Transcriber's note: Text enclosed between paired asterisks is in bold face. Original page numbers are shown at the right margin to facilitate use of the index. THE GOVERNMENTS OF EUROPE The MacMillan CompanyNew York - Boston - ChicagoDallas - San Francisco MacMillan & Co. , LimitedLondon - Bombay - CalcuttaMelbourne The MacMillan Co. Of Canada, Ltd. Toronto THE GOVERNMENTS OF EUROPE by FREDERIC AUSTIN OGG, Ph. D. Professor of Political Sciencein the University of WisconsinAuthor of"Social Progress in Contemporary Europe" New YorkThe MacMillan Company1918All rights reservedCopyright, 1913. By the MacMillan CompanySet up and electrotyped. Published February, 1913. Reprinted July, December, 1913; June, 1914; August, 1915;July, 1916; September, 1917. TO MY FATHER PREFACE (p.  vii) It is a matter of common observation that during the opening years ofthe twentieth century there has been, in many portions of thecivilized world, a substantial quickening of interest in theprinciples and problems of human government. The United States ishappily among those countries in which the phenomenon can be observed, and we have witnessed in recent times not only the organization ofsocieties and the establishment of journals designed to fosterresearch within the field, but also a notable multiplication andstrengthening of courses in political science open to students in ourcolleges and universities, as well as the development of clubs, forums, extension courses, and other facilities for the increasing ofpolitical information and the stimulation of political thinking on thepart of the people at large. It is the object of this book to promotethe intelligent study of government by supplying working descriptionsof the governmental systems of the various countries of western andcentral Europe as they have taken form and as they operate at thepresent day. Conceived and prepared primarily as a text for use incollege courses, it is hoped none the less that the volume may proveof service to persons everywhere whose interest in the subject leadsthem to seek the sort of information which is here presented. The content of the book has been determined, in the main, by threeconsiderations. In the first place, it has been deemed desirable toafford a wide opportunity for the _comparative_ study of politicalinstitutions, especially by reason of the familiar fact that thegovernmental system of a minor country may, and frequently does, exhibit elements of novelty and of importance not inferior to those tobe observed in the political organization of a greater state. Hencethere are included descriptions of the governments of the minor aswell as of the major nations of western and central Europe; and theoriginal purpose to attempt some treatment of the governments of theeastern nations has been abandoned, somewhat reluctantly, only becauseof the demands of space, and because it was felt that this portion ofthe projected work would perhaps meet no very serious need in theusual college courses. In the second place, it is believed that theintelligent study of present-day governments must involve at all (p.  viii)stages the taking into careful account of the historical origins andgrowth of these governments. Hence a considerable amount of space hasbeen devoted to sketches of constitutional history, which, however, are in all instances so arranged that they may readily be omitted iftheir omission is deemed desirable. In the case of countries whosepolitical system underwent a general reconstitution during theRevolutionary and Napoleonic era it has been thought not feasible toallude, even briefly, to historical developments prior to the latereighteenth century. In the third place, it has been considereddesirable to include in the book some treatment of political partiesand of the institutions of local administration. Within a field so expansive it has been possible to undertake but anintroduction to a majority of the subjects touched upon. In thefoot-notes will be found references to books, documents, andperiodical materials of widely varying types, and it is hoped thatsome of these may serve to guide student and reader to more intensiveinformation. The preparation of the book has been facilitated by the encouragementand the expert advice accorded me by a number of teachers ofgovernment in colleges and universities in various portions of thecountry. And I have had at all times the patient and discriminatingassistance of my wife. For neither the plan nor the details of thework, however, can responsibility be attached to anyone save myself. Ican only hope that amidst the multitude of facts, some elusive andmany subject to constant change, which I have attempted here to setdown, not many seriously vitiating errors may have escaped detection. Frederic Austin OGG. Cambridge, Massachusetts, January 10, 1913. TABLE OF CONTENTS (p.  ix) PART I. --GREAT BRITAIN I. THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION 1. The Importance of Historical Background 1 2. Anglo-Saxon Beginnings 2 3. The Norman-Plantagenet Period 6 4. The Rise of Parliament 11 5. Administrative and Judicial Development 16 6. The Tudor Monarchy 18 7. Parliament under the Tudors 21 8. The Stuarts: Crown and Parliament 26 9. The Later Stuarts: the Revolution of 1688-1689 31 II. THE CONSTITUTION SINCE THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 1. Crown and Parliament after 1789 34 2. Rise of the Cabinet and of Political Parties 37 3. The Scottish and Irish Unions 39 4. The Nature and Sources of the Constitution 41 5. The Flexibility of the Constitution 44 III. THE CROWN AND THE MINISTRY 1. The Crown: Legal Status and Privileges 48 2. The Powers of the Crown 52 3. The Importance and Strength of the Monarchy 58 4. Privy Council, Ministry, and Cabinet 60 5. The Executive Departments 61 6. The Cabinet: Composition and Character 64 7. The Cabinet in Action 70 IV. PARLIAMENT: THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 1. The House of Commons prior to 1832 77 2. Parliamentary Reform, 1832-1885 80 3. The Franchise and the Electoral Questions of To-day 86 4. Electoral Procedure and Regulations 92 V. PARLIAMENT: THE HOUSE OF LORDS (p.  x) 1. Composition 97 2. The Reform of the Lords: the Question prior to 1909 101 3. The Question of the Lords, 1909-1911 106 4. The Parliament Act of 1911 and After 112 VI. PARLIAMENT, ORGANIZATION, FUNCTIONS, PROCEDURE 1. The Assembling of the Chambers 117 2. Organization of the House of Commons 120 3. Organization of the House of Lords 125 4. Privileges of the Houses and of Members 126 5. The Functions of Parliament 128 6. General Aspects of Parliamentary Procedure 132 7. The Conduct of Business in the two Houses 138 VII. POLITICAL PARTIES 1. Parliamentarism and the Party System 143 2. Parties in the Later Eighteenth and Earlier Nineteenth Centuries 145 3. The Second Era of Whig [Liberal] Ascendancy, 1830-1874 147 4. The Second Era of Conservative Ascendancy, 1874-1905 150 5. The Liberal Revival 155 6. The Rule of the Liberals, 1906-1912 158 7. The Parties of To-day 162 VIII. JUSTICE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT 1. English Law 167 2. The Inferior Courts 170 3. The Higher Courts 173 4. Local Government to the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835 176 5. Local Government Reform, 1835-1912 179 6. Local and Central Government 181 7. Local Government To-day: Rural 183 8. Local Government To-day: Urban 186 PART II. --GERMANY IX. THE EMPIRE AND ITS CONSTITUTION 1. Political Development Prior to 1848 193 2. The Creation of the Empire 198 3. The Constitution: Nature of the Empire 202 4. The Empire and the States 205 X. THE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT: EMPEROR, CHANCELLOR, AND BUNDESRATH 1. The Emperor 210 2. The Chancellor 213 3. The Bundesrath 217 XI. THE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT: REICHSTAG, PARTIES, JUDICIARY (p.  xi) 1. Composition of the Reichstag--Electoral System 223 2. Organization and Powers of the Reichstag. 226 3. The Rise of Political Parties 229 4. Party Politics after 1878 233 5. Parties since 1907 236 6. Law and Justice 241 XII. THE CONSTITUTION OF PRUSSIA--THE CROWN AND THE MINISTRY 1. The German States and their Governments 245 2. The Rise of Constitutionalism in Prussia 246 3. The Crown and the Ministry 253 XIII. THE PRUSSIAN LANDTAG--LOCAL GOVERNMENT 1. Composition of the Landtag 257 2. The Movement for Electoral Reform 260 3. Organization and Functions of the Landtag 263 4. Local Government: Origins and Principles 265 5. Local Government: Areas and Organs 268 XIV. THE MINOR GERMAN STATES--ALSACE-LORRAINE 1. The More Important Monarchies 275 2. The Lesser Monarchies and the City Republics 279 3. Alsace-Lorraine 282 PART III. --FRANCE XV. CONSTITUTIONS SINCE 1789 1. A Century of Political Instability 289 2. The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era 290 3. From the Restoration to the Revolution of 1848 295 4. The Second Republic and the Second Empire 297 5. The Establishment of the Third Republic 301 6. The Constitution of To-day 304 XVI. THE PRESIDENT, THE MINISTRY, AND PARLIAMENT 1. The President 308 2. The Ministry 311 3. Parliament: Senate and Chamber of Deputies 315 4. The Problem of Electoral Reform 319 XVII. PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE--POLITICAL PARTIES 1. Organization and Workings of the Chambers 325 2. Political Parties since 1871 329 XVIII. JUSTICE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT 1. French Law 335 2. The Courts 337 3. Local Government: Development since 1789 341 4. Local Government To-day 346 PART IV. --ITALY (p.  xii) XIX. CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 1. The Era of Napoleon 353 2. The Restoration and the Revolution of 1848 358 3. The Achievement of Unification 362 4. The Constitution 365 XX. THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT SYSTEM 1. The Crown and the Ministry 368 2. Parliament: the Senate 372 3. The Chamber of Deputies--Parliamentary Procedure 375 4. The Judiciary 381 5. Local Government 383 XXI. STATE AND CHURCH--POLITICAL PARTIES 1. Quirinal and Vatican 387 2. Parties and Ministries, 1861-1896 391 3. The Era of Composite Ministries, 1896-1912 395 4. Phases of Party Politics 398 PART V. --SWITZERLAND XXII. THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM--THE CANTONS 1. The Confederation and Its Constitutions 405 2. The Nation and the States 411 3. Cantonal Legislation: the Referendum and the Initiative 416 4. The Cantonal Executive and Judiciary 421 XXIII. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 1. The Executive 423 2. Legislation: the Federal Assembly 426 3. Legislation: the Referendum and the Initiative 430 4. Political Parties 434 5. The Judiciary 437 PART VI. --AUSTRIA-HUNGARY XXIV. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY PRIOR TO THE AUSGLEICH 1. Austrian Political Development to 1815 442 2. Hungarian Political Development to 1815 445 3. The Era of Metternich 450 4. The Revolution of 1848 453 5. The Revival of Constitutionalism: the Ausgleich 456 XXV. THE GOVERNMENT AND PARTIES OF AUSTRIA 1. The Constitution 460 2. The Crown and the Ministry 463 3. The Reichsrath--the Electoral System 465 4. Political Parties 474 5. The Judiciary and Local Government 483 XXVI. THE GOVERNMENT AND PARTIES OF HUNGARY (p.  xiii) 1. The Constitution 489 2. The Crown and the Ministry 491 3. Parliament--the Electoral System 492 4. Political Parties 500 5. The Judiciary and Local Government 505 XXVII. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: THE JOINT GOVERNMENT 1. The Common Organs of Government 510 2. The Territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina 514 PART VII. --THE LOW COUNTRIES XXVIII. THE GOVERNMENT OF HOLLAND 1. A Century of Political Development 517 2. The Crown and the Ministry 523 3. The States-General and Political Parties 525 4. The Judiciary and Local Government 531 XXIX. THE GOVERNMENT OF BELGIUM 1. The Constitution--the Crown and the Ministry 534 2. The Houses of Parliament--the Electoral System 538 3. Parties and Electoral Reform since 1894--Parliamentary Procedure 542 4. The Judiciary and Local Government 549 PART VIII. --SCANDINAVIA XXX. THE GOVERNMENT OF DENMARK 1. Development Prior to 1814 553 2. The Rise of Constitutionalism, 1814-1866 556 3. The Crown and the Ministry 559 4. The Rigsdag--Political Parties 562 5. The Judiciary and Local Government 568 XXXI. THE SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN UNION AND THE GOVERNMENT OF NORWAY 1. Political Development to 1814 570 2. The Swedish-Norwegian Union, 1814-1905 573 3. The Norwegian Constitution--Crown and Ministry 578 4. The Storthing--Political Parties 581 5. The Judiciary and Local Government 587 XXXII. THE GOVERNMENT OF SWEDEN 1. The Constitution--the Crown and the Ministry 589 2. The Riksdag--the Electoral System 591 3. The Riksdag in Operation--Political Parties 597 4. The Judiciary and Local Government 600 PART IX. --THE IBERIAN STATES (p.  xiv) XXXIII. THE GOVERNMENT OF SPAIN 1. The Beginnings of Constitutionalism 603 2. Political and Constitutional Development, 1833-1876 606 3. The Present Constitution 611 4. The Crown and the Ministry 613 5. The Cortes 616 6. Political Parties 620 7. The Judiciary and Local Government 626 XXXIV. THE GOVERNMENT OF PORTUGAL 1. A Century of Political Development 629 2. The Government of the Kingdom 634 3. The Revolution of 1910 639 4. The Constitution of 1911 643 GOVERNMENTS OF EUROPE (p.  001) PART I. --GREAT BRITAIN CHAPTER I THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION I. THE IMPORTANCE OF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND *1. Political Pre-eminence of Great Britain. *--George III. Is reportedto have pronounced the English constitution the most perfect of humanformations. One need hardly concur unreservedly in this dictum to beimpressed with the propriety of beginning a survey of the governmentalsystems of modern Europe with an examination of the politicalprinciples, rules, and practices of contemporary Britain. The historyof no other European nation, in the first place, exhibits adevelopment of institutions so prolonged, so continuous, and soorderly. The governmental forms and agencies of no other state havebeen studied with larger interest or imitated with clearer effect. Thepublic policy of no other organized body of men has been moreinfluential in shaping the progress, social and economic as well aspolitical, of the civilized world. For the American student, furthermore, the approach to the institutions of the Europeancontinent is likely to be rendered easier and more inviting if made byway of a body of institutions which lies at the root of much that isboth American and continental. There are, it is true, not a fewrespects in which the governmental system of the United States to-daybears closer resemblance to that of France, Germany, Switzerland, oreven Italy than to that of Great Britain. The relation, however, between the British and the American is one, in the main, ofhistorical continuity, while that between the French or German and theAmerican is one which arises largely from mere imitation or fromaccidental resemblance. *2. The Continuity of Institutional History. *--No government can bestudied adequately apart from the historical development which has (p.  002)made it what it is; and this ordinarily means the tracing of originsand of changes which stretch through a prolonged period of time. Menhave sometimes imagined that they were creating a governmental system_de novo_, and it occasionally happens, as in France in 1791 and inPortugal in 1911, that a régime is instituted which has littleapparent connection with the past. History demonstrates, however, inthe first place, that such a régime is apt to perpetuate more of theold than is at the time supposed and, in the second place, that unlessit is connected vitally with the old, the chances of its achievingstability or permanence are inconsiderable. In Germany, for example, if the institutions of the Empire were essentially new in 1871, thegovernmental systems of the several federated states, and of the townsand local districts, exhibited numerous elements which in origin weremediæval. In France, if central institutions, and even the politicalarrangements of the department and of the arrondissement, do notantedate the Revolution, the commune, in which the everyday politicalactivity of the average citizen runs its course, stands essentially asit was in the age of Louis XIV. If the element of continuity is thus important in the political systemof Germany, France, or Switzerland, in that of England it isfundamental. It is not too much to say that the most striking aspectof English constitutional history is the continual preservation, inthe teeth of inevitable changes, of a preponderating proportion ofinstitutions that reach far into the past. "The great difficulty whichpresses on the student of the English constitution, regarded as a setof legal rules, " observes a learned commentator, "is that he can neverdissociate himself from history. There is hardly a rule which has nota long past, or which can be understood without some consideration ofthe circumstances under which it first came into being. "[1] It is thepurpose of the present volume to describe European governments as theyto-day exist and operate. It will be necessary in all cases, however, to accord some consideration to the origins and growth of thepolitical organs and practices which may be described. In respect toGreat Britain this can mean nothing less than a survey, brief as maybe, of a thousand years of history. [Footnote 1: W. R. Anson, The Law and Custom of the Constitution (3d ed. , Oxford, 1897), I. , 13. ] II. ANGLO-SAXON BEGINNINGS The earliest form of the English constitution was that which existedduring the centuries prior to the Norman Conquest. Politicalorganization among the Germanic invaders of Britain was of the (p.  003)most rudimentary sort, but the circumstances of the conquest andsettlement of the island were such as to stimulate a considerableelaboration of governmental machinery and powers. From the point ofview of subsequent institutional history the most important featuresof the Anglo-Saxon governmental system were kingship, the witenagemot, and the units of local administration--shire, hundred, borough, andtownship. [2] [Footnote 2: See G. B. Adams, The Origin of the English Constitution (New Haven, 1912), Chap. 1. That the essentials of the English constitution of modern times, in respect to forms and machinery, are products of the feudalization of England which resulted from the Norman Conquest, and not survivals of Anglo-Saxon governmental arrangements, is the well-sustained thesis of this able study. That many important elements, however, were contributed by Anglo-Saxon statecraft is beyond dispute. ] *3. Kingship. *--The origins of Anglo-Saxon kingship are shrouded inobscurity, but it is certain that the king of later days wasoriginally nothing more than the chieftain of a victorious war-band. During the course of the occupation of the conquered island manychieftains attained the dignity of kingship, but with the progress ofpolitical consolidation one after another of the royal lines wasblotted out, old tribal kingdoms became mere administrative districtsof larger kingdoms, and, eventually, in the ninth century, the wholeof the occupied portions of the country were brought under the controlof a single sovereign. Saxon kingship was elective, patriarchal, and, in respect to power, limited. Kings were elected by the important mensitting in council, and while the dignity was hereditary in a familysupposedly descended from the gods, an immediate heir was not unlikelyto be passed over in favor of a relative who was remoter but abler. [3]In both pagan and Christian times the royal office was invested with apronouncedly sacred character. As early as 690 Ine was king "by God'sgrace. " But the actual authority of the king was such as aroseprincipally from the dignity of his office and from the personalinfluence of the individual monarch. [4] The king was primarily awar-leader. He was a law-giver, but his "dooms" were likely to beframed only in consultation with the wise men, and they pertained tolittle else than the preservation of the peace. He was supreme (p.  004)judge, and all crimes and breaches of the peace came to be looked uponas offenses against him; but he held no court and he had in practicelittle to do with the administration of justice. Over local affairs hehad no direct control whatever. [Footnote 3: Thus, in 871, the minor children of Ethelred I. Were passed over in favor of Alfred, younger brother of the late king. ] [Footnote 4: The Anglo-Saxon king was "not the supreme law-giver of Roman ideas, nor the fountain of justice, nor the irresponsible leader, nor the sole and supreme politician, nor the one primary landowner; but the head of the race, the chosen representative of its identity, the successful leader of its enterprises, the guardian of its peace, the president of its assemblies; created by it, and, although empowered with a higher sanction in crowning and anointing, answerable to his people. " W. Stubbs, Select Charters Illustrative of English Constitutional History (8th ed. , Oxford, 1895), 12. ] *4. The Witenagemot. *--Associated with the king in the conduct ofpublic business was the council of wise men, or witenagemot. Thecomposition of this body, being determined in the main by the will ofthe individual monarch, varied widely from time to time. The personsmost likely to be summoned were the members of the royal family, thegreater ecclesiastics, the king's gesiths or thegns, the ealdormen whoadministered the shires, other leading officers of state and of thehousehold, and the principal men who held land directly of the king. There were included no popularly elected representatives. As a rule, the witan was called together three or four times a year. Acting withthe king, it made laws, imposed taxes, concluded treaties, appointedealdormen and bishops, and occasionally heard cases not disposed of inthe courts of the shire and hundred. It was the witan, furthermore, that elected the king; and since it could depose him, he was obligedto recognize a certain responsibility to it. "It has been a marked andimportant feature in our constitutional history, " it is pointed out byAnson, "that the king has never, in theory, acted in matters of statewithout the counsel and consent of a body of advisers. "[5] [Footnote 5: Law and Custom of the Constitution, II. , Pt. 1. , 7. Cf. W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, I. , 127. ] *5. Township, Borough, and Hundred. *--By reason of their persistence, and their comparative changelessness from earliest times to the laternineteenth century, the utmost importance attaches to Anglo-Saxonarrangements respecting local government and administration. Thesmallest governmental unit was the township, comprising normally avillage surrounded by arable lands, meadows, and woodland. Thetown-moot was a primary assembly of the freemen of the village, bywhich, under the presidency of a reeve, the affairs of the townshipwere administered. A variation of the township was the burgh, orborough, whose population was apt to be larger and whose politicalindependence was greater; but its arrangements for governmentapproximated closely those of the ordinary township. A group oftownships comprised a hundred. At the head of the hundred was ahundred-man, ordinarily elected, but not infrequently appointed by agreat landowner or prelate to whom the lands of the hundred belonged. Assisting him was a council of twelve or more freemen. In the (p.  005)hundred-moot was introduced the principle of representation, for tothe meetings of that body came regularly the reeve, the parish priest, and four "best men" from each of the townships and boroughs comprisedwithin the hundred. The hundred-moot met as often as once a month, andit had as its principal function the adjudication of disputes and thedecision of cases, civil, criminal, and ecclesiastical. *6. The Shire. *--Above the hundred was the shire. Originally, as arule, the shires were regions occupied by small but independenttribes; eventually they became administrative districts of the unitedkingdom. At the head of the shire was an ealdorman, appointed by theking and witan, generally from the prominent men of the shire. Subordinate to him at first, but in time overshadowing him, was theshire-reeve, or sheriff, who was essentially a representative of thecrown, sent to assume charge of the royal lands in the shire, tocollect the king's revenue, and to receive the king's share of thefines imposed in the courts. Each shire had its moot, and by reason ofthe fact that the shires and bishoprics were usually coterminous, thebishop sat with the ealdorman as joint president of this assemblage. In theory, at least, the shire-moot was a gathering of the freemen ofthe shire. It met, as a rule, twice a year, and to it were entitled tocome all freemen, in person or by representation. It was within thecompetence of those who did not desire to attend to send as spokesmentheir reeves or stewards; so that the body was likely to assume thecharacter of a mixed primary and representative assembly. Theshire-moot decided disputes pertaining to the ownership of land, triedsuits for which a hearing could not be obtained in the court of thehundred, and exercised an incidental ecclesiastical jurisdiction. [6] [Footnote 6: The classic description of Anglo-Saxon political institutions is W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England in its Origin and Development, 3 vols. (6th ed. , Oxford, 1897), especially I. , 74-182; but recent scholarship has supplemented and modified at many points the facts and views therein set forth. A useful account (though likewise subject to correction) is H. Taylor, The Origins and Growth of the English Constitution, 2 vols. (new ed. , Boston, 1900), I. , Bk. 1. , Chaps. 3-5; and a repository of information is J. Ramsay, The Foundations of England, 2 vols. (London, 1898). A valuable sketch is A. B. White, The Making of the English Constitution, 449-1485 (New York, 1908), 16-62. A brilliant book is E. A. Freeman, The Growth of the English Constitution (4th ed. , London, 1884); but by reason of Professor Freeman's over-emphasis of the perpetuation of Anglo-Saxon institutions in later times this work is to be used with caution. Political and institutional history is well set forth in T. Hodgkin, History of England to the Norman Conquest (London, 1906), and C. W. C. Oman, England before the Norman Conquest (London, 1910). A useful manual is H. M. Chadwick, Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions (Cambridge, 1905); and an admirable bibliography is C. Gross, The Sources and Literature of English History (London, 1900). ] III. THE NORMAN-PLANTAGENET PERIOD (p.  006) At the coming of William the Conqueror, in 1066, two fundamentalprinciples may be said to have been firmly fixed in the Englishpolitical system. The first was that of thoroughgoing localself-government. The second was that of the obligation of the king, inall matters of first-rate importance, such as the laying of taxes andthe making of laws, to seek the counsel and consent of some portion ofhis subjects. In the period which was inaugurated by the Conquestneither of these principles was entirely subverted, yet the Norman erastands out distinctly as one in which the powers of government weregathered in the hands of the king and of his immediate agents in ameasure unknown at any earlier time. Building in so far as waspossible upon foundations already laid, William was able so tomanoeuver the consequences of the Conquest as to throw the advantagesall but wholly upon the side of the crown. Feudalism, land-tenure, military service, taxation, the church--to all was imparted, by forceor by craft, such a bent that the will of the sovereign acquired thepractical effect of law, and monarchy in England, traditionally weak, was brought to the verge of sheer absolutism. *7. Extension of Centralized Control. *--In respect to the actualmechanism of government the principal achievement of theNorman-Plantagenet period was the overhauling and consolidation of theagencies of administration. Despite the fact that local institutionsof Saxon origin were largely respected, so that they have continued tothis day the most substantial Anglo-Saxon contribution to Englishpolity, there was a notable linking-up of these hitherto largelydisassociated institutions with the institutions of the centralgovernment. This was accomplished in part by the dissolution of theearldoms by which the monarchy had been menaced in later Saxon days, and in part by a tremendous increase of the power and importance ofthe sheriffs. It was accomplished still more largely, however, by theorganization of two great departments of government--those of justiceand finance--presided over by dignitaries of the royal household andmanned by permanent staffs of expert officials. The department ofjustice comprised the Curia; that of finance, the Exchequer. At thehead of the one was the Chancellor; at the head of the other, theTreasurer. The principal officials within the two comprised a singlebody of men, sitting now as _justitiarii_, or justices, and now as_barones_ of the Exchequer. The profits and costs of asserting andadministering justice and the incomings and outgoings of the Exchequerwere but different aspects of the same fundamental concerns of (p.  007)state. [7] The justices of the Curia who held court on circuitthroughout the realm and the sheriffs who came up twice a year torender to the barons of the Exchequer an account of the sums due fromthe shires served as the real and tangible agencies through which thecentral and local governments were knit together. As will appear, itwas from the Norman Curia that, in the course of time, there sprangimmediately those diversified departments of administration whoseheads comprise the actual executive of the British nation to-day. [Footnote 7: Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, II. , Pt. I. , II. ] *8. King and Great Council. *--Untrammelled by constitutionalrestrictions, the Conqueror and his earlier successors recognized suchlimitations only upon the royal authority as were imposed by powerfuland turbulent subjects. Associated with the king, however, was fromthe first a body known as the _Commune Concilium_, the Common, orGreat, Council. "Thrice a year, " the Saxon Chronicle tells us, "KingWilliam wore his crown every year he was in England; at Easter he woreit at Winchester; at Pentecost, at Westminster; and at Christmas, atGloucester; and at these times all the men of England were withhim--archbishops, bishops and abbots, earls, thegns and knights. " Bythe phrase "all the men of England" is to be understood only the greatecclesiastics, the principal officers of state, and the king'stenants-in-chief--in truth, only such of the more important of theseas were summoned individually to the sovereign's presence. At least intheory, however, the Norman kings were accustomed to consult thisgathering of magnates, very much as their predecessors had beenaccustomed to consult the witenagemot, upon all important questions oflegislation, finance, and public policy. It may, indeed, be said thatit is the development of this Council that comprises the centralsubject of English constitutional history; for, "out of it, directlyor indirectly, by one process or another, have been evolvedParliament, the Cabinet, and the courts of law. "[8] [Footnote 8: W. Wilson, The State (rev. Ed. , Boston, 1903), 369. ] *9. The Plantagenet Monarchy. *--During the century and a half followingthe death of the Conqueror the vigor of the monarchy variedenormously, but not until the days of King John can there be said tohave been any loss of power or independence which amounted to morethan a passing circumstance. In a charter granted at the beginning ofhis reign, in 1100, Henry I. Confirmed the liberties of his subjectsand promised to respect the laws of Edward the Confessor; but the newsovereign did not propose, and no one imagined that he intended topropose, to relax any of the essential and legitimate power which hadbeen transmitted to him by his father and brother. The reign of (p.  008)Stephen (1135-1154) was an epoch of anarchy happily unparalleled inthe history of the nation. During the course of it the royal authoritysank to its lowest ebb since the days of the Danish incursions. Butthe able and wonderfully energetic Henry II. (1154-1189) recovered allthat had been lost and added not a little of his own account. "HenryII. , " it has been said, "found a nation wearied out with the miseriesof anarchy, and the nation found in Henry II. A king with a passionfor administration. "[9] With the fundamental purpose of reducing allof his subjects to equality before an identical system of law, thegreat Plantagenet sovereign waged determined warfare upon both therebellious nobility and the independent clergy. He was not entirelysuccessful, especially in his conflict with the clergy; but heeffectually prevented a reversion of the nation to feudal chaos, andhe invested the king's law with a sanction which it had known hardlyeven in the days of the Conqueror. The reign of Henry II. Has beendeclared, indeed, to "initiate the rule of law. "[10] By reviving andplacing upon a permanent basis the provincial visitations of the royaljustices, for both judicial and fiscal purposes, and by extending inthe local administration of justice and finance the principle of thejury, Henry contributed fundamentally to the development of theEnglish Common Law, the jury, and the modern hierarchy of courts. Byappointing as sheriffs lawyers or soldiers, rather than great barons, he fostered the influence of the central government in local affairs. By commuting military service for a money payment (_scutage_), and bya revival of the ancient militia system (the _fyrd_), he brought thecontrol of the armed forces of the nation effectually under royalcontrol. By the frequent summons of the Great Council and thesystematic reference to it of business of moment he contributed to theimportance of an institution through whose amplification a centurylater Parliament was destined to be brought into existence. [Footnote 9: Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, II. , Pt. I. , 13. ] [Footnote 10: Stubbs, Select Charters, 21. ] *10. The Great Charter, 1215. *--The period of Richard I. (1189-1199)was, in constitutional matters, a continuation of that of Henry II. Richard was absent from the kingdom throughout almost the whole of thereign, but under the guidance of officials trained by Henry themachinery of government operated substantially as before. Under John(1199-1216) came a breakdown, occasioned principally by the sovereign'spersistence in evading certain limitations upon the royal authoritywhich already had assumed the character of established rules of theconstitution. One of these forbade that the king should impose freshtaxation except with the advice and consent of the Great Council. (p.  009)Another enjoined that a man should not be fined or otherwise despoiledof his property except in virtue of judicial sentence. These and otherprinciples John habitually disregarded, with the consequence that intime he found himself without a party and driven to the alternative ofdeposition or acceptance of the guarantee of liberties which thebarons, the Church, and the people were united in demanding of him. The upshot was the promulgation, June 15, 1215, of Magna Carta. No instrument in the annals of any nation exceeds in importance theGreat Charter. The whole of English constitutional history, onceremarked Bishop Stubbs, is but one long commentary upon it. Thesignificance of the Charter arises not simply from the fact that itwas wrested from an unwilling sovereign by concerted action of thevarious orders of society (action such as in France and othercontinental countries never, in mediæval times, became possible), butprincipally from the remarkable summary which it embodies of thefundamental principles of English government in so far as thoseprinciples had ripened by the thirteenth century. The Chartercontained little or nothing that was new. Its authors, the barons, sought merely to gather up within a reasonably brief document thoseprinciples and customs which the better kings of England had been wontto observe, but which in the evil days of Richard and John had beenpersistently evaded. There was no thought of a new form of government, or of a new code of laws, but rather of the redress of present andpractical grievances. Not a new constitution, but good government inconformity with the old one, was the essential object. Naturallyenough, therefore, the instrument was based, in most of its importantprovisions, upon the charter granted by Henry I. In 1100, even as thatinstrument was based, in the main, upon the righteous laws of Edwardthe Confessor. After like manner, the Charter of 1215 became, in itsturn, the foundation to which reassertions of constitutional libertyin subsequent times were apt to return; and, under greater or lesserpressure, the Charter itself was "confirmed" by numerous sovereignswho proved themselves none too much disposed to observe itsprinciples. In effect the Charter was a treaty between the king and his dissatisfiedsubjects. It was essentially a feudal document, and the majority ofits provisions relate primarily to the privileges and rights of thebarons. None the less, it contains clauses that affected all classesof society, and it is especially noteworthy that the barons and clergypledged themselves in it to extend to their dependents the samecustoms and liberties which they were themselves demanding of thecrown. Taking the Charter as a whole, it guaranteed the freedom ofthe Church, defined afresh and in precise terms surviving feudal (p.  010)incidents and customs, placed safeguards about the liberties of theboroughs, pledged security of property and of trade, and stipulatedimportant regulations respecting government and law, notably thatwhenever the king should propose the assessment of scutages or ofunusual aids he should take the advice of the General Council, composed of the tenants-in-chief summoned individually in the case ofthe greater ones and through the sheriffs in the case of those oflesser importance. Certain general clauses, e. G. , that pledging thatjustice should neither be bought nor sold, and that prescribing that afreeman might not be imprisoned, outlawed, or dispossessed of hisproperty save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land, meant in effect considerably less than they sometimes have beeninterpreted to mean. [11] Yet even they served to emphasize thefundamental principle upon which the political and legal structure wasintended to be grounded, that, namely, of impartial and unvaryingjustice. [12] [Footnote 11: The term "peers, " as here employed, means only equals in rank. The clause cited does not imply trial by jury. It comprises a guarantee simply that the barons should not be judged by persons whose feudal rank was inferior to their own. Jury trial was increasingly common in the thirteenth century, but it was not guaranteed in the Great Charter. ] [Footnote 12: Good accounts of the institutional aspects of the Norman-Angevin period are Stubbs, Constitutional History, I. , 315-682, II. , 1-164; Taylor, Origin and Growth of the English Constitution, I. , Bk. 2, Chaps. 2-3; Adams, The Origin of the English Constitution, Chaps. 1-4; and White, Making of the English Constitution, 73-119. Two excellent little books are Stubbs, Early Plantagenets (London, 1876) and Mrs. J. R. Green, Henry II. (London, 1892). General accounts will be found in T. F. Tout, History of England from the Accession of Henry III. To the Death of Edward III. , 1216-1377 (London, 1905), and H. W. C. Davis, England under the Normans and the Angevins (London, 1904). A monumental treatise, though one which requires a considerable amount of correction, is E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1867-69), and a useful sketch is Freeman, Short History of the Norman Conquest (3d ed. , Oxford, 1901). Among extended and more technical works may be mentioned: F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, History of English Law, 2 vols. (2d ed. , Cambridge, 1898), which, as a study of legal history and doctrines, supersedes all earlier works; F. W. Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond (Cambridge, 1897); J. H. Round, Feudal England (London, 1895); K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, 2 vols. (London, 1887); ibid. , John Lackland (London, 1902), and J. H. Ramsay, The Angevin Empire (London, 1903). The text of the Great Charter is printed in Stubbs, Select Charters, 296-306. English versions may be found in G. B. Adams and H. M. Stephens, Select Documents of English Constitutional History (New York, 1906), 42-52; S. Amos, Primer of the English Constitution and Government (London, 1895), 189-201; and University of Pennsylvania Translations and Reprints (translation by E. P. Cheyney), I. , No. 6. The principal special work on the subject is W. S. McKechnie, Magna Carta; a Commentary on the Great Charter of King John (Glasgow, 1905). An illuminating commentary is contained in Adams, Origin of the English Constitution, 207-313. ] IV. THE RISE OF PARLIAMENT (p.  011) *11. Beginnings of the Representative Principle. *--The thirteenthcentury was clearly one of the most important periods in the growth ofthe English constitution. It was marked not merely by the contestwhich culminated in the grant of the Great Charter but also by thebeginnings, in its essentials, of Parliament. The formative epoch inthe history of Parliament may be said to have been, more precisely, the second half of the reign of Henry III. (1216-1272), together withthe reign of the legislator-king Edward I. (1272-1307). The creationof Parliament as we know it came about through the signal enlargementof the Norman-Plantagenet Great Council by the introduction ofrepresentative elements, followed by the splitting of theheterogeneous mass of members definitely into two co-ordinatechambers. The representative principle was in England no new thing inthe thirteenth century. As has appeared, there were importantmanifestations of it in the local governmental system of Anglo-Saxontimes. As brought to bear in the development of Parliament, however, the principle is generally understood to have sprung from thetwelfth-century practice of electing assessors to fix the value ofreal and personal property for purposes of taxation, and of jurors topresent criminal matters before the king's justices. Thus, Henry II. 'sSaladin Tithe of 1188--the first national imposition upon incomes andmovable property--was assessed, at least in part, by juries ofneighbors elected by, and in a sense representative of, the taxpayersof the various parishes. By the opening of the thirteenth century theidea was fast taking hold upon the minds of Englishmen, not only thatthe taxpayer ought to have a voice in the levying of taxes, but thatbetween representation and taxation there was a certain natural andinevitable connection. In the Great Charter, as has been stated, itwas stipulated that in the assessment of scutages and of all save thethree commonly recognized feudal aids the king should seek the adviceof the General Council. The General Council of the earlier thirteenthcentury was not regularly a representative body, but it was not beyondthe range of possibility to impart to it a representative character, and in point of fact that is precisely what was done. To facilitatethe process of taxation it was found expedient by the centralauthorities to carry over into the domain of national affairs thatprinciple of popular representation which already was doing approvedservice within the sphere of local justice and finance, and from thisadaptation arose, step by step, the conversion of the old gathering offeudal magnates into a national parliamentary assembly. *12. Early Parliaments. *--The means by which the transformation (p.  012)was accomplished consisted in the first instance, as has been said, inthe introduction into the Council of new and representative elements. The earliest step in this direction was taken in 1213, when King John, harassed by fiscal and political difficulties, addressed to thesheriffs a series of writs commanding that four discreet knights fromevery county be sent to participate in a deliberative council to beheld at Oxford. The practice took root slowly. In 1254 Henry III. , insore need of money for the prosecution of his wars in Gascony, required of the sheriffs that two knights be sent from each county toconfer with the barons and clergy relative to the subsidies whichshould be accorded the crown. The desired vote of supplies was refusedand the long-brewing contest between the king and the barons broke incivil war. But during the struggle that ensued the foundations ofParliament were still more securely laid. Following the king's defeatat Lewes, in 1264, Simon de Montfort, leader of the barons, convened aparliament composed of not only barons and clergy but also fourknights from each shire, and at London during the following year, hecaused again to be assembled, in addition to five earls, eighteenbarons, and a large body of clergy, two knights from each of theseveral shires and two burgesses from each of twenty-one towns knownto be friendly to the barons' cause. These proceedings wereessentially revolutionary and unauthorized. Even the gathering of1265, as Stubbs remarks, presented the appearance largely of a partyconvention, and there is no evidence that its author intended such abody to be regularly or frequently summoned, or even summoned a secondtime at all. None the less, now for the first time representatives ofthe towns were brought into political co-operation with the barons, clergy, and knights; and the circumstance was filled with promise. During the ensuing thirty years there were several "parliaments, "although the extent to which knights and burgesses participated inthem is uncertain. The period was one of experimentation. In 1273 fourknights from each shire and four citizens from each town joined themagnates in taking the oath of fealty to the new and absent sovereign, Edward I. The First Statute of Westminster, in 1275, declares itselfto have been adopted with the assent of the "commonalty of the realm. "In 1283 a parliament was held which almost precisely duplicated thatof 1265. In 1290, and again in 1294, there was one, in which, however, representation of the towns was omitted. The gathering which served to fix the type for all time to come wasEdward I. 's so-called Model Parliament of 1295. To this parliament theking summoned severally the two archbishops, all of the bishops, thegreater abbots, and the more important earls and barons; while (p.  013)every sheriff was enjoined to see that two knights were chosen fromeach shire, two citizens from each city, and two burgesses from eachborough. Each bishop was authorized, furthermore, to bring with himhis prior or the dean of the cathedral chapter, the archdeacons of hisdiocese, one proctor or agent for his cathedral chapter, and two ofhis diocesan clergy. In the parliament as actually convened there were2 archbishops, 18 bishops with their lesser clergy, 66 abbots, 3 headsof religious orders, 9 earls, 41 barons, 63 knights of the shire, and172 representatives of the cities and boroughs--an aggregate ofapproximately 400 persons. There were thus present in the assemblage, in person or by deputy, all of the constituent orders of Englishsociety, and the irregular device of Simon de Montfort was vested atlast with the character of legality. After Edward I. Parliament may besaid to have been an established institution of the realm. Itsmeetings long continued intermittent and infrequent, and its powersfrom time to time varied enormously, but the place which it filled inthe economy of the nation grew ever more important. *13. Establishment of the Bicameral System. *--Like its counterpart inFrance, the Estates-General, the English Parliament comprised thethree great estates or orders--nobility, clergy, and commons--ofwhich, aside from the peasantry, mediæval society in all westernEuropean countries was composed. In the working out of its internalstructure, however, two chambers resulted, rather than, as in France, three. Originally the three estates sat separately. Their primarybusiness was the voting of supplies and, the principle being that atax ought to be conceded by those who would be called upon to pay it, the natural course was for the lords to grant their scutages and aids, the commoners their tenths and fifteenths, and the clergy theirsubsidies, apart. Indeed there is reason to believe that at times eventhe knights and the burgesses deliberated separately. Gradually, however, there appeared certain affiliations of interest whichoperated to modify the original practice. In the first place, thelesser clergy, inconvenienced by attendance and preferring to votetheir contributions in the special ecclesiastical assemblages known asthe convocations of Canterbury and York, contrived to throw offentirely their obligation of membership. The greater clergy and thegreater barons, in the next place, developed sufficiently largeinterests in common to be amalgamated with ease in one body. Similarly, the lesser barons found their interests essentiallyidentical with those of the country freeholders, represented by theknights of the shire, and with those of the burgesses. The upshot was agradual alignment of the aggregate membership in two great groups, (p.  014)the one of which became historically the House of Lords, the other theHouse of Commons. At the beginning of the reign of Edward III. (1327-1377) the three estates still sat separately, but before theclose of this period the bicameral arrangement seems definitely tohave been established. There is no evidence that at any stage of theirhistory the three groups ever sat as a single body. It need hardly beemphasized that the entire course of English history since thefourteenth century has been affected profoundly by the fact that thenational assembly took the form of two houses rather than of one, asdid the Scotch, of three as did the French, or of four as did theSwedish. But for the withdrawal of the lesser clergy, the number mightvery possibly have been three. *14. Powers of Finance and Legislation. *--Structurally, the EnglishParliament is a creation of the Middle Ages; politically, it is aproduct of modern times, and, in no small measure, of the past hundredyears. Before the close of the Middle Ages, however, it had acquired asum total of authority which at least gave promise of its developmentinto a great co-ordinate, if not a preponderating, power in the state. In the first place, it had forced the establishment of the twinprinciples of public finance (1) that the right to levy taxes of everysort lay within its hands and (2) that the crown might impose nodirect tax without its assent, nor any indirect tax save such as mightbe justified under the customs recognized in Magna Carta. When EdwardI. Confirmed the Charter, in 1297, he agreed that no tallages or aidsshould thereafter be taken without the assent of the archbishops, bishops, earls, barons, knights, burgesses, and other freemen of theland. A statute of 1340 reiterated the principle still morespecifically. In 1395 appeared the formula employed to this day in themaking of parliamentary grants, "by the Commons with the advice andassent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal. " And in 1407 Henry IV. Extended the royal approval to the principle that money grants shouldbe initiated in the Commons, assented to by the Lords, and onlythereafter reported to the king. For the ancient theory of taxation byestates was substituted, slowly but inevitably, the modern doctrine ofthe fiscal pre-eminence of the Commons. The second point at which Parliament made decisive advance before theclose of the mediæval period was in respect to powers of ordinarylegislation. Originally, Parliament was not conceived of as, in thestrict sense, a law-making body at all. The magnates who composed theGeneral Council had exercised the right to advise the crown inlegislative matters, and their successors in Parliament continued todo the same, but the commoners who in the thirteenth century were (p.  015)brought in were present, in theory, for fiscal rather than legislativepurposes. The distinction, however, was difficult to maintain, andwith the continued growth of the parliamentary body the legislativecharacter was recognized eventually to be inherent in the whole of it. At the opening of the fourteenth century laws were made, technically, _by_ the king with the _assent_ of the magnates at the _request_ ofthe commoners. The knights and burgesses were recognized aspetitioners for laws, rather than as legislators. They could ask forthe enactment of a statute, or for a clearer definition of law, but itwas for the king and his councillors to determine finally whetherlegislation was required and what form it should assume. Even when alaw which was requested was promised it not infrequently happened thatthe intent of the Commons was thwarted, for the text of the measurewas not drawn up, normally, until after the parliament was dissolved, both form and content were determined arbitrarily by the crown andcouncil, and between petition and statute there might be, and oftenwas, gross discrepancy. *15. Development of the Legislative Process. *--By a memorable statute of1322, in the reign of Edward II. , it was stipulated that "the matterswhich are to be established for the estate of our lord the king and ofhis heirs, and for the estate of the realm and of the people, shall betreated, accorded, and established in parliaments, by our lord the king, and by the assent of the prelates, earls, and barons, and thecommonalty of the realm; according as it hath been before accustomed. "[13]This declaration is understood to have established, not only theessentially legislative character of Parliament, but the legislativeparity of the commoners with the magnates. It remained, however, tosubstitute for the right of petition the right of legislating by bill. Throughout the fourteenth century Parliament, and especially theCommons, pressed for an explicit recognition of the principle that thestatute in its final form should be identical with the petition uponwhich it was based. In 1414 Henry V. Granted that "from henceforthnothing be enacted to the petitions of his commons that be contrary totheir asking, whereby they should be bound without their assent. "[14]The promise tended in practice to be evaded, and late in the reign ofHenry VI. There was brought about an alteration of procedure inaccordance with which measures were henceforth to be introduced ineither house, in the form of drafted bills. The legislative processwas now essentially reversed. The right of initiative was secured tothe Commons, concurrently with the Lords; the crown was restricted toa right of veto or assent. The change in procedure was reflected (p.  016)in a change of formula. Statutes began to be made "by the King's mostexcellent majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Lordsspiritual and temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same. " And these words comprise theformula with which every act of Parliament to-day begins. Technically, the laws were, and are still, made by the crown; practicallyParliament, once merely a petitioning and advising body, had become afull-fledged legislative assemblage. [Footnote 13: Adams and Stephens, Select Documents, 97. ] [Footnote 14: Ibid. , 182. ] Throughout the later fourteenth and earlier fifteenth centuries thegrowth of Parliament in self-assertiveness was remarkable. Twiceduring the fourteenth century, in 1327 and in 1399, it exercised thefundamental prerogative of deposing the sovereign and of bestowing thecrown upon a successor. [15] And before the close of the Lancastrianera it had assumed advanced ground in demanding the right ofappropriating (as well as of voting) subsidies, the accounting by thepublic authorities for moneys expended, the removal of objectionableministers, and the annual assembling of the two houses. During thecivil wars of the second half of the fifteenth century parliamentaryaggressiveness and influence materially declined, and at the openingof the Tudor period, in 1485, the body was in by no means thefavorable position it had occupied fifty years earlier. As willappear, its eclipse continued largely through the epoch of the Tudors. Yet its broader aspects had been permanently fixed and itsperpetuation in the constitutional system positively assured. [16] [Footnote 15: Strictly, upon the first of these occasions the sovereign, Edward II. , was driven by threat of deposition to abdicate. ] [Footnote 16: On the rise of Parliament see Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, II. , Chaps. 15, 17; Taylor, Origins and Growth of the English Constitution, I. , 428-616; G. B. Smith, History of the English Parliament, 2 vols. (London, 1892), I. , Bks. 2-4; White, Making of the English Constitution, 298-401; D. J. Medley, Students' Manual of English Constitutional History (2d ed. , Oxford, 1898), 127-150; Tout, History of England from the Accession of Henry III. To the Death of Edward III. , Chaps. 5, 6, 10. Valuable biographical treatises are G. W. Prothero, Life of Simon de Montfort (London, 1877); E. Jenks, Edward Plantagenet [Edward I. ] the English Justinian (New York, 1902); and T. F. Tout, Edward the First (London, 1906). ] V. ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENT *16. The Permanent Council. *--One line, thus, along which were laid thefoundations of the English governmental system of to-day comprised thetransformation of the Norman Great Council into the semi-aristocratic, semi-democratic assemblage known as Parliament. A parallel line (p.  017)was the development from the Great Council of a body designated afterthe thirteenth century as the Permanent, after the fifteenth as thePrivy, Council, and likewise of the four principal courts of law. By avery gradual process those members of the original Council who wereattached in some immediate manner to the court or to the administrativesystem acquired a status which was different from that of theircolleagues. The Great Council met irregularly and infrequently. Solikewise did Parliament. But the services of the court and thebusiness of government must go on continuously, and for the care ofthese things there grew up a body which at first comprised essentiallya standing commission, an inner circle, of the Council, but which intime acquired a virtually independent position and was designated, forpurposes of distinction, as the Permanent Council. The composition ofthis body varied from time to time. Certain functionaries wereincluded regularly, while the remaining members owed their places tospecial summons of the crown. Its powers were enormous, being at thesame time administrative, judicial, and financial, and the mass ofbusiness to which it was required to give attention was increasinglygreat. *17. The Courts of Law. *--Three things resulted. In the first place, thePermanent Council acquired, in practice, complete detachment from theolder and larger body. In the second place, to facilitate theaccomplishment of its work there were introduced into it trainedlawyers, expert financiers, and men of other sorts of specialaptitudes--men, often, who in rank were but commoners. Finally, theresplit off from the body a succession of committees, to each of whichwas assigned a particular branch of administrative or judicialbusiness. In this manner arose the four great courts of law: (1) theCourt of Exchequer, to which was consigned jurisdiction over allfiscal causes in which the crown was directly concerned; (2) the Courtof Common Pleas, with jurisdiction over civil cases between subjectand subject; (3) the Court of King's Bench, presided over nominally bythe king himself and taking cognizance of a variety of cases for whichother provision was not made; and (4) the Court of Chancery, which, under the presidency of the Chancellor, heard and decided casesinvolving the principles of equity. The differentiation of thesetribunals, beginning in the early twelfth century, was completed bythe middle of the fourteenth. Technically, all were co-ordinatecourts, from which appeal lay to the King in Council; and of thejudicial prerogative which the Council as a whole thus retained thereare still, as will be pointed out, certain survivals. By the timeof Henry VI. (1422-1461) the enlargement of membership and thespecialization of functions of the Permanent Council had (p.  018)progressed so far that the Council had ceased entirely to be a workingunit. In the end what happened was that, precisely as the PermanentCouncil had been derived by selection from the original Great Council, so from the overgrown Permanent Council was constituted, in thefifteenth century, a smaller and more compact administrative body towhich was assigned the designation of "Privy Council. "[17] [Footnote 17: Stubbs, Constitutional History, II. , Chap. 13; White, Making of the English Constitution, 123-251; Adams, Origin of the English Constitution, 136-143; W. S. Holdsworth, History of English Law, 3 vols. (London, 1903-1909), I. , 1-169. ] VI. THE TUDOR MONARCHY *18. Popular Absolutism. *--The salient fact of the Tudor period ofEnglish history (1485-1603) is the vigor and dominance of themonarchy. From the Wars of the Roses the nation emerged in need, aboveall other things, of discipline and repose. It was the part of theTudors to enforce relentlessly the one and to foster systematicallythe other. The period was one in which aristocratic turbulence wasrepressed, extraordinary tribunals were erected to bring to justicepowerful offenders, vagrancy was punished, labor was found for theunemployed, trade was stimulated, the navy was organized on apermanent basis, the diffusion of wealth and of education wasencouraged, the growth of a strong middle class was promoted--inshort, one in which out of chaos was brought order and out of weaknessstrength. These things were the work of a government which wasstrongly paternal, even sheerly despotic, and, for a time at least, the evolution of parliamentary machinery was utterly arrested. But itshould be observed that the question in sixteenth-century England wasnot between strong monarchy on the one hand and parliamentarygovernment on the other. The alternatives were, rather, strongmonarchy and baronial anarchy. This the nation clearly perceived, and, of the two, it much preferred the former. "The Tudor monarchy, " says an English scholar, "unlike most otherdespotisms, did not depend on gold or force, on the possession of vastestates, unlimited taxation, or a standing army. It rested on thewilling support of the nation at large, a support due to thedeeply-rooted conviction that a strong executive was necessary to thenational unity, and that, in the face of the dangers which threatenedthe country both at home and abroad, the sovereign must be allowed afree hand. It was this conviction, instinctively felt rather thandefinitely realized, which enabled Henry VIII. Not only to crush openrebellion but to punish the slightest signs of opposition to his (p.  019)will, to regulate the consciences of his subjects, and to extend thelegal conception of treason to limits hitherto unknown. It was thiswhich rendered it possible for the ministers of Edward VI. To impose aProtestant régime upon a Romanist majority, and allowed Mary to enterupon a hateful marriage and to drag the country into a disastrous war. It was this, finally, which enabled Elizabeth to choose her own linein domestic and foreign policy, to defer for thirty years the war withSpain, and to resist, almost single-handed, the pressure for furtherecclesiastical change. The Tudor monarchy was essentially a nationalmonarchy. It was popular with the multitude, and it was activelysupported by the influential classes, the nobility, the gentry, thelawyers, the merchants, who sat as members of Parliament atWestminster, mustered the forces of the shire as Lords-Lieutenant, orbore the burden of local government as borough magistrates andjustices of the peace. "[18] [Footnote 18: G. W. Prothero, Select Statutes and other Constitutional Documents Illustrative of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I, (Oxford, 1898), xvii--xviii. ] *19. The Privy Council. *--The times of the Tudors and of the earlyStuarts have been designated with aptness the period of "government bycouncil. " Parliament continued to exercise a certain control overlegislation and taxation, but it was in and through the Privy Council, together with certain subordinate councils, that the absolutemonarchy, in the main, performed its work. The Privy Council--orsimply "the Council"--comprised ordinarily about seventeen or eighteenpersons, although under Henry VIII. Its membership at one timeapproached forty. The councillors were almost invariably members ofone or the other of the two houses of Parliament, an arrangement bywhich was facilitated the control of the proceedings of that body bythe Government, but which did not yet involve any recognizedresponsibility of the executive to the legislative branch. After QueenMary the councillors were, with few exceptions, laymen. Technically, the function of the Council was only advisory, but in practice eventhose sovereigns, as Henry VIII. And Elizabeth, who were most vigilantand industrious, were obliged to allow to the councillors largediscretion in the conduct of public business, and under the earlyStuarts the Council very nearly ruled the realm. Representing at alltimes the sovereign, who was supposed invariably to be present at itsdeliberations, the Council supervised the work of administration, regulated trade, granted licenses, controlled the press, kept an eyeon the law courts, ferreted out plots, took measures to suppressrebellion, controlled the movements of the fleet, assisted in themanagement of ecclesiastical affairs, and, in short, considered (p.  020)and took action upon substantially all concerns of state. By virtue ofits right to issue orders or ordinances it possessed a power that wassemi-legislative; through its regulation of trade, its management ofloans and benevolences, and its determination of military obligations, it participated actively in the control of taxation; and, under thepresidency of the crown, it possessed the functions of a supremetribunal, whose jurisdiction, in part original and in part appellate, was widespread and peculiarly despotic. [19] [Footnote 19: Prothero, Statutes and Constitutional Documents, cii. See A. V. Dicey, The Privy Council (London, 1887); E. Percy, The Privy Council under the Tudors (Oxford, 1907). ] *20. Other Councils: The Star Chamber. *--In 1487 there was created aspecial tribunal, consisting at the outset of seven great officialsand members of the Council, including two judges, to take specialcognizance of cases involving breaches of the law by offenders whowere too powerful to be reached under the operation of the ordinarycourts. This was the tribunal subsequently known, from itsmeeting-place, as the Court of Star Chamber. In effect it was from thebeginning a committee of the Privy Council, empowered to exercise ajurisdiction which in truth had long been exercised extra-legally bythe Council as a whole. The relation of the two institutions inclinedin practice to become ever closer, and by the middle of the sixteenthcentury the Star Chamber had been enlarged to include all of themembers of the Council, together with the two chief justices; andsince the Star Chamber possessed a statutory sanction which theCouncil lacked, the judicial business of the older body was despatchedregularly by its members sitting under the guise of the newer one. Thetendency of the Tudor régime toward the conciliar type of governmentis manifested further by the creation of numerous subsidiary councilsand courts whose history cannot be recounted here. Most of these werebrought into existence during the reign of Henry VIII. Those ofprincipal importance were (1) the Council of the North, set up in1539; (2) the Council of Wales, confirmed by statute of 1542; (3) theCourt of Castle Chamber, reproducing in Ireland the principal featuresof the English Star Chamber; (4) the Courts of Augmentation, FirstFruits and Annates, and Wards; and (5) the Elizabethan Court of HighCommission. [20] [Footnote 20: A. T. Carter, Outlines of English Legal History (London, 1899), Chap. 12; A. Todd, Parliamentary Government in England, ed. By S. Walpole, 2 vols. (London, 1892), I. , Chap. 2; Dicey, The Privy Council, 94-115. ] VII. PARLIAMENT UNDER THE TUDORS (p.  021) *21. Control by the Crown. *--By the Tudors generally, and especiallyHenry VIII. And Elizabeth, Parliament was regarded as a tool to beused by the crown, rather than as in any sense an independent, co-ordinate power in the state. When innovations were to beintroduced, such as those carried through by Henry VIII. , it was Tudorpolicy to clothe them with the vestments of parliamentarism, to theend that they might be given the appearance and the sanction ofpopular measures; and when subsidies were to be obtained, it wasrecognized to be expedient to impart to them, in similar manner, thesemblance of voluntary gifts on the part of the nation. It was no partof Tudor intent, however, that Parliament should be permitted toinitiate measures, or even to exercise any actual discretion in theadoption, amendment, or rejection of proposals submitted by theGovernment. There were several means by which the crown contrived toimpede the rise of Parliament above the subordinate position whichthat body occupied at the accession of Henry VII. One was the practiceof convening Parliament irregularly and infrequently and of bringingits sessions to an early close. Another, employed especially duringThomas Cromwell's ministry under Henry VIII. And during the reign ofElizabeth, was that of tampering with the freedom of borough andcounty elections. A third was the habit, also notorious under HenryVIII. And Elizabeth, of dictating and directing in all that wasessential in the proceedings of the chambers. Henry VIII. Bullied hisparliaments systematically; Elizabeth, by cajolery, flattery, deceit, and other arts of which she was mistress, attained through lessboisterous methods the same general end. Measures were thrust upon thechambers accompanied by peremptory demand for their enactment;objectionable projects originated by private members were stifled; andthe fundamental parliamentary privileges of free speech, freedom fromarrest, and access to the sovereign were arbitrarily suspended orotherwise flagrantly violated. *22. The Independence of the Crown. *--Finally must be mentioned certaindevices by which the crown was enabled to evade limitationstheoretically imposed by Parliament's recognized authority. One ofthese was the issuing of proclamations. In the sixteenth century itwas generally maintained that the sovereign, acting alone or with theadvice of the Council, could issue proclamations controlling theliberty of the subject, so long as such edicts did not violate statuteor common law. As a corollary, it was maintained also that the crowncould dispense with the action of law in individual cases and at (p.  022)times of crisis. The range covered by these prerogatives was broad andundefined, and in the hands of an aggressive monarch they constituteda serious invasion of the powers of legislation nominally vested inParliament. It is true that the act of 1539 imparting to royalproclamations the force of law was repealed in 1547; but proclamationscontinued, especially under Elizabeth and James I. , not only to benumerous, but to be enforced relentlessly by penalties inflictedthrough the Star Chamber. The most important power of Parliament inthe sixteenth century was still that of voting supplies. But inrespect to finance, as in respect to legislation, the crown possessedeffective means of evading parliamentary control. In the first place, the sovereign possessed large revenues, arising from crown lands, feudal rights, profits of jurisdiction, and ecclesiastical payments, with which Parliament had nothing whatever to do. In the second place, the great indirect taxes--customs duties and tonnage andpoundage--were, in the sixteenth century, voted at the accession of asovereign for the whole of the reign. It was only in respect toextraordinary taxes--"subsidies" and "tenths and fifteenths"--thatParliament was in a position effectually to make or mar the fiscalfortunes of the Government; except that, of course, it was always opento Parliament to criticise the financial expedients of the crown, suchas the sale of monopolies, the levy of "impositions, " and thecollection of benevolences, and to influence, if it could, the policypursued in relation to these matters. *23. The House of Lords in 1485. *--Despite the numerous strictures thathave been mentioned, Parliament in the Tudor period by no means stoodstill. The enormous power and independence exhibited by the chambers, especially the Commons, in the seventeenth century was the product ofsubstantial, if more or less hidden, growth during the previous onehundred and fifty years. The composition of the two houses at theaccession of Henry VII. Was not clearly defined. The House of Lordswas but a small body. It comprised simply those lords, temporal andspiritual, who were entitled to receive from the king, when aparliament was to be held, a special writ, i. E. , an individualsummons. The number of these was indeterminate. The right of thearchbishops, the bishops, and the abbots to be summoned was immemorialand indisputable, although the abbots in practice evaded theirobligation of attendance, save in cases in which it could be shownthat as military tenants of the crown they were obligated to performparliamentary duty. Among the lay nobility the selection ofindividuals for summons seems originally to have been dependent uponthe royal pleasure. Eventually, however, the principle became (p.  023)fixed that a man once summoned must be summoned whenever occasionshould arise, and that, furthermore, his eldest son after him must besummoned in similar manner. What was at the outset an obligationbecame in time a privilege and a distinction, and by the day when itdid so the rule had become legally established that the king could notwithhold a writ of summons from the heir of a person who had been oncesummoned and had obeyed the summons by taking his seat. During thefourteenth century the aggregate membership of the chamber fluctuatedin the neighborhood of 150. By reason of the withdrawal of some of theabbots and the decline of the baronage, in the fifteenth century thebody was yet smaller. The number of temporal lords summoned to thefirst parliament of Henry VII. Was but 29. *24. The House of Commons in 1485. *--The House of Commons at thebeginning of the Tudor period was a body of some 300 members. Itcontained 74 knights of the shire, representing all but three of theforty English counties, together with a fluctuating number ofrepresentatives of cities and boroughs. In the Model Parliament of1295 the number of urban districts represented was 166, but as timewent on the number declined, in part because of the discriminationexercised from time to time in the selection of boroughs to berepresented, and in part by reason of the fact that in times whenrepresentation did not appear to yield tangible results the boroughtaxpayers begrudged the two shillings per day paid theirrepresentatives, in some instances sufficiently to be induced toabandon altogether the sending of members. By the time of Edward IV. (1399-1413) the number of represented towns had fallen to 111. At thebeginning of the fifteenth century county members were elected by thebody of freeholders present at the county court, but by statute of1429 the electoral privilege was restricted to freeholders resident inthe county and holding land of the yearly rental value of fortyshillings, equivalent, perhaps, to some £30 to £40 in present values. This rule, adopted originally with the express purpose ofdisfranchising "the very great and outrageous number of people eitherof small substance or of no value" who had been claiming an electoralequality with the "worthy knights and squires, " continued in operationwithout amendment until 1832. The electoral systems prevailing in theboroughs exhibited at all times the widest variation, and never priorto 1832 was there serious attempt to establish uniformity of practice. In some places (the so-called "scot and lot" boroughs) the suffragewas exercised by all rate-payers; in others, by the holders of particulartenements ("burgage" franchise); in others (the "potwalloper" (p.  024)boroughs) by all citizens who had hearths of their own; in many, bythe municipal corporation, or by the members of a guild, or even byneighboring landholders. Borough electoral arrangements ran the fullgamut from thoroughgoing democracy to the narrowest kind of oligarchy. *25. Development under the Tudors: Composition. *--During the Tudorperiod the composition of the two chambers underwent important change. In the Lords the principal modification was the substitution oftemporal for spiritual preponderance. This was brought about in twoways. The first was the increase numerically of the hereditary peersfrom thirty-six at the beginning of the reign of Henry VIII. To abouteighty at the accession of James I. The second was the dropping out oftwenty-eight abbots, incident to the closing of the monasteries byHenry VIII. And only partially compensated by the creation at the timeof six new bishoprics. In 1509 the number of lords spiritual wasforty-eight; in 1603, it was but twenty-six. The House of Commonsunder the Tudors was virtually doubled in size. The finalincorporation of Wales in 1535 meant the adding of twenty-fivemembers. In 1536 and 1543 the counties of Monmouth and Chester wereadmitted to representation. There followed the enfranchisement of anumber of boroughs, and by the end of the reign of Henry VIII. Therepresentation of counties had been increased from 74 to 90, and thatof the boroughs had been brought up to 252, giving the House anaggregate membership of 342. During the reign of Edward VI. Twenty newconstituencies were created, and during that of Mary twenty-one. Butthe most notable increase was that which took place in the reign ofElizabeth, the net result of which was the bringing in of 62 newborough representatives, in some cases from boroughs which nowacquired for the first time the right of representation, in othersfrom boroughs which once had possessed the right but through disusehad been construed to have forfeited it. The total increase of theCommons in numerical strength during the Tudor period was 166. Therecan be little question that in a few instances parliamentaryrepresentation was extended with the specific purpose of influencingthe political complexion of the popular chamber. But, on the whole, the reason for the notable increase, especially of borough members, isto be found in the growing prosperity of the country and in thereliance which the Tudors were accustomed to place upon the commercialand industrial classes of the population. *26. Other Developments. *--A second point at which Parliament in theTudor era underwent modification was in respect to permanence andsittings. Prior to Henry VIII. The life of a parliament was confined, as a rule, to a single session, and sessions were brief. But (p.  025)parliaments now ceased to be meetings to be broken up as soon as somespecific piece of business should have been completed, and many werebrought together in several succeeding sessions. Henry VIII. 'sReformation Parliament lasted seven years. During the forty-five yearsof Elizabeth there were ten parliaments and thirteen sessions. One ofthese parliaments lasted eleven years, although it met but threetimes. It is true that the parliaments of Elizabeth were in session, in the aggregate, somewhat less than three years, an average for thereign of but little more than three weeks a year. But the point isthat, slowly but effectually, Parliament as an institution wasacquiring a recognized position in the political system of the nation. In 1589 Thomas Smith, a court secretary, published a book entitled"The Commonwealth of England and the Manner of Government Thereof, " inwhich was laid down the fundamental proposition that "the most highand absolute power of the realm of England consisteth in theparliament"; and there is no record that the proclamation of thisdoctrine, even by a court official, elicited serious protest ordifference of opinion. It was in the Tudor period, further, that bothhouses instituted the keeping of journals and that the appointment ofcommittees and numerous other aspects of modern parliamentaryprocedure had their beginnings. Finally, the Elizabethan portion of the period was an epoch duringwhich there took place a very real growth in independence of sentimentand an equally notable advance in consciousness of power on the partof the popular chamber. Even before the death of Elizabeth there wereill-repressed manifestations of the feeling that the Tudor monarchyhad done its work and that the time for a larger amount ofparliamentary control had arrived. Nothing was clearer in 1603 thanthe fact that the sovereign who should expect to get on agreeably withhis Commons must be both liberal and tactful. That the Stuartspossessed the first of these qualities in only a very limited measureand the second one not at all is a fact upon which turns an entirechapter of English constitutional history. [21] [Footnote 21: Excellent works of a general nature on the Tudor period are H. A. L. Fisher, History of England from the Accession of Henry VII. To the Death of Henry VIII. (London, 1906); A. F. Pollard, History of England from the Accession of Edward VI. To the Death of Elizabeth (London, 1910); and A. D. Innis, England under the Tudors (London, 1905). For institutional history see Taylor, English Constitution, II. , Bk. 4. More specialized treatment will be found in Smith, History of the English Parliament, I. , Bk. 5; Dicey, The Privy Council, 76-130; and Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, Chaps. 10, 12. An excellent survey of English public law at the death of Henry VII. Is contained in F. W. Maitland, Constitutional History of England (Cambridge, 1911), 165-236. Books of large value on the period include W. Busch, England under the Tudors, trans. By A. M. Todd (London, 1895), the only volume of which published covers the reign of Henry VII. ; A. F. Pollard, Henry VIII. (London, 1902 and 1905), and England under the Protector Somerset (London, 1900); and M. Creighton, Queen Elizabeth (new ed. , London, 1899). ] VIII. THE STUARTS: CROWN AND PARLIAMENT (p.  026) *27. Absolutism Becomes Impracticable. *--Throughout the larger portionof the seventeenth century the principal interest in English politicscenters in the contest which was waged between the nation representedin Parliament and the sovereigns of the Stuart dynasty. The question, as one writer has put it, was "at first whether government should beby the king or by the king in parliament, afterwards whether the kingshould govern or whether parliament should govern. "[22] The Stuartsovereigns brought with them to the English throne no politicalprinciples that were new. When James I. , in a speech before ParliamentMarch 21, 1610, declared that monarchy "is the supremest thing uponearth, " and that, "as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy, . .. Sois it sedition in subjects to dispute what a King may do in the heightof his power, "[23] he was but giving expression to a conception of theroyal prerogative which had been lodged in the mind of every Tudor, but which no Tudor had been so tactless as publicly to avow. The firsttwo Stuarts confidently expected to maintain the same measure ofabsolutism which their Tudor predecessors had maintained--nothingmore, nothing less. There were, however, several reasons why, forthem, this was an impossibility. The first arose from their owntemperament. The bluntness, the lack of perception of the public will, and the disposition perpetually to insist upon the minutestdefinitions of prerogative, which so pre-eminently characterized themembers of the Stuart house must have operated to alienateseventeenth-century Englishmen under even the most favorable ofcircumstances. A second consideration is the fact, of which the nationwas fully cognizant, that under the changed conditions that had arisenthere was no longer the need of strong monarchy that once there hadbeen. Law and order had long since been secured; all danger of afeudal reaction had been effectually removed; foreign invasion was nomore to be feared. Strong monarchy had served an invaluable purpose, but that purpose had been fulfilled. [Footnote 22: C. Ilbert, Parliament, its History, Constitution, and Practice (London and New York, 1911), 28-29. ] [Footnote 23: Prothero, Statutes and Constitutional Documents, 293-294. ] *28. The Rights of the Commons Asserted. *--Finally there was the (p.  027)fact of the enormous growth of Parliament as an organ of the publicwill. The rapidity of that development in the days of Elizabeth is, and was at the time, much obscured by the disposition of the nation topermit the Queen to live out her days without being seriously crossedin her purposes. But the magnitude of it becomes apparent enough after1603. In a remarkable document known as the Apology of the Commons, under date of June 20, 1604, the popular chamber stated respectfullybut frankly to the new sovereign what it considered to be its rightsand, through it, the rights of the nation. "What cause we your poorCommons have, " runs the address, "to watch over our privileges, ismanifest in itself to all men. The prerogatives of princes may easily, and do daily, grow; the privileges of the subject are for the mostpart at an everlasting stand. They may be by good providence and carepreserved, but being once lost are not recovered but with muchdisquiet. The rights and liberties of the Commons of Englandconsisteth chiefly in these three things: first, that the shires, cities, and boroughs of England, by representation to be present, havefree choice of such persons as they shall put in trust to representthem; secondly, that the persons chosen, during the time of theparliament, as also of their access and recess, be free fromrestraint, arrest, and imprisonment: thirdly, that in parliament theymay speak freely their consciences without check and controlment, doing the same with due reverence to the sovereign court ofparliament, that is, to your Majesty and both the Houses, who all inthis case make but one politic body, whereof your Highness is thehead. "[24] The shrewdness of the political philosophy with which thispassage opens is matched only by the terseness with which thefundamental rights of the Commons as a body are enumerated. To theenumeration should be added, historically, an item contained in apetition of the Commons, May 23, 1610, which reads as follows: "Wehold it an ancient, general, and undoubted right of Parliament todebate freely all matters which do properly concern the subject andhis right or state; which freedom of debate being once foreclosed, theessence of the liberty of Parliament is withal dissolved. "[25] Theoccasion for this last-mentioned assertion of right arose from theking's habitual assumption that there were various important mattersof state, e. G. , the laying of impositions and the conduct of foreignrelations, which Parliament possessed no right so much as to discuss. [Footnote 24: Petyt, Jus Parliamentarium (London, 1739), 227-243. Portions of this document are printed in Prothero, Statutes and Constitutional Documents, 286-293. ] [Footnote 25: Commons' Journals, I. , 431; Prothero, Statutes, 297. ] *29. The Parliaments of James I. And Charles I. *--The tyranny of (p.  028)James I. And Charles I. Assumed the form, principally, of the issue ofproclamations without the warrant of statute and the exaction of taxeswithout the assent of Parliament. Parliament, during the period1603-1640, was convened but seldom, and it was repeatedly prorogued ordissolved to terminate its inquiries, thwart its protests, or subvertits projected measures. Under the disadvantage of recurrentinterruption the Commons contrived, however, to carry on a contestwith the crown which was essentially continuous. During the reign ofJames I. (1603-1625) there were four parliaments. The first, extendingfrom 1604 to 1611, was called in session six times. It sorelydispleased the king by remonstrating against his measures, andespecially by the persistency with which it withheld subsidies pendinga redress of grievances. The second, summoned in 1614, vainlyreiterated the complaints of its predecessor and was dissolved withouthaving enacted a single measure. The third, in 1621, revived the powerof impeachment (dormant since the days of Henry VII. ), reasserted theright of the chambers to debate foreign relations, and avenged by afresh protestation of liberties the arrest of one of its members. Thefourth, in 1624, abolished monopolies and renewed the attack uponproclamations. The first parliament of Charles I. , convoked in 1625, criticised the policy of the new sovereign and was dissolved. Thesecond, in 1626, was dissolved to prevent the impeachment of theking's favorite minister, the Duke of Buckingham. The third, in1628-1629, drew up the memorable Petition of Right, to which the kinggave reluctant assent, and in which arbitrary imprisonment, thebilleting of soldiers, the establishment of martial law in time ofpeace, and the imposition of gifts, loans, benevolences, or taxeswithout the consent of Parliament were specifically prohibited. [26]The fourth of Charles's parliaments, the so-called Short Parliament of1640, followed a period of eleven years of personal government andshowed no disposition to surrender the rights that had been asserted. The fifth--the Long Parliament, convoked also in 1640--imprisoned andexecuted the king's principal advisers, abolished the Star Chamber andthe several other special courts and councils of Tudor origin, pronounced illegal the levy of ship-money and of tonnage and poundagewithout parliamentary assent, made provision for the assembling of aparliament within three years of the dissolution of the present one, and forced the king into a position where he was obliged to yield orto resort to war. [Footnote 26: The text of the Petition of Right is printed in Stubbs, Select Charters, 515-517; Adams and Stephens, Select Documents, 339-342. ] *30. The Commonwealth and the Protectorate. *--Between the (p.  029)political theory maintained by the Stuart kings and that maintained bythe parliamentary majority it was found impossible to arrive at acompromise. The Civil War was waged, in the last analysis, todetermine which of the two theories should prevail. It should beemphasized that the parliamentarians entered upon the contest with nointent to establish a government by Parliament alone, in form or infact. It is sufficiently clear from the Grand Remonstrance of 1641[27]that what they contemplated was merely the imposing of constitutionalrestrictions upon the crown, together with the introduction of certainspecific changes in the political and ecclesiastical order, e. G. , theabolition of episcopacy. The culmination of the struggle, however, inthe defeat and execution of the king threw open the doors for everysort of constitutional innovation, and between 1649 and 1660 thenation was called upon to pass through an era of politicalexperimentation happily unparalleled in its history. May 19, 1649, kingship and the House of Lords having been abolished as equally"useless and dangerous, "[28] Parliament, to complete the work oftransformation, proclaimed a commonwealth, or republic; and on thegreat seal was inscribed the legend, "In the first year of freedom byGod's blessing restored. " During the continuance of the Commonwealth(1649-1654) various plans were brought forward for the creation of aparliament elected by manhood suffrage, but with the essentialprinciple involved neither the Rump nor the people at large possessedsubstantial sympathy. In 1654 there was put in operation aconstitution--the earliest among written constitutions in modernEurope--known as the Instrument of Government. [29] The system thereinprovided, which was intended to be extended to the three countries ofEngland, Scotland, and Ireland, comprised as the executive power alife Protector, to be assisted by a council of thirteen to twenty-onemembers, and as the legislative organ a unicameral parliament of 460members elected triennially by all citizens possessing property to thevalue of £300. [30] Cromwell accepted the office of Protector, and theensuing six years comprise the period known commonly as the (p.  030)Protectorate. [Footnote 27: S. R. Gardiner, Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution (Oxford, 1899), 202-232. ] [Footnote 28: Gardiner, Documents of the Puritan Revolution, 384-388; Adams and Stephens, Select Documents, 397-400. ] [Footnote 29: Gardiner, Documents of the Puritan Revolution, 405-417; Adams and Stephens, Select Documents, 407-416. ] [Footnote 30: On the history of this unicameral parliament see J. A. R. Marriott, Second Chambers, an Inductive Study in Political Science (Oxford, 1910), Chap. 3; A. Esmein, Les constitutions du protectorat de Cromwell, in _Revue du Droit Public_, Sept. -Oct. And Nov. -Dec. , 1899. ] The government provided for by the Instrument was but indifferentlysuccessful. Between Cromwell and his parliaments relations were muchof the time notoriously strained, and especially was there controversyas to whether the powers of Parliament should be construed to extendto the revision of the constitution. In 1657 the Protector was askedto assume the title of king. This he refused to do, but he did accepta new constitution, the Humble Petition and Advice, in which a stepwas taken toward a return to the governmental system swept away in1649. [31] This step comprised, principally, the re-establishment of aparliament of two chambers--a House of Commons and, for lack ofagreement upon a better designation, "the Other House. " Republicanism, however, failed to strike root. Shrewder men, including Cromwell, hadrecognized all the while that the English people were really royalistat heart, and it is not too much to say that from the outset therestoration of monarchy was inevitable. Even before the death ofCromwell, in 1658, the trend was distinctly in that direction, andafter the hand of the great Protector had been removed from the helmsuch a consummation was a question but of time and means. May 25, 1660, Charles II. , having engaged to grant a general amnesty and toaccept such measures of settlement respecting religion as Parliamentshould determine upon, landed at Dover and was received with all butuniversal acclamation. [32] [Footnote 31: Gardiner, Documents of the Puritan Revolution, 447-459. ] [Footnote 32: The best of the general treatises covering the period 1603-1660 are F. C. Montague, The History of England from the Accession of James I. To the Restoration (London, 1907), and G. M. Trevelyan, England Under the Stuarts (London, 1904). The monumental works within the field are those of S. R. Gardiner, i. E. , History of England, 1603-1642, 10 vols. (new ed. , London, 1893-1895); History of the Great Civil War, 4 vols. (London, 1894); and History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 4 vols. (London, 1894-1901). Mr. Gardiner's work is being continued by C. H. Firth, who has published The Last Years of the Protectorate, 1656-1658, 2 vols. (London, 1909). The development of institutions is described in Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, Chaps. 13-14; Smith, History of the English Parliament, I. , Bks. 6-7; Pike, History of the House of Lords, _passim_; J. N. Figgis, The Theory of the Divine Right of Kings (Cambridge, 1896); and G. P. Gooch, History of English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, 1898). An excellent analysis of the system of government which the Stuarts inherited from the Tudors is contained in the introduction of Prothero, Statutes and Constitutional Documents. Of the numerous biographies of Cromwell the best is C. H. Firth, Oliver Cromwell (New York, 1904). A valuable survey of governmental affairs at the death of James I. Is Maitland, Constitutional History Of England, 237-280. ] IX. THE LATER STUARTS: THE REVOLUTION OF 1688-1689 (p.  031) *31. Charles II. And James II. *--Throughout the period 1660-1689 therewas enacted a final grand experiment to determine whether a Stuartcould, or would, govern constitutionally. The constitution inaccordance with which Charles II. And James II. Were expected togovern was that which had been built up during preceding centuries, amended by the important reforms effected by the Long Parliament in1641. The settlement of 1660 was a restoration no less of Parliamentthan of the monarchy, in respect both to structure and to functions. The two chambers were re-established upon their earlier foundations, and in them was vested the power to enact all legislation and tosanction all taxation. The spirit, if not the letter, of the agreementin accordance with which the Stuart house was restored forbade thefurther imposition of taxes by the arbitrary decree of the crown andall exercise of the legislative power by the crown singly, whetherpositively through proclamation or negatively through dispensation. Itrequired that henceforth the nature and amount of public expendituresshould, upon inquiry, be made known to the two houses, and thatministers might regularly be held to account for their acts and thoseof the sovereign. The easy-going Charles II. (1660-1685) contrivedmost of the time to keep fairly within the bounds that were prescribedfor him. He disliked the religious measures of his first parliament, but he recognized that a fresh election might be expected to result inthe choice of a House of Commons still less to his taste, and, accordingly, the Cavalier Parliament was kept in existence throughoutthe entire period 1661-1679. The parliamentary history of the closingyears of the reign centered about the question of the exclusion of theking's Catholic brother, James, from the throne, and was given specialinterest by the conflict of groups foreshadowing political parties;but Charles maintained unfailingly an attitude which, at the least, did not endanger his own tenure of the throne. James II. (1685-1688) was a man of essentially different temper. Hewas a Stuart of the Stuarts, irrevocably attached to the doctrine ofdivine right and sufficiently tactless to take no pains to disguisethe fact. He was able, industrious, and honest, but obstinate andintolerant. He began by promising to preserve "the government as bylaw established. " But the ease with which the Monmouth uprising of1685 was suppressed deluded him into thinking that through theexemption of the Catholics from the operation of existing laws hemight in time realize his ambition to re-establish Roman Catholicismin England. He proceeded, therefore, to issue decrees dispensing (p.  032)with statutes which Parliament had enacted, to establish anecclesiastical commission in violation of parliamentary law of 1641, and, in 1687, to promulgate a declaration of indulgence extending toall Catholics and Non-Conformists a freedom in religious matters whichwas clearly denied by the laws of the country. [33] By this arbitraryresumption of ancient prerogative the theory underlying theRestoration was subverted utterly. [Footnote 33: Gee and Hardy, Documents Illustrative of English Church History, 641-644; Adams and Stephens, Select Documents, 451-454. ] *32. The Revolution: the Bill of Rights. *--Foreseeing no relief fromabsolutist practices, and impelled especially by the birth, in 1688, of a male heir to the king, a group of leading men representing thevarious political groups extended to the stadtholder of Holland, William, Prince of Orange, an invitation to repair to England touphold and protect the constitutional liberties of the realm. Theresult was the bloodless revolution of 1688. November 5, Williamlanded at Torquay and advanced toward London. James, finding himselfwithout a party, offered vain concessions and afterwards fled to thecourt of his ally, Louis XIV. Of France. By a provisional body oflords, former commoners, and officials William was requested to act astemporary "governor" until the people should have chosen a national"convention. "[34] This convention assembled January 22, 1689, resolvedthat James, by reason of his flight, should be construed to haveabdicated, and established on the throne as joint sovereigns Williamand Mary, with the understanding that the actual government of therealm should devolve upon the king. [Footnote 34: Not properly a parliament, because not summoned by a king. ] The Revolution of 1688-1689 was signalized by the putting into writtenform of no inconsiderable portion of the English constitution as itthen existed. February 19, 1698, the new sovereigns formally accepteda Declaration of Right, drawn up by the convention, and by act ofParliament, December 16 following, this instrument, under the name ofthe Bill of Rights, was made a part of the law of the land. In it weredenied specifically a long list of prerogatives to which the lastStuart had laid claim--those, in particular, of dispensing with thelaws, establishing ecclesiastical commissions, levying imposts withoutparliamentary assent, and maintaining a standing army under theexclusive control of the crown. In it also were guaranteed certainfundamental rights which during the controversies of the seventeenthcentury had been brought repeatedly in question, including those ofpetition, freedom of elections, and freedom of speech on the part (p.  033)of members of Parliament. [35] The necessity of frequent meetingsof Parliament was affirmed, and a succession clause was inserted bywhich Roman Catholics and persons who should marry Roman Catholics, were excluded from the throne. In the Bill of Rights were thus summedup the essential results of the Revolution, and, more remotely, of theentire seventeenth-century parliamentary movement. With its enactmentthe doctrine of divine right disappeared forever from the domain ofpractical English politics. The entire circumstance of William III. 'saccession determined the royal tenure to be, as it thereafterremained, not by inherent or vested right, but conditioned upon thenational will. [36] [Footnote 35: In this connection should be recalled the Habeas Corpus Act of May 26, 1679, by whose terms the right of an individual, upon arrest, to have his case investigated without delay was effectually guaranteed. Stubbs, Select Charters, 517-521; Adams and Stephens, Select Documents, 440-448. ] [Footnote 36: In respect to ecclesiastical affairs the Bill of Rights was supplemented by the Toleration Act of May 24, 1689, in which was provided "some ease to scrupulous consciences in the exercise of religion, " i. E. , a larger measure of liberty for Protestant non-conformists. The text of the Bill of Rights is in Stubbs, Select Charters, 523-528; Gee and Hardy, Documents Illustrative of English Church History, 645-654; and Adams and Stephens, Select Documents, 462-469; that of the Toleration Act, in Gee and Hardy, 654-664; and, in abridged form, in Adams and Stephens, 459-462. General accounts of the period 1660-1689 are contained in R. Lodge, History of England from the Restoration to the Death of William III. (London, 1910), Chaps. 1-15, and in Trevelyan, England Under the Stuarts, Chaps. 11-13. O. Airy. Charles II. , is an excellent book. The development of Parliament in the period is described in Smith, History of the English Parliament, I. , Bk. 8, II. , Bk. 9. ] CHAPTER II (p.  034) THE CONSTITUTION SINCE THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY I. CROWN AND PARLIAMENT AFTER 1789 *33. Elements of Stability and Change. *--Structurally, the Englishgovernmental system was by the close of the seventeenth centurysubstantially complete. The limited monarchy, the ministry, the twohouses of parliament, the courts of law, and the local administrativeagencies were by that time constituted very much as they are to-day. The fundamental principles, furthermore, upon which English governmentis operated were securely established. Laws could be enacted only by"the king in parliament"; taxes could be levied only in the samemanner; the liberty of the individual was safeguarded by a score ofspecific and oft-renewed guarantees. In point of fact, however, theEnglish constitution of 1689 was very far from being the Englishconstitution of 1912. The overturn by which the last Stuart was drivenfrom the throne not only marked the culmination of the revolutioncommenced in 1640; it comprised the beginning of a more extendedrevolution, peaceful but thoroughgoing, by which the governmentalsystem of the realm was amplified, carried in new directions, andsuccessively readapted to fresh and changing conditions. At no timefrom William III. To George V. Was there a deliberate overhauling ofthe governmental system as a whole. Save in occasional parliamentaryenactments and judicial decisions, the constitutional changes whichwere wrought were rarely given documentary expression. Yet it ishardly too much to say that of the principles and practices whichto-day make up the working constitution of the United Kingdom almostall were originated or reshaped during the eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies. In describing, in succeeding chapters, the principalaspects of this governmental system it will be necessary frequently toallude to these more recent constitutional developments, and it wouldbut involve repetition to undertake an account of them at this point. An enumeration and a brief characterization of a few of the moreimportant will serve for the moment to impress the importanceconstitutionally of the period under consideration. *34. The Decreased Authority of the Crown. *--First may be (p.  035)mentioned the gradual eclipse of the crown and the establishment ofcomplete and unquestioned ascendancy on the part of Parliament. Inconsequence of the Revolution of 1688-1689 the sovereign was shorndefinitely of a number of important prerogatives. William III. , however, was no figure-head, and the crown was far from having beenreduced to impotence. Understanding perfectly the conditions uponwhich he had been received in England, William none the less did notattempt to conceal his innate love of power. He claimed prerogativeswhich his Whig supporters were loath to acknowledge and he exercisedhabitually in person, and with telling effect, the functions ofsovereign, premier, foreign minister, and military autocrat. [37] Hissuccessor, Anne, though apathetic, was hardly less attached to theinterests of strong monarchy. It was only with the accession of theHanoverian dynasty, in 1714, that the bulk of those powers ofgovernment which hitherto the crown had retained slipped inevitablyinto the grasp of the ministers and of Parliament. George I. (1714-1727) and George II. (1727-1760) were not the nonentities theyhave been painted, but, being alien alike to English speech, customs, and political institutions, they were in a position to defend butindifferently the prerogatives which they had inherited. Under GeorgeIII. (1760-1820) there was a distinct recrudescence of the monarchicalidea. The king, if obstinate and below the average intellectually, washonest, courageous, and ambitious. He gloried in the name ofEnglishman, and, above all, he was determined to recover for the crownsome measure of the prestige and authority which his predecessors hadlost. The increasingly oligarchical character of Parliament in theperiod and the disintegration of the ruling Whig party created acondition not unfavorable for the realization of the royal programme, and through at least a score of years the influence which thesovereign exerted personally upon government and politics exceededanything that had been known since the days of William III. In 1780the House of Commons gave expression to its apprehension by adopting aseries of resolutions, the first of which asserted unequivocally that"the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought tobe diminished. " [Footnote 37: On the constitution as it was at the death of William III. , see Maitland, Constitutional History of England, 281-329. ] After the retirement of Lord North, in 1782, however, the influence ofthe sovereign declined perceptibly, and during the later portion ofthe reign, clouded by the king's insanity, all that had been gainedfor royalty was again lost. Under the Regency (1810-1820) and duringthe reign of the reactionary and scandal-smirched George IV. (p.  036)(1820-1830) the popularity, if not the power, of the crown reached itsnadir. In the days of the genial William IV. (1830-1837) popularitywas regained, but not power. The long reign of the virtuous Victoria(1837-1901) served completely to rehabilitate the monarchy in therespect and affections of the British people, a consummation whosestability more recent sovereigns have done nothing to impair. As willbe pointed out in another place, the influence which the sovereign maywield, and during the past three-quarters of a century has wielded, inthe actual conduct of public affairs is far from inconsiderable. But, as will also be emphasized, that influence is but the shadow of theauthority which the crown once--even as late as the opening of theeighteenth century--possessed. It is largely personal rather thanlegal; it is asserted within the domain of foreign relations rathermore than within that of domestic affairs; and as against the adversewill of the nation expressed through Parliament it is, in effect, powerless. [38] [Footnote 38: On the monarchical revival under George III. , see D. A. Winstanley, Personal and Party Government; a Chapter in the Political History of the Early Years of the Reign of George III. , 1760-1766 (Cambridge, 1910). For an excellent appraisal of the status of the crown throughout the period 1760-1860 see T. E. May, The Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George III. , edited and continued by F. Holland, 3 vols. (London, 1912), I. , Chaps. 1-2. ] *35. Ascendancy of the House of Commons. *--A second transformationwrought in the working constitution since 1689 is the shifting of thecenter of gravity in Parliament from the House of Lords to the Houseof Commons, together with a notable democratizing of therepresentative chamber. In the days of William and Anne the House ofLords was distinctly more dignified and influential than the House ofCommons. During the period covered by the ministry of Walpole(1721-1742), however, the Commons rose rapidly to the position of thepreponderating legislative branch. One contributing cause was theSeptennial Act of 1716, whereby the life of a parliament was extendedfrom three years to seven, thus increasing the continuity anddesirability of membership in the Commons. Another was the growingimportance of the power of the purse as wielded by the Commons. Athird was the fact that Walpole, throughout his prolonged ministry, sat steadily as a member of the lower chamber and made it the scene ofhis remarkable activities. The establishment of the supremacy of theCommons as then constructed did not, however, mean the triumph ofpopular government. It was but a step toward that end. The House ofCommons in the eighteenth century was composed of members elected (p.  037)in the counties and boroughs upon a severely restricted franchise orappointed outright by closed corporations or by individual magnates, and it remained for Parliament during the nineteenth century, by aseries of memorable statutes, to extend the franchise successively togroups of people hitherto politically powerless, to reapportionparliamentary seats so that political influence might be distributedwith some fairness among the voters, and to regulate the conditionsunder which campaigns should be carried on, elections conducted, andother operations of popular government undertaken. Of principalimportance among the enactments by which these things wereaccomplished are the Reform Act of 1832, the Representation of thePeople Act of 1867, the Ballot Act of 1872, the Corrupt and IllegalPractices Act of 1883, the Representation of the People Act of 1884, and the Redistribution of Seats Act of 1885. The nature of thesemeasures will be explained subsequently. [39] [Footnote 39: See pp. 80-86. ] II. RISE OF THE CABINET AND OF POLITICAL PARTIES *36. Cabinet Origins. *--In the third place, the period under review isimportant by reason of the development within it of the mostremarkable feature of the English constitutional system to-day, namely, the cabinet. The creation of the cabinet was a gradualprocess, and both the process and the product are utterly unknown tothe letter of English law. It is customary to regard as the immediateantecedent of the cabinet the so-called "cabal" of Charles II. , i. E. , the irregular group of persons whom that sovereign selected from thePrivy Council and took advice from informally in lieu of the Councilitself. In point of fact, by reason principally of the growingunwieldiness of the Privy Council, the practice of deferring foradvice to a specially constituted committee, or inner circle, of thebody far antedated Charles II. By some it has been traced to a periodas remote as the reign of Henry III. , and it is known that not onlythe thing itself, but also the name "cabinet council, " existed underCharles I. The essential justification of the creation of the cabinetwas stated by Charles II. In 1679 in the declaration that "the greatnumber of the Council has made it unfit for the secrecy and despatchthat are necessary in many great affairs. " The growing authority ofthe select circle of advisors was the object of repeated attacks, andthe name "cabinet" (arising from the king's habit of receiving themembers in a small private room, or cabinet, in the royal palace) wasapplied at first as a term of reproach. The device met, however, agenuine need, and by 1689 its perpetuation was assured. The larger (p.  038)Privy Council was continued in existence, and it exists to-day; butits powers became long ago merely nominal. [40] [Footnote 40: H. W. V. Temperley, The Inner and Outer Cabinet and the Privy Council, 1679-1683, in _English Historical Review_, Oct. , 1912. ] *37. Principles of Cabinet Government Established. *--Under William III. The cabinet took on rapidly the character which it bears to-day. Failing in the attempt to govern with a cabinet including both Whigsand Tories, William, in 1693-1696, gathered about himself a body ofadvisers composed exclusively of Whigs, and the principle speedilybecame established for all time that a cabinet group must be made upof men who in respect to all important matters of state are insubstantial agreement. Before the close of the eighteenth centurythere had been fixed definitely the conception of the cabinet as abody necessarily consisting (a) of members of Parliament (b) of thesame political views (c) chosen from the party possessing a majorityin the House of Commons (d) prosecuting a concerted policy (e) under acommon responsibility to be signified by collective resignation in theevent of parliamentary censure, and (f) acknowledging a commonsubordination to one chief minister. [41] During the eighteenth-centuryera of royal weakness the cabinet acquired a measure of independenceby which it was enabled to become, for all practical purposes, theruling authority of the realm; and, under the limitation of strictaccountability to the House of Commons, it fulfills substantially thatfunction to-day. Its members, as will appear, are at the same time theheads of the principal executive departments, the leaders in thelegislative chambers, and the authors of very nearly the whole ofgovernmental policy and conduct. [42] [Footnote 41: H. D. Traill, Central Government (London, 1881), 24-25. ] [Footnote 42: On the rise of the cabinet see, in addition to the general histories, M. T. Blauvelt, The Development of Cabinet Government in England (New York, 1902), Chaps. 1-8; E. Jenks, Parliamentary England; the Evolution of the Cabinet System (New York, 1903); and H. B. Learned, Historical Significance of the Term "Cabinet" in England and the United States, in _American Political Science Review_, August, 1909. ] *38. Beginnings of Political Parties. *--A fourth phase of governmentaldevelopment within the period under survey is the rise of politicalparties and the fixing of the broader aspects of the present partysystem. In no nation to-day does party play a rôle of largerimportance than in Great Britain. Unknown to the written portions ofthe constitution, and all but unknown to the ordinary law, partymanagement and party operations are, none the less, of constant andfundamental importance in the actual conduct of government. Theorigins of political parties in England fall clearly within theseventeenth century. It was the judgment of Macaulay that the (p.  039)earliest of groups to which the designation of political parties canbe applied were the Cavalier and Roundhead elements as aligned afterthe adoption of the Grand Remonstrance by the Long Parliament in 1641. The first groups, however, which may be thought of as essentiallyanalogous to the political parties of the present day, possessingcontinuity, fixity of principles, and some degree of compactness oforganization, were the Whigs and Tories of the era of Charles II. Dividing in the first instance upon the issue of the exclusion ofJames, these two elements, with the passage of time, assumedwell-defined and fundamentally irreconcilable positions upon theessential public questions of the day. Broadly, the Whigs stood fortoleration in religion and for parliamentary supremacy in government;the Tories for Anglicanism and the prerogative. And long after theStuart monarchy was a thing of the past these two great parties keptup their struggles upon these and other issues. After an unsuccessfulattempt to govern with the co-operation of both parties William III. , as has been pointed out, fell back definitely upon the support of theWhigs. At the accession of Queen Anne, in 1702, however, the Whigswere turned out of office and the Tories (who already had had a tasteof power in 1698-1701) were put in control. They retained officeduring the larger portion of Queen Anne's reign, but at the accessionof George I. They were compelled to give place to their rivals, andthe period 1714-1761 was one of unbroken Whig ascendancy. This was, ofcourse, the period of the development of the cabinet system, andbetween the rise of that system and the growth of government by partythere was an intimate and inevitable connection. By the close of theeighteenth century the rule had become inflexible that the cabinetshould be composed of men who were in sympathy with the party at thetime dominant in the House of Commons, and that the returning by thenation to the representative chamber of a majority adverse to theruling ministry should be followed by the retirement of theministry. [43] [Footnote 43: For references on the history of English political parties see pp. 144, 160, 166. ] III. THE SCOTTISH AND IRISH UNIONS *39. The Union with Scotland, 1707. *--Finally may be mentioned theimportant changes in the governmental structure which arose from theAct of Union with Scotland, in 1707, and the Act of Union withIreland, in 1801. Except during a brief portion of the period of theProtectorate, the legal relation of England and Wales, on the oneside, and the kingdom of Scotland, on the other, was from 1603 to (p.  040)1707 that simply of a personal union through the crown. Scotland hadher own parliament, her own established church, her own laws, her owncourts, her own army, and her own system of finance. By the Act of1707 a union was established of a far more substantial sort. The twocountries were erected into a single kingdom, known henceforth asGreat Britain. The Scottish parliament was abolished and representationwas accorded the Scottish nobility and people in the Britishparliament at Westminster. The quota of commoners was fixed atforty-five (thirty to be chosen by the counties and fifteen by theboroughs) and that of peers (to be elected by the entire body ofScottish peers at the beginning of each parliament) at sixteen. Alllaws respecting trade, excises, and customs were required to beuniform throughout the two countries, but the local laws of Scotlandupon other subjects were continued in operation, subject to revisionby the common parliament. The Scottish judicial system remainedunchanged;[44] likewise the status of the established PresbyterianChurch. [45] [Footnote 44: Save that appeals might be carried from the Scottish Court of Session to the House of Lords. ] [Footnote 45: J. Mackinnon, The Union of England and Scotland (London, 1896). This scholarly volume covers principally the period 1695-1745. ] *40. The Union with Ireland, 1801. *--The history of Ireland, in most ofits phases, is that of a conquered territory, and until late in theeighteenth century the constitutional status of the countryapproximated, most of the time, that of a crown colony. During theMiddle Ages the Common Law and the institutions of England wereintroduced in the settled portions of the island (the Pale), and aparliament of the English type began to be developed; but Poynings'sLaw of 1494, by requiring the assent of the English king and councilfor the convening of an Irish parliament, by enjoining that all billsconsidered by the Irish parliament must first have been considered bythe English parliament, and by declaring all existing statutes of theEnglish parliament to be binding upon Ireland, effectually stifled, until its repeal in 1782, Irish parliamentary development. From themiddle of the seventeenth century Catholics were debarred frommembership, and, from the early eighteenth, from voting atparliamentary elections. The repeal of Poynings's Law in 1782 and theremoval of the Catholic disqualification ten years later bettered thesituation, yet at the close of the eighteenth century Irishgovernmental arrangements were still very unsatisfactory. Parliamentwas independent in the making of laws, but not in the control ofadministration; and it was in no true sense a national and representativebody. The policy urged by Pitt, namely, the establishment of a (p.  041)legislative union on the plan of that which already existed betweenEngland and Scotland, gradually impressed itself upon the members ofParliament as more feasible than any other. An Act of Union creating the "United Kingdom of Great Britain andIreland" was adopted by the Irish parliament in February, 1800, and bythe British parliament five months later, and, January 1, 1801, it wasput in operation. Under the terms of this measure the Irish parliamentwas abolished, and it was arranged that Ireland should be representedin the common parliament[46] by four spiritual lords and twenty-eighttemporal peers, chosen by the Irish peerage for life, and by onehundred members (sixty-four sitting for counties, thirty-five forboroughs, and one for the University of Dublin) of the House ofCommons. The Anglican Church of Ireland was amalgamated with theestablished Church of England, though, subsequently in 1869, it wasdisestablished and disendowed. The union with Ireland was in thenature of a contract, and while in a number of respects the conditionswhich were involved in it have been altered within the past hundredyears, its fundamentals stand to-day unchanged. It is thesefundamentals, especially the assimilation of Ireland with GreatBritain for legislative purposes, which are the object of relentlessattack on the part of the Home Rule and other nationalistic andreforming elements. [47] [Footnote 46: Styled "the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. "] [Footnote 47: An abridgment of the text of the Act of Union with Scotland is printed in Adams and Stephens, Select Documents, 479-483; of that of the Act of Union with Ireland, ibid. , 497-506. The full text of the former will be found in Robertson, Select Statutes, Cases, and Documents, 92-105; that of the latter, ibid. , 157-164. On Ireland before the Union see May and Holland, Constitutional History of England, II. , Chap. 16. ] IV. THE NATURE AND SOURCES OF THE CONSTITUTION *41. The Elusiveness of the Constitution. *--The description of theBritish governmental system which is hereafter to be undertaken willbe clarified by a word of comment at this point upon the characterwhich the English constitution of to-day has assumed, upon the form inwhich it exists, and upon the sources from which it has been drawn. The term "constitution, " as is familiarly understood, may be employedto denote a written instrument of fundamental law which has beenframed by a constituent assembly, drafted by an ordinary legislativebody, or promulgated upon the sole authority of a dictator or monarch;or, with equal propriety, it may be used to designate a body of (p.  042)customs, laws, and precedents, but partially, or even not at all, committed to writing, in accordance with which the machinery of agiven governmental system is operated. The constitution of the UnitedKingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is of this second type. Thestudent who desires to bring together the principles and to tabulatethe working details of the British constitutional order will find nosingle document, nor any collection of documents, in which thesethings are wholly, or even largely, set down. For the accomplishmentof such a task it would be necessary to review intensively a thousandyears and more of history, to lay hold of a statute here and of ajudicial decision there, to take constant cognizance of the rise andcrystallization of political usages, and to probe to their inmostrecesses the mechanisms of administration, law-making, taxation, elections, and judicial procedure as they have been, and as they areactually operated before the spectator's eyes. Foremost among itscompeers in antiquity, in comprehensiveness, and in originality, theBritish constitution is at once the least tangible and the most widelyinfluential among European bodies of fundamental law. *42. Constituent Elements: the Law. *--The elements of which thisconstitution is to-day composed have been classified in various ways. For present purposes they may be gathered in five principalcategories. In the first place, there are treaties and otherinternational agreements, which in Great Britain as in the UnitedStates are invested with the character of supreme law of the land. Inthe second place, there is a group of solemn engagements which havebeen entered into at times of national crisis between partiesrepresenting opposed, or contracting, political forces. Of suchcharacter are the Great Charter, the Petition of Right, and the Billof Rights. A third and larger category comprises parliamentarystatutes which add to or modify governmental powers or procedure. Statutes of this type include clearly the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, the Act of Settlement of 1701, the Septennial Act of 1716, Fox's LibelAct of 1792, the Reform Acts of 1832, 1867, and 1884, the MunicipalCorporations Act of 1835, the Parliamentary and Municipal ElectionsAct of 1872, the Local Government Acts of 1888 and 1894, and theParliament Act of 1911. In the fourth place there is the Common Law, avast body of legal precept and usage which through the centuries hasacquired fundamental and immutable character. The first three elementsmentioned, i. E. , treaties, solemn political engagements, andstatutes, exist solely, or almost so, in written form. The rules ofthe Common Law, however, have not been reduced to writing, save in sofar as they are contained in reports, legal opinions, and, moreparticularly, authoritative decisions of the courts, such as those (p.  043)on the rights of jurymen, on the prerogative of the crown, on theprivileges of the houses of Parliament and of their members, and onthe rights and duties of the police. *43. Constituent Elements: the Conventions. *--Finally, there are thoseportions of the constitution which have been denominated with aptnessby Mr. Dicey "the conventions. "[48] The "law" of the constitution, comprising the four categories of elements which have been enumerated, is at all points, whether written or unwritten, enforceable by thecourts; the conventions, although they may and not seldom do relate tomatters of vital importance, are not so enforceable. The conventionsconsist of understandings, practices, and habits by which areregulated a large proportion of the actual operations of thegovernmental authorities. They may have acquired expression in writtenform, but they do not appear in the statute-books or in any instrumentwhich can be made the basis of action in a court of law. For example, it is a convention of the constitution which forbids the king to vetoa measure passed by the houses of Parliament. If the sovereign were inthese days actually to veto a bill, the political consequences mightbe serious, but there could be no question of the sheer legality ofthe deed. It is by virtue of a convention, not a law, of theconstitution, that ministers resign office when they have ceased tocommand the confidence of the House of Commons; that a bill must beread three times before being finally voted upon in the House ofCommons; that Parliament is convened annually and that it consists oftwo houses. The cabinet, and all that the cabinet, as such, standsfor, rests entirely upon convention. To these things, and many others, the student who is concerned exclusively with the constitutional lawof the British nation may give little or no attention. But by one whois seeking to understand the constitutional system as it is and as itoperates attention must be fixed upon the conventions quite assteadily as upon the positive rules of law. If the conventions are notto be regarded as technically parts of the constitution, they are atleast not infrequently as binding in practice as are these rules; andthey may be even more determinative of the operations of the publicpowers. [49] The English constitution is indeed, as Mr. Bryce hasdescribed it, "a mass of precedents carried in men's minds or recordedin writing, dicta of lawyers or statesmen, customs, usages, (p.  044)understandings and beliefs, a number of statutes mixed up with customsand all covered over with a parasitic growth of legal decisions andpolitical habits. "[50] At no time has an attempt been made to collectand to reduce to writing this stupendous mass of scattered material, and no such attempt is likely ever to be made. "The English, " asremarks the French critic Boutmy, "have left the different parts oftheir constitution where the waves of history have deposited them;they have not attempted to bring them together, to classify orcomplete them, or to make of it a consistent or coherent whole. "[51] [Footnote 48: Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (7th ed. , London, 1908), 22-29. ] [Footnote 49: Convention occupies a large place in most political systems, even in countries which are governed under elaborate written constitutions. Their importance in the government of the United States is familiar (see Bryce, American Commonwealth, 3d ed. , I. , Chaps. 34-35). On the influence of conventions in France see H. Chardon, L'Administration de la France; les fonctionnaires (Paris, 1908), 79-105. ] [Footnote 50: J. Bryce, Flexible and Rigid Constitutions, in Studies in History and Jurisprudence (London and New York, 1901), No. 3. ] [Footnote 51: E. Boutmy, Studies in Constitutional Law: France--England--United States, trans. By E. M. Dicey (London, 1891), 6. ] V. THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE CONSTITUTION *44. Aspects of Continuity and of Change. *--In pursuance of what hasbeen said two observations, representing opposite aspects of the sametruth, are pertinent. The first is that in respect to the principlesand many of the practices of the English constitution it ispre-eminently true that, to employ a familiar phrase of Bishop Stubbs, the roots of the present lie deep in the past. [52] The second is thatthe English constitution is a living organism, so constantlyundergoing modification that any description of it which may beattempted is likely to be subject to correction almost before it canbe completed. At no time, as Mr. Freeman wrote, "has the tie betweenthe present and the past been rent asunder; at no moment haveEnglishmen sat down to put together a wholly new constitution inobedience to some dazzling theory. "[53] On the contrary, each step inthe growth of the constitutional system has been the naturalconsequence of some earlier step. Great changes, it is true, have beenwrought. To mention but the most obvious illustration, autocratickingship has been replaced by a parliamentary government based upon athoroughgoing political democracy. None the less, transitions havebeen regularly so gradual, deference to tradition so habitual, and thedisposition to cling to ancient names and forms, even when the spirithad changed, so deep-seated, that the constitutional history ofEngland presents elements of continuity which cannot be paralleled inany other country of Europe. [Footnote 52: Constitutional History of England, I. , prefatory note. ] [Footnote 53: Growth of the English Constitution, 19. ] The letter of a written constitution may survive through many decadesunchanged, as has that of the Italian _Statuto_ of 1848, and as didthat of the American constitution between 1804 and 1865. No (p.  045)constitutional system, however, long stands still, and least of allone of the English variety, in which there exists but little of eventhe formal rigidity arising from written texts. Having no fixed andorderly shape assigned it originally by some supreme authority, theconstitution of the United Kingdom has retained throughout its historya notably large measure of flexibility. It is by no means to-day whatit was fifty years ago; fifty years hence it will be by no means whatit is to-day. In times past changes have been accompanied by violence, or, at least, by extraordinary manifestations of the national will. Nowadays they are introduced through the ordinary and peacefulprocesses of legislation, of judicial interpretation, and ofadministrative practice. Sometimes, as in the instance of the recentoverhauling of the status of the House of Lords, they are accompaniedby heated controversy and widespread public agitation. Notinfrequently, however, they represent inevitable and unopposedamplifications of existing law or practice and are taken note ofscarcely at all by the nation at large. *45. The Constituent Powers of Parliament. *--The principal means bywhich changes are wrought in the English constitution to-day is thatof parliamentary enactment. It is to be observed that in Great Britainthere is not, nor has there ever been, any attempt to draw a line ofdistinction between powers that are constituent and powers that arelegislative. All are vested alike in Parliament, and in respect to theprocesses of enactment, repeal, and revision there is no differencewhatsoever between a measure affecting the fundamental principles ofthe governmental system and a statute pertaining to the commonestsubject of ordinary law. "Our Parliament, " observes Mr. Anson, "canmake laws protecting wild birds or shell-fish, and with the sameprocedure could break the connection of Church and State, or givepolitical power to two millions of citizens, and redistribute it amongnew constituencies. "[54] The keystone of the law of the constitutionis, indeed, the unqualified omnipotence which Parliament possesses inthe spheres both of constitution-making and of ordinary legislation. In Parliament is embodied the supreme will of the nation; and althoughfrom time to time that will may declare itself in widely varying andeven inconsistent ways, at any given moment its pronouncements areconclusive. [Footnote 54: Law and Custom of the Constitution, 4th ed. , I. , 358. ] *46. What are "Constitutional" Laws?*--From this unrestrictedcompetence of Parliament arise two highly important facts. One of themis that the distinction between "constitutional" laws, on the onehand, and ordinary statutes, on the other, is neither so obvious norso essential as under most governmental systems. The concept, (p.  046)even, of constitutional law has developed but slowly among theEnglish, and the phrase is as yet seldom employed in legal discussion. In the United States constitutional amendments or addenda, in so farat least as they assume written form, emanate from sources and byprocesses different from those that obtain in the enactment ofordinary statutes. In most continental nations the constituent processis at least somewhat different from that employed in the enactment ofsimple laws. And these specially devised processes are designed toemphasize the essential differentiation of the product from thehandiwork of the ordinary legislative bodies. In Great Britain, however, there is, as has appeared, no difference of process, and thedistinction between the law of the constitution and ordinary statutelaw is not infrequently all but impossible to trace. If it is to betraced at all, it must be derived from the circumstances of enactment. Some measures, e. G. , the Habeas Corpus Act, the Act of Settlement, andthe Parliament Act of 1911, relate obviously to the most fundamentaland enduring aspects of state. Others just as clearly have to do withephemeral and purely legislative concerns. Precisely where the lineshould be drawn between the two no man can say. It is, in the opinionof Mr. Bryce, because of this obstacle primarily that no attempt hasbeen made to reduce the English constitution to the form of a singlefundamental enactment. [55] [Footnote 55: Studies in History and Jurisprudence, I. , No. 3. ] *47. All Parts of the Constitution subject to Amendment. *--In the secondplace, no portion whatsoever of the constitution is immune fromamendment or abrogation at the hand of Parliament. So forcefully wasthe French observer De Tocqueville impressed with this fact that hewent so far as to assert that there really is no such thing as anEnglish constitution at all. [56] De Tocqueville wrote, however, fromthe point of view of one who conceives of a constitution as ofnecessity an "instrument of special sanctity, distinct in characterfrom all other laws, and alterable only by a peculiar process, differing to a greater or less extent from the ordinary forms oflegislation";[57] and this conception is recognized universallynowadays to be altogether inadequate. There is, in every proper sense, an English constitution. No small portion of it, indeed, is in writtenform. And it is worth observing that in practice there is tending tobe established in England in our own day some measure of that (p.  047)distinction between constituent and legislative functions whichobtains in other countries. There is no disposition to strip fromParliament its constituent powers; but the feeling is gaining groundthat when fundamental and far-reaching innovations are contemplatedaction ought not to be taken until after there shall have been anappeal to the nation through the medium of a general election at whichthe desirability of the proposed changes shall be submitted as a clearissue. The principle, broadly stated, is that Parliament ought toexercise in any important matter its constituent powers only under thesanction of direct popular mandate. It was essentially in deference tothis principle that the elections of December, 1910, turning squarelyupon the issue of the reform of the House of Lords, were ordered. Thus, while in numerous continental countries the distinction betweenconstituent and legislative functions is being nowadays somewhatrelaxed, in Great Britain there is distinctly a tendency to establishin a measure a differentiation in this matter which long has been inpractice non-existent. [Footnote 56: "In England the Parliament has an acknowledged right to modify the constitution; as, therefore, the constitution may undergo perpetual changes, it does not in reality exist (_elle n'existe point_); the Parliament is at once a legislative and a constituent assembly. " OEuvres Complètes; I. , 166-167. ] [Footnote 57: Lowell, Government of England, I. , 2. ] In effect, every measure of Parliament, of whatsoever nature and underwhatsoever circumstances enacted, is "constitutional, " in the sensethat it is legally valid and enforceable. When an Englishman assertsof a measure that it is unconstitutional he means only that it isinconsistent with a previous enactment, an established usage, theprinciples of international law, or the commonly accepted standards ofmorality. Such a measure, if passed in due form by Parliament, becomesan integral part of the law of the land, and as such will be enforcedby the courts. There is no means by which it may be rendered of noeffect, save repeal by the same or a succeeding parliament. InEngland, as in European countries generally, the judicial tribunalsare endowed with no power to pass upon the constitutional validity oflegislative acts. Every such act is _ipso facto_ valid, whether itrelates to the most trivial subject of ordinary legislation or to theorganic arrangements of the state; and no person or body, aside fromParliament itself, possesses a right to override it or to set itaside. [58] [Footnote 58: For brief discussions of the general nature of the English constitution see A. L. Lowell, Government of England, 2 vols. (New York, 1909), I. , 1-15; T. F. Moran, Theory and Practice of the English Government (new ed. , New York, 1908), Chap. 1; J. A. R. Marriott, English Political Institutions (Oxford, 1910), Chaps. 1, 2; J. Macy, The English Constitution (New York, 1897), Chaps. 1, 9; and S. Low, The Governance of England (London, 1904), Chap. 1. A suggestive characterization is in the Introduction of W. Bagehot, The English Constitution (new ed. , Boston, 1873). A more extended and very incisive analysis is Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, especially the Introduction and Chaps. 1-3, 13, 14-15. ] CHAPTER III (p.  048) THE CROWN AND THE MINISTRY I. THE CROWN: LEGAL STATUS AND PRIVILEGES *48. Contrasts of Theory and Fact. *--The government of the UnitedKingdom is in ultimate theory an absolute monarchy, in form a limited, constitutional monarchy, and in fact a thoroughgoing democracy. [59] Atits head stands the sovereign, who is at the same time the supremeexecutive, a co-ordinate legislative authority (and, in theory, muchmore than that), the fountain of justice and of honor, the "supremegovernor" of the Church, the commander-in-chief of the army and navy, the conservator of the peace, and the _parens patriae_ and _exofficio_ guardian of the helpless and the needy. In law, all land isheld, directly or indirectly, of him. Parliament exists only by hiswill. Those who sit in it are summoned by his writ, and the privilegeof voting for a member of the lower chamber is only a franchise, not aright independent of his grant. Technically, the sovereign never dies;there is only a demise of the crown, i. E. , a transfer of regalauthority from one person to another, and the state is never without arecognized head. [Footnote 59: From this essential incongruity of theory, form, and fact arises the special difficulty which must attend any attempt to describe with accuracy and completeness the British constitutional system. In the study of every government the divergences of theory and fact must be borne constantly in mind, but nowhere are these divergences so numerous, so far-reaching, or so fundamental as in the government of the United Kingdom. ] The assertions that have been made represent with substantial accuracythe ultimate theory of the status of the crown in the governmentalsystem. In respect to the form and fact of that system as it actuallyoperates, however, it would hardly be possible to make assertions thatwould convey a more erroneous impression. The breadth of thediscrepancy that here subsists between theory and fact will be madeapparent as examination proceeds of the organization and workings ofthe executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments of thegovernment of the realm. It is necessary first of all, however, togive attention to certain of the more external aspects of the positionwhich the monarch occupies. *49. Title to the Throne: the Act of Settlement, 1701. *--Since (p.  049)the Revolution of 1688 title to the English throne has been basedsolely upon the will of the nation as expressed in parliamentaryenactment. The statute under which the succession is regulated is theAct of Settlement, passed by the Tory parliament of 1701, by which itwas provided that, in default of heirs of William III. And Anne, thecrown and all prerogatives thereto appertaining should "be, remain, and continue to the most Excellent Princess Sophia, and the heirs ofher body, being Protestants. "[60] Sophia, a granddaughter of James I. , was the widow of the Elector of Hanover, and although in 1701 she wasnot first in the natural order of succession she was first among thesurviving heirs who were Protestants. It was by virtue of the actmentioned that, upon the death of Anne in 1714, the throne devolvedupon the son of the German Electress (George I. ). The presentsovereign, George V. , is the eighth of the Hanoverian dynasty. Although it would be entirely within the competence of Parliament torepeal the Act of Settlement and to vest the crown in a member of somehouse other than the Hanoverian, there is, of course, no occasion forsuch an act, and the throne may be expected to continue to pass fromone member of the present royal family to another in strict accordancewith the principles of heredity and primogeniture. The rules ofdescent are essentially identical with those governing the inheritanceof real property at common law. [61] Regularly, the sovereign's eldestson, the Prince of Wales, [62] inherits. If he be not alive, theinheritance passes to his issue, male or female. If there be none, thesuccession devolves upon the sovereign's second son, or upon hisissue; and in default thereof, upon the eldest son who survives, orhis issue. If the vacancy be not supplied by or through, a son, daughters and their issue inherit after a similar order. No Catholicmay inherit, nor anyone marrying a Catholic; and by the Act of 1701 itwas stipulated that every person who should attain the throne "shall joinin communion with the Church of England as by law established. " (p.  050)If after accession the sovereign should avow himself a Catholic, orshould marry a Catholic, his subjects would be absolved from theirallegiance. It is required, furthermore, that the sovereign shall takeat his coronation an oath wherein the tenets of Catholicism areabjured. Until 1910 the phraseology of this oath, formulated as it wasin a period when ecclesiastical animosities were still fervid, [63] wassuch as to be offensive not only to Catholics but to temperate-mindedmen of all faiths. By act of parliament passed in anticipation of thecoronation of George V. , the language employed in the oath was madevery much less objectionable. The sovereign is required now merely todeclare "that he is a faithful Protestant and that he will, accordingto the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestantsuccession to the throne of the Realm, uphold and maintain the saidenactments to the best of his power according to law. " [Footnote 60: The text of the Act of Settlement is printed in Stubbs, Select Charters, 528-531; Adams and Stephens, Select Documents, 475-479; and Gee and Hardy, Documents Illustrative of English Church History, 664-670, As safeguards against dangers which might conceivably arise from the accession of a foreign-born sovereign the Act stipulated (1) that no person who should thereafter come into possession of the crown should go outside the dominions of England, Scotland, or Ireland, without consent of Parliament, and (2) that in the event that the crown should devolve upon any person not a native of England the nation should not be obliged to engage in any war for the defense of any dominions or territories not belonging to the crown of England, without consent of Parliament. ] [Footnote 61: Lowell, Government of England, I. , 17. ] [Footnote 62: This title was created by Edward I. In 1301. Its possession has never involved the exercise of any measure of political power. ] [Footnote 63: The words to be employed were prescribed originally in the Act for Establishing the Coronation Oath, passed in the first year of William and Mary. For the text see Robertson, Select Statutes, Cases, and Documents, 65-68. An historical sketch of some value is A. Bailey, The Succession to the English Crown (London, 1879). ] *50. Regencies. *--The age of majority of the sovereign is eighteen. Theconstitutions of most monarchical states contain more or lesselaborate stipulations respecting the establishment of a regency inthe event of the sovereign's minority or incapacitation. In GreatBritain, on the contrary, the practice has been to make provision foreach such contingency when it should arise. A regency can be createdand a regent designated only by act of Parliament. Parliamentaryenactments, however, become operative only upon receiving the assentof the crown, and it has sometimes happened that the sovereign forwhom a regent was required to be appointed was incapable of performingany governmental act. In such a case, there has been resort usually tosome legal fiction by which the appearance, at least, of regularityhas been preserved. A regency act regularly defines the limits of theregent's powers and establishes specific safeguards in respect to theinterests of both the sovereign and the nation. [64] [Footnote 64: For the text of the Regency Act of 1811, passed by reason of the incapacitation of George III. , see Robertson, Statutes, Cases and Documents, 171-182. For an excellent survey of the general subject see May and Holland, Constitutional History of England, I. , Chap. 3. ] *51. Royal Privileges: the Civil List. *--The sovereign is capable ofowning land and other property, and of disposing of it precisely asmay any private citizen. The vast accumulations of property, however, which at one time comprised the principal source of revenue of thecrown, have become the possession of the state, and as such areadministered entirely under the direction of Parliament. In lieu (p.  051)of the income derived formerly from land and other independent sourcesthe sovereign has been accorded for the support of the royal householda fixed annual subsidy--voted under the designation of the CivilList--the amount of which is determined afresh at the beginning ofeach reign. The Civil List was instituted by an act of 1689 in whichParliament settled upon the king for the meeting of personal expenses, the payment of civil officers, and other charges, a stipulated sum, thus separating for the first time the private expenditures of thecrown from the public outlays of the nation. [65] The sum given WilliamIII. Was £700, 000. George III. , in return for a fixed Civil List, surrendered his interest in the hereditary revenues of the crown, andWilliam IV. Went further and, in return for a Civil List of £510, 000 ayear, surrendered not only the hereditary revenues but also a largegroup of miscellaneous and casual sources of income. [66] At theaccession of Queen Victoria the Civil List was fixed at £385, 000. Theamount was comparatively small, but opportunity was taken at the timefinally to transfer to Parliament the making of provision for allcharges properly incident to the maintenance of the state. In additionto various annuities payable to the children of the royal family, theCivil List of Edward VII. , established by Act of July 2, 1901, amounted to £470, 000, of which £110, 000 was appropriated to the privypurse of the king and queen, £125, 000 to salaries and retiringallowances of the royal household, and £193, 000 to household expenses. At the accession of George V. , in 1910, the Civil List was continuedin the sum of £470, 000. [67] [Footnote 65: Under Charles II. Parliament began to appropriate portions of the revenue for specific purposes, and after 1688 this became the general practice. Throughout a century the proceeds of particular taxes were appropriated for particular ends. But in 1787 Pitt simplified the procedure involved by creating a single Consolidated Fund into which all revenues were turned and from which all expenditures were met. ] [Footnote 66: Accuracy requires mention of the fact that, by exception, the crown still enjoys the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, the latter being part of the appanage of the Prince of Wales. ] [Footnote 67: On the history of the Civil List see May and Holland, Constitutional History of England, I. , 152-175. ] The sovereign enjoys unrestricted immunity from politicalresponsibility and from personal distraint. The theory of the law haslong been that the king can do no wrong, which means that for hispublic acts the sovereign's ministers must bear complete responsibilityand for his private conduct he may not be called to account in anycourt of law or by any legal process. He cannot be arrested, his goodscannot be distrained, and as long as a palace remains a royalresidence no sort of judicial proceeding can be executed in it. (p.  052)Strictly, the revenues are the king's, whence it arises that the kingis himself exempt from taxation, though lands purchased by the privypurse are taxed. And there are numerous minor privileges, such as theuse of special liveries and a right to the royal salute, to which thesovereign, as such, is regularly entitled. II. THE POWERS OF THE CROWN *52. Sources: the Prerogative. *--Vested in the crown is, in the lastanalysis, an enormous measure of authority. The sum total of powers, whether or not actually exercised by the sovereign immediately, is oftwo-fold origin. There are powers, in the first place, which have beendefined, or conferred outright, by parliamentary enactment. Othersthere are, however--more numerous and more important--which rest uponthe simple basis of custom or the Common Law. Those powers whichbelong to the statutory group are, as a rule, specific and easilyascertainable. But those which comprise the ancient customary rightsof the crown, i. E. , the prerogative, are not always possible of exactdelimitation. The prerogative is defined by Dicey as "the residue ofdiscretionary or arbitrary authority which at any time is legally leftin the hands of the crown. "[68] The elements of it are to beascertained, not from statutes but from precedents, and the sources ofit, as enumerated by Anson, are (1) the residue of the executive powerwhich the king in the early stages of English history possessed in allof the branches of government; (2) survivals of the power onceaccruing to the king as the feudal chief of the country; and (3)attributes with which the crown has been invested by legal theory, e. G. , the attribute of perpetuity popularly expressed in the aphorism"the king never dies, " and that of perfection of judgment, similarlyexpressed in the saying "the king can do no wrong. "[69] The mostconsiderable element in the prerogative is that which Anson firstmentions, i. E. , the power which the king has carried over, in theteeth of the popularization of the governmental system, from days whenthe royal authority was not hedged about as since the seventeenthcentury it has been. It is further to be observed that noinconsiderable portion of the royal powers as they exist to-dayrepresent original prerogative worked over and delimited byparliamentary enactment, so that in many instances it becomesdifficult to determine whether a given power exists by virtue of astatute, by which it is to be regarded as absolutely defined, or (p.  053)by virtue of an anterior prerogative which may be capable of beingstretched or interpreted more or less arbitrarily. Nominally, thesovereign still holds by divine right. At the head of every publicwrit to-day stand the words "George V. , by the Grace of God of GreatBritain and Ireland King. " But no principle of the workingconstitution is more clearly established than that in accordance withwhich the prerogatives of the crown may be defined, restricted, orextended by the supreme legislative power. Among prerogatives onceclaimed and exercised, but long since rendered obsolete by prohibitivelegislation may be mentioned those of imposing taxes withoutparliamentary consent, suspending or dispensing with laws, erectingtribunals not proceeding according to the ordinary course of justice, declaring forfeit the property of convicted traitors, [70] purveyance, pre-emption, and the alienation of crown lands at pleasure. [Footnote 68: Law of the Constitution (7th ed. ), 420. ] [Footnote 69: Law and Custom of the Constitution, II. , Pt. I. , 3-5. ] [Footnote 70: Abolished by the Felony Act of 1870. ] *53. Powers, Theoretical and Actual. *--It is not, however, the origin ofthe royal power, but rather the manner of its exercise, that fixes theessential character of monarchy in Great Britain to-day. The studentof this phase of the subject is confronted at the outset with aparadox which has found convenient expression in the aphorism that theking reigns but does not govern. The meaning of the aphorism is that, while the sovereign is possessed of all of the inherent dignity ofroyalty, it is left to him actually to exercise in but a veryrestricted measure the powers which are involved in the business ofgovernment. Technically, all laws are made by the crown in parliament;all judicial decisions are rendered by the crown through the courts;all laws are executed and all administrative acts are performed by thecrown. But in point of fact laws are enacted by Parliamentindependently; verdicts are brought in by tribunals whose immunityfrom royal domination is thoroughly assured; and the executivefunctions of the state are exercised all but exclusively by theministers and their subordinates. One who would understand whatEnglish monarchy really is must take account continually both of whatthe king does and may do theoretically and of what he does and may doin actual practice. The matter is complicated further by the fact thatpowers once possessed have been lost, that others which have neverbeen formally relinquished have so long lain unused that the questionmay fairly be debated whether they still exist, and that there neverhas been, nor is likely ever to be, an attempt to enumeratecategorically or to define comprehensively the range of powers, eithertheoretical or actual. *54. Executive Powers. *--Disregarding for the moment the means of theiractual exercise, the powers of the crown to-day may be said to (p.  054)fall into two principal groups. The first comprises those which areessentially executive in character; the second, those which are sharedwith the two houses of Parliament, being, therefore chiefly legislative. The first group is distinctly the more important. It includes: (1) theappointment, directly or indirectly, of all national public officers, except some of the officials of the parliamentary chambers and a fewunimportant hereditary dignitaries; (2) the removal, upon occasion, ofall appointed officers except judges, members of the Council of India, and the Comptroller and Auditor General; (3) the execution of all lawsand the supervision of the executive machinery of the state throughoutall its branches; (4) the expenditure of public money in accordancewith appropriations voted by Parliament; (5) the pardoning ofoffenders against the criminal law, with some exceptions, eitherbefore or after conviction;[71] (6) the granting, in so far as notprohibited by statute, of charters of incorporation; (7) the creatingof all peers and the conferring of all titles and honors; (8) thecoining of all money; (9) the summoning of Convocation and, by reasonof the headship of the Established Church, the virtual appointment ofthe archbishops, bishops, and most of the deans and canons; (10) thesupreme command of the army and navy, involving the raising andcontrol of the armed forces of the nation, subject to such conditionsonly as Parliament may impose; (11) the representing of the nation inall of its dealings with foreign powers, including the appointment ofall diplomatic and consular agents and the negotiation and conclusionof peace; and (12) the exercise, largely under statutory authorityconferred within the past half-century, of supervision or control inrespect to local government, education, public health, pauperism, housing, and a wide variety of other social and industrial interests. [Footnote 71: This power, in practice, is seldom exercised. The Act of Settlement prescribed that "no pardon shall be pleadable to an impeachment by the Commons in parliament. "] *55. The Composition of the Executive. *--The executive branch of thegovernment, through whose agency these powers are exercised, consistsof the sovereign, the ministry, and the entire hierarchy ofadministrative officials reaching downwards from the heads ofdepartments and the under-secretaries at London through the severalgrades of clerks to the least important revenue and postal employees. There are various points of view from which the chief of the executivemay be conceived of as the sovereign, the prime minister, the ministrycollectively, or the king and ministry conjointly. So far as executivefunctions go, the sovereign, in law, is very nearly as supreme as (p.  055)in the days of personal and absolute monarchy. The ministers are buthis advisers, the local administrative authorities his agents. Thegovernment is conducted wholly in his name. In practice, however, supreme executive acts of the kinds that have been mentioned areperformed by the ministers; or, if performed by the crown immediately, will not be undertaken without the ministers' knowledge and assent. The ministers, and not the sovereign, may be held to account byparliament for every executive act performed, and it is but logicalthat they should control the time and tenor of such acts. It fallsvery generally to the prime minister to speak for and otherwiserepresent the ministerial group. On the whole, however, it accordsbest with both law and fact to consider the executive under theworking constitution as consisting of the crown as represented andadvised by the ministry. *56. The Crown and Legislation. *--The second general group of powerslodged in the crown comprises those which relate to legislation. Technically, all legislative authority is vested in "the king inparliament, " by which is meant the king acting in collaboration withthe two houses. Parliament transacts business only during the pleasureof the crown. The crown summons and prorogues the houses, and it isempowered at any time to dissolve the House of Commons. Noparliamentary act, furthermore, is valid without the crown's assent. It is on the legislative, rather than the executive side, none theless, that the crown has lost most heavily in actual authority. Therewas a time when the crown possessed inherent law-making power andthrough the agency of proclamations and ordinances contributedindependently to the body of enforceable law. To-day the sovereign mayexercise no such power, save alone in the crown colonies. It is truethat ordinances with the force of law are still issued, and that theirnumber and importance tend steadily to be increased. But in all casesthese ordinances have been, and must be, authorized specifically bystatute. As "statutory orders" they emanate from a delegated authoritypurely and bear no relation to the ancient ordinance by prerogative. The king may not even, by virtue of any inherent power, promulgateordinances in completion of parliamentary statutes--the sort of thingwhich the French president, the Italian king, and virtually everycontinental ruler may do with full propriety. Of his own authority, furthermore, the sovereign may not alter by one jot or tittle the lawof the land. There was a time when the crown claimed and exercised theright to suspend, or to dispense with, laws which had been duly enactedand put in operation. But this practice was forbidden definitely (p.  056)in the Bill of Rights, and no sovereign since the last Stuart hassought to revive the prerogative. Still another aspect of the ancientparticipation by the king in the legislative function was theinfluencing of the composition of the House of Commons through theright to confer upon boroughs the privilege of electing members. Thisright, never expressly withdrawn, is regarded now as having beenforfeited by disuse. Finally, the power to withhold assent from ameasure passed in Parliament has not been exercised since the days ofQueen Anne, [72] and while legally it still exists, it is conceded forall practical purposes to have been extinguished. [Footnote 72: In 1707, when the Queen refused her assent to a bill for settling the militia in Scotland. ] *57. Principles Governing the Actual Exercise of Powers. *--After fullallowances have been made, the powers of the British crown to-daycomprise a sum total of striking magnitude. "All told, " says Lowell, "the executive authority of the crown is, in the eye of the law, verywide, far wider than that of the chief magistrate in many countries, and well-nigh as extensive as that now possessed by the monarch in anygovernment not an absolute despotism; and although the crown has noinherent legislative power except in conjunction with Parliament, ithas been given by statute very large powers of subordinatelegislation. .. . Since the accession of the House of Hanover the newpowers conferred upon the crown by statute have probably more thanmade up for the loss to the prerogative of powers which have eitherbeen restricted by the same process or become obsolete by disuse. Byfar the greater part of the prerogative, as it existed at that time, has remained legally vested in the crown, and can be exercisedto-day. "[73] [Footnote 73: Government of England, I. , 23, 26. ] The next fundamental thing to be observed is that the extended powershere referred to are exercised, not by the king in person, but byministers with whose choosing the sovereign has but little to do andover whose acts he has only an incidental and extra-legal control. Underlying the entire constitutional order are two principles whoseoperation would seem to reduce the sovereign to a sheer nonentity. Thefirst is that the crown shall perform no important governmental actwhatsoever save through the agency of the ministers. The second isthat these ministers shall be responsible absolutely to Parliament forevery public act which they perform. From these principles arises thefiction that "the king can do no wrong, " which means legally that thesovereign cannot be adjudged guilty of wrongdoing (and that thereforeno proceedings may be instituted against him), and politically thatthe ministers are responsible, singly in small affairs and (p.  057)conjointly in more weighty ones, for everything that is done in thecrown's name. "In a constitutional point of view, " writes an Englishauthority, "so universal is the operation of this rule that there isnot a moment in the king's life, from his accession to his demise, during which there is not some one responsible to Parliament for hispublic conduct; and there can be no exercise of the crown's authorityfor which it must not find some minister willing to make himselfresponsible. "[74] In continental countries the responsibility ofministers is established very commonly by specific and writtenconstitutional provision. In Great Britain it exists by virtue simplyof a group of unwritten principles, or conventions, of theconstitution; but it is there none the less real. In the conduct ofpublic affairs the ministry must conform to the will of the majorityin the House of Commons; otherwise the wheels of government would beblocked. And from this it follows that the crown is obliged to accept, with such grace as may be, the measures which the ministry, workingwith the parliamentary majority, formulates and for which it standsready to shoulder responsibility. It is open to the king, of course, to dissuade the ministers from a given course of action. But if theycannot be turned back, and if they have the support of a parliamentarymajority, there is nothing that the sovereign can do save acquiesce. [Footnote 74: Todd, Parliamentary Government in England, I. , 81. ] *58. Appointment of Ministers. *--In the naming of a new premier, following the retirement of a ministry, the king is legallyunhampered; but here again in practice he is bound to designate therecognized leader of the dominant party, and so to pursue a course inwhich there is left no room for the exercise of discretion. Only whenthere is no clearly recognized leader, or when circumstances compelthe formation of a coalition ministry, is there a real opportunity forthe sovereign to choose a premier from a number of more or lessavailable men. [75] In the appointment of the remaining ministers, andof all persons whose offices are regarded as political, the crownyields uniformly to the judgment of the premier. The King's Speech, onthe opening of Parliament, is written by the ministers; all publiccommunications of the crown pass through their hands; peers arecreated and honors bestowed in accord with their advice; measures areframed and executive acts are undertaken by them, sometimes withoutthe sovereign's knowledge and occasionally even contrary to hiswishes. [Footnote 75: This sort of situation presented itself several times during the reign of Queen Victoria, but in general it is exceptional. ] III. THE IMPORTANCE AND STRENGTH OF THE MONARCH (p.  058) *59. The Real Authority and Service of the Crown. *--It would be anerror, however, to conclude that kingship in England is unimportant, or even that the power wielded in person by the crown is negligible. On the contrary, the uses served by the crown are indisputable and theinfluence exerted upon the course of public affairs may be decisive. The sovereign, in the words of Bagehot, has three rights--the right tobe consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. "A kingof great sense and sagacity, " it is added, "would want no others. "[76]Despite the fact that during upwards of two hundred years thesovereign has not attended the meetings of the cabinet, and so isdeprived of the opportunity of wielding influence directly upon thedeliberations of the ministers as a body, the king keeps in closetouch with the premier, and cabinet councils at which important linesof policy are to be formulated are preceded not infrequently by aconference in which the subject in hand is threshed out more or lesscompletely by king and chief minister. Merely because the ancientrelation has been reversed, so that now it is the king who advises andthe ministry that arrives at decisions, it does not follow that theadvisory function is an unimportant thing. Queen Victoria many timeswielded influence of a decisive nature upon the public measures of herreign, especially in respect to the conduct of foreign relations. Theextent of such influence cannot be made a matter of record, becausethe ministers are in effect bound not to publish the fact that adecision upon a matter of state has been taken at the sovereign'sinstance. It is familiarly known, however--to cite a recentillustration--that Edward VII. Approved and encouraged the Haldanearmy reforms, that he sought to dissuade the House of Lords from therejection of the Lloyd-George budget of 1909, and that he discouragedthe raising, in any form, of the issue of the reconstitution of theupper chamber. In other words while, as a constitutional monarchcontent to remain in the background of political controversy, the lateking not only had opinions but did not hesitate to make them known;and in the shaping and execution of the Liberal programme his advicewas at times a factor of importance. [77] [Footnote 76: The English Constitution (rev. Ed. ), 143. ] [Footnote 77: The most satisfactory estimate of the political and governmental activities of Edward VII. Is contained in Mr. Sidney Lee's memoir of the king, printed in the Dictionary of National Biography, Second Supplement (London and New York, 1912), I. , 546-610. ] *60. Why Monarchy Survives. *--Monarchy in Great Britain is a solid (p.  059)and, so far as can be foreseen, a lasting reality. Throughout thetempestuous years 1909-1911, when the nation was aroused as it had notbeen in generations upon the issue of constitutional reform, and whenevery sort of project was being warmly advocated and as warmlyopposed, without exception every suggested programme took for grantedthe perpetuation of the monarchy as an integral part of thegovernmental system. In the general bombardment to which thehereditary House of Lords was subjected hereditary kingship whollyescaped. The reasons are numerous and complex. They arise in part, though by no means so largely as is sometimes imagined, from the factthat monarchy in England is a venerable institution and the innateconservatism of the Englishman, while permitting him from time to timeto regulate and modify it, restrains him from doing anything sorevolutionary as to abolish it. That upon certain conspicuousoccasions, as in the Cromwellian period, and again in 1688, kingshiphas owed its very life to the conservative instinct of the Englishpeople is well enough known to every student of history. But to-day, as ever, the institution rests upon a basis very much more substantialthan a mere national predilection. Monarchy remains impregnablyentrenched because the crown, in addition to comprising an accustomedfeature of the governmental economy, fulfills specific ends which arerecognized universally to be eminently worth while, if notindispensable. As a social, moral, and ceremonial agency, and as avisible symbol of the unity of the nation; king and court occupy animmeasurable place in the life and thought of the people; and evenwithin the domain of government, to employ the figure of Lowell, ifthe crown is no longer the motive power of the ship of state, it isthe spar on which the sail is bent, and as such it is not only auseful but an essential part of the vessel. [78] The entiregovernmental order of Great Britain hinges upon the parliamentarysystem, and nowhere has that system been reduced to satisfactoryoperation without the presence of some central, but essentiallydetached, figure, whether a king or, as in France, a president withthe attributes of kingship. It is fundamentally because the Englishpeople have discerned that kingship is not necessarily incompatiblewith popular government that the monarchy has persisted. If royaltyhad been felt to stand inevitably in the path of democratic progress, it is inconceivable that all the forces of tradition could have pulledit through the past seventy-five or eighty years. As it is, while halfa century ago there was in the country a small republican group whichwas fond of urging that the monarchy was but a source of needless (p.  060)expense, to-day there is hardly a vestige, in any grade of society, ofanti-monarchical sentiment. [79] [Footnote 78: Government of England, I. , 49. ] [Footnote 79: The best brief discussions of the position of the crown in the governmental system are Lowell, Government of England, I. , Chap, 1; Moran, English Government, Chaps. 2-3; Marriott, English Political Institutions, Chap. 3; Macy, English Constitution, Chap. 5; and Low, Governance of England, Chaps. 14-15. More extended treatment of the subject will be found in Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, II. , Pt. 1, Chaps 1 and 4; Todd, Parliamentary Government in England, I, Pt. 2; Bagehot, English Constitution, Chaps. 2-3; H. D. Traill, Central Government, Chap. 1. Mention may be made of N. Caudel, Le souverain anglais, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, July, 1910, and J. Bardoux, Le pouvoir politique de la couronne anglaise, in _Revue des Deux Mondes_, May 15, 1911. ] IV. PRIVY COUNCIL, MINISTRY, AND CABINET *61. The Privy Council. *--One who would understand the modes by whichthe powers of the crown are in practice exercised must begin by fixingfirmly in mind the nature and relations of three distinct but closelyinterrelated institutions, the Privy Council, the ministry, and thecabinet. As has appeared, the Privy Council through a long period ofEnglish history comprised the body of men who advised the crown andassisted to some extent in the supervision of administration. Thenumber of councillors from time to time varied widely, but it tendedconstantly to be too large to admit of the requisite despatch andsecrecy, and by reason principally of this consideration the crownfell into the custom of selecting as advisers a group of persons lessnumerous, and perhaps more trustworthy, than the whole body of publicfunctionaries collectively designated as the Privy Council. Thus arosethe cabinet, which throughout its entire history has been only aninner circle, unknown to the law, of the older and larger body. ThePrivy Council survives to-day, and in both law and theory it still isthe advisory body of the crown. A cabinet member possesses authorityand is known to the law only as a privy councillor. In point of fact, however, the Privy Council, once highly influential in affairs ofstate, is now, as such, all but powerless. Such portions of thedignity of its ancient place in the constitution as remain to it areof a purely formal and ceremonial nature. It holds no meetings of adeliberative character, and although legally its action is stillessential to many public measures, as the preparation of proclamationsand of orders in council, this action may be taken by as few as threepersons. [80] All cabinet members are members of the Council, so thateven one-fifth or one-sixth of the cabinet group is competent to meetevery legal requirement imposed upon the Council as a whole. [81] (p.  061)All councillors are appointed by the crown and continue in office forlife or until dismissed. Their number is unlimited, and the onlyqualification necessary for appointment is British nativity. Membersfall into three groups: (1) members of the cabinet; (2) holders ofcertain important non-political offices who by custom are entitled toappointment; (3) persons eminent in politics, literature, law, orscience, or by reason of service rendered the crown, upon whom thedignity is conferred as an honorary distinction. Members bearregularly the title of Right Honorable. The President of the Council, designated by the crown, takes rank in the House of Lords next afterthe Chancellor and Treasurer. [82] [Footnote 80: On the nature of orders in council see Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, II. , Pt. 1, 147-149. ] [Footnote 81: It is to be observed, however, that despite the transfer of the business devolving formerly upon the Council into the hands of the specially constituted departments of government, the Council does still, through the agency of its committees, perform a modicum of actual service. Of principal importance among the committees is the Judicial Committee, which hears appeals in ecclesiastical cases and renders final verdict in all appeals coming from tribunals outside the United Kingdom. See p. 175. ] [Footnote 82: Traill, Central Government, Chap. 12. ] *62. Ministry and Cabinet. *--Another governmental group which, like thePrivy Council, differs from the cabinet while containing it, is theministry. The ministry comprises a large and variable body offunctionaries, some of whom occupy the principal offices of state anddivide their efforts between advising the crown, i. E. , formulatinggovernmental policy, and administering the affairs of their respectivedepartments, and others of whom, occupying less important executivepositions, do not possess, save indirectly, the advisory function. Thefirst group comprises, approximately at least, the cabinet. Most headsof departments are regularly and necessarily in the cabinet. A few arein it as a rule, though not invariably. A few, still less important, may be, but are not likely to be, admitted to it. And, finally, alarge number of parliamentary under-secretaries, party "whips, " andofficers of the royal household are certain not to be admitted. [83] [Footnote 83: On the relations of cabinet and ministry see Lowell, Government of England, I. , Chap. 3. ] V. THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS In respect to both origin and legal status the executive departmentsof the central government of Great Britain exhibit little of theconformity to type which characterizes their counterparts in thelogical and self-consistent governmental systems of the majority ofcontinental countries. Under the pressure, however, of custom and (p.  062)of parliamentary control, they have been reduced to essentially acommon style of organization and a common mode of administrativeprocedure. In virtually every instance the department is presided overby a single responsible minister, assisted as a rule by one or moreparliamentary under-secretaries and, more remotely, by a greater orlesser body of non-political officials who carry on the actual work ofthe department and whose tenure is not affected by the politicalfortunes of their chiefs. *63. The Treasury. *--Among the numerous departments, some representsurvivals of great offices of state of an earlier period, some areoffshoots of the ancient secretariat, and some comprise boards andcommissions established in days comparatively recent. In the firstgroup fall the offices of the Lord High Treasurer, the Lord HighChancellor, and the Lord High Admiral. From the early sixteenthcentury to the death of Queen Anne the principal official of theTreasury was the Lord High Treasurer. Since 1714, however, the officehas been regularly in commission. The duties connected with it havebeen intrusted to a board composed of certain Lords of the Treasury, and no individual to-day bears the Lord High Treasurer's title. When aministry is made up the group of Treasury Lords is renewed, and as arule the post of First Lord is assumed by the premier. In point offact, however, the board is never called together, some of its membershave no actual connection whatsoever with the Treasury, and thefunctions of this most important of all departments are in practiceexercised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, assisted by the JuniorLords and the under-secretaries. The Exchequer, i. E. , the departmentconcerned principally with the collection of the taxes, is in fact, though not in name, a branch of the Treasury Board. Within theTreasury, and immediately under the direction of the Chancellor, isdrawn up the annual budget, embodying a statement of the contemplatedexpenditures of the year and a programme of taxation calculated toproduce the requisite revenue. The Treasury exercises general controlover all other departments of the public service, e. G. , thePost-office and the Board of Customs, in which public money iscollected or expended. [84] [Footnote 84: On the organization and workings of the Treasury see Lowell, Government of England, I, Chap. 5; Dicey, Law of the Constitution, Chap. 10; Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, II. , Pt. 1, 173-190; Traill, Central Government, Chap. 3. ] *64. The Admiralty Board and the Lord High Chancellorship. *--A second ofthe ancient offices of state which survives only in commission is (p.  063)that of the Lord High Admiral. The functions of this important postdevolve to-day upon an Admiralty Board, consisting strictly of a FirstLord, four Naval Lords (naval experts, usually of high rank), and aCivil Lord, with whom, however, sit a number of parliamentary andpermanent secretaries. The First Lord is invariably a member of thecabinet, and while legally the status of the six Lords is identical, in practice the position of the First Lord approximates closely thatof the minister of marine in continental countries. Unlike theTreasury Lords, the Lords of the Admiralty actually meet, and transactbusiness. The third of the executive offices which comprise survivals from earlytimes is that of the Lord High Chancellor. There is in Great Britainno single official who fills even approximately the position occupiedelsewhere by a minister of justice or an attorney-general, but themost important of several officers who supply the lack is the LordChancellor. "The greatest dignitary, " says Lowell, "in the Britishgovernment, the one endowed by law with the most exalted and mostdiverse functions, the only great officer of state who has retainedhis ancient rights, the man who defies the doctrine of the separationof powers more than any other personage on earth, is the LordChancellor. "[85] The Lord Chancellor is invariably a member of theCabinet. He is the chief judge in the High Court of Justice and in theCourt of Appeal. He appoints and removes the justices of the peace andthe judges of the county courts and wields large influence inappointments to higher judicial posts. He affixes the Great Seal whereit is required to give validity to the acts of the crown and heperforms a wide variety of other more or less formal services. Finally, it is the Lord High Chancellor who presides in the House ofLords. [Footnote 85: Government of England, I. , 131. ] *65. The Five Secretaries of State. *--Five of the great departmentsto-day represent the product of a curious evolution of the ancientsecretariat of state. Originally there was but a single official whobore the designation of secretary of state. In the earlier eighteenthcentury a second official was added, although no new office wascreated. At the close of the century a third was added, after theCrimean War a fourth, and after the Indian Mutiny of 1857 a fifth. There are now, accordingly, five "principal secretaries of state, " allin theory occupying the same office and each, save for a few statutoryrestrictions, competent legally to exercise the functions of any orall of the others. In practice each of the five holds strictly to hisown domain. The group comprises: (1) the Secretary of State for theHome Department, assisted by a parliamentary under-secretary and alarge staff of permanent officials, and possessing functions of ahighly miscellaneous sort--those, in general, belonging to the (p.  064)ancient secretariat which have not been assigned to the care of otherdepartments; (2) the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, at thehead of a department which not only conducts foreign relations butadministers the affairs of such protectorates as are not closelyconnected with any of the colonies; (3) the Secretary of State for theColonies; (4) the Secretary of State for War; and (5) the Secretary ofState for India, assisted by a special India Council of ten tofourteen members. *66. The Administrative Boards. *--The third general group of departmentscomprises those which have arisen through the establishment incomparatively recent years of a variety of administrative boardsor commissions. Two--the Board of Trade and the Board ofEducation--originated as committees of the Privy Council. Threeothers--the Board of Agriculture, the Board of Works, and the LocalGovernment Board--represent the development of administrativecommissions not conceived of originally as vested with politicalcharacter. All are in effect independent and co-ordinate governmentaldepartments. The composition and functions of the Board of Trade areregulated by order in council at the opening of each reign, but thecharacter of the other four is determined wholly by statute. At thehead of each is a president (save that the chief of the Board of Worksis known as First Commissioner), and the membership embraces the fivesecretaries of state and a variable number of other importantdignitaries. This membership, however, is but nominal. No one of theBoards actually meets, and the work of each is performed entirely byits president, with, in some instances, the assistance of aparliamentary under-secretary. "In practice, therefore, these boardsare legal phantoms that provide imaginary colleagues for a singleresponsible minister. "[86] Very commonly the presidents are admittedto the cabinet, but sometimes they are not. [87] [Footnote 86: Lowell, Government of England, I. , 84. ] [Footnote 87: On the organization and workings of the executive departments see Lowell, _op. Cit. _, I. , Chaps. 4-6; Marriott, English Political Institutions, Chap. 5; Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, II. , Pt. 1, Chap. 3; Traill, Central Government, Chaps. 3-11. ] VI. THE CABINET: COMPOSITION AND CHARACTER *67. Regular and Occasional Members. *--The cabinet comprises a variablegroup of the principal ministers of state upon whom devolves singlythe task of administering the affairs of their respective departmentsand, collectively, that of shaping the policy and directing the conductof the government as a whole. The position occupied by the cabinet (p.  065)in the constitutional system is anomalous, but transcendentlyimportant. As has been pointed out, the cabinet as such is unknown toEnglish law. Legally, the cabinet member derives his administrativefunction from the fact of his appointment to a ministerial post, andhis advisory function from his membership in the Privy Council. Thecabinet exists as an informal, extra-legal ministerial group intowhose hands, through prolonged historical development, has fallen thesupreme direction of both the executive and the legislative activitiesof the state. The composition of the body is determined largely bycustom, but in part by passing circumstance. Certain ministerial headsare invariably included: the First Lord of the Treasury, the LordChancellor, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the five Secretaries ofState, and the First Lord of the Admiralty. Two dignitaries whopossess no administrative function, i. E. , the Lord President of thePrivy Council and the Lord Privy Seal, [88] are likewise alwaysincluded. Beyond this, the make-up of the cabinet group is left to thediscretion of the premier. The importance of a given office at themoment and the wishes of the appointee, together with generalconsiderations of party expediency, may well enter into a decisionrelative to the seating of individual departmental heads. In recentyears the presidents of the Board of Trade, the Board of Education, and the Local Government Board have regularly been included, togetherwith the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary for Ireland. [89] TheSecretary for Scotland and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancasterare usually included; the Postmaster-General and the President of theBoard of Agriculture frequently, and the First Commissioner of Worksand the Lord Chancellor for Ireland occasionally. [Footnote 88: The functions of this official are but nominal. In 1870 Sir Charles Dilke moved to abolish the office as useless, but Gladstone urged the desirability of having in the cabinet at least one man who should not be burdened with the management of a department, and the motion was lost. The presidency of the Council is a post likewise of dignity but of meager governmental power or responsibility. ] [Footnote 89: In theory the powers of the executive are exercised in Ireland by the Lord Lieutenant, but in practice they devolve almost entirely upon the nominally inferior official, the Chief Secretary. ] *68. Increasing Size. *--The trend is distinctly in the direction of anincrease in the size of the body. The more notable cabinets of theeighteenth century contained, as a rule, not above seven to tenmembers. In the first half of the nineteenth century the number ran upto thirteen or fourteen, and throughout the Gladstone-Disraeli periodit seldom fell below this level. The second Salisbury cabinet, at itsfall in 1892, numbered seventeen, and when, following the elections of1900, the third Salisbury government was reconstructed, the cabinetattained a membership of twenty. [90] The Balfour cabinet of 1905 (p.  066)and the succeeding Campbell-Bannerman cabinet likewise numberedtwenty. The increase is attributable to several causes, especially thepressure which comes from ambitious statesmen for admission to theinfluential circle, the growing necessity of according representationto varied elements and interests within the dominant party, themultiplication of state activities which call for direction under newand important departments, and the disposition to accord to everyconsiderable branch of the administrative system at least onerepresentative. The effect is to produce a certain unwieldiness, toavoid which, it will be recalled, the cabinet was originallyinstituted. Only through the domination of the cabinet by a few of itsmost influential members can expeditiousness be preserved, and duringrecent years there has been a tendency toward the differentiation ofan inner circle which shall bear to the whole cabinet a relationsomewhat analogous to that which the cabinet now bears to theministry. Development in this direction is viewed apprehensively bymany people who regard that the concentration of power in the hands ofan "inner cabinet" might well fail to be accompanied by acorresponding concentration of recognized responsibility. During morethan a decade criticism of the inordinate size of the cabinet grouphas been voiced freely upon numerous occasions and by manyobservers. [91] [Footnote 90: Lord Salisbury at this point retired from the Foreign Office, which was assigned to Lord Lansdowne, and assumed in conjunction with the premiership the less exacting post of Lord Privy Seal. ] [Footnote 91: Lowell, Government of England, I. , 59; Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, II. , Pt. 1, 211. ] *69. Appointment of the Premier. *--When a new cabinet is to be made upthe first step is the designation of the prime minister. Legally thechoice rests with the crown, but considerations of practical politicsleave, as a rule, no room whatsoever for the exercise of discretion. The crown sends as a matter of course for the statesman who is able tocommand the support of the majority in the House of Commons. If theretiring ministry has "fallen, " i. E. , has lost its parliamentarymajority, the new premier is certain to be the recognized leader ofthe party which formerly has played the rôle of opposition. If therehas not occurred a shift in party status, the premiership will bebestowed upon some one of the colleagues, at least upon one of thefellow-partisans, of the retiring premier, nominated, if need be, bythe chiefs of the party. Thus, when in 1894 Gladstone retired fromoffice by reason of physical infirmity, the Liberal leaders in the twohouses conferred upon the question as to whether he should be succeededby Sir William Vernon-Harcourt or by Lord Rosebery. They (p.  067)recommended Lord Rosebery, who was forthwith appointed by the Queen. If, by any circumstance, the premiership should fall to the Oppositionat a moment when the leadership of this element is in doubt, the crownwould be guided, similarly, by the informally expressed will of themore influential party members. While, therefore, the appointment ofthe prime minister remains the sole important governmental act whichis performed directly by the sovereign, even here the substance ofpower has been lost and only the form survives. *70. Selection of Other Members. *--The remaining members of the cabinetare selected by the premier, in consultation, as a rule, with leadingmembers of the party. Technically, what happens is that the firstminister places in the hands of the sovereign a list of the men whomhe recommends for appointment to the principal offices of state. Thecrown accepts the list and there appears forthwith in the LondonGazette an announcement to the effect that the persons named have beenchosen by the crown to preside over the several departments. Officially, there is no mention of the "cabinet. " In the selection ofhis colleagues the premier theoretically has a free hand. Practicallyhe is bound by the necessity of complying with numerous principles andof observing various precedents and practical conditions. Twoprinciples, in particular, must be adhered to in determining thestructure of every cabinet. All of the members must have seats in oneor the other of the two houses of Parliament, and all must beidentified with the party in power, or, at the least, with an alliedpolitical group. There was a time, when the personal government of theking was yet a reality, when the House of Commons refused to admit toits membership persons who held office under the crown, and thisdisqualification found legal expression as late as the Act ofSettlement of 1701. [92] With the ripening of parliamentary governmentin the eighteenth century, however, the thing that once had beenregarded properly enough as objectionable became a matter ofunquestionable expediency, if not a necessity. When once the ministerscomprised the real executive of the nation it was but logical thatthey should be authorized to appear on the floor of the two houses tointroduce and advocate measures and to explain the acts of thegovernment. Ministers had occupied regularly seats in the upperchamber, and not only was all objection to their occupying seats inthe lower chamber removed, but by custom it came to be an inflexiblerule that cabinet officers, and indeed the ministers generally, shouldbe drawn exclusively from the membership of the two houses. [93] (p.  068)Under provision of an act of 1707 it is still obligatory uponcommoners who are tendered a cabinet appointment, with a fewexceptions, to vacate their seats and to offer themselves to theirconstituents for re-election. But re-election almost invariablyfollows as a matter of course and without opposition. [94] It is to beobserved that there are two expedients by which it is possible tobring into the cabinet a desirable member who at the time of hisappointment does not possess a seat in Parliament. The appointee maybe created a peer; or he may stand for election to the Commons and, winning, qualify himself for a cabinet post. [Footnote 92: The clause of this measure which bore upon the point in hand was repealed, however, before it went into operation. ] [Footnote 93: The one notable instance in which this rule has been departed from within the past seventy-five years was Gladstone's tenure of the post of Secretary of State for the Colonies during the last six months of the Peel administration in 1846. ] [Footnote 94: On the reasons for the requirement of re-election and the movement for the abolition of the requirement see Moran, The English Government, 108-109. ] *71. Distribution Between the Houses of Parliament. *--Since the middleof the eighteenth century the tenure of the premiership has beendivided approximately equally between peers and commoners, but theapportionment of cabinet seats between the two houses has beenextremely variable. The first cabinet of the reign of George III. Contained fourteen members, thirteen of whom had seats in the House ofLords, and, in general, throughout the eighteenth century the peerswere apt greatly to preponderate. With the growth in importance of theHouse of Commons, however, and especially after the Reform Act of1832, the tendency was to draw an ever increasing proportion of thecabinet officers from the chamber in which lies the storm center ofEnglish politics. By legal stipulation one of the secretaries of statemust sit in the upper house; and the Lord Privy Seal, the LordChancellor, and the Lord President of the Council are all butinvariably peers. Beyond this, there is no positive requirement, ineither law or custom. In the ministries of recent times the number ofpeers and of commoners has generally been not far from equal. To fillthe various posts the premier must bring together the best men he cansecure--not necessarily the ablest, but those who will work togethermost effectively--with but secondary regard to the question of whetherthey sit in the one or the other of the legislative houses. Adepartment whose chief sits in the Commons is certain to berepresented in the Lords by an under-secretary or other spokesman, and_vice versa_. [95] [Footnote 95: In France and other continental countries in which the parliamentary system obtains an executive department is represented in Parliament by its presiding official only. But this official is privileged, as the English minister is not, to appear and to speak and otherwise participate in proceedings on the floor of either chamber. ] *72. Political Solidarity. *--A second fundamental principle which (p.  069)dominates the structure of the cabinet is that which requires that themembers be men of one political faith. William III. Sought to governwith a cabinet in which there were both Whigs and Tories, but theresult was confusion and the experiment was abandoned. Except duringthe ascendancy of Walpole, the cabinets of the eighteenth century verygenerally embraced men of more or less diverse political affiliations, but gradually the conviction took root that in the interest of unityand efficiency the political solidarity of the cabinet group isindispensable. The last occasion upon which it was proposed to make upa cabinet from utterly diverse political elements was in 1812. Thescheme was rejected, and from that day to this cabinets have beencomposed regularly, not necessarily of men identified with a commonpolitical party, but at least of men who are in substantial agreementupon the larger questions of policy and who have expressed theirwillingness to co-operate in the carrying out of a given programme ofaction. The fundamental requisite is unity. A Liberal Unionist mayoccupy a post in a Conservative cabinet and a Laborite in a Liberaladministration, but he may not oppose the Government upon anyimportant question and expect to continue a member of it, save by theexpress permission of the premier. It is the obligation of everycabinet member to agree, or to appear to agree, with his colleagues. If he is unable to do this, no course is open to him save resignation. *73. Other Considerations Determining Appointment. *--In the selection ofhis colleagues the premier works under still other practicalrestrictions. One of them is the well-established rule that survivingmembers of the last cabinet of the party, in so far as they are inactive public life and desirous of appointment, shall be given priorconsideration. Members of the party, furthermore, who have come intospecial prominence and influence in Parliament must usually beincluded. In truth, as Bagehot points out, the premier's independentchoice is apt to find scope not so much in the determination of thecabinet's personnel as in the distribution of offices among themembers selected; and even here he will often be obliged tosubordinate his wishes to the inclinations, susceptibilities, andcapacities of his prospective colleagues. In the expressive simile ofLowell, the premier's task is "like that of constructing a figure outof blocks which are too numerous for the purpose, and which are not ofshapes to fit perfectly together. "[96] [Footnote 96: Government of England, I. , 57. See MacDonaugh, The Book of Parliament, 148-183. ] VII. THE CABINET IN ACTION (p.  070) *74. Ministerial Responsibility. *--In its actual operation the Englishcabinet system involves the unvarying application of three principles:(1) the responsibility of cabinet ministers to Parliament; (2) thenon-publicity of cabinet proceedings; and (3) the close co-ordinationof the cabinet group under the leadership of the premier. Everyminister whether or not in the cabinet, is responsible individually toParliament, which in effect means to the House of Commons, for all ofhis public acts. If he is accorded a vote of censure he must retire. In the earlier eighteenth century the resignation of a cabinet officerdid not affect the tenure of his colleagues, the first of cabinets toretire as a unit being that of Lord North in 1782. Subsequently, however, the ministerial body so developed in compactness that inrelation to the outside world, and even to Parliament, the individualofficer came to be effectually subordinated to the group. Not since1866 has a cabinet member retired singly in consequence of an adverseparliamentary vote. If an individual minister falls into seriousdisfavor one of two things almost certainly happens. Either theoffending member is persuaded by his colleagues to modify his courseor to resign before formal parliamentary censure shall have beenpassed, or the cabinet as a whole rallies to the support of theminister in question and stands or falls with him. This is but anotherway of saying that, in practice, the responsibility of the cabinet iscollective rather than individual, a condition by which theseriousness and effectiveness of it are vastly increased. Thisresponsibility covers the entire range of acts of the executivedepartment of the government, whether regarded as acts of the crown orof the ministers themselves, and it constitutes the most distinctivefeature of the English parliamentary system. Formerly the only meansby which ministers could be held to account by Parliament was that ofimpeachment. With the development, however, of the principle ofministerial responsibility as a necessary adjunct to parliamentarygovernment, the occasional and violent process of impeachment wassuperseded by continuous, inescapable, and pacific legislativesupervision. The impeachment of cabinet ministers may be regarded, indeed, as obsolete. *75. How a Ministry may Be Overthrown. *--A fundamental maxim of theconstitution to-day is that a cabinet shall continue in office only solong as it enjoys the confidence and support of a majority in theHouse of Commons. There are at least four ways in which aparliamentary majority may manifest its dissatisfaction with acabinet, and so compel its resignation. It may pass a simple vote (p.  071)of "want of confidence, " assigning therefor no definite reason. It maypass a vote of censure, criticising the cabinet for some specific act. It may defeat a measure which the cabinet advocates and declares to beof vital importance. Or it may pass a bill in opposition to the adviceof the ministers. The cabinet is not obliged to give heed to anadverse vote in the Lords; but when any of the four votes indicated iscarried in the lower chamber the premier and his colleagues must doone of two things--resign or appeal to the country. If it is clearthat the cabinet has lost the support, not only of Parliament, butalso of the electorate, the only honorable course for the ministry isthat of resignation. If, on the other hand, there is doubt as towhether the parliamentary majority really represents the country uponthe matters at issue, the ministers are warranted in requesting thesovereign to dissolve Parliament and to order a general election. Insuch a situation the ministry continues tentatively in office. If atthe elections there is returned a majority disposed to support theministers, the cabinet is given a new lease of life. If, on the otherhand, the new parliamentary majority is adverse, no course is open tothe ministry save to retire. The new parliament will be convoked atthe earliest practicable date; but in advance of its assembling thedefeated cabinet will generally have resigned and a new government, presided over by the leader of the late Opposition, will have assumedthe reins. During the interval required for the transfer of power nonesave routine business is likely to be undertaken. *76. Secrecy of Proceedings. *--Perpetually responsible to the House ofCommons and imperatively obligated to resign collectively when nolonger able to command a working majority in that body, the cabinetmust at all times employ every device by which it may be enabled topresent a solid and imposing front. Two such devices are those ofsecrecy and the leadership of the premier. It is a sufficientlyfamiliar principle that a group of men brought together to agree uponand execute a common policy in behalf of a widespread and diverseconstituency will be more likely to succeed if the differences thatmust inevitably appear within their ranks are not published to theworld. It is in deference to this principle that the German Bundesrathtransacts its business to this day behind closed doors, and it was foran analogous reason that the public was excluded from the sittings ofthe convention by which the present constitution of the United Stateswas framed. Notices of meetings of the English cabinet and the namesof members present appear regularly in the press, but respecting thesubjects discussed, the opinions expressed, and the conclusionsarrived at not a word is given out, officially or unofficially. (p.  072)The oath of secrecy, required of all privy councillors, is binding ina special degree upon the cabinet officer. Not even the sovereign isfavored with more than a statement of the topics considered, togetherwith occasionally a formal draft of such decisions as require hisassent. In the earlier part of the nineteenth century meager minutesof the proceedings were preserved, but nowadays no clerical employeeis allowed to be present and no record whatsoever is kept. [97] Forknowledge of past transactions members rely upon their own or theircolleagues' memories, supplemented at times by privately kept notes. The meetings, which are held only as occasion requires (usually asoften as once a week when Parliament is in session) are notablyinformal. There is not even a fixed place where meetings are held, themembers being gathered sometimes at the Foreign Office, sometimes atthe premier's house, and, as circumstance may arise, at almost anyconvenient place. [Footnote 97: The same thing is true of the President's cabinet in the United States. The reasons for the policy are obvious and ample; but the preservation of cabinet records, whether in Great Britain or the United States, would, if such records were to be made accessible, facilitate enormously the task of the historian and of the student of practical government. ] *77. Leadership of the Premier. *--The unity of the cabinet is furthersafeguarded and emphasized by the leadership of the prime minister. Long after the rise of the cabinet to controlling influence in thestate the members of the ministerial body continued supposedly upon acommon footing in respect both to rank and authority. The habitualabstention of the early Hanoverians from attendance at cabinetmeetings, however, left the group essentially leaderless, and by anatural process of development the members came gradually to recognizea virtual presidency on the part of one of their own number. In timewhat was a mere presidency was converted into a thoroughgoingleadership, in short, into the premier's office of to-day. It iscommonly regarded that the first person who fulfilled the functions ofprime minister in the modern sense was Sir Robert Walpole, First Lordof the Treasury from 1715 to 1717 and from 1721 to 1742. The phrase"prime minister" was not at that time in use, but that the realitiesof the office existed is indicated by a motion made in the Commonsattacking Walpole on the ground that he had "grasped in his own handsevery branch of government; had attained the sole direction ofaffairs; had monopolized all the powers of the crown; had compassedthe disposal of all places, pensions, titles, and rewards"--almostprecisely, as one writer puts it, what the present premier is doingand is expected to do. [98] By the time of the establishment of (p.  073)the ministry of the younger Pitt, in 1783, the ascendancy of thepremier among his colleagues was an accomplished fact and wasrecognized as altogether legitimate. The enormous power of thepremier, arising immediately upon the ruins of the royal prerogative, was brought virtually to completion when, during the later years ofGeorge III. , the rule became fixed that in constituting a ministry theking should but ratify the choice of officials made by the premier. [Footnote 98: Moran, The English Government, 99. ] Not until 1906 was the premier's office recognized by law, [99] butthrough more than a century no other public position in the nation hasbeen comparable with it in volume of actual ruling power. Within theministry, more particularly the cabinet, the premier is the guidingforce. He presides, as a rule, at cabinet meetings; he advises withcolleagues upon all matters of consequence to the administration'swelfare; and, although he will shrink from doing it, he may require ofhis colleagues that they acquiesce in his views, with the alternativeof his resignation. [100] He occupies one of the high offices of state, usually that of First Lord of the Treasury; and, although ordinarilyhis own portfolio will not require much of his time or energy, he mustmaintain as close a watch as may be over the affairs of every one ofthe departments in which his appointees have been placed. The primeminister, is, furthermore, the link between the cabinet and, on theone hand, the crown, and, on the other, Parliament. On behalf of thecabinet he advises with the sovereign, communicating informationrespecting ministerial acts and synopses of the daily debates inParliament. In the house of which he is a member he represents (p.  074)the cabinet as a whole, makes such statements as are necessaryrelative to general aspects of the government's policy, and speaks, asa rule, upon every general or important projected piece oflegislation. As a matter of both theory and historical fact, thepremier who belongs to the House of Commons is more advantageouslysituated than one who sits in the Lords. [101] [Footnote 99: In a statute fixing the order of precedence of public dignitaries. The premier's position, however, was defined by a royal warrant of December, 1905. ] [Footnote 100: The resignation of the premier terminates _ipso facto_ the life of the ministry. An excellent illustration of the accustomed subordination of individual differences of opinion to the interests of cabinet solidarity is afforded by some remarks made by Mr. Asquith, December 4, 1911, to a deputation of the National League for Opposing Woman Suffrage. The deputation had called to protest against the Government's announced purpose to attach a suffrage amendment (if carried in the House of Commons) to a forthcoming measure of franchise reform. The Premier explained that he was, and always had been, of the opinion that "the grant of the parliamentary franchise to women in this country would be a political mistake of a very grievous kind. " "So far, " he continued, "we are in complete harmony with one another. On the other hand, I am, as you know, for the time being the head of the Government, in which a majority of my colleagues, a _considerable_ majority of my colleagues--I may say that without violating the obligation of cabinet secrecy. .. --are of a different opinion; and the Government in those circumstances has announced a policy which is the result of their combined deliberations, and by which it is the duty of all their members, and myself not least, to abide loyally. That is the position, so far as I am personally concerned. "] [Footnote 101: Low, The Governance of England, Chap. 9; M. Sibert, Étude sur le premier ministre en Angleterre depuis ses origines jusqu'à l'époque contemporaine (Paris, 1909). ] *78. The Cabinet's Central Position. *--In the English governmentalsystem the cabinet is in every sense the keystone of the arch. Itsfunctions are both executive and legislative, and indeed, to employthe figure of Bagehot, it comprises the hyphen that joins, the bucklethat fastens, the executive and the legislative departmentstogether. [102] As has been pointed out, the uses of the crown are byno means wholly ornamental. None the less, the actual executive of thenation is the cabinet. It is within the cabinet circle thatadministrative policies are decided upon, and it is by the cabinetministers and their subordinates in the several departments that thesepolicies, and the laws of the land generally, are carried into effect. On the other side, the cabinet members not only occupy seats in one orthe other of the houses of Parliament; collectively they direct theprocesses of legislation. They--primarily the prime minister--preparethe Speech from the Throne, in which at the opening of a parliamentarysession the state of the country is reviewed and a programme oflegislation is outlined. They formulate, introduce, explain, andadvocate needful legislative measures upon all manner of subjects; andalthough bills may be submitted in either house by private members itis a recognized principle that all measures of large importance shallemanate directly or indirectly from the cabinet. Statisticsdemonstrate that measures introduced by private members have but aninfinitesimal chance of enactment. [Footnote 102: The English Constitution (new ed. ), 79. ] In effect, the cabinet comprises a parliamentary committee chosen, asBagehot bluntly puts it, to rule the nation. If a cabinet group doesnot represent the ideas and purposes of Parliament as a whole, it atleast represents those of the majority of the preponderating chamber;and that is ample to give it, during the space of its tenure ofoffice, a thoroughgoing command of the situation. The basal fact ofthe political system is the control of party, and within the party thepower that governs is the cabinet. "The machinery, " says Lowell, "isone of wheels within wheels; the outside ring consisting of the (p.  075)party that has a majority in the House of Commons; the next ring beingthe ministry, which contains the men who are most active within thatparty; and the smallest of all being the cabinet, containing the realleaders or chiefs. By this means is secured that unity of party actionwhich depends upon placing the directing power in the hands of a bodysmall enough to agree, and influential enough to control. "[103] [Footnote 103: Government of England, I. , 56. The best discussion of the organization, functions, and relationships of the cabinet is contained in Lowell, _op. Cit. _, I. , Chaps. 2-3, 17-18, 22-23. Other good general accounts are Low, Governance of England, Chaps. 2-4, 8-9; Moran, English Government, Chaps. 4-9; Macy, English Constitution, Chap. 6; Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, II. , Pt. 1, Chap. 2; and Maitland, Constitutional History of England, 387-430. A detailed and still valuable survey is in Todd, Parliamentary Government, Parts 3-4. A brilliant study is Bagehot, English Constitution, especially Chaps. 1, 6-9. The growth of the cabinet is well described in Blauvelt, The Development of Cabinet Government in England; and a monograph of value is P. Le Vasseur, Le cabinet britannique sous la reine Victoria (Paris, 1902). For an extended bibliography see Select List of Books on the Cabinets of England and America (Washington, 1903), compiled in the Library of Congress under the direction of A. P. C. Griffin. ] CHAPTER IV (p.  076) PARLIAMENT: THE HOUSE OF COMMONS *79. Antiquity and Importance. *--The British Parliament is at once theoldest, the most comprehensive in jurisdiction, and the most powerfulamong modern legislative assemblages. In structure, and to some extentin function, it is a product, as has appeared, of the Middle Ages. Theterm "parliament, " employed originally to denote a discussion orconference, was applied officially to the Great Council in 1275;[104]and by the opening of the fourteenth century the institution which theEnglish know to-day by that name had come clearly into existence, being then, indeed, what technically it still is--the king and thethree estates of the realm, i. E. , the lords spiritual, the lordstemporal, and the commons. During upwards of a hundred years the threeestates sat and deliberated separately. By the close of the reign ofEdward III. (1327-1377), however, the bicameral principle had becomefixed, and throughout the whole of its subsequent history (save duringthe Cromwellian era of experimentation) Parliament has compriseduninterruptedly, aside from the king, the two branches which exist atthe present time, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, or, strictly, the Lords of Parliament and the Representatives of theCommons. [Footnote 104: In the First Statute of Westminster. ] The range of jurisdiction which, step by step, these chambers, bothseparately and conjointly, have acquired has been broadened until, sofar as the dominions of the British crown extend, it covers all butthe whole of the domain of human government. And within this enormousexpanse of political control the competence of the chambers knows, inneither theory nor fact, any restriction. "The British Parliament,  . .. "writes Mr. Bryce, "can make and unmake any and every law, changethe form of government or the succession to the crown, interfere withthe course of justice, extinguish the most sacred private rights ofthe citizen. Between it and the people at large there is no legaldistinction, because the whole plenitude of the people's rights andpowers resides in it, just as if the whole nation were present withinthe chamber where it sits. In point of legal theory it is the nation, being the historical successor of the Folk Moot of our Teutonicforefathers. Both practically and legally, it is to-day the only (p.  077)and the sufficient depository of the authority of the nation; andit is therefore, within the sphere of law, irresponsible andomnipotent. "[105] Whether the business in hand be constituent orlegislative, whether ecclesiastical or temporal, the right ofParliament--or, more accurately "the King in Parliament"--to discussand to dispose is indisputable. [Footnote 105: The American Commonwealth (3d ed. ), I. , 35-36. ] I. THE HOUSE OF COMMONS PRIOR TO 1832 *80. Present Ascendancy. *--Legally, as has been explained, Parliamentconsists of the king, the lords spiritual, the lords temporal, and thecommons. For practical purposes, however, it is the House of Commonsalone. "When, " as Spencer Walpole wrote a quarter of a century ago, "aminister consults Parliament he consults the House of Commons; whenthe Queen dissolves Parliament she dissolves the House of Commons. Anew Parliament is simply a new House of Commons. "[106] The gatheringof the "representatives of the commons" at Westminster is, and haslong been, without question the most important agency of government inthe kingdom. The House of Commons consists at the present day of 670members, of whom 465 sit for English constituencies, 30 for Welsh, 72for Scottish, and 103 for Irish. Nine of the members are chosen, undersomewhat special conditions, by the universities, but the remaining661 are elected in county or borough constituencies under franchisearrangements, which, while based upon residence and propertyqualifications, fall not far short of manhood suffrage. The chamber isat the same time the preponderating repository of power in thenational government and the prime organ of the popular will. It is inconsequence of its prolonged and arduous development that GreatBritain has attained democracy in national government; and theinfluence of English democracy as actualized in the House of Commonsupon the political ideas and the governmental agencies of the outlyingworld, both English-speaking and non-English-speaking, is simplyincalculable. [Footnote 106: The Electorate and the Legislature (London, 1892), 48. ] *81. Undemocratic Character at the Opening of the NineteenthCentury. *--"The virtue, the spirit, the essence of the House ofCommons, " once declared Edmund Burke, "consists in its being theexpress image of the nation. " In the eighteenth century, however, whenthis assertion was made, the House of Commons was, in point of fact, far from constituting such an "image. " Until, indeed, the nineteenthcentury was well advanced the nominally popular parliamentary branchwas in reality representative, not of the mass of the nation, but (p.  078)of the aristocratic and governing elements, at best of the well-to-domiddle classes; and a correct appreciation of the composition andcharacter of the chamber as it to-day exists requires some allusion tothe process by which its democratization was accomplished. In1832--the year of the first great Reform Act--the House of Commonsconsisted of 658 members, of whom 186 represented the forty countiesand 472 sat for two hundred three boroughs. The apportionment of bothcounty and borough members was haphazard and grossly inequitable. Inthe Unites States, and in many European countries, it is required byconstitutional provision that following a decennial census there shallbe a reapportionment of seats in the popular legislative chamber, thepurpose being, of course, to preserve substantial equality among theelectoral constituencies and, ultimately, an essential parity ofpolitical power among the voters. At no time, however, has there beenin Great Britain either legislation or the semblance of a tradition inrespect to this matter. Reapportionment has taken place only partiallyand at irregular intervals, and at but a few times in the history ofthe nation have constituencies represented at Westminster been evenapproximately equal. Save that, in 1707, forty-five members were addedto represent Scotland and, in 1801, one hundred to sit for Ireland, the identity of the constituencies represented in the Commonscontinued all but unchanged from the reign of Charles II. To thereform of 1832. *82. Need of a Redistribution of Seats. *--The population changes, inrespect to both growth and distribution, falling within this extendedperiod were, however, enormous. In 1689 the population of England andWales was not in excess of 5, 500, 000. The census of 1831 revealed inthese countries a population of 14, 000, 000. In the seventeenth andearlier eighteenth centuries the great mass of the English peoplelived in the south and east. Liverpool was but an insignificant town, Manchester a village, and Birmingham a sand-hill. But the industrialrevolution had the effect of bringing coal, iron, and water-power intoenormous demand, and after 1775 the industrial center, and likewisethe population center, of the country was shifted rapidly toward thenorth. In the hitherto almost uninhabited valleys of Lancashire andYorkshire sprang up a multitude of factory towns and cities. InParliament these fast-growing populations were either glaringlyunder-represented or not represented at all. In 1831 the tensouthernmost counties of England contained a population of 3, 260, 000and returned to Parliament 235 members. [107] At the same time the sixnorthernmost counties contained a population of 3, 594, 000, but (p.  079)returned only 68 members. Cornwall, with 300, 000 inhabitants, had 42representatives; Lancashire, with 1, 330, 000, had 14. Among towns, Birmingham and Manchester, each with upwards of 100, 000 people, andLeeds and Sheffield, each with 50, 000, had no representation whatever. On the other hand, boroughs were entitled to representation whichcontained ridiculously scant populations, or even no population atall. Gatto, in Surrey, was a park; Old Sarum, in Wiltshire, was adeserted hill; the remains of what once was Dunwich were under thewaves of the North Sea. Bosseney, in Cornwall, was a hamlet of threecottages, eight of whose nine electors belonged to a single family. But Bosseney sent two members to the House of Commons. [Footnote 107: That is to say, the quota of members mentioned was returned by the counties and by the boroughs contained geographically within them. ] *83. County and Borough Franchise in 1831. *--Not only was there, thus, the most glaring lack of adjustment of parliamentary representation tothe distribution of population; where the right of representationexisted, the franchise arrangements under which members were electedwere hopelessly heterogeneous and illiberal. Originally, as has beenpointed out, [108] the representatives of the counties were chosen inthe county court by all persons who were entitled to attend and totake part in the proceedings of that body. In 1429, during the reignof Henry VI. , an act was passed ostensibly to prevent riotous anddisorderly elections, wherein it was stipulated that county electorsshould thereafter comprise only such male residents of the county aspossessed free land or tenement which would rent for as much as fortyshillings a year above all charges. [109] Leaseholders, copyholders, small freeholders, and all non-landholders were denied the suffragealtogether. Even in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the numberof forty-shilling freeholders was small. With the concentration ofland in fewer hands, incident to the agrarian revolution of theeighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, it bore an increasinglydiminutive ratio to the aggregate county population, and by 1832 thecounty electors comprised, as a rule, only a handful of large landedproprietors. Within the boroughs the franchise arrangements existingat the date mentioned were complicated and diverse beyond thepossibility of general characterization. Many of the boroughs had beenaccorded parliamentary representation by the most arbitrary andhaphazard methods, and at no time prior to 1830 was there legislationwhich so much as attempted to regulate the conditions of voting withinthem. There were "scot and lot" boroughs, "potwalloper" boroughs, burgage boroughs, corporation or "close" boroughs, and "freemen"boroughs, to mention only the more important of the types that (p.  080)can be distinguished. [110] In some of these the franchise was, atleast in theory, fairly democratic; but in most of them it wasrestricted by custom or local regulation to petty groups ofproperty-holders or taxpayers, to members of the municipalcorporations, or even to members of a favored guild. With fewexceptions, the borough franchise was illogical, exclusive, andnon-expansive. [Footnote 108: See p. 23. ] [Footnote 109: Equivalent in present values to £30 or £40. ] [Footnote 110: See p. 23. ] *84. Political Corruption. *--A third fact respecting electoralconditions in the earlier nineteenth century is the astoundingprevalence of illegitimate political influence and of sheercorruption. Borough members were very commonly not truerepresentatives at all, but nominees of peers, of influentialcommoners, or of the government. It has been estimated that of the 472borough members not more than 137 may be regarded as having been inany proper sense elected. The remainder sat for "rotten" boroughs, orfor "pocket" boroughs whose populations were so meager or so docilethat the borough might, as it were, be carried about in a magnate'spocket. In the whole of Cornwall there were only one thousand voters. Of the forty-two seats possessed by that section of the country twentywere controlled by seven peers, twenty-one were similarly controlledby eleven commoners, and but one was filled by free election. In 1780it was asserted by the Duke of Richmond that a clear majority of theHouse of Commons was returned by six thousand persons. Bribery andother forms of corruption were so common that only the most shamelessinstances attracted public attention. Not merely votes, but seats, were bought and sold openly, and it was a matter of generalunderstanding that £5, 000 to £7, 000 was the amount which a politicalaspirant might expect to be obliged to pay a borough-monger forbringing about his election. Seats were not infrequently advertisedfor sale in the public prints, and even for hire for a term ofyears. [111] [Footnote 111: The monumental treatise on the House of Commons prior to 1832 is E. Porritt, The Unreformed House of Commons: Parliamentary Representation before 1832, 2 vols. (2d ed. , Cambridge, 1909). On the prevalence of corruption see May and Holland, Constitutional History of England, I. , 224-238, 254-262. ] II. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, 1832-1885 *85. Demand for Reform Prior to 1832. *--Active demand for a reformationof the conditions that have been described antedated the nineteenthcentury. As early as 1690, indeed, John Locke denounced theabsurdities of the prevailing electoral system, [112] although at thetime they were inconsiderable in comparison with what they became by1832; and during the second half of the eighteenth century a (p.  081)number of interesting reform proposals--notably that of the elder Pittin 1766, that of Wilkes in 1776, and that of the younger Pitt in1785--were widely though fruitlessly discussed. In 1780 a group ofpublic-spirited men established a Society for ConstitutionalInformation which during the ensuing decade carried on actively apropaganda in behalf of parliamentary regeneration, and at a meetingunder the auspices of this organization and presided over by CharlesJames Fox a programme was drawn up insisting upon innovations no lesssweeping than the establishment of manhood suffrage, the creation ofequal electoral districts, the payment of members, the abolition ofproperty qualifications for members, and adoption of the secretballot. [113] The revolution in France and the prolonged contest withNapoleon stayed the reform movement, but after 1815 agitation wasactively renewed. The economic and social ills of the nation in thedecade following the restoration of peace were many, and the idea tookhold widely that only through a reconstitution of Parliament couldadequate measures of amelioration be attained. The disposition of theTory governments of the period was to resist the popular demand, or, at the most, to concede changes which would not affect thearistocratic character of the parliamentary chambers. But thereformers refused to be diverted from their fundamental object, and inthe end the forces of tradition, conservatism, and vested interestwere obliged to give way. [114] [Footnote 112: Treatises of Government, II. , Chap. 13, § 157. ] [Footnote 113: It is of interest to observe that every one of the demands enumerated found a place half a century later among the "six points" of the Chartists. See pp. 82-83. A bill embodying the proposed reforms was introduced by the Duke of Richmond in 1780, but met with small favor. A second society--The Friends of the People--was formed in 1792 to promote the cause. ] [Footnote 114: The reform movement prior to 1832 is admirably sketched in May and Holland, Constitutional History of England, I. , 264-280. See also G. L. Dickinson, The Development of Parliament during the Nineteenth Century (London, 1895), Chap. 1; J. H. Rose, The Rise and Growth of Democracy in Great Britain (London, 1897), Chap. 1; C. B. R. Kent, The English Radicals (London, 1899), Chaps. 1-2; and W. P. Hall, British Radicalism, 1791-1797 (New York, 1912). ] *86. The Reform Act of 1832. *--The first notable triumph was theenactment of the Reform Bill of 1832. The changes wrought by thismemorable piece of legislation were two-fold, the first relating tothe distribution of seats in Parliament, the second to the extensionof the franchise. The number of Scottish members was increased from 45to 54; that of Irish, from 100 to 105; that of English and Welsh wasreduced from 513 to 499. There was no general reapportionment of seats, no effort to bring the parliamentary constituencies into precise anduniform relation to the census returns. But the most glaringlyinequitable of former conditions were remedied. Fifty-six (p.  082)boroughs, of populations under 2, 000, were deprived entirely ofrepresentation, [115] thirty-one, of populations between 2, 000 and4, 000, were reduced from two members to one, and one was reduced fromfour members to two. The 143 seats thus made available wereredistributed, and the aggregate number (658) continued as before. Twenty-two large boroughs hitherto unrepresented were given twomembers each; twenty-one others were given one additional member each;and a total of sixty-five seats were allotted to twenty-seven of theEnglish counties, the remaining thirteen being given to Scotland andIreland. The redistribution had the effect of increasing markedly thepolitical power of the northern and north-central portions of thecountry. The alterations introduced in the franchise were numerous andimportant. In the counties the forty-shilling freehold franchise, withsome limitations, was retained; but the voting privilege was extendedto all leaseholders and copyholders of land renting for as much as £10a year, and to tenants-at-will holding an estate worth £50 a year. Inthe boroughs the right to vote was conferred upon all "occupiers" ofhouses worth £10 a year. The total number of persons enfranchised wasapproximately 455, 000. By basing the franchise exclusively upon theownership or occupancy of property of considerable value the reformfell short of admitting to political power the great mass of factoryemployees and of agricultural laborers, and for this reason it wasroundly opposed by the more advanced liberal elements. If, however, the voting privilege had not been extended to the masses it had beenbrought appreciably nearer them; and--what was almost equallyimportant--it had been made substantially uniform, for the first time, throughout the realm. [116] [Footnote 115: Of the fifty-six all save one had returned two members. ] [Footnote 116: The more important parts of the text of the Reform Bill of 1832 are printed in Robertson, Statutes, Cases and Documents, 197-212. ] *87. The Chartist Movement. *--The act of 1832 possessed none of theelements of finality. Its authors were in general content, but withthe lapse of time it was made increasingly manifest that the nationwas not. Political power was still confined to the magnates of thekingdom, the townsfolk who were able to pay a £10 annual rental, andthe well-to-do copyholders and leaseholders of rural districts. Whigsand Tories of influence alike insisted that further innovation couldnot be contemplated, but the radicals and the laboring masses insistedno less resolutely that the reformation which had been begun should becarried to its logical conclusion. The demands upon which emphasis wasespecially placed were gathered up in the "six points" of the People'sCharter, promulgated in final form May 8, 1838. The six points were:(1) universal suffrage for males over twenty-one years of age, (p.  083)(2) equal electoral districts, (3) voting by secret ballot, (4) annualsessions of Parliament, (5) the abolition of property qualificationsfor members of the House of Commons, and (6) payment of members. Thebarest enumeration of these demands is sufficient to reveal thepolitical backwardness of the England of three-quarters of a centuryago. Not only was the suffrage still severely restricted and the basisof representation antiquated and unfair; voting was oral and public, and only men who were qualified by the possession of property wereeligible for election. [117] [Footnote 117: Rose, Rise and Growth of Democracy, Chaps. 6-8; Kent, The English Radicals, Chap. 3; and R. G. Gammage, History of the Chartist Movement, 1837-1854 (Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1894). ] *88. The Representation of the People Act of 1867. *--After a decade ofspectacular propaganda Chartism collapsed, without having attainedtangible results. None the less, the day was not long postponed whenthe forces of reform, sobered and led by practical statesmen, wereenabled to realize one after another of their fundamental purposes. In1858 the second Derby government acquiesced in the enactment of ameasure by which all property qualifications hitherto required ofEnglish, Welsh, and Irish members were abolished, [118] and after 1860projects for franchise extension were considered with increasingseriousness. In 1867 the third Derby government, whose guiding spiritwas Disraeli, carried a bill providing for an electoral reform of amore thoroughgoing character than any persons save the mostuncompromising of the radicals had ever asked or desired. ThisRepresentation of the People Act modified but slightly thedistribution of parliamentary seats. The total number of seatsremained unchanged, as did Ireland's quota of 105; Scotland'sapportionment was increased from 54 to 60, while that of England andWales was decreased from 499 to 493; and in the course of there-allotment that was made eleven boroughs lost the right ofrepresentation and thirty-five others were reduced from two members toone. The fifty-two seats thus vacated were utilized to enfranchisetwelve new borough and three university constituencies and to increasethe representation of a number of the more populous towns andcounties. [Footnote 118: By law of 1710 it had been required that county members should possess landed property worth £600, and borough members worth £300, a year. These qualifications were very commonly evaded, but they were not abolished until 1858. ] The most important provisions of the Act were, however, those relatingto the franchise. In England and Wales the county franchise wasguaranteed to men whose freehold was of the value of forty shillings ayear, to copyholders and leaseholders of the annual value of £5, andto householders whose rent amounted to not less than £12 a year. (p.  084)The twelve pound occupation franchise was new, [119] and thequalification for copyholders and leaseholders was reduced from £10 to£5; otherwise the county franchise was unchanged. The boroughfranchise was modified profoundly. Heretofore persons were qualifiedto vote as householders only in the event that their house was worthas much as £10 a year. Now the right was conferred upon every man whooccupied, as owner or as tenant, for twelve months, a dwelling-house, or any portion thereof utilized as a separate dwelling, without regardto its value. Another newly established franchise admitted to thevoting privilege all lodgers occupying for as much as a year rooms ofthe clear value, unfurnished, of £10 a year. The effect of theseprovisions was to enfranchise the urban working population, even asthe act of 1832 had enfranchised principally the urban middle class. So broad, indeed, did the urban franchise at this point become thatlittle room was left for its modification subsequently. As originallyplanned, Disraeli's measure would have enlarged the electorate by notmore than 100, 000; as amended and carried, it practically doubled thevoting population, raising it from 1, 370, 793 immediately prior to 1867to 2, 526, 423 in 1871. [120] By the act of 1832 the middle classes hadbeen enfranchised; by that of 1867 political power was thrown in nosmall degree into the hands of the masses. Only two large groups ofpeople remained now outside the pale of political influence, i. E. , theagricultural laborers and the miners. [Footnote 119: It may be regarded, however, as taking the place of the £50 rental franchise. ] [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 thequalifications for voting in one class of constituencies should beconspicuously more liberal than in another class was an anomaly, andin a period when anomalies were at last being eliminated from theEnglish electoral system remedy could not be long delayed. February 5, 1884, the second Gladstone ministry redeemed a campaign pledge byintroducing a bill extending to the counties the same electoralregulations that had been established in 1867 in the towns. Themeasure passed the Commons, but was rejected by the Lords by reason ofthe fact that it was not accompanied by a bill for the redistributionof seats. By an agreement between the two houses a threatened deadlockwas averted, and the upshot was that before the end of the year theLords accepted the Government's bill, on the understanding that itsenactment was to be followed immediately by the introduction of aredistribution measure. The Representation of the People Act of (p.  085)1884 is in form disjointed and difficult to understand, but the effectof it is easy to state. By it there was established a uniformhousehold franchise and a uniform lodger franchise in all counties andboroughs of the United Kingdom. The occupation of any land or tenementof a clear annual value of £10 was made a qualification in boroughsand counties alike; and persons occupying a house by virtue of officeor employment were to be deemed "occupiers" for the purpose of theact. The measure doubled the county electorate and increased the totalelectorate by some 2, 000, 000, or approximately forty per cent. Itsmost important effect was to enfranchise the workingman in thecountry, as the act of 1867 had enfranchised the workingman in thetown. *90. The Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885. *--In 1885, the two greatparties co-operating, there was passed the Redistribution of Seats Actwhich had been promised. Now for the first time in English historyattempt was made to apportion representation in the House of Commonsin something like strict accordance with population densities. In thefirst place, the total number of members was increased from 658[121]to 670, and of the number 103 were allotted to Ireland, 72 toScotland, and 495 to England and Wales. In the next place, the methodby which former redistributions had been accomplished, i. E. , transferring seats more or less arbitrarily from flagrantlyover-represented boroughs to more populous boroughs and counties, wasreplaced by a method based upon the principle of equal electoralconstituencies, each returning one member. In theory a constituencywas made to comprise 50, 000 people. Boroughs containing fewer than15, 000 inhabitants were disfranchised as boroughs, becoming forelectorial purposes portions of the counties in which they weresituated. Boroughs of between 15, 000 and 50, 000 inhabitants wereallowed to retain, or if previously unrepresented were given, onemember each. Those of between 50, 000 and 165, 000 were given twomembers, and those of more than 165, 000 three, with one in additionfor every additional 50, 000 people. The same general principle wasfollowed in the counties. Thus the city of Liverpool, which prior to1885 sent three members to Parliament, fell into nine distinctconstituencies, each returning one member, and the great northerncounty of Lancashire, which since 1867 had been divided into fourportions each returning two members, was now split into twenty-threedivisions with one member each. The boroughs which prior to 1885elected two members, and at the redistribution retained that number, remained single constituencies 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-memberconstituencies. By partition of the counties, of the old boroughshaving more than two members, and of the new boroughs with only twomembers, all save these twenty-seven constituencies have been erectedinto separate, single-member electoral divisions, each with its ownname and identity. [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; Dickinson, Development of Parliament, Chap. 2; Rose, Rise and Growth of Democracy, Chaps. 2, 10-13; Marriott, English Political Institutions, Chap. 10. An excellent survey is May and Holland, Constitutional History of England, I. , Chap. 6, and III. , Chap. 1. Mention may be made of H. Cox, 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 Municipal (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 Constitutional 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 theHouse of Commons was placed upon a broadly democratic basis. Bothmeasures stand to-day upon the statute-books, and neither has beenamended in any important particular. With respect to the existingfranchises there are two preponderating facts. One of them is thatindividuals, as such, do not possess the privilege of voting; on thecontrary, the possession of the privilege is determined all butinvariably in relation to the ownership or occupation of property. Theother is that the franchise system, while substantially uniformthroughout the kingdom, is none the less the most complicated inEurope. There are three important franchises which are universal andtwo which are not. In the first group are included: (1) occupancy, asowner 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 ahouse used as a separate dwelling, without regard to its value; (p.  087)and (3) occupancy of lodgings of the value, unfurnished, of £10 ayear. The two franchises which are not universal are (1) ownership ofland of forty shillings yearly value or occupation of land undercertain other specified conditions--this being applicable only tocounties and, to a small extent, to boroughs which are counties inthemselves; and (2) residence of freemen in those towns in which theyhad a right to vote prior to 1832. The conditions and exceptions bywhich these various franchises are attended are so numerous that fewpeople in England save lawyers make a pretense of knowing them all, and the volume of litigation which arises from the attempteddistinction between "householder" and "lodger, " and from othertechnicalities of the subject, is enormous. Voters must be twenty-oneyears of age, and there are several complicated requirements inrespect to the period of occupation of land and of residence, andlikewise in respect to the fulfillment of the formalities ofregistration. [123] There are also various incidental disqualifications. No peer, other than a peer of Ireland who is in possession of a seatin the House of Commons, may vote; persons employed as electionagents, canvassers, clerks, or messengers may not vote, nor may thereturning officers of the constituencies, save when necessary to breaka tie between two candidates; and aliens, felons, and, understipulated conditions, persons in receipt of public charity, aresimilarly debarred. In the aggregate, however, the existing franchisesapproach measurably near manhood suffrage. It has been computed thatthe 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 commonlydisqualified by law, is somewhat less than one in four. The onlyclasses of adult males at present excluded regularly from the votingprivilege are domestic servants, bachelors living with their parentsand occupying no premises on their own account, and persons whosechange of abode periodically deprives them of a vote. [Footnote 123: On the process of registration see Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, I. , 134-137, and M. Caudel, L'enregistrement des électeurs en Angleterre, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, Sept. , 1906. ] "The present condition of the franchise, " asserts Lowell, "is, indeed, historical rather than rational. It is complicated, uncertain, expensive in the machinery required, and excludes a certain number ofpeople whom there is no reason for excluding, while it admits manypeople 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, theelectoral system as a whole, be overhauled, co-ordinated, andliberalized; and at the date of writing (1912) there is pending inParliament a measure of fundamental importance looking in thisdirection. The electoral changes which have been most widelyadvocated, at least in recent years, are four in number: (1) a freshapportionment of seats in the Commons in accordance with thedistribution of population; (2) the extension of the franchise toclasses of men at present debarred; (3) the abolition of the pluralvote; and (4) the enfranchisement of women. [Footnote 124: Government of England, I. , 213. On the franchise system see Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, 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 constituencies inwhich there was some approach to equality. The principle was far fromcompletely carried out. For example, the newly created borough ofChelsea contained upwards of 90, 000 people, while the old borough ofWindsor had fewer than 20, 000. But the inequalities left untouched bythe act were slight in comparison with those which have arisen duringa quarter of a century in which there has been no reapportionmentwhatsoever. In 1901 the least populous constituency of the UnitedKingdom, the borough of Newry in Ireland, contained but 13, 137 people, while the southern division of the county of Essex contained 217, 030;yet each was represented by a single member. This means, of course, agross disparity in the weight of popular votes, and, in effect, theover-representation of certain sets of opinions and interests. InJanuary, 1902, an amendment to a parliamentary address urging thedesirability of redistribution was warmly debated in the Commons, and, on the eve of its fall, in the summer of 1905, the Balfour governmentsubmitted a Redistribution Resolution designed to meet the demands ofthe "one vote, one value" propagandists. At this time it was pointedout that whereas immediately after the reform of 1885 the greatestratio of disparity among the constituencies was 5. 8 to 1, in twentyyears it had risen to 16. 5 to 1. The plan proposed provided for thefixing of the average population to be represented by a member at from50, 000 to 65, 000, the giving of eighteen additional seats to Englandand Wales and of four to Scotland, the reduction of Ireland's quota bytwenty-two, and such further readjustments as would bring down theratio of greatest disparity to 6. 8 to 1. Under a ruling of the Speakerto the effect that the resolution required to be divided into eight ornine parts, to be debated separately, the proposal was withdrawn. Itwas announced that a bill upon the subject would be brought in, butthe early retirement of the ministry rendered this impossible, (p.  089)and throughout succeeding years this aspect of electoral reformyielded precedence to other matters. [125] [Footnote 125: _Annual Register_ (1905), 193. ] A special difficulty inherent in the subject is imposed by thepeculiar situation of Ireland. By reason of the decline of Ireland'spopulation during the past half century that portion of the UnitedKingdom has come to be markedly over-represented at Westminster. Theaverage Irish commoner sits for but 44, 147 people, while the averageEnglish member represents 66, 971. If a new distribution were to bemade in strict proportion to members Ireland would lose 30 seats andWales three, while Scotland would gain one and England about 30. It iscontended by the Irish people, however, that the Act of Union of 1800, whereby Ireland was guaranteed as many as one hundred parliamentaryseats, is in the nature of a treaty, whose stipulations cannot beviolated save by the consent of both contracting parties; and so longas the Irish are not allowed a separate parliament they may bedepended upon to resist, as they did resist in 1905, any proposalcontemplating the reduction of their voting strength in the parliamentof the United Kingdom. *93. The Problem of the Plural Vote. *--Aside from the enfranchisement ofwomen, the principal suffrage questions in Great Britain to-day arethose pertaining to the conferring of the voting privilege upon adultmales who are still debarred, the abolition of the plural vote, and ageneral simplification and unification of franchise arrangements. Theproblem of the plural vote is an old one. Under existing law anelector may not vote more than once in a single constituency, nor inmore than one division of the same borough; but aside from this, andexcept in so far as is not prohibited by residence requirements, he isentitled to vote in every constituency in which he possesses aqualification. In the United States and in the majority of Europeancountries a man is possessed of but one vote, and any arrangementother than this would seem to contravene the principle of civicequality which lies at the root of popular government. In Englandthere have been repeated attempts to bring about the establishment ofan unvarying rule of "one man, one vote, " but never as yet withsuccess. The number of plural voters--some 525, 000--is relativelysmall, but when it is remembered that a single voter may cast during aparliamentary election as many as fifteen or twenty votes it will beobserved that the number quite suffices to turn the scale in manyclosely contested constituencies. An overwhelming proportion of theplural voters are identified with the Conservative party, whence itarises that the Liberals are, and long have been, hostile to theprivilege. Following the Liberal triumph at the elections of 1906 (p.  090)a Plural Voting Bill was introduced requiring that every electorpossessed of more than one vote should be registered in theconstituency of his choice and in no other one. The measure passed theCommons, by a vote of 333 to 104, but the Conservative majority in theLords compassed its defeat, alleging that while it was willing toconsider a complete scheme of electoral reform the proposed bill wasnot of such character. [126] [Footnote 126: May and Holland, Constitutional 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, inAugust, 1911, of the Parliament Bill whereby the complete ascendancyof the Commons was secured in both finance and legislation[127] theLiberal government of Mr. Asquith made known its intention to bringforward at an early date a comprehensive measure of franchise reform. During the winter of 1911-1912 the project was formulated, and in theearly summer of 1912 the bill was introduced. The adoption of themeasure in its essentials is not improbable, although at the date ofwriting[128] it is by no means assured. In the main, the bill makesprovision for three reforms. In the first place, it substitutes forthe present complicated and illogical network of suffrages a simpleresidential or occupational qualification, thereby extending thevoting privilege to practically all adult males. In the second place, it simplifies the process of registration and, in effect, enfranchiseslarge numbers of men who in the past have been unable to vote becauseof change of residence or of the difficulties of the registrationprocess. Finally, it abolishes absolutely both the plural vote and theseparate representation of the universities. The effect of the firsttwo of these provisions, it is estimated, would be to enlarge theelectorate by 2, 500, 000 votes, that of the third, to reduce it byupwards of 600, 000;[129] so that the net result of the three would beto raise an existing electorate of eight millions to one of tenmillions. A total of twenty-eight franchise statutes are totally, andforty-four others are partially, repealed by the bill. The ground uponwhich the measure, in its earlier stages, was attacked principally wasits lack of provision for a redistribution of seats. The defense ofthe Government has been that, while the imperative need ofredistribution is recognized, such redistribution can be effected onlyafter 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 theFranchise Bill restricts the franchise to adult males. The measure wasshaped deliberately, however, to permit the incorporation of anamendment providing for the enfranchisement of women. It is a fact notfamiliarly known that English women of requisite qualifications wereat one time in possession of the suffrage at national elections. Theywere not themselves allowed to vote, but a woman was privileged topass on her qualifications temporarily to any man, and, prior to theseventeenth century, the privilege was occasionally exercised. It wasnot indeed, until the Reform Act of 1832 that the law of elections, byintroducing the phrase "male persons, " in effect vested theparliamentary franchise exclusively in men. [131] The first notableattempt made in Parliament to restore and extend the female franchisewas that of John Stuart Mill in 1867. His proposed amendment to thereform bill of that year was defeated by a vote of 196 to 73. In 1870a woman's suffrage measure drafted by Dr. Pankhurst and introduced inthe Commons by John Bright passed its second reading by a majority ofthirty-three, but was subsequently rejected. During the seventies andearly eighties a vigorous propaganda was maintained and almost everysession produced its crop of woman's suffrage bills. A determinedattempt was made to secure the inclusion of a woman's suffrage clausein the Reform Bill of 1884. The proposed amendment was supported verygenerally by the press, but in consequence of a threat by Gladstone tothe effect that if the amendment were carried the entire measure wouldbe withdrawn the project was abandoned. The next chapter of importancein the history of the movement was inaugurated by the organization, in1903, of the Women's Social and Political Union. In 1904 a suffragebill was introduced but failed to become law. Within the past decade, however, the cause has made substantial headway, and by thespectacular character which it has assumed it has attracted wideattention. In March, 1912, a Woman's Enfranchisement measure wasrejected in the House of Commons by the narrow margin of 222 to 208votes. Premier Asquith is opposed to female enfranchisement, but hiscolleagues in the ministry are almost evenly divided upon the issue, and it is not inconceivable that a woman's suffrage measure may becarried through in the guise of an amendment to the pending FranchiseBill. If it were to be, and the qualifications should be made (p.  092)identical with those of men, the number of women voters would beapproximately 10, 500, 000. [132] [Footnote 131: May and Holland, Constitutional 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, Constitutional History, III. , 59-66. ] *96. Qualifications for Election. *--The regulations governing thequalifications essential for election to Parliament are to-day, on thewhole, simple and liberal. The qualification of residence was replacedin the eighteenth century by a property qualification; but, as hasbeen pointed out, in 1858 this likewise was swept away. Oaths ofallegiance and oaths imposing religious tests once operated to debarmany, but all that is now required of a member is a very simple oathor affirmation of allegiance, in a form compatible with any shade ofreligious belief or unbelief. Any male British subject who is of ageis qualified for election, unless he belongs to one of a few smallgroups--notably peers (except Irish); clergy of the Roman CatholicChurch, the Church of England, and the Church of Scotland; certainoffice-holders; bankrupts; and persons convicted of treason, felony, or corrupt practices. A member is not required to be a resident of theelectoral district which he represents. Once elected, a man properlyqualified cannot escape membership by resignation. He may be expelled, but the only means by which he can retire from the House voluntarilyis 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 stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. Themember who desires to give up his seat accomplishes his purpose byapplying for one of these offices, receiving it, and after havingdisqualified himself, resigning it. IV. ELECTORAL PROCEDURE AND REGULATIONS *97. Writs and Election Days. *--When a parliament is dissolved the royalproclamation wherein the dissolution is declared expresses the desireof the crown to have the advice of the people and announces thesovereign's will and pleasure to call a new parliament. With thisproclamation as a warrant, the chancellors of Great Britain andIreland forthwith issue writs of election, addressed to the returningofficers of the counties and boroughs, i. E. , in all Scotch and Irishconstituencies and in the English counties the sheriffs, or theirdeputies, and in the English boroughs the mayors. The form of thesewrits, as well as the nature of the electoral procedure generally, isprescribed in the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Act, commonlyknown 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 theelection, and of the poll if it is known that the election will becontested. In the counties the election must take place within ninedays, in the boroughs within four days, after receipt of the writ, butwithin these limits the date is fixed in each constituency by thereturning officer. What actually happens on election day is: (1) allcandidates for seats are placed formally in nomination; (2) if withinan hour of the time fixed for the election the number of nominatedcandidates does not exceed the number of places to be filled, theelection of these candidates is forthwith declared; and (3) if thereis a contest the election is postponed to a polling day, to be fixedby the returning officer, in the counties from two to six, and in theboroughs not more than three, days distant. [Footnote 133: For the form of the writ see Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, I. , 57. ] *98. The Polling. *--Prior to 1872 candidates were nominated _viva voce_at the "hustings, " an outdoor platform erected for the purpose; butnowadays nominations are made in writing. It is required that acandidate shall be proposed by a registered elector of theconstituency and that his nomination shall be assented to formally bynine other electors. The number of uncontested elections is invariablylarge (especially in Ireland, where, in many instances, it is uselessto oppose a candidate to the Nationalists), the proportion reachingsometimes one-fourth, and even one-third. Polling is completed withinan individual constituency during the course of a single day, thehours being from eight o'clock in the morning until eight o'clock inthe evening, but under the arrangements that have been described itfalls out that a national election is extended invariably through aperiod of more than two weeks. The system operates, of course, to theadvantage of the plural voter, who is enabled to present himself atthe polls from day to day in widely separated constituencies. For theconvenience of voters constituencies are divided regularly intodistricts, or precincts. When the properly qualified and registeredelector appears at the polls a ballot paper is presented to himcontaining the names of the candidates. He takes this to a screenedcompartment and places a cross-mark opposite the name or names ofthose for whom he desires to vote, after which the paper is depositedin a box. At the conclusion of the polling, the boxes are transmittedto the returning officer of the constituency, the votes are counted, and the result is declared. The writ which served as the returningofficer's authority is indorsed with a certificate of the election andreturned to the clerk of the Crown in Chancery. It is to be observed, however, that in the universities the Ballot Act does not apply. Inthese constituencies 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 Petitions (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 nottake place in Great Britain with periodic regularity. The onlypositive requirement in the matter is that an election must be orderedwhen a parliament has attained the maximum lifetime allowed it by law. Prior to 1694 there was no stipulation upon this subject and the kingcould 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 threeyears; from 1716 to 1911 it was seven years; to-day it is fiveyears. [135] In point of fact, parliaments never last through themaximum period, and an average interval of three or four years betweenelections has been the rule. In most instances an election isprecipitated more or less unexpectedly on an appeal to the country bya defeated ministry, and it not infrequently happens that an electionturns all but completely upon a single issue and thus assumes thecharacter of a national referendum upon the subject in hand. This waspre-eminently true of the last general election, that of December, 1910, at which the country was asked to sustain the Asquith governmentin its purpose to curb the independent authority of the House ofLords. In any event, the campaign by which the election is preceded isbrief, although it continues throughout the electoral period, and, ifthe outcome is doubtful, tends to increase rather than to diminish inintensity. Appeals to the voters are made principally through publicspeaking, the controversial and illustrated press, the circulation ofpamphlets and handbills, parades and mass-meetings, and the generoususe of placards, cartoons, and other devices designed to attract andfocus attention. Plans are laid, arguments are formulated, and (p.  095)leadership in public appeal is assumed by the members of theGovernment, led by the premier, and, on the other side, by the men whoare 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 Documents, 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 élections, in _Revue des Deux Mondes_, Feb. 1, 1910. ] *100. The Regulation of Electoral Expenditure. *--Time was, and withinthe memory of men still living, when an English parliamentary electionwas attended by corrupt practices so universal and so shameless as toappear almost more ludicrous than culpable. Voters as a matter ofcourse accepted the bribes that were tendered them and ate and drankand smoked and rollicked at the candidate's expense throughout theelectoral period and were considered men of conscience indeed if theydid not end by going over to the opposition. The notorious Northamptonelection of 1768, in the course of which a body of voters numberingunder a thousand were the recipients of hospitalities from the backersof three candidates which aggregated upwards of a million pounds, was, of course, exceptional; but the history of countless other casesdiffered from it only in the amounts laid out. To-day an altogetherdifferent state of things obtains. From having been one of the mostcorrupt, Great Britain has become one of the most exemplary of nationsin all that pertains to the proprieties of electoral procedure. TheBallot Act of 1872 contained provisions calculated to strengthenpre-existing corrupt practices acts, but the real turning point wasthe adoption of the comprehensive Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act of1883. By this measure bribery (in seven enumerated forms) and treatingwere made punishable by imprisonment or fine and, under varyingconditions, political disqualification. The number and functions ofthe persons who may be employed by the candidate to assist in acampaign were prescribed, every candidate being required to have asingle authorized agent charged with the disbursement of all moneys(save certain specified "personal" expenditures) in the candidate'sbehalf and with the duty of submitting to the returning officer withinthirty-five days after the election a sworn statement covering allreceipts and expenditures. And, finally, the act fixed, upon a slidingscale in proportion to the size of the constituencies, the maximumamounts which candidates may legitimately expend. In boroughscontaining not more than 2, 000 registered voters the amount is (p.  096)£350, with an additional £30 for every thousand voters above thenumber mentioned. In rural constituencies, where proper outlays willnormally be larger, the sum of £650 is allowed when the number ofregistered electors falls under 2, 000, with £60 for each additionalthousand. Beyond these sums the candidate is allowed an outlay of £100for 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 thecourts demonstrate that not infrequently in practice its limits areexceeded. None the less, the effect of the law has been undeniably torestrain the outpouring of money by candidates, to purify politics, and at the same time to enable men of moderate means to stand forelection who otherwise would be at grave disadvantage as against theirwealthier and more lavish competitors. It is of interest to observethat by reason of the non-participation of the state in electoralcosts there fall upon candidates certain charges which are unknown inthe United States and other countries. The bills submitted by thereturning officer must be paid by the candidates within theconstituency, and these bills cover the publishing of notices of theelection, the preparing and supplying of nomination papers, the costof dies, ballot-paper, polling-stations, and printing, the fees ofclerks, and, finally, the travelling expenses and fee of the returningofficer himself. The candidate's share of this outlay may be as smallas £25, but it is likely to be from £200 to £300 and may rise to asmuch as £600. [137] [Footnote 137: On the adoption of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act of 1883 see May and Holland, Constitutional History of England, III. , 31-33. The actual operation of the system established may be illustrated by citing a specific case. At the election of 1906 the maximum expenditure legally possible for Mr. Lloyd-George in his sparsely populated Carnarvon constituency 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 constituencies 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. ] CHAPTER V (p.  097) PARLIAMENT: THE HOUSE OF LORDS I. COMPOSITION *101. Origins. *--With the possible exception of the Hungarian Table ofMagnates, the British House of Lords is the most ancient secondchamber among parliamentary bodies. It is, furthermore, among secondchambers the largest and the most purely hereditary. Its descent canbe traced directly from the Great Council of the Plantagenet periodand, in the opinion of some scholars, from the witenagemot ofAnglo-Saxon times. [138] To the Council belonged originally thenobility, and the clergy, greater and lesser. Practically, the bodywas composed of the more influential churchmen and the more powerfultenants-in-chief of the crown. In the course of time the lesser clergyfound it convenient to confine their attention to the proceedings ofthe ecclesiastical assemblage known as Convocation; while the lessernobles, i. E. , the poorer and more uninfluential ones, found it totheir interest to cast in their lot, not as formerly with the greatbarons and earls, but with the well-to-do though non-noble knights ofthe shire. From the elements that remained--the higher clergy and thegreater nobles--developed directly the House of Lords. The lesserbarons, the knights of the shire, and the burgesses, on the otherhand, combined to form the House of Commons. [Footnote 138: "The House of Lords not only springs out of, it actually is, the ancient Witenagemot. I can see no break between the two. " Freeman, Growth of the English Constitution, 62. Professor Freeman, it must be remembered, was prone to glorify Anglo-Saxon institutions and to under-estimate the changes that were introduced in England through the agency of the Norman Conquest. For the most recent statement of the opposing view see Adams, Origin of the English Constitution, Chaps. 1-4. ] *102. Princes of the Blood and Hereditary Peers. *--In respect to itsfundamental constitution the House of Lords has undergone but slightmodification during the many centuries of its existence. In respect, however, to the composition and size of the body changes have beennumerous and important. There are in the chamber to-day at least sixdistinct groups of members, sitting by various rights and possessinga status which is by no means identical. The first comprises (p.  098)princes of the royal blood who are of age. The number of these isvariable, but of course never large. They take precedence of the othernobility, but in point of fact seldom participate in the proceedingsof the Chamber. The second group is the most important of all. Itcomprises the peers with hereditary seats and is itself dividedproperly into three groups: the peers of England created before theunion with Scotland in 1707, the peers of Great Britain createdbetween the date mentioned and the union with Ireland in 1801, and thepeers of the United Kingdom created since that date. Technically, peers are created by the crown; but in practice their creation iscontrolled largely by the premier; and the act may be performed forthe purpose of honoring men of distinction in law, letters, science, or business, or for the more practical purpose of altering thepolitical complexion of the upper chamber. [139] The power to createpeerages is unlimited[140] and, this being the only means by which themembership of the body can be increased at discretion, the power isone which is not infrequently exercised. Originally the right to sitas a peer was conferred simply by an individual writ of summons, or bythe fact that such a writ had been issued to one's ancestor, but thismethod has long since been replaced by a formal grant of letterspatent, accompanied by bestowal of the requisite writ. With exceptionsto be noted, peerages are hereditary, and the heir assumes hisparliamentary seat at the age of twenty-one. Peers are of fiveranks--dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts, and barons. The complicatedrules governing the precedence of these classes are of large social, but of minor political, interest. [Footnote 139: The first peerage bestowed purely in recognition of literary distinction was that of Lord Tennyson in 1884, the peerages bestowed upon Macaulay and Bulwer Lytton having been determined upon in part under the influence of political considerations. The first professional artist to be honored with a peerage was Lord Leighton, in 1896. Lord Kelvin and Lord Lister are among well-known men of science who have been so honored. Lord Goschen's viscountcy was conferred, with universal approval, as the fitting reward of a great business career. The earldom of General Roberts and the viscountcies of Generals Wolseley and Kitchener were bestowed in recognition of military distinction. With some aptness the House of Lords has been denominated "the Westminster Abbey of living celebrities. "] [Footnote 140: Except that, under existing law, the crown cannot (1) create a peer of Scotland, (2) create a peer of Ireland otherwise than as allowed by the Act of Union with Ireland, and (3) direct the devolution of a dignity otherwise than in accordance with limitations applying in the case of grants of real estate. ] *103. Representative Peers of Scotland and of Ireland. *--A third groupof members comprises the representative peers of Scotland. Underprovision of the Act of Union of 1707, when a new parliament issummoned the whole body of Scottish peers elects sixteen of theirnumber to sit as their representatives at Westminster. By custom (p.  099)the election takes place at Holyrood Palace in the city ofEdinburgh. [141] The act of 1707 made no provision for the creation ofScottish peers, with the consequence that, through the extinction ofnoble families and the occasional conferring of a peerage of theUnited Kingdom upon a Scottish peer, the total number of Scottishpeerages has been reduced from 165 to 33. [142] The tenure of aScottish representative peer at Westminster expires with thetermination of a parliament. A fourth group of members is the Irish. By the Act of Union of 1800 it was provided that not all of the peersof Ireland should be accorded seats in the House of Lords, but onlytwenty-eight of them, to be elected for life by the whole number ofIrish peers. The number of Irish peerages was put in the course ofgradual reduction and it is now under the prescribed maximum of onehundred. [143] Unlike the English and Scottish peers, Irish peers, ifnot elected to the House of Lords, may stand for election to the Houseof Commons, though they may not represent Irish constituencies. [144]While members of the Commons, however, they may not be elected to theLords, nor may they participate in the choice of representative peers. [Footnote 141: For a statement of the process of election see Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution (4th ed. ), I. , 219-229. ] [Footnote 142: In 1909. Lowell, Government of England, I. , 395. ] [Footnote 143: The crown was authorized to create one Irish peerage only for every three such peerages that should become extinct. During the thirty years preceding the conferring of an Irish peerage upon Mr. Curzon, in 1898, the creation of Irish peerages was entirely suspended. ] [Footnote 144: Lord Palmerston, for example, was an Irish peer, but sat in the House of Commons. ] *104. The Lords of Appeal. *--A fifth group of members comprises theLords of Appeal in Ordinary, who differ from other peers created bythe crown in that their seats are not hereditary. One of the functionsof the House of Lords is to serve as the highest national court ofappeal. It is but logical that there should be included within themembership of the body a certain number of the most eminent jurists ofthe realm, and, further, that the judicial business of the chambershould be transacted largely by this corps of experts. In 1876 anAppellate Jurisdiction Act was passed authorizing the appointment oftwo (subsequently increased to four) "law lords" with the title ofbaron, and by legislation of 1887 the tenure of these members, hitherto conditioned upon the continued exercise of judicialfunctions, was made perpetual for life. At the present day these fourjustices, presided over by the Lord Chancellor, comprise in realitythe supreme tribunal of the kingdom. Three of them are sufficient toconstitute a quorum for the transaction of judicial business, and (p.  100)although other legal-minded members of the chamber may participate, and technically every member has a right to do so, in most instancesthis inner circle discharges the judicial function quite alone. [145] [Footnote 145: The recognized advisability of strengthening the judicial element in the Lords precipitated at one time a serious issue respecting the power of the crown to create life peerages. In 1856, upon the advice of her ministers, Queen Victoria conferred upon a distinguished judge, Sir James Parke, a patent as Baron Wensleydale for life. The purpose was to introduce into the chamber desirable legal talent without further augmenting the peerage. For the creation of life peerages there was some precedent, but none later than the reign of Henry VI. , and the House of Lords, maintaining that the right had lapsed and that the peerage had become entirely hereditary, refused to admit Baron Wensleydale until his patent was so modified that his peerage was made hereditary. ] *105. The Lords Spiritual. *--Finally, there are the ecclesiasticalmembers--not peers, but "lords spiritual. " In the fifteenth centurythe lords spiritual outnumbered the lords temporal; but upon thedissolution of the monasteries in the reign of Henry VIII. , resultingin the dropping out of the abbots, the spiritual contingent fellpermanently into the minority. At the present day the quota ofecclesiastical members is restricted, under statutory regulation, to26. Scotland, whose established church is the Presbyterian, has none. Between 1801 and 1869 Ireland had four, but since the disestablishmentof the Irish church in 1869 there have been none. In England fiveecclesiastics, by statute, are entitled invariably to seats, i. E. , the archbishops of Canterbury and York and the bishops of London, Durham, and Winchester. Among the remaining bishops the law allowsseats to twenty-one, in the order of seniority. There are always, therefore, some English bishops--in 1909, ten--who are not members ofthe chamber. [146] All ecclesiastical members retain their seats duringtenure of their several sees, but do not, of course, transmit theirrights to their heirs, nor, necessarily, save in the case of the fivementioned, to their successors in office. Bishops and archbishops areelected, nominally, by the dean and chapter of the diocese; but when avacancy arises the sovereign transmits a _congé d'élire_ containingthe name of the person to be elected, so that, practically, appointment is made by the crown, acting under the advice of the primeminister. Bishoprics are created by act of Parliament. [147] [Footnote 146: The Bishop of Sodor and Man is entitled to a seat, but not to take part in the chamber's proceedings. His status has been compared to that of a territorial delegate in the United States. Moran, The English Government, 170. ] [Footnote 147: On the composition of the House of Lords see Lowell, Government of England, I. , Chap. 21; Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, I. , Chap. 5; May and Holland, Constitutional History of England, I. , Chap. 5; Moran, English Government, Chap. 10; Low, Governance of England, Chap. 12; Courtney, Working Constitution of the United Kingdom, Chap. 11; Macy, English Constitution, Chap. 4; Marriott, English Political Institutions, Chaps. 6-7; and Walpole, The Electorate and the Legislature, Chap. 2. The subject is treated in greater detail in Pike, Constitutional History of the House of Lords, especially Chap. 15. ] *106. Qualifications and Number of Members. *--A peer may be (p.  101)prevented from occupying a seat in the chamber by any one of severaldisqualifications. He must have attained the age of twenty-one; hemust not be an alien; he must not be a bankrupt; he must not be undersentence for felony. On the other hand, a man who inherits a peeragecannot renounce the inheritance. Upon more than one occasion this rulehas been a matter of political consequence, for its operation hassometimes meant that an able and ambitious commoner has been compelledto surrender his seat in the more important chamber and to assume awholly undesired place in the upper house. In 1895 Mr. William W. Palmer, later Lord Selbourne, inheriting a peerage but desiring tocontinue for a time in the Commons, put this rule to a definite testby neglecting to apply for a writ of summons as a peer. The decisionof the Commons, however, was that he was obligated to acceptmembership in the upper chamber, and hence to yield the place which heoccupied in the lower. The House of Lords numbers to-day 620 members. In earlier periods ofits history it was a very much smaller body, and, indeed, its mostnotable growth has taken place within the past one hundred and fiftyyears. During the reign of Henry VII. There were never more thaneighty members, the majority of whom were ecclesiastics. To the firstparliament of Charles II. There were summoned 139 persons. At thedeath of William III. The roll of the upper chamber comprised 192names. At the death of Queen Anne the number was 209: at that ofGeorge I. It was 216; at that of George II. , 229; at that of GeorgeIII. , 339; at that of George IV. , 396; at that of William IV. , 456. Between 1830 and 1898 there were conferred 364 peerages--222 underLiberal ministries (covering, in the aggregate, forty years) and 142under the Conservatives (covering twenty-seven years). More thanone-half of the peerages of to-day have been created within the pastfifty years, and of the remainder only an insignificant proportion canbe termed ancient. II. THE REFORM OF THE LORDS: THE QUESTION PRIOR TO 1909 *107. The Status of the Chamber. *--As a law-making body the House ofLords antedates the House of Commons. At the beginning of thefourteenth century the theory was that the magnates assented tolegislation while the Commons merely petitioned for it. In a statuteof 1322, however, the legislative character of Parliament as a (p.  102)whole was effectively recognized, and at the same time the legislativeparity of the commons with the magnates. Thenceforth, until verynearly the present day, the two chambers were legally co-ordinate andevery act of legislation required the assent of both. It is true thatduring the course of the nineteenth century there was a remarkablegrowth of legislative preponderance on the part of the House ofCommons, until, indeed, the point was reached where all importantmeasures were first presented in that chamber and the Lords were verycertain not to thwart the ultimate adoption of any project of whichthe nation as represented in the popular branch unmistakably approved. Yet upon numerous occasions bills, and sometimes--as in the case ofGladstone's Home Rule Bill in 1893--highly important ones, weredefeated outright; and at all times the chamber imposed a check uponthe lower house and exercised a powerful influence upon the actualcourse of legislative business. Under the provisions of the act of1911, however, the status and the legislative functions of the Houseof Lords have been profoundly altered, and an adequate understandingof the workings of the British parliament to-day requires some reviewof the changes wrought by that remarkable piece of legislation. Throughout upwards of a century the "mending or ending" of the Lordshas been among the most widely discussed of public issues in theUnited Kingdom. The question has been principally one of "mending, "for the number of persons who have advocated seriously the totalabolition of the chamber has been small and their influence has beenslight. The utility of a second chamber, in a democratic no less thanin an illiberal constitutional system, is very generallyadmitted, [148] and no one supposes that the House of Lords will everbe swept completely out of existence to make room for theestablishment of a new and entirely different parliamentary body. Ifit were to devolve upon the people of Great Britain to-day to adoptfor themselves _de novo_ a complete governmental system, they mightwell not incorporate in that system an institution of the nature ofthe present House of Lords; but since the chamber exists and is rootedin centuries of national usage and tradition, the perpetuation of it, in some form, may be taken to be assured. [Footnote 148: There are, of course, Englishmen who concur in the dictum of Sieyès that "if a second chamber dissents from the first, it is mischievous; if it agrees, it is superfluous. " An able exponent of this doctrine, within recent years, is Sir Charles Dilke. ] *108. The Breach Between the Lords and the Nation. *--The indictmentswhich have been brought against the House of Lords have been sweepingand varied. They have been based upon the all but exclusivelyhereditary character of the membership, upon the meagerness of (p.  103)attendance at the sittings and the small interest displayed by amajority of the members, and upon the hurried and frequentlyperfunctory nature of the consideration which is accorded publicmeasures. Fundamentally, however, the tremendous attack which has beenlevelled against the Lords has had as its impetus the conviction oflarge masses of people that the chamber as constituted standspersistently and deliberately for interests which are not those of thenation at large. Prior to the parliamentary reforms of the nineteenthcentury the House of Commons was hardly more representative of thepeople than was the upper chamber. Both were controlled by the landedaristocracy, and between the two there was as a rule substantialaccord. After 1832, however, the territorial interests, while yetpowerful, were not dominant in the Commons, and a cleavage between theLords, on the one hand, and the Commons, increasingly representativeof the mass of the nation, on the other, became a serious factor inthe politics and government of the realm. The reform measures of 1867and 1884, establishing in substance a system of manhood suffrage inparliamentary elections, converted the House of Commons into an organof thoroughgoing democracy. The development of the cabinet systembrought the working executive, likewise, within the power of thepeople to control. But the House of Lords underwent no correspondingtransformation. It remained, and still is, an inherently andnecessarily conservative body, representative, in the main, of theinterests of landed property, adverse to changes which seem to menaceproperty and established order, and identified with all the forcesthat tend to perpetuate the nobility and the Anglican Church aspillars of the state. By simply standing still while the remainingdepartments of the governmental system were undergoing democratizationthe second chamber became, in effect, a political anomaly. [149] [Footnote 149: Dickinson, Development of Parliament during the Nineteenth Century, Chap. 3. ] *109. Earlier Projects of Reform. *--Projects for the reform of the Lordswere not unknown before 1832, but it has been since that date, and, more particularly during the past half-century, that the reformquestion has been agitated most vigorously. Some of the notableproposals that have been made relate to the composition of thechamber, others to the powers and functions of it, and still others toboth of these things. In respect to the composition of the body, thesuggestions that have been brought forward have contemplated mostcommonly the reduction of the chamber's size, the dropping out of theecclesiastical members, and the substitution, wholly or in part, ofspecially designated members in the stead of the members who at presentsit by hereditary right. As early as 1834 it was advocated that (p.  104)the archbishops and bishops of the Established Church should "berelieved from their legislative and judicial duties, " and this demand, arising principally from the Non-conformists, has been voicedrepeatedly in later years. In 1835 the opposition of the peers tomeasures passed by the Commons incited a storm of popular disapprovalof such proportions that more than one of the members of the chambergloomily predicted the early demolition of the body, and throughoutsucceeding decades the idea took increasing hold, within themembership as well as without, that change was inevitable. In 1869 abill of Lord Russell providing for the gradual infiltration of lifepeers was defeated on the third reading, and in the same year aproject of Earl Grey, and in 1874 proposals of Lord Rosebery and LordInchiquin, came to naught. The rejection by the Lords of measuressupported by Gladstone's government in 1881-1883 brought the chamberafresh into popular disfavor, and in 1884 Lord Rosebery introduced amotion "that a select committee be appointed to consider the bestmeans of promoting the efficiency of this House, " with the thoughtthat there might be brought into the chamber representatives of thenation at large, and even of the laboring classes. The motion wasrejected overwhelmingly, but in 1888 it was renewed, and in that yearthe Salisbury government introduced two reform bills, one providingfor the gradual creation of fifty life peerages, to be conferred uponmen of attainment in law, diplomacy, and administrative service, andthe other (popularly known as the "Black Sheep Bill") providing forthe discontinuance of writs of summons to undesirable members of thepeerage. The bills, however, were withdrawn after their second readingand an attempt on the part of Lord Carnarvon, in 1889, to revive thesecond of them failed. *110. The Lords and the Liberal Government, 1906-1907. *--Thence-forwarduntil 1907 the issue was largely quiescent. During a considerableportion of this period the Unionist party was in power, and betweenthe upper chamber, four-fifths of whose members were Unionists, andthe Unionist majority in the Commons substantial harmony was easilymaintained. During the Liberal administration of 1893-1894 the Lordsrejected Gladstone's second Home Rule Bill and mutilated and defeatedother measures; but, although the Liberal leaders urged that the willof the people had been frustrated, the appeal for second chamberreform failed utterly to strike fire. With the establishment of theCampbell-Bannerman ministry, in December, 1905, the Liberals enteredupon what has proved a prolonged tenure of power and the issue of theLords was brought again inevitably into the forefront of publiccontroversy. In consequence of the Lords' insistence upon an amendmentof the fundamentals of the Government's Education Bill, late in (p.  105)1906, and the openly manifested disposition of the Unionist upper chamberto obstruct the Liberal programme in a variety of directions, [150] thewarfare between the houses once more assumed threatening proportions. A resolution introduced by the premier June 24, 1907, was adopted inthe Commons after a three days' debate by a vote of 385 to 100, asfollows: "That, in order to give effect to the will of the people asexpressed by elected representatives it is necessary that the power ofthe other House to alter or reject bills passed by this House shall beso restricted by law as to secure that within the limits of a singleparliament the final decision of the Commons shall prevail. " It wasannounced that a bill carrying into effect the substance of thisdeclaration would be introduced, and it was understood that theGovernment's plan contemplated a reduction of the maximum life of aparliament from seven years to five and the institution of a system ofconference committees whereby agreement might be effected uponoccasion between the two houses, reserving the eventual right of theCommons, after a third rejection by the Lords, to enact a measure intolaw alone. Preoccupied, however, with projects of general legislation, the Government postponed and eventually abandoned the introduction ofits bill. [Footnote 150: Notably in respect to legislation abolishing the plural vote and regulating the liquor traffic. The Lords rejected a Plural Voting Bill and an Aliens Bill in 1906, a Land Values Bill in 1907, and a Licensing Bill in 1908. In the interest of accuracy it should be observed that during the first session of 1906 a total of 121 bills became law, that only four (including the Education Bill) passed by the Commons were rejected by the Lords, and that fifteen passed by the Lords were rejected in the Commons. The proportions at most sessions during the period under review were substantially similar. But, of course, measures rejected by the Lords were likely to be those in which the interest of the Liberal government was chiefly centered. ] In the upper chamber a measure introduced by Lord Newton, providingfor (1) a reduction of the hereditary element by requiring that a peerby descent alone should have a right to sit only if he were elected(for a single parliament) as a representative peer or possessed otherstipulated qualifications and (2) the appointment by the crown of amaximum of one hundred life peers, was discussed at some length. Thebill was withdrawn, but it was decided to create a Select Committee onthe House of Lords, under the chairmanship of Lord Rosebery, and inDecember, 1908, this committee reported a scheme of reform inaccordance with which (1) a peerage alone should not entitle theholder to a seat in the chamber; (2) the hereditary peers, includingthose of Scotland and Ireland, should elect two hundred representativesto sit in the upper house for each parliament; (3) hereditary peerswho had occupied certain posts of eminence in the government and thearmy and navy should be entitled to sit without election; (4) the (p.  106)bishops should elect eight representatives, while the archbishopsshould sit as of right; and (5) the crown should be empowered tosummon four life peers annually, so long as the total did not exceedforty. This series of proposals failed utterly to meet the Liberaldemand and no action was taken upon it. But it is to be noted that theLords' Reconstruction Bill of 1911, to be described presently, wasbased in no small measure upon information and recommendationsforthcoming from the Rosebery committee. [151] [Footnote 151: May and Holland, Constitutional History of England, III. , 343-349. For references on the general subject of the reform of the Lords see pp. 115-116. ] III. THE QUESTION OF THE LORDS, 1909-1911 *111. The Lords and Money Bills. *--In November, 1909, the issue wasreopened in an unexpected manner by the Lords' rejection of theGovernment's Finance Bill, in which were included far-reachingproposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Lloyd-George, respecting the readjustment of national taxation. This act of theupper chamber, while not contrary to positive law, contravened in soserious a manner long established custom that it was declared by thosewho opposed it to be in effect revolutionary. Certainly the result wasto precipitate an alteration of first-rate importance in theconstitution of the kingdom. The priority of the Commons within thedomain of finance was established at an early period of parliamentaryhistory; and priority, in time, was converted into thoroughgoingdominance. As early as 1407 Henry IV. Recognized the principle thatmoney grants should be initiated in the Commons, assented to by theLords, and subsequently reported to the crown. This procedure was notalways observed, but after the resumption by the two houses of theirnormal functions following the Restoration in 1660 the right of thecommoners to take precedence in fiscal business was forcefully andcontinuously asserted. In 1671 the Commons resolved "that in all aidsgiven to the king by the Commons, the rate or tax ought not to bealtered by the Lords, " and a resolution of 1678 reaffirmed that allbills granting supplies "ought to begin with the Commons. " At no timedid the Lords admit formally the validity of these principles; but, byrefusing to consider fiscal measures originated in the upper chamberand to accept financial amendments there proposed, the Commonssuccessfully enforced observance of them. The rules in this connection upon which the Commons insisted have beensummarized as follows: (1) The Lords ought not to initiate any (p.  107)legislative proposal embodied in a public bill and imposing a chargeon the people, whether by taxes, rates, or otherwise, or regulatingthe administration or application of money raised by such a charge, and (2) the Lords ought not to amend any such legislative proposal byaltering the amount of a charge, or its incidence, duration, mode ofassessment, levy or collection, or the administration or applicationof money raised by such a charge. [152] These rules, although notembodied in any law or standing order, were through centuries sogenerally observed in the usage of the two houses that they became forall practical purposes, a part of the constitutional system--conventional, it is true, but none the less binding. From their observance itresulted (1) that the upper chamber was never consulted about theannual estimates, about the amounts of money to be raised, or aboutthe purposes to which those amounts should be appropriated; (2) thatproposals of taxation came before it only in matured form and undercircumstances which discouraged criticism; and (3) that, since thepolicy of the executive is controlled largely through the medium ofthe power of the purse, the upper house lost entirely the means ofexercising such control. In 1860 the Lords, as has been mentioned, made bold to reject a bill for the repeal of the duties on paper; butthe occasion was seized by the Commons to pass a resolutionreaffirming vigorously the subordination of the second chamber infinance, and the next year the repeal of the paper duties wasincorporated in the annual budget and forced through. Thereafter itbecame the invariable practice to give place to all proposals oftaxation in the one grand Finance Bill of the year, with the effect, of course, of depriving the Lords of the opportunity to defeat aproposal of the kind save by rejecting the whole of the measure ofwhich it formed a part. [153] [Footnote 152: Ilbert, Parliament, 205. ] [Footnote 153: It was in pursuance of this policy that Sir William Vernon-Harcourt incorporated in the Finance Bill of 1894, extensive changes in the death duties and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, in 1899, included proposals for altering the permanent provisions made for the reduction of the national debt. ] *112. The Finance Bill of 1909 and the Asquith Resolutions. *--Therejection of the Finance Bill in 1909, [154] following as it did therejection of other important measures which the Liberal majority inthe Commons had approved, raised in an acute form the question of thepower of the Lords over money bills and precipitated a crisis in (p.  108)the relations between the two houses. On the one hand the House ofCommons adopted, by a vote of 349 to 134, a memorable resolution tothe effect that "the action of the House of Lords in refusing to passinto law the provision made by the House of Commons for the financesof the year is a breach of the constitution, and a usurpation of theprivileges of the House of Commons"; and, on the other, the Asquithministry came instantly to the decision that the situation demanded anappeal to the country. In January, 1910, a general election tookplace, with the result that the Government was continued in power, though with a reduced majority; and at the convening of the newparliament, in February, the Speech from the Throne promised thatproposals should speedily be submitted "to define the relationsbetween the houses of Parliament, so as to secure the undividedauthority of the House of Commons over finance, and its predominancein legislation. " The Finance Bill of the year was reintroduced andthis time successfully carried through; but in advance of itsreappearance the premier laid before the House of Commons a series ofresolutions to the following effect:[155] (1) that the House of Lordsshould be disabled by law from rejecting or amending a money bill; (2)that the power of the chamber to veto other bills should be restrictedby law; and (3) that the duration of a parliament should be limited toa maximum period of five years. During the course of the debate uponthese resolutions it was made clear that the Government did not desirethe abolition of the Lords, but wished merely to have the legislativecompetence of the house confined to consultation, revision, and, subject to proper safeguards, delay. April 14, 1910, the resolutionswere adopted in the Commons by substantial majorities, [156] and withthem as a basis the Government proceeded with the framing of its billupon the subject. [Footnote 154: Strictly, the Lords declined to assent to the Budget until it should have been submitted to the judgment of the people. On the nature of the Government's finance proposals see May and Holland, Constitutional History of England, III. , 350-355; G. L. Fox, The British Budget of 1909, in _Yale Review_, Feb. , 1910; and D. Lloyd-George, The People's Budget (London, 1909), containing extracts from the Chancellor's speeches on the subject. ] [Footnote 155: The Finance Bill passed its third reading in the House of Commons April 27, was passed in the Lords April 28, without division, and received the royal assent April 29. ] [Footnote 156: The votes on the three resolutions were, respectively, 339 to 237, 351 to 246, and 334 to 236. ] Meanwhile, March 14, there had been introduced in the House of Lordsby Lord Rosebery an independent series of resolutions, as follows: (1)that a strong and efficient second chamber is not merely a part of theBritish constitution but is necessary to the well-being of the stateand the balance of Parliament; (2) that such a chamber may best beobtained by the reform and reconstitution of the House of Lords; and(3) that a necessary preliminary to such a reform and reconstitutionis the acceptance of the principle that the possession of a peerageshould no longer of itself involve the right to sit and vote in (p.  109)the House. The first two of these resolutions were agreed to withoutdivision; the third, although vigorously opposed, was carriedeventually by a vote of 175 to 17. *113. The Unionists and the Referendum. *--The death of the king, May 6, halted consideration of the subject, and through the succeeding summerhope was centered in a "constitutional conference" participated in byeight representatives of the two houses and of the two principalparties. A total of twenty-one meetings were held, but all effort toreach an agreement proved futile and at the reassembling ofParliament, November 15, the problem was thrown back for solution uponthe houses and the country. November 17 there was carried in theLords, without division, a new resolution introduced by Lord Roseberyto the effect that in future the House of Lords should consist ofLords of Parliament in part chosen by the whole body of hereditarypeers from among themselves and by nomination of the crown, in partsitting by virtue of offices held and qualifications possessed, and inpart designated from outside the ranks of the peerage. A few dayssubsequently, the Government's Parliament Bill having been presentedin the second chamber (November 21), Lord Lansdowne, leader of theOpposition in that chamber, came forward with a fresh series ofresolutions designed to clarify the Unionist position in anticipationof the elections which were announced for the ensuing month. Withrespect to money bills it was declared that the Lords were "preparedto forego their constitutional right to reject or amend money billswhich are purely financial in character, " provided that adequateprovision should be made against tacking, that questions as to whethera bill or any provision thereof were purely financial should bereferred to a joint committee of the two houses (the Speaker of theCommons presiding and possessing a casting vote), and that a billdecided by such a committee to be not purely financial should be dealtwith in a joint sitting of the two houses. With respect to allmeasures other than those thus provided for the resolutions declaredthat "if a difference arises between the two houses with regard to anybill other than a money bill in two successive sessions, and with aninterval of not less than one year, and such difference cannot beadjusted by any other means, it shall be settled in a joint sittingcomposed of members of the two houses; provided that if the differencerelates to a matter which is of great gravity, and has not beenadequately submitted for the judgment of the people, it shall not bereferred to the joint sitting, but shall be submitted for decision tothe electors by referendum. " It will be observed that these resolutionswere hardly less drastic than were those carried through the (p.  110)Commons by the ministry. Their adoption involved the abolition of theabsolute veto of the second chamber and might well involve theintrusting of interests which the peers held dear to the hazards of anation-wide referendum. [157] None the less, the resolutions wereagreed to without division, and, both parties having in effectpronounced the existing legislative system unsatisfactory, theelectorate was asked to choose between the two elaborate substitutesthus proposed. [Footnote 157: For the growth of the idea of the referendum see H. W. Horwill, The Referendum in Great Britain, in _Political Science Quarterly_, Sept. , 1911. ] *114. The Enactment of the Parliament Bill, 1911. *--The appeal to thecountry, in December, yielded results all but exactly identical withthose of the elections of the previous January. The Government secureda majority of 127, and in the new parliament, which met February 6, the Parliament Bill was reintroduced without alteration. On the groundthat the measure had been submitted specifically to the people and hadbeen approved by them, the ministry demanded its early enactment bythe two houses. May 15 the bill passed its third reading in theCommons by a vote of 362 to 241. During the committee stage upwards ofone thousand amendments were suggested. But the Government stood firmfor the instrument as originally drawn and, while it accepted a fewincidental changes, in the end it got essentially its own way. Meanwhile, early in May, Lord Lansdowne introduced in the upperchamber a comprehensive bill which put in form for legislation theprogramme of reconstruction to which the more moderate elements inthat chamber were ready, under the circumstances, to subscribe. TheLansdowne Reconstruction Bill proposed, at the outset, a reduction ofthe membership of the chamber to 350. Princes of the blood and the twoarchbishops should retain membership, but the number of bishops entitledto sit should be reduced to five, these to be chosen triennially bythe whole body of higher prelates upon the principle of proportionalrepresentation. The remainder of the membership should comprise lordsof parliament, as follows: (1) 100 elected from the peers possessingcarefully stipulated qualifications, for a term of twelve years, onthe principle of proportional representation, by the whole body ofhereditary peers (including the Scotch and Irish), one-fourth of thenumber retiring triennially; (2) 120 members chosen by electoral collegescomposed of members of the House of Commons divided for the purposeinto local groups, each returning from three to twelve, under conditionsof tenure similar to those prevailing in the first class; and (3) 100appointed, from the peerage or outside, by the crown on nomination bythe premier, with regard to the strength of parties in the House (p.  111)of Commons, and under the before-mentioned conditions of tenure. Itwas stipulated, further, that peers not sitting in the House of Lordsshould be eligible for election to the House of Commons, and that, except in event of the "indispensable" elevation of a cabinet ministeror ex-minister to the peerage, it should be unlawful for the crown toconfer the dignity of an hereditary peerage upon more than fivepersons during the course of any single year. This body of proposals, it will be observed, related exclusively tothe _composition_ of the upper chamber. The Liberal leaders preferredto approach the problem from the other side and to assure thepreponderance of the Commons by the imposition of positiverestrictions upon the _powers_ which the Lords, under givenconditions, might exercise. Lord Lansdowne's bill--sadly characterizedby its author as the "deathblow to the House of Lords, as many of ushave known it for so long"--came too late, and the chamber, afterallowing it to be read a second time without division, was constrainedto drop it for the Government's measure. July 20 the Parliament Bill, amended in such a manner as to exclude from its operation legislationaffecting the constitution and other matters of "great gravity, " wasadopted without division. The proposed amendments were highlyobjectionable to the Liberals and, relying upon an understandingentered into with the king during the previous November relative tothe creation of peers favorable to the Government's programme, theministry let it be understood that no compromise upon essentials couldbe considered. [158] Confronted with the prospect of a wholesale"swamping, "[159] the Opposition fell back upon the policy ofabstention and, although a considerable number of "last-ditchers" heldout to the end, a group of Unionists adequate to carry the measurejoined the supporters of the Government, August 10, in a vote not toinsist upon the Lords' amendments, which meant, in effect, to approvethe bill as adopted in the lower house. [160] The royal assent wasextended August 18. [Footnote 158: When, July 24, Premier Asquith rose in the Commons to reply to the Lords' amendments there resulted such confusion that for the first time in generations, save upon one occasion in 1905, the Speaker was obliged to adjourn a sitting on account of the disorderly conduct of members. ] [Footnote 159: Had the Unionists maintained to the end their attitude of opposition the number of peers which would have had to be created to ensure the enactment of the bill would have been some 400. ] [Footnote 160: The final vote in the Lords was 131 to 114. The Unionist peers who voted with the Government numbered 37. ] IV. THE PARLIAMENT ACT OF 1911 AND AFTER (p.  112) *115. Provisions Relating to Money Bills. *--In its preamble theParliament Act promises further legislation which will define both thecomposition and the powers of a second chamber "constituted on apopular instead of an hereditary basis"; but the act itself relatesexclusively to the powers of the chamber as it is at presentconstituted. The general purport of the measure is to define theconditions under which, while the normal methods of legislation remainunchanged, financial bills and proposals of general legislation maynevertheless be enacted into law without the concurrence of the upperhouse. The first signal provision is that a public bill passed by theHouse of Commons and certified by the Speaker to be, within the termsof the act, a "money bill" shall, unless the Commons direct to thecontrary, become an act of Parliament on the royal assent beingsignified, notwithstanding that the House of Lords may not haveconsented to the bill, within one month after it shall have been sentup to that house. A money bill is defined as "a public bill which, inthe judgment of the Speaker, contains only provisions dealing with allor any of the following subjects: the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the paymentof debt or other financial purposes of charges on the ConsolidatedFund, or on money provided by Parliament, or the variation or repealof any such charges; supply; the appropriation, receipt, custody, issue or audit of accounts of public money; the raising or guaranteeof any loan or the payment thereof; or subordinate matters incidentalto those subjects or any of them. " A certificate of the Speaker givenunder this act is made conclusive for all purposes. It may not bequestioned in any court of law. [161] [Footnote 161: An incidental effect of the act is to exalt the power and importance of the Speaker, although it should be observed that the Speaker has long been accustomed to state at the introduction of a public bill whether in his judgment the rights or privileges claimed by the House of Commons in respect to finance had been infringed. If he were of the opinion that there had been infringement, it remained for the House to determine whether it would insist upon or waive its privilege Ilbert, Parliament, 207. ] *116. Provisions Relating to Other Public Bills. *--The secondfundamental stipulation is that any other public bill (except one toconfirm a provisional order or one to extend the maximum duration ofParliament beyond five years) which is passed by the House of Commonsin three successive sessions, whether or not of the same parliament, and which, having been sent up to the House of Lords at least one (p.  113)month, in each case, before the end of the session, is rejected bythat chamber in each of those sessions, shall, unless the House ofCommons direct to the contrary, become an act of Parliament on theroyal assent being signified thereto, notwithstanding the fact thatthe House of Lords has not consented to the bill. It is required thatat least two years shall have elapsed between the date of the secondreading of such a bill (i. E. , the first real opportunity for itsdiscussion) in the first of these sessions of the House of Commons andthe final passage of the bill in the third of the sessions. To comewithin the provisions of this act the measure must be, at its initialand its final appearances, the "same bill;" that is, it must exhibitno alterations save such as are rendered necessary by the lapse oftime. And a bill is to be construed to be "rejected" by the Lords ifit is not passed, or if amendments are introduced to which the Houseof Commons does not agree, or which the House of Commons does notsuggest to the House of Lords at the second or third passage of thebill. *117. Effects of the Act. *--By the provisions which have been enumeratedthe co-ordinate and independent position which, in law if not in fact, the British upper chamber, as a legislative body, has occupied throughthe centuries has been effectually subverted. Within the domain oflegislation, it is true, the Lords may yet exercise influence of noinconsiderable moment. To the chamber must be submitted every projectof finance and of legislation which it is proposed to enact into law, and there is still nothing save a certain measure of custom to preventthe introduction of even the most important of non-financial measuresfirst of all in that house. But a single presentation of any moneybill fulfills the legal requirement and ensures that the measure willbecome law. For such a bill will not be presented until it has beenpassed by the Commons, and, emanating from the cabinet, it will not beintroduced in that chamber until the assent of the executive isassured. The upper house is allowed one month in which to approve orto reject, but, so far as the enactment of the bill is concerned, theresult is the same in any case. Upon ordinary legislation the House ofLords possesses still a veto--a veto, however, which is no longerabsolute but only suspensive. The conditions which are required forthe enactment of non-fiscal legislation without the concurrence of theLords are not easy to bring about, but their realization is not at allan impossibility. By the repeated rejection of proposed measures theLords may influence public sentiment or bring about otherwise a changeof circumstances and thus compass the defeat of the original intent ofthe Commons, and this is the more possible since a minimum period oftwo years is required to elapse before a non-fiscal measure can be (p.  114)carried over the Lords' veto. But the continuity of politicalalignments and of legislative policy is normally such in Great Britainthat the remarkable legislative precedence which has been accorded theCommons must mean in effect little less than absolute law-makingauthority. *118. Possible Further Changes and the Difficulties Involved. *--What thefuture holds in store for the House of Lords cannot be discerned. TheParliament Act, as has been pointed out, promises further legislationwhich will define both the composition and the powers of a secondchamber constituted on a popular instead of an hereditary basis; butno steps have as yet (1912) been taken publicly in this direction, norhas any authoritative announcement of purpose been made. [162] ManyEnglishmen to-day are of the opinion that, as John Bright declared, "ahereditary House of Lords is not and cannot be perpetual in a freecountry. " None the less, it is recognized that the chamber as it is atpresent constituted contains a large number of conscientious, eminent, and able men, that upon numerous occasions the body has imposed awholesome check upon the popular branch, and that sometimes it hasinterpreted the will of the nation more correctly than has the popularbranch itself. The most reasonable programme of reform would seem tobe, not a total reconstitution of the chamber upon a non-hereditarybasis, but (1) the adoption of the Rosebery principle that thepossession of a peerage shall not of itself entitle the possessor tosit, (2) the admission to membership of a considerable number ofpersons representative of the whole body of peers, and (3) theintroduction of a goodly quota of life peers, appointed by reason oflegal attainments, governmental experience, and other qualities offitness and eminence. [163] [Footnote 162: The Parliament Act is the handiwork, of course, of the Liberal party, and only that party is likely to acknowledge the obligation to follow up the reform of the Lords which the measure imposes. But the Unionists may be regarded as committed by Lord Lansdowne's bill to some measure of popularization of the chamber. ] [Footnote 163: During the discussions of 1910 an interesting suggestion was offered (April 25) by Lord Wemyss to the effect that the representative character of the chamber should be given emphasis by the admission of three members designated by each of some twenty-one commercial, professional, and educational societies of the kingdom, such as the Royal Academy of Arts, the Society of Engineers, the Shipping Federation, and the Royal Institute of British Architects. ] It is to be observed, however, that neither this programme nor anyother that can be offered, unless it be that of popular election, affords much ground upon which to hope for harmonious relationsbetween the upper chamber and a Liberal Government. The House ofLords--_any_ House of Lords in which members sit for life or inheredity--is inevitably conservative in its political tendencies (p.  115)and sympathies, which means, as conditions are to-day, that thechamber is certain to be dominated by adherents of the Unionist party. History shows that even men who are appointed to the upper house asLiberals become adherents almost invariably, in time, of Unionism. Theconsequence is that, while a Unionist administration is certain tohave the support of a working majority in both of the houses, aLiberal government cannot expect ever to find itself in the ascendancyin the Lords. Its measures will be easy to carry in the lower housebut difficult or impossible to carry in the upper one. This was thecentral fact in the situation from which sprang the Parliament Act of1911. By this piece of legislation the Liberals sought to provide forthemselves a mode of escape from the _impasse_ in which the oppositionof the Lords so frequently has involved them. The extent, however, towhich the arrangements effected will fulfill the purpose for whichthey were intended remains to be ascertained. [164] "An upper house ina true parliamentary system, " says Lowell, "cannot be brought intoconstant accord with the dominant party of the day without destroyingits independence altogether; and to make the House of Lords a meretool in the hands of every cabinet would be well-nigh impossible andpolitically absurd. "[165] Therein must be adjudged still to lie (p.  116)the essential dilemma of English politics. [Footnote 164: The literature of the question of second chamber reform in England is voluminous and but a few of the more important titles can be mentioned here. The subject is discussed briefly in Lowell, Government of England, I. , Chap. 22; Moran, English Government, Chap. 11; Low, Governance of England, Chap. 13; and H. W. V. Temperley, Senates and Upper Chambers (London, 1910), Chap. 5. Important books include W. C. Macpherson, The Baronage and the Senate; or the House of Lords in the Past, the Present, and the Future (London, 1893); T. A. Spalding, The House of Lords: a Retrospect and a Forecast (London, 1894); J. W. Wylie, The House of Lords (London, 1908); W. S. McKechnie, The Reform of the House of Lords (Glasgow, 1909); W. L. Wilson, The Case for the House of Lords (London, 1910); and J. H. Morgan, The House of Lords and the Constitution (London, 1910). Of these, the first constitutes one of the most forceful defenses and the second one of the most incisive criticisms of the upper chamber that have been written. A brief review by an able French writer is A. Esmein, La Chambre des Lords et la démocratie (Paris, 1910). Among articles in periodicals may be mentioned H. W. Horwill, The Problem of The House of Lords, in _Political Science Quarterly_, March, 1908; E. Porritt, The Collapse of the Movement against the Lords, in _North American Review_, June, 1908; ibid. , Recent and Pending Constitutional Changes in England, in _American Political Science Review_, May, 1910; J. L. Garvin, The British Elections and their Meaning, in _Fortnightly Review_, Feb. , 1910; J. A. R. Marriott, The Constitutional Crisis, in _Nineteenth Century_, Jan. , 1910. A readable sketch is A. L. P. Dennis, Impressions of British Party Politics, 1909-1911, in _American Political Science Review_, Nov. , 1911; and the best accounts of the Parliament Act and of its history are: Dennis, The Parliament Act of 1911, ibid. , May and Aug. , 1912; May and Holland, Constitutional History of England, III. , 343-384; Lowell, Government of England (rev. Ed. , New York, 1912), Chap. 23a; _Annual Register_ for the years 1910 and 1911; M. Sibert, Le vote du Parliament Act, in _Revue du Droit Public_, Jan. -March, 1912; and La réforme de la Chambre des Lords, ibid. , July-Sept. , 1912. A book of some value is C. T. King, The Asquith Parliament, 1906-1909; a Popular Sketch of its Men and its Measures (London, 1910). ] [Footnote 165: Government of England, I. , 418-419. ] CHAPTER VI (p.  117) PARLIAMENT: ORGANIZATION, FUNCTIONS, PROCEDURE I. THE ASSEMBLING OF THE CHAMBERS *119. Sessions. *--Parliament is required by statute to meet at leastonce in three years;[166] but, by reason of the enormous pressure ofbusiness and, in particular, the custom which forbids the voting ofsupplies for a period longer than one year, meetings are, in point offact, annual. A session begins ordinarily near the first of Februaryand continues, with brief adjournments at holiday seasons, untilAugust or September. It is required that the two houses shallinvariably be summoned together. Either may adjourn without the other, and the crown can compel an adjournment of neither. A prorogation, which brings a session to a close, and a dissolution, which brings theexistence of a parliament to an end, must be ordered for the twohouses conjointly. Both take place technically at the command of thecrown, actually upon the decision of the ministry. A prorogation is toa specified date, and it terminates all pending business; but thereassembling of the houses may be either postponed or hastened byroyal proclamation. [Footnote 166: Triennial Act of December 22, 1694. ] *120. The Opening of a Parliament. *--At the beginning of a session themembers of the two houses gather first of all in their respectivechambers. The commoners are summoned thereupon to the chamber of theLords, where the letters patent authorizing the session are read andthe Lord Chancellor makes known the desire of the crown that theCommons proceed with the choosing of a Speaker. The Commons withdrawto attend to this matter, and on the next day the newly electedofficial, accompanied by the members, presents himself at the bar ofthe House of Lords, announces his election, and, through the LordChancellor, receives the royal approbation. Having demanded andreceived guarantee of the "ancient and undoubted rights and privilegesof the Commons, " the Speaker and the members then retire to their ownquarters, where the necessary oaths are administered. If, as is notunusual, the king meets Parliament in person, he goes in state, (p.  118)probably the next day, to the House of Lords and takes his seat uponthe throne, and the Lord Chamberlain is instructed to desire theGentleman Usher of the Black Rod to _command_ the attendance once moreof the Commons. If the sovereign does not attend, the LordsCommissioners bid the Usher to _desire_ the Commons' presence. In anycase, the commoners present themselves and the king (or, in hisabsence, the Lord Chancellor) reads the Speech from the Throne, inwhich is communicated succinctly the nature of the business to whichattention is to be directed. Following the retirement of thesovereign, the Commons again withdraw, the Throne Speech is reread andan address in reply voted in each house, and the Government begins theintroduction of fiscal and legislative proposals. In the event that asession is not the first one of a parliament, the election of aSpeaker and the administration of oaths are omitted. [167] [Footnote 167: On the ceremonies involved in the opening, adjournment, prorogation, and dissolution of a parliament see Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, I. , 61-77; J. Redlich, The Procedure of the House of Commons; a Study of its History and Present Form, trans. By A. E. Steinthal, 3 vols. (London, 1908), II. , 51-67; T. E. May, Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of Parliament (11th ed. , London, 1906), Chap. 7; A. Wright and P. Smith, Parliament, Past and Present, 2 vols. (London, 1902), II. , Chap. 25; MacDonaugh, The Book of Parliament, 96-114, 132-147, 184-203; and H. Graham, The Mother of Parliaments (Boston, 1911), 135-157. ] *121. The Palace of Westminster. *--From the beginning of parliamentaryhistory the meeting-place of the houses has been regularlyWestminster, on the left bank of the Thames. The last parliament whichsat at any other spot was the third Oxford Parliament of Charles II. , in 1681. The Palace of Westminster, in mediæval times outside, thoughnear, the principal city of the kingdom, was long the most importantof the royal residences, and it was natural that its great halls andchambers, together with the adjoining abbey, should be utilizedhabitually for parliamentary sittings. Of the enormous structure knownas Westminster to-day (still, technically, a royal palace, though nota royal residence), practically all portions save old Westminster Hallwere constructed after the fire of 1834. The Lords first occupiedtheir present quarters in 1847 and the Commons theirs in 1850. [168] [Footnote 168: MacDonaugh, The Book of Parliament, 79-95; Graham, The Mother of Parliaments, 60-80; Wright and Smith, Parliament, Past and Present, I. , Chaps. 11-13. The classic history of the old Palace of Westminster is E. W. Brayley and J. Britton, History of the Ancient Palace and Late Houses of Parliament at Westminster (London, 1836). ] *122. The Chambers of the Commons and the Lords. *--From opposite sidesof a central lobby corridors lead to the halls in which the sittingsof the two bodies are held, these halls facing each other in such (p.  119)a manner that the King's throne at the south end of the House of Lordsis visible from the Speaker's chair at the north end of the House ofCommons. The room occupied by the Commons is not large, being butseventy-five feet in length by forty-five in breadth. It is bisectedby a broad aisle, at the upper end of which is a large table for theuse of the clerk and his assistants and beyond this the raised andcanopied chair of the Speaker. "Facing the aisle on each side longrows of high-backed benches, covered with dark green leather, slopeupward tier above tier to the walls of the room; and through them, atright angles to the aisle, a narrow passage known as the gangway, cutsacross the House. There is also a gallery running all around the room, the part of it facing the Speaker being given up to visitors, whilethe front rows at the opposite end belong to the reporters, and behindthem there stands, before a still higher gallery, a heavy screen, likethose erected in Turkish mosques to conceal the presence of women, andused here for the same purpose. "[169] The rows of benches on the gallerysides are reserved for members, but they do not afford a very desirablelocation and are rarely occupied, save upon occasions of specialinterest. In the body of the house there are fewer than 350 seats for670 members. As a rule, not even all of these are occupied, for thereare no desks and the member who wishes to read, write, or otherwiseoccupy himself seeks the library or other rooms adjoining. The frontbench at the upper end of the aisle, at the right of the Speaker, isknown as the Treasury Bench and is reserved for members of theGovernment. The corresponding bench at the Speaker's left is reservedsimilarly for the leaders of the Opposition. In so far as is possiblein the lack of a definite assignment of seats, members of avowed partyallegiance range themselves behind their leaders, while members ofmore independent attitude seek places below the gangway. "The accidentthat the House of Commons sits in a narrow room with benches facingeach other, and not, like most continental legislatures, in a (p.  120)semi-circular space, with seats arranged like those of a theatre, makes for the two-party system and against groups shading into eachother. "[170] [Footnote 169: Lowell, Government of England, I. , 249. Visitors, technically "strangers, " are present only on sufferance and may be excluded at any time; but the ladies' gallery is not supposed to be within the chamber, so that an order of exclusion does not reach the occupants of it. In the autumn of 1908, however, the disorderly conduct of persons in the ladies' and strangers' galleries caused the Speaker to close these galleries during the remainder of the session. In 1738 the House declared the publication of its proceedings "a high indignity and a notorious breach of privilege, " and, technically, such publication is still illegal. In 1771, however, the reporters' gallery was fitted up, and through a century and a quarter the proceedings have been reported and printed as a matter of course. On the status of the public and the press in the chamber see Ilbert, Parliament, Chap. 8; Redlich, Procedure of the House of Commons; II. , 28-38; MacDonaugh, The Book of Parliament, 310-329, 350-365; and H. Graham, The Mother of Parliaments, 259-287. ] [Footnote 170: Ilbert, Parliament, 124. The chamber is described fully in Wright and Smith, Parliament, Past and Present, Chap. 19. ] The hall occupied by the Lords is smaller and more elaboratelydecorated than that occupied by the Commons. It contains crossbenches, but in the main the arrangements that have been described areduplicated in it. For social and ceremonial purposes there existsamong the members a fixed order of precedence. [171] In the chamber, however, the seating is arranged without regard to this order, savethat the bishops sit in a group. The Government peers occupy thebenches on the right of the woolsack and the Opposition those on theleft, while members who prefer to remain neutral take their places onthe cross benches between the table and the bar. [172] [Footnote 171: This order runs: Prince of Wales, other princes of the royal blood, Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Chancellor, Archbishop of York, Lord President of the Council, Lord Privy Seal, the dukes, the marquises, the earls, the viscounts, the bishops, and the barons. ] [Footnote 172: For full description, with illustrations, see Wright and Smith, Parliament, Past and Present, Chap. 18. ] II. ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS *123. Hours of Sittings. *--In the seventeenth century the sittings ofthe Commons began regularly at 8. 30 or 9 o'clock in the morning andterminated with nightfall. In the eighteenth century, and far into thenineteenth, they were apt to begin as late as 3 or 4 o'clock in theafternoon and to be prolonged, at least not infrequently, until towarddaybreak. In 1888, however, a standing order fixed midnight as thehour for the "interrupting" of ordinary business, and in 1906 the hourwas made 11 o'clock. Nowadays the House meets regularly on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays at 2. 45 and continues in sessionthroughout the evening, the interval formerly allowed for dinnerhaving been abolished in 1906. On Fridays, set apart, until late inthe session, for the consideration of private members' bills, the hourof convening is 12 o'clock. At sittings on days other than Friday thefirst hour or more is consumed usually with small items of formalbusiness and with the asking and answering of questions addressed tothe ministers, so that the public business set for the day is reachedat approximately 4 o'clock. [173] [Footnote 173: Redlich, Procedure of the House of Commons, II. , 68-77. ] *124. Officers. *--The principal officers of the House are the (p.  121)Speaker, the Clerk and his two assistants, the Sergeant-at-Arms andhis deputies, the Chaplain, and the Chairman and Deputy Chairman ofWays and Means. The Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms, together withtheir assistants, are appointed for life by the crown, on nominationof the premier, but the Speaker and the Chairman and Deputy Chairmanof Ways and Means are elected for a single parliament by the House. [174]All save the Chairman and his deputy are, strictly, non-politicalofficers. The Clerk signs all orders of the House, indorses bills sentor returned to the Lords, reads whatever is required to be read duringthe sittings, records the proceedings of the chamber, and, with theconcurrence of the Speaker, supervises the preparation of the officialJournal. The Sergeant-at-Arms attends the Speaker, enforces theHouse's orders, and presents at the bar of the House persons orderedor qualified to be so presented. The Chairman of Ways and Means (inhis absence the Deputy Chairman) presides over the deliberations ofthe House when the body sits as a committee of the whole[175] andexercises supervision over private bill legislation. Although apolitical official, he preserves, in both capacities, a strictlynon-partisan attitude. [Footnote 174: In point of fact, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman retire when the ministry by which they have been nominated goes out of office. ] [Footnote 175: On this account he is referred to ordinarily as the Chairman of Committees. ] *125. The Speakership. *--The speakership arose from the need of theHouse when it was merely a petitioning body for a recognizedspokesman, and although the known succession of Speakers begins withSir Thomas Hungerford, who held the office in the last parliament ofEdward III. (1377), there is every reason to suppose that at even anearlier date there were men whose functions were substantiallyequivalent. The Speaker is elected at the beginning of a parliament byand from the members of the House, and his tenure of office, unlessterminated by resignation or death, continues through the term of thatparliament. The choice of the House is subject to the approval of thecrown; but, whereas in earlier days the king's will was at this pointvery influential, the last occasion upon which a Speaker-elect wasrejected by the crown was in 1679. Though nominally elected, theSpeaker is in fact chosen by the ministry, and he is pretty certain tobe taken, in the first instance, from the party in power. During thenineteenth century, however, it became customary to re-elect a Speakeras long as he should be willing to serve, regardless of partyaffiliation. *126. The Speaker's Functions and Powers. *--The functions of the Speakerare regulated in part by custom, in part by rules of the House, andin part by general legislation. They are numerous and, in the (p.  122)aggregate, highly important. The Speaker is, first of all, thepresiding officer of the House. In this capacity he is a strictlynon-partisan moderator whose business it is to maintain decorum indeliberations, decide points of order, put questions, and announce theresult of divisions. The non-partisan aspect of the English speakershipsets the office off in sharp contrast with its American counterpart. "It makes little difference to any English party in Parliament, " saysMr. Bryce, "whether the occupant of the chair has come from their ownor from hostile ranks. .. . A custom as strong as law forbids him torender help to his own side even by private advice. Whateverinformation as to parliamentary law he may feel free to give must beequally at the disposal of every member. "[176] Except in the event ofa tie, the Speaker does not vote, even when, the House being incommittee, he is not occupying the chair. In the second place, theSpeaker is the spokesman and representative of the House, whether indemanding privileges, communicating resolutions, or issuing warrants. There was a time when he was hardly less the spokesman of the kingthan the spokesman of the Commons, but the growth of independence ofthe popular chamber enabled him long ago to cast off this dual andextremely difficult rôle. The Speaker, furthermore, declares andinterprets, though he in no case makes, the law of the House. "Where, "says Ilbert, "precedents, rulings, and the orders of the House areinsufficient or uncertain guides, he has to consider what course wouldbe most consistent with the usages, traditions, and dignity of theHouse, and the rights and interests of its members, and on thesepoints his advice is usually followed, and his decisions are veryrarely questioned. .. . For many generations the deference habituallypaid to the occupant of the chair has been the theme of admiringcomment by foreign observers. "[177] Finally, the fact should be notedthat by the Parliament Act of 1911 the Speaker is given sole power, when question arises, to determine whether a given measure is or isnot to be considered a money bill. [178] Upon his decision may hingethe entire policy of the Government respecting a measure, and even thefate of the measure itself. The Speaker's symbol of authority is themace, which is carried before him when he formally enters or leavesthe House and lies on the table before him when he is in the chair. Hehas an official residence in Westminster, and he receives a salary of£5, 000 a year which is paid from the Consolidated Fund, being on thataccount not subject to change when the annual appropriation bills (p.  123)are under consideration. At retirement from office a Speaker is likelyto be pensioned and to be elevated to the peerage. [179] [Footnote 176: American Commonwealth, I. , 135. ] [Footnote 177: Parliament, 140-141. ] [Footnote 178: See p. 112. ] [Footnote 179: On the officers of the House of Commons see Lowell, Government of England, I. , Chap. 12; on the speakership, Redlich, Procedure of the House of Commons, II. , 131-171; Graham, The Mother of Parliaments, 119-134; MacDonaugh, The Book of Parliament, 115-132; Porritt, Unreformed House of Commons, I. , Chaps. 21-22; A. I. Dasent, The Speakers of the House of Commons from the Earliest Times to the Present Day (New York, 1911); and G. Mer, Les speakers: étude de la fonction présidentielle en Angleterre et aux États-Unis (Paris, 1910). ] *127. Quorum. *--As fixed by a resolution of 1640, a quorum for thetransaction of business in the Commons is forty. If at any time duringa sitting the attention of the Speaker is directed to the fact thatthere are not forty members present, the two-minute sand-glass whichstands upon the Clerk's table is inverted and the members are summonedfrom all portions of the building as for a division. At the close ofthe allotted two minutes the Speaker counts the members present, andif there be not forty the House adjourns until the time fixed for thenext regular sitting. Except upon occasions of special interest, thenumber of members actually occupying the benches is likely to be lessthan two hundred, although most of the remaining members are withinthe building or, in any case, not far distant. *128. Kinds of Committees. *--Like all important and numerous legislativebodies, the House of Commons expedites the transaction of the businesswhich devolves upon it through the employment of committees. As earlyas the period of Elizabeth the reference of a bill, after its secondreading, to a select committee was an established practice, and in thereign of Charles I. It became not uncommon to refer measures tocommittees of the whole house. The committees of the House to-day maybe grouped in five categories: (1) the Committee of the Whole; (2)select committees on public bills; (3) sessional committees; (4)standing committees on public bills; and (5) committees on privatebills. Until 1907 a public bill, after its second reading, wentnormally to the Committee of the Whole; since the date mentioned, itgoes there only if the House so determines. The Committee of the Wholeis simply the House of Commons, presided over by the Chairman ofCommittees in the place of the Speaker, and acting under rules ofprocedure which permit virtually unrestricted discussion and in otherways lend themselves to the free consideration of the details of ameasure. When the subject in hand relates to the providing of revenuethe body is known, technically, as the Committee of Ways and Means;when to appropriations, it is styled the Committee of the Whole onSupply, or simply the Committee of Supply. *129. Select and Sessional Committees. *--Select committees (p.  124)consist, as a rule, of fifteen members and are constituted toinvestigate and report upon specific subjects or measures. It isthrough them that the House collects evidence, examines witnesses, andotherwise obtains the information required for intelligentlegislation. After a select committee has fulfilled the immediatepurpose for which it was constituted it passes out of existence. Eachsuch committee chooses its chairman, and each keeps detailed recordsof its proceedings, which are included, along with its formal report, in the published parliamentary papers of the session. The members maybe elected by the House, but in practice the appointment of some orall is left to the Committee of Selection, which itself consists ofeleven members chosen by the House at the beginning of each session. This Committee of Selection, which appoints members not only of selectcommittees but also of standing committees and of committees onprivate and local bills, is made up after conference between theleaders of the Government and of the Opposition; and the committeeswhose members it designates are always so constituted that theycontain a majority favorable to the Government. The number of selectcommittees is, of course, variable, but it is never small. A few areconstituted for an entire year and are known as sessional committees. Of these, the Committee of Selection is itself an example; others arethe Committee on Public Accounts and the Committee on PublicPetitions. *130. Standing Committees. *--Beginning in 1882, certain great standingcommittees have been created, to the general end that the time of theHouse may be further economized. Through a change of the standingorders of the chamber effected in 1907 the number of such committeeswas raised from two to four, and all bills except money bills, privatebills, and bills for confirming provisional orders--that is to say, all public non-fiscal proposals--are required to be referred to one ofthese committees (the Speaker to determine which one) unless the Houseotherwise directs. It is expected that measures so referred will be sofully considered in committee that they will consume but little of thetime of the House. Each of the four committees consists of from sixtyto eighty members, who are named by the Committee of Selection in sucha manner that in personnel they will represent faithfully thecomposition of the House as a whole. One of them, consisting of allthe representatives of Scotch constituencies and fifteen othermembers, is constituted with a special view to the transaction ofbusiness relating to Scotland. The chairmen of the four are selected(from its own ranks) by a "chairman's panel" of not more than eightmembers designated by the Committee of Selection. The procedure (p.  125)of the standing committees is closely assimilated to that of theCommittee of the Whole, and, in truth, they serve essentially assubstitutes for the larger body. [180] [Footnote 180: On committees on private bills see p. 137. The committees of the House of Commons are described in Lowell, Government of England, I. , Chap. 13; Marriott, English Political Institutions, Chap. 11; Ilbert, Parliament, Chap. 6; Redlich, Procedure of the House of Commons, II. , 180-214; and May, Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of Parliament, Chaps. 13-14. ] III. ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS *131. Sittings and Attendance. *--It is required that the two houses ofParliament shall be convened invariably together, and one may not beprorogued without the other. The actual sittings of the Lords are, however, very much briefer and more leisurely than are those of theCommons. Normally the upper chamber meets but four times a week--onMondays, Thursdays, and Fridays at 4. 30 o'clock and on Tuesdays at5. 30. By reason of lack of business or indisposition to consume timein the consideration of measures whose eventual enactment is assured, sittings not infrequently are concluded within an hour, although, ofcourse, there are occasions upon which the chamber deliberatesseriously and at much length. A quorum for the transaction of businessis fixed at the number three; although it is but fair to observethat if a division occurs upon a bill and it is found that there arenot thirty members present the question is declared not to bedecided. Save upon formal occasions and at times when there is underconsideration a measure in whose fate the members are immediatelyinterested, attendance is always meager. There are members who aftercomplying with the formalities incident to the assumption of a seat, rarely, and in some instances never, reappear among their colleagues. It thus comes about that despite the fact that nominally the House ofLords is one of the largest of the world's law-making assemblies, thechamber exhibits in reality little of the unwieldiness ordinarilycharacteristic of deliberative bodies of such magnitude. Theefficiency of the chamber is more likely to be impaired by paucity ofattendance than otherwise. *132. Officers. *--The officers of the House of Lords are largelyappointive, though in part elective. Except during the trial of apeer, [181] the presiding official is the Lord Chancellor, appointed bythe crown on the advice of the premier. The duty of presiding in theLords, as has been explained, is but one of many that fall to thisremarkable dignitary. [182] If at the time of his appointment an (p.  126)incumbent is not a peer he is reasonably certain to be created one, although there is no legal requirement to this effect. The theory isthat the woolsack which comprises the presiding official's seat is notwithin the chamber proper[183] and that the official himself, as such, is not a member of the body. The powers allowed him are not even thosecommonly possessed by a moderator. In the event that two or more peersrequest the privilege of addressing the chamber, the peers themselvesdecide which shall have the floor. Order in debate is enforced, not bythe Chancellor, but by the members, and when they speak they address, not the chair, but "My Lords. " Although, if a peer, the Chancellor mayspeak and vote as any other member, he possesses as presiding officerno power of the casting vote. In short, the position which the Chancelloroccupies in the chamber is all but purely formal. In addition to"deputy speakers, " designated to preside in the Chancellor's absence, the remaining officials of the Lords who owe their positions togovernmental appointment are the Clerk of Parliament, who keeps therecords; the Sergeant-at-Arms, who attends personally the presidingofficer and acts as custodian of the mace; and the Gentleman Usher ofthe Black Rod, a pompous dignitary whose function it is to summon theCommons when their attendance is required and to play a more or lessuseful part upon other ceremonial occasions. The one importantofficial whom the House itself elects is the Lord Chairman ofCommittees, whose duty it is to preside in Committee of the Whole. [Footnote 181: See p. 127. ] [Footnote 182: See p. 63. ] [Footnote 183: In the days of Elizabeth the presiding official sat upon a sack actually filled with wool. He sits now, as a matter of fact, upon an ottoman, upholstered in red. But the ancient designation of the seat survives. ] IV. PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSES AND OF MEMBERS *133. Nature and Extent of Privileges. *--On the basis in part of customand in part of statute there exists a body of definitely establishedprivileges, some of which appertain to the Commons as a chamber, somesimilarly to the Lords, and some to the individual members of bothhouses. The privileges which at the opening of a parliament thenewly-elected Speaker requests and, as a matter of course, obtains forthe chamber over which he presides include principally those offreedom from arrest, freedom of speech, access to the sovereign, and a"favorable construction" upon the proceedings of the House. Freedomfrom arrest is enjoyed by members during a session and a period offorty days before and after it, but it does not protect a member (p.  127)from the consequences of any indictable offense nor, in civil actions, from any process save arrest. Freedom of speech, finally guaranteedeffectually in the Bill of Rights, means simply that a member may notbe held to account by legal process outside Parliament for anything hemay have said in the course of the debates or proceedings of thechamber to which he belongs. The right of access to the sovereignbelongs to the Commons collectively through the Speaker, but to theLords individually. With the growth of parliamentary government bothit and the privilege of "favorable construction" have ceased topossess practical importance. Another privilege which survives is thatof exemption from jury duty, though no longer of refusing to attendcourt in the capacity of a witness. Each house enjoys theprivilege--for all practical purposes now the right--of regulating itsown proceedings, of committing persons for contempt, and of decidingcontested elections. The last-mentioned function the House of Commons, however, has delegated to the courts. A privilege jealously retainedby the Lords is that of trial in all cases of treason or felony by theupper chamber itself, under the presidency of a Lord High Stewardappointed by the crown. The Lords are exempt from arrest in civilcauses, not merely during and immediately preceding and succeedingsessions, but at all times, and they enjoy all the rights, privileges, and distinctions which, through law or custom, have become inherent intheir several dignities. *134. Payment of Members of the Commons. *--Until recently the fact thatthere was no salary attached to service in Parliament operated todebar from election to the Commons men who were not of independentmeans. Through some years the Labor Party was accustomed to providefunds wherewith its representatives were enabled to maintainthemselves at the capital, [184] but this arrangement affected only asmall group of members and was of an entirely private and casualnature. Public and systematic payment of members, to the end that poorbut capable men might not be kept out of the Commons, was demanded bythe Chartists three-quarters of a century ago, and from time to timeafter 1870 there was agitation in behalf of such a policy. In 1893, and again in 1895, a resolution in favor of the payment of members wasadopted in the Commons, and March 7, 1906, a resolution was carried tothe effect that every member should be paid a salary of £300 annually. But it was not until 1911 that a measure of the kind could be gotthrough the upper chamber. Fresh impetus was afforded by the OsborneJudgment, in which, on an appeal from the lower courts, the House ofLords ruled in December, 1909, that the payment of parliamentary (p.  128)members as such from the dues collected by labor organizations wascontrary to law. The announcement of the Judgment was followed bypersistent agitation for legislation to reverse the ruling. Inconnection with the budget presented to the Commons by the Chancellorof the Exchequer May 16, 1911, the proposition was made, not to takeaction one way or the other upon the Lords' decision, but to providefor the payment to all non-official members of the House of Commons ofa yearly salary of £400; and with little delay and no great amount ofopposition the proposal was enacted into law. The amount of the salaryprovided is not large, but it is ample to render candidacy for seatspossible for numbers of men who formerly could not under anycircumstances have contemplated a public career. [185] [Footnote 184: The sum provided from the party funds was ordinarily £200 a year. ] [Footnote 185: On the privileges of the Commons see Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, I. , 153-189; Lowell, Government of England, I. , Chap. 11; Walpole, Electorate and Legislature, Chap. 5; Redlich, Procedure of the House of Commons, III. , 42-50. A standard work in which the subject is dealt with at length is May, Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of Parliament, Chaps. 3-6. ] V. THE FUNCTIONS OF PARLIAMENT When the king summons the two chambers he does so, "being desirous andresolved as soon as may be to meet his people, and to have theiradvice in Parliament. " No mention is made of legislative or financialbusiness, and, technically, Parliament is still essentially whatoriginally it was exclusively, i. E. , a purely deliberativeassemblage. Practically, however, the mere discussion of publicquestions and the giving of advice to the crown has become but one ofseveral distinctive parliamentary functions. The newer functionswhich, with the passing of time, have acquired ever increasingimportance are, in effect, three. The first is that of criticism, involving the habitual scrutiny and control of the measures of theexecutive and administrative organs. The second is the exercise, underlimitations to be described, of the power of judicature. The third, and much the most important, is the function of public and privatelegislation and of fiscal control. *135. Criticism: Ministerial Responsibility. *--Parliament does notgovern and is not intended to govern. Never save when the LongParliament undertook the administration of public affairs throughcommittees of its members has Parliament asserted a disposition togather immediately into its own hands those powers of state which areexecutive in character. At the same time, the growth of parliamentarygovernment has meant the establishment of a connection between theexecutive and the parliamentary chambers (principally the Commons) (p.  129)as close as may be so long as separateness of organization is stillmaintained. The officials who comprise the working executive areinvariably members of Parliament. They initiate public measures, introduce them, advocate and defend them, and, in general, guide andcontrol the conduct of public business both inside and outside thechambers. But for every act they are responsible directly to the Houseof Commons. They may continue in power only so long as they aresupported by a majority in that chamber. And their conduct is subjectcontinually to review and criticism, through the instrumentality ofquestions, formal inquiries, and, if need be, judicial procedure. It is within the competence of any member to address a question to anyminister of the crown who is also a member, to obtain information. Except in special cases, notice of questions must be given at leastone day in advance, and a period of approximately three-quarters of anhour is set apart at four sittings every week for the asking andanswering of such questions. A minister may answer or decline toanswer, but unless a declination can be shown to arise from legitimateconsiderations of public interest its effect politically may beembarrassing. In any event, there is no debate, and in this respectthe English practice differs from the French "interpellation. "[186]The asking of questions is liable to abuse but, as is pointed out byIlbert, "there is no more valuable safeguard against maladministration, no more effective method of bringing the searchlight of criticism tobear on the action or inaction of the executive government and itssubordinates. A minister has to be constantly asking himself, notmerely whether his proceedings and the proceedings of those for whomhe is responsible are legally or technically defensible, but what kindof answer he can give if questioned about them in the House, and howthat answer will be received. "[187] Any member is privileged to bringforward a motion censuring the Government or any member or departmentthereof, and a motion of this sort, when emanating from the leader ofthe Opposition, constitutes a vote of confidence upon whose result maydepend the continued tenure of the ministry. By a call upon theGovernment or a given department for information, by the constitutionof parliamentary committees, departmental committees, or royalcommissions, and, in particular by taking advantage of the numberlessopportunities afforded by the enactment of appropriation bills, theHouse of Commons may further impose upon the executive the mostthoroughgoing responsibility and control. "A strong executive (p.  130)government, tempered and controlled by constant, vigilant, andrepresentative criticism, " is the ideal at which the parliamentaryinstitutions of Great Britain are aimed. [188] [Footnote 186: See p. 314. ] [Footnote 187: Parliament, 113-114. ] [Footnote 188: Ilbert, Parliament, 119. On the Commons' control of the Government see Lowell, Government of England, I. , Chap. 17; Moran, English Government, Chap. 8; Low, The Governance of England, Chap. 5; Todd, Parliamentary Government, II. , 164-185. ] *136. Judicial Powers: Impeachment and Attainder. *--The functions of ajudicial character which, in the capacity of the High Court ofParliament, the two chambers fulfill are of secondary importance anddo not call for extended discussion. So far as the law of the subjectgoes, they comprise (1) the powers possessed by each of the houses todeal with the constitution and conduct of its own membership; (2) thepower of the Lords to try their own members when charged with treasonor felony; (3) the jurisdiction of the Lords in the capacity of afinal court of appeal for the United Kingdom; (4) the power of the twohouses, acting jointly, to carry through impeachments of publicofficers and to enact bills of attainder; and (5) the effecting of theremoval of certain kinds of public officers through the agency of anaddress from both houses to the crown. In days when the king and theministers were disposed to defy the law and to evade responsibilitythe power of impeachment by the Commons at the bar of the Lords, originated as early as the reign of Edward III. , was of the utmostimportance. When, however, the House of Commons progressed incompetence to the point where it was able to review and control theconduct of ministers with such thoroughness and continuity as to makeit impossible for them to conduct business without a parliamentarymajority, impeachment lost its value and fell into disuse. The lastoccasion upon which impeachment proceedings were instituted was in1805. [189] Procedure by bill of attainder, arising from thelegislative omnipotence of Parliament and following the ordinarycourse of legislation, is also obsolete. [Footnote 189: Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, I. , 362-366; Moran, English Government, 327-332. ] *137. The House of Lords as a Court. *--Most important among survivingparliamentary functions of a judicial character is the exercise ofappellate jurisdiction by the House of Lords. The judicial authorityof the Lords is an anomaly, although as it is actually exercised itdoes not seriously contravene the principle which forbids the bringingtogether of judicial and legislative powers in the same hands. Historically, it arose from a confusion of the functions of two groupsof men which were long largely identical in personnel, i. E. , theGreat Council, on the one hand, and the Lords of Parliament, on (p.  131)the other. In the reign of Henry IV. The Commons asked specifically tobe relieved from judicial business, and the parliamentary jurisdictionwhich survived was recognized thereafter to be vested in the House ofLords alone. From an early date this jurisdiction was, as it isto-day, both original and appellate. As a court of first instance thechamber acquired the right to try peers charged with treason andfelony and, on the accusation of the House of Commons, to bring tojustice, through the process of impeachment, offenders who were not ofthe peerage. Nowadays these powers are of no practical consequence. The position of the Lords as an appellate tribunal, however, is stilla fundamental fact in the judicial system. Starting with control, byway of appeal, over the courts of common law in England, the chamberacquired in time a similar control over the English courts ofchancery, and eventually over the courts of both Scotland and Ireland. Its jurisdiction has stopped short only of the ecclesiastical courts, and of the courts of the outlying portions of the Empire, appeals fromwhich are heard in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. By theSupreme Court of Judicature Act of 1873, whereby the higher tribunalsof the realm were remodelled, the appellate jurisdiction of the Lordswas abolished outright; but in 1876, before the measure had been putin operation the plan was modified and there was passed the AppellateJurisdiction Act whereby the appellate functions of the Lords wererestored and provision was made for the creation at first of two, later of three, and eventually of four, salaried life peers, to beselected from men of eminence in the law, and to be known as Lords ofAppeal in Ordinary. In so far as it is controlled by statute at all, the appellate jurisdiction of the chamber is regulated to-day by thismeasure. Nominally, judicial business is transacted by the House as awhole, and every member has a right not only to be present but toparticipate in the rendering of decisions. Actually, such business istransacted by a little group of law lords (the attendance of but threebeing necessary) under the presidency of the Lord Chancellor, and theunwritten rule which prohibits the presence at judicial sessions ofany persons save the law lords is quite as strictly observed as is anyone of a score of other important conventions of the constitution. [190]Under the act of 1876 it is within the competence of the law lords tosit and to pronounce judgments in the name of the House at any time, regardless of whether Parliament is in session. [191] A sitting of theCourt is, technically, a sitting of the Lords, and all actions (p.  132)taken are entered in the Journal of the House as a part of itsproceedings. [192] [Footnote 190: Lowell, Government of England, II. , 465. ] [Footnote 191: When Parliament is in session the sittings of the law lords are held, as a rule, prior to the beginning of the regular sitting at 4. 30 p. M. ] [Footnote 192: The judicial functions of Parliament are described at some length in Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, I. , Chap. 9. The principal work on the subject is C. H. McIlwain, The High Court of Parliament and its Supremacy (New Haven, 1910). On the House of Lords as a court see MacDonaugh, The Book of Parliament, 300-309; A. T. Carter, History of English Legal Institutions (London, 1902), 96-109; and W. S. Holdsworth, History of English Law, I. , 170-193. ] *138. Control of Legislation and Finance. *--The principal and altogethermost indispensable ends which Parliament to-day subserves are those oflegislation and of financial control. Many of the measures, importantand unimportant, under which the affairs of the realm are regulatedare but temporary and require annual re-enactment, and the volume offresh legislation which is unceasingly demanded is all but limitless. Similarly, to employ the words of Anson, the revenues which accrue tothe crown and can be dealt with independently of Parliament wouldhardly carry on the business of government for a day, [193] and notonly does Parliament (in effect, the House of Commons) by itsappropriation acts make possible the legal expenditure of virtuallyall public moneys; it provides, by its measures of taxation, the fundsfrom which appropriations are made. [Footnote 193: Law and Custom of the Constitution, I. , 52. ] VI. GENERAL ASPECTS OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE By reason of the supreme importance which attaches to the legislativeand fiscal activities of the two chambers it is necessary thatattention be directed at this point to the character of the procedurewhich these activities involve. For the purpose in hand it will besufficient to speak of only the more important principles of procedurein relation to the three fundamental phases of legislative work: (1)the enactment of non-financial public bills, (2) the adoption of moneybills, and (3) the passage of private bills. And within at least thefirst two of these domains the preponderance of the Commons is suchthat the procedure of that chamber alone need be described. Theprocedure of the two chambers upon bills is substantially the same, although, as is illustrated by the fact that amendments to bills maybe introduced in the Lords at any stage but in the Commons at onlystipulated stages, the methods of conducting business in the upperhouse are more elastic than those prevailing in the lower. *139. Fundamental Principles. *--The legislative omnipotence ofParliament has been emphasized sufficiently. [194] Any sort of measureupon any conceivable subject may be introduced and, if a sufficientnumber of the members are so minded, enacted into law. No measure (p.  133)may become law until it has been submitted for the consideration ofboth houses, but under the terms of the Parliament Act of 1911 it hasbeen rendered easy for money bills, and not impossible for bills ofother sorts, to be made law without the assent of the House of Lords. In the ordinary course of things, a measure is introduced in onehouse, put through three readings, sent to the other house, put therethrough the same routine, deposited with the House of Lords to awaitthe royal assent, [195] and, after having been assented to as a matterof course, proclaimed as law. Bills, as a rule, may be introduced ineither house, by the Government or by a private member. It isimportant to observe, however, in the first place, that certainclasses of measures must originate in one or the other of the houses, e. G. , money bills in the Commons and bills of attainder and otherjudicial bills in the Lords, and, in the second place, that with thegrowth of the leadership of the Government in legislation theimportance, if not the number, of privately introduced bills hastended steadily to be decreased, and likewise the chances of theirenactment. [Footnote 194: See p. 45. ] [Footnote 195: Except that money bills remain in the custody of the Commons. ] *140. Public Bills: First and Second Readings. *--The steps through whicha public bill, whether introduced by the Government or by a privatemember, must pass in the Commons are still numerous, but by thereduction of some of them to sheer formalities which involve neitherdebate nor vote the actual legislative process has been made much moreexpeditious than once it was. The necessary stages in the enactment ofa bill in either house are, as a rule, five: first reading, secondreading, consideration by committee, report from committee, and thirdreading. Formerly the introduction of a measure involved almostinvariably a speech explaining at length the nature of the proposal, followed by a debate and a vote, sometimes consuming, in all, severalsittings. Nowadays only very important Government bills are introducedin this manner. In the case of all other bills the first reading hasbecome a mere formality, involving nothing more than a motion on thepart of a member, official or private, for permission to bring in ameasure and the giving of leave by the House, almost invariablywithout discussion. Upon all measures save the most importantGovernment projects, opportunity for debate is first afforded at thesecond reading, although the discussion at this stage must relate togeneral principles rather than to details. By the adoption of a motionthat the bill be read a second time "this day six months" (or at someother date falling beyond the anticipated limits of the session) ameasure may at this point be killed. *141. Public Bills: Later Stages. *--A bill which survives the (p.  134)second reading is "committed. " Prior to 1907 it would go normally tothe Committee of the Whole. Nowadays it goes there if it is a moneybill or a bill for confirming a provisional order, [196] or if, onother grounds, the House so directs; otherwise it goes to one of thefour standing committees, assignment being made by the Speaker. Thisis the stage at which the provisions of the measure are considered indetail and amendments are introduced. After the second reading, however, a bill may be referred to a select committee, and in the event thatthis is done a step is added to the process, for after being returnedby the select committee the measure goes to the Committee of the Wholeor to one of the standing committees. Eventually the bill is reportedback to the House. If reported by a standing committee or, in amendedform by the Committee of the Whole, it is considered by the Houseafresh and in some detail; otherwise, the "report stage" is omitted. Finally comes the third reading, the question now being whether theHouse approves the measure as a whole. At this stage any amendmentbeyond verbal changes necessitates recommitment. The carrying of ameasure through these successive stages is spread over, as a rule, several days, and sometimes several weeks, but it is not impossiblethat the entire process be completed during the period of a sitting. Having been adopted by the originating house, a bill is taken by aclerk to the other house, there to be subjected to substantially thesame procedure. If amendments are introduced, it is sent back in orderthat the suggested changes may be considered by the first house. Ifthey are agreed to, the measure is sent up for the royal approval. Ifthey are rejected and an agreement between the two houses cannot bereached, the measure falls. [197] [Footnote 196: See p. 138. ] [Footnote 197: The legislative process is summed up aptly by Lowell as follows: "Leaving out of account the first reading, which rarely involves a real debate, the ordinary course of a public bill through the House of Commons gives, therefore, an opportunity for two debates upon its general merits, and between them two discussions of its details, or one debate upon the details if that one results in no changes, or if the bill has been referred to a standing committee. When the House desires to collect evidence it does so after approving of the general principle, and before taking up the details. Stated in this way the whole matter is plain and rational enough. It is, in fact, one of the many striking examples of adaptation in the English political system. A collection of rules that appear cumbrous and antiquated, and that even now are well-nigh incomprehensible when described in all their involved technicality, have been pruned away until they furnish a procedure almost as simple, direct, and appropriate as any one could devise. " Government of England, I. , 277-278. The procedure of the House of Commons on public bills is described in Lowell, Government of England, I. , Chaps. 13, 17, 19; Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, I. , 240-267; Low, Governance of England, Chap. 4; Moran, English Government, Chap. 14; Marriott, English Political Institutions, Chap. 113; Todd, Parliamentary Government, II. , 138-163; Ilbert, Parliament, Chap. 3; Redlich, Procedure of the House of Commons, III. , 85-112; and May, Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of Parliament, Chap. 18. See also G. Walpole, House of Commons Procedure, with Notes on American Practice (London, 1902), and C. P. Ilbert, Legislative Methods and Forms (Oxford, 1901), 77-121. ] *142. Money Bills: Appropriation and Finance Acts. *--The (p.  135)procedure followed in the handling of money bills differs materiallyfrom that which has been described. Underlying it are two fundamentalprinciples, incorporated in the standing orders of the House ofCommons during the first quarter of the eighteenth century. One ofthem prescribes that no petition or motion for the granting of moneyshall be proceeded upon save in Committee of the Whole. The otherforbids the receiving of any petition, or the proceeding upon anymotion, for a charge upon the public revenue unless recommended fromthe crown. Although these principles apply technically only toappropriations, they have long been observed with equal fidelity inrespect to the raising of revenue. All specific measures for theexpending of money and all proposals for the imposing of freshtaxation or the increase of existing taxation must emanate from thecrown, i. E. , in practice from the cabinet. A private member may go nofurther in this direction than to introduce resolutions of a whollygeneral character favoring some particular kind of expenditure, exceptthat it is within his right to move to repeal or to reduce taxes whichthe Government has not proposed to modify. Two great fiscal measures are introduced and carried through annually:the Appropriation Act, in which are brought together all the grantsfor the public services for the year, and the Finance Act in which arecomprised all regulations relating to the revenue and the nationaldebt. Before the close of the fiscal year (March 31) the ministrysubmits to the Commons a body of estimates for the "supply services, "drawn up originally by the government departments, scrutinized by theTreasury, and approved by the cabinet. Early in the session the Houseresolves itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply, by whichresolutions of supply are discussed, adopted, and reported. Theseresolutions are embodied in bills which, for purposes of convenience, are passed at intervals during the session. But at the close all ofthem are consolidated in one grand Appropriation Act. [198] Upwards ofhalf of the public expenditures, it is to be observed, e. G. , theCivil List, the salaries of judges, pensions, and interest on thenational debt, are provided for by permanent acts imposing charges (p.  136)upon the Consolidated Fund and do not come annually under parliamentaryreview. [Footnote 198: Before the lapse of a twelvemonth unforeseen contingencies require invariably the voting of "supplementary grants. "] *143. The Budget. *--As soon as practicable after the close of the fiscalyear the House, resolved for the purpose into Committee of Ways andMeans, receives from the Chancellor of the Exchequer his Budget, orannual statement of accounts. The statement comprises regularly threeparts: a review of revenue and expenditure during the year justclosed, a provisional balance-sheet for the year to come, and a seriesof proposals for the remission, modification, or fresh imposition oftaxes. Revenues, as expenditures, are in large part "permanent, " yet avery considerable proportion are provided for through the medium ofyearly votes. In Committee of Ways and Means the House considers theChancellor's proposals, and after they have been reported back andembodied in a bill they are carried with the assent of the crown, though no longer necessarily of the Lords, into law. Prior to 1861 itwas customary to include in the fiscal resolutions and in the bill inwhich they were embodied only the annual and temporary taxes, but inconsequence of the Lords' rejection, in 1860, of a separate financebill repealing the duties on paper it was made the practice toincorporate in a single bill--the so-called Finance Bill--provisionfor all taxes, whether temporary or permanent. In practice the Houseof Commons rarely refuses to approve the financial measuresrecommended by the Government. The chamber has no power to proposeeither expenditure or taxation, and the right which it possesses torefuse or to reduce the levies and the appropriations asked for isseldom used. "Financially, " says Lowell, "its work is rathersupervision than direction; and its real usefulness consists insecuring publicity and criticism rather than in controllingexpenditure. "[199] The theory underlying fiscal procedure has beensummed up lucidly as follows: "The Crown demands money, the Commonsgrant it, and the Lords assent to the grant;[200] but the Commons donot vote money unless it be required by the Crown; nor impose oraugment taxes unless they be necessary for meeting the supplies whichthey have voted or are about to vote, and for supplying generaldeficiencies in the revenue. The Crown has no concern in the nature ordistribution of the taxes; but the foundation of all Parliamentarytaxation is its necessity for the public service as declared by theCrown through its constitutional advisers. "[201] [Footnote 199: Government of England, I. , 288. ] [Footnote 200: Since the enactment of the Parliament Bill of 1911, as has been observed, the assent of the Lords is not necessary. See p. 112. ] [Footnote 201: The procedure involved in the handling of money bills is described in Lowell, Government of England, I. , Chap. 14; Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, I. , 268-281; Walpole, Electorate and Legislature, Chap. 7; Todd, Parliamentary Government, II. , 186-271; Ilbert, Parliament, Chap. 4; Redlich, Procedure of the House of Commons, III. , 113-174; May, Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of Parliament, Chap. 21. See also E. Porritt, Amendments in the House of Commons Procedure since 1881, in _American Political Science Review_, Nov. , 1908. Among numerous works on taxation in England the standard authority is S. Dowell, History of Taxation and Taxes in England from the Earliest Times to the Year 1885, 4 vols. (2d ed. , London, 1888). ] *144. Private Bills: Nature and Procedure. *--In the matter of (p.  137)procedure there is no distinction between a Government bill and aprivate member's bill. Both are public bills. But a private bill ishandled in a manner largely peculiar to itself. A public bill is onewhich affects the general interests of the state, and which has forits object presumably the promotion of the common good. A private billis one which has in view the interest of some particular locality, person, or collection of persons. The commonest object of privatebills is to enable private individuals to enter into combination toundertake works of public utility--the building of railways ortramways, the construction of harbors or piers, the draining ofswamps, the supplying of water, gas, or electricity, and the embarkingupon a wide variety of other enterprises which in the United Stateswould be regulated chiefly by state legislatures and city councils--attheir own risk and, in part at least, for their own profit. Allprivate bills originate in petitions, which must be submitted inadvance of the opening of the session during which they are to beconsidered. Their presentation and the various stages of theirprogress are governed by very detailed and stringent regulations, andfees are required from both promoters and opponents, so that theenactment of a private bill of importance becomes for the partiesdirectly concerned an expensive process, and for the Exchequer asource of no inconsiderable amount of revenue. After having been scrutinized and approved by parliamentary officialsknown as Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, a private bill isintroduced in one of the two houses. [202] Its introduction isequivalent to its first reading. At its second reading debate may takeplace upon the principle of the measure, after which the bill, ifopposed, is referred to a Private Bill Committee consisting of fourmembers and a disinterested referee. If the bill be not opposed, i. E. , if no adverse petition has been filed by property owners, corporations, or other interests, the committee of reference, under astanding order of 1903, consists of the Chairman and Deputy Chairmanof Ways and Means, two other members of the House, appointed by (p.  138)the Committee of Selection, and the Counsel to Mr. Speaker. Thecommittee stage of a contested bill assumes an essentially judicialaspect. Promoters and opponents are represented by counsel, witnessesare examined, and expert testimony is taken. After being reported bycommittee, the measure goes its way under the same regulations asthose controlling the progress of public bills. [Footnote 202: To facilitate their consideration, such measures are distributed approximately equally between the two houses. This is done through conference of the Chairmen of Committees of the two houses, or their counsel, prior to the assembling of Parliament. ] *145. Provisional Orders. *--Two things are, however, to be noted. Thefirst one is that while in theory the distinction between a public anda private bill is clear, in point of fact there is no littledifficulty in drawing a line of demarcation, and the result has beenthe recognition of an indefinite class of "hybrid" bills, partlypublic and partly private in content and handled under somecircumstances as the one and under others as the other, or even undera procedure combining features of both. The second fact to be observedis that, in part to reduce expense and in part to procure thegood-will of the executive department concerned, it has become commonfor the promoters of enterprises requiring parliamentary sanction tomake use of the device known as provisional orders. A provisionalorder is an order issued, after minute investigation, by a governmentdepartment authorizing provisionally the undertaking of a project inbehalf of which application has been made. It requires eventually thesanction of Parliament, but such orders are laid before the houses ingroups by the several departments and their ratification is virtuallyassured in advance. It is pointed out by Lowell that during the years1898-1901 not one-tenth of the provisional orders laid beforeParliament were opposed, and but one failed of adoption. [203] [Footnote 203: Government of England, I. , 385. On private bill legislation see Lowell, I. , Chap. 20; Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, I, 291-300; May, Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of Parliament, Chaps. 24-29; Courtney, Working Constitution of the United Kingdom, Chap. 18; MacDonaugh, The Book of Parliament, 398-420. The standard treatise upon the subject is F. Clifford, History of Private Bill Legislation, 2 vols. (London, 1885-1887). A recent book of value is F. H. Spencer, Municipal Origins; an Account of English Private Bill Legislation relating to Local Government, 1740-1835, with a Chapter on Private Bill Procedure (London, 1911). ] VII. THE CONDUCT OF BUSINESS IN THE TWO HOUSES "How can I learn the rules of the Commons?" was a question once put byan Irish member to Mr. Parnell. "By breaking them, " was thephilosophic reply. Representing, as it does, an accumulation throughcenturies of deliberately adopted regulations, interwoven and overlaidwith unwritten custom, the code of procedure by which the conduct ofbusiness in the House of Commons is governed is indeed intricate (p.  139)and forbidding. Lord Palmerston admitted that he never fully masteredit, and Gladstone was not infrequently an inadvertent offender againstthe "rules of the House. " Prior to the nineteenth century the ruleswere devised, as is pointed out by Anson, with two objects in view: toprotect the House from hasty and ill-considered action pressed forwardby the king's ministers, and to secure fair play between the partiesin the chamber and a hearing for all. It was not until 1811 thatbusiness of the Government was permitted to obtain recognizedprecedence on certain days; but the history of the procedure of theCommons since that date is a record of (1) the general reduction ofthe time during which private members may indulge in the discussion ofsubjects or measures lying outside the Government's legislativeprogramme, (2) increasing limitation of the opportunity for raisinggeneral questions at the various stages of Government business, and(3) the cutting down of the time allowed for discussing at all theprojects to which the Government asks the chambers' assent. [204] [Footnote 204: Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, I. , 253. ] *146. Rules. *--The rules governing debate and decorum are not onlyelaborate but, in some instances, of great antiquity. In so far asthey have been reduced to writing they may be said to comprise (1)"standing orders" of a permanent character, (2) "sessional orders, "operative during a session only, and (3) "general orders, "indeterminate in respect to period of application. In the course ofdebate all remarks are addressed to the Speaker and in the event thatthe floor is desired by more than one member it rests with the Speakerto designate, with scrupulous impartiality, who shall have it. When a"division" is in progress and the doors are closed members speakseated and covered, but at all other times they speak standing anduncovered. A speech may not be read from manuscript, and it is withinthe competence of the Speaker not only to warn a member againstirrelevance or repetition but to compel him to terminate hisremarks. [205] A member whose conduct is reprehensible may be orderedto withdraw and, upon vote of the House, may be suspended fromservice. Except in committee, a member may not speak twice upon thesame question, although he may be allowed the floor a second time toexplain a portion of his speech which has been misunderstood. Undueobstruction is not tolerated, and the Speaker may decline to put amotion which he considers dilatory. [Footnote 205: On parliamentary oratory see Graham, The Mother of Parliaments, 203-224. ] *147. Closure and the Guillotine. *--For the further limitation of debatetwo important and drastic devices are at all times available. One isordinary closure and the other is "the guillotine. " Closure datesoriginally from 1881. It was introduced in the standing orders of (p.  140)the House in 1882, and it assumed its present form in 1888. [206] Itsprang from the efforts of the House to curb the intolerablyobstructionist tactics employed a generation ago by the IrishNationalists, but by reason of the increasing mass of business to bedisposed of and the tendency of large deliberative bodies to wastetime, it has been found too useful to be given up. "After a questionhas been proposed, " reads Standing Order 26, "a member rising in hisplace may claim to move 'that the Question be now put, ' and unless itshall appear to the Chair that such motion is an abuse of the Rules ofthe House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, theQuestion 'that the Question be now put' shall be put forthwith anddecided without amendment or debate. " Discussion may thus be cut offinstantly and a vote precipitated. Closure is inoperative, however, unless the number of members voting in the majority for its adoptionis at least one hundred, or, in a standing committee, twenty. A more generally effective device by which discussion is limited andthe transaction of business is facilitated is that known as "closureby compartments, " or "the guillotine. " When this is employed the Housein advance of the consideration of a bill agrees upon an allotment oftime to the various parts or stages of the measure, and at theexpiration of each period debate, whether concluded or not, is closed, a vote is taken, and a majority adopts that portion of the bill uponwhich the guillotine has fallen. In recent years this device has beenemployed almost invariably when an important Government bill isreserved for consideration in Committee of the Whole. Its advantage isthe saving of time and the ensuring that by a given date final actionupon a measure shall have been taken. Prior to the middle of thenineteenth century liberty of discussion in the Commons was all butunrestrained, save by what an able authority on English parliamentarypractice has termed "the self-imposed parliamentary discipline of theparties. "[206] The enormous change which has come about isattributable to two principal causes, congestion of business and therise of obstructionism. The effect has been, among other things, toaccentuate party differences and to involve occasional disregard ofthe rights of minorities. [207] [Footnote 206: The name was first employed in 1887. ] [Footnote 207: Redlich, Procedure of the House of Commons, I. , 133-212; Graham, The Mother of Parliaments, 158-172. An excellent illustration of the use of the guillotine is afforded by the history of the passage of the National Insurance Bill of 1911. See _Annual Register_ (1911), 232-236. ] *148. Votes and Divisions. *--When debate upon the whole or a portion ofa measure is terminated there takes place a vote, which may or maynot involve, technically, a "division. " The Speaker or Chairman (p.  141)states the question to be voted upon and calls for the ayes and noes. He announces the apparent result and, if his decision is notchallenged, the vote is so recorded. If, however, any member objects, strangers are asked to withdraw (save from the places reserved forthem), electric bells are rung throughout the building, the two-minutesand-glass is turned, and at the expiration of the time the doors arelocked. The question is then repeated and another oral vote is taken. If there is still lack of acquiescence in the announced result, theSpeaker orders a division. The ayes pass into the lobby at theSpeaker's right and the noes into that at his left, and all arecounted by four tellers designated by the Speaker, two from each side, as the members return to their places in the chamber. This method oftaking a division has undergone but little change since 1836. Under astanding order of 1888 the Speaker is empowered, in the event that heconsiders a demand for a division dilatory or irresponsible, to callupon the ayes and noes to rise in their places and be counted; butthere is seldom occasion for resort to this variation from theestablished practice. The device of "pairing" is not unknown, and whenthe question is one of political moment the fact is made obvious bythe activity of the party "whips" in behalf of the interests whichthey represent. [208] [Footnote 208: On the conduct of business in the Commons see Lowell, Government of England, I, Chaps. 15-16; Moran, English Government, Chap. 15; Walpole, Electorate and Legislature, Chap. 8; Ilbert, Parliament, Chap. 5; Redlich, Procedure of the House of Commons, II. , 215-264, III. , 1-41; May, Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of Parliament, Chaps, 8-12; Medley, Manual of English Constitutional History, 231-284; Graham, The Mother of Parliaments, 225-258; and MacDonaugh, The Book of Parliament, 217-247. ] *149. Procedure in the Lords. *--The rules of procedure of the House ofLords are in theory simple, and in practice yet more so. Nominally, all measures of importance, after being read twice, are considered inCommittee of the Whole, referred to a standing committee for textualrevision, reported, and accorded final adoption or rejection. Inpractice the process is likely to be abbreviated. Few bills, forexample, are actually referred to the revision committee. For theexamination of such measures as seem to require it committees areconstituted for the session, and others are created from time to timeas need of them appears, but the comparative leisure of the chamberpermits debate within the Committee of the Whole upon any measurewhich the members really care to discuss. Willful obstruction is allbut unknown, so that there has never been occasion for the adoption ofany form of closure. Important questions are decided, as a rule, by adivision. When the question is put those members who desire toregister an affirmative vote repair to the lobby at the right of (p.  142)the woolsack, those who are opposed to the proposal take their placesin the corresponding lobby at the left, and both groups are counted bytellers appointed by the presiding officer. A member may abstain fromvoting by taking his station on "the steps of the throne, " technicallyaccounted outside the chamber. Prior to 1868 absent members wereallowed to vote by proxy, but this indefensible privilege, abolishedby standing order in the year mentioned, is likely never to berevived. [209] [Footnote 209: On the conduct of business in the Lords see Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, I. , 281-291. ] CHAPTER VII (p.  143) POLITICAL PARTIES I. PARLIAMENTARISM AND THE PARTY SYSTEM *150. Government by Party. *--Intimately connected with the parliamentaryscheme of government which has been described is the characteristicBritish system of government by party. Indeed, not merely is therebetween the two an intimate connection; they are but different aspectsof the same working arrangement. The public affairs of the kingdom atany given time, as has appeared, are managed by the body of ministers, acting with and through a supporting majority in the House of Commons. These ministers belong to one or the other of the two great politicalparties, with only occasional and incidental representation of minoraffiliated political groups. Their supporters in the Commons are, inthe main, their fellow-partisans, and their tenure of power isdependent upon the fortunes of their party in Parliament andthroughout the country. They are at once the working executive, theguiding agency in legislation, and the leaders and spokesmen of thisparty. Confronting them constantly is the Opposition, consisting ofinfluential exponents of the contrary political faith who, in turn, lead the rank and file of their party organization; and if at any timethe ministers in power lose their supporting majority in the Commons, whether through adverse results of a national election or otherwise, they retire and the Opposition assumes office. The parliamentarysystem and the party system are thus inextricably related, the onebeing, indeed, historically the product of the other. It wasprincipally through the agency of party spirit, party contest, andparty unity that there was established by degrees that single andcollective responsibility of ministers which lies at the root ofparliamentary government; and, but for the coherence and stabilitywith which political activity is invested by party organization, theoperation of the parliamentary system would be an impossibility. Thelaw of the British constitution does not demand the existence ofparties; on the contrary, it affords them no recognition or place. Theconventions, however, both assume and require them. *151. Two-Party Organization. *--The relationship which subsists (p.  144)between parliamentarism and party government is to be accounted for inno small measure by the fact that the number of great parties in theUnited Kingdom is but two. Certain continental nations, notably Franceand Italy, possess the forms of parliamentary government, adoptedwithin times comparatively recent and taken over largely from GreatBritain. In these countries, however, the multiplicity of partieseffectually prevents the operation of the parliamentary system in thefashion in which that system operates across the Channel. Ministriesmust be made up invariably of representatives of a number ofessentially independent groups. They are apt to be in-harmonious, tobe able to execute but indifferently the composite will of theGovernment coalition in the popular chamber, and, accordingly, to beshort-lived. Despite the rise in recent decades of the IrishNationalist and Labor groups, it is still true in Great Britain, as ithas been since political parties first made their appearance there, that two leading party affiliations divide between themselves theallegiance of the mass of the nation. The defeat of one means thetriumph of the other, and either alone is competent normally to governindependently if elevated to power. This means, on the one hand, amuch more thoroughgoing predominance of the governing party than canbe acquired by a single party in France or Italy and, on the otherhand, a unique concentration of responsibility and, in turn, anincreased responsiveness to the public will. The leaders of the oneparty for the time in the ascendancy govern the nation, by reason ofthe fact that, _being_ the leaders of this party, they are selectedwithout doubt or equivocation to fill the principal offices ofstate. [210] [Footnote 210: For a fuller exposition of the relations of party and the parliamentary system see Lowell, Government of England, I. , Chap. 24. The best description of English parties and party machinery is that contained in Chaps. 24-37 of President Lowell's volumes. The growth of parties and of party organization is discussed with fullness and with admirable temper in M. Ostrogorski, Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties, trans. By F. Clarke, 2 vols. (London, 1902). A valuable monograph is A. L. Lowell, The Influence of Party upon Legislation in England and America, in _Annual Report of American Historical Association for 1901_ (Washington, 1902), I. , 319-542. An informing study is E. Porritt, The Break-up of the English Party System, in _Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science_, V. , No. 4 (Jan. , 1895), and an incisive criticism is H. Belloc and H. Chesterton, The Party System (London, 1911). There is no adequate history of English political parties from their origins to the present day. G. W. Cooke, The History of Party from the Rise of the Whig and Tory factions in the Reign of Charles II. To the Passing of the Reform Bill, 3 vols. (London, 1836-1837) covers the subject satisfactorily to the end of the last unreformed parliament. Other party histories--as T. E. Kebbel, History of Toryism (London, 1886); C. B. R. Kent, The English Radicals (London, 1899); W. Harris, History of the Radical Party in Parliament (London, 1885); and J. B. Daly, The Dawn of Radicalism (London, 1892)--cover important but restricted fields. An admirable work which deals with party organization as well as with party principles is R. S. Watson, The National Liberal Federation from its Commencement to the General Election of 1906 (London, 1907). For further party histories see p. 160, 166. ] II. PARTIES IN THE LATER EIGHTEENTH AND EARLIER NINETEENTH (p.  145)CENTURIES *152. Whigs and Tories. *--The seventeenth-century origins of politicalparties in England, the development of Whigs and Tories following theRevolution of 1688-1689, and the prolonged Whig supremacy during thereigns of George I. And George II. , have been alluded to in anotherplace. [211] During the eighteenth century the parliamentary system wasbut slowly coming into its own, and again and again party lines allbut disappeared. The recurring rivalry of Whig and Tory elements, however, brought about gradually a habitual recognition of theresponsibility of ministers, and this responsibility, in turn, reactedto accentuate party demarcation. The efforts of George III. To revivethe royal prerogative had the effect of calling into existence a bodyof new Tories, not Jacobite, but Hanoverian, who supported the king inhis purpose, and at the same time, of driving the forces of oppositionto a closer union and more constant vigilance. Throughout the centurythe tone of party politics was continuously low. Bribery and otherforms of corruption were rife, and the powers of government, bothnational and local, were in the hands regularly of an aristocraticminority which ruled in its own interest. The high-water mark ofintrigue was reached in 1783 when the old Tories, led by Lord North, allied themselves with the old Whigs, led by Charles James Fox, toretain power and to curtail the influence of the king. The coalitionwas unsuccessful, and the defeat of Fox's India Bill, in December, 1783, became the occasion of the younger Pitt's elevation to thepremiership, followed within three months by a national election whichprecipitated an end of the seventy years of Whig ascendancy. [Footnote 211: See p. 39. ] *153. The Tory Ascendancy, 1783-1830. *--Throughout the ensuing forty-sixyears, or until 1830, the new Tory party continued almostuninterruptedly in power, although it is to be observed that after1790 the composition and character of this party underwent importantmodification. The first decade of the period covered by the Pittministry (1784-1801) was a time of incipient but active propaganda inbehalf of constitutional, financial, and social reform, and thegovernment was not disinclined to favor a number of the changes whichwere projected. The outbreak and progress of the Revolution in (p.  146)France, however, completely altered the situation. The greatlandowners, who constituted the dominating element in the Whig party, detested the principles of the Revolution and were insistent in seasonand out upon war with France. They secured the support of theparliamentary classes generally, and Pitt and his colleagues wereforced to surrender to the apprehensions and demands of theseelements. The war was declared by France, but it was provoked mainlyby the hostile attitude of the English people and government. At homeall reform propaganda was stamped out, and Tories and Whigs alikethroughout the quarter-century of international conflict pointedhabitually to the abuses by which the upheaval in France wasaccompanied as indicative of what might be expected in England, oranywhere, when once the way was thrown open for unrestrainedinnovation. The Tories were in power during most of the war period and in 1815their position was seemingly impregnable. During the years covered bythe ministry of Lord Liverpool (1812-1827), however, their hold wasgradually relaxed. They sought to secure for themselves the support ofthe masses and talked much of the aristocratic exclusiveness of theWhigs, yet they made it their first concern to maintain absolutelyintact the constitution of the kingdom and the political and socialorder by which it was buttressed. As long as England was engaged in alife and death contest with Napoleon the staying of innovation waseasy, but after 1815 the task became one of rapidly increasingdifficulty. In the reign of George IV. (1820-1830) the moreprogressive of the Tory leaders, notably Canning, Huskisson, and Peel, recognized that the demands of the nation would have to be met at somepoints, and a number of liberalizing measures were suffered to becarried through Parliament, though none which touched directly themost serious problems of the day. In 1830 the resignation of theministry of the Duke of Wellington marked the end of the prolongedTory ascendancy, and with a ministry presided over by Earl Grey theWhigs returned to power. With the exception of a few brief intervalsthey and their successors, the Liberals, held office thereafter until1874. [212] [Footnote 212: The party history of the period 1700-1792 is related admirably and in much detail in W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the Eighteenth Century, 7 vols. (new ed. , New York, 1903). Beginning with 1815, the best work on English political history in the earlier nineteenth century is S. Walpole, History of England from the Conclusion of the Great War in 1815, 6 vols. (new ed. , London, 1902). A good general account is contained in I. S. Leadam, The History of England from the Accession of Anne to the Death of George II. (London, 1909), and W. Hunt, The History of England from the Accession of George III. To the Close of Pitt's First Administration (London, 1905). Briefer accounts of the period 1783-1830 will be found in May and Holland, Constitutional History of England, I. , 409-440, and in Cambridge Modern History, IX. , Chap. 22 and X. , Chaps. 18-20 (see bibliography, pp. 856-870). Important biographies of political leaders include A. Von Ruville, William Pitt, Graf von Chatham, 3 vols. (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1905); W. D. Green, William Pitt, Earl of Chatham (London, 1901); E. Fitzmaurice, Life of William, Earl of Shelburne, 3 vols. (London, 1875-1876); Lord P. H. Stanhope, Life of Pitt, 4 vols. (London, 1861-1862); Lord Rosebery, Pitt (London, 1891); and Lord J. Russell, Life of Charles James Fox, 3 vols. (1859-1867). ] III. THE SECOND ERA OF WHIG [LIBERAL] ASCENDANCY, 1830-1874 (p.  147) *154. The Liberals and Reform. *--The political history of this secondgreat era of Whig ascendancy falls into some four or five stages. Thefirst, extending from the accession of the Grey ministry in 1830 tothe parliamentary elections of 1841, was an epoch of notable reforms, undertaken and carried through mainly by the Whigs, with theco-operation of various radical elements and of discontented Tories. This was the period of the first Reform Act (1832), the emancipationof slaves in the British colonies (1833), the beginning ofparliamentary appropriations for public education (1833), the FactoryAct of 1833, the New Poor Law (1834), the Municipal Corporations Act(1835), and a number of other measures designed to meet urgent demandsof humanity and of public interest. This was the time, furthermore, atwhich the party nomenclature of later days was brought into use. Thename Whig was superseded altogether by that of Liberal, while the nameTory, though not wholly discontinued in everyday usage, was replacedlargely by the term Conservative. [213] The Liberals were in theseyears peculiarly the party of reform, but it must not be inferred thatthe Conservatives resisted all change or withheld support from allmeasures of amelioration. [Footnote 213: The name Conservative was employed by Canning as early as 1824. Its use was already becoming common when, in January, 1835, Peel, in his manifesto to the electors of Tamworth, undertook an exposition of the principles of what he declared should be known henceforth as the Conservative--not the Tory--party. ] *155. From Peel to Palmerston. *--The second stage of the period undersurvey was that comprised by the Conservative ministry of Sir RobertPeel, 1841-1846, established in consequence of the decisive defeat ofthe Whigs at the elections of 1841. The memorable achievement of thePeel government was the repeal of the Corn Laws and the casting off ofsubstantially the whole of the protective system; but the tariffpolicy of the premier divided the Conservative party into theprotectionists or old Conservatives, led by Disraeli and Lord Derby, and the free trade or liberal Conservatives, led by Aberdeen and (p.  148)Gladstone, and the breach enabled the Liberals, under Lord JohnRussell, to recover office in 1847. A third stage of the period, i. E. , 1847 to 1859, was one of ministerial instability. Disputes betweenRussell and Palmerston, the foreign minister, undermined the Liberalposition, and in 1852 the Conservatives, under the leadership ofDerby, returned to power. In 1853, however, the free tradeConservatives joined the Liberals, overthrew Derby, and placed inoffice a coalition ministry under Aberdeen. This government maintaineditself until 1855, when, by reason of discontent aroused by hismanagement of England's part in the Crimean War, Aberdeen resigned andwas succeeded by Palmerston, at the head of another Liberal ministry. Foreign difficulties drove Palmerston from office early in 1858, andthe establishment of a second Derby ministry marked a brief return ofthe Conservatives to control. Defeated, however, on a resolutioncensuring the Government for the inadequacy of the reform billintroduced by it in 1859, and also for the failure of Lord Derby toprevent the war between France and Austria, the ministry resigned, inApril, 1859, and Lord Palmerston returned to power, with Gladstone andLord John Russell as colleagues. Gladstone's acceptance of officeunder Palmerston marked the final severance of the Peelites from theConservative party and the abandonment of all hope of thereconstruction for which both Gladstone and Derby had labored. *156. Party Regeneration. *--A fourth, and final, stage of the Liberalperiod covered the years 1859 to 1874. Its importance arises notmerely from the fact that the culmination of the power of the Liberalsduring the nineteenth century was attained at this point, but from thefurther fact that it was during these years that the Liberal party wastransformed and popularized so as to be made for the first time reallyworthy of the name which it bears. As long as Palmerston lived theLiberals of the old school, men who disliked radicalism and werecontent with the reform of 1832, were in the ascendancy, but after thepremier's death, October 18, 1865, new ideas and influences assertedthemselves and a new Liberal party came rapidly to the fore. Thisregenerated party, whose leader was Gladstone, rejected definitely theideal of _laissez-faire_, took over numerous principles of theRadicals, and, with the watchwords of "peace, retrenchment, andreform, " began to insist upon a broader parliamentary franchise andupon fresh legislation for the protection and general betterment ofthe masses. The new liberalism was paralleled, however, by a newconservatism, whose principal exponent was Disraeli. The newConservatives likewise advocated franchise reform and legislation forthe people, although they put more emphasis upon the latter than uponthe former; and they especially favored a firm foreign policy, (p.  149)an extension of British interests in all parts of the world, and theadoption of a scheme of colonial federation. They appeared, at least, to have less regard for peace and for economy than had the Liberals. The temper and tendencies of the parties as they gradually assumedshape during the third quarter of the nineteenth century have beencharacterized effectively by a recent writer as follows: "The partiesof which Gladstone and Disraeli were the chiefs were linked bycontinuous historical succession with the two great sections orfactions of the aristocracy, or hereditary oligarchy, which ruledGreat Britain in the eighteenth century. But each had been transformedby national changes since the Reform Bill. The Whigs had becomeLiberals, the Tories had become Conservatives. The Liberal party hadabsorbed part of the principles of the French Revolution. They stoodnow for individual liberty, laying especial stress on freedom oftrade, freedom of contract, and freedom of competition. They had setthemselves to break down the rule of the landowner and the Church, toshake off the fetters of Protection, and to establish equality beforethe law. Their acceptance of egalitarian principles led them to adoptdemocratic ideals, to advocate extension of the suffrage, and theemancipation of the working classes. Such principles, though notrevolutionary, are to some extent disruptive in their tendency; andtheir adoption by the Liberals had forced the Tory party to rangethemselves in defense of the existing order of things. They professedto stand for the Crown, the Church, and the Constitution. They werecompelled by the irresistible trend of events to accept democraticprinciples and to carry out democratic reforms. They preferred, infact, to carry out such reforms themselves, in order that thesafeguards which they considered necessary might be respected. Democratic principles having been adopted, both parties made it theirobject to redress grievances; but the Conservatives showed a naturalpredisposition to redress those grievances which arose from excessivefreedom of competition, the Liberals were the more anxious to redressthose which were the result of hereditary or customary privilege. Theharmony of the State consists in the equilibrium between the twoopposing forces of liberty and order. The Liberals laid more stressupon liberty, the Conservatives attached more importance to order andestablished authority. "[214] [Footnote 214: S. Leathes, in Cambridge Modern History, XII. , 30-31. ] *157. The First Gladstone Ministry. *--Upon the death of Palmerston in1865 Lord John Russell became premier a second time, but in the courseof the following year a franchise reform bill brought forward by theGovernment was defeated in the Commons, through the instrumentalitychiefly of a group of old Liberals (the "Adullamites") who (p.  150)opposed modification of the electoral system, and by curiouscircumstance it fell to the purely Conservative Derby-Disraeliministry of 1866-1868 not only to carry the first electoral reformsince 1832 but to impart to that reform a degree of thoroughness uponwhich none save the most advanced radicals had cared to insist. Theresults of the doubling of the electorate were manifest in thesubstantial majority which the new Liberals acquired at the electionsof 1868, and the Disraeli ministry (Derby had retired early in theyear) gave place to a government presided over by the indubitableleader of the new Liberal forces, Gladstone. The years 1868-1874, covered by the first Gladstone ministry, were given distinction by aremarkable series of reforms, including the disestablishment of theChurch in Ireland (1869), the enactment of an Irish land bill (1870), the institution of national control of elementary education (1870), and the adoption of the Australian ballot in parliamentary elections(1872). Defeated at last, however, on an Irish university bill, theministry resigned, and when, at the elections of 1874, the country wasappealed to, the Conservatives obtained a clear parliamentary majorityof fifty seats. This was the first really dependable majority, indeed, which the party had possessed since 1842. Disraeli became primeminister and Derby minister for foreign affairs. [215] [Footnote 215: The political history of the period 1830-1874 is covered very satisfactorily in W. N, Molesworth, History of England from the Year 1830-1874, 3 vols. (London, 1874). Other general works include: Walpole, History of England, vols. 3-6, extending to 1856; H. Paul, History of Modern England, 5 vols. (London, 1904-1906), vols. 1-3, beginning with 1845; J. McCarthy, History of Our Own Times from the Accession of Queen Victoria, 7 vols. (1877-1905), vols. 1-3, beginning with the events of 1837; J. F. Bright, History of England, 5 vols. (London, 1875-1894), vol. 4; and S. Low and L. C. Sanders, History of England during the Reign of Victoria (London, 1907). Briefer treatment will be found in May and Holland, Constitutional History of England, I. , 440-468, III. , 67-88, and in Cambridge Modern History, XI. , chaps. 1, 11, 12 (see bibliography, pp. 867-873). Biographies of importance include S. Walpole, Life of Lord John Russell, 2 vols. (London, 1889); H. Maxwell, Life of the Duke of Wellington, 2 vols. (London, 1899); J. Morley, Life of William E. Gladstone, 3 vols. (London, 1903); J. R. Thursfield, Peel (London, 1907); W. F. Monypenny, Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield (London, 1910-1912), vols. 1-2, covering the years 1804-1846; and S. Lee, Queen Victoria, a Biography (rev. Ed. , London, 1904). ] IV. THE SECOND ERA OF CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY, 1874-1905 *158. The Question of Irish Home Rule. *--During the five years coveredby the life of the second Disraeli ministry British imperialismreached flood tide. The reforms of the Gladstone government were (p.  151)not undone, but the Conservative leaders interested themselvesprincipally in foreign and colonial questions, and home affairsreceived but scant attention. The result was public discontent, and atthe elections of 1880 the Liberals obtained a parliamentary majorityof more than one hundred seats. It remained for the second Gladstonegovernment, established at this point, to adjust a number ofdifficulties on the frontiers of the Empire; but the heart of theministry was not in this sort of work and the way was cleared asspeedily as possible for a return to the consideration of problems ofa domestic nature. In 1884 the Representation of the People Act wascarried, and in 1885 the Redistribution of Seats Act. But now, andthroughout a decade and a half following, the question whichovershadowed all others was that of Home Rule for Ireland. Upon thisissue, in its variety of aspects, governments henceforth rose andfell, parties were disrupted and re-aligned. In 1885 the Parnellites, or Irish Nationalists, incensed because of Gladstone's indifference toHome Rule, and taking advantage of the ministry's unpopularity arisingfrom the failure of its Egyptian policy, compassed the defeat of theGovernment on a measure relating to the taxing of beer and spirits. The Marquis of Salisbury, who after the death of Lord Beaconsfield, in1881, had become leader of the Conservatives, made up a government;but, absolutely dependent upon the Irish Nationalist alliance and yetirrevocably committed against Home Rule, the Salisbury ministry founditself from the outset in an impossible position. *159. The Liberal Unionists. *--The elections at the end of 1885 yieldedthe Conservatives 249 seats, the Irish Nationalists 86, and theLiberals 335, and January 28, 1880, the Salisbury ministry retired. Gladstone returned to power and Home Rule took its place in the formalprogramme of the Liberal party. Then followed, April 8, 1886, theintroduction of the first of Gladstone's memorable Home Rule bills. The measure accorded the Irish a separate parliament at Dublin, cutthem off from representation at Westminster, and required them to beara proportionate share of the expenses of the Imperial Government. Itwas thrown out by the Commons on the second reading. The Conservativesopposed it solidly, many of the Irish Nationalists were dissatisfiedwith it, and upwards of a hundred Liberal members, led by JosephChamberlain, flatly refused to follow the majority of theirfellow-partisans in voting for it. Under the name of Liberal Unioniststhese dissenters eventually broke entirely from their earlieraffiliation; and, inclining more and more toward the position occupiedby the Conservatives, they ended by losing their identity in the ranksof that party. Their accession, however, brought the Conservativesnew vigor, new issues, and even a new name, for in more recent (p.  152)days the term Conservative has been supplanted very generally by thatof Unionist. *160. Second Salisbury and Fourth Gladstone Ministries. *--The defeat ofHome Rule was followed by a national election, the result of which wasthe return of 316 Conservatives, 78 Liberal Unionists, 191 GladstonianLiberals, and 85 Irish Nationalists. The combined unionists had amajority of 118, and July 26, 1886, the short-lived third Gladstonegovernment was succeeded by a second ministry presided over by theMarquis of Salisbury. Home Rule, however, was not dead. During theyears of the Salisbury ministry (1886-1892) the authorities wereobliged to devote much attention to Irish affairs, and in 1892 theLiberals were returned to office on a platform which stipulatedexpressly Home Rule for Ireland. [216] The Conservative appeal to thecountry at this time was made on the ground, first, that Home Ruleshould be resisted, and, second, that the Government's achievements inreform and constructive legislation entitled the party to continuancein power; but in the new parliament there was an adverse majority offorty, and August 18 Gladstone, for the fourth time, was requested toform a ministry. [217] The elections of 1892 are of interest by reasonof the fact that they marked the first appearance of independent laborrepresentatives in Parliament. Miners' delegates and an agriculturallaborer had been elected before, but they had identified themselves inall instances with the radical wing of the Liberals. There were nowreturned, however, four members, including John Burns and Keir Hardie, who chose to hold aloof and, as they expressed it, "to sit inopposition until they should cross the house to form a laborgovernment. " The Home Rule bill which Gladstone introduced February13, 1893, differed from its predecessor of 1886 principally in notexcluding the Irish from representation at Westminster. It was passedin the House of Commons, although by an ultimate majority of butthirty-four, but in the Lords it was rejected by a vote of 419 to 41. In the face of an obstacle so formidable as that imposed by theadverse majority in the upper chamber it appeared useless to press theissue. The Lords, whose power in legislation became at this pointgreater than at any time since 1832, systematically balked theGovernment at every turn, and March 3, 1894, Gladstone, aged and (p.  153)weary of parliamentary strife, retired from office. His last speech inthe Commons comprised a sharp arraignment of the House of Lords, witha forecast of the clash which eventually would lead (and, in point offact, has led) to the reconstitution of that chamber. [Footnote 216: This was the "Newcastle Programme, " drawn up at a convention of the National Liberal Federation at Newcastle in October, 1891. Items in the programme, in addition to Home Rule, included the disestablishment of the Church in Wales and Scotland, a local veto on the sale of intoxicating liquors, the abolition of the plural franchise, and articles defining employers' liability and limiting the hours of labor. ] [Footnote 217: C. A. Whitmore, Six Years of Unionist Government, 1886-1892 (London, 1892). ] *161. Third and Fourth Salisbury Ministries. *--For the time the Earl ofRosebery, who had been foreign secretary, assumed the premiership andthere was no break in the Government's policy. In June, 1895, however, the ministry suffered a defeat on the floor of the Commons, and theMarquis of Salisbury was a third time invited to form a government. The retirement of Gladstone brought to light numerous rifts within theLiberal party, and when the new ministry, in July, appealed to thecountry, with Home Rule as a preponderating issue, its supporterssecured in the Commons a majority of 152 seats over the Liberals andNationalists combined. The Liberal Unionists returned 71 members, andto cement yet more closely the Conservative-Unionist alliance LordSalisbury made up a ministry in which the Unionist elements were ablyrepresented by Joseph Chamberlain as Colonial Secretary, ViscountGoschen as First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Duke of Devonshire asPresident of the Council. The premier himself returned to the post ofForeign Secretary, and his nephew, Arthur J. Balfour, now become againGovernment leader in the Commons, to that of First Lord of theTreasury. The accession of the third Salisbury ministry marked thebeginning of a Unionist ascendancy which lasted uninterruptedly a fulldecade. In 1902 Lord Salisbury, whose fourth ministry, dating from theelections of 1900, was continuous with his third, retired from publiclife, but he was succeeded in the premiership by Mr. Balfour, and thepersonnel and policies of the Government continued otherwiseunchanged. [218] [Footnote 218: The most useful works on the party history of the period 1874-1895 are Paul, History of Modern England, vols. 4-5, and Morley, Life of W. E. Gladstone, vol. 3. J. McCarthy's History of Our Own Times, vols. 4-6, covers the ground in a popular way. Useful brief accounts are May and Holland, Constitutional History of England, III. , 88-127, and Cambridge Modern History, XII. , Chap. 3 (bibliography, pp. 853-855). An excellent book is H. Whates, The Third Salisbury Administration, 1895-1900 (London, 1901). ] *162. Unionist Imperialism: the Elections of 1900. *--During the largerpart of this Unionist decade the Liberal party, rent by factionaldisputes and personal rivalries, afforded but ineffective opposition. [219]The Home Rule question fell into the background; and although (p.  154)the Unionists carried through a considerable amount of social andindustrial legislation, the interests of the period center largely inthe Government's policies and achievements within the domain offoreign and colonial affairs. The most hotly contested issue of thedecade was imperialism; the most commanding public figure was JosephChamberlain; the most notable enterprise undertaken was the war inSouth Africa. In 1900 it was resolved by the ministerial leaders totake advantage of the public spirit engendered by the war to procurefor the Unionists a fresh lease of power. Parliament was dissolvedand, on the eve of the announcement of the annexation of theTransvaal, a general election was held. The Liberals, led since earlyin 1899 by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, charged the Unionists withneglect of social and industrial matters, pledged themselves toeducational, housing, and temperance reform, and sought especially toconvince the electorate that they might be intrusted with safety todefend the legitimate interests of the Empire. The Government forcedthe fight upon the issue of South African policy almost exclusively, and, representing the opposition as "Little-Englanders, " went beforethe people with the argument that from the course that had beenentered upon in South Africa there could be no turning back, and thatthe present ministry was entitled to an opportunity to carry tocompletion the work that it had begun. The appeal was altogethersuccessful. The Conservatives obtained 334 seats and the LiberalUnionists 68--a total of 402; while the Liberals and Laborites carriedbut 186 and the Nationalists 82--a total of 268. The Governmentmajority in the new parliament was thus 134, almost precisely that of1895. [220] [Footnote 219: The two principal aspirants to the Gladstonian succession were Lord Rosebery and Sir William Vernon-Harcourt. Rosebery represented the imperialistic element of Liberalism and advocated a return of the party to the general position which it had occupied prior to the split on Home Rule. Harcourt and the majority of the party opposed imperialism and insisted upon attention rather to a programme of social reform. From Gladstone's retirement, in 1894, to 1896 leadership devolved upon Rosebery, but from 1896 to the beginning of 1899 Harcourt was the nominal leader, although Rosebery, as a private member, continued hardly less influential than before. ] [Footnote 220: W. Clarke, The Decline in English Liberalism, in _Political Science Quarterly_, Sept. , 1901; P. Hamelle, Les élections anglaises, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, Nov. , 1900. ] After the elections dissension within the Liberal ranks broke outafresh. The Rosebery wing maintained that, the South African warhaving been begun, it was the duty of all Englishmen to support it, and that the Unionist government should be attacked only on the groundof mismanagement. In July, 1901, Campbell-Bannerman, impelled by theweakness of his position, demanded of his fellow-partisans that theyeither ratify or repudiate his leadership of the party in the (p.  155)Commons. Approval was accorded, but no progress was realized toward anagreement upon policies. To careful observers it became clear thatthere could be no effective revival of Liberalism until the war inSouth Africa should have been terminated and the larger imperialproblems involved in it solved. For a time the only clear-cutparliamentary opposition offered the Government was that of thefrankly pro-Boer Nationalists. V. THE LIBERAL REVIVAL *163. The Issue of Tariff Reform. *--The rehabilitation of the Liberalparty came during the years 1902-1905. It was foreshadowed by thefamous Chesterfield speech of Lord Rosebery, delivered December 16, 1901, although the immediate effect of that effort was but toaccentuate party cleavages, [221] and it was made possible by areversion of the national mind from the war to domestic questions andinterests. More specifically, it was the product of opposition to theGovernment's Education Act of 1902, of public disapproval of whatseemed to be the growing arrogance of the Unionist majority in theHouse of Lords, and, above all, of the demoralization which waswrought within the ranks of Unionism by the rise of the issue ofpreferential tariffs. In a speech to his constituents at Birmingham, May 15, 1903, Mr. Chamberlain, but lately returned from a visit toSouth Africa and now at the height of his prestige, startled thenation by declaring that the time had come for Great Britain toabandon the free trade doctrines of the Manchester school and to knitthe Empire more closely together, and at the same time to promote theeconomic interests of both the colonies and the mother country, by theadoption of a system of preferential duties on imported foodstuffs. Later in the year the gifted exponent of this revolutionary programmeentered upon a vigorous speaking campaign in defense of his proposals, and there was set up a large and representative tariff commissionwhich was charged with the task of framing, after due investigation, atariff system which would meet the needs alleged to exist. Among theUnionist leaders there arose forthwith a division of opinion whichportended open rupture. The rank and file of the party was (p.  156)nonplussed and undecided, and throughout many months the subjectengrossed attention to the exclusion of very nearly everythingelse. [222] [Footnote 221: In this speech, delivered at a great Liberal meeting, there was outlined a programme upon which Rosebery virtually offered to resume the leadership of his party. The question of Boer independence was recognized as settled, but leniency toward the defeated people was advocated. It was maintained that at the close of the war there should be another general election. And the overhauling of the army, of the navy, of the educational system, and of the public finances, was marked out as an issue upon which the Liberals must take an unequivocal stand, as also temperance reform and legislation upon the housing of the poor. ] [Footnote 222: The literature of the Tariff Reform movement in Great Britain is voluminous. The nature of the protectionist proposals may be studied at first hand in J. Chamberlain, Imperial Union and Tariff Reform; speeches delivered from May 15 to November 4, 1903 (London, 1903). Worthy of mention are T. W. Mitchell, The Development of Mr. Chamberlain's Fiscal Policy, in _Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science_, XXIII. , No. 1 (Jan. , 1904); R. Lethbridge, The Evolution of Tariff Reform in the Tory Party, in _Nineteenth Century_, June, 1908; and L. L. Price, An Economic View of Mr. Chamberlain's Proposals, in _Economic Review_, April, 1904. A useful work is S. H. Jeyes, Life of Joseph Chamberlain, 2 vols. (London, 1903). ] In this situation the Liberals found their opportunity. All butunanimously opposed to the suggested departure, they assumed withavidity the rôle of defenders of England's "sacred principle of freetrade" and utilized to the utmost the appeal which could now be madeto the working classes in behalf of cheap bread. Mr. Chamberlaindenied that his scheme meant a wholesale reversal of the economicpolicy of the nation, but in the judgment of most men the issue wasjoined squarely between the general principle of free trade and thatof protection. Throughout 1904 and 1905 the Government found itselfincreasingly embarrassed by the fiscal question, as well as bydifficulties attending the administration of the Education Act, theregulation of Chinese labor in South Africa, and a number of otherurgent tasks, and the by-elections resulted so uniformly in Unionistdefeats as to presage clearly the eventual return of the Liberals topower. *164. The Liberals in Office: the Elections of 1906. *--Hesitating long, but at the last bowing somewhat abruptly before the gathering storm, Mr. Balfour tendered his resignation December 4, 1905. The Governmenthad in the Commons a working majority of seventy-six, and theParliament elected in 1900 had still another year of life. In theLords the Unionists outnumbered their opponents ten to one. Theadministration, however, had fallen off enormously in popularity, andthe obstacles imposed by the fiscal cleavage appeared insuperable. Unable wholly to follow Mr. Chamberlain in his projects, the premierhad grown weary of the attempt to balance himself on the tight rope ofambiguity between the free trade and protectionist wings of his party. Not caring, however, to give his opponents the advantage which wouldaccrue from an immediate dissolution of Parliament and the ordering ofan election which should turn on clear issues raised by the record ofthe ten years of Unionist rule, he chose simply to resign and so tocompel the formation of a new government which itself should be (p.  157)immediately on trial when the inevitable elections should come. On the day of Mr. Balfour's resignation the king designated as premierthe Liberal leader, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who forthwith madeup a cabinet of rather exceptional strength in which the premierhimself occupied the post of First Lord of the Treasury, Sir EdwardGrey that of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Herbert H. Asquith that of theExchequer, Mr. Richard B. Haldane that of War, Lord Tweedmouth that ofthe Navy, Mr. David Lloyd-George that of President of the Board ofTrade, Mr. John Burns that of President of the Local Government Board, Mr. Augustine Birrell that of President of the Board of Education, andMr. James Bryce that of Chief Secretary for Ireland. January 8, 1906, the "Khaki Parliament" was dissolved, a general election was ordered, and the new parliament was fixed to meet at the earliest legal date, February 13. The campaign that followed was the most animated, exceptthat of 1910, in recent British history. The Unionists, beingthemselves divided beyond repair on the question of the tariff, pinnedtheir hope to a disruption of the Liberal forces on the issue of HomeRule. The Liberal leaders, however, steadfastly refused to allow theIrish question to be brought into the foreground. Recognizing thatHome Rule in the immediate future was an impossibility, but pledgingthemselves to a policy contemplating its establishment by degrees, they contrived to force the battle principally upon the issue of freetrade _versus_ protection and, in general, to direct their mosttelling attack upon the fiscal record and fiscal policies of theiropponents. The result was an overwhelming Liberal triumph. In a totalof 6, 555, 301 votes, [223] 4, 026, 704 were cast for Liberal, Nationalist, and Labor candidates, and only 2, 528, 597 for Conservatives andUnionists. There were returned to the House of Commons 374 Liberals, 84 Nationalists, 54 Laborites, 131 Conservatives, and 27 LiberalUnionists, assuring the Liberals and their allies a clearpreponderance of 354. [224] Prior to the elections careful observersbelieved the return of the Liberals to power inevitable, but a victoryof such proportions was not dreamed of by the most ardent of theparty's well-wishers. [225] [Footnote 223: The number of electors in the United Kingdom in 1906 was 7, 266, 708. ] [Footnote 224: Of the Opposition 102 were Tariff Reformers of the Chamberlain school, while but 16 were thoroughgoing "Free Fooders. "] [Footnote 225: M. Caudel, Les élections générales anglaises (janvier 1906), in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, March, 1906; E. De Noirmont, Les élections anglaises de janvier 1906; les résultats généraux in _Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, March 1, 1906; E. Porritt, Party Conditions in England, in _Political Science Quarterly_, June, 1906. ] VI. THE RULE OF THE LIBERALS, 1906-1912 (p.  158) *165. The Liberal Mandate. *--The Liberal ascendancy, made thus secure bythe elections of 1906, has continued uninterruptedly to the date ofwriting (1912), and the years covered by it have been in many respectsthe most important in the political history of modern Britain. Thesignificance of the period arises principally from the vast amount ofsocial and economic legislation that has been attempted within it. Aconsiderable portion of this legislation has been successfully carriedthrough and is now in effect. Some important portions, however, havefailed of eventual adoption, chiefly in consequence of the oppositionof the Unionist majority in the Lords; and a direct outcome of theseries of clashes between the Liberals and the Lords has been theimportant constitutional readjustments comprised within the ParliamentAct of 1911 already described. Speaking broadly, the Liberals wererestored to power in 1906 because the nation desired the doing ofcertain things which the Unionists seemed unable or disinclined to do. Most important among these things were: (1) the reduction of publicexpenditures and the curbing of national extravagance; (2) theremission of taxation imposed during the South African war; (3) thereform of the army; and (4) the undertaking of an extended programmeof social reform, embracing the establishment of old age pensions, theremedying of unemployment, the regulation of the liquor traffic, andthe liberation of education from ecclesiastical domination. The nationwas solicitous, too, that the system of free trade be maintainedwithout impairment. To all of these policies, and more, the Liberalswere committed without reserve when they entered office. *166. The Party's Performance. *--During the years intervening betweenthe elections of 1906 and those of 1910 the Liberal governmentspresided over successively by Mr. Campbell-Bannerman and Mr. Asquith[226] made honest effort to redeem the election pledges of theparty. They stopped the alarming increase of the national debt andmade provision for debt reduction at a rate equalled at but two briefperiods since the middle of the nineteenth century. They repealedapproximately half of the war taxes which were still operative whenthey assumed office. In the matter of national expenditures theyaccomplished a momentary reduction, although the normal increase (p.  159)of civil outlays, the adoption of old age pensions, and, above all, the demand of the propertied interests for the maintenance of atwo-power naval standard brought about eventually an increase ratherthan a diminution of the sums carried by the annual budget. Inaccordance with a scheme worked out by Mr. Haldane they remodelled thearmy. They maintained free trade. They made no headway toward HomeRule, but they enacted, in 1909, an Irish Universities bill and anIrish Land Purchase bill which were regarded as highly favorable toIrish interests. Above all, they labored to meet the demand of thenation for social legislation. The prevalence of unemployment, themisery occasioned by widespread poverty, the recurrence of strikes andother industrial disorders, the growing volume of emigration, andother related aspects of England's present social unsettlement, haveserved to fix unshakably in the public mind the idea that the statemust plan, undertake, and bear the cost of huge projects of social andindustrial amelioration and of democratization and reform. In therealization of those portions of their programme which relate to thesematters the Liberals have been only partially successful. They enactedimportant labor legislation, including an eight-hour working day inmines, a Labor Exchanges act, and a Trades Disputes act, and theyestablished, by act of 1908, an elaborate system of old age pensions. By reason of the opposition of the House of Lords, however, theyfailed to enact the bill of 1906 for the abolition of pluralvoting, the hotly contested measure of 1906 providing for theundenominationalizing of the schools, the Aliens Bill of 1906, theLand Values Bill of 1907, the Licensing Bill of 1908, the LondonElections Bill of 1909, and, finally, the Finance Bill of 1909, whoserejection by the Lords precipitated a dissolution of Parliament andthe ordering of the elections of January, 1910. [Footnote 226: Mr. Campbell-Bannerman resigned April 5, 1908. His successor was Mr. Asquith, late Chancellor of the Exchequer. Most of the ministers were continued in their respective offices, but Mr. Lloyd-George became Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Winston Churchill President of the Board of Trade, Lord Tweedmouth President of the Council, and the Earl of Crewe Secretary of State for the Colonies. ] *167. The Liberals Versus the Lords: the Elections of January, 1910. *--Four years of conflict with the overpowering Opposition in theupper chamber brought the Liberals to a place from which they neithercould nor would go on until certain fundamentals were settled. Thefirst was the assurance of revenues adequate to meet the growingdemands upon the treasury. The second was the alteration of the statusof the Lords to make certain the predominance of the popular branch ofParliament in finance and legislation. During the two years(1909-1911) while these great issues were pending the nation wasstirred to the depths and party conflict was unprecedented inintensity. On the side of finance, Unionists and Liberals were insubstantial agreement upon the policies--especially old age pensionsand naval aggrandizement--which rendered larger outlays inevitable;they differed, rather, upon the means by which the necessary funds (p.  160)should be obtained. The solution offered in the Lloyd-George budget of1909 was the imposition of new taxes on land and the increase ofliquor license duties and of the taxes on incomes and inheritances. The new burdens were contrived to fall almost wholly upon thepropertied, especially the landholding, classes. To this plan theUnionists offered the alternative of Tariff Reform, urging that theneeded revenues should be derived from duties laid principally uponimported foodstuffs, although the free trade members of the partycould not with consistency lend this proposal their support. Therejection of the Finance Bill by the Lords, November 30, 1909, sweeping aside as it did three centuries of unbroken precedent, brought to a crisis the question of the mending or ending of theLords, and although the electoral contest of January, 1910, was foughtimmediately upon the issue of the Government's finance proposals, thequestion of the Lords could by no means be kept in the background. Theresults of this election were disappointing to all parties save theNationalists. The final returns gave the Liberals 274 seats, theUnionists 273, the Nationalists 82, and the Laborites 41. The Asquithgovernment found itself still in power, but absolutely dependent uponthe co-operation of the Labor and Nationalist groups. Upon the greatissues involved there was no very clear pronouncement, but it was aforegone conclusion that the tax proposals would be enacted, that somereconstitution of the House of Lords would be undertaken, and thatfree trade would not yet be in any measure abandoned. [227] [Footnote 227: R. G. Lévy, Le budget radical anglais, in _Revue Politique et Parlementaire_, Oct. 10, 1909; G. L. Fox, The Lloyd-George Budget, in _Yale Review_ (Feb. , 1910); E. Porritt, The Struggle over the Lloyd-George Budget, in _Quarterly Journal of Economics_, Feb. , 1910; P. Hamelle, Les élections anglaises, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, May 15, 1910; S. Brooks, The British Elections, in _North American Review_, March, 1910; W. T. Stead, The General Elections in Great Britain, in _Review of Reviews_, Feb. , 1910. A useful survey is Britannicus, Four Years of British Liberalism, in _North American Review_, Feb. , 1910, and a more detailed one is C. T. King, The Asquith Parliament, 1906-1909; a Popular History of its Men and Measures (London, 1910). A valuable article is E. Porritt, British Legislation in 1906, in _Yale Review_, Feb. , 1907. A French work of some value is P. Millet, La crise anglaise (Paris, 1910). A useful collection of speeches on the public issues of the period 1906-1909 is W. S. Churchill, Liberalism and the Social Problem (London, 1909). ] *168. The Liberal Triumph: the Elections of December, 1910. *--Thedevelopments of the ensuing year and a half have been sketchedelsewhere. [228] They comprised, in the main: (1) the re-introductionand the enactment of the Finance Bill of 1909: (2) the bringingforward by Mr. Asquith of the Government's proposals relative to (p.  161)the alteration of relations between the two houses of Parliament; (3)the adoption by the House of Lords of the principle of Lord Rosebery'sprojected scheme of upper chamber reform; (4) the interruption andpostponement of the contest by reason of the death of Edward VII. ; (5)the failure of the Constitutional Conference in the summer of 1910;(6) the adoption by the second chamber of the reform resolutions ofLord Lansdowne; (7) the dissolution of Parliament, after an existenceof but ten months, to afford an opportunity for a fresh appeal to thecountry on the specific issue of second chamber reform; (8) theelections of December, 1910, and the assembling of the new parliamentin January, 1911; and (9) the re-introduction and the final enactment, in the summer of 1911, of the Government's momentous Parliament Bill. At the December elections the contending forces were so solidlyentrenched that the party quotas in the House of Commons remained allbut unchanged. Following the elections they stood as follows:Liberals, 272; Unionists, 272; Nationalists, 76; IndependentNationalists (followers of William O'Brien), 8; and Laborites, 42. TheUnionists gained substantially in Lancashire, Devonshire, andCornwall, but lost ground in London and in several boroughs throughoutthe country. Still dependent upon the good-will of the minor parties, the Government addressed itself afresh to the limitation of the vetopower of the Lords and to the programme of social amelioration whichduring the recent months of excitement had been accorded meagerattention. Effort in the one direction bore fruit in the ParliamentAct, approved by the crown August 18, 1911; while upon the other sidesubstantial results were achieved in the enactment, December 16, 1911, of a far-reaching measure instituting a national system of insuranceagainst both sickness and unemployment. [229] [Footnote 228: See pp. 108-111. ] [Footnote 229: On the elections of December, 1910, see P. Hamelle, La crise anglaise: les élections de décembre 1910, in _Revue des Sciences Politiques_, July-Aug. , 1911; E. T. Cook, The Election--Before and After, in _Contemporary Review_, Jan. , 1911; Britannicus, The British Elections, in _North American Review_, Jan. , 1911; and A. Kann, Les élections anglaises, in _Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, Jan. 16, 1911. The best account of the adoption of the Parliament Bill is A. L. P. Dennis, The Parliament Act of 1911, in _American Political Science Review_, May and Aug. , 1912. For other references see p. 115. On the National Insurance Act see E. Porritt The British National Insurance Act, in _Political Science Quarterly_, June, 1912; A. Gigot, La nouvelle loi anglaise sur l'assurance nationale, in _Le Correspondant_, May 10, 1912; O. Clark, The National Insurance Act of 1911 (London, 1912); and A. S. C. Carr, W. H. Stuart, and J. H. Taylor, National Insurance (London, 1912). The text of the Insurance Act is printed in _Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor_, No. 102 (Washington, 1912). ] VII. THE PARTIES OF TO-DAY (p.  162) *169. Significance of "Liberal" and "Conservative. "*--Of the fourpolitical parties of Great Britain to-day one, the Irish Nationalist, is localized in Ireland and has for its essential purpose theattainment of the single end of Irish Home Rule;[230] another, theLabor party, is composed all but exclusively of workingmen, mainlymembers of trade-unions, and exists to promote the interests of thelaboring masses; while the two older and more powerful ones, theLiberal and the Conservative or Unionist, are broadly national intheir constituencies and well-nigh universal in the range of theirprinciples and policies. It is essential to observe, however, thatwhile the programme of the Nationalists is, at least to a certainpoint, perfectly precise, and that of the Laborites is hardly less so, there is no longer, despite the heat of recurring electoral andparliamentary combats, much that is fundamental or permanent in thedemarcation which sets off the two major parties the one against theother. Even the names "Liberal" and "Conservative" denote in realitymuch less than might be supposed. During the generation which beganwith the Reform Act of 1832 the Liberals, indeed, extended thefranchise to the middle classes, reformed the poor law, overhauled thecriminal law, introduced a new and more satisfactory scheme ofmunicipal administration, instituted public provision for elementaryeducation, enacted statutes to safeguard the public health, removedthe disabilities of dissenters, and assisted in the overthrow of theprotective system. But if the Conservatives of the period 1830-1870played, in general, the rôle implied by their party designation, theirattitude none the less was by no means always that of obstructionists, and in the days of the Disraelian leadership they became scarcely lessa party of reform than were their opponents. Beginning with the ReformAct of 1867, a long list of progressive and even revolutionizingmeasures must be credited to them, and in late years they and theLiberals have vied in advocating old age pensions, factorylegislation, accident insurance, housing laws, and other sorts ofadvanced and remedial governmental action. The differences whichseparate the two parties are not so much those of principle or of (p.  163)political dogma as those of policy respecting immediate and particularmeasures, and especially those of attitude toward certain importantorganizations and interests. The Liberals assert themselves to be moretrustful of the people and more concerned about the popular welfare, but the Conservatives enter a denial which possesses plausibility. Itis probably true that the Liberals have fostered peace and economywith more resoluteness than have their rivals, yet so far asexpenditures go the Liberal administration to-day is laying out moremoney than was ever laid out by a Conservative government in time ofpeace. The Liberals are seemingly more regardful of the interests ofScotland, Wales, and Ireland, but the difference is not so large as issometimes supposed. [Footnote 230: A recent and important work on party history is F. H. O'Donnell, A History of the Irish Parliamentary Party, 2 vols. (London, 1910). See Earl of Crewe, Ireland and the Liberal Party, in _New Liberal Review_, June, 1901; E. Porritt, Ireland's Representation in Parliament, in _North American Review_, Aug. , 1905; J. E. Barker, The Parliamentary Position of the Irish Party, in _Nineteenth Century_, Feb. , 1910; and P. Sheehan, William O'Brien and the Irish Centre Party, in _Fortnightly Review_, Dec, 1910. ] *170. Present-day Issues. *--Aside from the tariff question (and theConservatives are far from united upon the Chamberlain programme), theprincipal issues which separate the two leading parties to-day arethose which arise from the Conservative attitude of friendlinesstoward the House of Lords, the Established Church, the landowners, andthe publicans. Most of the political contests of recent years havebeen waged upon questions pertaining to the constitution of the upperchamber, denominational control of education, disestablishment, thetaxation of land, and the regulation of the liquor traffic, and in allof these matters the Liberals have been insisting upon changes whichtheir opponents either disapprove entirely or desire to confine withinnarrower bounds than those proposed. In the carrying through of theParliament Bill of 1911, providing a means by which measures may beenacted into law over the protest of the Conservative majority in theLords, the Liberals achieved their greatest triumph since 1832. Theparty stands committed to-day to a large number of far-reachingprojects, including the extension of social insurance, the revision ofthe electoral system, the establishment of Home Rule, and, ultimately, a reconstitution of the second chamber as promised in the preamble ofthe Parliament Act. At the date of writing (October, 1912) there arepending in Parliament a momentous measure for the granting of HomeRule to Ireland[231] and another for the overhauling of the electoralsystem, [232] an important bill for the disestablishment of the Churchin Wales, a measure virtually annulling the principle involved in theOsborne Decision, [233] and several minor Government proposals. Therecent victories of the Liberals have been won with the aid of Laborand Irish Nationalist votes, and the concessions which have been, (p.  164)and are being, made to the interests of these auxiliary parties may beexpected to affect profoundly the course of legislation during thecontinuance of the Liberal ascendancy. [234] There are, it may be said, indications that the Liberals possess less strength throughout thecountry than they exhibited during the critical years 1910-1911. Atthirty-eight by-elections contested by the Unionists since December, 1910, the Liberals have suffered a net loss of eight seats; and one ofthe contests lost was that in Midlothian, long the constituencyrepresented by Gladstone, which returned, in September, 1912, aConservative member for the first time in thirty-eight years. There isa tradition that when a Liberal government is defeated in Midlothianthe end of that government is not far distant. Prophecy in suchmatters, however, is futile. Meanwhile the Unionists continue to bedivided upon the tariff, but in the main they are united in oppositionto the overturning of the ancient constitutional system, although theyno longer generally oppose a moderate reform of the House of Lords. Ina speech delivered at Leeds, November 16, 1911, the new parliamentaryleader of the party, Mr. Bonar Law, [235] enumerated as the immediateUnionist purposes (1) to oppose the Government's Welsh Disestablishmentscheme, (2) to resist Home Rule, (3) to labor for tariff reform as theonly practicable means of solving the problem of unemployment, and (4)to defend at all costs the unity of the Empire. [Footnote 231: W. J. Laprade, The Present Status of the Home Rule Question, in _American Political Science Review_, Nov. , 1912. ] [Footnote 232: See p. 90. ] [Footnote 233: See p. 127. ] [Footnote 234: H. Seton-Karr, The Radical Party and Social Reform, in _Nineteenth Century_, Dec, 1910. ] [Footnote 235: Mr. Law was chosen Opposition leader in the Commons November 13, 1911, upon the unexpected retirement of Mr. Balfour from that position. ] *171. Party Composition. *--Both of the great parties as constitutedto-day possess substantial strength in all portions of the kingdomsave Ireland, the Liberals being in the preponderance in Scotland, Wales, and northern England, and the Conservatives in the south andsouthwest. Within the Conservative ranks are found much the greaterportion of the people of title, wealth, and social position; nearlyall of the clergy of the Established Church, and some of theDissenters; a majority of the graduates of the universities[236] andof members of the bar; most of the prosperous merchants, manufacturers, and financiers; a majority of clerks and approximatelyhalf of the tradesmen and shopkeepers; and a very considerable mass, though not in these days half, of the workingmen. During the secondhalf of the nineteenth century the well-to-do and aristocratic (p.  165)Whig element in the Liberal party was drawn over, in the main, to theranks of the Conservatives, [237] and to this day the Liberal partycontains but a small proportion of the rank and wealth of the kingdom. It is pre-eminently an organization of the middle and popular classes. [Footnote 236: At the election of 1906, 21, 505 of the 25, 771 votes recorded in the university constituencies were cast for Unionist candidates. Since 1885 not a Liberal member has been returned from any one of the universities. ] [Footnote 237: The defection was largest at the time of the Liberal Unionist secession in 1886. ] *172. The Independent Labor Party. *--The Labor party of the present dayis the product largely of the twin agencies of socialism andtrade-unionism. As early as 1868 two persons sought seats inParliament as representatives of labor, and at the elections of 1874there were no fewer than thirteen labor candidates, two of whom weresuccessful. Great industrial upheavals of succeeding years, notablythe strike of the London dock laborers in 1889, together with the riseof new organizations composed of unskilled labor and pronouncedlyinfected with socialism, created demand for the interference of thestate for the improvement of labor conditions and led eventually tothe organization of the Independent Labor Party in 1893. The aim ofthis party as set forth in its constitution and rules is essentiallysocialistic, namely, "the establishment of collective ownership andcontrol of the means of production, distribution, and exchange"; andthe working programme as originally announced includes (1) a universaleight-hour day, (2) the abolition of over-time, piece-work, and theemployment of children under fourteen, (3) state provision for theill, the invalid, and the aged, (4) free, non-sectarian education ofall grades, (5) the extinction by taxation of unearned incomes, and(6) universal disarmament. To this programme has been added woman'ssuffrage, a second ballot in parliamentary elections, municipalcontrol of the liquor traffic and of hospitals, and a number of otherproposed innovations. At the elections of 1895 the party namedtwenty-eight candidates, but no one of them was successful and KeirHardie, founder and president, lost the seat which he had occupiedsince 1892. In 1900 it attained, in the re-election of Hardie, itsfirst parliamentary victory, and in 1906 when the tide of radicalismwas running high seven of its candidates and sixteen of its memberswere elected to the House of Commons. *173. The Labor Party To-day. *--The Independent Labor Party has beenthroughout its history avowedly socialistic. It has sought andobtained the adherence of thousands of laboring men, some of whom are, and some of whom are not, socialists. But its character is too radicalto attract the mass of trade-union members and alongside it there hasgrown up a larger and broader organization known simply as the LaborParty. A trade-union congress held at London in September, 1899, (p.  166)caused to be brought together an assemblage of representatives of allco-operative, trade-union, socialist, and working-class organizationswhich were willing to share in an effort to increase the representationof labor in Parliament. This body held its first meeting at London inFebruary, 1900, and an organization was formed in which the rulingforces were the politically inclined but non-socialistic trade-unions. The object of the affiliation was asserted to be "to establish adistinct labor group in Parliament, who shall have their own whips, and agree upon their own policy, which must embrace a readiness toco-operate with any party which for the time being may be engaged inpromoting legislation in the direct interest of labor. " The growth ofthe organization was rapid, and in 1906 the name which had beenemployed, i. E. , Labor Representation Committee, gave place to that ofLabor Party. At the elections of 1906 twenty-nine of the fifty-onecandidates of this party were chosen to the House of Commons. Takinginto account eleven members connected with miners' organizations andfourteen others who were Independent Laborites or Liberal Laborites("Lib. -Labs. "), the parliament chosen in 1906 contained a laborcontingent aggregating fifty-four members. Since 1908 there has beenin progress a consolidation of the labor forces represented atWestminster and, although at the elections of 1910 some seats werelost, there are in the House of Commons to-day forty-two laborrepresentatives. The entire group is independent of, but friendlytoward, the Liberal Government; and since the Liberals stand inconstant need of Labor support, its power in legislation is altogetherdisproportioned to its numbers. [238] [Footnote 238: Two satisfactory volumes on the political activities of labor in the United Kingdom are C. Noel, The Labour Party, What it is, and What it wants (London, 1906) and A. W. Humphrey, A History of Labor Representation (London, 1912). See E. Porritt, The British Socialist Labor Party, in _Political Science Quarterly_, Sept. , 1908, and The British Labor Party in 1910, ibid. , June, 1910; M. Alfassa, Le parti ouvrier au parlement anglais, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, Jan. 15, 1908; H. W. Horwill, The Payment of Labor Representatives in Parliament, in _Political Science Quarterly_, June, 1910; J. K. Hardie, The Labor Movement, in _Nineteenth Century_, Dec, 1906; and M. Hewlett, The Labor Party of the Future, in _Fortnightly Review_, Feb. , 1910. Two books of value on English socialism are J. E. Barker, British Socialism; an Examination of its Doctrines, Policy, Aims, and Practical Proposals (London, 1908) and H. O. Arnold-Foster, English Socialism of To-day (London, 1908). ] CHAPTER VIII (p.  167) JUSTICE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT I. ENGLISH LAW The preponderating principle in the governmental system of GreatBritain to-day is the rule of law, which means, in effect, two things:first, that no man may be deprived of liberty or property save onaccount of a breach of the law proved in one of the ordinary courtsand, second, that no man stands above the law and that for everyviolation of the law some reparation may be obtained, whatever thestation or character of the offender. [239] Upon these fundamentalguarantees has been erected through the centuries a fabric of personalliberty which lends the British nation one of its principaldistinctions. The influence of English concepts and forms of law hascounted for much, furthermore, in the shaping of continental legalsystems; and outside of Europe, and especially in the English-speakingcountries of both hemispheres, the law of England has been, withinmodern times, much the most universal and decisive formative agency inlegal development. [Footnote 239: The only exception to this general proposition is afforded by the fact that the sovereign may not be sued or prosecuted in the ordinary courts; but this immunity, as matters now stand, is of no practical consequence. ] *174. Statute Law and Common Law. *--From at least the seventeenthcentury law has been conceived of in England as exclusively the bodyof rules, of whatsoever origin or nature, which can be enforced in theregular courts. As it has taken form, it falls into two principalcategories. The one is statute law, the other is the Common Law. Statute law consists of specific acts of Parliament, supplemented byby-laws, rules, and regulations made under parliamentary sanction bypublic officials and bodies. Chronologically, it begins in 1235, inthe reign of Henry III. ; and inasmuch as it is amended and amplifiedat substantially every parliamentary session, the bulk of it has cometo be enormous. The more comprehensive and fundamental part of Englishlaw, however, is, and has always been, the Common Law. The Common Lawis a product of growth rather than of legislation. No definite timecan be assigned for its beginning, for at as early a period as (p.  168)there are reports of judicial decisions the existence of a body oflaw not emanating from law-makers was taken for granted. Long beforethe close of the Middle Ages the essentials of the Common Law hadacquired not only unquestioned sanction but also thoroughgoingcoherence and uniformity. Despite the greatly increased legislativeactivity of modern times, it still may be said that the rules of theCommon Law are fundamental, the laws of Parliament but incidental. Statutes regularly assume the principles of the Common Law, and arelargely, as one writer has put it, "the addenda and errata" of thislaw, incomplete and meaningless save in co-ordination with the legalorder by which they are supported and enveloped. [240] Thus no act ofParliament enjoins in general terms that a man shall pay his debts, orfulfill his contracts, or pay damages for trespass or slander. Statutes define the _modes_ in accordance with which these obligationsshall be met, but the obligations themselves are derived entirely fromthe Common Law. It is, however, a fixed rule that where statutes fallin conflict with the Common Law it is the statutes that prevail. Thelimitless competence of Parliament involves the power to set aside orto modify at any time any Common Law principle or practice, while, onthe other hand, no development of the Common Law can repeal an act ofParliament. [Footnote 240: W. M. Geldart, Elements of English Law (London and New York, 1912), 9. As this author further remarks, "if all the statutes of the realm were repealed, we should have a system of law, though, it may be, an unworkable one; if we could imagine the Common Law swept away and the Statute Law preserved, we should have only disjointed rules torn from their context, and no provision at all for many of the most important relations of life. "] *175. The Form of the Law. *--Statute law takes invariably, of course, written form. The acts of Parliament are to be found in imposingprinted collections, to which a substantial volume is added everyyear. Of the Common Law, however, there is no single or authoritativetext. The Common Law grew up originally as unwritten law, and in alarge measure it preserves still that character. The sources, however, from which knowledge of it must be drawn are mainly in writing or inprint. The most important are (1) the decisions of the judges of theEnglish courts (reported anonymously in Year Books from the reign ofEdward I. To that of Henry VIII. , and thereafter by lawyers reportingunder their own names) which from at least the sixteenth centuryacquired weight as precedents and are nowadays all but absolutelydecisive in analogous cases; (2) the decisions of courts of othercountries in which there is administered a law derived from the English, such decisions being, of course, not binding, yet highly influential;and (3) certain "books of authority" written by learned lawyers (p.  169)of earlier times, such as Coke's seventeenth-century Commentary onLittleton's Tenures and Foster's eighteenth-century treatise on CrownLaw. Some small branches of the Common Law have, indeed, been codifiedin the form of statutes, among them the law of partnership, that ofsales, and that of bills of exchange. *176. The Rules of Equity. *--There is one other body of English lawwhich requires mention, namely, the rules of equity. These rules hadtheir origin in the administration of an extraordinary sort of justiceby the king's chancellor in mediæval times, a practice which arosefrom the sheer necessity of redressing grievances occasioned by theomissions or commissions of the regularly constituted tribunals. Interference on the part of the chancellor, which started as a matterof special favor in unusual cases, became gradually an establishedpractice, and, contrary to the original intention, there was broughtinto existence a body of definite and separate rules of equity whichby the seventeenth century acquired systematic character, and likewisea court of chancery in which these rules were at all timesenforceable. Reports of equity cases became continuous, and lawyers ofeminence began to specialize in equity procedure. The rules of equitythus developed partake largely of the nature of the Common Law, ofwhich, indeed, they are to be considered, in effect, a supplement orappendix; and practically, though not theoretically, they prevail asagainst any provisions of the ordinary Common Law with which they maybe inconsistent. Their general purpose is to afford means ofsafeguarding rights which exist in morals, but which the Common Lawcourts cannot or will not protect. Until 1875 they were administeredby tribunals separate from the ordinary courts. Nowadays they are notseparately administered, but they preserve, none the less, theirhighly distinctive character. [241] [Footnote 241: Two monumental works dealing with the earlier portions of English legal development are F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, History of English Law to the Time of Edward I. , 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1898) and W. S. Holdsworth, History of English Law, 3 vols. (London, 1903-1909). The first volume of Holdsworth contains a history of English courts from the Norman Conquest to the present day; the other volumes deal exhaustively with the growth of the law itself. Books of value include H. Brunner, The Sources of the Law of England, trans. By W. Hastie (Edinburgh, 1888); R. K. Wilson, History of Modern English Law (London, 1875). J. F. Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, 3 vols. (London, 1883); Ibid. , Commentaries on the Laws of England, 4 vols. (London, 1908); O. W. Holmes, The Common Law (Boston, 1881); and H. Broom and E. A. Hadley, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 4 vols. (London, 1869). A recent treatise by a German authority is J. Hatschek, Englisches Staatsrecht mit Berücksichtigung der für Schottland und Irland geltenden Sonderheiten (Tübingen, 1905). An incisive work is A. V. Dicey, Law and Public Opinion in England in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1905). A good single volume history of the law is E. Jenks, Short History of the English Law (Boston, 1912). A satisfactory introduction to both the history and the character of the law is W. M. Geldart, Elements of English Law (London and New York, 1912). Another is F. W. Maitland, Outlines of English Legal History, in Collected Papers (Cambridge, 1911), II. , 417-496. Other excellent introductory treatises are Maitland, Lectures on Equity (Cambridge, 1909), and C. S. Kenny, Outlines of Criminal Law (New York, 1907). Maitland's article on English Law in the Encyclopædia Britannica, IX. , 600-607, is valuable for its brevity and its clearness. On the English conception of law and the effects thereof see Lowell, Government of England, II. , Chaps. 61-62. The character and forms of the statute law are sketched to advantage in C. P. Ilbert, Legislative Methods and Forms (Oxford, 1901), 1-76. ] II. THE INFERIOR COURTS (p.  170) *177. The Hierarchy of Tribunals. *--In the majority of continentalcountries a distinction is drawn between ordinary law and what isknown as administrative law, i. E. , the body of rules governing theconduct of public officials and, more particularly, the adjudicationof disputes between these officials, in their public capacity, andprivate citizens. This differentiation of law entails customarily themaintenance of administrative courts, separate from the ordinarytribunals, in which administrative cases are heard and decided. InGreat Britain, however, there is no such thing as administrative law, and in consequence there is no need of administrative courts. Publicofficials, from the ministers downwards, are amenable to the processesof the ordinary tribunals precisely as are all other classes ofpeople. Simpler, therefore, at this point than the continental systemsof courts, the English system is none the less one of the mostelaborate and complicated in the world. There are features of it whichin origin are mediæval, others which owe their existence to thereforming enterprises of the earlier nineteenth century, and stillothers which have a history covering hardly more than a generation. Reduced to its simplest aspect, the system comprises, at the bottom, three principal varieties of tribunals--the county courts for civilcases and the courts of the justices of the peace and the boroughcriminal courts for criminal cases--and, at the top, a Supreme Courtof Judicature in two branches, i. E. , the High Court of Justice andthe Court of Appeal, in addition to the Judicial Committee of thePrivy Council, the House of Lords, and a number of other occasional orspecial central tribunals. [242] [Footnote 242: It should be noted that the judicial system herein to be described is that of England alone. The systems existing in Scotland and Ireland are at many points unlike it. In Scotland the distinction between law and equity is virtually unknown and the Common Law of England does not prevail. In Ireland, on the other hand, the Common Law is operative and judicial organization and procedure are roughly similar to the English. ] *178. The County Courts. *--The county courts of the present day (p.  171)were established under provision of the County Court Act of 1846, andit is to be observed that they are in no manner connected with thehistoric courts of the shire or county. They are known as countycourts, but in point of fact the area of their jurisdiction is adistrict which not only is smaller than the county but bears norelation to it. There are in England at present some five hundred ofthese districts, the object of the arrangement being to bring theagencies of justice close to the people and so to reduce the costs anddelays incident to litigation. [243] The volume of business to betransacted in a district is insufficient to occupy a judge during anyconsiderable portion of his working time, and the districts aregrouped in some fifty circuits, to each of which is assigned by theLord Chancellor one judge who holds court in each district of hiscircuit approximately once a month. The judge sits almost invariablywithout a jury, although unless the amount involved is very smalleither party to a suit is privileged to request the employment of ajury of eight persons. The jurisdiction of the county courts has beenenlarged a number of times, notably by a statute of 1905, but it isstill not as extended as many people believe it should be. In a fewmatters, such as certain claims of workingmen for injuries, thisjurisdiction is exclusive, but at most points it is concurrent withthe jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice, and Common Law, equity, bankruptcy, probate, and admiralty cases may be brought, at thediscretion of the plaintiff, in either tribunal, subject to therestriction that the county court may not assume jurisdiction when thevalue in dispute exceeds a certain amount, commonly £100 in Common Lawcases and £500 in cases of equity. On all points of law appeal lies tothe High Court; but appeals are rare. [244] [Footnote 243: Prior to 1846 justice in civil cases could be obtained only at Westminster, or, in any event, by means of an action instituted at Westminster and tried on circuit. ] [Footnote 244: A few inferior civil courts of special character have survived from earlier days, but they are anomalous and do not call for comment. It may be added that the judges of the county courts receive a salary of £1, 500. ] *179. The Justices of the Peace. *--The county courts exist for theadjudication of civil cases exclusively. The corresponding localtribunals for the administration of criminal justice are the courts ofthe justices of the peace, and, in certain towns, other courts towhich the powers of the justices have been transferred. The county isnormally the area of the jurisdiction of the justices, and with a fewexceptions every county has a separate "commission of the peace, "[245]consisting of all the judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature, allmembers of the Privy Council, and such other persons as the crown, (p.  172)acting through the Lord Chancellor, may designate as justices onrecommendation of the Lord Lieutenant or independently. [246] The LordLieutenant is chief of the justices and keeper of the county records. In many counties the list of justices contains three or four hundrednames (in Lancashire eight hundred), but it is to be observed thatsome of the appointees do not take the oaths required to qualify themfor magisterial service and that the actual work is performed in eachcounty by a comparatively small number of persons. The justices servewithout pay, but the office carries much local distinction andappointments are widely coveted. Until 1906 a property qualification[247]was required of all save certain classes of appointees whose stationwas deemed a sufficient guarantee of fitness, but in the yearmentioned the Liberals brought about its abolition. The justices aredrawn still, in large part, from the class of country gentlemen. Theyare removable by the crown, but tenure is almost invariably for life. [Footnote 245: The three ridings of Yorkshire and the three divisions of Lincolnshire have separate commissions, and there are a few "liberties" or excepted jurisdictions. ] [Footnote 246: A royal commission created to consider the mode of appointment reported in 1910; but no important modification of the existing practice was suggested. ] [Footnote 247: Ownership of land, or occupation of a house, worth £100 a year. ] *180. Powers of the Justices. *--At one time the functions of thejustices of the peace were administrative as well as judicial, but bythe Local Government Act of 1888 functions of an administrative naturewere transferred all but completely to the newly created countycouncils, [248] and the justices to-day are judicial officials almostexclusively. Their judicial labors may be performed under threeconditions, namely, by justices acting singly, by two or more justicesmeeting in petty sessions, and by the whole body of justices of thecounty assembled in quarter sessions. The powers of a justice actingalone are those largely of the ordinary police magistrate. He mayorder the arrest of offenders; he conducts preliminary examinationsand releases the accused or commits them for indictment by a grandjury; and he hears cases involving unimportant breaches of the law andimposes small penalties. The justices sitting by twos in pettysessions exercise an extensive summary jurisdiction over offensesspecified minutely by the law. [249] They sit without a jury, butappeal can be carried, as a rule, to the justices at quarter sessionsand even, on questions of law, to the High Court. Four times a yearall of the justices of the county, or such of them as care to bepresent, meet in quarter sessions. The jurisdiction here exercised isin part appellate and in part original. The court tries, without ajury, all cases appealed from petty sessions, and it tries, with a (p.  173)jury, and after indictment by a grand jury, all cases involvingoffenses not of a minor nature, save that the most serious offenses, punishable in most instances with death or life imprisonment, arereserved for trial in the assizes, i. E. , by judges from Westminstertravelling on circuit. By means of the writs of _mandamus_ and_certiorari_ the actual proceedings of quarter sessions are controllednot infrequently by the superior courts. [250] [Footnote 248: See p. 183. ] [Footnote 249: Chiefly by the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879. ] [Footnote 250: Medley, Manual of English Constitutional History, 392-400. An excellent monograph is C. A. Beard, The Office of Justice of the Peace in England, in _Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law_, XX. , No. 1. (New York, 1904). ] *181. Special Borough Arrangements. *--The smaller boroughs, having noseparate commissions of the peace, are for purposes of criminaljustice merely portions of the counties in which they lie. In many ofthe larger ones, however, there have been set up judicial arrangementsin consequence of which the borough is withdrawn from the countyjurisdiction. Some have a commission of the peace but no quartersessions. In them the justices can exercise, in addition to the usualfunctions of police magistrate, only a summary jurisdiction. Othershave a court of quarter sessions; though it is to be observed thatwhere this tribunal exists its work is performed actually by therecorder, a barrister appointed by the crown and paid by the borough. III. THE HIGHER COURTS *182. Supreme Court of Judicature: the High Court. *--The highertribunals within the judicial system were once numerous and extremelycomplex. As reconstituted, however, by the great Judicature Act of1873, which, together with an Amending Act, took effect near the closeof 1875, they have acquired a considerable degree of orderliness andeven of simplicity. The measure of 1873 abolished the appellatejurisdiction of the House of Lords, but the Amending Act three yearslater rescinded this modification, and, as has been explainedelsewhere, the House of Lords is still a court of very greatimportance. [251] Aside from the Lords, however, the higher courts ofthe realm--the Chancery, the three great Common Law courts, theAdmiralty, Probate, and Divorce courts, and the intermediate courts ofappeal from these tribunals of first instance--were consolidated bythe legislation of 1873-1875 to form one grand organization, theSupreme Court of Judicature, which was thereupon cut into twobranches, the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal. The HighCourt of Justice was assigned a general jurisdiction, civil andcriminal, as a court of first instance and also as a court of (p.  174)appeal from inferior courts. Its jurisdiction represents essentiallythe aggregate of jurisdictions of the tribunals which it superseded, and the various divisions into which it falls perpetuate in a measurethe names and functions of those tribunals. There were originally fiveof these divisions. To-day there are three: Chancery, King's Bench(with which the Common Pleas and Exchequer divisions were united byorder in council of December 16, 1880), and Probate, Divorce, andAdmiralty. Any High Court judge may sit in a tribunal belonging to anyone of these divisions. The Lord Chancellor presides over the Chancerydivision, the Chief Justice over the King's Bench. The number ofjudges is variable. The Chancery division contains at present six, theKing's Bench fifteen, and the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty divisionbut two. All save the Chancellor (who is a cabinet official, owing hisposition to selection by the premier) are appointed by the crown uponadvice of the Chancellor, and all hold office during good behavior butmay be dismissed on addresses of the two houses of Parliament. Thejudges of the High Court sit both singly and in groups. The ordinarytrial of cases is conducted, under a variety of stipulated conditions, by a single judge, either at Westminster or on circuit. The judges whogo on circuit are taken as a rule from the King's Bench division, andwhen both civil and criminal cases are to be adjudicated they travelordinarily in pairs, one attending to the civil and the other to thecriminal business. Judges sit also, without juries, in divisionalcourts, composed of two or more members, to hear appeals from inferiortribunals, motions for new trials, and applications for writs. TheHigh Court never sits as a single body, nor does even the Chancery orthe King's Bench division. [Footnote 251: See p. 130. ] *183. Supreme Court of Judicature: the Court of Appeals. *--The secondbranch of the Supreme Court of Judicature is the Court of Appeal. Thistribunal is composed of the Master of the Rolls and five LordsJustices of Appeal, all appointed by the crown upon the advice of theLord Chancellor. The presidents of the three divisions of the HighCourt are also members, but they rarely participate in the work of thecourt; and since 1891 men who have occupied the office of Chancellorare _ex-officio_ members, although they sit only if they choose tocomply with a request of the Chancellor that they do so. The courtperforms its functions regularly in two sections of three memberseach, although for some matters the presence of but two judges isrequired. Sittings are held only in London. The jurisdiction of thecourt is exclusively appellate, and its business consists very largelyin the hearing of appeals in civil cases carried from the High Court. Prior to 1907 there was no general right of appeal in criminal cases. By the Criminal Appeal Act of that year, however, there was (p.  175)established a Court of Criminal Appeal to which any person convictedmay appeal on a question of law and, under stipulated conditions, on aquestion of fact also. This tribunal is composed of the Lord ChiefJustice and eight judges of the King's Bench appointed by him with theassent of the Lord Chancellor. It, therefore, has no immediateconnection with the Court of Appeal. *184. The House of Lords and the Judicial Committee. *--Of superiortribunals there are two others of large importance, the House of Lordsand the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The functions of theHouse of Lords as a court of last resort have been describedelsewhere. [252] By the act of 1876 the appellate jurisdiction of theLords, withdrawn by the act of 1873, was restored and provision wasmade for the strengthening of the legal element in the chamber by thecreation of life peers to be known as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. Under existing law appeal lies to the Lords from any order or judgmentof the Court of Appeal in England and of all Scottish and Irish courtsfrom which appeals might, prior to 1876, be carried. The JudicialCommittee of the Privy Council was constituted in 1833 to assumejurisdiction over a variety of cases formerly heard and decidednominally by the Council as a whole. The composition of the body hasbeen changed a number of times. The members at present comprise theLords of Appeal in Ordinary, such members of the Privy Council as holdor have held high judicial office, two other Privy Councillorsdesignated at pleasure by the crown, and, as a rule, one or two paidmembers who have held judicial office in India or the colonies. Themembership is thus large, but only four members need be present at thehearing of a case, and it may be pointed out that the working membersof the Committee are predominantly the four "law lords" who comprisealso the working judicial element in the House of Lords. It is thebusiness of the Judicial Committee to consider and determine anymatter that may be referred to it by the crown, but, in the main, tohear final appeals from the ecclesiastical courts, from courts in theChannel Islands and the Isle of Man, from the courts of the coloniesand dependencies, and from English courts established by treaty inforeign countries. Its decisions are tendered under the guise of"advice to the crown" and, unlike the decisions of the Lords, theymust bear the appearance, at least of unanimity. [253] [Footnote 252: See p. 130. ] [Footnote 253: For brief descriptions of the English judicial system see Lowell, Government of England, II. , Chaps. 59-60; Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, II. , Pt. 1. , Chap. 10; Marriott, English Political Institutions, Chap. 14; and Macy, The English Constitution, Chap. 7. As is stated elsewhere (p.  169), the first volume of Holdsworth's History of English Law contains an excellent history of the English courts. A useful handbook, though much in need of revision, is F. W. Maitland, Justice and Police (London, 1885). Perhaps the best brief account of the development of the English judicial system is A. T. Carter, History of English Legal Institutions (4th ed. , London, 1910). Mention may be made of Maitland, Constitutional History of England, 462-484, and Medley, Manual of English Constitutional History, 318-383. Two valuable works by foreign writers are C. De Franqueville, Le système judiciaire de la Grande-Bretagne (Paris, 1898), and H. B. Gerland, Die englische Gerichtsverfassung; eine systematische Darstellung, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1910). On the Judicature Acts of 1873-1876 see Holdsworth, I. , 402-417. ] IV. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1835 (p.  176) *185. Periods in Local Governmental History. *--No description of agovernmental system can be adequate which does not take into accountthe agencies and modes by which the powers of government are broughtclose to the people, as well as those by which the people in greateror lesser measure regulate locally their own public affairs. Moreespecially is this true in the instance of a government such as theEnglish in which local self-control is a fundamental rather than anincidental fact. The history of local institutions in England coversan enormous stretch of time, as well as a remarkable breadth of publicorganization and activity, and by no means its least important phasesare those which have appeared in most recent times. Speaking broadly, it may be said to fall into four very unequal periods. The first, extending from the settlement of the Saxons to the Norman Conquest, was marked by the establishment of the distinctive English units ofadministration--shire, hundred, and township--and by the planting ofthe principle of broadly popular local control. The second, extendingfrom the Conquest to the fourteenth century, was characterized by ageneral increase of centralization and a corresponding decrease oflocal autonomy. The third, extending from the fourteenth century tothe adoption of the Local Government Act of 1888, was pre-eminently aperiod of aristocratic control of local affairs, of government by thesame squirearchy which prior to 1832, if not 1867, was accustomed todominate Parliament. The last period, that from 1888 to the presenttime, has been notable in a special degree for the democratization andsystematization of local governing arrangements which has taken placewithin it. *186. County and Parish before 1832. *--The transformation by which theinstitutions of local government have been brought to their presentstatus paralleled, and in a large measure sprang from, therevolutionizing of Parliament during the course of the nineteenthcentury. Two periods of change are especially noteworthy, the onefollowing closely the Reform Act of 1832 and culminating in theadoption of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835, the other followingsimilarly the Representation of the People Act of 1884 and (p.  177)attaining fruition in the Local Government Act of 1888 and theDistrict and Parish Councils Act of 1894. At the opening of thecentury rural administration was carried on principally in the shireor county and the civil or "poor law" parish; urban administration inthe corporate towns, or municipal boroughs. The counties werefifty-two in number. Most of them were of Saxon origin, although somewere the product of absorptions or delimitations which took place inlater centuries. The last to be added were those of Wales. Alteredoften in respect to their precise functions, the counties retainedfrom first to last a large measure of importance, and at the beginningof the nineteenth century they were still the principal areas of localgoverning activity. From Saxon times to the fourteenth century thedominating figure in county administration was the sheriff, but in thereign of Edward III. Justices of the peace were created into whosehands during the ensuing five hundred years substantially alladministrative and judicial affairs of the county were drawn. Thesedignitaries were appointed by the crown, chiefly from the ranks of thesmaller landowners and rural clergy, and as a rule they comprised inpractice a petty oligarchy whose conduct of public business wasinspired by aristocratic, far more than by democratic, ideals. The principal division of the county was the civil parish, usually butnot always identical with the ecclesiastical parish. The governingbodies of the parish were two--the vestry (either open to allrate-payers or composed of elected representatives), whichadministered general affairs, and the overseers of the poor who underthe Elizabethan statute of 1601 were empowered to find employment forthe able-bodied poor, to provide other forms of relief as should berequired, and to levy a local rate to meet the costs of their work. Since the passage of Gilbert's Act of 1782 the parishes had beenarranged in groups for poor-law purposes, and boards of guardiansappointed by the justices of the peace had come to be the realauthorities in the administration of poor relief, as well as in mostother matters. The abuses arising from poor-law administration werenot infrequently appalling. *187. The Borough before 1832. *--The corporate towns in England andWales numbered, in 1832, 246. They comprised population centers which, on the basis of charters granted by the crown, had become distinctareas of local government. They did not, however, stand entirely apartfrom the county and parish organization. On the contrary, except in sofar as they were exempted specifically by the terms of their charters, they were subject to the authority of the justices of the peace and ofthe governing agencies of the parishes within whose jurisdiction theywere situated. Their style of government was determined largely (p.  178)by the provisions of their charters, and since these instrumentsexhibited a marked degree of variety, uniformity of organization wasentirely lacking. As a rule, however, the borough was a closecorporation, and the burgesses, or "freemen, " in whom were vestedpeculiar trading and fiscal rights and an absolute monopoly of thepowers of government, comprised but a small fraction of the generalbody of citizens. The governing authority of the borough was the towncouncil, whose members were either elected by the freemen or recruitedby co-optation. Government was regularly oligarchical andirresponsible; sometimes it was inefficient and corrupt. *188. The New Poor Law (1834) and the Municipal Corporations Act(1835). *--The reforms accomplished since 1832 within the domain ofparliamentary organization and procedure have been hardly moreremarkable than those wrought during the same period within the fieldof local government. It must suffice to mention but the principalsteps by which the local governing system has been brought to itspresent high degree of democracy and effectiveness. Among the subjectsto which the first reformed parliament addressed its attention was thedireful condition into which had fallen the relief of the poor, andthe initial stage of local government regeneration was marked by theadoption of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, abolishing outdoorrelief for the able-bodied, providing for the regrouping of parishesin "poor-law unions, " and establishing a national Poor Law Commission. The administration of relief within the unions was intrusted all butexclusively to newly created boards of guardians, composed in part ofthe justices of the peace sitting _ex-officio_ and in part of membersspecially elected by the rate-payers. The arrangements set up by theact proved very successful and they survive almost intact at thepresent day. The second notable change was that effected by theMunicipal Corporations Act of 1835. The enfranchising of large numbersof the townspeople in 1832 led inevitably to demand for thedemocratization of the aristocratic borough governments, and withinthree years the demand was met in a statute so sweeping as to justifythe assertion that with its enactment the modern history of theEnglish town begins. [254] Sixty-nine of the old corporate towns, byreason of their unimportance, were now deprived of the character ofboroughs. The city of London was not touched, but elsewhere allmunicipal corporations were broadened so as to personify legally theentire population of the borough. The time-honored municipal oligarchywas broken down by the giving of the franchise to all rate-payers, thetown councils were made wholly elective, trading monopolies andprivileges were swept away, and a variety of other reforms were (p.  179)introduced. With the adoption of this important measure, however, thework of reform came for a time to a halt, and the widely assailedsystem of county government through nominated magistrates in quartersessions survived until 1888. [255] [Footnote 254: Lowell, Government of England, II. , 144. ] [Footnote 255: The history of the local institutions of England prior to 1835 is related in detail in two comprehensive works: H. A. Merewether and A. J. Stephens, History of the Boroughs and Municipal Corporations of the United Kingdom, 3 vols. (London, 1835) and S. And B. Webb, English Local Government from the Revolution to the Municipal Corporations Act, 3 vols. (London and New York, 1904-1908). The first of these was written to promote the cause of municipal reform, but is temperate and reliable. The second is especially exhaustive, volume 3 containing probably the best existing treatment of the history of borough government. For a brief sketch see May and Holland, Constitutional History of England, II. , Chap. 15. ] V. LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM, 1835-1912 *189. Mid-Century Confusion of Areas and Jurisdictions. *--Throughout theearlier and middle portions of the Victorian period legislationrespecting local government was abundant, but it was special ratherthan general. It pertained principally to the care of highways andburial grounds, the laying out and organization of districts for thepromotion of sanitation, the establishment of "improvement act"districts, and, notably, the erection and administration of schooldistricts under the Elementary Education Act of 1870. With eachsuccessive measure the confusion of jurisdictions and agencies wasincreased. The prevailing policy was to provide for each fresh need asit arose a special machinery designed to meet that particular need, and arrangements effected were seldom or never uniform throughout thecountry, nor did they bear any logical relation to arrangementsalready existing for other purposes. By 1871 the country, as Lowellputs it, was divided into counties, unions, and parishes, and spottedover with boroughs and with highway, burial, sanitary, improvementact, school, and other districts, and of these areas none save theparishes and unions bore any necessary relation to any of therest. [256] In the effort to adapt the framework of the administrativesystem to the fast changing conditions of a rapidly growing populationParliament piled act upon act, the result being a sheer jungle ofinterlacing jurisdictions alike baffling to the student and subversiveof orderly and economical administration. It is computed that in 1883there were in England and Wales no fewer than 27, 069 independent localauthorities, [257] and that the rate-payer was taxed by eighteendifferent kinds of rates. [Footnote 256: Government of England, II. , 135. ] [Footnote 257: These included the 52 counties, the 239 municipal boroughs, the 70 improvement act districts, the 1, 006 urban sanitary districts, the 577 rural sanitary districts, the 2, 051 school board districts, the 424 highway districts, the 853 burial board districts, the 649 poor-law unions, the 14, 946 poor-law parishes, the 5, 064 highway parishes not included in urban or highway districts, and the 1, 300 ecclesiastical parishes. For the situation in 1888 see G. L. Gomme, Lectures on the Principles of Local Government (London, 1897), 12-13. ] *190. Local Government Act of 1888 and District and Parish (p.  180)Councils Act of 1894. *--Soon after the passage of the ElementaryEducation Act of 1870 reform began to be attempted in the directionboth of concentration of local governing authority and thereadjustment and simplification of local governing areas. In 1871 thePoor Law Board (which succeeded the Poor Law Commission in 1847) wasconverted into the Local Government Board, with the purpose ofconcentrating in a single department the supervision of the lawsrelating to public health, the relief of the poor, and localgovernment; and when, in 1872, the entire country was divided intourban and rural sanitary districts, the work was done deliberately insuch a fashion as to involve the least possible addition to theexisting complexities of the administrative system. [258] The twomeasures, however, by which, in the main, order was brought out ofconfusion were the Local Government Act of 1888 and the District andParish Councils Act of 1894. The first of these, referred to commonlyas the County Councils Act, was the sequel of the Representation ofthe People Act of 1884 and was definitely intended to invest the newlyenfranchised rural population with a larger control of county affairs. The act created sixty-two administrative counties (some coterminouswith pre-existing counties, others comprising subdivisions of them)and some three score "county boroughs, " comprising towns of more than50, 000 inhabitants. [259] In each county and county borough there wasset up a council, at least two-thirds of whose members were elective, and to this council was transferred the administrative functions ofthe justices of the peace, leaving to those dignitaries of the oldrégime little authority save of a judicial character. Thedemocratization of rural government accomplished by the Conservativeministry of Lord Salisbury in 1888 was supplemented by the provisionsof the District and Parish Councils Act, carried by a Liberal ministryin 1894. [260] This measure provided (1) that every county should bedivided into districts, urban and rural, and every district into (p.  181)parishes, and (2) that in every district and in every rural parishwith more than three hundred inhabitants there should be an electedcouncil, while in the smallest parishes there should be a primaryassembly of all persons whose names appear on the local government andparliamentary register. To the parish councils and assemblies weretransferred all of the civil functions of the vestries, leaving tothose bodies the control of ecclesiastical matters only, while to thedistrict councils, whether rural or urban, were committed control ofsanitary affairs and highways. [Footnote 258: The arrangements effected at this time were perpetuated in the great Public Health Act of 1875. Lowell, Government of England II. , 137. ] [Footnote 259: The number of county boroughs had been increased by 1910 to seventy-four. See p. 188. ] [Footnote 260: It should be observed that the original intent in 1888 was to deal with district as well as county organization. In its final form the bill carried in that year had to do only, however, with the counties. ] The effect of the acts of 1888 and 1894 was two-fold. In the firstplace, they put the administrative affairs of the rural portions ofthe country in the hands almost exclusively of popularly electedbodies. In the second place, their adoption afforded opportunity forthe immediate or gradual abolition of all local governing authoritiesexcept the county, municipal, district, and parish councils, theboards of guardians, and the school boards, and thus they contributedvastly to that gradual simplification of the local governing systemwhich is one of the most satisfactory developments of recent years. The act of 1894 alone abolished some 8, 000 authorities. Since 1894 theconsolidation of authorities and the elimination of areas have beencarried yet further, the most notable step being the abolition of theschool boards by the Education Act of 1902 and the transfer of thefunctions of these bodies to the councils of the counties, boroughs, and districts. Both the majority and minority reports of the recentPoor Law Commission, submitted in 1909, recommend the abolition of theparish union area; but no action has been taken as yet by Parliamentupon this subject. [261] [Footnote 261: The history of local government changes since 1870 is well sketched in May and Holland, Constitutional History of England, III. , Chap. 5. ] VI. LOCAL AND CENTRAL GOVERNMENT The system of local government as it operates at the present time isby no means free from anomalies, but it exhibits, none the less, anorderliness and a simplicity which were altogether lacking ageneration ago. The variety of areas of administration has beenlessened, the number of officials has been reduced and their relationshave been simplified, the guiding hand of the central authorities inlocal affairs has been strengthened. Stated briefly, the situation isas follows: the entire kingdom is divided into counties and countyboroughs; the counties are subdivided into districts, rural and urban, and boroughs; these are subdivided further into parishes, which areregrouped in poor-law unions; while the city of London is organizedafter a fashion peculiar to itself. In order to make clear the (p.  182)essentials of the system it will be necessary to allude but briefly tothe connection which obtains between the local and centraladministrative agencies, and to point out the principal features ofeach of the governmental units named. *191. The Five Central Departments. *--Throughout most periods of itshistory English local government has involved a smaller amount ofinterference and of direction on the part of the central authoritiesthan have the local governments of the various continental nations. Even to-day the general government is not present in county or boroughin any such sense as that in which the French government, in theperson of the prefect, is present in the department, or the Prussian, through the agency of the "administration, " is present in thedistrict. A noteworthy aspect of English administrative reform duringthe past three-quarters of a century has been, nevertheless, a largeincrease of centralized control, if not of technical centralization, in relation to poor-relief, education, finance, and the other variedfunctions of the local governing agencies. There are to-day fiveministerial departments which exercise in greater or lesser measurethis kind of control. One, the Home Office, has special surveillanceof police and of factory inspection. A second, the Board of Education, directs and supervises all educational agencies which are aided bypublic funds. A third, the Board of Agriculture, supervises theenforcement of laws relating to markets and to diseases of animals. Afourth, the Board of Trade, investigates and approves enterprisesrelating to the supply of water, gas, and electricity, and to otherforms of "municipal trading. " Most important of all, the LocalGovernment Board directs in all that pertains to the execution of thepoor laws and the activities of the local health authorities, overseesthe financial operations of the local bodies, and fulfills a varietyof other supervisory functions too extended to be enumerated. Thepowers of these departments in relation to local affairs are exercisedin a number of ways, but chiefly through the promulgation of ordersand regulations, the giving or withholding of assent to proposedmeasures of the local bodies, and the giving of expert advice andguidance. It need hardly be added that the powers and functions of thelocal authorities are subject at all times to control by parliamentarylegislation. [262] [Footnote 262: On the relations between the central and local agencies of government see Lowell, Government of England, II. , Chap. 46; J. Redlich and F. W. Hirst, Local Government in England, 2 vols. (London, 1903), II. , Pt. 6; Traill, Central Government, Chap. 11; and M. R. Maltbie, English Local Government of To-day; a Study of the Relations of Central and Local Government (New York, 1897). ] VII. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO-DAY: RURAL (p.  183) *192. The Administrative County. *--Since the reform of 1888 there havebeen in England counties of two distinct kinds. There are, in thefirst place, the historic counties, fifty-two in number, which surviveas areas for parliamentary elections and, in some instances, for theorganization of the militia and the administration of justice. Theirofficials--the lord lieutenant, the sheriff, and the justices of thepeace--are appointed by the crown. Much more important, however, arethe administrative counties, sixty-two in number, [263] created andregulated by the local government legislation of 1888 and 1894. Six ofthese administrative counties coincide geographically with ancientcounties, while most of the remaining ones represent no wide variationfrom the historic areas upon which they are based. Yorkshire andLincolnshire were divided into three of the new counties each, andeight others were divided into two. The administrative counties do notinclude the seventy-four county boroughs which are located geographicallywithin them, but they do include all non-county boroughs and urbandistricts, so that they are by no means altogether rural. They areextremely unequal in size and population, the smallest being Rutlandwith 19, 709 inhabitants and the largest Lancashire with 1, 827, 436. [Footnote 263: Including the county of London. See p. 190. ] *193. The County Council. *--The governing authority in eachadministrative county is the county council, a body composed of (1)councillors elected for a term of three years in single-memberelectoral divisions under franchise qualifications identical withthose prevailing in the boroughs, save that plural voting is notpermitted, and (2) aldermen chosen for six years by the popularlyelected councillors. The number of aldermen is regularly one-thirdthat of the other councillors, and half of the quota retiretriennially. Between the two classes of members there is nodistinction of power or function. The council elects a chairman andvice-chairman who hold office one year but are commonly re-elected. Other officers are the clerk, the chief constable, the treasurer, thesurveyor, the public analyst, inspectors of various kinds, educationalofficials, and coroners. The tenure of these is not affected bychanges in the composition of the council. Legally, the chairman isonly a presiding official, though in practice his influence may be, and not infrequently is, greater than that of any other member. In theelection of councillors party feeling seldom displays itself, and (p.  184)elections are very commonly uncontested. [264] Members are drawn mainlyfrom the landowners, large farmers, and professional men, thoughrepresentatives of the lower middle and laboring classes occasionallyappear. The councils vary greatly in size, but the average membershipis approximately seventy-five. The bringing together of so many men atfrequent intervals is not easily accomplished and the bodies do notassemble ordinarily more than the four times a year prescribed by law. The mass of business devolving upon them is transacted largely throughthe agency of committees. Of these, some, as the committees onfinance, education, and asylums, are required by law; others areestablished as occasion arises. [Footnote 264: At the elections of 1901 there were contests in but 433 of 3, 349 divisions. P. Ashley, Local and Central Government; a Comparative Study of England, France, Prussia, and the United States (London, 1906), 25, note. ] The powers and duties of the council are many and varied. In the main, though not wholly, they represent the former administrative functionsof the justices of the peace. In the act of 1888 they are enumeratedin sixteen distinct categories, of which the most important are theraising, expending, and borrowing of money; the care of countyproperty, buildings, bridges, lunatic asylums, reformatory andindustrial schools; the appointment of inferior administrativeofficials; the granting of certain licenses other than for the sale ofliquor;[265] the care of main highways and the protection of streamsfrom pollution; and the execution of various regulations relating toanimals, fish, birds, and insects. By the Education Act of 1902 thecouncil is given large authority within the domain of education. Itmust see that adequate provision is made for elementary schools, andit may assist in the maintenance of agencies of education of highergrades. The control of police within the county devolves upon a jointcommittee representing the council and the justices of the peace. Finally, the council may make by-laws for the county, supervise in ameasure the minor rural authorities, and perform the work of theseauthorities when they prove remiss. [266] [Footnote 265: Liquor licenses are granted by the justices of the peace. ] [Footnote 266: Lowell, Government of England, II. , 274-275. ] *194. The Rural District. *--Within the administrative county are fourkinds of local government areas--rural districts, rural parishes, urban districts, and municipal boroughs. Of rural districts there arein England and Wales 672. They are coterminous, as a rule, with ruralpoor-law unions, or with the rural portions of unions which are bothrural and urban; but they may not comprise parts of more than onecounty. The governing authority of the district is a council, (p.  185)composed of persons (women being eligible) chosen in most instancestriennially by the rural parishes in accordance with population. Unless an order is made to the contrary, one-third retire each year. The members at the same time represent on the board of guardians ofthe union the parishes from which they have been elected, although thetwo bodies are legally distinct. The council must meet at least once amonth. Its chairman, who during his year of office is _ex-officio_ ajustice of the peace, may be chosen from among the councillors or fromoutside; and the same is true of members of committees. The principalsalaried and permanent officials are the clerk, the treasurer, amedical officer, a surveyor, and sanitary inspectors. The functions ofthe councils pertain, in the main, to the administration of sanitationand of highways. The bodies are responsible largely for the executionin the rural localities of the various public health acts, and theyhave charge of all highways which are not classed as "main roads. " Tomeet in part the costs of this administration they are empowered tolevy district rates. *195. The Parish. *--Of parishes there are two types, the rural and theurban, and their aggregate number in England and Wales isapproximately 15, 000. The urban parishes possess no generaladministrative importance and further mention need not be made of themhere. Under the act of 1894 the rural parish, however, has beenrevived in a measure from the inert condition into which it hadfallen, and it to-day fills an appreciable if humble place in therural administrative régime. The style of its organization isdependent to a degree upon its population. In each parish there is ameeting in which all persons on the local government and parliamentaryregisters (including women and lodgers) are privileged to participate. This meeting elects its own chairman, and it likewise chooses a numberof overseers whose duty it is to assess and collect certain localrates, to administer the poor-rate, and to make up the electoral andjury lists. All parishes whose population numbers as much as threehundred have a council composed of from five to fifteen members (womenbeing eligible), elected as a rule for a term of three years. The listof powers which the parish authorities may exercise is extended, ifnot imposing. It includes the maintenance of foot-paths, themanagement of civil parochial property, the provision of fireprotection, the inspection of local sanitation, and the appointment oftrustees of civil charities within the parish. The meagerness of thepopulation of large numbers of the parishes, however, together withthe severe limitations imposed both by law and by practical conditionsupon rate-levying powers, preclude the authorities very generally (p.  186)from undertaking many or large projects. It is regarded commonly thatthe parishes are too small to be made such areas of public activity asthe authors of the act of 1894 had in mind. Practically, the parish islittle more than a unit for the election of representatives and thecollection of rates. [267] [Footnote 267: Lowell, Government of England, II. , 281. ] For purposes of poor-law administration, as has been pointed out, there have existed since 1834 poor-law unions, consisting of numbersof parishes grouped together, usually without much effort to obtainequality of size or population. These unions not infrequently compriseboth rural and urban parishes, and in cases of this kind the board ofguardians is composed of the persons elected as district councillorsin the rural parishes of the union, together with other persons whoare elected immediately as guardians in the urban parishes and have noother function. The conditions under which poor relief is administeredare prescribed rather minutely in general regulations laid down by theLocal Government Board at London, so that, save in the matter oflevying rates, the range of discretion left to the boards of guardiansis closely restricted. [268] [Footnote 268: Ashley, Local and Central Government, 52-60. ] VIII. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO-DAY: URBAN *196. The Urban District. *--Of areas within which are administered thelocal affairs of the urban portions of the kingdom there are severalof distinct importance, although in reality the institutions of urbangovernment are less complex than they appear on the surface to be. Inthe main, the legal basis of urban organization is the MunicipalCorporations Consolidation Act of 1882, which comprises a codificationof the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 and a mass of subsequent andamending legislation. This great statute is supplemented at a numberof points by the Local Government Act of 1888, the District and ParishCouncils Act of 1894, the Education Act of 1902, and other regulativemeasures of the past thirty years. At the bottom of the scale amongurban governmental units stands the urban district, which differs froman ordinary borough principally in that it has no charter and itscouncil possesses less authority than does that of the borough. [269]The number of urban districts is in the neighborhood of eight hundred. Under the terms of the act of 1894 the governing authority in each isa council consisting of members elected for three years, women beingeligible. There are no aldermen, and no mayor is chosen. The (p.  187)council elects its own chairman and other officers, and it meets atleast once a month. Its functions, of which the most important is thecontrol of sanitation and of highways, are discharged largely throughthe agency of committees. The district council possesses none of thepolice and judicial privileges which the borough councils commonlyenjoy. It is more closely controlled by the Local Government Board, and, in general, it lacks "the status and ornamental trappings of amunicipal authority. [270]" Yet in practice its powers are hardly lessextensive than are those of the council of a full-fledged borough. Newurban districts may be created in thickly populated localities byjoint action of the county council and the Local Government Board. [Footnote 269: Speaking strictly, a borough is an urban district, and something more. ] [Footnote 270: Ashley, Local and Central Government, 45. ] *197. Boroughs and "Cities. "*--The standard type of municipal unit isthe borough. Among boroughs there is a certain amount of variation, but the differences which exist are those rather of historicdevelopment and of nomenclature than of governmental forms orfunctions. There are "municipal" boroughs, "county" boroughs, andcities. Any non-rural area upon which has been conferred a charterstipulating rights of local self-government is a borough. Areas of thesort which have been withdrawn from the jurisdiction of theadministrative counties in which they are situated are countyboroughs; those not so withdrawn are municipal boroughs. The term"city" was once employed to designate exclusively places which were orhad been the seat of a bishop. Nowadays the title is borne not only byplaces of this nature but also by places, as Sheffield and Leeds, uponwhich it has been conferred by royal patent. Save, however, in thecase of the city of London, where alone in England ancient municipalinstitutions have been generally preserved, the term possesses nopolitical significance. [271] The governments of the cities areidentical with those of the non-city boroughs. It is to be observed, further, that whereas formerly the borough as organized for municipalpurposes coincided with the borough as constituted for purposes ofrepresentation in Parliament, there is now no necessary connectionbetween the two. An addition to a municipal borough does not alter theparliamentary constituency. [Footnote 271: See p. 190. ] *198. Kinds of Boroughs. *--The Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 madeprovision for 178 boroughs in England and Wales and stipulatedconditions under which the number might be increased from time to timeby royal charter. In not a few instances the charters of boroughs atthe time existing were of mediæval origin. Since 1875 new charters (p.  188)have been conferred until the number of boroughs has been brought upto approximately 350. For the obtaining of a borough charter no fixedrequirement of population is laid down. Each application is consideredupon its merits, and while the size and importance of an urbancommunity weigh heavily in the decision other factors not infrequentlyare influential, with the consequence that some boroughs are verysmall while some urban centers of size are not yet boroughs. Of thepresent number of boroughs, seventy-four, or about one-fifth, arecounty boroughs. By the act of 1888 it was provided that every boroughwhich had or should attain a population of 50, 000 should be deemed, for purposes of administration, a separate county, and shouldtherefore be exempt from the supervision exercised over the affairs ofthe municipal boroughs by the authorities of the administrativecounties. Any borough with a population exceeding the figure named maybe created a county borough by simple order of the Local GovernmentBoard. Unlike the ordinary municipal borough, the county borough isnot represented in the council of the county in which the boroughlies; on the contrary, the council of the borough exercisessubstantially an equivalent of the powers exercised normally by thecounty council, and it is, to all intents and purposes, a council ofthat variety. Much the larger portion of the English boroughs are, however, simple municipal boroughs, whose activities are subject to asupervision more or less constant upon the part of the countyauthorities. *199. The Borough Authorities. *--The difference between county andmunicipal boroughs is thus one of degree of local autonomy, not one offorms or agencies of government. The charters of all boroughs havebeen brought into substantial agreement and the organs of boroughcontrol are everywhere the same. The governing authority is theborough council, which consists of councillors, aldermen, and a mayor, sitting as a single body. The councillors, varying in number from nineto upwards of one hundred, are elected by the voters of the borough, either at large or by wards, for three years, and one-third retireannually. The aldermen, equal in number to one-third of thecouncillors, are chosen by the entire council for six years, and areselected usually from among the councillors of most prolongedexperience. The mayor is elected annually by the councillors andaldermen, frequently from their own number. In boroughs of lesser sizere-elections are not uncommon. Service in all of the capacitiesmentioned is unpaid. The council determines its own rules ofprocedure, and its work is accomplished in large measure through theagency of committees, some of which are required by statute, others ofwhich are created as occasion demands; but, unlike the county (p.  189)council, the council of the borough cannot delegate any of its powers, save those relating to education, to these committees. The mayorpresides over the council meetings, serves commonly as an _ex-officio_member of committees, and represents the municipality upon ceremonialoccasions. The office is not one of power, although it is possible foran aggressive and tactful mayor to wield real influence. The permanentofficers of the council include a clerk, a treasurer, a medicalofficial, a secretary for education, and a variable number ofinspectors and heads of administrative departments. *200. The Borough Council. *--In the capacity of representative authorityof the municipality the council controls corporation property, adoptsand executes measures relative to police and education, levies rates, and not infrequently administers waterways, tramways, gas and electricplants, and a variety of other public utilities. The enormouslyincreased activity of the town and urban district councils in respectto "municipal trading" within the past two score years has arousedwidespread controversy. The purposes involved have been, in the main, two--to avert the evils of private monopoly and to obtain fromremunerative services something to set against the heavyunremunerative expenditures rendered necessary by existing sanitarylegislation. And, although opposed by reason of the outlays which itrequires and the invasion of the domain of private enterprise which itconstitutes, the device of municipal ownership is being ever morewidely adopted, as in truth it is also in Germany and other Europeancountries. [272] Aside from its general functions, the borough councilsis in particular a sanitary authority, and among its most importanttasks is the execution of regulations concerning drainage, housing, markets, hospitals, and indeed the entire category of matters providedfor in the long series of Public Health acts. The expenditures of thecouncil as a municipal authority are met from a fund made up of fees, fines, and other proceeds of administration, together with the incomefrom a borough rate, which is levied on the same basis as the poorrate; its expenditures as a sanitary authority are met from a fundraised by a general district rate. To assist in the administration ofeducation, sanitation, and police, grants are made regularly byParliament. [273] [Footnote 272: Ashley, Local and Central Government, 42. ] [Footnote 273: The best of existing works upon the general subject of English local government is J. Redlich, and F. W. Hirst, Local Government in England, 2 vols. (London, 1903). There are several convenient manuals, of which the most useful are P. Ashley, English Local Government (London, 1905); W. B. Odgers, Local Government (London, 1899), based on the older work of M. D. Chalmers; E. Jenks, An Outline of English Local Government (2d ed. , London, 1907); R, S. Wright and H. Hobhouse, An Outline of Local Government and Local Taxation in England and Wales (3d ed. , London, 1906); and R. C. Maxwell, English Local Government (London, 1900), in Temple Primer Series. The subject is treated admirably in Lowell, Government of England, II. , Chaps. 38-46, and a portion of it in W. B. Munro, The Government of European Cities (New York, 1909), Chap. 3 (full bibliography, pp. 395-402). There are good sketches in Ashley, Local and Central Government, Chaps. 1 and 5, and Marriott, English Political Institutions, Chap. 13. A valuable group of papers read at the First International Congress of the Administrative Sciences, held at Brussels in July, 1910, is printed in G. M. Harris, Problems of Local Government (London, 1911). A useful compendium of laws relating to city government is C. Rawlinson, Municipal Corporation Acts, and Other Enactments (9th ed. , London, 1903). Two appreciative surveys by American writers are A. Shaw, Municipal Government in Great Britain (New York, 1898) and F. Howe, The British City (New York, 1907). On the subject of municipal trading the reader may be referred to Lowell, Government of England, II. , Chap. 44; Lord Avebury, Municipal and National Trading (London, 1907); L. Darwin, Municipal Ownership in Great Britain (New York, 1906); G. B. Shaw, The Common Sense of Municipal Trading (London, 1904); and C. Hugo, Städteverwaltung und Municipal-Socialismus in England (Stuttgart, 1897). Among works on poor-law administration may be mentioned T. A. Mackay, History of the English Poor Law from 1834 to the Present Time (New York, 1900); P. T. Aschrott and H. P. Thomas, The English Poor Law System, Past and Present (2d ed. , London, 1902); and S. And B. Webb, English Poor Law Policy (London, 1910). The best treatise on educational administration is G. Balfour, The Educational Systems of Great Britain and Ireland (2d ed. , London, 1904). Finally must be mentioned C. Gross, Bibliography of British Municipal History (New York, 1897), an invaluable guide to the voluminous literature of an intricate subject. ] *201. The Government of London. *--The unique governmental (p.  190)arrangements of London are the product in part of historical survivaland in part of special and comparatively recent legislation. Technically, the "city" of London is still what it has been throughcenturies, i. E. , an area with a government of its own comprising buta single square mile on the left bank of the Thames. By a series ofmeasures covering a period of somewhat more than fifty years, however, the entire region occupied by the densely populated metropolis hasbeen drawn into a closely co-ordinated scheme of local administration. London was untouched by the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 and thechanges by which the governmental system of the present day wasbrought into being began to be introduced only with the adoption ofthe Metropolis Management Act of 1855. The government of the city wasleft unchanged, but the surrounding parishes, hitherto governedindependently by their vestries, were at this time brought for certainpurposes under the control of a central authority known as theMetropolitan Board of Works. The Local Government Act of 1888 carriedthe task of organization a stage further. The Board of Works wasabolished, extra-city London was transformed into an administrativecounty of some 120 square miles, and upon the newly created London (p.  191)County Council (elected by the rate-payers) was conferred a varied andhighly important group of powers. Finally, in 1899 the LondonGovernment Act simplified the situation by sweeping away a mass ofsurviving authorities and jurisdictions and by creating twenty-eightmetropolitan boroughs, each with mayor, aldermen, and councillors suchas any provincial borough possesses, though with powers speciallydefined and, on the side of finance, somewhat restricted. Within eachborough are urban parishes, each with its own vestry. At the center of the metropolitan area stands still the historic City, with its lord mayor, its life aldermen, and its annually electedcouncillors, organized after a fashion which has hardly changed infour and a half centuries. Within the administrative county the countycouncil acts as a central authority, the borough councils and theparish vestries serve as local authorities. While areas of commonadministration still very much larger than the county comprise, amongothers, the districts of the Metropolitan Water Board and of theMetropolitan Police. The jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Policeextends over all parishes within fifteen miles of Charing Cross, anarea of almost 700 square miles. [274] [Footnote 274: For excellent descriptions of the government of London see Munro, Government of European Cities, 339-379 (bibliography, 395-402), and Lowell, Government of England, II. , 202-232. Valuable works are G. L. Gomme, Governance of London: Studies on the Place occupied by London in English Institutions (London, 1907); ibid. , The London County Council: its Duties and Powers according to the Local Government Act of 1888 (London, 1888); A. MacMorran, The London Government Act (London, 1899); A. B. Hopkins, Boroughs of the Metropolis (London, 1900); and J. R. Seager, Government of London under the London Government Act (London, 1904). A suggestive article is G. L. Fox, The London County Council, in _Yale Review_, May, 1895. ] PART II. --GERMANY (p.  193) CHAPTER IX THE EMPIRE AND ITS CONSTITUTION I. POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT PRIOR TO 1848 *202. Napoleonic Transformations. *--Among the political achievements ofthe past hundred years few exceed in importance, and none surpass ininterest, the creation of the present German Empire. The task ofGerman unification may be regarded as having been brought formally tocompletion upon the occasion of the memorable ceremony of January 18, 1871, when, in the presence of a brilliant concourse of princes andgenerals gathered in the Hall of Mirrors in the palace of the Frenchkings at Versailles, William I. , king of Prussia, was proclaimedGerman Emperor. Back of the dramatic episode at Versailles, however, lay a long course of nationalizing development, of which theproclamation of an Imperial sovereign was but the culminating event. The beginnings of the making of the German Empire of to-day are to betraced from a period at least as remote as that of Napoleon. Germany in 1814 was still disunited and comparatively backward, but itwas by no means the Germany of the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies. The transformations wrought to the east of the Rhine duringthe period of the Napoleonic ascendancy were three-fold. In the firstplace, after more than a thousand years of existence, the Holy RomanEmpire was, in 1806, brought to an end, and Germany, never theretoforesince the days of barbarism entirely devoid of political unity, wasleft without even the semblance or name of nationality. In the secondplace, there was within the period a far-reaching readjustment of thepolitical structure of the German world, involving (1) the reducing ofthe total number of German states--kingdoms, duchies, principalities, ecclesiastical dominions, and knights' holdings--from above threehundred to two score; (2) the augmenting of the importance of Austriaby the acquisition of a separate imperial title, [275] and the (p.  194)raising of Saxony, Bavaria, and Württemberg from duchies to kingdoms;and (3) the bringing into existence of certain new and more or lessartificial political aggregates, namely, the kingdom of Westphalia, the grand-duchy of Warsaw, and the Confederation of the Rhine, for thepurpose of facilitating the Napoleonic dominance of north-centralEurope. Finally, in several of the states, notably Prussia, theoverturn occasioned by the Napoleonic conquests prompted systematicattempts at reform, with the consequence of a revolutionizingmodernization of social and economic conditions altogether comparablewith that which within the generation had been achieved in France. [Footnote 275: In anticipation of the prospective abolition of the dignity of Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, the Emperor Francis II. , in 1804, assumed the title of Emperor of Austria, under the name Francis I. ] The simple reduction of the German states in number, noteworthy thoughit was, did not mean necessarily the realization of a larger measureof national unity, for the rivalries of the states which survivedtended but to be accentuated. But if the vertical cleavages by whichthe country was divided were deepened, those of a horizontalcharacter, arising from social and economic privilege, were in thisperiod largely done away. Serfdom was abolished; the knights as apolitical force disappeared; the free cities were reduced to four; andsuch distinctions of caste as survived rapidly declined in politicalimportance. By an appreciable levelling of society the way wasprepared for co-ordinated national development, while by theextinction of a variety of republican and aristocratic sovereigntiesmonarchy as a form of government acquired new powers of unificationand leadership. [276] [Footnote 276: On Germany during the Napoleonic period see Cambridge Modern History, IX. , Chap. 11; J. H. Rose, Life of Napoleon I. , 2 vols. (new ed. , New York, 1910), II. , Chaps. 24-25; A. Fournier, Napoleon I. , a Biography, trans, by A. E. Adams, 2 vols, (New York, 1911), I. , Chaps. 11-12; J. R. Seeley, Life and Times of Stein; or Germany and Prussia in the Napoleonic Age, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1878); H. A. L. Fisher, Studies in Napoleonic Statesmanship, Germany (Oxford, 1903). ] *203. The Congress of Vienna and the Confederation of 1815. *--Thecollapse of the dominion of Napoleon was followed in Germany by ratherless of a return to earlier arrangements than might have beenexpected. Indeed, it can hardly be said to have involved any suchreturn at all. The Confederation of the Rhine was dissolved, and boththe grand-duchy of Warsaw and the kingdom of Westphalia ceased, assuch, to be. But the Holy Roman Empire was not revived; the newlyacquired dignities of the sovereigns of Saxony, Bavaria, and otherstates were perpetuated; despite the clamors of the mediatizedprinces, the scores of German states which during the decade had beenswallowed up by their more powerful neighbors, or had been otherwiseblotted out, were not re-established; and--most important of all--thesocial and economic changes by which the period had been given (p.  195)distinction were, in large part, not undone. As has been pointed out, the close of the Napoleonic period foundGermany entirely devoid of political unity, in both name and fact. Bythe governments which were chiefly influential in the reconstructionof Europe in 1814-1815, it was deemed expedient that there bere-established some degree of German unity, though on the part of mostof them, both German and non-German, there was no desire that there becalled into existence a united German nation of substantialindependence and power. In the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna, promulgated under date of June 9, 1815, there was included the draftof a constitution, prepared by a committee of the Congress under thepresidency of Count Metternich, in which was laid down the fundamentallaw of an entirely new German union. Within Germany proper there wererecognized to be, when the Congress had completed its work ofreadjustment, thirty-eight states, of widely varying size, importance, and condition. Under authorization of the Congress, these states werenow organized, not into an empire with a common sovereign, but into a_Bund_, or Confederation, whose sole central organ was a _Bundestag_, or Diet, sitting at Frankfort-on-the-Main and composed of delegatescommissioned by the sovereigns of the affiliated states and servingunder their immediate and absolute direction. Save only in respect tocertain matters pertaining to foreign relations and war, each of thethirty-eight states retained its autonomy unimpaired. [277] [Footnote 277: In 1817 the number was brought up to 39 by the adding of Hesse-Homburg, unintentionally omitted when the original list was made up. By successive changes the number was reduced to 33 before the dissolution of the Confederation in 1866. ] *204. The Diet. *--The Diet was in no proper sense a parliamentary body, but was rather a congress of sovereign states. Nominally, its powerswere large. They included both the regulation of the fundamental lawand the performance of the functions of ordinary legislation. But, inpractice, the authority of the body was meager and exercise ofdiscretion was absolutely precluded. The members, as delegates of theprinces, spoke and voted only as they were instructed. Questionsrelating to the fundamental laws and the organic institutions of theConfederation and "other arrangements of common interest" wererequired to be decided by the Diet as a whole (_in Plenum_), withvoting power distributed among the states, in rough proportion totheir importance. Of the total of 69 votes, six of the principalstates possessed four each. The preparation of measures for discussion_in Plenum_ was intrusted to the "ordinary assembly, " a smaller (p.  196)gathering in which Austria, Prussia, and nine other states had eachone vote, and six _curiæ_, comprising the remaining states in groupshad likewise each a single vote. The presidency of the two assemblieswas vested permanently in Austria, and the Austrian delegationpossessed in each a casting vote. Proposals were carried in thesmaller body by simple majority, but _in Plenum_ only by a two-thirdsvote. For the enactment of fundamental laws, the modification oforganic institutions, the amendment of individual rights, and theregulation of religious affairs, it was declared by the Federal Actthat a majority vote should be insufficient, and, although it was notexpressly so stipulated, the intent was that in such cases unanimityshould be required. Early in the Diet's history, indeed, the presidentwas instructed solemnly to announce that the fundamental law of theConfederation, far from being subject to revision, was to be regardedas absolutely final. The Confederation was, and was intended to be, only the loosest sortof a league of sovereign powers. The party of German unity, represented by Stein and the Liberals generally, began by assuming itto be a _Bundesstaat_, or true federal state; but at the opening ofthe first session of the Diet (November 5, 1816) the Austrianauthorities formally pronounced it a _Staatenbund_, or federation ofstates, and from this ruling, according strictly with both the factsof the situation and the intent of the founders, there was no possibleescape. The powers and functions which were vested in theConfederation were exercised exclusively through and upon states, andwith the private individual it had no sort of direct relation, being, in these respects, essentially similar to the federal government ofthe United States under the Articles of Confederation. The function ofthe Diet, in effect, came to be little more than that of registeringand promulgating the decrees of the authorities at Vienna. *205. Constitutional Progress, 1815-1848. *--Notwithstanding these facts, the decade which terminates with the creation of the Confederation of1815 contributed enormously to the clearing of the way for theestablishment of modern German unity and of vigorous and efficientnational government. Among large numbers of the German people therehad been engendered a genuine desire, not only for constitutionalismin government, but for a substantial unification of the German-speakingworld; and the increased homogeneity and prosperity of the kingdom ofPrussia pointed already to the eventual realization of these aspirationsunder the leadership of that powerful state. The history of Germanyduring the period from 1815 to 1848 is a story largely of the growthof these twin ideas of constitutionalism and nationality, and of (p.  197)the relentless combat which was waged between their exponents and theentrenched forces of autocracy and particularism. Gradually theresults of this conflict found expression through two developments, (1) the promulgation of liberalizing constitutions in a majority ofthe states and (2) the building of the Zollverein, or customs union. The original draft of the Federal Act of 1815 pledged every member ofthe Confederation to establish a constitution within a year. In thefinal form of the instrument, however, the time limit was omitted andwhat had been a specific injunction became but a general promise. Thesovereigns of the two preponderating states, Austria and Prussia, delayed and eventually evaded the obligation altogether. But in alarge number of the lesser states the promise that had been made wasfulfilled with despatch. In the south the ground had been cleared bythe Napoleonic domination, and the influence of French politicalexperimentation was more generally felt, so that, very naturally, theprogress of constitutionalism was most rapid in that quarter. The newera of constitution-making was inaugurated by the promulgation of thefundamental law of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, January 8, 1816. In rapidsuccession followed similar grants in Schaumburg-Lippe, January 15, 1816;Waldeck, April 19, 1816; the grand-duchy of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, May 5, 1816; Saxe-Hildburghausen, March 19, 1818; Bavaria, May 26, 1818;Baden, August 22, 1818; Lichtenstein, November 9, 1818; Württemberg, September 25, 1819; Hanover, December 7, 1819; Brunswick, April 25, 1820, and the grand-duchy of Hesse, December 17, 1820. Instrumentspromulgated later during the period under review include those ofSaxe-Meiningen, in 1829; Hesse-Cassel, Saxe-Altenburg, and Saxony, in1831; Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, in 1833; Lippe, in 1836; and Lübeck, in 1846. In a number of the states mentioned, including Bavaria, Baden, Württemberg, and Saxony, the constitutions at this time grantedare still in operation. Many of them were, and some of them remain, highly illiberal. But, in the aggregate, the ground gained in behalfof constitutional and enlightened government through theirpromulgation was enormous. The spread of constitutionalism was paralleled by the gradualcreation, after 1818, of the Zollverein. This was a customs union, taking its origin in the establishment of free trade throughout thekingdom of Prussia, and extended from state to state until by 1842 thewhole of Germany had been included save the Hanseatic towns, Mecklenburg, Hanover, and Austria. The union was maintained forpurposes that were primarily commercial, but by accustoming the peopleto concerted effort and by emphasizing constantly their commoninterests it must be regarded as having contributed in a very (p.  198)important way to the growth of national consciousness and solidarity. Under its agency the lesser states were schooled deliberately inindependence of Austria and in reliance upon Prussian leadership. II. THE CREATION OF THE EMPIRE *206. The Revolution of 1848. *--From 1815 onwards the Liberalsadvocated, in season and out, the conversion of the Confederation intoa more substantial union under a constitutional style of government. Aside from the promulgation of a number of new state constitutions, the effects of the revolutionary movements of 1830 were, in Germany, of little consequence. But during the period 1830-1848 conditions sodeveloped that only the stimulus of a near-by liberal demonstrationwas required to precipitate to the east of the Rhine a popularuprising of revolutionary proportions. In the constitutional historyof the German countries of central Europe few periods are to beassigned larger importance than the years 1848-1849. Taking advantageof the interest created by the contemporary revolution in France, theLiberal leaders began by convening at Heidelberg, March 31, 1848, a_Vorparlament_, or preliminary meeting, by which arrangements wereeffected for the election, by manhood suffrage, of a national assemblyof some six hundred members whose business it should be to draw up aconstitution for a united German nation. This assembly, reluctantlyauthorized by the Diet, convened May 18 in the free city of Frankfort. The task to be accomplished was formidable and much valuable time wasconsumed in learned but irrelevant disputation. In the end it wasdecided that not the whole of Austria, but only the German portions, should be admitted to the new union; that there should be establisheda full-fledged parliamentary system, with a responsible ministry; andthat the parliament should consist of two chambers, the lower to bechosen by direct manhood suffrage, the upper to be made up half ofmembers appointed by the princes and half of members elected for sixyears by the legislative bodies of the several states. As an executivesome desired a directory of three princes and some wanted a singlepresident; but the majority voted at length to establish the dignityof German Emperor and to offer it to Frederick William IV. , king ofPrussia. *207. The Reaction. *--The refusal of the Prussian monarch to accept theproffered title, save upon the impossible condition that all of hisbrother princes in Germany should give their assent to his so doing, blasted the hopes of the patriots. In May, 1849, the Frankfortassembly broke up. Not long thereafter Prussia, Saxony, and (p.  199)Hanover agreed upon a constitution substantially like that which theFrankfort meeting had proposed. Other states accepted it, and March20, 1850, a parliament was convened under it at Erfurt. By reason ofthe recovery of Austria, however, and the subsidence of therevolutionary movement generally throughout Germany the experimentpromptly collapsed. The conception of a German empire had beenformulated with some definiteness, but for its realization the day hadnot yet arrived. The old Confederation, under Austrian domination, kept the field. After an upheaval which involved the enforcedpromulgation of a constitution, the accession of a new emperor (thepresent Francis Joseph), and the threatened loss of Hungary, Bohemia, and the Italian dependencies, the Austrian monarchy recovered itsbalance and inaugurated a fresh era of reaction, during the course ofwhich there was revoked not only the constitution conceded at Viennabut also that of almost every one of the German states. [278] [Footnote 278: See pp. 454-456. ] In Prussia the outcome was more fortunate. In January, 1850, FrederickWilliam IV, granted a constitution which established a nationallegislative assembly and admitted a portion of the Prussian people toan active participation in the government. Although the instrumentproved a disappointment to the Liberals, it has survived, with somemodifications, to the present day as the fundamental law of thePrussian kingdom; and the fact that Prussia had become fixedly aconstitutional state, together with the hopeless deadlock which arosebetween Prussia and Austria in the attempted readjustments of1848-1849, emphasized the conclusion that the future of Germany laywith Prussia rather than with Austria, and that, indeed, there couldbe no adequate unification of the German people until one of the twogreat rival states should have been definitely ejected. [279] [Footnote 279: On the revolution of 1848 in Germany see Cambridge Modern History, XI. , Chaps. 3, 6, 7; H. Von Sybel, The Founding of the German Empire trans. By M. L. Perrin, 7 vols. (New York, 1890-1898), I. , 145-243; H. Blum, Die deutsche Revolution, 1848-1849 (Florence and Leipzig, 1897); P. Matter, La Prusse et la révolution de 1848 (Paris, 1903). ] *208. The War of 1866. *--With the elevation of Count von Bismarck, September 23, 1862, to the presidency of the Prussian ministry, affairs began to move rapidly toward the inevitable conclusion. Amonth prior to Bismarck's appointment there had been held at Frankforta conference--the so-called _Fürstentag_--whose object was theproposal of a plan for the reconstitution of the Confederation. Thescheme suggested contemplated the establishment of a directory, anassembly composed of delegates from the various diets, and a federalcourt of appeal. The conference was held at the instigation of (p.  200)Austria, and it was intended primarily to promote an alignment of theliberal forces against Prussia. The last-mentioned state refused, naturally, to have part in the proceedings, and the enterprise came tonaught. A brief interlude in the fast developing contest was affordedby the Austro-Prussian alliance against Denmark in 1864; but the netresult of this episode was only to supply the occasion for war whichBismarck desired. In 1866 Prussia came forward with a project for thereorganization of the Confederation (in reality, a counter-bid forpopular support), the more noteworthy features of which were the totalexclusion of Austria from the league and the establishment of aparliament elected by manhood suffrage. As was inevitable, the Dietrejected the scheme; whereupon, with the object of forcing Austriainto helpless isolation, Bismarck and his royal master, William I. , inJune, 1866, proclaimed the Confederation to be dissolved and plungedthe whole of Germany in civil war. *209. The North German Bund, 1867. *--The conflict was short and sharp. Its outcome was the crushing defeat of Austria, and in the treaty ofPrague (August 23, 1866) the proud Hapsburg monarchy was compelled toassent to a reconstitution of the German federation in which Austriashould have no part. A number of lesser states which had supportedAustria--Hanover, Nassau, Hesse-Cassel, and Frankfort--were forthwithincorporated by Prussia, by decree of September 20, 1866, [280] andamong the group of surviving powers the preponderance of Prussia wasmore than ever indisputable. Realizing, however, that the states ofthe south--Bavaria, Baden, Württemberg, and Hesse-Darmstadt--were notas yet ready to be incorporated under a centralized administration, Prussia contented herself for the moment with setting up a NorthGerman _Bund_, comprising the states to the north of the river Main, twenty-two in all. February 24, 1867, there was brought together inBerlin a constitutional diet, representing all of the affiliatedstates and elected by manhood suffrage and secret ballot. Aconstitution, drafted previously by a committee of plenipotentiaries, was debated from March 9 to April 16 and was adopted by a vote of 230to 53. After having been ratified by the legislative bodies of thevarious states, the instrument was put in operation, July 1. Theprincipal organs of government for which it made provision were threein number: (1) the _Præsidium_, or President, of the Confederation, the dignity being hereditary and vested in the king of Prussia; (2)the _Bundesrath_, or Federal Council, representing the variousgovernments; and (3) the _Bundestag_, or Diet, composed of deputieselected directly by manhood suffrage. For all practical purposes (p.  201)the German Empire, under the hegemony of Prussia, was a reality. [Footnote 280: The disputed districts of Schleswig-Holstein were annexed at the same time. ] *210. Establishment of the Empire, 1871. *--For the time being the statesto the south of the Main were left to their own devices, though theconstitution of the _Bund_ was shaped purposely to permit, and even toencourage, the accession of new members. Very soon these southernstates entered the new customs union of 1867, maintained by thenorthern states, and ere long they were concluding with Prussiatreaties of both offensive and defensive alliance. The patrioticfervor engendered by the war with France in 1870-1871 sufficed tocomplete the work. Contrary to the expectation of Napoleon III. , thestates of the south contributed troops and otherwise co-operatedvigorously with the Prussians throughout the contest, and before itsclose they let it be known that they were ready to become full-fledgedmembers of the Confederation. On the basis of treaty arrangements, concluded in November, 1870, it was agreed that the North GermanConfederation should be replaced by a German Empire, and that for thetitle of President, borne by the Prussian sovereign, should besubstituted that of _Deutscher Kaiser_, German Emperor. January 18, 1871, at Versailles, William, king of Prussia and President of theConfederation, was formally proclaimed German Emperor. The siege ofParis was at the time still in progress, and the treaty of Frankfort, by which peace with France was concluded, was not signed until thefollowing May. [281] [Footnote 281: For brief accounts of the founding of the Empire see B. E. Howard, The German Empire (New York, 1906), Chap. 1; E. Henderson, Short History of Germany (New York, 1906). Chaps. 8-10; Cambridge Modern History, XI. , Chaps. 15-17, XII. , Chap. 6; and Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, XI. , Chap. 8. A very good book is G. B. Malleson, The Refounding of the German Empire, 1848-1871 (2d ed. , London, 1904). More extended presentation of German history in the period 1815-1871 will be found in A. Stern, Geschichte Europas seit den Verträgen von 1815 bis zum Frankfurter Frieden von 1871, 6 vols. (Berlin, 1894-1911), extending at present to 1848; C. F. H. Bulle, Geschichte der neuesten Zeit, 4 vols. (Leipzig, 1886-1887), covering the years 1815-1885; H. G. Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert, 5 vols. (Leipzig, 1879-1894), covering the period to 1848; H. Von Sybel, Die Begründung des deutschen Reiches durch Wilhelm I. (Munich and Leipzig, 1890), and in English translation under title of The Founding of the German Empire (New York, 1890); H. Von Zwiedeneck-Sudenhorst, Deutsche Geschichte von der Auflösung d. Alten bis zur Errichtung d. Neuen Kaiserreichs (Stuttgart, 1903-1905); and M. L. Van Deventer, Cinquante années de l'histoire fédérale de l'Allemagne (Brussels, 1870). A book of some value is A. Malet, The Overthrow of the Germanic Confederation by Prussia in 1866 (London, 1870). P. Bigelow, History of the German Struggle for Liberty (New York, 1905) is readable, but not wholly reliable. An excellent biography of Bismarck is that by Headlam (New York, 1899). For full bibliography see Cambridge Modern History, X. , 826-832; XI. , 879-886, 893-898; XII. , 869-875. ] III. THE CONSTITUTION: NATURE OF THE EMPIRE (p.  202) *211. The Constitution Framed. *--As ordained in the treaties ofNovember, 1870, ratified subsequently by the _Bundesrath_ and the_Bundestag_ of the North German Confederation, and by the legislativeassemblies of the four incoming states, the German Empire came legallyinto existence January 1, 1871. It consisted fundamentally of theConfederation, which in the process of expansion did not lose itscorporate identity, together with the four states, whose treatiesbound them severally to it. The _Bund_ was conceived of technically, not as replaced by, but rather as perpetuated in, the new Empire. Theaccession of the four southern states, however, involved of necessitya considerable modification of the original character of theaffiliation; and the innovations that were introduced called for ageneral reconstitution of the fundamental law upon which the enlargedstructure was to be grounded. The elements at hand for the construction of the constitution of theEmpire were four: (1) the constitution of the North GermanConfederation, in operation since 1867; (2) the treaties of November15, 1870, between the Confederation, on the one hand, and thegrand-duchies of Baden and Hesse on the other; (3) the treaty ofNovember 23, 1870, by which was arranged the adhesion of the kingdom ofBavaria; and (4) the treaty of November 25, 1870, between the _Bund_, Baden, and Hesse, on the one side, and the kingdom of Württemberg onthe other. Each of these treaties stipulated the precise conditionsunder which the new affiliation should be maintained, thesestipulations comprising, in effect, so many projected amendments ofthe original constitution of the _Bund_. [282] At the initiative of theEmperor there was prepared, early in 1871, a revised draft of thisconstitution, and in it were incorporated such modifications as wererendered necessary by the adhesion of the southern states and thecreation of the Imperial title. March 31 the Reichstag was convened inBerlin and before it was laid forthwith the constitutional _projet_, to which the Bundesrath had already given its assent. April 14 theinstrument was approved by the popular chamber, and two days later itwas promulgated as the supreme law of the land. [Footnote 282: The first three of these treaties were concluded at Versailles; the fourth was signed at Berlin. ] *212. Contents of the Instrument. *--As it came from the hands of itsframers, the new constitution comprised a judicious amalgamation ofthe various fundamental documents that have been mentioned, i. E. , theconstitution of the Confederation and the treaties. Within the (p.  203)scope of its seventy-eight articles most subjects which are dealt withordinarily in such instruments find ample place: the nature and extentof the legislative power; the composition, organization, and procedureof the legislative chambers; the privileges and powers of theexecutive; the adjustment of disputes and the punishment of offensesagainst the national authority; the process of constitutionalamendment. It is a peculiarity of the German constitution, however, that it contains elaborate provisions relating to a variety of thingsconcerning which constitutions, as a rule, are silent. There is anextended section upon customs and commerce; another upon railways;another upon posts and telegraphs; another upon navigation; anotherupon finance; and an especially detailed one relating to the militaryorganization of the realm. In part, the elaboration of theseessentially legislative subjects within the constitution wasdetermined by the peculiarly federal character of the Empire, by whichwas entailed the necessity of a minute enumeration of powers. In agreater measure, however, it arose from the underlying purpose ofBismarck and of William I. To smooth the way for the conversion ofGermany into the premier militant power of Europe. Beyond a guaranteeof a common citizenship for all Germany and of equal protection forall citizens as against foreign powers, the constitution containslittle that relates to the status or privileges of the individual. There is in it no bill of rights, and it makes no mention of abstractprinciples. Among instruments of its kind, none is of a morethoroughly practical character. [283] [Footnote 283: The text of the constitution, in German, is printed in A. L. Lowell, Governments and Parties in Continental Europe, 2 vols. (Boston, 1896), II. , 355-377, and in Laband, Deutsches Reichsstaatsrecht, 411-428; in English, in W. F. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, 2 vols. (Chicago, 1909), I. , 325-351, and in Howard, The German Empire, 403-435. Carefully edited German texts are: L. Von Rönne, Verfassung des deutschen Reiches (8th ed. , Berlin, 1899); A. Arndt, Verfassung des deutschen Reiches (Berlin, 1902). On the formation of the Imperial constitution see A. Lebon, Les origines de la constitution allemande, in _Annales de l'École Libre des Sciences Politiques_, July, 1888; ibid. , Études sur l'Allemagne politique (Paris, 1890). ] *213. Federal Character of the Empire. *--The political system of Germanyto-day is the product of centuries of particularistic statecraft, capped, in 1871, by a partial centralization of sovereign organs andpowers. The Empire is composed of twenty-five states: the four kingdomsof Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, and Württemberg; the six grand-duchies ofBaden, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Saxe-Weimar, Mecklenburg-Strelitz, and Oldenburg; the five duchies of Brunswick, Saxe-Meiningen, Saxe-Altenburg, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and Anhalt; the seven (p.  204)principalities of Schwarzburg-Sonderhausen, Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, Waldeck, Reuss Älterer Linie, Reuss Jüngerer Linie, Lippe, andSchaumburg-Lippe; and the three free cities of Hamburg, Bremen, andLübeck. These states vary in size from Prussia, with 134, 616 squaremiles, to Bremen, with 99; and in population, from Prussia, with40, 163, 333, to Schaumburg-Lippe, with 46, 650. There is, in addition, the _Reichsland_, or Imperial domain, of Alsace-Lorraine, whose statusuntil 1911 was that of a purely dependent territory, but which by actof the year mentioned was elevated to a condition of quasi-statehood. [284] [Footnote 284: See p. 285. ] Prior to the formation in 1867, of the North German Confederation, each of the twenty-five states was sovereign and essentiallyindependent. Each had its own governmental establishment, and in manyinstances the existing political system was of considerable antiquity. With the organization of the _Bund_, those states which wereidentified with the federation yielded their independence, andpresumably their sovereignty; and with the establishment of theEmpire, all gave up whatever claim they as yet maintained to absoluteautonomy. Both the _Bund_ and the Empire were creations, strictlyspeaking, of the states, not of the people; and, to this day, as onewriter has put it, the Empire is "not a juristic person composed offifty-six million members, but of twenty-five members. "[285] At thesame time, it is not what the old Confederation of 1815 was, i. E. , aleague of princes. It is a state established by, and composed of, states. [286] [Footnote 285: P. Laband, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reiches, I. , 91. ] [Footnote 286: On the more purely juristic aspects of the Empire the best work in English is Howard, The German Empire (Chap. 2, on "The Empire and the Individual States"). A very useful volume covering the governments of Empire and states is Combes de Lestrade, Les monarchies de l'Empire allemand (Paris, 1904). The monumental German treatise is P. Laband, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reiches (4th ed. , Tübingen, 1901), in four volumes. There is a six-volume French translation of this work, Le droit public de L'Empire allemand (Paris, 1900-1904). Other German works of value are: O. Mayer, Deutsches Verwaltungsrecht (Leipzig, 1895-1896); P. Zorn, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reiches (2d ed. , Berlin, 1895-1897); and A. Arndt, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reiches (Berlin, 1901). There is a four-volume French translation of Mayer's important work, under the title Le droit administratif allemand (Paris, 1903-1906). Two excellent brief German treatises are: P. Laband, Deutsches Reichsstaatsrecht (3d ed. , Tübingen, 1907), and Hue de Grais, Handbuch der Verfassung und Verwaltung in Preussen und dem deutschen Reiche (18th ed. , Berlin, 1907). The most recent work upon the subject is F. Fleiner, Institutionen des deutschen Verwaltungsrechts (Tübingen, 1911). A suggestive monograph is J. Du Buy, Two Aspects of the German Constitution (New Haven, 1894). ] IV. THE EMPIRE AND THE STATES (p.  205) *214. Sovereignty and the Division of Powers. *--The Germans are notthemselves altogether agreed concerning the nature and preciselocation of sovereignty within the Empire, but it is reasonably clearthat sovereignty, in the ultimate meaning of that much misused term, is vested in the government of the Empire, and not in that of anystate. The embodiment of that sovereignty, as will appearsubsequently, is not the national parliament, nor yet the Emperor, butthe Bundesrath, which represents the "totality" of the affiliatedgovernments. [287] As in the United States, Switzerland, and federalnations generally, there is a division of powers of government betweenthe central governmental establishment and the states. The powers ofthe Imperial government, it is important to observe, are specificallyenumerated; those of the states are residual. It is within thecompetence of the Imperial government to bring about an enlargement ofthe powers that have been confided to it; but until it does so in anyparticular direction the power of the state governments in thatdirection is unlimited. On the one hand, there is a considerable fieldof legislative activity--in respect to citizenship, tariffs, weights, measures, coinage, patents, military and naval establishment of theEmpire, etc. --in which the Empire, by virtue of constitutionalstipulation, possesses exclusive power to act. [288] On the other, there is a no less extensive domain reserved entirely to thestates--the determination of their own forms of government, of laws ofsuccession, of relations of church and state, of questions pertainingto their internal administration; the framing of their own budgets, police regulations, highway laws and laws relating to land tenure; thecontrol of public instruction. Between lies a broad and shifting area, which each may enter, but within which the Imperial authority, in sofar as is warranted by the constitution, must be accorded precedenceover the authority of a state. "The matters over which the statespreserve control, " says a great German jurist, "cannot be separatedcompletely from those to which extends the competence of the Empire. The various powers of government are intimately related the one toanother. They run together and at the same time impose mutual checksin so many ways, and are so interlaced, that one cannot hope to setthem off by a line of demarcation, or to set up among them a Chinesewall of division. In every sphere of their activity the states (p.  206)encounter a superior power to which they are obliged to submit. Theyare free to move only in the circle which Imperial law-making leavesopen to them. That circle does exist. It is delimited, but not whollyoccupied, by the Empire. .. . In a certain sense it may be said that itis only by sufferance of the Empire that the states maintain theirpolitical rights at all, and that, at best, their tenure isprecarious. "[289] [Footnote 287: Howard, German Empire, 21. ] [Footnote 288: Matters placed under the supervision of the Empire and made subject to Imperial legislation are enumerated in the sixteen sections of Article 4 of the constitution. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 327-328. ] [Footnote 289: Laband, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reiches (2d ed. ), I. , 102-103. ] In passing, it may be observed that there is, in fact, a distincttendency toward the reduction of the spheres of authority whichformerly were left to the states. One of the means by which this hasbeen brought about is the establishment of uniform codes of lawthroughout the Empire, containing regulations respecting a multitudeof things which otherwise would have been regulated by the statesalone. Most important among these is the great Civil Code, which wentinto effect January 1, 1900. Another means to the same end is theincrease in recent years of Imperial legislation relating toworkingmen's insurance, factory regulations, industrial conditions, and other matters of a social and economic nature. Not infrequently inrecent times have the states, or some of them, raised protest againstthis centralizing tendency, and especially against the "Prussianization"of the Empire which it seems clearly to involve. In many states, especially those to the south of the Main, the separatist tradition isstill very strong. In Bavaria, more than anywhere else, is this true, and in 1903 the new Bavarian premier, Baron Podevils, was able toarouse genuine enthusiasm for his government by a solemn declarationbefore the diet that he and his colleagues would combat with all theirmight "any attempt to shape the future of the Empire on lines otherthan the federative basis laid down in the Imperial constitution. " *215. The Interlacing of Governmental Agencies. *--The functions of alegislative character which are delegated to the Imperial governmentare numerous and comprehensive, and in practice they tend all thewhile to be increased. Those of an executive and judicial characterare very much more restricted. In respect to foreign relations, thenavy, and the postal and telegraph service, administration isabsolutely centralized in the organs of the Empire; in respect toeverything else, administrative functions are performed entirely, oralmost entirely, through the agency of the states. In the UnitedStates the federal government is essentially complete within itself. It has its own law-makers, administrators, and judges, who carry onthe national government largely independently of the governing agenciesof the various states. In Germany, where the state occupies in (p.  207)some respects a loftier position in the federation than does itscounterpart in America, the central government, in respect to all savethe fields that have been mentioned, relies for the execution of itsmeasures upon the officials of the states. The Empire establishestaxes and customs duties, but the imposts are collected by stateauthorities. Similarly, justice is rendered, not in the name of theEmpire, but in the name of the state, and by judges in the employ ofthe state. In respect to machinery, the Imperial government is, therefore, but a part of a government. Alone, it could not be made tooperate. It lacks a judiciary; likewise the larger portion of theadministrative agencies without which mere powers of legislativeenactment are futile. To put the matter succinctly, the workinggovernment of the Empire comprises far more than the organs andfunctions that are purely Imperial; it comprises the federal organsand functions possessed by the individual states as well. [290] [Footnote 290: Laband, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reiches, § 7-10; Lebon, Études sur l'Allemagne politique, 93-104. ] *216. The States: the Prussian Hegemony. *--Legally, the union of theGerman states is indestructible. The Imperial government is vestedwith no power to expel a state, to unite it with another state, todivide it, or in any way to alter its status in the federation. On theother hand, no state possesses a right to secede, or to modify itspowers or obligations within the Empire. If a state violates itsobligations or refuses to be bound by the authority of the Empire, thefederal army, on decision of the Bundesrath, may be mobilized by theEmperor against it. [291] [Footnote 291: Art. 19. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 332. ] Among the states, however, there is a glaring lack of equality ofstatus and privilege. When the Empire was formed the component statesdiffered widely in area, population, and traditional rights, and therewas no attempt to reduce them to a footing that should be absolutelyuniform. Prussia, besides comprising the moving spirit in the newaffiliation, contained a population considerably in excess of that ofthe other twenty-four states combined. The consequence was thatPrussia became inevitably the preponderating power in the Empire. Theking of Prussia is _ex-officio_ German Emperor; the Prussian votes inthe Bundesrath can defeat any proposed amendment of the constitution, and likewise any measure looking toward a change in the army, thenavy, or the taxes; and Prussia controls the chairmanship of allstanding committees in the Bundesrath. [292] [Footnote 292: A. Lebon, La constitution allemande et l'hégémonie prussienne, in _Annales de l'École Libre des Sciences Politiques_, Jan. , 1887. ] *217. Military Arrangements. *--Other privileges Prussia possesses (p.  208)by virtue, not of the constitution, but of agreements with her sisterstates. The most important of these relates to the army. By theconstitution it was provided at the outset that the armed forces ofthe Empire should be organized into a single establishment, to begoverned by Imperial law and to be under the supreme command of theEmperor. [293] In respect to the appointment of minor officers, andsome other matters, powers of jurisdiction were left, however, to theindividual states. These powers were in themselves worth little, andin the course of time all of the states save Bavaria, Saxony, andWürttemberg were brought to the point of yielding to Prussia theslender military authority that remained to them. [294] In this mannerPrussia acquired the right to recruit, drill, and officer thecontingents of twenty-one states--a right which appreciably increasedher already preponderant authority in all matters of a militarycharacter. Technically, there is no _German_ army, just as there is no_German_ minister of war. Each state maintains its own contingent, andthe contingent maintained by the state is stationed normally withinthat state. By virtue of the treaties, however, all contingents savethose of Bavaria, Saxony, and Württemburg are administered preciselyas if they comprised integral parts of the Prussian establishment. [295] [Footnote 293: Arts. 61, 63, 64. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 345-347. ] [Footnote 294: The first of the Prussian military treaties, that concluded with Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, dates from 1861; the last, that with Brunswick, from 1885. ] [Footnote 295: Howard, The German Empire, Chap. 12; Laband, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reiches, §§ 95-113; C. Morhain, De l'empire allemand (Paris, 1886), Chap. 15. ] *218. The Sonderrechte. *--In the possession of special privilegesPrussia, however, is not alone. When the states of the south becamemembers of the federation all of them stipulated certain_Sonderrechte_, or reserved rights, whose acknowledgment was made thecondition upon which they came into the union. Württemberg and Bavaria, for example, retain on this basis the administration of posts andtelegraphs within their boundaries, and Württemberg, Bavaria, andBaden possess the exclusive right to tax beers and brandies producedwithin each state respectively. Bavaria retains the administration ofher own railways. At one time it was feared that the special privilegesaccorded the southern states would constitute a menace to the stabilityof the Empire. Such apprehension, however, has proved largelygroundless. [296] In this connection it is worth pointing out that underthe Imperial constitution the right to commission and despatch diplomatic(though not consular) agents is not withdrawn from the individual states. In most instances, however, the maintenance of diplomatic representativesabroad has long since been discontinued. Saxony, Bavaria, and (p.  209)Württemberg retain to-day only their posts at Vienna, St. Petersburg, and the Vatican. [Footnote 296: Laband, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reiches, §§ 11-13. ] *219. Constitutional Amendment. *--It is stipulated within the Imperialconstitution that amendments may be adopted by a process identicalwith that of ordinary legislative enactment, save that an amendmentagainst which as many as fourteen votes are cast in the Bundesrath isto be considered rejected. The practical operation of thislast-mentioned provision is to confer upon Prussia, possessingseventeen votes and controlling twenty in the federal chamber, anabsolute veto upon all propositions looking toward constitutionalchange. Clauses of the constitution whereby special rights are securedto particular states may be amended only with the consent of thestates affected. [297] In 1873, 1888, and 1893 the text of theconstitution was amended, and upon several other occasions importantmodifications have been introduced in the working constitution withoutthe formality of altering the letter of the instrument. [Footnote 297: Art. 78. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 351. ] CHAPTER X (p.  210) THE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT: EMPEROR, CHANCELLOR, AND BUNDESRATH I. THE EMPEROR *220. Status and Privileges. *--Under the North German Confederation of1867-1871 the king of Prussia was vested with supreme command of thefederal navy, the functions of Bundesfeldherr, or commander-in-chiefof the federal army, and a large group of purely governmental powers, including the summoning, proroguing, and adjourning of the Bundesrathand Bundestag, the appointment and dismissal of the Chancellor and ofother federal officials, the publication of the federal laws, and ageneral supervision of the federal administration. These powers wereexercised by the king in the capacity of _Bundespræsidium_, or chiefmagistrate, of the federation. Upon the accession of the south Germanstates in 1870-1871 Bismarck and his royal master determined to bringonce more into use in Germany the title of Emperor, although betweenthe empire which was now assuming form and the empire which had beenterminated in 1806 there was recognized to be no historicalconnection. The constitution of April 16, 1871, accordingly stipulatesthat "to the king of Prussia shall belong the presidency of theConfederation, and he shall bear the title of _Deutscher Kaiser_(German Emperor). "[298] [Footnote 298: Art. II. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 330. It will be observed that the title is not "Emperor of Germany. " The phrase selected was intended to denote that the Emperor is only _primus inter pares_ in a confederation of territorial sovereigns (_Landesherren_. ) He is a territorial sovereign only in Prussia. ] The revival of the Imperial title and dignity involved, and wasintended to involve, no modification of the status of theBundespræsident, save in respect to his official designation andcertain of his personal privileges. His relations with the states andwith the princes of the federation continued precisely as before. Thepowers of the Kaiser were, and are, the powers of the old President, and nothing in excess of those. The title might be taken to imply amonarchy of the customary sort; but properly it does not. There is noImperial crown, no Imperial civil list, no Imperial "office" as such. The king of Prussia, in addition to his purely Prussian prerogatives, is by the Imperial constitution vested with the added prerogative (p.  211)of bearing the Kaiser title and of exercising those powers which underthe constitution and laws are conferred upon the bearer of that title. Apart from the Prussian crown the Imperial function does not exist;from which it follows that there is no law of Imperial successionapart from the Prussian law regulating the tenure of the Prussianthrone, [299] and that in the event of a regency in Prussia the regentwould, _ipso facto_, exercise the functions of Emperor. Chief amongthe privileges which belong to the Kaiser as such are those of specialprotection of person and family and of absolute exemption from legalprocess. Responsible to no superior earthly authority, the Emperor maynot be brought for trial before any tribunal, nor be removed fromoffice by any judicial proceeding. Assaults upon his person arepunishable with death, and attacks, in speech or writing, which areadjudged to constitute _lèse majesté_ are subject to special andsevere penalties. [300] [Footnote 299: Arts. 53-58 of the Prussian Constitution. See p. 253. ] [Footnote 300: R. C. Brooks, Lèse Majesté, in _The Bookman_, June, 1904. ] *221. Powers: Military and Foreign Affairs. * The king of Prussia being_ipso facto_ Emperor, the royal and Imperial functions which arecombined in the hands of the one sovereign are of necessity closelyinterrelated. There are powers which belong to William II. To-daysolely by virtue of his position as king of Prussia. There are others, of an Imperial nature, which he possesses by reason of the fact that, being king of Prussia, he is also Emperor. In practice, if not in law, there are still others which arise from the thoroughgoingpreponderance of the Prussian kingdom as a state within theEmpire--the power, in general, of imparting a bent to Imperial policysuch as would not be possible if, for example, the king of Württembergwere Emperor, rather than the king of Prussia. The functions of the Emperor as such are not numerous, but, so far asthey go, they are of fundamental importance. In the first place, theEmperor is commander-in-chief of the army and navy. He may control theorganization of the Landwehr, or national defense; determine thestrength and composition of the armed contingents; supervise theequipment and drilling of the troops; and mobilize the whole, or anypart, of the forces. [301] A second group of Imperial functions arethose relating to foreign affairs. "It shall be the duty of theEmperor, " says the constitution, "to represent the Empire amongnations, to declare war and to conclude peace in the name of theEmpire, to enter into alliances and other treaties with foreigncountries, to accredit ambassadors and to receive them. "[302] The (p.  212)Emperor's power, however, is not in all of these directions absolute. One important limitation arises from the requirement that, under allcircumstances save in the event of an attack upon the federalterritory or its coasts, war may be declared only with the consent ofthe Bundesrath. Another is that in so far as treaties with foreigncountries relate to matters which are to be regulated by Imperiallegislation, "the consent of the Bundesrath shall be required fortheir conclusion, and the approval of the Reichstag shall be necessaryto render them valid. "[303] [Footnote 301: Howard, The German Empire, Chap. 12; Laband, Deutsches Reichsstaatsrecht, 345-359. ] [Footnote 302: Art. II. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 330. ] [Footnote 303: Art. II, clause 3. Dodd, I. , 331. ] *222. Powers: Legislation and Justice. *--A third group of functions hasto do with legislation. By the constitution the Emperor is vested withthe right to convene the Bundesrath and the Reichstag, and to open, adjourn, and close them. [304] In accordance with resolutions of theBundesrath, bills are laid before the Reichstag in the name of theEmperor; and it is the Emperor's duty to prepare and publish the lawsof the Empire, as well as to supervise their execution. [305] In so faras is permitted by the constitution, and by laws from time to timeenacted, decrees and ordinances may be promulgated by the Emperor, under the countersignature of the Chancellor. Speaking strictly, theEmperor possesses no veto upon measures passed in the Bundesrath andReichstag, though in practice he may refuse to publish a law in theenactment of which he believes the ordinary formal requirements not tohave been complied with. He may not withhold a measure by reasonsimply of its content. [Footnote 304: Art. 12. Ibid. ] [Footnote 305: "The laws of the Empire shall receive their binding force by Imperial promulgation, through the medium of an Imperial Gazette. If no other time is designated for the published law to take effect it shall become effective on the fourteenth day after its publication in the Imperial Gazette at Berlin. " Art. 2. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 326. ] The Emperor is vested, in the next place, with certain prerogatives inrelation to the judiciary. On motion of the Bundesrath, he appoints(though he may not remove) the members of the Reichsgericht, orImperial Court; and by the Code of Criminal Procedure it is stipulatedthat in cases in which the Imperial Court shall have rendered judgmentas a tribunal of first instance, the Emperor shall possess the powerof pardon. The pardoning power is extended likewise to cases adjudgedin consular courts, prize courts, and other tribunals specified bylaw. *223. Powers: Execution of the Law. *--Finally, the execution of the lawsis intrusted to the Emperor with, however, this limitation, that, under the German system, the execution of law is committed largely tothe states and the officials thereof, so that the measures of the (p.  213)Imperial Government whose execution is not specifically provided forby the constitution and the laws are presumably carried into effect bythe constituted authorities of the states. There are, however, Imperial agents whose business it is to inspect the execution ofImperial measures by the states and to report to the Emperorinfractions or omissions. When such delinquencies are adjudgedsufficiently serious, the Emperor may bring them to the attention ofthe Bundesrath, and that body may order an "execution, " i. E. , a showof military force to coerce the erring state. The carrying out of the"execution" is intrusted to the Emperor. [306] Incident to the generalexecutive function is the power to make appointments. By theconstitution it is stipulated that the Emperor, in addition toappointing the Imperial Chancellor, shall appoint Imperial officials, require of them the taking of an oath to the Empire, and, whennecessary, dismiss them. [307] The position which the Chancelloroccupies in the Imperial administrative system is of such weight thatthe power of appointing to, and of removing from, the chancellorshipis in itself of very large importance; and the Kaiser's control ofadministration is still further increased by his power of appointmentand removal of subordinate officials. [308] [Footnote 306: Art. 19. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 332. ] [Footnote 307: Art. 18. Ibid. ] [Footnote 308: Art. 19. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 332. On the status and functions of the German Emperor see Howard, The German Empire, Chap. 3; J. W. Burgess, The German Emperor, in _Political Science Quarterly_, June, 1888; Laband, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reiches, §§ 24-26; ibid. , Das deutsche Kaiserthum (Strassburg, 1896); R. Fischer, Das Recht des deutschen Kaisers (Berlin, 1895); K. Binding, Die rechtliche Stellung des Kaisers (Dresden, 1898); R. Steinbach, Die rechtliche Stellung des deutschen Kaisers verglichen mit des Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika (Leipzig, 1903). ] II. THE CHANCELLOR *224. Non-existence of a Parliamentary System. *--Within the domain ofImperial government the place filled in other governmental systems bya ministry or cabinet of some variety is occupied by a single official, the _Reichskanzler_, or Chancellor. When the Imperial constitution wasframed it was the intention of Bismarck to impart to the Imperialadministration the fullest facility and harmony by providing theChancellor with no colleagues, and by making that official responsiblesolely to the Emperor. Such a scheme would have meant, obviously, athoroughgoing centralization in all Imperial affairs and the utternegation of anything in the way of a parliamentary system of government. The more liberal members of the constituent Reichstag compelled (p.  214)a modification of the original Bismarckian programme; so that when theconstitution assumed its permanent form it contained not merely thestipulation that "the Imperial Chancellor, to be appointed by theEmperor, shall preside in the Bundesrath and supervise the conduct ofits business, " but the significant provision that "the decrees andordinances of the Emperor shall be issued in the name of the Empire, and shall require for their validity the countersignature of theImperial Chancellor, who thereby assumes the responsibility forthem. "[309] [Footnote 309: Arts. 15 and 17. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 331. ] Nominally, this article establishes the principle of ministerialresponsibility, even though there is but a single minister to be maderesponsible. Practically, it does nothing of the sort, for the reasonthat no machinery whatever is provided for the enforcing ofresponsibility. There is not even specification of the authority towhich responsibility shall lie. The article stipulatingresponsibility, appropriated from the constitution of Prussia, wasmerely tacked on the Imperial instrument and has never been broughtinto organic relation with it. In practice the Imperial Government hasalways been able to do business without for a moment admitting theright of the Reichstag to unseat the Chancellor by an adverse vote. The Chancellor may be criticised and the proposals which he introducesmay be defeated; expediency may even require his removal by hisImperial master; but he has never felt obliged to retire merely byreason of lack of support in the legislative chamber, as would aBritish or a French minister similarly situated. This does not mean, of course, that the blocking of a governmental programme may not tendto produce the practical effect of a parliamentary vote of "want ofconfidence. " It means simply that the Chancellor, in such a case, isunder no admitted obligation to resign. The retirement of Chancellorvon Bülow during the crisis of 1908-1909 was more nearly involuntarythan that of any one of his three predecessors, but persons mostconversant with the circumstances agree that there was involved in itno intention of concession to the parliamentary principle. TheChancellor's fall was, in reality, only his punishment forcountenancing the popular indignation occasioned by the Emperor'smemorable _Daily Telegraph_ interview, for which the Chancellorhimself had been, at least technically, responsible. [310] [Footnote 310: For an excellent discussion of this general subject see W. J. Shepard, Tendencies toward Ministerial Responsibility in Germany, in _American Political Science Review_, Feb. , 1911. In the course of an impassioned speech in the Reichstag in 1912, occasioned by a storm of protest against the Emperor's alleged threat to withdraw the newly granted constitution of Alsace-Lorraine, Chancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg stated the theory and fact of the office which he holds in these sentences: "No situation has been created for which I cannot take the responsibility. As long as I stand in this place I shield the Emperor (_trete ich vor den Kaiser_). This not for courtiers' considerations, of which I know nothing, but as in duty bound. When I cannot satisfy this my duty you will see me no more in this place. "] There is a clause of the constitution[311] which confers upon the (p.  215)Chancellor the right to delegate the power to represent him to _anyother_ member of the Bundesrath; whence it seems to follow that theChancellor must be himself a member of that body. The relations of theEmpire and the Prussian kingdom practically require, further, that theChancellor be identified with the Prussian contingent in the federalchamber. Since, however, the Emperor, in his capacity of king ofPrussia, designates the Prussian delegates in that body, it is open tohim to make such an appointment in this second capacity as will enablehim when selecting, in his Imperial capacity, a chancellor to procurethe services of the man he wants. [Footnote 311: Art. 15, cl. 2. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 331. ] *225. Functions: in the Bundesrath and the Reichstag. *--Speakingbroadly, the functions of the Chancellor are two-fold. The firstarises from his position within the Bundesrath. Not only does herepresent in that body, as do his Prussian colleagues, the king ofPrussia; he is vested constitutionally with the presidency of it andwith the supervision of its business. He determines the dates of itssessions. Through his hands pass all communications and proposals, from the states as well as from the Reichstag, addressed to it, and heis its representative in all of its external relations. In the name ofthe Emperor he lays before the Reichstag all measures enacted by theBundesrath; and as a member of the Bundesrath, though not as ImperialChancellor, he may appear on the floor of the Reichstag to advocateand explain proposed legislation. Measures which have been enactedinto law are binding only after they have been proclaimed by theChancellor, such proclamation being made regularly through theofficial organ known as the _Reichsgesetzblatt_. *226. Functions: Administration. *--A second function, so inextricablyintertwined with those just mentioned as to be in practice sometimesnot clearly distinguishable from them, is that which arises from theChancellor's position as the principal administrative official of theEmpire. As has been pointed out, the work of administration under theGerman system is largely decentralized, being left to the states; butthe ultimate administrative _authority_ is very highly centralized, being gathered in the hands of the Chancellor in a measure notparalleled in any other nation of western Europe. As an administrativeofficial the Chancellor has been described with aptness as theEmperor's "other self. " He is appointed by the Emperor; he may bedismissed by him; he performs his functions solely as agent and (p.  216)assistant of the Emperor; and, although according to the letter ofthe constitution responsible to the Reichstag, he is, in practice, responsible to no one save his Imperial master. Prior to 1870 the administrative functions of the Confederation werevested in a single department, the _Bundeskanzleramt_, or FederalChancery, which was organized in three sections--the "central office, "the postal office, and the bureau of telegraphs. For the time being, affairs pertaining to the army, the navy, and foreign relations wereconfided to the care of the appropriate ministries of Prussia. In 1870there was created a separate federal department of foreign affairs, and in the following year a federal department of the marine. One byone other departments were established, until in 1879 the process wascompleted by the conversion of what remained of the Bundeskanzleramtinto a department of the interior. The status of these departments, however, was from the outset totally unlike that of the correspondingbranches of most governments. They were, and are, in effect butbureaus of the Imperial Chancellery, and their heads comprise in nodegree a collegiate ministry or cabinet. Each official in charge of adepartment owes his position absolutely to the Chancellor, and isresponsible, not to the Reichstag, nor yet to the Emperor directly, but to the Chancellor. Some of the more important officials bear thetitle of "secretary of state, " but in any case they are legallynothing more than expert and essentially non-political functionariesof the administrative hierarchy, answerable to the Chancellor for allthat they may do. [312] Of the principal departments there are atpresent seven: the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the ImperialHome Office, the Department of Justice, the Imperial Treasury, theImperial Admiralty, and the Imperial Post-Office. In the nature ofthings some are more important than others; and in addition to themthere are several Imperial bureaus, notably those of Railways, theBank, and the Debt Commission. Throughout all branches of the Imperialadministrative service appointments and dismissals are made regularlyby the Chancellor, in the name of the Emperor, and by the sameauthority all administrative regulations are promulgated. [313] [Footnote 312: At the same time it is to be observed that, in practice, the more important state secretaries are apt to sustain a relation with the other organs of government which is somewhat closer than might be inferred from what has been said. Not infrequently they sit in the Bundesrath, and are by reason of that fact privileged to defend their measures in person on the floor of the Reichstag. Not infrequently, too, they are members of the Prussian ministry. ] [Footnote 313: Laband, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reiches, §§ 41, 64-66. ] *227. Delegation of Powers. *--There are two arrangements in accordancewith which it is possible for the functions of the Chancellor to (p.  217)be vested in a substitute. By the constitution the Chancellor isauthorized, as has been observed, to delegate to any other member ofthe Bundesrath the power of representing him in that body; and thereis a special agreement to the effect that, in such a contingency, should no acceptable Prussian substitute be available, the choiceshall fall on a Bavarian. In the second place, under statute of March17, 1878, the Chancellor is empowered to call for the appointment of asubstitute, or substitutes, in his capacity of Imperial minister. Theappointment in such a case is made, not by the Chancellor himself, butby the Emperor, and there may be designated either a generalsubstitute (_Generalstellvertreter_) or a substitute for the dischargeof the Chancellor's functions in some particular department(_Specialstellvertreter_). [314] In the one case there is no limit uponthe Emperor's freedom of choice; in the other, appointments must bemade from chiefs of the department or departments affected. TheChancellor may at any time resume functions thus delegated. [315] [Footnote 314: The law of 1878 was enacted on the occasion of Bismarck's prolonged absence from Berlin, during his retirement at Varzin. A _Generalstellvertreter_ takes the title of _Reichsvicekanzler_, or Imperial Vice-Chancellor. ] [Footnote 315: On the status and functions of the Chancellor see Howard, The German Empire, Chap. 7; Laband, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reiches, § 40; L. Dupriez, Les ministres dans les principaux pays d'Europe et d'Amérique, 2 vols. (Paris, 1892), I. , 483-548; Hensel, Die stellung des Reichskanzlers nach dem Staatsrechte des deutschen Reiches, in Hirth, _Annalen des deutschen Reiches_, 1882; M. I. Tambaro, La transformation des pouvoirs en Allemagne, in _Revue du Droit Public_, July-Sept. , 1910. ] III. THE BUNDESRATH If the chancellorship is without a counterpart among moderngovernments, no less so is the Federal Council, or Bundesrath. Nofeature of the German political system is more extraordinary; none, asone writer has observed, is more thoroughly native. [316] It is not an"upper house, " nor even, in the ordinary sense, a deliberative chamberat all. On the contrary, it is the central institution of the wholeImperial system, and as such it is possessed of a broad combination offunctions which are not only legislative, but administrative, consultative, judicial, and diplomatic. [Footnote 316: Lowell, Governments and Parties, I. , 259. ] *228. Composition: the Allotment of Votes. *--The Bundesrath is composedof delegates appointed by the princes of the monarchical states and bythe senates of the free cities. In the Imperial constitution it isrequired that the fifty-eight votes to which the twenty-five statesof the confederation are entitled shall be distributed in such a (p.  218)manner that Prussia shall have seventeen, Bavaria six, Saxony four, Württemberg four, Baden three, Hesse three, Mecklenburg-Schwerin two, Brunswick two, and the seventeen other states one apiece. [317] Savefor the increase of the Bavarian quota from four to six and of thePrussian from four to seventeen, these numbers were simply carriedover from the Diet of the Confederation of 1815. The Prussian increasearose, in 1866, from the absorption of Hanover, Hesse Cassel, Holstein-Lauenburg, Nassau, and Frankfort; the Bavarian, from acustoms union treaty of July 8, 1867. Subsequent to the adoption ofthe constitution of 1871 Prussia acquired, by contract, the vote ofthe government of Waldeck; also, through the establishment in1884-1885 of a perpetual Prussian regency in Brunswick, the two votesto which that state is entitled; so that the total of the votescontrolled by the government of Prussia has been raised, for allpractical purposes, to twenty. [Footnote 317: Under the Alsace-Lorraine Constitution Act of 1911 (see p. 285), comprising for all practical purposes an amendment of the Imperial constitution, the territory of Alsace-Lorraine has become nominally a state of the Empire, being accorded three votes in the Bundesrath. The whole number of votes was thus raised to sixty-one. The Alsatian delegates are appointed by the Statthalter, who is the immediate and responsible agent of the Emperor. Their votes are cast, however, under regulations which are inconsistent with full-fledged statehood. ] It may be observed that the allocation of votes for which provisionwas made in the constitution of 1867-1871 was largely arbitrary. Thatis to say, except for the quotas of Prussia and Bavaria, it wasperpetuated from the constitution of 1815 with no attempt to apportionvoting power among the several states in exact relation to population, wealth, or importance. Upon any one of these bases Prussia must havebeen accorded an absolute majority of the aggregate number, ratherthan a scant third. In 1867 the population of Prussia comprisedfour-fifths of that of the North German Confederation; in 1871, two-thirds of that of the Empire. That Prussia should intrust to hersister states a total of forty-one votes, retaining but seventeen forherself, was one of the arrangements by which Bismarck sought toassure the lesser members of the federation against too completedomination on the part of the Prussian kingdom. *229. Status of Delegates and Method of Voting. *--Each state isauthorized, though not required, to send to the Bundesrath a number ofdelegates identical with the number of votes to which the state isentitled. The full quota of members is, therefore (since theAlsace-Lorraine Constitution Act of 1911), sixty-one. Legally, and toa large extent practically, the status of the delegate is that, not ofa senator, but of a diplomat; and the Emperor is required to (p.  219)extend to the members of the body the "customary diplomaticprotection. "[318] Delegates are very commonly officials, frequentlyministers, of the states which they represent. They are appointedafresh for each session, and they may be recalled or replaced at anytime. The purely federal character of the Bundesrath is furtheremphasized by two principal facts. The members speak and act and voteregularly, not at their own discretion, but under the specificinstructions of the governing authorities by whom they are accredited. Only rarely do their instructions allow to them any considerablemeasure of independence. Strictly, the Bundesrath is not adeliberative assembly at all; though, unlike the former Diet, it issomething more than a meeting of ambassadors of the states. In thesecond place, the votes cast are the votes, not of the individualmembers, but of the states, and they are cast in indivisible blocks bythe delegations of the states, regardless of the number of members inattendance. Thus, Bavaria is entitled to six votes. Whatever theindividual opinions of the six Bavarian delegates, the six Bavarianvotes are cast solidly upon any question that may arise. It is noteven necessary that six delegates actually participate in thedecision. A single delegate may cast the entire quota of votes towhich his state is entitled. The twenty votes controlled by Prussiaare therefore cast invariably in a block, from which it follows thatPrussia usually preponderates in the chamber. On several occasions thesmaller states have been able to combine in sufficient numbers todefeat a project upon which Prussia was bent, but such a proceeding isdistinctly exceptional. [Footnote 318: Art. 10. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 330. ] *230. Sessions and Procedure. *--The Bundesrath may be convened by theEmperor, which in effect means by the Chancellor, at any time. Theconstitution stipulates that there shall be at least one session ayear, and, furthermore, that it shall be obligatory upon the Emperorto convene the body whenever a meeting is demanded by one-third of thetotal number of votes. The Bundesrath may be called together "for thepreparation of business" without the Reichstag; but the Reichstag maynot be convened without the Bundesrath. [319] The presiding officer atall sessions is the Chancellor, or some other member of the body byhim designated as a substitute. It is within the competence of eachmember of the confederation, i. E. , each state, to propose measuresand to introduce motions. The phraseology of the constitution debarsthe Emperor, as Emperor, from introducing proposals. As king ofPrussia, however, he may bring forward any project through the (p.  220)medium of the Prussian delegation; and in actual practice it hasnot always been deemed necessary to resort to this subterfuge. [Footnote 319: Arts. 13 and 14. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 331. ] From all sittings of the Bundesrath the public is rigorously excluded;and although ordinarily upon the conclusion of a session a statementregarding the results of the proceedings is given to the press, thechamber may vote to withhold such information altogether. Businessleft unfinished at the close of a session may be resumed upon thereassembling, precisely as if no lapse of time had occurred. With someexceptions, a simple majority of the sixty-one votes is adequate forthe adoption of a measure. In the event of a tie, the Prussiandelegation possesses the deciding voice. The principal limitationsupon decisions by simple majority are: (1) any proposal to amend theconstitution may be rejected by as few as fourteen votes, whence itarises that Prussia has an absolute veto on amendments; and (2) whenthere is a division upon proposed legislation relating to militaryaffairs, the navy, the tariff, and various consumption taxes, the voteof Prussia prevails if it is cast in favor of maintaining the _statusquo_. [320] [Footnote 320: Art. 5. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 328. ] *231. Committees. *--The work of the Bundesrath consists largely in thepreparation of measures for the consideration of the Reichstag, and agoodly share of its labor is performed in committees. Of permanentcommittees there are now twelve--eight provided for within theconstitution itself and four existing by virtue of standing orders. The committees prescribed by the constitution are those on the armyand fortifications; marine; customs and taxes; commerce; railroads, posts and telegraphs; judicial affairs; accounts; and foreignrelations. Under certain limitations, each of these committees, constituted for one year, is chosen by the Bundesrath itself, bysecret ballot, except that the Emperor appoints the members of thecommittee on the marine and all but one of the members of thecommittee on the army and fortifications. [321] The committees existingby virtue of standing orders are those on Alsace-Lorraine, railroadfreight rates, standing orders, and the constitution. All committeesconsist of seven members, save those on foreign affairs and themarine, which have five; and each includes representatives of at leastfour states. Prussia holds all chairmanships, save that of thecommittee on foreign affairs, which belongs to Bavaria. [Footnote 321: Art. 8. Ibid. , I. , 330. Strictly, the Bundesrath but indicates by ballot the states which shall be represented on each committee, leaving to the states themselves the right to name their representatives. ] *232. Powers of Legislation. *--By reason of the pivotal position (p.  221)which the Bundesrath occupies in the German constitutional system thefunctions of the body are fundamental and its powers comprehensive. Its competence is in the main legislative and fiscal, but also in partexecutive and judicial. By the constitution it is stipulated that thelegislative power of the Empire shall be exercised by the Bundesrathand the Reichstag, and that a majority of the votes of both bodiesshall be necessary and sufficient for the enactment of a law. [322] Theright of initiating legislation is expressly conferred upon theReichstag, but in practice it is exercised almost exclusively by theBundesrath. Even finance bills all but invariably originate in thesuperior chamber. Under the normal procedure bills are prepared, discussed, and voted in the Bundesrath, submitted to the Reichstag forconsideration and acceptance, and returned for further scrutiny by theBundesrath before their promulgation by the Emperor. In any case, thefinal approval of a measure must take place in the Bundesrath, bywhose authority alone the character of law can be imparted. Speakingstrictly, it is the Bundesrath that makes law, with merely the assentof the Reichstag. [Footnote 322: Art. 5. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 328. ] *233. Executive Authority. *--The Bundesrath's executive functionsrepresent a curious admixture, but the sum total is very considerable. In the first place, the body possesses supplementary administrativepowers. By the constitution it is required to take action upon "thegeneral administrative provisions and arrangements necessary for theexecution of the Imperial laws, so far as no other provision is madeby law, " as well as upon "the defects which may be discovered in theexecution of the Imperial laws. "[323] This function is performedthrough the issuing of ordinances so devised as not to contravene theconstitution, existing law, or the proper prerogatives of anyconstituted authority, Imperial or state. In the second place, certainpowers vested in the Emperor may be exercised only with theBundesrath's consent. Most important of these are: (1) the declarationof war, save in the event of an attack upon the territory or coasts ofthe Empire; (2) the concluding of treaties, in so far as they relateto matters falling within the range of Imperial legislation; and (3)the carrying out of an "execution" against a delinquent state. Finallycertain relations are maintained with the Reichstag which involve theexercise of authority that is essentially executive. With the assentof the Emperor, the Bundesrath may dissolve the popular chamber; andevery member of the Bundesrath has the right to appear in the (p.  222)Reichstag and to be heard there at any time upon his own request, somewhat after the manner of a minister in a parliamentarygovernment. [324] Large functions in connection with public finance, likewise, are vested in the body. By it the annual budget is prepared, the accounts which the Empire carries with the states are audited, andimportant supervisory relations with the Imperial Bank, the ImperialDebt Commission, and other fiscal agencies, are maintained. Lastly, there is some participation in the power of appointment; for althoughthat power, as such, is vested in the Emperor, officials of some kinds(e. G. , judges of the Imperial Court) are actually chosen by theBundesrath, and in many other instances the body preserves anacknowledged right to approve appointments which are made. [Footnote 323: Art. 7. Dodd, I. , 329. ] [Footnote 324: Arts. 9 and 24. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 330-333. It should be observed, however, that the members of the Bundesrath are authorized to appear in the Reichstag, not for the purpose of advocating a measure which the Bundesrath has enacted, or would be willing to enact, but simply to voice the interests or demands of their own states. ] *234. Judicial Powers. *--In its judicial capacity the Bundesrath sits asa supreme court of appeal, to which cases may be carried from thetribunals of a state, when it can be shown that justice is not to behad in those tribunals. [325] It serves also as a court of last resortfor the settlement of disputes between the Imperial Government and astate; or between two states, when the point at issue is not a matterof private law and when a definite request for action is made by oneof the parties. Finally, in disputes relating to constitutionalquestions in states whose constitution does not designate an authorityfor the settlement of such differences, the Bundesrath is required, atthe request of one of the parties, to effect an amicable adjustment;or, if this shall prove impossible, to see to it that the issue issettled by Imperial law. [326] [Footnote 325: Art. 77. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 350. ] [Footnote 326: Art. 76. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 350. On the Bundesrath see Howard, The German Empire, Chap. 4; J. H. Robinson, The German Bundesrath, in _Publications of University of Pennsylvania_, III. (Philadelphia, 1891); P. Laband, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reiches, §§ 27-31; A. Lebon, Études sur l'Allemagne politique, 137-151; Dupriez, Les Ministres, I. , 505-523; Zorn, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reiches, I. , 136-160; E. Kliemke, Die Staatsrechtliche Natur und Stellung des Bundesrathes (Berlin, 1894); A. Herwegen, Reichsverfassung und Bundesrat (Cologne, 1902). ] CHAPTER XI (p.  223) THE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT: REICHSTAG, PARTIES, JUDICIARY I. COMPOSITION OF THE REICHSTAG--ELECTORAL SYSTEM In complete contrast with the Bundesrath, which is a purely federalinstitution, the Reichstag is broadly national. It represents, not thestates, nor yet the people of the states, but the people of the Empireas a whole. From what has been said regarding the preponderance of theautocratic principle in the German system it follows that there is noroom in that system for a parliamentary chamber of the nature of theBritish House of Commons or of the French Chamber of Deputies. Nonethe less, restricted as are its functions, the Reichstag is one of theworld's most vigorous and interesting legislative bodies. *235. Allotment of Seats. *--Members of the Reichstag are chosen for aterm of five years, [327] by direct and secret ballot, at an electionwhich takes place on a given day throughout the entire Empire. Thenumber of seats, fixed tentatively by the constitution of 1871 at 382, was, by law of June 25, 1873, providing for the election of fifteenmembers from Alsace-Lorraine, increased to 397; and it thereafterremained unchanged. The electoral "circles, " or districts, each ofwhich returns one member, were laid out originally in such a way as tocomprise 100, 000 inhabitants each, and also in such a manner that nodistrict would embrace portions of two or more states. Since 1871there has been no redistricting of the Empire, and the populationscomprising the various constituencies have become grossly unequal. Berlin, with more than two million people, is still entitled to butsix seats; and the disproportion in other great cities and denselyinhabited regions is almost as flagrant. [328] There has long beendemand for a redistribution of seats; but, by reason of the pronenessof urban constituencies to return to the Reichstag socialists or otherradicals, the Government has never been willing to meet the (p.  224)demand. By states, the 397 seats are distributed as follows: Prussia, 236; Bavaria, 48; Saxony, 23; Württemberg, 17; Alsace-Lorraine(Imperial territory), 15; Baden, 14; Hesse, 9; Mecklenburg-Schwerin, 6; Saxe-Weimar, 3; Oldenburg, 3; Brunswick, 3, Hamburg, 3;Saxe-Meiningen, 2; Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, 2; Anhalt, 2; and all others, one each. As in the American House of Representatives, a state isentitled to one member regardless of its population. [Footnote 327: The term, originally three years, was made five by a law of 1888. The modification went into effect with the Reichstag elected in February, 1890. ] [Footnote 328: In Conservative East Prussia the average number of voters in a district is 121, 000; in Socialist Berlin it is 345, 000. Twelve of the most populous districts represented in the Reichstag contain 1, 950, 000 voters; twelve of the least populous, 170, 000. The district of Schaumburg-Lippe has but 9, 891. ] *236. Time and Method of Elections. *--Electoral procedure is regulatedby the Election Law of May 31, 1869, amended in minor particulars atsubsequent dates, and extended in 1871 and in 1873 to the southernstates and to Alsace-Lorraine respectively. Elections are helduniformly throughout the Empire on a day fixed by the Emperor. In theevent of a dissolution prior to the end of the five-year term anelection is required to take place within a period of sixty days, andthe new Reichstag must be convened not later than ninety days afterthe dissolution. [329] For election on the first ballot an absolutemajority of the votes cast within the circle, or district, isrequired. If no candidate obtains such a majority, there follows asecond balloting (_Stichwahl_) a fortnight later, when choice is madebetween the two candidates who upon the first occasion polled thelargest number of votes. In the event of a tie, decision is bylot. [330] Secrecy of the ballot is specially safeguarded byregulations enacted April 28, 1903. Each voter, upon appearing at thepolls, is furnished with an envelope and a white voting-paper bearingan official stamp. In a compartment arranged for the purpose in thepolling room he marks his ballot and incloses it in the envelope. Ashe leaves the room he hands the envelope to the presiding officer ordeposits it in a voting urn. Once elected, a member, according toconstitutional stipulation, is a representative, not of theconstituency that chose him, but of the people of the Empire as awhole, and he may not be bound by any order or instruction. [331] [Footnote 329: Art. 25. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 333. ] [Footnote 330: By reason of the multiplicity of parties the number of second ballotings required is invariably large. In 1890 it was 138; in 1893, 181; in 1898, 185; in 1903, 180; in 1907, 158; and in 1912, 191. It is calculated that the effect of forty per cent of the second ballotings is to prevent the election of the candidate obtaining originally the largest number of votes. The arrangement operates to the advantage principally of the National Liberals, the Radicals, and other essentially moderate parties, and to the disadvantage especially of the Social Democrats. On this subject see A. N. Holcombe, Direct Primaries and the Second Ballot, in _American Political Science Review_, Nov. , 1911. ] [Footnote 331: Art. 29. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 333. ] *237. The Franchise. *--The franchise is broadly democratic. (p.  225)Every male who, possessing citizenship in the Empire, has completedhis twenty-fifth year is entitled to vote in the district in which hehas his domicile, provided his name appears on the registration lists. He is not required to be a citizen of the state in which he votes. Theonly exceptions to the general rule of universal manhood suffragearise from the disfranchisement of persons under guardianship, bankrupts, beneficiaries of public charity, persons suffering judicialdeprivation in respect to certain of their rights as citizens, andpersons in active service in the army and navy. Any male citizen, possessed of the right to vote, twenty-five years of age or over, anda resident of a state of the Empire during at least one year, iseligible as a candidate. He is not required to be a citizen of thestate from which he aspires to be elected. [332] [Footnote 332: On the German Imperial electoral system see Howard, The German Empire, Chap. 5; Lebon, Études sur l'Allemagne politique, 70-83; ibid. , Étude sur la législation électorale de l'empire d'Allemagne, in _Bulletin de Législation Comparée_, 1879; G. Below, Das parlamentarische Wahlrecht in Deutschland (Berlin, 1909); and M. H. Nézard, L'Évolution du suffrage universel en Prusse et dans l'Empire allemand, in _Revue du Droit Public_, Oct. -Dec. , 1904. ] *238. Privileges of Members. *--Solicitous lest if members of theReichstag should be entitled to remuneration for their services thepoorer classes would arrive at a preponderance in the chamber, Bismarck insisted in season and out upon the non-payment ofrepresentatives, and by the constitution of 1871 salaries werespecifically forbidden. [333] During the eighties the Imperial Court ofAppeal ruled that the payment of socialist members by their supporterswas illegal, [334] though such payment has been in recent times notunknown. Again and again measures providing for the payment of allmembers from the Imperial treasury were passed in the Reichstag, onlyto be thrown out by the Bundesrath. May 21, 1906, such a measure wasat last enacted by both chambers, providing for a payment of 3, 000marks a session (with a deduction of twenty-five marks for each day'sabsence), and in addition free passes over German railways during, andfor eight days before and after, sessions. Upon the taking effect ofthis measure, Germany became one of the several European countries inwhich, within years comparatively recent, the members of the popularlegislative chamber have been given a right to public compensation. Special privileges enjoyed by members are of the customary sort. Nomember may at any time be held legally to account outside the chamberby reason of his utterances or his votes within it. Unless taken (p.  226)in the commission of a misdemeanor, or during the ensuing day, amember may not be arrested for any penal offense, or for debt, withoutthe consent of the chamber; and at the request of the chamber allcriminal proceedings instituted against a member, and any detentionfor judicial investigation or in civil cases, must be suspended duringa session. [335] [Footnote 333: "The members of the Reichstag, as such, shall draw no salary or compensation. " Art. 32. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 334. ] [Footnote 334: Cf. The Osborne Judgment of 1909 in England (see p. 127). ] [Footnote 335: Arts. 30 and 31. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 334. ] II. ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF THE REICHSTAG *239. Sessions and Officers. *--The constitution stipulates that theReichstag and the Bundesrath shall meet annually. Beyond this, and thefurther requirement that the Reichstag shall never be in session whenthe Bundesrath is not, the Imperial Government is left entirely freein respect to the convening of the representative body. [336] Thesummons is issued by the Emperor and the sessions are opened by him, in person or by proxy. By him the assembly may be prorogued (thoughnot more than once during a session, and never for a longer periodthan thirty days without its own consent); by him also, with theassent of the Bundesrath, it may be dissolved. [337] The chambervalidates the election of its members, regulates its own procedure anddiscipline, and elects its president, vice-presidents, andsecretaries. [338] Under standing orders adopted February 10, 1876, thepresident and vice-president are chosen at the opening of the firstsession following a general election for a temporary term of fourweeks, and upon the expiration of this period an election takes placefor the remainder of the session. At the opening of each succeedingsession an election of these officials for the session takes place atonce. The secretary is chosen at the beginning of each session for theentire session. [Footnote 336: Mention has been made of the regulation that, following a dissolution prior to the end of the five-year term, the chamber shall be convoked within ninety days. It will be recalled, also, that the Bundesrath may be convoked without the Reichstag. ] [Footnote 337: Nominally by a resolution of the Bundesrath, with the consent of the Emperor. Art. 24. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 333. ] [Footnote 338: Art. 27. Ibid. ] *240. Abtheilungen and Committees. *--At the opening of a session theentire membership of the Reichstag is divided by lot into sevenAbtheilungen, or bureaus, as nearly equal as it is possible to makethem. The bureaus of the French Chamber of Deputies are reconstitutedonce a month, and those of the Italian once in two months, but thoseof the Reichstag are maintained unchanged throughout a session, unlessupon motion of as many as thirty members the body decides upon a freshdistribution. The functions of the bureaus comprise, in the main, (p.  227)the passing upon the credentials of members of the chamber andthe designating of members of committees. There is in the Reichstagbut one standing committee--that on elections. It is perpetuatedthroughout a session. All other committees are made up, as occasionrequires, by the appointment by ballot of an equal number of membersby each of the seven bureaus; although, in point of fact, thepreparation of committee lists falls largely to the party leaders ofthe chamber. The function of committees is the preliminaryconsideration of measures and the reporting of them and of evidencerelating to them, to the chamber, Bills are not, however, in all casesreferred to committees. *241. Methods of Business. *--Measures proposed for enactment passthrough the three readings which have come to be customary amongmodern legislative assemblies. Debate is carried on under regulationsclosely resembling those which prevail in the British House of Commonsand distinctly less restrictive than those in vogue in the FrenchChamber of Deputies. Members of the Bundesrath, to whom is assigned aspecial bench, possess the right to appear and to speak at pleasure. Debaters address the chamber from the tribune or from their seats asthey choose, and they speak whenever they can secure the recognitionof the presiding official, not, as in France, in the hard and fastorder indicated by a previously prepared written list. Like theSpeaker of the House of Commons, the president of the Reichstag is astrictly non-partisan moderator. A fixed tradition of the office isthat during debate the chair shall recognize alternately thesupporters and the opponents of the measure under consideration. As ageneral rule, closure of debate may be ordered upon the initiative ofthirty members. Unlike the sittings of the Bundesrath, which take place invariablybehind closed doors, those of the Reichstag are, by constitutionalprovision, public. Under the standing orders, however, the body may gointo secret session, on motion of the president, or of ten members. Publicity is further assured by the constitutional stipulation that"no one shall be held responsible for truthful reports of theproceedings of the public sessions of the Reichstag. "[339] Measuresare carried by absolute majority; and, while discussion may proceed inthe absence of a quorum, no vote or other action is valid unless thereis present a majority of the full membership of the body, that is, since 1873, 199. [Footnote 339: Art. 22. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 333. ] *242. Powers. *--The legislative power of the Empire is vested in theReichstag and the Bundesrath conjointly, and a majority of the votesof both bodies is necessary for the enactment of a law. So declaresthe constitution. The legislative functions of the popular chamber (p.  228)are, however, in practice distinctly subordinate to those of theBundesrath. The Reichstag possesses no such power of legislativeinitiative and discretion as is possessed by the popular chambers ofGreat Britain, France, Italy, and the United States. Its consent isnecessary for the enactment of every law, for the adoption of everyconstitutional amendment, and for the ratification of every treatyaffecting matters within the domain of Imperial legislation. Butbills, including those relating to finance, originate ordinarily withthe Chancellor and the Bundesrath; the procedure followed in theshaping of revenue and military measures puts the Reichstag distinctlyat a disadvantage; and, at the best, the part which the chamber canplay in the public policy of the Empire is negative and subsidiary. Itcan block legislation and discuss at length the policy of theGovernment, but it is not vested by the constitution with powersufficient to make it an effective instrument of control. It is withinthe competence of the Bundesrath, with the assent of the Emperor, todissolve the popular chamber at any time, and, as has been pointedout, such action is taken without an iota of the ministerialresponsibility which in other nations ordinarily accompanies the rightof dissolution. On several occasions since 1871 the Reichstag has beendissolved with the sheer intent of putting an end to itsobstructionism. [340] [Footnote 340: Lowell, Governments and Parties, I. , 257. ] The standing orders of the chamber make mention of the right ofinterpellation, and resort is occasionally had to this characteristiccontinental legislative practice. There are no ministers, however, towhom an interpellation may be addressed except the Chancellor, andeven he has no right to appear in the Reichstag save as a member ofthe Bundesrath. The consequence is that interpellations are addressed, in practice, to the Bundesrath. It is only where the parliamentarysystem prevails, as in France and Italy, that the device ofinterpellation can be made to assume much importance. The possibilityof a larger opportunity for interpellation, which should involve theright of the chamber to adopt resolutions declaring satisfaction ordissatisfaction with the answer made, was warmly, but on the wholeinconclusively, discussed in the Reichstag in 1912. [341] [Footnote 341: On the Reichstag see Howard, The German Empire, Chap. 5; A. Lebon, Le Reichstag allemand, in _Annales de l'École Libre des Sciences Politiques_, April, 1889; ibid. , Études sur l'Allemagne politique, Chap. 2; Laband, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reiches, §§ 32-38; H. Robalsky, Der deutsche Reichstag (Berlin, 1897); G. Leser, Untersuchungen über das Wahlprüfungsrecht des deutschen Reichstags (Leipzig, 1908). There is a full discussion of German methods of legislation in Laband, _op. Cit. _, §§ 54-59. ] III. THE RISE OF POLITICAL PARTIES (p.  229) In Germany, as in continental countries generally, the number ofpolitical groups is legion. Many are too small and unstable to beentitled properly to the designation of parties; and, in truth, ofeven the larger ones none has ever become so formidable numerically asto acquire a majority in the popular chamber. For the enactment ofmeasures the Government is obliged to rely always upon some sort ofcoalition, or, at best, upon the members of a group which for the timebeing holds the balance between two opposing alignments. *243. Conservatives and Progressives. *--The party situation of thepresent day has been reached in consequence of the gradualdisintegration of the two great political groups with which Prussiaentered upon the period of Bismarck's ministry; and to this day theparties of the German Empire and those of the Prussian kingdom arelargely identical. [342] The two original Prussian groups were theConservatives and the Fortschritt, or Progressives, of which the onecomprised, throughout the middle portion of the nineteenth century, the supporters of the Government and the other its opponents. TheConservatives were pre-eminently the party of the landed aristocracyof northern and eastern Germany. During twenty years prior to 1867they dominated completely the Prussian court and army. Following theAustrian war of 1866, however, the Conservative ascendancy was brokenand there set in that long process of party dissolution by whichGerman political life has been brought to its present confusedcondition. To begin with, each of the two original parties broke intotwo distinct groups. From the Conservatives sprang the FreiConservativen, or Free Conservatives; from the Fortschritt, theNational-Liberal-Partei, or National Liberals. In the one case the newgroup comprised the more advanced element of the old one; in theother, the more moderate; so that, in the order of radicalism, theparties of the decade following 1866 were the Conservatives, the FreeConservatives, the National Liberals, and the Fortschrittspartei, orRadicals. Among these four groups Bismarck was able to win for hispolicy of German unification the support of the more moderate, that isto say, the second and third. The ultra-Conservatives clung to theparticularistic régime of earlier days, and with them the genius of"blood and iron" broke definitely in 1866. The Free Conservativescomprised at the outset simply those elements of the original (p.  230)Conservative party who were willing to follow Bismarck. [Footnote 342: To so great an extent is this true that, having described in this place the parties of the Empire, it will not be necessary subsequently to allude at length to those of Prussia. ] *244. Rise and Preponderance of the National Liberals. *--Similarly amongthe Progressives there was division upon the attitude to be assumedtoward the Bismarckian programme. The more radical wing of the party, i. E. , that which maintained the name and the policies of the originalFortschritt, refused to abandon its opposition to militarism andmonarchism, opposed the constitution of 1867 for its illiberality, andwithheld from Bismarck's government all substantial support. Thelarger portion of the party members, however were willing tosubordinate for a time to Bismarck's nationalizing projects thecontest which the united Fortschritt had long been waging in behalf ofconstitutionalism. The party of no compromise was strongest in Berlinand the towns of east Prussia. It was almost exclusively Prussian. TheNational Liberals, on the contrary, became early an essentiallyGerman, rather than simply a Prussian, party. Even before 1871 theycomprised, in point both of numbers and of power, the preponderatingparty in both Prussia and the Confederation as a whole; and after1871, when the Nationalists of the southern states cast in their lotwith the National Liberals, the predominance of that party waseffectually assured. Upon the National Liberals as the party of unityand uniformity Bismarck relied absolutely for support in theupbuilding of the Empire. It was only in 1878, after the party hadlost control of the Reichstag, in consequence of the reaction againstLiberalism attending the great religious contest known as theKulturkampf, that the Chancellor was in a position to throw off thenot infrequently galling bonds of the Liberal alliance. *245. The Newer Groups: the Centre. *--Meanwhile the field occupied bythe various parties that have been named was, from an early date, cutinto by an increasing number of newly organized parties and groups. Most important among these were the Clericals, or Centre, and theSocial Democrats. The origins of the Centre may be traced to theproject which was formulated in December, 1870, to found a new party, a party which should be essentially Catholic, and which should havefor its purpose the defense of society against radicalism, of thestates against the central government, and of the schools againstsecularization. A favorite saying of the founders was that "at thebirth of the Empire Justice was not present. " The party, gainingstrength first in the Rhenish and Polish provinces of Prussia and inBavaria, was able in the elections of 1871 to win a total of sixtyseats. Employed by the Catholic clergy during the decade that followedto maintain the cause of the papacy against the machinations ofBismarck, the party early struck root deeply; and by reason of (p.  231)the absolute identification in the public mind of its interestswith the interests of the Catholic Church, ensuring its preponderancein the states of the south, and also by reason of the fact that it hasalways been more successful than any of its rivals in maintainingcompactness of organization, it became, and has continued almostuninterruptedly to the present time, the strongest numerically of allpolitical groups within the Reichstag. *246. The Newer Groups: the Social Democrats. *--The Social Democraticparty was founded in 1869 under the leadership of Wilhelm Liebknechtand August Bebel. In 1863 there had been organized at Leipzig, underthe inspiration of the eloquent Marxist Ferdinand Lassalle, aUniversal German Workingman's Association. Between the two bodiesthere was for a time keen rivalry, but at a congress held at Gotha, inMay, 1875, they (together with a number of other socialisticsocieties) were merged in one organization, which has continued tothis day to be known as the Social Democratic party. The developmentof socialism in the Empire between 1870 and 1880, in respect to bothnumbers and efficiency of organization, was phenomenal. At theparliamentary elections of 1871 the Social Democratic vote was 124, 655(three per cent of the total) and two Social Democrats were chosen tothe Reichstag. In 1874 the popular vote was 351, 952, and nine memberswere elected; in 1877 it was 493, 288, and the number of successfulcandidates was twelve. By the Emperor William I. And by hischancellor; Bismarck, as indeed by the governing and well-to-doclasses generally, the progress of the movement was viewed withfrankly avowed apprehension. Most of the great projects of theImperial Government were opposed by the Social Democrats, and themembers of the party were understood to be enemies of the entireexisting order, and even of civilization itself. Two attempts in 1878upon the life of the Emperor, made by men who were socialists, butdisavowed by the socialists as a body, afforded the authorities anopportunity to enter upon a campaign of socialist repression, and from1878 to 1890 anti-socialist legislation of the most thoroughgoingcharacter was regularly on the statute books and was in no slightmeasure enforced. At the same time that effort was being made to stampout socialist propaganda a remarkable series of social reforms wasundertaken with the deliberate purpose not only of promoting thepublic well-being, but of cutting the ground from under thesocialists' feet, or, as some one has observed, of "curing the Empireof socialism by inoculation. " The most important steps taken in thisdirection comprised the inauguration of sickness insurance in 1883, ofaccident insurance in 1884, and of old-age and invalidity insurance in1889. For a time the measures of the government seemed to accomplish (p.  232)their purpose, and the official press loudly proclaimed that socialismin Germany was extinct. In reality, however, socialism thrived onpersecution. In the hour of Bismarck's apparent triumph the socialistpropaganda was being pushed covertly in every corner of the Empire. Aparty organ known as the _Social Democrat_ was published inSwitzerland, and every week thousands of copies found their way acrossthe border and were passed from hand to hand among determined readersand converts. A compact organization was maintained, a treasury wasestablished and kept well filled, and with truth the Social Democratsaver to-day that in no small measure they owe their superborganization to the Bismarckian era of repression. At the elections of1878 the party cast but 437, 158 votes, but in 1884 its vote was549, 990 (9. 7 per cent of the whole) and the contingent ofrepresentatives returned to the Reichstag numbered twenty-four. In1890 the socialist vote attained the enormous total of 1, 427, 298 (19. 7per cent of the whole), and the number of representatives wasincreased to thirty-five. Repression was manifestly a failure, and in1890 the Reichstag, with the sanction of the new emperor, William II. , wisely declined to renew the statute under which proscription had beenemployed. *247. Minor Parties. *--Aside from the Centre and the Social Democrats, the newer party groups in Germany--the Guelfs, the Poles, the Danes, the Alsatians, the Antisemites, etc. --are small and relativelyunimportant. All are particularistic and irreconcilable; all areorganized on the basis of local, racial, or religious interests. Apart, indeed, from the National Liberals and the Socialists, itcannot be said that any one of the German political groups, large orsmall, is broadly national, in either its tenets or its constituency. The Guelfs, or Hanoverische Rechtspartei, comprise the irreconcilablesamong the old Hanoverian nobility who refuse to recognize the validityof the extinction of the ancient Hanoverian dynasty by the deposing ofGeorge V. In 1866. As late as 1898 they returned to the Reichstag ninemembers. In 1903 they elected but five, and in 1907 theirrepresentation was reduced to a single deputy. In 1912 their quotabecame again five. The Poles comprise the Slavic voters of thedistricts of West Prussia, Posen, and Silesia, who continue to send tothe Reichstag members who protest against the incorporation of thePoles in Prussia and in the Empire. At the elections of 1903 theysecured sixteen seats, at those of 1907 twenty, and at those of 1912eighteen. The Danes of northern Schleswig keep up some demand forannexation to Denmark, and measures looking toward Germanization arewarmly resented; but the number of people concerned--not more than150, 000--is so small that their political power is almost _nil_. (p.  233)They have, as a rule, but a single spokesman in the Reichstag. TheAlsatians comprise the autonomists of Alsace-Lorraine, and theAntisemites form a group whose original purpose was resistance toJewish influence and interests. IV. PARTY POLITICS AFTER 1878 *248. Shifting "Government" Parties. *--To rehearse here the details ofGerman party history during the period since the Government's breakwith the Liberals in 1878 is impossible. A few of the larger factsonly may be mentioned. Between 1878 and 1887 there was in theReichstag no one great party, nor even any stable coalition ofparties, upon which the Government could rely for support. For thetime being, in 1879, Bismarck allied with the Centre to bring aboutthe adoption of his newly-framed policy of protection and of thefamous Frankenstein clause relative to the matricular contributions ofthe states. [343] The National Liberals, left in the lurch, broke up, and in 1881 the remnant of the party was able to obtain onlyforty-five seats. After the elections of that year the Centrecommanded in the Reichstag a plurality of forty. The upshot was that, in the effort to procure the dependable support of the Centre, theGovernment gradually abandoned the Kulturkampf, and for a time theCentre virtually succeeded to the position occupied prior to 1878 bythe National Liberals. The elections of 1887, however, again changedthe situation. The Centre retained a plurality of some twenty seats, but the Conservatives, Free Conservatives, and National Liberalsformed a coalition and between them obtained a total of 220 seats and, accordingly, the control of the Reichstag. Thereupon the Conservativesbecame the Government's principal reliance and the Centre dropped fora time into a position of neutrality. At the elections of 1890 thecoalition, which in truth had been built up by the Government on thebasis of a cartel, or agreement, suffered heavy losses. Of 397 seatsit carried only 130, [344] while the Centre alone procured 116. Coincident with the overturn came the dismissal of Bismarck and theelevation to the chancellorship of General von Caprivi. Throughout hisyears of office (1890-1894) Caprivi was able to rely habitually uponthe support of no single party or group of parties, and for theenactment of its measures the Government was obliged to seek (p.  234)assistance now in one quarter and now in another, according ascircumstances dictated. [Footnote 343: This measure provided that each year all proceeds from the Imperial customs and tobacco tax in excess of 130, 000, 000 marks should be distributed among the several states in proportion to their population. Its author was Frankenstein, a leader of the Centre. ] [Footnote 344: Conservatives 65, Free Conservatives 24, National Liberals 41. ] *249. The Agrarian Movement and the Rise of the Bloc. *--Two or threedevelopments of the period stand out with some distinctness. One wasthe break-up, apparently for all time, of the Fortschrittspartei, orRadical party, in consequence of the elections of 1893. A second wasthe rise of the Government's prolonged contest with the Agrarians. TheAgrarian group, of which indeed one hears as early as 1876, comprisedprincipally the grain-growing landholders of northern and easternGermany. By treaties concluded in 1892-1894 with Austria-Hungary, Italy, Belgium, Russia, and other nations, German import duties ongrain were considerably reduced in return for advantages given toGerman manufacturers. Low duties meant cheap foodstuffs, and in thenegotiation of these treaties the Government found itself supportedwith enthusiasm not only by the Centre, but also by the SocialDemocrats and the surviving Radicals. The Conservatives were divided. Those of Agrarian sympathies (especially the Prussian landholders)allied themselves with the forces of opposition. But the remaindergave the Government some measure of support. And from thislast-mentioned fact arose a final political development of largesignificance during the Caprivi period, namely, the creation of that_bloc_, or affiliation, of Centre and Conservatives (popularlyreferred to as the "blue-black" _bloc_) upon which the Government wasdestined regularly to rely through upwards of a decade and a half. During the chancellorship of Prince Chlodwig Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst(1894-1900) the struggle with the Agrarians was continued and thepreponderance of the _bloc_ became an established fact. Finally, should be mentioned the rapidly accelerating growth of the SocialDemocracy. In 1893 the popular party cast a total of 1, 876, 738 votesand elected forty-four representatives. In 1896 its vote was 2, 007, 076and the number of members elected was fifty-seven. In 1903 its voterose to the enormous proportions of 3, 008, 000 (24 per cent of thetotal, and larger than that of any other single party), and the quotain the Reichstag was increased to seventy-nine. *250. The Elections of 1903 and 1907. *--At the elections of 1903 the_bloc_ suffered numerically a loss of strength. The Centre obtained102 seats, the Conservatives 53, and the Free Conservatives, or "Partyof the Empire, " 22--an aggregate of only 177. By deft management, however, Chancellor von Bülow (1900-1908) contrived to play offthrough several years the opposing forces, and so to preserve, for allpractical purposes, the working efficiency of the Governmentcoalition. The elections of January, 1907, brought on by a dissolutionof the Reichstag after the refusal of that body to vote the (p.  235)Government's colonial estimates, were of interest principally byreason of the continued show of strength of the Centre and the fallingoff of the Social Democrats in their representation in the Reichstag. In the practical working out of political forces it had come aboutthat the Centre occupied in the chamber a pivotal position of suchconsequence that the Government was in effect absolutely dependentupon the vote of that party for the enactment of its measures. Naturally enough, the party, realizing its power, was prone to put itssupport upon a contractual basis and to drive with the Government ahard bargain for the votes which it commanded. While hardly in aposition to get on without Clerical assistance, the Government in 1907would have been willing enough to see the Centre's power andindependence broken. Not only, however, did the Centre not lose seatsby that contest; it in fact realized a gain of two. On the other hand, there was compensation for the Government in the fact that the SocialDemocrats fell back. They polled a total of 3, 250, 000 popular votes, as compared with 3, 008, 000 in 1903; but by reason of the antiquateddistribution of seats which prevails in the Empire, the unusual votepolled by other parties, and also the unusual co-operation of theparty groups opposed to the Social Democrats, their representation inthe Reichstag was cut from 79 to 43. [345] [Footnote 345: The total number of popular votes cast in the election was 10, 857, 000, of which number government candidates received 4, 962, 000, and opposition candidates 5, 895, 000. The numerical strength of the various elements composing the Reichstag consequent upon the elections of 1903 and 1907 was as follows: _1903_ _1907_ _Seats_ _Seats_ _gained_ _lost_ Centre 102 104 2 0 Conservatives 53 58 5 0 Free Conservatives 22 22 0 0 National Liberals 51 56 5 0 Social Democrats 79 43 0 36 Radicals 42 50 8 0 Antisemites and Economic Union 22 30 8 0 Poles 16 20 4 0 Liberal Union 10 13 3 0 Volkspartei (Democrats of South) 6 7 1 0 Alsatians 10 7 0 3 Guelfs or Hanoverians 5 1 0 4 Danes 1 1 6 0 Independents 0 7 7 0 Total 397 397 43 43] V. PARTIES SINCE 1907 (p.  236) *251. The Bülow Bloc. *--The period covered by the life of the Reichstagelected in 1907 was remarkable in German political history chiefly byreason of the prolonged struggle for the establishment ofparliamentary government which took place within it--a struggle whichhad its beginning, indeed, in the deadlock by which the dissolution of1906 was occasioned, which reached its climax in the fiscal debates of1908-1909, and which during the years that followed graduallysubsided, leaving both the status of parties and the constitutionalorder of the Empire essentially as they were at the beginning. Evenbefore the dissolution of 1906 the Conservative-Centre _bloc_ waseffectually dissolved, principally by the defection of the Centre, andthrough upwards of three years it was replaced by an affiliation, known commonly as the "_Bülow bloc_, " of the Conservatives and theLiberals. This combination, however, was never substantial, and in thecourse of the conflict over the Government's proposed budget ofNovember, 1908, there was a return to the old alignment, andthroughout ensuing years the Conservative-Clerical _bloc_ remained apreponderating factor in the political situation. *252. The Elections of 1912: Parties and Issues. *--The Reichstag of 1907was dissolved at the termination of its five-year period, and inJanuary, 1912, there was elected a new chamber, the thirteenth sincethe creation of the Empire. The contest was pre-eminently one ofmeasures rather than of men, but the public interest which it excitedwas extraordinary. Broadly, the line was drawn between the Governmentand the parties of the _bloc_, on the one hand, and the more purelypopular parties, especially the National Liberals, the Radicals, andthe Social Democrats, on the other;[346] and the issues were chieflysuch as were supplied by the spirit, purposes, and methods ofChancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg and his Conservative-Clerical allies. Of the alleged reactionism of the Government parties there waswidespread complaint. They were held responsible for the fiscal reformof 1909 which imposed burdens unduly heavy on industry and commerce, while sparing land and invested capital; they were charged withre-establishing the yoke of the Catholic Centre upon the Lutheran (p.  237)majority; and they were reproached for having failed to redeem theirpromise to liberalize the antiquated franchise arrangements ofPrussia. The Conservatives in particular were attacked on the groundof their continued monopoly of patronage and of power. On the whole, however, the most important of practical issues was that of thetariff. Throughout a twelvemonth discontent occasioned by the highcost of living had been general and the Government had been besoughtby municipalities, workingmen's organizations, and political societiesto inaugurate a project for the reduction of the duties imposed uponimported foodstuffs. The demand was in vain and the country was givento understand by the Chancellor that the Government, underConservative-Agrarian mastery, would stand or fall with "protectionfor the nation's work" as its battle-cry. Upon this question theNational Liberals, being protectionist by inclination, stood with theGovernment, but the Radicals, the Social Democrats, and some of theminor groups assumed an attitude of clear-cut opposition. [Footnote 346: The gravest abuse in connection with the conduct of campaigns and elections in Germany is the pressure which the Government brings to bear systematically upon the enormous official population and upon railway employees (alone numbering 600, 000) to vote Conservative, or, in districts where there is no Conservative candidate, Centrist. This pressure is applied through the local bureaucratic organs, principally the Landrath of the Kreis, who not uncommonly is a youthful official of noble origin, related to some important landed family, and a rigid Conservative. It has been estimated that official influence controls a million votes at every national election. ] *253. The Results and Their Significance. *--The total number ofcandidates in the 397 constituencies was 1, 428. The Social Democratsalone had a candidate in every constituency, a fact which emphasizesthe broadly national character which that party has acquired. TheNational Liberals had candidates in 200 constituencies, the Centre in183, the Radicals in 175, and the Conservatives in 132. A secondballot was required in 191 constituencies, or nearly one-half of thewhole number. The final results of the election justified completelythe general expectation of observers that the Social Democrats wouldrealize enormous gains. The appeal of von Bethmann-Hollweg forsolidarity against the Socialists had no such effect as did thesimilar appeal of von Bülow in 1907. The tactfulness and personal holdof the Chancellor was inferior to that of his predecessor, and themass of the nation was aroused in 1912 as it was not upon the earlieroccasion. The results may be tabulated as follows: _Seats_ _Seats acquired_ _at dissolution_ _by elections of 1912_ Centre 103 90 Conservatives 58 45 Free Conservatives 25 13 Social Democrats 53 110 National Liberals 51 44 Radicals 49 41 Poles 20 18 Antisemites and Economic Union 20 11 Guelfs or Hanoverians 1 5 Alsatians, Danes, and Independents 16 20 ___ ___ Total 397 397 Two of the three parties of the Left, i. E. , the National Liberals (p.  238)and the Radicals, suffered substantial losses, but the victory of theSocial Democrats was so sweeping that there accrued to the Left as awhole a net gain of forty-two seats. [347] On the other hand, the threeparties of the _bloc_ lost heavily--in the aggregate thirty-eightseats. The number of popular votes cast for candidates of the _bloc_was approximately 4, 500, 000; that for candidates of the Leftapproximately 7, 500, 000. [348] In Berlin, five of whose six constituencieswere represented already by Social Democrats, there was a notableattempt on the part of the socialists to carry the "Kaiser district"in which is located the Kaiserhof, or Imperial residence, and the seatof the Government itself. The attempt failed, but it was only at thesecond ballot, and by the narrow margin of seven votes, that thesocialist candidate was defeated by his Radical opponent. As has beenpointed out, the parties of the Left are entirely separate and theyare by no means able always to combine in action upon a publicquestion. The ideal voiced by the publicist Naumann, "from Bassermannto Bebel, " meaning that the National Liberals under the leadership ofBassermann should, through the medium of the Radicals, amalgamate forpolitical purposes with the Social Democrats under Bebel, has not asyet been realized. None the less there has long been community ofinterest and of policy, and the elections of 1912 made it possible forthe first time for a combination of the three groups and their alliesto outweigh decisively any combination which the parties of the _bloc_and their allies can oppose. Before the election there was a clearGovernment majority of eighty-nine; after it, an opposition majorityof, at the least, fourteen. When, in February, 1912, the new Reichstagwas opened, it was only by the most dexterous tactics on the part ofthe _bloc_ that the election of the socialist leader Bebel to thepresidency of the chamber was averted. [Footnote 347: Many of the socialist victories were, of course, at the expense of the National Liberals and Radicals. ] [Footnote 348: The number of electors inscribed on the lists was 14, 236, 722. The number who actually voted was 12, 188, 337. The exact vote of the Social Democrats was 4, 238, 919; of the National Liberals, 1, 671, 297; of the Radicals, 1, 556, 549; of the Centre, 2, 012, 990; and of the Conservatives, 1, 149, 916. ] *254. The Parties To-day: Conservatives and Centre. *--The principaleffect of the election would seem to be to accentuate the alreadymanifest tendency of Germany to become divided between two greathostile camps, the one representative of the military, bureaucratic, agrarian, financial classes and, in general, the forces of resistanceto change, the other representative of modern democratic forces, extreme and in principle even revolutionary. Leaving out of accountthe minor particularist groups, the most reactionary of existingparties is the Conservatives, whose strength lies principally in (p.  239)the rural provinces of Prussia along the Baltic. The most radical isthe Social Democrats, whose strength is pretty well diffused throughthe states of the Empire but is massed, in the main, in the cities. Between the two stand the Centre, the Radicals, and the NationalLiberals. The Centre has always included both an aristocratic and apopular element, being, indeed, more nearly representative of allclasses of people in the Empire than is any other party. Its numericalstrength is drawn from the peasants and the workingmen, and in orderto maintain its hold in the teeth of the appeal of socialism it hasbeen obliged to make large concessions in the direction of liberalism. At all points except in respect to the interests of the CatholicChurch it has sought to be moderate and progressive, and it should beobserved that it has abandoned long since its irreconcilable attitudeon religion. Geographically, its strength lies principally in thesouth, especially in Bavaria. *255. The Social Democrats. *--Nominally revolutionary, the German SocialDemocracy comprises in fact a very orderly organization whoseeconomic-political tenets are at many points so rational that theycommand wide support among people who do not bear the party name. Throughout a generation the party has grown steadily more practical inits demands and more opportunist in its tactics. Instead of opposingreforms undertaken on the basis of existing institutions, as it oncewas accustomed to do, in the hope of bringing about the establishmentof a socialistic state by one grand _coup_, it labors for such reformsas are adjudged attainable and contents itself with recurring onlyoccasionally and incidentally to its ultimate ideal. The supremegoverning authority of the party is a congress composed of sixdelegates from each electoral district of the Empire, the socialistmembers of the Reichstag, and the members of the party's executivecommittee. This congress convenes annually to regulate theorganization of the party, to discuss party policies, and to takeaction upon questions submitted by the party members. Nominally, theprinciples of the party are those of Karl Marx, and its platform isthe "Erfurt programme" of 1891, contemplating the abolition of classgovernment and of classes themselves, the termination of every kind ofexploitation of labor and oppression of men, the destruction ofcapitalism, and the inauguration of an economic régime under which theproduction and distribution of goods shall be controlled by the stateexclusively. The Radical Socialists, i. E. , the old-line members of theparty, cling to these time-honored articles of faith. But the mass ofthe younger element of the party, ably led by Edward Bernstein--the"Revisionists, " as they call themselves--consider that the Marxistdoctrines are in numerous respects erroneous, and they are insistingthat the Erfurt programme shall be overhauled and brought into (p.  240)accord with the practical and positive spirit of the party to-day. Except Bebel and Kautsky, every socialist leader of note in Germany atthe present time is identified with the revisionist movement. [349] Thepolitical significance of this situation arises from the fact that the"new socialists" stand ready to co-operate systematically withprogressive elements of whatsoever name or antecedents. Already thesocialists of Baden, Württemberg, and Bavaria have voted for the localstate budgets and have participated in court functions, and uponnumerous occasions they have worked hand in hand, not only atelections but in the Reichstag and in diets and councils, with theNational Liberals and the Radicals. For the future of sane liberalismin Germany this trend of the party in the direction of co-operativeand constructive effort augurs well. At the annual congress held atChemnitz in September, 1912, the issue of revisionism was debated atlength and with much feeling, but an open breach within the party wasaverted and Herr Bebel was again elected party president. It was shownupon this occasion that the party membership numbered 970, 112, a gainof 133, 550 during the previous year. It need hardly be observed thatof the millions of men who in these days vote for Social Democraticcandidates for office hardly a fourth are identified with the formalparty organization. [350] [Footnote 349: Herr Bebel died August 13, 1913. ] [Footnote 350: Two important works of recent date dealing with the history and character of political parties in Germany are C. Grotewald, Die Parteien des deutschen Reichstags. Band I. Der Politik des deutschen Reiches in Einzeldarstellungen (Leipzig, 1908); and O. Stillich, Die politischen Parteien in Deutschland. Band I. Die Konservativen (Leipzig, 1908), Band II. Der Liberalismus (Leipzig, 1911). The second is a portion of a scholarly work planned to be in five volumes. A brief treatise is F. Wegener, Die deutschkonservative Partei und ihre Aufgaben für die Gegenwart (Berlin, 1908). An admirable study of the Centre is L. Goetze, Das Zentrum, eine Konfessionelle Partie; Beiträge zur seiner Geschichte (Bonn, 1906). The rise of the Centre is well described in L. Hahn, Geschichte des Kulturkampfes (Berlin, 1881). On the rise and progress of the Social Democracy see E. Milhaud, La démocratie socialiste allemande (Paris, 1903); C. Andler, Origines du socialisme d'état en Allemagne (Paris, 1906); E. Kirkup, History of Socialism (London, 1906); W. Sombart, Socialism (New York, 1898); W. Dawson, Bismarck and State Socialism (London, 1891); J. Perrin, The German Social Democracy, in _North American Review_, Oct. , 1910. Under the title "Chroniques politiques" there is printed in the _Annales_ (since 1911 the _Revue_) _des Sciences Politiques_ every year an excellent review of the current politics of Germany, as of other European nations. Other articles of value are: M. Caudel, Les élections allemandes du 16 juin, 1898, et le nouveau Reichstag, in _Annales de l'École Libre des Sciences Politiques_, Nov. , 1898; J. Hahn, Une élection au Reichstag allemand, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, Nov. , 1903; G. Isambert, Le parti du centre en Allemagne et les élections de janvier-février 1907, ibid. , March, 1907; P. Matter, La crise du chancelier en Allemagne, ibid. , Sept. , 1909; A. Marvaud, La presse politique allemande, in _Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, March 16 and April 1, 1910. There are valuable chapters on German politics in W. Dawson, The Evolution of Modern Germany (London, 1908) and O. Eltzbacher (or J. Ellis Barker), Modern Germany, her Political and Economic Problems (new ed. , London, 1912). For a sketch of party history during the period 1871-1894 see Lowell, Governments and Parties, II. , Chap. 7. An excellent survey of the period 1906-1911 is contained in P. Matter, D'un Reichstag à l'autre, in _Revue des Sciences Politiques_, July-Aug. , 1911. On the elections of 1912 see G. Blondel, Les élections au Reichstag et la situation nouvelle des partis, in _Le Correspondant_, Jan. 25, 1912; J. W. Jenks, The German Elections, in _Review of Reviews_, Jan. , 1912; A. Quist, Les élections du Reichstag allemand, in _Revue Socialiste_, Feb. 15, 1912; and W. Martin, La crise constitutionelle et politique en Allemagne, in _Revue Politique et Parlementaire_, Aug. 10, 1912. ] VI. LAW AND JUSTICE (p.  241) *256. Dual Character. *--Upon the subject of the administration ofjustice the Imperial constitution of 1871 contained but a singleclause, by which there was vested in the Empire power of "generallegislation concerning the law of obligations, criminal law, commercial law and commercial paper, and judicial procedure. " By anamendment adopted December 20, 1873, the clause was modified to read, "general legislation as to the whole domain of civil and criminal law, and of judicial procedure. "[351] Each of the federated states hasalways had, and still has, its own judicial system, and justice isadministered all but exclusively in courts that belong to the states. These courts, however, have been declared to be also courts of theEmpire, and, to the end that they may be systematized and thatconditions of justice may be made uniform throughout the land, thefederal government has not hesitated to avail itself of the regulativepowers conferred in 1871 and amplified in 1873 in the constitutionalprovisions which have been cited. [Footnote 351: Art. 4. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 328. ] *257. Diversity of Law Prior to 1871. *--In the first place, there hasbeen brought about within the past generation a unification of Germanlaw so thoroughgoing in character as to be worthy of comparison withthe systematization of the law of France which was accomplishedthrough the agency of the Code Napoléon. In 1871 there were comprisedwithin the Empire more than two score districts each of whichpossessed an essentially distinct body of civil and criminal law; and, to add to the confusion, the boundaries of these districts, though atone time coincident with the limits of the various political divisionsof the country, were no longer so. The case of Prussia was typical. In1871 the older Prussian provinces were living under a Prussian codepromulgated in 1794; the Rhenish provinces maintained the CodeNapoléon, established by Napoleon in all Germany west of the Rhine; inthe Pomeranian districts there were large survivals of Swedish law;while the territories acquired after the war of 1866 had each its (p.  242)indigenous legal system. Two German states only in 1871 possessed afairly uniform body of law. Baden had adopted a German version of theCode Napoléon, and Saxony, in 1865, had put in operation a code of herown devising. At no period of German history had there been eithereffective law-making or legal codification which was applicable to thewhole of the territory contained within the Empire. In the domain ofthe civil law, in that of the criminal law, and in that of procedurethe diversity was alike obvious and annoying. *258. Preparation of the Codes. *--German legal reform since 1871 hasconsisted principally in the formation and adoption of successivecodes, each of which has aimed at essential completeness within agiven branch of law. The task had been begun, indeed, before 1871. Asearly as 1861 the states had agreed upon a code relating to trade andbanking, and this code had been readopted, in 1869, by theConfederation of 1867. [352] In 1869 a code of criminal law had beenworked out for the Confederation, and in 1870 a code relating tomanufactures and labor. Upon the establishment of the Empire, in 1871, there was created a commission to which was assigned the task ofdrawing up regulations for civil procedure and for criminal procedure, and also a plan for the reorganization of the courts. Beginning with ascheme of civil procedure, published in December, 1872, the commissionbrought in an elaborate project upon each of the three subjects. Thecode of civil procedure, by which many important reforms wereintroduced in the interest of publicity and speed, was well received. That relating to criminal procedure, proposing as it did to abolishthroughout the Empire trial by jury, was, however, vigorously opposed, and the upshot was that all three reports were referred to a newcommission, by which the original projects relating to criminalprocedure and to the organization of the courts were completelyremodelled. In the end the revised projects were adopted. October 1, 1879, there went into effect a group of fundamental laws under whichthe administration of justice throughout the Empire has beencontrolled from that day to the present. The most important of thesewas the Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, or Law of Judicial Organization, enacted January 27, 1877; the Civilprozessordnung, or Code of CivilProcedure, of January 30, 1877; and the Strafprozessordnung, or Code ofCriminal Procedure, of February 1, 1877. [Footnote 352: It was replaced by a new code May 10, 1897. ] It remained only to effect a codification of the civil law. Acommittee constituted for the purpose completed its work in 1887, andthe draft submitted by it was placed for revision in the hands of anew commission, by which it was reported in 1895. In an amended formthe Civil Code was approved by the Reichstag, August 18, 1896, and (p.  243)it was put in operation January 1, 1900. Excluding matters pertainingto land tenure (which are left to be regulated by the states), theCode deals not only with all of the usual subjects of civil law butalso with subjects arising from the contact of private law and publiclaw. [353] [Footnote 353: A convenient manual for English readers is E. M. Borchard, Guide to the Law and Legal Literature of Germany (Washington, 1912), the first of a series of guides to European law in preparation in the Library of Congress. ] *259. The Inferior Courts. *--By these and other measures it has beenbrought about that throughout the Empire justice is administered intribunals whose officials are appointed by the local governments andwhich render decisions in their name, but whose organization, powers, and rules of procedure are regulated minutely by federal law. Thehierarchy of tribunals provided for in the Law of JudicialOrganization comprises courts of four grades. At the bottom are theAmtsgerichte, of which there are approximately two thousand in theEmpire. These are courts of first instance, consisting ordinarily ofbut a single judge. In civil cases their jurisdiction extends to thesum of three hundred marks; in criminal, to matters involving a fineof not more than six hundred marks or imprisonment of not over threemonths. In criminal cases the judge sits with two Schöffen (sheriffs)selected by lot from the jury lists. Besides litigious business theAmtsgerichte have charge of the registration of land titles, thedrawing up of wills, guardianship, and other local interests. Next above the Amtsgerichte are the 173 district courts, orLandgerichte, each composed of a president and a variable number ofassociate judges. Each Landgericht is divided into a civil and acriminal chamber. There may, indeed, be other chambers, as for examplea Kammer für Handelssachen, or chamber for commercial cases. Thepresident presides over a full bench; a director over each chamber. The Landgericht exercises a revisory jurisdiction over judgments ofthe Amtsgerichte, and possesses a more extended original jurisdictionin both civil and criminal matters. The criminal chamber, consistingof five judges (of whom four are necessary to convict), is competent, for example, to try cases of felony punishable with imprisonment for aterm not exceeding five years. For the trial of many sorts of criminalcases there are special Schwurgerichte, or jury courts, which situnder the presidency of three judges of the Landgerichte. A juryconsists of twelve members, of whom eight are necessary to convict. Still above the Landgerichte are the Oberlandesgerichte, of whichthere are twenty-eight in the Empire, each consisting of seven judges. The Oberlandesgerichte are courts of appellate jurisdiction largely. Each is divided into a civil and a criminal senate. There is a (p.  244)president of the full court and a similar official for each senate. [354] [Footnote 354: In Bavaria alone there is an Oberste Landesgericht, with twenty-one judges. Its relation to the Bavarian Oberlandesgerichte is that of an appellate tribunal. ] *260. The Reichsgericht. *--At the apex of the system stands theReichsgericht (created by law of October i, 1879), which, apart fromcertain administrative, military, and consular courts, [355] is theonly German tribunal of an exclusively Imperial, or federal, character. It exercises original jurisdiction in cases involvingtreason against the Empire and hears appeals from the consular courtsand from the state courts on questions of Imperial law. Its members, ninety-two in number, are appointed by the Emperor for life, onnomination of the Bundesrath, and they are organized in six civil andfour criminal senates. Sittings are held invariably at Leipzig, in thekingdom of Saxony. [Footnote 355: The highest administrative court is the Oberverwaltungsgericht, whose members are appointed for life. Under specified conditions, the "committees" of circles, cities, and districts exercise inferior administrative jurisdiction. For the adjustment of disputed or doubtful jurisdictions there stands between the ordinary and the administrative tribunals a Gerichtshof für Kompetenz-konflikte, or Court of Conflicts, consisting of eleven judges appointed for life. ] All judges in the courts of the states are appointed by the sovereignsof the respective states. The Imperial law prescribes a minimum ofqualifications based on professional study and experience, the statebeing left free to impose any additional qualifications that may bedesired. All judges are appointed for life and all receive a salarywhich may not be reduced; and there are important guarantees againstarbitrary transfer from one position to another, as well as otherpractices that might operate to diminish the judge's impartiality andindependence. [356] [Footnote 356: On the German judiciary see Howard, The German Empire, Chap. 9; Laband, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reiches, §§ 83-94; C. Morhain, De l'empire allemand (Paris, 1886), Chap. 9. ] CHAPTER XII (p.  245) THE CONSTITUTION OF PRUSSIA-THE CROWN AND THE MINISTRY I. THE GERMAN STATES AND THEIR GOVERNMENTS *261. Variations of Type. *--Within the bounds of Germany to-day thereare twenty-five states and one Imperial territory with certainattributes of statehood, Alsace-Lorraine. During the larger portion ofthe nineteenth century each of these states (and of the several whichno longer exist) was possessed of substantial sovereignty, and eachmaintained its own arrangements, respecting governmental forms andprocedure. Under the leadership of Prussia, as has been pointed out, the loose Confederation of 1815 was transformed, during the years1866-1871, into an Imperial union, federal but yet vigorous andindestructible, and to the constituted authorities of this Empire wasintrusted an enormous aggregate of governmental powers. The powersconferred were, however, not wholly abstracted from the originalprerogatives of the individual states. In a very appreciable measurethey were powers, rather, of a supplementary character, by virtue ofwhich the newly created central government was enabled to do, on abroadly national scale, what, in the lack of any such centralgovernment, there would have been neither means of doing, nor occasionfor doing, at all. Only at certain points, as, for example, in respectto the levying of customs duties and of taxes, was the originalindependence of the individual state seriously impaired by the termsof the new arrangement. The consequence is that, speaking broadly, each of the German statesmaintains to this day a government which is essentially complete withinitself. No one of these governments covers quite all of the ground whichfalls within the range of jurisdiction of a sovereign state; each iscut into at various points by the superior authority of the Empire;but each is sufficiently ample to be capable of continuing to run, were all of the other governments of Germany instantly to be blottedout. [357] Of the twenty-five state governments, three--those of thefree cities of Bremen, Hamburg, and Lübeck--are aristocratic (p.  246)republics; all the others are monarchies. Among the monarchies thereare four kingdoms: Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, and Württemberg; sixgrand-duchies: Baden, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Oldenburg, and Saxe-Weimar; five duchies: Anhalt, Brunswick, Saxe-Altenburg, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and Saxe-Meiningen; and sevenprincipalities: Lippe, Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, Schwarzburg-Sonderhausen, Schaumburg-Lippe, Reuss Älterer Linie, Reuss Jüngerer Linie, andWaldeck-Pyrmont. [Footnote 357: The best survey in English of the governments of the German states is that in Lowell, Governments and Parties, I. , Chap. 6. Fuller and more recent is G. Combes de Lestrade, Les monarchies de l'empire allemand (Paris, 1904). The most elaborate treatment of the subject is to be found in an excellent series of studies edited by H. Von Marquardsen and M. Von Seydel under the title Handbuch des Oeffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart in Monographien (Freiburg and Tübingen, 1883-1909). A new series of monographs, comprising substantially a revision of this collection, is at present in course of publication by J. C. B. Mohr at Tübingen. The texts of the various constitutions are printed in F. Stoerk, Handbuch der deutschen Verfassungen (Leipzig, 1884). ] *262. The Preponderance of Prussia. *--From whatever angle one approachesGerman public affairs, the fact that stands out with greatestdistinctness is the preponderant position occupied by the kingdom ofPrussia. How it was that Prussia became the virtual creator of theEmpire, and how it is that Prussia so dominates the Imperialgovernment that that government and the Prussian are at times all butinextricable, has already been pointed out. [358] Wholly apart from thesheer physical fact that 134, 616 square miles of Germany's 208, 780, and 40, 163, 333 people of the Empire's 64, 903, 423, are Prussian, thevery conditions under which the Imperial organization of the presentday came into being predetermined that Prussia and things Prussianshould enjoy unfailing pre-eminence in all that pertains to Germangovernment and politics. Both because they are extended immediatelyover a country almost two-thirds as large as France, and because oftheir peculiar relation to the political system of the Empire, theinstitutions of Prussia call for somewhat detailed consideration. [Footnote 358: See pp. 200-201, 207. ] II. THE RISE OF CONSTITUTIONALISM IN PRUSSIA *263. Regeneration in the Napoleonic Period. *--By reason of thevacillating policies of her sovereign, Frederick William III. , thesuccessive defeats of her armies at Jena, Auerstädt, and elsewhere, and the loss, by the treaty of Tilsit in 1807, of half of herterritory, Prussia realized from the first decade of the Napoleonicperiod little save humiliation and disaster. Through the years1807-1815, however, her lot was wonderfully improved. Upon the failureof the Russian expedition of Napoleon in 1812, Frederick William (p.  247)shook off his apprehensions and allied himself openly with thesovereigns of Russia and Austria. The people rose _en masse_, and inthe titanic struggle which ensued Prussia played a part scarcelysecond in importance to that of any other power. At the end she wasrewarded, through the agency of the Congress of Vienna, by beingassigned the northern portion of Saxony, Swedish Pomerania, her oldpossessions west of the Elbe, the duchies of Berg and Julich, and anumber of other districts in Westphalia and on the Rhine. Her area in1815 was 108, 000 square miles, as compared with 122, 000 at thebeginning of 1806; but her loss of territory was more than compensatedby the substitution that had been made of German lands forSlavic. [359] The homogeneity of her population was thereby increased, her essentially Germanic character emphasized, and her capacity forGerman leadership enhanced. [Footnote 359: L. A. Himly, Histoire de la formation territoriale des états de l'Europe centrale, 2 vols. (Paris, 1876), I. , 93-110. ] It was not merely in respect to territory and population that thePrussia of 1815 was different from the Prussia of a decade earlier. Consequent upon the humiliating disasters of 1806 there set in a moralregeneration by which there was wrought one of the speediest and oneof the most thoroughgoing national transformations recorded inhistory. In 1807 Frederick William's statesmanlike minister Steinaccomplished the abolition of serfdom and of all legal distinctionswhich separated the various classes of society. [360] In 1808 hereformed the municipalities and gave them important powers ofself-government. By a series of sweeping measures he reconstructed theministerial departments, the governments of the provinces, and thelocal administrative machinery, with the result of creating anexecutive system which has required but little modification to thepresent day. In numerous directions, especially in relation toeconomic conditions, the work of Stein was continued by that of thesucceeding minister, Prince Hardenberg. By Scharnhorst and Gneisenauthe military régime was overhauled and a body of spiritless soldierykept in order by fear was converted into "a union of all the moral andphysical energies of the nation. " By Wilhelm von Humboldt the modernPrussian school system was created; while by Fichte, Arndt, and agalaxy of other writers there was imparted a stimulus by which thepatriotism and aspiration of the Prussian people were raised to (p.  248)an unprecedented pitch. [361] [Footnote 360: It is to be observed that while Stein was officially the author of this reform, the substance of the changes introduced had been agreed upon by the king and his advisers before Stein's accession to office (October 4, 1807). The Edict of Emancipation was promulgated October 9, 1807. It made the abolition of serfdom final and absolute on and after October 8, 1810. ] [Footnote 361: E. Meier, Reform der Verwaltungsorganisation unter Stein und Hardenberg (Leipzig, 1881); J. R. Seeley, Life and Times of Stein, 3 vols. (Boston, 1879), Pt. III. , Chaps. 3-4, Pt. V. , Chaps. 1-3. ] *264. Obstacles to the Establishment of a Constitution. *--Such an epochof regeneration could not fail to be a favorable period for the growthof liberal principles of government. In June, 1814, and again in May, 1815, King Frederick William promised, through the medium of a cabinetorder, to give consideration to the question of the establishment of aconstitution in which provision should be made not merely for theestates of the provinces but also for a national diet. After theCongress of Vienna the task of framing such a constitution wasactually taken in hand. But the time was not ripe. Liberalism hadgained headway as yet among only the professional classes, while thehighly influential body of ultra-conservative landholders wereunalterably opposed. Between the eastern provinces, still essentiallyfeudal in spirit, and the western ones, visibly affected by Frenchrevolutionary ideas, there was, furthermore, meager community ofinterest. So keen was the particularistic spirit that not infrequentlythe various provinces of the kingdom were referred to in contemporarydocuments as "nations. " Among these provinces some retained the systemof estates which had prevailed throughout Germany since the MiddleAges, but in some of those which had fallen under the control ofNapoleon the estates had been abolished, and in others they were inabeyance. In a few they had never existed. Votes were taken in theassemblages of the estates by orders, not by individuals, and thefunction of the bodies rarely extended beyond the approving ofprojects of taxation. Within the provinces there existed nosub-structure of popular institutions capable of being made the basisof a national parliamentary system. Notwithstanding these deterring circumstances, it is not improbablethat some sort of constitution might have been established but for theexcesses of the more zealous Liberals, culminating in the murder ofthe dramatist Kotzebue in 1819, whereby the king was thrown into anattitude, first of apprehension, and finally of uncompromisingreaction. By assuming joint responsibility for the Carlsbad Decrees ofOctober 17, 1819, he surrendered completely to the régime of"stability" which all the while had been urged upon him by Metternich. June 11, 1821, he summoned a commission to organize a system ofprovincial estates;[362] but at the same time the project of a nationalconstitution and a national diet was definitely abandoned. Under (p.  249)repression Prussian liberalism languished, and throughout theremainder of the reign, i. E. , to 1840, the issue of constitutionalismwas not frequently raised. In Prussia, as in Austria, the widespreadrevolutionary demonstrations of 1830 elicited little response. [Footnote 362: The system was created by royal patent June 5, 1823. ] *265. The Diet of 1847. *--Upon the accession of Frederick William IV. , son of Frederick William III. , in 1840, the hopes of the Liberals wererevived. The new sovereign was believed to be a man of advanced ideas. To a degree he was such, as was manifested by his speedy reversal ofhis father's narrow ecclesiastical policy, and by other enlightenedacts. But time demonstrated that his liberalism was not withoutcertain very definite limits. February 13, 1847, he went so far as tosummon a Vereinigter Landtag, or "united diet, " of Prussia, comprisingall members of the existing eight provincial assemblies, and organizedin two chambers--a house of lords and a house containing the threeestates of the knights, burghers, and peasants. But the issue wasunhappy. As Metternich had predicted, the meeting of the Diet butafforded opportunity for a forceful reassertion of constitutionalaspirations, and the assemblage refused to sanction loans upon whichthe sovereign was bent until its representative character should havebeen more completely recognized. The king, on his part, declared hewould never allow "to come between Almighty God in heaven and thisland a blotted parchment, to rule us with paragraphs, and to replacethe ancient, sacred bond of loyalty. " The deadlock was absolute, and, June 26, the Diet was dissolved. *266. The Revolution of 1848. *--The dawn of constitutionalism was, however, near. The fundamental law under which Prussia still isgoverned was a product--one of the few which endured--of thewidespread revolutionary movement of 1848. Upon the arrival in Berlinof the news of the overthrow of Louis Philippe (February 24) at Parisand of the fall of Metternich (May 13) at Vienna, the PrussianLiberals renewed with vigor their clamor for the establishment inPrussia of a government of a constitutional type. The demand wasclosely related to, yet was essentially distinct from, thecontemporary project for the inauguration of a new constitutionalGerman Empire. As was proved by the vagaries of the FrankfortParliament (May, 1848, to June, 1849), conditions were not yet ripefor the creation of a closely-knit empire;[363] and one of the reasonswhy this was true was that a necessary step toward that culminationwas only now about to be taken, i. E. , the introduction of constitutionalgovernment in the important kingdom of Prussia. Apprehensive lest (p.  250)the scenes of violence reported from Paris should be re-enacted in hisown capital, Frederick William acquiesced in the demands of hissubjects in so far as to issue letters patent, May 13, 1848, convokinga national assembly[364] for the consideration of a proposedconstitution. Every male citizen over twenty-five years of age wasgiven the right to participate in the choice of electors, by whom inturn were chosen the members of this assembly. May 22, 1848, theassembly met in Berlin and entered upon consideration of the sketch ofa fundamental law which the king laid before it. The meeting wasattended by disorders in the city, and the more radical deputiesfurther inflamed public feeling by persisting in the discussion of theabolition of the nobility, and of a variety of other more or lessimpracticable and revolutionary projects. The king took offensebecause the assembly presumed to exercise constituent functionsindependently and, after compelling a removal of the sittings to theneighboring city of Brandenburg, he in disgust dissolved the body, December 5, and promulgated of his own right the constitutionalcharter which he had drawn. [Footnote 363: See p. 198. ] [Footnote 364: Known technically as Versammlung zur Vereinbarung der preussischen Verfassung. ] *267. Formation of the Constitution. *--At an earlier date it had beenpromised that the constitution to be established should be "agreedupon with an assembly of the nation's representatives freely chosenand invested with full powers;" but it had been suggested to the kingthat the way out of the existing difficulty lay in issuing aconstitutional instrument independently and subsequently allowing theLandtag first elected under it to submit it to a legislative revision, and this was the course of procedure which was adopted. [365] Electionswere held and, February 26, 1849, the chambers were assembled. Havingrecognized formally the instrument of December 5, 1848, as the law ofthe land, the two bodies addressed themselves forthwith to the task ofrevising it. The result was disagreement and, in the end, thedissolution of the lower house. The constitution of 1848 had beenaccompanied by an electoral law establishing voting by secret ballotand conferring upon all male citizens equal suffrage. Upon thedissolution of 1849 there was promulgated by the king a thoroughgoingmodification of this democratic measure, whereby voting by ballot wasabolished and parliamentary electors were divided into three classeswhose voting power was determined by property qualifications or by (p.  251)official and professional status. In other words, there was introducedthat peculiar three-class system which was already not unknown in thePrussian municipalities, and which, in both national and cityelections, persists throughout the kingdom to the present day. In theelections which were held in the summer of 1849 in accordance withthis system the democrats refused to participate. The upshot was thatthe new chambers, convened August 7, 1849, proved tractable enough, and by them the text of the constitution, after being discussed andrevised article by article, was at last accorded formal approval. Onthe last day of January, 1850, the instrument was duly promulgated atCharlottenburg. [366] By Austria, Russia, and other reactionary powerspersistent effort was made during the ensuing decade to influence theking to rescind the concession which he had made. He refused, however, to do so, and, with certain modifications, the constitution of 1850remains the fundamental law of the Prussian kingdom to-day. [367] [Footnote 365: The confusion of constitutional and ordinary statutory law inherent in this arrangement has influenced profoundly the thought of German jurists. ] [Footnote 366: On the establishment of constitutionalism in Prussia see (in addition to works mentioned on p. 201) P. Matter, La Prusse et la révolution de 1848, in _Revue Historique_, Sept. -Oct. , 1902; P. Devinat, Le mouvement constitutionnel en Prusse de 1840 à 1847, ibid. , Sept. -Oct. And Nov. -Dec. , 1911; Klaczko, L'agitation allemande et la Prusse, in _Revue des Deux Mondes_, Dec. , 1862, and Jan. , 1863; C. Bornhak, Preussische Staats-und Rechtsgeschichte (Berlin, 1903); H. Von Petersdorff, König Friedrich Wilhelm IV. (Stuttgart, 1900); and H. G. Prutz, Preussische Geschichte, 4 vols. To 1888 (Stuttgart, 1900-1902). For full bibliography see Cambridge Modern History, XI. , 893-898. ] [Footnote 367: As is true in governmental systems generally, by no means all of the essential features of the working constitution are to be found in the formal documents, much less in the written constitution alone. In Prussia ordinances, legislative acts, and administrative procedure, dating from both before and after 1850, have to be taken into account continually if one would understand the constitutional order in its entirety. ] *268. Nature of the Constitution. *--The constitution of Prussia ismodelled upon that of Belgium. Provisions relating to the powers ofthe crown, the competence of the chambers, and the functions of theministers are reproduced almost literally from the older instrument. None the less, the two rest upon widely differing bases. The Belgianfundamental law begins with the assertion that "all powers emanatefrom the nation. " That of Prussia voices no such sentiment, and thegovernmental system for which it provides has as its cornerstone thethoroughgoing supremacy of the crown. [368] The Liberals of themid-century period were by no means satisfied with it; and, sixtyyears after, it stands out among the great constitutional documents ofthe European world so conspicuous by reason of its disregard offundamental democratic principle as to justify completely the (p.  252)charges of anachronism which reformers in Prussia and elsewhere arein these days bringing against it. It provides for the responsibilityof ministers, without stipulating a means whereby that responsibilitymay be enforced. There is maintained under it one of the mostantiquated and undemocratic electoral systems in Europe. And, as ispointed out by Lowell, even where, on paper, it appears to be liberal, it is sometimes much less so than its text would lead one to suppose. It contains, for example, a bill of rights, which alone comprises nofewer than forty of the one hundred eleven permanent articles of theinstrument. [369] In it are guaranteed the personal liberty of thesubject, the security of property, the inviolability of personalcorrespondence, immunity from domiciliary visitation, freedom of thepress, toleration of religious sects, liberty of migration, and theright of association and public meeting. But there is an almost totallack of machinery by which effect can be given to some of the mostimportant provisions relating to these subjects. Some guarantees ofwhat would seem the most fundamental rights, as those of publicassemblage and of liberty of teaching, are reduced in practice toempty phrases. [370] [Footnote 368: Dupriez, Les Ministres, I. , 350. ] [Footnote 369: Arts. 3-42. Robinson, Constitution of the Kingdom of Prussia, 27-34. ] [Footnote 370: Lowell, Governments and Parties, I. , 286. ] The process of constitutional amendment in Prussia is easy. With theapproval of the king, an amendment may at any time be adopted by asimple majority of the two legislative chambers, with the specialrequirement only that an amendment, unlike a statute, must be votedupon twice, with an interval of three weeks between the two votes. During the first ten years of its existence the constitution wasamended no fewer than ten times. Of later amendments there have beensix, but none more recent than that of May 27, 1888. The Prussiansystem of amendment by simple legislative process was incorporated, in1867, in the fundamental law of the North German Confederation (exceptthat in the Bundesrath a two-thirds vote was required); and in 1871 itwas perpetuated in the constitution of the Empire. [371] [Footnote 371: There is an annotated English version of the Prussian constitution, edited by J. H. Robinson, in the _Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science_, Supplement, Sept. , 1894. The original text will be found in F. Stoerk, Handbuch der deutschen Verfassungen (Leipzig, 1884), 44-63; also, with elaborate notes, in A. Arndt, Die Verfassungs-Urkunde für den preussischen Staat nebst Erganzungs-und Ausführungs-Gesetzen, mit Einleitung, Kommentar und Sachregister (Berlin, 1889). The principal treatises on the Prussian constitutional system are H. Schulze, Das preussisches Staatsrecht, auf Grundlage des deutschen Staatsrechtes (Leipzig, 1872-1874); ibid. , Das Staatsrecht des Königreichs Preussen, in Marquardsen's Handbuch (Freiburg, 1884); L. Von Rönne, Das Staatsrecht der preussischen Monarchie (Leipzig, 1881-1884); and H. De Grais, Handbuch der Verfassung und Verwaltung in Preussen und dem deutschen Reiche (11th ed. , Berlin, 1896). A good brief account is that in A. Lebon, Études sur l'Allemagne politique, Chap. 4. ] III. THE CROWN AND THE MINISTRY (p.  253) *269. Status of the Crown. *--At the head of the state stands the king, in whom is vested the executive, and a considerable share in thelegislative, power. The crown is hereditary in the male line of thehouse of Hohenzollern, following the principle of primogeniture. Anheir to the throne is regarded as attaining his majority on thecompletion of his eighteenth year. It has been pointed out that theGerman Emperor, as such, has no civil list. He has no need of one, forthe reason that in the capacity of king of Prussia he is entitled toone of the largest civil lists known to European governments. Sincethe increase provided for by law of February 20, 1889, the"Krondotations Rente, " as it appears in the annual Prussian budget, aggregates 15, 719, 296 marks; besides which the king enjoys therevenues from a vast amount of private property, comprising castles, forests, and estates in various parts of the realm. There are alsocertain special funds the income from which is available for the needsof the royal family. *270. Powers. *--The powers of the crown are very comprehensive. [372] Itis perhaps not too much to say that they exceed those exercised by anyother European sovereign. The king is head of the army and of thechurch, and in him are vested, directly or indirectly, all functionsof an executive and administrative character. All appointments tooffices of state are made by him immediately or under his authority. The upper legislative chamber is recruited almost exclusively by royalnomination. And all measures, before they become law, require theking's assent; though, by reason of the sovereign's absolute controlof the upper chamber, no measure of which he disapproves can ever beenacted by that body, so that there is never an occasion for theexercise of the formal veto. To employ the language of a celebratedGerman jurist, the king possesses "the whole and undivided power ofthe state in all its plenitude. It would, therefore, be contrary tothe nature of the monarchical constitutional law of Germany toenumerate all individual powers of the king. .. . His sovereign rightembraces, on the contrary, all branches of the government. Everythingwhich is decided or carried out in the state takes place in the nameof the king. He is the personified power of the state. "[373] (p.  254)Except in so far as the competence of the sovereign is expresslylimited or regulated by the constitution, it is to be regarded asabsolute. [Footnote 372: They are enumerated in articles 45-52 of the constitution. Robinson, Constitution of the Kingdom of Prussia, 36-37. ] [Footnote 373: Schulze, Preussisches Staatsrecht, I. , 158. ] *271. The Ministry: Composition and Status. *--The organization of theexecutive--the creation of ministerial portfolios, the appointment ofministers, and the delimitation of departmental functions--restsabsolutely with the king, save, of course, for the necessity ofprocuring from the Landtag the requisite appropriations. Beginning inthe days of Stein with five, the number of ministries was graduallyincreased until since 1878 there have been nine, as follows: ForeignAffairs;[374] the Interior; Ecclesiastical, Educational, and SanitaryAffairs; Commerce and Industry; Finance; War; Justice; Public Works;and Agriculture, Public Domains, and Forests. Each ministry rests uponan essentially independent basis and there has been little attempt toreduce the group to the uniformity or symmetry of organization thatcharacterizes the ministries of France, Italy, and other continentalmonarchies. Departmental heads, as well as subordinates, are appointedwith reference solely to their administrative efficiency, not, as inparliamentary governments, in consideration of their politics or oftheir status in the existing political situation. They need not be, and usually are not, members of either of the legislative chambers. [Footnote 374: The Minister of Foreign Affairs is at the same time the Minister-President of Prussia and the Chancellor of the Empire. On the functions of the various ministries see Dupriez, Les Ministres, I. , 448-462. ] For it is essential to observe that in Prussia ministers areresponsible only to the sovereign, which means that the parliamentarysystem, in the proper sense, does not exist. The constitution, it istrue, prescribes that every act of the king shall be countersigned bya minister, who thereby assumes responsibility for it. [375] But thereis no machinery whereby this nominal responsibility can be made, inpractice, to mean anything. Ministers do not retire by reason of anadverse vote in the Landtag; and, although upon vote of eitherlegislative chamber, they may be prosecuted for treason, bribery, orviolation of the constitution, no penalties are prescribed in theevent of conviction, so that the provision is of no practicaleffect. [376] Every minister possesses the right to appear on the (p.  255)floor of either chamber, and to be heard at any time when no member ofthe house is actually speaking. In the exercise of this privilege theminister is the immediate spokesman of the crown, a fact which is aptto be apparent from the tenor of his utterances. [Footnote 375: Art. 44. ] [Footnote 376: Art. 61. Robinson, Constitution of the Kingdom of Prussia, 40. In the words of a German jurist, "the anomaly continues to exist in Prussia of ministerial responsibility solemnly enunciated in the constitution, the character of the responsibility, the accuser and the court specified, and at the same time a complete lack of any legal means by which the representatives of the people can protect even the constitution itself against the most flagrant violations and the most dangerous attacks. " Schulze, Preussisches Staatsrecht, II. , 694. ] *272. The Ministry: Organization and Workings. *--The Prussian ministryexhibits little solidarity. There is a "president of the council ofministers, " who is invariably the Minister for Foreign Affairs and atthe same time the Chancellor of the Empire, but his functions are byno means those of the corresponding dignitary in France and Italy. Over his colleagues he possesses, as president, no substantialauthority whatsoever. [377] In the lack of responsibility to theLandtag, there is no occasion for an attempt to hold the ministrysolidly together in the support of a single, consistent programme. Theministers are severally controlled by, and responsible to, the crown, and the views or policies of one need not at all be those of another. At the same time, of course, in the interest of efficiency it isdesirable that there shall be a certain amount of unity and ofconcerted action. To attain this there was established by CountHardenberg a Staats-Ministerium, or Ministry of State, which occupiesin the Prussian executive system a position somewhat similar to thatoccupied in the French by the Council of Ministers. [378] The Ministryof State is composed of the nine ministerial heads, together with theImperial secretaries of state for the Interior, Foreign Affairs, andthe Navy. It holds meetings at least as frequently as once a week forthe discussion of matters of common administrative interest, thedrafting of laws or of constitutional amendments, the supervision oflocal administration, and, in emergencies, the promulgation ofordinances which have the force of law until the ensuing session ofthe Landtag. There are certain acts, as the proclaiming of a state ofsiege, which may be performed only with the sanction of this body. Thefact remains, none the less, that, normally, the work of the severaldepartments is carried on independently and that the ministry exhibitsless cohesion than any other in a state of Prussia's size andimportance. It is to be observed that there is likewise a Staatsrath, or Council of State (dating originally from 1604 and revived in (p.  256)1817), composed of princes, high officials of state, ministers, judges, and other persons of influence designated by the crown. It maybe consulted on legislative proposals, disputes as to the spheres ofthe various ministries, and other important matters. In barrenness offunction, however, as in structure, it bears a close resemblanceto-day to the British Privy Council. [379] [Footnote 377: The office of Chancellor was discontinued with the death of Hardenberg and that of Minister-President substituted. The Chancellor possessed substantial authority over his colleagues. Since 1871, the Minister-President has been a Chancellor, but of the Empire, not of Prussia. ] [Footnote 378: The Staats-Ministerium was called into being, to replace the old Council of State, by an ordinance of October 27, 1810. Its functions were further elaborated in cabinet orders of June 3, 1814, and November 3, 1817. The constitution of 1850 preserved it and assigned it some new duties. ] [Footnote 379: On the organization and functions of the Prussian ministry see Dupriez, Les Ministres, I. , 345-462; von Seydel, Preussisches Staatsrecht, 91-104; von Rönne, Das Staatsrecht der preussischen Monarchie, 4th ed. , III. ; Schulze, Das preussische Staatsrecht, II. ] *273. Subsidiary Executive Bodies. *--Two other executive organs possessconsiderable importance. These are the Oberrechnungskammer, or SupremeChamber of Accounts, and the Volkswirthschaftsrath, or EconomicCouncil. The Oberrechnungskammer has existed continuously since 1714. Its function is the oversight and revision of the finances of thedepartments, the administration of the state debt, and the acquisitionand disposal of state property. Its president is appointed by thecrown, on nomination of the Staats-Ministerium. Its remaining membersare designated by the crown on nomination of its own president, countersigned by the president of the Staats-Ministerium. All enjoythe tenure and the immunities of judges, and the body collectively isresponsible, not to the Ministry of State, but to the crownimmediately. In status and function it resembles somewhat closely theFrench Cour des Comptes. The same group of men, with additionalmembers appointed by the Bundesrath, serves as the Chamber of Accountsof the Empire. The Volkswirthschaftsrath consists of seventy-fivemembers named by the king for a term of five years. Its business is togive preliminary consideration to measures vitally affecting largeeconomic interests, to determine what should be Prussia's position inthe Bundesrath upon these measures, and to recommend to the crowndefinite courses of action regarding them. Its function is purelyconsultative. CHAPTER XIII (p.  257) THE PRUSSIAN LANDTAG--LOCAL GOVERNMENT I. COMPOSITION OF THE LANDTAG *274. The House of Lords: Law of 1853. *--Legislative authority in thekingdom of Prussia is shared by the king with a national assembly, theLandtag, composed of two chambers, of which the upper is known as theHerrenhaus, or House of Lords, and the lower as the Abgeordnetenhaus, or House of Representatives. Under the original provisions of theconstitution, the House of Lords was composed of (1) adult princes ofthe royal family; (2) heads of Prussian houses deriving directly fromthe earlier Empire; (3) heads of families designated by royalordinance, with regard to rights of primogeniture and lineal descent;(4) 90 members chosen by the principal taxpayers of the kingdom; and(5) 30 members elected by the municipal councils of the larger towns. By law of May 7, 1853, this arrangement was set aside and in its steadit was enacted that the chamber should be made up entirely of personsappointed by the crown in heredity or for life; and, on theauthorization of this measure, there was promulgated, October 12, 1854, a royal ordinance by which the composition of the body was fixedsubstantially as it is to-day. The act of 1853 forbids that the systemthus brought into operation be further modified, save with the assentof the Landtag; but this does not alter the fact that the presentcomposition of the Prussian upper house is determined, not by theconstitution of the kingdom, but by royal ordinance authorized bylegislative enactment. *275. The House of Lords To-day. *--The component elements of the Houseof Lords to-day are: (1) princes of the royal family who are of age;(2) scions of the Hohenzollern-Hechingen, Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, and sixteen other once sovereign families of Prussia; (3) heads of theterritorial nobility created by the king, and numbering some fiftymembers; (4) a number of life peers, chosen by the king from amongwealthy landowners, great manufacturers, and men of renown; (5) eighttitled noblemen appointed by the king on the nomination of theresident landowners of the eight older provinces of the kingdom; (6)representatives of the universities, of religious bodies, and of townsof over 50, 000 inhabitants, presented by these various organizationsrespectively, but appointed ultimately by the king; and (7) an (p.  258)indefinite number of members, chosen by the king for life on anyground whatsoever, and under no restriction except that peers musthave attained the age of thirty years. The composition of the chamber is thus extremely complex. There aremembers _ex-officio_, members by royal appointment, members byhereditary right. But the appointing power of the crown is socomprehensive that the body partakes largely of the character of aroyal creation. Its membership is recruited almost exclusively fromthe rigidly conservative landowning aristocracy, so that in attitudeand policy it is apt to be in no degree representative of the mass ofthe nation, at least of the industrial classes. As a rule, though notinvariably, it is ready to support cordially the measures of thecrown. In any event, through exercise of the unrestricted power ofcreating peers, the crown is in a position at all times to control itsacts. The number of members varies, but is ordinarily about 300. [380] [Footnote 380: Lebon, Études sur l'Allemagne politique, 187-197. ] *276. The House of Representatives. *--The Abgeordnetenhaus, or House ofRepresentatives, consists of 443 members--362 for the old kingdom, 80added in 1867 to represent the newly acquired provinces, and one addedin 1876 to represent Lauenburg. Representatives are elected for afive-year term, and every Prussian is eligible who has completed histhirtieth year, who has paid taxes to the state during as much asthree years, and whose civil rights have not been impaired by judicialsentence. Every Prussian who has attained his twenty-fifth year, andwho is qualified to vote in the municipal elections of his place ofdomicile, is entitled to participate in the choice of a deputy. Atfirst glance the Prussian franchise appears distinctly liberal. It isso, however, only in the sense that comparatively few adult males areexcluded from the exercise of it. In its actual workings it is one ofthe most undemocratic in Europe. *277. The Electoral System. *--Representatives are chosen in electoraldistricts, each of which returns from one to three members--as a rule, two. There has been no general redistribution of seats since 1860(although some changes were made in 1906), so that in many districts, especially in the urban centers whose growth has fallen largely withinthe past fifty years, the quota of representatives is grosslydisproportioned to population. Until 1906 the entire city of Berlinreturned but nine members, and its quota now is only twelve. [381] Theenfranchised inhabitants of the district do not, moreover, vote (p.  259)for a representative directly. The essential characteristics of thePrussian electoral system are, first, that the suffrage is indirect, and, second, that it is unequal. The precise method by which arepresentative is elected[382] may be indicated as follows: (1) eachcircle, or district, is divided into a number of Urwahlbezirke, orsub-districts; (2) in each Urwahlbezirk one Wahlman, or elector, isallotted to every 250 inhabitants; (3) for the choosing of theseWahlmänner the voters of the sub-district are divided into threeclasses, arranged in such a fashion that the first class will becomposed of the payers of direct taxes, beginning with the largestcontributors, who collectively pay one-third of the tax-quota of thesub-district, the second class will include the payers next inimportance who as a group pay the second third, and the last classwill comprise the remainder; (4) each of these classes chooses, byabsolute majority, one-third of the electors to which the Urwahlbezirkis entitled; finally (5) all the electors thus chosen in the variousUrwahlbezirke of the district come together as an electoral collegeand choose, by absolute majority, a representative to sit in theAbgeordnetenhaus at Berlin. [383] [Footnote 381: Prior to 1906 the Berlin representatives were chosen in four electoral districts, but in the year mentioned the city was divided into twelve single-member constituencies. ] [Footnote 382: As stipulated in articles 69-75 of the constitution. Robinson, The Constitution of the Kingdom of Prussia, 42-44. ] [Footnote 383: In the event that, between elections, a seat falls vacant, a new member is chosen forthwith by this same body of Wahlmänner without a fresh appeal to the original electorate of the district. ] *278. Origins and Operation of the System. *--The principal features ofthis unique system were devised as a compromise between athoroughgoing democracy based on universal suffrage and a governmentexclusively by the landholding aristocracy. The three-classarrangement originated in the Rhine Province where, by the localgovernment code of 1845, it was put in operation in the elections ofthe municipalities. In the constitution of 1850 it was adopted for usein the national elections, and in subsequent years it was extended tomunicipal elections in virtually all parts of the kingdom, so that itcame to be a characteristic and well-nigh universal Prussianinstitution. It need hardly be pointed out that the scheme throws thebulk of political power, whether in municipality or in nation, intothe hands of the men of wealth. In not fewer than 2, 214 Urwahlbezirkea third of the direct taxes is paid by a single individual, whotherefore comprises alone the first electoral class; and in 1703precincts the first class consists of but two persons. In most casesthe number of the least considerable taxpayers who in the aggregatepay the last third of the tax-quota is relatively large. Taking thekingdom as a whole, it was estimated in 1907 that approximately (p.  260)three per cent of the electorate belonged to the first class, about9. 5 per cent to the second, and the remaining 87. 5 to the third. Inthe individual precinct, as in the nation at large, the little groupat the top, however, possesses precisely as much political weight asthe large group at the bottom, because it is entitled to choose anequal number of Wahlmänner. The result is a segregation of classeswhich, whatever its merits at certain points, is of very questionableutility as a basis of government. The effect politically is to give an enormous advantage to theconservative and agrarian interests and to deprive the socialists andother popular elements all but completely of representation. At theelections of 1903 the Social Democrats put forth effort for the firsttime in an organized way to win seats in the Landtag. Under the systemwhich has been described a total of 324, 157 Conservative votessufficed to elect 143 representatives, but 314, 149 Social Democraticvotes did not secure the return of a single member. In the Imperialelections of the same year, conducted under a scheme of equalsuffrage, the popular party sent to the Reichstag eighty members. Atthe Prussian elections of 1908 a Social Democratic vote whichcomprised approximately twenty-four per cent of the total popular voteyielded but seven members in a total of 443. So glaringly undemocraticis the prevailing system that even that arch-aristocrat, Bismarck, wasupon one occasion moved to denounce the three-class arrangement as"the most miserable and absurd election law that has ever beenformulated in any country. "[384] [Footnote 384: For a brief exposition of the practical effects of the system, especially on political parties, see Lowell, Governments and Parties, I. , 305-308. The system as it operates in the cities is described in Munro, The Government of European Cities, 128-135, and in R. C. Brooks, The Three-Class System in Prussian Cities, in _Municipal Affairs_, II. , 396ff. Among special treatises may be mentioned H. Nézard, L'Évolution du suffrage universel en Prusse et dans l'Empire allemand (Paris, 1905); I. Jastrow, Das Dreiklassensystem (Berlin, 1894); R. Von Gneist, Die nationale Rechtsidee von den Ständen und das preussische Dreiklassensystem (Berlin, 1904); and G. Evert, Die Dreiklassenwahl in den preussischen Stadt-und Landgemeinden (Berlin, 1901). ] II. THE MOVEMENT FOR ELECTORAL REFORM *279. The Programme Formulated. *--Throughout more than a generationthere has been in Prussia persistent agitation in behalf of electoralreform. In 1883, and again in 1886, the lower chamber debated, butrejected, a project for the substitution of the secret ballot for theexisting _viva voce_ method of voting. In 1883 the Social Democraticparty proclaimed its purpose to abstain from voting until the (p.  261)inequalities arising from "the most wretched of all electoral systems"should have been removed. Gradually there was worked out a programmeof reform to which socialists, Liberals, and progressives of variousschools gave adherence, wholly or in part, comprising four principaldemands: (1) the abolition of discriminations against the smalltaxpayer; (2) the introduction of the secret ballot; (3) the replacingof indirect by direct elections; and (4) a redistribution of seats. And these are to-day the objects chiefly sought by the reformelements. *280. The Efforts of 1906 and 1908. *--In 1906 a bill raising the numberof representatives from 433 to 443 and making provision for a slightredistribution of seats was carried, but a Radical amendment providingfor direct and universal suffrage and the secret ballot was opposedwith vigor by the Government and failed of adoption. In January, 1908, there were notable socialist demonstrations throughout the country inbehalf of the establishment of equal manhood suffrage. Prince vonBülow, while admitting the existing system to be defective, opposedthe introduction in Prussia of the electoral system of the Empire, alleging that it would not be compatible with the interests of thestate and maintaining that every sound reform of the franchise mustretain and secure the preponderance of the great mass of the middleclass, and therefore must aim at the establishment of an equitablegradation in the weight of the various classes of votes. It was addedthat the Government would consider whether this object might best beattained by basing the franchise entirely upon the amount of taxespaid by the voter, or by taking into account age, educationalattainments, or other qualifications. When the Radicals introduced inthe lower chamber a resolution declaring for equal manhood suffragethe Clericals and the Poles supported it, but the Conservatives andNational Liberals of all shades stood by the Government, and theresolution was overwhelmingly rejected. The elections of June, 1908, at which, as has been pointed out, seven Social Democratic memberswere returned, demonstrated that even under existing electoralarrangements dissatisfaction could find some expression. The NationalLiberals and the Free Conservatives, who had been outspoken inopposition to the extension of the suffrage, lost, respectively, twelve and four seats. When, however, the Radical resolutionreappeared it again was thrown out. *281. The Project of 1910. *--By popular demonstrations in Berlin and inother important towns throughout the kingdom, the Government wasbrought to the conviction that it was not expedient to maintain toolong its hitherto inflexible attitude. In a speech from the (p.  262)throne, January 11, 1910, the sovereign announced the earlyintroduction of a measure for electoral reform, and a month later itbecame the unwelcome duty of the new Chancellor, von Bethman-Hollweg, to lay the Government's project before the chambers. Instantly it wasevident, not only that the proposal had been prepared entirely underbureaucratic direction, but that the real purpose of the Governmentwas to carry through the Landtag an electoral bill designed to appeasethe reformers without yielding the essential features of the existingsystem. The project provided, in brief: (1) that the tripartite systembe retained, though the quota of taxes admitting to the first classshould be reduced to a uniform level of five thousand marks (no weightbeing given to payment beyond that amount), and voters of specifieddegrees of education, or occupying certain official positions, orhaving served a stipulated number of years in the army or navy, shouldbe assigned to the higher classes, with but incidental regard to theirtax contributions: (2) that _viva voce_ voting be retained; (3) thatthe choice of electors be by districts rather than by Urwahlbezirke;and (4) that direct voting be substituted for indirect. There was nomention of redistribution, and the secret ballot was specificallywithheld. The rearrangement of classes did not touch the fundamentaldifficulty, and the only demand of the reformers which was really metwas that for direct elections. In his speech in defense of the measurethe Chancellor frankly admitted that the Government was irrevocablyopposed to a suffrage system based on democratic principles. The scheme was ridiculed by the liberal elements. In protest againstthe nonchalance with which the door had been shut in their faces theworking classes in Berlin and elsewhere entered upon a fresh series ofdemonstrations by reason of which the Government was embarrassedthrough several weeks. In the Landtag the Conservative and FreeConservative parties, comprising the Government majority, stoodsolidly for the bill, in the conviction that if there must be changeat all those changes which the bill proposed would be lessobjectionable than those which were being urged by the radicals. TheCentre wavered, while the National Liberals, the Poles, the SocialDemocrats, and the Progressive People's Party stood firmly inopposition. February 13 the bill was referred in the lower house to acommittee, by which it was reported so amended as to provide for thesecret ballot but not for direct elections. March 16, by a vote of 283to 168, the measure in this amended form, was passed by the chamber, all parties except the Conservatives and the Centre voting against it. April 29 the bill was passed in the upper chamber, by a vote of 140 to94, in the form in which originally it had been introduced. All (p.  263)efforts on the part of the Government to bring the lower house to anacceptance of the original measure proved fruitless, and the upshotwas that, May 27 following, the project was withdrawn from thechambers. The overhauling of the antiquated electoral system inPrussia, both national and municipal, remains a live issue, butagreement upon a definite project of reform is apparently remote. Theproblem is enormously complicated by the virile traditions ofaristocratic, landed privilege which permeate the inmost parts of thePrussian political system. In respect to redistribution, too, afundamental obstacle lies in the consideration that such a step on thepart of Prussia would almost of necessity involve a similar one on thepart of the Empire. In both instances the insuperable objection, fromthe point of view of the Government, arises from the vast acquisitionof political power which would accrue from such reform to thesocialists and other radical parties. [385] [Footnote 385: P. Matter, La réforme électorale en Prusse, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, Sept. , 1910; C. Brocard, La réforme électorale en Prusse et les partis, in _Revue Politique et Parlementaire_, Feb. , 1912. ] III. ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS OF THE LANDTAG *282. Sessions and Privileges of Members. *--The maximum life of aLandtag is five years; but the lower house may at any time bedissolved by the crown. A dissolution must be followed by the electionof a new chamber within sixty days, and the ensuing session isrequired to begin within three months. The power of dissolution is notinfrequently exercised, and there have been instances of thedissolution of a newly elected chamber, by reason of its objectionablepolitical character, before it had been convened for so much as asingle sitting. According to law the Landtag must be convoked inregular session every year, during the period between the beginning ofNovember and the middle of the following January. [386] It may becalled in extraordinary session at any time. Without its own consent, it may not be adjourned for more than thirty days, or more than onceduring a session. Save in the event of the necessity of makingprovision for a regency, the chambers sit separately; but the two mustbe convoked, opened, adjourned, and prorogued simultaneously. [Footnote 386: Art. 76. ] Each chamber passes upon the qualifications of its members; eachelects it own presidents, vice-presidents, and secretaries; and eachregulates its own discipline and order of business. Sittings of bothchambers are public, save when, on proposal of the president or of tenmembers, it is decided to close the doors. Members are regarded (p.  264)as representatives of the population of the kingdom as a whole. Theymay not be bound by any sort of instructions; nor may they be calledto account legally for votes cast, or for statements made, in thefulfillment of their legislative functions. Unless taken in the act, or within twenty-four hours thereafter, no member of either house may, without the consent of that house, be arrested or submitted toexamination for any penal offense. Members of the lower house receive, and must accept, travelling expenses and a daily allowance of fifteenmarks during sessions. At the beginning of each sitting the House of Lords is divided intofive Abtheilungen, or sections, and the House of Representatives intoseven. In the lower house the division is made by lot; in the upper, by the president. In both instances it is made once for an entiresession, not monthly as in France, or bi-monthly as in Italy. Thefunction of the Abtheilungen is to appoint committee members, and, inthe lower house, to make preliminary examination of election returns. In each house there are eight standing committees. For theconsideration of particular measures special committees areconstituted as occasion demands. *283. Powers. *--The Landtag is, of course, primarily a legislativeinstitution. But the powers of independent deliberation which itexercises are distinctly inferior to those exercised by the BritishHouse of Commons, by the French Chamber of Deputies, or by any one ofa half score of other European parliamentary bodies. This fact arisesfrom the relatively preponderating influence which is exerted by theGovernment in its proceedings. In theory each chamber possesses theright to initiate legislation; in practice, virtually all bills areintroduced by the Government, and the chambers content themselves withdiscussion and the proposing of amendments. It not infrequentlyhappens that, as in the case of the Electoral Reform Bill of 1910, thelower house so emasculates a measure as to compel the Government towithdraw it. But, speaking broadly, it may be said that thelegislative acts of Prussia are projected and formulated by the crownand the ministers and merely ratified by the Landtag. There is stillsome question as to whether the stipulation that all laws require theassent of the two houses covers, under every circumstance, theappropriation of money. In practice, appropriations are regularlyvoted in the chambers, and in fact it is required that the budget andall fiscal measures shall be presented first to the lower house andshall be accepted or rejected as a whole by the upper; but during theyears immediately preceding the Austrian war of 1866 the Governmentasserted and exercised the power of collecting and expending the revenuesof the state on the basis of standing laws, thus virtually (p.  265)suspending the legislative appropriating power, and the question hasnever been finally settled by Prussian jurists as to whether such athing might not again be done. [387] [Footnote 387: Lowell, Governments and Parties, I. , 298. ] On the side of administration the powers of the Landtag are butnominal. Under provisions of the constitution each chamber has a rightto present memorials to the king; to refer to the ministers documentsaddressed to it, and to demand explanations respecting complaints madetherein; and to appoint commissions for the investigation of subjectsfor its own information. The right of interpellation is expresslyrecognized. But, as has been pointed out, the ministers are not inpractice responsible to the legislative chambers, and neither they northe king himself can be compelled to give heed, unless they so desire, to legislative protests, demands, or censure. Where a parliamentarysystem does not exist, the influence of the legislative branch uponmatters of administration is likely to be confined to the simpleassertion of opinion. IV. LOCAL GOVERNMENT: ORIGINS AND PRINCIPLES[388] [Footnote 388: The judicial system of Prussia, regulated in common with that of the other states by Imperial law, is described in Chapter 11, pp. 241-244. Articles 86-97 of the Prussian constitution deal with the subject of the judiciary, but many of their provisions have been rendered obsolete by Imperial statutes. ] *284. The Measures of Stein and Hardenberg. *--The origins of the localgovernmental régime prevailing in the kingdom of Prussia to-dayantedate, to some extent, the nineteenth century, but in large partthey are to be traced to the period of the Stein-Hardenbergministries. By the memorable Municipal Edict (_Städt-Ordnung_) ofNovember 19, 1808, Stein set up a complete municipal system, withburgomasters, executive boards, and town councils (all elective), andswept away the oligarchy of the guilds, broadened the franchise, andconferred upon the towns almost complete independence, even in thematter of taxation. An edict of 1831 inaugurated a revival of theright of the central authorities to supervise local taxation andintroduced a number of other changes, but, on the whole, the municipalarrangements of the present day are based upon the edict of Stein. More immediately, they rest upon an act of 1853, applied originallyonly to the six eastern provinces of the kingdom, but eventuallyextended to the others. Aside from its introduction of the three-classelectoral system, and a few other matters, this law follows closelythe measure of 1808 and but consolidates and extends pre-existingarrangements. [389] Neither Stein nor Hardenberg touched the (p.  266)constitution of the country communes, but the extension, during theNapoleonic occupation, of the French communal system into all thePrussian territories west of the Elbe prepared the way for theessentially uniform system which was established by the Westphalianand Rhineland Edicts of 1841 and 1845. Edicts of 1807 and 1811abolished the aristocratic basis of the ancient circles (Kreise), andafter 1815 the circle as a unit of local government next above thecommune was extended to all the conquered or reconquered territories. The revival of the old provincial organization was begun also in 1815, when the kingdom was divided into ten provinces; and in the same yearthere were established twenty-six government districts (Regierungsbezirke), two or three within each province, each under the control of one ofthe government boards (Regierungen) whose creation had been begun in1808. [390] [Footnote 389: The text of the law of 1853 is printed in the appendix of A. W. Jebens, Die Städtverordneten (Berlin, 1905). ] [Footnote 390: E. Meier, Die Reform der Verwaltungsorganisation unter Stein und Hardenberg (Leipzig, 1881). ] *285. The Reforms of Bismarck. *--Throughout the middle portion of thenineteenth century the administrative system, modified but slightly bylegislative enactment, continued to present a curious combination ofelements which were popular and elements which were narrowlybureaucratic and, in some instances, essentially feudal. Beginning in1872, Bismarck addressed himself to the task of co-ordinating, strengthening, and to a certain extent liberalizing, the localinstitutions of the kingdom. The ends at which he aimed principallywere the abolition of conditions by which it was made possible for thewhole machinery of local government to be captured from time to timeby a single social class for its own benefit, and the establishment ofa system under which all classes of the population might be admittedto participation in the management of purely local affairs. In thecourse of the reform which was carried through numerous features ofEnglish local institutions were copied with some closeness. In anumber of scholarly volumes appearing between 1863 and 1872 the geniusof these institutions had been convincingly expounded by the juristRudolph Gneist, whose essential thesis was that the failure ofparliamentary government in Prussia and the success of it in GreatBritain was attributable to the dissimilarity of the localgovernmental systems of the two countries;[391] and by these writingsthe practical proposals with which Bismarck came forward were givenimportant theoretic basis. Neither Gneist nor Bismarck sympathizedwith the ideals of democracy, but both believed that the local (p.  267)administrative authorities should be made to include not only apaid, expert bureaucracy but a considerable element of unpaid lay ornon-official persons, drawn, however, principally from the largelandowners and taxpayers. The obstacles to be overcome, arising frompublic indifference, the opposition of the existing bureaucracy, theapprehensions of the Conservatives, and sectional differences andantipathies, were enormous, but by proceeding slowly and in aconciliatory spirit the Government was able eventually to execute thelarger portion of its plans. The first enactments, for the circles in1872 and for the provinces in 1875, were applied only to thoseprovinces which had formed the old monarchy, but during the ensuingten years similar measures were extended to the remainder of thekingdom, and, finally, after the dismissal of Bismarck, the task wasrounded out by a great Landgemeinde-Ordnung issued for the seveneastern provinces in 1891. By this series of enactments theadministrative methods and machinery of the kingdom were reduced tosubstantially the character which they to-day possess. [Footnote 391: The most important of Gneist's works in this connection are: Geschichte des self-government in England (1863); Verwaltung, Justiz, Rechtsweg (1867); Die preussische Kreis-Ordnung (1871); and Der Rechtsstaat (1872). ] *286. Principles of the Administrative System. *--Although the system isstill one of the most complicated in Europe, it is infinitely simplerthan once it was, and the bureaucratic forces in it, if stillpredominant, have been subjected to a variety of important restraints. The principles which underlie it have been summarized by an Englishwriter as follows: "The first is the careful distinction drawn betweenthose internal affairs in which the central government is thought tobe directly concerned, and those which are held to be primarily ofonly local interest. The former group includes, besides the army, thestate taxes and domains, ecclesiastical affairs, police (in the widePrussian meaning of the term), and the supervision of localauthorities; whilst roads, poor relief, and a number of miscellaneousmatters are left to the localities. These two groups are keptcarefully separate, even when they are entrusted to the sameauthority. Secondly, the work of the central government is'deconcentrated, ' that is, the country is divided into districts(which may or may not be coincident with the areas of localself-government), in each of which there is a delegation of thecentral authority, doing its work, and thereby lessening the pressureupon the departmental offices in Berlin. Something like thisdeconcentration is found in the educational organization of France, and also in the office of the Prefect, but it is far more elaborate, and the machinery much more complex, in Prussia. Thirdly thecomparative independence of the executive from the deliberativeauthority, and the predominance of the officials, which characterizethe central government of Prussia, repeat themselves throughout thewhole of local government. And, finally, in all except the (p.  268)largest of the Prussian areas of local self-government, the executiveagents of the locality, elected by it, are also the representatives ofthe central government; as such they are members of the bureaucracyand controlled by it, and in consequence they naturally look to thecenter for guidance and direction in regard to local affairs. Therefore, whilst it would be inaccurate to say that localself-government, as understood in England, does not exist in Prussia, it is true that self-government there is weak, that it is not so muchthe exercise of the will of the locality within limits prescribed (forthe protection of the whole community) by the central power, as theexercise of the will of the latter by the locality. In fact, thebureaucracy rules; and it is fortunate for Prussia that hitherto thebureaucracy has remained intelligent and respective of newideas. "[392] [Footnote 392: Ashley, Local and Central Government, 130-132. ] At the same time it is to be observed that, while the professional, life-long holders of office continue to preponderate as in no otherimportant country of western Europe, the class of non-professionals islarge and constantly increasing. As a rule, the first class issalaried, the second is not; the non-professionals being simplycitizens who, moved by considerations of a civic and social nature, give their services without prospect of pecuniary reward. Theprinciple of the system is, as Ashley characterizes it, that ofgovernment by experts, checked by lay criticism and the power of thepurse, and effectively controlled by the central authorities. And, although the details of local governmental arrangements varyappreciably from state to state, this principle, which has attainedits fullest realization in Prussia, may be said to underlie localgovernment throughout the Empire in general. V. LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AREAS AND ORGANS *287. The Province. *--Aside from the cities, which have their specialforms of government, the political units of Prussia, in the order oftheir magnitude, are: (1) the Provinz, or province; (2) theRegierungsbezirk, or district; (3) the Kreis, or circle; (4) theAmtsbezirk, or court jurisdiction; and (5) the Gemeinde, or commune. Of these, three--the first, third, and fifth--are spheres both of thecentral administration and of local self-government; two--the secondand fourth--exist for administrative purposes solely. Of provincesthere are twelve: East Prussia, West Prussia, Brandenburg, Pomerania, Silesia, Posen, Westphalia, Saxony, Hanover, the Rhine Province, Schleswig-Holstein, and Hesse-Nassau. [393] Unlike the French and (p.  269)Italian departments, the Prussian provinces are historical areas, of widely varying extent and, in some instances, of not even whollycontinuous territory. Thus Hanover is, geographically, the kingdomonce united with the crown of Great Britain, Schleswig-Holsteincomprises the territories wrested from Denmark in 1864, Saxony is thecountry taken from the kingdom of Saxony at the close of theNapoleonic wars, and Posen represents Prussia's ultimate acquisitionfrom the Polish partitions of the eighteenth century. [Footnote 393: For all practical purposes the city of Berlin and the district of Hohenzollern form each a province. If they be counted, the total is fourteen. ] In the organization of the province the separation of functionsrelating to the affairs of the kingdom (_Staatsgeschäfte_) from thosewhich relate only to matters of a local nature is carried out rigidly. In the circle, as will appear, the two sets of functions aredischarged by the same body of officials; in the district, thefunctions performed are wholly of a national, rather than a local, character; but in the province there are not merely two sets offunctions but two entirely separate groups of officials. *288. Provincial Organs of the Central Administration. *--For theadministration of affairs of general interest, such as police, education, and religion, the organs within the province are (1) theOberpräsident, or chief president, appointed by the king to representthe central government in the management of all such matters asconcern the entire province or reach beyond the jurisdiction of asingle Regierungsbezirk administration, [394] and (2) theProvinzialrath, a provincial council consisting of, besides theOberpräsident or his representative as presiding officer, oneprofessional member appointed for an indefinite tenure by the Ministerof the Interior and five ordinary citizen members elected, usually fora term of six years, by the provincial Ausschuss, or committee. TheOberpräsident is the immediate agent of the ministry, as is theprefect in France, though he is a more dignified and importantfunctionary than his French counterpart. None the less, by virtue ofthe fact that most of the Oberpräsident's acts are valid only afterhaving been accorded the assent of a body the majority of whosemembers are chosen within the province, the bureaucratic aspect of hisposition is subjected to a highly important limitation. [Footnote 394: Schulze, Das Staatsrecht des Königreichs Preussen, 63. ] *289. Provincial Organs of Self-Government. *--By the side of thisofficial group stands another, quite independent of it, for thecontrol of affairs of purely local concern. Its organs comprise: (1)the Provinzialausschuss, or provincial committee, consisting of fromseven to fourteen members elected for six years by the provincial (p.  270)Landtag, not necessarily, but almost invariably, from its ownmembership; (2) a Landeshauptmann or Landesdirektor, a salariedexecutive official elected by the Landtag for six or twelve years andconfirmed by the crown; and (3) the Provinziallandtag, or provincialassembly. The Landeshauptmann is the executive, the Provinzialausschussthe consultative, organ of local self-administration; theProvinziallandtag is the provincial legislature. Members of theLandtag are elected for six years (one-half retiring every threeyears) by the diets of the circles, and they comprise, as a rule, local administrative officials of the circles, large landowners, andother well-to-do persons. Sessions are convoked by the crown at leastevery two years. [395] The Landtag's functions are comprehensive. Theyinclude the supervision of charities, highways, and industry; thevoting of local taxes and the apportionment of them among the circles;the enactment of local laws; the custody of provincial property; theelection of the Landeshauptmann and the members of the provincialcommittee; and the giving of advice on provincial matters at therequest of the central government. The Landtag is in practice lessindependent, however, than this enumeration of powers might seem toimply. All of its legislation requires the assent of the king; most ofits fiscal arrangements must be submitted to one or more of theministers; and the body itself may be dissolved at any time by thecrown. [Footnote 395: Towns of twenty-five thousand inhabitants or more may, by ministerial decree, be set off as separate circles. In such circles Landtag members are chosen by the municipal officials. ] *290. The Government District. *--Each province is divided into a numberof Regierungsbezirke, or districts, of which there are now thirty-fivein the kingdom. [396] Unlike the province, the district exists forpurposes of general administration only. It therefore has no organs ofself-government. Its Regierung, or "administration, " consists of abody of professional, salaried officials, appointed by the crown andhaving at its head the Regierungspräsident, who is, on the whole, themost important official in the Prussian local service. The subjectsthat fall within the jurisdiction of the functionaries of thedistrict, including taxation, education, religion, forests, etc. , arevery comprehensive, and the work of administration is carried onchiefly through "colleges, " or boards. For the management of policeand the supervision of local bodies there exists a Bezirksausschuss, or district committee, composed of the Regierungspräsident, two (p.  271)other persons appointed by the crown, and four members elected by theProvinzialausschuss for six years. A very important function whichthis body has possessed since 1883 is that of sitting, under thepresidency of one of its members appointed for his judicialqualifications, as the administrative court of the district. [397] [Footnote 396: The province of Schleswig-Holstein, however, contains but a single district. The largest number of districts in a province is six, in Hanover. ] [Footnote 397: The immediate legal basis of the organization of the district is the Landesverwaltungsgesetz of 1883. ] *291. The Circle. *--In the Kreis, or circle, as in the province, thereexist two sharply distinguished sets of governmental functions, thegeneral and the local; but for the administration of both there is asingle hierarchy of officials. The number of circles within thekingdom is about 490, with populations varying from 20, 000 to 80, 000. Each includes all towns lying within it which have a population ofless than 25, 000. A town of over 25, 000 is likely to be created, byministerial order, a circle within itself, in which case the functionsof government are exercised by the municipal authorities. [398] Theessential organs of government within the Landkreise, or countrycircles, are three: the Landrath, the Kreisausschuss, and theKreistag. The Landrath is appointed for life by the crown, onnomination frequently by the Kreistag, or diet. He superintends alladministrative affairs, general and local, within the circle; fulfillsthe functions of chief of police; presides over the Kreisausschuss andKreistag; and, in general, occupies within the circle the placeoccupied within the province by the Oberpräsident. Associated withhim, and organized under his presidency, is the Kreisausschuss, orcircle committee, composed of six unofficial members elected by theKreistag for six years. In addition to its consultative functions, theKreisausschuss sits as an administrative court of lowest grade. [Footnote 398: Approximately one hundred towns have been so constituted. ] The Kreistag is the legislative body of the circle. Its members, numbering at least twenty-five, are elected for a term of six years bythree Verbände, or colleges, the first being made up of the cities, the second of the large rural taxpayers, the third of a complicatedgroup of rural interests in which the smaller taxpayers and delegatesof the communal assemblies preponderate. [399] The Kreistag is a bodyof substantial importance. It chooses, directly or indirectly, all theelective officials of the circle, of the district, and of theprovince; it creates local officers and regulates their functions; itenacts legislation of a local nature; and it votes the taxes requiredfor both its own and the provincial administration. [Footnote 399: For a fuller statement of the electoral system see Lowell, Governments and Parties, I. , 325. ] *292. The Commune. *--The smallest of Prussian governmental units (p.  272)is the Gemeinde, or commune. [400] Of communes there are two distincttypes, the rural (Landgemeinde) and the urban (Stadtgemeinde). Thegovernments of the rural communes (some 36, 000 in number) are sovaried that any general description of them is virtually impossible. They rest largely upon local custom, though reduced at some points toa reasonable uniformity under regulating statutes such as were enactedfor the communes of eight of the twelve provinces in theLandgemeinde-ordnung of 1891. [401] There is invariably an electiveSchulze, or chief magistrate. He is assisted ordinarily by from two tosix aldermen (Schöffen) or councillors. And there is generally agoverning body (Gemeindevertretung), composed of elected representatives, when there are as many as forty qualified electors, --otherwisethe people acting in the capacity of a primary assembly(Gemeindeversammlung), --for the decision of matters relating to localschools, churches, highways, and similar interests. It is to beobserved, however, that most of the rural communes are so small thatthey have neither the financial resources nor the administrativeability to maintain a government of much virility. Such action as istaken within them is taken almost invariably with the approval of, andunder the guidance of, the authorities of the circle, principally theLandrath. [402] [Footnote 400: The Amtsbezirk is essentially a judicial district. See p. 243. In the eastern provinces it is utilized also for purposes of police administration. ] [Footnote 401: For an annotated edition of this important instrument see F. Keil, Die Landgemeinde-ordnung (Leipzig, 1890). ] [Footnote 402: On Prussian local government see Lowell, Governments and Parties, I. , 308-333; F. J. Goodnow, Comparative Administrative Law (2d ed. , New York, 1903), I. , 295-338; and Ashley, Local and Central Government (London, 1906), 125-186, 263-287. Fuller accounts are contained in Schulze, Das preussische Staatsrecht, I. , 436-538; K. Stengel, Organisation der preussischen Verwaltung, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1884); C. Bornhak, Preussisches Staatsrecht, 3 vols. (Freiburg, 1888-1890), and Hue de Grais, Handbuch der Verfassung und Verwaltung in Preussen, etc. (17th ed. , Berlin, 1906). Texts of local government acts are printed in G. Anschutz, Organisations-gesetze der innern Verwaltung in Preussen (Berlin, 1897). The best description in English of Prussian municipal government is that in Munro, The Government of European Cities, 109-208. A good brief sketch is Ashley, Local and Central Government, 153-164. The best account of some length in German is H. Kappleman, Die Verfassung und Verwaltungsorganisation der preussischen Städte, in Schriften des Vereins für Sozialpolitik (Leipzig, 1905-1908), vols. 117-119. Mention may be made of A. Shaw, Municipal Government in Continental Europe (New York, 1895), Chaps. 5-6; E. J. James, Municipal Administration in Germany (Chicago, 1901); and Leclerc, La Vie municipale en Prusse, in _Annales de l'École Libre des Sciences Politiques_, Oct. , 1888. For ample bibliography see Munro, _op. Cit. _, 389-395. ] In their governmental arrangements the urban communes exhibit moreuniformity than do the rural, though occasionally among them thereis wide variation. The usual organs comprise (1) the Stadtrath, (p.  273)an executive body consisting of a burgomaster and a number ofassistants, elected for six, nine, or twelve years, or even for life, and (2) the Stadtverordnete, or municipal council, chosen for fromthree to six years, as a rule by an electorate identical with thatwhich returns the members of the lower branch of the PrussianLandtag. CHAPTER XIV (p.  274) THE MINOR GERMAN STATES--ALSACE-LORRAINE *293. Essential Similarity of Political Institutions. *--Thepreponderance of Prussia among the twenty-five states comprised withinthe German Empire is such as to lend the governmental system of thatkingdom an interest and an importance which attaches to the politicalarrangements of no one of the remaining members of the federation. Nodescription of German governments would be adequate, none the less, which should ignore wholly the minor states. A number of these states, especially Bavaria, Baden, Württemberg, and Saxony, are ofconsiderable size, and the populations which are governed within themapproximate, or exceed, the populations of certain wholly independentEuropean nations, as Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Portugal, andseveral of the states of the southeast. It would be unnecessary, however, even were it possible, to describe in this place twenty-fivesubstantially independent German governmental systems. Despite noinconsiderable variation, there are many fundamental features whichthey, or the majority of them, possess in common. All savethree--Hamburg, Bremen, and Lübeck--are monarchies. All savetwo--Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Strelitz--have writtenconstitutions[403] and elective legislative chambers. In every one ofthe monarchies the total lack of anything in the nature of ministerialresponsibility to a parliamentary body leaves the way open for themaintenance of vigorous and independent royal authority, and it is nottoo much to say that in all of them, as is pre-eminently true inPrussia, the principle of autocracy lies at the root of both theorganization and the methods of government. Local governmentalarrangements and systems of administration of justice have beencopied, in most instances, from Prussia. It will suffice to speak verybriefly, first of a few of the more important monarchies, andsubsequently of the city-state republics. [Footnote 403: The texts of these constitutions, in the form in which they existed in 1884, are printed in Stoerk, Handbuch der deutschen Verfassungen. Even in the Mecklenburgs there are certain written instruments by which the curiously mediæval system of government there prevailing is in a measure regulated. ] I. THE MORE IMPORTANT MONARCHIES (p.  275) *294. Bavaria: Crown and Ministry. *--After Prussia, the most importantof the German states, in point both of area and of population, is thekingdom of Bavaria. The constitution at present in operation inBavaria was promulgated May 26, 1818, though it has undergone noslight modification through the process of amendment since thatdate. [404] The original instrument replaced a fundamental law of May, 1808, devised by the king of Bavaria in imitation of the constitutiongiven some months before by Napoleon to the kingdom of Westphalia; andeven the present frame of government bears unmistakable evidence ofFrench influence. The functions and prerogatives of king and ministersare substantially what they are in Prussia. [405] In addition to theMinistry of State, consisting of the seven heads of departments, thereis an advisory Staatsrath, or Council of State, comprising, besidesthe ministers, one prince of the royal blood and eight other members. In accordance with royal proclamation important acts of the governmentrequire the countersignature of all of the ministers. This, of itself, does not imply any larger measure of ministerial subordination thanexists elsewhere in German governments, but it is worth observing thatduring a prolonged period, especially after 1869, there was persistenteffort on the part of the Clericals to inject into the Bavarian systemthe principle of ministerial responsibility in the parliamentary senseof the phrase, and that although the attempt was by no means whollysuccessful, it is true that in Bavaria the ministers occupy inpractice a somewhat less independent position than in other Germanmonarchies. The device of interpellation, for example, not only existsin theory; it means something, as elsewhere in Germany it does not, inactual operation. If a minister will not answer an interpellation thatis addressed to him, he is obliged by law at least to give reasons forhis refusal. [406] [Footnote 404: Among amendments the most notable have been that of March 9, 1828, relating to the composition of the upper legislative chamber; those of June 4, 1848, and March 21, 1881, by which was modified the composition of the lower house; and that of April 8, 1906, whereby direct elections were substituted for indirect. ] [Footnote 405: The crown is hereditary in the house of Wittelbach, by which it was acquired as early as 1180. From 1886, the king, Otto I. , being insane, the powers of the sovereign were exercised by the prince regent Luitpold, until his death December 12, 1912. ] [Footnote 406: Lowell, Governments and Parties, I. , 338. ] *295. The Bavarian Landtag. *--The Landtag of Bavaria consists of twochambers. The upper, designated officially as the Kammer der Reichsrate("chamber of the council of the Empire"), is composed of princes (p.  276)of the royal family, crown dignitaries, high ecclesiastics, hereditarynobles, and life members appointed by the crown--in all, someeighty-five to ninety persons. The lower chamber, or Abgeordnetenkammer, consists of 163 members. By law of 1881 the class system of voting inBavaria was replaced by an equal suffrage extended to all males payinga direct tax. Elections continued to be indirect until 1906, whenprovision was made for elections by direct and secret ballot. [407]Deputies are chosen for a term of six years and are apportioned insuch a manner that, normally, there is one for every 38, 000 people. Every male inhabitant is entitled to vote who at the time of theelection has completed his twenty-fifth year, has been a Bavariancitizen during at least one year, and has paid to the state a directtax during at least the same period. The Landtag must be summoned notless frequently than once every three years. [408] The budget is madeup on a two-year basis, so that sessions are held, in point of fact, biennially. [Footnote 407: Grassman, Die bayerische Landtagswahlgesetz vom 8 April, 1906, in Jahrbuch des Oeffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart, I. , 242. A law of April 15, 1908, introduced the principle of proportional representation in Bavarian municipal elections. ] [Footnote 408: M. Von Seydel, Das Staatsrecht des Königreichs Bayern, (Freiburg, 1888), in Marquardsen's Handbuch; E. Junod, La Bavière et l'Empire allemande, in _Annales de l'École Libre des Sciences Politiques_, Apr. 15, 1892. ] *296. Saxony: Crown and Ministry. *--Third among the states of the Empirein population, though fifth in area, is the kingdom of Saxony. Thepresent Saxon constitution was promulgated September 4, 1831, underthe influence of the revolutionary movements of 1830. By it a monarchygoverned under a mediæval system of estates was converted into amonarchy governed, at least nominally, under a modern representativerégime. In point of fact, however, the inauguration of constitutionalismtempered the actual authority of the monarch very slightly. The king isstill in every sense the supreme authority within the state. [409] Heappoints and dismisses ministers at will, issues ordinances with theforce of law, and exercises far-reaching control over the processes oflegislation. Upon the failure of the chambers to vote supplies whichare held to be essential, he may even collect and expend revenues fora year on no authority apart from his own. For purposes of administrativesupervision there are ministers of War, Finance, Justice, ForeignAffairs, the Interior, and Education, and the ministers collectivelycomprise a Gesammt-Ministerium, or ministry of state. Measures of thecrown are countersigned by a minister; but there is no means by whicha minister may be forced out of office against the will of the (p.  277)king by a hostile legislative chamber. [Footnote 409: The crown is hereditary in the Albertine line of the house of Wettin, with reversion to the Ernestine line, of which the duke of Saxe-Weimar is now the head. The present sovereign is Frederick August III. ] *297. The Saxon Legislative Chambers. *--The Saxon legislature(Standeversammlung) consists of two houses. The upper, designatedsimply as the First Chamber, is a composite body consisting offorty-six members, in addition to a variable number of adult princesof the royal house. The membership comprises, principally, (1)important prelates; (2) certain university officials; (3) proprietorsof great estates, twelve elected and ten appointed by the crown forlife: (4) the first magistrates of Dresden and Leipzig; (5) sixburgomasters of other cities, designated by the king; and (6) fivenobles named for life by free choice of the king. The lower houseconsists of ninety-one deputies, of whom forty-three are elected bythe towns and forty-eight by the rural communes. At one time memberswere chosen by direct secret ballot under a general and equal suffragebased upon a small tax qualification. Fear of socialism led, however, to the adoption, in 1896, of a new system under which the taxqualification was retained, indirect elections were substituted fordirect and public voting for the secret ballot, and a three-classscheme was brought into operation which threw political preponderanceinto the hands of the well-to-do scarcely less effectively than doesthe three-class arrangement in Prussia. After prolonged agitation the reactionary measure of 1896 was replacedby a comprehensive electoral law of May 5, 1909 by which direct andsecret voting was re-established and the interests of property weresought to be safeguarded by a newly devised system of plural votes. Asthe law now stands (1) all males who have attained the age oftwenty-five and who pay direct taxes are entitled to one vote; (2) menowning two hectares of land, or paying a tax upon an annual income of1, 250, 1, 400, or 1, 600 marks, according, respectively, as such incomeis drawn from land, public office, or general sources, and men whohave passed certain examinations, are entitled to two votes; (3)voters paying taxes yearly, as above, upon an income of 1, 600, 1, 900, or 2, 200 marks, or who possess four hectares of land, or who asteachers, engineers, artists, or writers earn an income of 1, 900marks, possess three votes; (4) persons paying a tax, as above, on anincome of 2, 200, 2, 500, or 2, 800 marks, or owning eight hectares ofland, have four votes; and (5) every person belonging to the first, second, or third of these classes is allotted an additional vote whenhe attains the age of fifty, the total number of votes possessed byone elector never exceeding four. Curiously enough, at the firstelections held under this law, in October, 1909, the socialists, (p.  278)who previously were represented by but a single member, gainedtwenty-five seats, or upwards of a third of the entire number. Thechambers must be summoned by the king at least once in two years. Bothmay propose measures, but in practice leadership in the business oflegislation is left very largely to the king and ministry. [410] [Footnote 410: O. Mayer, Das Staatsrecht des Königreichs Sachsen (Tübingen, 1909). ] *298. Württemberg: Crown and Ministry. *--The constitution of the kingdomof Württemberg was promulgated, following prolonged politicalcontroversy, September 25, 1819. At the head of the state is the king, whose powers are in some respects even larger than those belonging toother German sovereigns. [411] It is required that all political acts, except the bestowing of titles of nobility, shall be performed onlywith the sanction in writing of a minister; but, by reason of theking's absolute control of the ministry, this constitutes no invasionof the crown's essential prerogative. Of ministers there are six. These collectively comprise the Ministry of State, and they, togetherwith certain appointive councillors, likewise constitute theGeheimerrath, or Privy Council, which the sovereign consults atpleasure. [Footnote 411: The reigning sovereign is William II. ] *299. The Assembly of Estates: Proportional Representation. *--Thelegislative body of Württemberg is known as the Standeversammlung, orAssembly of Estates. The upper chamber, --the Standesherren, or Houseof Lords, --consists of princes of the royal family; other princes, under varying conditions; knights; ecclesiastical dignitaries; andmembers appointed by the crown, in part according to stipulatedconditions and in part without reference to any necessaryconsideration of birth, wealth, or religious affiliation. TheAbgeordnetenhaus, or House of Deputies, consists of ninety-two memberschosen for a term of six years, as follows: one from each of theadministrative divisions (Oberamtsbezirke); six from Stuttgart and onefrom each of six other important towns; nine from the Neckar and Jagstcircle; and eight from the Black Forest and Danube circle. Election isby direct and secret ballot, on a basis of universal suffrage formales over twenty-five years of age. By constitutional amendment ofJuly 16, 1906, there was introduced a scheme of proportionalrepresentation under which the six deputies of Stuttgart and theseventeen of the Neckar and Jagst and the Black Forest and Danubecircles are distributed among the several political groups inapproximate proportion to the numerical strength attained by thesegroups at the polls. This system, an innovation in Germany, was testedin the elections of December, 1906, and January, 1907, and was by mostpersons adjudged satisfactory. [412] [Footnote 412: J. Fontaine, La représentation proportionnelle en Württemberg, in _Revue Politique et Parlementaire_, Jan. , 1911; ibid. , La représentation proportionnelle en Württemberg (Paris, 1909). ] The remaining sixty-nine representatives are chosen still in (p.  279)single member districts. Prior to the amendment of 1906, the chamberwas made up of seventy members chosen popularly and of twenty-three whosat as representatives of privileged or corporate interests--thirteenchosen by the landowning nobility, nine dignitaries of the Protestantand Catholic churches, together with the Chancellor of the Universityof Tübingen. [413] [Footnote 413: G. Combes de Lestrade, Monarchies de l'Empire allemand, 181; L. Gaupp, Das Staatsrecht des Königreichs Württemberg (Freiburg and Tübingen, 1884), in Marquardsen's Handbuch; W. Bazille, Das Staats-und Verwaltungsrecht des Königreichs Württemberg (Hanover, 1908), in Bibliothek des Oeffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart. The monograph of Gaupp, revised by him in 1895 and by K. Göz in 1904, has been re-issued as essentially a new volume by Göz (Tübingen, 1908). ] *300. The Government of Baden. *--In July, 1808, a constitutional edictwas promulgated in Baden in imitation of the fundamental law whichNapoleon in the previous year had bestowed upon the kingdom ofWestphalia. August 22, 1818, this instrument was replaced by theconstitution at present in operation. Executive power is vested in thegrand-duke, with the customary provision for ministerialcountersignature. Legislative power is shared by the monarch with aLandstände of two houses. Under a liberalizing law of August 24, 1904, the upper chamber consists of princes of the reigning family, noblesoccupying hereditary seats, members appointed for four years by thegrand-duke, and representatives of a variety of ecclesiastical, educational, and other corporate interests. The lower house iscomposed of seventy-three representatives elected for four years(twenty-four by the towns and forty-nine by the rural districts) bymale citizens over twenty-five years of age. Direct election wassubstituted for indirect in 1904. Half of the membership of the lowerchamber is renewed every two years. In Baden there has been rathermore progress than in the majority of German states toward liberal andresponsible government. [414] [Footnote 414: Lowell, Governments and Parties, I. , 345; K. Schenkel, Das Staatsrecht des Grossherzogthums Baden (Freiburg and Tübingen, 1884), in Marquardsen's Handbuch. ] II. THE LESSER MONARCHIES AND THE CITY REPUBLICS *301. Monarchical Variations. *--With relatively unimportant exceptions, the governments of the remaining seventeen German monarchies exhibitfeatures substantially similar to those of the governments that (p.  280)have been described. In each of the states, except the twogrand-duchies of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Strelitz, thereis a written constitution, promulgated, in most instances, during thesecond or third quarter of the nineteenth century. [415] Executivepower in each is vested in the monarch; legislative power in themonarch and a Landtag, or assembly. The assembly consists ordinarilyof a single chamber, varying in membership from twelve to forty-eight;and in most instances the members are chosen, at least in part, on abasis of manhood suffrage. In some states, as the principality ofLippe, the three-class electoral system prevails; and elections arestill very commonly indirect. The trend toward liberalism is, however, all but universal, and within recent years numbers of importantchanges, e. G. , the substitution of direct for indirect elections inOldenburg and in Saxe-Weimar in 1909, have been brought about. In thecuriously intertwined grand-duchies of Mecklenburg the common Landtagremains a typically mediæval assemblage of estates, based, in themain, on the tenure of land. [416] [Footnote 415: The dates of the original promulgation of constitutions at present in operation are: Saxe-Weimar, 1816; Hesse, 1820; Saxe-Meiningen, 1829; Saxe-Altenburg, 1832; Brunswick, 1832; Lippe, 1836; Oldenburg, 1852; Waldeck, 1852; Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, 1852; Reuss Jüngerer Linie, 1852 and 1856; Schwartzburg-Rudolstadt, 1854; Schwartzburg-Sonderhausen, 1857; Anhalt, 1859; Reuss Älterer Linie, 1867; and Schaumburg-Lippe, 1868. ] [Footnote 416: Repeated attempts to bring about a modernization of the Mecklenburg constitutional system have failed. Several times the liberal elements in the Reichstag have carried a proposal that to the Imperial constitution there should be added a clause requiring that in every state of the Empire there shall be an assembly representative of the whole people. On the ground that such an amendment would comprise an admission that the constitutions of the states are subject to revision at the hand of the Empire, the Bundesrath has invariably rejected the proposal. In 1907 the grand-duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin inaugurated a movement for political reform, and in 1908 there was drafted a constitution providing for the establishment of a Landtag whose members should be chosen in part by the landed, industrial, professional, and official classes and in part by manhood suffrage. Late in 1909 the Ritterschaft (i. E. , the estate comprising owners of knights' fees) rejected the proposal, as, indeed, it had rejected similar ones on earlier occasions. ] *302. Hamburg. *--The three free cities of Hamburg, Bremen, and Lübeckare survivals of the ancient Hanseatic League. All have republicanforms of government, differing in only minor details. The constitutionof Hamburg came into operation January 1, 1861, and was revised in1879 and in 1906. The principal organs of government are the Senateand the Bürgerschaft, or House of Burgesses. The Senate consists ofeighteen members elected for life by the House of Burgesses, but inaccordance with an indirect method so devised that the Senate itselfexercises a preponderating influence in the elections. A senator (p.  281)is privileged to retire, if he so desires, at the end of a six-yearperiod, or at the age of seventy. Of the eighteen, half must havestudied finance or law, while of the remaining nine at least sevenmust belong to the class of merchants. The House of Burgesses iscomposed of 160 members, elected for six years by voters whosequalifications are based upon property, taxpaying, or position. Anelectoral law of March 5, 1906, introduced the principle ofproportional representation, but failed to break the dominance of thewell-to-do classes in the chamber. Half of the membership is renewedtriennially. The service is unpaid and, under ordinary circumstances, compulsory. The larger portion of the executive authority is vested in the Senate. After the fashion of the prince of a monarchical state, this bodyappoints officials, designates and instructs the delegate in theBundesrath, issues ordinances, and supervises administration. [417] Onesenator is placed at the head of each of the nine executivedepartments. In matters of legislation the powers of the Senate and ofthe Bürgerschaft are concurrent. Both bodies possess the right oflegislative initiative, and all laws, treaties, and fiscalarrangements must receive the assent of both. The lower chamber electsand maintains a Bürgerausschuss, or Committee of the Burgesses, consisting of twenty-five members, whose business it is to watch overthe proceedings of the Senate and the administration of the laws. Thesessions of both Senate and Bürgerschaft are irregular but frequent. *303. Lübeck and Bremen. *--The government of Lübeck rests upon aconstitution proclaimed December 30, 1848, but revised in later yearsupon a number of occasions. The system is essentially similar to thatin operation in Hamburg, the principal differences being that inLübeck the full membership of the Bürgerschaft (120) is elected by thecitizens directly and that the Bürgerausschuss, of thirty members, performs larger and more independent functions. The constitution ofBremen dates from March 5, 1849, but was revised in 1854, 1875, andthree times subsequently. As in Lübeck, the Bürgerschaft, of 150members, is elected by all of the citizens, but under a class systemaccording to which citizens who have studied at a university returnfourteen members; the merchants, forty; the mechanics andmanufacturers, twenty; and all other citizens who have taken theburgher oath, the remaining seventy-six. The Senate consists offourteen members. [Footnote 417: The presiding officer of the Senate is a burgomaster, chosen for one year by the senators from their own number. The burgomaster as such, however, possesses no administrative power. ] III. ALSACE-LORRAINE (p.  282) *304. Original Problem of Organization. *--By the terms of the Peace ofFrankfort, May 10, 1871, France ceded to Germany the province ofAlsace and a portion of that of Lorraine--an aggregate of 5, 605 squaremiles of hotly disputed territory whose population, while inconsiderable measure German, was none the less predominantly French. The position assigned the newly acquired territory within the Empirewas anomalous. It was determined by two principal considerations:first, the fact that the districts comprised conquered territoryinhabited by a discontented people and liable both to domesticdisorder and foreign invasion; and, second, the further fact that thenewly established Empire consisted of a federation of semi-autonomousstates, into which subordinate territory acquired by war could noteasily be made to fit. The annexed lands might conceivably have beenerected, in 1871, into the twenty-sixth state of the Empire; but in noquarter was this policy so much as suggested. They might have beenincorporated with one of the existing states, or divided among two ormore of them; but this would have involved friction at a time when thestability of the new régime was not yet assured. The only course thatto the statesmen and jurists of the day appeared feasible was to holdthe new territories as the joint property of the states, under thesovereign control of the Imperial Government; and the arrangement hitupon in the execution of this policy was perpetuated, withmodification only of administrative machinery, from 1871 until almostthe present day. *305. The Imperial Basis of Government. *--Prior to the enactment of thecontroverted Alsace-Lorraine Constitution Bill of 1911 Alsace-Lorrainewas not a member of the German federation, but was, on the contrary, amere dependency--a Reichsland, or Imperial territory. Beginning with avirtual dictatorship on the part of the Emperor, established under actof June 9, 1871, the governmental arrangements within the territorypassed through a number of stages of elaboration. In the main, theorgans of government employed until 1911, and a large proportion ofthose still in operation, were created, or perpetuated, by theconstitutional statute of July 4, 1879. By this instrument thesovereignty of the territories was vested specifically in the Empire;the exercise of that sovereignty was vested in the Kaiser, actingalone or in conjunction with the Bundesrath. The Kaiser wasrepresented personally at Strassburg, as he still is, by aStatthalter, or governor-general, whose powers were such as theEmperor might from time to time intrust to him. At Strassburg (p.  283)also was a ministry, with a secretary of state at the head, and withunder-secretaries, appointed by the Kaiser, in charge of fourdepartments; likewise a council of state, which was a purely advisorybody made up of the secretary and under-secretaries, certain judicialofficials, and from eight to twelve members specially appointed by theKaiser for a term of three years. *306. The Landesausschuss. *--Such privileges of self-government as werepossessed by the inhabitants of the territory arose from the peculiarand complicated arrangements which were devised for legislation. In1874 an Imperial decree called into being a Landesausschuss, orTerritorial Committee. This body consisted originally of thirtymembers--ten elected in each of the three districts of Upper Alsace, Lower Alsace, and Lorraine. Its function at the outset was merely togive expert advice on subjects pertaining to local legislation andtaxation. By law of 1877, however, it was intrusted with power toinitiate legislation in matters pertaining solely to the territory. Measures of any sort designed for Alsace-Lorraine exclusively wereenabled to be carried through by enactment in the TerritorialCommittee, provided they received the assent of the Bundesrath andwere duly promulgated by the Emperor. The Committee was enlarged untilit consisted of fifty-eight members, thirty-four of whom were electedby the assemblies of the three districts from their own membership, four others being chosen by the communal councils of Strassburg, Metz, Kolmar, and Mülhausen, and twenty elected by indirect suffrage fromthe twenty-three circles into which the territories were divided. *307. Legislative Processes. *--Several conditions, however, operated toimpose upon what might appear a fairly liberal system some veryserious limitations. In the first place, there was no possibility oflegislation which was wholly within the control of the inhabitants ofthe territory. The laws applicable solely to Prussia are madeexclusively in Prussia, by Prussian authorities, and in like mannerthose of every other one of the confederated states. But those ofAlsace-Lorraine, while they might be enacted in a provinciallegislative chamber, acquired no validity until they should have beenapproved by the Empire through its agents, the Bundesrath and theKaiser. In the second place, the method of legislation which has beenmentioned did not occupy the field alone. With insignificantexceptions, any measure which might be enacted in the fashiondescribed might be enacted in either of two other ways, in neither ofwhich did the inhabitants of the territory have any appreciableinfluence. A measure might take the form of a simple decree of (p.  284)the Kaiser with the consent of the Bundesrath and Reichstag; or, inthe case of an ordinance having the provisory force of law, it mightbe promulgated by the Kaiser with the consent of the Bundesrath alone. The fact that in practice the Territorial Committee ordinarily didparticipate in the legislative process was largely offset by theexceeding cumbersomeness and indirectness of the system. The normalprocedure in the making of a law for the territory involved at leasteight steps; (1) the _projet_ was drawn up by the Statthalter; (2) itwas approved by the Council of State at Strassburg; (3) it wastransmitted, through the Imperial Chancellor, to the Kaiser; (4) if heapproved, it was sent to Strassburg to receive the Statthalter'scountersignature; (5) it was laid before the Bundesrath, the membersof which, being but delegates, ascertained from their respectivesovereigns how they should vote; (6) if all had gone well, theTerritorial Committee, at Strassburg, passed the measure through theusual three readings; (7) it was returned to the Bundesrath again tobe approved; and (8) it was promulgated by the Emperor--provided hedid not see fit to veto and withhold it, as he had an entire right todo. Even if such roundabout law-making were to be considered in itselfsatisfactory there remained the disquieting condition that theTerritorial Committee rested on no basis more substantial than a bodyof Imperial decrees capable at any time of being altered, or evenrevoked. Not merely was it altogether lacking in the independence ofaction enjoyed by the diets of the federated states; its veryexistence was precarious. *308. The Movement for Autonomy. *--Throughout a prolonged period therewas in the territory insistent demand for the grant of a moreindependent status, to involve the eventual placing of Alsace-Lorraineon a footing of constitutional equality with Saxony, Bavaria, and theother confederated states. Within very few years after the annexationthere sprang up, within the Territorial Committee first of all, agroup of "autonomists, " led by the secretary of state Baron Zorn vonBulach, who insisted in season and out upon statehood for theconquered territory, and within a decade the campaign gained momentumuntil it enlisted the support of men of all political faiths andbecame the principal rallying issue of Alsatian sentiment andenthusiasm. Until within recent years the tension of the internationalsituation was alone sufficient to restrain the Imperial Governmentfrom according the demand favorable consideration. With the passing oftime the danger of international conflict in which Alsace-Lorraineshould be involved was, however, perceptibly diminished, and the waywas to this extent cleared for a readjustment of the territory'sanomalous status on the merits of the purely administrative andconstitutional questions involved. The programme of the autonomists, as it finally assumed shape, (p.  285)embraced four fundamental points: (1) the elevation of Alsace-Lorraineto membership in the German Empire, with all the rights and immunitiescommonly possessed by existing members; (2) the vesting of theexecutive authority in an independent head of the state, whether aking of a newly established line, a regent appointed for life, or evena president of a republic; (3) the establishment within the state of afull-fledged legislative body, with powers equivalent to thoseexercised by the Landtags of the existing states; and (4) theelimination of Kaiser, Bundesrath, and Reichstag from all legislationwhich concerns Alsace-Lorraine exclusively. Taking their stand on thesituation as it was, and accepting the union with Germany with suchgrace as they could muster and assuming that it is to be permanent, the exponents of autonomy proposed to make the best of a state ofthings not of their choosing. *309. The Government Bill of 1910. *--Under pressure of persistent publicdemand, the Imperial Government prepared an elaborate measure upon thesubject, which, after having been approved by the Bundesrath, wassubmitted to the Reichstag, December 17, 1910. Although Chancellor vonBethmann-Hollweg had declared unreservedly for reform, theGovernment's proposals fell far short of the demands of the autonomistleaders. The cardinal features of the Imperial programme, were, inbrief: (1) Alsace-Lorraine should remain a dependency of the Empire;(2) sovereign authority therein should continue to be exercised by theKaiser, as the representative of the states, through his accustomedagent, the Statthalter at Strassburg; (3) the legislative functions ofthe Bundesrath and Reichstag in matters pertaining exclusively toAlsace-Lorraine should be terminated; and (4) such legislation shouldthereafter be enacted by a bicameral diet at Strassburg. The membersof the upper chamber of this diet, not to exceed thirty-six, were inpart to sit by _ex-officio_ right, but some were to be named bychambers of commerce and other professional and businessorganizations, and a maximum of one-half might be appointed by theEmperor, on nomination of the Bundesrath. The sixty members of thelower house were to be chosen by manhood suffrage, but electors overthirty-five years of age were to have two votes, and those overforty-five three. *310. The Bill Amended and Adopted, 1911. *--By those whose object wasthe procuring of statehood for Alsace-Lorraine, this plan waspronounced inadmissible. It did not alter the legal status of theterritory; neither, it was alleged, did it give promise of increasedlocal independence in law-making or administration. Conservatives, onthe other hand, objected to the provision which was made for manhoodsuffrage. After being debated in the Reichstag the measure was (p.  286)referred to a special committee, by which amendments were reportedto the effect that the territory should be created a state of theEmpire and the Statthalter should be appointed for life. The second ofthese amendments the Government refused positively to accept, but itwas agreed finally that the territory should be recognized assubstantially a state of the Empire, and, as such, should be allowedthree votes in the Bundesrath. Since 1879 the Statthalter had beenauthorized to send to the Bundesrath four "commissioners" who mightspeak when the subject under consideration touched the affairs ofAlsace-Lorraine, but might not vote. Since under the new arrangementthe three members representing Alsace-Lorraine were to be appointedand instructed by the Statthalter, who is himself practically thedelegate of the king of Prussia, the Bundesrath insisted upon andobtained the special stipulation (1) that the votes of Alsace-Lorraineshould not be counted in favor of the Prussian view of any questionexcept when Prussia should be able to procure a majority without suchvotes and (2) that they should not be counted for or against anyproposal to amend the Imperial constitution. The revised bill waspassed in the Reichstag, May 26, 1911, and in accordance with a decreeof August 26 the new constitution was put in operation September 1. *311. The Governmental System To-day. *--Supreme executive authority islodged, as before, in the Emperor. It is exercised, in the main, bythe Statthalter, who is appointed by, and holds office at the pleasureof, the Emperor. In the Statthalter are vested all the rights andprivileges in Alsace-Lorraine that hitherto have been held andexercised by the Imperial Chancellor. He appoints and instructs theplenipotentiaries in the Bundesrath, and Imperial orders and decreeshave legal effect only when signed by him. All laws require the assentof the Emperor and the two chambers of the diet, and the budget of theyear must be laid first before the lower chamber and must be acceptedor rejected in its entirety by the upper one. The Emperor has theright to summon, to adjourn, and to dissolve the chamberssimultaneously. Members of the popular branch are elected by directand secret ballot and majority vote by all male German citizenstwenty-five years of age who have resided in Alsace-Lorraine at leastthree years; except that a residence of one year qualifies teachersand occupants of official posts. The plural voting proposal containedin the Government bill of 1910 was abandoned. The first chamberelected under the new system--that chosen in October, 1911--containedtwenty-five Centre members, eleven Socialists, ten members of theNational Alsace-Lorraine group, [418] eight Liberal Democrats, and (p.  287)six Independents. The independent attitude promptly assumed by thebody elicited from the Emperor, in May, 1912, a threat that the newconstitution might be abrogated and Alsace-Lorraine incorporated withPrussia. The incident provoked a storm of criticism, and, outside therabid Pan-German press, the Imperial pronouncement was commented uponeverywhere adversely. [419] [Footnote 418: The party which had contended most vigorously for Alsatian autonomy. ] [Footnote 419: On the organization of Alsace-Lorraine prior to 1911 see Howard, The German Empire, Chap. 10; Laband, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reiches, §§ 67-69; P. Gerber, La condition de l'Alsace-Lorraine dans l'Empire allemand (Lille, 1906), and L'Administration en Alsace-Lorraine, in _Revue du Droit Public_, Oct. -Dec, 1909. On the problem of reform and the legislation of 1911 see R. Henry, La question d'Alsace-Lorraine, in _Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, Feb. 1 and March 16, 1904; P. Braun, Alsace-Lorraine--La réforme de la constitution, ibid. , Nov. 16, 1905, and Jan. 1, 1906; Alsace-Lorraine en 1908, ibid. , March 1, 1909; Alsace-Lorraine--les préludes d'une lutte nationale, ibid. , April 16, 1910; La constitution d'Alsace-Lorraine, ibid. , March 16, 1911; A. Wetterlé, L'Autonomie de Alsace-Lorraine, in _Le Correspondant_, Aug. 25, 1910, La nouvelle loi constitutionnelle de l'Alsace-Lorraine, ibid. , June 10, 1911, and Les élections en Alsace-Lorraine, ibid. , Nov. 25, 1911; Eccard, L'Autonomie de l'Alsace-Lorraine, in _Revue Politique et Parlementaire_, Nov. 10, 1910: G. Bruck, Die Reform der Verfassung von Elsass Lothringen, in _Annalen des deutschen Reichs_, 1911, I; and P. Heitz, La loi constitutionnelle de l'Alsace-Lorraine du 31 mai, 1911, in _Revue du Droit Public_, July-Sept. , 1911, containing French translations of the documents. See also _Annual Register_ for 1911, 328-332. ] PART III. --FRANCE (p.  289) CHAPTER XV CONSTITUTIONS SINCE 1789 I. A CENTURY OF POLITICAL INSTABILITY Among European states of the first order there is but a singlerepublic. In Great Britain the conspicuous success with which monarchyhas been tempered with democracy has left the partisans of therepublican style of government slender ground upon which to stand. Russia has as yet but partially emerged from a political status inwhich monarchy is both natural and inevitable. Germany and Italy, indays comparatively recent, achieved nationality through processesabsolutely conditioned upon monarchical leadership. And it is all butinconceivable that the heterogeneous nationalities of Austria-Hungaryshould thus long have been held together by any force less tangibleand commanding than the personality of a common sovereign. Although insome of these instances the functions ordinarily associated withmonarchy are more nominal than actual, the fact remains that in no oneof the greater European states, save France, has it as yet been foundexpedient, or possible, to dispense with royalty as an agency ofpublic authority. *312. The Multiplicity of Constitutions. *--The chain of circumstances bywhich the people of France have been brought to their presentrepublican form of government constitutes one of the most remarkablechapters in the history of modern Europe. After centuries ofgovernmental centralization, under conditions which enabled monarchyto do its best, and its worst, there came the gigantic disruption of1789, inaugurating a series of constitutional changes by which wasimparted to the political history of the French nation in thenineteenth century a more unsettled character than that exhibited bythe public economy of any other European state. France to-day isgoverned under her eleventh constitution since the fall of theBastille. All but one of the eleven have been actually in operation, during a longer or a shorter period. But, prior to the fundamental lawat present in effect, no one of these instruments attained itstwentieth year. Once having cut loose from her ancient moorings, thenation became through many decades the plaything of every current (p.  290)that swept the political sea. It is only within our own generationthat she appears definitely to have righted herself for a prolongedand steady voyage. The constitutional system of the Third Republic isa product, not of orderly evolution, but of disruption, experimentation, compromise. It represents a precarious balance whichhas been struck between those forces of radicalism and conservatism, of progress and reaction, for whose eternal conflict Francepre-eminently has furnished a theatre since 1789. Its connection withthe remoter past is very much less direct and fundamental than is thatof the governmental system of England, Russia, Austria-Hungary, or theScandinavian states. At certain points, however, as will appear, thisconnection is vital. And the relation of the constitution of 1871-1875to the several instruments by which it was more immediately precededis essential to be observed, because this body of fundamental lawcomprises but the latest in a series of devices through which Francesince 1789 has sought orderliness and stability in public affairs. Some of these devices were shaped under the preponderating influenceof radical democracy, some under that of monarchical reaction; but allare of interest and importance. For the purpose in hand it will besufficient to review briefly the principal aspects of the severalconstitutional systems whose devising or operation has contributedwith some directness to the political institutions and experience ofthe France of to-day. II. THE REVOLUTIONARY AND NAPOLEONIC ERA *313. The Constitution of 1791. *--During the decade which elapsedbetween the outbreak of the Revolution and the establishment of theConsulate there were in actual operation in France two successiveconstitutions: that of September 3, 1791, which was in effectsubverted by the uprising of August 10, 1792, and that of 5 Fructidorof the Year III. (August 22, 1795), terminated by the _coup d'état_ of18 Brumaire of the Year VIII. (November 9, 1799). The instrument of1791, essentially a compilation of measures voted during the years1789-1791, was prepared by a committee appointed by the NationalAssembly, September 15, 1789. [420] It was shaped, in the main, by menwho were desirous of preserving the form while destroying thesubstance of monarchy. At the head of the state was allowed to remainthe king, shorn, however, of many of his accustomed prerogatives andobliged to exercise under stringent restraint the few that were lefthim. "King of the French, " he henceforth was to be, "by the grace ofGod and the will of the nation. " The legislative body (_Corps (p.  291)législatif_) was made to consist of a single chamber whose 745members, chosen for a two-year term according to a system of indirectsuffrage, were distributed among the eighty-three newly createddepartments upon the three-fold basis of extent, population, andcontribution of direct taxes. [421] Only male citizens who had attainedthe age of twenty-five, and whose annual payment of direct taxes wasthe equivalent of three days' labor, were entitled to participate inthe choice of the electors, by whom, in turn, were chosen thedeputies. The powers of the legislative body were ample. In respect tomeasures generally, the king possessed only a suspensive veto; that isto say, any measure passed by three successive legislatures acquired, without the royal sanction, the force of law. Fiscal measures mightnot be vetoed at all. The king was given no power to prorogue or todissolve the legislative chamber, and without the assent of that bodyno proclamation of war, and no treaty, was valid. To it the ministersin charge of the six executive departments were made absolutelyresponsible. In conformity with prevailing ideas of the sovereignty ofthe people and the separation of powers, provision was made that alljudges should be elected popularly, as also all local administrativeauthorities. [422] [Footnote 420: A constitutional committee of five had been appointed the previous July 14; but, its recommendation proving unacceptable to the Assembly, it had resigned, September 11. ] [Footnote 421: Of the whole number of deputies, 247 were apportioned according to departmental areas and 249 according each to population and tax quotas. ] [Footnote 422: The texts of all French constitutions and fundamental laws since 1789 are printed in several collections, of which the best is L. Duguit et H. Monnier, Les constitutions et les principales lois politiques de la France depuis 1789 (Paris, 1898). Other serviceable collections are F. Hélie, Les constitutions de la France (Paris, 1880) and E. Pierre, Organisation des pouvoirs publics; recueil des lois constitutionnelles et organiques (Paris, 1902). For English versions see F. M. Anderson, The Constitutions and other Select Documents illustrative of the History of France, 1789-1907 (2d ed. , Minneapolis, 1908). The various constitutions are excellently summarized in M. Block, Dictionnaire général de la politique, 2 vols. (Paris, 1884), I. , 494-518. For the text of the constitution of 1791 see Duguit et Monnier, 1-35; Hélie, 268-294; Anderson, 58-95. For summary, Block, I. , 494-497. Dupriez, Les Ministres, II. , 253-269; Cambridge Modern History, VIII. , Chap. 7. ] *314. The Constitution of the Year I. (1793). *--The constitution of 1791was in operation rather less than a twelvemonth. The _Corpslégislatif_ elected under it, after precipitating war with Austria, gave way before the rising demand for the abolition of monarchy, called into being a constituent convention of 782 members, and votedits own dissolution. [423] September 21, 1792, the Convention met anddecreed the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of arepublic. [424] Mindful for the time of the purpose of its (p.  292)creation, the new assembly appointed, October 11, a committee of nineto which was intrusted the task of drafting a republican constitution. February 15, 1793, the committee reported, and June 24 the Conventionadopted an ultra-republican frame of government, the principalfeatures of which were an executive council consisting of twenty-fourmembers chosen by the legislative body from candidates named by thesecondary electors of the departments; a unicameral _Corps législatif_chosen indirectly by manhood suffrage for one year, with power toenact "decrees, " but only to propose "laws"; and an arrangementwhereby projected laws were to be communicated to primary assembliesof citizens to be voted upon after the principle of thereferendum. [425] [Footnote 423: The members of the Convention were elected by manhood suffrage, one of the last acts of the Legislative Body having been the repeal of the tax qualification required by the constitution of 1791. ] [Footnote 424: September 22 was reckoned the first day of the Year I. Of French liberty, and the fundamental law of June 24, 1793, was known as the constitution of the Year I. For an illuminating sketch of the rise of the republic see H. A. L. Fisher, The Republican Tradition in Europe (New York, 1911), Chap. 4. ] [Footnote 425: Text in Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, 66-78; Hélie, Les Constitutions, 376-384; Anderson, Constitutions, 171-184. Summary in Block, Dictionnaire Général, 497-498. ] *315. The Constitution of the Year III. (1795). *--By reason of theintensity of party strife within the Convention, and the criticalcondition of affairs generally, the constitution of 1793, althoughduly ratified by the people, was never put in operation. On the basisof a decree of December 4, 1793, the Convention maintained throughupwards of two years a revolutionary provisional government, and when, finally, in October, 1795, the body passed out of existence, it leftbehind it in the Constitution of the Year III. An instrument ofgovernment essentially different from the proposed instrument of 1793. The Constitution of the Year III. Was framed under a hurried order ofthe Convention by a committee of eleven. The Convention adopted thecommittee's plan with but few modifications, and when the project wassubmitted to a popular vote it was approved by the overwhelmingmajority of 1, 057, 390 to 49, 997. September 23, 1795, the new frame ofgovernment was solemnly promulgated. The instrument of 1795, like that of 1791, was introduced by aDeclaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, in which werestated succinctly the fundamental principles of the Revolution. Legislative power was henceforth to be vested in two chambersconjointly--a Council of Five Hundred and a Council of Elders--themembers of which should be chosen by the same electors, but underdiffering conditions of eligibility. The term of members of bothchambers was fixed at three years, and one-third of the membership wasrenewable annually. The franchise was broader than under the (p.  293)constitution of 1791, being extended now to all citizens overtwenty-one years of age who were able to read and write and whofollowed a trade or were liable to direct taxation; but the earliersystem of indirect election by means of electoral colleges wasretained. Upon the lower chamber alone was conferred the right ofinitiating legislation. The Elders, whose number was fixed at 250, might approve or reject, but were not permitted to amend, any measuresubmitted to them. Executive power was vested in a Directoryconsisting of five members chosen for a term of five years, one memberretiring annually. Directors were selected by the Council of Eldersfrom a double quota of nominees offered by the Council of FiveHundred. Aside from its creation of a plural, republican executive, the most notable feature of the constitution was its provision for theestablishment of a bicameral legislative system, until now generallyopposed by French reformers. [426] [Footnote 426: For the text of the constitution of 1795 see Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, 78-118; Hélie, Les Constitutions, 436-466; Anderson, Constitutions, 212-254. Summary in Block, Dictionnaire Général, 498-500. Cambridge Modern History, VIII. , Chap. 13; G. Dodu, Le parlementarisme et les parlementaires sous la Révolution, 1789-1799; origines du régime représentatif en France (Paris, 1911); Fisher, Republican Tradition in Europe, Chap. 5. ] *316. The Constitution of the Year VIII. (1799): Electoral System. *--Theconstitution of the Year III. Continued in operation from October, 1795, to Napoleon's _coup d'état_ of 18 Brumaire of the Year VIII. (November 9, 1799). In the course of a month and a half following theevent mentioned there was drawn up a new fundamental law, prepared inthe first instance largely by Napoleon and Sieyès, put into finalshape by two commissions composed each of twenty-five members of theold Councils, and subsequently ratified by popular vote. [427] Amendedfrom time to time by important organic enactments, the Constitution ofthe Year VIII. (December 13, 1799) comprised the fundamental law underwhich Napoleon ruled France until his abdication in 1814. [Footnote 427: In favor of the new constitution there were cast 3, 011, 007 votes; against it, 1, 562. ] The new instrument, in ninety-five articles, was much briefer than theone which it replaced, [428] but the scheme of government for which itmade provision was distinctly more complicated than that previously inoperation. In the main, the Napoleonic constitution dealt with threesubjects: the electoral system, the assemblies, and the executive. Nominally there was established a system of thoroughgoing manhood (p.  294)suffrage. But the conditions under which electoral powers were to beexercised rendered the plan very much less democratic than on thesurface it appeared to be. The scheme was one devised by Sieyès underthe designation of "lists of notables. " In each communal districtcitizens twenty-one years of age and inscribed on the civil registerwere authorized to choose one-tenth of their number to comprise a"communal list. " Those named on the communal list were to choose intheir department a tenth of their number, who formed a "departmentallist. " And, similarly, those whose names appeared on the departmentallist were to choose a tenth of their number, who formed a "nationallist. " From these three lists in order were to be chosen, largely bythe Senate, the public officials of the districts, the departments, and the nation. No electoral scheme has ever been devised which, whilegrounded upon the principle of manhood suffrage, more effectuallywithdraws from the people the actual choice of public officials, localas well as national. [429] [Footnote 428: The constitution of the Year III. , containing 377 articles, is one of the lengthiest documents of the sort on record. ] [Footnote 429: Under this system the primary electors numbered about 5, 000, 000; the district notables, 500, 000; the departmental notables, 50, 000; and the national list, 5, 000. ] *317. Constitution of the Year VIII: Organs of Government. *--Of nationalgovernmental bodies there were four. One was the Tribunate, consistingof 100 members, one-fifth of whom were renewable every year. Thefunction of the Tribunate was to discuss, but not necessarily to voteupon, legislative measures. A second was the _Corps législatif_, orLegislative Body, of 300 members, one-fifth being renewed annually. Tothis assembly was committed the power to vote upon, but not to debate, legislative measures. A third was the Senate, consisting at the outsetof sixty life members, to be increased through a period of ten yearsto eighty. The Senate was authorized to pass upon the constitutionalityof laws and to choose the Tribunes, the Legislators, and the Consulsfrom the national list. Its own ranks were to be recruited byco-optation from triple lists of candidates presented by theTribunate, the Legislative Body, and the First Consul. Finally, therewas the Council of State, whose organization was left purposelyindefinite. Its members were appointed by the First Consul, and theirbusiness consisted principally in the preparation and advocacy oflegislative and administrative measures. If under this scheme the legislative organs were weak, the executiveauthority was notably strong. Powers of an executive character werevested in three consuls, appointed by the Senate for ten years andindefinitely eligible. Upon the First Consul was conferred power topromulgate the laws, to appoint all civil and military officials, andto do many other things of vital importance. Upon the second and (p.  295)third consuls was bestowed simply a "consultative voice. " Provisionwas made for a ministry, and under the letter of the constitution noact of the government was binding unless performed on the warrant of aminister. But in point of fact the principle of irresponsibilitypermeated the Napoleonic régime from the First Consul himself to thelowliest functionary. The conferring upon Napoleon, in 1802, of theconsulship for life, and the conversion of the Consulate, in 1804, into the Empire, but concentrated yet more fully in the hands of asingle man the whole body of governmental authority in France. [430] [Footnote 430: The text of the constitution of the Year VIII. Is in Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, 118-129; Hélie, Les Constitutions, 577-585; and Anderson, Constitutions, 270-281. Summary in Block, Dictionnaire Général, I. , 500-505. Cambridge Modern History, IX. , Chap. 1. ] III. FROM THE RESTORATION TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1848 *318. The Constitutional Charter, 1814. *--May 3, 1814, --three weeksafter Napoleon's signature of the Act of Abdication, --the restoredBourbon king, Louis XVIII. , entered Paris. Already the Senate hadformulated a document, commonly known as the "SenatorialConstitution, " wherein was embraced a scheme for a liberalized Bourbonmonarchy. [431] Neither the instrument itself nor the authorship of itwas acceptable to the new sovereign, and by him the task of drafting aconstitution was given over to a commission consisting of threerepresentatives of the crown, nine senators, and nine members of theLegislative Body. The task was accomplished with despatch. June 4 thenew instrument, under the name of the Constitutional Charter, wasadopted by the two chambers, and ten days later it was put inoperation. With some modification, principally in 1830, it remainedthe fundamental law of France until the revolution of 1848. [Footnote 431: Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, 179-182; Anderson, Constitutions, 446-450; Block, Dictionnaire Général, I. , 505-506. ] The governmental system provided for in the Charter was in a number ofrespects more liberal than that which had prevailed during thedominance of Napoleon. At the head of the state stood the king, inviolable in person, in whose hands were gathered the powers ofissuing ordinances, making appointments, declaring war, concludingtreaties, commanding the armies, and initiating all measures oflegislation. But there was established a bicameral legislature, bywhich the king's ministers might be impeached, and without whoseassent no law might be enacted and no tax levied. The upper house, orChamber of Peers, was composed of a variable number of members namedby the crown in heredity or for life. [432] The lower, or Chamber (p.  296)of Deputies, consisted of representatives elected in the departmentsfor a term of five years, one-fifth retiring annually. [433] Provisionwas made for the annual assembling of the chambers; and although theproposing of laws was vested exclusively in the crown, it wasstipulated that either house might petition the king to introduce ameasure relating to any specific subject. The Charter contained acomprehensive enumeration and guarantee of the civil rights of Frenchcitizens. [434] [Footnote 432: By law of December 29, 1831, it was stipulated that only life peers might thereafter be appointed, and the king was required to take all appointees from a prescribed list of dignitaries. Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, 231-232. ] [Footnote 433: A law of June 9, 1824, stipulated that thereafter the Chamber of Deputies should be elected integrally for a period of seven years. Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, 211. ] [Footnote 434: The text of the Charter of 1814 may be found in Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, I. , 183-190; Hélie, Les Constitutions, 884-890; and, in English translation, in Anderson, Constitutions, 457-465, and University of Pennsylvania Translations and Reprints, I. , No. 3. Summary in Block, Dictionnaire Général, I. , 506-508. Cambridge Modern History, IX. , Chap. 18. ] *319. The Electoral System. *--The Charter prescribed thequalifications required of voters and of deputies, but did not definethe manner in which deputies should be chosen. The lack was suppliedby an election law enacted February 5, 1817. The system establishedwas that of _scrutin de liste_. Under it the electors--men of aminimum age of thirty who paid each year a direct tax of at leastthree hundred francs--were required to assemble in the principal townof the department and there choose the full quota of deputies to whichthe department was entitled. The system proved of distinct advantageto the liberal elements, whose strength lay largely in the towns, andin 1820 when the conservative forces procured control and inaugurateda general reaction a measure was adopted, though only after heateddebate, by which the arrangement was completely altered. Themembership of the Chamber was increased from 258 to 430 and for theprinciple of _scrutin de liste_ was substituted that of _scrutind'arrondissement_. Each arrondissement became a single-member districtand the electors were permitted to vote for one deputy only. In thismanner 258 of the members were chosen. The remaining 172 were electedat the chief departmental towns by the voters of the department whopaid the most taxes, an arrangement under which some twelve thousandof the wealthier electors became possessed of a double vote. Votingwas by ballot, but the elector was required to write out his ballot inthe presence of an appointee of the government and to place it in hishands unfolded. [435] [Footnote 435: Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, 206-209; Hélie, Les Constitutions, 934-936. ] *320. Liberalizing Changes in 1830-1831. *--Upon the enforced (p.  297)abdication of Charles X. In 1830 a parliamentary commission prepared arevision of the Charter, which, being adopted, was imposed upon thenew sovereign, Louis Philippe, and was continued in operation throughthe period of the Orleanist monarchy. The preamble of the originaldocument, in which language had been employed which made it appearthat the Charter was a grant from the crown, was stricken out. Suspension of the laws by the sovereign was expressly forbidden. Eachchamber was given the right to initiate legislation, theresponsibility of the ministers to the chambers was proclaimed, andthe sessions of the Peers, hitherto secret, were made public. Theintegral renewal of the Deputies, established in 1824, was continued, but the term of membership was restored to five years. The minimum ageof electors was reduced from thirty to twenty-five years, and ofdeputies from forty to thirty. Subsequently, April 19, 1831, a law waspassed whereby the suffrage--so restricted at the close of theNapoleonic régime that in a population of 29, 000, 000 there had been, in 1814, not 100, 000 voters--was appreciably broadened. The direct taxqualification of three hundred francs was reduced to one of twohundred, and, for certain professional classes, of one hundred. Bythis modification the number of voters was doubled, though theproportion of the enfranchised was still but one in one hundred fiftyof the total population, and it would be a mistake to regard thegovernment of the Orleanist period as in effect more democratic thanthat by which it was preceded. At the most, it was a government by andfor the well-to-do middle class. [436] [Footnote 436: For the act of the Chambers relative to the modification of the Constitutional Charter and to the accession of Louis Philippe, see Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, 213-218; Hélie, Les Constitutions, 987-992; and Anderson, Constitutions, 507-513. The electoral law of 1831 is in Duguit et Monnier, 219-230. Cambridge Modern History, X. , Chap. 15; G. Weill, La France sous la monarchic constitutionnelle, 1814-1848 (new ed. , Paris, 1912). ] IV. THE SECOND REPUBLIC AND THE SECOND EMPIRE *321. The Republican Constitution of 1848. *--With the overthrow of theOrleanist monarchy, in consequence of the uprising of February 24, 1848, France entered upon a period of aggravated politicalunsettlement. Through upwards of five years the nation experimentedonce more with republicanism, only at the end of that period to emergea monarchy, an empire, and the dominion of a Bonaparte. By theprovisional government which sprang from the revolution a republic wasproclaimed tentatively and the nation was called upon to elect, undera system of direct manhood suffrage, an assembly to frame a constitution. The elections--the first of their kind in the history of (p.  298)France--were held April 23, 1848, and the National ConstituentAssembly, consisting of nine hundred members, eight hundred of whomwere moderate republicans, met May 4 in Paris. During the summer thedraft of a constitution prepared by a committee of eighteen, was dulydebated, and November 4 it was adopted by a vote of 739 to 30. The Constitution of 1848 declared the Republic to be perpetual and thepeople to be sovereign. It asserted, furthermore, that the separationof powers is the first condition of a free government. In respect tothe organs of government it provided, in the first place, for alegislative assembly consisting of a single chamber of 750members[437] chosen integrally for three years, directly by secretballot on the principle of departmental _scrutin de liste_, and byelectors whose only necessary qualifications were those of age(twenty-one years) and of non-impairment of civil rights. [438]Executive powers were vested in a president of the Republic, electedfor a term of four years by direct and secret ballot, and by absolutemajority of all votes cast in France and Algeria. Under stipulatedconditions, e. G. , if no candidate should receive an absolute majorityand at the same time a total of at least two million votes, thepresident was required to be chosen by the Assembly from the fivecandidates who had polled the largest votes. Save after a four-yearinterval, the president was ineligible for re-election. Upon him werebestowed large powers, including those of proposing laws, negotiatingand ratifying treaties with the consent of the Assembly, appointingand dismissing ministers and other civil and military officers, anddisposing of the armed forces. With respect to the functions andpowers of the ministers the constitution was not explicit, and whetherthe instrument might legitimately be interpreted to make provision fora parliamentary system of government was one of the standing issuesthroughout the days of its duration. [439] [Footnote 437: Including representatives of Algeria and the colonies. ] [Footnote 438: Electoral law of March 15, 1849. Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, 247-265. ] [Footnote 439: Dupriez, Les Ministres, II. , 308-312. The text of the Constitution of 1848 is in Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, 232-246; Hélie, Les Constitutions, 1102-1113; and Anderson, Constitutions, 522-537. Summary in Block, Dictionnaire Général, I. , 510-513. Cambridge Modern History, XI. , Chap. 5; V. Pierre, Histoire de la république de 1848, 2 vols. (Paris, 1873-1878); P. De la Gorce, Histoire de la deuxième république française, 2 vols. (Paris, 1887); E. Spuller, Histoire parlementaire de la deuxième république (Paris, 1893); Fisher, Republican Tradition in Europe, Chap. 8. ] *322. From Republic to Empire. *--December 10, 1848, Louis Napoleon, nephew of the first Napoleon, was chosen president by an overwhelmingvote, and ten days later he assumed office. In May, 1849, an (p.  299)Assembly was elected, two-thirds of whose members were thoroughgoingmonarchists; so that, as one writer has put it, both the president andthe majority of the Assembly were, by reason of their very being, enemies of the constitution under which they had been elected. [440]The new order, furthermore, failed completely to strike rootthroughout the nation at large. In this state of things the collapseof the Republic was but a question of time. By an electoral law of May31, 1850, requiring of the elector a fixed residence of three yearsinstead of six months, the suffrage arrangements of 1849 weresubverted and the electorate was reduced by three millions, orvirtually one-third. [441] December 2, 1851, occurred a carefullyplanned _coup d'état_, on which occasion the Assembly was dissolved, the franchise law of 1849 was restored, and the people, gathered inprimary assemblies, were called upon to intrust to the President powerto revise the national constitution. [442] December 20, by a vote of7, 439, 216 to 640, 737, the people complied. Thereafter, thoughcontinuing officially through another year, the Republic was inreality dead. November 7, 1852, the veil was thrown off. A_senatus-consulte_ decreed a re-establishment of the Empire, [443] andby a plebiscite of eleven days later the people, by a vote of7, 824, 189 to 253, 145, sanctioned what had been done. December 2, Napoleon III. Was proclaimed Emperor of the French. [Footnote 440: Hazen, Europe since 1815, 201. ] [Footnote 441: The text of this measure is in Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, 265-268, and Hélie, Les Constitutions, 1149-1150. H. Laferrière, La loi électorale du 31 mai 1850 (Paris, 1910). ] [Footnote 442: Anderson, Constitutions, 538-543. ] [Footnote 443: Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, 290-292; Anderson, Constitutions, 560-561. ] *323. The Imperial Constitution, 1852. *--Meanwhile, March 29, 1852, there had been put in operation a constitution, [444] nominallyrepublican, but in reality strongly resembling that in force duringthe later years of Napoleon I. The substitution, later in the year, ofan emperor for a president upon whom had been conferred a ten-yearterm was but a matter of detail. A _senatus-consulte_ of December 25, made all of the necessary adjustments, and the constitution of 1852, with occasional modifications, remained the fundamental law of Franceuntil the collapse of the Empire in 1870. Upon the emperor wereconferred very extended powers. His control of the administrativesystem was made practically absolute. He commanded the army and navy, decided upon war and peace, concluded treaties, and granted pardons. He alone possessed the power of initiating legislation and of promulgatingthe laws. To him alone were all ministers responsible, and of (p.  300)such parliamentarism as had existed formerly there remained not avestige, Of legislative chambers there were two: a _Corps législatif_of 251 members elected by direct manhood suffrage every six years, anda Senate composed of cardinals, admirals, and other _ex-officio_members, and of a variable number of members appointed for life by theemperor. The powers of the Senate, exercised invariably in closeconjunction with the head of the state, were of some importance, butthose of the popular chamber were so restricted that the liberalarrangements which existed respecting the suffrage afforded but theappearance, not the reality, of democracy. [445] [Footnote 444: Drawn up by a commission of five, under date of January 14, 1852. ] [Footnote 445: The text of the constitution of 1852 is in Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, 274-280; Hélie, Les Constitutions, 1167-1171; Anderson, Constitutions, 543-549. Summary in Block, Dictionnaire Général, I. , 513-515. Cambridge Modern History, XI. , Chaps. 5, 10. ] *324. Constitutional Alterations, 1869-1870. *--Throughout upwards oftwo decades the illusion of popular government was maintained as wellas might be. The country was prosperous and the government, ifilliberal, was on the whole enlightened. Discontent, none the less, was not infrequently in evidence, and during especially the secondhalf of the reign the Emperor found it expedient more than once tomake some concession to public sentiment. In the later sixties he wascompelled to moderate the laws which dealt with the press and withpolitical meetings, and in 1869-1870 he was brought to the point ofapproving a series of measures which gave promise of altering in animportant manner the entire governmental system. One was a_senatus-consulte_ of September 8, 1869, whereby the sittings of theSenate were made public, the Legislative Body was given the right toelect all of its own officials, and the parliamentary system wasnominally re-established. [446] By reason of the fact, however, thatministers were not permitted to be members of either the LegislativeBody or the Senate, and that they were declared still to beresponsible to the crown, the effects of the last-mentioned feature ofthe reform were inconsiderable. By a _senatus-consulte_ of April 20, 1870, (approved by a plebiscite of May 8 following) there were adoptedstill more important constitutional changes. In the first place, theSenate, which hitherto had been virtually an Imperial council, waserected into a legislative chamber co-ordinate with the LegislativeBody, and upon both houses was conferred the right of initiatinglegislation. In the second place, the provision that the ministersshould be dependent solely upon the emperor was stricken from theconstitution, thus clearing the way for a more effective realizationof the parliamentary system of government. Finally, it was (p.  301)stipulated that the constitution should thereafter be modified onlywith the express approval of the people. [447] These reforms, however, were belated. They came only after the popularity of the Emperor hadbeen strained to the breaking point, and by reason of the almostimmediate coming on of the war with Prussia there was scantopportunity for the testing of their efficacy. [Footnote 446: Text in Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, 307-308; Hélie, Les Constitutions, 1314-1315; and Anderson, Constitutions, 579-580. ] [Footnote 447: The text of the measure of April 20, 1870, is in Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, 308-314; Hélie, Les Constitutions, 1315-1327; and Anderson, Constitutions, 581-586. Cambridge Modern History, XI. , Chap. 17; H. Berton, L'évolution constitutionnelle du second empire (Paris, 1900). An important larger work is P. De la Gorce, Histoire du second empire, 7 vols. (Paris, 1894-1905). ] V. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE THIRD REPUBLIC *325. The National Assembly. *--The present French Republic wasinstituted under circumstances which gave promise of even lessstability than had been exhibited by its predecessors of 1793 and1848. [448] Proclaimed in the dismal days following the disaster atSedan, it owed its existence, at the outset, to the fact that, withthe capture of Napoleon III. By the Prussians and the utter collapseof the Empire, there had arisen, as Thiers put it, "a vacancy ofpower. " The proclamation was issued September 4, 1870, when the warwith Prussia had been in progress but seven weeks. [449] During theremaining five months of the contest the sovereign authority of Francewas exercised by a Provisional Government of National Defense, withGeneral Trochu at its head, devised in haste to meet the emergency byGambetta, Favre, Ferry, and other former members of the Chamber ofDeputies. Upon the capitulation of Paris, January 28, 1871, electionswere ordered for a national assembly, the function of which was todecide whether the war should be prolonged and what terms of peaceshould be accepted at the hands of the victorious Germans. There wasno time in which to frame a new electoral system. Consequently theelectoral procedure of the Second Republic, as prescribed by the (p.  302)law of March 15, 1849, was revived, [450] and by manhood suffragethere was chosen, February 8, an assembly of 758 members, representative of both France and the colonies. Meeting at Bordeaux, February 12, this body, by unanimous vote, conferred upon thehistorian and parliamentarian Thiers the title of "Chief of theExecutive Power, " without fixed term, voted almost solidly for acessation of hostilities, and authorized Thiers to proceed with animmediate negotiation of peace. [Footnote 448: The best account of the beginnings of the Third Republic is that in G. Hanotaux, Histoire de la France contemporaine, 4 vols. (Paris, 1903-1909), I. There is an English translation of this important work by J. C. Tarver. A recent book of value is A. Bertrand, Les origines de la troisième république, 1871-1876 (Paris, 1911). Mention may be made also of E. Zevort, Histoire de la troisième république, 4 vols. (Paris, 1896-1901), I. ; C. Duret, Histoire de France de 1870 à 1873 (Paris, 1901); A. Callet, Les origines de la troisième république (Paris, 1889); F. Littré, L'établissement de la troisième république (Paris, 1880); L. E. Benoit, Histoire de quinze ans, 1870-1885 (Paris, 1886); F. T. Marzials, Léon Gambetta (London, 1890); and P. B. Ghensi, Gambetta: Life and Letters (New York, 1910). There is an interesting interpretation in Fisher, Republican Tradition in Europe, Chap. 11. ] [Footnote 449: Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, cxvi. ] [Footnote 450: Most of the disqualifications for voting which were enumerated in the law of 1849 were declared inapplicable in the present election. ] *326. The Problem of a Permanent Government. *--Pending a diplomaticadjustment, the Assembly was disposed to defer the establishment of apermanent governmental system. But the problem could not long be keptin the background. There were several possible solutions. A party ofLegitimists, i. E. , adherents of the old Bourbon monarchy, wasresolved upon the establishment of a kingdom under the Count ofChambord, grandson of the Charles X. Who had been deposed at therevolution of 1830. Similarly, a party of Orleanists was insistentupon a restoration of the house of Orleans, overthrown in 1848, in theperson of the Count of Paris, a grandson of the citizen-king LouisPhilippe. A smaller group of those who, despite the discredit whichthe house of Bonaparte had suffered in the war, remained loyal to theNapoleonic tradition, was committed to a revival of the prostrateempire of the captive Napoleon III. Finally, in Paris and someportions of the outlying country there was uncompromising demand forthe definite establishment of a republic. [451] In the Assembly themonarchists outnumbered the republicans five to two, and, although themembers had been chosen primarily for their opinions relative to peacerather than to constitutional forms, the proportion throughout thenation was probably about the same. The republican outlook, however, was vastly improved by the fact that the monarchists, having nothingin common save opposition to republicanism, were hopelessly disagreedamong themselves. [452] [Footnote 451: G. Weill, Histoire du parti républicain en France de 1814 à 1870 (Paris, 1900). ] [Footnote 452: Of pure Legitimists there were in the Assembly about 150; of Bonapartists, not over 30; of Republicans, about 250. The remaining members were Orleanists or men of indecisive inclination. At no time was the full membership of the Assembly in attendance. ] *327. The Rivet Law, 1871. *--As, from the drift of its proceedings, theroyalist character of the Assembly began to stand out in unmistakablerelief, there arose from republican quarters vigorous opposition tothe prolonged existence of the body. Even before the signing of thePeace of Frankfort, May 10, 1871, there occurred a clash between theAssembly and the radical Parisian populace, the upshot of which (p.  303)was the bloody war of the Commune of April-May, 1871. [453] Thecommunards fought fundamentally against state centralization, whetheror not involving a revival of monarchy. The fate of republicanism wasnot in any real measure bound up with their cause, so that after themovement had been suppressed, with startling ruthlessness, by theGovernment, the political future of the nation remained no less indoubt than previously it had been. Thiers continued at the post ofChief of the Executive, and the Assembly, clothed by its ownassumption with powers immeasurably in excess of those it had beenelected to exercise, and limited by no fixed term, gave not theslightest indication of a purpose to terminate its career. Rather, thebody proceeded, August 31, 1871, to pass, by a vote of 491 to 94, theRivet law, whereby the existing régime was to be perpetuatedindefinitely. [454] By this measure unrestricted sovereignty, involvingthe exercise of both constituent and legislative powers, was declaredby the Assembly to be vested in itself. Upon the Chief of theExecutive was conferred the title of President of the French Republic;and it was stipulated that this official should thereafter beresponsible to the Assembly, and presumably removable by it. Aquasi-republic, with a crude parliamentary system of government, thereafter existed _de facto_; but it had as yet absolutely noconstitutional basis. [Footnote 453: In March the Assembly had transferred its sittings from Bordeaux to Versailles. ] [Footnote 454: Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, 315-316; Anderson, Constitutions, 604-606. ] *328. Failure of the Monarchist Programmes. *--This anomalous conditionof things lasted many months, during the course of which Thiers andthe Assembly served the nation admirably through the promotion of itsrecovery from the ravages of war. More and more Thiers, who had begunas a constitutional monarchist, came to believe in republicanism asthe style of government which would divide the French people least, and late in 1872 he put himself unqualifiedly among the adherents ofthe republican programme. Thereupon the monarchists, united for themoment in the conviction that for the good of their several causesThiers must be deposed from his position of influence, brought aboutin the Assembly a majority vote in opposition to him, and so inducedhis resignation, May 24, 1873. [455] The opponents of republicanism nowfelt that the hour had come for the termination of a governmentalrégime which had by them been regarded all the while as purely (p.  304)provisional. The monarchist Marshal MacMahon was made President, acoalition ministry of monarchists under the Orleanist Duke of Brogliewas formed, and republicanism in press and politics was put under theban. Between the Legitimists and the Orleanists there was worked outan ingenious compromise whereby the Bourbon Count of Chambord was tobe made king under the title of Henry V. And, he having no heirs, theOrleanist Count of Paris was to be recognized as his successor. Thewhole project was brought to naught, however, by the persistentrefusal of the Count of Chambord to give up the white flag, which forcenturies had been the standard of the Bourbon house. The Orleanistsheld out for the tricolor; and thus, on what would appear to mostpeople a question of distinctly minor consequence, the survival of theRepublic was for the time determined. [456] [Footnote 455: Anderson, Constitutions, 622-627; A. Lefèvre Pontalis, L'Assemblée nationale et M. Thiers, in _Le Correspondant_, Feb. 10, 1879; A. Thiers, Notes et Souvenirs de 1870 à 1873 (Paris, 1903); J. Simon, Le gouvernement de M. Thiers (Paris, 1878); E. De Marcère, L'Assemblée nationale de 1871 (Paris, 1904). ] [Footnote 456: Marquis de Castallane, Le dernier essai de restauration monarchique de 1873, in _Nouvelle Revue_, Nov. 1, 1895. ] In the hope that eventually they might gain sufficient strength toplace their candidate on the throne without the co-operation of theLegitimists, the Orleanists joined with the Bonapartists and therepublicans, November 20, 1873, in voting to fix the term of PresidentMacMahon definitely at seven years. [457] By the Orleanists it wasassumed that if within that period an opportunity should be presentedfor the establishment of the Count of Paris upon the throne, thePresident would clear the way by retiring. The opportunity, however, never came, and the septennial period for the French presidency, established thus by monarchists in their own interest, was destined topass into the permanent mechanism of a republican state. [Footnote 457: Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, 319; Anderson, Constitutions, 630. ] VI. THE CONSTITUTION OF TO-DAY *329. Circumstances of Formation. *--Meanwhile the way was opening forFrance to acquire what for some years she had lacked completely, i. E. , a constitution. May 19, 1873, the minister Dufaure, in behalf ofthe Government, laid before the Assembly _projets_ of two organicmeasures, both of which, in slightly amended form, passed in 1875 intothe permanent constitution of the Republic. May 24 occurred theretirement of President Thiers, and likewise that of Dufaure, but inthe Assembly, the two proposed measures were none the less referred toa commission of thirty. Consideration in committee was sluggish, andthe Assembly itself was not readily roused to action. During thetwelvemonth that followed several _projets_ were brought forward, andthere was desultory discussion, but no progress. In the summer of (p.  305)1874 a new commission of thirty was elected and to it was intrustedthe task of studying and reporting upon all of the numerousconstitutional laws that had been suggested. The majority of thiscommission, monarchist by inclination, contented itself withproposing, in January, 1875, a law providing simply for thecontinuance of the existing "septennate. " Only after earnest effort, and by the narrow vote of 353 to 352, were the republican forces inthe Assembly able to carry an amendment, proposed by the deputyWallon, in which was made definite provision for the election of thePresident of the Republic, and therefore, by reasonable inference, forthe perpetuity of the Republic itself. [458] [Footnote 458: Anderson, Constitutions, 633. ] Before the year 1875 was far advanced the Assembly threw off itslethargy and for the first time in its history addressed itselfsystematically to the drafting of a national constitution. To thiscourse it was impelled by the propaganda of Gambetta and otherrepublican leaders, by fear on the part of the Legitimists andOrleanists that the existing inchoate situation would lead to aBonapartist revival, and by a new _modus operandi_ which was cleverlyarranged between the republicans and the Orleanists. Convinced that anOrleanist monarchy was, at least for a time, an impossibility, andpreferring a republic to any alternative which had been suggested, theOrleanist members of the Assembly gave their support in sufficientnumbers to the programme of the republicans to render it at lastpossible to work out for the nation a conservatively republicanconstitutional system. *330. Texts and General Nature. *--Of the organic laws which comprise theconstitution of France to-day five which date from 1875 are ofprincipal importance: (1) that of February 24, on the Organization ofthe Senate; (2) that of February 25, --the most important of all, --onthe Organization of the Public Powers; (3) that of July 16, on theRelations of the Public Powers; (4) that of August 3, on the Electionof Senators; and (5) that of November 30, on the Election of Deputies. Collectively, these measures are sometimes referred to as the"constitution of 1875. " Other and later constitutional enactments ofconsiderable importance include (1) the law of July 22, 1879, relatingto the seat of the Executive Power and of the two Chambers at Paris;(2) the law of December 9, 1884, amending existing organic laws on theOrganization of the Senate and the Election of Senators; and (3) lawsof June 16, 1885, and February 13 and July 17, 1889, respecting theElection of Deputies. [459] [Footnote 459: The original texts of these documents are printed in Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, 319-350, and Hélie, Les Constitutions, 1348-1456. For English versions see Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 286-319; C. F. A. Currier, Constitutional and Organic Laws of France, in _Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science_, March, 1893, supplement; and Anderson, Constitutions, 633-640. Albert Duc de Broglie, Histoire et Politique: Étude sur la constitution de 1875 (Paris, 1897); R. Saleilles, The Development of the Present Constitution of France, in _Annals of Amer. Academy_, July, 1895. ] Springing from the peculiar conditions which have been described, (p.  306)the handiwork of a body in which only a minority felt the slightestdegree of enthusiasm for it, the constitution of the French Republicis essentially unlike any instrument of government with which theEnglish-speaking world is familiar. It differs from the British inhaving been put almost wholly into written form. It differs from theAmerican in that it consists, not of a single document, but of many, and in that it emanated, not from a great constituent assembly, charged with the specific task of formulating a governmental system, but from a law-making body which in truth had never been formallyintrusted by the nation with even the powers of legislation proper, and had merely arrogated to itself those functions of constitution-framingwhich it chose to exercise. [460] It consists simply of organic laws, enacted chiefly by the provisional Assembly of 1871-1875, but amendedand amplified to some extent by the national parliament in subsequentyears. Unlike the majority of constitutions that went before it inFrance, it is not orderly in its arrangement or comprehensive in itscontents. It is devoid of anything in the nature of a bill ofrights, [461] and concerning the sovereignty of the people it hasnothing to say. Even in respect to many essential aspects ofgovernmental organization and practice it is mute. It contains noprovision respecting annual budgets, and it leaves untouched theentire field of the judiciary. The instrument lays down only certainbroad lines of organization; the rest it leaves to be supplied throughthe channels of ordinary legislation. [Footnote 460: Among French writers upon constitutional law there has been no small amount of difference of opinion as to whether the National Assembly is to be regarded as having been entitled to the exercise of constituent powers. For a brief affirmative argument see Duguit et Monnier, Les Constitutions, cxvii. Cf. Dicey, Law of the Constitution, 121, note. ] [Footnote 461: It is to be observed, however, that many authorities agree with Professor Duguit in his contention that although the individual rights enumerated in the Declaration of Rights of 1789 are passed without mention in the constitutional laws of 1875, they are to be considered as lying at the basis of the French governmental system to-day. Any measure enacted by the national parliament in contravention of them, says Professor Duguit, would be unconstitutional. They are not mere dogmas or theories, but rather positive laws, binding upon not only the legislative chambers but upon the constituent National Assembly. Traité de droit constitutionnel (Paris, 1911), II. , 13. ] *331. Amendment. *--It was the desire of all parties in 1875 that (p.  307)the constitutional laws should be easy of amendment, and indeed mostmen of the time expected the governmental system which was beingestablished to undergo, sooner or later, fundamental modification. Theprocess of amendment is stipulated in the law of February 25, 1875. [462] Amendments may be proposed by the President of the Republicor by either of the chambers of Parliament. When, by a majority ofvotes in each, the Senate and Chamber of Deputies declare a revisionof the constitutional laws necessary, the two chambers are required tobe convened in the character of a National Assembly, and amendmentsare adopted by absolute majority of this composite body. Contrary toearlier French practice, the exercise of constituent and of ordinarylegislative powers is thus lodged in the same body of men, the onlydifference of procedure in the two instances arising from thetemporary amalgamation of the chambers for constituent purposes. Thesole limitation that has been imposed upon the revising powers of theAssembly is contained in a clause adopted in an amendment of August14, 1884, which forbids that the republican style of government bemade the subject of a proposed revision. In point of fact, amendmentshave been few, although some, as that of December 9, 1884, modifyingthe methods of electing senators and those of June 16, 1885, andFebruary 13 and July 17, 1889, re-establishing single districts forthe election of deputies and prohibiting multiple candidatures, havebeen of a high degree of importance. [Footnote 462: Art. 8. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 288. ] CHAPTER XVI (p.  308) THE PRESIDENT, THE MINISTRY, AND PARLIAMENT I. THE PRESIDENT Under the French system of government functions of a purely executivenature are vested in the President of the Republic and the Ministry, assisted by a numerous and highly centralized body of administrativeofficials. The presidency had its origin in the unsettled periodfollowing the Prussian war when it was commonly believed thatmonarchy, in one form or another, would eventually be re-established. The title "President of the Republic" was created in 1871; but theoffice as it exists to-day hardly antedates the election of MarshalMacMahon in 1873. The character and functions of the presidency weredetermined in no small measure by the circumstance that by those whocreated the dignity it was intended merely to keep the French peopleaccustomed to visible personal supremacy, and so to make easier thefuture transition to a monarchical system. Counting Thiers, theRepublic has had thus far nine presidents: Adolphe Thiers, 1871-1873;Marshal MacMahon, 1873-1879; Jules Grévy, 1879-1887; F. Sadi-Carnot, 1887-1894; Casimir-Perier, June, 1894, to January, 1895; Félix Faure, 1895-1899; Émile Loubet, 1899-1906; Armand Fallières, 1906-1913; andRaymond Poincaré elected early in 1913. *332. Election and Qualifications. *--The President is chosen for sevenyears by an electoral college consisting of the members of the Senateand of the Chamber of Deputies, meeting at Versailles in NationalAssembly. The choice is by absolute majority of the combined body. Theconstitutional law of July 16, 1875, stipulates that one month, atleast, before the expiration of his term the President shall calltogether the National Assembly for the election of a successor. Indefault of such summons, the meeting takes place automatically on thefifteenth day before the expiration; and in the event of the death orresignation of the President the Chambers are required to assembleimmediately without summons. [463] There is no vice-president, nor (p.  309)any law of succession, so that whenever the presidential office fallsvacant there must be a new election; and, at whatever time and underwhatever circumstance begun, the term of the newly elected Presidentis regularly seven years. As upon the occasion of the assassination ofSadi-Carnot in 1894, a vacancy may arise wholly unexpectedly. Undereven the most normal conditions, however, the election of a Presidentin France is attended by no period of campaigning comparable with thatwhich attends a similar event in the United States. The Assemblyhabitually selects a man who has long been a member, and has perhapsserved as president, of one or the other of the chambers, who has hadexperience in committee work and, as a rule, in one or moreministerial offices, and who, above all things, is not too aggressiveor domineering. An election is likely to be carried through all stageswithin the space of forty-eight hours. The qualifications requisitefor election are extremely broad. Until 1884 any male citizen, regardless of age, affiliation, or circumstance, was eligible. In theyear mentioned members of families that have reigned in France weredebarred, and this remains the only formal disqualification. APresident is eligible indefinitely for re-election. [464] [Footnote 463: Art. 3. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 291. ] [Footnote 464: A. Tridon, France's Way of Choosing a President, in _Review of Reviews_, Dec. , 1912. ] *333. Privileges. *--The President is paid the sum of 1, 200, 000 francs ayear, half as salary, half to cover travelling expenses and theoutlays incumbent upon him as the official representative of thenation. He resides in the Palais de l'Élysée, where he maintains in ameasure the state and ceremony that ordinarily are associated onlywith monarchy. His dignity is safeguarded by special and effectivepenalties for insult and libel. Like the President of the UnitedStates, during his term of office he is exempt from the processes ofthe ordinary courts; but, like his American counterpart, he may betried by the Senate, on articles of impeachment presented by the lowerlegislative chamber. The President of the United States may beimpeached for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes andmisdemeanors"; the French President may be impeached for treason only. On the other hand, whereas the penalty that may be imposed upon theAmerican President by the judgment of the Senate is confined toremoval from office and disqualification to hold office, the Frenchconstitution fixes no limit to the penalty which may be visited upon aPresident convicted of treason. So far as the law is concerned, hemight be condemned to death. *334. Powers: Participation in Law-making. *--The President possessespowers which are numerous and, on paper at least, formidable. A (p.  310)first group pertains to the making of law. "The President of theRepublic, " says the constitutional law of February 25, 1875, "shallhave the initiative of laws, concurrently with the members of the twochambers. He shall promulgate the laws when they have been voted bythe two chambers; and he shall look after and secure theirexecution. "[465] The concurrent power of initiating legislation, exercised through the Ministry, is something that is not possessed bythe American President, who can do no more than suggest and recommendmeasures he deems desirable. The President of France, on the otherhand, possesses only a suspensive veto. He may remand a measure ofwhich he disapproves for fresh consideration by Parliament; but if itis re-enacted, by even a simple majority, it is incumbent upon him topromulgate it as law. If, however, the veto power is virtuallynon-existent, the President possesses an important prerogative in theright of issuing ordinances with the force of supplementarylegislation. These may be not merely executive orders in matters ofdetail, such as are issued by the President of the United States, butsweeping injunctions deemed essential to the enforcement of the lawsin general. The only limitation is that such ordinances must notcontravene the constitution or any enactment of the chambers. Thepower is one which, rather curiously, rests upon no expressconstitutional provision, but simply upon custom. The right which thePresident possesses, with the consent of the Senate, to dissolve theChamber of Deputies before the expiration of its term, therebyprecipitating a general election, may also be made the means ofexercising considerable influence upon legislative processes andachievements. [Footnote 465: Art. 3. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 286. ] *335. Powers: Executive and Judicial. *--As the head of the nationaladministration, the President appoints to all civil and militaryoffices connected with the central government. His appointments do notrequire ratification by the Senate, or by any other body. He may evencreate, by decree, new offices. And his power of removal from office, save in certain cases, is absolutely without restriction. Appointmentsand removals, however, are in practice made through the Ministry, andthe President has no patronage at his immediate disposal other thanthat of the posts in his own household. In respect to foreign affairsthe President's powers are more substantial. Like the AmericanPresident, he represents his country in the sending and receiving ofambassadors, ministers, envoys, and consuls, and in the negotiationand conclusion of treaties. Treaties affecting peace, commerce, territorial possessions, finances, or the status of Frenchmen inforeign countries, require the ratification of the chambers; otherscall for no such action, and even a foreign alliance may be (p.  311)concluded by the Executive working independently. On the militaryside, the President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces of thenation, military and naval. He may not declare war without the consentof the chambers; but through the conduct of foreign affairs he may atany time, very much as may the President of the United States, createa situation by which war will be rendered inevitable. Finally, thePresident is vested with the powers of pardon and reprieve, althoughamnesty may be granted only by law. [466] [Footnote 466: Dupriez, Les Ministres, II. , 358-372; J. Nadal, Attributions du président de la république en France et aux États-Unis (Toulouse, 1909). For a brief American discussion of the same subject see M. Smith, The French Presidency and the American, in _Review of Reviews_, Feb. , 1906. Cf. A. Cohn, Why M. Fallières is an Ideal French President, ibid. , July, 1908. ] II. THE MINISTRY *336. Importance in the Government. *--"There is, " says an English writerof the last generation, "no living functionary who occupies a morepitiable position than a French President. The old kings of Francereigned and governed. The Constitutional King, according to M. Thiers, reigns, but does not govern. The President of the United Statesgoverns, but he does not reign. It has been reserved for the Presidentof the French Republic neither to reign nor yet to govern. "[467] Theweakness of the French President's position arises specifically fromtwo clauses of the constitutional law of February 25, 1875. One ofthem stipulates that "every act of the President of the Republic shallbe countersigned by a minister. " The other provides that "theministers shall be collectively responsible to the chambers for thegeneral policy of the government, and individually for their personalacts. "[468] Under the operation of these principles the Ministrybecomes the real executive. Like the sovereign of Great Britain, thePresident can do no wrong, because the acts that are officially hisare in reality performed by the ministers, who alone (save in the caseof treason) are responsible for them. Chosen by the members ofParliament, the President belongs normally to the party group which isat the time in the ascendant, and by it he is kept in tutelage. Theleaders of this group are the ministers, and, in a very large measure, the President simply approves passively the policies of this body ofmen and signs and promulgates the measures which it carries throughthe chambers. [Footnote 467: Henry Maine, Popular Government (London, 1885), 250. ] [Footnote 468: Arts. 3 and 6. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 287. ] *337. Organization and Functions. *--Ministerial portfolios are createdby executive decree. Their number has been somewhat variable. In (p.  312)1875 there were nine. In 1879 there was created a tenth. Between 1881and 1887 there were eleven. To-day there are twelve, as follows: (1)Interior; (2) Finance; (3) War; (4) Justice and Public Worship; (5)Marine; (6) Colonies; (7) Public Instruction; (8) Foreign Affairs; (9)Commerce; (10) Agriculture; (11) Public Works and Posts, Telegraphs, and Telephones; and (12) Labor. Portfolios may be not only created butrearranged by simple executive decree, though of course the necessaryfinancial provisions are conditioned upon the approval of thechambers. The premier may occupy any one of the ministerial posts, oreven two of them at one time. He is named by the President, and he, acting with the President, designates his colleagues and allots tothem their respective portfolios. Usually, though not necessarily, theministers are members of the Senate or of the Chamber of Deputies, principally the latter. [469] Whether members or not, they have a rightto attend all sessions of both chambers and to take an especiallyprivileged part in debate. Ministers receive annual salaries of 60, 000francs and reside, as a rule, in the official mansions maintained forthe heads of the departments they control. [Footnote 469: In earlier days the ministers of war and of the marine were selected not infrequently from outside Parliament, but this practice has been discontinued. ] Collectively the ministers possess two sets of functions which areessentially distinct. The one they fulfill as a "council"; the otheras a "cabinet. " In the capacity of a council they exercise a generalsupervision of the administration of the laws, to the end that theremay be efficiency and unity in the affairs of state. In the event ofthe President's death, incapacitation, or resignation, the Council isauthorized to act as head of the state until the National Assemblyshall have chosen a successor. As a cabinet the ministers formulatethe fundamental policies of the Government and represent it in thechambers. The Council is administrative and is expressly recognized bylaw; the Cabinet is political and is not so recognized. In themeetings of the Council the President of the Republic not only sits, but presides; in those of the Cabinet he rarely even appears. Asidefrom the President, however, the two bodies, in personnel, areidentical. [470] [Footnote 470: Dupriez, Les ministres, II. , 332-357. A recent treatise of value is H. Noell, L'Administration centrale; les ministères, leur organisation, leur rôle (Paris, 1911). Mention may be made of L. Rolland, Le Conseil d'État et les réglements d'administration publique, in _Revue du Droit Public_, April-June, 1911; J. Barthélemy, Les sous-secrétaires d'état, ibid. ; P. Ma, L'organisation du Ministère des Colonies, in _Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, Sept. 1, 1910. ] *338. The Parliamentary System: Multiplicity of Parties. *--On paperFrance has to-day a parliamentary system of government substantiallylike that which prevails in Great Britain. The President's (p.  313)authority is but nominal. The real executive consists of the ministers. These ministers are responsible, collectively in general matters andindividually in particular ones, to the chambers, in reality to theChamber of Deputies. When defeated on any important proposition, theyresign as a body. Parliamentary government in France means, however, in practice, something very different from what it means across theChannel. The principal reason why this is so is to be found in thetotally different status of political parties in the two countries. InGreat Britain, while in later years small political groups have sprungup to complicate the situation, the political life of the nation isstill confined very largely to the two great rival parties, whichoppose to each other a fairly united front, and between which there isnot likely to be anything like fusion or affiliation. In France, onthe contrary, there is a multiplicity of parties and no one of them islikely ever to be in a position to dominate the Government alone. Theelection of 1910 sent to the Chamber of Deputies representatives of nofewer than nine distinct political groups. No ministry can be made upwith any hope of its being able to command a working majority in theChamber unless it represents in its membership a coalition of severalparties. A Government so constituted, however, is almost inevitablyvacillating and short-lived. It is unable to please all of the groupsand interests upon which it relies; it dares displease none; it endsnot infrequently by displeasing all. *339. Frequency of Ministerial Changes. *--It is from this condition ofthings that there arises the remarkable frequency with whichministerial crises and ministerial changes take place in France. Theministry of M. Poincaré, established in January, 1912, was theforty-fifth in the history of French parliamentarism since 1875--aperiod of but thirty-seven years. Between 1875 and 1900 but four yearselapsed without at least one change of ministry. Since 1900 changeshave been somewhat less frequent. The Waldeck-Rousseau ministry of1899-1902--the longest-lived since 1875--endured virtually threeyears; the Combes ministry of 1902-1905 lasted more than two years anda half; and the Clemenceau ministry of 1906-1909 fell but little shortof two years and nine months. None the less, a total of nineministries within the space of thirteen years means an average of butone year and a half to the ministry. It is but fair to say that theordinary "crisis" is not likely to involve a complete ministerialchange. Defeated in the Chamber, or unable to make progress, theministry as a body resigns; but, as a rule, many of the members areimmediately reappointed, with perhaps a change of portfolios. A certaincontinuity arises also from the fact that the subordinate (p.  314)officials in the various departments enjoy a reasonable fixity oftenure. Nevertheless the most obvious feature of parliamentarygovernment as it exists to-day in France, and in other continentalcountries, is its instability. Only where, as in England, there aretwo great parties, each possessing solidarity and sufficient strength, if returned to power, to support a homogeneous and sympatheticministry, can the more desirable results of the parliamentary systembe realized in full. There is as yet no evidence that such parties arein France in process of development. [471] [Footnote 471: A French scholar writes: "Power cannot pass alternately, as in England and the United States, from the party on one side over to the party in opposition. This alternation, this game of see-saw between two opposing parties, which certain theorists have declared to be the indispensable condition of every parliamentary régime, does not exist, and has never existed, in France. The reason why is simple. If the party of the Right, hostile to the Republic, should come into power, the temptation would be too strong for them to maintain themselves there by establishing an autocratic government, which would put an end to the parliamentary régime, as in 1851. The electors are conscious of this tendency of the Conservatives, and will not run the risk of entrusting the Republic to them. When they are discontented with the Republicans in power, they vote for other Republicans. Thus, new Republican groups are being ceaselessly formed, while the old ones fall to pieces. " C. Seignobos, The Political Parties of France, in _International Monthly_, Aug. , 1901, 155. On the French parliamentary system see Dupriez, Les Ministres, II. , 345-357, 373-461; E. Pierre, Principes du droit politique électoral et parlementaire en France (Paris, 1893). ] *340. Interpellation. *--The precariousness of the position occupied byFrench ministries is enhanced by the parliamentary device ofinterpellation. As in Great Britain, every member of the two chamberspossesses the right at any time to put to an executive head a directquestion concerning any affair of state which, without impropriety, may be made the subject of open discussion. A minister may not, however, be questioned without his consent, and the incidentordinarily passes without debate. In France, however, any member maydirect at a minister an interpellation, designed not to obtaininformation, but to put the Government on the defensive and toprecipitate a debate which may end in the overthrow of the ministry onsome mere technicality or other matter in itself of but slightimportance. The interpellation is a challenge. It is made the specialorder for a day fixed by the chamber, and it almost invariably resultsin a vote of confidence, or want of confidence, in the ministers. Asemployed in France, the interpellation lends itself too readily to theends of sheer factiousness to be adjudged a valuable feature ofparliamentary procedure. [472] [Footnote 472: Dupriez, Les Ministres, II. , 432-461. L. Gozzi, L'Interpellation à l'assemblée rationale (Marseilles, 1909); J. Poudra and E. Pierre, Traité pratique de droit parlementaire, 8 vols. (Versailles, 1878-1880), VII. , Chap. 4. ] III. PARLIAMENT: SENATE AND CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES (p.  315) *341. The Bicameral System. *--With the dissolution of the States Generalin 1789, France definitely abandoned a parliamentary system based uponthe mediæval principle of orders or estates. Throughout upwards of ahundred years, however, the scheme of parliamentary organization whichwas to take the place of that which had been cast aside continueduncertain. During the Revolution ultra-democratic reformers verygenerally favored the maintenance of a national assembly of but asingle house, and it was not until the promulgation of theconstitution of 1795 that a frame of government including provisionfor a legislature of two houses was brought into operation. Thebicameral system of 1795-1799 was succeeded by the anomalouslegislative régime of Napoleon, but under the Constitutional Charterof 1814 the two-house principle was revived and continuously appliedthrough a period of thirty-four years. The legislative organ of theSecond Republic was a unicameral assembly, but an incident of thetransition to the Second Empire was the revival of a Senate, andthroughout the reign of Napoleon III. The legislative chambers werenominally two in number, although it was not until 1870 that theSenate as a legislative body was made co-ordinate with the _Corpslégislatif_. On the whole, it can be affirmed that at the period whenthe constitution of the Third Republic was given form, the politicalexperience of the nation had demonstrated the bicameral system to bethe most natural, the safest, and the most effective. The openingstipulation of the Constitutional Law on the Organization of thePublic Powers, adopted February 25, 1875, was that the law-makingpower of France should be exercised by a national parliamentconsisting of (1) a Chamber of Deputies and (2) a Senate. The one, itwas determined, should rest upon a broadly democratic basis. The otherwas planned, as is customary with second chambers, to stand somewhatfurther removed from the immediate control of the voters of thecountry. But the two were intended to exist fundamentally to enactinto law the will of the people, in whom the sovereignty of the Frenchnation is clearly lodged. And even the most casual survey of theFrench governmental system as it operates to-day will impress the factthat the structure and organization of the parliamentary body havelent themselves to the usages of a democratic state in a measure evenexceeding that intended by the founders of the existing order. *342. The Senate as Originally Established. *--Having determined that theparliament should consist of two branches, the National Assembly, in1875, faced the difficult problem of constituting an upper chamber (p.  316)that should not be a mere replica of the lower, and yet should notinject into a democratic constitutional system an incongruous elementof aristocracy. The device hit upon was a chamber, seats in whichshould be wholly elective, yet not at the immediate disposal of thepeople. By the constitutional law of February 24, 1875, it wasprovided that the Senate should consist of three hundred members, ofwhom two hundred twenty-five should be elected by the departments andcolonies and seventy-five by the National Assembly itself. [473] Thedepartments of the Seine and of the Nord were authorized to elect fivesenators each, the others four, three, or two, as specified in thelaw. The senators of the departments and of the colonies were to beelected by an absolute majority and by _scrutin de liste_, by acollege meeting at the capital of the department or colony, composedof the deputies and general councillors and of delegates elected, oneby each municipal council, from among the voters of the communes. Senators chosen by the Assembly were to be elected by _scrutin deliste_ and by an absolute majority of votes. No one should be chosenwho had not attained the age of forty years, and who was not inenjoyment of full civil and political rights. The seventy-five electedby the Assembly were to retain their seats for life, vacancies thatshould arise being filled by the Senate itself. All other members wereto be elected for nine years, being renewed by thirds every threeyears. [Footnote 473: Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 288. ] *343. The Senate: Composition and Election To-day. *--The system thusdevised continues, in the main, in effect at the present day. Theprincipal variations from it are those introduced in a constitutionallaw of December 9, 1884, whereby it was provided (1) that theco-optative method of election should be abolished, and that, whilepresent life members should retain their seats as long as they shouldlive, all vacancies thereafter arising from the decease of suchmembers should be filled within the departments in the regular manner, and (2) that the electoral college of the department should bebroadened to include not merely one delegate from each municipalcouncil, but from one to twenty-four (thirty in the case of Paris), according to the number of members in the council. [474] By the samelaw members of families that have reigned in France were declaredineligible; and by act of July 20, 1895, no one may become a member ofeither branch of Parliament unless he has complied with the lawregarding military service. [Footnote 474: Ibid. , I. , 310. ] Few of the life members survive to-day. When they shall havedisappeared, the French Senate will comprise a compact body of threehundred men apportioned among the departments in approximate (p.  317)accordance with population and chosen in all cases by bodies ofelectors all of whom have themselves been elected directly by thepeople. The present apportionment gives to the department of the Seineten members; to that of the Nord, eight; to others, five four, three, and two apiece, down to the territory of Belfort and the threedepartments of Algeria, and the colonies of Martinique, Guadeloupe, Réunion, and the French West Indies, which return one each. Fromhaving long been viewed by republicans with suspicion, the Senate hascome to be regarded by Frenchmen generally as perhaps the most perfectwork of the Republic. [475] In these days its membership is recruitedvery largely from the Deputies, so that it includes not only many menof distinction in letters and science but an unusual proportion ofexperienced debaters and parliamentarians. A leading Americanauthority has said that it is "composed of as impressive a body of menas can be found in any legislative chamber the world over. "[476] Thesittings of the Senate, since 1879, have been held in the Palais duLuxembourg, a splendid structure on the left bank of the Seine datingfrom the early seventeenth century. [477] [Footnote 475: J. C. Bracq, France under the Republic (New York, 1910), 8. ] [Footnote 476: Lowell, Governments and Parties, I. , 22. But compare the view set forth in J. S. C. Bodley, France, 2 vols. (London, 1898), I. , 46-60. ] [Footnote 477: O. Pyfferoen, Du sénat en France et dans les Pays-Bas (Brussels, 1892). ] *344. The Chamber of Deputies: Composition. *--The 597 members of thelower legislative branch are chosen directly by the people, underconditions regulated by a series of electoral measures, principallythe organic law of November 30, 1875. [478] The franchise is extendedto all male inhabitants who have attained the age of twenty-one, andwho are not convicts, bankrupts, under guardianship, or in activemilitary or naval service. Of educational or property qualificationsthere are none. The only requirements are that the voter shall havehis name inscribed on the electoral lists and shall be able to prove aresidence of six months in the commune in which he proposes to casthis ballot. The conditions of the franchise are prescribed by thestate; but the keeping and the annual revision of the electoral listsdevolves upon the commune, and the lists are identical for communal, district, departmental, and national elections. The Frenchregistration system is notably effective and, as compared with theBritish, inexpensive. [Footnote 478: Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 302-308. ] *345. Electoral Unit and Parliamentary Candidacies. *--The electoral areain France is the arrondissement, an administrative subdivision of (p.  318)the department. Each arrondissement returns one deputy, unless itspopulation exceeds 100, 000, in which case it is divided intosingle-member constituencies, one for each 100, 000 or remainingfraction thereof. A fresh apportionment is made after eachquinquennial census, when to each of the eighty-six departments isallotted a quota of representatives proportioned to population. Thepresent method of election, under which the individual elector voteswithin his arrondissement or district for one deputy only, is known asthe _scrutin d'arrondissement_. Established in 1876, the _scrutind'arrondissement_ was employed until 1885, when, at the behest ofGambetta, a change was made to a system under which deputies for anentire department were voted for on a general ticket, as, for example, presidential electors are voted for in an American state. Thissystem--the so-called _scrutin de liste_--was maintained in operationonly until 1889, when the _scrutin d'arrondissement_ wasre-established. [479] [Footnote 479: Laws of June 16, 1885, and February 13, 1889; Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 316-318. ] The full membership of the Chamber is elected simultaneously, for afour-year term, save in the event that the Chamber shall be soonerdissolved. No nomination, or similar formality, is required of thecandidate. To be eligible, however, he must be a qualified voter andas much as twenty-five years of age. By law of November 30, 1875, state officials are forbidden to become candidates in districts wheretheir position might enable them to influence elections, and by act ofJune 16, 1885, members of families who have ever reigned in France aredebarred. All that is required of a person who, possessing therequisite legal qualifications, wishes to be a candidate is that fivedays before the election he shall deposit with the prefect of thedepartment within which the polling is to take place a declaration, witnessed by a mayor, of the name of the constituency in which heproposes to seek election. Even this trifling formality was introducedonly by the Multiple Candidature Act of 1889, by which it isstipulated that no person shall be a candidate in more than onedistrict. The French electorate is proverbially indifferent concerningthe exercise of the suffrage, but the methods of campaigning whichhave become familiar in other countries are employed systematically, and no small measure of popular interest is occasionally aroused. [480] [Footnote 480: "During the electoral period, circulars and platforms signed by the candidates, electoral placards and manifestoes signed by one or more voters, may, after being deposited with the public prosecutor, be posted and distributed without previous authorization. " Organic Law of November 30, 1875, Art. 3. ] *346. The Conduct of Parliamentary Elections. *--The electoral (p.  319)process is simple and inexpensive. Voting is by secret ballot, and theballoting lasts one day only. As a rule, the polling takes place inthe _mairie_, or municipal building, of the commune, under theimmediate supervision of an electoral bureau consisting of a president(usually the mayor), four assessors, and a secretary. The state doesnot provide ballot-papers, but one or more of the candidates may bedepended upon to supply the deficiency. The count is public and theresult is announced without delay. If it is found that no candidatewithin the district has polled an absolute majority of the votes cast, and at the same time a fourth of the number which the registeredvoters of the district are legally capable of casting, a secondballoting (the so-called _ballottage_) is ordered for one week fromthe ensuing Sunday. No one of the candidates voted for drops out ofthe contest, unless by voluntary withdrawal; new candidates, at evenso late a day, may enter the race; and whoever, at the secondballoting, secures a simple plurality is declared elected. Byobservers generally it is considered that the principle of the secondballot, in the form in which it is applied in France, possesses novery decisive value. Through a variety of agencies the centralgovernment is accustomed to exert substantial influence inparliamentary elections; but all of the more important politicalgroups have profited at one time or another by the practice, and thereis to-day a very general acquiescence in it, save on the part ofunsuccessful candidates whose prospects have been injured by it. IV. THE PROBLEM OF ELECTORAL REFORM *347. Scrutin de liste and scrutin d'arrondissement. *--Within recentyears there has arisen, especially among the Republicans andSocialists, an insistent demand for a thoroughgoing reform of theelectoral process. Those who criticise the present system are far fromagreed as to precisely what would be more desirable, but, in general, there are two preponderating programmes. One of these calls simply forabandonment of the _scrutin d'arrondissement_ and a return to the_scrutin de liste_. The other involves both a return to the _scrutinde liste_ and the adoption of a scheme of proportional representation. The arrondissement, many maintain, is too small to be made to servesatisfactorily as an electoral unit. Within a sphere so restricted thelarger interests of the nation are in danger of being lost to view andpolitical life is prone to be reduced to a wearisome round of compromise, demagogy, and trivialities. If, it is contended, all deputies (p.  320)from a department were to be elected on a single ticket, the electorwould value his privilege more highly, the candidate would be in aposition to make a more dignified campaign, and issues which arenational in their scope would less frequently be obscured by questionsand interests of a petty and purely local character. Professor Duguit, of the University of Bordeaux, who is one of the abler exponents ofthis proposed reform, contends (1) that the scheme of _scrutin deliste_ harmonizes better than does that of _scrutin d'arrondissement_with the fundamental theory of representation in France, which is thatthe deputies who go to Paris do so as representatives of the nation asa whole, not of a single locality; (2) that the _scrutin d'arrondissement_facilitates corruption through the temptation which it affordscandidates to make to voters promises of favors, appointments, anddecorations, and (3) that the prevailing system augments materiallythe more or less questionable influence which the Government is ableto bring to bear in the election of deputies. [481] It does not appearthat in the period 1885-1889 when the _scrutin de liste_ was inoperation the very desirable ends now expected to be attained by arestoration of it were realized; indeed the system lent itself morereadily to the menacing operations of the ambitious Boulanger than the_scrutin d'arrondissement_ could possibly have done. It is but fair, however, to observe that the trial of the system was very brief andthat it fell in a period of unusual political unsettlement. [Footnote 481: L. Duguit, Traité de droit constitutionnel, I. , 375-376. ] *348. Proportional Representation. *--In the judgment of many reformers asimple enlarging of the electoral unit, however desirable in itself, would be by no means adequate to place the national parliament upon athoroughly satisfactory basis. There is in France a growing demand forthe adoption of some scheme whereby minorities within the severaldepartments shall become entitled to a proportionate voice in theChamber at Paris. And hence a second programme of reform is that whichcalls not merely for the _scrutin de liste_, but also for proportionalrepresentation. Within the past two decades the spread of theproportional representation idea in Europe has been rapid. Beginningin 1891, the device has been adopted by one after another of the Swisscantons, until now it is in use in some measure in upwards of half ofthem. Since 1899 Belgium has employed it in the election of allmembers of both chambers of her parliament. In 1906 it was adopted byFinland and by the German state of Württemberg. In 1908 Denmark, inwhich country the system has been employed in the election of membersof the upper chamber since 1867, extended its use to elections in (p.  321)the municipalities. [482] In 1907 an act of the Swedish parliament(confirmed after a general election in 1909) applied it to electionsfor both legislative chambers, all parliamentary committees, andprovincial and town councils. In France there was organized in 1909, under the leadership of M. Charles Benoist, a ProportionalRepresentation League by which there has been carried on in recentyears a very vigorous and promising propaganda. The principalarguments employed by the advocates of the proposed reform are (1)that the effect of its adoption would be greatly to increase theaggregate vote cast in parliamentary elections, since electorsbelonging to minority parties would be assured of actualrepresentation; (2) that it would no longer be possible, as is nowregularly the case, for the number of voters unrepresented by deputiesof their own political faith to be in excess of the number of electorsso represented;[483] and (3) that a parliament in which the variousparties are represented in proportion to their voting strength can bedepended upon to know and to execute the will of the nation with moreprecision than can a legislative body elected after the principle ofthe majority system. [484] [Footnote 482: The first English-speaking state to adopt the system was Tasmania, where, after being in partial operation in 1896-1901, it was brought fully into effect in 1907. By an electoral law of 1900 Japan adopted it for the election of the members of her House of Commons. The plan was put in operation in Cuba April 1, 1908, and was adopted in Oregon by a referendum of June 1, 1908. ] [Footnote 483: It is the assertion of M. Benoist that this situation has existed unbrokenly since 1881. An interesting fact cited is that the notable Separation Law of 1905 was adopted in the Chamber by the votes of 341 deputies who represented in the aggregate but 2, 647, 315 electors in a national total of 10, 967, 000. ] [Footnote 484: Duguit, _op. Cit. _, argues forcefully in behalf of the proposed change. For adverse views, cogently stated by an equally eminent French authority, see A. Esmein, Droit Constitutionnel (5th ed. , Paris, 1911), 253. ] *349. The Government and Reform. *--During upwards of a decade thesuccessive ministries of France have been committed to the cause ofelectoral reform. In March, 1907, a special committee of the Chamberof Deputies (the _Commission du Suffrage Universel_), appointed toconsider the various bills which had been submitted upon the subject, reported a scheme of proportional representation whereby it wasbelieved certain disadvantages inherent in the "list system" ofBelgium might be obviated. Elections were to be by _scrutin de liste_and the elector was to be allowed to cast as many votes as there wereplaces to be filled and to concentrate as many of these votes as hemight choose upon a single candidate. [485] In November, 1909, theChamber of Deputies passed a resolution favoring the establishment (p.  322)of both _scrutin de liste_ and proportional representation, but no lawupon the subject was enacted, and at the elections of April-May, 1910, the preponderating issue was unquestionably that of electoral reform. According to a tabulation undertaken by the Ministry of the Interior, of the 597 deputies chosen at this time 94 had not declared themselveson electoral reform; 35 were in favor of no change from the existingsystem; 32 were in favor of a slightly modified _scrutind'arrondissement_; 64 were partisans of the _scrutin de liste_ pureand simple; 272 were on record in favor of the _scrutin de liste_combined with proportional representation; and 88 were known to be infavor of electoral reform, though not committed to any particularprogramme. The majority favoring change of some kind was thus notablylarge. [Footnote 485: The text of the proposed measure, in English translation, will be found in J. H. Humphreys, Proportional Representation (London, 1911), 382-385. ] *350. The Briand Programme. *--June 30, 1910, the Briand ministry broughtforward a plan which was intended as an alternative to the proposalsof the Universal Suffrage Committee. The essential features of itwere: (1) a return to _scrutin de liste_, with the department as theelectoral area, save that a department entitled to more than fifteendeputies should, for electoral purposes, be divided, and one entitledto fewer than four should be united with another; (2) an allotment ofone deputy to every 70, 000 inhabitants, or major fraction thereof; (3)the division of the total number of electors on the register within adepartment by the number of deputies to which the department should beentitled, the quotient to supply the means by which to determine thenumber of deputies returned to the Chamber from each competing ticket;(4) the determination of this number by a division of the foregoingquotient into the average number of votes obtained by the candidateson each competing ticket, thus introducing the element of proportionalrepresentation; (5) the making up of tickets in each department fromcandidates nominated by one hundred electors; (6) the restriction ofeach elector to a vote for but a single ticket; and (7) an extensionof the life of the Chamber from four to six years, one-third of themembers to be chosen biennially. In the ministerial declarationaccompanying the announcement of this scheme Premier Briand declaredthat the effect of the _scrutin d'arrondissement_ had been to narrowthe political horizon of the deputies; that the electoral area must bebroadened so that the interests of the nation may be made topredominate over those of the district; and that, while in a democracythe majority must rule, the Government was favorable to proportionalrepresentation in so far as the adoption of that principle can preventthe suppression of really important minorities. *351. The Electoral Reform Bill of 1912. *--In February, 1911, while theBriand Electoral Reform Bill was pending, there occurred a change (p.  323)of ministries. The Monis government which succeeded maintained, duringits brief tenure (March-June, 1911), the sympathetic attitude whichhad been exhibited by its predecessor, and at the beginning of theperiod the _Commission du Suffrage Universel_ laid before the Chamberthe draft of a new bill whereby the details of the proportional planwere brought back into closer accord with those of the Belgian system. During the period of the Caillaux ministry (June, 1911, to January, 1912) there was continued discussion, but meager progress. ThePoincaré ministry, established at the beginning of 1912, declared thatthe nation had expressed forcefully its desire for far-reaching reformand promised that, in pursuance of the work already accomplished bythe parliamentary commission, it would take steps to carry a measureof reform which should "secure a more exact representation forpolitical parties and lend those who are elected the freedom that isrequired for the subordination of local interests in all cases to thenational interest. " During the earlier months of 1912 consideration ofthe subject was pressed in the Chamber and July 10 the whole of theGovernment's Electoral Reform Bill was adopted by a vote of 339 to217. At the date of writing (October, 1912) the measure is pending inthe Senate. The bill as passed in the Chamber comprises essentiallythe Briand proposals of 1910. [486] Through the revival of _scrutin deliste_, with a large department or a group of small ones as the electoralarea, and with the device of representation of minorities added, (p.  324)the measure, in the event of its probable final enactment, willlargely transform the conditions under which the parliamentaryelections of to-day are conducted. [Footnote 486: The most systematic account of the electoral franchise in France since 1789 is A. Tecklenburg, Die Entwickelung des Wahlrechts in Frankreich seit 1789 (Tübingen, 1911). The French electoral system is described at length in E. Pierre, Code des élections politiques (Paris, 1893); Chaute-Grellet, Traité des élections, 2 vols. (Paris, 1897); M. Block, Dictionnaire de l'administration française (5th ed. , Paris, 1905), I. , 1208-1244. The literature of the subject of electoral reform is very extensive. Mention may be made of C. Benoist, Pour la réforme électorale (Paris, 1908); J. L. Chardon, La réforme électorale en France (Paris, 1910); J. L. Breton, La réforme électorale (Paris, 1910); C. Francois, La représentation des intérêts dans les corps élus (Paris, 1900); F. Faure, La législature qui finit et la réforme électorale, in _Revue Politique et Parlementaire_, Dec. 10, 1909; Marion, Comment faire la réforme électorale; ibid. , Feb. 10 and March 10, 1910; M. Deslanders, La réforme électorale, ibid. , July 10, 1910; A. Varenne, La réforme électorale d'abord, ibid. , Nov. 10, 1910; G. Lachapelle, La discussion du projet de réforme électorale, ibid. , May 10, 1912; F. Faure, Le vote de la réforme électorale, ibid. , Aug. 10, 1912 (contains the text of the Electoral Law); L. Milhac, Les partis politiques français dans leur programme et devant le suffrage, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, July 15, 1910; G. Scelle, La représentation politique, in _Revue du Droit Public_, July-Sept. , 1911; L. Marin, Le vote personnel, in _La Grande Revue_, March 25, 1911; and G. Trouillot, La réforme électorale au Sénat, ibid. , Sept. 25, 1912. The text of the bill of 1912 is to be found also in _Revue du Droit Public_, July-Sept. , 1912. On the question of proportional representation see G. Tronqual, La représentation proportionnelle devant le parlement français (Poitiers, 1910); F. Lépine, La représentation proportionnelle et sa solution (Paris, 1911); N. Saripolos, La démocratie et l'élection proportionnelle (Paris, 1900); G. Lachapelle, La représentation proportionnelle (Paris, 1910); ibid. , Représentation proportionnelle, in _Revue de Paris_, Nov. 15, 1910; ibid. , L'Application de la représentation proportionnelle, in _Revue Politique et Parlementaire_, Dec. 10, 1910. See also Anon. , La sophistication du suffrage universel, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, July, 1909, and May, 1910; E. Zevort, La France sous le régime du suffrage universel (Paris, 1894). The subject of proportional representation in France is fully discussed in a Report of the British Royal Commission on Electoral Systems (1910). Report, Cd. 5, 163; Evidence, Cd. 5, 352. ] CHAPTER XVII (p.  325) PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE--POLITICAL PARTIES I. ORGANIZATION AND WORKINGS OF THE CHAMBERS *352. Sessions. *--By the constitutional law of July 16, 1875, it isrequired that the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate shall assembleannually on the second Tuesday of January, unless convened at anearlier date by the President of the Republic, and that they shallcontinue in session through at least five months of each year. ThePresident may convene an extraordinary session, and is obligated to doso if at any time during a recess an absolute majority of bothchambers request it. The President may adjourn the chambers, but notmore than twice during the same session, and never to exceed onemonth. The sessions of the Deputies are held in the Palais Bourbon, situated in the immediate neighborhood of a group of ministerialbuildings at the end of the Boulevard St. Germain, directly across theSeine from the Place de la Concorde; those of the Senate, in thePalais du Luxembourg. The sittings are by law required to be public, though there is provision for occasional secret sessions. SinceJanuary 1, 1907, deputies have received 15, 000 francs a year(increased by law of November, 1906, from 9, 000); and they areentitled, on payment of a nominal sum, to travel free on all Frenchrailways. The emoluments of senators are identical with those ofdeputies. *353. Officers, Bureaus, and Committees. *--The presiding officer of theDeputies is known as the president. He is elected by the Chamber and, far from being a mere moderator, as is the Speaker of the BritishHouse of Commons, he is ordinarily an aggressive party man, notindisposed to quit the chair to participate in debate, and thereforebearing an interesting resemblance to the Speaker of the AmericanHouse of Representatives. Besides the president, there are fourvice-presidents, eight secretaries, and three questors, all chosen bythe Chamber. The vice-presidents replace the president upon occasion;the secretaries (of whom half must always be on duty when the Chamberis in session) supervise the records of the meetings and count thevotes when there is a division; the questors have in charge theChamber's finances. Collectively, this group of sixteen officialscomprises what is known as the "bureau" of the Chamber. It manages (p.  326)the business of the body during a session and, if need be, acts in itsname during a recess. Every month during the course of a session the entire membership ofthe Chamber is divided by lot into eleven other bureaus of equal size. These bureaus meet from time to time separately to examine thecredentials of members, to give formal consideration to bills whichhave not yet been referred to a committee, and, most important of all, to select one of their number to serve on each of the committees ofthe Chamber. In the case of very important committees, the bureaus maybe instructed by the Chamber to designate two members, or even three, each. Thus, the Budget Committee contains three representatives ofeach bureau. This committee and another constituted to audit theaccounts of the Government are created for a year. Others serve asingle month. Theoretically, indeed, every measure is referred to acommittee constituted specifically for the purpose; but practicallythe consequence of such a procedure would be confusion so gross thatthe greater committees, as those on labor, railways, and the army, areallowed to acquire some substantial measure of permanence. Committeepositions are quite generally objects of barter on the part of partygroups and leaders. [487] [Footnote 487: A. De la Berge, Les grands comités parlementaires, in _Revue des Deux Mondes_, Dec. 1, 1889. ] *354. Procedure. *--Immediately upon assembling, each of the chambersvalidates the elections of its own members, chooses its bureau ofpresident, vice-presidents, secretaries, and questors, and adopts itsown rules of procedure. At an early date the premier communicatesorally a "ministerial declaration, " in which are outlined the policiesto which the Government is committed; and certain of the measurestherein proposed are likely to take precedence in the ensuingdeliberations. The hall in which each body sits is semi-circular, withas many seats and desks as there are members to be accommodated. Inthe centre stands a raised arm-chair for the use of the president, andin front of it is a platform, or "tribune, " which every member whodesires to speak is required to mount. On either side of the tribuneare stationed stenographers, whose reports of the proceedings areprinted each morning in the _Journal Officiel_. The first tier ofseats in the semi-circle, facing the tribune, is reserved for theGovernment, i. E. , the members of the ministry; behind are ranged theremaining members of the Chamber, with the radicals on the president'sleft and the conservatives on his right. Of the bureaus into which, at the beginning of each month, the membersof each chamber are divided, there are, as has been said, eleven inthe Deputies; in the Senate there are nine. When a bill is (p.  327)introduced it is referred first of all to these bureaus, each of whichdesignates one or more commissioners, who, acting together as acommittee, are expected to make a careful examination of the measure. The report of this committee is printed and distributed, whereupongeneral discussion begins in the chamber. Every measure must pass tworeadings in each chamber, with an interval of five days, unlessotherwise ordered by a majority vote. A member wishing to take part inthe debate indicates his desire by inscribing his name on lists keptby the secretaries. On the motion of any member, the closure may beapplied and a vote ordered. The division may be taken by a show ofhands, by rising, or by a ballot in which a white voting paper denotesan affirmative, and a blue one a negative, vote. Voting by proxy, longpermitted, has been recently abolished. No decision is valid unless anabsolute majority of the members (151 in the Senate and 299 in theDeputies) has participated in the vote. In the upper branchproceedings are apt to be slow and dignified; in the lower they aremore animated, and not infrequently tempestuous. The duty of keepingorder at the sittings falls to the president. In aggravated cases heis empowered, with the consent of a majority of the chamber, toadminister a reprimand carrying with it temporary exclusion from thesessions. [488] [Footnote 488: A. P. Usher, Procedure in the French Chamber of Deputies, in _Political Science Quarterly_, Sept. , 1906; J. S. Crawford, A Day in the Chamber of Deputies, in _Gunton's Magazine_, Oct. , 1901; M. R. Bonnard, Les modifications du réglement de la Chambre des Députés, in _Revue du Droit Public_, Oct. -Dec. , 1911. The standard treatise on French parliamentary procedure is J. Poudra et E. Pierre, Traité pratique de droit parlementaire, 8 vols. (Versailles, 1878-1880. )] *355. Powers and Functions: the National Assembly. *--Speaking broadly, the functions of the French chambers are three-fold--constituent, elective, and legislative. The first two are required to be exercisedby the two houses conjointly. By the constitutional law of February25, 1875, there is provided the only means whereby the constitution ofthe Republic may be amended. "The chambers, " it is stipulated, "shallhave the right by separate resolutions, taken in each by an absolutemajority of votes, either upon their own initiative or upon therequest of the President of the Republic, to declare a revision of theconstitutional laws necessary. After each of the two chambers shallhave come to this decision, they shall meet together in NationalAssembly to proceed with the revision. The acts affecting revision ofthe constitutional laws, in whole or in part, shall be passed by anabsolute majority of the members composing the National Assembly. "[489]The power of constitutional amendment is therefore vested absolutelyin the parliamentary chambers, under the requirement simply that (p.  328)it be exercised in joint session. The only limitation that has beenimposed on parliamentary omnipotence in this direction is a clauseadopted in an amendment of August 13, 1884, to the effect that "therepublican form of government shall not be made the subject of aproposed revision. "[490] As in the British system, constituent andlegislative powers are lodged in the same body of men; and not merelythe powers of constitution-making, but the exclusive right topronounce upon the constitutionality or unconstitutionally oflegislation. The principal difference is that, whereas the BritishParliament exercises the sum total of its powers in an unvaryingmanner, the French, when acting in its constituent capacity, follows aspecially designed procedure. [Footnote 489: Art. 8. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 288. ] [Footnote 490: Art. 8. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 294. ] One other function the two chambers sitting conjointly possess, i. E. , that of electing the President of the Republic. Under normalconditions, the chambers are called together in National Assembly tochoose a President one month or more before the expiration of theseven-year presidential term. In the event of vacancy by death, byresignation, or by reason of any other unanticipated circumstance, themeeting of the Assembly takes place forthwith, without summons. [491]Election is by ballot, and by absolute majority of the members. Allmeetings of the National Assembly are held, not in Paris, but in theold royal palace at Versailles, which indeed was the sole seat of thepresent republican government until 1879. No elective session mayexceed in length the five months allotted to an ordinary legislativesession. [Footnote 491: Law of July 16, 1875, art. 3. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 291. ] *356. Legislation and Special Powers. *--The two chambers possessconcurrent powers in all that pertains to the initiation, theenactment, and the amending of laws, save that money bills must beintroduced in and passed by the Chamber of Deputies before beingconsidered in the upper branch. Except for this limitation, measuresmay be presented in either house, by the ministers in the name of thePresident, or by private members. The vast fabric of Napoleonic lawwhich has survived to the present day in France has narrowedperceptibly the range of legislative activity under the Republic. During the first generation after 1871 few great statutes wereenacted, save those of a constitutional character. In our own day, however, the phenomenal expansion of social and industriallegislation, which has been a striking feature of the public life ofmost European nations, has imparted a new vigor and productiveness toFrench parliamentary activity. Each of the chambers possesses certain functions peculiar to itself. Aside from the initiation of money bills, the principal such functionof the Deputies is the bringing of charges of impeachment against (p.  329)the President or ministers. The Senate possesses the exclusive powerto try cases of impeachment. It is given the right to assent or towithhold its assent when the President proposes to dissolve theChamber of Deputies before the expiration of its term. And by decreeof the President, issued in the Council of Ministers, it may beconstituted a court of justice to try any person accused of attemptsupon the safety of the state. [492] [Footnote 492: Y. Guyot, Relations between the French Senate and Chamber of Deputies, in _Contemporary Review_, Feb. , 1910. ] II. POLITICAL PARTIES SINCE 1871 *357. Republicans and Conservatives. *--In its larger aspects thealignment of political parties in France to-day dates from the middleof the nineteenth century. In the National Assembly of 1848--the firstrepresentative body elected in France by direct universalsuffrage--the line was sharply drawn between the republicans of theLeft, who wished to maintain the Republic and with it a liberalmeasure of democracy, and the reactionaries of the Right, who began byinsisting upon a restoration of clerical privilege and bourgeois ruleand ended, in the days of the Legislative Assembly, by clamoring for arestoration of monarchy itself. After the _coup d'état_ of 1851 bothgroups were silenced, though even in the politically stagnant era ofthe early Empire they did not lose altogether their identity. With therevival, however, after 1860, of a vigorous political life the twoworked together, and with success, to accomplish the overthrow of thepersonal government of Napoleon III. Upon the collapse of the Empirein 1870 the original cleavage reappeared. The National Assemblyelected in 1871 was divided broadly into Republicans and Conservatives(which name gradually replaced that of Reactionaries), and during thefive years covered by the life of this extremely important body thesetwo great groups struggled continuously over the supreme question ofthe day, i. E. , the style of government which should be adoptedpermanently for France. Each of the groups comprised a variety ofelements. To the Republicans belonged the Radical Extreme Left ofGambetta, the Left of Grévy, Freycînct, and Loubet, and the CentreLeft of Thiers and Jules Simon. To the Conservatives belonged theLegitimate Extreme Right, an Orleanist Centre Right, and, eventually, the Imperialists. Following the definite establishment, in 1875, ofthe republican constitution, the lines by which these various elementshad been marked off grew less distinct, and Republicans andConservatives acquired in each case a more homogeneous character. *358. Rise of the Radicals. *--After the first election under the (p.  330)new constitution--that of 1876--the Senate remained in the control ofthe Conservatives, but the Chamber of Deputies was found to contain aRepublican majority of more than two to one. From that day until thepresent the Republican ascendancy in the lower house has beenmaintained uninterruptedly; and since 1882 there has been likewisealways a Republican majority in the Senate. It is to be observed, ofcourse, that Republican control in both chambers has meant regularlynot the absolute dominance of a single compact party group, but thepreponderance of a coalition of two or more groups broadly to bedescribed as "republican. " During the early eighties there sprang up aflourishing group which, reviving the original programme of Gambetta, assumed the name Radical, and in the elections of 1885 this groupacquired such a quota of seats in the Chamber (150) as to render itimpossible for the Republicans alone to retain control. Thereafterthere were three principal party groups--the Conservatives and the tworepublican groups, the Republicans proper and the Radicals. No one ofthe three being sufficiently strong to obtain a majority which wouldenable it to rule alone, the politics of a long succession of yearsturned upon the adoption of one or the other of two lines oftactics--the coalition of the two republican divisions to the end thatthey might rule as against a Conservative minority (the so-calledpolicy of "republican concentration"), and the allying of one of thesegroups with the Right against the other Republican group (spoken ofcommonly as a "pacification"). The first "concentration" ministry wasthat of Brisson, formed in March, 1885; the first "pacification"ministry was that of Rouvier, formed in 1887. In the middle of thenineties some attempts were made to create and maintain homogeneousministries. The Bourgeois ministry of 1895-1896 was composed entirelyof Radicals and the Méline ministry of 1896-1898 of ModerateRepublicans. But at the elections of 1898 the Republican position inthe Chamber broke down and it was necessary to return, with the Dupuyministry, to the policy of concentration. Meanwhile, in the early nineties, from the Conservative and Republicanextremes respectively had been detached two new party groups. From theranks of the Conservatives had sprung a body of Catholics who, underpapal injunction, had declared their purpose to rally to the supportof the Republicans; whence they acquired the designation of the"Ralliés. " And from the Radical party had broken off a body ofsocialists of such consequence that in the elections of 1893 itsucceeded in carrying fifty seats. *359. The Bloc. *--A new era in the history of French political (p.  331)parties was marked by the elections of May, 1898. Some 250 seats, andwith them the effectual control of the Chamber, were acquired by theRadicals, the Socialists, and an intermediary group of Radical-Socialists. The Moderate Republicans, to whom had been given recently the name ofProgressives, were reduced to 200; while the Right retained but 100. The Socialists alone polled nearly twenty per cent of the totalpopular vote. The remarkable agitation by which the Dreyfus affair wasattended had the effect of consolidating further the parties of theLeft, and the _bloc_ which resulted not only has subsisted steadilyfrom that day to the present but has controlled very largely thepolicies of the government. The first conspicuous leader and spokesmanof the coalition was Waldeck-Rousseau, premier from 1899 to 1902, andits first great achievement was the separation of church and state, accomplished through the means of the Law of Associations of July 1, 1901, the abrogation of the Concordat, December 9, 1905, and the lawof January 2, 1907, restricting further the privileges of the RomanCatholic Church in France. A socialist now appeared for the first timein the cabinet. At the elections of April, 1902, the policies of theGovernment were vindicated by the return of 321 avowed "ministerialists"and of but 268 representatives of the opposition. *360. The Elections of 1906. *--June 3, 1902, the longest-lived ministrysince the Third Republic was established was brought to an end by thevoluntary retirement of Waldeck-Rousseau. The new premier, Combes, wasa member of the Radical party, and the anti-clerical, radical policiesof the preceding government were maintained throughout the ensuing twoand a half years, as also they were during the premiership of Rouvier(1905-1906). In March, 1906, a new ministry, in which Clemenceau wasactual chief, was formed with the Radical Sarrien as premier, and atthe elections which came two months later the groups of the Left wonanother signal victory. Prior to the balloting the majority in supportof the radical policy of the Government _bloc_ could muster in theChamber some 340 votes; afterwards, it could muster at least 400. TheRight retained its numerical strength (about 130), but the extremeLeft made decided gains at the expense of the moderates, orProgressives. The number of Progressive seats, 120 prior to theelection, was reduced by half; while the aggregate of Socialist andRadical-Socialist seats rose to 230. On all sides ModerateRepublicanism fell before the assaults of Socialism. At the same timeit was demonstrated unmistakably that the anti-clerical measures ofthe recent governments were in substantial accord with the will (p.  332)of the nation. October 25, 1906, Clemenceau assumed the premiership. *361. The Elections of 1910. *--The Clemenceau ministry, which surviveduntil July, 1909, adopted a programme which was more franklysocialistic than was that of any of its predecessors. It added to thesystem of state-owned railways the Great Western Line; it inaugurateda graduated income tax and put the measure in the way of enactment atthe hand of the Chamber; it carried fresh and more rigorouslegislation in hostility to clericalism; and, in general, it gave freeexpression to the unquestionable trend of the France of to-day awayfrom the individualism of the Revolutionary period in the direction ofthe ideals of collectivism. The Briand ministry by which it wassucceeded followed in the same lines, three of its members, indeed, being active socialists. Prior to the elections of April-May, 1910, there took place some readjustment of political forces, but, on thewhole, no change of large importance. The _bloc_, however, more thanonce showed signs of breaking up, and the majority of the party groupsarrived at the electoral season devoid of harmony and paralyzed byuncertainty of policy. The Radicals were divided upon the question ofthe income-tax; the Socialists, upon the question of the party'sattitude toward trade-unions; and all parties, upon the issue ofproportional representation. That the voters were no less bewilderedthan were the party leaders appeared from the fact that in 231constituencies--almost an unprecedented number[493]--second ballotingswere required. With the issues so confused, the results could hardlyprove of large significance. The lines which separate party groupsto-day in France are not infrequently both ill-defined and shifting, with the consequence that it is not possible to express party strengthby exact numbers, as may be done in the case of the parties of GreatBritain or of the United States. A deputy may even belong to twogroups at one time. The composition of the Chamber following theelections of 1910 can be stated, therefore, only approximately. Composing the Right were (1) the Right proper, 19; (2) the ActionLibérale Populaire--organized originally to combat the radicalism ofWaldeck-Rousseau, 34; (3) the Progressives, now to be identified withthe Right, 76--a total of 129. Identified with the Left were (1) theRepublicans, 73; (2) the Radicals, 112; and (3) the Radical-Socialists, 149--a total of 334. Comprising the Extreme Left were the Socialists(Independent 30; Unified, 75), aggregating 105. Finally, ofIndependents there were upwards of 20. The continued preponderance ofthe Left was assured, although to prolong their mastery of thesituation the Radicals and Radical-Socialists fell under the (p.  333)necessity of securing the support of either the Republicans or theIndependent Socialists. [494] [Footnote 493: Absolutely so, save for the _scrutin de liste_ election of 1885. ] [Footnote 494: The political history of the period since the elections of 1910 has been remarkable by reason chiefly of the absorption of public attention by the issues of electoral reform and labor legislation. Embarrassed by interpellations with reference to its ecclesiastical policy, the Briand ministry (reconstituted in November, 1910) retired in February, 1911. The Monis government which succeeded lacked coherence, as also did the ministry of Caillaux (June, 1911 to January, 1912). The cardinal achievement of the Poincaré ministry has been the carrying of the Electoral Reform Bill of 1912 in the lower chamber. See p. 323. ] *362. Changes since 1871. *--"The political history of France since thebeginning of the Republic, " says a scholarly French observer, "presents, instead of an alternation between two parties of opposingprogrammes, like those of Belgium or England, a continual evolutionalong one line, the constant growth of the strength of parties whichrepresent the democratic, anti-clerical tendency. "[495] Thefundamental division of Conservative and Republican persists, but bothof these terms have long since lost their original definiteness ofmeaning. The Conservatives have ceased, in large part, to be"reactionaries. " Few of them are even royalists, and the olddistinction of Legitimist, Orleanist, and Bonapartist has disappearedentirely. The Right is essentially "republican, " as is evidenced bythe further fact that the majority of its members in the Chamber areProgressives, whose forerunners composed the real Republican party ofa generation ago. The Republican groups of to-day comprise simplythose numerous and formidable political elements which are _more_republican--that is to say, more radical--than are the adherents ofthe Right. Among themselves, however, they represent a very widegradation of radicalism. [Footnote 495: C. Seignobos, The Political Parties of France, in _International Monthly_, Aug. , 1901, 155. ] *363. French Socialism. *--The history of socialism in France since 1871has been stormy. During the seventies proselyting effort was directedchiefly toward the influencing of the trade-unions to declare forsocialism. In 1879 the general trade-union congress at Marseilles tookthe desired step, but in the congress of the following year at Havrethere arose a schism between the "collectivists" and the"co-operatives" which in reality has never been healed. During theeighties and nineties the process of disintegration continued, andthere came to be a half-dozen socialist parties, besides numerouslocal groups of independents. During the years 1898-1901 continuedeffort was made to bring the various socialist elements into some sortof union, and in 1900 a national congress of all French socialistparties and organizations was held at Paris. An incident of the (p.  334)Dreyfus controversy was the elevation of an independent socialist, Étienne Millerand, to a portfolio in the ministry of Waldeck-Rousseau, and this event became the occasion of a new socialist breach. TheParti Socialiste Français, led by the eloquent Jaurès, approvedMillerand's opportunism; the Parti Socialist de France opposed. In1905, however, these two bodies were amalgamated in the PartiSocialist of the present day, with a programme which calls for thesocializing of the means of production and exchange, i. E. , thetransforming of the capitalistic organization of society into acollectivist or communistic organization. The means by which the partyproposes to bring about the transformation is the industrial andpolitical organization of the working classes. In respect to its aim, its ideals, and its means, the French Socialist party, while ready tosupport the immediate reforms demanded by laboring people, is to agreater degree than the German Social Democracy a party of classstruggle and revolution. In 1885, when the French socialists wagedtheir first campaign in a parliamentary election, the aggregate numberof socialist votes was but 30, 000. By 1889 the number had beenincreased to 120, 000; by 1898 to 700, 000; and by 1906 to 1, 000, 000. Atthe election of 1910 the popular vote was increased by 200, 000, andthe number of socialist deputies was raised to a total of 105. Withinrecent years socialism, formerly confined almost wholly to the townsand cities, has begun to take hold among the wage-earners, and eventhe small proprietors, in the rural portions of the country. [496] [Footnote 496: The best accounts in English of the French parties and party system are Lowell, Governments and Parties, I. , Chap. 2; Bodley, France, Book IV. , Chaps. 1-8; and C. Seignobos, The Political Parties of France, in _International Monthly_, Aug. , 1901. The last-mentioned is brief, but excellent. A valuable work is P. Laffitte, Le suffrage universel et la régime parlementaire (2d ed. , Paris, 1889). Among useful articles may be mentioned: J. Méline, Les partis dans la république, in _Revue Politique et Parlementaire_, Jan. , 1900; M. H. Doniol, Les idées politiques et les partis en France durant le XIXe siècle, in _Revue du Droit Public_, May-June, 1902; and A. Charpentier, Radicaux et socialistes de 1902 à 1912, in _La Nouvelle Revue_, May 1, 1912. On socialism in France see J. Peixotto, The French Revolution and Modern French Socialism (New York, 1901); R. T. Ely, French and German Socialism in Modern Times (New York, 1883); P. Louis, Histoire du socialisme français (Paris, 1901); E. Villey, Les périls de la démocratie française (Paris, 1910); and A. Fouillee, La démocratie politique et sociale en France (Paris, 1910). ] CHAPTER XVIII (p.  335) JUSTICE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT I. FRENCH LAW The law of France is of highly composite origin. Its sources lie farback in the Roman law, the canon law, and the Germanic law of theMiddle Ages. As late as 1789 there had been no attempt at a completecodification of it. Under the operation of a succession of royalordinances, criminal law, civil and criminal procedure, and commerciallaw, it is true, had been reduced by the opening of the Revolution toa reasonable measure of uniformity. The civil law existed still, however, in the form of "customs" (_coutumiers_), which varied widelyfrom province to province. A code of civil law which should beestablished uniformly throughout the realm was very generally demandedin the cahiers of 1789, and such a code was specifically promised inthe constitution of 1791. *364. The Code Napoléon. *--Toward the work of codification somebeginnings were made by the first two Revolutionary assemblies, butthe development of a coherent plan began only with the Convention. [497]In the period of the Consulate the task was continued and progress wasrapid. The governmental mechanism under the constitution of 1799 wascumbersome enough, but it was not ill adapted to the prosecution of aproject of this particular character. To a special commission, appointedby the First Consul, was intrusted the drafting of the codes, and theultimate decision of difficult or controverted questions fell to theCouncil of State, over whose deliberations Napoleon not infrequentlypresided in person. March 31, 1804, --less than two months before theproclamation of the Empire, --the new _Code civil des Français_ waspromulgated in its entirety. September 3, 1807, the instrument was givenofficially the name of the _Code Napoléon_. By a measure of 1818 theoriginal designation was restored; but a decree of March 27, 1852, revived the Napoleonic nomenclature. Since September 4, 1870, theinstrument has been cited officially simply as the _Code Civil_. Inarrangement the Code resembles the Institutes of Justinian. In (p.  336)content it represents a very successful combination of the two greatelements with which the framers had to deal, i. E. , the ancientheterogeneous law of the French provinces and the law which wasoriginated, or which was given shape, during the course of theRevolution. [Footnote 497: H. Cauvière, L'idée de codification en France avant la rédaction du Code Civil (Paris, 1911). ] With the progress of time certain defects have appeared in the Code, and since 1871 more than a hundred modifications, some important andsome otherwise, have been introduced in it. Upon the occasion of thecelebration, in 1904, of the centenary of its promulgation there wascreated an extra-parliamentary commission charged with the task ofpreparing a revision of the instrument. [498] In the main, the faultsto be corrected are those which have arisen inevitably from the growthof new interests and the development of new conditions since 1804, inrespect, for example, to insurance and to labor. In Belgium the CodeNapoléon survives to this day, and the codes of Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland, and many of the Latin American states are modelledupon it. [Footnote 498: The task of revision has not yet been accomplished. See La Code Civil, livre du centenaire (Paris, 1904)--a volume of valuable essays by French and foreign lawyers. ] *365. Other Codes. *--Aside from the Civil Code of 1804, containing anaggregate of 2, 281 articles, the larger part of the law of Franceto-day is comprised in four great codes, all drawn up and promulgatedduring the era of the Consulate and the Empire. These are: (1) theCode of Civil Procedure, of 1, 042 articles, in 1806; (2) the Code ofCommerce, of 648 articles, in 1807; (3) the Code of CriminalInstruction, of 648 articles, in 1808; and (4) the Penal Code, of 484articles, in 1810. [499] The last two codes were submitted to a generalrevision in 1832, and various supplementary codes, --e. G. , the ForestCode, of 226 articles, in 1827, --have been promulgated. But themodifications introduced since Napoleon's day have involvedprincipally mere details or the addition of subjects originallyomitted. No one of the codes represented at the time of itspromulgation a new body of law. On the contrary, all of them, andespecially the fundamental Civil Code of 1804, merely reduced existinglaw to systematic, written form, introducing order and uniformitywhere previously there had been diversity and even chaos. By theprocess the law of France was given a measure of unity and precisionwhich it had never before possessed, with the disadvantage, however, that it lost the flexibility and dynamic character that once hadbelonged to it. Throughout the past hundred years the whole of Francehas been a country of one written law--a law so comprehensive in (p.  337)both principles and details that, until comparatively recently, therehas seemed to be small room or reason for its modification. Thehistory of French parliamentary assemblies has been affectedperceptibly by the narrowing of the field of legislation arising fromthis circumstance. [500] [Footnote 499: M. Leroy, Le centenaire du code pénal, in _Revue de Paris_, Feb. 1, 1911. ] [Footnote 500: J. Brissaud, History of French Private Law, trans. By R. Howell (Boston, 1912). ] II. THE COURTS *366. The Ordinary Courts: Justice of the Peace. *--In French practicethe distinction which is drawn between private law and public law isso sharp that there have been built up two hierarchies of courts--theordinary and the administrative--each of which maintains practicallyexclusive jurisdiction within an independent field. The ordinarycourts comprise civil and criminal tribunals, together with certainspecial tribunals, such as the _tribunaux de commerce_. At the bottomstands the court of the justice of the peace (_juge de paix_) of thecanton. This tribunal was created by the first of the Revolutionaryassemblies and it has existed continuously to the present day. Thejustice of the peace takes cognizance of disputes where the amountinvolved does not exceed 600 francs, and of contraventions of lawpunishable by a fine not exceeding fifteen francs or imprisonment notbeyond five days. In civil cases involving more than 300 francs, andin criminal cases involving imprisonment or a fine exceeding fivefrancs, appeal lies to a higher tribunal. *367. The Courts of First Instance. *--Next above the court of thejustice of the peace stands the _tribunal de première instance_, or_tribunal d'arrondissement_. Of such courts there is, with a fewexceptions, one in each arrondissement or district. Each consists of apresident, at least one vice-president, and a variable number ofjudges, three of whom form a court with full powers. To each isattached a _procureur_, or public prosecutor. This tribunal takescognizance of all kinds of civil cases. In appeals from the justicesof the peace, actions relating to personal property to the value of1500 francs, actions relating to land to the value of sixty francs peryear, and all cases of registration, there lies no appeal from itsdecisions. The jurisdiction of the court in penal cases extends to alloffenses of the class known as _délits_ (misdemeanors), i. E. , offensesinvolving penalities which are heavier than those attached to thecontraventions dealt with by the justices of the peace, yet lessserious than those prescribed for crimes. When sitting as a criminalcourt, the court of first instance is known as a _tribunal (p.  338)correctionnel_, or "correctional court. " All of its judgments incriminal cases are subject to appeal. *368. The Courts of Appeal and of Assize. *--Above the courts of firstinstance are twenty-six _cours d'appel_, or courts of appeal, each ofwhich exercises jurisdiction within a territory comprising from one tofive departments. At the head of each is a president, and eachmaintains an elaborate _parquet_, or permanent staff of officials, inwhich are included several _procureurs-généraux_ and _avocats-généraux_. For the transaction of business the court of appeal is divided intochambers, or sections, each consisting of a president and four_conseillers_, or judges. The primary function of the court is thehearing of appeals, in both civil and criminal causes, from the courtsof first instance. Original jurisdiction is limited and incidental. Closely related to the courts of appeal are the _cours d'assises_, orcourts of assize. These are not separate or permanent tribunals. Everythree months there is constituted in each department, ordinarily inthe chief town thereof, a court of assize consisting of a speciallydesignated member of the court of appeals within whose jurisdictionthe department lies and two other magistrates, who may be choseneither from the remaining _conseillers_ of the court of appeals orfrom the justices of the local court of first instance. The courts ofassize are occupied exclusively with serious offenses, such as in thePenal Code are classified as crimes. In them, and in them only amongFrench tribunals, is the device of the jury regularly employed. A juryconsists of twelve men, whose verdict is rendered by simple majority. As in Great Britain and some of the American states, the jurorsdetermine the fact but do not apply the law. *369. The Court of Cassation. *--At the apex of the hierarchy of ordinarytribunals is the Court of Cassation. This court sits at Paris, and inall matters of ordinary private law it is the supreme tribunal of thestate. It consists of a first president, three sectional presidents, and forty-five judges. Attached to it are a procurator-general and sixadvocates-general. For working purposes it is divided into threesections: the _Chambre des Requêtes_, or Court of Petitions, whichgives civil cases a preliminary hearing; the Civil Court, which givesthem a final consideration; and the Criminal Court, which disposes ofcriminal cases on appeal. It is within the competence of the Court ofCassation to review the decisions of any tribunal in France, savethose of an administrative character. It passes, not upon fact, butupon the principles of law involved and upon the competence of thecourt rendering the original decision. A decision which is overruledis said to be _cassé_, i. E. , annulled. The purpose of the Court of (p.  339)Cassation is not alone to further the interests of justice, but alsoto preserve the unity of French jurisprudence. *370. Appointment and Tenure of Judges. *--All judges attached to theordinary tribunals are appointed by the President of the Republic, onthe recommendation, and under the responsibility, of the Minister ofJustice. With the exception of justices of the peace in France, and ofjudges of all grades in Algeria and the colonies, tenure of judicialoffice continues during good behavior; and, outside of the classesmentioned, no judicial officer may be dismissed without the consent ofthe Court of Cassation. There is, however, an age limit, varying withthe official grade, at which retirement is expected and virtuallyrequired. Justices of the peace and Algerian and colonial judges maybedismissed by the President. Salaries range from 1, 600 francs per yearin the case of the justice of the peace to 30, 000 in that of thePresident of the Court of Cassation. [501] [Footnote 501: The best treatise upon the French judicial system and upon proposed reforms of it is J. Coumoul, Traité du pouvoir judiciaire; de son rôle constitutionnel et de sa réforme organique (2d ed. , Paris, 1911). See Vicomte d'Avenel, La réforme administrative--la justice, in _Revue des Deux Mondes_, June 1, 1889; L. Irwell, The Judicial System of France, _Green Bag_, Nov. , 1902. ] *371. Administrative Law and Administrative Tribunals. *--Actions at lawarising out of the conduct of administration are brought, not in theregular courts connected with the Ministry of Justice, but in specialadministrative tribunals connected with the Ministry of the Interior. Administrative courts exist for the application of administrative law, and administrative law may be defined in brief as that body of legalprinciples by which are determined the status and liabilities ofpublic officials, the rights and liabilities of private individuals intheir dealings with the official representatives of the state, and theprocedure by which these rights and liabilities may be enforced. Theidea underlying it is that the government, and every agent of thegovernment, possesses a body of rights, privileges, and prerogativeswhich are sharply marked off from those of the private citizen, andthat the nature and extent of these rights and privileges are to bedetermined on principles essentially distinct from those which governin the fixing of the rights and privileges of citizens in relation oneto another. This conception is foreign to the English-speaking world, and neither Great Britain nor any nation of English origin possessesmore than here and there an accidental trace of administrative law. Among continental European states, however, the maintenance of a bodyof administrative legal principles--uncodified and flexible, but (p.  340)fundamental--is all but universal. In some states, as Belgium, therules of administrative law are interpreted and enforced by theordinary courts; but in others, as in France, they are dealt with byan entirely separate hierarchy of tribunals, made up of officials inthe service of the government and dismissable at any time by the headof the state. "In France, " as one writer puts it, "there is one lawfor the citizen and another for the public official, and thus theexecutive is really independent of the judiciary, for the governmenthas always a free hand, and can violate the law if it wants to do sowithout having anything to fear from the ordinary courts. "[502]Although not without precedent in the Old Régime, the distinctionbetween ordinary and administrative law in France was first clearlyestablished by Napoleon in the constitution of 1799, and the system ofadministrative courts erected under that instrument has survived inlarge part to the present day. [503] [Footnote 502: Lowell, Governments and Parties, I. , 58. ] [Footnote 503: It need hardly be explained that the First Consul's intention was that the ordinary judges should not be allowed to obstruct by their decisions the policies of the government. ] *372. The Council of State. *--The most important of the administrativetribunals is the _Conseil d'État_, or Council of State, a body whichonce possessed large functions of an executive and legislativecharacter, but whose influence to-day arises almost exclusively fromits supreme administrative jurisdiction. The Council of State iscomposed of 32 councillors _en service ordinaire_, 19 councillors _enservice extraordinaire_ (Government officials deputed to guard theinterests of the various executive departments), 32 _maîtres desrequêtes_, and 40 auditors. All members are appointed by, anddismissable by, the President. For purposes of business the body isdivided into four sections, each corresponding to a group of two orthree ministerial departments, and a fifth section which deals moredirectly with questions of administrative law. It is the function ofthe Council to consider and make reply to all questions relating toadministrative affairs which the Government may lay before it; and inall administrative cases at law it is the court of last resort. Belowit stands, in each department, a _conseil de préfecture_, orprefectural council, which is the court of first instance in alllitigation arising out of the application of administrative law. Aspecialized function of the prefectural council is the determining ofthe validity of arrondissement and municipal elections. [504] [Footnote 504: For an account of the administrative law of France see A. V. Dicey, The Law of the Constitution (7th ed. , London, 1908), Chap. 12. Important French works on the subject include H. Barthélemy, Traité élémentaire de droit administratif (5th ed. , Paris, 1908); H. Chardon, L'administration de la France, les fonctionnaires (Paris, 1908); G. Jèze, Les principes généraux du droit administratif (Paris, 1904); and J. L. Aucoc, Conférences sur l'administration et le droit administratif (3d ed. , Paris, 1885). Mention may be made also of E. J. Laferrière, Traité de la jurisdiction administrative et des recours contentieux (Paris, 1887-1888), and Varagnac, Le Conseil d'État et les projets de réforme, in _Revue des Deux Mondes_, Aug. 15, and Sept. 15, 1892. ] *373. Other Courts. *--Between the hierarchy of ordinary courts (p.  341)and that of administrative tribunals stand a variety of courts ofspecial character--courts of commerce, courts of accounts, courts ofpublic instruction. There is a _Tribunal des Conflits_, or Court ofConflicts, composed of the Minister of Justice, three members of theCourt of Cassation, three of the Council of State, and two elected bythese seven. Under the presidency of the Minister of Justice, itdetermines, in the event of doubt or dispute, the competentjurisdiction, ordinary or administrative, to be extended to aparticular case. Finally the fact may be recalled that to takecognizance of attacks upon the safety of the state, as well as for thetrial of an impeachment proceeding, the Senate may be constituted ahigh court of justice. III. LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DEVELOPMENT SINCE 1789 *374. Stability of Local Institutions. *--Students of political scienceare familiar with the fact that governmental systems are, as a rule, less stable at the top than at the bottom. Local institutions, embedded in the interests of the community and supported by the nativeconservatism of the ordinary man, strike root deeply; the central, national agencies of law-making and of administration are played uponby larger, more unsettling forces, with the consequence of greatlyincreased likelihood of change. Of this principle the history ofmodern France affords notable illustration. Throughout a century ofthe most remarkable instability in the organization of the centralgovernment of the nation the scheme of local government which operatesat the present day has been preserved almost intact. The origins ofit, it is true, are to be traced to revolution. In most of itsessentials it was created by the National Assembly of 1789 and byNapoleon, and it rose upon the wreckage of a system whose operationhad been extended through many centuries of Capetian and Bourbon rule. Once established, however, it proved sufficiently workable to beperpetuated under every one of the governmental régimes which, between1800 and the present day, have filled their successive places in thehistory of the nation. *375. Local Government Under the Old Régime. *--Prior to the Revolutionthe French administrative system was centralized and bureaucratic, butheterogeneous and notoriously ineffective. The provinces had ceasedalmost completely to be political units. In but few of them did (p.  342)the ancient assembly of the estates survive, and nowhere did itpossess more than merely formal administrative powers. The "governments"of later times, corresponding roughly to the provinces, had fallenlikewise into desuetude and the governors had become inactivepensioners. Of political units possessing some vitality there were buttwo--the _généralité_ and the commune. The _généralité_ was thejurisdiction of a royal officer known as an _intendant_, to whom wasassigned the conduct of every kind of administrative business. Thenumber of _généralités_ in the kingdom varied from thirty to forty. The commune was an irreducible local unit whose history was unbrokenfrom the era of Roman dominion in Gaul. Its constitution in theeighteenth century was in appearance democratic. To the communalassembly belonged all persons who were liable to the _taille_, andthis body elected communal officers, cared for communal property, andregulated local affairs. In point of fact, however, the measure ofreal independence which the assembly enjoyed was meager. The_intendant_ dictated or controlled virtually its every act. Of truelocal government it may be said that in pre-revolutionary France therewas little or none. [505] [Footnote 505: A. Babeau, La ville sous l'ancien régime (Paris, 1880); A. Luchaire, Les communes françaises (Paris, 1890); H. Barthélemy, Traité de droit administratif (5th ed. , Paris, 1908); A. Esmein, Histoire du droit français (8th ed. , Paris, 1908). ] *376. The Reconstitution of 1789-1791. *--One of the earlier performancesof the National Assembly of 1789 was to sweep away relentlessly theadministrative system of the Old Régime and to substitute therefor anorder which was all but entirely new. The communes, to the number ofupwards of forty-four thousand, were retained. But the provinces andthe _généralités_ were abolished and in their places was erected asystem of departments, districts, and cantons. For historic boundarylines, physical demarcations, and social cleavages only incidentalallowance was made. Eighty-three departments in all were created. Ineach there were, on an average, six or seven districts, and in each ofthese an average of eight or nine cantons. The cantons, in turn, weremade up of widely varying numbers of communes. The most strikingaspects of the system were its symmetry and its detachment fromhistory and tradition. Departments, districts, and cantons presented, and were intended to present, a _tabula rasa_ upon which thelaw-makers of France might impress any pattern whatsoever. For the time being the ideal of democracy was predominant, and by themeasures of 1789, re-enforced by the constitution of 1791, the entireadministration of local affairs was transferred at a stroke from theagents of the crown to the elected representatives of the newgovernmental units. In the department was established an (p.  343)administrative group consisting of thirty-six persons, elected for aterm of two years, and divided into an executive directory of nine anda deliberative council of twenty-seven. In the district wasestablished a similar, but smaller, elective directory and council, and in the commune provision was made for the election, under abroadly democratic franchise, of a mayor and a council. The canton wasnot employed for administrative purposes. [506] [Footnote 506: For the text of the Décret sur les Municipalités of December 14, 1789, see Hélie; Constitutions, 59-72. An English version is in Anderson, Constitutions, 24-33. ] *377. The Revival of Centralization, 1795-1800. *--Experience proved, that in the direction both of democracy and of decentralization thereformers had gone too far. With the re-establishment of orderfollowing the close of the Revolution proper, in 1795, there wasrevived the rule of official experts, together with the maintenanceover the local administrative organs of a highly centralizedsupervision. The Constitution of the Year III. (1795), whileperpetuating the elective principle in respect to local officers, replaced the commune by the canton as the basal administrative unitand made provision in a variety of ways for the effective control oflocal affairs by the national Directory. [507] Under the Napoleonicrégime, established in 1799-1800, the centralizing process was carriedyet further. The canton was reduced to the status of a judicialdistrict and the commune was restored as the basal administrativeunit;[508] but it was stipulated that the mayor, the _adjoints_, ordeputies, and the council of the commune should be no longer elective, but should be appointed by the central government, directly or by itsdepartmental agents. By law of February 17, 1800, there wasestablished in each department a prefect, appointed by the FirstConsul, responsible only to him, and endowed with functions scarcelyless comprehensive than, in the days of the Old Régime, had been thoseexercised by the _intendant_. The general council of the departmentwas perpetuated, but its sixteen to twenty-four members werehenceforth to be named for a term of three years by the First Consul. Each department, furthermore, was divided for administrative purposesinto _arrondissements_, within each, of which were established asub-prefect and a council of eleven members, likewise appointive. Thearrondissement represented substantially a revival of the district, established by law of December 22, 1789, and extinguished by theconstitution of 1795. The sub-prefect served as a local deputy of theprefect, and one of his principal duties was to assist in the (p.  344)continuous and close supervision of the affairs of the communes withinhis jurisdiction. [509] [Footnote 507: Anderson, Constitutions, 233-236. The canton, suppressed by law of June 26, 1793, was now revived. ] [Footnote 508: The number of communes was reduced at this time from 44, 000 to 36, 000. ] [Footnote 509: Anderson, Constitutions, 283-288. G. Alix, Les origines du système administratif français, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, July-Nov. , 1899. ] *378. From Napoleon to the Third Republic. *--The Napoleonicadministrative system--simple, symmetrical, bureaucratic, andabsolutely centralized--has persisted in France, in a large measure, to the present day. [510] The most important modifications that havebeen introduced in it are those which have arisen from a cautiousrevival of the elective principle in the constitution of the variouslocal governmental bodies. The fall of Napoleon brought no change ofconsequence, and none ensued until after the revolution of 1830. Inthe days of the Orleanist monarchy, however, the rigor of theNapoleonic system was in some measure relaxed. A law of 1831 made themunicipal council elective, one of 1833 did the same thing for thecouncils of the department and the arrondissement, and both measuresestablished a fairly liberal arrangement in respect to the localfranchise. In 1838 the powers of the two councils were materiallyincreased. [511] [Footnote 510: Its influence upon the administrative systems of other countries--Belgium, Italy, Spain, and even Greece, Japan, and various Latin American states--has been profound. "Judged by its qualities of permanence and by its influence abroad, the law of 1800 is one of the best examples of Bonaparte's creative statesmanship, taking rank with the Code and with the Concordat among his enduring non-military achievements. If, in the nineteenth century, England has been the mother of parliaments and has exercised a dominant influence upon the evolution of national governments, France has had an equally important rôle in moulding systems of local administration among the nations. " Munro, Government of European Cities, 7. ] [Footnote 511: The texts of these acts are in Hélie, Constitutions, 1019-1050. ] At the establishment, in 1848, of the Second Republic, the essentialsof the administrative system then prevailing were retained. It wasenacted merely that the various councils should be elected on a basisof manhood suffrage, and that in communes of fewer than six thousandinhabitants the council should be permitted to elect the mayor and thedeputies, while in the larger ones appointment should be made asheretofore by the central authorities. With the conversion, in1851-52, of the Second Republic into the Second Empire, thisdecentralizing tendency suffered a distinct check. Throughout thereign of Napoleon III. The communal council continued to be elected, at least nominally, upon the principle of manhood suffrage; but sothoroughgoing was the prefectorial supervision that there remained tothe councils very little of initiative or independence of action. Eventhe privilege which the smaller communes possessed of choosing theirown mayors was speedily lost, while by a decree of March 25, 1852, thepowers of the prefect in communal affairs were substantially (p.  345)extended. Many matters pertaining to departmental and communalinterests which this official had been accustomed to refer to theauthorities at Paris he was now authorized to dispose of at his owndiscretion. Throughout the Second Empire the prefect, more truly thanever before, was the pivot of the administrative system. Despite thesurvival of elective councils in the departments, the arrondissements, and the communes, local autonomy all but disappeared. *379. Changes Under the Third Republic. *--Upon the establishment of theThird Republic the Napoleonic system was discontinued in only some ofits more arbitrary aspects. The National Assembly of 1871 revivedtentatively the scheme laid down in the constitution of 1848, savethat once again the councils of smaller communes were authorized toelect the mayors and deputies. Even at such a time of unsettlement, when the liberal elements were insistent upon changes that werefundamental, there was slender indication of any real desire on thepart of the French people for an essentially decentralizedadministrative régime. At the most, the demand was but for theautonomy of the commune, while the canton, arrondissement, anddepartment should continue to be administered by, and largely in theinterest of, the national government. By law of March 28, 1882, thedemand in behalf of the communes was met. Upon every commune, largeand small (except Paris), was conferred the privilege of choosingfreely its entire quota of administrative officials; and in the greatmunicipal code of April 5, 1884, drafted by a commission of nineconstituted in the previous year, this privilege, with others, wasspecifically guaranteed. [512] Departments and arrondissements, however, continued to be primarily spheres within which the generalgovernment, acting through its own agents, brought home immediately tothe people the reality and comprehensiveness of its authority. And tothis day France presents the curious spectacle of a nation broadlydemocratic in respect to its constitution and central government, yetmore closely bound by a hard and fast administrative régime than anyother principal state of western Europe. [513] [Footnote 512: Text in J. Duvergier, Collection complète des lois, décrets, ordonnances, réglements, avis du conseil d'état (Paris, 1834-1907), LXXXIV. , 99-148. ] [Footnote 513: On the French administrative system two admirable general works are H. Barthélemy, Traité de droit administratif (5th ed. , Paris, 1908), and A. Esmein, Histoire du droit français (8th ed. , Paris, 1908). An older treatise of value is E. Monnet, Histoire de l'administration provinciale, départementale et communale en France (Paris, 1885). Three works in which the subject is dealt with in a comparative fashion are P. P. Leroy-Beaulieu, Administration locale en France et en Angleterre (Paris, 1872); P. W. L. Ashley, Local and Central Government (London, 1906); and F. J. Goodnow, Comparative Administrative Law (2d ed. , New York, 1903). A study of some value is J. T. Young, Administrative Centralization and Decentralization in France, in _Annals of Amer. Acad. Of Political and Social Science_, Jan. , 1898. ] IV. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO-DAY (p.  346) *380. The Department: the Prefect. *--For administrative purposes, theRepublic is divided, first of all, into 86 departments, besides whichthere is the "territory" of Belfort, a remnant of the department ofthe Upper Rhine, most of which was acquired by Germany in 1871. Since1881 the three departments of Algeria have been dealt withsubstantially as if included within continental France. At the head of each of the departments is a prefect, appointed andremoved nominally by the President of the Republic, but in reality bythe Minister of the Interior. The prefect, who is much the mostimportant of all local officials, is at the same time an agent of thegeneral government and the executive head of the department in theadministration of local affairs. As agent of the general government heacts, in some instances, upon detailed instructions; in others, heenjoys a wide range of discretion. His powers extend to virtually allpublic matters affecting the department. He supervises the executionof the laws; maintains a vigorous control over all administrativeofficials of the department, upon occasion annulling their acts; givesthe authorities at Paris information and advice respecting the affairsof the department; nominates to a variety of subordinate offices;exercises an oversight of the communes, some of whose measures becomeeffective only after receiving his assent; and, in certain instancesindicated by law, acts as a judge. He is assisted by a secretary and a_conseil de préfecture_, appointed by the President. This prefectorialcouncil, consisting of from three to nine members, advises the prefectand, in certain cases, exercises jurisdiction as an administrativetribunal. The prefect is essentially a political official. He owes hisappointment not infrequently to political considerations, and with thefall of the ministry his tenure is apt to be terminated. *381. The Department: the General Council. *--As executive head of thedepartment the prefect is required to work with a _conseil général_, or representative assembly, elected by the inhabitants of thedepartment on a basis of manhood suffrage. This council comprises onemember chosen in each canton for a period of six years, half of thenumber retiring every three years. The actual powers of the body arenot large. Aside from the apportioning of the direct taxes among thearrondissements, they are restricted pretty generally to theadministration of highways, canals, schools, asylums, and similarinterests. Questions of a political nature or of a national (p.  347)bearing are rigorously excluded from consideration. The council hasbut two ordinary sessions a year--one extending through not more thanfifteen days, the other not more than a month. The longer beginsregularly in August and is devoted to the consideration of the budget. During the intervals between sessions the council is represented by a_commission départementale_, or permanent delegation, of from four toseven members. Neither the council nor the delegation possesses anyconsiderable measure of control over the prefect. The council's actsmay be vetoed by the President of the Republic, and, except when thenational parliament is in session, the body may be dissolved by thesame power. The department is an essentially artificial politicalunit. During the century and a quarter of its existence it has notbecome--indeed has been prevented deliberately from becoming--a sphereof forceful, independent governmental activity. [514] [Footnote 514: An administrative reform which appears not infrequently in current political discussion in France is the grouping of the departments into "regions" possessing a certain community of character and interest. Each of a score or more of regions might conceivably be made to have an assembly of its own, and within each of them one of the departmental prefects might be given a certain superiority over his colleagues. The principal purpose would be to offset somewhat the nation's present excess of administrative centralization. On this proposal see C. Beauquier, Un projet de réforme administrative; l'organisation régionale en France, in _Revue Politique et Parlementaire_, Nov. 10, 1909. Cf. A. Brette, La réforme des départements à propos d'une proposition de loi, ibid. On the department as at present constituted the monumental treatise is G. Bouffet et L. Périer, Traité du départements 2 vols. (Paris, 1894-1895). In M. Laferrière, Loi organique départementale du 10 Août 1871 (Paris, 1871) is an annotated copy of the organic statute of 1871. See also G. Dethan, De l'organisation des conseils généraux (Paris, 1889); A. Nectoux, Des attributions des conseillers généraux (Paris, 1895); and P. Chardenet, Les élections départementales (Paris, 1895). An excellent brief statement will be found in M. Block, Dictionnaire de l'administration française (5th ed. , Paris and Nancy, 1905), I. , 933-948, 1101-1116. ] *382. The Arrondissement and the Canton. *--Next to the department standsthe arrondissement, or district, created originally in 1799. Withinthe bounds of France there are to-day 362 of these districts. Exceptthose in the department of the Seine, and three containing thecapitals of departments elsewhere, each has in its chief town asub-prefect, who serves as a district representative of the prefect. Every one has a _conseil d'arrondissement_, or arrondissement council, consisting of at least nine members, elected by manhood suffrage for aterm of six years. But since the arrondissement has no corporatepersonality, no property, and no budget, the council possesses but asingle function of importance, that, namely, of allotting among thecommunes their quotas of the taxes assigned to the arrondissement bythe general council of the department. The arrondissement is, (p.  348)however, the electoral district for the Chamber of Deputies, and alsonormally the seat of a court of first instance. [515] [Footnote 515: Block, Dictionnaire de l'administration française, I. , 256-260. ] The canton is an electoral and a judicial, but not strictly anadministrative, unit. It is the area from which are chosen the membersof both the departmental general council and the council of thearrondissement, and it constitutes the jurisdiction of the justice ofthe peace. The total number of cantons is 2, 911. As a rule eachcontains about a dozen communes, though a few of the larger communesare so populous as to be divided into a number of cantons. *383. The Commune. *--The most fundamental of the administrativedivisions of France, and the only one whose origins antedate theRevolution, is the commune. The commune is at the same time aterritorial division and a corporate personality. "On the one hand, "to employ the language of a recent writer, "it is a tract of territorythe precise limits of which were defined by the law of December 22, 1789, or by some subsequent law or decree; for by the law of 1789 alllocal units which had a separate identity during the old régime wereauthoritatively recognized as communes, and since that enactment therehave been a number of suppressions, divisions, consolidations, andcreations of communal units. On the other hand, the commune is anagglomeration of citizens united by life in a common locality andhaving a common interest in the communal property. A commune ranks asa legal person: it may sue and be sued, may contract, acquire, orconvey property, --it may, in general, exercise all of the ordinaryrights of a corporation. "[516] [Footnote 516: Munro, Government of European Cities, 15. ] Of communes there are, in all, under the territorial land survey of1909, 36, 229. In both size and population they vary enormously. Somecomprise but diminutive hamlets of two or three score people; otherscomprise cities like Bordeaux, Lyons, and Marseilles, each with apopulation in excess of a quarter of a million. At the last census27, 000 communes had a population of less than one thousand; 17, 000, ofless than five hundred; 9, 000, of less than three hundred; 137, ofless than fifty. On the other hand, 250 contained each a population ofmore than ten thousand, and fourteen of more than one hundredthousand. In area they vary all the way from a few acres to the254, 540 acres of the commune of Arles. [517] [Footnote 517: A. Porche, La question des grandes et des petits communes (Paris, 1900). ] *384. The Communal Council. *--Except Paris and Lyons, all communes areorganized and governed in the same manner. In each is a council, (p.  349)whose members are elected by manhood suffrage and, normally, on theprinciple of the _scrutin de liste_, for a term of four years. Thebody is renewed integrally, on the first Sunday in May in every fourthyear. In communes whose population is under five hundred the number ofcouncillors is ten; in those whose population exceeds five hundred thenumber is graduated on a basis such that a commune of sixty thousandpeople has a council of thirty-six, which is the maximum. The councilholds annually four ordinary sessions--in February, May, August, andNovember--besides which special meetings may be convoked at any timeby the prefect, the sub-prefect, or the mayor. Sessions are held inthe _mairie_, or municipal building, and are regularly open to thepublic. Except the May session, during which the budget is considered, a meeting may not be prolonged beyond fifteen days, save with theconsent of the sub-prefect. The normal maximum of the May sitting issix weeks. Speaking broadly, the functions of the council may be said to comprisethe administration of the purely local affairs of the commune and theformulation and expression of local needs and demands. In the code of1884 the powers of the body are defined with exceeding minuteness. Some are purely advisory, to be exercised when the council is calledupon by the higher administrative authorities for an expression oflocal interest or desire in respect to a particular question. Advicethus tendered may or may not be heeded. Other powers involve theinitiation by the council of certain kinds of measures, which, however, may be carried into effect only with the assent of the higherauthorities. Among the thirteen such measures which are enumerated inthe code the most important are those pertaining to the purchase, sale, or other legal disposition of property belonging to the commune. Finally, there is a group of powers--relating principally to thevarious communal services, e. G. , parks, fire-protection, etc. --whichare vested in the communal authorities (council and mayor)independently. But the predominating fact is that even to-day theautonomy of the commune is subject to numerous and importantlimitations. Many communal measures become valid only upon receivingthe approval of the prefect, and virtually any one of them may besuspended or annulled by that official. Some require the consent ofthe departmental council, or even of the President of the Republic;and by decree of the President the council itself may be dissolved atany time. *385. The Mayor and his Assistants. *--The executive head of the communeis the _maire_, or mayor, who is elected by the municipal council, bysecret ballot, from its own membership, for a term of four years. Associated with the mayor is, in communes of 2, 500 inhabitants orfewer, an _adjoint_, or assistant, similarly chosen. In communes (p.  350)of 2, 500 to 10, 000 inhabitants there are two assistants, and in thoseof over 10, 000 there is an additional one for every 25, 000 people inexcess of the figure named. Except in Lyons, however, where there areseventeen, the number may not exceed twelve. The mayor plays the dualrôle of executive head of the commune and representative (though notthe appointee) of the central government. The powers which heexercises vary widely according to the size and importance of thecommune. But in general it may be said that he appoints to themajority of municipal offices, publishes laws and decrees and issues_arrêtés_, or ordinances, supervises finance, organizes and controlsthe local police, executes measures for public health and safety, safeguards the property interests of the commune, and represents thecommune in cases at law and on ceremonial occasions. The functions of the mayoral office are in practice distributed by themayor among the assistants, to each of whom is assigned a specificdepartment, such as that of streets, of sanitation, or offire-protection. As a rule, the mayor reserves to himself the controlof police. For the acts of the assistants, however, the mayor isdirectly responsible, and all acts, whether of the mayor or of theassistants, which relate to the interests of the general governmentare performed under the strictest surveillance of the prefectorialauthorities. The mayor may be suspended from office for a month by theprefect, or for three months by the Minister of the Interior; and hemay be removed from office altogether by order of the President. Despite the restrictions which are placed upon it, the commune remainsthe true focus of local life in France. [518] Its activities, on asufficiently petty scale though they not infrequently are, run the (p.  351)gamut of finance, commerce, industry, education, religion, andpolitics. So strong is the communal spirit that public sentiment willacquiesce but rarely in the suppression of a commune, or even in theunion of two or more diminutive ones; and, in truth, the code of 1884recognized the fixity of communal identity by permitting changes ofcommunal boundaries to be undertaken by the departmental authoritiesonly after there shall have been held an _enquête_ and localsusceptibilities shall have been duly consulted. Save by specialdecree of the President of the Republic, not even the name of acommune may be altered. [Footnote 518: Among general treatises on the French commune may be mentioned M. Block, Entretiens sur l'administration; la commune (Paris, 1884); L. Bequet, Traité de la commune (Paris, 1888); P. Andre and F. Marin, La loi sur l'organisation municipale du 5 avril 1884 (Paris, 1884); and F. Grelot, Loi du 5 avril 1884 (Paris, 1889). The best and most recent extensive work is L. Morgand, La loi municipale, 2 vols. (7th ed. , Paris, 1907). The most convenient brief discussion in French is in Block, Dictionnaire de l'administration française, I. , 738-852. In English a good description is in A. Shaw, Municipal Government in Continental Europe (New York, 1897), and a fuller and more recent one in W. B. Munro, The Government of European Cities, 1-108. On municipal elections the best work is M. J. Saint-Lager, Élections municipales (6th ed. , Paris, 1904). Worthy of mention are Chardenet, Panhard, and Gérard, Les élections municipales (Paris, 1896), and J. Dorlhac, De l'électorat politique: étude sur la capacité électorale et les conditions d'exercise du droit de vote (Paris, 1890). An excellent study is P. Lavergne, Du pouvoir central et des conseils municipaux, in _Revue Générale d'Administration_, 1900. See also A. G. Desbats, Le budget municipal (Paris, 1895); M. Peletant, De l'organisation de la police (Dijon, 1899); and R. Griffin, Les biens communaux en France (Paris, 1899). On the government of Paris the reader may be referred to G. Artigues, Le régime municipal de la ville de Paris (Paris, 1898), and M. Block, L'Administration de la ville de Paris et du département de la Seine (Paris, 1898). Excellent bibliographies are printed in Munro, _op. Cit. _, 380-389, and in Block, Dictionnaire, I. , 850-852. ] PART IV. ITALY (p.  353) CHAPTER XIX CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY I. THE ERA OF NAPOLEON *386. Italy in the Later Eighteenth Century. *--The dominant forces inthe politics of Europe since the French Revolution have been the twinprinciples of nationality and democracy; and nowhere have the fruitsof these principles been more strikingly in evidence than in the longdisrupted and misgoverned peninsula of Italy. The awakening of theItalian people to a new consciousness of unity, strength, andaspiration may be said to date from the Napoleonic invasion of 1796, and the first phase of the _Risorgimento_, or "resurrection, " may, therefore, be regarded as coincident with the era of Frenchdomination, i. E. , 1796-1814. At the opening of this period twonon-Italian dynasties shared the dominion of much the larger portionof Italy. To the Austrian Hapsburgs belonged the rich duchies of Milan(including Mantua) and Tuscany, together with a preponderatinginfluence in Modena. To the Spanish Bourbons belonged the duchy ofParma and the important kingdom of Naples, including Sicily. Ofindependent states there were six--the kingdom of Sardinia (comprisingPiedmont, the island of Sardinia, and, nominally, Savoy and Nice), where alone in all Italy there lingered some measure of nativepolitical vitality; the Papal States; the petty monarchies of Luccaand San Marino; and the two ancient republics of Venice and Genoa, long since shorn of their empires, their maritime power, and theireconomic and political importance. All but universally absolutism heldsway, and in most of the states, especially those of the south, absolutism was synonymous with corruption and oppression. *387. The Cisalpine Republic, 1797. *--During the two decades whichcomprehended the public career of Napoleon it was the part of theFrench to overturn completely the long existing political arrangementof Italy, to abolish altogether the dominion of Austria and tosubstitute therefor that of France, to plant in Italy a wholly new andrevolutionizing set of political and legal institutions, and, quiteunintentionally, to fan to a blaze a patriotic zeal which through (p.  354)generations had smouldered almost unobserved. The beginning of thesetransformations came directly in consequence of the brilliantNapoleonic incursion of 1796. One by one, upon the advance of thevictorious French, were detached the princes who, under English andAustrian tutelage, had been allied hitherto against France. The kingof Naples sought an armistice; the Pope made peace; at Arcole andRivoli the Austrian power was shattered. October 16, 1796, there wasproclaimed, with the approval of the conqueror, a Cispadane Republic, including Modena, Reggio, Ferrara, and Bologna; and March 27, 1797, there was promulgated for the new state a constitution which, afterhaving been adopted by representatives of the four districts, had beenratified by a vote of the people. This constitution--the first in thehistory of modern Italy--was modelled immediately upon the Frenchinstrument of 1795. It provided for a legislative council of sixtymembers, with exclusive power to propose measures, another of thirtymembers, with power to approve or reject measures, and an executivedirectory of three, elected by the legislative bodies. In Lombardy a similar movement produced similar results. Through thespring and early summer of 1797 four commissions, constituted byNapoleon, worked out a constitution which likewise reproduced all ofthe essential features of the French model, and, July 9, theTranspadane Republic was inaugurated, with brilliant ceremony, atMilan. Provision was made for a directory and for two legislativecouncils consisting of one hundred sixty and eighty membersrespectively; and the first directors, representatives, and otherofficials were named by Napoleon. At the urgent solicitation of theCispadanes the two republics were united, July 15, and upon thecombined commonwealth was bestowed the name of the CisalpineRepublic. [519] During the preceding May the venerable but helplessVenetian republic had been crushed, and when, in the treaty of CampoFormio, October 17, 1797, Austria was brought to the point ofrecognizing the new Cisalpine state, she was compensated in somedegree by being awarded the larger part of the Venetian territories, including the city of Venice. [520] [Footnote 519: The Cisalpine constitution was amended September 1, 1798, when there was introduced in the republic the French system of administrative divisions. ] [Footnote 520: E. Bonnal de Ganges, La chute d'une république (Paris, 1885). ] *388. The Ligurian, Roman, and Parthenopæan Republics, 1797-1799. *--Inthe meantime, in June, 1797, the ancient republic of Genoa hadundergone a remodelling. The ruling oligarchy, driven from power byNapoleon, gave place to a democracy of a moderate type, the (p.  355)legislative functions being intrusted to two popularly electedchambers, while the executive power was vested in a doge and twelvesenators; and to the new commonwealth, French in all but name, wasgiven the designation of the Ligurian Republic. The Ligurianconstitution was accepted by the people December 2, 1797. During thewinter of 1797-1798 the French Directory, openly hostile to thepapacy, persistently encouraged the democratic party at Rome tooverthrow the temporal power and to set up an independent republic. February 15, 1798, with the aid of French arms, the democrats securedthe upper hand, assembled in the Forum, declared for the restorationof the Roman Republic, and elected as head of the state a body ofseven consuls. The aged pontiff, Pius VI. , was maltreated andeventually transported to France. For the new Tiberine, or Roman, Republic was promulgated, March 20, 1798, a constitution providing forthe customary two councils--a Senate of thirty members and a Tribunateof sixty--and a directory, christened a consulate, consisting of fiveconsuls elected by the councils. Within a twelvemonth thereafter(January 23, 1799), following a clash of arms between the French andthe Neapolitan sovereign, Ferdinand IV. , Naples was taken and thesouthern kingdom was converted into the Parthenopæan Republic. Aconstitution was there promulgated providing for a directory of fivemembers, a Senate of fifty, possessing exclusive right of legislativeinitiative, and a Tribunate of one hundred twenty. [521] [Footnote 521: For an interesting portrayal of the workings of republican idealism in the Neapolitan republic see Fisher, Republican Tradition in Europe, 150-157. ] *389. Constitutional Revisions. *--During the absence of Napoleon on theEgyptian expedition the armies of France suffered repeated reverses inItaly, and by the end of 1799 all that had been gained for Franceseemed to be, or about to be, lost. By the campaign which culminatedat Marengo (June 14, 1800), however, Napoleon not only clinched hisnewly won position in France but brought Italy once more to his feet. Under the terms of the treaty of Lunéville (February 9, 1801) Austriarecognized the reconstituted Cisalpine and Ligurian republics, whileModena and Tuscany reverted to French control, and French ascendancyelsewhere was securely established. September 21, 1802, Piedmont wasorganized in six departments and incorporated in the French Republic. During the winter of 1802-1803 the constitutions of the Cisalpine andLigurian republics were remodelled in the interest of that sameautocratic domination which already was fast ripening in France. Ineach republic were established at first three bodies--an executive_consulta_, [522] a legislature of 150 members, and a court--whichwere chosen by three electoral colleges comprising (1) the (p.  356)_possidenti_, or landed proprietors, (2) the _dotti_, or scholars andecclesiastics, and (3) the _commercianti_, or merchants and traders;but the legislature could be overridden completely by the _consulta_, and the _consulta_ was little more than the organ of Napoleon. Incidentally, the Cisalpine Republic at this point was renamed theItalian Republic. Within a twelvemonth the new constitutions, provingtoo democratic, were revised in such a manner that for the legislativebody was substituted a senate of thirty members presided over by adoge, in which were concentrated all political and administrativepowers. [Footnote 522: An advisory council of state, consisting of eight members. ] *390. The Kingdom of Italy (1805) and the Napoleonic Kingdom of Naples, 1807. *--The stipulation of the treaty of Lunéville to the effect thatthe Italian republics should remain entirely independent of France wasall the while disregarded. Politically and commercially they were butdependencies, and, following the proclamation of the French empire(May 18, 1804), the fact was admitted openly. To Napoleon it seemedincongruous that an emperor of the French should be a patron ofrepublics. How meager was the conqueror's concern for the politicalliberty of the Italians had been demonstrated many times, never moreforcefully than in the cynical treatment which he accorded Venice. Noone knew better, furthermore, how ill-equipped were the Italians forself-government. Gradually, therefore, there was framed a project forthe conversion of the Italian Republic into a kingdom which should betributary to France. Napoleon's desire was that his eldest brother, Joseph, should occupy the throne of this kingdom. But Joseph, notcaring to jeopardize his chances of succession in France, demurred, asdid also the younger brother, Louis. The upshot was that by aconstitutional statute of March 17, 1805, the Emperor caused himselfto be called to the throne of Italy, and May 26 following, in thecathedral at Milan, he placed upon his own head the iron crown of theold Lombard kings. The sovereign's step-son, Eugène Beauharnais, wasdesignated regent. In June of the same year, in response to a petitionwhich Napoleon himself had instigated, the Ligurian Republic wasproclaimed an integral part of the French empire. The annexation ofParma and Piacenza promptly followed. Against the coalition of Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and Naples, which was prompted immediately by the Ligurian annexation, Napoleonwas completely successful. By the treaty of Pressburg (December 26, 1806) Austria ceded to the Italian kingdom her portion of Venetia, together with the provinces of Istria and Dalmatia. [523] Following avigorous campaign conducted by Joseph Bonaparte, the restored Bourbonfamily was driven again from Naples, whereupon Joseph allowed (p.  357)himself to be established there as king. In 1808 he was succeeded byNapoleon's ambitious marshal and brother-in-law Murat. From Bayonne, Joseph issued a constitution for his former subjects, providing for acouncil of state of from twenty-six to thirty-six members and a singlelegislative chamber of one hundred members, of whom eighty were to benamed by the king and twenty were to be chosen by electoral colleges. Not until 1815, however, and then but during the space of a few weeks, was this instrument actually in operation. [Footnote 523: The incorporation of Dalmatia with the kingdom of Italy was but temporary. ] *391. The End of French Dominance. *--Finally, there were brought undercomplete control the papal territories. Following prolonged frictionwith the Pope, Napoleon first of all (April 2, 1808) annexed to thekingdom of Italy the papal march of Ancona and the duchies of Urbino, Macerata, and Camerina, and then (by decrees of May 17, 1809, andFebruary 17, 1810) added to the French empire Rome itself and the_Patrimonium Petri_. The Roman territory was divided into twodepartments, and in them, as in all of the Italian provinces whichfell under Napoleon's rule, a thoroughgoing French system of law andadministration was established. To all of the tributary districtsalike were extended the Code Napoléon, and in them were organizedcouncils, courts, and agencies of control essentially analogous tothose which comprised the Napoleonic governmental régime in France. Inthem, likewise, were undertaken public works, measures for publiceducation, and social reforms similar to those which in Franceconstituted the most permanent and the most beneficent aspects of theNapoleonic domination. For the first time since the age of Justinianthe entire peninsula was brought under what was in fact, if not inname, a single political system. If the rise of French power in Italy had been brilliant, however, thecollapse of that power was speedy and complete. It followed hard uponNapoleon's Russian campaign and the defeat at Leipzig. The finalsurrender, consequent upon Napoleon's first abdication was made April16, 1814, by the viceroy Beauharnais, whereupon the Austrians resumedpossession in the north, the Bourbons in the south, and the wholeproblem of permanent adjustment was given over to the congress of thepowers at Vienna. [524] [Footnote 524: For brief accounts of the Napoleonic régime in Italy see Cambridge Modern History, IX. , Chap. 14; B. King, A History of Italian Unity (London, 1899), I. , Chap. 1. Works of value dealing with the subject include P. Gaffarel, Bonaparte et les républiques italiennes, 1796-1799 (Paris, 1895); A. Dufourcq, Le régime jacobin en Italie, 1796-1799 (Paris, 1900); F. Lemmi, Le origini del risorgimento italiano (Milan, 1906); G. Sabini, I primi esperimenti costituzionali in Italia, 1797-1815 (Turin, 1911); and R. M. Johnston, The Napoleonic Empire in Southern Italy, 2 vols. (London, 1904). An older work is E. Ramondini, L'Italia durante la dominazione francese (Naples, 1882). ] II. THE RESTORATION AND THE REVOLUTION OF 1848 (p.  358) *392. Italy in 1815. *--By the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna, June9, 1815, Italy was remanded to a status such that the name of thepeninsula could be characterized with aptness by Metternich as merelya geographical expression. In essentials, though not in all respects, there was a return to the situation of pre-Napoleonic times. When thebargainings of the diplomats were concluded it was found that thereremained, in all, ten Italian states, as follows: the kingdom ofSardinia, Lombardo-Venetia, Parma, Modena, Lucca, Tuscany, Monaco, SanMarino, the kingdom of Naples, and the States of the Church. To thekingdom of Sardinia, reconstituted under Victor Emmanuel I. , Franceretroceded Nice and Savoy, and to it was added the former republic ofGenoa. Lombardo-Venetia, comprising the duchy of Milan and all of thecontinental possessions of the former Venetian republic, includingIstria and Dalmatia, was given into the possession of Austria. [525]Tuscany was restored to the grand-duke Ferdinand III. OfHapsburg-Lorraine; the duchy of Modena, to Francis IV. , son of thearchduke Ferdinand of Austria; Parma and Piacenza were assigned toMaria Louisa, daughter of the Austrian emperor and wife of Napoleon;the duchy of Lucca, to Maria Louisa of Bourbon-Parma. In the south, Ferdinand IV. Of Naples, restored to all of his former possessions, was recognized under the new title of Ferdinand I. And, finally, PopePius VII. , long held semi-prisoner by Napoleon at Fontainebleau, recovered the whole of the dominion which formerly had belonged to theHoly See. [Footnote 525: By decree of April 24, 1815, these territories were erected into a kingdom under Austrian control, though possessing a separate administration. ] Respecting the entire arrangement two facts are obvious. The first isthat there was not, in the Italy of 1815, the semblance, even, ofnational unity. The second is that the preponderance of Austria wasscarcely less thoroughgoing than in Napoleon's time had been that ofthe French. Lombardo-Venetia Austria possessed outright; Tuscany, Modena, and Parma were ruled by Austrian princes; Ferdinand of Napleswas an Austrian ally, and he had pledged himself not to introduce inhis possessions principles of government incompatible with thoseemployed by the Austrians in the north; while even Victor Emmanuel ofSardinia--the only important native sovereign, aside from the Pope, inthe peninsula--was pledged to a perpetual Austrian alliance. [526] [Footnote 526: W. R. Thayer, The Dawn of Italian Independence, 2 vols. (Boston, 1893), I. , 116-178. ] *393. Foreshadowings of Unity. *--"Italy, " wrote Napoleon some (p.  359)time after his banishment to St. Helena, "isolated between her naturallimits, is destined to form a great and powerful nation. Italy _is_one nation; unity of language, customs, and literature, must, within aperiod more or less distant, unite her inhabitants under one solegovernment. And, without the slightest doubt, Rome will be chosen bythe Italians as their capital. "[527] At the time when this prophecywas written the unification of Italy appeared, upon the surface, themost improbable of events. It was, none the less, impending, and to itNapoleon must be adjudged to have contributed in no unimportantmeasure. In the words of a recent writer, "the brutalities ofAustria's white coats in the north, the unintelligent repression thencharacteristic of the house of Savoy, the petty spite of the duke ofModena, the mediæval obscurantism of pope and cardinals in the middleof the peninsula, and the clownish excesses of Ferdinand in the south, could not blot out from the minds of the Italians the recollection ofthe benefits derived from the just laws, vigorous administration, andenlightened aims of the great emperor. The hard but salutary trainingwhich they had undergone at his hands had taught them that they werethe equals of the northern races both in the council chamber and onthe field of battle. It had further revealed to them that truth, whichonce grasped can never be forgotten, that, despite differences ofclimate, character, and speech, they were in all essentials anation. "[528] It is not too much to say that Napoleon sowed the seedof Italian unity. [Footnote 527: M. Cesaresco, The Liberation of Italy (London, 1895), 3. ] [Footnote 528: J. Holland Rose, in Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed. , XV. , 48. See also Fisher, The Republican Tradition in Europe, 158-159. ] *394. Attempted Revolution, 1820-1832. *--From 1815 to 1848 Austrianinfluence, shaped largely by Metternich, was everywhere reactionary, and during this prolonged period there was no government anywhere inItaly that was not of the absolutist type. No one of the states had aconstitution, a parliament, or any vestige of popular politicalprocedure. In July, 1820, Ferdinand of Naples was compelled by arevolutionary uprising to promulgate a constitution which wasidentical with that forced in the same year upon Ferdinand VII. OfSpain. This ready-made instrument provided for a popularly electedparliament of one chamber, upon which were conferred large powers; acouncil of state composed of twenty-four members to advise the king;an independent judiciary; and a parliamentary deputation of sevenmembers elected by the parliament, whose duty it was, in the event ofthe dissolution of parliament, to safeguard the observance of theconstitution. In March, 1821, revolution broke out in Piedmont and, after the mild-tempered king, Victor Emmanuel, had abdicated in (p.  360)favor of his brother, Charles Albert, a temporary regent, the Princeof Carignano, under pressure, conceded to the people a replica of theSpanish fundamental law. In both Naples and Piedmont, however, thefailure of the progressives was complete. The reformers proved to belacking in unity of purpose, and when, under authorization of thegreater continental powers, Austria intervened, every gleam ofconstitutionalism was promptly snuffed out. Similarly, in 1831-1832, there was in Modena, Parma, and the Papal States, widespreadinsurrection, and with rather more evidence of a growing nationalspirit; but again, with Austrian assistance, the outbreaks weresuppressed. [529] [Footnote 529: Cambridge Modern History, X. , Chap. 4; Johnston, Napoleonic Empire in Southern Italy, II. , Chap. 4; Thayer, Dawn of Italian Independence, I. , 215-278. ] *395. The Revolution of 1848 and the New Constitutions. *--The turningpoint came with the great year of revolution, 1848. During thethirties and forties, by public agitation, by the organization ofMazzini's "Young Italy, " by the circulation of patriotic literature, and in a variety of other ways, the ground was prepared systematicallyfor the _risorgimento_ upon which the patriots and the prophets hadset their hearts. In 1846 a liberal-minded pope, Pius IX. , instituteda series of reforms, and the example was followed forthwith by theprinces of Piedmont (Sardinia) and Tuscany. In January, 1848, revolution broke out afresh in Naples and within a month Ferdinand II. Was obliged to yield to public demand for a constitution. Theinstrument, promulgated February 10, provided for a legislative bodyconsisting of a chamber of peers, appointed by the king for life, anda chamber of deputies, elected by the people. February 15 thesovereign of Tuscany, Leopold II. , granted to his subjects aconstitution of a similar character, making provision for a completerepresentative system. February 5 the municipality of Turin, voicing a demand in which manyof the nobility and high officials of state concurred, petitionedCharles Albert of Piedmont for the grant of a constitution. Three dayssubsequently, at the conclusion of a series of secret sessions of hiscouncil, the sovereign announced that "of his free and entire will" hebelieved the time to have come for an extension to his subjects of afull-fledged representative system of government, and March 4 therewas promulgated a remarkable instrument--the _Statuto fondamentale delRegno_, modelled on the amended French Charter of 1830--which, withabsolutely no modification of text, survives to the present day as theconstitution of the Italian kingdom. [530] March 14 there was (p.  361)issued by the Pope an instrument known as the _Statuto fondamentaledel Governo temporale_, by which were constituted two legislativebodies--a high council and a chamber of deputies--and a council ofstate, composed of ten members and twenty-four advisors, to which wascommitted the task of preparing measures. Bills passed by theparliament were to be submitted to the Supreme Pontiff, who, aftertheir discussion in consistory, should extend to them, or withholdfrom them, final approval. Before the year was far advanced the newsof the overthrow of Louis Philippe, of the uprising in Germany, and ofthe fall of Metternich plunged the whole of Italy afresh ininsurrection. Under the pressure of popular demand the Pope and theKing of Naples sent troops to aid the northern states in theliberation of the peninsula from Austrian despotism, and for a time, under the leadership of the Piedmontese monarch, Charles Albert, allItaly seemed united in a broadly nationalistic movement. July 10 a newand extremely liberal constitution was adopted by a constituentassembly in Naples, and, February 9, 1849, following a breach betweenthe Pope and the Roman parliament, the temporal power of the papacywas once more swept away and Rome, under an appropriate constitution, was proclaimed a republic. [531] [Footnote 530: The nature of the governmental system provided in this instrument will be explained at length in the succeeding chapter. ] [Footnote 531: G. Garavani, La costituzione della repubblica romana nel 1798 e nel 1849 (Fermo, 1910). ] *396. The Reaction. *--The reaction, however, was swift and seemingly allbut complete. At the earliest possible moment the king of Napleswithdrew from the war, revoked the constitution which he had granted, and put the forces of liberalism to rout. With the assistance ofFrance, Austria, and Naples, the Pope extinguished the Roman republicand re-established in all of its vigor the temporal power. By Austrianarms one after another of the insurrectionary states in the north andcenter was crushed, and Austrian influence in that quarter rose to itsformer degree of ascendancy. Constitutionalism gave place toabsolutism, and the liberals, disheartened and disunited, wereeverywhere driven to cover. Only in Piedmont, whose sovereign, afterthe bitter defeat at Novara, had abdicated in favor of his son, VictorEmmanuel II. (March 23, 1849), was there left any semblance ofpolitical independence or civil liberty. [532] [Footnote 532: Elaborate accounts of the revolution of 1848 in Italy are contained in King, History of Italian Unity, I. , Chaps. 9-19, and Thayer, Dawn of Italian Independence, II. , Bks. 4-5. A good brief account is Cambridge Modern History, XI. , Chap. 4 (bibliography, pp. 908-913). A suggestive sketch is Fisher, Republican Tradition in Europe, Chap. 9. ] III. THE ACHIEVEMENT OF UNIFICATION (p.  362) *397. The Leadership of Piedmont. *--To all inducements to abrogate theconstitution which his father had granted Victor Emmanuel continueddeaf, and the logic of the situation began to point unmistakably toPiedmont as the hope of the patriotic cause. After 1848 the buildingof the Italian nation becomes, indeed, essentially the story ofPiedmontese organization, leadership, conquest, and expansion. VictorEmmanuel, honest and liberal-minded, was not a statesman of the firstrank, but he had the wisdom to discern and to rely upon thestatesmanship of one of the most remarkable of ministers in thehistory of modern Europe, Count Cavour. When, in 1850, Cavour enteredthe Piedmontese ministry he was known already as an ardent advocate ofboth constitutionalism and national unification, and after, in 1852, he assumed the post of premier he was allowed virtually a free hand inthe prosecution of policies designed to contribute to a realization ofthese ends. The original purpose of the king and of his minister wasto bring about the exclusion of Austrian influence from Italy and toorganize the various states of the peninsula into a confederacy underthe nominal leadership of the Pope, but under the real supremacy ofthe sovereign of Piedmont. Ultimately the plan was so modified as tocontemplate nothing short of a unification of the entire country underthe control of a centralized, national, temporal government. *398. The Annexations of 1859-1860. *--In 1855 Cavour signed an offensiveand defensive alliance with France, and in 1859 Piedmont, with theconnivance of her ally, precipitated war with Austria. According to anunderstanding arrived at by Cavour and the Emperor Napoleon III. AtPlombières (June 20, 1858) Austria was to be expelled absolutely fromItalian soil; Lombardo-Venetia, the smaller duchies of the north, thepapal Legations, and perhaps the Marches, were to be annexed toPiedmont, the whole to comprise a kingdom of Upper Italy; Umbria andTuscany were to be erected into a kingdom of Central Italy; the Popewas to retain Rome and Ferdinand Naples; and the four states thusconstituted were to be formed into an Italian confederation. In thecontest which ensued the Austrians were roundly defeated, but theironly immediate loss was the ancient duchy of Lombardy. DespiteNapoleon's boast that he would free Italy to the Adriatic, Venetia wasretained yet seven years by the Hapsburgs. Under the terms of thetreaty of Zürich (November 10), in which were ratified the preliminariesof Villafranca (July 11), Lombardy was annexed to Piedmont. Years (p.  363)before (June 8, 1848) a Lombard plebiscite upon the question of suchannexation had brought out an affirmative vote of 561, 002 to 681. [533] [Footnote 533: King, History of Italian Unity, II. , Chap. 27. ] The gain arising from the annexation of Lombardy was in a measurecounterbalanced by the cession of Savoy and Nice to France, inconformity with an agreement entered into before the war. In point offact, none the less, the benefits which accrued to Piedmont from theAustrian war were enormous. Aroused by the vigor and promise ofPiedmontese leadership, a large portion of central Italy broke intorevolt and declared for union with Victor Emmanuel's dominion. InSeptember, 1859, four assemblies, representing the grand-duchy ofTuscany, the duchies of Modena and Parma, and the Romagna (thenorthern portion of the Papal States), met at Florence, Modena, Parma, and Bologna, respectively, and voted unanimously for incorporationwith Piedmont. During March, 1860, the alternatives of annexation andindependence were submitted to the choice of the inhabitants of eachof these districts, all males of age being privileged to vote, withthe result of an aggregate of 792, 577 affirmative votes in a total of807, 502. Under authority conferred by the Piedmontese parliament theking accepted the territories, the formal proclamation of theincorporation of Parma, Modena, and the Romagna being dated March 18, and that of the incorporation of Tuscany, March 22. Deputies wereelected forthwith to represent the annexed provinces, and April 2, 1860, the enlarged parliament was convened at Turin. Within the spaceof a year the population of the kingdom had been more than doubled. Itwas now 11, 000, 000, or approximately half of that of the peninsula. *399. Further Annexations: the Kingdom of Italy, 1861. *--Meanwhile theprogramme of Cavour and the king had been broadened to comprise athoroughgoing unification of the entire country. With amazing rapiditythe task was carried toward completion. Aided by Garibaldi and hisfamous Thousand, the people of Sicily and Naples expelled theirBourbon sovereign, and, at the plebiscite of October 21, 1860, theydeclared, by a vote of 1, 734, 117 to 10, 979, for annexation toPiedmont. At the same time Umbria and the Marches were occupied by thePiedmontese forces, leaving to the Pope nothing save the Eternal Cityand a bit of territory immediately surrounding it. By votes of 97, 040to 380 and 133, 077 to 1, 212, respectively, these districts declaredfor annexation, and, December 17, 1860, a royal decree announced theirfinal incorporation, together with that of Naples. January 27, 1861, general elections were held, and, February 18, there was convened (p.  364)at Turin a new and enlarged parliament by which, March 18, wasproclaimed the united Kingdom of Italy. Over the whole of the newterritories was extended the memorable _Statuto_ granted to Piedmontby Charles Albert thirteen years before, and Victor Emmanuel II. Wasacknowledged "by the grace of God and the will of the nation, King ofItaly. "[534] [Footnote 534: King, History of Italian Unity, II. , Chaps. 29-32. ] *400. The Completion of Unification, 1866-1871. *--It remained but toconsolidate the kingdom and to accomplish the annexation of the twoItalian districts, Venetia and Rome, which were yet in foreign hands. Venetia was acquired in direct consequence of Italy's alliance withPrussia against Austria in 1866. A plebiscite of October 21-22, 1866, following the enforced cession of Venetia by Austria, October 3, yielded a vote of 647, 246 to 47 for annexation. The union wassanctioned by a decree of November 4, 1866, and ratified by a law ofJuly 18, 1867. The acquisition of Rome was made possible four yearslater by the exigencies of the Franco-German war. The conviction hadbeen ripening that eventually Rome must be made the kingdom's capital, and when, in 1870, there was withdrawn from the protection of thepapacy the garrison which France had maintained in Italy since 1849, the opportunity was seized to follow up fruitless diplomacy withmilitary demonstrations. September 20 the troops of General Cadornaforced an entrance of the city and the Pope was compelled tocapitulate. October 2 the people declared, by a vote of 133, 681 to1, 507, for annexation; October 9 the annexation was proclaimed; andDecember 31 it was ratified by act of parliament. The guarantees ofindependence to be accorded the papacy were left to be determined in asubsequent statute. [535] By an act of February 3, 1871, the capital ofthe kingdom--already, in 1865, transferred from Turin to Florence--wasremoved to Rome; and in the Eternal City, November 27 following, wasconvened the eleventh parliament since the revolution of 1848, thefourth since the proclamation of the kingdom of Italy, the first sincethe completion of Italian unity. [536] [Footnote 535: The resulting measure, the Law of Papal Guarantees, was enacted May 13, 1871. See p. 388. ] [Footnote 536: For a brief account of the final stages in the unification of Italy see Cambridge Modern History, XI. , Chaps. 14, 19. The best presentation of the entire subject is that in the two volumes of King, History of Italian Unity, 1814-1871. Other works of value are W. J. Stillman, The Union of Italy, 1815-1895 (Cambridge, 1898); J. Probyn, Italy, 1815-1890 (London, 1884); M. Cesaresco, The Liberation of Italy (New York, 1894); P. Orsi, L'Italia moderna (Milan, 1901); F. Bertolini, Storia d'Italia dal 1814 al 1878 (Milan, 1880-1881); and E. Sorin, Histoire de l'Italie depuis 1815 jusqu'à la mort de V. Emm. (Paris, 1910). Among biographies mention may be made of G. Godkin, Life of Victor Emmanuel II. (2d ed. , London, 1880); M. Cesaresco, Cavour (London, 1898); D. Zanichelli, Cavour (Florence, 1905); B. King, Mazzini (London, 1902). A very valuable biography, which indeed comprises virtually a history of the period 1848-1861, is W. R. Thayer, Count Cavour, 2 vols. (Boston, 1911). The monumental Italian work in the field is C. Tivaroni, Storia critica del risorgimento italiano, 9 vols. (Turin, 1888-1897). The principal documentary collection is N. Bianchi, Storia documentata della diplomazia Europea in Italia dall' anno 1814 all' anno 1861, 8 vols. (Turin, 1865-1872). Invaluable are L. Chiala, Lettere del Conte di Cavour, 7 vols. (Turin, 1883-1887), and D. Zanichelli, Scritti del Conte di Cavour (Bologna, 1892). For full bibliography see Cambridge Modern History, XI. , 908-913. ] IV. THE CONSTITUTION (p.  365) *401. The Statuto. *--The formal constitution of the kingdom of Italyto-day is the _Statuto fondamentale del Regno_ granted March 4, 1848, by Charles Albert to his Piedmontese subjects. To each of theterritories successively annexed to the Piedmontese kingdom thisinstrument was promptly extended, on the basis of popularratifications, or plebiscites; and when, in 1861, the kingdom ofPiedmont was converted into the kingdom of Italy, the fundamental law, modified in only minor respects, was continued in operation. The_Statuto_ was granted originally as a royal charter, and its authorseems to have expected it to be final, at least until it should havebeen replaced as a whole by some other instrument. At the same time, there is little reason to doubt that from the outset there wascontemplated the possibility of amendment through the agencies ofordinary legislation. In any case, there was put into the instrumentno stipulation whatsoever relating to its revision, and none has everbeen added. Upon a number of occasions since 1861 possiblemodifications of the constitutional text have been suggested, and evendebated, but no one of them has been adopted. But this does not meanthat the constitutional system of Italy has stood all the whileunchanged. On the contrary, that system has exhibited remarkablevitality, growth, and adaptive capacity. In Italy, as in other statesthe constitution as it exists in writing is supplemented in numerousimportant ways by unwritten custom, and Italian jurists are nowsubstantially agreed that custom is legitimately to be considered asource of public law. *402. Legislative Amendment. *--A more important matter, however, is theextension and the readaptation of the constitution throughparliamentary enactment. In the earlier days of the kingdom there wasa disposition to observe rather carefully in practice the distinctionbetween functions and powers of a legislative, and those of aconstitutional, character. Gradually, however, the conviction grewthat the constitutional system of the nation might be modified (p.  366)through the processes of ordinary legislation, and in Italy to-day thetheory of parliamentary omnipotence is scarcely less firmly entrenchedthan it is in Great Britain. The parliamentary chambers have neverdirectly avowed a purpose to amend a single article of the _Statuto_, but numerous measures which they have enacted have, with clear intent, taken from the instrument at some points, have added to it at others, and have changed both its spirit and its application. Care has beenexercised that such enactments shall be in harmony with the publicwill, and in practice they are rarely brought to a final vote untilthe country shall have been given an opportunity to pass upon them ata general election. What has come to be the commonly accepted doctrinewas stated forcefully, in the session of July 23, 1881, by Crispi, asfollows: "I do not admit the intangibility of the _Statuto_. Statutesare made to prevent governments from retrograding, not from advancing. Before us there can be nothing but progress. .. . If we retain immutablethe fundamental law of the state, we desire immobility, and shouldthrow aside all advances which have thus far been made by theconstituted authorities. I understand that in the _Statuto_ of CharlesAlbert nothing is said of revision, and this was prudent. But howshould this silence be interpreted? It should be interpreted in thesense that it is not necessary to the Italian Constitution that aconstituent assembly should be expressly convoked, but that Parliamentin its usual manner of operation is always constituent andconstituted. Whenever public opinion has matured a reform, it is theduty of Parliament to accept it, even though the reform may bring withit the modification of an article of the _Statuto_. "[537] It is inaccord with the principles here enunciated that--to mention but a fewillustrations--the law of December 6, 1865, regulating theorganization of the judiciary, the Law of Papal Guarantees of 1871, and the measures of 1882 and 1895 overhauling and extending thefranchise, were placed upon the statute books. [Footnote 537: Quoted by G. A. Ruiz, The Amendments to the Italian Constitution, in _Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science_, Sept. , 1895, 38. ] *403. Nature of the Constitution. *--The _Statuto_, in eighty-fourarticles, is an instrument of considerable length. It deals, successively, with the Crown, the rights and duties of citizens, theSenate, the Chamber of Deputies, the Ministers, the Judiciary, andmatters of a miscellaneous character. The bill of rights contained inArticles 24-32 guarantees to all inhabitants of the kingdom equalitybefore the law, liberty of person, inviolability of domicile and ofproperty, freedom of the press, exemption from non-parliamentarytaxation and, with qualifications, freedom of assembly. It is (p.  367)constantly to be borne in mind, however, that, so overlaid is the_Statuto_ with statutory enactments and with custom, that one cannotapprehend adequately the working constitution of the kingdom to-day, in respect to either general principles or specific governmentalorgans, through an examination of this document alone. In the languageof an Italian publicist, the Italian constitution no longer consistsof the Statute of Charles Albert. This forms simply the beginning of anew order of things. Many institutions have been transformed by laws, decrees, usages, and neglect, whence the Italian constitution hasbecome cumulative, consisting of an organism of law grouped about aprimary kernel which is the _Statuto_. [538] [Footnote 538: Ruiz, Amendments to the Italian Constitution, _loc. Cit. _, 57. The text of the _Statuto_ appears in P. Coglio e Malchiodi, Codice Politico Amministrativo. Raccolta completa di tutte le leggi e regolamenti concernenti la pubblica amministrazione nei suoi rapporti politici e amministrativi (6th ed. , Florence, 1907), and in V. Gioia, Le leggi di unificazione amministrativa precedute dalla legge fondamentale del regno, 2 vols. (Palermo, 1879). It is printed also in Lowell, Governments and Parties, II. , 346-354. There is a French version in F. R. Dareste, Les constitutions modernes, 2 vols. (Paris, 1883) I. , 550-560. There is an English translation in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 5-16, and another, by S. M. Lindsay and L. S. Rowe, in _Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science_, Nov. , 1894. The Codice Politico Amministrativo contains a good collection of statutes, ordinances, and administrative regulations. The most comprehensive work on Italian constitutional law which has been written is F. Racioppi and I. Brunelli, Commento allo statuto del regno, 3 vols. (Turin, 1909). Among other treatises the following are of principal value: G. Arangio Ruiz, Storia costituzionale del regno di Italia, 1848-1898 (Florence, 1898); E. Brusa, Das Staatsrecht des Königreichs Italien (Leipzig, 1892), in Marquardsen's Handbuch; E. Del Guerra, L'Amministrazione pubblica in Italia (Florence, 1893); and, for briefer treatment, G. Mosca, Appunti di diritto costituzionale (Milan, 1908) and I. Tambaro, II diritto costituzionale italiano (Milan, 1909). ] CHAPTER XX (p.  368) THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM I. THE CROWN AND THE MINISTRY *404. Status of the Sovereign. *--The constitutional system of Italycomprises, according to the phraseology of the _Statuto_, a"representative monarchical government. " The throne is hereditary, after the principle of the Salic Law; that is, it may be inheritedonly by and through males. Elaborate provision is made for theexercise of regal authority in the event of the minority or theincapacity of the sovereign. During a minority (which terminates withthe close of the king's eighteenth year) the prince who stands next inthe order of succession, provided he be twenty-one years of age, isauthorized to act as regent. In the lack of male relatives the regencydevolves upon the queen-mother, and in default of a queen-mother theregent is elected by the legislative chamber. [539] Upon ascending thethrone, the king is required to take an oath in the presence of thelegislative chambers faithfully to maintain and observe theconstitution of the realm. The monarch is declared to be sacred andinviolable in his person, and there is settled upon him a civil listof 16, 050, 000 lire, of which amount at present, however, the sum ofone million lire is repaid annually to the state. Since 1870 the royalresidence has been the Palazzo del Quirinale, a palace which forgenerations, by reason of its elevated and healthful situation, wasmuch frequented by the popes. [Footnote 539: Arts. 11-17. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 6. ] *405. Powers and Functions of the Crown. *--On paper, the powers of thecrown appear enormous; in reality they are much less considerable, asis inevitably the fact wherever monarchy is tempered byparliamentarism. In the king alone is vested, by the _Statuto_, theexecutive power, and to him alone this power, in theory, stillbelongs. The exercise of it, however, devolves almost wholly upon agroup of ministers, who are responsible, not to the crown, but to theparliament. In no continental country has there been a more deliberateor a more unreserved acceptance of the essential principles whichunderlie the parliamentary system of Great Britain. No one of the (p.  369)three sovereigns of united Italy has ever sought for an instant toestablish anything in the nature of personal government. The principlethat the ministry shall constitute the working executive, and that itshall be continually responsible to the lower chamber of Parliament, has been so long observed in practice that it is now regarded as aninflexible law of the constitution. Under these limitations, however, the king approves and promulgates the laws, grants pardons andcommutes sentences, declares war, commands all military and navalforces, concludes treaties, issues ordinances, creates senators, andmakes appointments to all offices of state. [540] By the _Statuto_ itis provided that treaties involving financial obligations oralterations of the territory of the state shall be effective onlyafter receiving the sanction of the legislative chambers. In practice, treaties of all kinds are submitted regularly for such approval, saveonly such as comprise military conventions or foreign alliances. Thepower of the veto exists, but it is in practice never used. Rarelydoes the king attend the sessions of the cabinet, in which thepolicies of the government are discussed and its measures formulatedand, save through the designation of the premier, in the event of acabinet crisis, and within the domain of foreign relations, the royalpower may be said to be brought to bear in direct manner upon theaffairs of state only incidentally. As head of the nation, however, and visible token of its hard-won unification, the monarch fulfills adistinctly useful function. The reigning family, and especially thepresent sovereign, Victor Emmanuel III. , is extremely popularthroughout the country; so that, although in Italy, as elsewhere amongEuropean monarchies, there is an avowed republican element, there isevery indication that royalty will prove an enduring institution. [Footnote 540: Arts. 5-8. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 5. Dupriez, Les Ministres, I. , 292-297. ] *406. The Ministry: Composition. *--From what has been said it followsthat the ministry in Italy, as in Great Britain and France, constitutes the actual executive. Nominally it consists of heads ofdepartments, although occasionally a member is designated withoutportfolio. Of departments there are at present eleven, as follows:Foreign affairs; War; Marine; the Interior; Finance; theTreasury;[541] Public Instruction; Public Works; Justice andEcclesiastical Affairs; Commerce, Industry, and Agriculture; and Postsand Telegraphs. Ordinarily the premier, or "president of the council, "occupies the portfolio of the Interior. He is named by the king, andinasmuch as, by reason of the multiplicity of Italian political (p.  370)parties, there is often no clearly distinguished "leader of theopposition, " such as all but invariably stands ready to assume officein Great Britain, in the making of the appointment there is room forthe exercise of considerable discretion. All remaining members of theministry are designated by the crown, on nomination of the premier. Inaccordance with the provisions of a law of February 12, 1888, eachminister is assisted by an under-secretary of state. [Footnote 541: Separated from Finance in 1889. ] All ministers and under-secretaries possess the right to appear on thefloor of either of the legislative chambers, and to be heard uponrequest; but no one of them is entitled to vote in either body unlesshe is a member thereof. [542] To be eligible for appointment to aportfolio or to an under-secretaryship it is not necessary that a manbe a member of either chamber; but if an appointee is not inpossession of such membership it is customary for him to seek the nextseat that falls vacant in the Deputies, unless in the meantime heshall have been created a senator. In point of fact, the ministers areselected regularly from among the members of Parliament, andpredominantly from the Chamber of Deputies. Only rarely has thepremiership devolved upon a senator. Ministers of war and of marine, being chosen largely by reason of technical qualifications, arefrequently members of the Senate by special appointment. [Footnote 542: Art. 66. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 13. ] *407. The Ministry: Organization and Functions. *--The internalorganization of the ministry--the interrelations of the severaldepartments and the relations sustained by each minister with thepremier--are regulated largely by a decree of March 28, 1867, promulgated afresh, with minor modifications, August 25, 1876. Amongmatters which are required to be brought before the ministerialcouncil are all projects of law which are to be submitted to thechambers, all treaties, all conflicts of administrative jurisdiction, all proposals relating to the status of the Church, petitions from thechambers, and nominations of senators, diplomatic representatives, anda wide range of administrative and judicial functionaries. By lawthere is enumerated further an extended list of matters which must bebrought to the ministry's attention, though action thereupon is notmade compulsory; and the range of subjects which, upon the initiativeof the premier or that of other ministers, may be submitted forconsideration is left purposely without limit. It is the business ofthe premier to convoke the ministers in council, to preside over theirdeliberations, to maintain, in respect to both administrative methodsand political policy, as large a measure of ministerial uniformity andsolidarity as may be; and to require from time to time from his (p.  371)colleagues full and explicit reports upon the affairs of each ofthe several departments. By reason, however, of the multiplicity ofparty groups in the chambers, the necessarily composite characterpolitically of every cabinet, and the generally unstable politicalcondition of the country, ministries rarely possess much real unity, and in the administration of the public business they are likely to behandicapped by internal friction. "The Italian ministry, " says an ableFrench writer, "is manifestly unable to fulfill effectively thethree-fold purpose of a parliamentary cabinet. It exercises theexecutive power in the name, and under the authority, of the king; butit does not always know how to restrain Parliament within the boundsof its proper control, and it is obliged to tolerate the interferenceof deputies in the administration. Through the employment of theinitiative, and of influence upon the acts of Parliament, it is thepower which impels legislation; but not infrequently it is lacking inthe authority essential to push through the reforms which it hasundertaken, and the Chamber evades easily its control. It seeks tomaintain harmony between the two powers (executive and legislative);but the repeated defeats which it suffers demonstrate to what a degreeits work is impeded by the disorganization of parties. "[543] For allof their acts the ministers are responsible directly to Parliament, which means, in effect, to the Chamber of Deputies; and no law orgovernmental measure may be put in operation until it has received thesignature of one or more of the ministerial group, by whomresponsibility for it is thereby explicitly assumed. [Footnote 543: Dupriez, Les Ministres, I. , 291. ] *408. The Promulgation of Ordinances. *--The administrative system ofItaly is modelled, in the main, upon that of France. In the effort toachieve national homogeneity the founders of the kingdom indulged toexcess their propensity for centralization, with the consequence thatItaly has exhibited regularly an admixture of bureaucracy andliberalism even more confounding than that which prevails in theFrench Republic. In theory the administrative system is broadlydemocratic and tolerant; in practice it not infrequently lends itselfto the employment of the most arbitrary devices. Abuse arises mostcommonly from the powers vested in the administrative officials tosupplement legislation through the promulgation and enforcement ofordinances. By the constitution it is stipulated that the Executiveshall "make decrees and regulations necessary for the execution of thelaws, without suspending their execution, or granting exemptions fromthem. "[544] This power, however, in practice, is stretched evenfurther than is the similar power of the Executive in France, and withthe result not infrequently of the creation of temporary law, or (p.  372)even the virtual negation of parliamentary enactment. Parliament isseldom disposed to stand very rigidly upon its rights; indeed, itsometimes delegates expressly to the ministry the exercise of sweepinglegislative authority. The final text of the great electoral law of1882, for example, was never considered in the chambers at all. Afterdebating the subject to their satisfaction, the two houses simplycommitted to the Government the task of drawing up a permanent draftof the measure and of promulgating it by executive decree. The sameprocedure has been followed in other fundamental matters. And notmerely the ministers at Rome, but also the local administrativeagents, exercise with freedom the ordinance-making prerogative. "Thepreference, indeed, " as is observed by Lowell, "for administrativeregulations, which the government can change at any time, over rigidstatutes is deeply implanted in the Latin races, and seems to beespecially marked in Italy. "[545] [Footnote 544: Art. 6. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 5. ] [Footnote 545: Lowell, Governments and Parties, I. , 166. On the Italian executive see Dupriez, Les Ministres, I. , 281-329. An essay of value is M. Caudel, Parlementarisme italien, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, Sept. , 1900. ] II. PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE *409. Composition. *--Legislative power in Italy is vested conjointly inthe king and Parliament, the latter consisting of two houses--anupper, the _Senato_, and a lower, _the Camera de' Deputati_. TheSenate is composed entirely of members appointed for life by thecrown. The body is no true sense a house of peers. Its seats are nothereditary and its members represent not alone the great proprietorsof the country but a wide variety of public functionaries and men ofachievement. In the making of appointments the sovereign is restrictedby the necessity of taking all appointees from twenty-one stipulatedclasses of citizens, and it is required that senators shall be of aminimum age of forty years. The categories from which appointments aremade--including high ecclesiastics, ministers of state, ambassadors, deputies of prolonged service, legal and administrative officials, menwho during as much as seven years have been members of the RoyalAcademy of Sciences or of the Superior Council of PublicInstruction--may be reduced, broadly, to three: (1) high officials ofchurch and state; (2) persons of fame in science or literature, or whoby any kind of services or merit have brought distinction to thecountry; and (3) persons who for at least three years have paid directproperty or business taxes to the amount of 3000 lire ($600). Thetotal number of members when the _Statuto_ was put in effect in 1848was 78; the number in 1910 was 383. The last-mentioned number comprisedthe president of the Chamber of Deputies, 147 ex-deputies of six (p.  373)years' service (or men who had been elected to as many as threeparliaments), one minister of state, six secretaries of state, fiveambassadors, two envoys extraordinary, 23 officials of the courts ofcassation and of other tribunals, 33 military and naval officials, eight councillors of state, 21 provincial functionaries, 41 members ofthe Royal Academy of Sciences, three members of the Superior Councilof Public Instruction, two persons of distinguished services to thecountry, 71 payers of direct taxes in the amount of 3, 000 lire, and 19other scattered representatives of several categories. The absence ofecclesiastical dignitaries is to be accounted for by the rupture withthe Vatican. The last members of this class to be named were appointedin 1866. *410. Legislative Weakness. *--The prerogative of senatorial appointmenthas been exercised upon several occasions for the specific purpose ofinfluencing the political complexion of the upper chamber. In 1886forty-one appointments were made at one stroke; in 1890, seventy-five;and in 1892, forty-two. The Senate guards jealously its right todetermine whether an appointee is properly to be considered asbelonging to any one of the twenty-one stipulated categories, and ifit decides that he is not thus eligible, he is refused a seat. But aslong as the sovereign keeps clearly within the enumerated classes, nopractical limitation can be placed upon his power of appointment. [546]In practice, appointment by the king has meant regularly appointmentby the ministry commanding a majority in the lower chamber; and soeasy and so effective has proved the process of "swamping" that thelegislative independence of the Senate has been reduced almost to anullity. In general it may be said that the body exercises thefunction of a revising, but no longer of an initiating or a checking, chamber. During the period 1861-1910 the government presented in theChamber of Deputies a total of 7, 569 legislative proposals, in theSenate but 598; and the number of projects of law originated withinthe Senate during this same period was but thirty-nine. In volume andrange of legislative activity the nominated senate of Italy isdistinctly inferior to the elected senate of France. [547] [Footnote 546: Of 1, 528 appointments made between 1848 and 1910 but 63 were refused confirmation by the Senate. ] [Footnote 547: It is interesting to observe that, in the interest of governmental stability and permanence, Cavour favored the adoption of the elective principle in Italy. For illustrations of the weakness of the Italian Senate see C. Morizot-Thibault, Des droits des chambres hautes ou sénats en matière des lois de finance (Paris, 1891), 156-175. ] *411. Projected Reform. *--Within recent years there has arisen apersistent demand for a reform of the Senate, to the end that thebody may be brought into closer touch with the people and be (p.  374)restored to the position of a vigorous and useful second chamber. Inthe spring of 1910 the subject was discussed at some length within theSenate itself, and at the suggestion of the ministry a specialcommission of nine members was created to study "the timeliness, themethod, and the extent" of the proposed reforms. December 5, 1910, this commission brought in an elaborate report, written principally bySenator Arcoleo, a leader among Italian authorities uponconstitutional law. After pointing out that among European nations thereconstitution and modernization of upper chambers is a subject oflarge current interest, the commission proposed a carefully consideredscheme for the popularizing and strengthening of the senatorial body. The substance of the plan was, in brief; (1) that the chamberhenceforth should be composed of 350 members; (2) that the membershipshould be divided into three categories, designated, respectively, asofficials, men of science and education, and men of political oreconomic status; and (3) that members of the first category, not toexceed 120, should be appointed, as are all members at present, by thecrown; but members of the other two should be elected by fifteenspecial colleges so constituted that their membership would representactual and varied groups of interests throughout the nation. Theprofessors in the universities, for example, organized for the purposeas an electoral college, should be authorized to choose a contingentof thirty representatives. Other elements to be admitted to a definiteparticipation in the elections should include former deputies, largertaxpayers, provincial and communal assemblies, chambers of commerce, agricultural societies, and workingmen's associations. The primaryidea of those who propounded the scheme was that through its adoptionthere would be established a more vital contact between the Senate andthe varied forces that contribute to the life of the nation than cansubsist under the existing order. Unfortunately, as many consider, theSenate voted not to approve the commission's project. It contenteditself, rather, with a vote in favor of an enlargement of the classesof citizens from which senators may be appointed by the king, although, in February, 1911, it went so far as to request the ministryto present new proposals, and, in particular, a proposal to vest inthe Senate the choice of its presiding officer. Toward a solution ofthe problems involved there has been (to 1912) no further progress. Itis not improbable, however, that upon some such plan of modernizationas was prepared by the commission of 1910 agreement eventually will bereached. [548] [Footnote 548: E. Pagliano, Il Senato e la nomina dei senatori (Rome, 1906); L. A. Magro, L' aristocrazia e il Senato (Catania, 1909); I. Tambaro, La réforme du Sénat italien, in _Revue du Droit Public_, July-Sept. , 1910, and Les débats sur la réforme du Sénat italien, ibid. , July-Sept. , 1911; M. Scelle, Réforme du Sénat italien, ibid. , Oct. -Dec, 1911; Nazzareno, La riforma del Senato, in _Rivista di Diritto Pubblica_, III. , 171. The report of the commission of 1910 is contained in Per la riforma del Senato; relazione della commissione (Rome, 1911). ] *412. Privileges and Powers. *--Within the Senate, as to-day (p.  375)constituted, the president and vice-president are named by the king;the secretaries are selected by the body from its own membership. Theprivileges of members are defined minutely. Save by order of theSenate itself, no senator may be arrested, unless apprehended in thecommission of an offense; and the Senate is constituted sole judge ofthe alleged misdemeanors of its members--a curious duplication of anancient prerogative of the British House of Lords. Ministers areresponsible only to the lower house, and although there are instancesin which a minister has retired by reason of an adverse vote in theSenate, in general it may be affirmed that the Senate's importance inthe parliamentary régime is distinctly subordinate. The two chamberspossess concurrent powers of legislation, except that all measuresimposing taxes or relating to the budget are required to be presentedfirst in the Deputies. By decree of the crown the Senate may beconstituted a High Court of Justice to try cases involving treason orattempts upon the safety of the state, and to try ministers impeachedby the Chamber of Deputies. When acting in this capacity the body is atribunal of justice, not a political organization; but it is forbiddento occupy itself with any judicial matters other than those for whichit was convened. [549] [Footnote 549: Art. 36. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 10. ] III. THE CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES--PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE *413. Composition: Franchise Law of 1882. *--The lower legislativechamber is composed of 508 members chosen by the voters of the realmunder the provisions of the electoral law of March 28, 1895. In nocountry of western Europe is the privilege of the franchise morerestricted than in Italy; yet progress toward a broadly democraticscheme of suffrage has been steady and apparently as rapid asconditions have warranted. The history of the franchise since theestablishment of the present kingdom falls into three periods, delimited by the electoral laws of 1882 and 1895. Prior to 1882 thefranchise was, in the main, that established by the electoral law ofDecember 17, 1860, modified by amendments of July, 1875, and May, 1877. It was restricted to property-holders who were able to read andwrite, who had attained the age of twenty-five, and who paid an annualtax of at least forty lire. Under this system less than two and a (p.  376)half per cent of the population possessed the right to vote. In 1882, after prolonged consideration of the subject, the Governmentcarried through Parliament a series of measures--co-ordinated in theroyal decree of September 24--by which the property qualification wasreduced from forty lire to nineteen lire eighty centesimi and the agelimit was lowered to twenty-one years. The disqualification ofilliteracy was retained, and a premium was placed upon literacy by theextension of the franchise, regardless of property, to all males overtwenty-one who had received a primary school education. There wereminor extensions in other directions. The net result of the law of1882 was to raise the number of voters at a stroke from 627, 838 to2, 049, 461, about two-thirds of the new voters obtaining the franchiseby reason of their ability to meet the educational qualification. [550]An incidental effect of the reform was to augment the politicalinfluence of the cities, because in them the proportion of illiterateswas smaller than in the country districts. Small landed proprietors, though of a more conservative temperament, and not infrequently of abetter economic status, than the urban artisans, were commonly unableto fulfill the scholarship qualification. [Footnote 550: Lowell, Governments and Parties, I. , 157. ] The law of 1882 provided for elections by general ticket, i. E. , on theprinciple of _scrutinio di lista_. An act of May 8, 1891, abolishedthe general ticket and created a commission by which the country wasdivided into 508 electoral districts, each entitled to choose onedeputy. By a law of June 28, 1892, there were introduced variousreforms in the control and supervision of elections, and by another ofJuly 11, 1894, new provisions were established for the revision ofelectoral and registration lists. Finally, March 28, 1895, there waspromulgated an elaborate royal decree whereby the entire body ofelectoral laws enacted since the establishment of constitutionalgovernment, and at the time continuing in operation, was co-ordinatedafresh. The existing system was not altered fundamentally, althoughthe method of making up the voting-lists was changed, with the resultthat the number of electors was somewhat diminished. *414. The Franchise To-day. *--The Italian voter to-day must possess thefollowing qualifications: (1) Italian citizenship; (2) age oftwenty-one, or over; (3) ability to read and write; and (4) successfulpassage of examinations in the subjects comprised in the course ofcompulsory elementary education. The last-mentioned qualification isnot, however, required of officials, graduates of colleges, professionalmen, persons who have served two years in the army, citizens who pay adirect tax annually of not less than nineteen lire eighty (p.  377)centesimi, those who pay an agricultural rental of 500 lire, those whopay house rent of from 150 lire in communes of 2, 500 people to 400lire in communes of over 150, 000, and certain less important classes. So serious at all times has seemed the menace of illiteracy in Italythat the establishment of manhood suffrage has but rarely beenproposed. Under the existing system the extension of education carrieswith it automatically the expansion of the franchise, though theobstacles to universal education are still so formidable that thedemocratizing of the state proceeds but slowly. [551] In 1904 thenumber of enrolled electors was 2, 541, 327--29 per cent of the malepopulation over twenty-one years of age, and 7. 67 per cent of the totalpopulation--exclusive of 26, 056 electors temporarily disfranchised byreason of being engaged in active military service. At the electionsof November, 1904, the number of qualified electors who voted was1, 593, 886, or but 62. 7 per cent of those who possessed the privilege. The proportion of registered electors who actually vote is kept downby the prosaic character of Italian electoral campaigns, by theinfluence of the papal _Non Expedite_, [552] and, most of all, by thehabitual indifference of citizens, who, if the truth be told, for themost part have never displayed an insatiable yearning for thepossession of the voting privilege. With the exception of theSocialists, no party has a clear-cut, continuous programme; none, saveagain the socialists, attempts systematically to arouse the voters atelection time. [Footnote 551: King and Okey, Italy To-day, Chap. 12. ] [Footnote 552: See p. 400. ] *415. Electoral Reform. *--Notwithstanding these facts, there has been, in recent years, a somewhat insistent demand for electoral reform. TheLuzzatti ministry fell, in March, 1911, primarily because a plan ofsuffrage extension which it had proposed was not to be put inoperation before 1913. June 10, 1911, the Giolitti ministry whichsucceeded laid before the Chamber the text of a measure which, ifadopted, would go far toward the establishment of universal malesuffrage. The proposal was that practically all male citizens overthirty years of age, and all over twenty-one who have performed themilitary service required by the state, should be given the privilegeof voting, irrespective of their ability to read and write. Thisproject, after being debated at length, was adopted in the Chamber ofDeputies early in 1912 by the enormous majority of 392 to 61. In theevent of its final enactment the existing electorate will be increasedfrom three millions to two and a half times that number and a generaloverhauling of electoral methods and machinery will be renderednecessary. The grounds upon which the change is urged are, first, (p.  378)the example of other nations and, second, the political and economicprogress which Italy has achieved within the past generation. Seriousstudents doubt whether the time is ripe for so radical a step. Onehalf of the proposed electorate would be wholly illiterate. [553] [Footnote 553: For the text of the Giolitti proposals see _Il Seculo_, June 11, 1911. On Italian electoral reform see A. Piebantoni, La riforma della legge elettorale (Naples, 1909); G. Bandini, La riforma elettorale con la rappresentanza proporzionale nelle elezioni politiche (Rome, 1910); G. Sabini, La riforma del sistema elettorale in Italia (Turin, 1910); Siotto-Pintor, Estensione del suffragio e distribuzione della rappresentanza, in _Rivista di Diritto Pubblico_, Dec. , 1911, and Le riforma del régime elettorale e le dottrine della rappresentanza politica e dell' elettorato nel secolo XX. (Rome, 1912). ] *416. Electoral Procedure. *--Save during the years 1882-91, when the_scrutinio di lista_ was in operation, deputies have been chosenuniformly from single-member districts. There are to-day 508 suchdistricts. No candidate is returned unless he not only polls a numberof votes in excess of one-sixth of the total number of enrolledelectors within the district, but has also an absolute majority of allthe votes cast. If, after balloting, it is found that no candidatemeets this requirement, a second ballot (_ballottaggio_) takes placeone week subsequently. [554] At each polling place the presidingofficer and "scrutineers" are chosen by the voters present. The methodof voting is simple. In the polling-booth stands a table, on which areplaced two square glass boxes, one empty, the other containing thevoting papers. As the list of enrolled electors is readalphabetically, each man steps forward, receives a ballot paper, takesit to an adjoining table and writes on it the name of the candidatefor whom he wishes to vote, folds the paper, and deposits it in thebox reserved for the purpose. After the list has been read through itis the right of any voter who was not present to respond when his namewas called to cast his ballot in a similar manner. The polling hoursextend, as a rule, from 9 a. M. To 4 p. M. [555] [Footnote 554: At the elections of March, 1909, in 75 of the 508 districts no candidate received an adequate majority. In 57 of these districts the candidate who, at the first ballot, had received the largest number of votes was elected at the second ballot. The political effect of the second ballot is slight. At the election of 1900 there were 77 second ballotings; at that of 1904, 39. A. N. Holcombe, Direct Primaries and the Second Ballot, in _Amer. Political Science Review_, Nov. , 1911; A. F. Locatelli, Considerazioni intorno all' opportunità di abolire il ballottaggio, in _La Riforma Sociale_, July-Aug. , 1910. ] [Footnote 555: King and Okey, Italy To-day, 14. ] *417. Qualifications and Privileges of Members. *--A deputy is notrequired to be a resident of the district from which he is chosen. Hemust, however, be a citizen; must be at least thirty years of age;must be in possession of full civil and political rights; and must notbelong to any of the classes or professions whose members are (p.  379)debarred by law. All salaried government officials, all personsreceiving stipends from the state, and all persons ordained for thepriesthood or filling clerical office are disqualified outright. Furthermore, while officers in the army and navy, ministers, under-secretaries, and various other higher functionaries may beelected, their number must never exceed forty, not including theministers and under-secretaries. Neither senators nor deputies receivea salary or other compensation, a fact that undoubtedly accounts insome measure for the uniformly slender attendance in the chambers. Members are permitted, however, to travel free throughout Italy byrail, or on steamers belonging to lines that have a governmentcontract containing a stipulation upon the subject. Measures providingfor the payment of members have been proposed from time to time, butnone have received the approval of the two chambers. A measure of thesort introduced in 1882 by Francesco Crispi, when a deputy, wasrejected by the lower house. More recently, in the electoral billvoted by the Chamber of Deputies in 1912 provision is made for thepayment of deputies; but at the time of writing final action upon thisproject has not been taken. Deputies are elected nominally for afive-year period, which is the maximum duration of a parliament. Inpoint of fact, a dissolution is practically certain to intervenebefore the expiration of the full term, and the average intervalbetween elections is nearer three years than five. If for any reason adeputy ceases to perform his duties, the electoral district that chosehim is called upon forthwith to elect a new representative. *418. The Chambers: Organization. *--The constitution does not prescribedefinitely that the parliament shall be assembled annually. Itstipulates merely that the sessions of the two houses shall begin andend at the same time, that a meeting of one house at a time when theother is not in session is illegal, and that measures enacted undersuch circumstances are void. [556] Custom and the necessities ofadministration, however, render it incumbent upon the crown to convokethe chambers in at least one session each year, unless, indeed, as hassometimes happened, a session is so prolonged as to extend, withoccasional recesses, over an entire year, or even two years. [Footnote 556: Art. 48. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 12. ] The president and vice-president of the Senate are designated by thecrown, but the president, vice-presidents, and secretaries of thelower chamber are chosen by the chamber itself from among its ownmembers at the beginning of each session, for the entire session. Thepresident of the Deputies, although empowered to appoint certaincommittees, such as those on rules and contested elections, is not (p.  380)infrequently re-elected again and again without regard to partyaffiliations, after the manner of the Speaker of the British House ofCommons. The membership of the Chamber of Deputies is divided intonine _uffici_, or sections, and that of the Senate into five. A freshdivision, by lot, takes place every two months. The principal functionof the _uffici_ is the election of those committees for whoseconstitution no other provision is made. In each chamber the mostimportant of all committees, that on the budget, is elected directlyby the chamber. In the Deputies certain other committees are electedin the same way, while, as has been said, those on elections and onrules are appointed by the president. But committees speciallyconstituted for the consideration of particular measures are made upof members chosen from the various _uffici_, unless the chamberprefers to designate some other method. *419. The Chambers: Procedure. *--Each house frames its own rules ofprocedure. By the constitution it is stipulated that the sessionsshall be public (with the provision that upon the written request often members secret sessions may be held); that Italian shall be theofficial language; that no session or vote of either house shall bevalid unless an absolute majority of the members is present; and thatneither house shall receive any deputation, or give hearings topersons other than the legislative members, ministers, andcommissioners of the Government. [557] Except such as relate tofinance, bills on any subject may originate in either house, and atthe initiative of the Government or of private members, though inpractice all proposals of importance emanate from the Quirinal. Theministers appear regularly on the floor of the two chambers, toadvocate the measures of the Government and to reply to inquiries. Theright of interpellation is not infrequently exercised, though thedebate and vote following a challenge of the ministry fall regularlyafter an interval of some days, instead of at once, as in the Frenchsystem, thus guarding somewhat against precipitancy of action. Ameasure which is passed in one house is transmitted to the other forconsideration. After enactment in both houses, it is presented to theking for approval, which, in practice, is never withheld. A billrejected by the crown, or by either house, may not be reintroducedduring the same session. Votes are taken by rising and sitting, bydivision, or by secret ballot. The third of these methods isobligatory in all final votes on enactments, and on measures of apersonal character. It is specifically enjoined that deputies (p.  381)shall represent the nation as a whole, and not the districts fromwhich they are chosen, and to this end no binding instructions may beimposed upon them by the electors. [558] Except when taken in theactual commission of an offense, deputies are exempt from arrestduring the continuance of a session, and they may not be proceededagainst in criminal matters without the previous consent of theChamber. Neither senators nor representatives may be called to accountfor opinions expressed, or for votes cast, in the performance of theirofficial functions. [Footnote 557: Arts. 52-54, 59, 62. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 12-13. In practice the requirement of the presence of an absolute majority of members is sometimes disregarded. ] [Footnote 558: Art. 41. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 11. ] IV. THE JUDICIARY *420. General Aspects. *--The provisions of the _Statuto_ respecting theadministration of justice are brief and general. Justice, it isdeclared, emanates from the king and is administered in his name bythe judges whom he appoints. These judges, after three years ofservice, are irremovable. Proceedings of courts in civil cases andhearings in criminal cases are required to be public. No one may bewithdrawn from his ordinary legal jurisdiction; and no modificationmay be introduced in respect to courts, tribunals, or judges, save bylaw. [559] On the basis of these principles there has been built up asystem of tribunals which differs in but few important respects fromthe systems in operation in the other Latin countries of Europe. Itconsists, in part, of courts which have been carried over from theperiod preceding Italian unification and, in part, of courts which owetheir existence to legislation subsequent to 1861. The model uponwhich the system has been developed is the judicial hierarchy ofFrance, and it differs from this system in little save the existence, as will appear, of five largely independent courts of cassationinstead of one. [Footnote 559: Arts. 68-73. Ibid. , II. , 14-15. ] *421. The Ordinary Courts. *--For purposes of justice the kingdom isdivided into 1, 535 _mandamenti_, [560] 162 tribunal districts, and 20appellate court districts. Within each _mandamento_ is a _pretura_, ormagistracy, which exercises jurisdiction in civil cases and in casesof misdemeanors (_contravvenzioni_) and offenses (_delitte_)punishable by imprisonment not exceeding three months, or banishmentnot exceeding one year, or a fine not exceeding 1, 000 lire. In (p.  382)minor civil cases, involving sums not in excess of 100 lire, jurisdiction is vested in justices of the peace (_giudici conciliatori_)who likewise, upon request, act as arbitrators in cases involving anyamount. In each of thirteen of the largest towns there is a _pretura_which exercises penal jurisdiction exclusively. Next above the_pretori_ stand the penal courts, one in each of the 162 tribunaldistricts. These exercise jurisdiction in the first instance inoffenses involving a maximum imprisonment of ten years or a fine ofmore than 1, 000 lire. To them appeal may be carried from the decisionsof the _pretori_. Closely associated are the courts of assize, whichpossess original jurisdiction in cases involving a penalty ofimprisonment for life, or for a period longer than a minimum of five, and a maximum of ten, years. Save when the Senate is constituted ahigh court of justice, these tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction ofall press offenses and of all cases involving attacks upon thesecurity of the state. As a rule, the courts of assize make use of thejury. From their decisions there is no appeal, save upon a point ofform, and appeal lies solely to the court of cassation at Rome. Fromthe penal tribunals appeal lies, in cases not dealt with by the assizecourts, to the twenty courts of appeal. [Footnote 560: Prior to 1901 the administrative and electoral _mandamenti_ and the _mandamenti giudiziarii_ were identical geographically, and there were 1, 805 of them in the kingdom. By a law of the year mentioned the judicial _mandamenti_ were reduced in number to 1, 535. ] At the top of the system stand five largely independent courts ofcassation, located at the old capitals of Turin, Florence, Naples, Palermo, and Rome. Each of these exercises, within its own territory, final jurisdiction in all cases involving the ordinary civil law. Thecourt of cassation at Rome, it is true, has been given exclusivejurisdiction in conflicts of competence between different courts, conflicts between the courts and the administrative authorities, thetransfer of suits from one tribunal to another, writs of error incriminal cases, and a variety of other special matters. But, asidefrom this, the five tribunals are absolutely equal in function; thereis no appeal from one to another, and the decisions arrived at by onedo not constitute precedents which the others are obligated torecognize. One of the most striking aspects, indeed, of the Italianjudicial system is its lack of centralization; though it should beadded that the centralizing principle which, since 1870, has dominatedso notably all other departments of the government has been graduallywinning its way in the judiciary. *422. The Administrative Courts. *--In Italy, as in continental countriesgenerally, there is preserved a sharp distinction between public andprivate law; but the separation of functions of the ordinary and theadministrative courts is much less clear-cut than in France andelsewhere. In 1865, indeed, the surviving administrative courts of (p.  383)the states which had been drawn into the kingdom, were abolished andit was arranged that the ordinary courts should exercise unrestrictedjurisdiction in all criminal cases and in all civil cases in which, bythe decision of the Council of State, a civil or political right wasinvolved. The system worked poorly and by laws of June 2, 1889, andMay 1, 1890, a special section of the Council of State (composed of apresident and eight councillors named by the king) was set off toserve as an administrative court, while at the same time an inferioradministrative jurisdiction was conferred upon the _giunta_ (prefectand certain assistants) of the province. In practice to-day, when thelegality of acts committed by the administrative officials is calledin question, the ordinary courts exercise jurisdiction, if thequestion is one of private _right_; if it is one merely of private_interest_, it goes for decision to an administrative tribunal. Inmost continental countries _all_ cases involving the legality ofofficial acts fall within the domain of the administrativecourts. [561] [Footnote 561: There is a brief description of the Italian judicial system in Lowell, Governments and Parties, II. , 170-178. ] V. LOCAL GOVERNMENT *423. Historical Basis. *--In her ancient territorial divisions Italy hadonce the basis of a natural and wholesomely decentralized system oflocal government. Instead of availing themselves of it, however, thefounders of the present kingdom preferred to reduce the realm to a_tabula rasa_ and to erect within it a wholly new and symmetricalhierarchy of territorial divisions and governmental organs. By a greatstatute of March 20, 1865, there was introduced in the kingdom asystem of provincial and communal organization, the essentials ofwhich were taken over in part from Belgium, but more largely fromFrance. The functions and relations of the various local agencies wereamplified and given substantially their present form in the law ofDecember 30, 1888, supplemented and amended by acts of July 7, 1889, and July 11, 1894. So closely has the French model been adhered tothroughout that the resemblance between the two systems amounts almostto duplication. The system of Italy calls, therefore, for no veryextended independent description. The units of local government are four in number--the province, the_circondaro_, the _mandamento_, and the commune. Of these, the firstand last alone possess vitality, distinct interests, and some measureof autonomy; and throughout the entire series runs that same principleof thoroughgoing centralization which is the pre-eminent characteristicof the local governmental system of France. The _circondaro_, (p.  384)corresponding to the French _arrondissement_, is essentially anelectoral division. Strictly, there are in the kingdom 197 _circondarii_;but 87 districts comprising the province of Mantua and the eightprovinces of Venetia are, in all save name, _circondarii_ also. The1806 _mandamenti_, or cantons, are but subdivisions of the provincesfor administrative purposes. *424. The Province: Prefect and Council. *--There are in the kingdom 69provinces, varying considerably in size but with an average populationof 450, 000 to 500, 000. The Italian province corresponds closely to theFrench department. At its head is a prefect, appointed by the crownand directly responsible to the Minister of the Interior. Like theFrench prefect, the Italian is a political official, and the fact notmerely influences his appointment but affects greatly his conduct inoffice. As representative and agent of the central government theprefect publishes and executes the laws, supervises the provincialadministration, opens and closes sessions of the provincial counciland sanctions or vetoes the measures of that body, and safeguards ingeneral the interests of the Government in the province. Within each province is a council of from 20 to 60 members, electedfor a period of six years on a franchise somewhat broader than thatwhich prevails in parliamentary elections. One-half of the membershipis renewed triennially. The council meets regularly once each year, nominally for a month's session; but an extraordinary session may beconvened at any time by the prefect, by the deputation, or upon callof one-third of the councillors. Aside from the voting of theprovincial budget, the powers of the council are relatively meager. Inpart, e. G. , in respect to the maintenance of highways, the control ofsecondary and technical education, and a share in the supervision ofcharity, they are obligatory; in part they are merely permissive. Adeputation, or commission, of from six to ten persons, elected by thecouncil from its own membership, represents the council in theintervals between its sittings and carries on the work which it mayhave in hand. The prefect is advised by a prefectorial council ofthree members appointed by the Government, and he is further assistedby a _giunta_ of six members, four of whom are elected by theprovincial council, the other two being drawn from the prefectorialcouncil. It is the business of the _giunta_ to assist the prefect andsub-prefects in the supervision of local administration and to serveas a tribunal for the trial of cases arising under the administrativelaw. The prefect and the _giunta_ possess large, and to a considerabledegree, discretionary powers of control over the proceedings of thecouncil; and the prefect, representing as he does the central governmentexclusively, can be called to account only by his superiors at (p.  385)Rome. *425. The Commune: Syndic and Council. *--As in France, the commune isthe least artificial and the most vigorous of the local governmentalunits. In June, 1911, there were in Italy a total of 8, 323 communes, besides four boroughs in Sardinia not included in the communalorganization. Each commune has a council of from 15 to 80 members, according to its population, elected for a period of six years, one-half retiring every three years. The communal franchise isappreciably broader than the parliamentary. It extends to all Italiancitizens twenty-one years of age who can read and write, provided theyare on the parliamentary list, or pay any direct annual contributionto the commune, or comply with various other very easy conditions. Thecouncil holds two regular sessions a year, though in the large townsit, in point of fact, meets much more frequently. Between sittings itswork is carried on by a _giunta_, which serves as a committee toexecute the resolutions of the council and to draft its budget andby-laws. The powers of the council are comprehensive. It is obligatedto maintain streets, roads, and markets; to provide for elementaryeducation; to make suitable arrangements for the relief of the poor, the registration of births and deaths, and of electors; to establishpolice regulations and prisons; and, under varying conditions, toattend to a wide variety of other matters. The range of its optionalactivities is almost boundless. The council may establish theatres, found museums, subsidize public amusements, and, indeed, go to almostany length in the regulation of local affairs and the expenditure oflocal funds. [562] [Footnote 562: For an arraignment of the extravagance of the local governing authorities see King and Okey, Italy To-day, 267. ] As its chief official, every commune has a _sindaco_, i. E. , a syndic, or mayor. Prior to 1896 the syndic was chosen by the communal councilfrom its own members, if the commune had more than 10, 000 inhabitants, or was the capital of a province or _circondaro_; otherwise he wasappointed from among the members of the council by the king. In thegreat majority of communes the procedure was of the second type. Since1896 the syndic has been chosen regularly in all communes by thecouncil, for a term of three years, together with a secretary, electedin the first instance for two, but afterwards for periods of not lessthan six, years. Despite the fact that the syndic is now electeduniversally by the communal council, his position is not thatexclusively of executive head of the local community. Like theprefect, he is a government official, who, save under very exceptionalcircumstances, may be removed only with the prefect's permission. Hemay not be called to account except by his superiors, or sued save (p.  386)with the permission of the crown. [563] [Footnote 563: For a brief account of local government in Italy see King and Okey, Italy To-day, Chap. 14. More extended treatment will be found in E. Del Guerra, L'Amministrazione pubblica in Italia (Florence, 1893) and G. Greco, Il nuova diritto amministrativo Italiano (Naples, 1896). ] CHAPTER XXI (p.  387) STATE AND CHURCH--POLITICAL PARTIES I. QUIRINAL AND VATICAN Italy differs from other nations of importance in containing what isessentially a state within a state. The capital of the kingdom islikewise the capital of the Catholic world--the administrative seat ofa government which is not only absolutely independent of thegovernment of the Italian nation but is in no small degreeantagonistic to it. It need hardly be remarked that the consequencesof this anomalous situation affect profoundly the practical operationsof government, and especially the crystallization and programmes ofpolitical parties, in the peninsula. *426. Termination of the Temporal Power. *--One goal toward which thefounders of the kingdom directed their efforts was the realization ofthe ideal of Cavour, "a free church in a free state. " A thoroughgoingapplication of this principle proved impracticable, but such progresshas been made toward it as to constitute, for Italy, a veritablerevolution. On the 20th of September, 1870, the armed forces of KingVictor Emmanuel crossed the bounds of the petty papal dominion aboutRome, entered the city, and by a few sharp strokes beat down allforcible opposition to the sovereignty of the united Italian nation. Pope Pius IX. Refused absolutely to acquiesce in the loss of histemporal dominion, but he was powerless to prevent it. His sole hopeof indemnity lay in a possible intervention of the Catholic powers inhis behalf--a hope which by Prussia's defeat of France and thedownfall of the Emperor Napoleon III. Was rendered extremelyunsubstantial. The possibility of intervention was, however, sufficiently considerable to occasion real apprehension on the part ofVictor Emmanuel and of those attached to the interests of the youngnation. In part to avert complications abroad, as well as with anhonest purpose to adjust a difficult situation, the Government madehaste to devise what it considered a fair, safe, and honorablesettlement of its relations with the papal authority. The result wasthe fundamental statute known as the Law of the Papal Guarantees, enacted March 21, 1871, after a heated parliamentary contest (p.  388)lasting upwards of two months, and promulgated under date of May 13following. [564] [Footnote 564: Text in Coglio e Malchiodi, Codice Politico Amministrativo. An English version is printed in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 16-21. ] *427. The Law of Papal Guarantees, 1871: Papal Prerogatives. *--Thisimportant measure, which remains to this day unchanged, falls into twoprincipal parts. The first is concerned with the prerogatives of theSupreme Pontiff and of the Holy See; the second regulates the legalrelations of church and state within the kingdom. In a series ofthirteen articles there is enumerated a sum total of papal privilegeswhich constitutes the Vatican an essentially sovereign and independentpower. First of all, the Pope is declared sacred and inviolable, andany offense against his person is made punishable with the samepenalty as a similar offense against the person of the king. In thesecond place, the Italian Government "grants to the Supreme Pontiff, within the kingdom, sovereign honors, and guarantees to him thepre-eminence customarily accorded to him by Catholic sovereigns. "[565]Diplomatic agents accredited to him, and envoys whom he may send toforeign states, are entitled to all the prerogatives and immunitieswhich international law accords to diplomatic agents generally. Inlieu of the revenues which were cut off by the loss of the temporaldominion there is settled upon the Pope a permanent income to be paidfrom the treasury of the state. For the uses of the Holy See--thepreservation and custody of the apostolic palaces, compensation andpensions for guards and attachés, the keeping of the Vatican museumsand library, and any other needful purposes--there is reserved the sumof 3, 225, 000 lire ($645, 000) annually, to be "entered in the greatbook of the public debt as a perpetual and inalienable income of theHoly See. "[566] The obligation thus assumed by the state may never berepudiated, nor may the amount stipulated be reduced. Permanentpossession, furthermore, of the Vatican and Lateran palaces, with allbuildings, museums, libraries, gardens, and lands appertaining thereto(including the church of St. Peter's), together with the villa atCastel Gandolfo, is expressly guaranteed, and it is stipulated, notonly that these properties shall be exempt from all taxation andcharges and from seizure for public purposes, but that, except withpapal permission, no public official or agent in the performance ofhis public duties shall so much as enter the papal palaces or grounds, or any place where there may be in session at any time a conclave orecumenical council. During a vacancy of the pontifical chair nojudicial or political functionary may, on any pretext, invade the (p.  389)personal liberty of the cardinals, and the Government engagesspecifically to see to it that conclaves and ecumenical councils shallnot be molested by external disorder. [Footnote 565: Art. 3. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 16. ] [Footnote 566: Art. 4. Ibid. , 17. ] *428. Papal Freedom in the Exercise of Spiritual Functions. *--In theexercises of spiritual functions the independence of the Holy See isfully secured. The Pope may correspond freely with the bishops andwith "the whole Catholic world, " without interference from theGovernment. [567] Papers, documents, books, and registers deposited inpontifical offices or in congregations of an exclusively spiritualcharacter are exempt from all legal processes of visit, search, orsequestration, and ecclesiastics may not be called to account by thecivil authorities for taking part officially in the promulgation ofany act pertaining to the spiritual ministry of the Holy See. Tofacilitate the administration of papal affairs the right is granted ofmaintaining separate postal and telegraph offices, of transmittingsealed packages of correspondence under the papal stamp, eitherdirectly or through the Italian post, and of sending couriers who, within the kingdom, are placed on an equal footing with emissaries offoreign governments. [Footnote 567: Art. 12. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 19. ] *429. Legal Relations of Church and State. *--The regulations by whichthe relations of church and state are governed more specifically beginwith the abolition of all restrictions upon the right of members ofthe Catholic clergy to assemble for ecclesiastical purposes. Withprovisional exceptions, the _exequatur_, the _placet_, and all otherforms of civil authorization of spiritual measures are done away. [568]The state yields its ancient right of nominating to bishoprics, andthe bishops themselves are no longer required to take oath of fidelityto the king. In matters of spiritual discipline it is stipulated thatthere shall be no appeal to the civil courts from the decisions of theecclesiastical authorities. If, however, any ecclesiastical decisionor act contravenes a law of the state, subverts public order, orencroaches upon the rights of individuals, it is, _ipso facto_, of noeffect; and in respect to these things the state is constituted solejudge. The Church, in short, is granted a very large measure offreedom and of autonomy; but at the same time it is not so farprivileged as to be removed beyond the pale of the public law. If itsmeasures constitute offenses, they are subject to the provisions ofthe ordinary criminal code. [569] [Footnote 568: On the Government's use of the _exequatur_ since 1871 see King and Okey, Italy To-day, 253. ] [Footnote 569: By act of July 12, 1871, articles 268-270 of the Italian penal code were so modified as to render ecclesiastics liable to imprisonment of from six months to five years, and to fines of from one thousand to three thousand lire, for spoken or written attacks upon the state, or for the incitement of disorder. ] *430. Papal Opposition to the Existing System. *--The arrangements (p.  390)thus comprised in the Law of Guarantees have never received thesanction of the papacy. They rest exclusively upon the authority ofthe state. Pope Pius IX. , flatly refusing to accept them, issued, May15, 1871, an encyclical to the bishops of the Church repudiating theLaw and calling upon Catholic princes everywhere to co-operate in therestoration of the temporal power. The call was unheeded, and the Popefell back upon the obstructionist policy of maintaining absolutely norelations, with the Italian kingdom. His successor, Leo XIII. , preserved essentially the same attitude, and, although many times ithas been intimated that the present Pope, Pius X. , is more disposed toa conciliatory policy, it still is true that the only recognitionwhich is accorded the Quirinal by the Vatican is of a purely passiveand involuntary character. The Pope persists in regarding himself as"the prisoner of the Vatican. " He will not so much as set foot outsidethe petty domain which has been assigned to him, because his doing somight be construed as a virtual recognition of the legality of theauthority of the kingdom within the Eternal City. Not a penny of theannuity whose payment to the Holy See was stipulated in 1871 has beentouched. By the Italian Government the annuity itself has been madesubject to quinquennial prescription, so that in the event of arecognition of the Law at any time by the papacy not more than afive-year quota, with interest, could be collected. As to the measure of fidelity with which the Government has fulfilledthe obligations which it assumed under the Law, there is, naturally, awide divergence of opinion. The authors of what is probably the mostauthoritative book on Italy written from a detached and impartialpoint of view say that "on the whole, one is bound to conclude thatthe Government has stretched the Law of Guarantees in its owninterest, but that the brevity and incompleteness of the Law ischiefly responsible for the difficulty in construing it. "[570]Undoubtedly it may be affirmed that the spirit of the Law has beenobserved with consistency, though the exigencies of temporal interesthave compelled not infrequently the non-observance of the letter. Solong as the Vatican persists in holding rigidly aloof fromco-operation in the arrangement the Law obviously cannot be executedwith the spontaneity and completeness that were intended by itsframers. The situation is unfortunate, alike for state and church, andsubversive of the best interests of the Italian people. [571] [Footnote 570: King and Okey, Italy To-day, 255. ] [Footnote 571: For a brief discussion of the subject of church and state in Italy see King and Okey, Italy To-day, Chaps. 2 and 13. A useful book is R. De Cesare, Roma e lo stato del papa dal ritorno di Pio IX. , 2 vols. (Rome, 1907), of which there is an abridged translation by H. Zimmern, The Last Days of Papal Rome, 1850-1870 (Boston, 1909). Mention may be made of M. Pernot, La politique de Pie X. (Paris, 1910); A. Brunialto, Lo stato e la chiesa in Italia (Turin, 1892); G. Barzellotti, L'Italia e il papato, in _Nuova Antologia_, March 1, 1904; and F. Nielsen, The History of the Papacy in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1906). ] II. PARTIES AND MINISTRIES, 1861-1896 (p.  391) *431. Party Beginnings: the Conservative Ascendancy, 1861-1876. *--InItaly, as in France, political parties are numerous and theirconstituencies and programmes are subject to rapid and bewilderingfluctuation. In the earliest days of the kingdom party lines were notsharply drawn. In the parliament elected in January, 1861, thesupporters of Cavour numbered 407, while the strength of theopposition was but 36. After the death of Cavour, however, June 6, 1861, the cleavage which already had begun to mark off the Radicals, or Left, from the Conservatives, or Right, was accentuated, and theLeft grew rapidly in numbers and in influence. During the periodbetween 1861 and 1870 the two parties differed principally upon thequestion of the completion of Italian unity, the Conservativesfavoring a policy of caution and delay, the Radicals urging that theissue be forced at the earliest opportunity. With the exception ofbrief intervals in 1862 and 1867, when the Radicals, under Rattazzi, gained the upper hand, the government during the period indicated wasadministered by the Conservative ministries of Ricasoli (the successorof Cavour), Minghetti, La Marmora, Menabrea, and Lanza. Each of theRattazzi ministries had as one of its principal incidents an invasionof the papal territory by Garibaldi, and each fell primarily becauseof the fear of the nation that its continuance in power would mean warwith France. The unification of the peninsula was left to beaccomplished by the Conservatives. After 1870 the dominance of the Conservatives was prolonged to 1876. The Lanza government, whose most distinguished member was the financeminister Sella, lasted until July 10, 1873, and the second ministry ofMinghetti, given distinction by the able foreign ministerVisconti-Venosta, filled out the period to March 18, 1876. Upon thesetwo ministries devolved the enormous task of organizing more fully thegovernmental system of the kingdom, and especially of bringing orderout of chaos in the national finances. The work was effectivelyperformed, but when it had been completed the nation was more thanready to drive the Conservatives from office. The Conservativeadministration had been honest and efficient, but it had been rigidand at times harsh. It had set itself squarely against the democracyof Garibaldi, Crispi, and Depretis; it had sought to retain the (p.  392)important offices of state in the hands of its own immediateadherents; and in the execution of its fiscal measures it had beenexacting, and even ruthless. March 18, 1876, the Minghetti governmentfound itself lacking a majority in the Chamber, whereupon it retiredand was replaced by a Radical ministry under the premiership ofDepretis, successor of Rattazzi in the leadership of the Left. Anational election which followed, in November, yielded the newGovernment the overwhelming parliamentary majority of 421 to 87. *432. The Rule of the Radicals, 1876-1896. *--Prior to their accession topower the Radical leaders had criticised so sharply the fiscal andadministrative policies of their opponents that they were expected bymany persons to overturn completely the existing order of the state. As all but invariably happens under such circumstances, however, whenthe "outs" became the "ins" their point of view, and consequentlytheir purposes, underwent a remarkable transformation. In almost everyessential the policies, and even the methods, of the Conservativeswere perpetuated, and the importance of the political overturn of 1876arises, not from any shift which took place from one style ofgovernment to another, but from its effects upon the composition andalignment of the parties themselves. During its fifteen-yearascendancy the Right had exhibited again and again a glaring lack ofcoherence; yet its unity was in reality considerably more substantialthan was that of the Left. So long as the Radicals occupied theposition of opponents of the Government they were able, indeed, topresent a seemingly solid front. But when it fell to them to organizeministries, to frame and enact measures, and to conduct theadministration, the fact appeared instantly that they had neither aconstructive programme nor a unified leadership. The upshot was thatupon its advent to power the Left promptly fell apart into the severalgroups of which it was composed, and never thereafter was theresubstantial co-operation among these groups, save at rare intervalswhen co-operation was necessary to prevent the return to office of theConservatives. *433. The Depretis Ministries, 1876-1887. *--That portion of the partywhich first acquired ascendancy was the more moderate, under theleadership of Depretis. Its programme may be said to have embraced theextension of the franchise, the enforcement of the rights of the statein relation to the Church, the incompatibility of a parliamentarymandate with the holding of public office, the maintenance of themilitary and naval policy instituted by the Conservatives, and, eventually, fiscal reform, though the amelioration of taxation wasgiven no such prominence as the nation had been led to expect. (p.  393)Save for the brief intervals occupied by the two Cairoli ministries of1878 and 1879-1881, Depretis continued in the office of premier from1876 until his death, in the summer of 1887. Again and again duringthis period the personnel of the ministry was changed. Ministers whomade themselves unpopular were replaced by new ones, [572] and socomplete became the lack of dividing principles between the partiesthat in 1883 there was established a Depretis cabinet whichrepresented a coalition of the moderate Left and the Right. [573] Thecoalition, however, proved ill-advised, and when, July 27, 1887, Depretis died he left behind him a government which represented rathera fusion of the moderate and radical wings of the Left. By reason ofthe disintegrated condition of parties Depretis had been able tooverride habitually the fundamental principles of parliamentarism andto maintain through many years a government which lived from hand tomouth on petty manoeuvers. The franchise, it is true, had beenbroadened by the law of 1882, and some of the more odious taxes, e. G. , the much complained of grist tax, had been abolished. But electoralcorruption had been condoned, if not encouraged; the civil service hadbeen degraded to a mere machine of the ministerial majority; and thenation had been led to embark upon highly questionable policies ofcolonial expansion, alliance with Germany and Austria, and protectivetariffs. [Footnote 572: This partial renewal of a ministry, known in Italy as a _rimpasto_, was, and still is, rendered easy by the average ministry's lack of political solidarity. ] [Footnote 573: This coalition policy--the so-called _transformismo_--did not originate with Depretis. As early as 1873 a portion of the Right under Minghetti, by joining the Left, had overturned the Lanza-Sella cabinet; and in 1876 Minghetti himself had fallen a victim to a similar defection of Conservative deputies. ] *434. The First Crispi, First Rudini, and First Giolitti Ministries, 1887-1893. *--The successor of Depretis was Crispi, in reality the onlyman of first-rate statesmanship in the ranks of the Left. To him itfell to tide the nation safely over the crises attendant upon thedeath (January 9, 1878) of King Victor Emmanuel II. And that (February7 following) of Pope Pius IX. The personality of Crispi was very muchmore forceful than was that of Depretis and the grasp which he securedupon the political situation rendered his position little short ofthat of a dictator. The elections of 1876 had reduced to impotence theold Right as a party of opposition, and although prior to Crispi'sministry there had been some recovery, the Left continued in all butuncontested power. In the elections of November, 1890, the Governmentwas accorded an overwhelming majority. None the less, largely byreason of his uncontrollable temper, Crispi allowed himself, at theend of January, 1891, to be forced by the Conservatives into a (p.  394)position such that the only course open to him was to resign. There followed a transitional period during which the chaos of partygroups was made more than ever apparent. The Rudini ministry, composedof representatives of both the Right and the Left, survived littlemore than a year. May 5, 1892, the formation of a ministry wasintrusted by King Humbert to Giolitti, a Piedmontese deputy and at onetime minister of finance in the Crispi cabinet. The product was aministry supported by the groups of the Centre and the Left, butopposed by those of the Right and of the Extreme Left. Parliament wasdissolved and during the ensuing November were held national electionsin which, by exercise of the grossest sort of official pressure, theGovernment was able to win a substantial victory. The period coveredby Giolitti's ministry--marked by a cringing foreign policy, an almostutter breakdown of the national finances, and the scandals of 1893 inconnection with the management of state banks, especially the BancaRomana--may well be regarded as the most unfortunate in Italianhistory since the completion of national unity. The revelations made, November 23, 1893, by a committee appointed by Parliament toinvestigate the bank scandals were of such a character that theGiolitti ministry retired from office, November 24, without so much aschallenging a vote of confidence. After prolonged delay a new ministrywas made up, December 10, by Crispi, whose return to power wasdictated by the conviction of the nation that no one else wasqualified to deal with a situation so desperate. *435. The Second Crispi Ministry, 1893-1896. *--The second Crispiministry extended from December, 1893, to March, 1896. Politically, the period was one of extreme unsettlement. Supported by the Centreand the Left, substantially as Giolitti had been, the Governmentsuppressed disorder, effected economies, and entered upon an ambitiousattempt at colonial aggrandizement in East Africa. But it was opposedby the Extreme Left, a large portion of the Right, and the adherentsof Giolitti, so that its position was always precarious. In December, 1894, Giolitti produced papers purporting to show that Crispi himselfhad been implicated in the bank irregularities. The effort to bringabout the premier's fall failed, although there ensued a veritable warbetween the cabinet and the chambers, in the course of which even theappearance of parliamentary government was abandoned. In the electionsof May, 1895, the Government was victorious, and it was only by reasonof public indignation arising from the failure of the Eritreanenterprise that, finally, March 5, 1896, Crispi and his colleaguessurrendered office. III. THE ERA OF COMPOSITE MINISTRIES, 1896-1912 (p.  395) During the period which was terminated by the retirement of Crispi thesuccessive ministries, while occasionally including representatives ofmore than a single political group, exhibited normally a considerabledegree of solidarity. After 1896 there set in, however, an epochduring which the growing multiplicity of parties bore fruit incabinets of amazingly composite character. In the place of the fairlysubstantial Conservative and Radical parties of the seventies stoodnow upwards of half a score of contending factions, some durable, somebut transitory. No government could survive a month save by thesupport of an affiliation of a number of these groups. But suchaffiliations were, in the nature of things, artificial andprovisional, and ministerial stability became what it remains to-day, a thing universally desired but rarely enjoyed. *436. The Second Rudini and the Pelloux Ministries, 1896-1900. *--ToGeneral Ricotti-Magnani was committed, at Crispi's fall in 1896, thetask of forming a new ministry. After some delay the premiership wasbestowed upon Rudini, now leader of the Right. The new Government, constructed to attract the support of both the Right and the ExtremeLeft, took as its principal object the elimination of Crispi from thearena of politics. In time its foreign policy was strengthenedappreciably by the return of Visconti-Venosta, after twenty years, tothe foreign office, but home affairs were administered in a grosslyinefficient manner. Bound by a secret understanding with Cavalotti, the leader of the Extreme Left, Rudini was obliged to submithabitually to radical dictation, and the elections of 1899, conductedspecifically to crush the adherents of Crispi, threw open yet widerthe door of opportunity for the Socialists, the Republicans, and theradical elements generally. The Rudini ministry survived until June18, 1898, when it was overthrown in consequence of riots occasioned insouthern Italy by a rise in the price of bread. June 29, 1898, a ministry was made up by General Pelloux which wasessentially colorless politically and whose immediate programmeconsisted solely in the passage of a public safety measure originatedduring the preceding ministry. When, in June, 1900, the Governmentdissolved parliament and appealed to the country the result wasanother appreciable increase of power on the part of the radicals. Inthe new chamber the extremists--Radicals, Republicans, andSocialists--numbered nearly 100, or double their former strength. ThePelloux government forthwith retired, and a Liberal ministry wasconstituted (June 24, 1900) under Saracco, president of the (p.  396)Senate. Five weeks later, upon the assassination of King Humbert, occurred the accession of the present sovereign, Victor Emmanuel III. *437. The Saracco and Zanardelli Ministries, 1900-1903. *--The Saraccoministry, formed as a cabinet of pacification, was overthrown February7, 1901, in consequence of its hesitating attitude towards a dockstrike at Genoa. It was succeeded by a ministry containing Giolitti(in the portfolio of the interior) and presided over by Zanardelli, long a leader of the extremer wing of the Radicals. The members of thenew Government were drawn from several groups. Three were ofZanardelli's following, three were adherents of Giolitti, threebelonged to the Right, one was a Crispian, and two were Independents. Such was their forced reliance, however, upon the support of theExtreme Left that the formation of this cabinet served as an impetusto a notable advance on the part of the extremer groups, especiallythe Socialists. *438. Giolitti, Fortis, and Sonnino, 1903-1909. *--In October, 1903, Premier Zanardelli retired, by reason of ill-health, and the cabinetwas reconstituted under Giolitti. Aside from the premier, its mostdistinguished members were Tittoni, minister of foreign affairs, andLuzzatti, minister of finance. The position of the new Government wasinsecure, and although the elections of November, 1904, resulted inthe return of a substantial ministerial majority, the cabinet, realizing that it really lacked the support of the country, resignedin March, 1905. A new and colorless ministry, that of Fortis, lastedless than a year, i. E. , until February 2, 1906. The coalition cabinetof Sonnino proved even less long-lived. The well-known statesmanshipof Sonnino, together with the fact that men of ability, such asLuzzatti and Guicciardini, were placed in charge of variousportfolios, afforded ground for the hope that there might ensue anincreased measure of parliamentary stability. But the hope was vainand, May 17, 1906, the ministry abandoned office. Curiously enough, the much desired stability was realized under a new Giolittigovernment, composed, as all Italian governments in these days mustbe, of representatives of a number of political groups. In part byreason of the shrewdness of the premier and his colleagues, in part byreason of sheer circumstance, the Giolitti cabinet maintained steadilyits position until December 2, 1909, although, as need hardly beobserved, during these three and a half years there were numerouschanges in the tenure of individual portfolios. *439. Second Sonnino and Luzzatti Ministries, 1909-1911. *--Upon theretirement of Giolitti there was constituted a second Sonninoministry, composed of elements drawn from all of the moderate groupsfrom the Liberal Right to the Democratic Left. The programme which itannounced included electoral reform, the improvement of primary (p.  397)education, measures for the encouragement of agriculture, reorganization of local taxation, reduction of the period of militaryservice to two years, and a multiplicity of other ambitious projects. Scarcely more fortunate, however, was the second Sonnino governmentthan had been the first, and, in the midst of the turmoil attendingthe debates upon a Shipping Conventions bill, the premier and hiscolleagues felt themselves forced to retire, March 21, 1910. Giolitti refused to attempt the formation of another ministry, and thetask devolved upon the former minister of finance, Luzzatti. In thenew cabinet the premier and one other member represented the Liberalelement of the Right; one member represented the Centre; three wereadherents of Giolitti; two were Radicals; one was a Socialist; and twoprofessed independence of all groups. Whatever of advantage might besupposed to accrue from a government which was broadly representativecould legitimately be expected from this combination; although thecomposite character of the ministry, it was well enough understood, must of necessity operate to the detriment of the Government's unityand influence. The programme which the Luzzatti ministry announced wasno less ambitious than that put forward by its predecessor. Includedin it were the establishment of proportional representation, theextension of the suffrage, measures to remedy unemployment and otherindustrial ills, compulsory insurance for agricultural laborers, resistance to clerical intrigue and the prevention of anti-clericalprovocations, and the usual pledge to maintain the Triple Alliance. *440. Giolitti and the Left, 1911-. *--The life of the Luzzattigovernment covered barely a twelvemonth. March 29, 1911, Giolittireturned to the premiership, signalizing his restoration to power byavowing in the Chamber a programme of policies which, for the time atleast, elicited the support of all of the more important party groups. The composition of the new government differed but slightly from thatof the former one, but the fact was undisguised that Giolitti reliedfor support principally upon the more radical elements of the nation, and that, furthermore, he did so with the full assent of the king. Astriking evidence of this was the invitation which was extended thesocialist leader Bissolati to assume a post in the ministry. Certainobstacles arose which prevented acceptance of the offered position, but when the Government's programme was being given shape Bissolatiwas called repeatedly into counsel, and it is understood that theministry's pronouncement in behalf of universal suffrage and thereduction of military and naval expenditures was inspired immediatelyby socialist influence. Socialism in Italy, it may be observed, is notentirely anti-monarchical, as it is in France and Spain; on the (p.  398)contrary, it tends constantly to subordinate political to socialquestions and ends. Bissolati is himself an exponent of theevolutionary type of socialism, as is Briand in France. The first voteof confidence accorded the Giolitti government was participated in bythe Giolitti Liberals, the Democratic Left, the Radicals, and asection of the Socialists--by, in short, a general coalition of theLeft. The shift of political gravity toward the Left, of which thevote was symptomatic, is the most fundamental aspect of the politicalsituation in Italy to-day, even as it is in that of France. Duringmore than a generation the grouping of parties and factions has beensuch as to preclude the formation of a compact and disciplinedmajority able and willing to grapple with the great social questionswhich successive ministries have inscribed in their programmes. But itseems not impossible that a working _entente_ among the groups of theLeft may in time produce the legislative stability requisite forsystematic and fruitful legislation. IV. PHASES OF PARTY POLITICS *441. Lack of a Conservative Party: Effects. *--"From the beginning, "says an Italian writer, "the constitution of our parties has beendetermined, not at all by great historical or politicalconsiderations, but by considerations of a purely personal nature, andthis aspect has been accentuated more and more as we have progressedin constitutional development. The natural conditions surrounding thebirth and growth of the new nation did not permit the formation of atrue conservative party which could stand in opposition to a liberalparty. The liberal party, therefore, occupying the entire field, divided empirically into groups, denominated not less empiricallyRight and Left, in accordance with simple distinctions of degrees andforms, and perchance also of personal disposition. "[574] [Footnote 574: Cardon, Del governo nella monarchia costituzionale, 125. ] The preponderating facts, in short, relative to political parties inItaly are two: (1) the absence of any genuine conservative party suchas in virtually every other European state plays a rôle of greater orlesser importance, and (2) the splitting of the liberal forces, whichelsewhere are bound to co-operate against the conservatives, into anumber of factional groups, dominated largely by factional leaders, and unwilling to unite save in occasional coalitions for momentaryadvantage. The lack of a genuine conservative party is to be explainedlargely by the anomalous situation which has existed since 1870 inrespect to church and state. Until late years that important element, the clericals, which normally would have constituted, as does itscounterpart in France, the backbone of a conservative party has (p.  399)persisted in the purely passive policy of abstention from nationalpolitics. In the evolution of party groupings it has had no part, andin Parliament it has been totally unrepresented. Until recently allactive party groups were essentially "liberal, " and rarely did any oneof them put forward a programme which served to impart to it any vitaldistinction from its rivals. Each was little more than a faction, united by personal ties, fluctuating in membership and in leadership, fighting with such means as for the moment appeared dependable for theperquisites of office. Of broadly national political issues there werenone, just as indeed there were no truly national parties. *442. The Groups of the Extreme Left. *--More recently there has begun tobe a certain development in the direction of national parties and ofstable party programmes. This is coming about primarily through thegrowth of the Extreme Left, and especially of the Socialists. Althoughthe effects are as yet scarcely perceptible, so that the politics ofthe country exhibit still all of the changeableness, ineffectiveness, and chaos characteristic of the group system, the development of the_partiti populari_ which compose collectively the Extreme Left, i. E. , the Republicans, the Radicals, and the Socialists, is an interestingpolitical phenomenon. [575] The Republicans are not numerous or wellorganized. Quite impotent between 1870 and 1890, they gained no littleground during the struggle against Crispi; but the rise of socialismhas weakened them, and the party may now be said to be distinctly indecline. To employ the expressive phrase of the Italians, theRepublicans are but _quattro noci in un sacco_, four nuts rattling ina bag. The Radicals are stronger, and their outlook is much morepromising. They are monarchists who are dissatisfied with themisgovernment of the older parties, but who distrust socialism. Theydraw especially from the artisans and lower middle class, and arestrongest in Lombardy, Venetia, and Tuscany. [Footnote 575: For an exposition of party conditions during the past decade see A. Labrioli, Storia di dieci anni, 1899-1909 (Milan, 1910). ] *443. The Rise of Socialism. *--In not a few respects the master fact ofItalian politics to-day is the remarkable growth of the Socialistparty. The origins of the socialist movement in Italy may be traced tothe Congress of Rimini in 1872, but during a considerable periodItalian socialism was scarcely distinguishable from Bakuniniananarchism, and it was not before 1890 that the line between the twowas drawn with precision. In 1891 was founded the collectivist journal_Critica Sociale_, and in the same year was held the first Italiancongress which was distinctively socialist. In 1892 came the finalbreak with the anarchists, and since this date socialism in Italy (p.  400)has differed in no essential particulars from its counterpart inother countries. Between 1891 and 1893 the new party was allied withthe Right, but Crispi's relentless policy of repression in 1894 hadthe effect of driving gradually the radical groups, Republicans, Radicals, and Socialists, into co-operation, and it is to this periodthat the origins of the present coalition of the groups of the ExtremeLeft are to be traced. During the years 1895-1900 the Socialistsassumed definitely the position of the advanced wing of a greatparliamentary party, with a very definite programme of political andsocial reform. This "minimum programme, " as it was gradually givenshape, came to comprise as its most essential features theestablishment of universal suffrage for adults of both sexes, thepayment of deputies and members of local councils, the enactment of amore humane penal code, the replacing of the standing army by anational militia, improved factory legislation, compulsory insuranceagainst sickness, the reform of laws regulating the relations oflandlords and tenants, the nationalization of railways and mines, theextension of compulsory education, the abolition of duties on food, and the enactment of a progressive income tax and succession duty. Thewidespread dissatisfaction of Italians with the older parties, thepractical character of the socialist programme, and the comparativelyable leadership of the socialist forces have combined to givesocialism an enormous growth within the past fifteen years. In 1895the party polled 60, 000 votes and returned to the Chamber of Deputies12 members. In 1897 it polled 108, 000 votes and returned 16 members. Thereafter the quota of seats carried at successive elections rose asfollows: 1900, 33; 1904, 26; 1906, 42; and 1909, 43. *444. The Catholics and Politics: the Non Expedit. *--Aside from thegrowth of socialism, the most important development in recent Italianpolitics has been the changed attitude of the Holy See with respect tothe participation of Catholics in political affairs. The term"Catholic" in Italy has a variety of significations. From one point ofview it denotes the great mass of the people--97. 1 per cent in1910--who are not Protestants, Greeks, Jews, or adherents of any faithother than the Roman. In another sense it denotes that very muchsmaller portion of the people who regularly and faithfully observeCatholic precepts of worship. Finally, it denotes also the stillsmaller body of men who yield the Pope implicit obedience in allmatters, civil as well as ecclesiastical, and who, with papalsanction, are beginning to constitute an organized force in politics. After it had become manifest that the Holy See might not hope forassistance from the Catholic powers in the recovery of its temporalpossessions and of its accustomed independence, there was worked (p.  401)out gradually at the Vatican a policy under which pressure was to bebrought to bear upon the Italian state from within. This policycomprised abstention from participation in national political life onthe part of as many citizens as could be induced to admit the right ofthe papal government to control their civic conduct. In protestagainst the alleged usurpations of secular power Pope Pius IX. Promulgated, in 1883, the memorable decree _Non Expedit_, by which itwas declared "inexpedient" that Catholics should vote at parliamentaryelections. Leo XIII. Maintained a similar attitude; and in 1895 hewent a step further by expressly forbidding what hitherto had beenpronounced simply inexpedient. At no time, before or after Pope Leo's decree of prohibition, was thepolicy of abstention widely enforced, and very many Catholics, both inand out of Italy, warmly opposed it. The stricture was applied only toparliamentary, not to municipal, elections; yet in the two thepercentages of the enfranchised citizens who appeared at the pollscontinued to be not very unequal, and there is every reason to believethat the meagerness of these percentages has been attributable at alltimes to the habitual indifference of the Italian electorate ratherthan to the restraining effects of the papal veto. None the less, inthe strongly Catholic province of Bergamo and in some other quarters, the papal regulations, by common admission, have cut deeply into whatotherwise would have been the normal parliamentary vote. *445. Relaxation of the Papal Ban. *--In the elections of 1904 manyCatholics who hitherto had abstained from voting joined with theGovernment's supporters at the polls in an effort to check the growinginfluence of the more radical political groups, justifying theirconduct by the conviction that the combatting of socialism is afundamental Catholic obligation. Pope Leo XIII. Was ready to admit theforce of the argument, and in June of the following year there wasissued an encyclical which made it the duty of Catholics everywhere, Italy included, to share in the maintenance of social order, andpermitted, and even enjoined, that they take part in politicalcontests in defense of social order whenever and wherever it wasobviously menaced. At the same time, such participation must be, notindiscriminate, but disciplined. It must be carried on under thedirection of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and with the expressapproval of the Vatican. Theoretically, and as a general rule, the_Non Expedit_ remains. But where the rigid application of the lawwould open the way for the triumph of the enemies of society and ofreligion (as, from the papal point of view, socialists inevitably are)the rule, upon request of the bishop and sanction by the Holy See, isto be waived. A corollary of this new policy is that, under (p.  402)certain circumstances, Catholics not merely vote but may stand forparliamentary seats. By the encyclical it is prescribed that suchcandidacies shall be permitted only where absolutely necessary toprevent the election of an avowed adversary of the Church, only wherethere is a real chance of success, and only with the approbation ofthe proper hierarchical authorities; and even then the candidate shallseek office not _as_ a Catholic, but _although_ a Catholic. [576] [Footnote 576: The idea is expressed in the phrase _cattolici deputati, si, deputati cattolici, no_. ] The partial lifting of the _Non Expedit_ has had two obvious effects. In the first place, it has stimulated considerably the politicalactivities of the Catholics. In the elections of 1906 and 1909 thenumber of Catholic voters and of Catholic candidates was larger thanever before, and in the Chamber of Deputies the group of clericalmembers gives promise of attaining some real importance. A second resulthas been, on the other hand, a quickening of the anti-clerical spirit, with a perceptible strengthening of the radical-republican-socialist_bloc_. By providing the Left with a solidifying issue it may yetprove that the papacy has rendered unwittingly a service to the veryelements against whom it has authorized its adherents to wagerelentless war. [577] [Footnote 577: Eufrasio, Il Non Expedit, in _Nuova Antologia_, Sept. 1, 1904. ] *446. The Election of 1909. *--In respect to the parliamentary strengthof the several party groups the elections of the past decade haveproduced occasional changes of consequence, but the situation to-dayis not widely different from what it was at the opening of thecentury. In the Chamber elected in 1900 the Extreme Left obtained, inall, 107 seats. In 1904 the total fell to 77. In 1906, however, theRadicals secured 44, the Socialists 42, and the Republicans 23--anaggregate of 109; and following the elections of March 7 and 14, 1909, the quotas were, respectively, 37, 43, and 23, aggregating 103. Thefalling-off in 1904 is to be explained principally by the activity ofthe Catholics in the elections of that year, and the recovery in 1906by the fact that, sobered by their reverses, the Socialists hadabandoned in the meantime the extremer phases of their revolutionarypropaganda. The elections of 1909 were precipitated by Giolitti'sdissolution of the Chamber, February 6, in consequence largely of thedissatisfaction of the nation with the ministry's conciliatoryattitude toward Austria-Hungary following the annexation by that powerof the territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Despite the excitementby which it was preceded, however, the campaign was a listless one. The foreign situation as an issue was soon forgotten, and nopreponderating national question rose to assume its place. The (p.  403)Left made the most of the opportunity to increase its parliamentarystrength, and the Catholics were more than ever active. The twoforces, however, in a measure offset each other, and the mass of thenation, unreached by either, returned the customary overwhelmingGovernmental majority. When various electoral contests had beendecided the quota of seats retained by each of the party groups in theChamber was found to be as follows: Radicals, 37; Socialists, 43;Republicans, 23; Catholics, 16; Constitutional Opposition (separatedfrom the Government upon no vital matter of principle), 42; andMinisterialists, or supporters of the Government, 346. Thesesupporters of the Government include men of varied political opinions, but collectively they correspond approximately to the elements whichin other countries are apt to be designated Liberals, Progressives, orModerates. [578] [Footnote 578: The political parties of Italy are described briefly in Lowell, Governments and Parties, II. , Chap. 4, and at more length in King and Okey, Italy To-day, Chaps. 1-3. Special works of importance upon the subject include M. Minghetti, I partiti politici e la ingerenza loro nella giustizia e nell' amministrazione (2d ed. , Bologna, 1881); P. Penciolelli, Le gouvernement parlementaire et la lutte des partis en Italie (Paris, 1911); and S. Sighele, Il nazionalismo e i partiti politici (Milan, 1911). Of value are R. Bonfadini, I partiti parlamentari, in _Nuova Antologia_, Feb. 15, 1894, and A. Torresin, Statistica delle elezioni generali politiche, in _La Riforma Sociale_, Aug. 15, 1900. A useful biography is W. J. Stillman, Francesco Crispi (London, 1899), and an invaluable repository of information is M. Prichard-Agnetti (trans. ), The Memoirs of Francesco Crispi, 2 vols. (New York, 1912). On the parties of the Extreme Left the following may profitably be consulted: F. S. Nitti, Il partito radicale (Turin and Rome, 1907); P. Villari, Scritti sulla questione sociale in Italia (Florence, 1902); R. Bonghi, Gli ultimi fatti parlamentari, in _Nuova Antologia_, Jan. 1, 1895; G. Alessio, Partiti e programmi, ibid. , Oct. 16, 1900; G. Louis-Jaray, Le socialisme municipal en Italie, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, May, 1904; R. Meynadier, Les partis d'extrême gauche et la monarchie en Italie, in _Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, April 1, 1908; F. Magri, Riformisti e rivoluzionari nel partito socialista italiano, in _Rassegna Nazionale_, Nov. 16, 1906, and April 1, 1907; R. Soldi, Le varie correnti nel partito socialista italiano, in _Giornale degli Economisti_, June, 1903. On recent Italian elections see G. Gidel, Les élections générales italiennes de novembre 1904, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, Jan. , 1905; P. Quentin-Bauchart, Les élections italiennes de mars 1909, ibid. , July, 1909. ] PART V. --SWITZERLAND (p.  405) CHAPTER XXII THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM--THE CANTONS I. THE CONFEDERATION AND ITS CONSTITUTION Among the governments of contemporary Europe that of the federalrepublic of Switzerland is unique; and the constitutional experimentswhich have been, and are being, undertaken by the Swiss people givethe nation an importance for the student of politics altogether out ofproportion to its size and population. Nowhere in our day have beenput to the test in more thoroughgoing fashion the principles offederalism, of a plural executive, of proportional representation, ofthe initiative and the referendum, and, it may be said, of radicaldemocracy in general. The results attained within a sphere sorestricted, and under conditions of race, religion, and historicaltradition so unusual, may or may not be accepted as evidence of theuniversal practicability of these principles. At the least, they areof acknowledged interest. *447. The Confederation in the Eighteenth Century. *--In the form inwhich it exists to-day the Swiss Confederation is a product of themiddle and later nineteenth century. The origins of it, however, areto be traced to a very much remoter period. Beginning with thealliance of the three forest cantons of Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwaldenin 1291, [579] the Confederation was built up through the gradual creationof new cantons, the splitting of old ones, the reorganization of (p.  406)dependent territories, and the development of a federal governmentalsystem, superimposed upon the constitutional arrangements of theaffiliated states. In 1789, when the French Directory, at theinstigation of Napoleon, took it upon itself to revolutionizeSwitzerland, the Confederation consisted of thirteen cantons. [580]With it were associated certain _Zugewandte Orte_, or allieddistricts, some of which eventually were erected into cantons, together with a number of _Gemeine Vogteien_, or subject territories. The Confederation comprised simply a _Staatenbund_, or league ofessentially autonomous states. Its only organ of common action was adiet, in which each canton had a right to one vote. Save in matters ofa purely advisory nature, the powers of this diet were meager indeed. Of the cantons, some were moderately democratic; others were highlyaristocratic. The political institutions of all were, in largemeasure, such as had survived from the Middle Ages. [Footnote 579: For an English version of the Perpetual League of 1291 see Vincent, Government in Switzerland, 285-288. The best account in English of the origins of the Confederation is contained in W. D. McCrackan, The Rise of the Swiss Republic (2d ed. , New York, 1901). Important are A. Rilliet, Les origines de la confédération suisse (Geneva, 1868); P. Vauchier, Les commencements de la confédération suisse (Lausanne, 1891); W. Oechsli, Die Anfange der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft (Zürich, 1891). Of the last-mentioned excellent work there is a French translation, under the title Les origines de la confédération suisse (Bern, 1891). The origins of the Swiss Confederation were described in a scientific manner for the first time in the works of J. E. Kopp: Urkunden zur Geschichte der eidgenössischen Bünde (Leipzig and Berlin, 1835), and Geschichte der eidgenössischen Bünde (Leipzig and Berlin, 1845-1852). The texts of all of the Swiss alliances to 1513 are printed in J. Von Ah, Die Bundesbriefe der alten Eidgenossen (Einsiedeln, 1891). ] [Footnote 580: Lucerne joined the alliance in 1332; Zürich in 1351; Glarus and Zug in 1352; Bern in 1353; Freiburg and Solothurn in 1481; Basel and Schaffhausen in 1501; and Appenzell in 1513. "Swiss history is largely the history of the drawing together of bits of each of the Imperial kingdoms (Germany, Italy, and Burgundy) for common defense against a common foe--the Hapsburgs; and, when this family have secured to themselves the permanent possession of the Empire, the Swiss league little by little wins its independence of the Empire, practically in 1499, formally in 1648. Originally a member of the Empire, the Confederation becomes first an ally, then merely a friend. " Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. , XXVI. , 246. ] *448. The Helvetic Republic. *--The result of the French intervention of1798 was that, almost instantly, the loosely organized Swissconfederation was converted into a centralized republic, tributary toFrance, and under a constitution which was substantially areproduction of the French instrument of 1795. Under the terms of thisconstitution the territories of the Confederation were split up intotwenty-three administrative districts, corresponding in but rareinstances to the earlier cantons, [581] a uniform Swiss citizenship wasestablished, a common suffrage was introduced, freedom of speech andof the press was guaranteed, and unity was provided for in thecoinage, the postal service, and the penal law. A government of amplepowers was set up, with its seat at Lucerne, its organs comprising aGrand Council of deputies elected indirectly in the cantons inproportion to population, a Senate of four delegates from each canton(together with retiring members of the Directory), and an ExecutiveDirectory of five members, with whom were associated, for (p.  407)administrative purposes, four appointed heads of departments. TheFrench intervention was ruthless and the governmental order thrustupon the Swiss had no root in national tradition or interest. Theepisode served, however, to break the shackles of mediævalism and thusto contribute to the eventual establishment of a modernizednationality. July 2, 1802, following a series of grave civildisturbances, the constitution of 1798 was superseded by a new butsimilar instrument, which was imposed by force despite an adversepopular vote. [582] [Footnote 581: To these districts, however, the name canton was applied; and, indeed, this was the first occasion upon which the name was employed officially in Switzerland. ] [Footnote 582: McCrackan, Rise of the Swiss Republic, 295-312; A. Von Tillier, Geschichte der helvetischen Republik, 3 vols. (Bern, 1843); Muret, L'Invasion de la Suisse en 1798 (Lausanne, 1881-1884); L. Marsauche, La confédération helvétique (Neuchâtel, 1890). ] *449. The Act of Mediation, 1803. *--Under the circumstances reaction wasinevitable, and the triumph of the "federalists" came more speedilythan might have been expected. In deference to preponderatingsentiment in the territories, Napoleon, February 19, 1803, promulgatedthe memorable Act of Mediation, whereby he authorized there-establishment of a political system that was essentiallyfederal. [583] Once again there was set up a loose confederation, undera constitution which, however, provided for a central government thatwas distinctly more substantial than that which had prevailed prior to1798. The right, for example, to make war and to conclude treaties, withdrawn entirely from the individual cantons, was conferredspecifically upon the federal Diet. To the thirteen original cantonswere added six new ones--Aargau, Thurgau, Vaud, Ticino, and theGrisons (St. Gall and Graubünden)--the first four formed fromdistricts which under the old régime had occupied the status ofsubordinate territory, the last two having been formerly "alliedstates. " In the Diet six cantons (Bern, Zürich, Vaud, Aargau, St. Gall, and Graubünden) which had a population in excess of 100, 000 weregiven each two votes. All others retained a right to but one. Theexecutive authority of the Confederation was vested by turns in thesix cantons of Bern, Freiburg, Lucerne, Zürich, Basel and Solothurn, the "directorial" canton being known as the _Vorort_, and its chiefmagistrate as the _Landammann_, of the Confederation. The principle ofcentralization was in large part abandoned; but the equality of civilrights which the French had introduced was not allowed by Napoleon tobe molested. It may be observed further that by the accession of thenewly created cantons, containing large bodies of people who spokeFrench, Italian, and Romansch, the league ceased to be so (p.  408)predominantly German as theretofore it had been. [584] [Footnote 583: It is in this instrument that the Confederation was for the first time designated officially as "Switzerland. "] [Footnote 584: Cambridge Modern History, IX. , Chap. 4 (bibliography, pp. 805-807). The best general work on the period 1798-1813 is W. Oechsli, Geschichte der Schweiz im XIX. Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1903), I. ] *450. The Pact of 1815 and the Revival of Particularism. *--The Act ofMediation, on the whole not unacceptable to the majority of the Swisspeople, save in that it had been imposed by a foreign power, continuedin operation until 1813. During the decade Switzerland was essentiallytributary to France. With the fall of Napoleon the situation wasaltered, and December 29, 1813, fourteen of the cantons, through theirrepresentatives assembled at Zürich, declared the instrument to be nolonger in effect. Led by Bern, eight of the older cantons determinedupon a return to the system in operation prior to 1798, involving thereduction of the six most recently created cantons to their formerinferior status. Inspired by the Tsar Alexander I. , however, themajority of the Allies refused to approve this programme, and, afterthe Congress of Vienna had arranged for the admission to theconfederacy of the three allied districts of Valais, Geneva, andNeuchâtel, there was worked out, by the Swiss themselves, aconstitution known as the "Federal Pact, " which was formally approvedby the twenty-two cantons at Zürich, August 7, 1815. [585] [Footnote 585: This statement needs to be qualified by the observation that the half-canton Nidwalden approved the constitution August 30, and only when compelled by force to do so. ] By this instrument the ties which bound the federation together werestill further relaxed. The cantons regained almost the measure ofindependence which they had possessed prior to the Frenchintervention. The Diet was maintained, on the basis now of one votefor each canton, regardless of size or population. [586] It possessedsome powers, --for example, that of declaring war or peace, with theconsent of three-fourths of the cantons, --but there were virtually nomeans by which the body could enforce the decrees which it enacted. The executive authority of the Confederation was vested in thegovernments of the three cantons of Zürich, Lucerne, and Bern, which, it was stipulated, should serve in rotation, each during a period oftwo years. Practically all of the guarantees of common citizenship, religious toleration, and individual liberty which the French hadintroduced were rescinded, and during the decade following 1815 thetrend in most of the more important cantons was not only particularisticbut also distinctly reactionary. The smaller and poorer ones (p.  409)retained largely their democratic institutions, especially theirLandesgemeinden, or primary assemblies, but it was only after 1830, and in some measure under the stimulus of the revolutionary movementsof that year, that the majority of the cantonal governments underwentthat regeneration in respect to the suffrage and the status of theindividual which lay behind the transforming movements of 1848. [587] [Footnote 586: Three of the cantons--Unterwalden, Basel, and Appenzell--were divided into half-cantons, each with a government of its own; but each possessed only half a vote in the Diet. ] [Footnote 587: B. Van Muyden, La suisse sous le pacte de 1815, 2 vols. (Lausanne and Paris, 1890-1892); A. Von Tillier, Geschichte der Eidgenossenschaft während der sogen. Restaurationsepoche, 1814-1830, 3 vols. (Bern and Zürich, 1848-1850); ibid. , Geschichte der Eidgenossenschaft während der Zeit des sogeheissenen Fortschritts, 1830-1846, 3 vols. (Bern, 1854-1855). ] *451. Attempted Constitutional Revision: the Sonderbund. *--The periodbetween 1830 and 1848 was marked by not fewer than thirty revisions ofcantonal constitutions, all in the direction of broaderdemocracy. [588] The purposes of the liberal leaders of the day, however, extended beyond the democratization of the individualcantons. The thing at which they aimed ultimately was theestablishment, through the strengthening of the Confederation, of amore effective nationality. On motion of the canton of Thurgau, acommittee was authorized in 1832 to draft a revision of the Pact. Theinstrument which resulted preserved the federal character of thenation, but provided for a permanent federal executive, a federalcourt of justice, and the centralization of the customs, postalservice, coinage, and military instruction. By a narrow majority thisproject, in 1833, was defeated. It was too radical to be acceptable tothe conservatives, and not sufficiently so to please the advancedliberals. [Footnote 588: McCracken, Rise of the Swiss Republic, 325-330. ] The obstacles to be overcome--native conservatism, intercantonaljealousy, and ecclesiastical heterogeneity--were tremendous. More thanonce the Confederation seemed on the point of disruption. InSeptember, 1843, the seven Catholic cantons[589] entered into analliance, known as the Sonderbund, for the purpose of defending theirpeculiar interests, and especially of circumventing any reorganizationof the confederacy which should involve the lessening of Catholicprivilege; and, in December, 1845, this affiliation was converted intoan armed league. In July, 1847, the Diet, in session at Bern, decreedthe dissolution of the Sonderbund; but the recalcitrant cantonsrefused to abandon the course upon which they had entered, and it wasonly after an eighteen-day armed conflict that the obstructive leaguewas suppressed. [590] [Footnote 589: Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Zug, Freiburg, and the Valais. ] [Footnote 590: A. Stern, Zur Geschichte des Sonderbundes, in _Historische Zeitschrift_, 1879; W. B. Duffield, The War of the Sonderbund, in _English Historical Review_, Oct. , 1895; and P. Matter, Le Sonderbund, in _Annales de l'École Libre des Sciences Politiques_, Jan. 15, 1896. ] *452. The Constitution of 1848 and the Revision of 1874. *--The war (p.  410)was worth while, because the crisis which it precipitated affordedthe liberals an opportunity to bring about the adoption of a whollynew constitution. For a time the outlook was darkened by thepossibility of foreign intervention, but by the outbreak of therevolution of 1848 at Paris that danger was effectually removed. Theupshot was that, through the agency of a committee of fourteen, constituted, in fact, February 17, 1848--one week prior to theoverthrow of Louis Philippe--the nationalists proceeded to incorporatefreely the reforms they desired in a constitutional _projet_, and thisinstrument the Diet forthwith revised slightly and placed before thepeople for acceptance. By a vote of 15-1/2 cantons (with a populationof 1, 900, 000) to 6-1/2 (with a population of 290, 000), the newconstitution was approved. The adoption of the constitution of 1848, ensuring a modified revivalof the governmental régime of 1798-1803, comprised a distinct victoryfor the Radical, or Centralist, party. During the two decades whichfollowed this party maintained complete control of the federalgovernment, and in 1872 it brought forward the draft of a newconstitution whose centralizing tendencies were still more pronounced. By popular vote this proffered constitution was rejected. Anotherdraft, however, was prepared and, April 19, 1874, by a vote of 14-1/2cantons against 7-1/2, it was adopted. The popular vote was 340, 149 to198, 013. Amended subsequently upon a large number of occasions, [591]the instrument of 1874 is the fundamental law of the SwissConfederation to-day, although it is essential to observe that itrepresents only a revision of the constitution of 1848. As a recentwriter has said, "the one region on the continent to which the stormsof 1848 brought immediate advantage was Switzerland, for to them itowes its transformation into a well-organized federal state. "[592] [Footnote 591: For the methods of constitutional amendment see p. 431. ] [Footnote 592: W. Oechsli, in Cambridge Modern History, XI. , 234. A brief survey of the constitutional history of Switzerland from 1848 to 1874 is contained in Chap. 8 of the volume mentioned (bibliography, pp. 914-918). Two excellent works are C. Hilty, Les constitutions fédérales de la confédération suisse; exposé historique (Neuchâtel, 1891), and T. Curti, Geschichte der Schweiz im XIX. Jahrhundert (Neuchâtel, 1902). A fairly satisfactory book is L. Hug and R. Stead, Switzerland (New York, 1889). The text of the constitution may be found in S. Kaiser and J. Strickler, Geschichte und Texte der Bundesverfassungen der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft von der helvetischen Staatsumwälzung bis zur Gegenwart (Bern, 1901), and in Lowell, Governments and Parties, II. , 405-431. English versions are printed in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 257-290; McCrackan, Rise of the Swiss Republic, 373-403; Vincent, Government in Switzerland, 289-332; and Old South Leaflets, General Series, No. 18. The texts of all federal constitutions after 1798 are included in the work of Kaiser and Strickler. A good collection of recent documents is P. Wolf, Die schweizerische Bundesgesetzgebung (2d ed. , Basel, 1905-1908). The principal treatises on the Swiss constitutional system are J. J. Blumer, Handbuch des schweizerischen Bundesstaatsrechtes (2d ed. , Schaffhausen, 1877-1887); J. Schollenberger, Bundesverfassung der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft (Berlin, 1905); ibid. , Das Bundesstaatsrecht der Schweiz Geschichte und System (Berlin, 1902); and W. Burckhardt, Kommentar der Schweiz; Bundesverfassung vom 29 Mai 1874 (Bern, 1905). Two excellent briefer treatises are N. Droz, Instruction civique (Lausanne, 1884) and A. Von Orelli, Das Staatsrecht der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft (Freiburg, 1885), in Marquardsen's Handbuch. The best treatise in English upon the Swiss governmental system is J. M. Vincent, Government in Switzerland (New York, 1900). Older works include B. Moses, The Federal Government of Switzerland (Oakland, 1889); F. Adams and C. Cunningham, The Swiss Confederation (London, 1889); and B. Winchester, The Swiss Republic (Philadelphia, 1891). Mention should be made of A. B. Hart, Introduction to the Study of Federal Government (Boston, 1891); also of an exposition of Swiss federalism in Dicey, Law of the Constitution, 7th ed. , 517-529. ] II. THE NATION AND THE STATES (p.  411) *453. Dominance of the Federal Principle. *--In its preamble the Swissconstitution proclaims its object to be "to confirm the alliance ofthe Confederation and to maintain and to promote the unity, strength, and honor of the Swiss nation;" and in its second article it affirmsthat it is the purpose of the Confederation "to secure theindependence of the country against foreign nations, to maintain peaceand order within, to protect the liberty and the rights of theconfederates, and to foster their common welfare. "[593] The use of theterm "nation" (which, curiously, nowhere occurs in the constitution ofthe United States) might seem to imply a considerably larger measureof centralization than in fact exists. For although the effect of theconstitution of 1848 was to convert a loosely organized league into afirmly constructed state--to transform, as the Germans would say, a_Staatenbund_ into a _Bundesstaat_--the measure of consolidationattained fell, and still falls, somewhat short of that which has beenrealized in the United States, and even in Germany. There are in theConfederation twenty-two cantons, of which three (Unterwalden, Basel, and Appenzell) have split into half-cantons; so that there are reallytwenty-five political units, each with its own government, its ownlaws, and its own political conditions. In territorial extent thesecantons vary all the way from 2, 773 to 14 square miles, and inpopulation, from 642, 744 to 13, 796;[594] and the primary fact of (p.  412)the Swiss governmental system is the remarkable measure of politicalindependence which these divisions, small as well as large, possess. [Footnote 593: Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 257. ] [Footnote 594: The total area of the Confederation is approximately 16, 000 square miles; the total population, according to the census of December 1, 1910, is 3, 741, 971. ] *454. The Sovereignty of the Cantons. *--In the United States there wasthroughout a prolonged period a fundamental difference of opinionrelative to the sovereignty of the individual states composing theUnion. The Constitution contains no explicit affirmation upon thesubject, and views maintained by nationalists and state right'sadvocates alike have always been determined of necessity byinterpretation of history and of public law. In Switzerland, on thecontrary, there is, upon the main issue, no room for doubt. "Thecantons are sovereign, " asserts the constitution, "so far as theirsovereignty is not limited by the federal constitution; and, as such, they exercise all the rights which are not delegated to the federalgovernment. "[595] As in the United States, the federal government isrestricted to the exercise of powers that are delegated, while thefederated states are free to exercise any that are not delegatedexclusively to the nation, nor prohibited to the states. In the Swissconstitution, however, the delimitation of powers, especially those ofa legislative character, is so much more minute than in the Americaninstrument that comparatively little room is left for difference ofopinion as to what is and what is not "delegated. "[596] [Footnote 595: Art. 3. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 257. ] [Footnote 596: In the form in which it now exists the Swiss constitution is one of the most comprehensive instruments of the kind in existence. Aside from various temporary provisions, it contains, in all, 123 articles, some of considerable length. As is true of the German constitution, there is in it much that ordinarily has no place in the fundamental law of a nation. A curious illustration is afforded by an amendment of 1893 to the effect that "the killing of animals without benumbing before the drawing of blood is forbidden; this provision applies to every method of slaughter and to every species of animals. " Art. 25. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 263. The adoption of this amendment was an expression of antisemitic prejudice. ] *455. Federal Control of the Cantons. *--After the analogy of the UnitedStates, where the nation guarantees to each of the states a republicanform of government, the Swiss Confederation guarantees to the cantonstheir territory, their sovereignty (within the limits fixed by thefundamental law), their constitutions, the liberty and rights of theirpeople, and the privileges and powers which the people have conferredupon those in authority. The cantons are empowered, and indeedrequired, to call upon the Confederation for the guaranty of theirconstitutions, and it is stipulated that such guaranty shall beaccorded in all instances where it can be shown that the constitutionin question contains nothing contrary to the provisions of the (p.  413)federal constitution, that it assures the exercise of political rightsaccording to republican forms, that it has been ratified by thepeople, and that it may be amended at any time by a majority of thecitizens. [597] A cantonal constitution which has not been accorded theassent of the two houses of the federal assembly is inoperative; andthe same thing is true of even the minutest amendment. The control ofthe federal government over the constitutional systems of the statesis thus more immediate, if not more effective, than in the UnitedStates, where, after a state has been once admitted to the Union, thefederal power can reach its constitutional arrangements only throughthe agency of the courts. Finally, in the event of insurrection thegovernment of the Confederation possesses a right to intervene in theaffairs of a canton, with or without a request for such interventionby the constituted cantonal authorities. This right was exercised veryeffectively upon the occasion of the Ticino disorders of 1889-1890. [Footnote 597: Arts. 5 and 6. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 258. ] Like the American states, but unlike the German, the Swiss cantonsenjoy a complete equality of status and of rights. They are forbiddento enter into alliances or treaties of a political nature amongthemselves, though they are permitted to conclude intercantonalconventions upon legislative, administrative, and judicial subjects, provided such conventions, upon inspection by the federal officials, are found to be devoid of stipulations contrary to the federalconstitution or inimical to the rights of any canton. In the event ofdisputes between cantons, the questions at issue are required to besubmitted to the federal government for decision, and the individualcanton must refrain absolutely from the use of violence, and even frommilitary preparation. *456. Powers Vested Exclusively in the Confederation. *--Within the textof the constitution the division of powers between the federal and thecantonal governments is minute, though far from systematic. Theclearest conception of the existing arrangements may perhaps be had byobserving that provision is made for three principal categories ofpowers: (1) those that the Confederation has an exclusive right toexercise, some being merely permissive, others obligatory; (2) thosewhich the Confederation is required, or allowed, to exercise inconcurrence with the cantons; and (3) those which are not permitted tobe exercised at all. Of powers committed absolutely to the Confederation, the mostimportant are those of declaring war, making peace, and concludingalliances and treaties with foreign powers, especially treatiesrelating to tariffs and commerce. [598] The Confederation is (p.  414)forbidden to maintain a standing army, and no canton, without federalpermission, may maintain a force numbering more than three hundredmen. None the less, by law of 1907, every male Swiss citizen betweenthe ages of twenty and forty-eight is liable to military service, andthe constitution vests not only the sole right of declaring war butalso the organization and control of the national forces in theConfederation. [599] The neutralized status with which, by internationalagreement, Switzerland has been vested renders a war in which thenation should be involved, other, at any rate, than a civil contest, extremely improbable. [600] Within the domain of internationalrelations, the cantons retain the right to conclude treaties withforeign powers respecting border and police relations and theadministration of public property. All remaining phases of diplomaticintercourse are confided exclusively to the Confederation. Otherfunctions vested in the federal authorities alone include the controlof the postal service and of telegraphs; the coining of money and themaintenance of a monetary system; the issue of bank notes and of otherforms of paper money; the fixing of standards of weights and measures;the maintenance of a monopoly of the manufacture and sale ofgunpowder; and the enactment of supplementary legislation relating todomicile and citizenship. [Footnote 598: Art. 8. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 258. ] [Footnote 599: Arts. 15-23. Ibid. , II. , 260-262. ] [Footnote 600: McCrackan, Rise of the Swiss Republic, 354-363; Payen, La neutralisation de la Suisse, in _Annales de l'École Libre des Sciences Politiques_, Oct. 15, 1892. ] *457. Concurrent Powers and Powers Denied the Confederation. *--Amongpowers which are intrusted to the Confederation, to be exercised inmore or less close conjunction with the cantonal governments, are: (1)the making of provision for public education, the cantons maintaininga system of compulsory primary instruction, the Confederationsubsidizing educational establishments of higher rank;[601] (2) theregulation of child labor, industrial conditions, emigration, andinsurance; (3) the maintenance of highways; (4) the regulation of thepress; and (5) the preservation of public order and of peace betweenmembers of different religious organizations. [Footnote 601: Art. 27. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 263. ] Several explicit prohibitions rest upon the authorities of bothConfederation and cantons. No treaties may be concluded whereby it isagreed to furnish troops to other countries. No canton may expel fromits own territory one of its citizens, or deprive him of his rights. No person may be compelled to become a member of a religious society, to receive religious instruction, to perform any religious act, or to incurpenalty of any sort by reason of his religious opinions. [602] No (p.  415)death penalty may be pronounced for a political offense. Theprohibitions, in short, which the constitution imposes upon federaland cantonal authorities comprise essentially a bill of rights, comparable with any to be found in a contemporary Europeanconstitution. [Footnote 602: Art. 49. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 271-272. ] *458. General Aspects. *--The fundamental thing to be observed is thatunder the Swiss constitution, as under the German, the legislativepowers of the federal government are comprehensive, while theexecutive authority, and especially the executive machinery, ismeager. The Confederation has power to legislate upon manysubjects--military service, the construction and operation ofrailroads, education, labor, taxation, monopolies, insurance, commerce, coinage, banking, citizenship, civil rights, bankruptcy, criminal law, and numerous other things. In respect to taxation thefederal government possesses less power than does that of Germany, anddistinctly less than does that of the United States, for this power isconfined to the single field of customs legislation;[603] but invirtually every other direction the legislative competence of theSwiss central authorities is more extended. It is worth observing, furthermore, that the centralizing tendency since 1874 has foundexpression in a number of constitutional amendments whose effect hasbeen materially to enlarge the domain covered by federal legislation. Among these may be mentioned the amendment of July 11, 1897, grantingthe Confederation power to enact laws concerning the traffic in foodproducts, that of November 13, 1898, extending the federal legislativepower over the domain of civil and criminal law, that of July 5, 1908, conferring upon the Confederation power to enact uniform regulationsrespecting the arts and trades (thus bringing substantially the entiredomain of industrial legislation within the province of theConfederation), and that of October 25, 1908, placing the utilizationof water-power under the supervision of the central authorities. [Footnote 603: "The customs system shall be within the control of the Confederation. The Confederation may levy export and import duties. " Art. 28. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 263. The constitution stipulates further that imports of materials essential for the manufactures and agriculture of the country, and of necessaries of life in general, shall be taxed as low as possible; also that export taxes shall be kept at a minimum. Art. 42 prescribes that the expenditures of the Confederation shall be met from the income from federal property, the proceeds of the postal and telegraph services, the proceeds of the powder monopoly, half of the gross receipts from the tax on military exemptions levied by the cantons, the proceeds of the federal customs, and, finally, in case of necessity, contributions levied upon the cantons in proportion to their wealth and taxable resources. Dodd, II. , 269. ] Within the domain of administrative functions, the principle is (p.  416)rather that of committing to the federal agencies a minimum ofauthority. Beyond the management of foreign relations, theadministration of the customs, the postal, and the telegraph services, and of the alcohol and powder monopolies, and the control of thearsenals and of the army when in the field, the federal governmentexercises directly but inconsiderable executive authority. It is onlyin relation to the cantonal governments that its powers of anadministrative nature are large; and even there they are onlysupervisory. In a number of highly important matters the constitutionleaves to the canton the right to make and enforce law, at the sametime committing to the Confederation the right to inspect, and even toenforce, the execution of such measures. Thus it is stipulated thatthe cantons shall provide for primary instruction which shall becompulsory, non-sectarian, and free; and that "the Confederation shalltake the necessary measures against such cantons as do not fulfillthese duties. "[604] Not only, therefore, does the federal governmentenforce federal law, through its own officials or through those of thecanton; it supervises the enactment and enforcement of measures whichthe constitution enjoins upon the cantons. [605] [Footnote 604: Art. 27. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 263. ] [Footnote 605: A. Souriac, L'évolution de la juridiction fédérale en Suisse (Paris, 1909). ] III. CANTONAL LEGISLATION: THE REFERENDUM AND THE INITIATIVE *459. Variation of Cantonal Institutions. *--In its fundamental featuresthe federal government of Switzerland represents largely an adaptationof the political principles and organs most commonly prevailing withinthe individual cantons; from which it follows that an understanding ofthe mechanism of the federation is conditioned upon an acquaintancewith that of the canton. [606] Anything, however, in the nature of adescription which will apply to the governmental systems of all of thetwenty-five cantons and half-cantons is impossible. Variation amongthem, in both structure and procedure, is at least as common and aswide as among the governments of the American commonwealths. Eachcanton has its own constitution, and the Confederation is bound toguarantee the maintenance of this instrument regardless of theprovisions which it may contain, provided only, as has been pointedout, that there is in it nothing that is contrary to the federal (p.  417)constitution, that it establishes a republican system of government, and that it has been ratified by the people and may be amended upondemand of a majority. The constitutions of the cantons are amendedeasily and frequently; but while it may be affirmed that, inconsequence of their flexibility, they tend toward more rather thantoward less uniformity, the diversity that survives among them stillproclaims strikingly their separatist origin and character. [Footnote 606: On the governments of the cantons the principal general works are J. Schollenberger, Grundriss der Staats-und Verwaltungsrechts der schweizerischen Kantone, 3 vols. (Zürich, 1898-1900), and J. Dubs, Das öffentliche Recht der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft (Zürich, 1877-1878), I. Brief accounts will be found in Vincent, the Government of Switzerland, Chaps. 1-12. ] The point at which the governments of the cantons differ most widelyis in respect to arrangements for the exercise of the functions oflegislation. Taking the nature of the legislative process as a basisof division, there may be said to be two classes of cantonalgovernments. One comprises those in which the ultimate public powersare vested in a Landesgemeinde, or primary assembly of citizens; theother, those in which such powers have been committed to a body ofelected representatives. The second class, as will appear, falls againinto two groups, i. E. , those in which the employment of thereferendum is obligatory and those in which it is merely optional. *460. The Landesgemeinde. *--Prior to the French intervention of 1798there were in the Confederation no fewer than eleven cantons whosegovernment was of the Landesgemeinde type. To-day there are but sixcantons and half-cantons--those, namely, of Uri, Glarus, the twoUnterwaldens, and the two Appenzells. Under varying circumstances, butprincipally by reason of the increasingly unwieldy character of theLandesgemeinde as population has grown, the rest have gone over to therepresentative system. All of those in which the institution survivesare small in area and are situated in the more sparsely populatedmountain districts where conditions of living are primitive and wherethere is little occasion for governmental elaborateness. [607] [Footnote 607: The area of Zug is 92 square miles; of Glarus, 267; of the Unterwaldens, 295; of the Appenzells, 162. The longest dimension of any one of these cantons is but thirty miles, and the distance to be traversed by the citizen who wishes to attend the Landesgemeinde of his canton rarely exceeds ten miles. It was once the fashion to represent the Swiss Landesgemeinde as a direct survival of the primitive Germanic popular assembly. For the classic statement of this view see Freeman, Growth of the English Constitution, Chap. 1. There is, however, every reason to believe that between the two institutions there is no historical connection. ] Nominally, the Landesgemeinde is an assembly composed of all malecitizens of the canton who have attained their majority. Actually, itis a gathering of those who are able, or disposed, to be present. Theassembly meets regularly once a year, in April or May, at a centrallylocated place within the canton, and usually in an open meadow. Whennecessity arises, there may be convened a special session. With themen come ordinarily the women and children, and the occasion (p.  418)partakes of the character of a picturesque, even if solemn andceremonious, holiday. Under the presidency of the Landammann, or chiefexecutive of the canton, the assembly passes with despatch uponwhatsoever proposals may be laid before it by the Landrath, or GreaterCouncil. In the larger assemblies there is no privilege of debate. Measures are simply adopted or rejected. In the smaller gatherings, however, it is still possible to preserve some restricted privilege ofdiscussion. Unless a secret ballot is specifically demanded, voting isby show of hands. Theoretically, any citizen possesses the right toinitiate propositions. In practice, however, virtually all measuresemanate from the Greater Council, and if the private citizen wishes tobring forward a proposal he will be expected to do so by suggesting itto the Council rather than by introducing it personally in theassembly. The competence of the Landesgemeinde varies somewhat fromcanton to canton, but in all cases it is very comprehensive. Theassembly authorizes the revision of the constitution, enacts all laws, levies direct taxes, grants public privileges, establishes offices, and elects all executive and judicial officials of the canton. Directly or indirectly, it discharges, indeed, all of the fundamentalfunctions of government. It is the sovereign organ of a democracy asthoroughgoing as any the world has ever known. [608] [Footnote 608: H. D. Lloyd, A Sovereign People (New York, 1907), Chap. 4. ] *461. The Greater Council. *--In every canton, whether or not of theLandesgemeinde type, there is a popularly elected representative body, the Greater Council, which performs a larger or smaller service in theprocess of legislation. This body is variously known as the GrosserRath, the Landrath, and the Kantonsrath. In the cantons that maintainthe Landesgemeinde the functions of the Greater Council aresubsidiary. It chooses minor officials, audits accounts, and passesunimportant ordinances; but its principal business is the preparationof measures for the consideration of the Landesgemeinde. In thecantons, however, in which the Landesgemeinde does not exist, theGreater Council is a more important institution, for there itcomprises the only law-making body which is ever brought together atone time or place. Where there exists the obligatory referendum, i. E. , where all legislative measures are submitted to a direct popularvote, the decisions of the Council are but provisional. But where thereferendum is optional the Council acquires in many matters thesubstance of final authority. Members of the Council are elected regularly in districts by directpopular vote. The size of constituencies varies from 188 people inObwalden and 250 in Inner Appenzell to 1, 500 in St. Gall and Zürichand 2, 500 in Bern. The electors include all males who have (p.  419)completed their twentieth year and who are in possession of full civilrights. The term of members varies from one to six years, but isgenerally three or four. There are, as a rule, two meetings annually, in some cantons a larger number. Beginning with the canton of Ticinoin 1891, there has been introduced into the governmental systems ofseveral cantons and of the two cities of Bern and Basel the principleof proportional representation. The details vary, but the generalprinciple is that each political party shall be entitled to seats inthe Greater Council in the closest practicable proportion that theparty vote bears to the entire vote cast within the canton. Thosecantons where this principle is in operation are laid out indistricts, each of which is entitled to two or more representatives, and the individual elector, while forbidden to cast more than one votefor a given candidate, casts a number of votes corresponding to thenumber of seats to be filled. [609] [Footnote 609: For an excellent account of the introduction of proportional representation in the canton of Ticino see J. Galland, La démocratie tessinoise et la représentation proportionnelle (Grenoble, 1909). The canton in which the principle has been adopted most recently is St. Gall. In 1893, 1901, and 1906 it was there rejected by the people, but at the referendum of February, 1912, it was approved, and in the following November the cantonal legislature formally adopted it. For a brief exposition of the workings of the system see Vincent, Government in Switzerland, Chap. 4. An important study of the subject is E. Klöti, Die Proportionalwahl in der Schweiz; Geschichte, Darstellung und Kritik (Bern, 1901). On the proposed introduction of proportional representation in the federal government see p. 433. ] *462. The Referendum: Origins and Operation. *--The most interesting ifnot the most characteristic, of Swiss political institutions is thereferendum. The origins of the referendum in Switzerland may be tracedto a period at least as early as the sixteenth century. The principlewas applied first of all in the complicated governments of twoterritories--the Grisons and the Valais--which have since becomecantons but which at the time mentioned were districts merelyaffiliated with the Confederation. In the later sixteenth centurythere were traces of the same principle in Bern and in Zürich. And, intruth, the political arrangements of the early Confederation involvedthe employment of a device which at least closely resembled thereferendum. Delegates sent by the cantons to the Diet werecommissioned only _ad audiendum et referendum_; that is to say, theywere authorized, not to agree finally to proposals, but simply to hearthem and to refer them to the cantonal governments for ultimatedecision. In its present form, however, the Swiss referendum originated in thecanton of St. Gall in 1830. It is distinctively a nineteenth centurycreation and is to be regarded as a product of the politicalphilosophy of Rousseau, the fundamental tenet of which was that (p.  420)laws ought to be enacted, not through representatives, but by thepeople directly. [610] The principle of the referendum may be appliedin two essentially distinct directions, i. E. , to constitutions andconstitutional amendments and to ordinary laws. The referendum asapplied to constitutional instruments exists to-day in every one ofthe Swiss cantons. [611] It is in no sense, however, peculiar toSwitzerland. The same principle obtains in several English-speakingcountries, as well as upon occasion elsewhere. The referendum asapplied to ordinary laws, on the other hand, is distinctively Swiss. In our own day it is being brought into use in certain of the Americancommonwealths and elsewhere, but it is Swiss in origin and spirit. Inaugurated in part to supply the need created by a defective systemof representation and in part in deference to advanced democratictheory, the referendum for ordinary laws exists to-day in every cantonof Switzerland save only that of Freiburg. In some cantons thereferendum is obligatory, in others it is "facultative, " or optional. Where the referendum is obligatory every legislative measure must bereferred to popular vote; where it is optional, a measure is referredonly upon demand of a specified number or proportion of voters. Apetition calling for a referendum must be presented to the executivecouncil of the canton, as a rule, within thirty days after theenactment of the measure upon which it is proposed that a vote betaken. The number of signers required to make the petition effectivevaries from 500 in Zug to 6, 000 in St. Gall. Likewise, the proportionof voters which is competent to reject a measure is variable. In somecantons a majority of all enfranchised citizens is required; inothers, a simple majority of those actually voting upon theproposition in hand. In the event of popular rejection of a measurewhich the cantonal legislature has passed, the executive council givesthe proper notice to the legislature, which thereupon pronounces themeasure void. [612] [Footnote 610: Lowell, Governments and Parties, II. , 243. ] [Footnote 611: It will be observed, of course, that in the cantons which maintain a Landesgemeinde there is no occasion for the employment of the referendum upon either constitutional or legislative questions. The people there act directly and necessarily upon every important proposition. ] [Footnote 612: Important treatises on the Swiss referendum are T. Curti, Geschichte der schweizerischen Volksgesetzgebung (Zürich, 1885); ibid. , Die Volksabstimmung in der schweizerischen Gesetzgebung (Zürich, 1886). A French version of the former work, by J. Ronjat, has appeared under the title Le référendum: histoire de la législation populaire en Suisse (Paris, 1905). Of large value is Curti, Die Resultate des schweizerischen Referendums (2d ed. , Bern, 1911). An older account is J. A. Herzog, Das Referendum in der Schweiz (Berlin, 1885). An excellent book is S. Duploige, Le référendum en Suisse (Brussels, 1892), of which there is an English translation, by C. P. Trevelyan, under the title The Referendum in Switzerland (London, 1898). Of value also are Stüssi, Referendum und Initiative in den Schweizerkantonen (Zürich, 1894), and J. Signorel, Étude de législation comparée sur le référendum législatif (Paris, 1896). Mention may be made of J. Delpech, Quelques observations à propos du référendum et des Landesgemeinde suisse, in _Revue du Droit Public_, April-June, 1906. ] *463. The Initiative. *--The complement of the referendum is the (p.  421)initiative. Through the exercise of the one the people may prevent thetaking effect of a law or a constitutional amendment to which theyobject. Through the exercise of the other they may not merely bringdesired measures to the attention of the legislature; they may securethe enactment of such measures despite the indifference or oppositionof the legislative body. In current political discussion, and in theiractual operation, the two are likely to be closely associated. Theyare, however, quite distinct, as is illustrated by the fact that theearliest adoptions of the initiative in Switzerland occurred incantons (Vaud in 1845 and Aargau in 1852) in which as yet thereferendum did not exist. Among the Swiss cantons the right of popularlegislative initiative is now all but universal. It has beenestablished in all of the cantons save Freiburg, Lucerne, and Valais. As a rule, measures may be proposed by the same proportion of votersas is competent to overthrow a measure referred from the legislature;and any measure proposed by the requisite number of voters must betaken under consideration by the legislature within a specifiedperiod. If the legislature desires to prepare a counter-project to besubmitted to the voters along with the popularly initiatedproposition, it may do so. But the original proposal must, in anycase, go before the people, accompanied by the legislature's opinionupon it; and their verdict is decisive. [613] [Footnote 613: A. Keller, Das Volksinitiativrecht nach den schweizerischen Kantonsverfassungen (Zürich, 1889). ] IV. THE CANTONAL EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIARY *464. The Council of State. *--Executive authority within the canton isvested regularly in an administrative council, variously designated asa Regierungsrath, a Standeskommission, or a Conseil d'État. TheCouncil of State (employing this phrase to designate each body of thekind, however named) consists of from five to thirteen members, serving for from one to five years. In more than half of the cantonsthe members are chosen by popular vote; in the rest, they are electedby the Greater Council, or legislature. By the Council of State (in afew instances by the legislature) is chosen a chairman, or president, known in the German cantons as the Landammann. [614] The office ofLandammann is one of dignity and honor, at least locally, but it (p.  422)is not one of large authority. The Landammann is the chief spokesmanof the canton, but legally his status is scarcely superior to that ofhis fellow councillors. The functions of the Council embrace theexecution of the laws, the preservation of order, the drawing up offiscal statements, the drafting of proposed legislation, the renderingof decisions in cases on appeal, and, in general, the safeguarding ofthe interests of the canton. For purposes of convenience the functionsof the Council are divided among departments, to each of which one ofthe councillors is assigned. All acts, however, are performed in thename of the Council as a whole. In those cantons which havefull-fledged legislative chambers councillors may attend sessions andspeak, though as a rule they may not vote. [Footnote 614: In the Landesgemeinde cantons the Landammann is elected by the primary assembly. ] *465. Local Administration. *--For purposes of administration allcantons, save a few of the smaller ones, are divided into districts(187 in the aggregate), at the head of each of which is placed aprefect or Bezirksammann. This official, whether chosen by the Councilof State, by the Greater Council, or even by the people of thedistrict, is in every sense a representative of the cantonalgovernment. Sometimes he is assisted by a Bezirksrath, or districtcouncil; frequently he is not. In Schwyz there is a Bezirksgemeinde, or popular assembly, in each of the six districts, but this is whollyexceptional. Each canton is built up of communes, or Gemeinden, and these communes, 3, 164 in number, comprise the most deeply rooted political units ofthe country. Legally, each is composed of all male Swiss citizens overtwenty years of age resident within the communal bounds during aperiod of at least three months. The meeting of these persons is knownas the Gemeindeversammlung, or the assemblée générale. By it arechosen an executive council (the Gemeinderath or conseil municipal)and a mayor (Gemeindepräsident). A principle adhered to by thecantonal governments generally is that in the work of localadministration the largest possible use shall be made of the mayors oftowns, the headmen of villages, and other minor local dignitaries. [615] [Footnote 615: Vincent, Government in Switzerland, Chap. 10; Adams and Cunningham, The Swiss Confederation, Chap. 8; Lloyd, A Sovereign People, Chap. 3. ] *466. Justice. *--Each canton has a judicial system which is essentiallycomplete within itself. Judges are elected by the people. Thehierarchy of civil tribunals--the Vermittler, or justice of the peace, the Bezirksgericht, or district court, and the Kantonsgericht--isparalleled by a hierarchy of courts for the trial of criminal cases, aspecial committee or chamber of the Kantonsgericht serving as thecriminal court of last resort. Only in few and wholly exceptionalinstances may appeal be carried from a cantonal to a federal tribunal. CHAPTER XXIII (p.  423) THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT I. THE EXECUTIVE *467. The Federal Council: the President. *--At the framing of the Swissconstitution, as at that of the American, there arose the question ofa single or a plural executive. In the United States the disadvantagesassumed to be inherent in an executive which should consist of anumber of persons who were neither individually responsible nor likelyto be altogether harmonious determined a decision in favor of a singlepresident. In Switzerland, on the other hand, the cantonal traditionof a collegiate executive, combined with an exaggerated fear of theconcentration of power, determined resort to the other alternative. There is a president of the Swiss Confederation. But, as will appear, his status is altogether different from that of the President of theUnited States, and likewise from that of the President of France. TheSwiss executive consists rather of a Bundesrath, or Federal Council, in which the President is little more than chairman. "The supreme directive and executive authority of the Confederation, "says the constitution, "shall be exercised by a Federal Council, composed of seven members. "[616] The members of the Federal Councilare elected by the Federal Assembly, i. E. , the National Council andthe Council of the States in joint session, from among all citizenseligible to the National Council, or popular legislative body, withthe condition simply that not more than one member may be chosen fromthe same canton. Nominally, the term of members is three years;practically, it is variable, for whenever the National Council isdissolved prior to the expiration of its triennial period the newAssembly proceeds forthwith to choose a new Federal Council. Twoofficials, designated respectively as President of the Confederationand Vice-President of the Federal Council, are elected annually by theAssembly from among the seven members of the Council. A retiringpresident may not be elected president or vice-president for thesucceeding year; nor may any member occupy the vice-presidency duringtwo consecutive years. By custom the vice-president regularly (p.  424)succeeds to the presidency. The function of the President, as such, issimply that of presiding over the deliberations of the Council. He hasno more power than any one of his six colleagues. Like each of them, he assumes personal direction of some one of the principal executivedepartments. [617] The only peculiarity of his status is that heperforms the ceremonial duties connected with the titular headship ofthe state and draws a salary of 13, 500 francs instead of the 12, 000drawn by each of the other councillors. He is in no sense a "chiefexecutive. " [Footnote 616: Art. 95. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 281. ] [Footnote 617: No longer, as prior to 1888, necessarily that of foreign affairs. ] *468. The Executive Departments. *--The business of the Council isdivided among the seven departments of Foreign Affairs, Interior, Justice and Police, Military Affairs, Imposts and Finance, Posts andRailways, and Commerce, Industry, and Agriculture. Each department ispresided over by a member of the Council, and to each is assigned fromtime to time, by the President, such subjects for consideration asproperly fall within its domain. It is stipulated by the constitution, however, that this distribution shall be made for the purpose only offacilitating the examination and despatch of business. All decisionsare required to emanate from the Council as a body. [618] Ordinarily acouncillor remains at the head of a department through a considerablenumber of years, [619] and it may be added that, by reason of anincrease in the aggregate volume of governmental business, thedepartmental head enjoys to-day a larger measure of independence thanformerly. A quorum of the Council consists of four members, and nomember may absent himself from a session without excuse. Except inelections, voting is _viva voce_, and an abstract of proceedings ispublished regularly in the official gazette of the Republic. [Footnote 618: Art. 103. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 284. For a synopsis of the law of July 8, 1887, whereby an apportionment of functions was made among the various departments see Dupriez, Les Ministres, II. , 239-246. ] [Footnote 619: Members of the Council are re-elected, almost as a matter of course, as long as they are willing to serve. Between 1848 and 1893 the average period of service exceeded ten years. Lowell, Governments and Parties, II. , 203. ] *469. Actual Character of the Council. *--The Federal Council, althoughat certain points resembling a cabinet, is not a cabinet, and no suchthing as cabinet government, or a parliamentary system, can be said toexist in Switzerland. The Council does, it is true, prepare measuresand lay them before the Assembly. Its members even appear on the floorof the two chambers and defend these measures. But the councillors arenot, and may not be, members of the Assembly; they do not, ofnecessity, represent a common political party, faith, or programme, they are not necessarily agreed among themselves upon the merits ordemerits of a particular legislative proposal; and if overruled by (p.  425)a majority of the Assembly they do not so much as think of retiringfrom office, for each member has been elected by a separate ballot fora fixed term. [620] In other words, the Council is essentially whatSwiss writers have themselves denominated it, i. E. , an executivecommittee of the Federal Assembly. It possesses a large measure ofsolidarity, but only for the purposes of routine business. Quitesuperior to it in every way--so much so that even its most ordinaryadministrative measures may be set aside--is the Assembly, as againstwhich the Council possesses not a shred of constitutional prerogative. In the Assembly is vested ultimate authority, and in the event of aclash of policies what the Assembly orders the Council performs. Between the executive and the legislative branches of the governmentthe relation is quite as close as it is in a parliamentary system, butthe relation is of a totally different sort. [621] [Footnote 620: The resignation, in 1891, of M. Welti, a member of the Council since 1867, by reason of the fact that the people rejected his project for the governmental purchase of railway shares occasioned general consternation. ] [Footnote 621: For interesting observations upon the advantages and disadvantages of the Swiss system see Lowell, Governments and Parties, II. , 204-208. See also Vincent, Government in Switzerland, Chap. 16; Dupriez, Les Ministres, II. , 188-203. ] *470. The Council's Functions. *--The functions of the Council are at thesame time executive, legislative, and judicial. On the executive sideit is the duty of the body to "execute the laws and resolutions of theConfederation and the judgments of the Federal Court"; to watch overthe external interests of the Confederation and to conduct foreignrelations; to safeguard the welfare, external and internal, of thestate; to make such appointments as are not intrusted to any otheragency; to administer the finances of the Confederation, introduce thebudget, and submit accounts of receipts and expenses; to supervise theconduct of all officers and employees of the Confederation; to enforcethe observance of the federal constitution and the guaranty of thecantonal constitutions; and to manage the federal militaryestablishment. In respect to legislation it is made the duty of theCouncil to introduce bills or resolutions into the Federal Assemblyand to give its opinion upon the proposals submitted to it by thechambers or by the cantons; also to submit to the Assembly at eachregular session an account of its own administration, together with areport upon the internal conditions and the foreign relations of thestate. [622] The Council possesses no veto upon the Assembly'smeasures. The judicial functions of the Council are such as arise fromthe fact that there are in Switzerland no administrative courts, (p.  426)so that the varied kinds of administrative cases which have beenwithheld from the jurisdiction of the Federal Tribunal are in practicedealt with directly by the Federal Council, with appeal, as a rule, tothe Assembly. [623] [Footnote 622: Art. 102. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 282-284; Dupriez, Les Ministres, II. , 218-225. ] [Footnote 623: Art. 113. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 286. The nature and functions of the Swiss executive are treated briefly in Vincent, Government in Switzerland, Chap. 17, and Adams and Cunningham, The Swiss Confederation, Chap. 4. An excellent account is that in Dupriez, Les Ministres, II. , 182-246. Of value are Blumer and Morel, Handbuch des schweizerischen Bundesstaatsrechts, III. , 34-92, and Dubs, Le droit public de la confédération suisse, II. , 77-105. ] II. LEGISLATION: THE FEDERAL ASSEMBLY With specific reservation of the sovereign rights of the people and ofthe cantons, the constitution vests the exercise of the supremeauthority of the Confederation in the Bundesversammlung, or FederalAssembly. Unlike the cantonal legislatures, the Federal Assemblyconsists of two houses--a Nationalrath, or National Council, and aStänderath, or Council of the States. [624] The one comprisesessentially a house of representatives; the other, a senate. Theadoption, in the constitution of 1848, of the hitherto untriedbicameral principle came about as a compromise between conflictingdemands of the same sort that were voiced in the Philadelphiaconvention of 1787--the demand, that is, of the smaller federatedunits for an equality of political power and that of the larger onesfor a proportioning of such power to population. [Footnote 624: In French, the Conseil National and the Conseil des États. ] *471. The National Council: Composition and Organization. *--The NationalCouncil is composed of deputies chosen at a general election, for aterm of three years, by direct manhood suffrage. The constitutionstipulates that there shall be one representative for every 20, 000inhabitants, or major fraction thereof, and a reapportionment is madeconsequent upon each decennial census. The electoral districts are solaid out that no one comprises portions of different cantons; but theyare of varying sizes and are entitled to unequal numbers ofrepresentatives, according to their population. Within the districtall representatives, if there are more than one, are chosen on ageneral ticket, and the individual elector has a right to vote for anumber of candidates equal to the number of seats to be filled. Thequota of representatives falling to the various cantons under thisarrangement varies from one in Uri and in Zug to twenty-two in Zürichand twenty-nine in Bern. Every canton and each of the six half-cantonsis entitled to at least one deputy. The total number in 1911 was 189. The electorate consists of all male Swiss who have attained their (p.  427)twentieth year and who are in possession of the franchise withintheir respective cantons. The establishment of electoral districts, aswell as the regulation of the conduct of federal elections, has beenaccomplished, under provision of the constitution, by federal statute. Voting is in all cases by secret ballot, and elections take placealways on the same day (the last Sunday in October) throughout theentire country. An absolute majority of the votes cast is necessaryfor election, save that, following two unsuccessful attempts toprocure such a majority within a district, at the third trial a simpleplurality is sufficient. Except that no member of the clergy may bechosen, every citizen in possession of the federal franchise iseligible to a seat in the National Council. [625] Members receive asmall salary, which is proportioned to days of actual attendance andpaid out of the federal treasury. [Footnote 625: This denial of clerical eligibility was inspired by fear of Catholic influences. ] At each regular or extraordinary session the National Council choosesfrom among its members a president, a vice-president, and fourtellers, under the provision, however, that a member who during aregular session has held the office of president is ineligible eitheras president or vice-president at the ensuing regular session, andthat the same member may not be vice-president during two consecutiveregular sessions. In all elections within the National Council thepresident participates as any other member; in legislative matters hepossesses a vote only in the event of a tie. The president, vice-president, and tellers together comprise the "bureau" of theCouncil, by which most of the committees are nominated, votes arecounted, and routine business is transacted. [626] [Footnote 626: Arts. 72-79. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 277-278. ] *472. The Council of the States: Composition andStatus. *--Superficially, the Swiss Council of the States resembles theAmerican Senate, and it is commonly understood that the framers of theconstitution of 1848 created the institution not merely by reason ofan inevitable tendency to perpetuate in some measure the purelyfederal features of the old Diet, but also in consequence of adeliberate purpose to set up a legislative body which should fulfillessentially those complementary and restraining functions which in theUnited States were assigned to the upper chamber. In point of fact, however, the Swiss Council has little in common with its Americancounterpart. It consists of forty-four members, two chosen within eachcanton; and to this extent it indeed resembles the Senate. The mannerof election and the qualifications of members, however, as well astenure of office and the arrangements made for remuneration, are notregulated, as are similar matters in the United States, by the (p.  428)constitution, or by federal authority, but, on the contrary, are leftentirely to be determined by the individual cantons. The consequenceis a total lack of uniformity in these highly important matters. Insome cantons members are elected by popular vote; in others, by thelegislative assembly. In some they are chosen for one year; in others, for two; in still others, for three. The consequence is that theCouncil is commonly lacking in compactness and morale. More seriousstill is the fact that the functions of the upper chamber are in allrespects identical with those of the lower. The American Senate haspower and character of its own, quite apart from that of the House ofRepresentatives; the Swiss Council has nothing of the kind. Itsorganization, even, is an almost exact replica of that of the lowerchamber. [627] In the earlier days of the present constitutional systemthe Council enjoyed high prestige and influence; but by reason of theconditions that have been described the body in time fell intodecline. Able and ambitious statesmen have preferred usually to beidentified with the lower house. The upper chamber possesses largepowers--powers nominally co-ordinate with those of the lower one--andit has acted not infrequently with sufficient independence to defeatmeasures advocated by the National Council. But, without being thefeeble upper chamber that is commonly associated with a parliamentarysystem of government, it is yet essentially lacking in the initiativeand independence of a true senate. [628] [Footnote 627: "Neither the president nor the vice-president may be chosen at any session from the canton from which the president for the preceding session was chosen; and the vice-presidency may not be held during two successive regular sessions by representatives of the same canton. " Art. 82. ] [Footnote 628: Arts. 80-83. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 278. ] *473. Powers of the National Assembly. *--In the constitution it isstipulated that the National Council and the Council of the Statesshall have the right to consider all subjects placed within thecompetence of the Confederation and not assigned to any other federalauthority. [629] The range of this competence is enormous. There are, in the first place, certain functions which the two houses performwhile sitting jointly under the direction of the president of theNational Council. These are electoral and judicial in character andcomprise (1) the election of the Federal Council, or executivecommittee of the Confederation, the federal judges, the chancellor, [630]and the generals of the federal army; (2) the granting of pardons; (p.  429)and (3) the adjustment of jurisdictional conflicts between differentbranches of the federal governmental system. [Footnote 629: Art. 84. Ibid. , II. , 278. ] [Footnote 630: The principal duty of the chancellor is the keeping of the minutes of the National Council. A vice-chancellor, appointed by the Federal Council, performs a similar function in the Council of States, under responsibility to the chancellor. ] Much more extensive are the powers which the houses, sittingseparately, exercise concurrently. The constitution requires that thecouncils be assembled at least once annually. In practice, they meetin June and December of each year, regular sessions extending as arule through four or five weeks. At the request of either one-fourthof the members of the National Council or of five cantons anextraordinary session must be held, and there is a probability of onesuch session each year, ordinarily in March. The powers assigned thechambers to be exercised in their concurrent capacities may beclassified variously. The more important are: (1) the enactment oflaws and ordinances upon the organization and election of federalauthorities and upon all subjects which by the constitution are placedwithin the federal competence; (2) the conduct of foreign relations, particularly the concluding of treaties and alliances with foreignpowers, the supervision of conventions entered into by the cantons (inthe event that the Federal Council, or any canton, protests againstsuch cantonal arrangements), the declaring of war and the concludingof peace, and the taking of measures for the safety, independence, andneutrality of the Confederation; (3) the control of the federal army;(4) the adoption of the annual budget, the authorizing of federalloans, and the auditing of public accounts; (5) the taking of measuresfor the enforcement of the provisions of the federal constitution, forthe carrying out of the guaranty of the cantonal constitutions, forthe fulfillment of federal obligations, and for the supervision of thefederal administration and of the federal courts; and (6) the revisionof the federal constitution. [631] It will be perceived that the powersexercised by the chambers are principally legislative, but also in nosmall degree executive and judicial; that, as has already beenemphasized, the two councils comprise the real directive agency of theConfederation. [Footnote 631: Art. 85, §§ 1-14. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 278-279. ] *474. The Assembly's Procedure. *--Federal laws, decrees, and resolutionsare passed only by agreement of the two councils. Any measure mayoriginate in either house and may be introduced by any member. Thereare committees upon various subjects, but bills are referred to themonly by special vote. Committee members are chosen by the chamber directlyor by the chamber's "bureau, " as the chamber itself may determine. Ineach house a majority constitutes a quorum for the transaction ofbusiness, and measures are passed by a simple majority. Sittings, (p.  430)as a rule, are public. It is expressly forbidden that members shallreceive from their constituents, or from the cantonal governments, instructions respecting the manner in which they shall vote. [632] [Footnote 632: For a brief account of the procedure of the chambers see Vincent, Government in Switzerland, 181-187. ] III. LEGISLATION: THE REFERENDUM AND THE INITIATIVE From the domain of cantonal legislative procedure there has beencarried over into federal law-making the fundamental principle of thereferendum. The federal referendum exists to-day in two forms, i. E. , the optional and the obligatory. The one appeared for the first timein the revised constitution of 1874 and is applicable exclusively toprojects of ordinary legislation. The other was established by theconstitution of 1848 and is applicable solely to proposed amendmentsof that instrument. *475. The Optional Referendum: Laws and Resolutions. *--After a law whichhas been enacted by the Federal Assembly has been published it entersregularly upon a probationary period of ninety days during which, under stipulated conditions, it may be referred directly to the peoplefor ratification or rejection. The only exceptions are afforded bythose measures which, by declaration of the councils, are of a privaterather than a general character, and those which are "urgent. " Suchacts take effect at once. But all others are suspended until thereshall have been adequate opportunity for the carrying through of areferendum. At any time within the ninety-day period a referendum maybe demanded, either by the people directly or by the cantonalgovernments. Petitions signed by as many as 30, 000 voters, or adoptedby the legislatures of as many as eight cantons, render it obligatoryupon the Federal Council to arrange for the submission of a measure toa referendum within four weeks after the announcement of the demandhas been made. The method of the referendum is carefully prescribed byfederal legislation. Every citizen in possession of unimpaired civilrights is entitled to vote, and the voting takes place under thesupervision of the authorities of the commune and of the canton. If ina majority of the cantons a preponderance of votes is cast in favor ofthe measure in hand, the Federal Council proclaims the fact and themeasure goes at once into operation. An adverse majority, on the otherhand, renders the measure null. In the event that no referendum isdemanded, the measure, of course, goes automatically into effect atthe expiration of the ninety-day period. Since its introduction (p.  431)into the federal constitution the principle of the legislativereferendum has been brought to bear upon a not inconsiderable numberof legislative projects. The proportion, indeed, of laws fallingwithin the range of the system which have been subjected to thepopular vote, while varying widely from time to time, has been not farfrom ten per cent; and of the measures actually voted upon several ofimportance have been rejected. In all instances the demand has arisendirectly from citizen petitioners, not from the cantonalgovernments. [633] [Footnote 633: On the operation of the optional referendum see Lowell, Governments and Parties, II. , 252-261. "From 1874 till 1908 the Federal Assembly passed 261 bills and resolutions which could constitutionally be subjected to the referendum. Thirty of these 261 were actually voted on by the people, who ratified eleven and rejected nineteen of them. The effect of the federal optional legislative referendum was, then, to hold up a little more than seven per cent of the statutory output of the Federal Assembly. " W. E. Rappard, in _American Political Science Review_, Aug. , 1912, 357. On the most recent exercise of the federal referendum (the adoption, February 4, 1912, of a national Accident and Sickness Insurance bill) see M. Turmann, Le référendum suisse du 4 février--la loi fédérale sur l'assurance-maladie et l'assurance accident, in _Le Correspondant_, Feb. 10, 1912. This particular referendum was called for by 75, 000 voters. The measure submitted was approved by a vote of 287, 566 to 241, 416, on a poll of 63. 04 per cent of the registered electorate. ] *476. The Obligatory Referendum: Constitutional Amendments. *--In itsapplication to laws and resolutions the referendum is optional; inapplication to constitutional amendments it is obligatory. Revision ofthe Swiss constitution may be accomplished at any time, in whole or inpart, and in a variety of modes. In the event that the legislativecouncils are able to agree upon a scheme of revision they vote theadoption of the proposed amendment precisely as if it were an ordinarystatute, and it is thereupon submitted to the people for acceptance orrejection. If, however, the two houses disagree upon the question of atotal revision, or if as many as 50, 000 voters make demand for a totalrevision, there must be put to the people the preliminary question asto whether there shall be a revision at all. If the will of themajority is affirmative, new legislative councils must be elected, andto them falls the obligation of executing the popular mandate. When the question is one of but partial revision the procedure issomewhat different. Partial revision may be instituted either by thecouncils or by petition of 50, 000 voters. When a popular petition ispresented there are four possible courses of action: (1) if theproject is presented in general terms and the councils are inagreement upon it, they reduce the proposal to specific form andsubmit it to the people; (2) if the councils are not in agreement (p.  432)upon the project they put to the people the preliminary question ofwhether an amendment of the general type proposed is desirable, and ifthe vote is affirmative they proceed with the revision; (3) if thepetition is presented in a form that is specific and final and thecouncils are in agreement upon it, the project is submitted forthwithto the people; and (4) if the councils are not in agreement upon aspecific project so advanced, they may prepare a project of their own, or recommend the rejection of the proposed amendment, and they maysubmit their counter-project or their recommendation at the same timethat the initiative petition is presented to the people. [634] In nocase may an amendment be put into effect until it has received theassent of a majority of those voting thereon in a majority of thecantons. Of seventeen constitutional amendments submitted by theFederal Assembly between 1874 and 1908 twelve were ratified and fivewere rejected. [Footnote 634: Arts. 118-123. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 287-289. ] *477. The Popular Initiative. *--The right of popular initiative in therevision of the constitution was established by an amendment of July5, 1891, through the united efforts of all the anti-Radical partiesand groups. The purpose underlying the amendment was to break themonopoly long enjoyed by the Radicals by placing within the hands ofany fifty thousand citizens the power to compel the federal governmentto take under consideration proposed modifications of theconstitution, to prepare projects relating to them, and to submitthese projects to the ultimate decision of the people. When the systemwas established many persons seriously feared that the way had beenthrown open for frequent, needless, and revolutionary change, by whichthe stability of the state would be impaired. Such apprehension, however, has been proved groundless. During a score of years only ninepopularly-initiated amendments have been voted upon, and only threehave been incorporated in the fundamental law. One of the three, adopted in 1893, prohibited the Jewish method of slaughtering animals, and was purely a product of the antisemitic movement. The other twowere adopted in 1908. One authorized for the first time legislation bythe federal authorities upon subjects relating to the trades andprofessions; the other prohibited the manufacture and sale ofabsinthe. A number of other more or less sweeping amendments, it istrue, have been proposed, but all alike have failed of adoption. Thus, in 1894, perished a socialistic scheme whereby the state was toobligate itself to provide employment for every able-bodied man, andin the same year, a project to pay over to the cantons a bonus of twofrancs per capita from the rapidly increasing returns of the (p.  433)customs duties. [635] Similarly, in 1900, failed two interestingprojected reforms relating to the federal electoral system. One ofthese provided for the introduction, in the various cantons, of theprinciple of proportional representation in the election of members ofthe National Council. The other provided for the election of themembers of the Federal Council, not, as at present, by the GeneralAssembly, but by direct popular vote, the whole mass of electorsvoting, not by cantons, but as one national constituency. In June, 1900, both of these electoral proposals were rejected by thelegislative chambers, and in the ensuing November the people ratifiedthe rejection. In 1903, there was defeated in the same way a proposalto base representation in the National Council, not upon the totalpopulation of the country, but upon the Swiss population alone. In1909-10 the proportional representation project was revived, but witha negative result. [636] [Footnote 635: C. Borgeaud, Le plébiscite du 4 novembre 1894, in _Revue du Droit Public_, Nov. -Dec. , 1894. The adverse votes were decisive, i. E. , 308, 289 to 75, 880 and 347, 401 to 145, 362 respectively. ] [Footnote 636: The introduction of proportional representation in Switzerland is advocated especially by the Socialists and the Clericals, to whom principally would accrue the benefits of the system. The Liberals are favorable to the principle, though they prefer to postpone the issue. The Radicals are solidly opposed. At the referendum of 1900 the project was rejected by 11-1/2 to 10-1/2 cantons, and by a popular majority of 75, 000; at that of October 23, 1910, it was approved by 12 to 10 cantons, but was rejected popularly by a majority of less than 25, 000 (265, 194 negative, 240, 305 affirmative). Rather curiously, the defeat arose largely from the defection of the Catholic canton of Freiburg, which in 1900 was favorable by a vote of 13, 000 to 3, 800. The canton's vote in 1910 was for rejection, by 11, 200 to 3, 900. By those best acquainted with the situation this astonishing reversal is explained by the influence which is exercised in the canton to-day by M. Python, a dictator who opposes any innovation whereby his own controlling position would be menaced. Not unnaturally, the friends of the project (and in 1910 all parties save the Radicals gave it their support) regard the outcome in 1910 as a certain forecast of eventual victory. In nine of the cantonal governments, beginning with that of Ticino in 1891, the principle has been already put in operation. In truth, the defeat of 1910 was followed promptly by a triumph in the important canton of St. Gall, where the proportional system was adopted for the first time, February 5, 1911, for elections of the cantonal council. See E. Secretan, Suisse, in _Revue Politique et Parlementaire_, Feb. , 1911; G. Daneo, La rappresentanza proporzionale nella Svizzera, in _Nuova Antologia_, Sept. 16, 1910. ] Among reforms that have been much discussed in recent years has beenthe extension of the initiative and of the obligatory referendum toall federal legislation. Both apply as yet only to constitutionalamendments. In 1906 the Federal Council went so far as to submit tothe legislative councils a proposal intended to meet the first ofthese ends. The purport of the proposal was that fifty thousandvoters, or eight cantons, should have the right at any time to (p.  434)demand the passage, modification, or repeal of any sort of federallaw or federal decree. In December, 1906, the project was debated inthe National Council; after which it was referred to the FederalCouncil for further consideration. The proposal is still pending, butits eventual adoption is probable. [637] [Footnote 637: Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 280-281. For references on the initiative and the referendum see p. 420. A very satisfactory appraisal of the operation of these principles in Switzerland may be found in Lloyd, A Sovereign People, chaps. 14-15. See also W. E. Rappard, The Initiative and the Referendum in Switzerland, in _American Political Science Review_, Aug. , 1912. ] IV. POLITICAL PARTIES *478. Centralism vs. Federalism. *--Until the middle of the nineteenthcentury the most fundamental of political questions in modernSwitzerland was that of centralization, and the most enduring ofpolitical cleavages among the people was that which marked off the"centralists" from the "federalists. " There was a time when theannihilation of the cantons and the establishment of a thoroughlyconsolidated state was not only openly advocated but confidentlypredicted. With the establishment, however, of the reasonablecompromise embodied in the constitution of 1848 the issue ofcentralization dropped pretty much into the background. Therecontinued to be, and still are, "centralizers;" but the term has comelong since to denote merely men who, with due regard for thesusceptibilities of the cantons, direct their influence habitually tothe strengthening of the central agencies of government. The constitution of 1848 was the work of a combination of centralistelements which acquired the general designation of Radicals. Opposedto the Radicals were the federalist Moderates. Between 1848 and 1874controlling influence was maintained steadily by the Radicals, although during the decade 1850-1860 there was a fusion of parties inconsequence of which there existed through many years an extremelyintricate political situation. Gradually there emerged a three-foldparty grouping, which has survived uninterruptedly from the era of theconstitutional revision of 1874 until our own day. The three parties, as aligned now through more than a generation in the National Council, are: (1) the Right, or Clericals; (2) the Left, or Radicals; and (3)the Centre, or Liberals. To these, in very recent times, must be addeda small but growing group of the Extreme Left, comprisingultra-democrats and socialists. *479. The Parties of To-day. *--The basis of segregation of the Right isprimarily religious. The party is thoroughly clerical, and it has forits fundamental object the defense of the Catholic church and the (p.  435)interests of the Catholic population. In the Catholic cantons itoccupies the field almost alone, and everywhere it is the most compactand zealous of the parties, although even it is not without a certainamount of division of opinion and of policy. The Left, or Radicalparty, has always represented a combination of widely varied shades ofradicalism and democracy. Its greatest strength lies in thepredominantly Protestant cantons, and it is distinctly anti-clerical. Large portions of the party have ceased long since to be reallyradical, although on one side there is an imperceptible shading offinto the ranks of the advanced democrats and socialists. Through manyyears the party has been lacking notoriously in cohesion. Between theConservative Right and the Radical Left stands the Centre, or theLiberal group, lacking most notably of all in unity, but preservingthe traditional Swiss principles of personal freedom in defiance ofthe tendency of the state in the direction of paternalism. TheLiberals are not strong numerically, but they comprise men of wealthand influence (largely conservative Protestants), and in the shapingof economic policies, in which they are interested principally, theysometimes exercise a powerful influence. During the years immediatelyfollowing the constitutional revision of 1874 no one of these threeparties possessed in the Federal Assembly a clear majority, with theconsequence that the Centre was able to maintain a balance between theother two. Gradually, however, the Radicals regained their formerascendancy, and in subsequent years their preponderance, in especiallythe lower chamber, has tended steadily to be increased. *480. Party Stability and Strength. *--Concerning the political partiesof Switzerland two or three things are worthy of special observation. The first is the remarkable stability which these parties, despitetheir obvious lack of cohesion, exhibit from the point of view both ofparty identity and of party strength. Except the Socialists, who haveceased to vote and act with the Radicals, there has sprung intoexistence not one new political party since 1874. Numerous and variedas have been the political issues of these four decades, no one ofthem has given rise to a new party grouping. And, save for the gradualaugmentation of Radical strength to which allusion has been made, there has been in this period no noteworthy change in the relativestrength of the party groups. Sudden fluctuations, such as in othercountries are common, are in Switzerland quite unknown. The reasonsare varied and not wholly clear, but among them seem to be the brevityof national legislative sessions, the lack of federal patronagewhereby party zeal may be whetted, the indirect method of electing theFederal Council, and the essentially non-partisan character of the (p.  436)referendum. [638] Party strength in the National Council following theelection of 1878 was: Clericals, 35; Liberals, 31; Radicals, 69. Afterthe election of 1881 it was: Clericals, 36; Liberals, 26; andRadicals, 83. In these proportions the six triennial elections between1884 and 1902 produced no important change, although in 1890 theSocialists broke somewhat into the balance by winning six seats. Afterthe census of 1900 the number of members of the Council was raisedfrom 147 to 167, and the results of the election of 1902 were asfollows: Clericals, 35; Liberals, 25; Radicals, 97; Socialists, 9; andIndependents, 1. In 1905 the Radicals, who hitherto had co-operatedwith the Socialists in many constituencies, broke with them upon thequestion of military policy, with the result that the Socialistcontingent in the Council was cut to two. In 1908 and 1911 theSocialists made, however, some recovery; so that, on the whole, theparty situation in the Council remains to-day very nearly what it wasten years ago. By popular suffrage the Radicals are continueduninterruptedly in control, although the people do not hesitate againand again to reject measures framed by Radical administrators andlaw-makers and submitted to the vote of the nation. [Footnote 638: Upon this subject, especially the effects of the referendum upon political parties, see Lowell, Governments and Parties, II. , 314-332. ] *481. The Inactivity of Parties. *--A second important fact respectingthe parties of Switzerland is their all but total lack of organizationand machinery. Parties are little more than groups of people who holdsimilar views upon public questions. Of office-seekers there are few, and of professional politicians fewer still. Elections are notinfrequently uncontested, and only at rare intervals do they serve toawaken any considerable public enthusiasm. There are no campaignmanagers and funds, no platforms, no national committees, no elaboratesystems of caucuses or conventions. Candidates for seats in theNational Council are nominated by political gatherings in the severaldistricts, but the proceedings are frequently of an all but purelynon-partisan character. Political congresses are held occasionally, and a few political associations exist, but their activities arelimited and comparatively unimportant. So far as there is party vigorat all, it is expended principally upon local issues and contestswithin the cantons. Finally, it must be observed that the Swiss government is not agovernment by party at all. The Federal Council regularly includesmembers of more than one party, and there is no attempt to preserve inthe body a homogeneous partisan character. Even in the legislativecouncils considerations of party are but incidental. Upon by no meansall public issues are party lines drawn, and where they are drawn (p.  437)there is seldom that compactness and discipline of party to whichlegislative assemblies in other nations are accustomed. An evidence ofthe secondary importance of party demarcation is afforded by the factthat, instead of being arranged in groups according to partyaffiliations, the members of the National Council are so placed, as arule, that all of the deputies of a canton occupy contiguous seats. The Federal Council, being elected by the Federal Assembly, ispractically certain to reflect the preponderating political complexionof that body. But, in the entire absence of the parliamentary system, there is no essential reason why politically the executive andlegislative organs should be in accord. [639] [Footnote 639: On Swiss political parties see Lowell, Governments and Parties, II. , Chap. 13; Adams and Cunningham, The Swiss Confederation, Chap. 7. ] V. THE JUDICIARY *482. The Federal Court: Civil Jurisdiction. *--In respect toorganization, the Swiss federal judiciary is very simple; in respectto functions, it is extremely complex. It comprises but a singletribunal, the Bundesgericht, or Federal Court. The court, createdoriginally in 1848, consists to-day of sixteen judges and ninealternates, all chosen by the Federal Assembly for a term of sixyears. Any citizen eligible to the National Council may be elected tothe Federal Court, but it is incumbent upon the Assembly to take carethat all of the three officially recognized languages--German, French, and Italian--are represented. The president and vice-president of thecourt are designated by the Assembly, for a two years' term, but thecourt is authorized to organize its own secretariat and to appoint theofficials thereof. Judges are forbidden to sit in either house of thefederal legislature, to occupy any other office, or to engage in anyalien pursuit or profession. Their yearly salary is 12, 000 francs. Theseat of the Court is Lausanne, in the French province of Vaud. The jurisdiction of the Federal Court extends not only to ordinarycivil and criminal cases but also to cases arising under public law. The competence of the tribunal in civil cases is very considerable. Itextends to all suits between the Confederation and the cantons;between the Confederation and corporations or individuals, when suchcorporations or individuals appear as plaintiffs, and when the amountinvolved exceeds 3, 000 francs; between cantons; and between cantonsand corporations or individuals, upon request of the parties, and whenthe amount involved exceeds 3, 000 francs. The constitution authorizesthe Confederation to enlarge, by legislation, the competence of (p.  438)the Court, [640] and from time to time a variety of specific fields ofcivil jurisdiction have been opened to it, such as those oftransportation and bankruptcy. In addition to original jurisdiction inall matters that have been named, the Court is required by theconstitution to exercise appellate jurisdiction in cases carried onappeal, by mutual consent of the parties, from the cantonal courts. For the adjudication of civil cases the Court divides itself into twochambers of seven members each, presided over respectively by thepresident and vice-president. [Footnote 640: Art. 114. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 287. ] *483. Criminal and Public Law Jurisdiction. *--The tribunal's criminaljurisdiction is less extensive. It covers, in the main, cases of hightreason against the Confederation, crimes and misdemeanors against thelaw of nations, political crimes and misdemeanors of such seriousnessas to occasion armed federal intervention, and charges againstofficers appointed by a federal authority, when such authority makesapplication to the Federal Court. In cases falling within any one ofthese categories the Court is required to employ a jury to decidequestions of fact. With the consent of the Federal Assembly, criminalcases of other kinds may be referred to the Federal Court by thecantonal governments. For the trial of criminal cases the Court isdivided each year into four chambers, each of three members, save thefourth and highest, the Kassationshof, or Court of Appeals, which hasfive. The Confederation is divided into three Assizenbezirke, orassize districts, and from time to time one of the criminal chamberssits in each. Within the domain of public law the Court is given cognizance ofconflicts of jurisdiction between federal and cantonal authorities, conflicts between cantons when arising out of questions of public law, complaints of violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, andcomplaints of individuals by reason of the violation of concordates ortreaties. In actual operation, the range of powers which would appearthus to be conferred is much restricted by a clause which declaresthat "conflicts of administrative jurisdiction are reserved, and areto be settled in a manner prescribed by federal legislation. "[641]Legislation in pursuance of this clause has withdrawn from thejurisdiction of the Court a long list of possible subjects oflitigation. Like European courts generally, the Swiss Federal Courtpossesses no power to determine the constitutionality of law, federalor cantonal. On the contrary, it is obligated to apply all law, bywhatever proper authority enacted. [642] [Footnote 641: Art. 112. Ibid. , II. , 286. ] [Footnote 642: On the Swiss federal judiciary see Vincent, Government in Switzerland, Chap. 15; Adams and Cunningham, The Swiss Confederation, Chap. 5. ] *484. The Civil Code. *--In 1898 the nation, through the means of (p.  439)a referendum, adopted the principle of the unification of all cantonallegal systems, civil and criminal, in a set of federal codes. Throughmore than a decade the task has been in progress, drafts beingprepared by experts and submitted from time to time for criticism tospecial commissions and to public opinion. Early in 1908 the Assemblyadopted an elaborate Civil Code which in this way had been worked out, and January 1, 1912, this monumental body of law was put in operation. By it many long established practices within the individual cantonswere abolished or modified; but the humane and progressive characterof the Code won for it such a measure of public approval that therewas not even demand that the instrument be submitted to a referendum. PART VI--AUSTRIA-HUNGARY (p.  441) CHAPTER XXIV AUSTRIA-HUNGARY PRIOR TO THE AUSGLEICH *485. The Dual Monarchy. *--The dual monarchy Austria-Hungary, comprisinga sixteenth of the area, and containing an eighth of the population, of all Europe, is an anomaly among nations. It consists, strictly, oftwo sovereign states, each of which has a governmental system all butcomplete within itself. One of these is known officially as "TheKingdoms and Lands represented in the Reichsrath, " but more familiarlyas Cisleithania, or the Empire of Austria. The other, officiallydesignated as "The Lands of St. Stephen's Crown, " is commonly calledTransleithania, or the Kingdom of Hungary. By certain historical andpolitical ties the two are bound together under the official name ofthe Österreichisch-ungarische Monarchie, or Austro-HungarianMonarchy. [643] In the one the common sovereign is Emperor; in theother, Apostolic King. [Footnote 643: This designation was first employed in a diploma of the Emperor Francis Joseph I. , November 14, 1868 (see p. 459). ] "If, " says a modern writer, "France has been a laboratory forpolitical experiments, Austria-Hungary is a museum of politicalcuriosities, but it contains nothing so extraordinary as the relationbetween Austria and Hungary themselves. "[644] In its present form thisrelation rests upon the memorable Ausgleich, or Compromise, of 1867. The historical phases of it, however, may be traced to a period asremote as the first half of the sixteenth century, when, in 1526, after the Hungarians had suffered overwhelming defeat by the Turks atthe Battle of Mohács, a Hapsburg prince, the later Emperor FerdinandI. , assumed, upon election by the Hungarian diet, the throne of thedemoralized eastern kingdom. [645] Until the eighteenth century theunion of the two monarchies was always precarious, much of the timepractically non-existent. Set in the midst of a whirlpool of races andpolitical powers, the ancient Hungarian state, recovered from its daysof disaster, struggled unremittingly to preserve its identity, andeven to regain its independence, as against the overshadowing (p.  442)Imperial authority of which Austria was the seat. The effort wasfairly successful and as late as the Napoleonic period Hungary, whilebound to her western neighbor by a personal union through the crown, maintained not only her essential autonomy but even the constitutionalstyle of government which had been hers since at least the earlyportion of the thirteenth century. A rapid sketch of the earlierpolitical development of the two states seems a necessary introductionto an examination of the institutions, joint and separate, whichto-day enter into the texture of their governmental organization. [Footnote 644: Lowell, Governments and Parties, II. , 177. ] [Footnote 645: See p. 448. ] I. AUSTRIAN POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT TO 1815 *486. Origins. *--The original Austria was a mark, or border county, lying along the south bank of the Danube, east of the river Enns, andfounded by Charlemagne as a bulwark of the Frankish kingdom againstthe Slavs. During the ninth century the territory was overrunsuccessively by the Moravians and the Magyars, or Hungarians, and alltraces of Frankish occupation were swept away. At the middle of thetenth century, however, following Otto the Great's signal triumph overthe Hungarians on the Lech in 955, the mark was reconstituted; andfrom that point the development of modern Austria is to be tracedcontinuously. The name Österreich, i. E. , "eastern empire" or"dominion, " appears in a charter as early as 996. The first notable period of Austrian history was that covered by therule of the house of Babenberg. The government of the mark wasintrusted by the Emperor Otto II. To Leopold of Babenberg in 976, andfrom that date to the extinction of the family in 1246 the energies ofthe Babenbergs were absorbed principally in the enlargement of theboundaries of their dominion and in the consolidation of itsadministration. In 1156 the mark was raised by King Frederick I. Tothe dignity of a duchy, and such were the privileges conferred upon itthat the duke's only obligation consisted in the attending of anyImperial diet which should be held in Bavaria and the sending of acontingent to the Imperial army for such campaigns as should beundertaken in countries adjoining the duchy. *487. The Establishment of Hapsburg Dominion, 1276. *--In 1251--fiveyears after the death of the last Babenberg--the estates of the duchyelected as duke Ottakar, son of Wenceslaus I. , king of Bohemia. In1276, however, Duke Ottakar was compelled to yield his three dominionsof Austria, Styria, and Carinthia to Rudolph of Hapsburg, who, in 1273, upon the breaking of the Interregnum, had become German king andemperor; and at this point began in Austria the rule of the (p.  443)illustrious Hapsburg dynasty of which the present Emperor FrancisJoseph is a representative. Under the adroit management of Rudolph thecenter of gravity of Hapsburg power was shifted permanently from theRhine to the Danube, and throughout the remainder of the Middle Agesthe history of Austria is a story largely of the varying fortunes ofthe Hapsburg interests. In 1453 the duchy was raised to the rank of anarchduchy, and later in the century the Emperor Maximilian I. Entertained plans for the establishment of an Austrian electorate, oreven an Austrian kingdom. These plans were not carried into execution, but the Austrian lands were constituted one of the Imperial circleswhich were created in 1512, and in 1518 representatives of the variousAustrian Landtage, or diets, were gathered for the first time innational assembly at Innsbrück. *488. Austro-Hungarian Consolidation. *--In 1519 Maximilian I. Wassucceeded in the archduchy of Austria, as well as in the Imperialoffice, by his grandson Charles of Spain, known thenceforth as theEmperor Charles V. To his brother Ferdinand, however. Charles resignedthe whole of his Austrian possessions, and to Austrian affairs he gavethroughout his reign but scant attention. Ferdinand, in turn, devotedhimself principally to warfare with the Turks and to an attempt tosecure the sovereignty of Hungary. His efforts met with a measure ofsuccess and there resulted that affiliation of Austria and Hungarywhich, though varying greatly from period to period in strength and ineffect, has been maintained to the present day. During a centurysucceeding Ferdinand's accession to the Imperial throne in 1556, theaffairs of Austria were inextricably intertwined with those of theEmpire, and it was only with the virtual disintegration of the Empirein consequence of the Thirty Years' War that the Hapsburg sovereignsfell back upon the policy of devoting themselves more immediately tothe interests of their Austrian dominion. The fruits of this policy were manifest during the long reign ofLeopold I. , who ruled in Austria from 1655 to 1705 and was likewiseemperor during the last forty-eight years of this period. At the closeof a prolonged series of Turkish wars, the Peace of Karlowitz, January26, 1699, added definitely to the Austrian dominion Slavonia, Transylvania, and all Hungary save the banat of Temesvár, and thuscompleted the edifice of the Austrian monarchy. [646] The period waslikewise one of internal consolidation. The Diet continued to be (p.  444)summoned from time to time, but the powers of the crown were augmentedenormously, and it is to these years that scholars have traced theorigins of that thoroughgoing bureaucratic régime which, assuming moredefinite form under Maria Theresa, continued unimpaired until therevolution of 1848. It was in the same period that the Austrianstanding army was established. [Footnote 646: At the diet of Pressburg, in 1687-1688, the Hungarian crown had been declared hereditary in the house of Hapsburg, and the Austrian heir, Joseph, had been crowned hereditary king. In 1697 Transylvania was united to the Hungarian monarchy. The banat of Temesvár was acquired by the Hapsburgs in 1718. The term "banat" denotes a border district, or march. ] *489. Development of Autocracy Under Maria Theresa, 1740-1780. *--Theprincipal threads in Austrian history in the eighteenth century arethe foreign entanglements, including the war of the SpanishSuccession, the war of the Austrian Succession, and the Seven Years'War, and the internal measures, of reform and otherwise, undertaken bythe successive sovereigns, especially Maria Theresa (1740-1780) andJoseph II. (1780-1790). For Austria the net result of the wars was theloss of territory and also of influence, among the states of theEmpire, if not among those of all Europe. On the side of internalaffairs it may be observed simply that Maria Theresa became virtuallythe founder of the unified Austrian state, and that, in socialconditions generally, the reign of this sovereign marks more largelythan that of any other the transition in the Hapsburg dominions frommediæval to modern times. Unlike her doctrinaire son and successor, Joseph, Maria Theresa was of an eminently practical turn of mind. Sheintroduced innovations, but she clothed them with the vestments ofancient institutions. She made the government more than everautocratic, but she did not interfere with the nominal privileges ofthe old estates. In Hungary the constitution was left untouched, butduring the forty years of the reign the Diet was assembled only fourtimes, and government was, in effect, by royal decree. Joseph II. Assumed the throne in 1780 bent primarily upon a policy of "reformfrom above. " Utterly unacquainted with the actual condition of hisdominions and unappreciative of the difficulties inherent in theiradministration, the new sovereign set about the sweeping away of theentire existing order and the substituting of a governmental schemewhich was logical enough, to be sure, but entirely impracticable. Theattempt, as was inevitable, failed utterly. *490. Austria and France, 1789-1815. *--Leopold II. Inherited, in 1790, adominion substantially as it was at the death of Maria Theresa. Priorto his accession Leopold had acquired a reputation for liberalism, butapprehension aroused by the revolution in France was of itselfsufficient to turn him promptly into the traditional paths of Austrianautocracy. His reign was brief (1790-1792), but that of his son andsuccessor, Francis II. , which continued through the revolutionaryepoch, was essentially a continuation of it, and from first to (p.  445)last there was maintained with complete success that relentlesspolicy of "stability" so conspicuously associated later with the nameof Metternich. Hardly any portion of Europe was less affected by theideas and transformations of the Revolution than was Austria. Having resisted by every means at her disposal, including resort toarms, the progress of revolution, Austria set herself firmly, likewise, in opposition to the ambitions of Napoleon. Of the manyconsequences of the prolonged combat between Napoleon and the Hapsburgpower, one only need be mentioned here. August 11, 1804, Francis II. , archduke of Austria and emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, assumed thename and title of Francis I. , emperor of Austria. To the taking ofthis step the Hapsburg monarch was influenced in part by Napoleon'sassumption, three months previously, of the title of emperor of theFrench, and in part by anticipation that the Holy Roman Empire wouldsoon be subverted completely by the conqueror. The apprehension provedwell-founded. Within two years it was made known definitely that theNapoleonic plan of international readjustment involved as one of itsprincipal features the termination, once for all, of an institutionwhich, as Voltaire had already said, was "no longer holy, Roman, or anempire. " August 6, 1806, the title and functions of Holy Roman Emperorwere relinquished formally by the Austrian monarch. The Austrianimperial title of to-day, dates, however, from 1804. II. HUNGARIAN POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT TO 1815 *491. Beginnings. *--According to accounts which are but indifferentlyreliable, the Magyars, or Hungarians, lately come as invaders fromAsia, made their first appearance in the land which now bears theirname in the year 895. Certain it is that during the first half of thetenth century they terrorized repeatedly the populations of Germanyand France, until, in 955, their signal defeat at the Lechfeld by theGerman king (the later Emperor Otto I. ) checked effectually theironslaughts and re-enforced the disposition already in evidence amongthem to take on a settled mode of life. In the second half of thetenth century they occupied definitely the valleys of the Danube andthe Theiss, wedging apart, as do their descendants to this day, theSlavs of the north and those of the Balkan regions. *492. Institutional Growth Under Stephen I. , 997-1038. *--The principalformative period in the history of the Hungarian nation is the longreign of Stephen I. , or, as he is more commonly known, St. Stephen. In this reign were established firmly both the Hungarian state and (p.  446)the Hungarian church; and in the organization of both Stephenexhibited a measure of capacity which entitles him to high rank amongthe constructive statesmen of mediæval Europe. Under his predecessorthe court had accepted Roman Christianity, but during his reign thenation itself was Christianized and the machinery of the Church wasfor the first time put effectively in operation. In the year 1001 PopeSylvester II. Accorded formal recognition to Magyar nationality bybestowing upon Prince Stephen a kingly crown, and to this day thejoint sovereign of Austria-Hungary is inducted into office asHungarian monarch with the identical crown which Pope Sylvestertransmitted to the missionary-king nine centuries ago. In theelaboration of a governmental system King Stephen and the adviserswhom he gathered from foreign lands had virtually a free field. Thenation possessed a traditional right to elect its sovereign and togather in public assembly, and these privileges were left untouched. None the less, the system that was set up was based upon a conceptionof royal power unimpaired by those feudal relationships by which inwestern countries monarchy was being reduced to its lowest estate. Theold Magyar tribal system was abolished and as a basis ofadministration there was adopted the Frankish system of counties. Thecentral and western portions of the country, being more settled, weredivided into forty-six counties, at the head of each of which wasplaced a count, or lord-lieutenant (_föispán_), appointed by the crownand authorized in turn to designate his subordinates, the castellan(_várnagy_), the chief captain (_hadnagy_), and the hundredor(_százados_). This transplantation of institutions is a matter ofpermanent importance, for, as will appear, the county is still thebasal unit of the Hungarian administrative system. *493. The Golden Bull, 1222. *--During the century and a half whichfollowed the reign of Stephen the consolidation of the kingdom, despite frequent conflicts with the Eastern Empire, was continued. Thecourt took on something of the brilliancy of the Byzantine model, andin the later twelfth century King Béla III. Inaugurated a policy--thatof crowning as successor the sovereign's eldest son while yet thesovereign lived--by which were introduced in effect the twinprinciples of heredity and primogeniture. In 1222 King Andrew II. (1204-1235) promulgated a famous instrument, the _Bulla Aurea_, orGolden Bull, which has been likened many times to the Great Charterconceded to his barons by King John of England seven years earlier. The precise purport of the Golden Bull is somewhat doubtful. By somethe instrument has been understood to have comprised a virtualsurrender on the part of the crown in the interest of a class of (p.  447)insolent and self-seeking nobles with which the country was cursed. Byothers it has been interpreted as a measure designed to strengthen thecrown by winning the support of the mass of the lesser nobles againstthe few greater ones. [647] The exemption of all nobles from taxationwas confirmed; all were exempted likewise from arbitrary arrest andpunishment. On the other hand, it was forbidden expressly that thetitles and holdings of lords-lieutenant should become hereditary. Themost reasonable conclusion is that the instrument represents acompromise designed to afford a working arrangement in a period ofunusual stress between crown and nobility. Although the document wasamplified in 1231 and its guarantees were placed under the specialguardianship of the Church, it does not appear that its positiveeffects in the period immediately following were pronounced. TheGolden Bull, none the less, has ever been regarded as the foundationof Hungarian constitutional liberty. As such, it was confirmedspecifically in the coronation oath of every Hapsburg sovereign fromthe sixteenth to the eighteenth century. [Footnote 647: J. Andrássy, Development of Hungarian Constitutional Liberty (London, 1908), 93. ] *494. Three Centuries of Constitutional Unsettlement. *--The last centuryof the Árpád dynasty, which was ended in 1308, was a period ofdepression and of revolution. The weakness of the later Árpáds, theruin wrought by the Tatar invasion of 1241-1242, the infiltration offeudalism, and perennial civil discord subverted the splendidmonarchical establishment of King Stephen and brought the country intovirtual subjection to a small body of avaricious nobles. The Árpádswere succeeded by two Angevin princes from the kingdom ofNaples--Charles I. (1310-1342) and Louis I. (1342-1382)--under whomnotable progress was made toward the rehabilitation of the royalpower. Yet in the midst of their reforms appeared the firstforeshadowings of that great Turkish onslaught by which eventually theindependent Hungarian monarchy was destined to be annihilatedcompletely. The long reign of Sigismund (1387-1437) was occupiedalmost wholly in resistance to the Ottoman advance. So urgent did thissovereign deem the pushing of military preparations that he fell intothe custom of summoning the Diet once, and not infrequently twice, ayear, and this body acquired rapidly a bulk of legislative and fiscalauthority which never before had been accorded it. Persons entitled tomembership were regularly the nobles and higher clergy. But in 1397the free and royal towns were invited to send deputies, and thisprivilege seems to have been given statutory confirmation. By theripening of the Hungarian feudal system, however, and the (p.  448)struggles for the throne which followed the death of King Albert V. (1439), much that was accomplished by Sigismund and his diets wasundone. Ultimately, measures of vigilance were renewed under JohnHunyadi, --by voice of the Diet "governor" of Hungary, 1446-1456, --and, under his son King Matthias I. (1458-1490). During the last-mentionedreign fifteen diets are known to have been held, and no fewer than 450statutes to have been enacted. The Hungarian common law was codifiedafresh and the entire governmental system overhauled. But againsucceeded a period, from the accession of Wladislaus II. To the battleof Mohács, during which turbulence reigned supreme and national spiritall but disappeared. *496. The Establishment of Austrian Dominion. *--In 1526 the longexpected blow fell. Under the Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent theTurks invaded the Hungarian kingdom and at the battle of Mohács, August 28, put to rout the entire Hungarian army. The invading hostschose to return almost instantly to Constantinople, but when theywithdrew they left one-quarter of the Hungarian dominion in utterdesolation. It was at this point, as has been stated, that theHapsburg rulers of Austria first acquired the throne of Hungary. Thedeath of King Louis at Mohács was followed by the election of JohnZapolya as king. But the archduke Ferdinand, whose wife, Anne, was asister of Louis, laid claim to the throne and, in November, 1527, contrived to procure an election thereto at the hand of the Diet. In1529 the deposed Zapolya was reinstated at Buda by the Sultan. Theupshot was civil war, which was terminated in 1538 by a treaty underwhose terms the kingdom was divided between the two claimants. Zapolyaretained approximately two-thirds of the country, while to Ferdinandwas conceded the remaining portion, comprising Croatia-Slavonia andthe five westernmost counties. The government which Zapolya maintainedat Buda had rather the better claim to be considered the continuationof the old Hungarian monarchy; but from 1527 onwards some portion ofHungary, and eventually the whole, was attached regularly to theHapsburg crown. In 1540 Zapolya died and the Diet at Buda elected as king his infantson John Sigismund. On the basis of earlier pledges Ferdinand laidclaim to Zapolya's possessions, but the Sultan intervened and in 1547there was worked out a three-fold division of the kingdom, on theprinciple of _uti possedetis_, under which thirty-five counties(including Croatia and Slavonia) were assigned to Ferdinand, Transylvania and sixteen adjacent counties were retained by JohnSigismund, while the remaining portions of the kingdom were annexed tothe dominions of the Sultan. With frequent modifications in detail, this three-fold division persisted through the next century and a (p.  449)half. The period was marked by frequent wars, by political confusion, and by the assumption on the part of the Hapsburg sovereigns of anincreasingly autocratic attitude in relation to their Hungariandependencies. It was brought to a close by the Peace of Karlowitz, January 26, 1699, whereby the Hapsburg dynasty acquired dominion overthe whole of Hungary, except the banat of Tamesvár, which was acquirednineteen years later. *496. Austrian Encroachment: the Pragmatic Sanction. *--The immediateeffect of the termination of the Turkish wars was to enhance yetfurther the despotism of the Hapsburgs in Hungary. In 1687 the EmperorLeopold I. Induced a rump diet at Pressburg to abrogate that clause ofthe Golden Bull which authorized armed resistance to unconstitutionalacts of the sovereign, and likewise to declare the Hungarian crownhereditary in the house of Hapsburg. After upwards of seven hundredyears of existence, the elective Hungarian monarchy was brought thusto an end. In 1715 King Charles III. [648] persuaded the Diet toconsent to the establishment of a standing army, recruited andsupported under regulation of the Diet but controlled by the Austriancouncil of war. By the diet of 1722 there was established a Hungariancourt of chancery at Vienna and the government of Hungary wascommitted to a stadtholder at Pressburg who was made independent ofthe Diet and responsible to the sovereign alone. The diet of 1722likewise accepted formally the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713 by which theEmperor Charles settled the succession to his hereditary dominions, indefault of male heirs, upon his daughter Maria Theresa and herheirs;[649] and in measures promulgated during the succeeding year theEmperor entered into a fresh compact with his Hungarian subjects whichcontinued the basis of Hapsburg-Hungarian relations until 1848. On theone hand, Hungary was declared inseparable from the Hapsburgdominions, so long as there should be a legal heir; on the other, thecrown was sworn to preserve the Hungarian constitution intact, withall the rights, privileges, laws, and customs of the kingdom. The netresult of all of these measures, none the less, was to impairperceptibly the original autonomy of the Hungarian state. [Footnote 648: Charles VI. As emperor. ] [Footnote 649: The Pragmatic Sanction was accepted at different dates by the various diets of the Austro-Hungarian lands: in 1713 by Croatia, and from 1720 to 1724 by the other diets. It was finally proclaimed a fundamental law in 1724. ] *497. The Later Eighteenth Century. *--Maria Theresa cherished a genuineinterest in Hungarian affairs and was deeply solicitous concerning thewelfare of her Hungarian subjects. It was never her intent, however, to encourage Hungarian self-government. The constitution of the (p.  450)kingdom was not subverted; it was simply ignored. The Diet wassummoned but seldom, and after 1764 not at all. Reforms wereintroduced, especially in connection with education, but through themedium of royal decrees alone. Joseph II. Continued nominally thepolicy of enlightened despotism, but in so tactless a manner that mostof his projects were brought to nought. Approaching the problem ofHungarian administration with his accustomed idealism, he undertookdeliberately to sweep away not only the constitution of the kingdombut the whole body of Hungarian institutions and traditions. Herefused even to be crowned king of Hungary or to recognize in anymanner the established status of the country. His purpose was clearlyto build of Austria and Hungary one consolidated and absolute state--apurpose which, it need hardly be remarked, failed of realization. Thestatesmanship of Leopold II. Averted the impending revolt. Theconstitution was restored, the ancient liberties of the kingdom wereconfirmed, and it was agreed that the Diet should be assembledregularly every three years. Through a quarter of a century theprincipal interest of Leopold's successor, Francis II. (1792-1835), [650]was the waging of war upon revolutionary France and upon Napoleon, andduring this period circumstances conspired to cement more firmly therelations between the Hapsburg monarchy and the Hungarian people. InHungary, as in Austria, the time was one of political stagnation. Prior to 1811 the Diet was several times convened, but never for anypurpose other than that of obtaining war subsidies. [Footnote 650: As emperor of Austria, Francis I. (1804-1835). ] III. THE ERA OF METTERNICH In the thoroughgoing reaction which set in with the Congress of Viennait fell to Austria to play the principal rôle. This was in partbecause the dominions of the Hapsburgs had emerged from therevolutionary epoch virtually unscathed, but rather more by reason ofthe remarkable position occupied during the period 1815-1848 byEmperor Francis I. 's minister and mentor, Prince Metternich. Easilythe most commanding personality in Europe, Metternich was at the sametime the moving spirit in international affairs and the autocrat ofAustro-Hungarian politics. Within both spheres he was, as he declaredhimself to be, "the man of the _status quo_. " Innovation he abhorred;immobility he glorified. The settlement at Vienna he regarded asessentially his own handiwork, and all that that settlement involvedhe proposed to safeguard relentlessly. Throughout a full generation hecontrived, with consummate skill, to dam the stream of liberalism inmore than half of Europe. *498. Condition of the Monarchy in 1815. *--In the dominions of the (p.  451)Hapsburgs the situation was peculiarly such as to render all change, from the point of view of Metternich, revolutionary and ruinous. Inrespect to territory and prestige Austria emerged from the Napoleonicwars with a distinctly improved status. But the internal condition ofthe monarchy, now as ever, imparted a forbidding aspect to any policyor movement which should give promise of unsettling in the minutestdegree the delicate, haphazard balance that had been arrived at amongthe multiplicity of races, religions, and interests represented in theEmperor's dominions. In the west were the duchies, essentially German, which comprised the ancestral possessions of the Hapsburg dynasty; inthe north was Bohemia, comprising, besides Bohemia proper, Silesia, and Moravia, and containing a population largely Czech; to the southlay the lately acquired Italian kingdom of Lombardo-Venetia; to theeast lay the kingdom of Hungary, including the kingdom of Croatia andthe principality of Transylvania, with a population preponderantlySlavic but dominated politically by the Magyars. Several of thesecomponent states retained privileges which were peculiar to themselvesand were bound to the Hapsburg monarchy by ties that were at bestprecarious. And the differences everywhere of race, religion, language, tradition, and interest were such as to create for theVienna Government a seemingly impossible task. So decadent and ineffective was the Austrian administrative systemwhen Metternich entered, in 1809, upon his ministry that not even hecould have supposed that change would not eventually have to come. Change, however, he dreaded, because when change begins it is notpossible to foresee how far it will go, or to control altogether thecourse it shall follow. Change, therefore, Metternich resisted byevery available means, putting off at least as long as might be theevil day. The spirit of liberalism, once disseminated throughout theconglomerate Empire, might be expected to prompt the variousnationalities to demand constitutions; constitutions would meanautonomy; and autonomy might well mean the end of the Empire itself. Austria entered upon the post-Napoleonic period handicapped by thefact that the principle upon which Europe during the nineteenthcentury was to solve many of her problems--the principle ofnationality--contained for her nought but the menace ofdisintegration. Conservatism, as one writer has put it, was imposedupon the Empire by the very conditions of its being. *499. Metternich's System: the Rise of Liberalism. *--The key to Austrianhistory during the period 1815--1848 is, then, the maxim of theEmperor Francis, "Govern and change nothing. " In Hungary governmentwas nominally constitutional; elsewhere it was frankly absolute. (p.  452)The diets of the component parts of the Empire were not abolished, norwere the estates of the several Austrian provinces. But, constitutedas they generally were on an aristocratic basis and convened butirregularly and for brief periods, their existence was a sourceneither of embarrassment to the Government nor of benefit to thepeople. "I also have my Estates, " declared the Emperor upon oneoccasion. "I have maintained their constitution, and do not worrythem; but if they go too far I snap my fingers at them or send themhome. " The Diet of Hungary was not once convened during the years1812-1825. On the side of administration Metternich did propose thatthe various executive departments, hitherto gathered under no commonmanagement nor correlated in any degree whatsoever, should be broughtunder the supervision of a single minister. But not even this projectwas carried out effectively. Throughout the period the centralgovernment continued cumbersome, disjointed, and inefficient. With every passing decade the difficulties of the Government wereaugmented. Despite a most extraordinary censorship of education and ofthe press, western liberalism crept slowly into the Empire and thespirit of disaffection laid hold of increasing numbers of people. Therevolutions of 1820 passed without eliciting response; those of 1830occasioned but a ripple. But during the decade 1830-1840, andespecially after 1840, the growth of liberalism was rapid. In 1835 theaged Francis I. Was succeeded by Ferdinand I. , but as the newsovereign was mentally incapacitated the dominance of Metternichcontinued unimpaired. [651] In Bohemia, Hungary, and elsewhere therewere revivals of racial enthusiasm and of nationalistic aspirationswhich grew increasingly ominous. The Hungarian diet of 1844substituted as the official language of the chambers Magyar for Latin, and during the forties there was built up, under the leadership ofLouis Kossuth and Francis Deák, a flourishing Liberal party, whose aimwas the re-establishment of the autonomy of the kingdom and thethoroughgoing reform of the government. By 1847-1848 this party wasinsisting strenuously upon the adoption of its "Ten Points, " in whichwere included a responsible ministry, the abolition of serfdom, equality of citizens before the law, complete religious liberty, fuller representation in the Diet, taxation of the nobles, and (p.  453)control by the Diet of all public expenditures. [652] [Footnote 651: Technically the control of the government was vested in a small group of dignitaries known as the Staatskonferenz, or State Conference. The nominal president of this body was the Archduke Louis, representing the crown; but the actual direction of its proceedings fell to Metternich. H. Von Sybel, Die Österreichische Staatskonferenz von 1836, in _Historische Zeitschrift_, 1877. ] [Footnote 652: On Austria during the period of Metternich see Cambridge Modern History, X. , Chap. 11, XI. , Chap. 3; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, X. , Chap. 17; A. Stern, Geschichte Europas (Berlin, 1904-1911), I. , Chap. 3; A. Springer, Geschichte Österreichs seit dem Wiener Frieden 1809 (Leipzig, 1863), I. , 275-322; H. Meynert, Kaiser Franz I. (Vienna, 1872). ] IV. THE REVOLUTION OF 1848 *500. The Fall of Metternich. *--The crash came in 1848. Under theelectrifying effect of the news of the fall of Louis Philippe at Paris(February 24), and of the eloquent fulminations of Kossuth, translatedinto German and scattered broadcast in the Austrian capital, therebroke out at Vienna, March 12-13, an insurrection which instantly gotquite beyond the Government's power to control. Hard fighting tookplace between the troops and the populace, and an infuriated mob, breaking into the royal palace, called with an insistence that wouldnot be denied for the dismissal of Metternich. Recognizing theuselessness of resistance, the minister placed in the hands of theEmperor his resignation and, effecting an escape from the city, madehis way out of the country and eventually to England. March 15 therewas issued a hurriedly devised Imperial proclamation, designed toappease the populace, in which was promised the convocation of anassembly with a view to the drafting of a national constitution. *501. Hungary: the March Laws. *--On the same day the Diet of Hungary, impelled by the oratory of Kossuth, began the enactment of anelaborate series of measures--the so-called March Laws--by which wascarried rapidly toward completion a programme of modernization which, in the teeth of Austrian opposition, had been during some years underway. The March Laws fell into two principal categories. The firstdealt with the internal government of the kingdom, the second with therelations which henceforth were to subsist between Hungary and theAustrian Empire. For the ancient aristocratic machinery of themonarchy was substituted a modern constitutional system of government, with a diet whose lower chamber, of 337 members, was to be elected byall Hungarians of the age of twenty who possessed property to thevalue of approximately $150. Meetings of this diet were to be annualand were to be held, no longer at Pressburg, near the Austrian border, but at the interior city of Budapest, the logical capital of thekingdom. Taxation was extended to all classes; feudal servitudes andtitles payable by the peasantry were abolished; trial by jury, religious liberty, and freedom of the press were guaranteed. In thesecond place, it was stipulated that henceforth Hungary should (p.  454)have an entirely separate and a responsible ministry, thus ensuringthe essential autonomy of the kingdom. The sole tie remaining betweenthe two monarchies was to be the person of the sovereign. Impelled bythe force of circumstances, the Government at Vienna designated CountLouis Batthyány premier of the first responsible Hungarian ministryand, April 10, accorded reluctant assent to the March Laws. Thesestatutes, though later subverted, became thenceforth the _Grundrechte_of the Hungarian people. *502. The Austrian Constitution of 1848. *--In the meantime, theAustrians were pressing their demand for constitutionalism. Theframing of the instrument which had been promised was intrusted by theEmperor to the ministers, and early in April there was submitted to aninformal gathering of thirty notables representing various portions ofthe Empire a draft based upon the Belgium constitution of 1831. Thisinstrument was given some consideration in several of the provincialdiets, but was never submitted, as it had been promised in themanifesto of March 15 it should be, to the Imperial Diet, or to anysort of national assembly. Instead it was promulgated, April 25, onthe sole authority of the Emperor. The territories to which it wasmade applicable comprised the whole of the Emperor's dominions, saveHungary and the other Transleithanian lands and the Italiandependencies. By it the Empire was declared an indissolubleconstitutional monarchy, and to all citizens were extended full rightsof civil and religious liberty. There was instituted a Reichstag, orgeneral diet, to consist of an upper house of princes of the royalfamily and nominees of the landlords, and a lower of 383 members, tobe elected according to a system to be devised by the Reichstagitself. All ministers were to be responsible to this diet. July 22there was convened at Vienna the first assembly of the new type, andthe organization of constitutional government was put definitely underway. *503. The Reaction. *--Recovery, however, on the part of the forces ofreaction was rapid. In Hungary the same sort of nationalistic feelingthat had inspired the Magyars to assert their rights as againstAustria inspired the Serbs, the Croats, and the Roumanians to demandfrom the Magyar Government a recognition of their several traditionsand interests. The purpose of the Magyars, however, was to maintainabsolutely their own ascendancy in the kingdom, and every demand onthe part of the subject nationalities met only with contemptuousrefusal. Dissatisfaction bred dissension, and dissension brokespeedily into civil war. With consummate skill the situation wasexploited by the Vienna Government, while at the same time the armiesof Radetzky and Windischgrätz were stamping out every trace of (p.  455)insurrection in Lombardo-Venetia, in Bohemia, and eventually in Viennaitself. December 2, 1848, the easy-going, incompetent EmperorFerdinand was induced by the reactionaries to abdicate. His brother, Francis Charles, the heir-presumptive, renounced his claim to thethrone, and the crown devolved upon the late Emperor's youthfulnephew, Francis Joseph I. , whose phenomenally prolonged reign hascontinued to the present day. Under the guidance of Schwarzenberg, whonow became the dominating figure in Austrian politics, the HungarianMarch Laws were abrogated and preparations were set on foot to reduceHungary, as other portions of the Imperial dominions had been reduced, by force of arms. Pronouncing Francis Joseph a usurper, the Magyarsrose _en masse_ in defense of their constitution and of the deposedFerdinand. In the conflict which ensued they were compelled to fightnot only the Austrians but also their rebellious Roumanian, Croatian, and Slavonian subjects, and their chances of success were from theoutset slender. In a moment of exultation, April 14, 1849, the Diet atBudapest went so far as to declare Hungary an independent nation andto elect Kossuth to the presidency of a supposititious republic. Theonly effect, however, was to impart to the contest an internationalcharacter. Upon appeal from Francis Joseph, Tsar Nicholas I. Intervened in behalf of the "legitimate" Austrian power; whereupon theHungarians, seeking in vain for allies, were overcome by the weight ofthe odds against them, and by the middle of August, 1849, the war wasended. *504. Restoration of Autocracy. *--In Austria and Hungary alike thereaction was complete. In the Empire there had been promulgated, March4, 1849, a revised constitution; but at no time had it been intendedby the sovereign or by those who surrounded him that constitutionalismshould be established upon a permanent basis, and during 1850-1851 onestep after another was taken in the direction of the revival ofautocracy. December 31, 1851, "in the name of the unity of the Empireand of monarchical principles, " the constitution was revoked byImperial patent. At a stroke all of the peoples of the Empire weredeprived of their representative rights. Yet so incompletely had theliberal régime struck root that its passing occasioned scarcely amurmur. Except that the abolition of feudal obligations was permanent, the Empire settled back into a status which was almost precisely thatof the age of Metternich. Vienna became once more the seat of agovernment whose fundamental objects may be summarized as (1) toGermanize the Magyars and Slavs, (2) to restrain all agitation inbehalf of constitutionalism; and (3) to prevent freedom of thought andthe establishment of a free press. Hungary, by reason of her (p.  456)rebellion, was considered to have forfeited utterly the fundamentalrights which for centuries had been more or less grudgingly concededher. She not only lost every vestige of her constitutional system, herdiet, her county assemblies, her local self-government; largeterritories were stripped from her, and she was herself cut into fivedistricts, each to be administered separately, largely by Germanofficials from Vienna. So far as possible, all traces of her historicnationality were obliterated. [653] [Footnote 653: Brief accounts of the revolution of 1848-1849 in Austria-Hungary will be found in Cambridge Modern History, XI. , Chaps. 6-7 (bibliography, pp. 887-893), and Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, XI. , Chap. 4. The most important treatise is H. Friedjung, Österreich von 1848 bis 1860 (2d ed. , Stuttgart and Berlin, 1908), the first volume of which covers the period 1848-1851. There is a serviceable account in L. Leger, History of Austria-Hungary from the Beginning to the Year 1878, trans. By B. Hill (London, 1889), Chaps. 30-33. Older accounts in English include W. H. Stiles, Austria in 1848-9 (New York, 1852), and W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria (3d ed. , London, 1907). The Hungarian phases of the subject are admirably presented in L. Eisenmann, Le compromis austro-hongroise (Paris, 1904). ] V. THE REVIVAL OF CONSTITUTIONALISM: THE AUSGLEICH *505. Constitutional Experiments, 1860-1861. *--The decade 1850-1860 wasin Austria-Hungary a period of political and intellectual torpor. Embarrassed by fiscal difficulties and by international complications, the Government at Vienna struggled with desperation to maintain the_status quo_ as against the numerous forces that would have overthrownit. For a time the effort was successful, but toward the close of thedecade a swift decline of Imperial prestige compelled the adoption ofa more conciliatory policy. The Crimean War cost the Empire bothallies and friends, and the disasters of the Italian campaigns of 1859added to the seriousness of the Imperial position. By 1860 both theEmperor and his principal minister, Goluchowski, were prepared toundertake in all sincerity a reformation of the illiberal andunpopular governmental system. To this end the Emperor calledtogether, March 5, 1860, representatives of the various provinces andinstructed them, in conjunction with the Reichsrath, or ImperialCouncil, to take under consideration plans for the reorganization ofthe Empire. The majority of this "reinforced Reichsrath" recommendedthe establishment permanently of a broadly national Reichsrath, orImperial assembly, together with the reconstitution of the oldprovincial diets. The upshot was the promulgation, October 20, 1860, of a "permanent and irrevocable" diploma in which the Emperor madeknown his intention thereafter to share all powers of legislation andfinance with the diets of the various portions of the Empire, and (p.  457)with a central Reichsrath at Vienna, the latter to be made up ofmembers chosen by the Emperor from triple lists of nominees presentedby the provincial diets. In Hungary this programme was received with favor by the conservativemagnates, but the Liberals, led by Deák, refused absolutely to approveit, save on the condition that the constitutional régime of thekingdom, abrogated in 1849, should be regarded as completely restored. At Vienna there had been no intention that the proposed innovationshould entail such consequences, and within four months of itspromulgation the diploma of 1860 was superseded by a patent ofFebruary 26, 1861, whereby the terms demanded by the Deák party werespecifically denied. In this patent--the handiwork principally ofAnton von Schmerling, Goluchowski's successor in the office ofMinister of the Interior--was elaborated further the plan of the newReichsrath. Two chambers there were to be--an upper, or House ofLords, to be made up of members appointed by the Emperor inconsideration of birth, station, or merits and a lower, or House ofRepresentatives, to consist of 343 members (Hungary sending 85 andBohemia 54), to be chosen by the provincial diets from their ownmembership. Sessions of the body were to be annual. The new instrumentdiffered fundamentally from the old, not simply in that it substituteda bicameral for a unicameral parliamentary body, but also in that itdiverted from the local diets to the Reichsrath a wide range ofpowers, being designed, indeed, specifically to facilitate thecentralization of governmental authority. *506. The Hungarian Opposition. *--By reason chiefly of the refusal ofthe Deák party to accept for Hungary anything short of the autonomywhich had been enjoyed prior to 1849, the new scheme of government wasfor a time only partially successful. In one after another of thecomponent parts of the Empire the provincial diets were called back tolife, and the Reichsrath itself was started upon its career. But theHungarians held aloof. The position which they assumed was thatHungary had always been a separate nation; that the union with Austrialay only through the person of the monarch, who, indeed, in Hungarywas king only after he should have sworn to uphold the ancient laws ofHungary and should have been crowned in Hungary with the iron crown ofSt. Stephen; that no change in these ancient laws and practices couldlegally be effected by the emperor-king alone; that the constitutionof 1861 was inadequate, not only because it had been "granted" andmight as easily be revoked, but because it covered both Austria andHungary; reduced Hungary to the position of a mere province, and wasnot at all identical with the Hungarian fundamental law abrogated in1849. April 6, 1861, the Hungarian Diet was assembled for the firsttime since the termination of the revolution of 1848, and the (p.  458)patent of the preceding February 26 was laid forthwith before it. After four months of heated debate the body refused definitely toaccept the instrument and, on the contrary, adopted unanimously anaddress drawn up by Deák calling upon the Vienna authorities torestore the political and territorial integrity of the Hungariankingdom. The sovereign's reply was a dissolution of the Diet, August21, and a levy of taxes by military execution. Hungary, in turn, refused to be represented in the Reichsrath, or in any way torecognize the new order. *507. Influences toward Conciliation. *--Through four years the deadlockcontinued. During the period Hungary, regarded by the authorities atVienna as having forfeited the last vestige of right to her ancientconstitution, was kept perpetually in a stage of siege. As time wentby, however, it was made increasingly apparent that the surrender bywhich concord might be restored would have to be made in the main byAustria, and at last the Emperor was brought to a point where he waswilling, by an effectual recognition of Hungarian nationality, tosupply the indispensable condition of reconciliation. In June, 1865, the sovereign paid a visit to the Hungarian capital, where he wasreceived with unexpected enthusiasm, and September 20 the patent of1861, which the Hungarians had refused to allow to be put intoexecution, was suspended. For the moment the whole of the Hapsburgdominion reverted to a state of absolutism; but negotiations were seton foot looking toward a revival of constitutionalism under suchconditions that the demands of the Hungarians might be brought intoharmony with the larger interests of the Empire. Proceedings wereinterrupted, in 1866, by the Austro-Prussian war, but in 1867 theywere pushed to a conclusion. In anticipation of the internationaloutbreak which came in June, 1866, Deák had reworked a programme ofconciliation drawn up in the spring of 1865, holding it in readinessto be employed as a basis of negotiation in the event of an Austriantriumph, as an ultimatum in the event of an Austrian defeat. TheAustrians, as it proved, were defeated swiftly and decisively, and bythis development the Hungarians, as Deák had hoped would be the case, were given an enormously advantageous position. Humiliated by herexpulsion from a confederation which she had been accustomed todominate, Austria, after the Peace of Prague (August 20, 1866), was nolonger in a position to defy the wishes of her disaffected sisterstate. On the contrary, the necessity of the consolidation of herresources was never more apparent. *508. The Compromise Effected, 1867. *--July 3 occurred the disaster atSadowa. July 15 the Emperor summoned Deák to Vienna and put to (p.  459)him directly the question, What does Hungary want? Two days later heaccorded provisional assent to the fundamentals of the Deák _projet_and designated as premier of the first parliamentary ministry ofHungary Count Julius Andrássy. The working out of the precisesettlement between the two states fell principally to two men--Deák, representing the Hungarian Liberals, and Baron Beust, formerly chiefminister of the king of Saxony but in 1866 brought to Vienna and madeAustrian chancellor and minister-president. After prolongednegotiation a _projet_, differing from the original one of Deák in fewrespects save that the unity of the monarchy was more carefullysafeguarded, was made ready to be acted upon by the parliaments of thetwo states. February 17, 1867, the Andrássy ministry was formed atBudapest and May 29, by a vote of 209 to 89, the terms of theAusgleich, or Compromise, were given formal approval by the Diet. AtVienna the Reichsrath would probably have been disposed to reject theproposed arrangement but for the fact that Beust held out as aninducement the re-establishment of constitutionalism in Austria. Theupshot was that the Reichsrath added some features by which the_projet_ was liberalized still further and made provision at the sametime for the revision and rehabilitation of the Imperial patent of1861. During the summer two deputations of fifteen members each, representing the respective parliaments, drew up a plan of financialadjustment between the two states; and by acts of December 21-24 finalapproval was accorded on both sides to the whole body of agreements. Already, June 8, in the great cathedral at Buda, Francis Joseph hadbeen crowned Apostolic King of Hungary and the royal succession underthe terms of the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, after eighteen years ofsuspension, had been definitely resumed. [654] [Footnote 654: On Austro-Hungarian affairs in the period 1860-1867 see Cambridge Modern History, XI. , Chap. 15, XII. , Chap. 7 (bibliography, pp. 876-882), and Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, XI. , Chap. 13. The best treatise is L. Eisenmann, Le compromis austro-hongroise (Paris, 1904). An account by an active participant is J. Andrássy, Ungarns Ausgleich mit Österreich von Jahre 1867 (Leipzig, 1897). The best detailed account in English is Leger, History of Austria-Hungary, Chaps. 34-35. Two important biographies are: A. Forster, Francis Deák, a Memoir (London, 1880), and E. Ebeling, F. F. Graf von Beust (Leipzig, 1870-71). ] CHAPTER XXV (p.  460) THE GOVERNMENT AND PARTIES OF AUSTRIA I. THE CONSTITUTION *509. Texts. *--The fundamental law of the Austrian Empire, [655] in sofar as it has been reduced to writing, exists in the form of a seriesof diplomas, patents, and statutes covering, in all, a period of sometwo hundred years. Of these instruments the most important are: (1)the Pragmatic Sanction of the Emperor Charles VI. , promulgatedoriginally April 19, 1713, and in final form in 1724, by which isregulated the succession to the throne; (2) the Pragmatic Patent ofthe Emperor Francis II. , August 1, 1804, in accordance with which thesovereign bears in Austria the Imperial title; (3) the diploma of theEmperor Francis Joseph I. , October 20, 1860, by which was introducedin the Empire the principle of constitutional government; (4) thepatent of Francis Joseph, February 26, 1861, by which was regulated indetail the nature of this government; and (5) a series of fivefundamental laws (_Staatsgrundgesetze_), all bearing the date December21, 1867, and comprising a thoroughgoing revision and extension of thepatent of 1861. In a narrower sense, indeed, the constitution may besaid to consist of these five documents, all of which were sanctionedby the crown as a portion of the same general settlement by which thearrangements comprehended in the Ausgleich were effected. Of them, one, in twenty articles, is essentially a bill of rights; a second, intwenty-four sections, is concerned with Imperial representation; athird, in six articles, provides for the establishment of theReichsgericht, or Imperial court; a fourth, in fifteen articles, covers the subject of the judiciary; and the fifth, in twelvearticles, deals with the exercise of administrative and executivepowers. [Footnote 655: It should be emphasized that the phrase "Austrian Empire, " properly used, denotes Austria alone. Hungary is no part of the Empire. Throughout the following description effort has been made to avoid inaccuracy of expression by referring to Austria-Hungary as the "dual monarchy, " or simply as "the monarchy. " The nomenclature of the Austro-Hungarian union is cumbersome, but therein it merely reflects the character of the union itself. ] *510. The Style of Government. *--Under the provisions of theseinstruments Austria is constituted a limited monarchy, with a responsibleministry, a bicameral legislative body, and a considerable (p.  461)measure of local self-government. For the exercise, upon occasion, ofessentially autocratic power, however, the way was left open throughthe famous Section 13 of the patent of 1861, become Section 14 of theLaw concerning Imperial Representation of 1867. Around no portion ofthe constitution has controversy raged more fiercely during the pastgeneration. The article reads: "If urgent circumstances should rendernecessary some measure constitutionally requiring the consent of theReichsrath, when that body is not in session, such measure may betaken by Imperial ordinance, issued under the collectiveresponsibility of the ministry, provided it makes no alteration of thefundamental law, imposes no lasting burden upon the public treasury, and alienates none of the domain of the state. Such ordinances shallhave provisionally the force of law, if they are signed by all of theministers, and shall be published with an express reference to thisprovision of the fundamental law. The legal force of such an ordinanceshall cease if the Government neglects to present it for the approvalof the Reichsrath at its next succeeding session, and indeed first tothe House of Representatives, within four weeks of its convention, orif one of the houses refuses its approval thereto. "[656] The prolongedexercise of autocratic power might seem here to be sufficientlyguarded against, but in point of fact, as was demonstrated by thehistory of the notable parliamentary deadlock of 1897--1904[657], thegovernment can be, and has been, made to run year after year uponvirtually the sole basis of the article mentioned. It is only fair toadd, however, that, but for some such practical resource at thedisposal of the executive, constitutional government might long sincehave been broken down completely by the recurrent obstructive tacticsof the warring nationalities. [Footnote 656: Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 81. ] [Footnote 657: See p. 479. ] *511. Amendment. *--The constitution promulgated March 4, 1849, madeprovision for a definite process of amendment. Upon declaration by thelegislative power that any particular portion of the fundamental lawstood in need of revision, the chambers were to be dissolved and newlyelected ones were to take under consideration the proposed amendment, adopting it if a two-thirds majority could be obtained in each house. Upon all such proposals the veto of the Emperor, however, wasabsolute. Neither the diploma of October 20, 1860, nor the patent ofFebruary 26, 1861, contained any stipulation upon the subject, nor didany one of the fundamental laws of 1867 as originally adopted. By actof April 2, 1873, however, passed at the time when the lower house (p.  462)of the Reichsrath was being converted into an assembly directlyrepresentative of the people, the Law concerning Imperial Representationwas so modified as to be made to include a specific stipulation withrespect to constitutional amendment in general. Under the terms ofthis enactment all portions of the written constitution are subject toamendment at the hand of the Reichsrath. As in European countriesgenerally, no essential differentiation of powers that are constituentfrom those that are legislative is attempted. The process of revisionis made even easier than that prescribed by the ill-fated instrumentof 1849. It differs in no respect from that of ordinary legislationsave that proposed amendments require a two-thirds vote in each of thechambers instead of a simple majority. Since 1873 there have beenadopted several amendments, of which the most notable were those of1896 and 1907 relative to the election of representatives. *512. The Rights of Citizens. *--For all natives of the various kingdomsand countries represented in the Reichsrath there exists a commonright of Austrian citizenship. The complicated conditions under whichcitizenship may be obtained, exercised, and forfeited are prescribedin legislative enactments of various dates. One of the fivefundamental laws of 1867, however, covers at some length the generalrights of citizens, and certain of its provisions are worthy ofmention. [658] All citizens, it is declared, are equal before the law. Public office is open equally to all. Freedom of passage of personsand property, within the territory of the state, is absolutelyguaranteed, as is both liberty of person and inviolability ofproperty. Every one is declared free to choose his occupation and toprepare himself for it in such place and manner as he may desire. Theright of petition is recognized; likewise, under legal regulation, that of assemblage and of the formation of associations. Freedom ofspeech and of the press, under legal regulation, and liberty ofreligion and of conscience are guaranteed to all. Science and itsteaching is declared free. One has but to recall the repression ofindividual liberty and initiative by which the era of Metternich wascharacterized to understand why, with the liberalizing of the Austrianstate under the constitution of 1867, it should have been deemedessential to put into the fundamental law these and similar guaranteesof personal right and privilege. [659] [Footnote 658: Law concerning the General Rights of Citizens. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 71-74. ] [Footnote 659: The texts of the fundamental laws at present in operation are printed in E. Bernatzik, Die österreichischen Verfassungsgesetze (2d ed. , Vienna, 1911), and in a collection issued by the Austrian Government under the title Die Staatsgrundgesetze (7th ed. , Vienna, 1900). The statutes of 1867 are in Lowell, Governments and Parties, II. , 378-404, and, in English translation, in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 71-89. The best description in English of the Austrian governmental system is Lowell, _op. Cit. _; II. , Chap. 8. The best extended treatise is J. Ulbrich, Lehrbuch des österreichischen Staatsrechts (Vienna, 1883). Excellent briefer works are L. Gumplowicz, Das österreichische Staatsrecht (3d ed. , Vienna, 1907); J. Ulbrich, Österreichisches Staatsrecht (3d ed. , Tübingen, 1904), in Marquardsen's Handbuch; and R. Von Herrnritt, Handbuch des österreichischen Verfassungsrechtes (Tübingen, 1910). On the workings of the governmental system something may be gleaned from G. Drage, Austria-Hungary (London, 1909); S. Whitman, Austria (New York, 1879) and H. Rumbold, Francis Joseph and his Times (New York, 1909). ] II. THE CROWN AND THE MINISTRY (p.  463) *513. The Emperor's Status. *--The sovereign authority of the Empire isvested in the Emperor. Duties are assigned to the ministers, andprivileges are granted to the legislative bodies; but all powers notexpressly conferred elsewhere remain with the Emperor as supreme headof the state. The Imperial office is hereditary in the male line ofthe house of Hapsburg-Lothringen, and the rules governing thesuccession are substantially those which were laid down originally inthe Pragmatic Sanction of 1713[660] promulgated by the Emperor CharlesVI. To render possible the succession of his daughter Maria Theresa. Females may inherit, but only in the event of the failure of maleheirs. By the abdication of the direct heir, the throne may pass to amember of the royal family who stands farther removed, as it did in1848 when the present Emperor was established on the throne while hisfather was yet living. By reason of the unusual prolongation of thereign of Francis Joseph, there has been no opportunity in sixty yearsto put to a test the rules by which the inheritance is regulated. Since the death of the Crown Prince Rudolph the heir-presumptive hasbeen the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, son of the Archduke CharlesLouis, and nephew of the ruling Emperor. It is required that thesovereign be a member of the Roman Catholic Church. [Footnote 660: Issued definitely in 1724. ] *514. His Powers. *--By fundamental law it is declared that the Emperoris "sacred, inviolable, and irresponsible. " His powers of governmentare exercised largely, however, through ministers who are at leastnominally responsible to the Reichsrath, and through officers andagents subordinate to them. Most important among the powers expresslyconferred upon the Emperor, and indirectly exercised by him, are: (1)the appointment and dismissal of ministers; (2) the naming of allpublic officials whose appointment is not otherwise by law providedfor; (3) supreme command of the armed forces, with the power of (p.  464)declaring war and concluding peace; (4) the conferring of titles, orders, and other public distinctions, including the appointment oflife peers; (5) the granting of pardons and of amnesty; (6) thesummoning, adjourning, and dissolving of the various legislativebodies; (7) the issuing of ordinances with the provisional force oflaw, and (8) the concluding of treaties, with the limitation that theconsent of the Reichsrath is essential to the validity of treaties ofcommerce and political treaties which impose obligations upon theEmpire, upon any part thereof, or upon any of its citizens. Furtherthan this, the right to coin money is exercised under the authority ofthe Emperor; and the laws are promulgated, and all judicial power isexercised, in his name. Before assuming the throne, the Emperor isrequired to take a solemn oath in the presence of the two houses ofthe Reichsrath "to maintain inviolable the fundamental laws of thekingdoms and countries represented in the Reichsrath, and to govern inconformity with them, and in conformity with the laws ingeneral. "[661] The present Emperor-King has a civil list of 22, 600, 000crowns, half of which is derived from the revenues of Austria and halffrom those of Hungary. The Imperial residence in Vienna, the Hofburg, has been the seat of the princes of Austria since the thirteenthcentury. [Footnote 661: Law concerning the Exercise of Administrative and Executive Power, December 21, 1867, § 8. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 88. ] *515. The Ministers: Responsibility. *--The Austrian ministry comprisesportfolios as follows: Finance, the Interior, Railways, NationalDefense, Agriculture, Justice, Commerce, Labor, and Instruction andWorship. Three important departments--those of War, Finance, andForeign Affairs and the Imperial and Royal House--are maintained bythe affiliated monarchies in common. [662] And there are usually fromone to four ministerial representatives of leading racial elementswithout portfolio, there being in the present cabinet one suchminister for Galicia. All ministers are appointed and dismissed by theEmperor. Under the leadership of a president of the council or premier(without portfolio), they serve as the Emperor's councillors, executehis will, and administer the affairs of their respective branches ofthe public service. It is provided by fundamental law that they shallbe responsible for the constitutionality and legality of governmentalacts performed within the sphere of their powers. [663] They areresponsible to the two branches of the national parliament alike, andmay be interpellated or impeached by either. For impeachment an (p.  465)elaborate procedure is prescribed, though thus far it has not provedof practical utility. Every law promulgated in the Emperor's name mustbear the signature of a responsible minister, and several sorts ofordinances--such as those proclaiming a state of siege or suspendingthe constitutional rights of a citizen--require the concurrentsignature of the entire ministry. Every minister possesses the rightto sit and to speak in either chamber of the Reichsrath, where thepolicy of the Government may call for explanation or defense, andwhere there are at least occasional interpellations to be answered. [Footnote 662: There is a joint ministry of finance, though each of the monarchies maintains a separate ministry for the administration of its own fiscal affairs. On the joint ministries see p. 510. ] [Footnote 663: Law concerning the Exercise of Administrative and Executive Power, December 21, 1867, § 9. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 88-89. ] Nominally, the parliamentary system is in vogue, but at best itoperates only indifferently. Supposedly responsible, collectively andindividually, to the Reichsrath, the ministers are in practice farmore dependent upon the Emperor than upon the chambers. In France theinability of political parties to coalesce into two great opposinggroups largely defeats the best ends of the parliamentary system. InAustria the numerous and ineradicable racial divisions deflect thesystem further still from the lines upon which theoretically it shouldoperate. No political group is sufficiently powerful to rule alone, and no working affiliation can long be made to subsist. Theconsequence is, not only that the Government can ordinarily play offone faction against another and secure pretty much its own way, butalso that the responsibility of the ministers to the chambers is muchless effective in practice than on paper it appears to be. [664] [Footnote 664: W. Beaumont, Cabinets éphémères et ministères provisoires en Autriche, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, March, 1900; H. Hantich, Nouvelle phase du parlementarisme en Autriche, in _Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, February 1, 1910. ] III. THE REICHSRATH--THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM *516. The House of Lords. *--The Reichsrath consists of two chambers. Theupper is known as the Herrenhaus, or House of Lords; the lower, as theAbgeordnetenhaus, or House of Representatives. The Herrenhaus consistsof a somewhat variable number of men who sit in part by _ex-officio_right, in part by hereditary station, and in part by special Imperialappointment. At the close of 1910 there were in the chamber 266members, distributed as follows: (1) princes of the Imperial familywho are of age, 15; (2) nobles of high rank qualified by thepossession of large estates and nominated to an hereditary seat by theEmperor, 74; (3) ecclesiastics--10 archbishops and 8 bishops--who areof princely title inherent in their episcopal seats, 18; and (4) personsnominated by the Emperor for life in recognition of special servicerendered to the state or the Church, or unusual distinction (p.  466)attained in literature, art, or science, 159. By law of January 26, 1907, the number of members in the last-mentioned group may not exceed170, nor be less than 150. [665] Within these limits, the power of theEmperor to create life peers is absolute. The prerogative is one whichhas several times been exercised to facilitate the enactment ofmeasures upon whose adoption the Government was determined. Thepresident and vice-president of the chamber are appointed from itsmembers by the Emperor at the beginning of each session; but the bodychooses all of its remaining officers. The privileges and powers ofthe Herrenhaus are co-ordinate with those of the Abgeordnetenhaus, save that money bills and bills fixing the number of military recruitsmust be presented first in the lower chamber. [Footnote 665: It is interesting to observe that this guarantee against the wholesale creation of peers was brought forward with the object of winning for the Government's Universal Suffrage Bill the assent of the upper chamber. ] *517. The House of Representatives: Composition. *--The lower chamber, asconstituted by fundamental law of 1867, was made up of 203representatives, apportioned among the several provinces and electedby the provincial diets. The system worked poorly, and a law of 1868authorized the voters of a province to elect the stipulated quota ofrepresentatives in the event that the Diet failed to do so. Stillthere was difficulty, arising largely from the racial rivalries in theprovinces, and by an amendment of April 2, 1873, the right of electionwas vested exclusively in the enfranchised inhabitants of the Empire. The number of members was at the same time increased to 353, thoughwithout modifying the proportion of representatives of the variousprovinces. Further amendment, in 1896, brought up the membership to425, where it remained until 1907, when it was raised to the presentfigure, 516. *518. Early Electoral Arrangements: Law of 1873. *--The broadlydemocratic electoral system which prevails in the Austrian dominionsto-day is a very recent creation. With the introduction ofconstitutionalism in 1867 the problem of the franchise became one ofpeculiar and increasing difficulty, and the process by which theEmpire has been brought laboriously to its present condition ofdemocracy has constituted one of the most tortuous chapters in recentpolitical history. The conditions by which from the outset the problemwas complicated were three in number: first, the large survival ofself-assertiveness on the part of the various provinces among whomparliamentary representatives were to be distributed; second, thekeenness of the ambitions of the several racial elements for parliamentarypower; and third, the utter lack of experience and of traditions (p.  467)on the part of the Austrian peoples in the matter of democraticgovernment. When, in 1873, the right of electing deputies was withdrawn from theprovincial diets it was conferred, without the establishment of a newelectorate, upon those elements of the provincial populations whichhad been accustomed to take part in the election of the local diets. These were four in number: (1) the great landowners, comprising thosewho paid a certain land tax, varying in the several provinces from 50to 250 florins ($20 to $100), and including women and corporations;(2) the cities, in which the franchise was extended to all males oftwenty-four who paid a direct tax of ten gulden annually; (3) chambersof commerce and of industry; and (4) rural communes, in which thequalifications for voting were the same as in the cities. To each ofthese curiæ, or classes, the law of 1873 assigned a number ofparliamentary representatives, to be elected thereafter in eachprovince directly by the voters of the respective classes, rather thanindirectly through the diets. The number of voters in each class andthe relative importance of the individual voter varied enormously. In1890, in the class of landowners there was one deputy to every 63voters; in the chambers of commerce, one to every 27; in the cities, one to every 2, 918; and in the rural districts, one to every11, 600. [666] [Footnote 666: Hazen, Europe since 1815, 399. ] *519. The Taaffe Electoral Bill of 1893. *--During the period covered bythe ministry of Count Taaffe (February, 1879, to October, 1893) therewas growing demand, especially on the part of the Socialists, YoungCzechs, German Nationalists, and other radical groups, for a newelectoral law, and during the years 1893-1896 this issue quiteovershadowed all others. In October, 1893, Taaffe brought forward asweeping electoral measure which, if it had become law, would havetransferred the bulk of political power to the working classes, at thesame time reducing to impotence the preponderant German Liberal party. The measure did not provide for the general, equal, and directsuffrage for which the radicals were clamoring, and by which thenumber of voters would have been increased from 1, 700, 000 to5, 500, 000. But it did contemplate the increase of the electorate tosomething like 4, 000, 000. This it proposed to accomplish by abolishingall property qualifications of voters in the cities and ruralcommunes[667] and by extending the voting privilege to all adult maleswho were able to read and write and who had resided in their electoraldistrict a minimum of six months. To avoid the danger of an excess ofdemocracy Taaffe planned to retain intact the curiæ of landedproprietors and chambers of commerce, so that it would still be (p.  468)true that 5, 402 large landholders would be represented in the lowerhouse by 85 deputies, the chambers of commerce by 22, and theremainder of the nation--some 24, 000, 000 people--by 246. Impelledespecially by fear of socialism, the Conservatives, the Poles, theGerman Liberals, and other elements opposed the project, and therenever was any real chance of its adoption. By reason of its halfwaycharacter the Socialists, in congress at Vienna in March, 1894, condemned it as "an insult to the working classes. " Even in Hungary(which country, of course, the measure did not immediately concern)there was apprehension, the ruling Magyars fearing that the adoptionof even a partial universal suffrage system in the affiliated statewould prompt a demand on the part of the numerically preponderantSlavic populations of Hungary for the same sort, of thing. Anticipating defeat, Taaffe resigned, in October, 1893, before themeasure came to a vote. [Footnote 667: By a law of 1882 the direct-tax qualification had been reduced to 5 florins. ] *520. The Electoral Law of 1896. *--Under the Windischgrätz andKielmansegg ministries which succeeded no progress was realized, butthe cabinet of the Polish Count Badeni, constituted October 4, 1895, made electoral reform the principal item in its programme andsucceeded in carrying through a measure which, indeed, was but acaricature of Taaffe's project, but which none the less marked adistinct stage of progress toward the broad-based franchise for whichthe radicals were clamoring. The Government's bill was laid before theReichsrath, February 16, 1896, and was adopted unchanged within thespace of two weeks. The general suffrage which the Socialists demandedwas established, for the election, however, not of the 353representatives already composing the lower chamber, but merely of abody of 72 new representatives to be added to the present membership. In the choice of these 72 additional members every male citizentwenty-four years of age who had resided in a given district as muchas six months prior to an election was to be entitled to participate;but elections were to be direct only in those districts in whichindirect voting had been abolished by provincial legislation. Voteswere to be cast, as a rule, by ballot, though under some circumstancesorally. All pre-existing classes of voters were left unchanged, and tothem was simply added a fifth. The aggregate number of electors in theEmpire was raised to 5, 333, 000. Of the number, however, the 1, 732, 000comprised in the original four curiæ were still to elect 353 of the425 members of the chamber, with the further inequity that many of thepersons who profited by the new arrangement were included already inone or another of the older classes, and hence were vested by it witha plural vote. Although, therefore, the voting privilege was now (p.  469)conferred upon millions of small taxpayers and non-taxpayers who neverbefore had possessed it, the nation was still very far from a fair anddemocratic suffrage system. *521. Renewed Agitation: the Universal Suffrage Law of1907. *--Throughout the decade following 1896 electoral agitation wascontinuous and widespread, but not until 1905 did the situation becomefavorable for further reform. In September of the year mentionedFrancis Joseph approved the proposal that universal suffrage beincluded in the programme of the Fejérváry cabinet in Hungary, and theact was taken at once to mean that the sovereign had arrived at theconclusion that the democratizing of the franchise was inevitable inall of his dominions. In point of fact, by reason of the prolongedparliamentary crisis of late years at Vienna, the Emperor was fastarriving at precisely such a conclusion. Stimulated by currentdevelopments in Hungary and in Russia, the Austrian Socialists, latein 1905, entered upon a notable series of demonstrations, and, November 28, Premier Gautsch was moved to pledge the Government tointroduce forthwith a franchise reform bill based upon the principleof universal suffrage. February 23, 1906, the promise was redeemed bythe presentation in the Reichsrath of proposals for (1) the abolitionof the system of electoral curiæ, (2) the extension of an equalfranchise to all males over twenty-four years of age and resident intheir district a year, (3) the division of Austria racially intocompartments so that each ethnic group might be protected against itsrivals, and (4) the increase of the number of seats from 425 to 455, afixed number to be allotted to each province, and in each province toeach race, in accordance with numbers and taxpaying capacity. The outlook for the bill in which these proposals were incorporatedwas at first not promising. The Social Democrats, the ChristianSocialists, and the Young Czechs were favorable; the Poles werereserved in their attitude, but inclined to be hostile; practicallyall of the German Liberals were opposed; and the landed proprietors, long accustomed to dominate within the preponderant German element inthe Reichsrath, were violently hostile. In April, 1906, while the billwas pending, the Gautsch ministry found itself without a parliamentarymajority and was succeeded by a ministry made up by PrinceHohenlohe-Schillingsfürst. This ministry lasted but six weeks, andJune 2 the coalition cabinet of Baron Beck assumed office. Convincedthat the establishment of universal and direct suffrage would affordthe best means of stimulating loyalty to the dynasty, as well as theonly practicable means of freeing the Government from parliamentaryobstructionism, Emperor Francis Joseph accorded the Beck ministry hisearnest support in its purpose to push to a conclusion the task of (p.  470)electoral reform. The effort attained fruition in the memorableUniversal Suffrage Law passed by both houses of the Reichsrath in theclosing days of 1906 and approved by the Emperor January 26 of thefollowing year. The measure, which was in form an amendment of thefundamental law of December 21, 1867, concerning ImperialRepresentation, was opposed by the conservative and aristocraticmembers of both houses and by the extremer representatives of thevarious nationalities; but, like other portions of the constitutionalsystem of the Empire, it may not be amended save by a two-thirds voteof both houses, and it is likely to endure through a considerableperiod unchanged. *522. Racial and Geographical Distribution of Seats. *--In the course ofthe prolonged negotiations between the Government and representativesof the various nationalities by which the preparation of the law wasattended there was worked out a fresh allotment of seats to theseveral racial groups of the Empire, in proportion, roughly, totaxpaying capacity. The total number of seats was raised from 425 to516. Their distribution among the races, as compared with thatformerly existing, was arranged as follows:[668] _Before 1907_ _After 1907_ Germans of all parties 205 233 Czechs 81 108 Poles 71 80 South Slavs (Slovenes, Croats, Serbs) 27 37 Ruthenes 11 34 Italians 18 19 Roumanians 5 5 --- --- 418 516 [Footnote 668: For tables exhibiting comparatively the distribution of seats in 1867, 1873, 1896, and 1907, see W. Beaumont, Le suffrage universel en Autriche: la loi du 26 janvier 1907 in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, Sept. , 1907. ] The striking feature of this readjustment is, of course, the increasednumber of seats assigned to the non-German nationalities. Inproportion strictly to population, the Germans still possess a largernumber of seats than that to which they are entitled. But theaggregate is only 233, while the aggregate of Slavic seats is 259. Even if the former German-Italian _bloc_ were still effective it couldcontrol a total of only 257 votes; but, in point of fact, the Italiansin the Reichsrath to-day are apt to act with the Slavs rather thanwith the Germans. After decision had been reached regarding the distribution of seats inaccordance with races it remained to effect a distributiongeographically among the provinces of the Empire. To each of theseveral provinces was assigned an aggregate quota which, in turn, (p.  471)was distributed within the province among the racial groups representedin the provincial population. The allotment made, in comparison withthat prevailing under the law of 1896, was as follows: _Before 1907_ _After 1907_ Kingdom of Bohemia 110 130 Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, with the grand-duchy of Cracow 78 106 Archduchy of Lower Austria 46 64 Margravate of Moravia 43 49 Duchy of Styria 27 30 Princely County of Tyrol 21 25 Archduchy of Upper Austria 20 22 Duchy of Upper and Lower Silesia 12 15 Duchy of Bukovina 11 14 Duchy of Carniola 11 12 Kingdom of Dalmatia 11 11 Duchy of Carinthia 10 10 Duchy of Salsburg 6 7 Margravate of Istria 5 6 Princely County of Görz and Gradisca 5 6 City of Trieste and its territory 5 5 Territory of Vorarlberg 4 4 --- --- 425 516 *523. Electoral Qualifications and Procedure. *--By the law of 1907 theclass system of voting was abolished entirely in national elections, and in its stead was established general, equal, and direct manhoodsuffrage. With insignificant exceptions, every male citizen who hasattained the age of twenty-four, and who, at the time the election isordered, has resided during at least one year in the commune in whichthe right to vote is to be exercised, is qualified to vote for aparliamentary representative. And any male thirty years of age, orover, who has been during at least three years a citizen, and who ispossessed of the franchise, is eligible to be chosen as arepresentative. Voting is by secret ballot, and an absolute majorityof all votes cast is necessary for a choice. In default of such amajority there is a second ballot between the two candidates who atthe first test received the largest number of votes. It is stipulated, further, that when so ordered by the provincial diet, voting shall beobligatory, under penalty of fine, and in the provinces of LowerAustria, Upper Austria, Silesia, Salsburg, Moravia, and Vorarlbergevery elector is required by provincial regulation to appear at everyparliamentary election in his district, and to present his ballot, thepenalty for neglect (unless explained to the satisfaction of theproper magistrate) being a fine ranging from one to fifty crowns. Inthe House of Lords, where there was strong opposition to the (p.  472)principle of manhood suffrage, effort was made to introduce in the actof 1907 a provision for the conferring of a second vote upon allvoters above the age of thirty-five. By the Emperor and ministry itwas urged, however, that the injection of such a modification wouldwreck the measure, and when the lower chamber tacitly pledged itselfto enact a law designed to prevent the "swamping" of the peers byImperial appointment at the behest of a parliamentary majority, theplural voting project was abandoned. [669] [Footnote 669: As has been pointed out, the pledge was redeemed in 1907 by a measure fixing the minimum number of life peers at 150 and the maximum at 170. See p. 466. ] So far as practicable, the electoral constituencies in the variousprovinces are arranged to preserve the distinction between urban andrural districts and to comprise racial groups that are essentiallyhomogeneous. In regions, as Bohemia, where the population isespecially mixed separate constituencies and registers are maintainedfor the electors of each nationality, and a man may vote on only theregister of his own race and for a candidate of that race. Germans, thus, are obliged to vote for Germans, Czechs for Czechs, Poles forPoles; so that, while there may be a contest between a German Clericaland a German Liberal or between a Young Czech and a Radical Czech, there can be none between Germans and Czechs, or between Poles andRuthenes. In general, each district returns but one representative. The 36 Galician districts, however, return two apiece. Each electorthere, as elsewhere, votes for but one candidate, the devicepermitting the representation of minorities. The population comprisinga constituency varies from 26, 693 in Salsburg to 68, 724 in Galicia. The average is 49, 676. [670] [Footnote 670: On the electoral law of 1907 see W. Beaumont, Le suffrage universel en Autriche: la loi du 26 janvier 1907, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, Sept. , 1907; H. Hantich, Le suffrage universel en Autriche, in _Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, Feb. 16, 1907; M. E. Zweig, La réforme électorale en Autriche, in _Revue du Droit Public_, April-June and July-Sept. , 1907. ] *524. The Reichsrath: Sessions and Procedure. *--By the law of 1867 nolimit was fixed for the period of service of the parliamentaryrepresentative. The life of the Reichsrath, and consequently thetenure of the individual deputy, was terminated only by a dissolution. Under provision of an amendment of April 2, 1873, however, members ofthe lower chamber are elected for a term of six years, at theexpiration of which period, as also in the event of a dissolution, anew election must be held. Representatives are indefinitely eligiblefor re-election. Vacancies are filled by special elections, which maybe held at any time, according to procedure specified by law. Representatives receive a stipend of 20 crowns for each day'sattendance, with an allowance for travelling expenses. The fundamental law prescribes that the Reichsrath shall be (p.  473)convened annually, "during the winter months when possible. "[671] TheEmperor appoints the president and vice-president of the Herrenhaus, from among the members of the chamber, and for the period of asession. The Abgeordnetenhaus elects from its members its presidentand vice-president. Normally, the sessions of both houses are public, though upon request of the president, or of at least ten members, andby a decision taken behind closed doors, each house possesses theright, in exceptional instances, to exclude spectators. Projects oflegislation may be submitted by the Government or by the individualmembers of the chambers. Measures pass by majority vote; but no act isvalid unless at the time of its passage there are present in the lowerhouse as many as 100 members, and in the upper house as many as 40. Acurious provision touching the relations of the two houses is that if, on a question of appropriation or of the size of a militarycontingent, no agreement can be reached between the two houses afterprolonged deliberation, the smallest figure approved by either houseshall be regarded as voted. [672] By decree of the Emperor theReichsrath may at any time be adjourned, or the lower chamberdissolved. Ministers and chiefs of the central administration areentitled to take part in all deliberations, and to present theirproposals personally or through representatives. Each house may, indeed, require a minister's attendance. Members of the chambers maynot be held responsible for any vote cast; and for any utterances madeby them they may be held responsible only by the house to which theybelong. Unless actually apprehended in a criminal act, no member ofeither house may be arrested or proceeded against judicially duringthe continuance of a session, except by the consent of the chamber towhich he belongs. [673] [Footnote 671: Law of December 21, 1867, concerning Imperial Representation, § 10. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 77. ] [Footnote 672: Law of December 21, 1867, concerning Imperial Representation, § 13. Dodd, Ibid. , I. , 81. ] [Footnote 673: For a collection of the rules of order of the Austrian Parliament see K. And O. Neisser, Die Geschäftsordnung des Abgeordnetenhaus des Reichsrates, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1909). ] *525. The Reichsrath: Powers. *--The powers of the Reichsrath are, ingeneral, those ordinarily belonging to a parliamentary body. Accordingto fundamental law of 1867, they comprise all matters which relate tothe rights, obligations, and interests of the provinces represented inthe chambers, in so far as these matters are not required to behandled conjointly with the proper representatives of the Hungarianportion of the monarchy. The Reichsrath examines and ratifies orrejects commercial treaties, and likewise political treaties whichplace a fiscal burden on the Empire or any portion of it, impose (p.  474)obligations upon individual citizens, or involve any change ofterritorial status. It makes provision for the military and navalestablishments. It enacts the budget and approves all taxes andduties. It regulates the monetary system, banking, trade, andcommunication. It legislates on citizenship, public health, individualrights, education, criminal justice and police regulation, the dutiesand interrelations of the provinces, and a wide variety of otherthings. It exercises the right of legalizing or annulling Imperialordinances which, under urgent circumstances, may be promulgated bythe Emperor with the provisional force of law when the chambers arenot in session. [674] Such ordinances may not introduce any alterationin the fundamental law, impose any lasting burden upon the treasury, or alienate territory. They must be issued, if issued at all, underthe signature of all of the ministers, and they lose their legal forceif the Government does not lay them before the lower chamber withinthe first four weeks of its next ensuing session, or if either of thetwo houses refuses its assent thereto. Each of the houses mayinterpellate the ministers upon all matters within the scope of theirpowers, may investigate the administrative acts of the Government, demand information from the ministers concerning petitions presentedto the houses, may appoint commissions, to which the ministers mustgive all necessary information, and may give expression to its viewsin the form of addresses or resolutions. Any minister may be impeachedby either house. [675] [Footnote 674: Issued under warrant of the much-controverted Section 14. See p. 461. ] [Footnote 675: Law of December 21, 1867, concerning Imperial Representation, § 21. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 83. A work of value is G. Kolmer, Parlament und Verfassung in Österreich (Vienna, 1909). ] IV. POLITICAL PARTIES *526. Racial Elements in the Empire. *--The key to the politics ofAustria is afforded by the racial composition of the Empire'spopulation. In our own day there is a tendency, in consequence of thespread of socialism and of other radical programmes which leap acrossracial and provincial lines, toward the rise of Austrian parties whichshall be essentially inter-racial in their constituencies. Yet at theelections of 1907--the first held under the new electoral law--of thetwenty-six party affiliations which succeeded in obtaining at leastone parliamentary seat all save possibly two comprised eitherhomogeneous racial groups or factions of such groups. Fundamentally, the racial question in Austria has always been that of German _versus_non-German. The original Austria was preponderantly German; thewealthiest, the best educated, the most widespread of the racial (p.  475)elements in the Empire to-day is the German; and by the Germans it hasregularly been assumed that Austria is, and ought to be, essentially aGerman country. [676] In this assumption the non-German populations ofthe Empire have at no time acquiesced; and while they have never beenable to combine long or effectively against the dominating Germanicelement, they have sought persistently, each in its own way, to compela fuller recognition of their several interests and rights. [Footnote 676: Lowell, Governments and Parties, II. , 95. ] The nationalities represented within the Empire fall broadly intothree great groups: the German, the Slavic, and the Latin. In anaggregate population of 26, 107, 304 in 1900 the Germans numbered9, 171, 614, or somewhat more than 35 per cent; the Slavs, 15, 690, 000, or somewhat more than 60 per cent; and the Latins, 958, 065, orapproximately 3. 7 per cent. The Germans, comprising the most numerousof the individual nationalities, occupy exclusively Upper Austria, Salsburg, and Vorarlberg, the larger portion of Lower Austria, north-western Carinthia, the north and center of Styria and Tyrol, and, in fact, are distributed much more generally over the entireEmpire than is any one of the other racial elements. The Slavs are intwo principal groups, the northern and the southern. The northernincludes the Czechs and Slovaks, dwelling principally in Bohemia andMoravia, and numbering, in 1900, 5, 955, 397; the Poles, comprising acompact mass of 4, 252, 483 people in Galicia and Silesia; and theRuthenes, numbering 3, 381, 570, in eastern Galicia and in Bukovina. Thesouthern Slavic group includes the Slovenes, numbering 1, 192, 780, inCarniola, Görz, Gradisca, Istria, and Styria, and the Servians andCroats, numbering 711, 380, in Istria and Dalmatia. The peoples ofLatin stock are the Italians and Ladini (727, 102), in Tyrol, Görz, Gradisca, Dalmatia, and Trieste, and the Roumanians (230, 963) inBukovina. Within many of the groups mentioned there is meager survivalof political unity. There are German Clericals, German Progressives, German Radicals, German Agrarians; likewise Old Czechs, Young Czechs, Czech Realists, Czech Agrarians, Czech Clericals, and Czech Radicals. Austrian party history within the past fifty years comprises largelythe story of the political contests among the several nationalities, and of the disintegration of these nationalities into a bewilderingthrong of clamorous party cliques. *527. Centralists and Federalists. *--The more important of the partygroups of to-day trace their origins to the formative period in recentAustro-Hungarian constitutional history, 1860-1867. During this periodthe fundamental issue in the Empire was the degree of centralizationwhich it was desirable, or possible, to achieve in the reshaping (p.  476)of the governmental system. On the one hand were the centralists, whowould have bound the loosely agglomerated kingdoms, duchies, andterritories of the Empire into a consolidated state. On the other werethe federalists, to whom centralization appeared dangerous, as well asunjust to the Empire's component nationalities. Speaking broadly, theGermans, supported by the Italians, comprised the party ofcentralization; the Slavs, that of federalism. The establishment ofthe constitution of 1867, as well as of the Compromise with Hungary inthe same year, was the achievement of the centralists, and with thecompletion of this gigantic task there gradually took form a compactlyorganized political party, variously known as the National Germanparty, the German Liberals, or the Constitutionalists, whosewatchwords were the preservation of the constitution and theGermanization of the Empire. For a time this party maintained theupper hand completely, but its ascendancy was menaced not only by thedisaffected forces of federalism but by the continued tenseness of theclerical question and, after 1869, by intestine conflict. As wasperhaps inevitable, the party split into two branches, the one radicaland the other moderate. During the earlier months of 1870 theRadicals, under Hasner, were in control; but in their handling of thevexatious Polish and Bohemian questions they failed completely and, April 4, they gave place to the Moderates under the premiership of thePolish Count Potocki. The new ministry sought to govern in aconciliatory spirit and with the support of all groups, but itssuccess was meager. February 7, 1871, a cabinet which was essentiallyfederalist was constituted under Count Hohenwart. Its decentralizingpolicies, however, were of such a character that the racial questiongave promise of being settled by the utter disintegration of theEmpire, and after eight months it was dismissed. *528. Rule of the German Liberals, 1871-1879. *--With a cabinet presidedover by Prince Adolf Auersperg the German Liberals then returned topower. Their tenure was prolonged to 1879 and might have beencontinued beyond that date but for the recurrence of factional strifewithin their ranks. The period was one in which some of theobstructionist groups, notably the Czechs, fell into division amongthemselves, so that the opposition which the Liberals were called uponto encounter was distinctly less effective than otherwise it mighthave been. At no time since 1867 had the Czechs consented to berepresented in the Reichsrath, a body, indeed, which they hadpersisted in refusing to recognize as a legitimately constitutedparliament of the Empire. During the early seventies a party of YoungCzechs sprang up which advocated an abandonment of passive (p.  477)resistance and the substitution of parliamentary activity in behalf ofthe interests of the race. The Old Czechs were unprepared for such ashift of policy, and in 1873 they played directly into the hands ofthe Liberal government by refusing to participate in the considerationof the electoral reform by which the choice of representatives wastaken from the provincial diets and vested in the four classes ofprovincial constituencies. For the carrying of this measure atwo-thirds majority was required, and if the Czechs had been willingto vote at all upon it they might easily have compassed its defeat. Asit was, the amendment was carried without difficulty. A tenure ofpower which not even the financial crisis of 1873 could break was, however, sacrificed through factional bickerings. Within both theministry and the Reichsrath, the dominant party broke into threegroups, and the upshot was the dissolution, February 6, 1879, of theministry and the creation of a new one under the presidency of CountTaaffe, long identified with the Moderate element. Three months laterthe House of Representatives was dissolved. In the elections thatfollowed the Liberals lost a total of forty-five seats, and therewiththeir position as the controlling party in both the Reichsrath and thenation. Taaffe retained the premiership, but his Liberal colleagueswere replaced by Czechs, Poles, Clericals, and representatives indeedof pretty nearly all of the existing groups save the Germans. [677] [Footnote 677: As at first reconstituted, the ministry contained a German Liberal, but he soon resigned. ] *529. The Taaffe Ministry, 1879-1893. *--The prolonged ministry of CountTaaffe comprises the second period of Austrian parliamentary history. Of notably moderate temper, Taaffe had never been a party man of theusual sort, and he entered office with an honest purpose to administerthe affairs of the nation without regard to considerations of party orof race. The establishment of his reconstituted ministry wassignalized by the appearance of Czech deputies for the first time uponthe floor of the national parliament. The Taaffe government found itssupport in what came to be known as the Right--a quasi-coalition ofPoles, Czechs, Clericals, and the Slavic and conservative elementsgenerally. [678] It was opposed by the Left, comprising principally theGerman Liberals, In 1881 the various factions of the German party, impelled by the apprehension that German ascendancy might be lostforever, drew together again and entered upon a policy of oppositionwhich was dictated purely and frankly by racial aspirations. (p.  478)Attempts to embarrass the Government by obstruction proved, however, only indifferently successful. In 1888 the party was once morereconstructed. [Footnote 678: In the Chamber the Czechs, Poles, and Clericals controlled each approximately 55 votes. ] Among the diverse groups by which the Taaffe government was supportedthere was just one common interest, namely, the prevention of a returnto power on the part of the German Liberals. Upon this preponderatingconsideration, and upon the otherwise divergent purposes of theGovernment groups, Taaffe built his system. Maintaining rigidly hisdetermination to permit no radical alteration of the constitution, henone the less extended favors freely to the non-Germanicnationalities, and so contrived to prolong through nearly a decade anda half, by federalist support, an essentially centralist government. Government consisted largely, indeed, in perennial bargaining betweenthe executive authorities on the one hand and the parliamentary groupson the other, and in the course of these bargainings it was ever thelegislative chambers, not the Government, that lost ground. Thebureaucracy increased its hold, the administrative organs waxedstronger, the power of the Emperor was magnified. The ministry becamepre-eminently the ministry of the crown, and despite strictly observedconstitutional forms the spirit of absolutism was largelyrehabilitated. [679] [Footnote 679: The forcefully expressed view of an eminent Austrian authority, written during the parliamentary deadlock which marked the close of the last century, is of interest. "His [Taaffe's] prolonged ministry had decisive effects upon the political life of Austria. It rendered forever impossible a return to Germanizing centralism. It filled the administrative hierarchy with Slavs, who, remaining Slavs, placed at the service of their national propaganda their official influence. In combatting the Liberal party it restored the power of the court, of the aristocracy, of the Church, and it facilitated the obnoxious restoration of clericalism, by which Austria to-day is dominated. It at the same time aroused and corrupted the nationalities and the parties. It habituated them to give rein unceasingly to their ambitions and to seek to attain them less by their own force and labor than by intrigue. The public demoralization, illustrated to-day so clearly by the Austrian crisis, is properly the result of the Taaffe system. " M. L. Eisenmann, in Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, XII. , 177. ] *530. The German Recovery: Badeni, 1895-1897. *--To the eventualbreakdown of the Taaffe régime various circumstances contributed. Twoof principal importance were the defection of the Young Czechs and thefailure of the several attempts to draw to the support of theGovernment the moderate German Liberals. At the elections of 1891 theYoung Czechs obtained almost the entire quota of Bohemian seats, andat the same time the Liberals recovered enough ground to give them theposition of the preponderant group numerically in the lower chamber. Neither of these two parties could be persuaded to accord the (p.  479)Government its support, and during 1891-1893 Taaffe labored vainlyto recover a working coalition. Finally, in 1893, as a last resource, the Government resolved to undermine the opposition, especially GermanLiberalism, by the abolition of the property qualification for votingin the cities and rural communes. The nature of Taaffe's electoralreform bill of 1893 has been explained elsewhere, and likewise thereason for its rejection. [680] Anticipating the defeat of the measure, the premier retired from office October 23, 1893. [Footnote 680: See p. 467. ] The Germans now recovered, not their earlier power, but none the lessa distinct measure of control. November 12 there was established, under Prince Windischgrätz a coalition ministry, comprisingrepresentatives of the German Liberals, the Poles, and the Clericals, and this cabinet was very successful until, in June, 1895, it waswrecked by the secession of the Liberals on a question of languagereform in Styria. After four months, covered by the colorless ministryof Count Kielmansegg, Count Badeni became minister-president (October4, 1895) and made up a cabinet, consisting largely of German Liberals, but bent upon an essentially non-partisan administration. The twotasks chiefly which devolved upon the Badeni ministry were the reformof the electoral system and the renewal of the decennial economiccompromise with Hungary, to expire at the end of 1897. The first wasaccomplished, very ineffectively, through the electoral measure of1896; the second, by reason of factional strife, was not accomplishedat all. *531. The Language Question: Parliamentary Deadlock. *--The elections of1897 marked the utter dissolution of both the United German Left andthe coalition which had borne the designation of the Right. Among the200 Germans elected to the Chamber there were distinguishable no fewerthan eight groups; and the number of groups represented in theaggregate membership of 425 was at least twenty-four. Of these themost powerful were the Young Czechs, with 60 seats, and the Poles, with 59. Profiting by the recently enacted electoral law, theSocialists at this point made their first appearance in the Reichsrathwith a total of 14 seats. Taking the Chamber as a whole, there was aSlavo-Clerical majority, although not the two-thirds requisite for theenactment of constitutional amendments. The radical opponents of theGovernment were represented by the 51 German Liberals only. But no oneof the Slavic groups was disposed to accord its support save in returnfor favors received. In the attempt to procure for itself a dependablemajority the Badeni government succeeded but in creating confusiontwice confounded. The Young Czechs, whose support appeared (p.  480)indispensable, stipulated as a positive condition of that support thatCzech should be recognized as an official language in Bohemia andMoravia, and by ordinances of April-May, 1897, the Government took itupon itself to meet this condition. Within the provinces named the twolanguages, Czech and German, were placed, for official purposes upon acommon footing. The only result, however, was to drive the Germans, already hostile, to a settled course of parliamentary obstruction, andbefore the year was out the Badeni cabinet was compelled to retire. The Gautsch ministry which succeeded proposed to maintain the equalityof the Czech and German tongues in Bohemia; wherefore the GermanLiberals persisted in their obstructionist policy and declared thatthey would continue to do so until the objectionable ordinances shouldhave been rescinded. March 5, 1898, the Government promulgated aprovisional decree in accordance with which in one portion of Bohemiathe official tongue was to be Czech, in another German, and in thethird the two together. But no one was satisfied and the ministryresigned. The coalition government of Count Thun Hohenstein whichsucceeded labored in the interest of conciliation, but with absolutelyno success. Parliamentary sittings became but occasions for thedisplay of obstructive tactics, and even for resort to violence, andlegislation came to a standstill. By the use of every known device theturbulent German parties rendered impossible the passage of even themost necessary money bills, and the upshot was that, in the summer of1898, the Government was obliged to fall back upon that extraordinaryportion of the Austrian constitution, commonly known as Section 14, bywhich, in default of parliamentary legislation, the crown isauthorized to promulgate ordinances with the force of law. The periodof extra parliamentary government here inaugurated was destined to beextended through more than six years and to comprise one of the mostremarkable chapters in recent political history. *532. The Nadir of Parliamentarism. *--Following the retirement of theThun Hohenstein ministry, at the end of September, 1899, thegovernment of Count Clary-Aldingen revoked the language decrees; butthe parliamentary situation was not improved, for the Czechs resortedforthwith to the same obstructionist tactics of which the Germans hadbeen guilty and the government had still to be operated principally onthe basis of Section 14. A provisional government under Dr. Wittek, atthe close of 1899, was followed by the ministry of Dr. Körber, established January 20, 1900; but all attempts at conciliationcontinued to be unavailing. In September, 1900, the Reichsrath was (p.  481)dissolved and the order for the new elections was accompanied by theominous declaration of the Emperor that the present appeal to thenation would be the last constitutional means which would be employedto bring the crisis to an end. Amid widespread depression, threats ofHungarian independence, and rumors of an impending _coup d'état_, theelections took place, in January, 1901. The German parties realizedthe largest gains, but the parliamentary situation was not materiallyaltered, and thereafter, until its fall, December 31, 1904, the Körberministry continued to govern substantially without parliamentaryassistance. In 1901-1902, by various promises, the premier induced thecombatants to lay aside their animosities long enough to vote theyearly estimates, a military contingent, and certain much-neededeconomic reforms. But this was virtually the sole interruption of asix-year deadlock. *533. Electoral Reform and the Elections of 1907. *--With theestablishment of the second Gautsch ministry, December 31, 1904, atruce was declared and interest shifted to the carrying out of theImperial programme of electoral reform. From the proposedliberalization of the suffrage many of the party groups were certainto profit and others had at least a chance of doing so; and thus itcame about that the great electoral law of 1907 was carried throughits various stages under parliamentary conditions which weresubstantially normal. Its progress was attended by the fall, in April, 1906, of the Gautsch ministry and, six weeks later, by that of itsprovisional successor. But by the coalition government of Baron Beck(June 2, 1906 to November 8, 1908) the project was pushed to asuccessful conclusion, and in its final form the law was approved bythe Emperor, January 26, 1907. The promulgation of the new electoral measure was followed, May 14, bya general election, the results of which may be tabulated as shown onthe following page. Each of the twenty-six groups here enumerated maintained at the timeof the election an independent party organization, although in theChamber the representatives of certain of them were accustomed to actin close co-operation. To the clericals and conservatives of allshades fell an aggregate of 230 seats; but among the various groups ofthis type there has never been sufficient coherence to permit theformation of a compact conservative party. Among the liberal andradical groups lack of coherence was, and remains, still morepronounced. The most striking feature of the election of 1907 was thegains made by the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists, to beexplained largely by the extension of the franchise to thenon-taxpaying and small taxpaying population. (p.  482) _Seats after _Seats in election of previous 1907_ Chamber_ Social Democrats 90 11 Christian Socialists 67 26 German Clericals 29 29 German Progressives 23 60 German Radicals 24 46 German Agrarians 21 4 Independent Pan-Germans 8 7 Pan-Germans 3 15 Polish Club 54 66 Polish Radicals 16 0 Polish Independent Socialists 3 0 Ruthenes 28 9 Jewish Zionists 3 0 Young Czechs 19 47 Old Czechs 6 3 Czech Realists 2 0 Czech Agrarians 25 5 Czech Clericals 19 2 Czech Radicals 10 8 Slovene Clericals 22 19 Slovene Liberals 3 6 Italian Liberals 4 12 Italian Clericals 10 6 Croats 9 7 Serbs 2 0 Roumanians 5 4 *534. The Elections of 1911. *--The truce by which the election of 1907was accompanied was not of long duration, and November 8, 1908, theministry of Baron Beck was driven by German obstructionism to resign. After three months as provisional premier Baron von Bienerth, formerMinister of the Interior, made up a cabinet which includedrepresentatives of a number of parties and which, despite occasionalreadjustments of portfolios, exhibited a fair measure of stabilitythroughout upwards of two years. In December, 1910, the Czechs andPoles precipitated a cabinet crisis in consequence of which theministry was reconstructed (January 9, 1911) in such a manner as tostrengthen the Slavic and weaken the Germanic element. But the forcesof opposition were not appeased, and as a last resort the Governmentdetermined upon a dissolution and an appeal to the country. Theresults, however, were by no means those which were desired. At thegeneral elections, which took place June 13 and 20, the ChristianSocialists, from whom the Government had drawn its most consistentsupport, were roundly beaten, and June 26 Baron von Bienerth and hiscolleagues resigned. The ministry thereupon made up was presided (p.  483)over by Baron Gautsch. It, however, endured only until October 31, when it was succeeded by that of Count Stuergkh. The elections of 1911 were hotly contested. The 516 seats to be filledwere sought by 2, 987 candidates, representing no fewer than fifty-oneparties and factions, and second ballotings were required in almosttwo-thirds of the constituencies. The Czechs returned withundiminished strength, and the German Radicals and Progressivesrealized substantial gains. The most notable feature, however, was thevictory of the Social Democrats over the Christian Socialists, especially in the capital, where the quota of deputies of the oneparty was raised from ten to nineteen and that of the other was cutfrom twenty to four. The Christian Socialists, it must be observed, are not socialists in the ordinary meaning of the term. The party wasfounded by Dr. Lüger a few years ago in the hope that, despite theestablishment of manhood suffrage in the Empire, the Social Democratsmight yet be prevented from acquiring a primacy among the Germanparties. It is composed largely of clericals, and in tone and purposeit is essentially reactionary. By maintaining an active alliance withthe German Clerical party it contrived to hold in check the SocialDemocracy throughout the larger portion of the period 1907-1911. Butit was handicapped all the while by internal dissension, and thedefeat which it suffered at the last elections has relegated it, atleast for the time being, to a subordinate place. [681] [Footnote 681: On Austrian party politics see Lowell, Governments and Parties, II. , 94-123; Drage, Austria-Hungary, Chaps, 1, 3, 12; K. Schwechler, Die österreichische Sozialdemokratie (Graz, 1907); S. Marmorek, L'Obstruction au parlement autrichien (Paris, 1908); and E. Benés, Le problème autrichien et la question tchèque; étude sur les luttes politiques des nationalités slaves en Autriche (Paris, 1908). Among valuable articles in periodicals may be mentioned: W. Beaumont, La crise du parlementarisme au Autriche; les élections législatives et la situation politique, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, March 15, 1901; K. Kramer, La situation politique en Autriche, ibid. , October 15, 1901; G. L. Jaray, L'Autriche nouvelle: sentiments nationaux et préoccupations sociales, ibid. , May 15 and Sept. 15, 1908, and La physionomie nouvelle de la question austro-hongroise, in _Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, Dec. 16, 1910; Kolmer, La vie politique et parlementaire en Autriche, in _Revue Politique et Parlementaire_, July 10, 1911; and G. Blondel, Les dernières élections en Autriche-Hongrie, in _La Réforme Sociale_, Aug. 1 and 15, 1911. ] V. THE JUDICIARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT *535. General Principles: the Ordinary Tribunals. *--All judicial powerin the Austrian Empire is exercised, and all judgments and sentencesare executed, in the name of the Emperor. Judges are appointed forlife, by the Emperor or in his name, and they may be removed from (p.  484)office only under circumstances specified by law and by virtue ofa formal judicial sentence. On taking the oath of office all judicialofficials are required to pledge themselves to an inviolableobservance of the fundamental laws. The Law of December 21, 1867, concerning the Judicial Power withholds from the courts the power topronounce upon the validity of statutes properly promulgated, thoughthey may render judgment on the validity of Imperial ordinancesinvolved in cases before them. [682] With some exceptions, fixed bylaw, proceedings in both civil and criminal cases are required to beoral and public; and in all cases involving severe penalties, as wellas in all actions arising from political crimes and misdemeanors andoffenses committed by the press, the guilt or innocence of the accusedmust be determined by jury. [Footnote 682: Art. 7. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 86. ] By the law of 1867 it is stipulated that there shall be maintained atVienna a Supreme Court of Justice and Cassation (_Oberste Gerichts-undKassationshof_) for all of the kingdoms and countries represented inthe Reichsrath, and that the organization and jurisdiction of inferiorcourts shall be determined by law. Of inferior tribunals there have beenestablished 9 higher provincial courts (_Oberlandesgerichte_), [683]74 provincial and district courts (_Landes-und Kreisgerichte_), and 96county courts (_Bezirksgerichte_). The provincial and district courtsand the county courts, together with a group of jury courts maintainedin connection with the provincial and district tribunals, are courtsof first instance; the higher provincial courts and the Supreme Courtexercise a jurisdiction that is almost wholly appellate. There existalso special courts for commercial, industrial, military, fiscal, andother varieties of jurisdiction. [Footnote 683: Located at Vienna, Graz, Trieste, Innsbrück, Zara, Prague, Brünn, Cracow, and Lemberg. ] *536. The Imperial Court. *--In Austria, as in France and othercontinental countries, cases affecting administration and theadministrative officials are withheld from the jurisdiction of theordinary courts and are committed to special administrative tribunals. By law of 1867 provision was made for an Imperial Court (_Reichsgericht_), to exercise final decision in conflicts of jurisdiction between thetwo sets of courts and, in general, in all disputed questions ofpublic law, after the manner of the Court of Conflicts in France. TheImperial Court was organized by law of April 18, 1869. It sits atVienna, and it is composed of a president and deputy president, appointed by the Emperor for life, and of twelve members and foursubstitutes, also appointed for life by the Emperor upon nomination bythe Reichsrath. It decides finally all conflicts of competence (p.  485)between the administrative and the ordinary judicial tribunals, between a provincial diet and the Imperial authorities, and betweenthe independent public authorities of the several provinces of theEmpire. Very important in a country so dominated by a bureaucracy asis Austria is the power which by fundamental law is vested in theImperial Court to pass final verdict upon the merits of all complaintsof citizens arising out of the alleged violation of political rightsguaranteed to them by the constitution, after the matter shall havebeen made the subject of an administrative decision. The purposeinvolved is to afford the citizen who, believing himself deprived ofhis constitutional rights, has failed to obtain redress in theadministrative courts, an opportunity to have his case reviewed by atribunal constituted with special view to permanence, independence, and impartiality. High-handed administrative acts which are covered bystatute, however, are beyond its reach, for, like all Austriantribunals, it is forbidden to question the validity of a dulypromulgated law. [684] [Footnote 684: Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 84-85. ] *537. The Provincial Governments: Composition of the Diet. *--Each of theseventeen political divisions of the Empire has a government of itsown, established on the basis of its Landesordnung, or provincialconstitution. The executive, for affairs that are considered strictlydivisional, consists of a provincial council, the _Landesausschuss_, composed of the president of the diet (nominated by the Emperor) as_ex-officio_ chairman and from four to eight members variously electedwithin the province. Imperial interests are specially represented inthe province, however, by a _Statthalter_, or _Landespräsident_, appointed by the crown, and independent of local control. Functions of legislation are vested in a Landtag, or diet. Theprovincial diet of the modern type came into being under the operationof the Imperial diploma of October 20, 1860 (superseded by that ofFebruary 26, 1861), replacing the ancient assembly of estates which inmost provinces had persisted until 1848. From 1860 onwards diets wereestablished in one after another of the provinces, until eventuallyall were so equipped. Originally the diets were substantially uniformin respect to both composition and powers. Aside from certain_ex-officio_ members, they were composed of deputies chosen for sixyears by four electoral curiæ: the great proprietors, the chambers ofcommerce, the towns, and the rural communes; and, until 1873, one oftheir principal functions was the election of the provincialdelegation in the lower house of the Reichsrath. Each of the seventeenprovincial diets as to-day constituted consists of a single chamber, and in most instances the body is composed of (1) the archbishops (p.  486)and bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Greek churches; (2) therectors of universities, and, in Galicia, the rector of the technicalhigh school of Lemberg and the president of the Academy of Sciences ofCracow; (3) the representatives of great estates, elected by alllandowners paying land taxes of not less than 100, 200, 400, or 500crowns, according to the provinces in which their estates aresituated; (4) the representatives of towns, elected by citizens whopossess municipal rights or pay a stipulated amount of direct taxes;(5) the representatives of boards of commerce and industry, chosen bythe members of these bodies; and (6) representatives of the ruralcommunes, elected in eight provinces directly, in the othersindirectly, by deputies (Wahlmänner) returned by all inhabitants whopay direct taxes to the amount of 8 crowns yearly. In a few of theprovinces there is, besides these, a general electoral class composedof all qualified male subjects of the state over twenty-four years ofage;[685] and there are some other variations, as for example, inMoravia, where, by a law of November 27, 1905, the proportional systemof representation was introduced. The diets vary in membership from 26in Vorarlberg and 30 in Görz and Gradisca to 151 in Moravia, 161 inGalicia, and 242 in Bohemia. The deputies are elected in all cases fora period of six years, and the diets assemble annually. But a sessionmay be closed, and the diet may be dissolved, at any time by thepresiding officer, under the direction of the Emperor. [Footnote 685: When the class system of voting for members of the Reichsrath was on the point of being abolished by the law of January 26, 1907, there was raised the question as to whether a similar step should not be taken in respect to provincial elections. It was generally agreed, however, that the absence of an aristocratic upper chamber in the provincial diet renders the class system within the province not wholly undesirable. The provinces were encouraged to liberalize their franchise regulations, but not to abandon the prevailing electoral system. The province of Lower Austria led the way by increasing the membership of its diet from 79 to 127, to be elected as follows: 58 by manhood suffrage throughout the province, 31 by the rural communes, 16 by the large landholders, 15 by the towns, and 4 by the chambers of commerce. Two bishops and the rector of the University of Vienna were continued as members. ] *538. Functions of the Diet. *--The powers of the diets are notenumerated, but, rather, are residual. By fundamental law of 1867 itis stipulated that "all matters of legislation other than thoseexpressly reserved to the Reichsrath by the present law belong withinthe power of the Provincial Diets of the kingdoms and countriesrepresented in the Reichsrath and are constitutionally regulated bysuch Diets. "[686] In certain matters, naturally those of an (p.  487)essentially local character, the diet may act with absolute freedom, save that it is within the competence of the Emperor to veto any ofits measures. In other matters, such as education and finance, whichfall within the range of the Reichsrath's competence, the powers ofthe diet are limited and subsidiary. A policy very generally pursuedhas been that of formulating at Vienna general regulations for theentire Empire, leaving to the diets the task of devising legislationof a local and specific character for the execution of theseregulations; though it can hardly be maintained that the results havebeen satisfactory. The diets are not infrequently radical, and eventurbulent, bodies, and it has been deemed expedient ordinarily by theImperial authorities to maintain a close watch upon their proceedings. [Footnote 686: Law of December 21, 1867, concerning Imperial Representation, § 12. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 79. ] *539. The Commune. *--Throughout the Empire the vital unit of localgovernment is the commune. As is true of the province, the commune isan administrative district, and one of its functions is that ofserving as an agency of the central government in the conduct ofpublic affairs. Fundamentally, however, the commune is an autonomousorganism, rooted in local interest and tradition. As such, itexercises broad powers of community control. It makes provision forthe safety of person and property, for the maintenance of the localpeace, for the supervision of traffic, for elementary and secondaryeducation, and for a variety of other local interests. Except inrespect to affairs managed by the commune as agent of the Imperialgovernment, the local authorities are exempt from discipline at thehand of their superiors, and, indeed, an eminent Austrian authorityhas gone so far as to maintain that the communes of Austria possess alarger independent competence than do the communes of any otherEuropean state. [687] [Footnote 687: J. Redlich, Das Wesen der österreichischen Kommunalverfassung (Leipzig, 1910). ] Except in the case of some of the larger towns, which have specialconstitutions, the rural and urban communes of the Empire areorganized upon the same pattern. The executive authority is vested inan elective committee, or council, presided over by a _Vorsteher_, orburgomaster, chosen from the members of the committee. The _Vorsteher_is not removable by the central authorities, and over his electionthey possess no control. In certain of the towns the place of thecommunal committee is taken by a corporation. In every commune thereis an assembly (the _Gemeindevertretung_), the members of which areelected for three (in Galicia six) years by all resident citizens whoare payers of a direct tax. For the purpose of electing assemblymenthe voters are divided into three classes, very much as under the (p.  488)Prussian electoral system, and this arrangement, indeed, comprisesvirtually the only non-democratic aspect of the communal constitution. In Galicia, Styria, and Bohemia there exists also a district assembly, elected for three years (in Galicia six) and made up ofrepresentatives of great estates, the most highly taxed industries andtrades, towns and markets, and rural communes. A committee of thisbody, known as the _Bezirksausschuss_, administers the affairs of thedistrict. CHAPTER XXVI (p.  489) THE GOVERNMENT AND PARTIES OF HUNGARY I. THE CONSTITUTION *540. Antiquity. *--By reason of both its antiquity and its adaptabilityto varying conditions, the constitution of the kingdom of Hungarydeserves to be considered one of the most remarkable instruments ofits kind. Like the fundamental law of England, it is embodied in amaze of ancient statutes and customs, and it is the distinctivecreation of a people possessed of a rare genius for politics andgovernment. On the documentary side its history is to be traced atleast to the Golden Bull of Andrew II. , promulgated in 1222; thoughthat instrument, like the contemporary Great Charter in England, comprised only a confirmation of national liberties that were alreadyold. [688] Under Hapsburg domination, from the early sixteenth centuryonwards, the fundamental political system and the long establishedlaws of the Hungarian kingdom were repeatedly guaranteed. Much of thetime they were, in practice, disregarded; but the nationalistic vigorof the Hungarian people invested them with unlimited power ofsurvival, and even during the reactionary second quarter of thenineteenth century they were but held in suspense. [Footnote 688: There is an interesting comparative study of the _Bulla Aurea_ and the Great Charter in E. Hantos, The Magna Carta of the English and of the Hungarian Constitution (London, 1904). ] *541. Texts: the "March Laws. "*--In large part, the constitution to-dayin operation took final form in a series of measures enacted by theHungarian parliament during the uprising of 1848. Thirty-one laws, inall, were at that time passed, revising the organization of thelegislative chambers, widening the suffrage, creating a responsiblecabinet, abolishing feudal survivals, and modernizing, in general, theinstitutions of the kingdom. The broad lines which remained were thosemarked out in the ancient constitutional order; the new measuresmerely supplemented, revised, and imparted definite form topre-existing laws, customs, and jealously guarded rights. Not all ofthese inherited constitutional elements, however, were included in thenew statutes; and to this day it is true that in Hungary, as in (p.  490)Great Britain, a considerable portion of the constitution has neverbeen put into written form. The fate of the measures of 1848 was for atime adverse. The Austrian recovery in 1849 remanded Hungary to thestatus of a subject province, and it was not until 1867, after sevenyears of arduous experimentation, that the constitution of 1848 waspermitted again to come into operation. The Ausgleich involved as oneof its fundamentals a guarantee for all time of the laws, constitution, legal independence, freedom, and territorial integrity of Hungary andits subordinate countries. And throughout all of the unsettlement andconflict which the past half-century has brought in the Austro-Hungarianworld the constitution of kingdom and empire alike has stood firmagainst every shock. The documents in which, chiefly, the writtenconstitution is contained are: (1) Law III. Of 1848 concerning theFormation of a Responsible Hungarian Ministry; (2) Law IV. Of 1848concerning Annual Sessions of the Diet; (3) Law XXXIII. Of 1874concerning the Modification and Amendment of Law V. Of 1848, and ofthe Transylvanian Law II. Of 1848; and (4) Law VII. Of 1885 alteringthe organization of the Table of Magnates. [689] [Footnote 689: The texts of all of the fundamental laws of Hungary at present in operation are printed in G. Steinbach, Die ungarischen Verfassungsgesetze (3d ed. , Vienna, 1900). English translations of the more important are in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 93-111. The standard treatise on the Hungarian constitutional system is S. Rádo-Rotheld, Die ungarische Verfassung (Berlin, 1898), upon which is based A. De Bertha, La constitution hongroise (Paris, 1898). In both of these works the Magyar domination in Hungary is regarded with favor. A readable book is A. De Bertha, La Hongrie moderne de 1849 à 1901; étude historique (Paris, 1901). An older treatise, in three volumes, is A. Von Virozil, Das Staatsrecht des Königsreichs Ungarn (Pest, 1865-1866). Valuable works of more recent publication include G. Steinbach, Die ungarischen Verfassungsgesetze (Vienna, 1906); A. Timon, Ungarische Verfassungs-und Rechtsgeschichte (2d ed. , Berlin, 1908); H. Marczoll, Ungarisches Verfassungsrecht (Tübingen, 1909); and especially G. Von Ferdinandy, Staats und Verwaltungsrecht des Königreichs Ungarn und seiner Nebenländer (Hanover, 1909). Worthy of mention is P. Matter, La constitution hongroise, in _Annales de l'École Libre des Sciences Politiques_, July 15, 1889, and April 15, 1890. Excellent discussions for English readers will be found in J. Andrássy, The Development of Hungarian Constitutional Liberty (London, 1908); C. M. Knatchbull-Hugessen, The Political Evolution of the Hungarian Nation (London, 1908); and P. Alden (ed. ), Hungary of To-day (London and New York, 1910). The celebration, in 1896, of the thousandth anniversary of the establishment of the Magyars in Europe was made the occasion of the publication of a multitude of more or less popular books devoted, as a rule, to a review of Hungarian national development. Among them may be mentioned: A. Vambéry, Hungary in Ancient and Modern Times (London, 1897); R. Chélard, La Hongrie millénaire (Paris, 1906); and M. Gelléri, Aus der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart des tausendjährigen Ungarn (Budapest, 1896). ] II. THE CROWN AND THE MINISTRY (p.  491) *542. The Working Executive. *--The constitutional arrangementsrespecting the executive branch of the Hungarian government are setforth principally in Law III. Of 1848 "concerning the Formation of aResponsible Hungarian Ministry. " The king attains his position _ipsojure_, by reason of being Emperor of Austria, without the necessity ofany distinct act of public law. Within six months of his accession atVienna he is crowned monarch of Hungary at Budapest, in a specialceremony in which is used the crown sent by Pope Sylvester II. Upwardsof a thousand years ago to King Stephen. The new sovereign is requiredto proffer Parliament an "inaugural certificate, " as well as to take acoronation oath, to the effect that he will maintain the fundamentallaws and liberties of the country; and both of these instruments areincorporated among the officially published documents of the realm. The entire proceeding partakes largely of the character of acontractual arrangement between nation and sovereign. As in Austria, the powers of the crown are exercised very largelythrough the ministry. And, by reason of the peculiar safeguards in theHungarian laws against royal despotism, as well as the all butuninterrupted absence of the king from the dominion, the ministry atBudapest not only constitutes the Hungarian executive in every realsense, but it operates on a much more purely parliamentary basis thandoes its counterpart at Vienna. "His Majesty, " says the law of 1848, "shall exercise the executive power in conformity with law, throughthe independent Hungarian ministry, and no ordinance, order, decision, or appointment shall have force unless it is countersigned by one ofthe ministers residing at Budapest. "[690] Every measure of the crownmust be countersigned by a minister; and every minister is immediatelyand actually responsible to Parliament for all of his official acts. [Footnote 690: Law III. Of 1848, § 3. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 94. ] *543. Composition and Status of the Ministry. *--The ministry consists ofa president of the council, or premier, and the heads of ninedepartments, as follows: Finance, National Defense, Interior, Education and Public Worship, Justice, Industry and Commerce, Agriculture, the Ministry for Croatia and Slavonia, and the Ministrynear the King's Person. The last-mentioned portfolio exists by virtueof the constitutional requirement that "one of the ministers shallalways be in attendance upon the person of His Majesty, and shall takepart in all affairs which are common to Hungary and the hereditaryprovinces, and in such affairs he shall, under his responsibility, represent Hungary. "[691] All ministers are appointed by the king, (p.  492)on nomination of the premier. All have seats in Parliament and must beheard in either chamber when they desire to speak. They are bound, indeed, to attend the sessions of either house when requested, tosubmit official papers for examination, and to give "properexplanations" respecting governmental policies. They may be impeachedby vote of a majority of the lower chamber, in which event the trialis held before a tribunal of twelve judges chosen by secret ballot bythe upper house from among its own members. Inasmuch, however, as thelower house has acquired the power by a simple vote of want ofconfidence to compel a cabinet to resign, the right of impeachmentpossesses in practice small value. The ministry is required to submitonce a year to the lower house for its examination and approval astatement of the income and needs of the country, together with anaccount of the income administered by it during the past twelvemonths. [692] [Footnote 691: Law III. Of 1848, § 13. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 94. ] [Footnote 692: Law III. Of 1848, § 37. Ibid. , I. , 97. ] III. PARLIAMENT--THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM *544. The Table of Magnates. *--The Hungarian parliament consists of twohouses, whose official designations are _Förendihaz_--Table, orChamber, of Magnates--and _Képviselöház_, or Chamber of Deputies. Theupper house is essentially a perpetuation of the ancient Table ofMagnates which, in the sixteenth century, began to sit separately asan aristocratic body made up of the great dignitaries of the kingdom, the Catholic episcopate (also, after 1792, that of the Orthodox GreekChurch), the "supreme courts, " and the adult sons of titled families. The reforms of 1848 left the Chamber untouched, though its compositionwas modified slightly in 1885. [693] At the session of 1910-1911 itcontained 16 archdukes of the royal family (eighteen years of age orover); 15 state dignitaries; 2 presidents of the High Courts ofAppeal; 42 archbishops and bishops of the Roman Catholic and GreekOrthodox churches; 13 representatives of the Lutheran, Calvinist, andUnitarian faiths; 236 members of the hereditary aristocracy (i. E. , those of the whole number of the nobility who pay a land tax to theamount of at least 6, 000 crowns annually); 3 members elected by theprovincial diet of Croatia; and 60 life peers, appointed by the crownor chosen by the Chamber of Magnates itself--a total of 387. [694] Themembership is therefore exceedingly complex, resting on the (p.  493)various principles of hereditary right, _ex-officio_ qualification, royal nomination, and election. In practice the upper house isdistinctly subordinate to the lower, to which alone the ministers areresponsible. Any member may acquire, by due process of election, aseat in the lower chamber, and the privilege is one of which the moreambitious peers are not reluctant to avail themselves. Upon electionto the lower house a peer's right to sit in the upper chamber is, ofcourse, suspended; but when the term of service in the popular branchhas expired, the prior right is revived automatically. [Footnote 693: Law VII. Of 1885 altering the Organization of the Table of Magnates. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 100-105. ] [Footnote 694: The number is, of course, variable. The old Table of Magnates was a very large body, consisting of more than 800 members. ] *545. The Chamber of Deputies: the Franchise. *--By law of 1848, amendedin 1874, it is stipulated that the Chamber of Deputies, historicallydescended from the ancient Table of Nuncios, shall consist of 453members, "who shall enjoy equal voting power, and who shall be electedin accordance with an apportionment made on the basis of population, territory, and economic conditions. "[695] Of the total number ofmembers, 413 are representatives of Hungary proper and 40 aredelegates of the subordinate kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, andDalmatia. This kingdom possesses its own organs of government, including a unicameral diet which exercises independent legislativepower in all internal affairs. Its forty deputies take part in theproceedings at Budapest only when subjects are under considerationwhich are of common concern to all of the countries of St. Stephen'scrown, such as questions pertaining to finance, war, communications, and relations with Austria. [696] [Footnote 695: Law V. Of 1848 concerning the Election of Representatives, § 5. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 105. ] [Footnote 696: On the status of the Croatian kingdom see p. 507. ] The election of deputies is governed by an elaborate statute ofNovember 10, 1874, by which were perpetuated the fundamentals of theelectoral law of 1848. In respect to procedure, the system was furtheramended by a measure of 1899. Qualifications for the exercise of thesuffrage are based on age, property, taxation, profession, officialposition, and ancestral privileges. Nominally liberal, they are, inactual operation, notoriously illiberal. The prescribed age for anelector is twenty years, indeed, as compared with twenty-four inAustria; but the qualifications based upon property-holding are soexacting that they more than offset the liberality therein involved. These qualifications--too complicated to be enumerated here--varyaccording as they arise from capital, industry, occupation, orproperty-holding. With slight restrictions, the right to vote ispossessed without regard to property or income, by members of theHungarian Academy of Sciences, professors, notaries public, (p.  494)engineers, surgeons, druggists, graduates of agricultural schools, foresters, clergymen, chaplains, and teachers. On the other hand, state officials, soldiers in active service, customs employees, andthe police have no vote; servants, apprenticed workingmen, andagricultural laborers are carefully excluded; and there are the usualdisqualifications for crime, bankruptcy, guardianship, and deprivationby judicial process. In an aggregate population of approximately20, 000, 000 to-day there are not more than 1, 100, 000 electors. *546. The Magyar Domination. *--The explanation of this state of affairsis to be sought in the ethnographical composition of Hungary'spopulation. Like Austria, Hungary contains a _mélange_ of races andnationalities. The original Hungarians are the Magyars, and by theMagyar element attempt has been made always to preserve as against theaffiliated German and Slavic peoples an absolute superiority ofsocial, economic, and political power. The Magyars occupy almostexclusively the more desirable portion of the country, i. E. , the greatcentral plain intersected by the Danube and the Theiss, where theypreponderate decidedly in as many as nineteen counties. Clusteredaround them, and in more or less immediate touch with kindred peoplesbeyond the borders, are the Germans and the Slavs--the Slovaks in themountains of the north, the Ruthenes on the slopes of the Carpathians, the Serbs on the southeast, and the Croats on the southwest. When thecensus of 1900 was taken the total population of Hungary (includingCroatia-Slavonia) was 19, 254, 559. Of this number 8, 742, 301 wereMagyars; 8, 029, 316 were Slavs; 2, 135, 181 were Germans; and 397, 761were of various minor racial groups. To put it differently, theMagyars numbered 8, 742, 301; the non-Magyars, 10, 512, 258. Thefundamental fault of the Hungarian electorate is that it has beenshaped, and is deliberately maintained, in the interest of a racewhich comprises numerically but 45. 4 per cent of the country'spopulation. [697] So skillfully, indeed, have electoral qualificationsand electoral proceedings been devised in the Magyar interest that thenon-Magyar majority has but meager representation, and still lessinfluence, at Budapest. [698] Even in Hungary proper the electorate in1906 comprised but 24. 4 per cent of the male population over twentyyears of age; and, despite the disqualifications that have beenmentioned one-fourth of the men who vote are officials or employees ofthe state. [Footnote 697: It is but fair to say that in Hungary proper the Magyar percentage in 1900 was 51. 4. ] [Footnote 698: Of the 413 representatives of Hungary at Budapest in 1909, but 26 were non-Magyars, and after the elections of June, 1910, but 7. ] *547. The Demand for Electoral Reform: the Franchise Reform Bill (p.  495)of 1908. *--In recent years, especially since the Austrian electoralreform of 1906-1907, there has been in Hungary an increasinglyinsistent demand that the Magyar parliamentary hegemony be overthrown, or at least that there be assured to the non-Magyar peoples somethinglike a proportionate share of political influence. As early as 1905the recurrence of legislative deadlocks at Budapest influenced FrancisJoseph to ally himself with the democratic elements of the kingdom andto declare for manhood suffrage; and in the legislative programme ofthe Fejérváry government, made public October 28, 1905, the place ofprincipal importance was assigned to this reform. Fearing the swampingof the popular chamber by the Slavs and Germans, the Magyars steadilyopposed all change, and for the time being the mere threat on the partof the Government was sufficient to restore tolerable, if not normal, parliamentary conditions. The Wekerle coalition cabinet of 1900announced electoral reform as one of its projected tasks, but as timeelapsed it became apparent that no positive action was likely to betaken. During 1907 and 1908 riotous demonstrations on the part of thedisappointed populace were frequent, and at last, November 11, 1908, Count Andrássy, Minister of the Interior, introduced in the Chamberthe long-awaited Franchise Reform Bill. The measure fell far short of public expectation. It was drawn, asCount Andrássy himself admitted, in such a manner as not "tocompromise the Magyar character of the Hungarian state. " After afashion, it conceded manhood suffrage. But, to the end that the Magyarhegemony might be preserved, it imposed upon the exercise of thefranchise such a number of restrictions and assigned to plural votingsuch an aggregate of weight that its concessions were regarded bythose who were expected to be benefited by it as practicallyvalueless. The essentials of the measure were: (1) citizens unable toread and write Hungarian should be excluded from voting directly, though they might choose one elector for every ten of their number, and each elector so chosen should be entitled to one vote; (2) everymale citizen able to read and write Hungarian should be invested, uponcompleting his twenty-fourth year and fulfilling a residencerequirement of twelve months, with one vote; (3) electors who hadpassed four standards of a secondary school, [699] or who paid yearly adirect tax amounting to at least twenty crowns ($4. 16), or whofulfilled various other conditions, should be entitled to two votes;and (4) electors who had completed the course of secondary instruction, or who paid a direct tax of 100 crowns (approximately $21), should (p.  496)be possessed of three votes. As before, voting was to be oral andpublic. In the preamble of the measure the cynical observation wasoffered that "the secret ballot protects electors in dependentpositions only in so far as they break their promises under the veilof secrecy. " It was announced that the passage of the bill would befollowed by the presentation of a scheme for the redistribution ofseats. [Footnote 699: Equivalent to the completion of one-half of the course of secondary instruction. ] *548. Rejection of the Bill. *--According to calculations of the _NeueFreie Presse_, the effect of the measure would have been to increasethe aggregate body of electors from 1, 100, 000 to 2, 600, 000, and thenumber of votes to something like 4, 000, 000. The number of personsentitled to three votes was estimated at 200, 000; to two votes, at860, 000; to one vote, at 1, 530, 000; to no vote, at 1, 270, 000. Anaggregate of 1, 060, 000 persons in the first two classes would cast2, 320, 000 votes; an aggregate of 2, 800, 000 in the last two would cast1, 530, 000 votes. The number of persons participating in parliamentaryelections would be more than doubled, but political power would remainwhere it was already lodged. The measure would have operated, indeed, to strengthen the Magyar position, and while the Germans would haveprofited somewhat by it, the Slavs would have lost largely such poweras they at present possess. Based as the scheme was upon a curiouselaboration of the educational qualification, it was recognizedinstantly, both in the kingdom and outside, as an instrument ofdeliberate Magyar domination. Among the Slavic populations theprevalence of illiteracy is such that the number of persons who couldattain the possession of even one direct vote would be insignificant. By the Socialists, and by the radical and Slavic elements generally, the scheme was denounced as a sheer caricature of the universal, equal, and direct suffrage for which demand had been made. Upon the introduction of the bill parliamentary discord broke outafresh, and through 1909 there was a deadlock which effectuallyprevented the enactment of even the necessary measures of finance. InJanuary, 1910, the sovereign at last succeeded in securing a newministry, presided over by Count Hedérváry, and in the programme ofthis Government the introduction of manhood suffrage was accorded aplace of principal importance. June 26, 1910, the Speech from theThrone, at the opening of the newly elected parliament, announced thata franchise bill would be submitted "on the basis of universalsuffrage and in complete maintenance of the unitary national characterof the Hungarian state. " Various circumstances co-operated, however, to impose delay and, despite the sovereign's reiterated interest inthe reform, no action as yet has been taken. The Hungarian franchiseremains the most illiberal and the most antiquated in Europe. The (p.  497)racial situation seems utterly to preclude the possibility of a reformthat will be in all respects satisfactory; indeed, it seems almost topreclude the possibility of reform at all. Yet, that the pressure willbe continued until eventually there shall be an overhauling of thepresent inadequate system can hardly be doubted. [700] [Footnote 700: On the question of the Hungarian suffrage see S. Aberdam, La crise hongroise, in _Revue Politique et Parlementaire_, Oct. 10, 1909, and Les récentes crises politiques en Hongrie, in _Revue des Sciences Politiques_, May-June and July-Aug. , 1912; G. Louis-Jaray, Le suffrage universel en Hongrie, in _Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, February 16, 1909; R. Henry, La crise hongroise, ibid. , June 1, 1910; J. Mailath, Les élections générales hongroises, ibid. , Aug. 16, 1910, and The Hungarian Elections, in _Contemporary Review_, Oct. , 1910; F. De Gerando, Le radicalisme hongroise, in _Revue Politique et Parlementaire_, July, 1911; A. Duboscq, La réforme électorale en Hongrie, in _Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, July 1, 1912; S. Huszadik, La Hongrie contemporaine et le suffrage universel (Paris, 1909); and B. Auerbach, Races et nationalités en Autriche-Hongrie (2d ed. , Paris, 1910). ] *549. Electoral Procedure. *--Elections are conducted in each town or_comitat_ (county) by a central electoral committee of at least twelvemembers, chosen by the municipal council of the town or by the generalcouncil of the _comitat_. The list of voters in each district is drawnup by a sub-committee of this body. When an election is to be held, the Minister of the Interior fixes, thirty days in advance, a periodof ten days during which the polling must be completed. As in GreatBritain, the elections do not take place simultaneously, and acandidate defeated in one constituency may stand, and possibly besuccessful, in another. All polling within a particular town or_comitat_, however, is concluded within one day. Candidates may benominated by any ten electors of the district, and candidacies may bedeclared until within thirty minutes of the hour (eight o'clock A. M. )for the polling to begin. Voting is everywhere public and oral. Each elector, after giving hisname and establishing his identity, simply proclaims in a loud voicethe name of the candidate for whom he desires to have his voterecorded. If no candidate obtains an absolute majority, the centralcommittee fixes a date (at least fourteen days distant) for a secondpolling, on which occasion the contest lies between the two candidateswho at the first balloting polled the largest number of votes. Priorto a law of 1899 defining jurisdiction in electoral matters, Hungarianelections were tempestuous, and not infrequently scandalous. Beginningwith the elections of 1901, however, electoral manners have shownconsiderable improvement; though ideal conditions can hardly berealized until oral voting shall have been replaced by the secretballot. [701] Any elector who has attained the age of twenty-four, (p.  498)is a registered voter, and can speak Magyar (the official language ofHungarian parliamentary proceedings) is eligible as a candidate. Deputies receive a stipend of 4, 800 crowns a year, with an allowanceof 1, 600 crowns for house rent. [Footnote 701: Seatus Viator, Corruption and Reform in Hungary: a Study of Electoral Practice (London, 1911). ] *550. Parliamentary Organization and Procedure. *--The nationalparliament assembles in regular session once a year at Budapest. Following a general election, the Chamber of Deputies meets, under thepresidency of its oldest member, after a lapse of time (not exceedingthirty days) fixed by the royal letters of convocation. The Chamber ofMagnates being convoked by the crown at the same date, all membersrepair to the royal palace to hear the Speech from the Throne, whichis delivered by the king in person or by an especially appointed royalcommissioner. [702] The lower chamber then passes upon the validity ofthe election of its members, though by law of 1899 the actual exerciseof this jurisdiction is committed in large part to the Royal HighCourt. [703] The president and vice-president of the Chamber ofMagnates are appointed by the king from the members of that house; thesecretaries are elected by the house from its own members, by secretballot. The lower house elects, from its members, all of itsofficials--a president, two vice-presidents, and a number ofsecretaries. The presidents of the two houses are chosen for theentire period of the parliament; all other officials are chosenannually at the beginning of a session. [Footnote 702: King Francis Joseph I. Has been absent upon this important occasion but once since 1867. Apponyi, in Alden, Hungary of To-day, 166. ] [Footnote 703: Ibid. , 166-175. ] Each house is authorized, at its first annual session after anelection, to adopt an order of business and to make the necessaryregulations for the maintenance of peace and propriety in itsdeliberations. The president, with the aid of sergeants-at-arms, ischarged with the strict enforcement of all such rules. Sittings of thetwo houses are required to be public, but spectators who disturb theproceedings may be excluded. The maximum life of a parliament wasraised, in 1886, from three years to five. It is within the power ofthe king, however, not only to extend or to adjourn the annualsession, but to dissolve the lower chamber before the expiration ofthe five-year period. In the event of a dissolution, orders arerequired to be given for a national election, and these orders must beso timed that the new parliament may be assembled within, at the most, three months after the dissolution. And there is the further requirementthat, in the event of a dissolution before the budget shall have (p.  499)been voted for the ensuing year, the convocation of the new parliamentshall be provided for within such a period as will permit theestimates for the succeeding year to be considered before the close ofthe current year. *551. The Powers of Parliament: the Parliamentary System. *--In theHungarian constitutional system Parliament is in a very real sensesupreme. The king can exercise his prerogatives only through ministerswho are responsible to the lower chamber, and all arrangementspertaining to the welfare of the state fall within the competence ofthe legislative branch. Within Parliament it is the Chamber ofDeputies that preponderates. Aside from the king and ministry, italone enjoys the power of initiating legislation; and the oppositionwith which the Chamber of Magnates may be disposed to meet itsmeasures invariably melts away after a show of opinion has been made. By a simple majority vote in the lower chamber a minister may beimpeached for bribery, negligence, or any act detrimental to theindependence of the country, the constitution, individual liberty, orproperty rights. Trial is held before a tribunal composed of menchosen by secret ballot by the Chamber of Magnates from its ownmembers. For the purpose thirty-six members in all are required to beelected. Of the number, twelve may be rejected by the impeachmentcommission of the lower house, and twelve others by the minister orministers under impeachment. Those remaining, at least twelve innumber, try the case. Procedure is required to be public and thepenalty to be "fixed in proportion to the offense. "[704] [Footnote 704: Law III. Of 1848 concerning the Formation of a Responsible Hungarian Ministry, §§ 33-34. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 97. ] The statement which has sometimes been made that the parliamentarysystem operates to-day in the kingdom of Hungary in a fuller measurethan in any other continental country requires qualification. Nominally, it is true, an unfavorable vote in the Deputies upon aGovernment measure or action involves the retirement of a minister, orof the entire cabinet, unless the crown is willing to dissolve theChamber and appeal to the country; and no Government project ofconsequence can be carried through without parliamentary approval. Practical conditions within the kingdom, however, have never beenfavorable for the operation of parliamentarism in a normal manner. Inthe first place, the parliament itself is in no wise representative ofthe nation as a whole. In the second place, the proceedings of thebody are not infrequently so stormy in character that for months at atime the essential principles of parliamentarism are hopelesslysubverted. Finally, and most fundamental of all, at no period in thekingdom's history have there been two great parties, contending on (p.  500)fairly equal terms for the mastery of the state, each in a position toassume direction of the government upon the defeat or momentarydiscomfiture of the other. From 1867 to 1875, as will appear, therewas but one party (that led by Deák) which accepted the Compromise, and hence could be intrusted with office; and from 1875 to the presentday there has been but one great party, the Liberal, broken at timesinto groups and beset by more or less influential conservativeelements, but always sufficiently compact and powerful to be able toretain control of the government. Under these conditions it has workedout in practice that ministries have retired repeatedly by reason ofdecline of popularity, internal friction, or request of the sovereign, and but rarely in consequence of an adverse vote in Parliament. IV. POLITICAL PARTIES *552. The Question of the Ausgleich. *--Throughout half a century theparty history of Hungary has centered about two preponderatingproblems, first, the maintenance of the Compromise with Austria and, second, the preservation of the political ascendancy of the Magyars. Of these the first has been the more fundamental, because theascendancy of the Magyars was, and is, an accomplished fact and uponthe perpetuation of that ascendancy there can be, among the rulingMagyars themselves, no essential division. The issue upon which thoseelements of the population which are vested with political power (andwhich, consequently, compose the political parties in the true sense)have been always most prone to divide, is that of the perpetuation andcharacter of the Ausgleich. To put it broadly, there have beenregularly two schools of opinion in respect to this subject. Therehave been the men, on the one hand, who accept the arrangements of1867 and maintain that by virtue of them Hungary, far from havingsurrendered any of her essential interests, has acquired an influenceand prestige which otherwise she could not have enjoyed. And therehave been those, on the other hand, who see in the Ausgleich nothingsave an abandonment of national dignity and who, therefore, would havethe arrangement thoroughly remodelled, or even abrogated outright. Under various names, and working by different methods, the parties ofthe kingdom have assumed almost invariably one or the other of theseattitudes. *553. Formation of the Liberal Party. *--As has been pointed out, theCompromise was carried through the Hungarian parliament in 1867 by theparty of Deák. Opposed to it was the Left, who favored the maintenanceof no union whatsoever with Austria save through the crown. The (p.  501)first ministry formed under the new arrangement, presided over byCount Andrássy, was composed of members of the Deák party, and at thenational elections of 1869 this party obtained a substantial, thoughhard-won, majority. In 1871 Andrássy resigned to become the successorof Count Beust in the joint ministry of foreign affairs at Vienna, andtwo years later Deák himself, now an aged man, withdrew from activepolitical life. There followed in Hungary an epoch of politicalunsettlement during the course of which ministries changed frequently, finances fell into disorder, and legislation was scant and haphazard. The Deák party disintegrated and, but for the fact that the Leftgradually abandoned its determination to overthrow the Ausgleich, theoutcome might well have been a constitutional crisis, if not war. Asit was, when, in February, 1875, the leader of the Left, Kálman Tisza, publicly acknowledged his party's conversion to the Austrianaffiliation, the fragments of the Deák party amalgamated readily withthe Left to form the great Liberal party by which the destinies ofHungary have been guided almost uninterruptedly to the present day. Except for the followers of Kossuth, essentially irreconcilable, theMagyars were now united in the support of some sort of union withAustria, and most of them were content for the present to abide by thearrangement of 1867. Before the close of 1875 Tisza was established atthe head of a Liberal cabinet, and from that time until his fall, inMarch, 1890, he was continuously the real ruler of Hungary. *554. The Liberal Ascendancy: Tisza, Szápáry, Wekerle, and Bánffy. *--Theprimary policy of Tisza was to convert the polyglot Hungarian kingdominto a centralized and homogeneous Magyar state, and to this end hedid not hesitate to employ the most relentless and sometimesunscrupulous means. Nominally a Liberal, he trampled the principles ofliberalism systematically under foot. To the disordered country, however, his strong rule brought no small measure of benefit, especially in respect to economic conditions. He supported faithfullythe Compromise of 1867; but when, in 1877, the commercial treatybetween the two halves of the monarchy expired he contrived to procureincreased advantages for Hungary, and among them the conversion of theAustrian National Bank into a joint institution of the two states. Opposition to the Tisza régime arose from two sources principally, i. E. , the Kossuth party of Independence, which clung still to the principlesof 1848, and the National party, led by the brilliant orator CountAlbert Apponyi, distinguishable from the Independence group, on theone hand, by its provisional acquiescence in the Ausgleich and (p.  502)from the Liberals, on the other, by its still more enthusiasticadvocacy of Magyarization. At Vienna, Tisza was regarded asindispensable; but growing discontent in Hungary undermined hisposition and March 13, 1890, he retired from office. With the fall of Tisza there was inaugurated a period of shortministries whose history it would be unprofitable to attempt torecount in detail. The Liberal party continued in control, for therehad appeared no rival group of sufficient strength to drive it frompower. But the rise of a series of issues involving the relations ofchurch and state injected into the political situation a number of newelements and occasioned frequent readjustments within the ministerialgroup. The ministry of Count Szápáry, which succeeded that of Tiszawas followed, November 21, 1892, by that of Dr. Sandor Wekerle, andit, in turn, after a number of the religious bills had been passed, was succeeded, January 11, 1895, by a cabinet presided over by BaronBánffy. At the elections of 1896 the Liberals were overwhelminglytriumphant, acquiring in the lower chamber a majority of two to one. The Nationalist contingent was reduced from 57 to 35. *555. The Era of Parliamentary Obstructionism. *--The period covered bythe Bánffy ministry (January, 1895, to February, 1899) was one of thestormiest in Hungarian parliamentary history. At the close of 1897 thedecennial economic agreement with Austria came automatically to anend, and despite its best efforts the Government was unable to procurefrom Parliament an approval of a renewal of the arrangement. Throughtwo years successively the existing agreement was extendedprovisionally for twelve months at a time. It was only during theministry of Széll, who took office in February, 1899, that a renewalwas voted, covering the period to 1907. In Hungary there is noconstitutional provision equivalent to Section 14 of the constitutionof Austria, but during 1897-1899 the utter breakdown of legislation atBudapest drove Premier Bánffy to a policy of government by decree verysimilar to that which was at the same time being employed at Vienna. The Government had all of the while a substantial majority, but theobstructionist tactics of the Independence group, the ApponyiNationalists, and the Clericals were of such a nature that normallegislation was impossible. Under the régime of Széll (February, 1899, to May, 1903), who was a survivor of the old Deák group, constitutionalism was rehabilitated and the Liberals who had beenalienated by Bánffy's autocratic measures were won back to theGovernment's support. Nationalist obstruction likewise diminished, forthe primary object of Apponyi's followers had been to drive Bánffyfrom power. The brief ministry of Count Khuen-Hedérváry (May 1 to September (p.  503)29, 1903) was followed by a ministry presided over by Count István[Stephen] Tisza, son of Kálman Tisza, premier from 1875 to 1890. Theprincipal task of the younger Tisza's ministry was to effect anarrangement whereby the Hungarian army, while remaining essentiallyHungarian, should not be impaired in efficiency as a part of the dualmonarchy's military establishment. During parliamentary considerationof this subject obstruction to the Government's proposals acquiredagain such force that, under the accustomed rules of procedure, noaction could be taken. November 18, 1904, the opposition shouted downa Modification of the Standing Orders bill, designed to frustrateobstruction, and would permit no debate upon it; whereupon, thepresident of the Chamber declared the bill carried and adjourned thehouse until December 13, and subsequently until January 5, 1905. Theopposition commanded now 190 votes in a total of 451. When the datefor the reassembling arrived members of the obstructionist groupsbroke into the parliament house and by demolishing the furniturerendered a session for the time impossible. In disgust Tisza appealedto the country, only to be signally defeated. The Government carriedbut 152 seats. The Kossuth party of Independence alone carried 163;the Liberal dissenters under Andrássy got 23; the Clerical People'sparty, 23; the Bánffy group, 11; and the non-Magyar nationalities, 8. Tisza sought to retire, but not until June 17, 1905, would thesovereign accept his resignation. *556. The Government's Partial Triumph. *--Incensed by the prolonged, andin many respects indefensible, character of the parliamentarydeadlock, Francis Joseph resolved to establish in office anessentially extra-constitutional ministry which should somehowcontrive to override the opposition, and likewise to set on foot amovement looking toward the revolutionizing of Hungarian parliamentaryconditions by the introduction of manhood suffrage. Under the ministryof Baron Fejérváry, constituted June 21, 1905, there was inaugurated aperiod of frankly arbitrary government. Parliament was proroguedrepeatedly, and by censorship of the press, the dragooning of towns, and the dismissal of officers the Magyar population was made to feelunmistakably the weight of the royal displeasure. For awhile there wasdogged resistance, but in time the threat of electoral reform took theheart out of the opposition. Outwardly a show of resistance wasmaintained, but after the early months of 1906 the Government may besaid once more to have had the situation well in hand. Two events ofthe year mentioned imparted emphasis to the profound change ofpolitical conditions which the period of conflict had produced. Thefirst was the establishment, under the premiership of the Liberal (p.  504)leader Dr. Wekerle, of a coalition cabinet embracing a veritablegalaxy of Hungarian statesmen, including Francis Kossuth, CountAndrássy, and Count Apponyi. The second was the all but completeannihilation, at the national elections which ensued, of the oldLiberal party, and the substitution for it, in the rôle of politicalpreponderance, of the Kossuth party of Independence. The number ofseats carried by this rapidly developing party was 250, or more thanone-half of the entire number in the Chamber. *557. The Parliamentary Conflict Renewed. *--The Wekerle cabinet enteredoffice pledged to electoral reform, although in the subject it inreality cherished but meager interest. In 1908, as has been related, it was impelled by popular pressure to submit a new electoralscheme;[705] but that scheme was conceived wholly in the Magyarinterest and did not touch the real problem. It very properly failedof adoption. Meanwhile the ministry fell into hopeless disagreementupon the question of whether Hungary should consent to the renewal ofthe charter of the Austro-Hungarian Bank (to expire December 31, 1910)or should hold out for the establishment of a separate Hungarian Bank, and, April 27, 1909, Premier Wekerle tendered his resignation. At thesolicitation of the sovereign he consented to retain office until anew ministry could be constituted, which, in point of fact, proved tobe until January 17, 1910. Added to the problem of the Bank was aneven more vexatious one, that, namely, of the Magyarization of theHungarian regiments. The extremer demands in the matter ofMagyarization emanated, of course, from the Independence party, thoughupon the issue the party itself became divided into two factions, theextremists being led by Justh and the more moderate element byKossuth. The coalition was disrupted utterly; the Wekerle ministrydragged on simply because through many months no other could bebrought together to take its place. The year 1909 passed without eventhe vote of a budget. [Footnote 705: See p. 495. ] January 17, 1910, Count Hedérváry succeeded in forming a cabinet, andthere ensued a lull in the political struggle. At the elections ofJune, the Government--representing virtually the revived Liberalparty--carried 246 seats, while the two wings of the Independenceparty secured together only 85. The Clericals were reduced to 13 andthe non-Magyars to 7. Under the leadership of István Tisza there wasorganized, at the beginning of 1910, a so-called "National Party ofWork, " which by the emphasis which it laid upon its purpose ofpractical achievement commended itself to large elements of thenation. By the Hedérváry government it was announced that the (p.  505)franchise would be reformed in such a manner as to maintain, withoutthe employment of the plural vote, the historical character of theMagyar state; but the bitterness of Magyar feeling upon the subjectcontinued to preclude all possibility of action. The embarrassmentscontinually suffered by the Hedérváry ministry reached theirculmination in the winter of 1911-1912, at which time the relationsbetween Austria and Hungary became so strained that Emperor FrancisJoseph threatened to abdicate unless pending difficulties should beadjusted. The question of most immediate seriousness pertained to theadoption of new regulations for the military establishment, but theelectoral issue loomed large in the background. The retirement of theHedérváry cabinet, March 7, 1912, and the accession of a ministrypresided over by Dr. De Lukacs affected the situation but slightly. The new premier made it clear that he would labor for electoralreform, and issue was joined with him squarely upon this part of hisprogramme by the aristocracy, the gentry, the Chamber of Magnates, andall the adherents of Andrássy, Apponyi, and Kossuth, with thedeliberately conceived purpose of frightening the Government, andespecially the Emperor-King, into an abandonment of all plans totamper with existing electoral arrangements. During the earlier monthsof the ministry efforts of the premier to effect a working agreementwith the forces of opposition were but indifferently successful. [706] [Footnote 706: For a brief account of Hungarian party politics to 1896 see Lowell, Governments and Parties, II. , 152-161. For references to current periodicals see p. 497. ] V. THE JUDICIARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT *558. Law and Justice. *--The law of Hungary, like that of England, isthe product of long-continued growth. It consists fundamentally of thecommon law of the mediæval period (first codified by the juristVerböczy in the sixteenth century), amplified and modernized in morerecent times, especially since the reforms of 1867, so that whatoriginally was little more than a body of feudal customs has beentransformed into a comprehensive national code. Hungarian criminallaw, codified in 1878, is recognized to be the equal of anything ofthe kind that the world possesses. Since 1896 there has been inprogress a codification of the civil law, and the task is announced tobe approaching completion. There are numerous special codes, pertaining to commerce, bankruptcy, and industry, whose promulgationfrom time to time has marked epochs in the economic development of thenation. The lower Hungarian tribunals, or courts of first instance, comprise458 county courts, with single judges, and 76 district courts, (p.  506)with two or more judges each. Both exercise jurisdiction in civil andcriminal cases; but the jurisdiction of the county courts in civilcases extends only to suits involving not more than 1, 200 crowns, while in criminal cases these tribunals are not competent to imposepunishment exceeding a single year's imprisonment. The district courtsserve as courts of appeal from the county courts. Of superior courtsthere are fourteen--twelve "royal tables, " or courts of appeal, aSupreme Court of Justice at Agram, and a Royal Supreme Court atBudapest. The twelve contain, in all, 200 judges; the Royal SupremeCourt contains 92. All judges are appointed by the king. Onceappointed, they are independent and irremovable. Only Hungariancitizens may be appointed, and every appointee must have attained theage of twenty-six, must be of good moral character, must be familiarwith the language of the court in which he is to serve, and must havepassed the requisite legal examinations. Salaries vary from 3, 840 to10, 000 crowns. Supreme administrative control of the judicial systemis vested in the Minister of Justice. The sphere of his authority isregulated minutely by parliamentary statute. In the main, hesupervises the judges, attends to the legal aspects of internationalrelations, prepares bills, and oversees the execution of sentences. *559. Local Government: the County. *--The principal unit of localgovernment in Hungary is the county. The original Hungarian countyinstituted by St. Stephen about the year 1000, was simply a district, closely resembling the English county or the French department, at thehead of which the king placed an officer to represent the crown inmilitary and administrative affairs. Local self-government had itsbeginning in the opposition of the minor nobility to this centralizingagency, and in periods of royal weakness the nobles usurped a certainamount of control, first in justice, later in legislation, and finallyin the election of local officials, which in time was extended legalrecognition. At all points the county became substantially autonomous. Indeed, by 1848 Hungary was really a confederation of fifty-twocounties, each not far removed from an aristocratic republic, ratherthan a centralized state. For a time after 1867 there was a tendencytoward a revival of the centralization of earlier days. In 1876 lawswere enacted which vested the administration of the county in acommittee composed in part of members elected within the county, butalso in part of officials designated by the crown; and a statute of1891 went still further in the direction of bureaucraticcentralization. More recently, however, the county has undergone aslight measure of democratization. Exclusive of Croatia-Slavonia, there are in Hungary to-day 63 (p.  507)rural counties and 36 urban counties or towns with municipal rights. In Croatia-Slavonia the numbers are 8 and 4 respectively. The urbancounties are in reality municipalities and are essentially separatefrom the rural counties in which they are situated. The governmentalsystem of the county comprises a council of twenty, composed half ofmembers chosen by the electors for six years and half of persons whopay the highest taxes, together with an especially appointed committeewhich serves as the local executive. At the head of the assembly isthe _föispán_, or lord lieutenant, appointed by the crown. Legally, the counties may withhold taxes and refuse to furnish troops, butthere is no popular representation in the true sense in the countygovernments. The franchise is confined to the very restrictedparliamentary electorate. The subject races and the working classesare unrepresented and the real possessors of power are the Magyarlandowners. *560. Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. *--To the kingdom of Hungaryproper are attached certain _partes adnexæ_ which enjoy a largemeasure of political autonomy. Dalmatia, united to Hungary at thebeginning of the twelfth century, belongs _de jure_ to Hungary and _defacto_ to Austria; Croatia and Slavonia belong both _de jure_ and _defacto_ to Hungary. [707] Croatia and Slavonia, as Hungarian dominions, have always possessed a peculiar status. They are inalienable portionsof the kingdom, and in all that pertains to war, trade, and financethey are on precisely the same footing as any other part of the state. In other matters, however, i. E. , in religion, education, justice, andhome affairs generally, they enjoy a wide range of independent control. The administration of common affairs is vested in the Hungarianministry, which must always contain a minister with the specialfunction of supervision of Croatian interests. In the parliament atBudapest Croatia-Slavonia is represented by 40 members (sent from itsown diet) in the Chamber of Deputies and three members in the Chamberof Magnates. These arrangements exist in virtue originally of anagreement concluded between the Magyars and the Croats in 1868, andthey are closely analogous to the relationships established by theCompromise of the previous year between Hungary and Austria. Thecompact of 1868 was renewed upon several occasions prior to 1898, (p.  508)since which time it has been intermittently under process of revision. Among the Croats there has long been insistent demand for itsfundamental modification. The charge, in general, is that as atpresent administered the arrangement operates all but exclusively tothe benefit of the Hungarians. [708] The Wekerle coalition ministry of1906 promised a redress of grievances, but none was forthcoming, andin more recent years, especially 1907-1908, riots and otheranti-Magyar demonstrations have been not uncommon in the territories. [Footnote 707: Until 1848 the grand-principality of Transylvania also enjoyed a considerable measure of autonomy. In 1848 it was united with Hungary. In 1849 it regained its ancient independence, but in 1867 it was again joined with Hungary. By legislation of 1868 and 1876 it was fully incorporated in the kingdom, 75 seats being awarded it in the Chamber of Deputies at Budapest in lieu of its provincial diet, which was abolished. ] [Footnote 708: Under the agreement 44 per cent of the Croatian-Slavonian revenue is retained for local needs and the remaining 56 per cent is devoted to common expenditures of the kingdom upon the army, public works, and the national debt. It is alleged, among other things, that this apportionment is unjust, and, furthermore, that the Hungarian authorities systematically divert local funds to national uses. ] The local Croatian-Slavonian diet is a unicameral body consisting of90 deputies elected by districts, and of dignitaries (ecclesiastics, prefects of counties, princes, counts, and barons) to the number ofnot more than half of the quota of elected members. The executiveconsists of the three departments of Interior and Finance, Culture andEducation, and Justice. At the head of each is a chief, and over themall presides an official known as the _Banus_. The _Banus_ isappointed by the crown on the nomination of the premier. He is_ex-officio_ a member of the Chamber of Magnates, and it is hisfunction to supervise all matters of administration in the provinces, under the general direction of the Croatian minister, who constitutesthe vital tie between the central government at Budapest and thedependent territories. Local government is administered in eight ruraland four urban counties. [709] [Footnote 709: An English version of the statute of 1868 regulating the status of Croatia-Slavonia is printed in Drage, Austria-Hungary, 767-783. For extended discussions of the subject see Drage, _op. Cit. _, Chap. Ii; Geosztanyi, in P. Alden (ed. ), Hungary of To-day, Chap. Ii; G. Horn, Le Compromis de 1868 entre la Croatie et la Hongrie (Paris, 1907); G. De Montbel, La condition politique de la Croatie-Slavonie dans la monarchie austro-hongroise (Toulouse, 1909); and R. Gonnard, Entre Drave et Save; études économiques, politiques, et sociales sur la Croatie-Slavonie (Paris, 1911). See also R. Henry, La Hongrie, la Croatie, et les nationalités, in _Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, Aug. 16, 1907; J. Mailath Hongrie et Croatie, ibid. , Nov. 1, 1907. ] CHAPTER XXVII (p.  509) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: THE JOINT GOVERNMENT *561. The Ausgleich. *--The unique political relation which subsiststo-day between the Empire of Austria and the kingdom of Hungary restsupon the Ausgleich, or Compromise, of 1867, supplemented at certainpoints by agreements of more recent date. The fundamental terms of thearrangement, worked out by the Emperor Francis Joseph, Deák, and BaronBeust, were incorporated in essentially identical statutes enacted bythe Hungarian Parliament and the Austrian Reichsrath December 21 and24 of the year mentioned. Between the demand of Hungary, on the onehand, for independence (save only in respect to the crown), and thatof Austria, on the other, for the thoroughgoing subordination of theHungarian to an Imperial ministry, there was devised a compromisewhose ruling principle is that of dualism rather than that of eitherabsolute unity or subordination. Under the name Austria-Hungary therewas established a novel type of state consisting of an empire and akingdom, each of which, retaining its identity unimpaired, stands inlaw upon a plane of complete equality with the other. Each has its ownconstitution, its own parliament, its own ministry, its ownadministration, its own courts. Yet the two have but one sovereign andone flag, and within certain large and important fields thegovernmental machinery and public policy of the two are maintained incommon. The laws which comprise the basis of the arrangement are theproduct of international compact. They provide no means by which theymay be amended, and they can be amended only in the manner in whichthey were adopted, i. E. , by international agreement supplemented byreciprocal parliamentary enactment. [710] [Footnote 710: Drage, Austria-Hungary. Chap. 12; H. Friedjung, Der Ausgleich mit Ungarn (Leipzig, 1877); Count Andrássy, Ungarns Ausgleich mit Österreich von Jahre 1867 (Leipzig, 1897); L. Eisenmann, Le compromis austro-hongroise (Paris, 1904). The Austrian and Hungarian texts of the Ausgleich laws, with German versions in parallel columns, are printed in I. Zolger, Der staatsrechtliche Ausgleich zwischen Österreich und Ungarn (Leipzig, 1911). English versions are in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 114-122, and Drage, Austria-Hungary, 744-750, 753-766. In a speech in the Hungarian Chamber November 23, 1903, Count István Tisza sought to demonstrate that, properly, there is no such thing as an Austro-Hungarian Ausgleich--that the two instruments of 1867 are not only of different date but are essentially independent, each being revocable at will by the power by which it was enacted. An able polemic in opposition to the views of Tisza is to be found in F. Tezner, Ausgleichsrecht und Ausgleichspolitik (Vienna, 1907). Tezner is an Austrian publicist. ] I. THE COMMON ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT (p.  510) *562. The Emperor-King. *--Of organs of government which the twodominions possess in common, and by which they are effectually tiedtogether administratively, there are three: (1) the monarch; (2) theministries of Foreign Affairs, War, and Finance; and (3) theDelegations. The functions and prerogatives of the monarch arethree-fold, i. E. , those which he possesses as emperor of Austria, those which belong to him as king of Hungary, and those vested in himas head of the Austro-Hungarian union. In theory, and largely inpractice, the three sets of relationships are clearly distinguished. All, however, must be combined in the same individual. The law ofsuccession is the same, and it would not be possible for FrancisJoseph, for example, to vacate the kingship of Hungary while retainingthe Imperial office in the co-ordinated state. But there is acoronation at Vienna and another at Budapest; the royal title reads"Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, etc. , and Apostolic King ofHungary"; and the relations of the sovereign with each of the twogovernments are most of the time conducted precisely as if the otherof the two were non-existent. In the capacity of dual sovereign themonarch's principal functions comprise the command of the army andnavy, [711] the appointment of heads of the joint ministries, thepromulgation of ordinances applying to the states in common, and thegiving of assent to measures enacted by the dual legislative body. [Footnote 711: As an illustration of the sensitiveness of the Hungarians in the matter of their Austrian relations the fact may be cited that in 1889, after prolonged effort, an arrangement was procured in accordance with which the joint sovereign, in the capacity of commander of the armed forces, is known as Emperor _and_ King, not as Emperor-King. ] *563. The Joint Ministries. *--By the Compromise of 1867 the threedepartments of administration which most obviously requireconcentration and uniformity were established upon a basis ofcommunity between the two governmental systems. The first of these isthe ministry of Foreign Affairs. Neither Austria nor Hungary as suchmaintains diplomatic intercourse with other powers; Under thedirection of the Foreign Minister (known, until 1871, as the ImperialChancellor) are maintained all relations with foreign governments, through a diplomatic and consular service which represents in everyrespect the monarchy as a whole. Commercial treaties, and treaties (p.  511)stipulating changes of territory or imposing burdens upon the state orupon any part of it, require the assent of both the parliament atVienna and that at Budapest. The second common ministry is that of War. With respect to militaryand naval administration there has been no little misunderstanding, and even ill-feeling, between the two states. The instruments of 1867vest the supreme command of the army and navy in the joint monarch, yet the armed establishments of the states are maintained on the basisof separate, even if approximately identical, laws, and each is placedunder the immediate supervision of a separate minister of nationaldefence. Each country maintains its independent arrangements for theraising of the yearly contingent of recruits. It is only after thequotas have been raised that the dual monarch can exercise his powerof appointing officers and regulating the organization of the forces. The authority of the joint war minister is confined largely to mattersof secondary importance, such as equipment and the commissariat. Onlya close understanding between the ministries at Vienna and Budapestcan be depended upon, in the last analysis, to avert an utterbreakdown of the admittedly precarious military establishment. [712] [Footnote 712: V. Duruy, L'Armée austro-hongroise, in _Revue de Paris_, Jan. 15, 1909; M. B. , L'Armée autrichienne, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, May, 1909; Com. Davin, La marine austro-hongroise, in _Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, Aug. 16, 1909. ] The third common ministry is that of Finance. Each of the two statesmaintains an independent finance ministry and carries its own budget, because, within certain limitations, the administration of fiscalmatters is left to the states in their separate capacities; butquestions of joint expenditure, the establishment of the joint budget, and the examination of accounts are committed to a common ministry atVienna. The powers of the joint minister of finance are, in point offact, limited. Like the other joint ministers, he may not be a memberof either the Austrian or the Hungarian cabinet, nor may he haveaccess to the separate parliaments. His function is essentially thatof a cashier. He receives the contributions made by the two states tothe common expenses and hands them over to the several departments. Until the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in 1908, it devolvedupon him, by special arrangement, to administer the affairs of thesesemi-dependent territories. *564. Fiscal and Economic Arrangements. *--In 1867 it was agreed that thecommon expenditures of Austria and Hungary should be met, in so (p.  512)far as possible, from the joint revenues, especially the customs, and that all common outlays in excess of these revenues should beborne by the states in a proportion to be fixed at decennial intervalsby the Reichsrath and the Hungarian Parliament. Other joint interestsof an economic nature--trade, customs, the debt, and railwaypolicy--were left likewise to be readjusted at ten-year intervals. Inrespect to contributions, the arrangement hit upon originally was thatall common deficits should be made up by quotas proportioned to thetax returns of the two countries, namely, Austria 70 per cent andHungary 30 per cent. As has been pointed out, the periodic overhaulingof the economic relationships of the two states has been productive offrequent and disastrous controversy. The task was accomplishedsuccessfully in the law of June 27, 1878, and again in that of May 21, 1887. But the readjustment due in 1897 had the curious fortune not tobe completed until the year in which another readjustment was due, i. E. , 1907. To the parliamentary contests, at both Vienna and Budapest, by which the decade 1897--1907 was filled some allusion has beenmade. [713] They involved distinctly the most critical test ofstability to which the Ausgleich has been subjected since itsestablishment. During the period various features of the pre-existingarrangements were continued in force by royal decree or by provisionalparliamentary vote, but not until October, 1907, were the economicrelation of the two states put once more upon a normal basis. Throughout the decade the Emperor-King exercised repeatedly theauthority with which he is invested by law of 1867 to fix the ratio ofcontributions for one year at a time, when action cannot be had on thepart of the legislative bodies. The ratio prevailing during the periodwas Austria 66-46/49 per cent and Hungary 33-3/49 per cent. [Footnote 713: See pp. 479-481, 502-504. ] By the agreement of 1907, concluded for the usual ten-year period, theHungarian quota was raised from the figure mentioned to 36. 4 per cent. The customs alliance, established in 1867 and renewed in 1878 and1887, was superseded by a customs and commercial treaty, in accordancewith which each state maintains what is technically a separate customssystem, although until the expiration of existing conventions withforeign powers in 1917 the tariff arrangements of the two states mustremain identical. Under the conditions which have arisen the customsunity of the monarchy is likely to be disrupted in fact, as already itis in law, upon the advent of the year mentioned. Thereaftercommercial treaties with foreign nations will be negotiated in thename of the two states concurrently and will be signed, not merely bythe common minister of foreign affairs, but also by a special (p.  513)Austrian and a special Hungarian representative. [714] [Footnote 714: L. Louis-Jaray, Les relations austro-hongroises et le nouveau compromis économique, in _Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, Jan. 16 and Feb. 1, 1908; and Les dispositions économiques du nouveau compromis austro-hongrois, in _Revue Économique Internationale_, March, 1908. ] *565. The Delegations: Organization and Sessions. *--All legislativepower of the Reichsrath and of the Hungarian Parliament, in so far asit relates to the joint affairs of the states, is exercised by two"delegations, " one representing each of the two parliaments. TheAustrian Delegation consists of sixty members, twenty of whom arechosen by the Herrenhaus from its own members, and the other forty ofwhom are elected by the Abgeordnetenhaus in such manner that thedeputies from each province designate a number of delegates allottedto them by law. The Hungarian Delegation consists likewise of sixtymembers, twenty elected by and from the upper, forty by and from thelower, chamber, with the further requirement that there shall beincluded four of the Croatian members of the Chamber of Deputies andone of the Croatians in the Chamber of Magnates. All members of bothDelegations are elected annually and may be re-elected. They must beconvoked by the Emperor-King at least once a year. Every device isemployed to lay emphasis upon the absolute equality of the twoDelegations, and of the states they represent, even to the extent ofhaving the sessions held alternately in Vienna and Budapest. The twobodies meet in separate chambers, each under a president whom itelects, but the proposals of the Government are laid before both atthe same time by the joint ministry. In the Austrian Delegation allproceedings are conducted in the German tongue; in the Hungarian, inMagyar; and all communications between the two are couched in bothlanguages. Sittings, as a rule, are public. In the event of a failureto agree after a third exchange of communications there may be, upondemand of either Delegation, a joint session. Upon this occasion thereis no debate, but merely the taking of a vote, in which there mustparticipate an absolutely equal number of members of the twoorganizations. *566. The Delegations: Powers. *--The members of the common ministry havethe right to share in all deliberations of the Delegations and topresent their projects personally or through deputies. They must beheard whenever they desire. Each Delegation, on the other hand, has aright to address questions to the joint ministry, or to any one of itsmembers, and to require answers and explanations. By concurrent voteof the two bodies a joint minister may be impeached. In such a (p.  514)case the judges consist of twenty-four independent and legally trainedcitizens representing equally the two countries, chosen by theDelegations, but not members thereof. The power is one very unlikelyto be exercised; in truth, the responsibility of the ministers to theDelegations is more theoretical than actual. The functions of the Delegations are severely restricted. They extendin no case beyond the common affairs of the two states; and theycomprise little more than the voting of supplies asked by theGovernment and a certain supervision of the common administrativemachinery. Of legislative power, in the proper sense, the two bodiespossess virtually none. Practically all law in the dual monarchy takesthe form of statutes enacted concurrently by the separate parliamentsof Austria and Hungary. The system is not ideal. It involves delay, confusion, and an excess of partisan wrangling. Probably upon no otherbasis, however, would even the semblance of an Austro-Hungarian unionbe possible. The existing arrangement operates somewhat to theadvantage of Hungary, because the Hungarian Delegation is a body whichvotes solidly together, whereas the Austrian is composed of mutuallyhostile racial and political groups. II. THE TERRITORIES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA *567. Annexation of the Provinces, 1908. *--By the Congress of Berlin, in1878, Austria was authorized, ostensibly in the interest of the peaceof Europe, to occupy and administer the neighboring provinces ofBosnia and Herzegovina; and from that date until 1908, although theprovinces continued under the nominal sovereignty of the Sultan ofTurkey, their affairs were managed regularly by the Austro-Hungarianminister of finance. The eventual absorption of the territories by thedual monarchy was not unexpected, but it came in virtue of a _coup_ bywhich the European world was thrown for a time into some agitation. The revolution at Constantinople during the summer of 1908, accompanied by the threatened dissolution of European Turkey, createdprecisely the opportunity for which the authorities at Vienna had longwaited. October 5, Prince Ferdinand of Bulgaria proclaimed thecomplete separation of Bulgaria from the Sultan's dominions andassumed the title of king. Two days later Emperor Francis Josephproclaimed to the inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina the immediateextension of Austro-Hungarian sovereignty over them, alleging that thehour had arrived when they ought to be raised to a higher politicallevel and accorded the benefits of Austro-Hungarian constitutionalism. Among the population of the annexed provinces the Roman Catholic (p.  515)element approved the union, but the Greek Orthodox and Mohammedanmajority warmly opposed it. The people of the provinces are Servian inrace, and in the interest of the Servian union which it was hoped atsome time to bring about Servia and Montenegro protested loudly, andeven began preparations for war. The annexation constituted a flagrantinfraction of the Berlin Treaty, and during some weeks the danger ofinternational complications was grave. Eventually, however, on theunderstanding that the new possessor should render to Turkey certainfinancial compensation, the various powers more or less grudginglyyielded their assent to the change of status. *568. The Constitution of 1910: the Diet. * At the time of the annexationit was promised that the provinces should be granted a constitution. The pledge was fulfilled in the fundamental laws which werepromulgated by the Vienna Government February 22, 1910. Theconstitution proper consists of a preamble and three sections, ofwhich the first relates to civil rights, the second to the compositionof the Diet, and the third to the competence of the Diet. Under theterms of the preamble the pre-existing military and administrativearrangements are perpetuated. The civil rights section extends to theannexed provinces the principal provisions of the Austrianconstitution in respect to equality before the law, freedom ofpersonal movement, the protection of individual liberty, theindependence of judges, freedom of conscience, autonomy of recognizedreligious communities, the right of free expression of opinion, theabolition of restrictive censorship, the freedom of scientificinvestigation, secrecy of postal and telegraphic communications, andthe rights of association and public meeting. The second section creates a diet of seventy-two elected and twenty_ex-officio_ representatives, fifteen of the latter being dignitariesof the Mohammedan, Servian, Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholicreligious communities. The presidential bureau, consisting of onepresident and two vice-presidents, is appointed annually by the crownat the opening of the session. Each creed is regularly to berepresented in the bureau, the presidential office being held by aServian, a Mohammedan, and a Croat in annual rotation. To be valid, the decisions of the Diet require the presence of a majority of themembers, except when ecclesiastical matters are under discussion. Uponsuch occasions the presence of four-fifths of the Diet, and atwo-thirds majority, is required. The third section excludes from the legislative competence of the Dietall joint Austro-Hungarian affairs and questions pertaining to thearmed forces and to customs arrangements. The Diet is, however, (p.  516)empowered to elect a national council of nine members and tocommission it to lay the views of the Diet before the Austro-HungarianGovernment. In all other matters, such as civil, penal, police andcommercial law, industrial and agrarian legislation, sanitation, communications, taxation, the provincial estimates, the issue andconversion of loans, and the sale or mortgaging of provincialproperty, the Diet has a free hand. Government measures to besubmitted to the Diet require, however, the previous sanction of theAustrian and the Hungarian cabinets, whose assent is also necessarybefore bills passed by the Diet can receive the sanction of the crown. *569. The Electoral System. *--Subsequent statutes regulate the franchiseand electoral procedure. First of all, the seventy-two elective seatsin the Diet are divided among the adherents of the various religiousdenominations, the Servians receiving 31, the Mohammedans 24, and theCatholic Croats 16. One seat is reserved for a representative of theJews. The seats are divided, furthermore, into three curiæ, orelectoral classes, eighteen being allotted to a first class composedof large landed proprietors and the heaviest taxpayers, twenty to asecond class composed of urban electors, and thirty-four to a thirdclass composed of rural electors. The franchise is bestowed upon allsubjects of the crown, born in the provinces or possessing one year'sresidential qualification, who are of the male sex and have completedtheir twenty-fourth year. In the first of the three classes womenpossess the franchise, although they may exercise it only by maledeputy. Candidates for election must have completed their thirtiethyear and must be of the male sex and in full enjoyment of civilrights. Civil and railway servants, as well as public school teachers, are not eligible. In the first and second classes votes are recordedin writing, but in the third, or rural, class, voting, by reason ofthe large proportion of illiterates, is oral. In the second and third(urban and rural) classes the system of single-member constituencieshas been adopted. The provinces are divided into as many Servian, Mohammedan, and Catholic constituencies, with separate registers, asthere are seats allotted to the respective creeds. For the Jews allthe towns of the two provinces form a single constituency. [715] [Footnote 715: The texts of the organic acts of 1910 are printed in K. Lamp, Die Rechtsnatur der Verfassung Bosniens und der Herzegowina vom 17 Februar 1910, in Jahrbuch des Öffentlichen Rechts (Tübingen, 1911), V. ; L. Geller, Bosnisch-herzegowinische Verfassungs und politische Grundgesetze (Vienna, 1910); and in Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht und Bundesstaatsrecht, IV. , No. 5. See also F. Komlössy, Das Rechtsverhältniss Bosniens und des Herzegowina zu Ungarn (Pressburg, 1911). ] PART VII. --THE LOW COUNTRIES (p.  517) CHAPTER XXVIII THE GOVERNMENT OF HOLLAND I. A CENTURY OF POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT Geographical juxtaposition, combined with historical circumstance, hasdetermined that between the two modern kingdoms of Holland andBelgium, widely as they differ in many fundamental characteristics, relations should be continuous and close. Both nations have sprungfrom groups of provinces comprised within the original Low Countries, or Netherlands. Following the memorable contest of the Dutch withPhilip II. Of Spain, the seven provinces to the north achieved theirindependence at the beginning of the seventeenth century and, underthe name of the United Provinces, built up a system of government, republican in form though in operation much of the time reallyautocratic, which survived through more than two hundred years. Theten provinces to the south continued under the sovereignty of Spainuntil 1713, when by the Treaty of Utrecht they were transferred toAustria. They did not attain the status of independent nationalityuntil 1831. *570. The French Domination, 1793-1814. *--The constitutionalarrangements operative in the Holland and Belgium of to-day are to beregarded as products largely of the era of the French Revolution andof the Napoleonic domination. Between 1795 and 1810 both groups of LowCountry provinces were absorbed by France, and both were forced quiteout of their accustomed political channels. The provinces comprisingthe Austrian Netherlands were overrun by a French army early in 1793. By decree of October 1, 1795, they were incorporated in the FrenchRepublic, being erected into nine departments; and by the Treaty ofLunéville, February 9, 1801, they were definitely ceded by Austria toFrance. [716] February 1, 1793, the French Republic declared war uponHolland. During the winter of 1794--1795 the Dutch provinces were (p.  518)occupied, and by the Treaty of The Hague, May 16, 1795, they wereerected into a new nationality known as the Batavian Republic, underthe protection of France. [717] The constitution of the old republicwas thoroughly overhauled and the stadtholderate, long in thepossession of the house of Orange, was abolished. To the considerablebody of anti-Orange republicans the coming of the French was, indeed, not unwelcome. May 24, 1806, the Batavian Republic was converted byNapoleon into the kingdom of Holland, and Louis Bonaparte, youngerbrother of the French Emperor, was set up as the unwilling sovereignof an unwilling people. Nominally, the new kingdom was bothconstitutional and independent; practically, it was an autocracy and adependency of France. King Louis labored conscientiously to safeguardthe interests of his Dutch subjects, but in vain. After four years heabdicated, under pressure; whereupon, July 9, 1810, an Imperial edictswept away what remained of the independent status of the Dutch peopleand incorporated the kingdom absolutely with France. The ancientprovinces were replaced by seven departments; to the Dutch wereassigned six seats in the French Senate, three in the Council ofState, and twenty-five in the Legislative Body; a lieutenant-generalwas established at the head of the administrative system; and noeffort was spared to obliterate all survivals of Dutch nationality. [Footnote 716: L. Delplace, La Belgique sous la domination française, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1896); L. De Lanzac de Laborie, La domination française en Belgique, 2 vols. (Paris, 1895). ] [Footnote 717: L. Legrand, La révolution française en Hollande: la république batave (Paris, 1894). ] *571. The Settlement by the Congress of Vienna: the Constitution of1815. *--With the overthrow of Napoleon the fate of both the Dutch andthe Belgian provinces fell to the arbitrament of the allied powers. Inthe first Treaty of Paris, concluded May 30, 1814, between the Allieson the one side and France on the other, it was stipulated that theBelgian territories should be joined with Holland and that the whole, under the name of the Kingdom of the United Netherlands, should beassigned to the restored house of Orange, in the person of William I. , son of the stadtholder William V. Already, consequent upon the Dutchrevolt which followed the defeat of Napoleon at Leipzig, William hadbeen recalled from his eighteen-year exile. December 1, 1813, he hadaccepted formally the sovereignty of the Dutch provinces, and early in1814 a constitution had been drawn up and put in operation. The desireof the Allies, particularly of Great Britain, was that there should bebrought into existence in the Low Countries a state which should besufficiently powerful to constitute a barrier to possible aggressionsof France upon the north. The union of the Belgian with the Dutchprovinces, was intended furthermore, to compensate the Dutch in (p.  519)some measure for their losses of colonial possessions to GreatBritain during the war. By the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna, June 9, 1815, and by the second Peace of Paris, November 20 following, the arrangement was ratified. With Holland and the AustrianNetherlands were united in the new state the bishopric of Liège, theduchy of Limburg, and the duchy (henceforth to be known as thegrand-duchy) of Luxemburg. The last-mentioned territory, whileincluded in the Germanic Confederation, was bestowed upon the Dutchsovereign in compensation for German principalities ceded by him atthis time to Prussia. [718] March 15, 1815, William began his reignunder the new régime in Holland, and September 27 following he wascrowned at Brussels. [Footnote 718: These ceded territories comprised the ancestral domains of the house of Nassau which lay in Germany--Dietz, Siegen, Hadamar, and Dillenburg. The grand-duchy of Luxemburg was joined with the Netherlands by a personal union only, and in its capital, as a fortress of the German Confederation, was maintained a Prussian garrison. William dealt with the territory, however, precisely as if it were an integral part of his kingdom, extending to it the constitution of 1815 and administering its affairs through the agency of Dutch officials. At the time of the Belgian revolt, in 1830, Luxemburg broke away from Dutch rule and there ensued in the history of the grand-duchy an anomalous period during which the legal status of the territory was hotly disputed. In 1839 the Conference of London assigned to Belgium that portion of the grand-duchy which was contiguous to her frontiers and remanded the remainder to the status of an hereditary possession of the house of Nassau. In 1856 a separate constitution was granted the people of the territory, and in 1867, following the dissolution of the old Germanic Confederation, the grand-duchy was declared by an international conference at London to be a sovereign and independent (but neutral) state, under the guaranty of the powers. The connection between Luxemburg and Holland was thereafter purely dynastic. Until the death of William III. , in 1890, the king of the Netherlands was also grand-duke of Luxemburg; but with the accession of Queen Wilhelmina the union of the two countries was terminated, by reason of the fact that females were at that time excluded from the throne of the grand-duchy. A law of 1907, however, vested the succession in the princess Marie, eldest daughter of the reigning Grand-Duke William; and upon the death of her father, Feb. 26, 1912, this heiress succeeded to the grand-ducal throne. The head of the state is the grand-duke (or grand-duchess). There is a council of state nominated by the sovereign and a chamber of deputies of 53 members, elected directly by the cantons for six years. The state has an area of but 998 square miles and a population (in 1910) of 259, 891. P. Eyschen, Das Staatsrecht des Grossherzogtums Luxemburg (Tübingen, 1910). ] In fulfillment of a promise made his people, King William promulgated, August 24, 1815, a new constitution, drafted by a commissionconsisting of an equal number of Dutch and Belgian members. Theinstrument provided for a States-General of two chambers, oneconsisting of members appointed for life by the crown, the othercomposed of an equal number (55) of Dutch and Belgian deputies electedby the provincial estates. Bills might be rejected, but might not (p.  520)be originated or amended, by this assembly. The suffrage was severelyrestricted; trial by jury was not guaranteed; the budget was to bevoted for a number of years at a time; ministers were declaredresponsible solely to the king; and, all in all, there was in the newsystem little enough of liberalism. When the instrument was laidbefore a Belgian assembly it was overwhelmingly rejected. None theless it was declared in effect, and it continued the fundamental lawof the united dominions of William I. Until 1830. *572. The Belgian Revolution, 1830-1831. *--Friction between the Dutchand the Belgians was from the outset incessant. The union wasessentially an artificial one, and the honest efforts of the king tobring about a genuine amalgamation but emphasized the irreconcilabledifferences of language, religion, economic interest, and politicalinheritance that separated the two peoples. The population of Belgiumwas 3, 400, 000; that of Holland but 2, 000, 000. Yet the voting power ofthe former in the lower legislative chamber was no greater than thatof the latter, and in fact the Dutch were able all the while tomaintain in that body a small working majority. Administrative officeswere filled, in large part, by Dutchmen, and the attitude quitecommonly assumed (in a measure, without doubt, unconsciously) by thepublic authorities strongly suggested that Holland was thepreponderating power and Belgium little more than so much subjugatedterritory. The upshot was discontent and eventual rebellion. In 1828the principal political parties of Belgium, the Catholics and theLiberals, drew together in the "Union, " the object of which was tobring about the recognition of Belgian independence, or, in the eventthat this should prove impossible of attainment, the establishment ofthoroughgoing Belgian autonomy, with no union with Holland save of apurely personal character through the crown. Inspired by the successof the July Revolution in France, and hopeful of obtaining Frenchassistance, the Belgians in August, 1830, broke into open revolt. After a period of violence, a provisional government at Brussels, October 4, 1830, proclaimed Belgium's independence and summoned anational congress to which was committed the task of drawing up ascheme of government. Aroused by the imminent loss of half of hisdominion, King William, after an ineffectual display of militaryforce, offered concessions; and the States-General went so far as toauthorize the establishment in the southern provinces of a separateadministrative system, such as at one time would have met the Belgiandemand. The day for compromise, however, had passed. The Belgiancongress voted overwhelmingly for the establishment of an independentmonarchy, adopted (February 7, 1831) a liberal constitution, and, (p.  521)after offering the throne without avail to the Duke of Nemours, secondson of Louis Philippe of France, selected as king the German PrinceLeopold of Saxe-Coburg, who, under the title of Leopold I. , wascrowned July 21 of the same year. *573. The Independence of Belgium. *--These proceedings involved theoverturning of an arrangement which the Allies in 1815 had consideredessential to the security of Europe. Several considerations, however, --among them the outbreak of insurrection in Poland, --inducedthe powers to acquiesce with unexpected readiness in the dissolutionof the loose-jointed monarchy. December 20, 1830, a conference of thefive principal powers at London formally pronounced in favor of apermanent separation, and when, in August, 1831, a Dutch army crossedthe frontier and inflicted upon the Belgians an overwhelming defeat, aFrench force compelled the invaders to surrender the fruits of theirvictory and to retire from the country. A treaty of separation wasdrawn up by the London conference under date of November 25, 1831, under whose terms there were recognized both the independence and theneutrality of the new Belgian monarchy. William of Holland protestedand flatly refused to sign the instrument. The British and Frenchgovernments compelled him outwardly to acquiesce in the agreement, although it was not until April 19, 1839, that he gave it his formalassent. Embittered by his losses and chagrined by the constitutionalamendments to which his own people compelled him to submit, heabdicated in 1840 in favor of his son. [719] [Footnote 719: On the constitutional aspects of Dutch-Belgian history in the period 1815-1840 see Cambridge Modern History, X. , Chap. 16 (bibliography, pp. 848-851); D. C. Boulger, History of Belgium, 2 vols. (London, 1909), I. ; Stern, Geschichte Europas, IV. , Chap. 2. General works of importance include J. B. Nothomb, Essai historique et politique sur la révolution belge, 3 vols. (4th ed. , Brussels, 1876); C. White, The Belgian Revolution, 2 vols. (London, 1835); C. V. De Bavay, Histoire de la révolution belge de 1830 (Brussels, 1873); L. Hymans, Histoire politique et parlementaire de la Belgique de 1814 à 1830 (Brussels, 1869); J. J. Thonissen, La Belgique sous le règne de Leopold Ier, 3 vols. (Louvain, 1861). ] *574. Constitutional Revision in Holland. *--After 1831 theconstitutional development of Holland and that of Belgium move inseparate channels. [720] In Holland the fundamental law of 1815 wasretained, but the modifications which have been introduced in it, notably in 1840, 1848, and 1887, have so altered its character as tohave made of it an essentially new instrument. The revision of 1840was forced upon the king by the Liberals, whose position wasstrengthened by the fiscal chaos into which the nation had fallen (p.  522)under the previous autocratic régime. The reformers got very much lessthan they demanded. Instead of the ministerial responsibility and thepublic control of the finances for which they asked they procured onlyan arrangement to the effect that the budget should be submitted tothe States-General every two years and the colonial balance sheetyearly, together with certain changes of detail, including acurtailment of the civil list and a reduction of the membership of theStates-General in consequence of the loss of Belgium. Yet thesereforms were well worth while. [Footnote 720: For that of Belgium see p. 534. ] During the reign of William II. (1840-1849) the demand forconstitutional revision was incessant. The king was profuse inpromises, but vacillating. In 1844, and again in 1845, a specificprogramme of revision failed of adoption. By 1848, however, economicdistress and popular discontent had become so pronounced that thesovereign was forced to act. The overthrow of Louis Philippe at Paris, too, was not without effect. March 17 the king named a statecommission of five members which was authorized to draft a revision ofthe constitution, and the resulting instrument, after being adopted inan extraordinary session of the States-General, was promulgatedNovember 3. The revision of 1848 introduced into the Dutchconstitutional system many fundamental changes. Instead of beingappointed by the crown, members of the upper branch of theStates-General were thereafter to be elected by the provincialestates; and in the choice of members of the lower house, directpopular elections were substituted for indirect. The ministers of theking were made responsible to the States-General, and the powers ofthe legislative body were otherwise increased through the extension ofits authority over colonial affairs, provision for a regular annualbudget, and, most of all, recognition of the right to initiate and toamend projects of legislation. Constitutional government in Hollandmay be said virtually to have had its beginning in 1848. *575. The Constitution To-day. *--Through several decades following theaccession of William III. , in 1849, the political history of Hollandcomprises largely a story of party strife, accentuated by the effortsof the various political groups--especially the Liberals, theConservatives, and the Catholics--to apply in practice theparliamentary system. [721] The death of Prince Alexander, June 21, 1884, occasioned a constitutional amendment to provide for theaccession of a female sovereign and the establishment of a regency, and three years later a parliamentary deadlock compelled the king toauthorize a general revision of the fundamental law whereby the (p.  523)number of citizens in possession of the franchise was more thantripled. The constitution of Holland at the present day is the amendedinstrument of November 6, 1887. It comprises more than two hundredarticles, being, indeed, one of the lengthiest documents of its kindin existence. Like most European constitutions, it may be amended bythe ordinary legislative organs, though under specially prescribedconditions. The first step in the amending process consists in theadoption by the legislative chambers of a resolution affirming thatthere is sufficient reason for taking under consideration theamendment or amendments in hand. Following the promulgation of thisresolution the chambers are required to be dissolved. The newlyelected houses then take up the project for final disposition, and ifby a two-thirds vote they adopt it, and if the sovereign assents, itgoes into operation. [722] [Footnote 721: Cambridge Modern History, XI. , Chap. 23. ] [Footnote 722: Arts. 194-197. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 118. The text of the constitution, in English translation, is printed in Dodd, II. , 80-119. An excellent annotated edition of the instrument, in Dutch, is G. L. Van den Helm, De Grondwet voor het koningrijk der Nederlanden (The Hague, 1889). An elaborate commentary is contained in J. T. Buijs, De Grondwet, 3 vols. (Arnheim, 1883-1888). One of the best expositions of the Dutch constitutional system is L. De Hartog, Das Staatsrecht des Königreichs der Niederlande (Freiburg, 1886), in Marquardsen's Handbuch, though this work antedates the amendments of 1887. More recent is J. Van Hamel, Staats-und Verwaltungsrecht des Königreichs der Niederlande (Hanover, 1910). ] II. THE CROWN AND THE MINISTRY *576. Status of the Sovereign. *--The government of Holland[723] is inform a constitutional, hereditary monarchy. Until 1884 the royalsuccession was vested exclusively in the direct male line of the houseof Orange-Nassau in the order of primogeniture. The death, however, inthe year mentioned, of the sole surviving male heir occasioned, as hasbeen stated, an amendment of the constitution authorizing the successionof a female heir, in default of a male; and, upon the death of WilliamIII. , November 23, 1890, the throne accordingly passed to his onlydaughter, the present Queen Wilhelmina. [724] In default of a legalheir, the successor to the throne is to be designated by a law presentedby the crown and acted upon by a joint meeting of the legislativechambers, each house containing for this purpose double its usual (p.  524)number of members. In the event of the minority or the incapacity ofthe sovereign a regency is established, and the regent is named by lawenacted by the States-General in joint session. [725] [Footnote 723: The official title is "The Kingdom of the Netherlands. " In ordinary usage, however, the term "Holland" is more commonly employed. ] [Footnote 724: Wilhelmina was at the time but ten years of age. Until she attained her majority, August 31, 1898, a regency was exercised by the Queen-Dowager Emma. E. Lemonon, La succession au trône néerlandais, in _Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, December 1, 1908. ] [Footnote 725: Arts. 20-21. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 84. ] The sovereign, at accession, is installed in a public joint meeting ofthe two chambers in the city of Amsterdam, and is required to takeoath always "to observe and maintain the constitution;" whereupon themembers of the chambers solemnly pledge themselves "to do everythingthat a good and loyal States-General ought to do. " The person of themonarch is declared inviolable. For the maintenance of the royalestablishment the constitution stipulates that, in addition to therevenue from the crown lands, the sovereign shall be entitled to ayearly income, to be paid out of the national treasury, together withsummer and winter residences, the maximum public expenditure uponwhich, however, is restricted to 50, 000 florins a year. At eachaccession the amount of the annual stipend is fixed by law for theentire reign. William II. 's civil list was 1, 000, 000 guilders, but atthe accession of William III. In 1849 the amount was reduced to600, 000, where it has remained to the present day. The family ofOrange is possessed of a large private fortune, most of which wasaccumulated by William I. From a variety of commercial and industrialventures. The Prince of Orange, as heir apparent, is accorded by thestate an annual income of 100, 000 florins, which is increased to200, 000 upon his contracting a marriage authorized by law. *577. The Ministry. *--Associated with the sovereign is a Council ofState, consisting of the Prince of Orange (when above eighteen yearsof age) and of a variable number of members appointed by the crown. The number of members is at present fourteen. By the terms of theconstitution the sovereign is required to submit for discussion in theCouncil of State all matters to be presented to the States-General, and all general administrative questions of the kingdom and of itscolonies and possessions throughout the world. [726] Besides thisadvisory Council of State there is a Council of Ministers, comprisingthe heads of nine executive departments established by the sovereign. Nominally the ministers are appointed and dismissed by the crown atwill, but actually the parliamentary system has acquired sufficientfoothold to impose upon the sovereign a considerable measure ofrestriction at this point. All decrees and orders must becountersigned by the head of one of the ministerial departments; andit is expressly stipulated that responsibility for all royal actsshall lie with the ministers. [727] The heads of ministerial (p.  525)departments are privileged to occupy seats in both branches of theStates-General, but unless elected regularly as members they possessonly a deliberative voice in the proceedings of the chamber in whichthey sit. [728] [Footnote 726: Art. 75. Ibid. , II. , 94. ] [Footnote 727: Art. 54. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 90. ] [Footnote 728: Art. 94. Ibid. , II. , 99. ] *578. The Exercise of Executive Powers. *--Despite the liberalizingtendencies which underlie Dutch constitutional history since 1815, thepowers of the crown are still enormous. Executive authority is vestedsolely in the sovereign and the ministers, and there are not a fewacts of importance which the sovereign may perform quiteindependently. The sovereign exercises supreme control over foreignrelations, declares war, concludes and ratifies treaties, [729] conferstitles of nobility, appoints to public offices, coins money, grantspardons in cases of penalties imposed by judicial sentence, maintainssupreme control over the land and naval forces, settles certain typesof disputes arising between provinces, or between provinces andcommunes or corporations, issues general administrative regulations, recommends projects of law to the States-General, and approves orrejects all measures adopted by that body. The sovereign is, however, in no sense above the law. Many things may not be done at all, saveunder the authority of a regularly enacted piece of legislation. Dispensations from legal provisions, for example, may be granted bythe crown only under the authority of law. In still other respects thesweeping grants of power contained within the constitution aretempered by counter-balancing stipulations. Thus, the sovereign hasthe right to coin money; but it is also prescribed that "the monetarysystem shall be regulated by law. "[730] And the crown has "supremecontrol of the colonies and possessions of the kingdom in other partsof the world;" but "the regulations for the conduct of the governmentin the colonies and possessions shall be established by law. "[731] [Footnote 729: Save that treaties which provide for modifications of the boundaries of the state, or impose a public pecuniary obligation, or contain any other provision touching legal rights, may not be approved by the crown until after sanction shall have been accorded by the States-General, unless the power has been reserved to the crown by law to conclude such a treaty. Art. 59. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 91. ] [Footnote 730: Art. 61. Ibid. , II. , 91. ] [Footnote 731: Art. 61. Ibid. ] III. THE STATES-GENERAL AND POLITICAL PARTIES *579. The Chambers: Earlier Electoral Arrangements. *--Legislative powerwithin the kingdom is vested jointly in the sovereign and a States-General, or parliament, of two chambers. The upper chamber consists of (p.  526)fifty members elected in varying proportions by the "estates, " orrepresentative assemblies, of the eleven provinces. [732] The term ofoffice is nine years, and one-third of the members retire triennially. Male citizens who have attained the age of thirty, who are in fullcontrol of their property, and who have not been disqualified byjudicial sentence, are eligible to membership, provided either thatthey are among the heaviest payers of direct national taxes or thatthey hold, or have held, one or more principal public officesdesignated by law. [733] [Footnote 732: The provincial quotas are as follows: South Holland, 10; North Holland, 9; North Brabant and Gelderland, 6 each; Friesland, 4; Overyssel, Groningen, and Limberg, 3 each; Zealand, Utrecht, and Drenthe, 2 each. Prior to the constitutional revision of 1848 members of the upper house were appointed by the king. ] [Footnote 733: Art. 90. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 98. ] The lower chamber consists of one hundred members elected directly bythe voters of the kingdom for a term of four years. Under the originalconstitution of 1815 members of the lower house were chosen by theprovincial estates. Direct election was introduced by theconstitutional revision of 1848. During several decades the franchise, based upon taxpaying qualifications, was narrowly restricted. After1870 the Liberals carried on a persistent campaign in behalf of abroader electorate, and by a constitutional amendment of 1887 thefranchise was extended to all males twenty-three years of age andover, who are householders paying a minimum house-duty, lodgers whofor a time have paid a minimum rent, or who are possessed of "signs offitness and social well-being. " The provisions relating tohouseholders and lodgers alone increased the electorate at a strokefrom approximately 100, 000 to 300, 000. The precise meaning andapplication of the phrase "fitness and social well-being" were left tobe defined by law, and through upwards of a decade politicalcontroversy in Holland centered principally about this question. Thecoalition Catholic-Conservative ministry of 1888-1891 refused flatlyto sanction the enactment of any sort of law upon the subject. In 1893the Liberal Minister of the Interior, Tak van Poortvliet, broughtforward a project whereby it was proposed to put upon the qualifyingphrase an interpretation of well-nigh the broadest possible character. A man was to be regarded as fulfilling the educational requirement ifhe were able to write, and the social requirement if simply he werenot a recipient of public charity. By the adoption of this scheme thenumber of electors would have been raised to something like 800, 000, and Holland would have attained a reasonable approximation of manhoodsuffrage. The Moderate Liberals, the Conservatives, and most of theCatholics opposed the proposition, and the elections of 1894 (p.  527)proved the supporters of the van Poortvliet programme to be in theminority. The total strength of the "Takkians" in the new chamber was46, of whom 35 were Liberals; that of the "anti-Takkians" was 54, ofwhom 24 were Catholics. *580. The Electoral Law of 1896 and the Question of ElectoralReform. *--In the newly constituted ministry it fell to Samuel vanHouten, leader of a radical group that had opposed the van Poortvlietproject, to prepare an alternative measure. In the notable electorallaw of 1896 the compromise proposals of van Houten were definitelyaccepted, and they constitute the essential features of the electoralsystem at the present day. Under this arrangement the members of thelower chamber are elected in one hundred single-member districts bymale citizens of the age of twenty-five and over, who meet any one ofthe following qualifications: (1) payment of a direct tax of at leastone florin; (2) payment of a minimum rental as householders orlodgers; (3) proprietorship or rental of a vessel of at leasttwenty-four tons; (4) the earning of a wage or salary varying from 275to 550 florins a year; (5) investment of one hundred florins ingovernment bonds, or of fifty florins in a savings bank; and (6) thepassing of an examination required for entrance upon a public officeor upon a private employment. By the reform of 1896 the number ofvoters in the realm was increased to 700, 000. In 1905 there was created a royal commission of seven members to whichwas assigned the task of considering and reporting proposals relativeto proportional representation, the salaries of members, and otherquestions of constitutional revision. The Government, however, reserved to itself specifically the right to bring forward proposalsrelating to the actual extension of the franchise. The report of thiscommission, submitted late in 1907, recommended, among other things, the introduction of proportional representation and (by a vote of sixout of seven) the extension of the franchise to women. Thesesuggestions failed of adoption, but late in 1910 a new commission wasappointed, under the presidency of the Conservative premier Heemskerk, and to this body was given power to propose changes in any portionwhatsoever of the governmental order. The successful operation ofproportional representation in adjoining countries, especially Belgiumand Sweden, renders it probable that the system will be adoptedultimately in Holland. The future of woman's suffrage is moreproblematical. Women already possess the right to vote in theproceedings of the dike associations if they are taxpayers or if theyown property adjoining the dikes, and in June, 1908, the LutheranSynod gave women the right to vote in ecclesiastical affairs on a (p.  528)footing with men. Since 1894 there has been a National Woman'sSuffrage Society, to which was added, in 1906, a Woman's SuffrageLeague; and women are freely admitted to membership in the politicalclubs maintained by the adherents of the various parties. Any male citizen who has attained his thirtieth year, who is in fullpossession of property, and who has not been disqualified by judicialsentence, is eligible to a seat in the popular chamber. Byconstitutional provision, members are allowed, in addition totravelling expenses, a salary of 2, 000 florins a year; and, under lawof May 4, 1889, members of the upper house who do not live in theplace of meeting receive a _per diem_ of ten florins during thecontinuance of each session. *581. The States-General: Organization and Powers. *--The constitutionrequires that the States-General shall assemble at least once eachyear and that its regular annual session shall be opened on the thirdTuesday in September. The sovereign may convoke an extraordinarysession at any time; but regular sessions are not dependent upon theroyal summons. The crown possesses the right to dissolve the houses, separately or simultaneously; but a decree of dissolution must containan order for the election of the new house, or houses, within fourteendays, and for the assembling of the houses within two months. [734]Except in the event of a dissolution, a regular session is required toextend through at least twenty days; but upon the expiration of thetwenty-day period the sovereign may terminate the sitting whenever inhis judgment "the interests of the state no longer require itscontinuance. "[735] The president of the upper house is appointed bythe crown from among the members for the period of one session. Thecorresponding officer of the lower house is similarly appointed from alist of three members submitted by the chamber. Each house appoints, from non-members, its clerk and such other officials as may berequired; each examines the credentials of its newly elected membersand renders final verdict upon their validity; and each regulates thedetails of its own procedure. Except when one-tenth of the members ofa chamber request the closing of the doors, or the president deemssuch a step necessary, sessions are public. Neither house may takeaction upon any matter unless at least half of its members arepresent, and final action upon all propositions is taken by anabsolute majority of the members present. A portion of the business ofthe States-General is transacted in joint sessions of the two houses. In joint session the two are regarded as one chamber, under thepresidency of the president of the upper house. For the changing (p.  529)of the order of royal succession or the appointment of an heir to thethrone, the constitution requires that the membership of each chamberbe doubled. In such an event there is added to the regular members ofeach house an equal number of extraordinary members, elected in thesame manner as the regular members. [736] [Footnote 734: Art. 73. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 94. ] [Footnote 735: Art. 103. Ibid. , II. , 100. ] [Footnote 736: Art. 83. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 96. ] In the proceedings of the States-General the lower chamber enjoys adistinct preponderance. The upper chamber, indeed, is commonlyregarded as constitutionally the weakest body of its kind in Europe. It possesses neither the power to initiate legislation, general orfinancial, nor power to amend projects of law. Any measure which comesbefore it must be accepted or rejected as it stands. Bills may beoriginated either by the Government or by members of the lowerchamber, and it is required that the sovereign shall send allrecommendations, whether pertaining to laws or to other matters, tothe lower house, in a written message or by committee. [737] Theprojects of the general financial laws must be presented annually tothe lower house in the name of the crown, immediately after theopening of the regular session. No taxes may be levied save by law. Inaddition to its powers of a purely legislative character, theStates-General is authorized to investigate, either as separatechambers or in joint session, the executive conduct of publicaffairs. [738] Under stipulated conditions, the States-General, by atwo-thirds vote, and with the assent of the crown, may amend theconstitution. [739] [Footnote 737: Art. 110. Ibid. , II. , 101. ] [Footnote 738: Art. 95. Ibid. , II. , 99. ] [Footnote 739: See p. 523. ] *582. Political Parties: Election of 1903. *--Since the middle of thenineteenth century political preponderance has alternated irregularlybetween two principal party groups. One of these is the Liberals, representative especially of the commercial towns, and falling intothe two general categories of Moderates and Progressives. The other isthe Conservatives, consisting largely of orthodox Protestants, especially the Calvinistic peasantry, and supported, as a rule, by theCatholics. In more recent times the Socialists have made theirappearance as a distinct political element, but thus far they havecast in their lot regularly with the Liberals. Between 1871 and 1888the Liberals were in power continuously; and, after a brief intervalcovered by a Conservative-Catholic ministry, they regained control andkept it throughout the decade 1891-1901. In 1901 a coalition ministrywas created, under the premiership of the Conservative Dr. Kuyper. This lasted until 1903. In the spring of the year mentioned the lower house rejected an (p.  530)important measure relating to higher education upon whose enactmentthe Kuyper ministry was determined. The Chamber was dissolved and inJune elections were held. Prior to the elections the Chamber contained58 Ministerialists and 42 anti-Ministerialists (Liberals andSocialists). The opposition elements were far from united. TheSocialists insisted upon an immediate amendment of the constitution toprovide for universal suffrage; the Progressive Liberals favored onlythe eventual adoption of such an amendment; the Moderate Liberals wereopposed to it altogether. None the less, the result of the electionswas to terminate the Conservative majority and to replace it by aslender but indubitable Liberal majority of four. The Conservativescarried 48 seats; the Liberals 45; and the Socialists 7. The Kuyperministry forthwith resigned. *583. The Political Situation Since 1909. *--The period from June, 1905, to December, 1907, was covered by the two successive Liberalministries of Borgesius and De Meester. Each was essentiallycolorless. Efforts to bring about an extension of the suffrage failed, and during 1907 the Liberal majority virtually disappeared. The upshotwas that, February 8, 1908, there was created a new ministry, underDr. Heemskerk, whose members were drawn from the Conservatives. At thegeneral election of June 11, 1909, the Conservatives recoveredsupremacy completely. Following the grouping which prevails at thepresent day, the results of this election were as follows: (1)Anti-Revolutionaries (largely rural Calvinists), 23 members; (2)Historic Christians, 12; (3) Roman Catholics, 25--a total Conservativequota of 60; (4) Free Liberals, 4; Union Liberals, 21; LiberalDemocrats, 8; Socialists, 7--a total Liberal contingent of 40. Furthermore, while the Conservatives were compactly organized, theLiberals were divided hopelessly among themselves and quite unable tooffer substantial resistance to their opponents. With a majority of 20in the lower chamber and of 19 in the upper, with a popular vote inexcess by 80, 000 of that of the Liberals, and with a ministry inoffice which, if not brilliant, was at least popular, theConservatives came off from the campaign in a position to maintainthrough an extended period, so far as may be foreseen, their controlof public affairs. Quite the contrary of the contemporary situation inBelgium, the rifts which separate the various Liberal groups tend inHolland to deepen, and the political impotence of Liberalismconsequently to be accentuated. [740] [Footnote 740: On Dutch political parties see P. Verschave, La Hollande politique; le rôle des catholiques néerlandais depuis dix ans, in _Le Correspondant_, April 10, 1908; Les élections générales et la situation politique aux pays-bas: l'organisation de la campagne électorale, ibid. , Nov. 25, 1909; and La Hollande politique; un parti catholique en pays protestant (Paris, 1910). ] IV. THE JUDICIARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (p.  531) *584. Judicial Principles. *--The constitution guarantees variousfundamental personal rights, including those of petition, assembly, free speech, and equality before the law in all matters pertaining tothe protection of person and property. It likewise undertakes toguarantee the individual against partiality and arbitrariness in theadministration of justice. Except in unusual cases, prescribed by law, no one may be taken into custody except upon a warrant issued by ajudge, stating specifically the reason for arrest. No one may beremoved against his will from the jurisdiction of the tribunal inwhich he has a right to be tried. General confiscation of the propertyof a person adjudged guilty may not be imposed as a penalty for anyoffense. Save in exceptional cases, specified by law, or when in theopinion of the judge public order and morals forbid, the sessions ofall courts are required to be public. Judgments must be pronounced inpublic session. They must be accompanied by a statement of theconsiderations upon which they are based, and, in criminal cases, by acitation of the specific provisions of law upon which the sentence isfounded. [741] [Footnote 741: Arts. 149-161. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 110-112. ] *585. The Courts. *--Justice is administered throughout the kingdom inthe name of the crown, and all judicial officers are appointed by thecrown. Within the constitution provision is made only for a supremetribunal known as the High Court (_Hooge Raad_) of the Netherlands, sitting at The Hague. Minor courts exist by virtue of ordinary law. The judges of the High Court, five in number, are appointed by thecrown from lists prepared by the lower house of the States-General. The junctions of the High Court are of large importance. On appealfrom inferior tribunals it may annul any judicial proceeding, decree, or judgment held by it to be unwarranted by law. It is charged withthe duty of seeing that suits are properly tried and decided, and thatjudicial officials comply with the laws. Inferior judges are appointednormally for life, but under conditions prescribed by law they may bedismissed or relieved of their duties by decision of the High Court. Finally, the High Court constitutes a tribunal before which, uponcharges brought by either the sovereign or the lower chamber, membersof the States-General, heads of the ministerial departments, governors-general, members of the Council of State, and commissionersof the crown in the provinces, may be prosecuted upon charge ofoffenses committed in office. Such prosecution may be instituted (p.  532)either during an official's tenure of office or after his retirement. [742] [Footnote 742: Arts. 162-166. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 112-113. ] Of inferior tribunals there are three grades. At the bottom are thecantonal courts, 106 in number, consisting each of a single judge andtaking cognizance of claims under 200 guilders, breaches of policeregulations, and other cases of a minor nature. Next are the districtcourts, 23 in number, each consisting of three judges and exercisingwithin the _arrondissement_ jurisdiction in matters of more weight. Still above the district tribunals are five courts of appeal, eachcomprising a body of three judges. Trial by jury is unknown inHolland. *586. Local Government: the Province. *--The constitution of theNetherlands is somewhat peculiar in that it prescribes at length notmerely the form and character of the national government, but also thearrangements that shall prevail respecting the governments of theprovinces and the communes throughout the kingdom. Of provinces thereare eleven; of communes, 1, 123. The importance of the province isenhanced by the fact that the nation has sprung from a pureconfederation, the original autonomy of the federated provinces havingnever been wholly obliterated under the present centralized régime. Each province has its own representative body, or "provincialestates, " a unicameral assembly whose members are chosen directly forsix years by all inhabitants of the province who are entitled to votefor members of the lower house of the States-General. Half of themembers retire every three years. The number of members varies, according to the population of the province, from eighty in SouthHolland to thirty-five in Drenthe. The assembly meets at least twice ayear. Its powers are extensive, although it can perform no legislativeact without the assent of the crown. It enacts ordinances, leviestaxes, prepares and submits to the sovereign an annual budget, controls in certain respects the municipalities, and elects thosemembers of the upper branch of the States-General to which theindividual province is entitled. For the exercise of executive authority within the province there aretwo agencies. The provincial assembly appoints from its own members acommittee of six, known as the "deputed states, " to which, inaccordance with conditions fixed by law, the daily administration ofaffairs is intrusted. Furthermore the sovereign appoints andestablishes in each province a commissioner who is charged with theexecution of royal orders and with a general supervision of the actsof the local authorities. This royal commissioner presides over thedeliberations of both the provincial estates and the committee of six, possessing in the committee the power also of voting. He is (p.  533)distinctly the chief magistrate of the province, and at the same timethe effective tie between the central and the provincialgovernments. [743] [Footnote 743: Arts. 127-141. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 105-108. ] *587. Local Government: the Commune. *--In all essential respects thegovernment of the Dutch communes is prescribed by the nationalconstitution, with the result that that government is characterized byuniformity no less thoroughgoing than is the communal government ofFrance. Within each commune is a council of from seven to forty-fivemembers elected directly by the people of the commune for a term ofsix years under franchise arrangements identical with those obtainingin the election of members of the provincial estates, save that noone, although otherwise qualified to vote for communal councillors, may exercise the privilege unless he contributes a minimum amountyearly to the communal rates. One-third of the members of the councilretire every two years. The council meets publicly as frequently asbusiness requires. It enacts by-laws, levies taxes, superviseseducation, and represents the interests of the commune, if occasionarises, before the sovereign, the States-General, and the provincialestates. All of its legislative acts are liable to veto by the crown, and the municipal budget requires regularly the approval of thecommittee of the provincial estates. Executive authority within thecommune is vested in a burgomaster, or mayor, appointed by thesovereign for a term of six years, and a board of two to six_wethouders_, or aldermen, elected by and from the council. Theburgomaster presides in the council and, as a representative of theroyal authority, may suspend for a period of thirty days any measureenacted. [744] [Footnote 744: Arts. 142-148. Ibid. , II. , 108-110. ] CHAPTER XXIX (p.  534) THE GOVERNMENT OF BELGIUM I. THE CONSTITUTION--THE CROWN AND THE MINISTRY *588. The Constitution: Liberalism and Stability. *--The constitution ofthe kingdom of Belgium was framed, consequent upon the declaration ofBelgian independence October 4, 1830, by a national congress of twohundred elected delegates. It was promulgated February 7, 1831, andJuly 21 of the same year the first independent Belgian sovereign, Leopold I. , took oath to observe and maintain it. Circumstancesconspired to give the instrument a pronouncedly liberal character. Devised in the midst of a revolution brought on principally by theautocratic rule of King William I. , it is, and was intended to be, uncommonly explicit in its definition of the royal prerogative. Therewere Belgians in 1831, indeed, who advocated the establishment of arepublic. Against such a course various considerations were urged, andwith effect; but the monarchy which was set up, owing clearly itsexistence to popular suffrage, is of the strictly limited, constitutional type. "All powers, " it is asserted in the fundamentallaw, "emanate from the people. "[745] The principles of liberalism arethe more in evidence by reason of the fact that the framers of theconstitution deliberately accepted as models the French instruments of1791 and 1830 and were likewise influenced profoundly by theiradmiration for the constitutional system of Great Britain. [Footnote 745: Art. 25. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 130. ] A striking testimony to the thoroughness with which the work was done, and to the advanced character of the governmental system established, is the fact that the text of the Belgian fundamental law enduredthrough more than half a century absolutely unchanged, and, further, that when in our own generation the task of amendment was undertakennot even the most ardent revisionists cared to insist upon more thanthe overhauling of the arrangements respecting the franchise. LeopoldI. (1831-1865), and Leopold II. After him (1865-1909), franklyrecognized the conditional basis of the royal tenure and, althoughconspicuously active in the management of public affairs, afforded (p.  535)by their conduct slight occasion for popular criticism or disaffection. Even the revolutionary year 1848 passed without producing in Belgiummore than a mere ripple of unrest. In 1893 the constitution wasamended to provide for universal male suffrage, and in 1899 a furtheramendment instituted a system of proportional representation. Otherwise, the instrument stands to-day virtually as it was put intooperation in 1831. It need hardly be remarked that, in Belgium aselsewhere, the written constitution does not by any means contain thewhole of the actually operative political system. Numerous aspects ofparliamentarism, and of other well-established governmental forms andpractices, depend for their sanction upon the conventions, rather thanupon the law, of the constitution; but they are none the less real andenduring. *589. Content and Amendment. *--The written constitution of Belgium, likethat of Holland, is comprehensive in scope. It comprises an extendedbill of rights; a detailed definition of the framework of the nationalexecutive, legislative, and judicial departments; special provisionsrelating to finance and the army; and an enumeration of the principlesunderlying the provincial and communal administration. It contains atotal of 139 articles, of which eight, being temporary in character, are inoperative. The process of amendment is identical with that whichprevails in Holland. Upon declaration by the legislative chambers tothe effect that a specified amendment is desirable, the chambers are_ipso facto_ dissolved. If the chambers thereupon elected approve theproposition by a two-thirds vote, and the sovereign accords it hissanction, it is declared adopted. [746] [Footnote 746: Art. 131. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 146. The text of the constitution of Belgium, in English translation, is printed in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 126-148, and in the _Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science_, May, 1896, Supplement (translation by J. M. Vincent). French texts of the constitution and of important laws will be found in F. Larcier, Code politique et administratif de la Belgique (2d ed. , Brussels, 1893). The standard commentary is J. J. Thonissen, La constitution belge (3d ed. , Brussels, 1879). Works of value relating to the amendments of 1893-1894 are C. Thiebault et A. Henry, Commentaire législatif des articles révisés de la constitution belge (Brussels, 1894), and Beltjens, La constitution belge révisée (Liège, 1895). The best treatises on the Belgian constitutional system are P. Errera, Das Staatsrecht des Königreichs Belgien (Tübingen, 1909), and Traité de droit public belge: droit constitutionnel, droit administratif (Paris, 1908), and O. Orban, Le droit constitutionnel de la Belgique, 3 vols. (Liège, 1906-1911). An older but excellent work is A. Giron, La droit public de la Belgique (Brussels, 1884). A convenient elementary book on the subject is F. Masson et C. Wiliquet, Manuel de droit constitutionnel (7th ed. , Brussels, 1904). A useful volume is E. Flandin, Institutions politiques de l'Europe contemporaine (2d ed. , Paris, 1907), I. ] *590. The Crown. *--Kingship in Belgium is hereditary in the (p.  536)direct male line in the order of primogeniture. In default of maledescendants, the king, with the consent of the legislative chambers, may name his successor. [747] A king or heir to the throne attains hismajority at the age of eighteen. In the event of a minority, or of theincapacity of the sovereign, the two houses are required to meet in asingle assembly for the purpose of making provision for a regency. Thepowers of regent may not be conferred upon two or more personsjointly, and during the continuance of a regency no changes may bemade in the constitution. [748] If by chance the throne should fallwholly vacant, the choice of a sovereign would devolve upon thelegislative chambers, specially re-elected for the purpose, anddeliberating in joint session. The civil list of the crown is fixed atthe beginning of a reign. That of Leopold II. , as established by lawof December 25, 1865, was 3, 300, 000 francs, and that of the presentsovereign, Albert I. , is the same. [Footnote 747: This privilege was conferred by an amendment (Art. 61) adopted September 7, 1893. ] [Footnote 748: Arts. 60, 79-85. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 136, 138-139. ] *591. The Ministers and the Parliamentary System. *--The Council ofMinisters consists of ten heads of executive departments. These, together with a variable number of ministers without portfolio, comprise the Council of State, an advisory body convened by the crownas occasion requires. All ministers are appointed, directly orindirectly, and all may be dismissed, by the king. All must be Belgiancitizens, and no member of the royal family may be tendered anappointment. Ministers are all but invariably members of one or theother of the legislative houses, principally of the House ofRepresentatives. [749] Whether members or not, they are privileged toattend all sessions and to be heard at their own request. The houses, indeed, possess the right to demand their attendance. But no ministermay vote, save in a house of which he is a member. [750] [Footnote 749: The minister of war, regularly an active military official, has been usually not a legislative member. Aside from this one post, however, the custom of selecting ministers exclusively from the chambers has been followed almost as rigorously in Belgium as in Great Britain. And so largely are the ministers taken from the lower house that the Senate not infrequently has no representative at all in the cabinet. ] [Footnote 750: Arts. 86-91. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 139-140. ] Belgium is one of the few continental states in which the parliamentarysystem is thoroughly operative. At no point is the constitution moreexplicit than in its stipulation of the responsibility of ministers. Not only is it declared that the king's ministers are responsible; itis stipulated that "no decree of the king shall take effect unless itis countersigned by a minister, who, by that act alone, renders himselfresponsible for it"; also that "in no case shall the verbal or (p.  537)written order of the king relieve a minister of responsibility. "[751]The House of Representatives is vested with the right to accuseministers and to arraign them before the Court of Cassation; and theking may not pardon a minister who has been sentenced by thistribunal, save upon request of one of the two legislative chambers. Aministry which finds that it cannot command the support of a majorityin the House of Representatives has the right to determine upon thedissolution of either of the houses, or of both. If after a generalelection there is still lack of harmony, the ministry, as would be theprocedure in a similar situation in Great Britain, retires fromoffice, the sovereign calls upon an opposition party leader to assumethe premiership and to form a cabinet, and the remainder of theministers are selected from the dominant parties by this official, inconsultation with the king. By reason of the multiplicity of partygroups in Belgium, the king is apt to be allowed somewhat widerlatitude in the choice of a premier than is possible in GreatBritain. [752] [Footnote 751: Arts. 63-64, 89. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 137, 140. ] [Footnote 752: Dupriez, Les Ministres, I. , 210-230; O. Kerchove de Denterghem, De la responsabilité des ministres dans le droit public belge (Paris, 1867). ] *592. The Exercise of Executive Powers. *--The powers of the executive, exercised nominally by the king, but actually by the ministry, areclosely defined in the constitution; and there is the stipulation, unusual in European constitutions, that the king shall possess nopowers other than those which the constitution, and the special lawsenacted under the constitution, confer explicitly upon him. [753] Underthe conditions that have been explained, the king appoints allofficials who are attached to the general administrative and foreignservices, but other officials only in so far as is expresslyauthorized by law. He commands the forces by land and sea, declareswar, and concludes peace. He negotiates treaties, with the limitationthat treaties of commerce and treaties which impose a burden upon thestate, or place under obligation individual Belgian citizens, takeeffect only after receiving the approval of the two houses; and withthe further condition that no cession, exchange, or acquisition ofterritory may be carried through save by warrant of a law. The kingpromulgates all legislative measures, and he is authorized to issueall regulations and decrees necessary for the execution of the laws. In theory he possesses the power of the veto, but in the Belgian, asin parliamentary governments generally, there is no occasion for theactual exercise of this power. The king convokes, prorogues, anddissolves the chambers; though the provisions of the constitution (p.  538)relating to the legislative sessions are so explicit that the crown isleft small discretion in the matter. The king, finally, is authorizedto remit or to reduce the penalties imposed by the tribunals ofjustice, to coin money, to confer titles of nobility (which must bepurely honorary), and to bestow military orders in accordance withprovisions of law. [754] [Footnote 753: Art. 78. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 138. ] [Footnote 754: Arts. 66-67. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 137-138. ] II. THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT--THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM *593. The Senate. *--The Belgian parliament consists of two houses, bothelective and both representative of the nation as a whole. The upperhouse, or Senate, is composed of 112 members, chosen for a term ofeight years. With respect to the method of their election, the membersfall into two categories. Under constitutional provision, as amendedby law of September 7, 1893, a number of senators equal to one-halfthe number of members of the House of Representatives is electeddirectly by the voters, in proportion to the population of the severalprovinces. The electorate which returns these senators is identicalwith that which returns the deputies, and by law of December 29, 1899, the principle of proportional representation, as applied in electionsof the lower chamber, is applied to senatorial elections within eachprovince. A second group of members consists of those elected by theprovincial councils, to the number of two for each province havingfewer than 500, 000 inhabitants, of three for each province having from500, 000 to 1, 000, 000 inhabitants, and of four for each province havingmore than 1, 000, 000 inhabitants. The proportion of senators electeddirectly by the people is approximately three-fourths, being atpresent 76 to 26. Prior to the amendment of 1893 all members of theSenate were chosen by the same electorate which chose the members ofthe lower chamber. Inasmuch as only payers of direct taxes to theamount of 2, 000 francs a year were eligible as senators, the upperhouse represented almost exclusively the interests of wealth. Byvesting in the provincial councils the choice of a portion of thesenators, who should be eligible regardless of taxpayingqualifications, it was hoped to impart to the Senate a more broadlyrepresentative character. At the same time the tax qualification forpopularly elected members was reduced by a third. It may be noted thatthere is a possibility of a small non-elective element in the Senate. According to the terms of the constitution, the sons of the king, orif there be none, the Belgian princes of the branch of the royalfamily designated to succeed to the throne, shall be by right senatorsat the age of eighteen, though without deliberative vote until the (p.  539)age of twenty-five. [755] Prior to his accession to the throne, in1909, the present sovereign Albert I. , nephew and heir-presumptive ofLeopold II. , was entitled to a senatorial seat. There is at present norepresentative of royalty who is eligible. [Footnote 755: Art. 58. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 135. ] All elective senators must be Belgian citizens and Belgian residents, at least forty years of age, and in the unrestricted enjoyment ofcivil and political rights. Senators elected by the provincialcouncils are subject to no property qualifications, [756] but thoseelected directly by the people must be drawn from either payers of asmuch as 1, 200 francs of direct national taxes or proprietors orlessees of Belgian real estate of an assessed income of at least12, 000 francs. In provinces, however, where the number of eligiblepersons falls short of the proportion of one for every 5, 000inhabitants, the list is completed by the addition of such a number ofthe heaviest taxpayers of the province as may be necessary toestablish this proportion. [757] Save passes on the national railways, senators receive no salary or other emolument. [Footnote 756: They may not be, and may not have been within two years preceding their election, members of the assembly which returns them. ] [Footnote 757: Art. 56. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 135. ] *594. The House of Representatives: Earlier ElectoralArrangements. *--The lower legislative chamber consists of deputieselected directly by the voters of the kingdom. The number of seats isdetermined by law, under the general provision that it may not exceedthe proportion of one for 40, 000 inhabitants. Prior to 1899 it was152; to-day it is 186. The term is four years. Half of the membershipretires every two years, though in the event of a dissolution thehouse is entirely renewed. [758] The qualifications which theconstitution requires of deputies are those of citizenship, residencein Belgium, attainment of the age of twenty-five, and possession ofcivil and political rights. Deputies receive an honorarium of 4, 000francs a year, together with free transportation upon all State andconcessionary railways between the places of their respectiveresidences and Brussels, or any other city in which a session may beheld. [Footnote 758: This is true also of the Senate. ] The Belgian electoral system at the present day is noteworthy byreason of three facts: (1) it is based upon the principle of universalmanhood suffrage; (2) it embraces a scheme of plural voting; and (3)it provides for the proportional representation of parties. Under theoriginal constitution of 1831 the franchise, while not illiberal forthe time, was restricted by property qualifications of a somewhatsweeping character. Deputies were elected by those citizens only whopaid yearly a direct tax varying in amount, but in no instance of lessthan twenty florins. In 1848 there was enacted a series of (p.  540)electoral laws whereby the property qualification was reduced to auniform level of twenty florins and the number of voters was virtuallydoubled. With this arrangement the Liberals were by no meanssatisfied, and agitation in behalf of a broader electorate wassteadily maintained. As early as 1865 the Liberal demands wereactively re-enforced by those of organizations of workingmen, and in1870 the Catholic ministry found itself obliged to sanction aconsiderable extension of the franchise in elections within theprovinces and the communes. After 1880 the brunt of the electoralpropaganda was borne by the Socialists, and the campaign forconstitutional revision was directed almost solely against the 47tharticle of the fundamental law, in which was contained the originalstipulation respecting the franchise. Since 1830 the population ofBelgium had all but doubled, and there had been in the country anenormous increase of popular intelligence and of economic prosperity. That in a population of 6, 000, 000 (in 1890) there should be anelectorate of but 135, 000 was a sufficiently obvious anomaly. Thebroadly democratic system by which members of the French Chamber ofDeputies and of the German Reichstag were elected was proclaimed bythe revisionists to be the ideal which it was hoped to realize inBelgium. *595. The Electoral Reform Act of 1893. *--In 1890 the Catholic ministry, recognizing in part the justice of the demand, and preferring, ifthere were to be revision, to carry it through, rather than to incurthe risk of having it carried through by a radical cabinet, yielded tothe pressure and consented to the formal consideration of theelectoral question upon the floors of the two chambers. Three years ofintermittent, but animated, discussion ensued. At length, in May, 1892, the chambers were able to agree upon the primary propositionthat some sort of revision was necessary. Then came the dissolutionwhich is required by the constitution in such a case, followed by ageneral election. The newly chosen chambers, which for the purpose inhand comprised virtually a constituent convention, entered upon theirtask later in the same year. In both the Catholics maintained amajority, but by reason of the requirement of a two-thirds vote forthe adoption of a constitutional amendment, they were none the lessobliged to rely upon the Liberals for a certain amount of support. Inthe scheme of revision which was finally adopted all parties had somesubstantial share. No fewer than fourteen distinct programmes of reform were laid beforethe chambers. [759] The Conservatives, in general, desired theintroduction of a system based upon occupation combined with the (p.  541)payment of taxes; the majority of the Liberals sought to securespecial recognition for electors of approved capacity--in brief, aneducational qualification; the Radicals inside, and the Socialistsoutside, Parliament carried on a relentless propaganda in behalf ofuniversal, direct, and equal suffrage. The rejection in committee(April, 1893) of a plan of universal suffrage occasioned populardemonstrations which required the calling out of the military, andwhen it was proposed to stop with a reduction of the age limit forvoters there were threats of a universal industrial strike. In the endall elements wisely receded from their extreme demands and it wasfound possible to effect agreement upon a compromise. A Catholicdeputy--Albert Nyssens, professor at the University of Louvain--cameforward with a scheme for manhood suffrage, safeguarded by the pluralvote, and September 3, 1893, the plan was adopted. [760] [Footnote 759: It will be remembered that for the purpose of considering constitutional amendments the chambers meet in joint session. ] [Footnote 760: The Nyssens scheme was brought to the attention of the Belgian people through the medium of a pamphlet entitled "Le suffrage universel tempéré. "] *596. The Franchise To-day. *--By the terms of the law of 1893, one voteis allotted to every male Belgian citizen who has attained the age oftwenty-five years, who is in unrestricted enjoyment of his civil andpolitical rights, and who has been resident at least one year in agiven commune. There is nothing whatsoever in the nature of either aneducational or a property qualification. Having conferred, however, upon the mass of male citizens the right to vote, the law proceeds todefine the conditions under which a citizen may be entitled to twovotes, or even three. One supplementary vote is conferred upon (1)every male citizen over thirty-five years of age, married or awidower, with legitimate offspring, and paying to the state as ahouseholder a tax of not less than five francs, unless exempt byreason of his profession, and (2) every male citizen over twenty-fiveyears of age owning real estate to the assessed value of 2, 000 francs, or possessing income from land corresponding to such valuation, or whofor two years has derived a minimum interest return of one hundredfrancs a year from Belgian funds, in the form of either governmentbonds or obligations of the Belgian government savings-bank. Twosupplementary votes are conferred upon citizens over twenty-five yearsof age who (1) hold a diploma from an institution of higher learning, or an indorsed certificate testifying to the completion of a course ofsecondary education of the higher grade; or (2) occupy or haveoccupied a public office, hold or have held a position, practice orhave practiced a profession, which presupposes the knowledge impartedin secondary instruction of the higher grade--such offices, (p.  542)positions, and professions to be defined from time to time by law. [761] [Footnote 761: Art. 47. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 132-133. ] What, therefore, the law of 1893 does is, broadly, to confer uponevery male citizen one vote and to specify three principal conditionsunder which this basal voting power may be augmented. As the head of afamily, the citizen's suffrage may be doubled. By reason of hispossession of property or of capital, it likewise may be doubled. Onthe basis of a not unattainable educational qualification, it may betripled. Under no circumstances may an individual be entitled to morethan three votes. The plural vote of Belgium differs, therefore, fromthat of Great Britain, not only in that it is based upon a variety ofqualifications of which property ownership is but one, but also inthat there is fixed an absolute and reasonably low maximum of votes. It is of interest further to observe that voting is declared by theBelgian constitution to be obligatory. Failure to appear at the polls, without adequate excuse made to the election officer, is amisdemeanor, punishable by law. The citizen may, if he likes, evadethe law by depositing a blank ballot. But he must deposit a ballot ofsome sort. [762] [Footnote 762: On the earlier aspects of Belgian electoral reform see J. Van den Heuvel, De la révision de la constitution (Brussels, 1892); L. Arnaud, La révision belge, 1890-1893 (Paris and Brussels, 1894); La réforme électorale en Belgique, in _Annales de l'École Libre des Sciences Politiques_, July, 1894; E. Van der Smissen, L'État actuel des partis politiques en Belgique, ibid. , Sept. , 1898. An important work by a leading socialist and a deputy from Brussels is L. Bertrand, Histoire de la démocratie et du socialisme en Belgique depuis 1830, 2 vols. (Brussels and Paris, 1906-1907). Mention may be made also of E. Vandervelde et J. Destree, Le socialisme en Belgique (2d ed. , Paris, 1903) and the older work of E. De Laveleye, Le parti clérical en Belgique (Brussels, 1874). A careful study is J. Barthélemy, L'organisation du suffrage et l'expérience belge (Paris, 1912). In 1910-1911 the number of parliamentary electors was 1, 697, 619, of whom 993, 070 had one vote, 395, 866 had two votes, and 308, 683 had three votes. ] III. PARTIES AND ELECTORAL REFORM SINCE 1894--PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE *597. The Adoption of Proportional Representation, 1899. *--The firstelection held under the law of 1893, that of October 14, 1894, demonstrated that by that measure the number of electors had beenmultiplied almost exactly by ten. The total number of voters was now1, 370, 000; the number of votes cast was 2, 111, 000. Contrary to generalexpectation, the election gave the Catholics an overwhelming majorityin the lower chamber. They obtained 105 seats, the Socialists 29, andthe Liberals only 18. The elections of 1896 and 1898 gave the (p.  543)Catholics a still more pronounced preponderance. At the beginningof 1899 the parties of the opposition could muster in the lower houseonly forty votes and in the upper only thirty-one. The Liberal partywas threatened with extinction. Its popular strength, however, wasstill considerable, and from both Liberals and Socialists there arosean insistent demand for the adoption of a scheme whereby the variousparties should be accorded seats in the law-making bodies inproportion to their popular vote. The idea of proportional representation was not at this time inBelgium a new one. It had been formulated and defended in the lowerchamber as early as 1866. Since 1881 there had been maintained anational reform organization whose purpose was in part to propagateit; and it is worthy of note that at the time of the revision of 1893the ministry, led by the premier Beernaert, had advocated itsadoption. [763] In 1895 the principle was introduced in a statuterelating to communal elections. Following a prolonged contest, whichinvolved the retirement of two premiers, a bill extending the plan toparliamentary elections was pressed upon the somewhat divided Catholicforces and, December 29, 1899, was enacted into law. Under theprovisions of this measure deputies and the popularly elected senatorscontinue to be chosen within the arrondissement by _scrutin de liste_. Within each arrondissement the seats to be filled are distributedamong the parties in proportion to the party strength as revealed atthe polls, the allotment taking place in accordance with the listsystem formulated by Victor d'Hondt, of the University of Ghent. Thenumber of deputies elected in an arrondissement varies from three totwenty-one. When an elector appears at the polls he presents hisofficial "summons" to vote and receives from the presiding officerone, two, or three ballot papers according to the number of votes towhich he is entitled. He takes these papers to a private compartment, marks them, places them in the ballot-box, and has returned to him hisletter of summons stamped in such a way as to show that he hasfulfilled the obligation imposed upon him by law. The candidates ofthe various parties are presented in lists, and the task of theelector is merely to indicate his approval of one list for each of thevotes to which he is entitled. This he does by pencilling white spotscontained in the black squares at the head of the lists or against thenames of individual candidates. He may pencil only the spot at the (p.  544)head of a list, thereby approving the order in which the candidateshave been arranged by the party managers; or, by marking spacesopposite names of candidates, he may indicate his preference for adifferent order. [Footnote 763: Another interesting proposal in 1893 was that at the discretion of the crown a legislative measure might be submitted to direct popular vote. By reason of the fear that such a scheme would vest in the crown an excess of power the experiment was not tried. ] *598. How Seats Are Allotted. *--The process of the apportionment ofseats may be illustrated by a hypothetical case. Let it be assumedthat within a given arrondissement four lists of parliamentarycandidates have been presented and that at the polls an aggregate voteof 33, 000 is distributed as follows: Catholics, 16, 000; Liberals, 9, 000; Socialists, 4, 500; and Christian Democrats, 3, 500. Let it beassumed, further, that the arrondissement is entitled to eight seats. The total number of votes for each list is divided successively by thenumbers 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. , and the results are arrayed thus: _Christian_ _Catholic_ _Liberal_ _Socialist_ _Democrat_ _List_[764] _List_ _List_ _List_ Divided by 1 16, 000 9, 000 4, 500 3, 500 Divided by 2 8, 000 4, 500 2, 250 1, 750 Divided by 3 5, 333 3, 000 1, 500 1, 166 Divided by 4 4, 000 2, 250 1, 125 875 Divided by 5 3, 200 1, 800 900 700 [Footnote 764: In point of fact, the lists as published and as placed before the voter are indicated merely by number. ] The eight highest numbers (eight being the number of seats to befilled) are then arranged in order of magnitude as follows: 16, 000 9, 000 8, 000 5, 333 4, 500 4, 500 4, 000 3, 500 The lowest of these numbers, 3, 500, becomes the common divisor, or the"electoral quotient. " The number of votes cast for each list isdivided by this quotient, and the resulting numbers (fractions beingdisregarded) indicate the quota of seats to which each of the partiesis entitled. In the case in hand the results would be: 16, 000 divided by 3, 500 = 4 Catholic seats 9, 000 divided by 3, 500 = 2 Liberal seats 4, 500 divided by 3, 500 = 1 Socialist seat 3, 500 divided by 3, 500 = 1 Christian Democrat seat *599. The Making up of the Lists. *--Lists of candidates are made (p.  545)up, and the order in which the names of candidates appear isdetermined, by the local organizations of the respective parties. Inorder to be presented to the electorate a list must have thepreviously expressed support of at least one hundred electors. Acandidate may stand as an independent, and his name will appear in aseparate "list, " providing his candidacy meets the condition that hasbeen mentioned; and it is within the right of any organization orgroup, political or non-political, to place before the electorate alist. The power of the organization responsible for the presentationof a list to fix the order of candidates' names is not a necessaryfeature of the proportional system and it has been the object of muchcriticism, but it is not clear that serious abuse has arisen from it. Candidates whose names stand near the top of the list are, of course, more likely to be elected than those whose names appear further down, for, under the prevailing rules, all votes indicated in the space atthe head of a list form a pool from which the candidates on the listdraw in succession as many votes as may be necessary to make theirindividual total equal to the electoral quotient, the processcontinuing until the pool is exhausted. Only by receiving a largenumber of individual preferential votes can a candidate be elected tothe exclusion of a candidate whose name precedes his. [765] [Footnote 765: Valuable books dealing with proportional representation in Belgium are G. Lachapelle, La représentation proportionnelle en France et en Belgique (Paris, 1911); F. Goblet d'Alviella, La représentation proportionelle en Belgique, and La représentation proportionelle intégrale (Paris, 1910); Barriéty, La représentation proportionelle en Belgique (Paris, 1906); Dubois, La représentation proportionelle soumise à l'expérience belge (Lille, 1906); and J. Humphreys, Proportional Representation (London, 1911). A careful account is contained in the Report and Evidence of the British Royal Commission on Electoral Systems (1910), Report, Cd. 5, 163; Evidence, Cd. 5, 352. Useful articles are: E. Mahaim, Proportional Representation and the Debates upon the Electoral Question in Belgium, in _Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science_, May, 1900; E. Van der Smissen, La représentation proportionnelle en Belgique et les élections générales de mai 1900, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, July-Sept. , 1900; and J. Humphreys, Proportional Representation in Belgium, in _Contemporary Review_, Oct. , 1908. ] *600. The Elections of 1906, 1908, and 1910. *--The first parliamentaryelection following the adoption of the proportional system--that ofMay, 1900--left the Catholics with a larger preponderance in the lowerchamber than they had dared expect. [766] None the less, the effect ofthe change was distinctly to revive the all but defunct Liberal party, to stimulate enormously the aspirations of the Socialists, and, in (p.  546)general, to replace the crushing Catholic plurality of former years bya wide distribution of seats among representatives of the variousparties and groups. Prior to the election of 1890 the Catholicmajority was 32. The election of 1900 left it at 16; that of 1902, at26; that of 1904, at 20; that of 1906, at 12; that of 1908, at 8; andthat of 1910, at 6. Following the elections which took place in fiveof the nine provinces in 1906, party strength in the Chamber was asfollows: Catholics, 89; Liberals, 46; Socialists, 30; ChristianDemocrats, 1. After the elections in the other four provinces in 1908, it was: Catholics, 87; Liberals, 43; Socialists, 35; ChristianDemocrats, 1. [Footnote 766: It will be recalled that the term of deputies is four years, half retiring every two years. There is, therefore, a parliamentary election, but not throughout the entire country, every second year. ] The elections of May, 1910, [767] were contested with unusual keennessby reason of the fact that the Liberal-Socialist coalition seemed tohave, for the first time in a quarter of a century, a distinct chancefor victory. The Catholics were notoriously divided upon certainpublic issues, notably Premier Schollaert's Compulsory MilitaryService bill, and it was believed in many quarters that their tenureof power was near an end. The Liberal hope, however, was doomed todisappointment; for, although both Liberals and Socialists realizedconsiderable gains in the popular vote in some portions of thekingdom, in only a single constituency was the gain sufficient tocarry a new seat. The consequence was that the Catholic majority wasreduced, but not below six, and party strength in the Chamber stood:Catholics, 86; Liberals, 45; Socialists, 34; Christian Democrats, 1. Among reasons that may be assigned for the Liberal failure are thefact that the country was prosperous and not disposed to precipitate achange of governments, the alienation of some voters by the workingrelations that had been established between the Liberals and theSocialists, and the advantage that regularly accrues to the Catholicsfrom the plural vote. [Footnote 767: In the five provinces of Brabant, Anvers, Namur, West Flanders, and Luxemburg, the term of whose deputies was about to expire. ] *601. The Catholic Triumph in 1912. *--During the years 1910-1912 theCatholic tenure of power, prolonged uninterruptedly since 1884, seemedmore than once on the point of being broken. Most of the time, however, the legislative machine performed its functions sufficientlywell with a majority of but half a dozen seats, and the drift ofaffairs operated eventually to strengthen the Catholic position. InMarch, 1911, Premier Schollaert introduced an education bill lookingtoward the placing of church schools upon a footing financially withthe schools maintained by the communes, and the opposition to thismeasure acquired such intensity that the author of the bill was forcedto retire. But his successor, De Broqueville, a man of conciliatorytemperament, formed a new Catholic cabinet which, by falling back (p.  547)upon a policy of "marking time, " contrived to stave off a genuinedefeat. In the municipal elections held throughout the country October15, 1911, the Liberal-Socialist candidates were very generallysuccessful, but the parliamentary elections which took place June 2, 1912, had the unexpected result of entrenching the Catholic party moresecurely in power than in upwards of a decade. The combined assault ofthe Liberals and the Socialists upon "clericalism" fell flat, andagainst the Government's contention that the extraordinary andincontestable prosperity of the country merited a continuance ofCatholic rule no arguments were forthcoming which carried convictionamong the voters. The Catholic vote showed an increase of 130, 610, theLiberal and Socialist opposition an increase of 40, 402, and theChristian Democrats a decrease of 4, 692. The new chamber consists of101 Catholics, 45 Liberals, 38 Socialists, and 2 Christian Democrats, giving the Government a clear majority of sixteen. The elections weremarked by grave public unrest, involving widespread strikes andanti-clerical demonstrations, with some loss of life. More clearlythan before was exhibited in this campaign the essentially bourgeoisand doctrinaire character of the present Liberal party. The intimatetouch with the masses which in the days of its ascendancy, prior to1884, the party enjoyed has been lost, and more and more theproletariat is looking to the Socialists for propagation of themeasures required for social and industrial amelioration. *602. The Demand for Further Reform. *--A project upon which theSocialists and Liberals in the last election, as upon several formeroccasions, have found it possible to unite is the abolition of theplural vote. Almost immediately after the adoption of the amendment of1893 the Socialists declared their purpose to wage war unremittinglyupon this feature of the new system. In its stead they demanded thatthere be substituted the rule of _un homme, un vote_, "one man, onevote, " with the age limit reduced to twenty-one years. Following thetriumph of the Catholics in 1900, the agitation of the Socialists wasredoubled, and in it the Liberals very generally joined. Between thetwo groups there arose seemingly irreconcilable differences of method, the Liberals being unable to approve the obstructionism and otherviolent means employed by their allies. In time, however, theSocialist methods became more moderate, and the realization on thepart of both elements that only by fighting together might they hopeto win induced a fuller and more durable co-operation between the two. For the time being the Socialists have subordinated to the establishmentof universal and equal suffrage all other features of their political andindustrial programme. [768] Upon the desirability of maintaining (p.  548)proportional representation all parties are agreed, and it is probablybut a question of time until the principle will be applied fully, asit is not to-day, in the elections of the provinces and communes. [Footnote 768: August 15, 1911, Socialists and Liberals combined in an anti-plural-vote demonstration in Brussels in which 150, 000 people are estimated to have taken part. For an able defense of plural voting under the system prevailing in Belgium see L. Dupriez, L'Organisation du suffrage universel en Belgique. Cf. E. Van der Smissen, La question du suffrage universel en Belgique, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, Sept. , 1902. On recent aspects of Belgian politics consult L. Dupriez, L'évolution des partis politiques en Belgique et les élections de mai 1906, ibid. , Sept. , 1906; A. Kahn, Les élections belges, in _Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, June 16, 1910; and J. Van den Heuvel, Les élections belges, in _Le Correspondant_, June 25, 1912. J. H. Humphreys, Proportional Representation in Belgium, in _Contemporary Review_, Oct. , 1908, contains a concrete account of the elections of 1908. A useful volume is A. Fromes, Code électoral belge (Brussels, 1908). ] *603. The Legislative Chambers: Organization and Procedure. *--The twohouses meet by established right on the second Tuesday in November ofeach year, at the Palais de la Nation, in Brussels. A regular sessionmust continue through a period of at least forty days. The king mayconvene the chambers in extraordinary session. He may adjourn them, save that in no case may an adjournment exceed the term of one month;nor may it be renewed during the same session, without the consent ofthe houses. Finally, the king may dissolve the chambers, or either ofthem; but the act of dissolution must include an order for an electionwithin forty days and a summons of the newly elected parliament tomeet within two months. [769] [Footnote 769: Arts. 70-72. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 137. ] Each house judges the qualifications of its members and decides allcontests arising in relation thereto; each elects, at the opening of asession, its president, vice-president, secretaries, and otherofficials; each determines by its own rules the manner in which itspowers shall be exercised. Sessions are normally public; but by voteof an absolute majority, taken at the instigation of the president orof ten members, either body may decide to consider a specific subjectbehind closed doors. Votes are taken _viva voce_ or by rising, but avote on a bill as a whole must always be by roll call and _viva voce_. Except on propositions pertaining to constitutional amendments and afew matters (upon which a two-thirds vote is required), measures arepassed by absolute majority. They must, however, be voted upon articleby article. From the essentially democratic character of the Belgian government, it follows that the powers of the legislative chambers are comprehensive. The functions of legislation are vested by the constitution conjointlyin the king and the two houses, but in practice they are exercised (p.  549)in a very large measure by the houses alone. Each house, as well asthe crown, possesses full rights of legislative initiative, though itis required that all laws relating to the revenues or expenditures ofthe state, or to military contingents, shall be voted first by theHouse of Representatives. Authoritative interpretation of measuresenacted is confided exclusively to the legislative power, and eachhouse is guaranteed the right to inquire into the conduct of publicaffairs and to compel the attendance of ministers for the purpose ofinterpellation, although the lower house alone is given power toformulate charges against public officials and to arraign them beforethe Court of Cassation. IV. THE JUDICIARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT *604. The Courts. *--Aside from special military, commercial, and labortribunals, the courts of Belgium comprise a symmetrical hierarchymodelled upon that created under the Code Napoléon. At the bottom arethe courts of the 222 cantons, each consisting of a single justice ofthe peace, vested in ordinary breaches of police regulations with soleauthority, though in more serious cases associated with theburgomaster of the commune. Next above are the tribunals of firstinstance, one in each of the twenty-six arrondissements into which thekingdom is divided, and each consisting of three judges. The court offirst instance serves as a court of appeal from the decisions of thecantonal tribunal, and at the same time it possesses originaljurisdiction in more serious cases of crime and misdemeanors withinthe arrondissement. Above the courts of first instance stand the threecourts of appeal, sitting at Brussels, Ghent, and Liège. That atBrussels consists of four chambers. At the apex is the Court ofCassation, sitting at the capital. In this supreme tribunal there isbut a single judge, but associated with him is a large staff ofassistants. The function of the Court of Cassation is to determinewhether the decisions of inferior tribunals are in accord with the lawand to annul such as are not. It is of interest to observe, however, that it is the Court of Cassation that tries a minister upon chargespreferred by the House of Representatives, and this is the onlycircumstance under which the tribunal exercises any measure oforiginal jurisdiction. The creation of the Court of Cassation and ofthe three courts of appeal is specifically provided for within theconstitution. All inferior tribunals are created by law, and none arepermitted to be established otherwise. For the trial of criminal casesthere are special tribunals, in three grades: police courts, correctional courts, and courts of assize. All judges and justices of the peace are appointed by the king forlife. Members of the courts of appeal and the presidents and (p.  550)vice-presidents of the courts of original jurisdiction are selectedfrom two double lists presented, the one by these courts and the otherby the provincial councils. Members of the Court of Cassation areselected from two double lists presented, the one by the Senate andthe other by the Court itself. All other judicial officers areappointed by the crown independently. Except for urgent reasons ofpublic order or morals, sessions of all tribunals are public, andevery judgment must be pronounced in open court. Unlike Holland, Belgium has a well developed system of trial by jury. Jury trial isguaranteed by the constitution in all criminal cases and in all casesinvolving political or press offenses. As in England and the UnitedStates, it is the function of the jury to determine whether or not theaccused is guilty and that of the court to explain the law and topronounce sentence. A jury consists regularly of twelve members. [770] [Footnote 770: Arts. 92-107. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 140-142. Roubion, La séparation des pouvoirs administratif et judiciaire en Belgique (Paris, 1905). ] *605. Local Government: Province and Arrondissement. *--Upon the subjectof local government the constitution of Belgium is less explicit thanis that of Holland. Aside from specifying that provincial and communalinstitutions shall be regulated by law, it contents itself with anenumeration of certain principles--among them direct elections, publicity of sittings of provincial and communal councils, publicityof budgets and accounts--whose application is regularly to bemaintained. [771] Of local governmental units there are three:[772] theprovince, the arrondissement, and the commune. The provinces are ninein number. [773] In each is a council, elected by all resident citizenswho are entitled to participate in the direct election of senators. The term is eight years, half of the membership being renewed everyfour years. The council meets at least once a year, on the firstTuesday in July. Its sessions must not exceed four weeks in length norbe briefer than fifteen days. Special sessions may be called by theking. The council considers and takes action upon substantially alllegislative, administrative, and fiscal affairs which concern theprovince alone. It elects from its own members a permanent deputationof six men which is charged with the government of the province whilethe council is not in session. This deputation is presided over by thegovernor-general of the province who is appointed by the crown andwho serves as the principal intermediary between the provincial (p.  551)and the central governments. [Footnote 771: Arts. 108-109. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 142-143. ] [Footnote 772: Not including the canton, which exists purely for judicial purposes. It is the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace. ] [Footnote 773: Antwerp, Brabant, East Flanders, West Flanders, Hainaut, Liège, Limburg, Luxemburg, and Namur. ] The arrondissement, or district (twenty-six in number), is importantchiefly as an electoral and judicial unit. Members of the lower houseof the national parliament are elected within the arrondissement underthe scheme of proportional representation which has been described;and, as has been pointed out, each arrondissement is the seat of acourt of first instance. *606. The Commune. *--In Belgium, as in France and other continentalcountries, the vital organism of local government is the commune. Thetotal number of communes in the kingdom is 2, 629. The principal agencyof government within each is a council. Members of this council areelected for a term of eight years, under arrangements of a somewhatcomplicated character determined by the population of the commune. Voting is _viva voce_; plural votes (to a maximum of four) areauthorized; and seats, under certain conditions, are allocated inaccordance with the principle of proportional representation. Asomewhat singular fact is that the aggregate communal electorate ofthe kingdom is perceptibly smaller than the provincial or thenational. The fact arises largely from the circumstance that thecommunal voter is required to have been domiciled at least three yearsin the commune, while residence of but a single year is required forparticipation in provincial and parliamentary elections. [774] [Footnote 774: In 1902, 1, 146, 482 communal electors cast a total of 2, 007, 704 votes. In 1910-1911 there were 1, 440, 141 provincial, and 1, 300, 514 communal, voters. ] The administrative body of the commune consists of a burgomaster, ormayor, appointed by the crown (in communes whose population exceeds5, 000 elected by the communal council) for a term of ten years, and acollege of _échevins_, or aldermen, elected by and from the communalcouncil. The burgomaster is head of the local police, and to him andto the council fall the keeping of the register of births, marriages, and deaths, the making and enforcing of local ordinances, and, ingeneral, the safeguarding of the welfare of the community. The moreimportant measures of the communal council become valid only afterthey have received the approval of the provincial deputation, or evenof the ministry at Brussels; and there are special officials, known as_commissaires d'arrondissement_, appointed by the provincialdeputation, to maintain supervision over the communes and theirgoverning authorities. A fundamental characteristic, indeed, ofBelgian administration is the combination of constant supervision bythe central power with a really large measure of local autonomy. [775] [Footnote 775: Dupriez, Les Ministres, 262-276; E. De Laveleye, Local Government and Taxation, in Cobden Club Essays (London, 1875). ] PART VIII. --SCANDINAVIA (p.  553) CHAPTER XXX THE GOVERNMENT OF DENMARK I. DEVELOPMENT PRIOR TO 1814 The kingdom of Denmark is among the smallest of European states. Itsarea is but 15, 582 square miles, which is less than one-third of thatof the state of New York, and its population, according to the returnsof 1911, is but 2, 775, 076. The nation is one whose social experiments, economic enterprises, and political practices abound in interest. As apower, it counts nowadays for little. Time was, however, when itcounted for much, and the developments by which the kingdom has beenreduced to its present status among the nations comprise one of theremarkable chapters of modern European history. *607. Union of Kalmar, 1397. *--The maximum of Danish dominion wasattained by virtue of the Union of Kalmar, in 1397, whereby the threekingdoms of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were united under the regencyof Margaret, daughter of the Danish king Valdemar IV. [776] By theterms of this arrangement the native institutions and the separateadministration of each of the three states were guaranteed; and, inpoint of fact, so powerless at times during succeeding generations wasthe Danish sovereign in his over-sea dominions that for all practicalpurposes each of the three affiliated kingdoms may be regarded ashaving retained essentially its original independence. During anextended period at the middle of the fifteenth century Sweden even hada king of her own. None the less, there was a form of union, and attimes the preponderance of Denmark tended to reduce the northernnations to the status of mere dependencies. The union with Swedenlasted only a century and a quarter. Under the leadership of GustavusVasa the Swedish people, in 1523, effectually regained theirindependence, although in accordance with the Treaty of Malmö, in1524, certain of the southernmost Swedish provinces remained for atime under Danish control. [777] It was the lot of Norway, on the (p.  554)other hand, not alone to be brought more thoroughly into subjection toDenmark than was Sweden, but to continue under Danish sovereigntyuntil 1814, and even at that date to pass instantly from the controlof Denmark into that of Sweden, rather than to regain her ancientindependence. [Footnote 776: The nominal sovereign was Margaret's great-nephew, Eric of Pomerania, who was elected at a convention of representatives of the three kingdoms held simultaneously with the establishment of the Union. Eric was deposed in 1439. ] [Footnote 777: R. N. Bain, Scandinavia, a Political History of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden (Cambridge, 1905), Chap. 3; P. B. Watson, The Swedish Revolution under Gustavus Vasa (London, 1889). ] *608. The Loss of Norway, 1814. *--The loss of Norway by Denmark was anincident of the Napoleonic wars. During the course of those warsDenmark, as long as was practicable, maintained a policy ofneutrality. But in 1807, after she had rejected an offer of a Britishalliance, she was attacked by a British fleet, and thereupon shebecame the firmest and most persistent of the allies of Napoleon. Thusit came about that when the contest of the powers drew to an endDenmark had the misfortune to be found upon the losing side. Swedenstood with the Allies, and the upshot was that, to compensate thatnation for her loss of Finland to Russia and of Pomerania to Prussia, the Allies gave their consent, in 1812-1813, to the dismemberment bySweden of the Danish dominion. The work was accomplished by the Frenchmarshal Bernadotte, crown prince of Sweden (by adoption) from 1810, and later king (1818-1844). By the Treaty of Kiel, January 14, 1814, Norway was ceded perforce by Denmark to Sweden, and by the Congress ofVienna, later in the year, the transfer was accorded the formalapproval of the powers. The Norwegians objected and proceeded to electas their king a Danish prince; but in the end they were compelled tosubmit. Denmark was unable to do more than make ineffectual protest. *609. Political Development: the Revolution of 1660. *--The governmentalsystem with which Denmark emerged from the era of Napoleon wasessentially that which had been in operation in the kingdom since thesecond half of the seventeenth century. Prior to a remarkablerevolution which, in 1660, followed the conclusion of a costly warwith Sweden, monarchy in Denmark was limited and almost uniformlyweak. Through three hundred years the kings were elected by theRigsrad, or senate, and the conditions of their tenure were such as topreclude both the independence of action and the accumulation ofresources which is essential to absolutism. As early as 1282 thenobles were able to extort from the crown a _haandfaestning_, orcharter, and almost every sovereign after that date was compelled, once at least during his reign, to make a grant of charteredprivileges. To the Danehof, or national assembly, fell at times a (p.  555)goodly measure of authority, although eventually it was the Rigsradthat procured the supreme control of the state. The national assemblycomprised the three estates of the nobles, the clergy, and theburgesses;[778] the senate was a purely aristocratic body. [Footnote 778: In the Swedish diet the peasantry constituted a fourth estate, but in Denmark no political power was possessed by this class. ] In 1660 there occurred a revolution in consequence of which themonarchy was rehabilitated and a governmental system which long hadbeen notoriously disjointed and inefficient was replaced by a systemwhich, if despotic, was at least much superior to that whichtheretofore had been in operation. The nobles, discredited by thecalamities which their misrule had brought upon the nation, werecompelled to give way, and the estates represented in the Danehofsurrendered, in a measure voluntarily, a considerable portion of theprivileges to which they had been accustomed to lay claim. Themonarchy was put once more upon an hereditary basis and its powerswere materially enlarged. The intent of the aggressive sovereign ofthe day, Frederick III. , was to proceed with caution, but not to stophalfway. By the promulgation of two monumental documents the road wasthrown open to thoroughgoing absolutism. One of these was the"Instrument, or Pragmatic Sanction, of the King's Hereditary Right tothe Kingdoms of Denmark and Norway, " dated January 10, 1661. The otherwas the _Kongelov_, or "King's Law, " of November 14, 1665, a statepaper which has been declared to have "the highly dubious honor ofbeing the one written law in the civilized world which fearlesslycarries out absolutism to its last consequences. "[779] In the_Kongelov_ it was made _lèse-majesté_ in any manner to usurp orinfringe the king's absolute authority; it was asserted that themoment the sovereign ascends the throne crown and scepter are vestedin him by his own right; and the sole obligation of the king wasaffirmed to be to maintain the indivisibility of the realm, topreserve the Christian faith in accordance with the AugsburgConfession, and to execute faithfully all of the provisions of the_Kongelov_ itself. Such were the principles upon which, during upwardsof two centuries thereafter, the government of the Danish kingdom wasbased. Absolutism was all but unrelieved; but it is only fair to addthat most of the sovereigns, according to the light which theypossessed, sought to govern in the interest of their subjects. [780] [Footnote 779: Bain, Scandinavia, 266. ] [Footnote 780: For sketches of Danish political history prior to 1814 see Bain, Scandinavia, Chaps. 2, 4, 7, 10, 15; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, III. , Chap. 14, IV. , Chap. 15; VI. , Chap. 17; VII. , Chap. 23; IX. , Chap. 23. An important Danish work is P. F. Barfod, Danmarks Historie, 1319-1536 (Copenhagen, 1885). ] II. THE RISE OF CONSTITUTIONALISM, 1814-1866 (p.  556) *610. The Provincial Diets. *--Gradually after 1814 the kingdom recoveredfrom the depression into which by its loss of territory and itsstaggering indebtedness it had been plunged, and with the recoverycame a revived political spirit as well as a fresh economic stimulus. The sixteen years between the Treaty of Kiel and the revolutionaryyear 1830 were almost absolutely devoid of political agitation, butafter 1830 there set in, in Denmark as in most continental countries, a liberal movement whose object was nothing less than theestablishment of a constitutional system of government. To meet insome measure the demands which were made upon him, King Frederick VI. Called into being, by decrees of 1831 and 1834, four Landtags, ordiets, one in each of the provinces of the realm--Schleswig, Holstein, Jutland, and the Islands. [781] The members of these assemblies, comprising burgesses, landowners, and peasants, were to be chosen bythe landed proprietors for a term of six years, and they were to meetbiennially for the discussion of laws and taxes and the drawing up ofpetitions. A few landowners, professors, and ecclesiastics were to beappointed to membership by the crown. The function of each of the fourbodies was purely consultative. [Footnote 781: The ordinance establishing the provincial assemblies was promulgated May 28, 1831, but the assemblies did not come into existence until after the supplementary decrees of May 15, 1834. In 1843 Iceland was granted "home rule, " with the right to maintain an independent legislature. ] *611. Royal Opposition to Reform. *--From the point of view of theLiberals, whose aim was the institution of a national parliamentarysystem, the king's concession was too meager to comprise more than abare beginning. Throughout the remainder of the reign agitation waskept up, although at the hand of a sovereign whose fundamentalpolitical principle was the divine right of kings, little that wasmore substantial was to be expected. Christian VIII. , who succeededFrederick in December, 1839, brought with him to the throne areputation for enlightened and progressive views. Further, however, than to pledge himself to certain administrative reforms the newsovereign displayed scant willingness to go. One liberal project afteranother was repelled, and press prosecutions and other coercivemeasures were brought to bear to discourage propaganda. It was in thisperiod, however, that there arose a preponderating issue whosesettlement was destined eventually to exert a powerful influence inthe establishment of constitutional government in Denmark, i. E. , thequestion of the policy to be pursued in respect to the affiliatedduchies of Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg. [782] During the (p.  557)later years of the reign successive ministries grappled vainly withthis problem, and the political forces of the kingdom came to bedivided with unprecedented sharpness by the conflict between theseparatist tendency and the demand for immediate and completeincorporation. The king himself was brought eventually to consent tothe framing of a constitution for the whole of his dominions, as ameans of holding the realm together; but he died, January 20, 1848, before the task had been completed. [Footnote 782: Holstein and Lauenburg were German in population and were members of the German Confederation. Southern Schleswig also was inhabited by German-speaking people, though the duchy did not belong to the Confederation. Schleswig and Holstein had been joined with Denmark under a precarious form of union since the Middle Ages. Lauenburg was acquired, with the assent of the Allies, in 1814-1815 in partial compensation for the loss of Norway. ] *612. The Constitutions of 1848-1849. *--Within eight days theconstitution was promulgated by the new sovereign, Frederick VII. Under its provisions there was established a parliament representativeof all of the Danish dominions. Neither the Danes nor the inhabitantsof the duchies, however, were satisfied, and in Holstein there brokeout open rebellion. Prussia intervened in behalf of the disaffectedduchies, and Great Britain and Russia in behalf of the DanishGovernment. The result was the triumph of the Government; but in themeantime the rescript by which the common constitution had beenpromulgated was withdrawn. In its place was published a decree whichprovided for the establishment of a bicameral national assembly(Rigsdag), of whose 152 members 38, nominated by the crown, were toform a Landsthing, or upper chamber, and the remaining 114, elected bythe people, were to comprise a Folkething, or house of representatives. In the early summer of 1849 a constitution embodying thesearrangements was drawn up; and June 5, after having been adopted bythe new Rigsdag, the instrument was approved by the crown. For themoment the question of the duchies seemed insoluble, and this secondconstitution was extended to Jutland and the Islands only, i. E. , toDenmark proper. Its adoption, however, is a landmark in Danishconstitutional history. Under its terms the autocracy of the_Kongelov_ was formally abandoned and in its place was substituted alimited monarchy in which legislative powers were to be shared by thecrown with an elective diet and the executive authority was to beexercised by ministers responsible to the legislative body. As willappear, it was this constitution of June 5, 1849, that, with revision, became permanently the fundamental law of the kingdom. [783] [Footnote 783: Bain, Scandinavia, Chap. 16; Cambridge Modern History, XI. , Chap. 24 (bibliography, pp. 961-962); Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, X. , Chap. 18; C. F. Allen, Histoire de Danemark depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu'à nos jours (Copenhagen, 1878). ] *613. The Problem of the Duchies. *--Following prolonged (p.  558)international conferences, there was issued, January 28, 1852, a newconstitutional decree by which it was provided that the kingdom properand Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg should have a commonconstitution for common affairs, but that each of the territoriesshould enjoy autonomy in the management of its separate concerns. Anultra-conservative constitution which had been worked out by theRigsdag in consultation with the Landtags of the duchies, waspromulgated October 2, 1855. No sooner had the instrument been put inoperation, however, than stubborn opposition to its provisions arose, both from the duchies themselves and from the interested powers ofGermany. November 28, 1858, the Danish Government yielded in so far asto consent to the withdrawal of the constitution from Holstein andLauenburg. Through several years thereafter the question of theduchies overshadowed all else in Danish politics and in Danishdiplomatic relations. March 30, 1863, a royal decree recognized theessential detachment of Holstein from the monarchy and vested thelegislative power of the duchy solely in the king and the localestates. Later in the year, however, the premier Hall proposed andcarried through the Rigsdag a constitution which contemplated againthe incorporation of Schleswig with the kingdom. To this instrumentthe Council of State, November 13, gave its assent, and, five dayslater, with the approval of the new sovereign, Christian IX. , itbecame law. So far as Denmark was concerned, the solution of thequestion of the duchies was now at hand. In the name of Prussia andAustria, Bismarck demanded summarily that the November constitution berescinded. War ensued, and by the Treaty of Vienna, October 30, 1864, Denmark, in defeat, yielded all claim to Schleswig, Holstein, andLauenburg. After continuing for a time a bone of contention betweenthe leading German states, these territories were incorporated, subsequent to the Austro-Prussian war of 1866, in the kingdom ofPrussia. Denmark, shorn of a million of population and approximatelyone-third of her territory, was reduced in power and area tosubstantially her present proportions. [784] [Footnote 784: Cambridge Modern History, XI. , Chap. 16; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, XI. , Chap. 12; J. W. Headlam, Bismarck and the Foundation of the German Empire (New York, 1909), Chap. 8; H. Delbrück, Der Deutsch-Dänische Krieg, 1864 (Berlin, 1905). ] *614. The Revised Constitution of 1866. *--The loss of the duchies, whilehumiliating, cut the Gordian knot, of Danish political reconstruction. July 28, 1866, the constitution of July 5, 1849, in revised form, (p.  559)was re-issued, and this instrument continues to the present day thefundamental law of the kingdom. Its ultimate adoption was theachievement largely of the agricultural interests in the Rigsdag; butthe king, Christian IX. , though not in sympathy with the parliamentaryideal of government, gave it his cordial support. The constitution isan elaborate document, in ninety-five articles. In addition to thecustomary specifications relating to the executive, legislative, andjudicial departments of the government, it contains a wide variety ofguarantees respecting religion, freedom of speech and of the press, liberty of assemblage and of petition, and uniformity of judicialprocedure, which, taken together, comprise a very substantial bill ofrights. [785] The method of its amendment is not materially unlike thatprevailing in Holland, Belgium, and a number of other continentalcountries. Proposals regarding alterations or additions may besubmitted at any time within either branch of the Rigsdag. In theevent of the adoption of a proposal of the kind by both chambers, itbecomes the duty of the Government, provided it favors the change, todissolve the Rigsdag and to order a general election. If the newlychosen Rigsdag adopts the proposed amendment without change and thecrown formally approves it, the modification goes forthwith intoeffect. [786] Constitutional amendments since 1866 have been, however, neither numerous nor important. [787] [Footnote 785: Arts. 80-94. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 278-280. ] [Footnote 786: Art. 95. Ibid. , I. , 280. ] [Footnote 787: The text of the Danish constitution, in English translation, is printed in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 267-281; H. Weitemeyer, Denmark (London, 1891), 203-217; and British and Foreign State Papers, LVIII. (1867-1868), 1, 223 ff. The best brief treatise on the Danish constitutional system is C. Goos and H. Hansen, Das Staatsrecht des Königsreichs Dänemark (Freiburg, 1889), in Marquardsen's Handbuch. A Danish edition of this work was issued at Copenhagen in 1890. The best extended commentaries are H. Matzen, Den Danske Statsforfatningsret (3d ed. , Copenhagen, 1897-1901) and C. G. Holck, Den Danske Statsforfatningsret (Copenhagen, 1869). T. H. Aschehoug, Den Nordiske Statsret (Copenhagen, 1885) is a useful study, from a comparative point of view, of the constitutional law of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. ] III. THE CROWN AND THE MINISTRY *615. The King: Status and Powers. *--The form of the Danish governmentis declared by the constitution to be that of a limited monarchy. [788]The throne is hereditary, and the succession is regulated by a law ofJuly 31, 1853, adopted in pursuance of the Treaty of London of May (p.  560)8, 1852, wherein the powers bestowed the Danish succession upon PrinceChristian, of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, and the directmale descendants of his union with the Princess Louise of Hesse-Cassel, niece of Christian VIII. Of Denmark. [789] By the constitution it isrequired of the king that he shall not become the ruler of any countryother than Denmark without the consent of the Rigsdag, that he shallbelong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church (the national church ofDenmark, supported by the state), and that before assuming the thronehe shall give in writing before the Council of State an assurance, under oath, that he will maintain inviolate the constitution of thekingdom. [790] The royal civil list is fixed by law for the term of thereign. That of the present sovereign, Frederick VIII. , is one millionkroner annually. [Footnote 788: Art. 1. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 267. ] [Footnote 789: Prince Christian became, in 1863, King Christian IX. ] [Footnote 790: One original text of this pledge must be preserved in the archives of the crown, another in those of the Rigsdag. Art. 7. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 267. ] The powers of the king are comprehensive. Within the limitationsprescribed by the constitution, he exercises "supreme authority overall the affairs of the kingdom. " He appoints to all offices, dismissesfrom office, and transfers from one office to another. He declares warand makes peace. He concludes and terminates treaties of alliance andof commerce, on condition only that an agreement which involves acession of territory or a change of existing international relationsmust receive the assent of the Rigsdag. He exercises the power ofpardon and of amnesty, save that without the consent of the Folkethinghe may not relieve ministers of penalties arising from impeachmentproceedings. He grants such licenses and exemptions from the laws asare authorized by statute. He convenes the Rigsdag in regular sessionannually and in extraordinary session at will, adjourns it, anddissolves either or both of the houses. He may submit to it projectsfor consideration or drafts of laws, and his consent is necessary toimpart legal character to any of the measures which it enacts. Heorders the publication of statutes and sees that they are executed. Finally, when the need is urgent and the Rigsdag is not in session, hemay promulgate ordinances, provided, first, that they are not contraryto the constitution, and, second, that they are laid before theRigsdag at its ensuing meeting. *616. The Ministry and the Parliamentary System. *--For the measures ofthe government the king is not personally responsible. His powers areexercised through ministers, who are appointed and may be removed byhim, and whose number and functions are left to his determination. Theministries are nine in number, as follows: Foreign Affairs, (p.  561)Interior, Justice, Finance, Commerce, Defense, Agriculture, PublicWorks, and Public Instruction and Ecclesiastical Affairs. Collectivelythe ministers form the Council of State, over which the king presidesand in which the heir to the throne, if of age, is entitled to a seat. All laws and important public matters are apt normally to be discussedin the Council of State. There is also, however, a Council ofMinisters, consisting simply of the nine heads of departments underthe presidency of an additional minister designated by the crown, andto this body are referred in practice many minor subjects that callfor consideration. The ministers, so the constitution affirms, are responsible for theconduct of the government. [791] The king's signature of a measuregives it legal character only if accompanied by the signature of oneor more of the ministers, and ministers may be called to account bythe Folkething, as well as by the king, for their conduct in office. There is, furthermore, a special Court of Impeachment for the trial ofministers against whom charges are brought. On the surface, thesearrangements seem to imply the existence of a parliamentary system ofgovernment, with a ministry answerable singly and collectively to thepopular legislative chamber. In point of fact, however, there has beenall the while much less parliamentarism in Denmark than seemingly iscontemplated in the constitution, and it is hardly too much to saythat since the adoption of the present constitution the mostinterminable of political controversies in the kingdom has been thatcentering about the question of the responsibility of ministers. Untilat least within the past decade, the practice of the crown has beenregularly to appoint ministers independently and to maintain them inoffice in disregard of, and even in defiance of, the wishes of thepopular branch of the legislature. The desire of the Liberals has beento inaugurate a thoroughgoing parliamentary régime, under which thesovereign should be obligated to select his ministers from the partyin control of the Folkething and the ministers, in turn, should beresponsible to the Folkething, in fact as well as in theory, for allof their official acts. Throughout the prolonged period covered by theministry of Jakob Estrup (1875-1894) the conflict upon this issue wasincessant. During the whole of the period Estrup and his colleaguescommanded the support of a majority in the Landsthing, but wereaccorded the votes of only a minority in the lower chamber. After theelections of 1884, indeed, the Government could rely upon a total ofnot more than nineteen votes in that chamber. [Footnote 791: Art. 12. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 268. ] *617. The Establishment of Ministerial Responsibility. *--Under thecontinued stress of this situation constitutionalism broke down (p.  562)completely. The Government, finding its projects of military andnaval reform persistently thwarted and its budgets rejected, stretchedits prerogatives beyond all warrant of law. Provisional measures, inthe form of royal ordinances, and arbitrary decisions multiplied, andbudgets were adopted and carried into execution without so much as theform of parliamentary sanction. In time the forces of opposition fellinto disagreement and the more moderate element was brought to thepoint of compromise. Between the Conservatives and the NationalLiberals, on the one hand, by whom the Government had been supported, and the conciliatory element of the Liberal opposition, on the other, a truce was arranged, and in 1894, for the first time in nine years, it was found possible to enact the annual finance law in regularmanner. In this same year Estrup's retirement cleared the way for theappointment of a moderate Conservative ministry. Under Estrup'ssuccessors the conflict was continued, but not so vigorously asbefore. More and more the political center of gravity shifted to theFolkething, and when the general elections of 1901 returned to thatbody an overwhelming majority of Liberals, Christian IX. Was at lastcompelled to give way and to call into being a Liberal ("Left Reform")ministry. It is too much to say that the parliamentary system is asyet completely established in Denmark. There is, however, a closerapproximation to it than ever before, and there is every prospect ofthe ultimate and thorough triumph of the essential parliamentaryprinciple. In 1908, and again in 1909, a ministry was virtually forcedto resign by the pressure of parliamentary opposition. IV. THE RIGSDAG--POLITICAL PARTIES *618. The Landsthing. *--The Rigsdag is composed of two chambers--theLandsthing, or Senate, and the Folkething, or House of Representatives. The Landsthing consists of 66 members, of whom 12 are appointed by theking, seven are elected in Copenhagen, 45 are elected in the largerelectoral divisions comprising rural districts and towns, one iselected in Bornholm, and one is chosen by the Lagthing of the FaröeIslands. [792] The king's appointment of members is made for life, fromamong active or former members of the Folkething. Elected membersserve regularly eight years, one-half retiring every four years. Theseven members for Copenhagen are chosen by an electoral collegecomposed of (1) electors chosen by all citizens who are entitled (p.  563)to vote for members of the Folkething, in the ratio of one elector forevery 120 voters or major fraction thereof, and (2) an equal number ofelectors chosen by the voters who, during the preceding year, havebeen assessed upon a taxable income of not less than 2, 000rix-dollars. The members elected from the rural districts and townsare chosen indirectly, after a manner analogous to that in operationin the capital. [793] The result is a very successful combination ofthe principles of indirect popular election and indirectrepresentation of property. In all cases the election of members takesplace according to the principles of proportional representation. [794]Every person eligible to the Folkething is eligible to the Landsthing, provided he has resided in his electoral circle, or district, duringthe year preceding his election. [Footnote 792: Art. 34. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 272. The status of the Faröe Islands is that of an integral portion of the kingdom, not that of a dependency. It is analogous to the status of Algeria in the French Republic. No other outlying Danish territory is represented in the Rigsdag. ] [Footnote 793: For details see Art. 37 of the constitution. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 272. ] [Footnote 794: It is of interest to observe that Denmark was the first nation to make use of a system of proportional representation. The principle was introduced originally as early as 1855, in the constitution promulgated in that year, and it was retained through the constitutional changes of 1863 and 1866, although its application was restricted to the election of members of the upper chamber. An account of its introduction is contained in La représentation proportionnelle (Paris, 1888), published by the French Society for the Study of Proportional Representation. ] *619. The Folkething. *--The Folkething is composed of deputies chosendirectly by manhood suffrage for a term of three years. By theconstitution it is stipulated that as nearly as practicable thereshall be one member for every 16, 000 inhabitants. In point of fact, the total membership of the Chamber is but 114, whereas at the ratioindicated it should be upwards of 170. Deputies are elected by secretballot (since 1901), in single-member districts. The franchise isextended to all male citizens of good reputation who have attained theage of thirty years, except those who are in actual receipt of publiccharity, those who have at one time been recipients of public charityand have rendered no reimbursement therefor, those who are in privateservice and have no independent household establishment, and those whoare not in control of their own property. The voter must have resideda minimum of one year in the circle in which he proposes to vote. [795]With the exception of non-householders in private service, of personsunder guardianship, and of recipients of public charity, all malecitizens who have completed their twenty-fifth year are qualified forelection. Curiously enough, it is thus possible for a citizen tobecome a member of the Folkething before he is old enough to vote at anational election. Members of both chambers receive, in addition totravelling expenses, regular payment for their services at the (p.  564)rate of ten kroner per day during the first six months of a session, and six kroner for each day thereafter. [Footnote 795: Art. 30. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 271. ] During recent years there has been no small amount of agitation inbehalf of a more democratic electoral system. In April, 1908, therewas enacted an important piece of legislation whereby the franchise inmunicipal elections was conferred upon all resident taxpayers of theage of twenty-five, men and women alike; and, beginning with theelections of 1909, women have both voted and held office regularlywithin the municipalities. By the legislation of 1908 the number ofpersons qualified to vote at local elections was practically doubled. Early in 1910 a measure was passed in the Folkething whereby the agelimit for voters in parliamentary elections was reduced from thirty totwenty-five years and the suffrage was conferred upon women and uponpersons engaged in service. This measure did not become law, but inthe Folkething elected May 20 of the same year Premier Berntsenintroduced a new bill of essentially the same nature. The question ofproportional representation was deferred, the bill providing for (1)the reduction of the voting age to twenty-five; (2) the increase ofthe number of deputies to 132; and (3) the extension of the suffragein national elections to women, together with eligibility for seats inboth of the legislative chambers. This measure likewise failed; but atthe opening of Parliament in October, 1912, fresh proposals upon thesubject were introduced. *620. The Rigsdag: Sessions and Powers. *--The Rigsdag is required tomeet in regular session on the first Monday in October of every year. Each house determines the validity of the election of its members;each makes its own regulations concerning its order of business andthe maintenance of discipline; each elects its own president, vice-presidents, and other officers. Each has the right to proposebills, each may present addresses to the king, and the consent of eachis necessary to the enactment of any law. By provision of theconstitution the annual budget must be laid on the table of theFolkething at the beginning of each regular session, and no tax may beimposed, altered, or abolished save by law. Each house is required toappoint two salaried auditors whose business it is to examine theyearly public accounts and to determine whether there have been eitherunrecorded revenues or unauthorized expenditures. For the adjustmentof conflicts between the two chambers there is provided a methodwhereby there may be constituted a joint conference committee similarto that employed under like circumstances in the American Congress. [796]Sessions are public, and a majority of the membership constitutes (p.  565)a quorum. With the consent of the house to which he belongs, anymember may propose subjects for consideration and may requestexplanations from the Government concerning them. Ministers areentitled to appear and to speak in either chamber as often as they maydesire, provided they do not otherwise infringe upon the order ofbusiness. By reason of the uncertain status of ministerialresponsibility the right of interpellation means as yet but little inpractice. The minister may or may not reply to inquiries, and in anycase he is not obliged by unfavorable opinion or an adverse vote toretire. [Footnote 796: Art. 53. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 274. ] *621. Political Parties: the Ministry of Estrup, 1875-1894. *--Prior to1848 the preponderating public issues of Denmark were concernedchiefly with the introduction in the kingdom of a constitutional typeof government. Between 1848 and 1864, they related all but exclusivelyto the status of the duchies of Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg. During the closing quarter of the past century they centeredprincipally in the titanic conflict which a growing and indomitablemajority in the Folkething, representing a no less determined majorityof the nation, waged with King Christian IX. And his advisers inbehalf of the enforcement of constitutional limitations upon the crownand of ministerial responsibility to the national legislative body. The prolonged struggle between the Government and the parliamentarymajority had its beginning in 1872, when the various radical groups inthe Folkething, drawing together under the designation of the UnitedLeft, rejected a proposed budget and passed a vote of want ofconfidence in the Conservative Government. The avowed purpose of thedisaffected elements was to force the ministry of Holstein ofHolsteinborg to retire, to compel the sovereign to select hisministers from the parliamentary majority, and to enforce theprinciple of ministerial responsibility to the lower legislativechamber. Supported by the king and the Landsthing, however, theministry refused to resign. June 11, 1875, there was called to thepremiership an able and aggressive statesman, Jakob Estrup, whothrough the next nineteen years continuously maintained theGovernment's position against the most desperate of parliamentaryassaults. During the whole of this period Estrup commanded the supportof the Landsthing, but was opposed by large majorities in theFolkething and throughout the country. The struggle raged principallyupon questions of finance. Estrup, who retained for himself theportfolio of finance, was bent upon the strengthening of Danisharmaments, and over the protest of the Folkething huge budgets wereput into effect again and again by simple ordinance of the crown. From1882 onwards ordinary legislation was at a standstill, and during (p.  566)nine years after 1885 there was not one legal grant of supplies. Theconstitution was reduced well nigh to waste paper. *622. Later Conservative Governments: the Triumph of the Left. *--In 1886the Radicals, despairing of overthrowing the Estrup government byobstruction, resorted for the first time to negotiation. Not untilApril 1, 1894, however, was the parliamentary majority able to agreewith the Government and the Landsthing upon a budget which, by beingmade retroactive, legalized the irregular fiscal expedients of thepast two decades. In August of the same year Estrup was succeeded inthe premiership by Reedtz-Thott who, although a Conservative, andhence a supporter of the Government's position, was more favorable toconciliation than had been his predecessor. The struggle, however, wasby no means ended. The elections of 1895 and of 1898 resulted indecisive victories for the Liberals and Radicals, and in the Chamberthe Government was confronted by an overwhelming majority comprising aModerate Left, a Reform or Radical Left, and a group of SocialDemocrats. Even in the Landsthing the Government's hold was growingless substantial. Reedtz-Thott, none the less, clung to office untilDecember, 1899, and after his retirement there followed two moreConservative ministries--those of Hörring (December, 1899, to April, 1900) and of Sehested (April, 1900, to July, 1901). On July 16, 1901, occurred the most notable political event in ahalf-century of Danish history. Confronted by a majority of 106 to 8in the Folkething, besieged by widespread popular opinion, andpossessing no longer a dependable majority in the Landsthing, the agedChristian IX. Gave way, with such grace as he could muster, andsummoned to the premiership Professor Deuntzer, by whom wasconstituted a pure Left Reform ministry. At the partial elections ofSeptember 19, 1902, the Conservatives lost absolutely their majorityin the upper chamber, while in the Folkething party strength was soredistributed that, while the Conservatives retained their eightseats, the Social Democrats acquired fourteen and the Left Reformparty seventy-seven. The elections of June 16, 1903, wrought butinsignificant changes of status. *623. The Christensen Ministry (1905-1908) and the Elections of1906. *--As was to be expected of a party whose rôle had been regularlyone of mere opposition, the Left Reform, after gaining office, developed a certain amount of internal discord. In January, 1905, theDeuntzer ministry broke up and a more homogeneous and moderate cabinetwas organized under the Left Reform leader Christensen. This ministrycontrived to retain office until October, 1908. At the elections ofMay 29, 1906, the Government took its stand upon manhood suffrage (p.  567)in parliamentary elections, equal suffrage in municipal elections (inaccordance with the principle of proportional representation) for alltaxpayers, and the reform of both the administrative and judicialsystems. Its bitterest opponents were its former allies, the RadicalLeft (which had split off from the Left Reform party after theformation of the Christensen ministry) and the Social Democrats, though neither of these parties put forward a programme which was inany measure specific. After an unusually spirited contest theGovernment was found to have lost three seats, the Social Democrats tohave gained eight, the Radical Left to have lost four, and theConservatives to have gained two. The resulting grouping in theFolkething was as follows: Left Reform (Ministerialists), 55; ModerateLeft, 9; Radical Left, 9; Social Democrats, 24; Conservatives, 13;Independents, 3; member for Faröe Islands, 1. At the partial renewalof the Landsthing in September, 1906, the Government lost five seats, and with them the majority which, aided by the Moderate Left and theFree Conservatives, [797] it had been able since 1901 to control. Theconsequence of its losses was that the Christensen ministry drewappreciably toward the Conservative elements of the Rigsdag, asagainst the Radicals and Socialists. [Footnote 797: A group which, after the formation of the Deuntzer ministry, split off from the Conservatives in the upper chamber. ] *624. Ministerial Instability, 1908-1912. *--October 11, 1908, largely byreason of the scandal in which it was involved by the embezzlements ofthe minister of the interior Alberti, the ministry of Christensen wasreplaced by a cabinet formed by Neergaard. It in turn retired, July31, 1909, defeated upon bills to which it was committed for thestrengthening of the national fortifications. The Holstein-Ledreborgministry which succeeded was able to secure the passage of the bills, but, October 22, 1909, it was forced out on a vote of want ofconfidence. At the election of May 25, 1909, in which the militarybills comprised the principal issue, the Left Reform government hadcontinued to lose ground, while the Radicals (though not the SocialDemocrats) and the Conservatives had gained. October 28, 1909, a newministry was formed by the Radical leader Zahle. In the Folkething theRadicals possessed 20 seats only, but with the aid of the SocialDemocrats, possessing 24, they hoped to be able to attain some measureof success. The hope proved vain. April 18, 1910, the Folkething wasdissolved, and there followed another spirited campaign in which themilitary question was preponderant. The Radical government, with itsSocialist allies, went before the country on a platform which proposedthe repeal of the defense measures passed during the previous (p.  568)year. But at the elections of May 20 both Radicals and Social Democratsobtained precisely the respective number of seats which they hadbefore possessed, while 69 deputies were returned by the groups whichwere favorable to the execution of the contested measures. July 1, theZahle ministry resigned and was succeeded by a cabinet formed by KlausBerntsen, leader of the Moderate Left. The new ministry, althoughdrawn exclusively from the Left, was well received by the Conservatives, who pledged it their continued support against the Radical-Socialistcoalition. [798] [Footnote 798: The salient facts relating to the political history of Denmark since 1870 may be gleaned from the successive volumes of the _Annual Register_. Works of importance dealing with the subject include N. Neergaard, Danmarks Riges Historie siden 1852 (Copenhagen, 1909); H. Holm, Forligets förste Rigsdagssamling 1894-1895 (Copenhagen, 1895), and Kampen om Ministeriet Reedtz-Thott (Copenhagen, 1897); H. Barfod, Hans Majestaet Kong Christian IX. (Copenhagen, 1888); and A. Thorsöe, Kong Christian den Niende (Copenhagen, 1905). ] V. THE JUDICIARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT *625. General Principles: the Courts. *--In the Danish constitution thereare laid down a number of general principles with respect to thejudicial branch of the government, but the organization of the courtsis left almost entirely to be regulated by law. It is stipulated thatjudges, who are appointed by the crown, may not be dismissed except inconsequence of judicial sentence, nor transferred against their wishesfrom one tribunal to another, unless in the event of a reorganizationof the courts;[799] that they shall exercise their functions strictlyin compliance with law; that in criminal cases and cases involvingpolitical offenses trial shall be by jury; that in the administrationof justice there shall be, so far as practicable, publicity and oralprocedure; and that it shall be within the competence of the courts todecide all questions relative to the extent of the powers of thepublic officials. [Footnote 799: At the age of sixty-five they may be retired on full salary. ] The tribunals that have been established by law comprise, beginning atthe bottom, the magistracies of the _herreds_, or hundreds, and thejusticeships of the towns; a superior court (_Overret_), with ninejudges, at Viborg, and another, with twenty judges, at Copenhagen; anda Supreme Court (_Höjesteret_), with a chief justice, twelve associatejudges, and eleven special judges, at Copenhagen. Of hundredmagistrates (_herredsfogder_) and town justices (_byfogder_) thereare, in all, 126. Appeal in both civil and criminal cases lies fromthem to the superior courts, and thence to the supreme tribunal. Thereis, in addition, a Court of Impeachment (_Rigsret_), composed of themembers of the Supreme Court, together with an equal number of (p.  569)members of the Landsthing elected by that body as judges for a termof four years. The principal function of this tribunal is the trial ofcharges brought against ministers by the king or by theFolkething. [800] [Footnote 800: Arts. 68-74. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I. , 276-277. ] *626. The Administration of Justice Act, 1908. *--In May, 1908, along-standing demand of the more progressive jurists was met in partby the passage of an elaborate Administration of Justice bill, wherebythere was carried further than previously the separation of thegeneral administrative system of the kingdom from the administrationof justice. Not until the enactment of this measure were theconstitutional guarantees of jury trial, publicity of judicialproceedings, and the independence of the judiciary put effectively inforce. Curiously enough, the drafting and advocacy of the bill fellprincipally to a minister, Alberti, who was on the point of beingproved one of the most deliberate criminals of the generation. Themeasure, which comprised 1, 015 clauses, introduced no modification inthe existing hierarchy of tribunals, but it readjusted in detail thefunctions of the several courts and defined more specifically theprocedure to be employed in the trial of various kinds of cases. Oneprovision which it contains is that a jury shall consist of twelvemen, that any person who is eligible for election to the Folkething iseligible for selection as a juryman, and that jury service isobligatory. On the ground that it fell short of fulfilling theessential pledges of the constitution, the Radical and Socialistmembers of the Rigsdag vigorously opposed the measure. [801] [Footnote 801: The bill was carried in the Folkething by a vote of 57 to 42; in the Landsthing by a vote of 38 to 5. ] *627. Local Government. *--For administrative purposes the kingdom isdivided into 18 Amter, or counties. In each is an Amtmand, orgovernor, who is appointed by the crown, and an Amtsrad, or council, composed of members elected indirectly within the county. The countiesare divided into hundreds, which exist principally for judicialpurposes, and the hundreds are divided into some 1, 100 parishes. Ineach town is a burgomaster, who is appointed by the crown, and whogoverns with or without the assistance of aldermen. Copenhagen, however, has an administrative system peculiar to itself. Itsburgomaster, elected by the town council, is merely confirmed by thecrown. CHAPTER XXXI (p.  570) THE SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN UNION AND THE GOVERNMENT OF NORWAY I. POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT TO 1814 *628. Sweden in Earlier Modern Times. *--During the centuries whichintervened between the establishment of national independence underthe leadership of Gustavus Vasa in 1523 and the end of the Napoleonicera, the political system of the kingdom of Sweden oscillated in aremarkable manner between absolutism and liberalism. The establishmentof a national parliamentary assembly antedated the period of unionwith Denmark (1397-1523); for it was in 1359 that King Magnus, embarrassed by the unmanageableness of the nobility and obliged tofall back upon the support of the middle classes, summonedrepresentatives of the towns to appear before the king along with thenobles and clergy, and thus constituted the first Swedish Riksdag. Byan ordinance of Gustavus Adolphus in 1617, what had been a turbulentand ill-organized body was transformed into a well-ordered nationalassembly of four estates--the nobles, the clergy, the burghers, andthe peasants--each of which met and deliberated regularly apart fromthe others. There was likewise a Rigsrad, or senate, which comprisedoriginally a grand council representative of the semi-feudal landedaristocracy, but which by the seventeenth century had come to beessentially a bureaucracy occupying the chief offices of state at thepleasure of the crown. Under Gustavus Adolphus and his earliersuccessors, especially Charles XI. (1660-1697), however, thegovernment took on the character of at least a semi-absolutism. TheRigsdag retained the right to be consulted upon important foreign andlegislative questions, but the power of initiative was exercised bythe sovereign alone. The Riksdag of 1680 admitted that the king wasresponsible for his acts only to God, and that between him and hispeople no intermediary was needed; and in 1682 the same bodyrecognized as vested in the crown the right freely to interpret andamend the law. [802] [Footnote 802: Bain, Scandinavia, Chaps. 8, 11; Cambridge Modern History, IV. Chaps. 5, 20; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, III. , Chap. 14; IV. ; Chap. 15. ] *629. Weakness of the Monarchy in the Eighteenth Century. *--A new (p.  571)chapter in Swedish constitutional history was inaugurated by thecalamities incident to the turbulent reign of the Mad King of theNorth, Charles XII. (1697-1718), and the Great Northern War, broughtto a culmination by the cession to Russia in the Peace of Nystad, August 30, 1721, of all the Baltic provinces which Sweden hadpossessed. Early in the reign of Frederick I. (1720-1751), chiefly bylaws of 1720-1723, the government was converted into one of the mostlimited of monarchies in Europe. The sovereign was reduced, indeed, toa mere puppet, his principal function being that of presiding over thedeliberations of the Rigsrad. Virtually all power was vested in theRiksdag. A secret committee representative of the four estatesprepared all measures, controlled foreign relations, and appointed allministers, and laws of every kind were enacted by the affirmative voteof three of the four orders. The constitutional system, whilenominally monarchical, became essentially republican. In operation, however, it was hopelessly cumbersome, and throughout half a centurythe political activities of the kingdom comprised little more than awearisome struggle of rival factions. [803] [Footnote 803: Bain, Scandinavia, Chaps. 12-13; Cambridge Modern History, V. , Chaps. 18-19; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, VI. , Chap. 17. ] Under Gustavus III. (1771-1792), nephew of Frederick the Great ofPrussia, the pendulum swung back again distinctly toward absolutism. The Riksdag, according to its custom, sought at the opening of thereign to impose upon the new sovereign a renunciatory coronation oath. Gustavus, however, raised objection, and the contest became so keenthat the king resolved upon a _coup d'état_ whereby to accomplish arestoration of the pristine independence and vigor of the royaloffice. The plan was laid with care and was executed with completesuccess. August 20, 1772, there was forced upon the estates, almost atthe bayonet's point, a constitution which had been contrivedspecifically to transform the weak and disjointed quasi-republic intoa compact monarchy. The monarchy was to be limited, it is true, butthe framework of the state was so reconstructed that the balance ofpower was certain to incline toward the crown. Without the approval ofthe Riksdag no law might be enacted and no tax levied; but the estatesmight be summoned and dismissed freely by the king, and in him wasvested exclusively the power of legislative initiative. Under thisinstrument the government of Gustavus III. , and in even a largermeasure that of Gustavus IV. (1792-1809), [804] was pronouncedlyautocratic. [Footnote 804: Gustavus IV. , being a minor at his accession, did not assume control of the government until November 1, 1796. ] *630. Sweden in the Napoleonic Period. *--Sweden is one of the (p.  572)many European nations which in the course of the Napoleonic periodacquired a new constitutional system, but one of the few in which thefundamentals of the system at that time established have beenmaintained continuously to the present day. Sweden was drawn into theNapoleonic wars at an early stage of their progress. December 3, 1804, Gustavus IV. Cast in his fortunes on the side of the foes of France, and although in 1806-1807 Napoleon sought to detach him from theAllies, all effort in that direction failed. The position of Gustavus, however, was undermined in his own country by his failure to defendFinland on the occasion of the Russian invasion of 1808, and March 29, 1809, yielding to popular pressure, and hoping to save the crown forhis son, he abdicated. By the Riksdag the royal title, withheld fromthe young Prince Gustavus, was bestowed upon the eldest brother ofGustavus III. , who, under the name of Charles XIII. , was proclaimedJune 5. On the same day the Riksdag ratified formally an elaborate_regerings-formen_, or fundamental law, which, amended from time totime, has been preserved to the present day as the constitution of thekingdom. [805] [Footnote 805: See p. 589. Bain, Scandinavia, Chap. 14; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, VII. , Chap. 23; VIII. , Chap. 23. ] *631. Constitutional Development of Norway to 1814. *--During more thanfour centuries, from the Union of Kalmar, in 1397, to the Treaty ofKiel, January 14, 1814, Norway was continuously subordinated more orless completely to Denmark. The political history and constitutionaldevelopment of the nation, therefore, had little opportunity to movein normal channels. Prior to the Union the royal power wasconsiderable, and at times virtually absolute, although an everpresent obstacle to the consolidation of the monarchy was theindependent spirit of the nobility. By the fourteenth century, however, the old landed aristocracy, decimated by civil war andimpoverished by the loss of the fur trade to Russia, had been soweakened that it no longer endangered in any degree the royalsupremacy. From the end of the thirteenth century we hear of a_palliment_, or parliament, which was summoned occasionally at thepleasure of the king. But at no time had this gathering assumed thecharacter of an established national legislative body. From the point of view of political status the history of Norway underthe Union falls into four fairly clearly marked periods. The first, extending from 1397 to the accession of Christian I. In 1450, culminated in an unsuccessful attempt on the part of the Norwegians tothrow off the Danish yoke. The second, extending from 1450 to therecognition of Frederick I. As king in Norway in 1524, was marked (p.  573)by a still closer union between the two kingdoms. The third, beginningwith the accession of Frederick and closing with the Danish revolutionof 1660, was a period in which, largely in consequence of theProtestant Revolt, Norway was reduced virtually to the level of asubjugated province. The fourth, inaugurated by the rehabilitation ofthe monarchy in Denmark in 1660, witnessed the raising of Norway fromthe status of subjection to the rank of a sovereign, hereditarykingdom on a footing of approximate equality with Denmark. The periodclosed with a widespread revival of the nationalist spirit, one of thefirst fruits of which was the obtaining, in 1807, of an administrativesystem separate from that of Denmark and, in 1811, of the privilege offounding at Christiania a national university. [806] [Footnote 806: Bain, Scandinavia, Chaps. 4, 5, 7, 10, 15; H. H. Boyesen, A History of Norway from the Earliest Times (2d ed. , London, 1900). ] II. THE SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN UNION, 1814-1905 *632. Bernadotte and the Treaty of Kiel. *--As has been pointed out, thekingdom of Sweden acquired independence of Denmark near the end of thefirst quarter of the sixteenth century. The liberation of Norway wasdelayed until the era of Napoleon, and when it came it meant, not theindependence which the Norwegians craved, but forced affiliation withtheir more numerous and more powerful neighbors on the east. Thesuccession of events by which the new arrangement was brought aboutwas engineered principally by Napoleon's ex-marshal Bernadotte. May28, 1810, Prince Charles Augustus of Augustenburg, whom the Riksdaghad selected as heir to the infirm and childless Charles XIII. , died, and after a notable contest, Bernadotte was agreed upon unanimously bythe four estates (August 21) as the new heir. November 5 theadventuresome Frenchman received the homage of the estates and wasadopted by the king as crown prince under the name of CharlesJohn. [807] By reason of the infirmity of the sovereign, Bernadotteacquired almost at once virtual control of the government. From theoutset he believed it to be impossible for Sweden to recover Finland;but he believed no less that she might recoup herself, with the assentof the powers, by the acquisition of the Danish dominion of Norway. InMarch and April, 1813, Great Britain and Russia were brought to thepoint of giving the desired assent, and by the Treaty of Kiel, January14, 1814, the king of Denmark, under pressure applied by the (p.  574)Allies, made the desired surrender. [808] [Footnote 807: Upon the death of Charles XIII. , February 5, 1818, the "prince" succeeded to the throne under the name of Charles XIV. He reigned until 1844. ] [Footnote 808: C. Schefer, Bernadotte roi (Paris, 1899); L. Pingaud, Bernadotte, Napoléon, et les Bourbons (Paris, 1901); G. R. Lagerhjelm, Napoleon och Carl Johan, 1813 (Stockholm, 1891). ] *633. The Movement for Norwegian Independence: the Constitution of1814. *--In Norway there was small disposition to accept the newarrangement. Instead there was set up the theory that when the Danishsovereign renounced his claim to the throne of his northern dominionthe Norwegian state legally reverted forthwith to its former conditionof independence. Upon this assumption 112 representatives of thenation, of whom 82 were opposed to union with Sweden, met at theEidsvold iron-works near Christiania, and drew up a liberalconstitution modelled principally on the French instrument of 1791, under which was established a national Storthing, or parliament. May17, furthermore, Prince Christian Frederick, the Danish governor ofthe country, was elected king of Norway. From the Swedish point ofview these sovereign acts were absolutely invalid, and upon Norway'srejection of mediation by the powers Bernadotte invaded the country atthe head of a Swedish army. In a short, sharp campaign the Norwegianswere hopelessly beaten, [809] and the upshot was that ChristianFrederick was forced to abdicate (October 7, 1814), the Storthing wascompelled to give its assent to the union with Sweden (October 20), the Eidsvold constitution was revised (November 4) to bring it intoaccord with the conditions of the union, and the Storthing wentthrough the formality of electing Charles XIII. King of Norway and ofrecognizing Bernadotte as heir to the throne. Fifty of the one hundredten articles of the Eidsvold constitution were retained unaltered; theremainder were revised or omitted. Amended upon a number of subsequentoccasions, this constitution of November 4, 1814, has continued inoperation to the present day as the _Grundlov_, or fundamental law, ofthe Norwegian state. No constitution was ever born of a moreinteresting contest for national dignity and independence. [Footnote 809: G. Björlin, Der Krieg in Norwegen, 1814 (Stuttgart, 1895). ] *634. Nature of the Union. *--The union of the two states was of a purelypersonal character; that is to say, it was a union solely through thecrown. Each of the kingdoms maintained its own constitution, its ownministry, its own legislature, its own laws, its own financial system, its own courts, its own army and navy. The legal basis of theaffiliation was the _Riksakt_, or Act of Union, of August, 1815, --anultimate agreement between the two states which in Norway was formallyadopted by the Storthing as a part of the Norwegian fundamental (p.  575)law, but which in Sweden was regarded as a treaty, and hence was neverincorporated by the Rigsdag within the constitution. In each of thestates the functions and status of the crown were regulated byconstitutional provisions; and the character of the royal power was byno means the same in the two. In Sweden, for example, the kingpossessed independent legislative power and his veto was absolute; inNorway he possessed no such independent prerogative and his veto wasonly suspensive. There was a common ministry of war and another offoreign affairs; beyond this the functions of a common administrationwere vested in a complicated system of joint councils of state. Matters of common concern lying outside the jurisdiction of the crownwere regulated by concurrent resolutions or laws passed by the Riksdagand the Storthing independently. But in all matters of internallegislation and administration the two kingdoms were as separate as ifno legal relations had been established between them. There was noteven a common citizenship. *635. Causes of Friction. *--From the outset the union was menaced byperennial friction. Differences between the two kingdoms in respect tolanguage, manners, and economic concerns were pronounced; differencesof social and political ideas were still more considerable;differences in governmental theories and institutions were seeminglyirreconcilable. In Sweden the tone of the political system, until farin the nineteenth century, was distinctly autocratic, and that of thesocial system aristocratic; in Norway the principle that preponderatedwas rather that of democracy. Between the two states there wasdisagreement upon even the fundamental question of the nature of theunion. The Swedish contention was that at the Peace of Kiel Norway wasceded to Sweden by Denmark and that the mere fact that, following theunsuccessful attempt of the Norwegians to establish theirindependence, Sweden had chosen to grant the affiliated kingdom aseparate statehood and local autonomy did not contravene Norway'sessentially subordinate position within the union. The Norwegians, onthe other hand, maintained that, in the last analysis, they comprisedan independent nation and that their union with Sweden rested solelyupon their own sovereign decision in 1814 to accept Charles XIII. Asking; from which the inference was that Norway should be dealt with asin every respect co-ordinate with Sweden. The conflicts which sprangfrom these differences of conception were frequent and serious. Therewas no disguising the fact that the administration of the jointaffairs of the kingdoms was conducted from a point of view that wasessentially Swedish, and the history of the union throughout the (p.  576)period of its existence is largely a story of the struggle on the partof the Norwegians, through the medium of the Storthing, to attain inpractice the fully co-ordinate position which they believed to berightfully theirs. Again and again amendments to the constitution inthe interest of the royal power were submitted by successivesovereigns, only to be rejected by the Storthing. In 1860 the Swedish estates insisted upon a revision of the Act ofUnion which should include the establishment of a common parliamentfor the two countries, in which, in approximate accordance withpopulation, there would be twice as many Swedish members as Norwegian. The Storthing, naturally enough, rejected the proposition. In 1869 theStorthing fortified its position by adopting a resolution inaccordance with which its sessions, theretofore triennial, were madeannual, and in 1871 the first annual Storthing rejected an elaboratemodification of the Act of Union, to which the Conservative ministryof Stang had been induced to lend its support, whereby the supremacyof Sweden would have been recognized explicitly and the bonds of theunion would have been tightened correspondingly. Two years later thenew sovereign, Oscar II. (1872-1907), gave reluctant assent to ameasure by which the office of viceroy in Norway was abolished. Thereafter the head of the government at Christiania was the presidentof the ministry, or premier; and, following a prolonged contest, inthe early eighties there was forced upon the crown the principle ofministerial responsibility (in Norway). *636. The Question of the Consular Service. *--The rock upon which theunion foundered eventually, however, was Norway's participation in themanagement of diplomatic and consular affairs. The subject was onewhich had been left in 1814 without adequate provision, and throughoutthe century it gave rise to repeated difficulties. In 1885, and againin 1891, there was an attempt to solve the problem, but upon eachoccasion the only result was a deadlock, the Storthing insisting upon, and the Swedish authorities denying, Norway's right, as an independentkingdom, to participate equally with Sweden in the conduct of theforeign relations of the two states. In 1892 the Storthing resolvedupon the establishment of an independent Norwegian consular service;but to this the king would not assent. Norwegian trading and maritimeinterests had come to be such that, in the opinion of the commercialand other influential classes of the kingdom, separateness of consularadministration was indispensable, and upon the success of this reformwas made to hinge eventually the perpetuity of the union itself. Throughout several years the deadlock continued. At the Norwegianelections of 1894 and 1897 the Liberals were overwhelmingly successful, and it was made increasingly apparent that the Norwegian people (p.  577)were veering strongly toward unrestricted national independence. July28, 1902, a lengthy report was submitted by a Swedish-NorwegianConsular Commission, constituted upon Swedish initiative earlier inthe year, in which the practicability of two entirely separateconsular systems was asserted, and, March 24, 1903, an official_communiqué_ announced the conclusion of an agreement betweenrepresentatives of the two countries under which there were to beworked out two essentially identical codes of law for the governmentof the two systems. Upon the nature of these codes, however, therearose serious disagreement, and when, in 1904, the Boström ministry ofSweden submitted as an absolute condition that any Norwegian consulmight be removed from office by the Swedish foreign minister, theentire project was brought to naught. *637. The Norwegian Declaration of Independence: the Separation. *--March1, 1905, the Norwegian ministry presided over by Hagerup resigned andwas replaced by a ministry made up by Christian Michelsen, whichincluded representatives of both the Liberal and Conservative parties. May 23 the Storthing, by unanimous vote, passed a new bill for theestablishment of Norwegian consulships. The king, four days later, vetoed the measure; whereupon the Michelsen government resigned. Theking refused to accept the resignation; the ministers refused toreconsider it. June 7 Michelsen and his colleagues placed theirresignation in the hands of the Storthing, and that body, impelled atlast to cut the Gordian knot, adopted by unanimous vote a resolutionto the effect (1) that, the king having admitted his inability to forma Government, the constitutional powers of the crown had becomeinoperative, and (2) that Oscar II. Having ceased to act as king ofNorway, the union with Sweden was to be regarded as _ipso facto_dissolved. By another unanimous vote the ministerial group wasauthorized to exercise temporarily the prerogatives hitherto vested inthe sovereign. On the part of certain elements in Sweden there was a disposition toresist Norwegian independence, and for a time there was prospect ofwar. The mass of the people, however, cared but little for themaintenance of the union. The prevailing national sentiment wasexpressed with aptness by the king himself when he affirmed that "aunion to which both parties do not give their free and willing consentwill be of no real advantage to either. " June 20 the Riksdag wasconvened in extraordinary session to take under advisement thesituation. Dreading war, this body eventually decided to sanctionnegotiations looking toward a separation, provided, however, that theNorwegian people, either through the agency of a newly elected (p.  578)Storthing or directly by referendum, should avow explicitly theirdesire for independence. During a recess of the Riksdag a Norwegianplebiscite was taken, August 13, with the result that 368, 211 voteswere cast in favor of the separation and but 184 against it. Two weekslater eight commissioners representing the two states met at Karlstad, in Sweden, and negotiated a treaty, signed September 23, wherein theterms of the separation were specifically fixed. This instrument, approved by the Storthing October 9 and by the reassembled RiksdagOctober 16, provided for the establishment of a neutral, unfortifiedzone on the common frontier south of the parallel 61° and stipulatedthat all differences between the two nations which should proveimpossible of adjustment by direct negotiation should be referred tothe permanent court of arbitration at the Hague, provided suchdifferences should not involve the independence, integrity, or vitalinterests of either nation. October 27 King Oscar formallyrelinquished the Norwegian crown. III. THE NORWEGIAN CONSTITUTION--CROWN AND MINISTRY *638. The Revised Fundamental Law. *--In Norway there was widespreadsentiment in favor of the establishment of a republic. The continuanceof monarchy was regarded, however, as the course which might beexpected to meet with most general approval throughout Europe, and ina spirit of conciliation the Storthing tendered to King Oscar an offerto elect as sovereign a member of the Swedish royal family. The offerwas rejected; whereupon the Storthing selected as a candidate PrinceCharles, second son of the then Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark, thelate King Frederick VIII. November 12 and 13, 1905, the Norwegianpeople, by a vote of 259, 563 to 69, 264, ratified the Storthing'schoice, the advocates of a republic recording some 33, 000 votes. Thenew sovereign was crowned at Trondhjem June 22, 1906. By assuming thetitle of Haakon VII. He purposely emphasized the essential continuityof the present Norwegian monarchy with that of mediæval times. [810] [Footnote 810: Haakon VI. Reigned 1343-1380, shortly before the Union of Kalmar. For brief accounts of the relations of Sweden and Norway under the union see Bain, Scandinavia, Chap. 17; Cambridge Modern History, XI. , Chap. 24, XII. , Chap. 11; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, X. , Chap. 18; XI. , Chap. 12; XII. , Chap. 7. The best general treatise is A. Aall and G. Nikol, Die Norwegische-schwedische Union, ihr Bestehen und ihre Lösung (Breslau, 1912). From the Norwegian point of view the subject is well treated in F. Nansen, Norge og Foreningen med Sverige (Christiania, 1905), in translation, Norway and the Union with Sweden (London, 1905); from the Swedish, in K. Nordlung, Den svensk-norska krisen (Upsala and Stockholm, 1905), in translation. The Swedish-Norwegian Union Crisis, A History with Documents (Stockholm, 1905). Worthy of mention are R. Pillons, L'Union scandinave (Paris, 1899); A. Mohn, La Suède et la révolution norvégienne (Geneva and Paris, 1906); and Jordan, La séparation de la Suède et de la Norvège (Paris, 1906). A useful survey is P. Woultrin, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, Jan. 15 and March 15, 1906. ] The fundamental law of Norway to-day is the Eidsvold constitution (p.  579)of April, 1814, revised, November 4 following, to comport with theconditions of the union with Sweden. The original instrument was notonly democratic in tone, but doctrinaire. With little in the nature ofnative institutions upon which to build, the framers laid hold offeatures of the French, English, American, and other foreign systems, in the effort to transplant to Norwegian soil a body of politicalforms and usages calculated to produce a high order of populargovernment. No inconsiderable portion of these forms and usagessurvived the revision enforced by the failure to achieve nationalindependence. Of this portion, however, several proved impracticable, and constitutional amendments after 1814 were numerous. Upon theestablishment of independence in 1905 the fundamental law was modifiedfurther by the elimination from it of all reference to the formerSwedish affiliation. The constitution to-day comprises one hundredtwelve articles, of which forty-six deal with the executive branch ofthe government, thirty-seven with citizenship and the legislativepower, six with the judiciary, and twenty-three with matters of amiscellaneous character. The process of amendment is appreciably moredifficult than that by which changes may be introduced in the Swedishinstrument. [811] Proposed amendments may be presented in the Storthingonly during the first regular session following a national election, and they may be adopted only at a regular session following theensuing election, and by a two-thirds vote. It is required, furthermore, that such amendments "shall never contravene theprinciples of the constitution, but shall relate only to suchmodifications in particular provisions as will not change the spiritof the instrument. "[812] [Footnote 811: See p. 589. ] [Footnote 812: Art. 112. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 143. An English version of the Norwegian constitution is printed in Dodd, ibid. , II. , 123-143, and in H. L. Braekstad, The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway (London, 1905). The standard treatise on the Norwegian system of government is T. H. Aschehoug, Norges Nuvaerende Statsforfatning (2d ed. , Christiania, 1891-1893); but a more available work is an earlier one by the same author, Das Staatsrecht der vereinigten Königreiche Schweden und Norwegen (Freiburg, 1886), in Marquardsen's Handbuch. The most recent and, on the whole the most useful, treatise is B. Morgenstierne, Das Staatsrecht des Königreichs Norwegen (Tübingen, 1911). ] *639. The Crown and the Council. *--The government of Norway, like (p.  580)that of Sweden and of Denmark, is in form a limited hereditarymonarchy. The popular element in it is both legally and actually moreconsiderable than in the constitutional system of either of the sisterScandinavian states; none the less, the principle of monarchy isfirmly entrenched, and, as has been pointed out, not even the overturnof 1905 endangered it seriously. The constitution contains provisionsrespecting the succession to the throne, the conduct of affairs duringa minority, and the establishment of a regency, which need not berecounted here, but which are designed to meet every possiblecontingency. In the event of the absolute default of a legal successorthe Storthing is empowered to elect. Supreme executive authority is vested in the king, who must be anadherent of the Lutheran Church, and who at his accession is requiredto take oath in the presence of the Storthing to govern in conformitywith the constitution and laws. Associated with the king is a Councilof State, upon which, since the king may be neither censured norimpeached, devolves responsibility for virtually all executive acts. The Council consists of a minister of state, or premier, and at leastseven other members. All are appointed by the crown, and all must beNorwegian citizens not less than thirty years of age and adherents ofthe established Lutheran faith. The king may apportion the business ofstate among the councillors as he desires. There are at present, inaddition to the ministry of state, eight ministerial portfolios, i. E. , Foreign Affairs, Justice, Worship and Instruction, Agriculture, Labor, Finance, Defense, and Commerce, Navigation and Industry. Allministers are regularly members of the Storthing, though by theconstitution the crown is authorized for special reasons to add to theCouncil members who possess no legislative seats. The heir to thethrone, if eighteen years of age, is entitled to a seat in theCouncil, but without vote or responsibility. *640. The Exercise of Executive Powers. *--Most of the powers which arepossessed by the king may be exercised by him only in conjunction withthe Council. Like the fundamental law of Sweden, that of Norwaystipulates that, while it shall be the duty of every member of theCouncil to express his opinion freely, and of the king to give ear toall such opinions, it "shall remain with the king to decide accordingto his own judgment. "[813] None the less, the acts of the crown are, as a rule, those not only, legally, of the king _in_ council but, actually, of the king _and_ council. With the exception of militarycommands, all orders issued by the king must be countersigned by theminister of state, and ministers may be impeached at any time by (p.  581)the Odelsthing before the Rigsret, or Court of Impeachment; so that, in effect, there is a close approach to the parliamentary system ofministerial responsibility. Under these conditions, the crown appointsall civil, ecclesiastical, and military officials; removes higherofficials (including the ministers) without previous judicialsentence; pardons offenders after conviction; regulates religiousservices, assemblies, and meetings; issues and repeals regulationsconcerning commerce, customs, industry, and public order; and enforcesthe laws of the realm. The king is commander-in-chief of the land andnaval forces, though these forces may not be increased or diminished, or placed at the service of a foreign sovereign or state, without theconsent of the Storthing. And the king has the power to mobilizetroops, to commence war and conclude peace, to enter into and towithdraw from alliances, and to send and to receive ambassadors. [814] [Footnote 813: Art. 30. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 128. ] [Footnote 814: Arts. 16, 17, 20-26. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 125-127. ] IV. THE STORTHING--POLITICAL PARTIES *641. Electoral System: the Franchise. *--Among the legislatures ofEurope that of Norway is unique. In structure it represents a curiouscross between the principles of unicameral and bicameral organization. It comprises essentially a single body, which, however, for purelylegislative purposes is divided into two chambers, or sections, theLagthing and the Odelsthing. This division is made subsequent to theelection of the members, so that representatives are chosen simply tothe Storthing as a whole. The elections take place every third year. There are forty-one urban, and eighty-two rural, districts, and everydistrict returns one member--a total of 123. Formerly the franchise rested, as in Sweden, upon a propertyqualification; but by a series of suffrage reforms within the pastdecade and a half it has been brought about that in respect toelectoral privileges Norway is to-day the most democratic of Europeancountries. In 1898 the Liberal government of Steen procured theenactment of a measure which long had occupied a leading place in theprogramme of the radical elements. By it the parliamentary franchisewas conferred upon all male citizens of a minimum age of twenty-fiveyears who have resided at least five years in Norway and who havesuffered no judicial impairment of civil rights. The effect was todouble at a stroke the national electorate. In 1901 the same Governmentcarried an important bill by which the suffrage in municipal electionswas conferred upon male citizens without restriction (save that of age), upon all unmarried women twenty-five years of age who pay taxes on (p.  582)an annual income of not less than 300 kronor, and upon all marriedwomen of similar age whose husbands are taxed in equivalent amounts. During ensuing years there was widespread agitation in behalf of theparliamentary franchise for women, and the Liberal party made this oneof the principal items in its programme. June 14, 1907, by a vote of73 to 48, the Storthing rejected a proposal that women be given theparliamentary franchise on the same terms as men, but by the decisivemajority of 96 to 25 it conferred the privilege upon all women whowere in possession of the municipal franchise under the law of 1901. The rapidity with which woman's suffrage sentiment had developed isindicated by the fact that as late as 1898 a proposal looking towardthe including of women in the parliamentary electorate had received inthe Storthing a total of but 33 votes. By the legislation of 1907Norway became the first of European nations to confer upon women, under any conditions, the privilege of voting for members of thenational legislative body and of sitting as members of that body. Atthe elections of 1909, the first in which women participated, norevolutionizing effects were observed. The electorate, however, wasincreased by approximately 300, 000, which was somewhat over half ofthe kingdom's total female population of the requisite age. [815] April30, 1910, the Constitutional Committee of the Storthing, by a majorityof four to three, recommended that parliamentary suffrage be extendedto women on equal terms with men, i. E. , without reference to taxpayingqualifications. The recommendation was rejected, but during the nextmonth the Odelsthing voted, 71 to 10, and the Lagthing, 24 to 7, toapply the principle of it in municipal elections. Thus the municipalelectorate was enlarged by approximately 200, 000, and the way wasprepared, as many believe, for the adoption eventually of theCommittee's original recommendation. Prior to an amendment of May 25, 1905, parliamentary elections were indirect. In the urban districtsone elector was chosen for every fifty voters, and in the ruraldistricts, one for every one hundred. Now, however, elections aredirect. Each petty political unit having a municipal government of itsown comprises a voting precinct. If at the first ballot no candidatein the district receives a majority of all the votes cast, a secondballot is taken, when a simple plurality is decisive. A noteworthyfeature of the system is the fact that voters who on account ofillness, military service, or other valid reason, are unable to appearat the polls are permitted to transmit their votes in writing to theproper election officials. [Footnote 815: At the election of 1909 the total number of parliamentary electors was 785, 358. The number of votes recorded, however, was but 487, 193. ] *642. Qualifications, Sessions, and Organization. *--No one may be (p.  583)chosen a member of the Storthing unless he or she is thirty yearsof age, a resident of the kingdom of ten years' standing, and aqualified voter in the election district in which he or she is chosen;but a former member of the Council of State, if otherwise qualified, may be elected to represent any district. [816] Under recentlegislation every member of the Storthing receives a salary of threethousand kroner a year, in addition to travelling expenses. TheStorthing meets in regular session annually, without regard to summonsby the crown. The constitution fixed originally as the date ofconvening the first week-day after October 10 of each year; but, May28, 1907, the Storthing adopted an amendment whereby, beginning with1908, the meeting time was changed to the first week-day after January10. For sufficient reasons, an extraordinary session may be convokedby the king at any time. The length of sessions is indeterminate, except that an extraordinary session may be adjourned by the crown atwill, and no session, extraordinary or regular, may be prolongedbeyond two months without the king's consent. At its first regularsession following a general election the Storthing divides itself intotwo chambers. A fourth of the membership is designated to constitutethe Lagthing, the remaining three-fourths comprise the Odelsthing; andthe division thus effected holds until the succeeding election. Eachchamber elects its own president, secretary, and other officers. Sessions are public, and business may not be transacted unless atleast two-thirds of the members are present. [Footnote 816: Arts. 59-64. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 134-135. ] *643. Powers and Procedure of the Storthing. *--The powers of theStorthing, as enumerated in the constitution, include the enactmentand the repeal of laws; the levying of taxes, imposts, and duties; theappropriating and the borrowing of money; the regulating of thecurrency; the examining of treaties concluded with foreign powers; theinspection of the records of the Council of State; the making ofprovision for the auditing of the national accounts; and regulation ofthe naturalization of foreigners. [817] All bills are required to bepresented first in the Odelsthing, by one of the members of the body, or by the Government, through a councillor of state. Only in the eventthat a measure passes the Odelsthing is it presented at all in theLagthing, for the sole function of the smaller chamber is to act as acheck upon the larger one. The Lagthing may either approve or reject abill which the Odelsthing submits, but may not amend it. A measurerejected is returned, with reasons for the rejection. Three coursesare then open to the Odelsthing: to drop the measure, to submit it inamended form, or to resubmit it unchanged. When a bill from the (p.  584)Odelsthing has been twice presented to the Lagthing, and has been asecond time rejected, the two chambers are convened in joint session, and in this consolidated body proposals are carried by a two-thirdsvote. All questions pertaining to the revision of the constitution arerequired to be voted upon in this manner. [Footnote 817: Art. 75. Ibid. , II. , 136. ] *644. The Veto Power. *--A bill passed by the Storthing is laid forthwithbefore the king. If he approves it, the measure becomes law. If hedoes not approve it, he returns it to the Odelsthing with a statementof his reasons for disapproval. A measure which has been vetoed maynot again be submitted to the king by the same Storthing. The royalveto, however, is not absolute. "If, " says the constitution, "ameasure has been passed without change by three regular Storthingsconvened after three separate successive elections, and separated fromeach other by at least two intervening regular sessions, without anyconflicting action having in the meantime been taken in any sessionbetween its first and last passage, and is then presented to the kingwith the request that his majesty will not refuse his approval to ameasure which the Storthing, after the most mature deliberation, considers beneficial, such measure shall become law even though theking fails to approve it. .. . "[818] In the days of the Swedish unionthe precise conditions under which the royal veto might be exercisedwere the subject of interminable controversy. In respect to ordinarylegislation the stipulations of the constitution were plain enough, but in respect to measures which in essence comprised constitutionalamendments the silence of that instrument afforded room for widedifferences of opinion. An especially notable conflict was that whichtook place in the early eighties respecting a proposal to admit theNorwegian ministers to the Storthing with the privilege ofparticipation in the deliberations of that body. The measure waspassed by overwhelming majorities by three Storthings after threesuccessive general elections, and in accordance with the constitution, under the Norwegian interpretation, it ought thereupon to have beenrecognized as law. The king, however, not only refused to approve thebill, but asserted firmly that his right to exercise an absolute vetoin constitutional questions was "above all doubt"; and when theStorthing pronounced the measure law without the royal sanction, bothcrown and Swedish ministry avowed that by them it would not berecognized as valid. In the end (in 1884) the Storthing won, but theissue was revived upon numerous occasions. Under the independentmonarchy of 1905 there has been no difficulty of the sort; nor, inview of the eminently popular aspect of kingship in Norway to-day, (p.  585)is such difficulty likely to arise. [Footnote 818: Art. 79. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 137-138. ] *645. Political Parties: Liberals and Conservatives. *--Prior to theaccession of Oscar II. , in 1872, the preponderating fact in thepolitical development of the kingdom was the gradual growth ofparliamentary power on the part of the representatives of thepeasantry. Between 1814 and 1830 the business of the Storthing wasconducted almost wholly by members of the upper and official classes, but during the decade 1830-1840 the peasantry rose to the position ofa highly influential class in the public affairs of the nation. Thefirst of the so-called "peasant Storthings" was that of 1833. In itthe peasant representatives numbered forty-five, upwards of half ofthe body. Under the leadership of Ole Ueland, who was a member ofevery Storthing between 1833 and 1869, the peasant party made itsparamount issue, as a rule, the reduction of taxation and the practiceof economy in the national finances. After 1870 the intensification of the Swedish-Norwegian question ledto the drawing afresh of party lines, and until the separation of1905, the new grouping continued fairly stable. By the amalgamation ofthe peasant party, led by Jaabaek, and the so-called "lawyers" party, led by Johan Sverdrup, there came into being in the seventies a greatLiberal party (the Venstre, or Left) whose fundamental purpose was tosafeguard the liberties of Norway as against Swedish aggression. Until1884 this party of nationalism was obliged to content itself with therôle of opposition. Governmental control was lodged as yet in theConservatives, whose attitude toward Sweden was distinctlyconciliatory. In 1880 the Conservative leader, Frederick Stang, resigned the premiership, but his successor was another Conservative, Selmer. At the elections of 1882 the Liberals obtained no fewer than82 of the 114 seats in the Storthing. Still the Conservatives refusedto yield. In the meantime the Odelsthing had brought the entireministry to impeachment before the Rigsret for having advised the kingto interpose his veto to the measure giving ministers seats inParliament. Early in 1883 Selmer and seven of his colleagues weresentenced to forfeiture of their offices, and the remaining three werefined. March 11, 1884, the king announced his purpose to abide by thedecision of the court, distasteful to him as it was, and the Selmercabinet was requested to resign. An attempt to prolong yet further thetenure of the Conservatives failed completely, and, June 23, 1884, theking sent for Sverdrup and authorized the formation of the firstLiberal ministry in Norwegian history. The principal achievement ofthe new government was the final enactment of the long-contested (p.  586)measure according parliamentary seats to ministers. To this projectthe king at last gave his consent. *646. The Ministerial Succession to 1905. *--The Sverdrup ministryendured almost exactly four years. In 1887 the party supporting itsplit upon a question of ecclesiastical policy, and at the electionsof 1888 the Conservatives obtained fifty-one seats, while of thesixty-three Liberals returned not more than twenty-six were really insympathy with Sverdrup. July 12, 1889, Sverdrup and his colleaguesresigned. Then followed a rapid succession of ministries, practicallyevery one of which met its fate, sooner or later, upon some questionpertaining to the Swedish union: (1) that of Emil Stang[819](Conservative), July 12, 1889, to March 5, 1891; (2) that of JohannesSteen (Liberal), which lasted until April, 1893; (3) a second Stangministry, to February, 1895; and (4) the coalition ministry ofProfessor Hagerup, to February, 1898. At the elections of 1897 theLiberals won a signal victory, carrying seventy-nine of the onehundred fourteen seats, and in February of the next year there wasestablished a second Steen ministry, under whose direction, as hasappeared, there was carried the law introducing manhood suffrage. Steen retired in April, 1902, and another Liberal government, that ofBlehr, held office until October, 1903. At the elections of 1903 theConservatives and Moderates obtained sixty-three seats, the Liberalsfifty, and the Socialists four. A second Hagerup ministry filled theperiod between October 23, 1903, and March 1, 1905, and upon itsretirement there was constituted, under circumstances which involvedtemporarily the all but complete annihilation of party lines, acoalition ministry under Christian Michelsen, at whose hands wasbrought about immediately the separation from Sweden and theconstitutional readjustments of 1905. [Footnote 819: Son of the earlier premier, Frederick Stang. ] *647. Party History Since the Separation. *--Following the subsidence ofthe excitement attending the separation the party alignments ofearlier days tended rapidly to reappear. The old issues, however, hadbeen disposed of, and in their place sprang up new ones, largelysocial and economic in character. At the elections of 1906 thesubjects to which the Liberals gave most prominence were femalesuffrage, old age pensions, and sickness and unemployment insurance. The Michelsen government, which was essentially Conservative, issued amoderate reform programme and, alleging that former party lines wereobsolete, called upon the citizens of all classes for support. Theelections were notable chiefly by reason of the fact that the SocialDemocrats increased their quota in the Storthing to eleven. Despiteattacks of the more radical Left, the Michelsen cabinet stood firm (p.  587)until October 28, 1907, when the premier, by reason of ill health, wasobliged to retire. Lövland, the minister of foreign affairs, succeeded; but, March 14, 1908, on a vote of want of confidence, hisministry was overthrown. A new cabinet was made up thereupon by theLiberal leader, Gunnar Knudsen. At the elections of 1909--the first inwhich women participated--this Liberal government lost the slendermajority which it had possessed, and January 27, 1910, it resigned. Prior to the elections there were in the Storthing fifty-nineLiberals, fifty-four Conservatives and Moderates, and ten SocialDemocrats. Afterwards there were sixty-three Conservatives andModerates, forty-seven Liberals, eleven Social Democrats, and twoIndependents. The popular vote of the Social Democrats was much inexcess of that at any former election, but it was so distributed thatthe party realized from it but a single additional legislative seat. Upon the resignation of Knudsen the premiership was offered toMichelsen, whose health, however, precluded his accepting it. February1, 1910, a Conservative-Moderate ministry was made up by Konow. February 19, 1912, it was succeeded by another ministry of the sametype, under the premiership of the former president of the Storthing, Bratlie. At the elections of November 12, 1912, the Government lostheavily to the Liberals and to the Social Democrats. The socialistquota now numbers twenty-three. [820] [Footnote 820: A brief account of Norwegian political parties to 1900 will be found in Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, XII. , 266-274; to 1906, in Cambridge Modern History, XII. , 280-290. For additional references see pp. 578-579. ] V. THE JUDICIARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT *648. The Courts. *--For the administration of civil justice the kingdomof Norway is divided into 105 districts--eighty rural and twenty-fiveurban--in each of which there is a court of first instance composed oftwo justices chosen by the people. There are three higher tribunals, each with a chief justice and two associates. At the top stands theHöiesteret, or Supreme Court, consisting of a chief justice and sixassociates. The decisions of the Supreme Court may be neither appealednor reviewed. For the trial of criminal cases, as regulated by law ofJuly 1, 1887, there exist two types of tribunals: (1) the Lagmandsret, consisting of a president and ten jurors and (2) the Meddomsret, consisting of a judge and two non-professional assistants chosen foreach case. There are in the kingdom four Lagdömmer, or jury districts, each divided into circuits corresponding, as a rule, to the counties. The jury courts take cognizance of the more serious cases. "No (p.  588)one, " the constitution stipulates, "shall be tried except inaccordance with law or punished except by virtue of a judicialsentence; and examination by means of torture is forbidden. "[821] Themembers of the Lagthing, together with those of the Supreme Court, comprise the Rigsret, or Court of Impeachment. This tribunal tries, without appeal, cases involving charges of misconduct in officebrought by the Odelsthing against members of the Council of State, theSupreme Court, or the Storthing. [822] [Footnote 821: Art. 96. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 141. ] [Footnote 822: Arts. 86-87. Ibid. , II. , 139. ] *649. Local Government. *--For purposes of administration the kingdom isdivided into twenty regions--the cities of Christiania and Bergen andeighteen _Amter_, or counties. At the head of each is an Amtmand, orprefect, who is appointed by the crown. The principal local unit isthe _Herred_, or commune, of which there are upwards of seven hundred, mostly rural parishes. As a rule, the government of the commune isvested in a body of twelve to forty-eight representatives and aFormaend, or council, elected by and from the representatives andcomprising one-fourth of their number. Every third year therepresentatives choose from among the members of the council achairman and a deputy chairman; and, under the presidency of theAmtmand, the chairmen of the rural communes within each county meetyearly as an Amtsthing, or county diet, and adopt the budget of thecounty. Since the municipal electoral law of 1910 members of thecommunal councils are chosen on a basis of universal suffrage for bothmen and women. CHAPTER XXXII (p.  589) THE GOVERNMENT OF SWEDEN I. THE CONSTITUTION--THE CROWN AND THE MINISTRY *650. The Fundamental Laws. *--The constitution of the kingdom of Swedenis one of the most elaborate instruments of its kind in existence. Itcomprises a group of fundamental laws of which the most comprehensiveis the _regerings-formen_ of June 6, 1809, in 114 articles. [823]Closely related are (1) the law of royal succession of September 26, 1810; (2) the law of July 16, 1812, on the liberty of the press; and(3) the law of June 26, 1866, providing for a reorganization of thelegislative chambers. The organs and powers of government are definedin much detail, but there is nothing equivalent to the bill of rightswhich finds a place in most European constitutions. The process ofamendment is easy and minor amendments have been frequent. Amendmentsmay originate with either the crown or the legislative houses, and anyamendment which receives the assent of the crown is declared to beadopted if, after having been proposed or approved by one Riksdag, itis sanctioned by the succeeding one. Through the re-election of thelower chamber, which must intervene between the two stages, the peoplehave some opportunity to participate in the amending process. [824] [Footnote 823: See p. 572. ] [Footnote 824: Arts. 81-82. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 240. In 1908 the ex-premier Staaff proposed that when the two chambers should disagree upon questions concerning the constitution and general laws resort should be had to a popular referendum; but the suggestion was negatived by the upper house unanimously and by the lower by a vote of 115 to 78. The text of the Swedish constitution, together with the supplementary fundamental laws of the kingdom, is contained in W. Uppström, Sveriges Grundlager och konstitutionela stadgar jemte kommunallagarne samt Norges Grundlov (6th ed. , Stockholm, 1903). An English version is printed in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 219-251, and a French one in Dareste, Constitutions Modernes (3d ed. ), II. , 46-114. The best brief treatise upon Swedish constitutional history is P. Fahlbeck, La constitution suédoise et le parlementarisme moderne (Paris, 1905). The best description of the Swedish government as it was a quarter of a century ago is T. H. Aschehoug, Das Staatsrecht der vereinigten königreiche Schweden und Norwegen (Freiburg, 1886), in Marquardsen's Handbuch. The principal treatise in Swedish is C. Naumann, Sveriges statsförfatningsrätt (2d ed. , Stockholm, 1879-1884). ] *651. The Crown and the Ministry. *--At the head of the state (p.  590)stands the king. The monarchy is hereditary, and the crown istransmitted in the male line in the order of primogeniture. It isrequired that the king shall belong invariably to the Lutheran Churchand that at his accession he shall take an oath to maintainscrupulously the laws of the land. With the king is associated aStatsrad, or Council of State, appointed by the crown "from amongcapable, experienced, honest persons of good reputation, who areSwedes by birth, and who belong to the pure, evangelical faith. "[825]By constitutional requirement the Council is composed of elevenmembers, one of whom is designated by the king as minister of stateand president of the council, or premier. Of the eleven eight areheads of the departments, respectively, of Foreign Affairs, Justice, Land Defense, Naval Defense, Home Affairs, Finance, Agriculture, andEducation and Ecclesiastical Affairs. The president and two othermembers are ministers without portfolio. [Footnote 825: Art. 4. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 220. ] *652. The Exercise of Executive Powers. *--The powers of the Swedishexecutive are large. A few are exercised by the crown alone; some bythe crown in conjunction with a small specified number of ministers;the majority by the crown and entire ministry conjointly. The kingacts independently as the commander-in-chief of the land and navalforces of the kingdom. He may conclude treaties and alliances withforeign powers, after having consulted the minister of state, theminister of foreign affairs, and one other member of the Council. Butif he wishes to declare war or to conclude peace he must convene inspecial session the full membership of the Council and must require ofeach member separately his opinion. "The king may then, " it isstipulated, "make and execute such a decision as he considers for thebest interests of the country. "[826] In other words, in such a matterthe king is obliged to consult, but not necessarily to be guided by, his ministerial advisers. [Footnote 826: Art. 13. Ibid. , 223. ] In general, it may be affirmed that this is the principle whichunderlies the organization of the Swedish executive. After having beenprepared by one or more of the ministers, projects are considered bythe king in council; but the right of ultimate decision rests with theking. It is thus that appointments to all national offices are made, titles of nobility are conferred, ordinances are promulgated, texts ofnew laws are framed, and questions of peace and war are determined. Nominally, the ministers are responsible to the Riksdag for all actsof the Government. But the constitution plainly states that aftermatters have been discussed in the Council "the king alone shall havethe power to decide. "[827] If the king's decision is palpably (p.  591)contrary to the constitution or the general laws, the ministers areauthorized to enter protest. But that is all that they may do. Theministers have seats in the Riksdag, where they participate in debateand, in the name of the crown, initiate legislation. But theirresponsibility lies so much more directly to the king than to thelegislature that what is commonly understood as the parliamentarysystem can hardly be said to exist in the kingdom. [Footnote 827: Art. 9. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 221. ] II. THE RIKSDAG: ELECTORAL SYSTEM *653. Establishment of the Bicameral System, 1866. *--Until past themiddle of the nineteenth century the Swedish Riksdag, or diet, comprised still an assemblage of the four estates of the realm--thenobles, the clergy, the burghers, and the peasants. Throughout severaldecades a preponderating political question was that of substitutingfor this essentially mediæval arrangement a modern bicamerallegislative system. In 1840 the Riksdag itself insisted upon a change, but the king, Charles XIV. , refused to give his assent. During thereign of Oscar I. (1844-1859) several proposals were forthcoming, butnone met with acceptance. It was left to Charles XV. (1859-1872), incollaboration with his able minister of justice, Baron Louis Gerhardde Geer, to effect the much-needed reform. In January, 1863, theGovernment submitted to the Estates a measure whereby there was to beconstituted a Riksdag of two chambers--an upper one, which should beessentially an aristocratic senate, and a lower, whose members shouldbe elected triennially by the people. In 1865 all of the four estatesacted favorably upon the bill and, January 22, 1866, the measure waspromulgated by the crown as an integral part of the fundamental law ofthe kingdom. September 1, 1866, there were held the first nationalelections under the new system. Since 1866 the upper chamber hasrepresented principally the old estates of the nobles and clergy, andthe lower has comprised the combined representatives of the townsmenand peasants. The one has been conservative, and even aristocratic;the other, essentially democratic. But the reform has contributedgreatly to the breaking up of the ancient rigidity of the Swedishconstitution and has opened the way for a parliamentary leadership onthe part of the commons which was impossible so long as each of fourorders was in possession of an equal voice and vote in legislativebusiness. *654. The Upper Chamber. *--The membership of both houses of the Riksdagis wholly elective, that of the upper indirectly, and that of the (p.  592)lower directly, by the people. The upper house consists of 150 memberschosen by ballot, after the principle of proportional representation, for a term of six years by the twenty-five Landsthings, or provincialrepresentative assemblies, and by the corporations of five of thelarger towns--Stockholm, Göteborg, Malmö, Norrköping, and Gäfle. Theseelectoral bodies are arranged in six groups, in one of which anelection takes place in September of every year. The franchisearrangements under which they are themselves chosen are stilldetermined principally with reference to property or income, but theyare no longer so undemocratic as they were prior to the electoralreform of 1909, and whereas the elections were previously indirect, they are now direct. No person may be elected to the upper chamber whois not of Swedish birth, who has not attained his thirty-fifth year, and who during three years prior to his election has not owned taxableproperty valued at 50, 000 kroner or paid taxes on an annual income ofat least 3, 000 kroner. [828] A member who at any time loses thesequalifications forthwith forfeits his seat. Members formerly receivedno compensation, but under the reform measure of 1909 they, aslikewise members of the lower chamber, are accorded a salary of 1, 200kroner for each session of four months, and, in the event of an extrasession, 10 kroner a day, in addition to travelling expenses. [Footnote 828: These amounts were substituted in 1909 for 80, 000 and 4, 000 respectively. ] *655. The Lower Chamber. *--As constituted by law of 1894, modified bythe reform act of 1909, the lower chamber consists of 230 memberschosen under a system of proportional representation in fifty-sixelectoral districts, each of which returns from three to sevendeputies. The number of members to be chosen in each of the districtsis determined triennially, immediately preceding the balloting. Priorto the franchise law of 1909 the suffrage was confined, throughproperty qualifications, within very narrow bounds. The electoratecomprised native Swedes twenty-five years of age or over who werequalified as municipal voters and who possessed real property to thetaxed value of 1, 000 kroner, or who paid taxes on an annual income ofat least 800 kroner, or who possessed a leasehold interest for atleast five years of a taxable value of 6, 000 kroner. In 1902 it wasdemonstrated by statistics that of the entire male population of thekingdom over twenty-one years of age not more than thirty-four percent could meet these qualifications. *656. Beginnings of the Movement for Electoral Reform. *--As early as1895 insistent demand began to be made in many quarters for anextension of the franchise, and in the Riksdag of 1896 Premier Boströmintroduced a moderate measure looking toward that end and involvingthe introduction of proportional representation. The bill, (p.  593)however, was defeated. Agitation was continued, and in 1900 theLiberals made electoral reform the principal item of their programme. In 1901 there was passed a sweeping measure for the reorganization ofthe army whereby were increased both the term of military service andthe taxes by which the military establishment was supported. Argumentto the effect that such an augmentation of public burdens ought to beaccompanied by an extension of public privileges was not lost upon themembers of the Conservative Government, and at the opening of theRiksdag of 1902 the Speech from the Throne assigned first place in thelegislative calendar to a Suffrage Extension bill. March 12 themeasure was laid before the chambers. The provisions of the bill were, in brief, (1) that every male citizen, already possessed of themunicipal franchise, who had completed his twenty-fifth year and wasnot in arrears in respect to taxes or military service, should beentitled to vote for a member of the lower national chamber; and (2)that every voter who was married, or had been married, or hadcompleted his fortieth year, should be entitled to two votes. Byreason of its plural voting features the measure was not wellreceived, even though the plural vote was not made in any waydependent upon property. It was opposed by the Liberals and the SocialDemocrats, and members even of the Conservative Government which hadintroduced it withheld from it their support. Amidst unusual publicperturbation the Liberals drew up a counter-proposal, which wasintroduced in the lower chamber April 16. It contemplated not simplyone vote for all male citizens twenty-five years of age who possessedthe municipal franchise, but also a sweeping extension of themunicipal franchise itself. The upshot was the adoption by the Riksdagof a proposal to the effect that the Government, after conducting athorough investigation of the entire subject, should submit, in 1904, a new measure based upon universal suffrage from the age oftwenty-five. *657. The Conservative Proposal of 1904. *--The issue was postponed, butagitation, especially on the part of the Social Democrats, wasredoubled. February 9, 1904, the Government laid before the lowerchamber a new suffrage bill embodying the recommendations of acommission appointed some months previously to conduct theinvestigation which had been ordered. The principal provisions of themeasure were (1) that every male municipal taxpayer who had attainedhis twenty-fifth year, and was not deficient in respect to his fiscalor military obligations, should be entitled to one vote for a memberof the Chamber; and (2) that the 230 legislative seats should bedistributed among thirty-three electoral districts, and should befilled by deputies chosen according to the principle of (p.  594)proportional representation. The introduction of this measure becamethe signal for the appearance of a multitude of projects dealing withthe subject, most of which discarded proportional representation butimposed still fewer restrictions upon the franchise. In the upperhouse the Government's proposal, modified somewhat to meet the demandsof the agrarian interests, was passed by a vote of 93 to 50; but inthe lower chamber the substance of it was rejected by the narrowmargin of 116 to 108. In view of the continued support of the upper house and the meagernessof the opposition majority in the lower, the Government, at theopening of the Riksdag of 1905, submitted afresh its suffrage billwithout material modification. Again there was a deluge ofcounter-proposals, the most important of which was that introducedMarch 18 by Karl Staaff, in behalf of the Liberals, to the effect thatevery citizen in good standing of the age of twenty-four should beentitled to one vote, and that the Chamber should consist of 165 ruraland 65 urban members, chosen in single-member constituencies. May 3and 4 the Government's bill was carried in the upper house by a voteof 93 to 50, but lost in the lower by a vote of 114 to 109. UponStaaff's project the lower house was almost equally divided. *658. The Proposal of the Staaff Government, 1906. *--Upon theresignation of the Lundeberg cabinet, October 28, 1905, following theNorwegian separation, a Liberal ministry was made up by Staaff, andwhen, January 15, 1906, the Riksdag reassembled in regular session thenew Government was ready to push to a conclusion the electoralcontroversy. February 24 Premier Staaff introduced an elaboratemeasure comprising an amplification of that which had been broughtforward by him a year earlier. By stipulating that at the age oftwenty-four every man of good character should have one vote thescheme proposed enormously to enlarge the quota of enfranchisedcitizens, and by apportioning representatives among the town andcountry districts in the ratio of 65 to 165 it promised to reducematerially the existing over-representation of the towns. It excludedfrom the franchise bankrupts, persons under guardianship, anddefaulters in respect to military service; it required for election atthe first ballot, though not at the second, an absolute majority; itstipulated that a rearrangement of constituencies, in accordance withpopulation, should be made every nine years by the king. It gave noplace to the principle of proportional representation which hadappeared in the proposals of the Conservative ministries of 1904 and1905; and while favorable mention was made of female suffrage, theauthors of the measure avowed the opinion that the injection of (p.  595)that issue at the present moment would endanger the entire reformprogramme. Amidst renewed public demonstrations the usual flood ofcounter-projects, several stipulating female suffrage, made itsappearance. The upper chamber, dominated by the Conservatives, heldout for proportional representation, and, May 14, it negatived theStaaff proposal by a vote of 125 to 18. The day following the bill waspassed in the lower chamber by a majority of 134 to 94, and a littlelater proportional representation was rejected by 130 votes to 98. *659. A Compromise Bill Adopted, 1907. *--Upon the ConservativeGovernment of Lindman which succeeded devolved the task of framing ameasure upon which the two chambers could unite. A new bill made itsappearance February 2, 1907. Its essential provisions were (1) thatthe members of the lower chamber should be elected by manhood suffrage(with the limitations specified in the Liberal programme of 1906) andproportional representation; (2) that the number of electoraldistricts should be fixed at fifty-six, each to return from three toseven members; (3) that members of the upper chamber should be electedby the provincial Landsthings and the municipal councils for six yearsinstead of nine as hitherto, and by proportional representation; and(4) that the municipal suffrage, which forms the basis of theelections to the Landsthing, should be democratized in such a mannerthat, whereas previously a wealthy elector might cast a maximum of 100votes in the towns and 5, 000 in the rural districts, [829] henceforththe maximum of votes which might be cast by any one elector should beforty. By the Liberals and Social Democrats this measure was denouncedas inadequate, although on all sides it was admitted that the changesintroduced by it were so sweeping as to amount to a positive revisionof the constitution. The spokesmen of the Liberal Union reintroducedthe Staaff bill of 1906, and the Social Democrats brought forward anew measure which accorded a prominent place to female suffrage. February 8 the two chambers elected a joint committee to investigateand report upon the Government's project. Various amendments wereadded to the bill, e. G. , one whereby members of the upper chamberhenceforth should receive an emolument for their services, andeventually, May 14, the measure was brought to a vote. Despite theapprehensions of the Government, it was carried. In the lower housethe vote was 128 to 98; in the upper, 110 to 29. [Footnote 829: Under the prevailing system, each elector in the towns had one vote for every 100 kroner income, subject to a limit of 100 votes; each one in the country had ten votes for every 100 kroner income, subject to a limit of 5, 000 votes. ] *660. Final Enactment, 1909: Woman's Suffrage. *--The measure (p.  596)comprised a series of constitutional amendments, and, in accordancewith the requirements in such cases, it remained in abeyance until anewly elected Riksdag (chosen in 1908 and assembled in 1909) shouldhave had an opportunity to take action upon it. In the Riksdag of 1908ex-Premier Staaff introduced a measure granting female suffrage inparliamentary elections and extending it in municipal elections. Butboth chambers negatived this and every other proposal offered upon thesubject, preferring to support the Government in its purpose to keepthe issue of woman's suffrage in the background until the reforms of1907 should have been carried to completion. Early in the session of1909 the "preliminary resolution" of 1907 was given the final approvalof the chambers. The Liberals, being now interested principally in thewoman's suffrage propaganda, did not combat the measure, so that themajorities for its adoption were overwhelming. The enactment of this piece of legislation constitutes a landmark inSwedish political history. Through upwards of a decade the question offranchise reform had overshadowed all other public issues and haddistracted attention from various pressing problems of state. Denounced still by the extremists of both radical and conservativegroups, the new law was hailed by the mass of the nation with the mostevident satisfaction. [830] The question of woman's suffrage remains. At the elections of 1908 the Liberal party emulated the SocialDemocrats in the incorporation of this project in its programme, and, April 21, 1909, the Constitutional Committee of the Riksdagrecommended the adoption of a measure whereby women should be accordedthe parliamentary suffrage and eligibility to sit as members of eitherchamber. In May, 1911, the essentials of this recommendation wereaccepted by the lower chamber by a vote of 120 to 92, but by the upperthey were rejected overwhelmingly. At the opening of the Riksdag of1912 the Speech from the Throne announced the purpose of theGovernment to introduce a measure for the enfranchisement of women, and during the session the promise was redeemed by the bringing (p.  597)forward of a bill in accordance with whose terms every Swede, withoutdistinction of sex, over twenty-four years of age and free from legaldisabilities, may vote for members of the lower chamber. [Footnote 830: In the main, the scheme of proportional representation adopted in Sweden is similar to that in operation in Belgium (see pp. 542-545). Electors are expected to write at the head of their ballot papers the name or motto of their party. The papers bearing the same name or emblem are then grouped together, the numbers in each group are ascertained, and the seats available are allotted to these groups in accordance with the d'Hondt rule, irrespective of the number of votes obtained by individual candidates. The candidate receiving the largest number of votes is declared elected. The papers on which his name appears are then marked down to the value of one-half, the relative position of the remaining candidates is ascertained afresh, and the highest of these is declared elected, and so on. Unlike the Belgian system, the Swedish plan provides for the allotment of but a single seat at a time. Humphreys, Proportional Representation, 296-313. ] III. THE RIKSDAG IN OPERATION--POLITICAL PARTIES *661. Organization and Procedure. *--By the Riksdag law of 1866 the kingis required to summon the chambers annually and empowered to conveneextraordinary sessions as occasion may demand. It is within thecompetence of the king in council to dissolve either or both of thechambers, but in such an event a general election must be orderedforthwith, and the new Riksdag is required to be assembled withinthree months after the dissolution. [831] The president andvice-presidents of both houses are named by the crown; otherwise thechambers are permitted to choose their officials and to manage theiraffairs independently. It is specifically forbidden that either house, or any committee, shall deliberate upon or decide any question in thepresence of the sovereign. The powers of the Riksdag cover the fullrange of civil and criminal legislation; but no measure may become lawwithout the assent of the crown. In other words, the veto which theking possesses is absolute. At the same time, the king is forbidden, save with the consent of the Riksdag, to impose any tax, to contractany loan, to dispose of crown property, to alienate any portion of thekingdom, to change the arms or flag of the realm, to modify thestandard or weight of the coinage, or to introduce any alteration inthe national constitution. Measures may be proposed, not only by theGovernment, but by members of either house. The relations between thetwo houses are peculiarly close. At each regular session there areconstituted certain joint committees whose function is the preparationand preliminary consideration of business for the attention of bothchambers. Most important among these committees is that on laws, which, in the language of the constitution, "elaborates projectssubmitted to it by the houses for the improvement of the civil, criminal, municipal, and ecclesiastical laws. "[832] Other suchcommittees are those on the constitution, on finance, onappropriations, and on the national bank. [Footnote 831: Art. 109. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 249. ] [Footnote 832: Art. 53. Ibid. , II. , 234. ] *662. Powers. *--The stipulations of the constitution which relate tofinance are precise. "The ancient right of the Swedish people to taxthemselves, " it is affirmed, "shall be exercised by the Riksdagalone. "[833] The king is required at each regular session to lay (p.  598)before the Riksdag a statement of the financial condition of thecountry in all of its aspects, both income and expenses, assets anddebts. It is made the duty of the Riksdag to vote such supplies as thetreasury manifestly needs and to prescribe specifically the objectsfor which the separate items of appropriation may be employed; also tovote two separate amounts of adequate size to be used by the king inemergency only, in the one instance in the event of war, in the other, when "absolutely necessary for the defense of the country, or forother important and urgent purposes. " [Footnote 833: Art. 57. Ibid. , 234. ] Finally, the Riksdag is authorized and required to exercise asupervisory vigilance in relation to the several branches of thegovernmental system. One of the functions of the ConstitutionalCommittee is that of inspecting the records of the Council of State todetermine whether there has been any violation of the constitution orof the general laws; and in the event of positive findings theCommittee may institute proceedings before the Riksrâtt, or Court ofImpeachment. At every regular session the Riksdag is required toappoint a solicitor-general, ranking equally with the attorney-generalof the crown, with authority to attend the sessions of any of thecourts of the kingdom, to examine all judicial records, to present tothe Riksdag a full report upon the administration of justicethroughout the nation, and, if necessary, to bring charges ofimpeachment against judicial officers. Every third year the Riksdagappoints a special commission to determine whether all of the membersof the Supreme Court "deserve to be retained in their importantoffices. " Every third year, too, a commission of six is constitutedwhich, under the presidency of the solicitor-general, overhauls thearrangements respecting the liberty of the press. [834] [Footnote 834: Arts. 96-100. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 244-245. ] *663. Political Parties: Military and Tariff Questions. *--In Sweden, asin European countries generally, the party alignment which lies at theroot of contemporary politics is that of Conservatives and Liberals. Much of the time, however, within the past half-century partydemarcations have been vague and shifting, being determined largely insuccessive periods by the rise and disappearance of variouspreponderating public issues. The first great question upon whichparty affiliations were shaped after the accession of Oscar II. In1872 was that of national defense. The army and navy were recognizedat that time to be hopelessly antiquated, and the successiveConservative ministries of the seventies were resolved upon greatlyincreased expenditures in the interest of military and navalrehabilitation. Against this programme was set squarely that of rigideconomy, urged by the strongly organized Landtmannapartiet, or (p.  599)Agricultural party, representing the interests of the landedproprietors, large and small, of the kingdom. The Landtmannapartietwas founded in 1867, immediately following the reconstitution of theRiksdag under the law of 1866, and through several decades itcomprised the dominating element in the lower chamber, in addition topossessing at times no inconsiderable amount of influence in the upperone. Throughout the period covered by the Conservative ministry ofBaron de Geer (1875-1880) and the Agricultural party's governmentunder Arvid Posse (1880-1883) there was an all but unbroken deadlockbetween the upper chamber, dominated by the partisans of militaryexpenditure, and the lower, dominated equally by the advocates oftax-reduction. It was not until 1885 that a ministry under Themptandersucceeded in procuring the enactment of a compromise measureincreasing the obligation of military service but remitting thirty percent of the land taxes. By this legislation the military and taxissues were put in the way of eventual adjustment. Already there had arisen a new issue, upon which party lines werechiefly to be drawn during the later eighties and earlier nineties. This was the question of the tariff. The continued distress of theagrarian interests after 1880, arising in part from the competition offoreign foodstuffs, suggested to the landed interests of Sweden thatthe nation would do well to follow in the path already entered upon byGermany. The consequence was the rise of a powerful protectionistparty, opposed by a free trade party with which were identifiedespecially the merchant classes. In 1886 the agrarians procured amajority in the lower chamber, and by 1888 they were in control ofboth branches. The free trade Themptander ministry was thereuponreplaced by the protectionist ministry of Bildt, under which, in 1888, there were introduced protective duties on cereals, and later, in1891-1892, on manufactured commodities. Step by step, the customspolicy developed by Sweden during the middle of the century wasreversed completely. *664. Politics Since 1891. *--July 10, 1891, the Conservative Erik GustafBoström, became premier, and thereafter, save for a brief intervalcovered by the von Otter ministry (September, 1900, to July, 1902)this able representative of the dominant agrarian interests continueduninterruptedly at the helm until the Norwegian crisis in the springof 1905. With the elimination, however, of the tariff issue from thefield of active politics, Premier Boström adopted an attitude onpublic questions which, on the whole, was essentially independent. Inthe later nineties there arose two problems, neither entirely new, which were destined long to occupy the attention of the Governmentalmost to the exclusion of all things else. One of these was the (p.  600)readjustment with Norway. The other was the question of electoralreform. The one affected considerably the fate of ministries, but didnot alter appreciably the alignment of parties; the other became theissue upon which party activity largely turned through a number ofyears. All parties from the outset professed to favor electoralreform, but upon the nature and extent of such reform there was thewidest difference of sentiment and policy. During the course of thecontest upon this issue the Liberal party tended to become distinctlymore radical than it had been in the nineties; and it is worthy ofnote that the rise of the Social Democrats to parliamentary importancefalls almost entirely within the period covered by the electoralcontroversy. The first Social Democratic member of the Riksdag waselected in 1896. From 1906 to 1911 the Conservative ministry ofLindman, supported largely by the landholding elements of bothchambers, maintained steadily its position. At the elections of 1908the Liberals realized some gains, and at those of 1911 both they andthe Social Democrats cut deeply into the Conservative majority. When, in September, 1911, it appeared that the Liberals had procured 102seats in the lower chamber, the Social Democrats 64, and theConservatives but 64, the Lindman government promptly resigned and anew ministry was made up by the Liberal leader and ex-premier Staaff. The invitation which was extended the Social Democrats to participatein the forming of the ministry was declined. In October the upperchamber was dissolved, for the first time in Swedish history, and atthe elections which were concluded November 30 the Liberals and SocialDemocrats realized another distinct advance. Before the elections thechamber contained 116 Conservatives, 30 Liberals, and 4 SocialDemocrats; following them the quotas were, respectively, 87, 51, and12. [835] [Footnote 835: V. Pinot, Le parlementarisme suédois, in _Revue Politique et Parlementaire_, Sept. 10, 1912. ] IV. THE JUDICIARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT *665. The Courts. *--In theory the judicial power in Sweden, being lodgedultimately in the crown, is indistinguishable from the executive; inpractice, however, it is essentially independent. The constitutionregulates with some minuteness the character of the principaltribunal, the _Högsta Domstolen_, or Supreme Court, but leaves theorganization of the inferior courts to be determined by the king andthe Riksdag. The Supreme Court consists of eighteen "councillors ofjustice" appointed by the crown from among men of experience, honesty, and known legal learning. The functions of the court are largely (p.  601)appellate, but it is worthy of note that in the event that a requestis made of the king by the lower courts, or by officials, respectingthe proper interpretation of a law, the Supreme Court is authorized tofurnish such interpretation, provided the subject is a proper one forthe consideration of the courts. Cases of lesser importance may beheard and decided in the Supreme Court by five, or even four, members, when all are in agreement. In more important cases at least sevenjudges must participate. When the king desires he may be present, andwhen present he possesses two votes in all cases heard and decided. When the question is one of legal interpretation he is entitled to twovotes, whether or not he actually attends the proceedings. Alldecisions are rendered in the name of the king. The inferior tribunalscomprise 212 district courts, or courts of first instance, and threehigher courts of appeal (_hofrâtter_), situated at Stockholm, Jönköping, and Kristianstad. In the 91 urban districts the courtconsists of the burgomaster and at least two aldermen; in the 121rural districts, of a judge and twelve elected and unpaid peasantproprietors serving as jurymen. No person occupying judicial officemay be removed save after trial and judgment. *666. Local Government. *--The kingdom is divided into twenty-fiveadministrative provinces or counties (_lân_). [836] The principalexecutive official in each is a _landshöfding_, or prefect, who isappointed by the crown and assisted by a varying number of bailiffsand sub-officials. Each province has a Landsthing, or assembly, whichmeets for a few days annually, in September, under the presidency of amember designated by the crown. All members are elected directly bythe voters of the towns and rural districts, in accordance with theprinciple of proportional representation, and under a body offranchise regulations which, while much liberalized in 1909, still isbased essentially upon property-holding. The function of theLandsthing is the enactment of provincial legislation and the generalsupervision of provincial affairs. In a few of the largertowns--Stockholm, Göteborg, Malmö, Norrköping, and Gäfle--thesefunctions are vested in a separate municipal council. The conditionsunder which purely local affairs are administered are regulated by thecommunal laws of March 21, 1862. Each rural parish and each towncomprises a self-governing commune. Each has an assembly, composed ofall taxpayers, which passes ordinances, elects minor officials, anddecides petty questions of purely communal concern. [Footnote 836: One of these comprises simply the city of Stockholm. ] PART IX. --THE IBERIAN STATES (p.  603) CHAPTER XXXIII THE GOVERNMENT OF SPAIN I. THE BEGINNINGS OF CONSTITUTIONALISM *667. The Napoleonic Régime and the National Resistance. *--It was thefortune of the kingdom of Spain, as it was that of the several Italianstates, to be made tributary to the dominion of Napoleon; and inSpain, as in Italy, the first phase of the growth of constitutionalgovernment fell within the period covered by the Corsican'sascendancy. Starting with the purpose of punishing Portugal for herrefusal to break with Great Britain, Napoleon, during the years1807-1808, worked out gradually an Iberian policy which comprehendednot only the subversion of the independent Portuguese monarchy butalso the reduction of Spain to the status of a subject kingdom. Inpursuance of this programme French troops began, in February, 1808, the occupation of Spanish strongholds, including the capital. The agedBourbon king, Charles IV. , was induced to renounce his throne and thecrown prince Ferdinand his claim to the succession, and, June 6, Joseph Bonaparte, since 1806 king of Naples, was designated sovereign. An assembly of ninety-one pliant Spanish notables, convened at Bayonnein the guise of a junta, was influenced both to "petition" the Emperorfor Joseph's appointment and to ratify the _projet_ of a Napoleonicconstitution. Napoleon's seizure of the crown of Spain was an act of sheer violence, and from the outset Joseph was considered by his subjects a simpleusurper. The establishment of the new régime at Madrid became thesignal for a national uprising which not only compelled the Emperorseriously to modify his immediate plans and to lead in person acampaign of conquest, but contributed in the end to the collapse ofthe entire Napoleonic fabric. Upon the restoration of some degree oforder there followed the introduction of a number of reforms--thesweeping away of the last vestiges of feudalism, the abolition of thetribunal of the Inquisition, the reduction of the number of monasteriesand convents by a third, and the repeal of all internal customs. (p.  604)But the position occupied by the alien sovereign was never other thanprecarious. At no time did he secure control over the whole of thecountry, and during the successive stages of the Peninsular War of1807-1814 his mastery of the situation diminished gradually to thevanishing point. At the outset the principal directing agencies of theopposition were the irregularly organized local juntas which sprang upin the various provinces, but before the end of 1808 there wasconstituted a central junta of thirty-four members, and in September, 1810, there was convened at Cadiz a general Cortes--not three estates, as tradition demanded, but a single assembly of indirectly electeddeputies of the people. *668. The Constitution of 1812. *--Professing allegiance to the captiveFerdinand, the Cortes of 1810 addressed itself first of all to theprosecution of the war and the maintenance of the nationalindependence, but after a year it proceeded to draw up a constitutionfor a liberalized Bourbon monarchy. Save the fundamental decree uponwhich rested nominally the government, of Joseph Bonaparte, thisconstitution, promulgated March 19, 1812, was the first suchinstrument in Spanish history. It was, of course, the first to emanatefrom Spanish sources. Permeating it throughout were the radicalprinciples of the French constitution of 1791. It assertedunreservedly the sovereignty of the people and proclaimed asinviolable the principle of equality before the law. Executiveauthority it intrusted to the king, but the monarch was left so scanta measure of independence that not only might he never prorogue ordissolve the Cortes, but not even might he marry or set foot outsidethe kingdom without express permission. For the actual exercise of theexecutive functions there were created seven departments, orministries, each presided over by a responsible official. Thefundamental powers of state were conferred upon a Cortes of onechamber, whose members were to be elected for a term of two years byindirect manhood suffrage. Various features of the French constitutionwhich experience had shown to be ill-advised were reproduced blindlyenough, among them the ineligibility of members of the legislativebody for re-election and the disqualification of ministers to sit asmembers. The government of the towns was intrusted to the inhabitants;that of the provinces, to a governor appointed by the centralauthorities and an assembly of deputies popularly chosen for a term offour years. As the starting point of Spanish constitutionaldevelopment the fundamental law of 1812 is of genuine interest. It isnot to be imagined, however, that the instrument reflects with anydegree of accuracy the political sentiment and ideals of the mass ofthe Spanish people. On the contrary, it was the work of a slender (p.  605)democratic minority, and it was never even submitted to the nation forratification. It was a product of revolution, and at no time was thereopportunity for its framers to put it completely into operation. [837] [Footnote 837: For brief accounts of the Napoleonic régime in Spain see Cambridge Modern History, IX. , Chap. 11 (bibliography, pp. 851-853); Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, IX. , Chap. 6; A. Fournier, Life of Napoleon the First, 2 vols. , (new ed. New York, 1911), II. , Chaps. 14-15; J. H. Rose, Life of Napoleon I. (London, 1902), Chap. 28; M. A. S. Hume, Modern Spain, 1788-1898 (London, 1899), Chaps. 2-4; and H. B. Clarke, Modern Spain, 1815-1898 (Cambridge, 1906), Chap. 1. Of the numerous histories of the Peninsular War the most celebrated is W. Napier, History of the War in the Peninsula and the South of France, 1807-1814, 10 vols. (London, 1828). ] *669. The Restoration and the Reign of Ferdinand VII. *--Upon the fall ofNapoleon the legitimate sovereign, under the name of Ferdinand VII. , was established forthwith upon the Spanish throne. At one time he hadprofessed a purpose to perpetuate the new constitution, but evenbefore his return to Madrid he pronounced both the constitution andthe various decrees of the Cortes "null and of no effect, " and whenthe Cortes undertook to press its claims to recognition it founditself powerless. In the restoration of absolutism the king wassupported not only by the army, the nobility, and the Church, but alsoby the mass of the people. For constitutional government there wasplainly little demand, and if Ferdinand had been possessed of even themost ordinary qualities of character and statesmanship, he mightprobably have ruled successfully in a perfectly despotic mannerthroughout the remainder of his life. As it was, the reaction wasaccompanied by such glaring excesses that the spirit of revolution waskept alive, and scarcely a twelvemonth passed in the course of whichthere were not menacing uprisings. In January, 1820, a revolt ofunusual seriousness began in a mutiny at Cadiz on the part of thesoldiers who were being gathered for service in America. The revoltspread and, to save himself, the king revived the constitution of 1812and pledged himself to a scrupulous observance of its stipulations. The movement, however, was doomed to prompt and seemingly completefailure. The liberals were disunited, and the two years during whichthe king was virtually a prisoner in their hands comprised a period ofsheer anarchy. The powers of the Holy Alliance, moreover, in congressat Verona (1822), adopted a programme of intervention, in execution ofwhich, in April, 1823, the French government sent an army across thePyrenees under the command of the Duke of Angoulême. A six months'campaign, culminating in the capture of Cadiz, whither the Cortes hadcarried the king, served effectively to crush the revolution and toreinstate the sovereign completely in the position which he had (p.  606)occupied prior to 1820. Then followed a fresh period of repression, inthe course of which the constitution of 1812 was again set aside, andthroughout the remaining decade of the reign the government of thekingdom was both despotic and utterly unprogressive. [838] [Footnote 838: On the period covered by Ferdinand's reign see Cambridge Modern History, X. , Chap. 7 (bibliography, pp. 808-811); Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, X. , Chap. 6; Clarke, Modern Spain, Chaps. 2-4, and Hume, Modern Spain, 1788-1898, Chaps. 5-6. Extended works which touch upon the constitutional aspects of the period include: H. Gmelin, Studien zur Spanischen Verfassungsgeschichte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 1905); G. Diercks, Geschichte Spaniens (Berlin, 1895); A. Borrego, Historia de las Cortes de España durante el siglo XIX. (Madrid, 1885); and M. Calvo y Martin, Regimem parlamentario de España en el siglo XIX. (Madrid, 1883). A valuable essay is P. Bancada, El sentido social de la revolucion de 1820, in _Revista Contemporânea_ (August, 1903). ] II. POLITICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT, 1833-1876 *670. Maria Christina and the Estatuto Real of 1834. *--Ferdinand VII. Died September 29, 1833, leaving no son. Regularly since theestablishment of the Bourbon dynasty the succession in Spain had beengoverned by the principle of the Salic Law, imported originally fromFrance. But, to the end that the inheritance might fall to a daughterrather than to his brother, Don Carlos, Ferdinand had promulgated, in1830, a Pragmatic Sanction whereby the Salic principle was set aside. Don Carlos and his supporters refused absolutely to admit the validityof this act, but Ferdinand was succeeded by his three-year-olddaughter, Isabella, and the government was placed in the hands of thequeen-mother, Maria Christina of Naples, as regent. [839] Heradministration of affairs lasted until 1840. From the constitutionalpoint of view the period was important solely because, under stress ofcircumstances, the regent was driven to adopt a distinctly liberalpolicy, and, in time, to promulgate a new constitutional instrument. Don Carlos, supported by the nobility, the clergy, and otherreactionary elements, kept up a guerilla war by which the tenure ofthe "Christinos" was endangered continuously. The regent was herself athoroughgoing absolutist, but her sole hope lay in the support of (p.  607)the liberals, and to retain that it was necessary for her to makelarge concessions. The upshot was that in April, 1834, she issued aroyal statute (_Estatuto Real_), whereby there was established a newtype of Cortes, comprising two chambers instead of one. The upperhouse, or Estamento de Proceres, was essentially a senate; the lower, or Estamento de Procuradores, was a chamber of deputies. Members ofthe Procuradores were to be elected by taxpayers for a term of threeyears. Upon the Cortes was conferred power of taxation and oflegislation; but the Government alone might propose laws, and theCortes, like its ancient predecessor, was allowed no initiative savethat of petitioning the Government to submit measures upon particularsubjects. A minimum of one legislative session annually wasstipulated; but the sovereign was left free otherwise to convoke andto dissolve the chambers at will. Ministers were recognized to beresponsible solely to the crown. [Footnote 839: In the mediæval states of Spain there was no discrimination against female succession. The Spanish Salic Law was enacted by a decree of Philip V. In 1713, at the close of the War of the Spanish Succession. Its original object was to prevent the union of the crowns of France and Spain. In view of the change which had come in the international situation, Charles IV. , supported by the Cortes, in 1789 abrogated the act of 1713 and re-established the law of _Siete Partidas_ which permitted the succession of women. This measure was recorded in the archives, but was not published at the time; so that what Ferdinand VII. Did was simply to publish, May 19, 1830, at the instigation of the Queen, this _pragmatica_, or law, of 1789. The birth of Isabella occurred the following October 10. ] *671. The Constitution of 1837. *--Toward the establishment ofconstitutional government the Statute of 1834 marked some, albeitsmall, advance. The Moderados, or moderate liberals, were disposed toaccept it as the largest concession that, for the present, could beexpected. But the Progressistas, or progressives, insisted upon arevival of the more democratic constitution of 1812, and in 1836 theregent was compelled by a widespread military revolt to sign a decreepledging the Government to this policy. A constituent Cortes wasconvoked and the outcome was the promulgation of the constitution ofJune 17, 1837, based upon the instrument of 1812, but in respect toliberalism standing midway between that instrument and the Statute of1834. Like the constitution of 1812, that of 1837 affirmed thesovereignty of the nation and the responsibility of ministers to thelegislative body. On the other hand, the Cortes was to consist, asunder the Statute, of two houses, a Senate and a Congress. The membersof the one were to be appointed for life by the crown; those of theother were to be elected by the people for three years. In a number ofrespects the instrument of 1837 resembled the recently adoptedconstitution of Belgium, even as the Statute of 1834 had resembled theFrench Charter of 1814. In the words of a Spanish historian, thedocument of 1837 had the two-fold importance of "assuring theconstitutional principle, which thenceforth was never denied, and ofending the sentiment of idolatry for the constitution of 1812. "[840] [Footnote 840: R. Altamira, in Cambridge Modern History, X. , 238. ] *672. The Constitution of 1845. *--October 12, 1840, the regent MariaChristina was forced by the intensity of civil discord to abdicate andto withdraw to France. Her successor was General Espartero, leader ofthe Progressistas and the first of a long line of military men towhom it has fallen at various times to direct the governmental (p.  608)affairs of the Spanish nation. November 8, 1843, the princess Isabellaalthough yet but thirteen years old, was declared of age and, underthe name of Isabella II. , was proclaimed sovereign. Her reign, covering the ensuing twenty years, comprised distinctly an era ofstagnation and veiled absolutism. Nominally the constitution of 1837continued in operation until 1845. At that time it was replaced by arevised and less liberal instrument, drawn up by the Moderados withthe assistance of an ordinary Cortes. The duration of the Cortes wasextended from three to four years, severer restrictions upon the presswere established, supervision of the local authorities was stillfurther centralized, and the requirement that the sovereign might notmarry without the consent of the Cortez was rescinded. In the courseof a revolutionary movement in 1854 there was convoked a constituentCortes, dominated by Moderates and Progressives. The constitutionwhich this body framed, comprising essentially a revival of theinstrument of 1837, was never, however, put in operation. In the end, by a royal decree of 1856, the constitution of 1845 was amended andre-established. Save for some illiberal amendments of 1857, [841] whichwere repealed in 1864, this instrument of 1845 continued in operationuntil 1868. Throughout the period, however, constitutionalism washardly more than a fiction. [842] [Footnote 841: One established conditions under which senatorial seats might be made hereditary. ] [Footnote 842: Cambridge Modern History, X. , Chap. 7; XI. , Chap. 20; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, X. , Chap. 6; XI. , Chap. 9; Hume, Modern Spain, Chaps. 7-12; Clarke, Modern Spain, Chaps. 5-11; Mariano, La Regencia de D. Baldomero Espartero (Madrid, 1870); J. Perez de Guzman, Las Cortes y los Gobiernos del reinado de Da Isabel II. , in _La España Moderna_, 1903. ] *673. The Constitution of 1869: King Amadeo. *--By a revolt which beganin September, 1868, the queen was compelled to flee from the country, and, eventually, June 25, 1869, to abdicate. A provisional governmenteffected arrangements for the election of a Cortes by manhoodsuffrage, and this Cortes, convened at the capital, February 11, 1869, addressed itself first of all to the task of drafting a new nationalconstitution. A considerable number of members advocated theestablishment of a republic; but for so radical an innovation therewas clearly no general demand, and in the end the proposition wasrejected by a vote of 214 to 71. June 1 a constitution was adoptedwhich, however, marked a large advance in the direction of liberalism. It contained substantial guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom ofthe press, liberty of religion, and the right of petition and ofpublic assembly, and in unequivocal terms the sovereignty of thepeople was affirmed afresh. A Cortes of two houses was provided (p.  609)for, the members of the Senate to be chosen indirectly by the peoplethrough electoral colleges and the provincial assemblies, those of theCongress to be elected by manhood suffrage, the only qualification forvoting being the attainment of the age of twenty-five years andpossession of ordinary civil rights. Pending the selection of a sovereign, a regency was established underMarshal Serrano. Among the several dignitaries who wereconsidered--Alfonso (son of the deposed Isabella) the Duke ofMontpensier, Ferdinand of Savoy (brother of King Victor Emmanuel ofItaly), King Luiz of Portugal, Ferdinand of Saxony, Leopold ofHohenzollern-Sigmaringen, and Prince Amadeo, duke of Aosta, second sonof Victor Emmanuel--favor settled eventually upon the last named, whowas elected November 19, 1870, by a vote of 191 to 120. At the end of1870 the new sovereign arrived in Spain, and February 2, 1871, he tookoath to uphold the recently established constitution. From the outset, however, his position was one of extreme difficulty. He was opposed bythose who desired a republic, by the Carlists, by the adherents of theformer crown prince Alfonso, and by the clergy; and as a foreigner hewas regarded with indifference, if not antipathy, by patrioticSpaniards generally. February 10, 1873, wearied by the turbulence inwhich he was engulfed, he resigned his powers into the hands of theCortes, and by that body his abdication was forthwith accepted. It isa sufficient commentary upon the political character of the reign toobserve that within the twenty-four months which it covered there wereno fewer than six ministerial crises and three general elections. *674. The Republic (1873-1875): Monarchy Restored. *--The breakdown ofthe elective monarchy, following thus closely the overthrow ofabsolutism, cleared the way for the triumph of the republicans. Themonarchist parties, confronted suddenly by an unanticipated situation, were able to agree upon no plan of action, and the upshot was that, bya vote of 258 to 32, the Cortes declared for a republic and decreedthat the drafting of a republican constitution should be undertaken bya specially elected convention. Although it was true, as Castelarasserted, that the monarchy had perished from natural causes, that therepublic was the inevitable product of existing circumstance, and thatthe transition from the one to the other was effected withoutbloodshed, it was apparent from the outset that republicanism had not, after all, struck root deeply. A constitution was drawn up, but it wasat no time really put into operation. The supporters of the new régimewere far from agreed as to the kind of republic, federal or (p.  610)centralized, that should be established;[843] the republican leaderswere mutually jealous and prone to profitless theorizing; the nationwas lacking in the experience which is a prerequisite ofself-government. [844] At home the republic was opposed by themonarchists of the various groups, by the clergy, and by the extremeparticularists, and abroad it won the recognition of not one nationsave the United States. The presidency of Figueras lasted four months;that of Pi y Margall, six weeks; that of Salmeron, a similar period;that of Castelar, about four months (September 7, 1873, to January 3, 1874). Castelar, however, was rather a dictator than a president, andso was his Conservative successor Serrano. By the beginning of 1874 itwas admitted universally that the only escape from the anomaloussituation in which the nation found itself lay in a restoration of thelegitimist monarchy, in the person of Don Alfonso, son of Isabella II. The collapse of the republic was as swift and as noiseless as had beenits establishment. The principal agency in it was the army, which, inDecember, 1874, declared definitely for Alfonso, after he had pledgedhimself to a grant of amnesty and the maintenance of constitutionalgovernment. December 31 a regency ministry under the presidency ofCánovas was announced, and the new reign began with the landing of theyoung sovereign at Barcelona, January 10, 1875. Between the prematureand ineffective republicanism of the past year, on the one hand, andthe absolutism of a Carlist government, on the other, theconstitutional monarchy of Alfonso XII. Seemed a logical, and to themass of the Spanish people, an eminently satisfactory, compromise. [845] [Footnote 843: Castelar favored a consolidated and radical republic; Serrano, a consolidated and conservative republic; Pi y Margall, a federal republic, on the pattern of the United States; Pavia, a republic which should be predominantly military. ] [Footnote 844: In this connection may be mentioned a remark of General Prim, one of the leading spirits in the provisional government of 1868. When asked why at that time he did not establish a republic his reply was: "It would have been a republic without republicans. " There was no less a dearth of real republicans in 1873-1874. ] [Footnote 845: On the revolutionary and republican periods see Cambridge Modern History XI. , Chap. 20 (bibliography, pp. 945-949); Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, XII. , Chap. 9; Hume, Modern Spain, Chap. 10; V. Cherbuliez, L'Espagne politique, 1868-1873 (Paris, 1874); W. Lauser, Geschichte Spaniens von dem Sturz Isabellas, 1868-1875 (Leipzig, 1877); E. H. Strobel, The Spanish Revolution, 1868-1875 (London, 1898); E. Rodriguez Solis, Historia del partido republicano español (Madrid, 1893); Pi y Margall, Amadeo de Saboya (Madrid, 1884); H. R. Whitehouse, Amadeus, King of Spain (New York, 1897). A significant work is E. Castelar, Historia del movimiento republicano en Europa (Madrid, 1873-1874). Special works dealing with the restoration include A. Houghton, Les origines de la restauration des Bourbons en Espagne (Paris, 1890); Diez de Tejada, Historia de la restauracion (Madrid, 1879). ] III. THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION (p.  611) *675. The Constitution Adopted. *--The year following there-establishment of the monarchy was consumed largely in thesuppression of the Carlists and the reorganization of the government. During this period Cánovas, at the head of a strong Conservative andClerical ministry, ruled virtually as a dictator, and sooner or latermost vestiges of the republic were swept away, while the nation waswon over solidly to the new order. At the election of the first Cortesof the Restoration, January 22, 1876, the principle of manhoodsuffrage was continued in operation, though so docile did theelectorate prove that Cánovas was able to secure, in both chambers, aheavy majority which was ready to vote at the Government's behest afranchise system of a much less liberal type. The first important taskof this Cortes was the consideration and adoption of a new nationalconstitution. As to the sort of constitution most desirable there was, as ever, wide difference of opinion. The Conservatives favored arevival of the instrument of 1845. The Liberals much preferred arestoration of that of 1869. A commission of thirty-nine, designatedMay 20, 1875, by a junta convened by Cánovas, had evolved with somedifficulty an instrument which combined various features of both ofthese earlier documents, and by the Cortes of 1876 this proposedconstitution was at length accorded definite, though by no meansunanimous, assent (June 30). This instrument was put forthwith intooperation, and it has remained to this day, substantially withoutalteration, the fundamental law of Spain. Based essentially upon theconstitution of 1845, it none the less exhibits at many points theinfluence of the liberal principles which underlay the instrument of1869. *676. Contents: Guarantees of Individual Liberty. *--In scope theconstitution is comprehensive. Its text falls into thirteen "titles"and eighty-nine articles. Like the constitution of Italy, it containsno provision for its own amendment; but in Spain, as also in Italy, the distinction between constituent and legislative powers is notsharply drawn and a simple act of the legislative body is in practiceadequate to modify the working constitution of the kingdom. Among thethirteen titles one of the most elaborate is that in which are definedthe rights and privileges of Spanish subjects and of aliens residentin Spain. [846] Among rights specifically guaranteed are those offreedom of speech, freedom of the press, peaceful assemblage, theformation of associations, petition, unrestrained choice of professions, and eligibility to public offices and employments, "according to (p.  612)merit and capacity. " Immunities guaranteed include exemption fromarrest, "except in the cases and in the manner prescribed by law";exemption from imprisonment, except upon order of a competent judicialofficial; freedom from molestation on account of religious opinions, provided due respect for "Christian morality" be shown;[847] andexemption from search of papers and effects and from confiscation ofproperty, save by authority legally competent. It is forbidden thateither the military or the civil authorities shall impose any penaltyother than such as shall have been established previously by law. Certain guarantees, i. E. , those respecting arrest, imprisonment, search, freedom of domicile, freedom of speech and press, assemblage, and associations, may, under provision of the constitution, besuspended throughout the kingdom or in any portion thereof, but onlywhen demanded by the security of the state, and then only temporarilyand by means of a specific law. In no case may any other guaranteewhich is named in the constitution be withdrawn, even temporarily. When the Cortes is not in session the Government may suspend, throughthe medium of a royal decree, any one of the guarantees which theCortes itself is authorized to suspend, but at the earliestopportunity such a decree must be submitted to the Cortes forratification. It need hardly be pointed out that the opportunity forthe evasion of constitutionalism which is created by this power ofsuspension is enormous, and anyone at all familiar with the history ofpublic affairs in Spain would be able to cite numerous occasions uponwhich, upon pretexts more or less plausible, the guarantees of thefundamental law have been set at naught. [848] [Footnote 846: No. 1. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 199-203. ] [Footnote 847: By Article II Roman Catholicism is declared to be the religion of the state. "The nation, " it is stipulated further, "binds itself to maintain this religion and its ministers. " Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 201. ] [Footnote 848: An official text of the constitution of 1876 is published by the Spanish Government under the title Constitución politica de la monarchia Española y leyes complementarias (4th ed. , Madrid, 1901). The texts of all of the Spanish constitutions of the nineteenth century are printed in the first volume of Muro y Martinez, Constituciones de España y de las demas naciones de Europa, con la historia general de España (Madrid, 1881); also in the first volume--Constituciones y reglamentos (Madrid, 1906)--of a collection projected by the Spanish Government under the title of Publicaciones Parlamentarias. English versions of the instrument of 1876 appear in British and Foreign State Papers, LXVII. (1875-1876), 118 ff. , and Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 199-216. An excellent brief treatise on Spanish constitutional development is H. Gmelin, Studien zur spanischen Verfassungsgeschichte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 1905); on Spanish constitutional law, M. Torres Campos, Das Staatsrecht des Königreichs Spanien (Freiburg, 1889), in Marquardsen's Handbuch; on Spanish administrative law, V. Santamaria de Paredes, Curso de derecho administrativo (5th ed. , Madrid, 1898); and on the comparative aspects of Spanish institutions, R. De Oloriz, La Constitución española comparada con las de Inglaterra, Estados-Unidos, Francia y Alemania (Valencia, 1904). More extended works of importance include V. Santamaria de Paredes, Curso de derecho politico (6th ed. , Madrid, 1898), and A. Posada, Tratado de derecho administrativo (Madrid, 1897-1898). A monumental collection of laws relating to Spanish administrative affairs is M. Martinez Alcubilla, Diccionario de la administración Española, Peninsular y Ultramarina (5th ed. , 1892-1894), to which is added annually an appendix containing texts of the most recent laws and decrees. Special treatises of importance are M. M. Calvo, Regimen parlamentario en España (Madrid, 1883); J. Costa, Oligarquia y Caciquismo como la forma actual del Gobierno en España (Madrid, 1903); and Y. Guytot, L'évolution politique et sociale de l'Espagne (Paris, 1899). Mention may be made of R. Fraoso, Las constituciones de España, in _Revista de España_, June-July, 1880. ] IV. THE CROWN AND THE MINISTRY (p.  613) *677. The Rules of Succession. *--Executive power in the kingdom isvested solely in the crown, although in practice it devolves to alarge degree upon the council of ministers. Kingship is hereditary, and in regulation of the succession the constitution lays down thegeneral principle that an elder line shall always be preferred toyounger ones; in the same line, the nearer degree of kinship to themore remote; in the same degree of kinship, the male to the female; inthe same sex, the older to the younger person. By the originalconstitution Alfonso XII. Was declared to be the legitimate sovereign, and provision was made that if the line of legitimate descendants ofAlfonso should be extinguished, his sisters should succeed in theestablished order; then his aunt (the sister of his mother IsabellaII. ) and her legitimate descendants; and, finally, the descendants ofhis uncles, the brothers of Ferdinand VII. [849] It will be recalledthat the Pragmatic Sanction of 1830 abolished in Spain the Salicprinciple and restored the ancient right of females to inherit. Spainis, indeed, one of the few European states in which this right exists. At the same time, as has been pointed out, when the degree of kinshipis identical, preference is accorded the male. Thus it came about thatthe present sovereign, Alfonso XIII. , the posthumous son of AlfonsoXII. , took precedence over his two sisters, both of whom were olderthan he, and the elder of whom, Maria de las Mercedes, actually wasqueen from the death of her father, November 25, 1885, until the birthof her brother, May 17, 1886. [850] [Footnote 849: Arts. 59-61. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 211. ] [Footnote 850: She was, however, but a child five years of age. ] *678. Regencies. *--Any member of the royal family who may be incapableof governing, or who by his conduct may have forfeited his claim to thegood-will of the nation, may be excluded from the succession by (p.  614)law. Disputes concerning rights or facts involved in the successionare to be adjusted by law, and in event that all of the family linesmentioned in the constitution should be extinguished it would becomethe duty of the Cortes to make such disposal of the crown as might beadjudged "most suitable to the nation. "[851] Both the sovereign andthe heir presumptive are forbidden to marry any person who by law isexcluded from the succession. They are, indeed, forbidden to contracta marriage at all until after the Cortes shall have examined andapproved the stipulations involved. The age of majority of thesovereign is fixed at sixteen years. When the king is a minor, hisfather or his mother, or, in default of a living parent, the relativewho stands next in the order of succession, is constituted regent, provided always that such person be a Spaniard at least twenty yearsof age and not by law excluded from the succession. Should there be noone upon whom the regency may lawfully devolve, it is the duty of theCortes to appoint a regency of one, three, or five persons. If, at anytime, in the judgment of the Cortes, the sovereign becomesincapacitated to rule, a regency is required to be vested in the crownprince, provided he be sixteen years of age. In default of a qualifiedcrown prince the regency devolves upon the queen; and in default ofboth son and queen, upon a person determined in accordance with therules already mentioned. [Footnote 851: Art. 62. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 212. ] *679. Powers of the Crown. *--The powers of the crown are of the sortcommon among continental monarchies. By the constitution they arethrown into two groups, i. E. , those which may be exercised freely andindependently and those which may be exercised only upon theauthorization of a special law. Enumeration of the first group beginswith the sweeping statement that "the power of executing the laws isvested in the king, and his authority extends to everything whichconduces to the preservation of public order at home and the securityof the state abroad, in conformity with the constitution and thelaws. "[852] Powers specifically named include the approval andpromulgation of the laws; the issuing of decrees, regulations, andinstructions designed to facilitate the execution of the laws; theappointment and dismissal of ministers and of civil officialsgenerally; command of the army and navy and direction of the land andnaval forces; the declaration of war and the conclusion of peace;[853]the conduct of diplomatic and commercial relations with foreignstates; the pardoning of offenders; the control of the coinage; (p.  615)and the conferring of honors and distinctions of every kind. Of powerswhich the sovereign may exercise only in pursuance of authorityspecially conferred by law there are five, as follows: alienation, cession, or exchange of any portion of Spanish territory; incorporationof new territory; admission of foreign troops into the kingdom;ratification of all treaties which are binding individually uponSpaniards, and of treaties of offensive alliance which stipulate thepayment of subsidies to any foreign power, or which relate especiallyto commerce; and abdication of the crown in favor of theheir-presumptive. [Footnote 852: Art. 50. Ibid. , II. , 210. ] [Footnote 853: It is required that subsequent to a declaration of war or the conclusion of peace the king shall submit to the Cortes a report accompanied by pertinent documents. ] *680. The Ministry: Organization and Functions. *--In Spain, as inconstitutional states generally, the powers appertaining to theexecutive are exercised in the main by the ministers. Concerning theministry the constitution has little to say. It, in truth, assumes, rather than makes specific provision for, the ministry's existence. Itconfers upon the crown the power freely to appoint and to dismissministers; it stipulates that ministers may be senators or deputiesand may participate in the proceedings of both legislative chambers, but may vote only in the chambers to which they belong; and, mostimportant of all, it enjoins that ministers shall be responsible, andthat no order of the king may be executed unless countersigned by aminister, who thereby assumes personal responsibility for it. Thisprinciple of ministerial responsibility, which found its firstexpression in Spain in the constitution of 1812, is enforced nowadayssufficiently, at least, to ensure the nation, through the Cortes, someactual control over the policies and measures of the executive. Ofministries there are at present nine, as follows: Foreign Affairs;Justice; Finance; War; Marine; Interior; Public Instruction and FineArts; Commerce; and Public Works. At the head of the ministerialcouncil is a president, or premier, who, under royal approval, selectshis colleagues, but ordinarily assumes himself no portfolio. It is thefunction of the ministers not only to serve as the heads of executivedepartments and to explain and defend in the legislative chambers theacts of the government, but, in their collective capacity, toformulate measures for presentation to the Cortes and, especially, tosubmit every year for examination and discussion a general budget, accompanied by a scheme of taxation or other proposed means of meetingprospective expenditures. In each chamber there is reserved for theministers of the crown a front bench to the right of the presidingofficial. The practice of interpellation exists, although ministriesrarely retire by reason of a vote of censure arising therefrom. But anyminister may be impeached by the Congress before the Senate. In Spain, as in France and Italy, the parliamentary system is nominally in (p.  616)operation; but, as in the countries mentioned, the multiplicity andinstability of party groups render the workings of the system totallydifferent from what they are in Great Britain. Ministries areinvariably composite rather than homogeneous in political complexion, with the consequence that they are unable to present a solid front orlong to retain their hold upon the nation's confidence. V. THE CORTES *681. The Senate: Composition. *--The legislative powers of the kingdomare vested in "the Cortes, together with the king. " The Cortesconsists of two co-ordinate chambers, the Senate and the Congress ofDeputies. In the composition of the Senate the prescriptive, appointive, and elective principles are curiously intertwined, thechamber containing one group of men who are members in their ownright, another who are appointed by the crown and sit for life, and athird who are elected by the corporations of the state and by thelarge taxpayers. In number the first two categories jointly may notexceed 180; the third is fixed definitely at that figure. In point offact the life senators nominated by the crown number 100, while thequota of prescriptive members varies considerably. This last-mentionedgroup comprises grown sons of the sovereign and of the heir-presumptive;the admirals of the navy and the captains-general of the army; thepatriarch of the Indies and the archbishops; the presidents of theCouncil of State, the Supreme Court, the Court of Accounts, and theSupreme Councils of War and Marine, after two years of service; andgrandees of Spain[854] in their own right, who are not subjects ofanother power and who have a proved yearly income of 60, 000 pesetas($12, 000) derived from real property of their own, or from rightslegally equivalent to real property. [855] [Footnote 854: The rank of grandee (_grande_) is a dignity conferred by the sovereign, either for life or as an hereditary honor. ] [Footnote 855: Art. 21. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 204]. *682. Appointment and Election of Senators. *--Appointment of senators bythe crown is made by special decree, in which must be stated thegrounds upon which each appointment is based. In the selection ofappointees the sovereign is not entirely free, but since the constitutiondesignates no fewer than twelve classes from which appointments may bemade, the range of choice is large. Among the categories enumeratedare the presidents of the legislative chambers; deputies who have beenmembers of as many as three congresses, or who have served during asmany as eight sessions; ministers of the crown; bishops; grandees;lieutenant-generals of the army and vice-admirals of the navy, of (p.  617)two years' standing; ambassadors, after two years of active service, and ministers plenipotentiary, after four years; presidents anddirectors of the half-dozen royal academies, and persons who in pointof seniority belong within the first half of the list of members ofthese respective bodies; head professors in the universities, who haveheld this rank and have performed the duties pertaining to it througha period of four years; and a variety of other administrative, judicial, and professional functionaries. Persons belonging to any oneof these groups, however, are eligible for appointment only in theevent that they enjoy an annual income of 7, 500 pesetas ($1, 500), derived from property of their own or from salaries of permanentemployments, or from pensions or retirement allowances. In addition tothe classes mentioned persons are eligible who for two years havepossessed an annual income of 20, 000 pesetas, or who have paid intothe public treasury a direct tax of 4, 000 pesetas, provided that inaddition they possess titles of nobility, or have been members of theCortes, provincial deputies, or mayors in capitals of provinces or intowns of more than 20, 000 inhabitants. Appointments are made regularlyfor life. The conditions under which the quota of 180 elected senators arechosen were defined by a statute of February 8, 1877. One senator ischosen by the clergy in each of the nine archbishoprics; one by eachof the six royal academies; one by each of the ten universities; fiveby the economic societies; and the remaining 150 by electoral collegesin the several provinces. The electoral college is composed of membersof the provincial deputations and of representatives chosen from amongthe municipal councillors and largest taxpayers of the towns andmunicipal districts. But no one may become a senator by election whowould be ineligible, under the conditions above mentioned, to beappointed to a seat by the crown. And it is required in all cases thatto become a senator one must be a Spaniard, must have attained the ageof thirty-five, must have the free management of his property, andmust not have been subjected to criminal proceedings, nor have beendeprived of the exercise of his political rights. The term of electedsenators is ten years. One-half of the number is renewed every fiveyears; but upon a dissolution of the elected portion of the chamber bythe crown, the quota is renewed integrally. [856] [Footnote 856: Arts. 20-26. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 203-206. ] *683. The Congress of Deputies: Composition and Election. *--The lowerlegislative chamber is composed of deputies chosen directly by theinhabitants of the several electoral districts into which the kingdomis divided. From the adoption of the present constitution until 1890the franchise was restricted severely by property qualifications. (p.  618)A reform bill which became law June 29, 1890, however, re-establishedin effect the scheme of manhood suffrage which had been in operationduring the revolutionary epoch 1869-1875. Under the provisions of alaw of August 8, 1907, by which the electoral system was furtherregulated, the franchise is conferred upon all male Spaniards who haveattained the age of twenty-five, who have resided in their electoraldistrict not less than two years, and who have not been deprivedjudicially of their civil rights. [857] Except, indeed, in the case ofcertain judicial officials and of persons more than seventy years ofage, the exercise of the voting privilege is, as in Belgium and insome of the Austrian provinces, compulsory. The constitution requiresthat there shall be at least one deputy for every 50, 000 inhabitants. The total membership of the Congress is at present 406. In themajority of districts but a single deputy is chosen, but intwenty-eight of the larger ones two or more are elected by _scrutin deliste_, with provision for the representation of minorities. Indistricts in which two or three deputies are to be chosen, eachelector votes for one fewer than the number to be elected; indistricts where from four to seven are to be chosen, the elector votesfor two fewer than the total number; and where the aggregate number iseight to ten, or more than ten, he votes for three or four fewer, respectively. Any Spaniard who is qualified for the exercise of thesuffrage is eligible for election, and for indefinite re-election, asa deputy, save that no member of the clergy may be chosen. The term ofmembership is five years, though by reason of not infrequentdissolutions the period of service is actually briefer. As is truealso of senators, deputies receive no pay for their services. [858] [Footnote 857: There is the customary regulation that soldiers and sailors in active service may not vote. ] [Footnote 858: J. Vila Serra, Manual de elecciones de Diputados a Cortes (Valencia, 1907); J. Lon y Albareda, Nueva ley electoral de 8 de Agosto de 1907, comentada (Madrid, 1907); M. Vivanco y L. San Martin, La reforma electoral (Madrid, 1907). ] *684. Sessions and Status of the Chambers. *--The Cortes, consisting thusof the Senate and the Congress of Deputies, is required by theconstitution to be convened by the crown in regular session at leastonce each year. Extraordinary sessions may be held, and upon the deathor incapacitation of the sovereign the chambers must be assembledforthwith. To the crown belongs the power not only to convene, butalso to suspend and to terminate the sessions, and to dissolve, simultaneously or separately, the Congress and the elective portion ofthe Senate. In the event, however, of a dissolution, the sovereign isobliged to convene the newly constituted Cortes within the space ofthree months. Except when it devolves upon the Senate to exercise (p.  619)its purely judicial functions, neither of the chambers may beassembled without the other. In no case may the two chambers sit as asingle assembly, or deliberate in the presence of the sovereign. Eachbody is authorized to judge the qualifications of its members and toframe and adopt its own rules of procedure. The Senate elects itssecretaries, but its president and vice-president are designated, foreach session, and from the senators themselves, by the crown. TheCongress, on the other hand, elects from its membership all of its ownofficials. Sessions of both chambers are public, though "when secrecyis necessary" the doors may be closed. A majority of the membersconstitutes a quorum, and measures are passed by a majority vote. Nosenator or deputy may be held to account by legal process for anyopinion uttered or for any vote cast within the chamber to which hebelongs; and, save when taken in the commission of an offense, amember is entitled to all of the safeguards against arrest andjudicial proceedings which are extended customarily to members oflegislative bodies in constitutional states. [859] [Footnote 859: It is to be observed that these guarantees are not quite absolute. During the crisis of 1904 the Maura government required the Congress to suspend the legislative immunity of no fewer than 140 members, and for the first time since 1834 deputies were handed over to the courts to be tried for offenses of a purely political character. ] *685. Functions and Powers of the Cortes. *--The function of the Cortesis primarily legislative. Each chamber shares with the crown the rightto initiate measures, and no proposal can become law until it hasreceived the sanction of the two houses. Rejection of a bill by eitherchamber, or by the crown, precludes the possibility of a reappearanceof the project during the continuance of the session. Measuresrelating to taxation and to the public credit must be presented, inthe first instance, in the Congress of Deputies, and it is made thespecific obligation of the Government every year to lay before thatbody for examination and approval a budget of revenues andexpenditures. Only upon authority of law may the Government alienateproperty belonging to the state, or borrow money on the public credit. Under Spanish constitutional theory the Cortes is the agent of thesovereign nation. It is authorized, therefore, not only to dischargethe usual functions of legislation but also to do three other thingsof fundamental importance. In the first place, it receives from thesovereign, from the heir-apparent, and from the regent or regency ofthe kingdom, the oath of fidelity to the constitution and the laws. Inthe second place, under provisions contained within the constitution, it elects the regent or regency and appoints a guardian for a (p.  620)minor sovereign. Finally, to maintain the responsibility of ministersto the lower chamber, and, through it, to the nation, the Congress isauthorized to impeach, and the Senate to try, at any time any memberof the Government. [860] [Footnote 860: Arts. 32-47. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 207-209. On the Cortes may be consulted, in addition to the constitutional treatises mentioned on pp. 612-613, A. Borrego, Historia de las Cortes de Españo durante el siglo XIX. (Madrid, 1885), and A. Pons y Umbert, Organizaciôn y funcionamento de las Cortes segun las constituciones españolas y reglamentacion de dicho cuerpo colegislador (Madrid, 1906). ] VI. POLITICAL PARTIES *686. Party Groups After 1869. *--Since the dawn of constitutionalismpolitical life in Spain has comprised much of the time a sheer gamebetween the "ins" and the "outs", in which issues have counted forlittle and the schemings of the caciques, or professional wire-pullersand bosses, have counted for well-nigh everything. For the exercise ofindependent popular judgment upon fundamental political questionsaptitude has been meager and opportunity rare. Political parties therehave been, and still are, and certain of them have exhibited distinctpower of survival. Yet it must be observed that even the stablest ofthem are essentially the creatures of the political leaders and thatat no time have they exhibited the broadly national rootage ofpolitical parties in other states of western Europe. Party cleavages in Spain had their beginning early in the nineteenthcentury, but for the origins of the groups which share in an importantmanner nowadays in the politics of the kingdom it is not necessary toreturn to a period more remote than that of the revolution of 1868. Subsequent to the expulsion of Queen Isabella at least four groupswere thrown into more or less sharp relief. One was the Carlists, supporters of the claims of Don Carlos and, in respect to politicalprinciple, avowed absolutists. A second comprised the Republicans, ledby Castelar, whose demand for the establishment of a republic, rejected in 1869, carried the day upon the breakdown of the Amadeomonarchy four years later. Between the Carlists, on the one hand, andthe Republicans, on the other, stood the mass of the politicalleaders, and, so far as may be judged, of the nation also. All wereagreed upon the general principle of constitutional monarchy. But uponthe precise nature of the government which had been established and ofthe public policy which ought to be pursued there was, and could be, little agreement. The consequence was a sharp-cut cleavage, by whichthere were set off in opposition to each other two large parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals; and, save for the brief (p.  621)ascendancy of the Republicans in 1873-1874, it is these two partieswhich have shared between them the government of the kingdom from theestablishment of the limited monarchy in 1869 to the present day. Bothof these leading parties have been pledged continuously to maintainthe constitution and all of the popular privileges--freedom of speech, liberty of the press, safety of property, the right of establishingassociations, and the like--guaranteed by that instrument. Upon the_methods_ by which these things shall be maintained the partiesoriginally divided and still are disagreed. Fundamentally, the policyof the Liberals is to commit the guardianship of public privileges tothe courts of justice, while that of the Conservatives is to retain itrather in the hands of the ministerial and administrative authorities. In the normal course of development the Liberal party has tended todraw to itself those liberal elements generally which are satisfied torely upon legal means for the realization of their purposes, e. G. , the free-traders, the labor forces, and many of the socialists. Similarly the Conservative party has attracted a considerableproportion of the reactionaries, especially the Ultramontanes, by whomspecial stress is placed upon the maintenance of peace with theVatican, and many representatives of the old Moderate party which wasswept out of existence by the overturn of 1868. *687. Liberals and Conservatives: Cánovas and Sagasta. *--The firstpublic act of Alfonso XII. , following his proclamation as king, December 29, 1874, was to call to his side in the capacity of premierCánovas del Castillo, by whom was formed a strong Conservativeministry. Consequent upon the convocation of the Cortes of 1876 andthe adoption of the new constitution of that year, the various groupsof Liberals were drawn into a fairly compact opposition party, supporting the Alfonsist dynasty and the new constitutional régime, but proposing to labor, by peaceful means, for the restoration of asmany as possible of the more liberal features of the constitution of1869. It is of interest to observe that the party, in its earlieryears, was encouraged by Cánovas, on the theory that there would beprovided by it a natural and harmless outlet for inevitableebullitions of the liberal spirit. Under the able leadership ofSagasta the development of the party was rapid, and in 1881 Cánovasdetermined to give the country a taste of Liberal rule. Following acollusive "defeat" the premier retired, whereupon Sagasta wasdesignated premier and a Liberal ministry was established which heldoffice somewhat more than two years. By the Republicans and otherradical forces the ministry of Sagasta was harassed unsparingly, justas had been that of Cánovas, and the actual working policies of (p.  622)the two differed in scarcely any particular. Within the Liberal ranks, indeed, a "dynastic Left" became so troublesome that Sagasta, aftertwo years, yielded office to the leader of the disaffected elements, Posada Herrera. The only effect of the experiment was to demonstratethat between the Conservatives led by Cánovas and the Liberals led bySagasta there was no room for a third party. In 1885 Cánovas returned to power, but for only a brief interval, forupon the establishment of the regency of Queen Christina, followingthe death of Alfonso XII. , November 25, 1885, Sagasta was called uponto form the first of a series of ministries over which he presidedcontinuously through the ensuing five years. In the memorable Pact ofEl Pardo it had been agreed between the Liberal and Conservativeleaders that each would assist the other in the defense of the dynastyand of the constitution, and although Sagasta had avowed the intentionof reintroducing certain principles of the constitution of 1869 he waspledged to proceed in a cautious manner and a conciliatory spirit. Theelections of 1884 yielded a substantial Conservative majority in bothchambers of the Cortes. None the less the Conservatives accorded theLiberal government their support, until by the elections of 1886 theLiberals themselves acquired control of the two houses. Throughoutthree years Castelar and the more moderate Republicans co-operatedactively with the Government in the re-introduction of jury trial, therevival of liberty of the press, and a number of other liberalmeasures; but the Government was annoyed continually by attacks andintrigues participated in by both the less conciliatory Republicansand the Carlists. The crowning achievement of the Sagasta ministry wasthe carrying through of the manhood suffrage act of June 29, 1890. Within a month after the promulgation of the suffrage law the regentgave Sagasta to understand that the time had arrived for a change ofleaders. The Cánovas ministry which was thereupon established enduredtwo and a half years, and was given distinction principally by itsintroduction, in 1892, of the thoroughgoing protectionist régime whichprevails in Spain to-day. The Conservatives falling into discord, Cánovas resigned, December 8, 1892; and at the elections of thefollowing year the Conservatives carried only one hundred seats in theChamber. During the period from December, 1892, to March, 1895, Sagasta was again at the helm. *688. The American War and Ministerial Changes, 1895-1902. *--Between1895 and 1901 there was a rapid succession of ministries, virtuallyall of which were both made and unmade by situations arising from (p.  623)the war in Cuba and the subsequent contest with the United States. Inthe hope of averting American intervention a new Cánovas government, established in 1895, brought forward a measure for the introduction ofhome rule in Cuba, but while the bill was pending, Cánovas wasassassinated, August 9, 1897, and the proposition failed. The newConservative cabinet of General Azcarraga soon retired, and althoughthe Sagasta government which succeeded recalled General Weyler fromCuba and inaugurated a policy of conciliation, the situation had gotbeyond control and war with the United States ensued. By thesuccession of Spanish defeats the popularity of the Liberal régime wasstrained to the breaking point, and at the close of the war Sagasta'sministry gave place to a ministry formed by the new Conservativeleader Silvela. The elections of April 16, 1899, yielded theSilvelists a majority and the ministry, reconstituted September 28 ofthe same year, retained power until March 6, 1901. At that date theLiberals gained the upper hand once more; and, with two briefintervals, Sagasta remained in office until December 3, 1902. Withinscarcely more than a month after his final retirement, the greatLiberal leader passed away. *689. Parties Since the Death of Sagasta. *--A second Silvela ministry, established December 6, 1902, brought the Conservatives again intopower. This ministry, which lasted but a few months, was followedsuccessively by four other Conservative governments, as follows: thatof Villaverde, May, 1903, to December, 1903; that of Antonio Maura yMontanes, December, 1903, to December, 1904; the second of GeneralAzcarraga, December, 1904, to January, 1905; and the second ofVillaverde, from January, 1905, to June, 1905. Of these the mostvirile was that of Maura, a former Liberal, whose spirit ofconciliation and progressiveness entitled him to be considered one ofthe few real statesmen of Spain in the present generation. Following the death of Sagasta the Liberals passed through a period ofdemoralization, but under the leadership of Montero Rios theygradually recovered, and in June, 1905, the government of Villaverdewas succeeded by one presided over by Rios. At the elections ofSeptember 10, 1905, the Ministerialists secured 227 seats and theConservatives of all groups but 126 (the remainder being scattered);but discord arose and, November 29 following, the cabinet of Riosresigned. Upon the great ecclesiastical questions of the day--civilmarriage, the law of associations, and the secularization ofeducation--both parties, but especially the Liberals, were disruptedcompletely, and during the period of but little more than a year betweenthe retirement of Rios and the return to power of Maura, January 24, 1907, no fewer than five ministries sought successively to grapple (p.  624)with the situation. Under Maura a measure of stability was restored. The premier, although a Catholic, was moderately anti-clerical. Hisprincipal purpose was to maintain order and to elevate the plane ofpolitics by a reform of the local government. At the elections ofApril 21, 1907, the Conservatives won a victory so decisive that inthe Congress they secured a majority of 88 seats over all other groupscombined. [861] The fall of the Maura ministry, October 21, 1909, camein consequence largely of the Moroccan crisis, but more immediatelyby reason of embarrassment incident to the execution of theanarchist-philosopher Señor Ferrer. The Liberal ministry of Moret, constituted October 22, 1909, lacked substantial parliamentary supportand was short-lived. February 9, 1910, there was established underCanalejas, leader of the democratic group, a cabinet representative ofvarious Liberal and Radical elements and made up almost wholly of mennew to ministerial office. [862] [Footnote 861: The exact distribution of seats was as follows: Conservatives, 256; Liberals, 66; Solidarists, 53; Republicans, 32; Democrats, 9; Independents, 8. ] [Footnote 862: November 12, 1912, Premier Canalejas was assassinated. He was succeeded by the president of the Congress of Deputies, Alvaro de Romanones, under whom the Liberal ministry was continued in office. ] *690. The Elections of 1910. *--The first important act of Canalejas wasto persuade the sovereign, as Moret had vainly sought to do, todissolve the Cortes, to the end that the Liberal ministry might appealto the country. The elections were held May 10. They were of peculiarinterest by reason of the fact that now for the first time there wasput into operation an electoral measure of the recent Maura governmentwhereby it is required that every candidate for a seat in the lowerchamber shall be placed in nomination by two ex-senators, twoex-deputies, or three members of the general council of the province. This regulation had been opposed by the Republicans and by the radicalelements generally on the ground that it put in the hands of theGovernment power virtually to dictate candidacies in many electoraldistricts, and the results seemed fairly to sustain the charge. May 1, in accordance with a provision of the law, 120 deputies--upwards ofone-third of the total number to be chosen--were declared elected, byreason of having no competitors. Of these 70 were Liberals, 39 wereConservatives, and the remainder belonged to minor groups. In thedistricts in which there were contests the Government also wondecisively a few days later, as it did likewise in the senatorialelections of May 15. The results of the elections, as officiallyreported, may be tabulated as follows: (p.  625) CONGRESS OF DEPUTIES | Elected indirectly | by the people, May 15 | | | | Elected by | | the corporations, | | etc. , May 15 | | | | | | SENATE | | | Total elected | | | | | | | | Immovable portion | | | | of Senate | | | | | | | | | | Grand | | | | | Total | | | | | | Liberals 229 92 11 103 70 173 Dissenting Liberals 0 3 0 3 0 3 Conservatives 107 35 7 42 77 119 Republicans 40 3 1 4 0 4 Carlists 9 4 0 4 2 6 Regionalists 8 4 1 5 0 5 Integrists 7 0 0 0 0 0 Independents 5 1 1 2 16 18 Socialists 1 0 0 0 0 0 Catholics 0 5 0 5 8 13 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 406 147 21 168 173[863] 341 [Footnote 863: Some seats vacant. ] *691. Republicanism and Socialism. *--Among other accounts, the electionsof 1910 were notable by reason of the return to the Congress for thefirst time of a socialist member. In Madrid, as in other centers ofpopulation, the Government concluded with the Conservatives an_entente_ calculated to hold in check the rising tide of socialism andrepublicanism. Under the stimulus thus afforded the Socialists at lastresponded to the overtures which the Republicans had long been making, and the coalition which resulted was successful in returning toParliament the Socialist leader Iglesias, together with an otherwiseall but unbroken contingent of Republicans. In Barcelona and elsewhereRepublican gains were decisive. None the less the Republican forcescontinue to be so embarrassed by factional strife as to be not reallyformidable. The Socialists, however, exhibit a larger degree of unity. As in Italy, France, and most European countries, they are growingboth in numbers and in effectiveness of organization. In Spain, as inItaly, the historic parties which have been accustomed to sharebetween them the control of the state have, in reality, long sincelost much of the vitality which they once possessed. The terms"Liberal" and "Conservative" denote even less than once they didbodies of men standing for recognized political principles, or evenfor recognized political policies. The field for the development ofparties which shall take more cognizance of the nation's actualconditions and be more responsive to its demands seems wide and, onthe whole, not unpromising. [864] [Footnote 864: On political parties in Spain two older works are A. Borrego, Organizaciôn de los Partidos (Madrid, 1855) and El Partido Conservador (Madrid, 1857). Two valuable books are E. Rodriguez Solis, Historia del partido republicano español (Madrid, 1893) and B. M. Andrade y Uribe, Maura und di Konservativen Partei in Spanien (Karlsruhe, 1912). The subject is sketched excellently to 1898 in Clarke, Modern Spain, Chaps. 14-16. In the domain of periodical literature may be mentioned A. Marvaud, Les élections espagnoles de mai 1907, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, July, 1907; C. David, Les élections espagnoles, in _Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, May 16, 1907; A. Marvaud, Un aspect nouveau du Catalanisme, ibid. , June 16, 1907; La situation politique et financière de l'Espagne, ibid. , Dec. 16, 1908; La rentrée des Cortes et la situation en Espagne, ibid. , June 16, 1910. A well-informed sketch is L. G. Guijarro, Spain since 1898, in _Yale Review_, May, 1909. ] VII. THE JUDICIARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (p.  626) *692. Law and Justice. *--The law of Spain is founded upon the Roman law, the Gothic common law, and, more immediately, the Leyes de Toro, anational code promulgated by the Cortes of Toro in 1501. By theconstitution it is stipulated that the same codes shall be inoperation throughout all portions of the realm and that in these codesshall be maintained but one system of law, to be applied in allordinary civil and criminal cases in which Spanish subjects shall beinvolved. The civil code which is at present in operation was put ineffect throughout the entire kingdom May 1, 1889. The penal code datesfrom 1870, but was amended in 1877. The code of civil procedure wasput in operation April 1, 1881, and that of criminal procedure, June22, 1882. A new commercial code took effect August 22, 1885. "The power of applying the laws in civil and criminal cases, " says theconstitution, "shall belong exclusively to the courts, which shallexercise no other functions than those of judging and of enforcingtheir judgments. "[865] What courts shall be established, theorganization of each, its powers, the manner of exercising them, andthe qualifications which its members must possess, are left to bedetermined by law. The civil hierarchy to-day comprises tribunals offour grades: the municipal courts, the courts of first instance, thecourts of appeal, and the Supreme Court at Madrid. The justices of thepeace of the municipal courts are charged with the registration ofbirths and deaths, the preparation of voting lists, the performance ofcivil marriage, and the hearing of petty cases to the end thatconciliation, if possible, may be effected between the litigants. Nocivil case may be brought in any higher court until effort shall havebeen made to adjust it in a justice's tribunal. In each of the 495_partidos judiciales_, or judicial districts, of the kingdom is acourt of first instance, empowered to take cognizance of all causes, both civil and criminal. From these tribunals lies appeal in civilcases to fifteen _audiencias territoriales_. By a law of April 20, 1888--the measure by which was introduced the use of the jury in (p.  627)the majority of criminal causes--there were established forty-seven_audiencias criminales_, one in each province of the kingdom, andthese have become virtually courts of assize, their sessions beingheld four times a year. Finally, at Madrid is established a SupremeCourt, modelled on the French Court of Cassation, whose function it isto decide questions relating to the competence of the inferiortribunals and to rule on points of law when appeals are carried fromthese tribunals. Cases involving matters of administrative law, decided formerly by the provincial councils and the Council of State, are disposed of now in the _audiencias_ and in the fourth chamber ofthe Supreme Court. [866] [Footnote 865: Art. 76. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 213. ] [Footnote 866: G. Marin, La jurisdiction contentieuse administrative en Espagne, in _Revue du Droit Public_, Oct. -Dec. , 1906. ] Justice is administered in the name of the king. All judgments must bepronounced in open court, and by the constitution it is guaranteedspecifically that proceedings in criminal matters shall be public. Inevery tribunal the state is represented by _abogados fiscales_ (publicprosecutors) and counsel nominated by the crown. Magistrates andjudges, appointed by the crown, may not be removed, suspended, ortransferred, save under circumstances minutely stipulated in theorganic judicial laws. But judges are responsible personally for anyviolation of law of which they may be guilty. *693. Local Government: the Province and the Commune. *--Prior to 1833the Spanish mainland comprised thirteen provinces, by which werepreserved in a large measure both the nomenclature and thegeographical identity of the ancient kingdoms and principalities fromwhich the nation was constructed. In the year mentioned the number ofprovinces was increased to forty-seven, at which figure it remains atthe present day. The essential agencies of government in the provinceare two--the governor and the _diputacion provincial_, or provincialcouncil. The governor is appointed by the crown and it is hisfunction, under the direction of the Minister of the Interior, torepresent the central government in the provincial council and in thegeneral administrative business of the province. The provincialcouncil is composed of members chosen by the voters of the province, which means, under the law of June 28, 1890, all male Spaniards of theage of twenty-five. Under the presidency of the governor the bodymeets yearly, and in the intervals between sessions it is representedby a _commission provinciale_, or provincial committee, electedannually. The size of the council varies roughly according to thepopulation of the province. The smallest governmental unit is the commune, and the number of (p.  628)communes in the kingdom is approximately 8, 000. In each is an_ayuntamiento_, or council, the members of which, varying in numberfrom five to thirty-nine, are elected for four years (one-halfretiring biennially) by those residents of the commune who arequalified to vote for members of the provincial councils. To serve asthe chief executive officer of the municipality the _ayuntamiento_regularly elects from its own number an _alcalde_, or mayor, althoughin the larger towns appointment of the mayor is reserved to the crown. *694. Principles of Local Control. *--After stipulating that theorganization and powers of the provincial and municipal councils shallbe regulated by law, the constitution lays down certain fundamentalprinciples to be observed in the enactment of such legislation. Theseare (1) the management of the local interests of the province and thecommune shall be left entirely to the respective councils; (2) theestimates, accounts, and official acts of these bodies shallinvariably be made public; (3) the fiscal powers of the councils shallbe so determined that the financial system of the nation may never bebrought in jeopardy; and (4) in order to prevent the councils fromexceeding their prerogatives to the prejudice of general andestablished interests the power of intervention shall be reserved tothe sovereign and, under certain circumstances, to the Cortes. [867]The theory, carried over from the liberal constitution of 1869, isthat within the spheres marked out for them by law the provinces andthe municipalities are autonomous. And it undoubtedly is true that, compared with the system in operation prior to 1868, the presentrégime represents distinct decentralization. None the less it must besaid that in practice there is ever a tendency on the part of thecentral authorities to encroach upon the privileges of the localgoverning agencies, and through several years there has been underconsideration a reorganization of the entire administrative system inthe direction of less rather than more liberalism. In 1909 a LocalAdministration bill devised by the recent Maura ministry was adoptedby the lower chamber of the Cortes. This measure, which was combattedwith vigor by the Liberal party, proposed to enlarge the fiscalautonomy of the communes, but at the same time to modify theprovincial and municipal electoral system by the establishment of aneducational qualification, by the admission of corporations toelectoral privileges, and by otherwise lessening the weight of thevote of the individual citizen. In the Senate the measure metdetermined opposition, and as yet its fate is uncertain. [868] [Footnote 867: Art. 84. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 215. ] [Footnote 868: J. Gascon y Marin, La réforme du régime local en Espagne, in _Revue du Droit Public_, April-June, 1909. ] CHAPTER XXXIV (p.  629) THE GOVERNMENT OF PORTUGAL I. A CENTURY OF POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT *695. The Napoleonic Subjugation and the Constitution of 1820. *--Thegovernment of Portugal at the opening of the nineteenth century was noless absolute than was that of Spain, The Cortes was extinct, andalthough Pombal, chief minister during the period 1750-1777, hadcaused all Portuguese subjects to be made eligible to public officeand had introduced numerous economic and administrative reforms, nothing had been permitted to be done by which the unrestrictedauthority of the crown might be impaired. The country was affected butslightly by the Revolution in France. In 1807, however, it fell preyto Napoleon and the royal family was obliged to take refuge in thedependency of Brazil. With the aid of the English the power of theconqueror was broken in 1808, and through a number of years thegovernment was administered nominally by a commission designated bythe absentee regent, Dom John, though actually by a Britishdictatorship. In 1815 Brazil was raised to the rank of a co-ordinatekingdom, and from that year until 1822 the official designation of thestate was "the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil, and the Algarves. "In 1816 the mad queen Maria I. Died and the regent succeeded to theaffiliated thrones as John VI. His original intention was to remain inAmerica, but in 1820 a general revolt in Portugal culminated in thecalling of a national assembly by which there was framed aconstitution reproducing the essentials of the Spanish instrument of1812, and by this turn of events the sovereign was impelled, in 1821, to set sail for the mother country, leaving as regent in Brazil hisson Dom Pedro. Fidelity to the new constitution was pledged perforce, but the elements of reaction gathered strength swiftly, and before theclose of 1823 the instrument was abrogated. The only tangible resultof the episode was the creation of a constitutional party whichthereafter was able much of the time to keep absolutism upon thedefensive. [869] [Footnote 869: In the meantime a revolt which was impending in Brazil at the time of King John's withdrawal had run its course. September 7, 1822, the regent Dom Pedro, who freely cast in his lot with the revolutionists, proclaimed the country's independence, and some weeks later he was declared constitutional emperor. Protest from Lisbon was emphatic, but means of coercing the rebellious colony were not at hand, and, in 1825, under constraint of the powers, King John was compelled to recognize the independence of his transoceanic dominion. ] *696. The Constitutional Charter of 1826: Miguelist Wars. *--The (p.  630)death of John VI. , March 10, 1826, precipitated a conflict of largeimportance in the history of Portuguese constitutionalism. The heir tothe throne was Dom Pedro, Emperor of Brazil, who as sovereign ofPortugal, assumed the title Pedro IV. Having inaugurated his reign bythe grant of a constitutional charter whereby there was introduced aparliamentary system of government on the pattern of that in operationin Great Britain, the new king, being unwilling to withdraw fromAmerica, made over the Portuguese throne to his seven-year-olddaughter, Dona Maria da Gloria, with the stipulation that when sheshould come of age she should be married to her uncle, Dom Miguel, inwhom meanwhile the regency was to be vested. Amid enthusiasm the_Carta Constitucional_ was proclaimed at Lisbon, July 31, 1826, and inAugust there was established a responsible Liberal ministry underSaldanha. When, however, in 1828, the regent at length arrived inPortugal, a clerical and absolutist counter-revolution was found to beunder way, and by the reactionary elements he was received, not asregent, but as king. By a Cortes of the ancient type, summoned in thestead of the parliament provided for in the Charter, Dom Miguel wastendered the crown, which, in violation of all the pledges he hadgiven, he made haste to accept. That he might vindicate the claims ofhis daughter, the Emperor Pedro, in April, 1831, abdicated hisBrazilian throne and, repairing to Portugal, devoted himselfunsparingly to the task of deposing the usurper. The outcome of thewars which ensued was that in 1834 Dom Miguel was overthrown andbanished perpetually from the kingdom. Until his death, in Septemberof the same year, Pedro acted as regent for his daughter, and underhis comparatively enlightened rule the Charter of 1826 was restoredand the state was set once more upon the path of reform. Upon hisdeath the Princess Maria assumed the throne as Maria II. [870] [Footnote 870: Cambridge Modern History, X. , Chap. 10; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, X. , Chap. 6; H. M. Stephens, Portugal (New York, 1903), Chap. 18. A general treatise covering the period is W. Bollaert, The Wars of Succession of Portugal and Spain from 1821 to 1840 (London, 1870). ] *697. Nominal Constitutionalism, 1834-1853. *--The reign of Queen Maria(1834-1853) was a period of factional turbulence. There were now threepolitical groups of principal importance: the Miguelists, representingthe interests of the repudiated absolutist régime; the Chartists, whoadvocated the principles of the moderate constitution (that of 1826)at the time in operation; and the Septembrists, [871] who were (p.  631)attached rather to the principles of the radical instrument of1821-1822. By all, save perhaps the Miguelists, the maintenance of aconstitution of some type was regarded as no longer an open question. In 1836 the Septembrists stimulated a popular rising in consequence ofwhich the constitution of 1822 was declared again in effect until anew one should have been devised, and, April 4, 1838, there wasbrought forward under Septembrist auspices an instrument in which itwas provided that an elected senate should take the place of thearistocratic House of Peers for which the Charter provided, and thatelections to the House of Deputies should thenceforth be direct. In1839, however, a moderate ministry was constituted with AntonioBermudo da Costa Cabral as its real, though not its nominal, head, andby a pronunciamento of February 10, 1842, the Charter was restored tooperation. Costa Cabral (Count of Thomar after 1845) ruleddespotically until May, 1846, when by a combination of Miguelists, Septembrists, and Chartists he was driven into exile. [872] TheChartist ministry of Saldanha succeeded. In 1849 it was replaced by aministry under the returned Thomar, but by a rising of April 7, 1851, Thomar was again exiled. At the head of a moderate coalition Saldanhagoverned peacefully through the next five years (1851-1856). Theperiod was marked by two important developments. July 5, 1852, aso-called "Additional Act" revised the Charter by providing for thedirect election of deputies, the decentralization of the executive, the creation of representative municipal councils, and the abolitionof capital punishment for political offenses. A second fact ofimportance was the amalgamation, in 1852, of the Septembrists and theChartists to form the party of Regeneradores, or Regenerators, insupport of the Charter in its new and liberalized form. [Footnote 871: So called from the _coup d'état_ of September, 1836, mentioned shortly. ] [Footnote 872: E. Bavoux, Costa Cabral; notes historiques sur sa carrière et son ministère (Paris, 1846). ] *698. Party Rivalries: the Rotativos. *--In the constitutional history ofthe kingdom the reign of Pedro V. (1853-1861) possesses slightimportance. There was less civil strife than during the precedinggeneration, but ministries took office in rapid succession and littleimprovement was realized in practical political conditions. The periodcovered by the more extended reign of Luiz I. (1861-1889) was of thesame character, save that its later years were given some distinctionby certain developments in the party situation. The death of the oldChartist leader Saldanha in 1876 was followed, indeed, by theappearance of a political alignment that was essentially new. Alreadythe Regeneradores, representing the Chartist-Septembrist coalition (p.  632)of 1852, had disintegrated, and in 1877 the more radical elements ofthe defunct party, known at first as the Historic Left, werereorganized under the name of the Progressistas, or Progressives. Thenew conservative elements, on the other hand, carried on thetraditions and preserved the name of the original Regeneradores. Inthe Cortes the Progressistas assumed the position of a ConstitutionalLeft and the surviving Regeneradores that of a Conservative Right. Both were monarchical and both were attached to the existingconstitution, differing only in respect to the amendments which theywould have preferred to introduce in that instrument. Of remainingparties two were of importance, i. E. , the Miguelists, representingstill the interests of absolutism, and the Republicans, who firstacquired definite party organization in 1881. Between 1877 and 1910 the Regeneradores and the Progressistas sharedin rotation the spoils of office with such regularity that the twoacquired popularly the nickname of the _rotativos_. Both weredominated by professional politicians whose skill in manipulatingpopular elections was equalled only by their greed for the spoils ofvictory. Successful operation of a parliamentary system presupposes atleast a fairly healthy public opinion. But in Portugal, upwards offour-fifths of whose inhabitants are illiterate, [873] there has beenno such favoring condition, and the opportunity for the demagogue andthe cacique has been correspondingly tempting. Parties have beenregularly mere cliques and party politics only factional strife. Throughout the period corruption was abundant and such public feelingas existed was stifled systematically. Elections were supervised inevery detail by the provincial governors; agents of the Governmentwere employed to instruct the people in their choice ofrepresentatives; and the voters did habitually precisely what theywere told to do. No one ever expected an election to show resultsadverse to the Government. Especially unscrupulous was the manner inwhich the preponderating parties obstructed systematically theelection of Republican and Independent deputies. As late as 1906 butone Republican was returned to the Cortes, although it was a matter ofcommon knowledge that in many constituencies the party commanded aclear majority. [Footnote 873: By official calculation, 78. 6 per cent in 1900. ] *699. The Dictatorship of Franco, 1906-1908. *--From June, 1900, toOctober, 1904, the Regeneradores were in power, with Ribeiro aspremier. During this period two national elections, in 1900 and in1904, yielded the controlling party substantial majorities. FromOctober, 1904, the Progressive ministry of Luciano de Castro occupiedthe field, but in the spring of 1906 there took place a series ofministerial crises in the course of which Ribeiro returned for a (p.  633)brief interval to power. The election of April 26, 1906, gave theRegeneradores 113 seats, the Progressistas 30, and the Republicans 1. The ministerial changes by which this election was accompaniedprepared the way for the establishment of the régime known in recentPortuguese history as the _dictadura_, or dictatorship. The newpremier, João Franco, was one of the abler and more conscientious menin public life. Originally a Regenerator, as early as 1901 he had leda secession from the party, and in 1903 he had organized definitely athird party, the Liberal Regenerators, whose avowed end was theestablishment in Portugal of true parliamentarism. In 1906 a "LiberalConcentration" was effected between Franco's followers and theProgressistas, led by Castro, and the outcome was the calling, May 19, 1906, of Franco to the premiership. That office he assumed with thedetermination to introduce and to carry through an elaborate programmeof sorely needed fiscal and administrative reforms. If possible, hismethods were to be entirely constitutional; if not, as nearly so asmight prove practicable. The Cortes elected April 26 met June 6 and, being found unpromising, was dissolved. During the campaign whichfollowed the Regenerador party, to which Franco nominally belonged, split, the Franquistas, or supporters of the premier, taking the nameof New Regenerators. The returns yielded by the election of August 12were: New Regenerators, 73 seats; Progressives, 43; Old Regenerators, 23; Republicans, 4; with scattering seats distributed among othergroups. The sitting of the Cortes which began September 29, 1906, was one ofthe stormiest on record. In May, 1907, when the Government seemed onthe point of collapse and it was supposed that Franco would resign, the indomitable premier effected a _coup d'état_ whereby the ministrywas reconstituted, the Cortes was dissolved, and several importantbills which were pending were proclaimed to have acquired the force oflaw. During the ensuing twelvemonth the government was that of abenevolent but uncompromising dictatorship. Supported by the king, thearmy, and a considerable body of partisans, Franco succeeded incarrying through the major portion of his reform programme. But he wasopposed by the Republicans, by the professional politicians of theolder parties, and by the entire hierarchy of administrative andjudicial officials who shrank from impending investigation. His taskwas enhanced tremendously by the growing unpopularity of King Carlos, and in defense of the sovereign it was found necessary to deprive theHouse of Peers of its judicial functions, to replace the district andmunicipal councils by commissions named by the crown, and, in short, to suspend virtually all remaining vestiges of popular government, (p.  634)as well as the various guarantees of individual liberty. *700. Restoration of Normal Conditions. *--February 1, 1908, when thesituation bordered on revolution, King Carlos and the crown princeLouis Philippe were assassinated and the dictatorship of Franco wasbrought abruptly to an end. The king's second son, who succeeded underthe title of Manoel II. , called together an extraordinary junta ofministers and party leaders, at whose instigation the imperiouspremier resigned and withdrew from the country; whereupon, under thepremiership of Admiral Ferreira do Amaral, there was formed acoalition ministry, representative of all of the monarchist parties. The administrative commissions created by Franco were dissolved; thecivil list, concerning which there had been grave controversy, wasreduced; the House of Peers was reconstituted; the election of a newCortes was ordered; and parliamentary institutions, suspended for ayear, were revived. The various reforms, on the other hand, for whichthe dictator had been responsible were brought likewise to an end. Theelection of April 5, attended by grave disorders, yielded theGovernment a decisive majority and, April 29, the new sovereignformally opened the first Cortes of his reign and took oath to supportthe constitution. In the Chamber the old balance between theRegeneradores and the Progressistas reappeared. Of the former therewere 61; of the latter, 59. The Republicans had 7 seats; a group of"Nationalists, " 3; the Independents, 1; and the "Amaralists, " detachedsupporters of the ministry, 17. Before the end of the year theGovernment lost its majority, and December 24 a new coalition cabinetwas made up by Campos Henriques, a former minister of justice. [874] [Footnote 874: On the political history of Portugal since the establishment of constitutionalism see Cambridge Modern History, XI. , Chap. 20, XII. , Chap. 10; and Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, XI. , Chap. 9, XII. , Chap, 9. A serviceable general work is J. P. Oliveira Martins, Historia de Portugal (4th ed. , Lisbon, 1901). An older and more detailed treatise is H. Schaefer, Geschichte von Portugal (2d ed. , Hamburg, 1874), and a useful survey is R. De Vezeley, Le Portugal politique (Paris, 1890). For a good brief survey of Portuguese party politics see A. Marvaud, La crise en Portugal et les élections d'avril 1908, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, July, 1908. ] II. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM *701. The Constitution. *--Before speaking of the revolution of 1910, inconsequence of which the monarchy was overthrown and the presentrepublic was established, it is desirable that brief allusion be madeto the governmental system of the earlier régime. The fundamental lawin operation in 1910 was the _Carta Constitucional_ of 1826, (p.  635)remodelled and liberalized by numerous amendments. The revisionaccomplished by the Additional Act of 1852 has been mentioned. Anamendment of July 24, 1885, provided for the gradual extinction of theright of hereditary peers to sit in the upper house and for therepresentation, in the Deputies, of minorities; while three amendmentsof importance during the reign of Carlos I. (1889-1908) were: (1) thatof March 28, 1895, whereby the number of deputies was reduced from 180to 120 and the qualifications requisite for the exercise of thesuffrage were overhauled; (2) that of September 25 of the same yearwhereby the elective portion of the House of Peers was abolished; and(3) that of August 8, 1901, by which the conditions of election to theHouse of Deputies were revised. In its final form the constitution wasan instrument of unusual length, comprising eight "titles" and 145articles, some of which were very comprehensive. [875] [Footnote 875: The text of the constitution was published by the state under the title of Carta Constitucional da Monarchia Portugueza . .. E Diplomas Correlativos (Lisbon, 1890). An annotated translation is in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 145-179. An excellent treatise is J. J. Tavares de Medeiros, Das Staatsrecht des Königsreichs Portugal (Freiburg, 1892), in Marquardsen's Handbuch. Important Portuguese works include L. P. Coimbre, Estudios sobre a Carta Constitucional de 1814 e Acto Addicional de 1852 (Lisbon, 1878-1880), and Coelho da Rocha, Ensaio sobre a Historia do Governo e da Legislaçao de Portugal. ] *702. The Crown and the Ministry. *--Provision was made for the exerciseof four distinct categories of powers, i. E. , executive, moderative, legislative, and judicial. Of these the first two were lodged in thesovereign, the third in the sovereign and Cortes conjointly, and thefourth in tribunals established under provision of the constitution. The crown was vested permanently in the descendants of Dona Maria II. , of the House of Braganza, and, in default thereof, in the nearestcollateral line. The succession was regulated on the principle ofprimogeniture, with preference to the male line, and during asovereign's minority the regency devolved upon the nearest relative, according to the order of succession, who had attained the age oftwenty-five. Associated with the sovereign was a ministry and acouncil of state. The ministry consisted of a premier, usually withoutportfolio, and a variable number of heads of departments (in 1910, seven), [876] and it was a principle of the constitution that, thecrown being legally irresponsible, no executive act might be adjudgedvalid unless signed by one or more of the members of the ministerialgroup. For all of their acts the ministers were responsible nominallyto the Cortes, although in point of fact the turbulent state of (p.  636)politics rendered such responsibility nearly impossible to enforce. The council of state was a body composed of the crown prince (when ofthe age of eighteen) and of twelve men appointed by the king for life, usually from present or past ministers. It was required that thecouncil be consulted in all affairs of weight and in general measuresof public administration, especially those relating to the declarationof war, the conclusion of peace, and the conduct of diplomaticnegotiations. [877] [Footnote 876: Foreign Affairs, Interior, Finance, Justice and Worship, War, Marine and Colonies, and Public Works. ] [Footnote 877: Arts. 107-112. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 168-169. ] Aside from participation in legislation, the powers of the crown(exercised at least nominally through the intermediary of theministers and councillors) were, as has been said, of two categories, executive and moderative. The powers of an executive character were ofthe usual sort, i. E. , the appointment of civil, military, andecclesiastical officials; the conduct of foreign relations; thepromulgation of the laws, and of decrees, instructions, andregulations requisite to the proper execution of the laws; theordering, not less frequently than quadrennially, of an election of anew Cortes; and the supervision, in conformity with the constitution, of "all things which bear upon the internal and external security ofthe state. "[878] Among modern constitutions those of Portugal andBrazil are unique in the distinction drawn between powers that areexecutive and powers that are "moderative. " Under the head ofmoderative powers the Portuguese constitution vested in the crown thenomination of peers, the convening of the Cortes in extraordinarysession, approval of the measures of the Cortes to the end that theymight acquire the force of law, the proroguing and adjourning of theCortes and the dissolving of the House of Deputies, the appointing anddismissing of ministers, the granting of amnesties, and the remittingor reducing of penalties imposed upon offenders by judicial sentence. The theory was that these were powers which the sovereign exercised inthe capacity of mediator between the several organs of thegovernmental system, and by the constitution it was declared that thismoderative power was the keystone of the entire politicalorganization. The distinction, however, while from a certain point ofview logical enough, does not appear to have possessed much practicalimportance. [Footnote 878: Arts. 75-77. Ibid. , II. , 162-164. ] *703. The Cortes. *--Powers of a legislative character were vested in thesovereign conjointly with a parliament of two chambers, the _Camarados Pares_, or House of Peers, and the _Camara dos Deputados_, orHouse of Deputies. Collectively, the two houses were known as the_Cortes Feraes_, or, more briefly, the Cortes. Until 1885 the House ofPeers consisted of members of two classes, those who sat by (p.  637)hereditary right and those who were nominated by the crown for life. By the constitutional amendment of July 24, 1885, hereditary peerageswere put in the way of gradual abolition and it was stipulated thatwhen they should have been extinguished the chamber should be composedof princes of the royal blood, the archbishops and bishops of Portugalproper, 100 members appointed by the king for life, and 50 memberselected every new parliament by the lower chamber. By amendment ofSeptember 25, 1895, however, the 50 elective peerages were abolishedand the number of royal appointees was reduced to 90. In 1910, therefore, the chamber was made up of (1) princes of the royal bloodwho had attained the age of twenty-five; (2) surviving peers whosehereditary right antedated 1885, together with their immediatesuccessors; (3) the Patriarch of Lisbon and the archbishops andbishops of the continental territory of the kingdom; and (4) the 90life peers nominated by the crown. In the nomination of peers thecrown was restricted only by the requirement that members must haveattained the age of forty and must be able to meet a considerableproperty qualification. The House of Deputies, as regulated by the law of August 8, 1901, wascomposed of 155 members, of whom 148 represented the 26 electoralcircles of Portugal, the Azores, and Madeira, [879] and 7 representedthe colonies. By amendment of 1885 provision was made for therepresentation of minorities, and of the 155 members in 1910, 35 satas minority representatives. This result was attained through anarrangement whereby in circles which elected more than one deputy eachelector voted for one or two fewer than the number of seats to befilled. Deputies were chosen by direct election, and in the choice allmale citizens twenty-one years of age were entitled to participate, provided they paid taxes aggregating 500 _reis_ (about 56 cents)annually or were able to read and write. Convicts, beggars, bankrupts, domestic servants, workingmen permanently employed by the state, andsoldiers and sailors below the rank of commissioned officer weredisqualified. In point of fact, the prevalence of poverty and ofilliteracy operated to confine the franchise within very narrowlimits. Peers, naturalized aliens, persons not qualified to vote, andcertain employees of the state were ineligible for election, anddeputies were required to possess an income of not less than 400milreis ($425) annually, or to be graduates of a professional, secondary, or higher school. After 1892 no deputies, save thoserepresenting the colonies, were paid salaries. [Footnote 879: The Azores and Madeira are regarded as integral parts of the nation. ] Sessions of the Cortes were required to be opened by the crown on (p.  638)the second day of January of each year. According to the amendment ofJuly 24, 1885, a regular session lasted three months and each Cortes, unless sooner dissolved, lasted three years. The president andvice-president of the House of Peers were appointed by the crown;likewise the corresponding officials of the House of Deputies, from alist of five nominees presented by that body. Each chamber wasauthorized to choose its own secretaries, to pass upon the qualificationsof its members, and to frame its rules of procedure. Except at timeswhen the welfare of the state demanded secrecy, sessions were requiredto be public. To the lower chamber was committed the initiative in allmatters pertaining to taxation, the recruiting of troops, theinvestigation of the administrative offices, and the consideration ofpropositions submitted by the executive. Upon it, likewise, wasconferred exclusive power to impeach ministers and councillors ofstate. The right to initiate measures in general was vested in each ofthe two houses, as well as in the Government. Ministers wereprivileged to attend legislative sessions and to participate indebate. It was required that the sovereign should give or refuse hisapproval of every measure within a month after it should have beenpresented to him. [880] [Footnote 880: Arts. 45-62. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II. , 156-159. ] *704. The Judiciary and Local Government. *--The judicial hierarchyconsisted of 193 courts of first instance, one in each of an equalnumber of _comarcas_, or districts; three courts of appeal, sitting atLisbon, Oporto, and Ponta Delgada (in the Azores); and a Supreme Courtat Lisbon. Judges were appointed by the crown, and were irremovablesave in consequence of judicial sentence. In the trial of criminalcases the English jury system was in vogue, although it operated butindifferently. The functions of the Supreme Court were those ofhearing appeals from the inferior tribunals, trying cases involvingjudges of the appellate courts and members of the diplomatic corps, and deciding conflicts of jurisdiction. [881] [Footnote 881: Arts. 118-131. Ibid. , II. , 169-171. ] Early in the nineteenth century continental Portugal was divided foradministrative purposes into six provinces, delimited in a largemeasure in accordance with the physical configuration of the country. In 1836 the province ceased to be an administrative unit and, after aperiod of readjustment, there was established by law of March 18, 1842, an administrative hierarchy which in its more important aspectshas survived to the present day. Under that measure the realm wasdivided into 21 districts (17 continental and 4 insular), 292_concelhos_, or communes (263 continental and 29 insular), and 3, 690_freguezias_, or parishes (3, 788 continental and 172 insular). (p.  639)Until 1910 the government of the district was vested in a commissionconsisting of two members appointed by the central authorities andthree elected triennially by delegates from the communal councils. Ofthe two centrally appointed members, one, the governor, presided overthe commission; the other was an administrative auditor. Among thefunctions of the commission was that of sitting as an administrativecourt. The commune was governed by a mayor, appointed by the centralauthorities on nomination of the governor of the district, and acouncil of five to fifteen members elected on a single ticket by thecommunal voters. The council was presided over, not by the mayor, butby one of its own members. The governing agencies of the parish werean elected council (_junta de parochia_), presided over by the parishpriest, and the _regidor_, named by the district governor to representthe interests of the central government. Throughout the entire systemthe preponderating fact was the thoroughgoing centralization which, through the governors, mayors, and _regadores_, the authorities atLisbon were able to maintain. III. THE REVOLUTION OF 1910 *705. Political Unsettlement, 1908-1910. *--The period of two and a halfyears which elapsed between the accession of Manoel II. , in February, 1908, and his deposition, in October, 1910, was one of continuedpolitical stress. The sovereign was youthful, inexperienced, andlacking in political training. His advisers were divided in theircounsels and impelled largely by selfish motives, and in the teeth ofrapidly spreading republican and socialist propaganda the old dynasticparties kept up unremittingly their unseemly recriminations. InFebruary, 1909, the king called into consultation the leaders of thevarious monarchist groups and sought to impress upon them thenecessity of co-operation, and when the Cortes was convened, March 1, the Speech from the Throne announced optimistically a programme ofconstructive legislation, embracing, among other things, the enactmentof more liberal press laws, a reform of primary education, and areadjustment of taxation. Within the Cortes, however, it was foundimpossible to carry any one of the measures proposed and, March 29, the Henriquez ministry, after only three months in office, resigned. During the remainder of the year three successive ministries were setup: that of General Sebastiano Telles, which lasted only from April 11until May 4; that of Wencelao de Lima, extending from May 4 toDecember 21; and that of Beirao, which continued from December 21 toearly June of the following year. The De Lima cabinet was formed fromelements which stood largely outside the swirl of party politics, (p.  640)but the Republican and Regenerador opposition was so intense thatnothing could be accomplished by it. The Beirao government by which itwas succeeded was composed entirely of Progressives. The Speech fromthe Throne at the convening of the Cortes, January 2, 1910, ignoredcompletely the grim realities of the political situation. Ostensiblyto afford the Beirao ministry an opportunity to formulate a programme, the session was adjourned until March 3, at which time the membersreassembled, only to be sent back again to their homes until June 1. At the second reassembling the ministry was opposed with suchvirulence that it at once retired and, after some delay, theRegeneradors came into power under Teixeira de Sousa. The Cortes wasdissolved and a national election, accompanied by grave disorders, washeld, August 28. At the election the Regeneradors obtained 80 seats, the Progressives 43, the Republicans 14 (twice as many as they hadever obtained before), and the Independents 2. [882] The new Cortesassembled September 23; but two days later it was adjourned untilDecember 12, and, in point of fact, it never sat again. [Footnote 882: Ten of the fourteen Republican deputies were elected in Lisbon. The popular vote in that city was: Republicans, 15, 104; Monarchists of all parties, 9, 108. In 1908 the numbers were 13, 074 and 10, 982 respectively. ] *706. Overthrow of the Monarchy. *--During many months a plot had beenripening in Republican circles looking toward the deposition of theking, the overthrow of the monarchy, and the proclamation of arepublic. By reason of the confusion and repression which prevailedperennially in Portuguese politics, the actual strength, numericallyand otherwise, of republicanism in the kingdom in 1910 cannot beknown. But it is sufficiently clear that the propaganda of the pastthirty years had borne much fruit and that among the artisan, trader, and small burgher classes, and especially in the ranks of the army andthe navy, the enemies of the monarchy had come to be numerous andinfluential. The leaders of the republican movement represented, onthe whole, the best educated and most progressive elements of thecountry--largely lawyers, physicians, journalists and other men of theprofessions and of business. In the later summer of 1910 variousintimations of a far-reaching revolutionary plot were received by theGovernment and the date (September 14) which was at one time fixed forthe insurrection proved an impracticable one because the authoritiesbecame aware of the project and subverted the republican plans byordering the warships on that day to quit the Tagus. Within officialcircles it was generally assumed that the revolutionists, balked once, would return to the project. The crash came, however, at a moment (p.  641)when the Government was entirely off its guard, and its effects wereunexpectedly summary. The immediate incident by which it wasprecipitated was the assassination in Lisbon, October 3, of adistinguished Republican member of the Cortes, Dr. Miguel Bombarda. Whether justly or not, the assassination was interpreted by thepopulace as a political crime, and to the disaffected elements of thearmy and navy the occasion seemed ripe for the execution of thecontemplated _coup_. October 4 open revolt broke out among thenational troops, and during the ensuing forty-eight hours a handful ofsoldiers and sailors, aided by armed civilians, acquired the masteryof the capital, put the king to flight, won over the country to theircause, and proclaimed the establishment of a republican form ofgovernment. The revolutionists were organized, the royalists were not, and the defeat of the latter was complete. It was also substantiallybloodless. King Manoel, and the queen-mother Amelia, contriving anescape from the royal palace, made their way to Eraceira, and thenceto Gibraltar. Subsequently they were conveyed to England. *707. Measures of the Provisional Government. *--Meanwhile, October 5, there was established at Lisbon a provisional government composed ofnine ministers and presided over by the scholar and litterateur, Theophile Braga. The members of this government were drawn principallyfrom the group of Republican deputies representing the Lisbonconstituencies. A few had held high office under the monarchy, butmost of them, including Braga, were men of little or no experience inadministrative work. The flight of the king and the collapse of themonarchist cause cleared the way for a speedy establishment of the neworder, and without awaiting a formal remodelling of the constitution, the Braga government proceeded to carry into execution a number offeatures of the Republican programme. October 7 it promised amnesty topolitical and press exiles, the revocation of various illiberal pressand judicial laws, the suppression of summary magisterial powers, anda long list of other administrative and judicial reforms. October 18it abolished the monarchy and proscribed forever the royal house ofBraganza. On the same day it abolished likewise the Council of Stateand the House of Peers, together with all hereditary titles andprivileges. In the course of further measures of reform relating topublic finance, agriculture, education, religion, and social welfare, it issued a new electoral law and effected arrangements for theconvening of a national assembly to which should be committed the taskof framing a republican constitution. The electoral decree of March15, 1911, conferred the franchise upon all Portuguese citizens of theage of twenty-one who under the monarchy were entitled to itsexercise, and upon all, in addition, who were able to read and (p.  642)write, barring soldiers, bankrupts, and ex-convicts. The two cities, Lisbon, and Oporto, were created electoral districts in each of whicheight members were to be chosen by _scrutin de liste_ after theBelgian, or d'Hondt, plan of proportional representation, and theremainder of the country (including the colonies) was divided intodistricts in each of which four members were to be chosen, also withprovision for the representation of minorities. *708. The Constitution Framed and the Government Organized. *--Theelections to the Constituent Assembly took place May 28, 1911. Therewere no monarchist candidates and, there having been neither time noroccasion for the appearance of serious differences among theRepublicans, the event was attended by little excitement and by nodisorder. In many districts the candidates approved by the ProvisionalGovernment were unopposed. The Assembly was convened June 19. Byunanimous vote of its 192 members the decree by which the monarchy hadbeen abolished and the Braganza dynasty banished was enacted into law, whereupon the body addressed itself to the framing of a budget and theadoption of organic laws relating to the nature and manner of exerciseof the political powers of the republic. A draft of the constitution, framed by the Republican leaders, was read to the delegates July 3, and August 18 it was voted, amid general acclamations, almost withoutmodification. The presidential election was fixed for August 23. Ofthe two principal candidates, Dr. Manoel Arriaga represented the moremoderate wing of the Republican element, Dr. Machado Santos (theprovisional president) the more radical. Dr. Arriaga was elected by avote of 121 to 86. August 24 the Assembly terminated its proceedingsand the new constitution was put in operation. The first cabinet, presided over by João Chagas, was announced at the beginning ofSeptember. It was at this point that France, Spain, and a number ofother European powers for the first time recognized officially therepublic's existence. The difficulties encountered by the newrégime--royalist invasions, outbreaks of disaffection, strikes, lackof funds--were numerous. Not the least serious was the inevitable riseof differences among the Republicans themselves. During the autumn of1911 the Moderates split into two rival groups, and the more importantof them, led by Dr. Almeida, definitely withdrew its support from theGovernment. The result was a ministerial crisis, and November 7 theChagas cabinet resigned. The new "ministry of concentration" formed bythe radical Vasconcellos was composed of eight members divided almostequally between the Moderates and the Democrats. In more recent daysthe lines of party cleavage have tended to be accentuated and the (p.  643)stability, if not the existence, of the republic to be increasinglymenaced. In June, 1912, a new ministry was constituted under Leite, inwhich all of the groups in the lower chamber were represented. Thereis reason to apprehend that, in the event of the survival of therepublic, the outcome will be at best but the resuscitation, underother names and forms, of the long-endured rotativist régime. IV. THE CONSTITUTION OF 1911 *709. Constitutional Guarantees: Amendment. *--Aside from five articlesof a temporary nature, the constitution of 1911 is arranged ineighty-two articles, grouped in seven "titles" or divisions. The twodivisions of principal length are those which relate to the rights andliberties of the individual and the organs and exercise of sovereignpower. The guarantees extended the individual comprise a bill ofrights hardly paralleled in comprehensiveness among the constitutionsof European nations. To Portuguese citizens and to aliens resident inthe country are pledged full liberty of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, liberty of association, inviolability ofdomicile and of property, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, privacy of correspondence, and freedom of employment and of trade saveonly when restriction is required for the public good. Law is declaredto be uniform for all and no public privilege may be enjoyed by reasonof birth or title. No one may be required to pay a tax which has notbeen levied by the legislative chambers or by an administrativeauthority specifically qualified by law, and, save in case ofenumerated offenses of serious import, no one may be imprisoned exceptupon accusation according to the forms of law. No one may be compelledto perform an act, or to refrain from the performance of an act, except by warrant of law. The constitution is subject to amendment under regulations of asomewhat curious character. Revision of the fundamental law may beundertaken normally by Congress at the end of every decennial period, the Congress whose mandate coincides with the period of revision beingendowed automatically with constituent powers and the process ofrevision differing in no respect from that of ordinary legislation. Atthe end of a five-year period from the date of promulgation, however, amendment may be undertaken, providing two-thirds of the members ofthe chambers sitting jointly vote favorably. Under all circumstancesamendments must be specific rather than general, and in no case may anamendment be received or debated which has for its object theabolition of the republican form of government. *710. The President and the Ministry. *--Sovereignty is lodged in (p.  644)the nation, and the organs of the sovereign will are the independentbut supposedly harmonious executive, legislative, and judicialauthorities. The powers of the executive are exercised by thePresident and the ministers. The President is chosen by the two housesof Congress assembled in joint session sixty days prior to theexpiration of the presidential term. Voting is by secret ballot and atwo-thirds majority is required for election, although in default ofsuch a majority choice is made on the third ballot by simple pluralitybetween the two candidates receiving the largest number of votes. Ifthe office falls vacant unexpectedly the chambers choose in the samemanner a president to complete the unexpired term. The term is fouryears, and after retiring from office an ex-president may not bere-elected for a full term prior to the lapse of four more years. Onlynative Portuguese citizens at least thirty-five years of age areeligible. Without the permission of Congress the President may notabsent himself from the national territory, and he may be removed fromoffice by the vote of two-thirds of the members of the chamberssitting jointly. The duties of the President are, among other things, to negotiate treaties and to represent the nation in its externalrelations generally, to appoint and dismiss the ministers and publicofficials, to summon the Congress in extraordinary session, topromulgate the laws of Congress, together with the instructions andregulations necessary for their enforcement, and to remit and commutepenalties. If two-thirds of the members of the chambers so request, projected treaties of alliance must be laid before Congress, and theappointment and suspension of public officials may be effected only onproposal of the ministers. Every act of the President must becountersigned by at least one minister, and every minister isresponsible politically and legally for all acts which he countersignsor executes. One member of the ministerial group, designated by thePresident, exercises the functions of premier. Ministers may bemembers of Congress, and in any case they are privileged to appear inthe chambers to defend their acts. Among offenses for which ministersmay be held to account in the ordinary tribunals the constitutionspecifies all acts which tend to subvert the independence of thenation, the inviolability of the constitution and of the republicanform of government, the political and legal rights of the individual, the internal peace of the country, or the probity of administrativeprocedure. The penalty imposed for guilt in respect to any of theseoffenses is removal from office and disqualification to hold officethereafter. [883] [Footnote 883: Provisions relating to the executive are contained in Arts. 36-55. ] *711. Congress. *--The exercise of legislative power is vested (p.  645)exclusively in Congress. There are two houses, the Council ofMunicipalities, or senate, and the National Council, or chamber ofdeputies. The members of both are chosen by direct vote of the people. Senators are elected for six years, one-half of the body retiringtriennially. Each district returns three members, but to assure therepresentation of minorities electors are permitted to vote for buttwo. Members of the Chamber of Deputies are chosen for three years. Senators must be at least thirty-five years of age and deputiestwenty-five. Congress is required to meet in regular session each yearon the second day of December. The period of a session is four months, and a prorogation or an adjournment may be ordered only by thechambers themselves. Extraordinary sessions may be convoked byone-fourth of the members or by the President. Each chamber isauthorized to judge the qualifications of its members, to choose itspresident and other officers, and to fix its rules of procedure. Thepresiding official at joint sessions is the elder of the twopresidents. Members are accorded the usual privileges of speech andimmunities from judicial process, and they are guaranteed compensationat rates to be regulated by law. The functions and powers of the chambers are enumerated in muchdetail. Most important among them is the enactment, interpretation, suspension, and abrogation of all laws of the republic. Still morecomprehensive is the power to supervise the operation of theconstitution and of the laws and "to promote the general welfare ofthe nation. " More specifically, the chambers are authorized to levytaxes, vote expenditures, contract loans, provide for the nationaldefense, create public offices, fix salaries, regulate tariffs, coinmoney, establish standards of weights and measures, emit bills ofcredit, organize the judiciary, control the administration of nationalproperty, approve regulations devised for the enforcement of the laws, and elect the President of the republic. To the Chamber of Deputies isaccorded the right to initiate all measures relating to taxes, theorganization of the forces on land and on sea, the revision of theconstitution, the prorogation or adjournment of legislative sessions, the discussion of proposals made by the President, and the bringing ofactions against members of the executive department. Initiative inrespect to all other matters may be taken by any member of eitherbranch of Congress or by the President of the republic. A measurewhich is adopted by a majority vote in each of the two houses istransmitted to the President to be promulgated as law. The Presidentpossesses not a shred of veto power. He is required to promulgatewithin fifteen days any measure duly enacted; if he fails to do so, the measure takes effect none the less. When the chambers fall intodisagreement regarding proposed changes in a bill, or when one (p.  646)chamber rejects a bill outright, the subject is debated and a decisionis reached in joint session. *712. The Judiciary and Local Government. *--The organs of judicialadministration comprise courts of first instance, courts of appeal, and a supreme tribunal sitting at the capital. Judges are appointedfor life, but may be removed from office in accordance with procedureto be established by law. The employment of the jury is optional withthe parties in civil cases but obligatory in all criminal cases ofserious import. With respect to local government the constitution goesno further than to lay down certain general principles and to enjointhat the actual working arrangements be regulated by subsequentlegislation. Among the principles enumerated are the immunity of thelocal authorities from intervention on the part of the centralexecutive power, the revision of the acts of the public officials inadministrative tribunals, the fiscal independence of the localgovernmental units, and, finally, the employment for local purposes ofboth proportional representation and the referendum. [884] [Footnote 884: A French translation of the Portuguese constitution of 1911 will be found in _Revue du Droit Public_, Oct. -Dec, 1911. Various aspects of the revolution of 1910 and of subsequent developments are discussed in E. J. Dillon, Republican Portugal, in _Contemporary Review_, Nov. , 1910; R. Recouly, La république en Portugal, in _Revue Politique et Parlementaire_, Nov. 10, 1910; W. Archer, The Portuguese Republic, in _Fortnightly Review_, Feb. , 1911; and A. Marvaud, Les débuts de la république portugaise, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, March-April and May-June, 1911. The subject is covered briefly in V. De B. Cunha, Eight Centuries of Portuguese Monarchy (London, 1911), and A. Marvaud, Le Portugal et ses colonies; étude politique et économique (Paris, 1912). ] INDEX (p.  647) _Abgeordnetenhaus. _ See Prussia and Austria. Administration, development in Great Britain, 176-179; present system, 180-191; development of Prussian system, 265-273; in France under Old Régime, 341-342; during Revolutionary and Napoleonic era, 342-343; present system, 345-351; in Italy, 383-385; in Austria, 485-488; in Hungary, 506-507; in Holland, 532-533; in Belgium, 550-551; in Denmark, 569; in Norway, 588; in Sweden, 601; in Spain, 627-628; in Portugal, 638-639, 646. Alsace-Lorraine, original organization, 282; the Landesausschuss, 283; movement for autonomy, 284; bill of 1910, 285; present governmental system, 286-287. _Ausgleich_. See Austria-Hungary. Austria:-- --_Abgeordnetenhaus_, composition, 466; electoral system to 1873, 466-467; Taaffe bill of 1893, 467-468; electoral law of 1896, 468; electoral law of 1907, 469-471; electoral qualifications and procedure, 471-472; sessions and procedure, 472-473; powers, 473-474. --Administration, of province, 485-487; of commune, 487-488. --Amendment, of constitution, 461. --_Ausgleich_, established, 458-459; and political parties, 475-476; nature, 509. --Babenbergs, 442. --Badeni, electoral bill, 468; ministry, 479. --Beck, carries electoral reform, 469-470. --Bienerth, ministry, 482. --Bohemia, language question in, 480. --Charles V. , 443. --Christian Socialist Party, 483. --Citizens, rights of, 462. --Civil list, 464. --Commune, organization, 487-488. --Constitution, promulgated in 1848, 454; abrogated, 455; experiments of 1860-1861, 456-457; texts, 460; style of government, 460-461; amendment, 461. --Courts, ordinary, 483-484; administrative, 484-485. --Crown. See Emperor. --Diet, provision for in constitution of 1848, 454. --Diploma of 1860, 456. --Elections, original system, 466; law of 1873, 467; Taaffe bill of 1893, 467-468; law of 1896, 468; law of 1907, 469-471; qualifications and procedure, 471-472; of 1901, 481; of 1907, 481-482; of 1911, 482-483. --Emperor, status, 463; powers, 464; relation with ministries, 464. --Franchise, law of 1873, 467; Taaffe bill of 1893, 467-468; law of 1896, 468; law of 1907, 469-471; present system, 471-472. --Francis I. , proclaimed emperor of Austria, 445. --Francis Joseph I. , accession, 455; constitutional projects, 456-457; and Compromise of 1867, 459; encourages electoral reform, 469. --Gautsch, promises electoral reform, 469; ministries, 480-481. --German Liberal Party, rise, 476; rule, 476-477; in the opposition, 477-478; return to power, 478-479. --Germans, in Empire, 475. --Hapsburgs, 442. --_Herrenhaus_, composition, 465; organization and powers, 466; sessions and procedure, 472-473. --House of Lords. See _Herrenhaus_. --House of Representatives. See _Abgeordnetenhaus_. --Hungary, establishment of power in, 443; encroachment in, 449-450; suppression of revolution in, 455-456; constitutional experiments with, 457-458; _Ausgleich_ established, 458-459. --Italians, in Empire, 475. --Joseph II. , reforms, 444. --Judiciary. See Courts. --Karlowitz, Peace of, 443, 448. --Körber, ministry, 480-481. --_Landesausschuss_, 485. --_Landtag_, of province, 485-487. --Maria Theresa, development of autocracy under, 444. --Metternich, policies, 450-451; combats liberalism, 452; fall, 453. --Ministry, composition, 464; responsibility, 464-465. --Parliament, composition, 465-466; electoral system, 466-472; sessions and procedure, 472-473; powers, 473-474. --Parliamentarism, nature of, 464-465; nadir of, 480-481. --Parties, centralism and federalism, 475-476; rule of German Liberals, 476-477; during Taaffe ministry, 477-478; return of German Liberals to power, 478-479; and parliamentary deadlock, 480-481; and elections of 1907 and 1911, 481-483. --Patent of 1861, 457. --Plural Vote, under law of 1896, 468. --Pragmatic Sanction, promulgated, 499. --Province, executive officials, 485; _Landtag_, 485-487. --Race, political significance of, 470, 474-475, 479-480. --_Reichsgericht_, 484. --_Reichsrath_. See _Herrenhaus_ and _Abgeordnetenhaus_. --Revolution of 1848, constitutionalism established, 454; reaction, 455-456. --Russia, intervenes in Austria, 455. --Slavs, in Empire, 475. --Social Democratic Party, demands for electoral reform, 469-470; victory in 1911, 483. --Succession, rules of, 449, 463. --Taaffe, electoral bill of 1893, 467-468; ministry, 477-478. --Universal Suffrage Law, adoption, 469-470; racial and geographical distribution of seats, 470; electoral qualifications and procedure, 471-472. --Vienna, Congress of, rôle of Austria in, 450. --_Vorsteher_, 487. Austria-Hungary (see also Austria and Hungary):-- --_Ausgleich_ established, 458-459; nature, 509. --Bosnia, annexation, 514; constitution, 515; governmental system, 515-516; electoral arrangements, 516. --Contributions. See Finances. --Delegations, composition and sessions, 513; powers, 513-514. --Emperor, status, 510. --Finance, ministry of, 511; arrangements concerning, 512. --Foreign Affairs, ministry of, 510. --Herzegovina, annexation, 514; constitution, 515; government and electoral system, 515-516. --King. See Emperor. --Ministry, of foreign affairs, 510; of war, 511; of finance, 511. --War, ministry of, 511. Baden, granted a constitution, 197; special privileges, 208; governmental system, 279. Bavaria, made a kingdom, 194; granted a constitution, 197; special privileges, 208; governmental system, 275-276. Belgium:-- --Administration, organization of province, 550-551; organization of commune, 551. --Amendment, process, 535. --_Arrondissement_, electoral unit, 543-545; judicial unit, 549. --Austrian Netherlands, annexed to France, 517-518; incorporated in United Netherlands, 519. --Catholic Party, and electoral reform, 540-541; and proportional representation, 542-543; and elections of 1906-1910, 545-546; triumph in 1912, 546-547. --Commune, organization, 551. --Conservative Party, and electoral reform, 540-541. --Constitution, of 1815, 519-520; of 1831 promulgated, 534; democratic character, 534-535; amendment, 535. --Council, of province, 550. --Court of Cassation, 549. --Courts, organization and functions, 549-550. --Crown, status and privileges, 536; relation with ministry, 536-537; powers, 537-538. --Elections, earlier arrangements, 539-540; law of 1893, 540-541; franchise to-day, 541-542; adoption of proportional representation, 543-545; of 1906-1910, 545-546; of 1912, 546-547. --Franchise, prior to 1893, 539-540; law of 1893, 540-541; system to-day, 541-542; demand for further reform, 547-548. --Holland, separation from, 520-521. --House of Representatives, composition, 539; earlier electoral arrangements, 539-540; electoral law of 1893, 540-541; franchise to-day, 541-542; organization and procedure, 548-549. --Independence, declared, 520; recognized, 521. --Jury, use of, 550. --Leopold I. , crowned king, 521. --Liberal Party, and electoral reform, 540-541; favors proportional representation, 543; opposition to plural vote, 547. --Ministry, composition, 536; responsibility, 536-537. --Parliament, composition and election of senators, 538-539; composition of House of Representatives, 539; electoral system, 539-542; proportional representation, 543-545; organization and procedure of chambers, 548-549. --Parliamentarism, 536-537. --Plural Vote, 541-542; opposition of Liberals and Socialists, 547-548; in province, 551. --Proportional Representation, adopted, 543; operation, 543-545. --Province, organization, 550-551. --Revolution of 1830, 520-521. --Senate, composition and election, 538; qualifications, 539; organization, and procedure, 548-549. --Socialists, lead movement for electoral reform, 540-541; favor proportional representation, 543; opposition to plural vote, 547-548. Bismark, Otto von, and establishment of German Empire, 199-201; attitude toward socialism, 231; reform of Prussian local government, 266-267. Bosnia. See Austria-Hungary. _Bundesrath_. See Germany and Switzerland. Cabinet. See England. Canton, of France, 343, 348; of Switzerland, 409-422. Chamber of Deputies. See France, Italy, Hungary. Civil List, in Great Britain, 51-52; of king of Prussia, 253; of king of Italy, 368. Committees, in English Parliament, 123-137; in Bundesrath, 220; in Reichstag, 226; in Prussian Landtag, 264; in French Parliament, 325-327. Commune, in Prussia, 272-273; antiquity in France, 348; organization, 344-351; in Italy, 385; in Switzerland, 422; in Austria, 487-488; in Holland, 533; in Belgium, 551; in Norway, 588; in Spain, 627; in Portugal, 638-639. Congress. See Portugal. Congress of Deputies. See Spain. Constitution, development of English, 2-41; nature of English, 41-47; of German Confederation of 1815, 194-196; of German Empire, 202-204; of Prussia, 250-252; succession in France from 1791, 290-300; of Third Republic, 304-306; succession in Italy, 354-361; of Italy to-day, 360-367; of Switzerland, 410-416, 431-432; of Austria, 456-461; of Hungary, 446-448, 489-490; of Holland, 519-523; of Belgium, 534-535; of Denmark, 557-559; of Norway, 574, 578-579; of Sweden, 589; succession in Spain, 604-608; of Spain to-day, 611-612; of Portuguese republic, 642-643. Cortes. See Spain and Portugal. County, English, 171-184. Courts, in England, 171-175; in Germany, 243-244; in France, 337-341; in Italy, 381-383; in Austria, 483-485; in Holland, 531-532; in Belgium, 549-550; in Denmark, 568-569; in Norway, 587-588; in Spain, 626-627; in Portugal, 638, 646. Croatia, government, 507-508. Crown, in Great Britain, 48-59; in German Empire, 210-214; in Prussia, 252; in Italy, 368-370; in Austria, 463-464; in Hungary, 491; in Holland, 523-525; in Denmark, 554-561; in Norway, 578-585; in Sweden, 570-571, 590-591; in Spain, 613-615; in Portugal, 635-636. Delegations. See Austria-Hungary. Denmark:-- --Administration, 569. --Christensen, ministry, 566-567. --Christian VIII. , and reform, 556-567. --Christian IX. , yields to parliamentary principle, 562. --Conservative Party, resists parliamentary principle, 560-562; dominance, 565-566. --Constitution, of 1848, 557; of 1849 promulgated, 557; revised in 1866, 558-559; process of amendment, 559. --Courts, general principles, 568; organization, 568-569; act of 1908, 569. --Crown, development, 554-555; opposition to reform, 556; status, 559; powers, 560; relations with ministry, 560-561. --Diet, of provinces, 556. --Elections, present system, 563; projected reform, 564; of 1906, 567; of 1910, 567-568. --Estrup, ministry, 561-562, 565-566. --Franchise, present system, 563; movement for reform, 564. --Frederick VI. , creates diets, 556. --_Folkething_, composition, 563; elections, 563-564; sessions and powers, 564-565. --_Höjesteret_, 568. --Holstein, 558. --Judiciary. See Courts. --Kalmar, union of, 553. --Kiel, treaty of, 554. --King. See Crown. --_Kongelov_, 555, 557. --_Landsthing_, composition, 562; qualifications, 563; sessions and powers, 564-565. --Lauenburg, 558. --Liberal Party, pressure for parliamentary system, 560-562; advent to power, 566. --Malmö, treaty of, 553. --Ministry, composition, 560-561; responsibility, 561-562; of Estrup, 561-562, 565-566; recent instability, 567-568. --Norway, united with, 553; separated from, 554. --Parliament. See _Rigsdag_. --Parliamentarism, 560-562. --Parties, rise, 565; during Estrup's ministry, 565-566; advent of Liberals to power, 566; since 1903, 566-568. --Proportional Representation, in election of senators, 563. --Radical Party, 567-568. --Revolution of 1660, 554-555. --_Rigsdag_, composition, 562-563; electoral system, 563-564; sessions and power, 564-565. --_Rigsrad_, 554. --Schleswig, 558. --Social Democratic Party, 567-568. Elections, of British House of Commons, 92-96; of _Reichstag_, 224-225; of Prussian _Abgeordnetenhaus_, 258-263; under Revolutionary and Napoleonic constitutions, 293-294; present system in France, 318-322; in Italy, 376-378, 400-402; in Switzerland, 423, 426-428, 435-437; in Austria, 466-483; in Holland, 526-530; in Belgium, 539-547; in Denmark, 563-568; in Norway, 581-582, 587; in Sweden, 592-596, 600; in Spain, 617-618, 624-625; in Portugal, 633-642. England:-- --Act of Settlement (1701), 49. --Administration. See Local Government. --Admiralty Board, 62. --Asquith, H. , resolutions for reform of Lords, 108. --Attainder, 130. --Bill of Rights, 32. --Borough, in fifteenth century, 23; franchise before 1832, 79; franchise extended in 1832 and 1867, 82-84; redistribution of parliamentary seats, 85; organization before 1832, 177-178; reform by Municipal Corporations Act, 178; kinds, 187; authorities, 188; council and its functions, 189. --Budget, preparation, 136. --Cabinet, origins, 37-38; relations with Privy Council, 60; relations with ministry, 61; composition, 64; size, 65; selection of premier, 66; selection of other members, 67-68; political solidarity, 69; responsibility, 70; proceedings, 71-73; central position, 74. --Campbell-Bannerman, Liberal leader, 154; premier, 157. --Chamberlain, Joseph, and the Liberal Unionists, 151; tariff reform programme, 155. --Chancery, Court of, 17, 174. --Charles I. , parliaments of, 28. --Charles II. , restoration, 31; rise of cabinet, 37. --Chartists, 82-83. --Civil List, 51-52. --Committees, kinds, 123; of whole, 123; select and sessional, 124; standing, 124-125; procedure on public bills, 133-134; on money bills, 135-136; on private bills, 137. --Common Law, 167-168. --Common Pleas, Court of, 17, 174. --Commonwealth, 29. --_Commune Concilium_, 7. --Conservative Party, origin of name, 147; mid-century ministries, 148-150; Salisbury ministries, 151-153; defeat in 1906, 157; signification of nomenclature, 162; present-day issues, 163; composition, 164. --Constitution, Anglo-Saxon foundations, 2-5; influenced by Norman Conquest, 6-8; in the Tudor period, 18-26; in the Stuart period, 26-33; elements of stability and change, 34; development since seventeenth century, 34-41; elusiveness, 41; law and conventions, 42-43; flexibility and amendment, 44-47. --Conventions, in English constitution, 43. --Corn Laws, repeal, 147. --Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, 95-96. --County, franchise before 1832, 79; franchise broadened in 1832, 82; franchise liberalized in 1867 and 1884, 84; court of, 171; organization before 1832, 176-177; reform by Local Government Act of 1888, 180; present administrative organization, 183; council and its functions, 183-184. --Court of Appeals, 174. --Courts, beginnings of great tribunals, 17; county, 171; justices of the peace, 171-172; High Court, 173; Court of Appeals, 174; House of Lords, 130; Judicial Committee of Privy Council, 175. --Cromwell, Oliver, 29-30. --Crown, in Anglo-Saxon times, 3; effects of Norman Conquest on, 6; independence under the Tudors, 21; character under early Stuarts, 26; abolished in 1640, 30; restoration, 30; regulated by Bill of Rights, 32-33; decreased powers since seventeenth century, 35; theoretical position, 48; rules of succession, 49; regencies, 50; privileges, 50-52; the prerogative, 52; executive powers, 53-55; legislative powers, 55; veto, 56; relations with ministry, 56-57; actual service, 58; reasons for survival, 59. --Disraeli, Benjamin, prime minister, 150. --District, rural, 184; urban, 186. --District and Parish Councils Act of 1894, 180. --Edward I. , and rise of Parliament, 12-13. --Edward II. , statute concerning Parliament, 15. --Elections, writs, 92; time regulations, 92-93; polling, 93; the campaign, 94; expenditures, 95-96. --Elizabeth, strong government, 21; development of Parliament under, 24-25. --Equity, rules of, 169. --Exchequer, Court of, 17, 62, 174. --Franchise, in fifteenth century, 23; in early nineteenth century, 79; extended by Reform Act of 1832, 82; demands of the Chartists, 82-83; modified in 1867, 83-84; liberalized in 1884, 84-85; the system to-day, 86-88; question of the plural vote, 89-90; Franchise Bill of 1912, 90; woman's suffrage, 91. --Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, 118. --George III. , attempted revival of royal power, 35. --Gladstone, William E. , leadership of Liberals, 148; first ministry, 149; second and third ministries, 151; fourth ministry, 152. --Great Council, 7. --Henry I. , charter, 7. --Henry II. , judicial measures, 8. --Henry III. , and beginnings of Parliament, 12. --Henry VIII. , strong government, 19. --High Court of Justice, 173-174. --House of Commons, origins, 13; composition in 1485, 23; changes in Tudor period, 24; Apology of 1604, 27; ascendancy over House of Lords, 36; present composition, 77; undemocratic character at opening of nineteenth century, 77-79; electoral corruption, 80; early demands for reform, 80; Reform Act of 1832, 81-82; Chartist agitation, 82-83; Representation of the People Act of 1867, 83-84; Representation of the People Act of 1884, 84-85; Redistribution of Seats Act of 1885, 85; franchise and franchise questions to-day, 86-92; electoral procedure and regulations, 92-96; sessions, 117; opening ceremonies, 117-118; meeting place described, 118-120; hours of sittings, 120; officers, 121; Speaker, 121-123; quorum, 123; committees, 123-125; privileges, 126; payment of members, 127; procedure on public bills, 133-134; on money bills, 135-136; on private bills, 137-138; provisional orders, 138; rules, 139-141; closure, 139; the guillotine, 140; votes and divisions, 140-141. --House of Lords, origins, 13, 47; composition in 1485, 22-23; changes in Tudor period, 24; abolished in 1640, 29; restored in 1660, 31; loss of priority to House of Commons, 36, 102; composition, 97-101; qualifications of members, 101; number of members, 101; question of reform, 102-103; early reform proposals, 103-104; conflicts with the Liberals, 104; powers relating to money bills, 106; rejection of Finance Bill of 1909, 107; Liberal project of reform, 108; Unionist proposals, 109; adoption of Parliament Act of 1911, 110-111; effects of the Act, 112-114; sessions, 117; opening ceremonies, 117-118; sittings and attendance, 125; officers, 125-126; privileges, 127; judicial functions, 130-132; procedure, 141-142. --Humble Petition and Advice, 30. --Hundred, 4. --Impeachment, 130. --Independent Labor Party, 165. --Instrument of Government, 29. --Ireland, union of 1801, 40-41; allotment of parliamentary seats, 85; over-representation, 89; representative peers, 98-99; question of Home Rule, 150-152. --James I. , conception of monarchy, 26; parliaments of, 28. --James II. , overthrown, 32. --John, signs Magna Carta, 9; holds council at Oxford, 12. --Jury, use of, 171, 172. --Justice of the Peace, functions, 171-172. --King. See Crown. --King's Bench, Court of, 17, 174. --Labor Party, 165-167. --Lansdowne Reconstruction Bill, 100. --Law, origins, 167; form, 168-169. --Legislation, powers acquired by Parliament, 14-15. --Liberal Party, conflict with House of Lords, 104; and reform, 147; regeneration under Gladstone, 148-149; and Home Rule, 150; secession of Unionists, 151; rehabilitation, 156; electoral triumph in 1906, 157; mandate and performance, 158-159; conflict with House of Lords, 159; triumph in elections of 1910, 160; carry Parliament Act of 1911, 110, 160; signification of nomenclature, 162; present-day issues, 163; composition, 164. --Liberal Unionists, origins, 151. --Local Government Act of 1888, 180. --Local Government Board, 180, 182. --Local Government, periods in history, 176; before 1835, 176-178; mid-century confusion of areas, 179; relations with central government, 181-182; organization of administrative county, 183-184; the rural district, 184; rural and urban parish, 185; urban district, 186; boroughs and cities, 187-189; London, 190-191. --London, government, 190-191. --Lord High Chancellor, 63. --Lord Lieutenant, 172. --Lords of Appeal, 99. --Magna Carta, character and importance, 9. --Ministry, appointment, 57, 66-69; relation with Privy Council and Cabinet, 60-61; Treasury, 62; Admiralty Board, 62; Lord High Chancellorship, 63; the secretaries of state, 63-64; the administrative boards, 64; responsibility, 70, 128-130; proceedings, 71-73. --Money Bills, the Lords and, 106; Liberal proposals concerning, 108; disposition under Parliament Act of 1911, 112; procedure upon, 135-136. --Montfort, Simon de, parliaments of 1264 and 1265, 12. --Municipal Corporation Act, 178. --Newcastle Programme, 152. --Parish, rural and urban, 185. --Parliament, origins, 11; Simon de Montfort's leadership, 12; Model Parliament, 12-13; bicameral principle established, 13; fiscal and legislative powers, 14; development of legislative process, 15; composition in 1485, 23; growth under Tudors, 24; in Stuart period, 28-29; experiments during Commonwealth and Protectorate, 29-30; restoration in 1660, 31; constituent powers, 45; relations with crown, 55; undemocratic character in early nineteenth century, 77-80; Reform Act of 1832, 81-82; Representation of the People Act of 1867, 83-84; Representation of the People Act of 1884, 84-85; Redistribution of Seats Act of 1885, 85; franchise and franchise questions to-day, 86-92; electoral procedure and regulations, 92-96; composition of Lords, 97-101; question of Lords reform, 102-109; the Parliament Act of 1911, 110-114; sessions, 117; how opened, 117-118; meeting place and sittings, 118-120; officers and committees of Commons, 121-125; organization of Lords, 125-126; privileges of members, 126-127; function of criticism, 128-130; judicial functions, 130-132; procedure on public bills, 133-134; on money bills, 135-136; on private bills, 137-138; rules of Commons, 139-141; procedure in Lords, 141-142. --Parliament Act, origins, 106-110; adoption, 110-111; provisions, 112-113; significance, 113-115. --Parliamentarism, and parties, 143. --Parties, beginnings, 38-39; relation to parliamentary government, 143; Tory ascendancy from 1783 to 1830, 145-146; Liberals and reform, 147; mid-century regeneration, 148-150; rise of Liberal Unionists, 151; Conservative ascendancy, 154-155; Liberal revival, 156-157; present significance of party names, 162; current issues, 163-165; labor and politics, 165-166. --Plural Vote, 89-90. --Poor Law, 178. --Premier, selection, 66; choice of colleagues, 67; leadership, 72-73. --Prince of Wales, 49. --Private Legislation, 137-138. --Privy Council, origins, 17; under the Tudors, 19; under Charles II. , 37; relations with ministry and cabinet, 60; Judicial Committee as a court, 175. --Protectorate, 29-30. --Provisional Orders, 138. --Poyning's Law, 40. --Redistribution of Seats Act of 1885, 85-86. --Referendum, Unionist proposal of, 109. --Reform Act of 1832, 81-82. --Regency, 50. --Representation, beginnings of, 11. --Representation of the People Act, of 1867, 83-84; of 1884, 84-85. --Rosebery, Lord, proposals for reform of Lords, 105, 108. --Salisbury, Marquis of, first ministry, 157; second ministry, 152; third and fourth ministries, 153. --Scotland, union of 1707, 39-40; allotment of parliamentary seats, 85; representative peers, 98-99. --Shire, 5. --Shire-moot, 5. --Society for Constitutional Information, 81. --Speaker, of House of Commons, history and functions, 121-123; powers, 139. --Star Chamber, Court of, 20. --Stuarts, absolutism, 26; overthrow, 29; restored, 30; finally expelled, 32. --Supreme Court of Judicature, 173-175. --Tariff Reform, rise and effects of issue, 155-156. --Taxation, powers acquired by Parliament, 14, 22. --Toleration Act, 33. --Tory Party, rise, 39; ascendancy from 1783 to 1830, 145-146. --Township, 4. --Treasury, 62. --Tudors, popularity, 18; relations with Parliament, 21. --Unionists, position in Lords, 102-106. --Westminster Palace, 116. --Whig Party, rise, 39. --William I. , governmental policies, 6-7. --William III. , accession, 32. --Witenagemot, 4. --Woman's Suffrage, 91-92. _Folkething_. See Denmark. France:-- --_Adjoint_, 350. --Administration, under Old Régime, 341-342; overhauled in 1789-1791, 342; revival of centralization, 343; under Second Empire, 344; changes under Third Republic, 345; the department, 346-347; the arrondissement, 347; the canton, 348; the commune, 348-351. --Amendment, of constitution, 307, 327-328. --Appeal, courts of, 338. --_Arrondissement_, electoral unit, 318; created, 343; organization, 347. --Assize, courts of, 338. --Associations, law of, 331. --_Ballottage_, 319. --_Bloc_, rise, 331; present condition, 332. --Bonaparte, Napoleon, and constitution of the Year VIII. , 293-295; organization of local administration, 343. --Bonapartists, policies in 1871-1875, 303-304. --Bordeaux, National Assembly meets at, 302. --Briand, A. , programme of electoral reform, 322; ministry, 332. --Bureaus, in Parliament, 325-327. --Canton, created, 342; made a judicial unit, 343; present character, 348. --Cassation, Court of, 338-339. --Catholic Party, rise, 338. --Chamber of Deputies, composition, 317; term and qualifications, 318; electoral process, 319; proposed electoral reform, 319-320; the Briand programme, 322; reform bill of 1912, 323-324; sessions, 325; officers, 325; bureaus and committees, 326; procedure, 326; powers and functions, 327-329; party strength in, 332. --Church, legislation concerning, 331. --Clemenceau, ministry, 331-332. --_Code Civil_, 335-336. --_Code Napoléon_, 335-336. --Code of Civil Procedure, 336. --Code of Commerce, 336. --Code of Criminal Instruction, 336. --Combes, ministry, 331. --_Commission du Suffrage Universel_, 321, 323. --Committees, in Parliament, 325-327. --Commune, suppressed, 303; continuity of, 342; place in Napoleonic system, 343; council made elective, 344; under Second Empire, 344-345; legislation concerning in 1884, 345; present character, 348; number and size, 348; council, 348-349; mayor and assistants, 349-350; importance, 350-351. --Concentration, policy of, 330. --_Concordat_, abrogated, 331. --_Conseil de préfecture_, 346. --Conservative Party, after 1848, 329; in control of Senate after 1876, 330; changed character, 333. --Constitution, of 1791, 290-291; of the Year I. , 291-292; of the Year III. , 292-293; of the Year VIII. , 293-295; Constitutional Charter of 1814, 295-297; of Second Republic, 297-298; of Second Empire, 299-300; of Third Republic, 304-306; process of amendment, 305, 327-328. --Constitutional Charter, 295-297. --Convention, 292. --_Corps législatif_, under constitution of 1791, 291; under constitution of the Year VIII. , 294. --Council, of department, made elective, 344; present character, 346-347. --Council, of _arrondissement_, 347. --Council, of commune, made elective, 344; organization and functions, 348-349. --Council of Elders, in constitution of the Year III. , 292-293. --Council of Five Hundred, in constitution of the Year III. , 292-293. --Council of State, composition and functions, 340. --Courts, of justice of the peace, 337; of first instance, 337; of appeal and of assize, 338; of Cassation, 338-339; appointment and tenure of judges, 339; administrative, 339-340; Council of State, 340; of Conflicts, 341. --Department, created, 342; organized by Napoleon, 343; council made elective, 344; under Second Empire, 344-345; the office of prefect, 346; the council, 346-347. --Elections, under constitution of the Year VIII. , 293-294; under Constitutional Charter of 1814, 296; _arrondissement_ as unit, 318; conduct, 319; ballottage, 319; question of reform, 319-322; the Briand programme, 322; of 1906, 331; of 1910, 332; reform bill of 1912, 323-324. --Electoral Reform. See Elections. --Empire, Napoleonic, 295; Second French, 299-300. --Extreme Left, in Chamber of Deputies, 332. --First Instance, courts of, 337. --Franchise, under Napoleonic system, 294; under Constitutional Charter of 1814, 296-297; present regulations, 317. --Frankfort, Peace of, 302. --_Généralité_, 342. --Great Western Line, purchase of, 332. --Impeachment, 309. --_Intendant_, 342. --Interpellation, 314. --Jaurès, socialist leader, 334. --_Journal Officiel_, 326. --Judges, appointment and tenure, 339. --Judiciary. See Court. --_Juge de paix_, 337. --Law, codification, 335-336; character, 336-337; administrative, 339. --Left, in Chamber of Deputies, 332. --Legislation, President's part in, 309-310; processes, 326-327; powers, 328-329. --Legitimists, policies in 1871-1875, 303-305. --MacMahon, Marshall, president, 304. --Mayor, functions, 347-350. --Millerand, Étienne, socialist member of ministry, 334. --Ministry, place in governmental system, 311; composition, 312; responsibility, 312-313; frequency of changes, 313; interpellation, 314. --Multiple Candidature Act, 318. --Napoleon III. , proclaimed emperor, 299. --National Assembly, of 1871-1875, 302-303; of Third Republic, election of President, 309, 328; amendment of constitution, 327-328. --Orleanists, policies in 1871-1875, 303-304. --Pacification, policy of, 330. --Parliament, establishment of bicameral system, 315; original form of Senate, 315-316; composition and election to-day, 316-317; composition of Chamber of Deputies, 317-318; question of electoral reform, 319-324; sessions, 325; officers, 325; committees, 326; procedure, 326; powers and functions, 327-329. --Parliamentarism, 313. --Parties, multiplicity, 312-313; development after 1848, 329; situation after 1876, 330; rise of Radicals, 330; the _bloc_, 331; rise of Socialists, 330-331, 333-334; elections of 1906, 331; elections of 1910, 332; changes since 1871, 333. --Penal Code, 336. --Prefect, creation in 1800, 343; appointment and functions, 346. --Premier, position and powers, 312. --President, title created, 303; occupants of the office, 308; election, 308, 328; term, 309; qualifications, 309; salary and privileges, 309; powers, 309-311; relation with ministers, 311-312. --Procedure, in Senate and Chamber of Deputies, 326-327. --_Procureur_, 327. --Progressive Party, rise, 331. --Proportional Representation, movement for establishment of, 320-324. --Province, abolished, 342. --Prussia, war with, 301. --Radical Party, rise, 330; ascendancy, 331. --_Ralliés_, 330. --Republic, Second, 297-298; Third established, 302-304. --Republican Party, in 1848, 329; control of Chamber of Deputies after 1876, 330. --Right, in Chamber of Deputies, 332; present character, 333. --Rivet Law, 302. --Rouvier, ministry, 331. --Sarrien, ministry, 331 --_Scrutin d'arrondissement_, established in 1820, 296; re-established in 1889, 318; proposed change from, 319-320. --_Scrutin de liste_, established in 1817, 296; election of senators by, 316; advantages of, 319-320; proposals to re-establish, 320-324. --Senate, original form, 315-316; composition and election to-day, 316-317; sessions, 325; officers, 325; bureaus and committees, 325-326; procedure, 326; powers and functions, 327-329. --Sieyès, electoral project, 294. --Socialist Party, rise, 330; gains, 331; in Chamber of Deputies, 332; growth and present character, 333-334. --Thiers, Louis Adolph, made Chief of the Executive Power, 302; made President of the French Republic, 303; retirement, 303. --Trade-unions, and socialism, 333-334. --_Tribunal des Conflits_, 341. --Veto, 310. --Waldeck-Rousseau, ministry, 331; Franchise, in Great Britain, in early nineteenth century, 79-81; extension, 81-85; present system, 85-88; questions concerning, 88-91; in German Empire, 224-225; in Prussia, 258-260; development in France, 294-297; in France to-day, 317; in Italy, 376-378; in Switzerland, 426; in Austria, 467-472; in Holland, 526-528; in Belgium, 539-548; in Denmark, 563-564; in Norway, 581-582; in Sweden, 592-597; in Spain, 617-618; in Portugal, 637, 641. Germany (see also Prussia and Austria): --_Abgeordnetenhaus_, of Württemberg, 278. --_Abtheilungen_, in German Reichstag, 226; in Prussian Landtag, 264. --Agrarian Party, 234. --Alsace-Lorraine, original organization, 282; the Landesausschuss, 283; movement for autonomy, 284; bill of 1910, 285; present governmental system, 286-287. --Amendment, of Imperial constitution, 209. --_Amtsgericht_, 243. --Antisemitic Party, 232. --Army, 208. --Austria, war with Prussia, 200. --Baden, granted a constitution, 197; special privileges, 208; governmental system, 279. --Bavaria, made a kingdom, 194; granted a constitution, 197; special privileges, 208; governmental system, 275-276. --Bebel, August, president of German Social Democratic party, 240. --Bernstein, Edward, and the "revisionist" socialists, 239. --Bismarck, Otto von, minister-president of Prussia, 199; plan for reorganization of German Confederation, 200; establishment of North German _Bund_, 200; creation of the German Empire, 201; and socialism, 231; dismissed, 233; and Prussian local government, 266-267. --_Bloc_, 234. --Bremen, governmental system, 281. --Bülow, Count von, chancellor, 234; and political parties, 236; on electoral reform in Prussia, 261. --_Bund_. See Confederation of 1815 and North German Confederation. --_Bundeskanzleramt_, 216. --_Bundesrath_, composition, 217; legal character, 218; sessions and procedure, 219; committees, 220; powers and functions, 221-222. --Caprivi, General von, chancellor, 233. --Carlsbad Decrees, 248. --Centre Party, rise, 230; pivotal position, 235; present position, 236-240. --Chancellor, appointment, 213; legal position, 214; functions and powers, 215-217. --Civil List, of king of Prussia, 253. --Confederation of 1815, formation, 195; character, 195-197; terminated, 200. --Committees, in German Bundesrath, 220; in Reichstag, 226; in Prussian Landtag, 264. --Conservative Party, rise, 229; varying fortunes, 233-234; present position, 236-240. --Constitution, of Confederation of 1815, 194-196; grants in various states, 197; grant in Prussia, 199; of the Empire, 202-204; process of amendment, 209; of Prussia, 250-252. --Courts, regulated by Law of Judicial. Organization, 243; inferior tribunals, 243; _Reichsgericht_, 244. --Crown. See Emperor. --Elections, of members of Reichstag, 224-225. --Emperor, title, 210; legal position and privileges, 211; powers, 211-213; relations with Chancellor, 214. --Empire, established, 201; constitution, 202-203; nature, 203-207. --Erfurt Programme, 239. --Frankfort, seat of Diet, 195; parliament of 1848, 198; the _Fürstentag_, 199. --Gneist, Rudolph von, writings on government, 266. --Gotha, congress at, 231. --Guelf Party, 232. --Hamburg, governmental system, 280-281. --Hanoverian Party, 232. --Hardenberg, Count von, establishes a ministry of state, 255. --Holy Roman Empire, terminated, 193. --_Kulturkampf_, 230. --_Landgericht_, 243. --_Landtag_, of Bavaria, 275-276. --Law, character, 241-242. --Legislation, powers, 221, 227-228; methods, 219-220, 226-227. --Lübeck, governmental system, 281. --Metternich, Count, at Congress of Vienna, 195. --Ministry, organization, 213-215. --Napoleon I. , changes wrought in Germany, 193-194. --National Liberal Party, rise, 229; preponderance, 230; break-up, 233. --North German Confederation, formation, 200; converted into Empire, 201. --_Oberlandesgericht_, 243. --Parliamentarism, absence in German Empire, 213; absence in Prussia, 254. --Parties, rise, 229; older alignments, 229-230; more recent alignments, 230-232; minor parties, 232-233; rise of the _bloc_, 234; recent developments, 236-240. --Polish Party, 232. --Privileges, of members of Reichstag, 225. --Proportional Representation, in Württemberg, 278. --Prussia, in Confederation of 1815, 194-195; voting power in the Diet, 195-196; Bismarck's ministry, 199; war with Austria, 200; leadership of North German _Bund_, 200; creation of German Empire, 201; pre-eminence and special privileges, 207-217; position in _Bundesrath_, 218-219; regeneration in Napoleonic period, 246-248; repression of liberalism, 248; diet of 1847, 249; revolution of 1848, 249-250; formation of constitution, 250. --_Reichsgericht_, 244. --_Reichsgesetzblatt_, 215. --_Reichsland_. See Alsace-Lorraine. --_Reichstag_, composition, 223; electoral system, 224; franchise, 225; privileges of members, 225; sessions and officers, 226; committees, 226; conduct of business, 227; powers and franchise, 227-228. --Revolution of 1848, in Germany, 198-199; in Prussia, 249-250. --Saxony, made a kingdom, 194; granted a constitution, 197; governmental system, 276-278. --Social Democratic Party, rise, 231; growth, 232; triumph in 1912, 236-238; present programme and character, 239-240; strength in Prussia, 260-261. --_Sonderrechte_, 208. --_Standeversammlung_, of Saxony, 277. --_Statthalter_, of Alsace-Lorraine, 286. --Versailles, William I. Proclaimed emperor at, 193. --Vienna, Congress of, arrangements in Germany, 194. --_Vorparlament_, of 1848, 198. --William I. , proclaimed German Emperor, 193. --Württemberg, made a kingdom, 194; granted a constitution, 197; special privileges, 208; governmental system, 278-279. --Zollverein, rise, 197. Great Britain. See England. Hamburg, governmental system, 280-281. _Herrenhaus_. See Prussia and Austria. Herzegovina. See Austria-Hungary. Holland:-- --Administration, organization of province, 532-533; organization of commune, 533. --Amendment, process, 523. --Assembly, of province, 532. --Batavian Republic, established, 518. --Belgium, revolution in, 520; independence of, 521. --Commune, organization, 533. --Conservative Party, 529-530. --Constitution, granted by William I. , 519; revision, 521-522; present character, 523; process of amendment, 523. --Council of commune, 533. --Council of State, 524. --Courts, 531-532. --Crown, status and privileges, 523-524; powers, 525. --Elections, movement for reform, 526; law of 1896, 527; pending questions, 527-528; of 1903, 529-530; of 1909, 530. --France, Holland annexed to, 518. --Franchise, movement for liberalizing, 526; law of 1896, 527; pending questions, 527-528. --High Court, 531. --Judiciary, principles, 531; courts, 531-532. --Liberal Party, 529-530. --Ministry, composition, 524; powers, 525. --Napoleon, relations with the Netherlands, 517-518. --Parliament. See States-General. --Parties, rise, 529; present alignment, 520; elections of 1909, 530. --Province, organization, 532-533. --States-General, composition of the houses, 526; electoral system, 527-528; organization and powers, 528-529; political complexion, 530. --Socialists, 529-530. --Vienna, Congress of, arrangements respecting the Netherlands, 518. --William I. , king of the Netherlands, 518-519; grants constitution, 519-520; resists Belgian independence, 520-521; abdicates, 521. --Woman's suffrage, 527-528. Holy Roman Empire, terminated, 193. House of Commons. See England. House of Lords. See England. House of Representatives. See Belgium. Hungary:-- --Administration, 506-507. --Andrássy, introduces electoral reform bill, 495. --Andrew II. , promulgates Golden Bull, 446-447, 489. --Árpáds, dynasty of, 447. --Ausgleich, established, 458-459; and Hungarian political parties, 500. --Austria, establishment of control, 443; encroachment by, 449-450; suppresses revolution of 1848, 455-456; constitutional experiments, 457-468; Ausgleich established, 458-459. --Bánffy, ministry, 502. --_Banus_, of Croatia-Slavonia, 508. --Chamber of Deputies, composition, 493; electoral system, 493-494; movement for electoral reform, 495-496; electoral procedure, 497-498; organization, 498; powers, 499-500. --Constitution, foundations, 446-447; development, 447-448; March Laws, 453-454, 489; character, 490. --County, origins, 506; organization, 507. --Courts, 505-506. --Croatia, government, 507-508. --Crown. See King. --Deák, Francis, builds up Liberal party, 452; voices demands of Hungary, 457; retirement, 501. --Elections, present franchise, 493-494; movement for reform, 495; reform bill of 1908, 495-497; procedure, 497-498; of 1905, 503. --Franchise, present system, 493-494; electoral reform bill of 1908, 495-497. --Golden Bull, promulgated, 446-447, 489. --Hedérváry, ministry, 504-505. --Independence, proclaimed in 1849, 455. --Judiciary. See Courts. --King, status, 491. --Law, 505. --Liberal Party, origins, 452, 501-502; demands in 1860-1861, 457; ascendancy, 501, 502. --Magyars, settlement in Europe, 445; policies in 1848, 454; number and domination of, 494. --March Laws, promulgated, 453. --Metternich, repressive policy, 452. --Ministry, composition and status, 491-492. --Mohács, battle of, 448. --Parliament, composition, 492-493; electoral system, 493-497; organization and procedure, 497-498; powers 499-500; obstructionism in, 502-505. --Parliamentarism, 498. --Parties, and question of _Ausgleich_, 500; rise of Liberals, 500-501; era of parliamentary obstructionism, 502-505. --Pragmatic Sanction, promulgated, 449. --Revolution of 1848, 453-455. --Settlement, 445. --Slavonia, government, 507-508. --Stephen I. , receives crown from Pope, 446. --Table of Magnates, composition, 492-493; privileges, 493; organization and procedure, 498; powers, 499-500. --Tisza, István, ministry, 503. --Tisza, Kálman, ministry, 501-502. --Turks, invasions of, 448. --Wekerle, ministry, 504. Initiative, in Switzerland, 421, 432-434. Interpellation, in Prussian Landtag, 265; in French Chamber of Deputies, 314; in Italian Chamber of Deputies, 380. Ireland, union of 1801, 40-41; allotment of parliamentary seats, 85; over-representation, 89; representative peers, 98-99; question of Home Rule, 150-152. Italy:-- --Administration, patterned on French, 363; nature and organization of province, 384; nature and organization of commune, 385. --Austria, influence in Italy in eighteenth century, 353; position after 1815, 358; helps suppress revolution of 1848, 361; Piedmontese-French alliance against, 362; loss of Venetia, 364. --_Ballottaggio_, 378. --Bissolati, political influence, 397. --Bonaparte, Napoleon, and the Cisalpine Republic, 354; overthrows Genoese oligarchy, 354; wins at Marengo, 355; supervises revision of Italian constitutions, 355-356; crowned king of Italy, 356; annexes Rome to France, 357; prophecy of Italian unification, 359. --Campo Formio, treaty of, 354. --Cassation, courts of, 382. --Catholics, political activities, 400-402. --Cavour, Count, policies, 362. --Chamber of Deputies, composition, 375; franchise law of 1882, 376; franchise to-day, 376-377; electoral procedure, 378; qualifications and privileges of members, 378-379; organization, 379-380; procedure, 380-381. --Charles Albert I. , becomes king of Piedmont, 360; grants constitution in 1848, 360-361; abdicates, 361. --_Circondaro_, 383. --Cisalpine Republic, 353-354. --_Code Napoléon_, established in Italy, 357. --Committees, of Parliament, 380. --Commune, nature and organization, 385. --Conservative Party, origins, 391; lack of normal development, 398. --Constitution, of Cispadane Republic, 354; of Transpadane Republic, 354; of Ligurian Republic, 355; of Roman Republic, 355; of Parthenopæan Republic, 355; revisions in 1802-1803, 355-356; of Napoleonic kingdom of Naples, 357; proclaimed in Naples in 1820, 359; proclaimed in Naples in 1848, 360-361; granted in Piedmont in 1848, 360-361; character of _Statuto_, 365-367. --Council, of province, 384; of commune, 385. --Courts, patterned upon the French, 381; ordinary tribunals, 381-382; courts of cassation, 382; administrative courts, 382-383. --Crispi, ministries, 393, 394-395. --Crown, status, 368; civil list, 368; powers and functions, 368-369; relation with ministers, 370. --Depretis, ministries, 392-393. --Elections, development of laws regarding, 376; franchise, 376-378; procedure, 378; Catholic participation in, 400-402; of 1909, 402-403. --Extreme Left, influence, 395; groups of, 398. --France, relations with Italy during Napoleonic period, 354-357; allied with Piedmont, 362; receives Savoy and Nice, 363; withdrawal of troops from Rome, 364. --Franchise, prior to 1882, 375; law of 1882, 376; present regulations, 376-377; electoral reform, 377. --Fortis, ministry, 396. --Garibaldi, conquest of Sicily, 363. --Genoa, government remodelled, 354. --Giolitti, ministries, 394, 396-398. --_Giunta_, of province, 384; of commune, 385. --Judiciary. See Courts. --Italian Republic, 356. --Interpellation, 380. --Left, origins, 391; dominance, 392-394; prospects of harmony, 398. --Liberal Party, in control, 395. --Ligurian Republic, established, 354; annexed to France, 356. --Lombardy, Austria's position in, 353, 358; annexed to Piedmont, 363. --Lunéville, treaty of, 355. --Luzzatti, ministry, 396. --_Mandamento_, 381. --Milan, Transpadane Republic inaugurated at, 354; Napoleon crowned at, 356. --Ministry, composition, 369; organization and functions, 370-371; ordinances, 371-372. --Naples, invaded by French, 355; Murat king of, 357; revolution of 1820, 359; revolution of 1848, 360-361; annexed to kingdom of Italy, 363. --Napoleon. See Bonaparte. --Nice, ceded to France, 363. --_Non Expedit_, purpose and effect, 400-401; partial relaxation, 401-402. --Novara, battle of, 361. --Ordinances, 371. --Papacy, and revolution of 1848, 360-361; losses of territory to Piedmont, 362-363; and of temporal dominion, 387; Law of Papal Guarantees promulgated, 388; prerogatives, 388-389; relations with state, 389; opposition to existing system, 390; the _Non Expedit_, 400-402. --Papal Guarantees, Law of, promulgated, 388; contents and character, 388-389; papal attitude toward, 390. --Parliament, of united kingdom of Italy, 364; composition, 372-373; legislative weakness of Senate, 373; proposed reform of Senate, 373-374; composition of Chamber of Deputies, 375; franchise, 376-377; electoral procedure, 378; qualifications and privileges of members, 378-379; organization, 379-380; procedure, 380-381. --Parties, rise of, 391; rule of Radicals, 392-394; era of composite ministries, 395-398; lack of real conservatives, 398-399; groups of Extreme Left, 398; rise of socialism, 399-400; effects of the _Non Expedit_, 401-402; elections of 1909, 402-403. --Parthenopæan Republic, 355. --Piedmont, incorporated with France, 355; recovery in 1815, 358; revolution of 1821, 360; revolution of 1848, 360; obtains constitution, 361; accession of Victor Emmanuel II. , 361; ascendancy of, 362; annexations of 1859-1860, 362. --Pius IX. , reforms, 360; and revolution of 1848, 360-361; loss of temporal dominion, 387; rejects Law of Guarantees, 390. --Plombières, agreement of, 362. --Prefect, 384. --Premier, appointment, 369-370. --Pressburg, treaty of, 356. --Province, nature and organization, 384. --Radical Party, origins, 391; dominance, 392-394. --Republican Party, weakness, 399. --Revolution of 1820-1821, 359; of 1848, 360. --Right, origins, 391; loss of power, 392; coalition with Left, 393. --_Risorgimento_, 353. --Roman Republic, 355. --Rome, republic established in 1798, 355; annexed to France, 357; annexed to kingdom of Italy, 364; becomes capital of kingdom, 364. --Rudini, ministries, 394-395. --Sardinia, kingdom of. See Piedmont. --Savoy, ceded to France, 363. --_Scrutinio di lista_, established in 1882, 376. --Senate, composition, 372-373; legislative weakness, 373; proposed reform, 373-374; privileges and powers, 375; organization, 379; procedure, 380-381. --_Sindaco_, of commune, 385. --Socialist Party, rise and character, 399-400. --Sonnino, ministries, 396-397. --_Statuto_, granted, 360; character, 365, 366-367; amendment, 365-366. --Transpadane Republic, 354. --Treaties, 369. --Turin, kingdom of Italy proclaimed at, 364. --_Uffici_, 380. --Venice, ceded to Austria, 354; annexed to kingdom of Italy, 364. --Vienna, Congress of, settlement of Italian affairs, 358. --Victor Emmanuel II. , accession as king of Piedmont, 361; building of Italian unity, 362-364. --Zanardelli, ministry, 396. _Landsthing_. See Denmark. _Landtag_. See Prussia. Law, of England, 167-169; of Germany, 241-242; of France, 335-339; of Switzerland, 439; of Hungary, 505. London, government, 190-191. Magna Carta, importance and character, 9. Ministry, organization and status in Great Britain, 57-70; proceedings, 71-73; in German Empire, 213-215; in Prussia, 254-256; in France, 311-314; in Italy, 369-372; in Austria, 464-465; in Hungary, 491-492; in Holland, 524-525; in Belgium, 536-537; in Denmark, 560-568; in Norway, 580-581; in Sweden, 590-591; in Spain, 615-616; in Portugal, 635-636, 644. Netherlands. See Holland. _Non Expedit_, nature and effects, 400-402. Norway:-- --Administration, organization, 588. --_Amtsthing_, 588. --Bernadotte, and union with Sweden, 554, 573-574. --Commune, organization, 588. --Conservative Party, 585-586. --Constitution, of Eidsvold, 574; present form, 578; amendment, 579. --Consular Service, question of, 576-577. --County, organization, 588. --Courts, organization, 587-588. --Crown, restoration of independence, 578; status, 580; powers, 580-581; question of veto, 584-585. --Denmark, united with, 553, 572-573; separated from, 554. --Eidsvold, constitution of, 574. --Elections, method, 581; franchise, 581-582; of 1909 and 1912, 587. --_Formaend_, 588. --Franchise, development, 581-582; present system, 582. --Haakon VII. , crowned king, 578. --_Höiesteret_, 587. --Independence, movement for in 1813-1814, 574; achieved, 577-578. --Judiciary. See Courts. --Kalmar, union of, 553. --Karlstad, convention of, 578. --Kiel, treaty of, 554, 573, 575. --Liberal Party, growth, 585-586. --_Lagthing_. See _Storthing_. --Michelsen, ministry, 577. --Ministry, composition, 580; functions, 580-581. --_Odelsthing_. See _Storthing_. --Parliament. See _Storthing_. --Parliamentarism, 581. --Parties, history to 1905, 585-586; status since 1905, 586-587. --_Riksakt_, of 1815, 574-575. --Social Democratic Party, 587. --Steen, carries electoral reform, 581. --_Storthing_, composition, 581; electoral system, 581-582; sessions and organization, 582; powers and procedure, 583-584. --Sverdrup, organizes first Liberal ministry, 585. --Sweden, union with established, 574; nature of union, 574-575; friction with, 575-576; question of consular service, 576-577; separation from, 577-578. --Union. See Sweden. --Veto, power of, 584-585. --Woman's Suffrage, status, 582. Papacy. See Italy. Parliament. See England, France, Italy, Austria, etc. Parliamentarism, in Great Britain, 143; in German Empire, 213; in Prussia, 254; in Austria, 464-465, 480-481; in Hungary, 498; in Belgium, 536-537; in Denmark, 560-562; in Norway, 581; in Sweden, 591. Parties, rise in England, 38-39; history in England, 143-166; in Germany, 229-240; in France, 329-333; in Italy, 391-402; in Switzerland, 434-437; in Austria, 475-483; in Hungary, 500-505; in Holland, 529-530; in Denmark, 565-568; in Norway, 585-587; in Sweden, 592-600; in Spain, 620-625; in Portugal, 631-633, 639-642. Plural vote, in England, 88-90; in Austria, 468; in Belgium, 550-551. Portugal:-- --Administration, organization under monarchy, 638-639; under republic, 646. --Arriaga, Manoel, elected president, 642. --Bonaparte, Napoleon, subjugation by, 629. --Braga, Theophile, leader of provisional government, 641. --Braganza, house of, proscribed, 641-642. --Brazil, relation with, 629. --Chagas, João, ministry, 642. --Charter, of 1826, 630; revised, 631. --Chartist Party, 630-631. --Commune, organization, 638-639. --Congress, composition and powers, 645-646. --Constitution, of 1826, 630; revision of 1852, 631; character under monarchy, 634-635; of republic framed, 642-643; nature, 643; amendment, 643. --Cortes, extinct at opening of nineteenth century, 629; revival, 630-631; party strength under monarchy, 633-634; renewed in 1908, 634; composition under monarchy, 636-638. --Council of Municipalities, composition and powers, 645-646. --Courts, under monarchy, 638; under republic, 646. --Crown, status prior to 1910, 635-636. --_Dictadura_, of France, 633-634. --District, organization, 638-639. --Elections, of 1906, 633; system prior to 1910, 637; of 1910, 640; provision for in decree of 1911, 641-642. --Franchise, under monarchy, 637; under decree of 1911, 642. --Franco, dictatorship, 633-634. --House of Deputies, under monarchy, 636-637. --House of Peers, under monarchy, 636-637. --Judiciary. See Courts. --Liberal Concentration, of 1906, 633. --Manoel II. , overthrow, 641. --Miguel, assumption of crown, 630. --Ministry, status prior to 1910, 635-636; under the republic, 644. --National Council, composition and powers, 645-646. --Parties, rivalries, 631-632; dictatorship of Franco, 633-634; elections of 1906, 633; and revolution of 1910, 639-642. --Pedro IV. , contest with Miguelists, 630. --Pombal, reforms, 629. --President, status and powers, 644. --Progressive Party, 631-634. --Regenerador Party, 631-634. --Revolution of 1910, origins, 639; character and results, 640-641. --_Rotativos_, 632-633. --Septembrist Party, 631. --Thomar, Count of, ministry, 631. President, of France, 303-312; of Switzerland, 422-424; of Portugal, 644. Proportional Representation, in Würtemberg, 278; movement for in France, 320-324; in Switzerland, 419, 433; in Belgium, 543-545; in Denmark, 563. Province, in Prussia, 268-270; in Italy, 384; in Austria, 485-487; in Holland, 532-533; in Belgium, 550-551; in Spain, 627. Prussia (see also Germany and Austria):-- --_Abgeordnetenhaus_, composition, 258; electoral system 258-260; question of electoral reform, 260-263; session and powers, 263-264. --_Abtheilungen_, in Landtag, 264. --Administration, reform measures of Stein and Hardenberg, 265; reforms of Bismarck, 266; general principles, 267; the province and its government, 268-270; the government district, 270-271; the circle, 271-272; the commune, 272-273. --Amendment, of constitution, 252. --_Amtsgerichte_, 243. --Austria, war with, 200. --_Bezirksausschuss_, 270. --Charlottenburg, constitution promulgated at, 251. --Circle. See _Kreis_. --Civil List, 253. --Committees, in Landtag, 264. --Commune, organization, 272-273. --Constitution, obstacles to establishment, 248; promulgated, 250; nature, 251; amendment, 252. --Crown, status and power, 252. --Diet, of 1847, 249. --Elections, present system, 258-260; question of reform, 260-263. --Franchise, 258-260. --Frederick William III. , and constitutionalism, 248-250. --Hardenberg, reform measures, 247-265. --_Herrenhaus_, original provisions of constitution concerning, 257; law of 1853, 257; composition to-day, 257-258. --Interpellation, in _Landtag_, 265. --Judiciary, 243-244. --_Kreis_, organization, 271. --_Kreisausschuss_, 271. --_Kreistag_, 271. --_Landeshauptmann_, 270. --_Landgerichte_, 243. --_Landrath_, 271. --_Landtag_, composition, 257-258; electoral system, 258-260; electoral reform, 260-263; sessions, 263; powers, 264. --Ministry, composition, 254; organization and workings, 255-256; subsidiary executive bodies, 256. --Napoleon, and Prussia, 246-247. --_Oberlandesgerichte_, 243. --_Oberpräsident_, 269. --_Oberrechnungskammer_, 256. --_Regierungsbezirk_, organization, 270-271. --_Regierungspräsident_, 270. --Revolution of 1848, 249-250. --_Schulze_, 272. --Social Democratic Party, 260-261. --_Stadtrath_, 273. --Stein, reform measures, 247, 265; and Prussian local government, 265. --Parliamentarism, absence of, 254. --Province, origins and number, 268-269; organs of central administration, 269; organs of self-government, 269-270. --_Provinziallandtag_, 270. --_Provinzialrath_, 269. --_Volkswirthschaftsrath_, 256. Referendum, Unionist proposal in Great Britain, 109; in Swiss cantons, 419-420; in Swiss federal government, 430-432. _Reichsrath_. See Austria. Republicanism, in France, 297-298, 302-304, 329-330; in Italy, 399. _Rigsdag_. See Denmark. _Riksdag_. See Sweden. Saxony, made a kingdom, 194; granted a constitution, 197; governmental system, 276-278. Scotland, union of 1707, 39-40; allotment of parliamentary seats, 85; representative peers, 98-99. Senate. See France, Italy, Belgium, Spain. Social Democrats, in German Empire, 231-240; in Prussia, 260-261; in France, 330-334; in Italy, 399-400; in Switzerland, 434-436; in Austria, 469-470, 483; in Holland, 529-530; in Belgium, 540-548; in Norway, 587; in Sweden, 593-595, 600; in Spain, 625. Spain:-- --Administration, organization, 627-628; principles, 628. --Alfonso XII. , accession, 610. --Amendment, of constitution, 611. --_Ayuntamiento_, of commune, 628. --Bonaparte, Napoleon, conquest by, 603-604. --Cadiz, Cortes convoked at, 604. --Cánovas del Castillo, ministries, 621-622. --Carlists, 606, 609, 620. --Commune, organization, 627. --Congress of Deputies, composition and election, 617-618; sessions and organization, 618-619; powers, 619-620. --Conservative Party, character, 621, 625; governments of, 621-623. --Constitution, of 1812 drawn up, 604; rescinded by Frederick VII. , 605; of 1834, 607; of 1837, 607; of 1845, 607-608; of 1869, 608; of 1876, 611; character and contents to-day, 611-612. --Cortes, convened in 1810, 604; drafts constitution of 1812, 604; under constitution of 1812, 604; under constitution of 1834, 607; under constitution of 1837, 607; under constitution of 1845, 608; under constitution of 1869, 608-609; establishes republic, 609; re-establishes monarchy, 610; adopts constitution of 1876, 611; composition to-day, 616-618; sessions and organization, 618-619; powers, 619-620; strength of parties, 624-625. --Council, of province, 627; of commune, 628. --Courts, organization, 626-627. --Crown, rules of succession, 613; regencies, 613-614; powers, 614-615. --Elections, of senators, 617; of deputies, 618; of 1907 and 1910, 624-625. --Espartero, regent, 607. --_Estatuto Real_, of 1834, 607. --Isabella II. , accession, 606; declared of age, 608; abdicates, 608. --Ferdinand VII. , reign, 605-607. --France, intervention, 605. --Franchise, present system, 618. --Governor, of province, 627. --Judiciary. See Courts. --King. See Crown. --Law, 626. --Liberal Party, character, 621, 625; governments of, 621-623. --Maria Christina, regency, 606-607; abdicates, 607. --Maura, ministries, 623-624. --Ministry, composition, 615; functions, 615-616. --Parliament. See Cortes. --Parties, beginnings, 620; character of Liberals and Conservatives, 621-622; since 1903, 623-624; elections of 1910, 624-625; republicans and socialists, 625. --Pragmatic Sanction, of 1830, 606. --Province, organization, 627. --Regency, 613-614. --Republic, established, 609; abolished, 610. --Republican Party, rise, 620; present character, 625. --Revolution of 1820, 605. --Sagasta, ministries, 621-623. --Salic Law, rescinded, 606. --_Scrutin de liste_, in election of deputies, 618. --Senate, composition, 616; appointment and election, 616-617; sessions and organization, 618-619. --Serrano, regent, 609. --Socialist Party, character of, 625. --Succession, rules of, 613. --Supreme Court, 626-627. States-General. See Holland. _Storthing_. See Norway. Sweden:-- --Administration, organization, 601. --Agricultural Party. See _Landtmannapartiet_. --Amendment, process, 589. --Bernadotte, and union with Norway, 554, 573-574. --Conservative Party, and electoral reform, 592-596; long tenure of power, 599-600. --Consular Service, question of, 576-577. --Constitution, character, 572, 589; amendment, 589. --Constitutional Committee, 598. --County, organization, 601. --Courts, organization, 600-601. --Crown, early status, 570-571; present basis, 590; relations with ministry, 590-591. --Elections, present system, 592; movement for reform, 592-596; of 1908 and 1911, 600. --Franchise, present regulations, 592; rise of movement for reform, 592-593; Conservative proposal of 1904, 593-594; Staaff project of 1906, 594-595; law of 1907-1909, 595-596; question of women's suffrage, 596; bill of 1912, 596-597. --Gustavus III. , rehabilitation of monarchy, 571. --Gustavus IV. , abdicates, 572. --_Högsta Domstolen_, organization and functions, 600-601. --Independence, established, 570. --Judiciary. See Courts. --Karlstad, convention of, 578. --Kiel, treaty of, 554, 573, 575. --_Landsthing_, of county, 601. --_Landtmannapartiet_, growth, 599. --Liberal Party, and electoral reform, 592-596; gains, 600. --Lindman, project for electoral reform, 595. --Ministry, composition, 590; powers, 590-591. --Norway, union with, 573-574; nature of union, 574-575; friction with, 575-576; question of consular service, 576-577; separation of, 577-578. --Parliament. See _Riksdag_. --Parliamentarism, 591. --Parties, and electoral reform, 592-596; military and tariff questions, 598-599; history since 1891, 599-600. --_Regerings-formen_, of 1809, promulgated, 572. --_Riksakt_, of 1815, 574-575. --_Riksdag_, original character, 591; reorganization in 1866, 591; composition of chambers, 591-595; electoral system, 582; movement for electoral reform, 592-596; organization and procedure, 597; powers, 597-598. --Social Democratic Party, and electoral reform, 593-595; gains, 600. --Staaff, project for electoral reform, 594. --_Statsrad_. See Ministry. --Supreme Court. See _Högsta Domstolen_. --Union. See Norway. --Women's Suffrage, movement for, 596-597. Switzerland:-- --Act of Mediation, 407. --_Bezirksammann_, 422. --_Bezirksrath_, 422. --Bonaparte, Napoleon, promulgates Act of Mediation, 407. --_Bundesgericht_, nature and functions, 437-438. --_Bundesrath_. See Federal Council. --Canton, constitutions liberalized, 409; sovereignty, 412; federal control, 412-413; powers exercised concurrently with Confederation, 414-415; variation of constitutions, 416; the _Landesgemeinde_, 417-418; the Greater Council, 418-419; use of referendum, 419-420; use of initiative, 421; the executive Council of State, 421; local administration, 422; the judiciary, 422. --Centralism, triumph in 1848, 410; as a political issue, 434. --Clerical Party, character, 434-435. --Commune, 422. --Confederation, origins, 405; composition in later eighteenth century, 406; erected into Helvetic Republic, 406; remodelled in 1803, 407; reorganized in 1815, 408; constitution of 1848 and 1874, 410; nature, 411-412; control of cantons by, 412; powers vested exclusively in, 413-414; powers denied, 414-415; general aspects, 415. --Constitution, of Helvetic Republic, 406-407; remodelled in 1803, 407; of 1815, 408; of cantons liberalized, 409; of 1848, 410; revision of 1874, 410; nature of government established by, 411-416; amendment, 431-432. --Council of State, executive agency in cantons, 421. --Council of the States, composition, 427; compared with Senate of United States, 427-428; powers, 428-429; procedure, 429-430. --Courts, of the cantons, 422; absence of administrative tribunals, 425-426; the _Bundesgericht_, 437-438; Civil Code, 439. --Diet, of Confederation in 1803-1815, 407; after 1815, 408. --Elections, of Federal Council, 423; of National Council, 426; of Council of the States, 428; party conditions, 435-437. --Federal Assembly, relations with Federal Council, 424-425; composition, 426; powers, 428-429; procedure, 429-430. --Federal Court. See _Bundesgericht_. --Federalism, triumph of in 1803, 407; in 1815, 408; survival in present constitutional system, 411; as a political issue, 434. --Federal Pact, 408. --Franchise, 426. --_Gemeindeversammlung_, 422. --Greater Council, of the canton, 418-419. --Helvetic Republic, creation and character, 406-407. --Initiative, employment in cantons, 421; in the federal government, 432-434. --Judiciary. See Courts. --_Landammann_, 421-422. --_Landesgemeinde_, 417-418. --Law, 439. --Left. See Radical Party. --Liberal Party, character, 435. --National Council, composition, 426; organization, 427; powers, 428-429; procedure, 429-430. --Parties, prolonged ascendancy of Radicals, 434; alignments to-day, 434-435; stability of groups, 435-436; inactivity, 436-437. --President, election and functions, 422-424. --Proportional Representation, 419, 433. --Radical Party, prolonged ascendancy, 434; present character, 434-436. --Referendum, origins, 419; operation in cantons, 419-420; optional form in federal government, 430-431; obligatory form, 431-432. --Right. See Clerical Party. --Socialist Party, rise, 434-436. --_Sonderbund_, 409. --Vienna, Congress of, disposition of Swiss affairs, 408. Table of Magnates. See Hungary. Woman's Suffrage, in Great Britain, 91-92; in Holland, 527-528; in Norway, 582; in Sweden, 596-597. Württemberg, made a kingdom, 194; granted a constitution, 197; special privileges, 208; governmental system, 278-279. Printed in the United States of America. The following pages contain advertisements of books by the same authoror on kindred subjects. Social Progress in Contemporary Europe By FREDERIC AUSTIN OGG, Ph. D. , Professor of Political Science in theUniversity of Wisconsin. _Cloth, 12mo, $1. 50; postpaid $1. 63_ "The term 'social' has been interpreted by Professor Ogg to comprise anything which bears upon the status and opportunity of the average man. There is not one country in Europe which in the past four or five generations has not progressed considerably along this line and Professor Ogg's purpose has been to explain the origin and character of some of the social changes which have taken place. The ground which he covers is the century and a quarter which has elapsed since the uprising of 1789 in France. Professor Ogg has done a very great and much needed service to the public in thus bringing into small and easily getable form so much information about the antecedents of our present social conditions and tendencies. All of it is of the sort that ought to be familiar to whoever presumes to have opinions upon economic questions, and particularly to all who would direct or influence the impressionable public. This volume should be in the hands of all who would like to build for their opinions some foundation more solid than prejudice and emotion. "--_New York Times. _ By THE SAME AUTHOR The Opening of the Mississippi A struggle for supremacy in the American interior. _Cloth, 8vo, $2. 00; postpaid $2. 22_ "It is uniformly commendable throughout. All of the earlier histories have been carefully re-examined, a great mass of original material has been searched and the results of his studies are presented in systematic arrangement and in a clear and unsophisticated style. "--_The New York Evening Post. _ By CHARLES A. BEARD, Professor of History in Columbia University, author of "Introduction to the English Historians". Readings in American Government and Politics A collection of interesting material illustrative of the differentperiods in the history of the United States, prepared for thosestudents who desire to study source writings. _Cloth, crown 8vo. Now Ready, $1. 90_ "An invaluable guide for the student of politics, setting forth in an illuminating way the many phases of our political life. "--_Critic. _ American Government and Politics _Cloth, 776 pages, 12mo, index, $2. 10_ A work designed primarily for college students, but of considerableinterest to the general reader. A special feature is the fullattention paid to topics that have been forced into public attentionby the political conditions of the present time. By WILLIAM ARCHIBALD DUNNING, Ph. D. , Professor of History in ColumbiaUniversity. A History of Political Theories _*2 Volumes*_ I--ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL II--FROM LUTHER TO MONTESQUIEU _Cloth, 8vo, each $2. 50_ The successive transformations through which the politicalconsciousness of men has passed from early antiquity to modern timesare stated in a clear, intelligible manner, and to aid in a fullerstudy of the subject references are appended to each chapter coveringthe topics treated therein. At the end of each volume has been placedan alphabetical list containing full information as to all the worksreferred to, together with many additional titles. A GREAT WORK INCREASED IN VALUE The American Commonwealth By JAMES BRYCE New edition, thoroughly revised, with four new chapters _Two 8vo volumes, $4. 00_ "More emphatically than ever is it the most noteworthy treatise on our political and social system. "--_The Dial. _ "The most sane and illuminating book that has been written on this country. "--_Chicago Tribune. _ "What makes it extremely interesting is that it gives the matured views of Mr. Bryce after a closer study of American institutions for nearly the life of a generation. "--_San Francisco Chronicle. _ "The work is practically new and more indispensable than ever. "--_Boston Herald. _ "In its revised form, Mr. Bryce's noble and discerning book deserves to hold its preëminent place for at least twenty years more. "--_Record-Herald_, Chicago, Ill. "Mr. Bryce could scarcely have conferred on the American people a greater benefit than he has done in preparing the revised edition of his monumental and classic work, 'The American Commonwealth. '"--_Boston Globe. _ "If the writer of this review was to be compelled to reduce his library of Americana to five books, James Bryce's 'American Commonwealth' would be one of them. "--_Evening Telegram_, Portland, Ore. The Government of American Cities By WILLIAM BENNETT MUNRO, Ph. D. , LL. B. , Professor of MunicipalGovernment in Harvard University. _Cloth, 8vo, 401 pp. , $2. 25_ "It is doubtful if a more scholarly and, unprejudiced presentation of the tendencies of the times, showing the faults and advantage of our systems of municipal management, has before appeared. The book will be appreciated everywhere. "--_The Boston Globe. _ ". .. A fresh contribution to a weighty and important public discussion. "--_Philadelphia North American. _ By THE SAME AUTHOR The Government of European Cities _Cloth, 8vo, 409 pp. , $2. 00_ "The most effective work now done in political science is that going on in the field of applied politics. Avoiding abstract principles and _a priori_ speculation, it addresses itself to examination of the actual organization of public authority and of the way in which governmental function is carried out. In 'The Government of European Cities' (Macmillan), Prof. William Bennett Munro of Harvard has made a valuable addition to this literature. He gives a detailed account of the way in which municipal government is formed and carried on in France, Germany, and England. The style is clear, straightforward, and unpretentious, and the treatment is steadily confined to the subject in hand without any attempt to point a moral or aid a cause. At the same time references to American municipal methods frequently occur as incidents of the explanation of European procedure, and these add to the value of the book for American readers. The writing, while succinct, is copious in detail, and only administrative experts in the countries respectively considered could check off all the statements made; but the work itself affords intrinsic evidence of its painstaking accuracy. One cannot read the book without being deeply impressed by the essential simplicity of the principles upon which European municipal government is constituted. "--_The Nation. _ The Government of England By A. LAWRENCE LOWELL, President of Harvard University; FormerlyProfessor of the Science of Government; Author of "Colonial CivilService, " etc. In two volumes. Bound in the style of Bryce's "American Commonwealth" _New edition, cloth, 8vo, $4. 00_ The New York _Sun_ calls it:-- "The remarkable work which American readers, including even those who suppose themselves to be pretty well informed, will find indispensable. .. ; it deserves an honored place in every public and private library in the American Republic. "--M. W. H. "Professor Lowell's book will be found by American readers to be the most complete and informing presentation of its subject that has ever fallen in their way. .. . There is no risk in saying that it is the most important and valuable study in government and politics which has been issued since James Bryce's 'American Commonwealth, ' and perhaps also the greatest work of this character produced by an American scholar. "--_Philadelphia Public Ledger. _ "It is the crowning merit of the book that it is, like Mr. Bryce's, emphatically a readable work. It is not impossible that it will come to be recognized as the greatest work in this field that has ever been produced by an American scholar. "--_Pittsburg Post. _ "The comprehensiveness and range of Mr. Lowell's work is one of the reasons for the unique place of his 'Government of England'--for its place is in a class by itself, with no other books either by British or non-British authors to which it can be compared. Another reason is the insight, which characterizes it throughout, into the spirit in which Parliament and the other representative institutions of England are worked, and the accuracy which so generally characterizes definite statements; all contribute to make it of the highest permanent value to students of political science the world over. "--Edward Porritt in _The Forum_. PUBLISHED BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York. * * * * * * Transcriber's note: The listing in the index for "Switzerland, Bundesrath" refers the reader "Switzerland, Federal Council", which is absent in the original text.