THE FOURTH REFORM BILL

501

the greatest need a common policy adopted by common consultation.

The war cabinet remained in operation until nearly a year after the armistice was signed. While nearly all the activities of parliament had to do with the war, one measure of great constitutional importance was adopted in the session of 1917 — the "representation of the people" act, or the fourth reform bill, which received the royal assent early in 1918. The provisions of the bill had been agreed upon at a conference of party leaders arranged by the speaker of the house of commons, and it passed without serious opposition. This act swept away almost all the old qualifications for suffrage, and set up a common qualification based on local occupation or residence, alike for counties and boroughs. It established universal manhood suffrage, gave the vote to women of thirty years of age, if they or their husbands are local government electors, limited plural voting to two constituencies, and election expenses to five pence per voter in boroughs and seven pence in counties, and introduced a new distribution of representation according to population. upon the principle of one member for every 70,000 in Great Britain and for every 43,000 in Ireland. It added thirtyseven new members to the house of commons and 8,000,000, to the number of voters, including 6,000,000 women. Under this act an election was held in December, 1918, the first since December, 1910, which resulted in an overwhelming victory for the coalition ministry. By another act of 1918 women were made eligible to seats in the house of commons, the age required in this case being twenty one years.

Notwithstanding the heavy majority of the ministry, the new house of commons was divided into numerous groups and displayed considerable independence in the session of 1919, and a disposition to criticize. In July the cabinet was defeated in a small vote, but was not called upon to resign. A good deal of criticism centered upon the continuance of the war cabinet so long after the end of the war, and after

a more severe defeat in October the cabinet was reconstructed. The new cabinet of nineteen members was formed on the pre-war plan of including the heads of the most important departments. A reaction against the peculiar war practices, especially against war centralization, is only to be expected, but it does not necessarily mean the end of all influence from these practices. Where they fall in line with tendencies which were in existence before the war began, they are likely to add distinctly to their strength. It would be, however, a new experience in recent Anglo-Saxon history if the permanent influences from a period of war were undemocratic.

It may be repeated in conclusion that the great majorities in recent parliaments which render the defeat of the ministry unlikely, together with the causes which have been noted above which make the members reluctant to bring on a dissolution, have a tendency to give a house of commons once elected and a cabinet once in office security for the full statutory period of a parliament's life, as if elected and appointed for a fixed period. When we recall in addition that various causes have considerably reduced the power of the house to hold the ministry to the traditional responsibility which was characteristic of the British system in the middle of the last century, it is possible to say that recent tendencies have brought the British government in its practical operation, not in form, nearer to the American system. There still remain great differences. The presence of the ministry in parliament is one which cannot be overlooked, and the meeting of parliament immediately after a general election. In other ways also public opinion brings itself to bear upon the decisions of the house more quickly than with Ours is a slower acting democracy, but there is undoubtedly greater similarity in the actual workings of government between the two countries than there was half a century ago. The inference is encouraging with regard to the next stage in this long evolution which we have been

us.

following. From the fact that our two countries, in trying to find out for the first time in history the best ways to operate a great democracy, seem to be quite independently taking the same road, we may have good reason to hope that we are moving in the right direction.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.-C. D. Allin, The Position of Parliament, Polit. Sc. Quart., xxix, 214, 1914. J. A. Fairlie, British War Administration, 1919. Sir S. Low, The Governance of England, 1914. W. Notestein, The Career of Mr. Asquith, Polit. Sc. Quart, xxxi, 361, 1916. R. L. Schuyler, The British War Cabinet, Polit, Sc. Quart., xxxiii, 378, 1918; The Decline of the House of Commons, Columbia Univ. Quart., xxi, 310, 1919; The British Cabinet, 1916-1919, Polit. Sc. Quart., xxxv, 77, 1920. The War cabinet, Report for the Year 1917, 1918; Report for the Year 1918, 1919. G. M. Wrong, Canada and the Imperial War Cabinet, Canadian Hist. Rev. N. S., I. 8, 1920.

INDEX

Army, standing, 331 f., 352, Benefit of Clergy, 97.