[Footnote 6: Mr. Crawshay-Williams introduced a further Bill (based on that of Mr. Robertson) in 1910. This Bill, in its final form, was made applicable, in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commissions on Electoral Systems, to single-member const.i.tuencies only.]

[Footnote 7: Reply to deputation of Manchester Liberal Federation, 23 May 1909.]

CHAPTER VI

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

"Celui-ci tuera celui-la. Voila la formula du scrutin d'arrondiss.e.m.e.nt.

"Ceux-ci tueront ceux-la. Voila la formule du serutin de liste sans la representation proportionnelle.

"Ceux-ci et ceux-la auront leur juste part. Voila la formule du scrutin de liste avec la representation proportionnelle."--J. JAURES

It cannot be a matter for surprise that the methods of election adopted in the early stages of representative inst.i.tutions fail to respond to the needs of the more complex political conditions of highly civilized communities. The movement in favour of improved electoral methods is in keeping with the advances made in all other human inst.i.tutions. We no longer travel by stage-coach nor read by rush-light. We cross the Atlantic with a certainty and an ease unknown and undreamt of a little while ago. Means of intercommunication, the press, the mail, the telegraph, the telephone have developed marvellously in response to modern requirements. This continuous adaptation is the law of existence and, in view of modern political conditions we cannot permanently refuse to adapt our electoral methods to the more perfect organization of a progressive democracy. By c.u.mulative pressure the evils set forth in the preceding chapters can have but one result; they will compel English statesmen, as they have compelled or are compelling Continental statesmen, to devise an effective remedy; and although individual politicians may resist and r.e.t.a.r.d the advent of reformed methods, the demand for better representative inst.i.tutions will in the end overcome all such resistance.

_The essential features of a sound electoral method_.]

What then are the requirements of a satisfactory electoral method? The evils to be remedied must yield the clue. Our present system--exclusive majority representation--has often, as we have seen, resulted in a gross exaggeration of the majority, sometimes in the total suppression of the minority; and, on other occasions, in the return of a majority of representatives by a minority of the electors. These evils have happened when only two parties have been seeking representation; when a third party enters the political arena the system completely breaks down, and all efforts to restore "majority" representation by a system of second ballots have proved an absolute failure. The attempts made in the past to secure the special representation of minorities, though most successful in many respects, have been of an empirical character, and have dealt with the problem in a very partial way. Yet it is not difficult to find a solution for all these problems which is at the same time satisfactory and effective. It is only necessary to return to the first principles of democracy, to keep steadily in view the meaning of that self-government which we desire to achieve through representative inst.i.tutions. Self-government can only be realized when every section of the community through its own representatives can give expression to its needs in the a.s.sembly which is representative of the nation and which derives all its authority from the fact that it is so representative.

This a.s.sembly acts in the name of the nation; its decisions are said to embody the national will. But if any considerable section of the nation is deprived, from whatever cause, of representation in the House of Commons, in what sense can it be said that its decisions give expression to the national will? The new electoral conditions force us, willingly or unwillingly, to the conclusion that no satisfactory solution can be reached until effect is given to Mill's fundamental principle of democracy--that the various sections of political opinion should be represented in the legislative chamber in proportion to their strength.

Only in the fulfilment of that condition can we escape from the evils of the existing system and at the same time do justice to the claims of three organized parties to representation within the House of Commons.

_Const.i.tuencies returning several members._

It is now no longer possible to accept Mill's declaration as theoretically perfect and then to dismiss it as wholly impracticable. If the political conditions are such that the proportionate representation of parties is the only satisfactory solution of our electoral difficulties, it becomes the duty of statesmen to find some way by which practical effect can be given to Mill's formula. There was doubtless some excuse for the cry of impracticability when, in launching in 1857 his proposals for proportional representation, Thomas Hare suggested that the whole kingdom should form a single const.i.tuency. This suggestion raised a barrier of prejudice against all proposals for proportional representation, which only to-day is being broken down, and led to a refusal to consider seriously any attempt to secure an amelioration of existing methods along more modest lines. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that the first step in the direction of realizing true representation must be the enlargement of our present electoral areas. So long as single-member const.i.tuencies are retained elections must necessarily take the form of a struggle for the whole of the representation allotted to the const.i.tuency. There is but one prize--a prize which is indivisible--and the proportional distribution of that prize is impossible. For a system of proportional representation the first requirement is the formation of const.i.tuencies returning several members. These electoral areas need not be formed in an arbitrary manner. Familiar divisions of the country, such as large towns, counties or parts of counties, may be treated as single const.i.tuencies. Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds would form const.i.tuencies in themselves. Counties which are large enough to return at least five members might also be treated as electoral areas, whilst the smallest counties would be grouped and the larger counties, if necessary, subdivided.

_The proportional representation of the electors._

With such const.i.tuencies it would be possible to approximate to a true representation of the electors. Birmingham, which may be taken for purposes of ill.u.s.tration, returns seven members to the House of Commons, one for each of its seven divisions. The Unionists being in a majority in each of these seven divisions, are enabled to secure the whole of the representation allotted to the city, although there is a large minority of non-Unionists. If Birmingham were treated as a single const.i.tuency, and if the electors were divided as follows: Unionists, 40,000; Liberals, 20,000; Labour, 10,000, then it is obvious that any just system of representation would enable the Unionists, Liberal and Labour electors to obtain four, two, and one members respectively. Birmingham would then be represented accurately and fairly within the House of Commons; and if each large area was so represented we should, in this way, be able to build up a House of Commons which would reflect in true proportions the political opinions of the country. The undoubted fairness of such a system of representation will appeal with even more force if consideration is given to the grounds on which seven representatives are now allotted to a town of the size of Birmingham.

Did Birmingham contain only 40,000 electors, all of whom were Unionists, it would only be ent.i.tled to four representatives in Parliament. The presence of a large number of electors who are not Unionists brings, however, the total electorate to 70,000, and Birmingham is granted representation on the basis of this total. Thus the additional representation, granted because of the presence of a large minority of non-Unionist electors, takes the form of additional Unionist members.

The minority under the present system is not only disfranchised but penalised; the representation which is due to them is given to their opponents.

But it is not difficult to devise a scheme of proportional representation which should ensure that the electors of Birmingham and other large towns, and also of the various counties, should be truly represented within the House of Commons. Of this fact the recent history of electoral legislation on the Continent and in the Colonies furnishes incontrovertible proofs. Proportional representation has been embodied in the laws of several countries, and these laws work with perfect smoothness.

_Experience in Denmark._

The first application of the principle took place in Denmark so long ago as 1855, two years before the publication of Mr. Hare's scheme, when M.

Andrae, a Danish Minister of great eminence and ability, introduced it into the new Const.i.tution promulgated in that year. The system of proportional representation was retained through the const.i.tutional changes of 1863 and 1866, though, it should be added, the extent of its application was limited to the election of members of the Upper House.

The citizens of each const.i.tuency, voting in two cla.s.ses, choose by the ordinary method of voting an equal number of representatives. These representatives const.i.tute an electoral college, the members of which proceed to the election of representatives of the const.i.tuency according to the method of proportional representation. This limited application of proportional representation still remains in force, and in recent years the principle has received further and increasing recognition.

Parliamentary committees and committees of the munic.i.p.alities of Copenhagen are chosen by a proportional method. The principle was applied in 1903 to the elections of the Congregational councils, but its most notable extension was effected in 1908, when the system was applied to all munic.i.p.al elections, the first elections taking place in March 1909.

_Switzerland_

It will be seen that even in Denmark there was a considerable lapse of time between the limited application adopted in 1855 and its extension to elections of a more popular kind in recent years; and outside Denmark, although societies advocating the new principles were founded in England, France, Belgium, and Switzerland, proportional representation did not succeed in finding its way very readily to the statute book. It was not until 1890 that the first step was taken which has resulted in so rapid an extension of the system. The evils arising from the majority method of election had become so acute in the Swiss canton of Ticino[1] that proportional representation was adopted as a means of pacification. The elections in March 1889 resulted in the return of seventy-seven Conservative deputies by 12,783 votes, whilst the Liberals, with 12,166 votes, were only able to obtain thirty-five representatives. The Liberals alleged that this unfair result was due to a gerrymandering of the const.i.tuencies, and demanded a revision of the Const.i.tution. The Conservative Government declining to take the necessary steps for this purpose, a revolution broke out in Bellinzona, in the course of which one of the members of the Government was killed and his colleagues arrested and imprisoned. The Federal Council intervened and sent its representative, Colonel Kunzli, who recommended the adoption of proportional representation. After some hesitancy the party leaders agreed, and the Cantonal Council pa.s.sed a law (5 December 1890), providing for the election by a system of proportional representation of a Const.i.tuent a.s.sembly for the purpose of revising the Const.i.tution. The suspicions of the Liberals were not, however, fully allayed and, thinking that they were again being duped, they decided on the eve of the election of the a.s.sembly to abstain. This decision was adhered to, and as a result the first a.s.sembly in Ticino elected under the proportional system consisted of Conservatives only. The Conservatives remained faithful to the agreement entered into with the Liberals and voted the law of 9 February 1891, introducing proportional representation into the cantonal const.i.tution and applying it to the elections for the Cantonal Council, Const.i.tuent a.s.semblies and munic.i.p.alities. The law was approved by popular vote in the following March, and the system has since retained its place in the const.i.tution of the canton[2]. The immediate object in view--the pacification of the canton--was completely attained and its success has led to its adoption in other cantons. It is now in force in Neuchatel, Geneva, Solothurn, Zug, Schwyz, Bale City, Lucerne and St. Gall, and also (for munic.i.p.al elections) in Berne, Fribourg, and Valais, whilst there is an active and growing demand for its application to the Federal elections. The progress of public opinion in this respect has been tested by means of the Referendum in 1900 and 1910. On the first occasion 169,000 voters supported the extension to Federal elections, and 247,000 opposed it. In 1910 the number of voters in favour of the proposal had increased by 70,000, while the opposition had increased by only 15,000, and the adoption of proportional representation for Federal elections was defeated by the narrow margin of 23,000 votes in a total poll of half a million. At the same time twelve out of the twenty-two cantons approved of the extension, and it is generally agreed that the ultimate triumph of the proportional principle cannot long be delayed.

The need for proportional representation was particularly felt in the canton of Geneva, where religious differences often form the dividing line between parties. The canton is divided into three const.i.tuencies; one for the town of Geneva, one for that part of the canton on the right bank, and one for that on the left bank of the Lake and of the Rhone.

With the _scrutin de liste_ (the former method of election) the minority in each const.i.tuency was completely crushed. The Protestants of the right bank were deprived of all representation; the Catholics of the town obtained a few deputies as an act of grace on the part of the majority. In 1872, when the affairs of the Catholic church were being discussed, the Radicals and Independents succeeded in excluding from the Council all who were most directly affected by the question of the day.

The proportional system was introduced in 1892, and as the election of members of the Federal Council was still conducted according to the old system the working of the two methods could be readily compared. "The elections for the cantonal councils in November 1892," wrote M. Naville, "were keenly fought, but calm; no recriminations followed, and political life pursued a normal course.... On the other hand, the Federal elections in October 1893 were riotous, blows being exchanged. Exclusive majority representation artificially creates disturbances....

Proportional representation introduces a pacifying element into all political struggles."

_Belgium._

The introduction of a complete scheme of proportional representation into Belgium was also rendered necessary by the intolerable position arising from the former methods of election. The rapid growth of the Socialist Party with a distinct organization created a situation which, as already explained, was in no way relieved by the system of second ballots in force. Indeed, the coalitions at the second ballots not only discredited the system but greatly embittered the relations between the various parties. "In 1899," says Count Goblet d'Alviella, "Belgium was on the eve of a revolution--a revolution which was only avoided by the immediate and complete introduction of proportional representation into parliamentary elections." This, however, was not the first trial of proportional representation in Belgium, for Belgium, like Switzerland, affords an example of the gradual but certain extension of the new method of election. In 1894 proportional representation had been applied partially and tentatively to the larger munic.i.p.al councils, and although this application was of a partial character it achieved a considerable measure of success. M. Braun, the Burgomaster of Ghent, speaking in May 1899, described its results in the following terms:--

"During the four years that proportional representation has been applied to the communal elections of Ghent, every one has been able to appreciate the happy effects of the reform. Everybody recognizes that, far from being endangered, the material prosperity of the city has increased, and that the ameliorating and pacifying effects of the altered electoral method have even exceeded the expectations and hopes of its advocates." [3]

The system of proportional representation adopted for the parliamentary elections was much more complete, and so great has been its success that there has arisen a strong demand for its introduction into the elections for the provincial councils in which the old majority system, with second ballots, is still used. The parliamentary elections in May 1908 were followed by the provincial elections in the ensuing month, and thus a favourable opportunity was presented of contrasting the working of the two systems. The grossly unfair results of the provincial elections drew forth from many journals most caustic criticism. _Le Peuple_ expressed the hope that these provincial elections would be the last instance of the use of the majority system in Belgium. "Is it not," it proceeded, "absurd, stupid, detestable that the provincial councils are alone excluded from the system of proportional representation? Once for all we must have done with this jumble of confusion, dishonesty, and corruption." The _Etoile Belge_ declared that "One thing is certain, the provincial electoral system can no longer be maintained without exposing us to the laughter of Europe. To apply one system of proportional representation to the parliamentary elections, another to munic.i.p.al elections, and to maintain the majority system for the provincial elections, is really too absurd. For once we agree with _Le Peuple_ and join our hopes and wishes to theirs." That these comments were fully justified a few examples will show. In the province of Limbourg the forty-eight seats on the provincial council were all obtained by the Catholics, whereas in the parliamentary elections of the previous month the Liberals, owing to the proportional system, were able to obtain two seats out of six. In the "Agglomeration Bruxelloise" no Catholic and only five Socialists were elected, although the Liberals numbered but a few more than a third of the voters. The provincial elections of former years afford further ill.u.s.tration. In 1898 at Ghent the Liberals of the first canton defeated the Socialists at the second ballots with the help of the Catholics, in the second canton they defeated the Catholics with the help of the Socialists, while in the third canton they were themselves defeated by the Catholics, who were a.s.sisted by the Socialists. In the same year at Brussels, where a second ballot took place in each of the five cantons, the Liberal minority captured every one of the forty-four seats. Sir Arthur Hardinge pointed out in his Report on the working of the Second Ballots in Belgium, that it was the failure of this electoral method that rendered a proportional system in parliamentary elections an absolute necessity; its failure in the provincial elections will result in its abolition from these also. No more convincing evidence of the satisfactory working of the proportional system can be given than this demand for its extension, the latest example of which in Belgium is its application by a new law pa.s.sed in 1909 to the election of the _Conseils de Prud'hommes._

_German States._

Whilst the adoption of proportional representation in Switzerland and in Belgium was due to the pressure of particular circ.u.mstances, the marked success of the new method has not only resulted in its extension in those countries, it has also had a p.r.o.nounced influence upon public opinion in neighbouring countries. The kingdoms of Southern Germany are following the example of the Swiss cantons. Wurtemberg, in the new const.i.tution adopted in 1906, decided that the seats set free by the removal of the "privileged" members of the Lower House should be filled by proportional representation. Legislative proposals have since been discussed in Saxony, and in May 1910 a vigorous debate took place in the Bavarian Parliament, in the course of which Dr. Muller declared that the advocates of the reform would not rest "until this unjust electoral system, this bulwark of short-sighted injustice and ill-omened party spirit, is set aside in the higher interests of justice and of civil and religious freedom." The principle has received a recognition even more general in character, for a ministerial decree issued in June 1901, relative to the a.s.sociated committees of employers and workmen, enabled these bodies, if they so chose, to elect their members in accordance with the principle of proportional representation. Some sixteen towns, including Frankfort-On-Main, Munich, Carlsruhe, Fribourg, Mannheim, &c., availed themselves of the privilege, and the results have been most satisfactory. Much greater interest has been taken in the elections. In Carlsruhe, for instance, the number of voters increased from 1103 in 1897 to 3546 in 1903.

_France_

Similarly, the great success of the Belgian legislation gave birth to a fresh and more powerful movement in France. Founded in 1901, under the presidency of M. Yves Guyot, the _Ligue pour la Representation Proportionnelle_ enlisted the support of deputies drawn from all political parties. The Electoral Reform group within the Chamber of Deputies during the Parliament 1906-10 consisted of over two hundred members, and, under the auspices of this group large and enthusiastic meetings were held in the great towns. The reform has the support of many leading newspapers, and the authoritative reports of the French Parliamentary Committee, _la Commission du Suffrage Universel_, contain strong recommendations in favour of the adoption of proportional representation. The first of these reports prepared in 1905 by M. Chas.

Benoist[4] contains an admirable statement of the case for the reform, a plea which is powerfully reinforced in the report prepared two years later by M. Etienne Flandin.[5] The Bill recommended in this latter report was discussed in the French Chamber of Deputies in October 1909.

The first clause of the Bill read as follows: "The members of the Chamber of Deputies shall be elected by the _scrutin de liste_ according to the rules for proportional representation." The first portion of this clause--the members of the Chamber of Deputies shall be elected by _scrutin de liste_--was carried by 379 votes against 142, or a majority of 237. The second portion--according to the rules for proportional representation--was carried by 281 votes to 235, or a majority of 46.

The Prime Minister, M. Briand, urged by many of his Radical supporters, who were unwilling to forego the advantages which they obtained from the existing system, then made the question one of confidence in the Government, and the whole clause, when put to the final vote, was defeated by 291 votes to 225. A noteworthy feature of these divisions was the size of the majority by which the system of single-member const.i.tuencies was condemned. At the General Election in April 1910 no fewer than 315 Deputies were returned pledged to the reform. M. Briand at once introduced a Bill which, however, did not fully meet the demands of the reformers, and the _Commission du Suffrage Universel_ made important modifications in it with a view to securing more completely the proportional representation of all political parties within the country. On the fall of M. Briand in February 1911, the government of M.

Monis announced its intention of supporting the amended scheme. The success of the movement, commenced in 1901 is now, after a decade of active effort, no longer open to doubt.

_Holland_

Holland, too, has felt the influence of the legislation of its neighbour. A const.i.tutional commission, appointed by the Dutch Government, reported in favour of amending the fundamental law so as to render possible the adoption of proportional representation. The recommendations of this Commission were embodied by the Government in Bills presented to the States General in 1907, and although the proposals were subsequently withdrawn, the reform has the support of many of the leading statesmen, and a favourable report is antic.i.p.ated from the new Commission to which the question of reform has been referred.

_Finland._

In the North of Europe an equally successful and, in some respects, an independent movement in favour of true representation has taken place.

In an excellent little pamphlet, published at Helsingfors,[6] it is stated that during those calamitous years between the _coup d'etat_ of 1899 and the restoration of the const.i.tution in 1906, there arose in Finland the conviction that only a democratic reform of its political inst.i.tutions would afford a sufficient guarantee for the maintenance of its internal independence. The fruits of that conviction were seen in the draft of the new const.i.tution for the Diet prepared by a committee appointed by the Finnish Government. Provision was made for the adoption both of universal suffrage and proportional representation. The report adds that the four Estates of the Diet, satisfied that proportional representation would ensure the just representation of all parties, willingly accepted the proposals for universal suffrage, and also agreed that henceforth the Diet should consist of but one chamber. Finland thus found herself, when the new const.i.tution was granted, in the possession of an electoral system as democratic as any in the world.[7]

_Sweden._

In Sweden a long and arduous struggle took place over the reform of the franchise. The Liberals and Socialists demanded that less weight should be given to the possession of property. The Conservatives resisted the demand. The adoption of proportional representation as a possible way out was proposed in 1902, and from that date the fight a.s.sumed another aspect. "The method of voting," wrote Major von Heidenstam, part author of the proposals embodied in the new law, "took from the beginning a very prominent place, strange to say the most prominent down to the last few months before the chief battle. We who went in for proportional representation had a very hard struggle for the first five years, but we won at last." The victory was complete; proportional representation was accepted for both Chambers of the Riksdag, for the committees selected by these Chambers, for County Councils and for Town Councils. When the final adoption of the reform Bills was voted in 1909 they were carried by very large majorities; in the first Chamber only 19 out of 141, and in the second Chamber only 53 out of 225, recorded an adverse vote.[8]

_Australasia._

In this remarkable outburst in favour of proportional representation English-speaking countries are taking their part. Inspired by the late Catherine Helen Spence, an untiring advocate of the reform, the Effective Voting League has carried on an active campaign in Australasia. Legislative proposals for proportional representation have been discussed in recent years by the Commonwealth Parliament, and also by the Parliaments of Victoria, South Australia and West Australia.

Although these measures have not become law, the work of Miss Spence and her colleagues has gained considerable support. Mr. Deakin has openly acknowledged his approval, whilst the results of recent elections, and more particularly that of the election in 1910 for the Commonwealth Senate, have increased the demand for reform. Proportional representation, too, is meeting with increasing sympathy in New Zealand where the system of second ballots, adopted in 1908, has failed to give satisfaction. In Tasmania the movement has made much greater headway. An Act was pa.s.sed in 1896 applying proportional representation to the urban districts of Hobart and Launceston, but although this Act was an acknowledged success so far as the representation of these two towns were concerned, the differentiation between the voting methods applied to the town and country districts gave rise to dissatisfaction, and the measure was withdrawn in 1901. But when once the benefits of proportional representation had been felt its re-introduction in a more complete form was not long delayed. In 1907 a new Act was pa.s.sed applying equally to town or country. The State is now divided into five electoral districts, and the six members allotted to each district are elected by the proportional method. The first elections under the new law took place in April 1909, and the result has met with general approval.

_South Africa._

In South Africa proportional representation has, with astonishing rapidity, gained the adherence of its foremost public men, and although the delegates to the South African National Convention abandoned the proposal for the use of the proportional method in the elections to the legislative a.s.sembly of United South Africa, yet the adoption of this principle for the election of members of the Senate and of the committees of the Provincial Councils, as finally agreed to, marks an advance which a few years ago would have been thought impossible. Nor is this the only forward step taken in South Africa. The Transvaal Munic.i.p.al Commission recommended the adoption of proportional representation in munic.i.p.al elections, and the Government embodied this recommendation in an Act pa.s.sed in June 1909. The first elections under this Act took place with complete success on 27 October 1909, in Johannesburg and Pretoria, each of these towns being polled as a single const.i.tuency.

_Canada._

In Canada, although the movement has not taken so active a form as elsewhere, the Government consented in March 1909, on the motion of Mr.