PARTY GOVERNMENT IN GREAT BRITAIN

PARTY GOVERNMENT IN GREAT BRITAIN

by a majority of forty-two. It can be inferred from the structural arrangement of the old chapel of St. Stephen's in which the Commons held their sessions from the reign of Edward VI to 1835-a rectangular chamber, similar ia arrangement to the present chamber at Westminister-that soon after government by party was established, members of the Cabinet and ministry and members supporting them sat as they do now to the right of the Speaker's chair, with members of the Opposition (see) seated to the speaker's left. The fact that seats to the right of the speaker were from early times set apart for members of the Privy Council-for what are nowadays members of the Cabinetwarrants this inference; but there is no proof of an earlier date than 1740 that government by party had introduced the now long-established grouping of parties within the House of Commons.

Origin.-Government by party-the system | for the eighteenth century a full House, the under which the party supported by a ma- resolution to prohibit pairing was negatived jority in the House of Commons is in control of the administration, and also of legislation dates only from the Revolution of 1688. The germ of the party system first manifested itself in the Parliament at Oxford in 1625. At least as early as 1670 political parties known as Whigs and Tories were in existence. These political divisions became more marked at the Revolution. With the development of Cabinet administration in the reign of William III, party lines became permanent; and there is testimony by Burnet that by 1708 the system of government by party had extended into municipal life. There were, in the reign of Queen Anne, no questions of municipal administration -no matters touching the everyday economy of towns and cities-to which the principles of either Whigs or Tories were applicable. In many of the boroughs, however, members of the House of Commons were elected not by the inhabitants at large but by the municipal councils, and in many other boroughs the control of mayoralty or the power of making freemen carried the control of parliamentary elections. Men of the territorial class-men who seldom lived in the towns or cities-were at this period active in municipal politics with a view to the parliamentary elections; and Burnet's testimony that, in 1708, Whig and Tory mayors were elected, and that "in every corner of the nation the two parties stand as it were listed against each other," is proof of how quickly and generally the system of government by party, established at the Revolution, was accepted by the country at large.

Whips.-Party whips (see) are a little older than government by Cabinet. They were issued during the convention Parliament of 1688. With the establishment of the Cabinet, whips issued to supporters of the Government became known as treasury notes, from the fact that they were sent out by the patronage secretary of the treasury—an office known in more modern times as parliamentary secretary to the treasury.

Control by Party Majority in Commons.— For over two centuries government by party in England has been accepted as inevitable, and the constitution and the representative system has been moulded to it. The loss of a majority in the House of Commons or defeat in a general election makes an end to an administration, and it is taken as a matter of course that the new administration shall be formed from the party that obtains majority. All the members of the administration go out of of

No Legal Recognition.-There has never been a law recognizing the party system. Whigs and Tories, Liberals, Conservatives, Radicals and Socialists, are unknown to the constitution and to the Journals of Parliament. Administrations had been made and unmade by the party system, and speakers of the House office with its defeat; and the usual procedure is Commons had been elected on party lines long before there was a single entry in the Journals | which directly or indirectly indicated the existence of opposing parties in Parliament. There is only one entry in the eighteenth century that suggests party lines or party organization. It occurs in 1743 when there was an unsuccessful attempt to prohibit members from pairing. To have prohibited pairing would have made an inroad on the power of the whips, or as these party officials were known in the eighteenth century "the whippers-occupant must take no share in party politics in." It would have impaired the organization of parties in the House. Especially would it have weakened the organization of the party that was in power; and by a vote of what was

for the king to call upon the leader of the suecessful party to accept the office of premier (see PRIME MINISTER) and to form a new administration. If an administration comes into power after a general election, there is a re organization of the House of Commons; but the only important offices to which the holders must be elected by the House are the speakership and the deputy-speakership and chairmanship of committees. Since 1835 the speakership has been a non-partisan office-an office whose

either in or out of the House of Commons; and since that time also, unless a speaker desires to retire from the chair, it has been the rule that he shall be reëlected on the assembling of a

PARTY LABELS-PARTY LEADERSHIP

new Parliament irrespective of any change in the standing of parties in the House. If a new speaker is to be elected, he is chosen from the party in the majority and the choice of a speaker is determined by the administration. The chairmanship of committees is not a continuing office like that of the speaker. Its holder is the nominee of the Cabinet, and is not bound by the usage that decrees that the speaker shall be strictly non-partisan. On committees the majority in the House is represented by a majority.

Civil Service. The civil service has been controlled by a board since 1855. Appointment by examination and promotion by seniority have long been its characteristics. There are, however, quite a number of what in the United States woud be described as non-classified offices. In appointments to these political influence is a factor. Many of them go to Liberals when a Liberal Government is in office, and to Conservatives when a Conservative Government is in power. Judges are also drawn from lawyers who are supporters of the Government in or out of Parliament. The dignity of king's counsel is as a rule similarly bestowed on barristers; and except in the case of military and naval commanders, distinguished civilians, and men distinguished in science, literature or art, knighthoods, baronetcies and peerages go only to men who are supporters of the Government in power. Offices and honors for party services are bestowed usually at the instance of the parliamentary secretary to the treasury-the erstwhile patronage secretary-who is the chief Government whip, and who with the aid of the junior lords of the treasury is responsible for keeping a House when Government business is the order of the day, and also for bringing members in for divisions.

as a separate group, and first took up their permanent position on the opposition benches. The Labor party in its present day form had its beginnings in the Parliament of 1900-1905. Until 1874 there were only two partiesLiberal and Conservative; and when the Liberals were in power they were so maintained without any aid from outside their own ranks. Four times since the extension of the franchise in 1885, the Liberals have been able to obtain and hold office only by the support of groups with independent organizations. They were in power in the Parliaments of 1885-86 and 189295 by the aid of the Nationalists. They had a majority independent of both Nationalists and the Labor party in the Parliament of 1906-10. After the two general elections of 1910-the elections in which the budget of 1909 and the veto of the House of Lords were the issues—、 they were in power only by the support of the Nationalists and the Labor party.

See CABINET GOVERNMENT; CONSERVATIVE PARTY; HOUSE OF COMMONS; LEGISLATION, BRITISH SYSTEM OF; LIBERALS; NOMINATIONS IN GREAT BRITAIN; PRIME MINISTER.

References: A. L. Lowell, Government of England (1900), II, 1-128; E. Porritt, Unreformed House of Commons (1903), I, 445-488, 506–510. EDWARD PORRITT.

PARTY LABELS. The official emblem of a political party placed at the head of the party column on the Australian ballot to facilitate the voting of the straight party ticket by the illiterate voter. In some states the use of the party emblem on the ballot is forbidden by law. See BALLOT; PARTY CIRCLE. O. C. H.

PARTY LEADERSHIP. England and America. The state as an institution furnishes a means of harmonizing conflicting individual Government of the Party.-Party organiza- and class interests. It may accomplish this tion in the constituencies is not nearly as wide-end through various instruments, but the state spread, as inclusive or as perfect as it is in the United States. It scarcely existed in England until the second extension of the franchise in 1867, and there is, as yet, no organization of the Conservative or Liberal party that corresponds to the national committee of the Republican or the Democratic party. Each party has a central committee in London which is in touch with the local organizations in the constituencies, and it is through the central committees in London that the chief whips of both parties assist the constituencies in the selection of Parliamentary candidates when local candidates are not available.

ruled by political parties acts through party organization and party conflict. Two parties, normally nearly equal in numbers and coextensive with the state, strive for control of the government. Their hope is to compose differences among their own numbers and to act as a unit against their opponents. Their chief aim is so to formulate and present political issues as to carry the election. The party leader is occupied with both of these functions, harmonizing the party and fighting its battles. In England, under the Cabinet (see) system party leadership in both lines of activity is identical with practical statesmanship. UsualFour political parties are now recognized as ly the most capable statesman in the party entitled to a whips' room in the precincts of wins the highest place by actually leading. the House of Commons-Liberal, Conservative, He excels all others in harmonizing his party Irish Nationalist, and Labor parties. This and in projecting government policies. The recognition is in itself an admission that the prime minister (see) and his associates lead group system has been established. The group their party by actually governing, and they system had its beginnings in the Parliament hold their position only so long as they conof 1784-1880 when the Nationalists organized' tinue to lead in fact as well as in name.

PARTY LEADERSHIP

The American party system presents a dif- | from Massachusetts, New York and Pennsyl ferent problem. The party is itself a vast vania have habitually exerted nation-wide inorganization coextensive with the state but fluence over their party. But recent tendencies separate from the government. Party leader- point in the direction of more conspicuous and ship cannot be identified with statemanship, constant presidential leadership. for their relationship is of necessity accidental. Nevertheless, so long as the executive and A leader may render conspicuous service as a legislative departments are separated, and so guide to public opinion but fail as a practical | long as official party utterance is lodged in a statesman; he may be eminent as a statesman convention, statesmanship and leadership can and fail utterly as a popular leader. Both the with difficulty be identified. A leader may party and the government involve an infinite arise who, as governor of a state or as Presidetail of separate, disconnected functions so dent of the United States, may so present his related that leadership is obscured; the case policies of government to his party as to is exceptional where both evince unquestioned, secure their adoption. Such a leader inevitably clearly defined, personal leadership. comes into sharp conflict with another type of Leadership and Statesmanship. The presi-party leader who is accustomed to control the dency is more closely related to party leader- government by manipulation of the party maship than any other office, since the election of chine. In the system at its best, entirely apart a President has furnished the occasion for from corruption of any sort, the party tends creating and maintaining the vast machinery to detract from personal statesmanlike leaderof the two parties. Presidents, however, have ship. The question always arises, how far not usually been first nominated because of the statesman ought to rely upon the party their previous prominence either as party lead- machine. If he goes far enough and comes to ers or as statesmen. After nomination and rely upon the prevailing methods of secret during the brief campaign, the presidential manipulation of caucuses he may, indeed, idencandidate is the official leader of his party. If tify party and government, but in the process elected, he becomes its official representative he may cease to be a statesman. Where statesduring his term of office. Whether in any per-manship is thrown aside the boss governs by sonal sense he leads it depends upon his char- means of the party machine. Probably Presiacter and his relations to other leading per- dent Roosevelt came as near to controlling the sons and forces in the party and in the nation. party machine and leading the party as any The two houses of Congress furnish the only | President has done. official competitors with the President for party leadership. Members of Congress may be adjunct leaders or they may oppose the President as representatives of a strong faction within the party. For a brief time during Andrew Johnson's administration Congress did actually lead and it became the official means of developing party policy, enforcing its will against the President even in administrative matters. The New Leadership.-The modern idea that Thaddeus Stephens (see) as chairman for the leadership may be identified with real statesHouse on the famous Joint Committee on Re-manship has been suggested in a number of construction wielded this power. At times, also, the Speaker of the House of Representatives has been as conspicuous as a personal party leader as the President. Speaker Reed probably wielded more influence over his party than did President Harrison, and Speaker Cannon later became for a time the virtual head of the organization. By gaining control of the House, the Speaker has acquired a veto power greater than that of the President and has dictated policies in the name of the party. Under the new rules, however, much of the personal power of the Speaker over legislation has been removed, and it is only at exceptional times that his influence has become dominant under any system. The Senate, also, through its control over appointment, and especially through the influence of individual Senators over the state party organizations, has, at times, been conspicuous in party leadership. A group of four or five men controlled the Senate in Grant's administration, and the Senators

Leadership of a high type is even more difficult of attainment in the party of the minority in a country where the executive office is exalted so far above the legislative. A leader out of office can exert his influence only by way of destructive effort and criticism. Even if he goes to Congress he has no real opportunity to show his ability.

states. La Follette in Wisconsin, Cummins in Iowa, Hughes in New York and Wilson in New Jersey, to mention only a few, have so successfully combined the two conflicting demands upon a party leader as to foreshadow an ultimate complete fusion of the leader and the statesman. In each of these instances the change has been accompanied by a weakening of party government and an effort on the part of the governor to establish the direct primary. Should a similar development follow in the presidential leadership it would be only through a relaxed grip of the typical machine.

See Boss; CANDIDATE; MACHINE; NOMINA TION OF PRESIDENT; ORGANIZATION; PARTY GOVERNMENT, COMPARATIVE; PARTY ORGANIZA TION IN MASSACHUSETTS; PARTY ORGANIZA TION IN PENNSYLVANIA; PARTY, PLACE AND SIGNIFICANCE of.

References: J. A. Woodburn, Pol. Parties and Party Problems (1903), ch xvi, 232; J. Macy, Party Organization and Machinery

PARTY ORGANIZATION IN CALIFORNIA

(1912), chs. iii, iv; C. A. Beard, Am. Govern-
ment and Politics (1910), 205-207; J. Bryce,
Am. Commonwealth (4th ed., 1910), I, ch. viii;
M. Ostrogorski, Democracy and Party System
(1910), 387-391; A. L. Lowell, Government of
England (1908), I, 456, II, 86-100; H. J.
Ford, Rise and Growth of Am. Politics (1898),
ch. xxii.
JESSE MACY.

No peculiarities in the form of local organization appeared. County home rule in many matters, and county committees emphasized the larger local unit. At the head of the usual hierarchy of district committees stood the state boss. The really remarkable fact about the machine was that the boss was not a Senator, not even an officeholder. The Senators of California did not lead their party. Real parPARTY ORGANIZATION IN CALIFORNIA. ty leadership was the perquisite of the railroad Development of Railroad Control.-California and centered in the person of the chief legal is notorious as a state that was dominated by a | adviser of the Southern Pacific. When the marailroad. The entire organization of business chine was running perfectly, he selected Senaand politics within the state was vitally influ- tors, Congressmen, governors and judges and enced where it was not actually controlled by the three railroad commissioners. the great Southern Pacific corporation. In a thousand ways state and municipal officers, especially in San Francisco, the financial capital of the coast, came under its power.

The supreme position of the railroad and its allied corporations is the outgrowth of California's peculiar history. In the early isolation of the state the Central Pacific Railroad furnished the one connecting link between the rude mining camps and civilization beyond the mountains and the desert. The men who owned the railroad and consequently held the strategic point in all business operations also organized the Republican party and operated the state government. Leland Stanford became governor of California the year after he had helped to organize the Central Pacific Railroad. Two years later another member of the company withdrew from the corporation in order to be appointed to the supreme court of the state, and after his retirement from the bench he became counsel for the Central Pacific. Thus from the outset railroad interests and state politics were closely intertwined.

Revolt. But it is not to be supposed that so perfect a machine as that of California could be developed without the knowledge and opposition of many citizens. The first revolt against growing railroad power was headed by Dennis Kearney, a labor agitator in San Francisco (see CALIFORNIA). His Sand Lot meetings and other demonstrations gathered many working men to his support. In the state at large the Granger (see) movement had spread among the farmers. These two elements united in the effort which in 1879 secured a new state constitution. One aim of the constitutional convention was to remove the railroad from politics. This object, however, could scarcely be secured by constitutional enactment, and the railroad legislature which followed the convention contrived to minimize the effect of the prejudicial articles.

The makers of the new constitution expected much from the services of a railroad commission of three members to be elected by districts. The railroad, however, has seldom been seriously menaced by any action of the commission.

have not always remained true to the people. The courts, too, have at times given color to charges of prejudice which have been freely brought against them. The new constitution, intended to protect the people from the railroad, has been interpreted to nullify later legislation against the road and in favor of the interest of the people. Union labor, strong in all the cities, has, in San Francisco, maintained a city party of importance, but even this party has been more than once sold out to the road.

California and Pennsylvania.-As inevitably | Even the men elected on antirailroad pledges as in Pennsylvania, where business men became politicians, corporation methods were carried over to political organization. A machine of the efficient one-man type developed, using committees rather than conventions as the real governing bodies of the party. One striking difference, however, does exist between Pennsylvania and California. In the former state the Republican machine based on corporate forms has become so strong that other corporations as well as the public at large are subject to its control and dictation. In the latter, the political machine became subordinated to the interests of the leading corporation. Consequently a much more close and vital relationship between railroad business and all other interests and politics was here to be observed. The political department of the Southern Pacific Railroad (successor to the Central Pacific) dictated to the Republican state machine and also, as in other machine-dominated states, ruled their opponents. In the cities, notably in San Francisco, other interests appeared to be influential, but a study of their management almost always revealed railroad control.

Recent Conditions.-The inevitable result of the machine rule was to reduce real party life to the lowest terms and to destroy the entire party system. When the organizations of all parties have become merely the political machine of one corporation, no weapon is left to the voter. Sporadic efforts at establishing new parties fail because of the overwhelming power of the perfected machine. The latest revolt, the one which promises most to the individual freedom of the voter, originated in a gradual growth of public opinion within the party and a determination to capture for purer politics the very machine which has prevented independent

PARTY ORGANIZATION IN LEGISLATIVE BODIES

growth. This revolt acquired a statewide or- ticket, are all expected to encourage intel ganization in the Lincoln-Roosevelt Republican ligent and independent voting. The long League. The league like the "regular" organi- tyranny did at length seem to arouse an zation had its state committee made up of mem-equally determined resistance to unjust polibers from the eight congressional districts, its tical domination. A sincere political reform local clubs and committees and other organiza- promises well for the future of California. tions. Its representatives controlled the state legislature in 1911 and 1913 and passed many reform laws. Unquestionably the sweeping state-wide primary law, especially since its amendment, has helped to emancipate the voter. The elimination of the party column from the ballot, the direct election of United States Senators, and the shortening of the state' (1909).

PARTY ORGANIZATION IN LEGISLATIVE BODIES