence—of being, in a word, more Italian than Catholic. Such a suspicion would inevitably lead to a movement in favour of the internationalization of the curia and of the papacy. In order to avoid this danger it was therefore necessary to refuse all compromise, and, by perpetual reiteration of a claim incompatible with Italian territorial unity, to prove to the church at large that the pope and the curia were more Catholic than Italian. Such rigidity of principle need not be extended to the affairs of everyday contact between the Vatican and the Italian authorities, with regard to which, indeed, a tacit modus vivendi was easily attainable. Italy, for her part, could not go back upon the achievements of the Risorgimento by restoring Rome or any portion of Italian territory to the pope. She had hoped by conciliation to arrive at an understanding which should have ranged the church among the conservative and not among the disruptive forces of the country, but she was keenly desirous to retain the papacy as a preponderatingly Italian institution, and was ready to make whatever formal concessions might have appeared necessary to reassure foreign Catholics concerning the reality of the pope’s spiritual independence. The failure of the conciliation movement left profound irritation between Vatican and Quirinal, an irritation which, on the Vatican side, found expression in vivacious protests and in threats of leaving Rome; and, on the Italian side, in the deposition of the syndic of Rome for having visited the cardinal-vicar, in the anti-clerical provisions of the new penal code, and in the inauguration (9th June 1889) of a monument to Giordano Bruno on the very site of his martyrdom.
The internal situation inherited by Crispi from Depretis was very unsatisfactory. Extravagant expenditure on railways and public works, loose administration of finance, the cost of colonial enterprise, the growing demands for the army and navy, the impending tariff war with France, and the over-speculation in building and in industrial ventures, which had absorbed all the floating capital of the country, had combined to produce a state of affairs calling for firm and radical treatment. Crispi, burdened by the premiership and by the two most important portfolios in the cabinet, was, however, unable to exercise efficient control over all departments of state. Nevertheless his administration was by no means unfruitful. Zanardelli, minister of justice, secured in June 1888 the adoption of a new penal code; state surveillance was extended to the opere pie, or charitable institutions; municipal franchise was reformed by granting what was practically manhood suffrage with residential qualification, provision being made for minority representation; and the central state administration was reformed by a bill fixing the number and functions of the various ministries. The management of finance was scarcely satisfactory, for though Giolitti, who had succeeded Magliani and Perazzi at the treasury, suppressed the former’s illusory “pension fund,” he lacked the fibre necessary to deal with the enormous deficit of nearly £10,000,000 in 1888-1889, the existence of which both Perazzi and he had recognized. The most successful feature of Crispi’s term of office was his strict maintenance of order and the suppression of Radical and Irredentist agitation. So vigorous was his treatment of Irredentism that he dismissed without warning his colleague Seismit Doda, minister of finance, for having failed to protest against Irredentist speeches delivered in his presence at Udine. Firmness such as this secured for him the support of all constitutional elements, and after three years’ premiership his position was infinitely stronger than at the outset. The general election of 1890 gave the cabinet an almost unwieldy majority, comprising four-fifths of the Chamber. A lengthy term of office seemed to be opening out before him when, on the 31st of January 1891, Crispi, speaking in a debate upon an unimportant bill, angrily rebuked the Right for its noisy interruptions. The rebuke infuriated the Conservative deputies, who, protesting against Crispi’s words in the name of the “sacred memories” of their party, precipitated a division and placed the cabinet in a minority. The incident, whether due to chance or guile, brought about the resignation of Crispi. A few days later he was succeeded in the premiership by the marquis di Rudini, leader of the Right, who formed a coalition cabinet with Nicotera and a part of the Left.
The sudden fall of Crispi wrought a great change in the character of Italian relations with foreign powers. His policy had been characterized by extreme cordiality towards Austria and Germany, by a close understanding with Rudini. Great Britain in regard to Mediterranean questions, and by an apparent animosity towards France, which at one moment seemed likely to lead to war. Shortly before the fall of the Depretis-Robilant cabinet Count Robilant had announced the intention of Italy to denounce the commercial treaties with France and Austria, which would lapse on the 31st of December 1887, and had intimated his readiness to negotiate new treaties. On the 24th of June 1887, in view of a possible rupture of commercial relations with France, the Depretis-Crispi cabinet introduced a new general tariff. The probability of the conclusion of a new Franco-Italian treaty was small, both on account of the protectionist spirit of France and of French resentment at the renewal of the triple alliance, but even such slight probability vanished after a visit paid to Bismarck by Crispi (October 1887) within three months of his appointment to the premiership. Crispi entertained no a priori animosity towards France, but was strongly convinced that Italy must emancipate herself from the position of political dependence on her powerful neighbour which had vitiated the foreign policy of the Left. So far was he from desiring a rupture with France, that he had subordinated acceptance of the portfolio of the interior in the Depretis cabinet to an assurance that the triple alliance contained no provision for offensive warfare. But his ostentatious visit to Friedrichsruh, and a subsequent speech at Turin, in which, while professing sentiments of friendship and esteem for France, he eulogized the personality of Bismarck, aroused against him a hostility on the part of the French which he was never afterwards able to allay. France was equally careless of Italian susceptibilities, and in April 1888 Goblet made a futile but irritating attempt to enforce at Massawa the Ottoman régime of the capitulations in regard to non-Italian residents. In such circumstances the negotiations for the new commercial treaty could but fail, and though the old treaty was prolonged by special arrangement for two months, differential tariffs were put in force on both sides of the frontier on the 29th of February 1888. The value of French exports into Italy decreased immediately by one-half, while Italian exports to France decreased by nearly two-thirds. At the end of 1889 Crispi abolished the differential duties against French imports and returned to the general Italian tariff, but France declined to follow his lead and maintained her prohibitive dues. Meanwhile the enthusiastic reception accorded to the young German emperor on the occasion of his visit to Rome in October 1888, and the cordiality shown towards King Humbert and Crispi at Berlin in May 1889, increased the tension of Franco-Italian relations; nor was it until after the fall of Prince Bismarck in March 1890 that Crispi adopted towards the Republic a more friendly attitude by sending an Italian squadron to salute President Carnot at Toulon. The chief advantage derived by Italy from Crispi’s foreign policy was the increase of confidence in her government on the part of her allies and of Great Britain. On the occasion of the incident raised by Goblet with regard to Massawa, Bismarck made it clear to France that, in case of complications, Italy would not stand alone; and when in February 1888 a strong French fleet appeared to menace the Italian coast, the British Mediterranean squadron demonstrated its readiness to support Italian naval dispositions. Moreover, under Crispi’s hand Italy awoke from the apathy of former years and gained consciousness of her place in the world. The conflict with France, the operations in Eritrea, the vigorous interpretation of the triple alliance, the questions of Morocco and Bulgaria, were all used by him as means to stimulate national sentiment. With the instinct of a true statesman, he felt the pulse of the people, divined their need for prestige, and their preference for a government heavy-handed rather than lax. How great had been Crispi’s power was seen by contrast with the policy of the Rudini cabinet which succeeded him in February 1891. Crispi’s so-called “megalomania” gave place to retrenchment in home affairs and to a deferential Second renewal of the Triple Alliance. attitude towards all foreign powers. The premiership of Rudini was hailed by the Radical leader, Cavallotti, as a pledge of the non-renewal of the triple alliance, against which the Radicals began a vociferous campaign. Their tactics, however, produced a contrary effect, for Rudini, accepting proposals from Berlin, renewed the alliance in June 1891 for a period of twelve years. None of Rudini’s public utterances justify the supposition that he assumed office with the intention of allowing the alliance to lapse on its expiry in May 1892; indeed, he frankly declared it to form the basis of his foreign policy. The attitude of several of his colleagues was more equivocal, but though they coquetted with French financiers in the hope of obtaining the support of the Paris Bourse for Italian securities, the precipitate renewal of the alliance destroyed all probability of a close understanding with France. The desire of Rudini to live on the best possible terms with all powers was further evinced in the course of a visit paid to Monza by M. de Giers in October 1891, when the Russian statesman was apprised of the entirely defensive nature of Italian engagements under the triple alliance. At the same time he carried to a successful conclusion negotiations begun by Crispi for the renewal of commercial treaties with Austria and Germany upon terms which to some extent compensated Italy for the reduction of her commerce with France, and concluded with Great Britain conventions for the delimitation of British and Italian spheres of influence in north-east Africa. In home affairs his administration was weak and vacillating, nor did the economies effected in naval and military expenditure and in other departments suffice to strengthen the position of a cabinet which had disappointed the hopes of its supporters. On the 14th of April 1892 dissensions between ministers concerning the financial programme led to a cabinet crisis, and though Rudini succeeded in reconstructing his administration, he was defeated in the Chamber on the 5th of May and obliged to resign. King Humbert, Giolitti. who, from lack of confidence in Rudini, had declined to allow him to dissolve parliament, entrusted Signor Giolitti, a Piedmontese deputy, sometime treasury minister in the Crispi cabinet, with the formation of a ministry of the Left, which contrived to obtain six months’ supply on account, and dissolved the Chamber.