nominating 15. Each party in consequence scattered its votessought, to use a homely phrase, to spread its butter over too big a piece of bread-and between the Liberals and the Independents who frittered their strength most, the Conservatives, who exceeded their just limits least, secured a majority of the directors. The poll stood: Liberals, 220,638 votes; Conservatives, 151,733; and Independents, 62,642; and 6 Liberal directors, 8 Conservative, and 1 Independent were elected. For their six successful candidates the Liberals cast 96,427 votes, and for their 9 unsuccessful candidates, 124,211; showing conclusively that if they had not tried to elect all, they might readily have secured the 8 directors justly belonging to them. Similarly, the Independents cast 35,120 of their votes for the candidate they elected, and 27,522 votes for their four unsuccessful candidates, whereas had they been satisfied to vote for but two, they could have given each of them 31,321 votes, and elected both. The two members lost by the Liberals, and the one member lost by the Independents by their overreaching were, of course, secured by the Conservatives, who cumulated their votes on 8 candidates and elected them all. So far, therefore, from the cumulative vote working badly at the Birmingham School Board election of 1870, the election resulted as it did, because the election was conducted in defiance of the requirements of that vote. In commenting generally on this election, Mr. HARE says:

"The effect of the cumulative vote on the large liberal party in Birmingham, which for the most part gave its support to fifteen selected candidates on the late School Board election, was to secure the return of no more than six of such candidates. The supporters of the fifteen polled altogether 220,638 votes, of which 96,427 were effectual in electing the candidates for whom they were given, while a majority of such votes, or no less than 124,211, were ineffectual, having no operation whatever, owing to their having been distributed among nine candidates, none of whom had sufficient votes to be returned. On the other hand, smaller parties, or minorities of the constituency, by the concentration of their votes on one, two, or three candidates, succeeded in electing them."

The same general results evidenced in this Birmingham election were apparent in elections held at the same time, and under the same act, in Sheffield, Lambeth, Manchester, and other towns. The greedy majority overreached itself, and by trying to gain more representation than its due, obtained less; small parties or

factions, by cumulating their votes heavily, or " plumping," elected candidates who otherwise would have remained in obscurity; and heavy masses of voters were left without representation by scattering their strength. In Sheffield the 15 successful candidates received 151,097 votes, and the 39 unsuccessful ones 80,712; in Lambeth there were 75,779 votes for the 5 successful, and 41,485 for the nine unsuccessful candidates, and in Manchester the 15 successful candidates polled 223,114 votes, and the 29 unsuccessful, 66,886. In some cases the vote for a favorite candidate was far in excess of that required for an election, Miss Garrett polling 47,858 in Marylebone and the candidate next to her only 13,494: In Finsbury, Mr. Tabrum had 27,858, and the next highest on the list but 10,766; in Wolverhampton the highest candidate had 10,029, and the next 6,902; in Sheffield the highest had 17,057, and the next 12,489, and so on. Further information as to these English School Board elections is furnished in the correspondence of the New York World at the time. Writing from London, Nov. 29, 1870, the day of the election in that city, the World's very intelligent and well-informed correspondent, "PICCADILLY," says:

"LONDON, Nov. 29.-The first election ever held by ballot in London is going on as I write, and I have spent a portion of the morning in visiting some of the voting places. This election, as I need scarcely remind you, is for the choice of forty-eight members to compose the School Board of London under the new education law, and, as at the election under the same law at Manchester last week, every rate-payer of either sex is entitled to vote, and each voter has as many votes as there are members to be chosen in his or her district. The following is a list of the districts, of the number of candidates running in each, and of the number to be elected:

"There are about three hundred voting-places, and the polls, which opened at 8 this morning, will close at 8 to-night. Those which I visited were very quiet, and an American would have been amused at seeing the curious parody on American voting customs here and there exhibited. The polls were in school-houses, the basements of churches, and similar places. A solitary policeman stood at the door of each; and the voters, instead of handing in their ballots through the window, went into the room where sat the officers of the election, and where was arranged the curious machinery provided for by the new law. At one side of the room, behind a table, sat a gentleman called 'the President,' who had before him a book containing the names of the rate-payers of the district. The voter accosts this gentleman, gives his name, and if it be on the list, he receives a 'voting-paper.' If his name be not on the list the President kindly puts it on, and then gives him the voting-paper all the same. All the voter has to do is to say he is the occupier of a house in the district; no other questions are asked, and no oath is exacted. The 'voting-paper the voter receives is in the following form:

"The voter has five votes, all of which he may give to one candidate, or distribute them as he pleases.

“The voter, with this paper in his hand, then proceeds to another part of the room, where he finds before him a nest of inclosed desks, very similar to ordinary square boxes, placed on their sides on a table, and having no lids. These boxes are about two feet square, and into one of them the voter puts his head and shoulders and marks against the names of his favored candidates (all printed upon the voting paper) the number of votes which he wishes to give for each, using a pen and ink which he finds before him, or a pencil if he prefers it, and writing either in words or figures. He must not sign his name, or he will invalidate his vote, and no other paper but that provided must be used. The voter then folds up his paper and puts it into the ballot-box which stands before the presiding officer, and must then walk out of the place. In case a voter cannot write, a clerk is appointed to fill up his paper according to his desire. In order to facilitate the voting a polling place had been appointed for nearly every ward or division, making nearly three hundred different voting places in London, These places, for the most part, are at the vestry-room or some convenient school-room arranged for the purpose, At one end of the room is the desk of the officiating officer, provided with piles of printed lists of the candidates. By his side is the ballot-box, a most decidedly plain-deal affair, like a small corn-bin, with a grinning aperture cut in the top. On either side of the room is ar

ranged a series, three or four, of desks, each divided from the other by a partition of wood, like the desks at a telegraph station. On entering the room that much-detested officer, the tax-collector of your district, advances to meet you; but you do not tremble, not even if your last quarter's rates are unpaid, for you know that here he has no business with your money. He is, however, armed, but only with his books, in which he looks up your name and address and certifies your right to vote. You are then provided at the desk with a printed list containing the names of the candidates and a blank column, in which you write against the name of your favored candidate or candidates the number of votes you wish to bestow on him. With this you proceed to one of the cell-desks, and having, unseen, performed your duty to your candidate, you fold up the paper and slip it into the ever-gaping mouth of the ballot-box. Let us hope, however, that you have attended to the numerous printed directions which, in brotherly proximity to maps, illuminated texts, etc., are hung over the room. They inform you of the necessity of only giving the exact number of votes to which you are entitled, and also that on pain of invalidating your votes, you are not to sign your name to the paper."

A short time prior to the London election, Manchester voted under the New Education Act, and of this election the same correspondent writes thus:

"In Manchester there were fifteen members of the School Board to be elected, and each voter had 15 votes at his disposal. Forty-four candidates went to the polls, and over 390,000 were given by 26,513 voters. There are in Manchester no less than 62,000 rate-payers, so that the first surprising thing about the election is the self-evident fact that something like 36,000 voters abstained from going to vote. But the other results are still more astonishing. Manchester is famous for two things-first, the fervor of its Protestantism second, the number, organization, and strength of its working-classes. But at this election the two Roman Catholics were brought in at the head of the poll, one of them receiving nearly 20,000 more votes than any Protestant candidate, and no working-class candidate, of whom there were seven, being elected at all, the highest vote any of them received being 3,854, while one of them got only 166. Here is the list of the successful candidates, with the votes given to each :

"The 90,868 votes given to the two Roman Catholic candidates were polled by about seven thousand voters, who either 'plumped' for the rever

end gentleman who heads the list, or split their votes between him and the lawyer who follows him. The 133,762 votes given to the five Church of England candidates were polled by about nine thousand voters-so that it seems that in Manchester the relative strength of the Church of England and the Church of Rome is as nine to seven. It is quite clear that under the old system the former could have elected all the candidates, while the latter would have been unrepresented; but it is equally clear that these two parties under-estimated their own strength, and that between them they might have elected all the candidates but once. The Catholics might have had six instead of two candidates, and given each of them 15,144 votes: the Episcopalians might have had eight candidates, and given each of them 16,720 votes; while all that the other parties could have done would have been to elect the remaining candidate. These are the mysteries of the cumulative vote, now tried for the first time in England, but destined, no doubt, to be used for even more important purposes hereafter."

On the subject of these elections the Boston Advertiser commented at the time, thus:

"The cumulative vote has now been tried in London, in the election of a school board, and has been on the whole successful; but it has nevertheless developed some defects which may or may not be inseparable from it; time and further trial must decide. *** In Hackney there were 14,744 voting papers or ballots admitted, and the total number of votes given was 73,575, or only 145 less than the total number possible. The first noticeable fact is, that no person who was elected was voted for by a majority of all the electors. Mr. C. Reed, M.P., who stood at the head of the poll, received 12,477 votes, made up as follows: 715 voters gave him five votes each; 52, four; 1,123, three; 1,854, two; and 1,617, one. The whole number who gave him any vote was 5,358. The second candidate was voted for by 3,771 persons, who gave him 8,472 votes in all, the proportion of votes being somewhat smaller in all the columns. These show the strength of men who were generally popular, not representing any decided policy, and apparently not having a great number of friends who regarded their claims to position as pre-eminent. We pass to an analysis of the votes for two candidates, one of whom was successful and the other not, who represented particular classes of the people and a fixed and definite policy. Mr. J. H. Crossman received 7,441 votes and was elected. His strength was made up as follows:

"This shows that Mr. Crossman was indebted for his election to considerably less than one-sixth of the voters of Hackney, and for more than twothirds of his strength to less than one-fourteenth of the whole. As the lowest number which secured an election in this case was 5,781, it follows that a concentration of the votes of 1,157 men in 'plumpers' of five, being much less than one-tenth of all the voters, would have carried the day. No stronger evidence of the power of a minority well-organized could be given. The other example we would give is that of the Rev. W. Lockhart, a Roman