not be obtained, but yet the inquiry is applicable, or where there is doubt as to the facts, a question mark is used "?". Estimates are preceded or followed by the letter "E." In order that every possible precaution should be taken to prevent errors in transcription and proof-reading, and in order that every expert might examine before publication the facts he had reported, the printed proof was submitted to him for approval, and printing was not begun until this proof had been corrected, approved by him and returned. Of course it is likely that some errors have crept in, due to human fallibility, but it is to be hoped they are few. In addition to the matter printed in this volume, the experts have submitted many exhibits, including maps, plans, photographs, printed documents, statutes and bound volumes. It has not been considered necessary or wise to attempt to reproduce them, as they constitute a small library by themselves; but all will be deposited in the Library of Columbia University, together with the original Schedules, where they may be consulted. The undertakings in the United Kingdom selected for investigation by the Committee were as follows: Municipal Gas Works. Private Gas Companies. London: The South Metropolitan Gas Company. Municipal Electricity Supply Works. Manchester-Liverpool-Glasgow-St. (London). Pancras Borough Private Electricity Supply Companies. (The last four are London companies.) Municipal Tramways. Glasgow-Manchester-Liverpool-London County Council (Southern System only). Private Tramway Companies. London United Tramways (1901) Limited. Bristol Tramways and Carriage Company Limited. With one exception, all of these undertakings were examined and reported upon by the experts. Municipalities and companies were treated exactly alike and the same forms of reports were used for both groups. The companies even permitted our experts to make a physical valuation and to examine fully their financial status. The Bristol Tramway Company alone refused to permit an investigation. To all others the Committee is under great obligation for their unstinted efforts to make the investigation a success and for the great amount of work performed gratuitously and freely. Without such generous and whole-souled assistance, the investigation could not have succeeded. It is impossible to express too high an appreciation of the generous reception accorded to the Commission, especially when one remembers that the investigation was conducted by a foreign association and primarily for the benefit of cities in a country other than Great Britain. To Mr. Fay N. Seaton the committee is indebted for valuable editorial assistance, and particularly for the Index to this as well as to the other volumes. New York, October 1, 1907. M. R. M. The suffrage qualifications of municipal voters in Great Britain are exceedingly complicated and are in continuous process of transition owing to the decisions of the courts. The municipal franchise differs from the Parliamentary franchise mainly through the inclusion of women without male representatives, but partly through the inclusion of occupiers paying less than £10 rent. This makes a difference of 120,000 votes in the London County Council area, where the number on the Parliamentary franchise is 621,180 and the number on the County Council and Borough lists is 742,397. In 21 wards of Glasgow the Parliamentary list has 92,471 names, while the municipal list has 120,267 names. The restrictions on the suffrage affect mainly the working class vote. The qualifications for working-class voters fall under three heads: (a) Occupiers of houses or "tenements "; (b) Lodgers; (c) Servants occupying separate establishments: ("The Service Franchise"). (a) The list of "occupiers" is taken from the main body of the Municipal Burgess Roll-the section which includes women being, of course, omitted. (b) Up to 1906 all persons occupying rooms, or even distinct "tenements," in a house in which their "landlord" lived, could only claim, if at all, as lodgers. As will be seen below, the law is now in complete confusion owing to the different interpretations of a legal decision. (Kent vs. Fittall, in the High Court.) A lodger vote can only be claimed if the room or rooms occupied are deemed to be of the clear annual value of £10. It depends upon each separate "Revising Barrister "-(the functionary before whom votes must be claimed and sustained)-as to what evidence of value shall be accepted. Vol. III.-2. |