Nanwe's Maps and Graphics Thread

[Nanwe]

While I continue looking into historical press as well as various places for 1893, and hopefully additional elections, I also decided to take a look at the Senate, which has turned out to be easier than the lower chamber, as there are digital versions of the 'actas electorales' of all elected members, which include their opponents, their number of votes, the number of voters (and often the number of eligible voters).

Now, of course, the Senate under the 1876 Constitution was a mixed body, formed by:
(a) virile members (the male children of the King or of the Prince of Asturias; the Grandees of Spain who were really loaded; Captain-Generals of the Army and the Navy; the Archbishops and the Patriarch of the Indies; and the Presidents of various state bodies who had served in the role for over 2 years);
(b) lifetime senators designated by the King from 12 categories (mostly former officeholders, civil and military, as well as Grandees of Spain who were not loaded enough to be virile members); and
(c) Senators elected by:
--> Academic Districts (11 senators, elected by deans, rectors, faculty members and the directors of secondary schools),
--> Ecclesiastical Provinces (10 senators, elected by deans, cabildos, bishops, etc. - aka the upper layers of the Church),
--> The Royal Academies (RAE, History, Fine Arts, Exact Sciences, Moral Sciences and Medicine, 1 senator per academy, elected by their board members),
--> The Sociedades económicas de amigos del país (grouped into 6 'provinces', 1 per province, elected by their board members)
--> The country's provinces, including those in Cuba and the province of Puerto Rico - either 2 or 3 senators per province. Elected by a college formed by the provincial assembly deputies and the greatest tax-payers in the province.

So far, the Excel, which is pure OCD at this point, looks like this:

 

[Ares96]

We love a virilist

 

[Nanwe]

Another funny one.

In the Senate election for the 3 seats of the (back then) province of the Canaries, there was a big dumb fraud. Under the 1877 law for the Election of Senators, an absolute majority of the deputies and delegates ('compromisarios', aka the big taxpayers) was needed to be elected, otherwise, a second round would be held, with only the non-elected candidates standing for whatever seat(s) were left.

In 1893 in the Canaries, they just went ahead and tried to ignore and decided that 59 was absolutely more than 50% of 136 (the number of voters present, out of 140 eligible ones). Now, the Restauración was built on this odd mix of liberalism, fraudulent elections and legality - so the government (of their own party) saw the very obvious attempt at fraud at elections where, usually, there was no need to coax/pay/convince/threaten people, as the turno was easy to enforce when everyone was in on the game, and was not pleased.

So they told them to F off and repeat the election. It's super funny because of the euphemism used in the official electoral record in 1894, that the 1894 election needs to be considered as the second round that never happened "in order to rectify the defect that occurred during the election of Senators by the aforementioned province". As you can imagine, the guy who didn't actually win in 1893, won in 1894 - that would be the Marquis of Villasegura, Imeldo Serís-García y Blanco.

Appreciate the pretty handwriting -

 

[Nanwe]

I will try to have the Senate map next week, and I spoke to the Archive of the Spanish Congress, who told me the documents are fully digitised but not yet publicly accessible due to changes to the website to enable their upload (genuinely it is great to do things saying you are doing research without actually saying you're a researcher).

Anyway, they've promised to send me the official documents in the next 2 or so weeks. So after that, the actual electoral map will go much faster

 

[Alex Richards]

I will try to have the Senate map next week, and I spoke to the Archive of the Spanish Congress, who told me the documents are fully digitised but not yet publicly accessible due to changes to the website to enable their upload (genuinely it is great to do things saying you are doing research without actually saying you're a researcher).

I hear you on this.

 

[Nanwe]

Anyway, they've promised to send me the official documents in the next 2 or so weeks. So after that, the actual electoral map will go much faster

Scratch that, apparently they will start today, but it's 1,500 pdfs sooo it'll take some time lol

 

[Nanwe]

I have all the results - except for those parts where (unfortunately), the electoral acts show the number of votes the winning candidate obtained per section, but not the votes cast for their opponents. In those cases, I used secondary sources (aka newspapers), which I also used, together with some books, to ascertain partisanship.

However, a question for those who are more well-versed in 19th-century maps than myself (@Ares96 @Alex Richards @Thande ) what do you show in elections where even though a candidate wins, another one is proclaimed? [1]

Also, where one politician won more than one seat, requiring a by-election to be held, which results do you show on the map? The ones of the by-election which resulted in the actual MP for the seat or the original election?


[1] In this case, there are some instances where the fraud in the election was so manifest that the Congress' Acts Committee (which had to approve the proclamation of all members before they could seat) decided to throw off the obviously rigged votes and declare the losing candidate the winner.

 

[Alex Richards]

I have all the results - except for those parts where (unfortunately), the electoral acts show the number of votes the winning candidate obtained per section, but not the votes cast for their opponents. In those cases, I used secondary sources (aka newspapers), which I also used, together with some books, to ascertain partisanship.

However, a question for those who are more well-versed in 19th-century maps than myself (@Ares96 @Alex Richards @Thande ) what do you show in elections where even though a candidate wins, another one is proclaimed? [1]

Also, where one politician won more than one seat, requiring a by-election to be held, which results do you show on the map? The ones of the by-election which resulted in the actual MP for the seat or the original election?


[1] In this case, there are some instances where the fraud in the election was so manifest that the Congress' Acts Committee (which had to approve the proclamation of all members before they could seat) decided to throw off the obviously rigged votes and declare the losing candidate the winner.

I think it depends how widespread those sort of matters are, but my immediate reaction is to suggest the former as indicated with an ' * ' and the latter with a different symbol (either ' ** ' or ' † ' ) and showing the re-run elections to the side as a copy of the constituency area. Though if there were a load of the latter that might not be practical.

 

[Nanwe]

I think it depends how widespread those sort of matters are, but my immediate reaction is to suggest the former as indicated with an ' * ' and the latter with a different symbol (either ' ** ' or ' † ' ) and showing the re-run elections to the side as a copy of the constituency area. Though if there were a load of the latter that might not be practical.

Not too many, 7 or 8 by-elections. The thing is that there is always a second wave of by-elections when numerous secretaries, subsecretaries, governors and other positions are filled with MPs, who need to resign their positions. But those I won't show though.

 

[Nanwe]

An update on the list of PMs for the Dual Monarchy idea (still a WIP). I think it's gotten a bit out of hand.

Two-And-Two-Halves Party Era (1868-1902)


1868-1872: Victor Antoine d'Aubigny (Liberal)
1868: Liberal (), Moderate (), Trialist (82), Anti-Revolutionary (), Independents (21)
1870: Liberal (), Moderate (), Trialist (91), Anti-Revolutionary (), Independents ()

In his first stint as cabinet chairman, D'Aubigny continued the policies of his Liberal predecessors, marked by a preference for industrialists and urban bourgeois over agrarian interests and a general rejection to expand the franchise, except for the recognition of additional chambers of commerce with representation rights. Electorally speaking, the main change under the first four years of the D'Aubigny government was the 1869 law to bar priests from voting or standing for office.

Although historiography has focused on D'Aubigny’s anti-clericalism and his conflict with the progressives within his party, the most outstanding achievements, as perceived by his contemporaries, of his first few years in power was a rash of laws and ordinances that extended the ‘extension’, the common area of untaxed trade of goods, to the entire Kingdom, removing the right of provinces to tax trade across provincial lines as well as across the Irish Sea and the English Channel, as well as those taxes imposed on southern French goods crossing provincial lines since the 14th century. Likewise, the government removed all export taxes.

In early 1871, the Liberal government moved to remove the right of cities to collect the octroi, a consumption tax on goods sold within city walls. The removal of the octroi, whose collection was oftentimes a privilege granted by royal charter to certain cities, proved the most challenging obstacle of the Liberal attempts to unify the Double Monarchy into a unified trade and customs zone, as in many cases, the tax represented the leading share of a city’s income.

Although the bill became law, it faced a great deal of opposition from the cities by removing one of their main source of revenue and traditional privileges. In particular, the consuls of Marseille, who resented the loss of free port status for the city, led a major petition to the Assembled Estates in opposition to the bill. The public procession and demonstration ended in a three-day-long fight between the city’s militia and protesters, which had to be put down by troops sent from Toulon.

The need for new revenues to finance the municipalities, and the expenses related to the economic downturn of 1871, including public works (like the demolition of cities’ former fiscal walls), required the Liberal government to raise taxes and, in particular, to explore the option of a tax on direct inheritances, which created a wave of backlash from the Liberals’ traditional support base amongst wealthy urban patricians.

1872-1874: Hugh M. Charles Percy (Moderate)
1872: Liberal (), Moderate (), Trialist (), Anti-Revolutionary (), Independents ()

The dire economic climate and the general dissatisfaction of traditional Liberal voters with the government led to numerous losses in 1872, where the Liberals came on top but failed to obtain a majority, as many of their voters in competitive seats could not show up to vote. Instead, the Moderates managed to put together a very tenuous minority government.

The Percy government was supported by a parliamentary group that remained smaller still than the Liberals, and backed externally by an odd mix of conservative Trialists and more moderate Anti-Revolutionaries, was - and has remained - an example of a weak government.

The main accomplishment of the short-lived Percy government was passing a new electoral law enshrining secret voting by introducing voting booths, pre-printed ballot papers, and the option to vote for a party’s candidate slate at large instead of one of the individual candidates listed.

Other than that, the repeated efforts to pass protectionist legislation to raise the beleaguered state finances and protect farmers met fierce resistance from industrialists and urban middle classes, who would flock back, in large numbers, to the Liberal camp.

1874-1884: Victor Antoine d'Aubigny (Liberal)
1874: Liberal (), Moderate (), Trialist (101), Anti-Revolutionary (), Independents ()
1876: Liberal (), Moderate (), Trialist (), Anti-Revolutionary (), Independents ()
1878: Liberal (), Moderate (), Trialist (), Anti-Revolutionary (), Independents ()
1880: Liberal (), Moderate (), Trialist (), Anti-Revolutionary (), Independents ()
1882: Liberal (); Moderate (), Trialist (), Anti-Revolutionary (), Independents ()

D'Aubigny will be forever remembered for his paradoxes. History remembers him as the “authoritarian liberal” and the “conciliatory extremist”. The 10-year premiership represented the peak of Liberal political dominance in the post-revolutionary period and the start of its collapse as a governing power.

Following the brief interregnum under Percy, the Liberals set out to consolidate power, having learnt the lesson from the 1868-72 period. In the process, D'Aubigny broke his party - to the extent that a 19th-century party was a party.

Franchise was expanded as far as convenient to enfranchise urban middle classes. At the same time, local liberal associations (‘circles’) were fostered, and their role in selecting candidates (through the so-called ‘pools’) was often used as proof of the Liberals’ commitment to liberalism, compared to the lack of structure of the Moderate camp.

Moreover, in 1874, the government passed new legislation reforming the rules on the judiciary to set age caps for judicial officers in courts subject to direct royal jurisdiction. As numerous judges were over or nearing the capped age of sixty-five, particularly those inherited from the pre-revolutionary era, the government expected to be able to replace them with ideologically aligned ones, which it proceeded to do throughout the following decade.

More radically, the Liberal government, as part of its electoral “reinforcement” and anticlerical agendas, attempted to establish a special commission to “advice” the Monarch in the appointment of bishops and archbishops, essentially supplanting the monarch’s role as a way to control the appointment of more liberal or Liberal-friendly figures from the religious hierarchy.

The response to the plan was nothing short of dramatic - sessions in the Estates became fierce, with occasional fistfights breaking up between liberal and moderate members, petitions from the provinces flooded the capital, and the Holy See withdrew its Nunzio. The political effervescence prompted the Queen Regent to intervene and request D'Aubigny to withdraw the bill, to which - as legend has it - he acquiesced in the least polite manner, making an enemy of the Court.

All the same, the government would respond by removing their legation from Rome. At the same time, sudiste Liberal members of the Estates delivered aggressive speeches calling for the annexation of the Comtat Venaissin that resulted in heckling from opposition members.

Tensions were high, and the Interior Ministry had to declare a state of emergency and issue lettres d’ordinance [3] suspending charter-enshrined rights in parts of Brittany, Normandy and Kent, where groups led by radical clergymen attacked symbols of civil power, and troops had to be deployed to quench the clerical revolt.

The violence of the reaction prompted a ministerial push for moderation in the Cabinet, where various ministers led by Martin Bisson, the Interior Minister and Georges Perronet Thompson, the Grace and Justice Minister (despite his own anti-clericalism), forced D’Aubigny to relent on the anticlerical policies to put an end to the civil unrest, at least until 1883 with the presentation of the school bill.

In line with the party’s preferred approach, the d’Aubigny government continued to push for free trade, and the sponsoring of economic initiatives, such as the support for the creation of credit institutions and in particular of the Royal Savings Bank and the Land Credit (where their credit was guaranteed by the state) to support credit and savings among the lower classes of society.

Likewise, efforts were made for the drainage of wetlands to increase agricultural production. In Ireland, Brittany, Normandy and Maine, the land question remained unanswered, however, as the d’Aubigny government continued to ignore pleas for land reform and redistribution.

Agrarian reform, while not a pressing issue in either Kingdom, would, as the 1880s rolled in, and paired with the looking economic situation, give birth to the Irish agrarian reform movement.

The year 1880 saw the peak of tensions between the Dual Monarchy and its Burgundian rivals over the control of the Malabar coast. Already in direct control of the island of Eelam and indirectly over the Carnatic region through the Madurai protectorate, an opportunity for the expansion of the Dual Monarchy’s influence in the southern Indian region appeared when Nayak Rajasimha V died, resulting in a succession conflict between Prince Rajadhi Rajasingha (supported by the Dual Monarchy) and the brother of the late monarch, Narenappa Nayakkar, who was considered either a proxy or a friend of Burgundian interests.

Both European powers, constantly at odds in their foreign entanglements, supported militarily and economically each of their junior partners in an effort to establish commercial and military supremacy in and around Eelam as a way to control access to Insular India and, ultimately, Annam and China.

In this dressed-up conflict [4], which outlasted the d’Aubigny government’s tenure, tensions between the two neighbouring European powers, rose resulting in a trade war between the Dual Monarchy and Burgundy, with each country introducing punitive tariffs and increasing movement across the long borders between two European hegemons.

Fears of a land war prompted d’Aubigny’s government to increase the intake of conscripted men from across the Monarchy’s lands and to shift spending to military matters to increase preparedness. Both decisions, while logical given the circumstances, caused popular discontent in the countryside - where the conscription of an adult son took away free labour - and among the ranks of the Trialists and the progressive Liberals.

In the parliamentary debates that took place throughout late 1880 and into 1881, the conflict between d’Aubigny’s orthodox liberals and the progressive ones worsened, and it brought into the limelight young up-and-coming progressive politicians, well-known for their rhetoric skills, like Pascal Harrington and Jules Barrès, who rallied against the increased mobilisation of men, and linked the struggle against working-class and rural mobilisation with that for the expansion of the suffrage.

The direct economic costs of the conflict were limited, however, the resulting trade conflict with neighbouring Burgundy and the economic depression - particularly in rural areas which could not compete with Russian or North American grain imports - mounted, and resulted in a general economic downturn that characterised the middle part of the 1880s. Overall economic conditions worsened, and the country re-entered into recession in 1881.

With a flailing economy, foreign troubles and a divided party, the D’Aubigny cabinet embarked on the tried-and-tested anticlerical - some might say anti-Catholic - policy. The way to do it was, again, on education.

The non-controversial aspect of the policy was the establishment of royal education foundations to fund secular scholarships and chartering of additional secular universities ...

The question of suffrage expansion would become a recurrent one over the long Liberal government. The expansion of the franchise in urban areas back in 1875 had already put the question back on the agenda, but d’Aubigny had successfully used his dominance over the parliamentary party

Come early 1884, and following the awful result liberal candidates had obtained in

1884-1887: Gathorne Hardy (Moderate)
1884: Moderate (), Liberal (), Trialist (), Anti-Revolutionary (), Independents ()
1886: Moderate (), Liberal (), Trialist (), Anti-Revolutionary (), Irish Agrarian (), Independents (), Workers’ ()

AA

The combative approach of the premier can perhaps be best exemplified by the quixotic fight he picked against the provost and échevins of Paris over the civil funerals (“la guerre des funérailles” as the French press would come to call it mockingly). Paris, ever the ultra-liberal bastion, covered the expenses for civil funerals (often used by Jews, Protestants and franc-masons) but not for Catholic funerals (which had to be borne out of pocket).

This approach, which was deemed every bit as unnecessarily over-the-top and authoritarian as the previous ten years of Liberal government would greatly hurt Hardy in the internal fight between the party factions.

1887-1889: H. H. Molyneux-Herbert (Moderate)
1888: Moderate (), Liberal (), Trialist (),

AA

Ultimately, Molyneux-Herbert was not to be remembered as a great cabinet chairman, but he should be remembered as the great builder of the party apparatus.

1889-1893: Camille de Meaux (Moderate)
1890: Moderate (), Liberal (),
1892: Moderate (), Liberal (),

AA

The bon-vivant premier would be undone by his

1893-1901: Guilhèm Peytes de Montcabrier (Moderate)
1894: Moderate (),
1896: Moderate (),
1898: Moderate (),
1900: Moderate (),

AA

1901: Stanislas de Broqueville (Moderate)

AA

1902-1905: William Georges d’Harcourt (Moderate)
1902: Moderate (),
1904: Moderate (),

AA

Also, thanks to the magic of AI:

Instrument of Government, 1851​

An Act to establish an Instrument for the establishment of a free and representative Government of the Dual Monarchy of England and France, and to provide for the Rights and Liberties of the Peoples, Orders and Nations thereof.​

​

Whereas His Most Christian Majesty King Henry IX, by the Grace of God, King of England, France and Jerusalem; Duke of Brittany, of Provence, &etc.; Count of Provence, &etc.; Lord of Ireland, &etc., Defender of the Faith, and his heirs and successors, being lineally descended from His Most Christian Majesty King Henry V, who by his valour and wisdom united the crowns of England and France in the year of our Lord one thousand four hundred and twenty-two, have been pleased to delegate their power and authority over their loyal subjects, and to consent to the establishment of a free and representative government in their dominions, under certain conditions and limitations:​

And whereas a great and glorious Revolution has taken place in the said dominions, whereby the people have asserted their natural and imprescriptible rights to liberty, equality, and fraternity, and have demanded a reform of the ancient and oppressive laws and institutions that have long afflicted them:​

And whereas it is expedient and necessary to frame and establish a new Instrument of Government for the said Union of the Kingdoms of England and France, whereby the rights and liberties of the people may be secured, the prerogatives and dignity of the Crown may be preserved, the peace and harmony of the nations may be maintained, and the welfare and prosperity of all may be promoted:​

And whereas it is expedient to settle the new Instrument of Government of the said Dual Monarchy upon such principles as may ensure the peace, prosperity and happiness of the same, and to define the powers and functions of the several institutions thereof:​

Be it therefore enacted by His Most Christian Majesty King Henry X, by and with the advice and consent of His Royal Highness Prince Edward Albert, Regent of the said Dual Monarchy, as follows:—​

PART I.—PRELIMINARY.
General.​

1. Short title.— This Act may be cited as the Instrument of Government, 1851.
2. Commencement.— This Act shall come into force on the first day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two.

[...]

PART II.—THE CROWN.​

16. Majesty.— (1) His Most Christian Majesty shall be the Head of State over all persons and things within his dominions.
(2) His Most Christian Majesty shall exercise his executive power through His Secretaries of State who shall be responsible to the Assembled Estates for all acts done in his name.
Regency.
17. Regency.— (1) His Most Christian Majesty King Henry X shall continue to be by right King of England, of France and of Jerusalem, &etc., Defender of the Faith.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this Section, He shall exercise no power or authority in or over any part of the Dual Monarchy or its dependencies until he shall attain his full age of eighteen years.
(3) During his minority all such power and authority shall be vested in His Royal Highness Prince Edward Albert Victor, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, as Regent.
18. Coronation and oath.— His Most Christian Majesty King Henry X shall be crowned with all due solemnity following the traditions and rites of the Kingdoms of England and France as soon as conveniently may be after he shall attain his full age; but that before he shall be so crowned he shall take and subscribe an oath to maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement herein contained.
19. Marriage.— His Most Christian Majesty King Henry X, and his descendants shall marry with such person as shall be approved by the Assembled Estates; but that no person who is not a member of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church shall be capable of being Queen Consort.

[...]

PART III.—THE ASSEMBLED ESTATES.
General.​

??. Constitution.— (1) The delegates of three orders of His Most Christian Majesty’s Realms and of His Lands and Nations shall form the Assembles Estates of the Realm.
(2) The legislative power of the Dual Monarchy shall be vested in His Most Christian Majesty and in the Assembled Estates jointly.
(3) The Assembled Estates shall consist of seven hundred and fifty members.
Constitution.
??. Orders.— (1) The members of the Assembled Estates shall be divided into three orders: ecclesiastical, noble, and common.
(2) Each order shall be elect its delegates from amidst their ranks in the numbers determined in Sections (), (), and () and in the mode of election to be prescribed by law.
??. Ecclesiastical order.— (1) The ecclesiastical order shall consist of seventy-five members, representing the clergy of His Most Christian Majesty’s Realms.
(2) Thirty members shall be elected by the clergy of France, thirty members by the clergy of England, and fifteen members by the clergy of Ireland
(3) The ecclesiastical provinces of each kingdom shall be the electoral units for this order, and the mode of election shall be prescribed by law.
??. Noble order.— (1) The noble order shall consist of seventy-five members, representing the nobility of His Most Christian Majesty’s Realms.
(2) Thirty members shall be elected by the nobility of France, thirty members by the nobility of England, and fifteen members by the nobility of Ireland.
(3) The provinces or counties of each kingdom shall be the electoral units for this order, and the mode of election shall be prescribed by law.

 

[Ares96]

Biennial elections? What is this, America?

 

[Nanwe]

Biennial elections? What is this, America?

Belgium! Before PR, Belgium held biennial elections in which half the constituencies at any given time were up

 

[Nanwe]

On the electoral system for the elections to the Joint Estates (possibly to be renamed Assembled Estates), as you will see I have tried really hard to mix the universalism of liberalism with the inclination for group rights and particularism of the Ancien Régime.

Also considering I'm making this up as I go and my knowledge of English and Irish things is very limited, I welcome feedback and criticism, especially as I think I went a bit insane.

Common Aspects

• 750 seats: 300 for England, 300 for France (incl. Britanny and Provence) and 150 for Ireland [0]. 75 (30-30-15) seats for the First Nation/Order[1] (clergy), 75 (30-30-15) seats for the Second Nation/Order (nobility), and 600 (240-240-120) for the Third Nation/Order (commoners)[2], divided between burgh and province/county seats, including special seats (chambers of commerce, chambers of agriculture & universities, great guilds of Paris, Dublin and London).
• Elections to the First and Second Order seats happen every four years in full, elections to the Third Order occur, in halves, every four years: Roughly half the constituencies (as opposed to seats within them) are up for election.
• For the Third Order, suffrage is censitary but secret - only those paying direct taxes (whether municipal or national) or who have property valued over a certain threshold (to be determined by law) may vote. Restricted to males older than 25. For urban seats, only those who have permanently and non-stop lived and resided in the urban areas for at least a year and a day may vote.
• In the case of the First Order, in case of a vacancy, there are no by-elections to fill in the seat, rather the elected members of the Order co-opt an outsider for the remainder of the legislature.
• In the case of the Second Order and the Third Order, vacancies are to be filled by by-election within 3 months of the vacancy, whatever the reason was.
• Members of the Chambers of Commerce and of Agriculture include both legal and physical persons, double personhood may be allowed, depending on the rules of the organisation.

England (incl. Wales)

First Order

• 15 seats are up for election in the Province of York and 15 in the province of Canterbury. Provision for a redrawing of the seats per diocese.
• Secret ballot, limited voting.
• Universal suffrage for members of the clergy - regular or secular.
• Weighed voting: Whereas ordinary priests, monks, clerics and nuns may cast 1 vote; abbots, deans, bishops (of any kind), vicars, supernumeraries or canons of metropolitan, cathedral or collegiate chapters may cast 10 votes; and archbishops (of any kind), cardinals (of any kind) or the Cardinal-Primate of England may cast 30 votes. Subject to change if the electoral map is divided.
• Only members of the clergy who have been ordained or taken up vows may take part.
• Dioceses, convents and abbeys will need to keep electoral rolls for election as voting centres.
• The location of the abbey determines the province for convents, abbeys and other monastic institutions. In the case of English cardinals, their vote is invariably cast, unless they are also resident archbishops, in the Province of Canterbury.

Second Order

• 30 seats up for election, to be divided between the counties on the basis of the nobility electoral roll. The rolls are updated annually by the Chambers of the Nobility. Unaffiliated peers are not counted as members of the peerage, nor those who cannot prove the legality of the claim to their title - either by showing a letter patent granting the title or listing in the Great Inquest [3], accompanied by armorial registered in the College of Arms.
• Counties will likely have to be merged so that each electoral unit elects 3 delegates to the Estates.
• All peers who are listed in the nobility roll have a right to vote. The secret ballot, and universal suffrage (female title holders are entitled to vote, but this vote is cast by their husbands or guardians) under a limited voting system.

Third Order

• 240 seats to be split between the English and Welsh counties on the basis of population (whether they may or may not vote). Seats are then split between 'burgh' and 'county' seats depending on the estimation of the proportion or rural vs urban share of the population.
• Urban areas are then put together in urban seats so that they elect at least 3 members, and they need not respect county boundaries (unlike rural seats).
• No rural constituency may elect less than 3 nor more than 9 members - Rutland, and the Isles of Ely, Wight and Anglesey are exceptions. Counties are to be split if they would elect more than 9 members. The same principle applies to urban areas. Rolls are updated annually, and on that basis, seats should be redistributed.
• Special Seats: The Universities of Cambridge and Oxford are each awarded 2 seats. The College of Saint David and the Free Universities of York and London are each awarded a seat. In addition, Chambers of Commerce are entitled to a seat for every 5,000 members. The guild members of London's Great Twelve Livery Companies elect 3 delegates. The Chambers of Agriculture are entitled to a seat for every 10,000 members [6].

France (& Britanny, Provence)

First Order

• 1 seat for each of the 16 ecclesiastical provinces of France (Auch, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Albi, Narbonne, Arles, Aix, Embrun, Vienne, Lyon, Bourges, Tours, Paris, Sens, Rouen and Reims), with the remaining 14 to be determined on the basis of the First Order voter rolls (see below).
• Secret ballot, limited voting.
• Universal suffrage for members of the clergy - regular or secular.
• Weighed voting: Whereas ordinary priests, monks, clerics and nuns may cast 1 vote; abbots, deans, bishops (of any kind), vicars, supernumeraries or canons of metropolitan, cathedral or collegiate chapters may cast 5 votes; and archbishops (of any kind), cardinals (of any kind) or the Cardinal-Primate of France may cast 15 votes.
• Only members of the clergy who have been ordained or taken up vows may take part.
• Dioceses, convents and abbeys will need to keep electoral rolls for election as voting centres.
• The location of the abbey determines the province for convents, abbeys and other monastic institutions. In the case of French cardinals, their vote is invariably cast, unless they are also resident archbishops, in the Province of Reims.

Second Order

• 30 seats up for election, to be divided between the provinces on the basis of the nobility electoral roll. The rolls are updated annually by the Chambers of the Nobility. Unaffiliated nobles are not counted as members of the peerage, nor those who cannot prove the legality of the claim to their title - either by showing a letter patent granting the title or listing in the Great Inquest, accompanied by armorial registered in the College of Arms.
• Province will likely have to be merged so that each electoral unit elects 3 delegates to the Estates.
• All peers who are listed in the nobility roll have a right to vote. The secret ballot, and universal suffrage (female title holders are entitled to vote, but this vote is cast by their husbands or guardians) under a limited voting system.

Third Order

• 240 seats to be split between the provinces on the basis of population (whether they may or may not vote). Seats are then split between 'burgh' and 'province' seats depending on the estimation of the proportion or rural vs urban share of the population.
• Urban areas are then put together in urban seats so that they elect at least 3 members, and they need not respect county boundaries (unlike rural seats).
• No rural constituency may elect less than 3 nor more than 9 members. Provinces are to be split if they would elect more than 9 members. Aunis, Saintonge and Angoumois are to be treated as one. Foix is an exception to his rule. Rolls are updated annually, and on that basis, seats should be redistributed.
• Special Seats: The University of Paris and the Free University of Paris are awarded two seats, whereas the remaining universities are to be grouped between university 'en langue d'oïl' (3 seats) and in 'langue d'oc' (3 seats). In addition, Chambers of Commerce are entitled to a seat for every 5,000 members. The guild members of Paris' Six Merchant Corporations elect 3 delegates. The Chambers of Agriculture are entitled to a seat for every 10,000 members.

Ireland

First Order

• 4 seats for the provinces of Armagh, Cashel and Dublin, and 3 for the province of Tuam.
• Secret ballot, limited voting.
• Universal suffrage for members of the clergy - regular or secular.
• Weighed voting: Whereas ordinary priests, monks, clerics and nuns may cast 1 vote; abbots, deans, bishops (of any kind), vicars, supernumeraries or canons of metropolitan, cathedral or collegiate chapters may cast 4 votes; and archbishops (of any kind), cardinals (of any kind) or the Cardinal-Primate of France may cast 8 votes.
• Only members of the clergy who have been ordained or taken up vows may take part.
• Dioceses, convents and abbeys will need to keep electoral rolls for election as voting centres.
• The location of the abbey determines the province for convents, abbeys and other monastic institutions. In the case of Irish cardinals, their vote is invariably cast, unless they are also resident archbishops, in the Province of Dublin.

Second Order

• 15 seats up for election- 8 seats are assigned to the nobility "of Old Stock" (Gaelic and Hiberno-Norman) and 7 to that "of New Stock" (English and Hiberno-Norman). Members of Hiberno-Norman stock may choose which group to vote in.
• All of Ireland will constitute a single constituency for each group: indirect election for Old Stock, and direct for New Stock.
• For the Old Stock nobility, clann members vote for their representatives, a month before the second-stage election (coinciding with common seats) who have to be members of the relevant derfbine. Members of the various derfbines then elect from among themselves in an assembly meeting in Dublin the eight members.
• For the New Stock, the electoral system is the same as for the peerage in England.
• The rolls are updated annually by the Chambers of the Nobility. Unaffiliated nobles are not counted as members of the peerage, nor those who cannot prove the legality of the claim to their title - either by showing a letter patent granting the title or listing in the Great Inquest, accompanied by armorial registered in the College of Arms. The rolls will indicate the stock of the noble, and in the case of Hiberno-Normans, their preference.
• All peers who are listed in the nobility roll have a right to vote. Secret ballot, and universal suffrage (female title holders are entitled to vote, but this vote is cast by their husbands or guardians) under a limited voting system.

Third Order

• 120 seats to be split between the provinces on the basis of population (whether they may or may not vote). Seats are then split between 'burgh' and 'province' seats depending on the estimation of the proportion or rural vs urban share of the population.
• Urban areas are then put together in urban seats so that they elect at least 3 members, and they need not respect county boundaries (unlike rural seats). No rural constituency may elect less than 3 or more than 9 delegates. Counties are to be split if they would elect more than 9 members and merged if less than 3. Rolls are updated annually, and on that basis, seats should be redistributed.
• Special Seats: The University of Dublin and the Free University of Dublin are awarded two seats each. In addition, Chambers of Commerce are entitled to a seat for every 10,000 members. The guild members of Dublin's 25 guilds elect 2 delegates. The Chambers of Agriculture are entitled to a seat for every 15,000 members.

* * *​

[0] There would be calls to separate the representation of Provence and Brittany from that of France, as they were integrated into the realm later than the 1422 Union, and, especially in the case of Provence, one can make the argument that it was not a 'true' part of the Crown of France, but an acquisition of sorts through the cadet House of Anjou.
[1] I haven't really settled on the name to be honest.
[2] It would have been fun to call them oratores, bellatores and laboratores (prayers, warriors and labourer) seats, but I think it was too démodé even by the 17th century
[3] See OTL's Grande enquête sur la noblesse

 

[Ares96]

I enjoy this a lot, you can clearly see the French influence on things but it also feels like there’s some remnants of Westminster in there - the separation of urban and rural representation in particular. One thing I do wonder about - would England and France really be represented equally in this system? In OTL 1851, England and Wales had about 17-18 million people and France had nearly 36 million. I realise not all of OTL France is included here, but the gap would’ve been even wider before England industrialised. Ireland had about 8 million before the famine, so having England and Ireland make up half the chamber put together would make sense at a stretch, but giving them a majority over France feels like overkill.

 

[Nanwe]

I enjoy this a lot, you can clearly see the French influence on things but it also feels like there’s some remnants of Westminster in there - the separation of urban and rural representation in particular. One thing I do wonder about - would England and France really be represented equally in this system? In OTL 1851, England and Wales had about 17-18 million people and France had nearly 36 million. I realise not all of OTL France is included here, but the gap would’ve been even wider before England industrialised. Ireland had about 8 million before the famine, so having England and Ireland make up half the chamber put together would make sense at a stretch, but giving them a majority over France feels like overkill.

To be honest, my mental canon is that the aim here is to ensure the parity of the two Realms - even if they are not actually equal in population, but they are equal as "organic" entities of the Monarchies whereas Ireland is sort of an awkward plus one.

I've tried to awkwardly balance what in my head would have been the two strands of revolutionaries - the more alt-Enlightenment liberals and the institutionalists who wanted a return to the more open traditional institution before royal centralisation (in this, I was thinking of the divisions between Vonckists and Statists in the Brabant Revolution, or the two wings of the Dutch Patriotten - the 'democrats' and the 'aristocrats').

This is why you get this awkward mix of elements - and the equal representation of the two Kingdoms is part of the traditionalist aspect of the Constitution (as is retaining the three orders) mixed with elements that are unmistakenly liberal, and some other OTL influences like the split between secular universities (the 'free universities') and the religious ones which is taken from Belgium/the Netherlands in an attempt to also show the main political dividing line at the time - clericalism vs anticlericalism

Also, if you have ideas on how to make this more 'English' in some ways, I'd love to hear them! I know more about how Ancien Regime France operated (thanks to @LSCatilina who recommended some books, and from reading a lot about medieval Burgundy/Low Lands lately) than England, so there is that gap there.

 

[Alex Richards]

I think possibly the best way to add a bit more Westminster is to allow the 'urban' constituencies to determine their own franchise (or rather have franchise determined by the charter which can, and historically was, withdrawn and reissued for political favour) rather than it being strictly determined nationally as the 'County' seats are.

Plus maybe a slight Scottish mirroring by having the grouped urban constituencies be in the form of Electoral colleges rather than straight-up pluralities.

 

[Nanwe]

I think possibly the best way to add a bit more Westminster is to allow the 'urban' constituencies to determine their own franchise (or rather have franchise determined by the charter which can, and historically was, withdrawn and reissued for political favour) rather than it being strictly determined nationally as the 'County' seats are.

Plus maybe a slight Scottish mirroring by having the grouped urban constituencies be in the form of Electoral colleges rather than straight-up pluralities.

What do you mean by electoral colleges in this case?

 

[Alex Richards]

What do you mean by electoral colleges in this case?

It worked literally like the US Electoral College just with municipalities.

 

[Nanwe]

It worked literally like the US Electoral College just with municipalities.

So each town voted according to their franchise for a their delegates, who then met in an assembly to elect the deputies? That could work indeed.

 

[Alex Richards]

So each town voted according to their franchise for a their delegates, who then met in an assembly to elect the deputies? That could work indeed.

Yeah. The Scottish set up was 'single Commissioner per Burgh, rotating between to determine the host who also has the casting vote in the event of a tie.

I can see this being 'reformed' here so that it's got an additional population element to it allowing for more geographical groupings rather than trying to assign towns of roughly equal size together or just have the smaller ones outvoted in a majoritarian system.

Cornwall would be fun, with all its rotten boroughs and wildly different population sizes and tiny electorates just consisting of the corporation (so they're electing a corporation who elect the electors who elect the members). I've just sort of assumed that all of them together totally 36,600-odd electors would be a single constituency. Then take the traditional two-members of the Boroughs and treat it as 'one each then divide the remainder proportionally. Fowey is one elector off taking the last seat instead of St. Ives-6.

BOROUGH	FRANCHISE 1831	ELECTORATE 1831	POPULATION 1831	THEORETIC ELECTORS	ACTUAL
St Ives	Scot and Lot	499​	4776​	53​	6​
Penryn	Freeholders/Scot and Lot	490​	3521​	39​	4​
Bodmin	Corporation	36​	3375​	38​	4​
Helston	Corporation	81​	3293​	37​	4​
Truro	Corporation	24​	2925​	33​	3​
Liskeard	Freemen	51​	2853​	32​	3​
Launceston	Freemen	17​	2669​	30​	3​
Saltash	Burgage	154​	1637​	18​	2​
Fowey	Portreeve/Scot and Lot	331​	1589​	18​	1​
St Mawes	No Charter	87​	1558​	17​	1​
Callington	Freeholders/Ratepayers	225​	1388​	15​	1​
Tregony	Inhabitant Householders	265​	1127​	13​	1​
Newport	Burgage Scot and Lot	70​	1084​	12​	1​
Lostwithiel	Corporation	24​	1074​	12​	1​
East Looe	Freemen	38​	865​	10​	1​
St Germans	No Charter	23​	672​	7​	1​
Grampound*	Scot and Lot	69​	668​	7​	1​
West Looe	Freemen	38​	593​	7​	1​
Camelford	Scot and Lot	27​	562​	6​	1​
Bossiney	Freemen	25​	308​	3​	1​
Mitchell	Portreeve/Mense/Scot and Lot	7​	90​	1​	1​
			36627​	407​	42​