The royal income, the successive increments to which accruing from the annexation of the various Italian states to the old kingdom of Piedmont, in regard to which there were about seven laws on the civil list, from 16 March 1850 to 31 May 1877, besides the last one de creed by King Humbert, corresponds almost to the permanent government expenses in Eng land, and is free from parliamentary control. Its administration is autonomous and precludes all interference by either chamber.
The Minister of the Royal Household, ac cording to the decree of 14 Nov. 1901, is nom inated by the suggestion of the Council of Ministers, but has no responsibility towards the Parliament. The prerogatives constitute the traditional element, Whose precedents extend far back in the limited monarchy, as in the absolute. But there is another element—im personal and non-statutory, but with a political significance and 'history connected with the state and with modern society. This is the most difficult matter the Crown has to contend with because it is relative to its raison d'ętre with regard to the democracy.
The Crown in Italy resumes all the chief characteristics of the parliamentary monarchy. Hence, in spite of diversities of origin, of cus toms and traditions, it resembles by analogy those of England and Belgium. A more pro found observation of the acts and functions of the king has established the fact that a parlia mentary monarchy will find its raison d'ętre in an elective principle, although the form be hereditary. History gives instances of this. The transition from the constitutional to the parliamentary form was determined in England in 1688 by solemn Act of Parliament, which de posed James II and put in his place William of Orange.
In Belgium the new monarchy arose by elec tive act of Parliament, after separation from France and the proclamation of a constitution in 1831.
In France the Crown underwent a profound transformation which distinguished the declara tion of 1814 from that of 1830, when the Parlia ment proclaimed Louis Philippe king of the French. The same character was seen in the dynasty of the Second Empire: Louis Napoleon was elected emperor in 1852 and called a pleb iscite in .1869. • The Crown in Italy has a special hereditary character through its historical traditions, but in virtue of the annexations and of the pleb iscites has been invested with an elective char acter, which is reflected in its actions; whence the constant and effectual support which it has given to the democratic evolution of the Italian Constitution. Within the limits of the Consti
tution the king, free from all restrictions, has the right to ameliorate the various organiza tions of the state. This is shown by the foreign policy; the authority to form alliances, to enter into agreements with foreign nations, to form a government, to renew the Parliament, to con voke the assembly.
These eminent prerogatives are distinct from the functions that the king exercises with the co-operation of the other functionaries of the. government, which may be called co-operative f unctions : (1) Co-operation with the legislative power in regard to the royal decree for the presenta tion of all the laws projected by the ministry, and to the sanction of those laws; for once they are voted on by the Chamber and the Senate, they become law. In theory the king's veto is absolute, but its peremptory character does not hinder the passage of a law, in fact this right has never been exercised. The method of veto granted to the President of the United States answers the purpose better, and has a beneficial influence in allowing time for the amendment of many important laws. It would be advis able to Introduce it in Italy where the lack of a mixed commission prevents any means of ad justing the want of unanimity in the two chambers, and thus leads to an acquiescence which is harmful to the efficiency of the laws.
(2) Co-operation with the executive power in the nomination to all the offices of state, which presupposes always a preference desig nated by the government, which is responsible for its nominee. This series of mutual relations does not include (at least in form) the initia tive of the king even in making those nomina tions which seem to pertain exclusively to his prerogative, for instance, the nomination of senators. This, properly speaking, is his spe cial right, in regard to the members of the gov ernment, and has also to be subscribed by re sponsible ministers.