Slike stranica
PDF
ePub

In Greece, owing to the obstruction of the Opposition under the veteran leader M. Delyannis, the parliamentary session was barren of all useful legislation. Brigandage, too, which for many years had been extinct in the country, was revived in the Western Morea and Thessaly. Most of the brigands were ordinary fugitives from justice or persons who had escaped from the prisons; of these the former were the more numerous, owing to the practice of absconding to avoid prosecution, even for comparatively trivial offences. The outlaws were frequently furnished by the peasants with provisions and other assistance. At Patras a brigand named Panopoulos, who had kidnapped the son of a wealthy citizen of gina and had exacted 100,000 francs for his release, on being arrested and conducted by the police to the railway station was greeted with acclamations by an enthusiastic crowd and presented by ladies with sweetmeats, flowers, lottery tickets, and other tributes of admiration. A general election took place in December, at which M. Delyannis, the leader of the Opposition, obtained a majority and was consequently appointed Premier. The party which had prior to the election formed the majority, however, refused to accept the decision of the people, and attempted to prevent the members of the Government from taking their seats at the opening of the Chamber by hiding the keys, so that the Delyannists had to enter the House by fire-escape ladders through the back windows. In the speech from the Throne it was stated that in future Cabinets would be formed of the party chosen by the majority of the electors, and that the privileges of the Crown would be in accord with the rights of the Chamber, the Delyannists having protested against the appointment of the Zaïmis Ministry (see ANNUAL REGISTER, 1901, p. 309), on the ground that it did not represent the majority.

CHAPTER IV.

LESSER STATES OF WESTERN AND NORTHERN EUROPE.

I. BELGIUM.

THE Bill for military reform read for the first time at the end of 1901 was finally passed by the Chamber of Representatives (January 25) by 74 against 42. The debate was less violent in the Senate than in the Chamber; at the same time a Liberal Senator brought in an amendment providing that none should be exempt from military service by the payment of money, and that the provisions of the law relating to substitution should be repealed. He added, in the name of the entire Left, that if the Government refused this amendment, the Left would dissociate itself absolutely from the debate, not wishing to take the responsibility of any participation in this ill-omened measure before the

eyes of the people. Replying in the name of the Government, the Minister of the Interior, M. de Trooz, declared himself a supporter of personal service on principle, but added that he could not accept the proposed amendment, on the ground that it concerned moral and social order rather than military. In consequence of this the Left abstained scrupulously from taking part in the debate, and all the clauses were passed by the Senate, without a word of comment, by 56 against 25. Shortly afterwards the Bill received the Royal assent.

It is, as yet, impossible to pronounce definitively on the consequences of this new law. One thing only was certain, that up to the end of the year, and in spite of the great pecuniary advantages offered to Volunteers, the voluntarily enlisted forces had not shown the results anticipated by the promoters of the system adopted, and that unless the Government were prepared to see the effective of the army seriously diminished in time of peace because of the reduction of the length of service introduced by the new law, it would be obliged to consider the question anew and to take further measures.

The Bill dealing with gambling was also read a second time, and was finally passed (March 21) by 93 against 7, with 10 abstaining. This question also raised some vehement discussion, especially in regard to a subsidy of 7,000,000 francs which the Government proposed to place at the disposal of the towns of Spa and Ostend for the execution of certain public works. in compensation for the loss which these towns would suffer by the suppression of gambling. The Left, supported in this instance by M. de Lantsheere, formerly Catholic Minister of Justice, was of opinion that this subsidy could not be voted till after the promulgation of the gambling law, seeing that the effects of that law could not be experienced till it was in operation, and if Royal sanction were refused the subsidy would in fact be unnecessary. Without explanation, the Government replied that the law concerning gambling and the law granting subsidies would be promulgated at the same time; and the subsidies were voted by 70 against 10, with 8 abstaining. The anti-gambling law was not, however, signed by the King till the end of October, and was not promulgated before the last days of December. Other questions held a first place in the politics of the year. It is well known that in Belgium there is the "plural" suffrage; that is to say, a large number of electors who are in possession of certain capital and certain titles held to be proofs of capacity have two, three, and sometimes four votes. The Socialists were the first to attract attention to the injustice of this arrangement, because of the innumerable frauds to which this voting system is liable; and little by little they converted a large number of the Liberal party to their view. Before long the two sections of the party, Radical and Moderate, united in formulating a plan for the revision of Article 47 of the Constitution, maintaining universal suffrage, already a

part of the Constitution, suppressing the "plural" vote, incorporating in the Constitution provision for proportional representation, and enacting compulsory education. The Socialist party joined unreservedly with the Liberals in support of the project. On the other hand, the Catholic party were absolutely opposed to the suppression of the "plural" vote.

Important demonstrations in support of the proposed reform and the abandonment of the "plural" suffrage took place in most of the large towns of the country. The Government refused to be intimidated by these demonstrations, and through the head of the Cabinet declared that it could not accept the unqualified universal suffrage demanded by the Opposition, because it held it incompatible with the institutions of the country. This declaration, on account of the somewhat aggressive form in which it was made, raised an indescribable tumult in the Chamber. On March 20 a formal proposal for the revision of the Constitution, signed by the Socialist leader, M. Vandervelde, and M. Janson, one of the principal representatives of advanced Liberalism, was placed on the table of the House. Meanwhile demonstrations in favour of the revision succeeded each other without interruption, and became more and more serious; at Brussels on April 10 the police were obliged to have recourse to arms, and three deaths resulted. At the same time a general strike was preached to the working classes, as a means of forcing the hand of the Government, and in a few days there were no fewer than 350,000 workmen on strike all over the country. The Minister of War, in order to ensure the maintenance of order, was forced to call a certain number of the militia to arms. It was in the midst of this tumultuous agitation that the great debate on the Bill for constitutional revision was opened in the Chamber (April 16). From the beginning the Government declared energetically that it would not yield to riot. The head of the Government, M. de Smedt-de-Naeyer, affirmed that the "plural" suffrage, the result of a loyal transaction with the Opposition, made only a few years before, had not been sufficiently tested; that a new revision was not according to the wishes of the greater part of the people, and he formally invited the Chamber to refuse to consider it. The debate was extremely animated, at times violent; and finally the Bill for the revision was rejected (April 18) by 84 to 64, Right against Left. Although anticipated, this vote was received with anger by the whole Socialist party. At Louvain, in particular, serious demonstrations took place, on account of which the city guard was obliged to fire, killing eight men and wounding twentyfive.

Two days after this the General Council of the Labour party decided on ending the strike and resuming work-a decision which, after a keen discussion, was approved by a large majority at a Congress of the Labour party held at Brussels (May 4).

On May 25 the re-election of half the Chamber of Repre

sentatives took place. Five provinces out of nine were summoned to take part in the election. A few weeks before the Chamber had voted a Government measure augmenting the number of Deputies in proportion to the increase in the population of the country. The number was increased from 152 to 166. As to the Senate, of which no members retired in 1902, it was only necessary to provide seven new seats on account of the increase in the population. The elections took place in absolute calm, in striking contrast to the violent disturbances of the preceding months. It was necessary to replace seventy-six Deputies, who formed the retiring half of the Chamber, and also to fill one seat rendered vacant by death, and in addition the fourteen new seats recently created.

Among the seventy-seven retiring Deputies forty-seven were Catholics, twenty Liberals and ten Socialists; and there remained in the Chamber thirty-nine Catholics, fourteen Liberals, twenty-one Socialists and one Christian Democrat. In this first section the status quo was almost entirely maintained, only one seat being lost by the Liberals to the Catholics. With regard to the fourteen new seats the Catholics obtained nine, the Liberals one, the Socialists three and the Christian Democrats one. Finally, the new Chamber numbered ninety-six Catholics instead of eighty-six, thirty-four Liberals as before, thirty-four Socialists instead of thirty-one, and two Christian Democrats instead of one. The Opposition, therefore, numbered seventy instead of sixty-six, and the Catholic majority, which had been twenty, was increased to twenty-six.

With regard to the Senate, it numbered sixty-two Catholics instead of fifty-eight, forty-one Liberals instead of thirty-nine, and six Socialists instead of five-with a Catholic majority of fifteen instead of fourteen.

A small change took place in the formation of the Cabinet after the elections: the Minister of Industries, M. Surmont de Volsberghe, retired on account of overwork, and was replaced by M. Francotte.

The death of the Queen Marie Henriette on September 19 was not a political event strictly speaking, as the Queen had never taken any part in politics. But her funeral was the scene of a painful incident between the King and his daughter, Princess Stéphanie, widow of the Archduke Rodolph of Austria. Irritated by her second marriage with Count Lonyay, the King refused to meet his daughter at the deathbed of her mother. This incident made a very painful impression throughout the country, and the conduct of the King under these circumstances met with respectful but severe condemnation.

Nevertheless, a little while after, on November 15, in consequence of an attack, happily unsuccessful, on the life of King Leopold II. by an Italian named Rubino, the whole country showed most unmistakably the profound affection which it cherishes for the person of the Sovereign.

II. THE NETHERLANDS.

In spite of the vast programme elaborated in 1901 by the new Conservative Government, the changes introduced in 1902 by the Ministry were, on the whole, unimportant. The Cabinet did not propose nor cause Parliament to adopt any measure relating to the great reforms enumerated in its programme, except the Bill for military discipline. And in the course of the debate on that measure the Ministry at one time suffered defeat. An amendment proposed by a Socialist Deputy demanded the postponement of the execution of a penalty, in case of a protest or appeal, until a higher military authority should have dealt with the matter. The Minister of War, General Bergansius, opposed this amendment as wholly inadmissible; and the Chamber supported him by rejecting it by 52 against 18. Subsequently, however, an Anti-Revolutionary of the Left brought in a new amendment, stipulating that, at any rate in time of peace, the execution of a sentence protested against should be delayed till after inquiry by a higher authority. In spite of the protests of the Minister of War, who affirmed that under this system it would be impossible to maintain order and discipline in the army, the amendment was passed by 40 to 30. Thereon the Minister of War demanded the adjournment of the debate in order that the Cabinet might consider what course they would adopt. In the meanwhile the majority, afraid that the Cabinet might be wrecked on this question, not really of great moment, reversed their decision some days later and rejected the amendment, after the Government had made other proposals to reconcile the different sections of the Chamber on the question of the suspension of military punishments. Finally, by 81 to 5, the Chamber voted the whole of the Bill for the military penal code and military discipline.

The application of the new military law, passed the year before, also gave rise to an incident during the month of May. The Minister of War, by virtue of a Royal decree, summoned to arms men belonging to the classes of 1895, 1896 and 1897 for a period of drill. This measure roused great excitement in the country; everywhere meetings were held to protest against the illegality of the decree, on the ground that the prescriptions of the law of 1901 were not applicable to men of the two firstnamed classes. In the Chamber itself this point of view was shared; it was said that the terms of the Act were not clear, and two members of the majority brought in a Bill intended to supply the deficiency. Thereon the Minister of War, amid the applause of the whole Chamber, declared that he would propose to the Queen to suspend the execution of the decree in question until after the vote on the new Bill.

Some partial elections which took place during the year only increased the majority in the Second Chamber, showing

Y

« PrethodnaNastavi »