Page images
PDF
EPUB

However, supposing an alliance for the utilisation of the suffrages left unrepresented after the first distribution of seats by the application of the electoral quotient or standard measure had been contracted between the Socialist, Conservative, and Progressist lists, the result of the election would be modified. The unrepresented votes of those three lists being as shown above, 15, 14,176, and 13,429 respectively, make a total of 27,620. As that total is superior to the electoral quotient 19,685, the first of the two seats remaining to be allotted goes to the allied lists, and is attributed to the Progressist list in virtue of the largest average system. The last seat is also captured by the allied lists in virtue of the stipulation that the list or group of lists which is supported by the absolute majority of the voters at the election shall have the absolute majority of the seats in the Chamber allotted to the constituency. The total number of electors who recorded their votes in favour of the three allied lists was 66,990, or more than half the 118,115 who went to the poll. In virtue of the application of the largest average system to the three allied lists it is attributed to the Conservative list. The result of the election would therefore be

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

The candidates to whom those seats are given are naturally those who on their respective lists polled the largest number of votes.

The decision to attribute 1 representative in the Chamber for every 70,000 French inhabitants or fraction over 20,000 will only slightly reduce the number of Deputies. The present Chamber is composed of 597 Deputies, and the Assembly elected on the new basis will comprise about 584. Many thinly populated departments will by the application of this method lose one or more representatives in Parliament, while the departments containing great cities will be entitled to elect a larger number than previously. For instance, the department of the Seine, comprising Paris, which in 1910 returned 50 Deputies, will have the right to elect 57, and the department of the Nord, which elected 23, will return The Seine-Inférieure will gain 2 Deputies, the Bouches-duRhone and the Seine-et-Marne 1 each, &c. Four departments will see the number of their representatives reduced to 2, and eight others to 3. It was on account of these inequalities M. Poincaré proposed to divide the department of the Seine into several constituencies, and to attach the small departments to their neighbours for electoral purposes. It was the Arrondissementiers who, in the hope of wrecking the electoral reform, succeeded in persuading the Chamber to adopt the amendment instituting the department as the in

26.

variable electoral constituency. The Government and its supporters in the Senate will insist on the Upper Assembly modifying that stipulation, at least so far as the department of the Seine is concerned. Paris and its suburbs will therefore in all probability be divided into several constituencies, each electing a maximum of 15 Deputies, and the department of the Nord, with its 26 Deputies, will be divided into at least two electoral districts. It may be the Senate will be prevailed on to amalgamate certain small departments. That the Upper Assembly will effect such needed improvements in the Electoral Reform Bill is almost certain, or at least far more probable than that it will reject the

measure.

by any single dynastic party or by a coalition of the small minorities representing what may be called the latent aspirations of Duc d'Orleans and Prince Victor Napoleon.

It is true that certain political personalities belonging to the Conservative opposition have sought and are still seeking to enlist the Catholic clergy under their respective banners, but they will fail, as they did at the last General Elections in 1910. The Pope then ordered the French bishops and clergy to abstain from allying themselves with any political party, but to use all their influence to secure the election of the candidates who, whether Republican, Royalist, or Imperialist, would undertake to support in Parliament the interests of the Church. So far from having modified the attitude he assumed at that time, Pius X., quite recently, repeated his instructions on that matter to several French prelates, and Cardinal Merry del Val, at the end of August, insisted strongly to Mgr. Campistron, Bishop of Annency, on the necessity of executing them faithfully. Though the Catholic Church will therefore refuse to identify itself with any dynastic party, it is united with all the Con

The violent, and at the same time underhand, opposition to the electoral reform which will be continued in the Senate, under the leadership of MM. Clemenceau and Combes, may lead to unforeseen consequences. Though the real object the "Committee for the Defence of Universal Suffrage" has in view is the maintenance of the present mode of election, the adversaries of the reform pretend they only wish to modify the measure adopted by the Chamber in such & manner as to secure the servative minorities and the permanent predominance of moderate Republicans in the Lower Assembly. It would be rash to predict what the future has in store for France, but it is an undeniable fact that the existence of the Republican régime is not endangered either

Republicans, and

even the Socialists, in demanding the electoral reform of which the Radicals are the only irreducible adversaries.

Nevertheless, though only a minority, those Masonic Radicals will persevere to the

very last in their desperate board, where it has remained efforts to "saboter" the pro- for the last sixteen years! posed measure, and thus There are almost infallible inrender its application im- dications that if the present possible. They hope that mode of voting were mainsuch a result would enable tained the Radicals would lose them to preserve their present more ground than if the proposition, and even improve it, posed new method of consultat the General Elections in ing universal suffrage were 1914, but it is infinitely more applied. The great majority probable that it would lead to of the electors, being favoura most serious conflict between able to the adoption of prothe Senate and the Chamber, portional representation, would which might easily be trans- vent their resentment on those formed into a constitutional who had prevented its adopcrisis. Already, in presence of tion. The wisest policy for the the agitation commenced by Radicals would be to cease MM. Clemenceau and Combes, their opposition and frankly M. Lucien Victor Meunier has accept the reform. Considerdeclared he will propose the ing the chaotic condition of abolition of the Senate, and political parties in France at demand the institution of one the present time, it would be single legislative assembly. On rash to indulge in predictions its side the Journal l'Év- concerning the outcome of énement' reminds the inmates elections made with the proof the Luxembourg palace that posed new method of consultlong ago M. Guillemet pre- ing universal suffrage. Howsented to the Chamber a Bill ever, it is evident the better for the election by universal disciplined the party, the suffrage of the delegates elect- greater must be its chances of ing Senators. That Bill was obtaining the number of seats voted by the Lower Assembly, in the Chamber to which its but when it was sent to the importance in the country Senate for discussion it was entitles it. simply locked up in a cup

T. F. FARMAN.

2 P

VOL. CXCII.-NO. MCLXIV.

MUSINGS WITHOUT METHOD.

AMERICA AND FAIR-PLAY-THE PANAMA CANAL-'THE BATTLE
OF LIFE'-THE LESSONS OF MID-LOTHIAN-THE LATE MASTER of
JESUS COLLEGE-A LAST LINK WITH THE PAST-A DON OF THE
OLD SCHOOL-A SPORTSMAN AND A GENTLEMAN.

set down the following three plain facts, which, said he, were well known to everybody who watched the events in the Stadium:

(1) "American runners in some of the races did as a team 'pocket' competitors of other nations in a way which it was impossible to regard as accidental.

FOUR years ago when the American athletes, bearing the Marathon prize with them in triumph, returned to their States, three gentlemen, Messrs Sullivan, Kirby, and M'Cabe, made themselves the mouthpieces of outraged honour. "The attitude of the English officials," they declared, "was outrageous. . . . They taunted us in every conceivable way. (2) "As individuals they did They ridiculed our flag.. on several occasions, besides, Their conduct was cruel, un- apparently with intention, sportsmanlike, and absolutely 'swerving,' use their elbows unfair." To these calumnies to prevent the competitor of another nationality from passing. (3) "At the starts of some of the races, and these not all short distance events, they tried persistently to beat the pistol in a way that ruined the nerve of other competitors who were striving to be honest."

...

a full and convincing reply was
given at once. The falsehoods
of Messrs Sullivan, Kirby, and
M'Cabe were duly nailed to
the counter. They were nailed
in vain. After Stockholm, as
after London, the champions of
American "sport" were noisily
rancorous. They could not,
on this occasion, bring false
charges against the English
officials. They were forced to
content themselves with assert-
ing at the top of their voices
that the English are "the
worst losers on earth," until
at last they have stung to a
reply the correspondent of 'The
Times,' who was a witness at
Stockholm of the
the Olympic
Games.

This correspondent has told the truth with a proper dignity and sense of fairness. He has

That, together with the deliberate knocking down of hurdles, is not a bad record, and Mr Sullivan is to be congratulated upon his pupils. It is charaoteristic of American methods that no reasoned answer has been made to the charges of 'The Times' correspondent. The old parrot-cry has been raised that the English are bad losers, and that is all. Once again it is a Mr Sullivan who battles for the honour of the United States. Whether he is

the same gentleman who distinguished himself four years ago we know not. At any rate, in style and temper he is precisely similar.

[ocr errors]

For the winning or losing of international races we care not a jot. Defeat ruffles as little as victory elates us. We have no desire to see the representatives of England turn out "brainy" runners. But, above all, we do not wish to be accomplices in the conspiracy of silence which inevitably surrounds the games grotesquely called "Olympic." An English athlete who helped to "pocket' an adversary or used his elbows would be detected at once and warned off the running - path for ever. There would be nothing more to say, and nothing more would be said. But if it be an American who errs, we hold our tongues, lest the susceptibilities of a "friendly nation" should be hurt. Even when we are obliged to take action, as we were when Carpenter fouled an opponent in 1908, we do it diffidently and with reluctance. The news of American trickery at Stockholm has reached us many weeks after the games are over and done with. Though we are grateful to 'The Times' correspondent for speaking out at last, our gratitude would have been greater had he revealed the truth at once. For secrecy in such matters as this does a double injustice. It is unjust to the other nations, which compete with America in good faith. It is unjust also to America, which is treated with a consideration due only

[blocks in formation]

the

ently give to America benefit of a suppressed truth, we openly proclaim that it is not, as other countries, careful of its honour. It is only America, we seem to say, and what America does is of no consequence. Yet if America's shortcomings are thus ignored, how shall her athletes ever learn the lessons of fair-play? So long as they are the spoilt children of the Olympic Games they will behave like spoilt children, and take whatever advantages are offered them.

The fault is not with the athletes. In 1908 Mr Peabody, an American, who disapproved of the methods of his countrymen, confessed that "the belief in London was that the American athletes were honest and sportsmanlike, but their actions and conduct were constantly hampered and misdirected by the American managers-the so-called Committee of Honour-and the professional trainers." That is perfectly true. The danger of professional trainers has been so well understood in England that their ministrations have been forbidden to amateurs. And it is at the very moment when the cause of America's indiscretions is plainly discovered that we are asked to follow her example. We are constantly exhorted to purchase victory by public subscription, to bribe professional trainers to cross the Atlantic, that in their hands our athletes may become "wise" as well as nimble, and learn to run with their heads as well as with their feet. It is not an alluring

« PreviousContinue »