The Governments of Europe Part 7

[Footnote 120: It is to be observed that these figures are for the United Kingdom as a whole, embracing the results not merely of the act of 1867 applying to England and Wales but of the two acts of 1868 introducing similar, though not identical, changes in Scotland and Ireland.]

*89. The Representation of the People Act of 1884.*--That the qualifications for voting in one cla.s.s of const.i.tuencies should be conspicuously more liberal than in another cla.s.s was an anomaly, and in a period when anomalies were at last being eliminated from the English electoral system remedy could not be long delayed. February 5, 1884, the second Gladstone ministry redeemed a campaign pledge by introducing a bill extending to the counties the same electoral regulations that had been established in 1867 in the towns. The measure pa.s.sed the Commons, but was rejected by the Lords by reason of the fact that it was not accompanied by a bill for the redistribution of seats. By an agreement between the two houses a threatened deadlock was averted, and the upshot was that before the end of the year the Lords accepted the Government's bill, on the understanding that its enactment was to be followed immediately by the introduction of a redistribution measure. The Representation of the People Act of (p. 085) 1884 is in form disjointed and difficult to understand, but the effect of it is easy to state. By it there was established a uniform household franchise and a uniform lodger franchise in all counties and boroughs of the United Kingdom. The occupation of any land or tenement of a clear annual value of 10 was made a qualification in boroughs and counties alike; and persons occupying a house by virtue of office or employment were to be deemed "occupiers" for the purpose of the act. The measure doubled the county electorate and increased the total electorate by some 2,000,000, or approximately forty per cent. Its most important effect was to enfranchise the workingman in the country, as the act of 1867 had enfranchised the workingman in the town.

*90. The Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885.*--In 1885, the two great parties co-operating, there was pa.s.sed the Redistribution of Seats Act which had been promised. Now for the first time in English history attempt was made to apportion representation in the House of Commons in something like strict accordance with population densities. In the first place, the total number of members was increased from 658[121]

to 670, and of the number 103 were allotted to Ireland, 72 to Scotland, and 495 to England and Wales. In the next place, the method by which former redistributions had been accomplished, i.e., transferring seats more or less arbitrarily from flagrantly over-represented boroughs to more populous boroughs and counties, was replaced by a method based upon the principle of equal electoral const.i.tuencies, each returning one member. In theory a const.i.tuency was made to comprise 50,000 people. Boroughs containing fewer than 15,000 inhabitants were disfranchised as boroughs, becoming for electorial purposes portions of the counties in which they were situated. Boroughs of between 15,000 and 50,000 inhabitants were allowed to retain, or if previously unrepresented were given, one member each. Those of between 50,000 and 165,000 were given two members, and those of more than 165,000 three, with one in addition for every additional 50,000 people. The same general principle was followed in the counties. Thus the city of Liverpool, which prior to 1885 sent three members to Parliament, fell into nine distinct const.i.tuencies, each returning one member, and the great northern county of Lancas.h.i.+re, which since 1867 had been divided into four portions each returning two members, was now split into twenty-three divisions with one member each. The boroughs which prior to 1885 elected two members, and at the redistribution retained that number, remained single const.i.tuencies for the election of those two members.

Of these boroughs there are to-day twenty-three. They, together (p. 086) with the city of London and the three universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, comprise the existing twenty-seven two-member const.i.tuencies. By part.i.tion of the counties, of the old boroughs having more than two members, and of the new boroughs with only two members, all save these twenty-seven const.i.tuencies have been erected into separate, single-member electoral divisions, each with its own name and ident.i.ty.[122]

[Footnote 121: Strictly 652, since after 1867 four boroughs, returning six members, were disfranchised.]

[Footnote 122: On the reforms of the period 1832-1885 see Cambridge Modern History, X., Chap.

18, and XI., Chap. 12; d.i.c.kinson, Development of Parliament, Chap. 2; Rose, Rise and Growth of Democracy, Chaps. 2, 10-13; Marriott, English Political Inst.i.tutions, Chap. 10. An excellent survey is May and Holland, Const.i.tutional History of England, I., Chap. 6, and III., Chap. 1. Mention may be made of H. c.o.x, A History of the Reform Bills of 1866 and 1867 (London, 1868); J. S. Mill, Considerations on Representative Government (London, 1861); and T. Hare, The Election of Representatives, Parliamentary and Munic.i.p.al (3d ed., London, 1865). An excellent survey by a Swiss scholar is contained in C. Borgeaud, The Rise of Modern Democracy in Old and New England, trans. by B. Hill (London, 1894), and a useful volume is J.

Murdock, A History of Const.i.tutional Reform in Great Britain and Ireland (Glasgow, 1885). The various phases of the subject are covered, of course, in the general histories of the period, notably S. Walpole, History of England from the Conclusion of the Great War in 1815, 6 vols. (new ed., London, 1902); W. N. Molesworth, History of England from the year 1830-1874, 3 vols. (London, 1874); J. F. Bright, History of England, 5 vols.

(London, 1875-1894); H. Paul, History of Modern England, 5 vols. (London, 1904-1906); and S. Low and L. C. Sanders, History of England during the Reign of Victoria (London, 1907). Three biographical works are of special service: S.

Walpole, Life of Lord John Russell, 2 vols.

(London, 1889); J. Morley, Life of William E.

Gladstone, 3 vols. (London, 1903); and W. F.

Monypenny, Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield, vols. 1-2 (London and New York, 1910-1912).]

III. THE FRANCHISE AND THE ELECTORAL QUESTIONS OF TO-DAY

*91. The Franchise as It Is.*--By the measures of 1884 and 1885 the House of Commons was placed upon a broadly democratic basis. Both measures stand to-day upon the statute-books, and neither has been amended in any important particular. With respect to the existing franchises there are two preponderating facts. One of them is that individuals, as such, do not possess the privilege of voting; on the contrary, the possession of the privilege is determined all but invariably in relation to the owners.h.i.+p or occupation of property. The other is that the franchise system, while substantially uniform throughout the kingdom, is none the less the most complicated in Europe. There are three important franchises which are universal and two which are not. In the first group are included: (1) occupancy, as owner or tenant, of land or tenement of a clear yearly value of 10; (2) occupancy, as owner or tenant, of a dwelling-house, or part of a house used as a separate dwelling, without regard to its value; (p. 087) and (3) occupancy of lodgings of the value, unfurnished, of 10 a year. The two franchises which are not universal are (1) owners.h.i.+p of land of forty s.h.i.+llings yearly value or occupation of land under certain other specified conditions--this being applicable only to counties and, to a small extent, to boroughs which are counties in themselves; and (2) residence of freemen in those towns in which they had a right to vote prior to 1832. The conditions and exceptions by which these various franchises are attended are so numerous that few people in England save lawyers make a pretense of knowing them all, and the volume of litigation which arises from the attempted distinction between "householder" and "lodger," and from other technicalities of the subject, is enormous. Voters must be twenty-one years of age, and there are several complicated requirements in respect to the period of occupation of land and of residence, and likewise in respect to the fulfillment of the formalities of registration.[123] There are also various incidental disqualifications.

No peer, other than a peer of Ireland who is in possession of a seat in the House of Commons, may vote; persons employed as election agents, canva.s.sers, clerks, or messengers may not vote, nor may the returning officers of the const.i.tuencies, save when necessary to break a tie between two candidates; and aliens, felons, and, under stipulated conditions, persons in receipt of public charity, are similarly debarred. In the aggregate, however, the existing franchises approach measurably near manhood suffrage. It has been computed that the ratio of electors to population is approximately one in six, whereas, the normal proportion of males above the age of twenty-one, making no allowance for paupers, criminals, and other persons commonly disqualified by law, is somewhat less than one in four. The only cla.s.ses of adult males at present excluded regularly from the voting privilege are domestic servants, bachelors living with their parents and occupying no premises on their own account, and persons whose change of abode periodically deprives them of a vote.

[Footnote 123: On the process of registration see Anson, Law and Custom of the Const.i.tution, I., 134-137, and M. Caudel, L'enregistrement des electeurs en Angleterre, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, Sept., 1906.]

"The present condition of the franchise," a.s.serts Lowell, "is, indeed, historical rather than rational. It is complicated, uncertain, expensive in the machinery required, and excludes a certain number of people whom there is no reason for excluding, while it admits many people who ought not to be admitted if any one is to be debarred."[124]

During the past generation there has been demand from a variety (p. 088) of quarters that the conditions of the franchise, and, indeed, the electoral system as a whole, be overhauled, co-ordinated, and liberalized; and at the date of writing (1912) there is pending in Parliament a measure of fundamental importance looking in this direction. The electoral changes which have been most widely advocated, at least in recent years, are four in number: (1) a fresh apportionment of seats in the Commons in accordance with the distribution of population; (2) the extension of the franchise to cla.s.ses of men at present debarred; (3) the abolition of the plural vote; and (4) the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of women.

[Footnote 124: Government of England, I., 213. On the franchise system see Anson, Law and Custom of the Const.i.tution, I., Chap. 4 and Lowell, _op.

cit._, I., Chap. 9.]

*92. The Question of Redistribution of Seats.*--As has been pointed out, the Redistribution of Seats Act of 1885 established const.i.tuencies in which there was some approach to equality. The principle was far from completely carried out. For example, the newly created borough of Chelsea contained upwards of 90,000 people, while the old borough of Windsor had fewer than 20,000. But the inequalities left untouched by the act were slight in comparison with those which have arisen during a quarter of a century in which there has been no reapportionment whatsoever. In 1901 the least populous const.i.tuency of the United Kingdom, the borough of Newry in Ireland, contained but 13,137 people, while the southern division of the county of Ess.e.x contained 217,030; yet each was represented by a single member. This means, of course, a gross disparity in the weight of popular votes, and, in effect, the over-representation of certain sets of opinions and interests. In January, 1902, an amendment to a parliamentary address urging the desirability of redistribution was warmly debated in the Commons, and, on the eve of its fall, in the summer of 1905, the Balfour government submitted a Redistribution Resolution designed to meet the demands of the "one vote, one value" propagandists. At this time it was pointed out that whereas immediately after the reform of 1885 the greatest ratio of disparity among the const.i.tuencies was 5.8 to 1, in twenty years it had risen to 16.5 to 1. The plan proposed provided for the fixing of the average population to be represented by a member at from 50,000 to 65,000, the giving of eighteen additional seats to England and Wales and of four to Scotland, the reduction of Ireland's quota by twenty-two, and such further readjustments as would bring down the ratio of greatest disparity to 6.8 to 1. Under a ruling of the Speaker to the effect that the resolution required to be divided into eight or nine parts, to be debated separately, the proposal was withdrawn. It was announced that a bill upon the subject would be brought in, but the early retirement of the ministry rendered this impossible, (p. 089) and throughout succeeding years this aspect of electoral reform yielded precedence to other matters.[125]

[Footnote 125: _Annual Register_ (1905), 193.]

A special difficulty inherent in the subject is imposed by the peculiar situation of Ireland. By reason of the decline of Ireland's population during the past half century that portion of the United Kingdom has come to be markedly over-represented at Westminster. The average Irish commoner sits for but 44,147 people, while the average English member represents 66,971. If a new distribution were to be made in strict proportion to members Ireland would lose 30 seats and Wales three, while Scotland would gain one and England about 30. It is contended by the Irish people, however, that the Act of Union of 1800, whereby Ireland was guaranteed as many as one hundred parliamentary seats, is in the nature of a treaty, whose stipulations cannot be violated save by the consent of both contracting parties; and so long as the Irish are not allowed a separate parliament they may be depended upon to resist, as they did resist in 1905, any proposal contemplating the reduction of their voting strength in the parliament of the United Kingdom.

*93. The Problem of the Plural Vote.*--Aside from the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of women, the princ.i.p.al suffrage questions in Great Britain to-day are those pertaining to the conferring of the voting privilege upon adult males who are still debarred, the abolition of the plural vote, and a general simplification and unification of franchise arrangements. The problem of the plural vote is an old one. Under existing law an elector may not vote more than once in a single const.i.tuency, nor in more than one division of the same borough; but aside from this, and except in so far as is not prohibited by residence requirements, he is ent.i.tled to vote in every const.i.tuency in which he possesses a qualification. In the United States and in the majority of European countries a man is possessed of but one vote, and any arrangement other than this would seem to contravene the principle of civic equality which lies at the root of popular government. In England there have been repeated attempts to bring about the establishment of an unvarying rule of "one man, one vote," but never as yet with success. The number of plural voters--some 525,000--is relatively small, but when it is remembered that a single voter may cast during a parliamentary election as many as fifteen or twenty votes it will be observed that the number quite suffices to turn the scale in many closely contested const.i.tuencies. An overwhelming proportion of the plural voters are identified with the Conservative party, whence it arises that the Liberals are, and long have been, hostile to the privilege. Following the Liberal triumph at the elections of 1906 (p. 090) a Plural Voting Bill was introduced requiring that every elector possessed of more than one vote should be registered in the const.i.tuency of his choice and in no other one. The measure pa.s.sed the Commons, by a vote of 333 to 104, but the Conservative majority in the Lords compa.s.sed its defeat, alleging that while it was willing to consider a complete scheme of electoral reform the proposed bill was not of such character.[126]

[Footnote 126: May and Holland, Const.i.tutional History of England, III., 48-49. It may be noted that an able royal commission, appointed in December, 1908, to study foreign electoral systems and to recommend modifications of the English system, reported in 1910 adversely to the early adoption of any form of proportional representation.]

*94. The Franchise Bill of 1912.*--Soon after the final enactment, in August, 1911, of the Parliament Bill whereby the complete ascendancy of the Commons was secured in both finance and legislation[127] the Liberal government of Mr. Asquith made known its intention to bring forward at an early date a comprehensive measure of franchise reform.

During the winter of 1911-1912 the project was formulated, and in the early summer of 1912 the bill was introduced. The adoption of the measure in its essentials is not improbable, although at the date of writing[128] it is by no means a.s.sured. In the main, the bill makes provision for three reforms. In the first place, it subst.i.tutes for the present complicated and illogical network of suffrages a simple residential or occupational qualification, thereby extending the voting privilege to practically all adult males. In the second place, it simplifies the process of registration and, in effect, enfranchises large numbers of men who in the past have been unable to vote because of change of residence or of the difficulties of the registration process. Finally, it abolishes absolutely both the plural vote and the separate representation of the universities. The effect of the first two of these provisions, it is estimated, would be to enlarge the electorate by 2,500,000 votes, that of the third, to reduce it by upwards of 600,000;[129] so that the net result of the three would be to raise an existing electorate of eight millions to one of ten millions. A total of twenty-eight franchise statutes are totally, and forty-four others are partially, repealed by the bill. The ground upon which the measure, in its earlier stages, was attacked princ.i.p.ally was its lack of provision for a redistribution of seats. The defense of the Government has been that, while the imperative need of redistribution is recognized, such redistribution can be effected only after it shall be known precisely what the franchise arrangements (p. 091) of the kingdom are to be.[130]

[Footnote 127: See pp. 110-113.]

[Footnote 128: October, 1912.]

[Footnote 129: The number of plural voters is placed at 525,000; that of graduates who elect the university representatives, at 49,614.]

[Footnote 130: A timely volume is J. King and F. W.

Raffety, Our Electoral System; the Demand for Reform (London, 1912).]

*95. The Question of Woman's Suffrage.*--It will be observed that the Franchise Bill restricts the franchise to adult males. The measure was shaped deliberately, however, to permit the incorporation of an amendment providing for the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of women. It is a fact not familiarly known that English women of requisite qualifications were at one time in possession of the suffrage at national elections. They were not themselves allowed to vote, but a woman was privileged to pa.s.s on her qualifications temporarily to any man, and, prior to the seventeenth century, the privilege was occasionally exercised. It was not indeed, until the Reform Act of 1832 that the law of elections, by introducing the phrase "male persons," in effect vested the parliamentary franchise exclusively in men.[131] The first notable attempt made in Parliament to restore and extend the female franchise was that of John Stuart Mill in 1867. His proposed amendment to the reform bill of that year was defeated by a vote of 196 to 73. In 1870 a woman's suffrage measure drafted by Dr. Pankhurst and introduced in the Commons by John Bright pa.s.sed its second reading by a majority of thirty-three, but was subsequently rejected. During the seventies and early eighties a vigorous propaganda was maintained and almost every session produced its crop of woman's suffrage bills. A determined attempt was made to secure the inclusion of a woman's suffrage clause in the Reform Bill of 1884. The proposed amendment was supported very generally by the press, but in consequence of a threat by Gladstone to the effect that if the amendment were carried the entire measure would be withdrawn the project was abandoned. The next chapter of importance in the history of the movement was inaugurated by the organization, in 1903, of the Women's Social and Political Union. In 1904 a suffrage bill was introduced but failed to become law. Within the past decade, however, the cause has made substantial headway, and by the spectacular character which it has a.s.sumed it has attracted wide attention. In March, 1912, a Woman's Enfranchis.e.m.e.nt measure was rejected in the House of Commons by the narrow margin of 222 to 208 votes. Premier Asquith is opposed to female enfranchis.e.m.e.nt, but his colleagues in the ministry are almost evenly divided upon the issue, and it is not inconceivable that a woman's suffrage measure may be carried through in the guise of an amendment to the pending Franchise Bill. If it were to be, and the qualifications should be made (p. 092) identical with those of men, the number of women voters would be approximately 10,500,000.[132]

[Footnote 131: May and Holland, Const.i.tutional History of England, III., 61.]

[Footnote 132: K. Schirmacher, The Modern Woman's Rights Movement, trans. by C. C. Eckhardt (New York, 1912), 58-96; B. Mason, The Story of the Woman's Suffrage Movement (London, 1911); E. S.

Pankhurst, The Suffragette; the History of the Woman's Militant Suffrage Movement, 1905-1910 (London, 1911). The subject is surveyed briefly in May and Holland, Const.i.tutional History, III., 59-66.]

*96. Qualifications for Election.*--The regulations governing the qualifications essential for election to Parliament are to-day, on the whole, simple and liberal. The qualification of residence was replaced in the eighteenth century by a property qualification; but, as has been pointed out, in 1858 this likewise was swept away. Oaths of allegiance and oaths imposing religious tests once operated to debar many, but all that is now required of a member is a very simple oath or affirmation of allegiance, in a form compatible with any shade of religious belief or unbelief. Any male British subject who is of age is qualified for election, unless he belongs to one of a few small groups--notably peers (except Irish); clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England, and the Church of Scotland; certain office-holders; bankrupts; and persons convicted of treason, felony, or corrupt practices. A member is not required to be a resident of the electoral district which he represents. Once elected, a man properly qualified cannot escape members.h.i.+p by resignation. He may be expelled, but the only means by which he can retire from the House voluntarily is the acceptance of some public post whose occupant is _ipso facto_ disqualified. To serve this end two or three sinecures are maintained, the best known being the stewards.h.i.+p of the Chiltern Hundreds. The member who desires to give up his seat accomplishes his purpose by applying for one of these offices, receiving it, and after having disqualified himself, resigning it.

IV. ELECTORAL PROCEDURE AND REGULATIONS

*97. Writs and Election Days.*--When a parliament is dissolved the royal proclamation wherein the dissolution is declared expresses the desire of the crown to have the advice of the people and announces the sovereign's will and pleasure to call a new parliament. With this proclamation as a warrant, the chancellors of Great Britain and Ireland forthwith issue writs of election, addressed to the returning officers of the counties and boroughs, i.e., in all Scotch and Irish const.i.tuencies and in the English counties the sheriffs, or their deputies, and in the English boroughs the mayors. The form of these writs, as well as the nature of the electoral procedure generally, is prescribed in the Parliamentary and Munic.i.p.al Elections Act, commonly known as the Ballot Act, of 1872.[133] Upon receipt of the proper (p. 093) writ the returning officer gives notice of the day and place of the election, and of the poll if it is known that the election will be contested. In the counties the election must take place within nine days, in the boroughs within four days, after receipt of the writ, but within these limits the date is fixed in each const.i.tuency by the returning officer. What actually happens on election day is: (1) all candidates for seats are placed formally in nomination; (2) if within an hour of the time fixed for the election the number of nominated candidates does not exceed the number of places to be filled, the election of these candidates is forthwith declared; and (3) if there is a contest the election is postponed to a polling day, to be fixed by the returning officer, in the counties from two to six, and in the boroughs not more than three, days distant.

[Footnote 133: For the form of the writ see Anson, Law and Custom of the Const.i.tution, I., 57.]

*98. The Polling.*--Prior to 1872 candidates were nominated _viva voce_ at the "hustings," an outdoor platform erected for the purpose; but nowadays nominations are made in writing. It is required that a candidate shall be proposed by a registered elector of the const.i.tuency and that his nomination shall be a.s.sented to formally by nine other electors. The number of uncontested elections is invariably large (especially in Ireland, where, in many instances, it is useless to oppose a candidate to the Nationalists), the proportion reaching sometimes one-fourth, and even one-third. Polling is completed within an individual const.i.tuency during the course of a single day, the hours being from eight o'clock in the morning until eight o'clock in the evening, but under the arrangements that have been described it falls out that a national election is extended invariably through a period of more than two weeks. The system operates, of course, to the advantage of the plural voter, who is enabled to present himself at the polls from day to day in widely separated const.i.tuencies. For the convenience of voters const.i.tuencies are divided regularly into districts, or precincts. When the properly qualified and registered elector appears at the polls a ballot paper is presented to him containing the names of the candidates. He takes this to a screened compartment and places a cross-mark opposite the name or names of those for whom he desires to vote, after which the paper is deposited in a box. At the conclusion of the polling, the boxes are transmitted to the returning officer of the const.i.tuency, the votes are counted, and the result is declared. The writ which served as the returning officer's authority is indorsed with a certificate of the election and returned to the clerk of the Crown in Chancery. It is to be observed, however, that in the universities the Ballot Act does not apply. In these const.i.tuencies an elector may deliver his vote orally, or (p. 094) he may transmit it by proxy from his place of residence.[134]

[Footnote 134: On electoral procedure see Lowell, Government of England, I., Chap. 10; M. MacDonaugh, The Book of Parliament (London, 1897), 24-50; H. J.

Bushby, Manual of the Practice of Elections for the United Kingdom (4th ed., London, 1874); W.

Woodings, The Conduct and Management of Parliamentary Elections (4th ed., London, 1900); E.

T. Powell, The Essentials of Self-Government, England and Wales (London, 1909); P. J. Blair, A Handbook of Parliamentary Elections (Edinburgh, 1909); and H. Fraser, The Law of Parliamentary Elections and Election Pet.i.tions (2d ed., London, 1910). A volume filled with interesting information is J. Grego, History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering from the Stuarts to Queen Victoria (new ed., London, 1892). The monumental work upon the entire subject is M. Powell (ed.), Rogers on Elections, 3 vols. (16th ed., London, 1897).]

*99. Frequency of Elections: the Campaign.*--General elections do not take place in Great Britain with periodic regularity. The only positive requirement in the matter is that an election must be ordered when a parliament has attained the maximum lifetime allowed it by law.

Prior to 1694 there was no stipulation upon this subject and the king could keep a parliament in existence as long as he liked. Charles II.

retained for seventeen years the parliament called at his accession.

From 1694 to 1716, however, the maximum term of a parliament was three years; from 1716 to 1911 it was seven years; to-day it is five years.[135] In point of fact, parliaments never last through the maximum period, and an average interval of three or four years between elections has been the rule. In most instances an election is precipitated more or less unexpectedly on an appeal to the country by a defeated ministry, and it not infrequently happens that an election turns all but completely upon a single issue and thus a.s.sumes the character of a national referendum upon the subject in hand. This was pre-eminently true of the last general election, that of December, 1910, at which the country was asked to sustain the Asquith government in its purpose to curb the independent authority of the House of Lords. In any event, the campaign by which the election is preceded is brief, although it continues throughout the electoral period, and, if the outcome is doubtful, tends to increase rather than to diminish in intensity. Appeals to the voters are made princ.i.p.ally through public speaking, the controversial and ill.u.s.trated press, the circulation of pamphlets and handbills, parades and ma.s.s-meetings, and the generous use of placards, cartoons, and other devices designed to attract and focus attention. Plans are laid, arguments are formulated, and (p. 095) leaders.h.i.+p in public appeal is a.s.sumed by the members of the Government, led by the premier, and, on the other side, by the men who are the recognized leaders of the parliamentary Opposition.[136]

[Footnote 135: The Representation of the People Act of 1867 made the duration of a parliament independent of a demise of the crown. The text of the Septennial Act and that of the Lords' Protest against the measure are printed in Robertson, Statutes, Cases, and Doc.u.ments, 117-119.]

[Footnote 136: M. Ostrogorski, Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties, trans. by F.

Clarke, 2 vols. (London, 1902), I., 442-501; MacDonaugh, The Book of Parliament, 1-23. Among numerous articles descriptive of English parliamentary elections mention may be made of H.

W. Lucy, The Methods of a British General Election, in _Forum_, Oct., 1900; S. Brooks, English and American Elections, in _Fortnightly Review_, Feb., 1910; W. T. Stead, The General Election in Great Britain, in _American Review of Reviews_, Feb., 1910; and d'Haussonville, Dix jours en Angleterre pendant les elections, in _Revue des Deux Mondes_, Feb. 1, 1910.]

*100. The Regulation of Electoral Expenditure.*--Time was, and within the memory of men still living, when an English parliamentary election was attended by corrupt practices so universal and so shameless as to appear almost more ludicrous than culpable. Voters as a matter of course accepted the bribes that were tendered them and ate and drank and smoked and rollicked at the candidate's expense throughout the electoral period and were considered men of conscience indeed if they did not end by going over to the opposition. The notorious Northampton election of 1768, in the course of which a body of voters numbering under a thousand were the recipients of hospitalities from the backers of three candidates which aggregated upwards of a million pounds, was, of course, exceptional; but the history of countless other cases differed from it only in the amounts laid out. To-day an altogether different state of things obtains. From having been one of the most corrupt, Great Britain has become one of the most exemplary of nations in all that pertains to the proprieties of electoral procedure. The Ballot Act of 1872 contained provisions calculated to strengthen pre-existing corrupt practices acts, but the real turning point was the adoption of the comprehensive Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act of 1883. By this measure bribery (in seven enumerated forms) and treating were made punishable by imprisonment or fine and, under varying conditions, political disqualification. The number and functions of the persons who may be employed by the candidate to a.s.sist in a campaign were prescribed, every candidate being required to have a single authorized agent charged with the disburs.e.m.e.nt of all moneys (save certain specified "personal" expenditures) in the candidate's behalf and with the duty of submitting to the returning officer within thirty-five days after the election a sworn statement covering all receipts and expenditures. And, finally, the act fixed, upon a sliding scale in proportion to the size of the const.i.tuencies, the maximum amounts which candidates may legitimately expend. In boroughs containing not more than 2,000 registered voters the amount is (p. 096) 350, with an additional 30 for every thousand voters above the number mentioned. In rural const.i.tuencies, where proper outlays will normally be larger, the sum of 650 is allowed when the number of registered electors falls under 2,000, with 60 for each additional thousand. Beyond these sums the candidate is allowed an outlay of 100 for expenses of a purely personal character.

The range of expenditure which is thus permitted by law is, of course, considerable, and the records of election cases brought into the courts demonstrate that not infrequently in practice its limits are exceeded. None the less, the effect of the law has been undeniably to restrain the outpouring of money by candidates, to purify politics, and at the same time to enable men of moderate means to stand for election who otherwise would be at grave disadvantage as against their wealthier and more lavish compet.i.tors. It is of interest to observe that by reason of the non-partic.i.p.ation of the state in electoral costs there fall upon candidates certain charges which are unknown in the United States and other countries. The bills submitted by the returning officer must be paid by the candidates within the const.i.tuency, and these bills cover the publis.h.i.+ng of notices of the election, the preparing and supplying of nomination papers, the cost of dies, ballot-paper, polling-stations, and printing, the fees of clerks, and, finally, the travelling expenses and fee of the returning officer himself. The candidate's share of this outlay may be as small as 25, but it is likely to be from 200 to 300 and may rise to as much as 600.[137]

[Footnote 137: On the adoption of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act of 1883 see May and Holland, Const.i.tutional History of England, III., 31-33. The actual operation of the system established may be ill.u.s.trated by citing a specific case. At the election of 1906 the maximum expenditure legally possible for Mr. Lloyd-George in his spa.r.s.ely populated Carnarvon const.i.tuency was 470. His authorized agent, after the election, reported an outlay of 50 on agents, 27 on clerks and messengers, 189 on printing, postage, etc., 30 on public meetings, 25 on committee rooms, and 40 on miscellaneous matters--a total of 361. The candidate's personal expenditure amounted to 92, so that the total outlay of 462 fell short by a scant 8 of the sum that might legally have been laid out. Divided among the 3,221 votes that Mr.

Lloyd-George received, his outlay per vote was 2s., 10d. At the same election Mr. Asquith's expenditure was 727; Mr. Winston Churchill's, 844; Mr. John Morley's, 479; Mr. Keir Hardie's, 623; Mr. James Bryce's, 480. In non-contested const.i.tuencies expenditures are small. In 1906 Mr. Redmond's was reported to be 25 and Mr. William O'Brien's, 20.

In 1900 a total of 1,103 candidates for 670 seats expended 777,429 in getting 3,579,345 votes; in 1906, 1,273 candidates for the same 670 seats expended 1,166,858 in getting 5,645,104 votes; in January, 1910, 1,311 candidates laid out 1,296,382 in getting 6,667,394 votes. A well-informed article is E. Porritt, Political Corruption in England, in _North American Review_, Nov. 16, 1906.]