of the electorate tried to secure the whole of the six members, but failed to return more than five, the exact number to which they were entitled. The system is too-fair,' remarked a legislator. Still, regarded as a whole, the results of the experiment were very generally regarded with satisfaction. Although one ingenious elector had chosen the six rejected candidates, there were few so unfortunate as not to secure a return of one of their preferences: where such a failure occurred, the fault rested with the elector in not voting for more candidates. On a future occasion electors will probably remember this: and if they soon exhaust their preferences, will continue the classification on the principle of least dislike. The number of exhaust papers' may seem serious, but it was not. In many cases such papers were useless because one or other of the candidates, whose names they bore, were elected without their assistance. The number of informal votes was sufficiently large to excite the criticism of the censorious: yet it was not larger than is usual on the occasion of a change in the mode of voting; indeed the percentage was much lower than at the recent election for the Federal Convention. In the city of Hobart the informal votes. amounted to 104. Fifty-two had been guilty of extra marking, especially of scoring out the names of rejected candidates: twenty had marked each of their chosen candidates I, instead of 1, 2, 3, &c. Sixteen had failed to mark at least three candidates: four had omitted to observe a proper sequence in their numbers: three had written the figures between the names: three were illegible: two had contributed their signatures: two had marked all their candidates 2, instead of 1, 2, 3: one had given his numbers in writing, and one had scrawled over the whole of his paper, apparently to express an abhorrence of the system.

indepen.

Perhaps the most striking feature of the whole election was the Parliadisplay of independence on the part of the candidates. Views were mentary expressed with a confidence which must have imperilled all chances dence. of return under the older system. The honourable the Treasurer's bold advocacy of the Income Tax, and the success which rewarded his efforts, was a most striking object lesson which is not likely to be forgotten.

If we regard the Act itself, I am not aware that experience has Question of surplus exposed its defects. Whatever objections a captious criticism may voting. discover, there is perhaps but one which requires serious attention. Though the subject may appear very involved, it is desirable that a paragraph should be devoted to its consideration. If X receive 2,coo primary votes and the quota be 1,000, the resulting surplus is distributed in a proportion determined by reference to second preferences on the whole of X's 2,000 votes. Under such a mode

of distribution nothing is left to chance or to the discretion of the Returning Officer. But let us go a step further: let us suppose that has 800 primary votes, and that he receives 6co from X's surplus. In that case he obtains his quota and 400 excess votes. How are these excess votes to be distributed? Several modes suggest themselves. The Returning Officer may take the 400 ballot papers from the top of 's box and pass them on to next preferences: he may do this after having first shuffled the whole of I's papers; or, again, he may exercise his own sweet will upon them. The objections to each of these courses is clear. But if the surplus of 400 is to be distributed according to a proportion, by reference to what ballot papers is the proportion to be determined? The Act, apparently with the intention of simplifying the work of the Returning Officer, answers By reference to the 600 papers transferred from X to Y' It will be at once seen that this introduces a slight element of chance. We know that if I gained 600 of I's surplus of 1,000, he must have been marked 2 on six-tenths of I's total number of primary votes. 2,000 × 10 =1,200. The actual 600 papers transferred from X to Y were to be chosen at random from the whole of the 1,200 papers on which I was marked 2. The proportion among the third votes of one chance selection from this 1,200 might be very different from the proportion among the third votes of another chance selection. If the Returning Officer. choose to take a hand,' the variations may be increased. All such objections may be avoided by distributing 's surplus of 400 in a proportion determined by reference to the whole of the 1,200 papers, i. e. the whole of the XY papers. It might save time if the Returning Officer, in transferring the 600 papers which constituted I's share of X's surplus, were to preserve the same proportion of third votes on transferred papers as existed on the whole 1,200 XY papers. In the distribution of Y's surplus of 600, it would then be sufficient to make a calculation on the basis of the papers transferred from X to Y. It may be interesting to note that the distribution of 1's surplus might also be determined by reference (1) to the third preferences on the whole of X's original papers; (2) to the third preferences on the total number of X's original papers taken together with the second votes on the total number of Y's original papers; (3) to the third preferences on the whole electorate. The evils of complexity form an answer to the arguments by which these alternatives can be supported. Any proposal to effect a distribution by reference to third preferences on the whole electorate is open to an additional objection: it would give an undue influence to electors voting according to prescribed ticket. The objection would apply with peculiar force to any proposal to

distribute surpluses arising as a result of the first count in a proportion determined by reference to the second preferences on the whole electorate.

Hare

In conclusion I may be allowed to suggest an examination of the Novelty of question whether the advocate of the Hare System is open to the System. reproach of innovation. Professor Freeman has remarked how often those great reforms which mark the progress of our race have involved a return to the traditions, institutions, or ideas of an earlier time. The barons who wrung from a reluctant monarch the great charter of our liberties, only sought to record and to secure the acknowledged birthrights of Englishmen. The Parliament of De Montfort was a device for restoring the freedom of the Teuton. For the primitive assembly of the tribe there was substituted the representative Parliament of a nation: for appearance in person, the new conditions required an appearance through chosen deputies. Yet the great principle of the right of the people to share in the work of government underlay both institutions. Thus it happened that the privileges which English forefathers had enjoyed in the forests of ancient Germany, and had sacrificed in the process of migration and national consolidation, were to be regained in the great and painful crises of a later century.

tation in

If we consider the characteristics of the Hare System in connexion Represenwith the Parliament of the thirteenth century, I believe we shall the thirarrive at a startling conclusion. Mr. Hare sought to introduce an teenth organic element into our system of representation. The new con- century. stituencies were designed to be united by allegiance to one object, to be animated by one spirit. I believe that here again in the history of our race, we may discover under the semblance of innovation the reality of an ancient practice. This is no place to justify such a generalization by an adequate induction from the facts of medieval history. Yet the interest and the importance of the enquiry may justify an illustration of its meaning. In the first place, the medieval Parliament represented the estates of the realm-the Clergy, the Baronage, and the Commons. These were not arbitrary divisions of the state but organic parts of the nation. The means by which they acquired the reality and the consciousness of internal cohesion form one of the most engrossing chapters in the national annals. The facts of history lend no encouragement to the suggestion of a residuary class in the estate of the Commons. The third estate represented the alliance of the communities of the shires with the communities of the towns, and was the result of causes among which we may distinguish the appreciations of common dangers, the inducements of royal policy, and the similarity of the processes employed in the exercise of political rights.

we

Starting from the established fact that the medieval Parliament was an assembly of estates, we have yet to enquire the character of the constituencies of the third estate. Were they, too, organic? It is difficult not to answer this question in the affirmative. The representatives of the Commons were the deputies of the shires and the towns. Each shire was a unit of the nation, bound together by its common court, its common judicial and administrative organization. The county was an organized body of men, a communitas— almost a kingdom in miniature. If we turn to the towns of the Middle Ages, despite the infinite variety of their customs, the reality of their organic character seems indisputable. Nor should we be altogether unprepared for this conclusion. When remember that they were compelled to struggle for their charters, their liberties, and often for their existence, against the attacks of neighbouring barons and the tyranny of a ubiquitous monarch; that, as yet, the centralizing influences of the railway and the Press were unknown; that, as yet, geographical constituencies were not divided into hostile camps by the contests of national parties— when we remember these facts, we are prepared to find in the town of the Middle Ages a community of life, thought, and feeling unattainable under the complex conditions of modern society. Nor are we disappointed. The superiority of the old over the new in this respect is well expressed in the writings of a brilliant essayist. 'Each town,' writes Frederic Harrison, in effect had its own patron saint, its own special Church, its own feudal patron, its corporate life, its own privileges, traditions, and emblems. On the other hand, the modern city is almost bereft of any religious, patriotic, or artistic character as a whole. There is much public spirit, in certain parts a love of beauty, taste, and cultivation of a special kind. But it is not embodied in the city; it is not associated with the city; it does not radiate from the city. A typical industrial city of modern times has no founder, no traditional heroes, no patrons or saints, no emblem, no history, no definite circuit. is ever changing, loose in organization, casual in form 1.'

It

If we attach any importance to the foregoing facts, it must affect our attitude towards the reproach of innovation. The methods may be new but the idea is ancient. It is no longer possible to combine the organic principle with the geographical constituency. Which are we to retain? Ordinary usage answers this question in one way and Mr. Hare in another. I believe there are few more important questions of to-day than this, and that few deserve a more immediate attention on the part of statesmen and thinkers. W. JETHRO BROWN.

The Meaning of History, p. 250.