Database Systems Design Implementation and Management 11th Edition Coronel Solutions Manual

Database Systems Design Implementation and
Management 11th Edition Coronel Solutions Manual
download pdf
https://testbankfan.com/product/database-systems-design-implementation-
and-management-11th-edition-coronel-solutions-manual/
Visit testbankfan.com today to download the complete set of
test banks or solution manuals!

Here are some recommended products for you. Click the link to
download, or explore more at testbankfan.com
Database Systems Design Implementation and Management 11th
Edition Coronel Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/database-systems-design-
implementation-and-management-11th-edition-coronel-test-bank/
Database Systems Design Implementation and Management 12th
Edition Coronel Solutions Manual
implementation-and-management-12th-edition-coronel-solutions-manual/
Database Systems Design Implementation And Management 13th
Edition Coronel Solutions Manual
implementation-and-management-13th-edition-coronel-solutions-manual/
Business Law in Canada Canadian Edition Canadian 10th
Edition Yates Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/business-law-in-canada-canadian-
edition-canadian-10th-edition-yates-test-bank/

Modern Advanced Accounting in Canada Canadian 7th Edition
Hilton Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/modern-advanced-accounting-in-canada-
canadian-7th-edition-hilton-solutions-manual/
Information Systems A Managers Guide to Harnessing
Technology 1st Edition Gallaugher Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/information-systems-a-managers-guide-
to-harnessing-technology-1st-edition-gallaugher-test-bank/
Organizations Behavior Structure Processes 14th Edition
Gibson Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/organizations-behavior-structure-
processes-14th-edition-gibson-test-bank/
Finite Mathematics and Its Applications 12th Edition
Goldstein Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/finite-mathematics-and-its-
applications-12th-edition-goldstein-solutions-manual/
Human Resource Information Systems 3rd Edition Kavanagh
Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/human-resource-information-
systems-3rd-edition-kavanagh-test-bank/

Chemistry An Atoms First Approach 2nd Edition Zumdahl
Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/chemistry-an-atoms-first-approach-2nd-
edition-zumdahl-solutions-manual/

Chapter 7 An Introduction to Structured Query Language (SQL)
239
Chapter 7
Introduction to Structured Query Language (SQL)
NOTE
Several points are worth emphasizing:
• We have provided the SQL scripts for both chapters 7 and 8. These scripts are intended to
facilitate the flow of the material presented to the class. However, given the comments made
by our students, the scripts should not replace the manual typing of the SQL commands by
students. Some students learn SQL better when they have a chance to type their own
commands and get the feedback provided by their errors. We recommend that the students use
their lab time to practice the commands manually.
• Because this chapter focuses on learning SQL, we recommend that you use the Microsoft
Access SQL window to type SQL queries. Using this approach, you will be able to
demonstrate the interoperability of standard SQL. For example, you can cut and paste the same
SQL command from the SQL query window in Microsoft Access, to Oracle SQL * Plus and to
MS SQL Query Analyzer. This approach achieves two objectives:
➢ It demonstrates that adhering to the SQL standard means that most of the SQL code
will be portable among DBMSes.
➢ It also demonstrates that even a widely accepted SQL standard is sometimes
implemented with slight distinctions by different vendors. For example, the treatment
of date formats in Microsoft Access and Oracle is slightly different.
Answers to Review Questions
1. In a SELECT query, what is the difference between a WHERE clause and a HAVING clause?
Both a WHERE clause and a HAVING clause can be used to eliminate rows from the results of a
query. The differences are 1) the WHERE clause eliminates rows before any grouping for aggregate
functions occurs while the HAVING clause eliminates groups after the grouping has been done, and
2) the WHERE clause cannot contain an aggregate function but the HAVING clause can.
2. Explain why the following command would create an error, and what changes could be made
to fix the error.
SELECT V_CODE, SUM(P_QOH) FROM PRODUCT;
The command would generate an error because an aggregate function is applied to the P_QOH
attribute but V_CODE is neither in an aggregate function or in a GROUP BY. This can be fixed by
either 1) placing V_CODE in an appropriate aggregate function based on the data that is being
requested by the user, 2) adding a GROUP BY clause to group by values of V_CODE (i.e. GROUP
BY V_CODE), 3) removing the V_CODE attribute from the SELECT clause, or 4) removing the
Sum aggregate function from P_QOH. Which of these solutions is most appropriate depends on the
question that the query was intended to answer.

240
3. What type of integrity is enforced when a primary key is declared?
Creating a primary key constraint enforces entity integrity (i.e. no part of the primary key can
contain a null and the primary key values must be unique).
4. Explain why it might be more appropriate to declare an attribute that contains only digits as a
character data type instead of a numeric data type.
An attribute that contains only digits may be properly defined as character data when the values are
nominal; that is, the values do not have numerical significance but serve only as labels such as ZIP
codes and telephone numbers. One easy test is to consider whether or not a leading zero should be
retained. For the ZIP code 03133, the leading zero should be retained; therefore, it is appropriate to
define it as character data. For the quantity on hand of 120, we would not expect to retain a leading
zero such as 0120; therefore, it is appropriate to define the quantity on hand as a numeric data type.
5. What is the difference between a column constraint and a table constraint?
A column constraint can refer to only the attribute with which it is specified. A table constraint can
refer to any attributes in the table.
6. What are “referential constraint actions”?
Referential constraint actions, such as ON DELETE CASCADE, are default actions that the DBMS
should take when a DML command would result in a referential integrity constraint violation.
Without referential constraint actions, DML commands that would result in a violation of referential
integrity will fail with an error indicating that the referential integrity constrain cannot be violated.
Referential constraint actions can allow the DML command to successfully complete while making
the designated changes to the related records to maintain referential integrity.
7. Rewrite the following WHERE clause without the use of the IN special operator.
WHERE V_STATE IN (‘TN’, ‘FL’, ‘GA’)
WHERE V_STATE = 'TN' OR V_STATE = 'FL' OR V_STATE = 'GA'
Notice that each criteria must be complete (i.e. attribute-operator-value).
8. Explain the difference between an ORDER BY clause and a GROUP BY clause.
An ORDER BY clause has no impact on which rows are returned by the query, it simply sorts those
rows into the specified order. A GROUP BY clause does impact the rows that are returned by the
query. A GROUP BY clause gathers rows into collections that can be acted on by aggregate
functions.
9. Explain why the two following commands produce different results.
SELECT DISTINCT COUNT (V_CODE) FROM PRODUCT;

241
SELECT COUNT (DISTINCT V_CODE) FROM PRODUCT;
The difference is in the order of operations. The first command executes the Count function to count
the number of values in V_CODE (say the count returns "14" for example) including duplicate
values, and then the Distinct keyword only allows one count of that value to be displayed (only one
row with the value "14" appears as the result). The second command applies the Distinct keyword to
the V_CODEs before the count is taken so only unique values are counted.
10. What is the difference between the COUNT aggregate function and the SUM aggregate
function?
COUNT returns the number of values without regard to what the values are. SUM adds the values
together and can only be applied to numeric values.
11. Explain why it would be preferable to use a DATE data type to store date data instead of a
character data type.
The DATE data type uses numeric values based on the Julian calendar to store dates. This makes
date arithmetic such as adding and subtracting days or fractions of days possible (as well as
numerous special date-oriented functions discussed in the next chapter!).
12. What is a recursive join?
A recursive join is a join in which a table is joined to itself.
Problem Solutions
O n l i n e C o n t e n t
Problems 1 – 25 are based on the Ch07_ConstructCo database located www.cengagebrain.com. This database
is stored in Microsoft Access format. The website provides Oracle, MySQL, and MS SQL Server script files.
The Ch07_ConstructCo database stores data for a consulting company that tracks all charges to
projects. The charges are based on the hours each employee works on each project. The structure and
contents of the Ch07_ConstructCo database are shown in Figure P7.1.
Figure P7.1 Structure and contents of the Ch07_ConstructCo database

242
Note that the ASSIGNMENT table in Figure P7.1 stores the JOB_CHG_HOUR values as an
attribute (ASSIGN_CHG_HR) to maintain historical accuracy of the data. The
JOB_CHG_HOUR values are likely to change over time. In fact, a JOB_CHG_HOUR change will
be reflected in the ASSIGNMENT table. And, naturally, the employee primary job assignment
might change, so the ASSIGN_JOB is also stored. Because those attributes are required to
maintain the historical accuracy of the data, they are not redundant.
Given the structure and contents of the Ch07_ConstructCo database shown in Figure P7.1, use
SQL commands to answer Problems 1–25.
1. Write the SQL code that will create the table structure for a table named EMP_1. This table is
a subset of the EMPLOYEE table. The basic EMP_1 table structure is summarized in the table
below. (Note that the JOB_CODE is the FK to JOB.)

243
ATTRIBUTE (FIELD) NAME DATA DECLARATION
EMP_NUM CHAR(3)
EMP_LNAME VARCHAR(15)
EMP_FNAME VARCHAR(15)
EMP_INITIAL CHAR(1)
EMP_HIREDATE DATE
JOB_CODE CHAR(3)
CREATE TABLE EMP_1 (
EMP_NUM CHAR(3) PRIMARY KEY,
EMP_LNAME VARCHAR(15) NOT NULL,
EMP_FNAME VARCHAR(15) NOT NULL,
EMP_INITIAL CHAR(1),
EMP_HIREDATE DATE,
JOB_CODE CHAR(3),
FOREIGN KEY (JOB_CODE) REFERENCES JOB);
NOTE
We have already provided the EMP_1 table for you. If you try to run the preceding query,
you will get an error message because the EMP_1 table already exits.
2. Having created the table structure in Problem 1, write the SQL code to enter the first two rows
for the table shown in Figure P7.2.
Figure P7.2 The contents of the EMP_1 table
INSERT INTO EMP_1 VALUES (‘101’, ‘News’, ‘John’, ‘G’, ’08-Nov-00’, ‘502’);
INSERT INTO EMP_1 VALUES (‘102’, ‘Senior’, ‘David’, ‘H’, ’12-Jul-89’, ‘501’);
3. Assuming the data shown in the EMP_1 table have been entered, write the SQL code that will
list all attributes for a job code of 502.
SELECT *
FROM EMP_1
WHERE JOB_CODE = ‘502’;

244
4. Write the SQL code that will save the changes made to the EMP_1 table.
COMMIT;
5. Write the SQL code to change the job code to 501 for the person whose employee number
(EMP_NUM) is 107. After you have completed the task, examine the results, and then reset the
job code to its original value.
UPDATE EMP_1
SET JOB_CODE = ‘501’
WHERE EMP_NUM = ‘107’;
To see the changes:
SELECT *
FROM EMP_1
To reset, use
ROLLBACK;
6. Write the SQL code to delete the row for the person named William Smithfield, who was hired
on June 22, 2004, and whose job code classification is 500. (Hint: Use logical operators to
include all of the information given in this problem.)
DELETE FROM EMP_1
WHERE EMP_LNAME = 'Smithfield'
AND EMP_FNAME = 'William'
AND EMP_HIREDATE = '22-June-04'
AND JOB_CODE = '500';
7. Write the SQL code that will restore the data to its original status; that is, the table should
contain the data that existed before you made the changes in Problems 5 and 6.
ROLLBACK;

245
8. Write the SQL code to create a copy of EMP_1, naming the copy EMP_2. Then write the SQL
code that will add the attributes EMP_PCT and PROJ_NUM to its structure. The EMP_PCT
is the bonus percentage to be paid to each employee. The new attribute characteristics are:
EMP_PCTNUMBER(4,2)
PROJ_NUMCHAR(3)
(Note: If your SQL implementation allows it, you may use DECIMAL(4,2) rather than
NUMBER(4,2).)
There are two way to get this job done. The two possible solutions are shown next.
Solution A:
CREATE TABLE EMP_2 (
EMP_NUM CHAR(3) NOT NULL UNIQUE,
EMP_LNAME VARCHAR(15) NOT NULL,
EMP_FNAME VARCHAR(15) NOT NULL,
EMP_INITIAL CHAR(1),
EMP_HIREDATE DATE NOT NULL,
JOB_CODE CHAR(3) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (EMP_NUM),
FOREIGN KEY (JOB_CODE) REFERENCES JOB);
INSERT INTO EMP_2 SELECT * FROM EMP_1;
ALTER TABLE EMP_2
ADD (EMP_PCT NUMBER (4,2)),
ADD (PROJ_NUM CHAR(3));
Solution B:
CREATE TABLE EMP_2 AS SELECT * FROM EMP_1;
ALTER TABLE EMP_2
ADD (EMP_PCT NUMBER (4,2)),
ADD (PROJ_NUM CHAR(3));
9. Write the SQL code to change the EMP_PCT value to 3.85 for the person whose employee
number (EMP_NUM) is 103. Next, write the SQL command sequences to change the
EMP_PCT values as shown in Figure P7.9.

246
Figure P7.9 The contents of the EMP_2 table
UPDATE EMP_2
SET EMP_PCT = 3.85
WHERE EMP_NUM = '103';
To enter the remaining EMP_PCT values, use the following SQL statements:
UPDATEEMP_2
SET EMP_PCT = 5.00
UPDATEEMP_2
SET EMP_PCT = 8.00
Follow this format for the remaining rows.
10. Using a single command sequence, write the SQL code that will change the project number
(PROJ_NUM) to 18 for all employees whose job classification (JOB_CODE) is 500.
UPDATE EMP_2
SET PROJ_NUM = '18'
WHERE JOB_CODE = '500';
11. Using a single command sequence, write the SQL code that will change the project number
(PROJ_NUM) to 25 for all employees whose job classification (JOB_CODE) is 502 or higher.
When you finish Problems 10 and 11, the EMP_2 table will contain the data shown in Figure
P7.11. (You may assume that the table has been saved again at this point.)

247
Figure P7.11 The EMP_2 table contents after the modification
UPDATE EMP_2
SET PROJ_NUM = '25'
WHERE JOB_CODE > = '502'
12. Write the SQL code that will change the PROJ_NUM to 14 for those employees who were
hired before January 1, 1994 and whose job code is at least 501. (You may assume that the
table will be restored to its condition preceding this question.)
UPDATE EMP_2
SET PROJ_NUM = '14'
WHERE EMP_HIREDATE <= ' 01-Jan-94'
AND JOB_CODE >= '501';
13. Write the two SQL command sequences required to:
There are many ways to accomplish both tasks. We are illustrating the shortest way to do the job
next.
a. Create a temporary table named TEMP_1 whose structure is composed of the EMP_2
attributes EMP_NUM and EMP_PCT.
The SQL code shown in problem 13b contains the solution for problem 13a.
b. Copy the matching EMP_2 values into the TEMP_1 table.
CREATE TABLE TEMP_1 AS SELECT EMP_NUM, EMP_PCT FROM EMP_2;
An alternate way would be to create the table and then, use an INSERT with a sub-select to
populate the rows.
CREATE TABLE TEMP_1 AS (
EMP_NUM CHAR(3),
EMP_PCT NUMBER(4,2));
INSERT INTO TEMP_1
SELECT EMP_NUM, EMP_PCT FROM EMP_2;

248
14. Write the SQL command that will delete the newly created TEMP_1 table from the database.
DROP TABLE TEMP_1;
15. Write the SQL code required to list all employees whose last names start with Smith. In other
words, the rows for both Smith and Smithfield should be included in the listing. Assume case
sensitivity.
SELECT *
FROM EMP_2
WHERE EMP_LNAME LIKE 'Smith%';
16. Using the EMPLOYEE, JOB, and PROJECT tables in the Ch07_ConstructCo database (see
Figure P7.1), write the SQL code that will produce the results shown in Figure P7.16.
Figure P7.16 The query results for Problem 16
SELECT PROJ_NAME, PROJ_VALUE, PROJ_BALANCE, EMPLOYEE.EMP_LNAME,
EMP_FNAME, EMP_INITIAL, EMPLOYEE.JOB_CODE, JOB.JOB_DESCRIPTION,
JOB.JOB_CHG_HOUR
FROM PROJECT, EMPLOYEE, JOB
WHERE EMPLOYEE.EMP_NUM = PROJECT.EMP_NUM
AND JOB.JOB_CODE = EMPLOYEE.JOB_CODE;
17. Write the SQL code that will produce a virtual table named REP_1. The virtual table should
contain the same information that was shown in Problem 16.
CREATE VIEW REP_1 AS
SELECT PROJ_NAME, PROJ_VALUE, PROJ_BALANCE, EMPLOYEE.EMP_LNAME,
EMP_FNAME, EMP_INITIAL, EMPLOYEE.JOB_CODE, JOB.JOB_DESCRIPTION,
JOB.JOB_CHG_HOUR
FROM PROJECT, EMPLOYEE, JOB
WHERE EMPLOYEE.EMP_NUM = PROJECT.EMP_NUM
AND JOB.JOB_CODE = EMPLOYEE.JOB_CODE;

249
18. Write the SQL code to find the average bonus percentage in the EMP_2 table you created in
Problem 8.
SELECT AVG(EMP_PCT)
FROM EMP_2;
19. Write the SQL code that will produce a listing for the data in the EMP_2 table in ascending
order by the bonus percentage.
SELECT *
FROM EMP_2
ORDER BY EMP_PCT;
20. Write the SQL code that will list only the distinct project numbers found in the EMP_2 table.
SELECT DISTINTC PROJ_NUM
FROM EMP_2;
21. Write the SQL code to calculate the ASSIGN_CHARGE values in the ASSIGNMENT table in
the Ch07_ConstructCo database. (See Figure P7.1.) Note that ASSIGN_CHARGE is a derived
attribute that is calculated by multiplying ASSIGN_CHG_HR by ASSIGN_HOURS.
UPDATE ASSIGNMENT
SET ASSIGN_CHARGE = ASSIGN_CHG_HR * ASSIGN_HOURS;
22. Using the data in the ASSIGNMENT table, write the SQL code that will yield the total number
of hours worked for each employee and the total charges stemming from those hours worked.
The results of running that query are shown in Figure P7.22.
Figure P7.22 Total hours and charges by employee

250
SELECT ASSIGNMENT.EMP_NUM, EMPLOYEE.EMP_LNAME,
Sum(ASSIGNMENT.ASSIGN_HOURS) AS SumOfASSIGN_HOURS,
Sum(ASSIGNMENT.ASSIGN_CHARGE) AS SumOfASSIGN_CHARGE
FROM EMPLOYEE, ASSIGNMENT
WHERE EMPLOYEE.EMP_NUM = ASSIGNMENT.EMP_NUM
GROUP BY ASSIGNMENT.EMP_NUM, EMPLOYEE.EMP_LNAME;
23. Write a query to produce the total number of hours and charges for each of the projects
represented in the ASSIGNMENT table. The output is shown in Figure P7.23.
Figure P7.23 Total hour and charges by project
SELECT ASSIGNMENT.PROJ_NUM,
Sum(ASSIGNMENT.ASSIGN_CHARGE) AS SumOfASSIGN_CHARGE
FROM ASSIGNMENT
GROUP BY ASSIGNMENT.PROJ_NUM
24. Write the SQL code to generate the total hours worked and the total charges made by all
employees. The results are shown in Figure P7.24. (Hint: This is a nested query. If you use
Microsoft Access, you can generate the result by using the query output shown in Figure P7.22
as the basis for the query that will produce the output shown in Figure P7.24.)
Figure P7.24 Total hours and charges, all employees
Solution A:
SELECT Sum(SumOfASSIGN_HOURS) AS SumOfASSIGN_HOURS,
Sum(SumOfASSIGN_CHARGE) AS SumOfASSIGN_CHARGE
FROM Q23;
or

251
Sum(SumOfASSIGN_CHARGE as SumOfASSIGN_CHARGE
FROM (SELECT ASSIGNMENT.PROJ_NUM,
Sum(ASSIGNMENT.ASSIGN_CHARGE) AS
SumOfASSIGN_CHARGE
FROM ASSIGNMENT
);
Solution B:
FROM Q22;
or
FROM (SELECT ASSIGNMENT.EMP_NUM, EMPLOYEE.EMP_LNAME,
SumOfASSIGN_CHARGE
FROM EMPLOYEE, ASSIGNMENT
WHERE EMPLOYEE.EMP_NUM = ASSIGNMENT.EMP_NUM
GROUP BY ASSIGNMENT.EMP_NUM, EMPLOYEE.EMP_LNAME
);

252
25. Write the SQL code to generate the total hours worked and the total charges made to all
projects. The results should be the same as those shown in Figure P7.24. (Hint: This is a nested
query. If you use Microsoft Access, you can generate the result by using the query output
shown in Figure P7.23 as the basis for this query.)
FROM Q23;
or
Sum(SumOfASSIGN_CHARGE as SumOfASSIGN_CHARGE
FROM (SELECT ASSIGNMENT.PROJ_NUM,
SumOfASSIGN_CHARGE
FROM ASSIGNMENT
);
O n l i n e C o n t e n t
Problems 26−43 are based on the Ch07_SaleCo database, which is available at www.cengagebrain.com.
This database is stored in Microsoft Access format. Oracle, MySQL and MS SQL Server script files are
available at www.cengagebrain.com.
The structure and contents of the Ch07_SaleCo database are shown in Figure P7.26. Use this
database to answer the following problems. Save each query as QXX, where XX is the problem
number.
26. Write a query to count the number of invoices.
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM INVOICE;
27. Write a query to count the number of customers with a customer balance over $500.
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM CUSTOMER
WHERE CUS_BALANCE >500;

253
28. Generate a listing of all purchases made by the customers, using the output shown in Figure
P7.28 as your guide. (Hint: Use the ORDER BY clause to order the resulting rows as shown in
Figure P7.28)
FIGURE P7.28 List of Customer Purchases
SELECT INVOICE.CUS_CODE, INVOICE.INV_NUMBER, INVOICE.INV_DATE,
PRODUCT.P_DESCRIPT, LINE.LINE_UNITS, LINE.LINE_PRICE
FROM CUSTOMER, INVOICE, LINE, PRODUCT
WHERE CUSTOMER.CUS_CODE = INVOICE.CUS_CODE
AND INVOICE.INV_NUMBER = LINE.INV_NUMBER
AND PRODUCT.P_CODE = LINE.P_CODE
ORDER BY INVOICE.CUS_CODE, INVOICE.INV_NUMBER, PRODUCT.P_DESCRIPT;

254
29. Using the output shown in Figure P7.29 as your guide, generate the listing of customer
purchases, including the subtotals for each of the invoice line numbers. (Hint: Modify the
query format used to produce the listing of customer purchases in Problem 18, delete the
INV_DATE column, and add the derived (computed) attribute LINE_UNITS * LINE_PRICE
to calculate the subtotals.)
FIGURE P7.29 Summary of Customer Purchases with Subtotals
SELECT INVOICE.CUS_CODE, INVOICE.INV_NUMBER, PRODUCT.P_DESCRIPT,
LINE.LINE_UNITS AS [Units Bought], LINE.LINE_PRICE AS [Unit Price],
LINE.LINE_UNITS*LINE.LINE_PRICE AS Subtotal
FROM CUSTOMER, INVOICE, LINE, PRODUCT
WHERE CUSTOMER.CUS_CODE = INVOICE.CUS_CODE
AND INVOICE.INV_NUMBER = LINE.INV_NUMBER
AND PRODUCT.P_CODE = LINE.P_CODE
ORDER BY INVOICE.CUS_CODE, INVOICE.INV_NUMBER, PRODUCT.P_DESCRIPT;

255
30. Modify the query used in Problem 29 to produce the summary shown in Figure P7.30.
FIGURE P7.30 Customer Purchase Summary
SELECT INVOICE.CUS_CODE, CUSTOMER.CUS_BALANCE,
Sum(LINE.LINE_UNITS*LINE.LINE_PRICE) AS [Total Purchases]
FROM CUSTOMER, INVOICE, LINE
WHERE INVOICE.INV_NUMBER = LINE.INV_NUMBER
AND CUSTOMER.CUS_CODE = INVOICE.CUS_CODE
GROUP BY INVOICE.CUS_CODE, CUSTOMER.CUS_BALANCE;
31. Modify the query in Problem 30 to include the number of individual product purchases made
by each customer. (In other words, if the customer’s invoice is based on three products, one
per LINE_NUMBER, you would count three product purchases. If you examine the original
invoice data, you will note that customer 10011 generated three invoices, which contained a
total of six lines, each representing a product purchase.) Your output values must match those
shown in Figure P7.31.
FIGURE P7.31 Customer Total Purchase Amounts and Number of Purchases
Sum(LINE.LINE_UNITS*LINE.LINE_PRICE) AS [Total Purchases],
Count(*) AS [Number of Purchases]

256
32. Use a query to compute the average purchase amount per product made by each customer.
(Hint: Use the results of Problem 31 as the basis for this query.) Your output values must
match those shown in Figure P7.32. Note that the Average Purchase Amount is equal to the
Total Purchases divided by the Number of Purchases.
FIGURE P7.32 Average Purchase Amount by Customer
Sum(LINE.LINE_UNITS*LINE.LINE_PRICE) AS [Total Purchases],
Count(*) AS [Number of Purchases],
AVG(LINE.LINE_UNITS*LINE.LINE_PRICE) AS [Average Purchase Amount]
33. Create a query to produce the total purchase per invoice, generating the results shown in
Figure P7.33. The Invoice Total is the sum of the product purchases in the LINE that
corresponds to the INVOICE.
FIGURE P7.33 Invoice Totals
SELECT LINE.INV_NUMBER,
Sum(LINE.LINE_UNITS*LINE.LINE_PRICE) AS [Invoice Total]
FROM LINE
GROUP BY LINE.INV_NUMBER;

257
34. Use a query to show the invoices and invoice totals as shown in Figure P7.34. (Hint: Group by
the CUS_CODE.)
FIGURE P7.34 Invoice Totals by Customer
SELECT CUS_CODE, LINE.INV_NUMBER AS INV_NUMVER,
FROM INVOICE, LINE
GROUP BY CUS_CODE, LINE.INV_NUMBER;
35. Write a query to produce the number of invoices and the total purchase amounts by customer,
using the output shown in Figure P7.35 as your guide. (Compare this summary to the results
shown in Problem 34.)
FIGURE P7.35 Number of Invoices and Total Purchase Amounts by Customer
Note that a query may be used as the data source for another query. The following code is shown in
qryP7.35A in your Ch07_Saleco database. Note that the data source is qryP6-34.
SELECT CUS_CODE,
Count(INV_NUMBER) AS [Number of Invoices],
AVG([Invoice Total]) AS [Average Invoice Amount],
MAX([Invoice Total]) AS [Max Invoice Amount],
MIN([Invoice Total]) AS [Min Invoice Amount],
Sum([Invoice Total]) AS [Total Customer Purchases]
FROM [qryP7-34]
GROUP BY [qryP7-34].CUS_CODE;

258
Instead of using another query as your data source, you can also use an alias. The following code is
shown in Oracle format. You can also find the MS Access “alias” version in qryP7.35B in your
Ch07_SaleCo database.)
SELECT CUS_CODE,
COUNT(LINE.INV_NUMBER) AS [Number of Invoices],
AVG([Invoice Total]) AS [Average Invoice Amount],
MAX([Invoice Total]) AS [Max Invoice Amount],
MIN([Invoice Total]) AS [Min Invoice Amount],
Sum([Invoice Total]) AS [Total Customer Purchases]
FROM (SELECT CUS_CODE, LINE.INV_NUMBER AS INV_NUMBER,
FROM INVOICE, LINE
GROUP BY CUS_CODE, LINE.INV_NUMBER)
GROUP BY CUS_CODE;
36. Using the query results in Problem 35 as your basis, write a query to generate the total
number of invoices, the invoice total for all of the invoices, the smallest invoice amount,
the largest invoice amount, and the average of all of the invoices. (Hint: Check the figure
output in Problem 35.) Your output must match Figure P7.36.
FIGURE P7.36 Number of Invoices, Invoice Totals, Minimum, Maximum, and
Average Sales
SELECT Count([qryP7-34].[INV_NUMBER]) AS [Total Invoices],
Sum([qryP7-34].[Invoice Total]) AS [Total Sales],
Min([qryP7-34].[Invoice Total]) AS [Minimum Sale],
Max([qryP7-34].[Invoice Total]) AS [Largest Sale],
Avg([qryP7-34].[Invoice Total]) AS [Average Sale]
FROM [qryP7-34];

259
37. List the balance characteristics of the customers who have made purchases during the current
invoice cycle—that is, for the customers who appear in the INVOICE table. The results of this
query are shown in Figure P7.37.
FIGURE P7.37 Balances for Customers who Made Purchases
SELECT CUS_CODE, CUS_BALANCE
FROM CUSTOMER
WHERE CUSTOMER.CUS_CODE IN
(SELECT DISTINCT CUS_CODE FROM INVOICE );
or
SELECT DISTINCT CUS_CODE, CUS_BALANCE
FROM CUSTOMER, INVOICE
WHERE CUSTOMER.CUS_CODE = INVOICE.CUS_CODE;
38. Using the results of the query created in Problem 37, provide a summary of customer balance
characteristics as shown in Figure P7.38.
FIGURE P7.38 Balance Summary for Customers Who Made Purchases
SELECT MIN(CUS_BALANCE) AS [Minimum Balance],
MAX(CUS_BALANCE) AS [Maximum Balance],
AVG(CUS_BALANCE) AS [Average Balance]
FROM (SELECT CUS_CODE, CUS_BALANCE
FROM CUSTOMER
WHERE CUSTOMER.CUS_CODE IN (SELECT DISTINCT CUS_CODE
FROM INVOICE)
);
or

260
FROM (SELECT DISTINCT CUS_CODE, CUS_BALANCE
FROM CUSTOMER, INVOICE
WHERE CUSTOMER.CUS_CODE = INVOICE.CUS_CODE);
or
FROM CUSTOMER
WHERE CUS_CODE IN (SELECT CUS_CODE FROM INVOICE);
39. Create a query to find the customer balance characteristics for all customers, including the
total of the outstanding balances. The results of this query are shown in Figure P7.39.
FIGURE P7.39 Customer Balance Summary for All Customers
SELECT Sum(CUS_BALANCE) AS [Total Balance], Min(CUS_BALANCE) AS
[Minimum Balance], Max(CUS_BALANCE) AS [Maximum Balance],
Avg(CUS_BALANCE) AS [Average Balance]
FROM CUSTOMER;

261
40. Find the listing of customers who did not make purchases during the invoicing period.
Your output must match the output shown in Figure P7.40.
FIGURE P7.40 Customer Balances for Customers Who Did Not Make
Purchases
SELECT CUS_CODE, CUS_BALANCE
FROM CUSTOMER
WHERE CUSTOMER.CUS_CODE NOT IN
(SELECT DISTINCT CUS_CODE FROM INVOICE);
41. Find the customer balance summary for all customers who have not made purchases during
the current invoicing period. The results are shown in Figure P7.41.
FIGURE P7.41 Summary of Customer Balances for Customers Who Did Not
Make Purchases
SELECT SUM(CUS_BALANCE) AS [Total Balance],
MIN(CUS_BALANCE) AS [Minimum Balance],
FROM (SELECT CUS_CODE, CUS_BALANCE
FROM CUSTOMER
WHERE CUSTOMER.CUS_CODE NOT IN
(SELECT DISTINCT CUS_CODE FROM INVOICE)
);
or
SELECT SUM(CUS_BALANCE) AS [Total Balance],
MIN(CUS_BALANCE) AS [Minimum Balance],
FROM CUSTOMER
WHERE CUS_CODE NOT IN (SELECT CUS_CODE FROM INVOICE);

262
42. Create a query to produce the summary of the value of products currently in inventory. Note
that the value of each product is produced by the multiplication of the units currently in
inventory and the unit price. Use the ORDER BY clause to match the order shown in Figure
P7.42.
FIGURE P7.42 Value of Products in Inventory
SELECT P_DESCRIPT, P_QOH, P_PRICE, P_QOH*P_PRICE AS Subtotal
FROM PRODUCT;
43. Using the results of the query created in Problem 42, find the total value of the product
inventory. The results are shown in Figure P7.43.
FIGURE P7.43 Total Value of All Products in Inventory
SELECT SUM(P_QOH*P_PRICE) AS [Total Value of Inventory]
FROM PRODUCT;
44. Write a query to display the eight departments in the LGDEPARTMENT table.
SELECT *
FROM LGDEPARTMENT;

263
45. Write a query to display the SKU (stock keeping unit), description, type, base, category, and
price for all products that have a PROD_BASE of water and a PROD_CATEGORY of sealer.
FIGURE P7. 45 WATER-BASED SEALERS
SELECT PROD_SKU, PROD_DESCRIPT, PROD_TYPE, PROD_BASE, PROD_CATEGORY,
PROD_PRICE
FROM LGPRODUCT
WHERE PROD_BASE='Water' And PROD_CATEGORY='Sealer';
46. Write a query to display the first name, last name, and e-mail address of employees hired from
January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2010. Sort the output by last name and then by first name.
FIGURE P7. 46 Employees hired from 2001–2010
SELECT EMP_FNAME, EMP_LNAME, EMP_EMAIL
FROM LGEMPLOYEE
WHERE EMP_HIREDATE Between ‘1/1/2001’ And ‘12/31/2010’
ORDER BY EMP_LNAME, EMP_FNAME;

264
47. Write a query to display the first name, last name, phone number, title, and department
number of employees who work in department 300 or have the title “CLERK I.” Sort the
output by last name and then by first name.
FIGURE P7. 47 Clerks and employees in department 300
SELECT EMP_FNAME, EMP_LNAME, EMP_PHONE, EMP_TITLE, DEPT_NUM
FROM LGEMPLOYEE
WHERE DEPT_NUM=300 Or EMP_TITLE='CLERK I'
ORDER BY EMP_LNAME, EMP_FNAME;
48. Write a query to display the employee number, last name, first name, salary “from” date,
salary end date, and salary amount for employees 83731, 83745, and 84039. Sort the output by
employee number and salary “from” date.
FIGURE P7. 48 Salary history for selected employees
SELECT EMP.EMP_NUM, EMP_LNAME, EMP_FNAME, SAL_FROM, SAL_END,
SAL_AMOUNT
FROM LGEMPLOYEE AS EMP, LGSALARY_HISTORY AS SAL

265
WHERE EMP.EMP_NUM=SAL.EMP_NUM And EMP.EMP_NUM In (83731,83745,84039)
ORDER BY EMP.EMP_NUM, SAL_FROM;
49. Write a query to display the first name, last name, street, city, state, and zip code of any
customer who purchased a Foresters Best brand top coat between July 15, 2013, and July 31,
2013. If a customer purchased more than one such product, display the customer’s
information only once in the output. Sort the output by state, last name, and then first name.
FIGURE P7. 49 Customers who purchased Foresters Best top coat
SELECT DISTINCT CUST_FNAME, CUST_LNAME, CUST_STREET, CUST_CITY,
CUST_STATE, CUST_ZIP
FROM LGCUSTOMER AS C, LGINVOICE AS I, LGLINE AS L, LGPRODUCT AS P,
LGBRAND AS B
WHERE C.CUST_CODE = I.CUST_CODE
AND I.INV_NUM = L.INV_NUM
AND L.PROD_SKU = P.PROD_SKU
AND P.BRAND_ID = B.BRAND_ID
AND BRAND_NAME = ‘FORESTERS BEST’
AND PROD_CATEGORY = ‘Top Coat’
AND INV_DATE BETWEEN ‘15-JUL-2013’ AND ‘31-JUL-2013’
ORDER BY CUST_STATE, CUST_LNAME, CUST_FNAME;

266
50. Write a query to display the employee number, last name, e-mail address, title, and
department name of each employee whose job title ends in the word “ASSOCIATE.” Sort the
output by department name and employee title.
FIGURE P7. 50 Employees with the Associate title
SELECT E.EMP_NUM, EMP_LNAME, EMP_EMAIL, EMP_TITLE, DEPT_NAME
FROM LGEMPLOYEE AS E, LGDEPARTMENT AS D
WHERE E.DEPT_NUM = D.DEPT_NUM
AND EMP_TITLE LIKE '%ASSOCIATE'
ORDER BY DEPT_NAME, EMP_TITLE;
51. Write a query to display a brand name and the number of products of that brand that are in
the database. Sort the output by the brand name.
FIGURE P7. 51 Number of products of each brand
SELECT BRAND_NAME, Count(PROD_SKU) AS NUMPRODUCTS
FROM LGBRAND AS B, LGPRODUCT AS P
WHERE B.BRAND_ID = P.BRAND_ID
GROUP BY BRAND_NAME
ORDER BY BRAND_NAME;

267
52. Write a query to display the number of products in each category that have a water base.
FIGURE P7. 52 Number of water-based products in each category
SELECT PROD_CATEGORY, Count(*) AS NUMPRODUCTS
FROM LGPRODUCT
WHERE PROD_BASE = 'Water'
GROUP BY PROD_CATEGORY;
53. Write a query to display the number of products within each base and type combination.
FIGURE P7. 53 Number of products of each base and type
SELECT PROD_BASE, PROD_TYPE, Count(*) AS NUMPRODUCTS
FROM LGPRODUCT
GROUP BY PROD_BASE, PROD_TYPE
ORDER BY PROD_BASE, PROD_TYPE;
54. Write a query to display the total inventory—that is, the sum of all products on hand for each
brand ID. Sort the output by brand ID in descending order.
FIGURE P7. 54 Total inventory of each brand of products
SELECT BRAND_ID, Sum(PROD_QOH) AS TOTALINVENTORY
FROM LGPRODUCT
GROUP BY BRAND_ID
ORDER BY BRAND_ID DESC;

268
55. Write a query to display the brand ID, brand name, and average price of products of each
brand. Sort the output by brand name. (Results are shown with the average price rounded to
two decimal places.)
FIGURE P7. 55 Average price of products of each brand
SELECT P.BRAND_ID, BRAND_NAME, Round(Avg(PROD_PRICE),2) AS AVGPRICE
FROM LGBRAND AS B, LGPRODUCT AS P
WHERE B.BRAND_ID = P.BRAND_ID
GROUP BY P.BRAND_ID, BRAND_NAME
ORDER BY BRAND_NAME;
56. Write a query to display the department number and most recent employee hire date for each
department. Sort the output by department number.
FIGURE P7. 56 Most recent hire in each department
SELECT DEPT_NUM, Max(EMP_HIREDATE) AS MOSTRECENT
FROM LGEMPLOYEE
GROUP BY DEPT_NUM
ORDER BY DEPT_NUM;

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

scale of Prussia. Austria, to oppose the Italian army, was obliged to
keep 150,000 of her best troops south of the Alps; had one-third of
these stood in line at Königgrätz, the fortune of the day would
probably have been different. In the special and scientific services
Prussia had an additional superiority over Austria; she had 30,000
cavalry, 35,000 artillery, and 18,000 pioneers, while the Austrian
strength in each of these branches was considerably smaller.
Besides, the Austrian system was thoroughly obsolete, and its
organisers had neglected to adopt the needle-gun despite its proved
superiority in the Danish war. The Prussian army, thanks to Von Roon
and Von Moltke, had been raised, on the contrary, to the highest
degree of efficiency.
The forces of the Prussians, which were formed into three armies,
were distributed in the following manner. The First Army,
commanded by Prince Frederick Charles, the King's nephew,
consisted of three infantry and one cavalry corps, numbering
120,000 men; its headquarters were at Görlitz, close to the eastern
frontier of Saxony. The Second Army, commanded by the Crown
Prince, contained the Guards corps and three others, numbering
125,000 men; the headquarters were at Neisse in Silesia, being
purposely placed so far to the south in order to induce a belief that
the objective of this army was Olmütz or Brünn, and to disguise as
long as possible the real design of leading it across the mountains
into Bohemia. The Third Army was that of the Elbe, commanded by
General Herwarth von Bittenfeld, whose headquarters were at Halle;
it numbered about 50,000 men, including cavalry. Besides these
three armies, which were all designed to act against Austria, special
forces to the number of about 60,000 men were prepared to invade
Hanover and Hesse-Cassel, and afterwards to operate against the
forces of the southern States friendly to Austria, as circumstances
should direct. The forces that were to attack Hanover were under
the command of Lieutenant-General von Falkenstein, the military
governor of Westphalia. Those that were detailed against Hesse-
Cassel were commanded by General Beyer, whose headquarters
were at Wetzlar, the chief town of a small Prussian enclave,

surrounded by the territories of Nassau, Hesse-Cassel, and Hesse-
Darmstadt.
THE BATTLE OF LANGENSALZA. (See p. 426.)
In the North of Germany the campaign was brief indeed, although it
opened with a Prussian reverse. Through some mismanagement the
real superiority of force which the Prussians could bring to bear
against the Hanoverians was not made available, and Major-General
Flies, the Prussian commander, was about to attack an army
considerably more numerous than his own. Misleading reports as to
the movements both of the Bavarians and Hanoverians had reached
Von Falkenstein at Eisenach. He therefore ordered Goeben with his
division to watch the Bavarians, who were supposed to be advancing
from the south, and despatched Manteuffel towards Mühlhausen, a
town between Göttingen and Langensalza, under the erroneous
belief that the Hanoverians were now retreating northwards, and
meant to seek a strong position among the Harz Mountains. The
Hanoverian general, Arenttschildt, entertained no such intention,

but, expecting to be attacked from Gotha, he had drawn up his little
army on the northern bank of the Unstrut, a marshy stream that
runs past Langensalza in a general easterly direction, to join the
Saale near Leipsic. The Prussians advanced gallantly, drove in the
Hanoverian outposts on the right or south bank of the Unstrut, and
attempted to cross the river. But the Hanoverian artillery, judiciously
posted and well served, defeated this attempt. A number of partial
actions, in which great bravery was exhibited on both sides,
occurred in different parts of the field. The Prussians, however, being
decidedly over-matched, were unable to gain ground; and about one
o'clock General Arenttschildt ordered his brigade commanders to
cross the Unstrut and assume the offensive. This was done—
ineffectually for a time on the Hanoverian left, where the swampy
nature of the ground by the river presented great obstacles to an
advance—but with complete success on their right, where General
Bülow drove the Prussians steadily before him, and was able to use
his superior cavalry with considerable effect. The excellent military
qualities of the Prussian soldier, and the deadly rapidity of fire of the
needle-gun, prevented the retreat from becoming a disaster.
However, General Flies had no choice but to order a general retreat,
and fall back in the direction of Gotha. Two guns and two thousand
stand of arms fell into the hands of the victors, whose cavalry
continued the pursuit till half-past four, making many prisoners. The
Hanoverian situation, however, was really desperate, and on the
arrival of the main body of the Prussians the Hanoverians were
compelled to capitulate. The King fled into Austria, but his ally the
Elector of Hesse-Cassel was made a prisoner of war.
On June 16th Prince Frederick Charles, moving from Görlitz, crossed
the Saxon frontier, and advanced upon Dresden. A junction was
effected with Herwarth near Meissen, and both marched to Dresden,
which was occupied without opposition on the 18th. By the 20th of
June, the whole of Saxony (with the exception of the virgin fortress
of Königstein in the Saxon Switzerland) was in the hands of the
Prussians. The war had lasted but five days, and already the vigour
and rapidity with which Prussia dealt her blows had secured for her

advantages of inestimable value. Her right flank was now secure
from attack through the prostration of the power of Hanover and
Hesse-Cassel; the prestige and the terror of her arms were greatly
enhanced by the occupation of the beautiful capital of Saxony; and
the conquest of that kingdom had rendered possible the union of
two Prussian armies, and secured a corresponding shortening and
strengthening of her lines. The Saxon army retreated into Bohemia,
and joined the main body of the Austrians under General Benedek.
The Prince broke up his headquarters at Görlitz on the 22nd of June,
and marched thence with the main body of the First Army direct for
Zittau, the last town in Saxony towards Bohemia. The passes
through the mountains were found to be undefended; in fact, the
rapid movements of the Prussians had left no time for Benedek to
take the necessary measures. Count Clam Gallas, in command of the
1st Austrian Corps, was defeated in a series of battles, extending
from the 26th to the 29th of June, and driven behind Gitschin. While
the First Army and the Army of the Elbe were thus advancing from
the north, the Second Army was moving from Silesia, in
circumstances of far greater difficulty and peril, to effect a junction
with them in Bohemia. After a defeat at Trautenau, the Crown Prince
established communications with Prince Frederick Charles, the
movements of the three armies being directed by telegraph from
Berlin by Moltke, the chief of the staff. On the 30th the King of
Prussia, accompanied by Count Bismarck and General Moltke, left
Berlin, and reached headquarters at Gitschin on the 2nd of July.
Thus the First Army and the Army of the Elbe were brought into
communication with the Army of Silesia; and the imminent peril
which had existed of an attack by Benedek, in overwhelming force,
upon one of these invading armies, before the other was near
enough to help it, was now at an end. Military authorities are agreed
in casting great blame on the generalship of Benedek. That he did
not take the initiative by an advance into Saxony was probably not
his fault; but if compelled to receive the attack, it was manifestly his
policy, as he knew the Prussians to be advancing on two sides, to
detain one of their armies by a detachment, with orders to throw all

possible difficulties in its path, while avoiding a pitched battle; but to
fall upon the other with the full remaining strength of his own army,
and endeavour to inflict upon it, while isolated, a crushing defeat. He
had been thwarted by the energy of the Crown Prince's attack, and,
seeing that the campaign was lost, had telegraphed to the Emperor
on the 1st of July that a catastrophe was inevitable unless peace
was made.
The position which Benedek had taken up, on a mass of rolling hilly
ground, the highest point of which is marked by the village and
church of Chlumetz, bounded on the west by the Bistritz, and on the
east by the Elbe, and with the fortress of Königgrätz in its rear,
would have been an exceedingly good one, had he had no other
army but that of Frederick Charles to think of. As against the First
Army, the line of the Bistritz, with its commanding ridge, its woods
affording shelter for marksmen, and the difficulties presented by the
(in places) marshy character of its valley, presented a defensive
position of the first order. But Benedek had to reckon also with the
army of the Crown Prince, and this he well knew; for an Austrian
force had been driven out of Königinhof by the Prussian Guards on
the evening of the 29th. Prince Frederick Charles attacked at
daybreak, advancing through the village of Sadowa, and for hours
sustained an unequal struggle with the superior forces of the
Austrians. Herwarth was also, about one o'clock, checked in his
advance. The First Army could do no more; it was even a question
whether it could hold its ground; and the Prussian commanders on
the plateau of Dub turned many an anxious glance to the left,
wondering why the columns of the Crown Prince did not make their
appearance. The King himself frequently turned his field-glass in that
direction. The heavy rain that had fallen prevented the march of the
Crown Prince from being marked by those clouds of dust that are
the usual accompaniment of a moving army. Some Austrian guns
about Lipa, it is true, appeared to be firing towards the north, but it
was not certain that they were not directed against some movement
of Franzecky's division. Yet all this time two corps belonging to the
army of the Crown Prince had been in action since half-past twelve

with the Austrian right, and one of them was pressing forward to the
occupation of ground the defence of which was vital to the
continued maintenance of its position by the Austrian army. Their
onslaught on Benedek's right at once decided the battle, and,
effecting a retreat across the Elbe with the utmost difficulty, he fled
eastwards, leaving 18,000 on the field and 24,000 prisoners.
The Emperor, seeing his capital threatened, and the empire menaced
with dissolution, determined to rid himself of one enemy by
removing the ground of dispute. He accordingly ceded Venetia to the
Emperor of the French, with the understanding that it was to be
transferred to the King of Italy at the conclusion of the war.
Napoleon accepted the cession, and from that time was unremitting
in his endeavours to bring hostilities to a termination. His proposal of
an armistice was accepted in principle by the King of Prussia, with
the reservation that the preliminaries of peace must first be
recognised by the Austrian Court. Meanwhile the Italians had
suffered decisive defeats at the hands of the Austrians. La Marmora,
who took command, crossed the Mincio with 120,000 men, but was
defeated by the Archduke Albrecht with smaller numbers upon the
field of Custozza (June 24th), and compelled to fall back in disorder.
A naval action at Lissa off the Istrian coast also terminated in a
complete victory for the Austrians under Admiral Tegethoff.
The course of events in the western portion of the theatre of war
must now be briefly described. It will be remembered that, for the
purpose of sudden and simultaneous operations against Hanover
and Hesse-Cassel, a considerable Prussian force had been collected
—drawn partly from the Elbe duchies, partly from the garrisons of
neighbouring fortresses—and placed under the command of General
Vogel von Falkenstein. After the surrender of the Hanoverians on the
29th of June, this force was concentrated about Gotha and Eisenach,
and was free to act against the armies that had taken the field in the
cause of Austria and the Diet farther south. Falkenstein had two
separate armies in his front—the Bavarians under their Prince
Charles, now numbering upwards of 50,000 sabres and bayonets,
with 136 guns, and the 8th Federal Corps, commanded by Prince

Alexander of Hesse and numbering little short of 50,000 men, with
134 guns. Devoid of co-operation, they suffered a series of defeats
at the hands of Falkenstein and Manteuffel in a campaign marked by
small battles and intricate manœuvres. On the 16th of July the
Prussians marched into Frankfort with all military precautions, a
regiment of cuirassiers with drawn swords leading the way. They
posted two guns in the great square, and stacked their arms there
and in the Zeil. Late at night they broke into groups, and went to the
different houses, on which, without previous consultation with the
municipality, they had been billeted, forcing their way in without
ceremony wherever a recalcitrant householder was found. It was
observed that especially large numbers of soldiers were billeted on
the houses of those citizens who were known to be anti-Prussian in
their politics. One of these, Herr Mumm, was required to lodge and
feed 15 officers and 200 men. General Falkenstein took up his
quarters in the town, having issued a proclamation announcing that,
by orders of the King of Prussia, he had assumed the government of
the imperial city, together with Nassau, and the parts of Bavaria that
were in Prussian occupation. He at once imposed upon the citizens a
war contribution of 7,000,000 gulden (about £600,000), besides 300
horses, and other contributions in kind. The Burgomaster Fellner and
the Syndic Müller visited this modern Brennus, to endeavour to
obtain some diminution of the impost; but they were only treated to
a Prussian version of the classic declaration, "Væ Victis." Falkenstein
roughly told the burgomaster that he used the rights of conquest;
and is said to have threatened that if his demands were not
promptly complied with, the city should be given up to pillage. Thus
Count Bismarck paid off his old scores against the German Diet.
Meanwhile the victorious career of Prussia was carrying her arms
without a check to the banks of the Danube and under the walls of
Vienna. Marshal Benedek, after having put the Elbe between the
Prussians and his exhausted troops, had to decide instantly what
was to be done. An armistice was thought of; and Von Gablenz was
sent on a mission to the Prussian headquarters to see if one could
be obtained; but on this, and on a subsequent visit made with the

same object, he failed. Benedek found that his army was so
disorganised and disheartened by the defeat of the 3rd of July, that
it was idle to think of defending the line of the Elbe. He resolved,
therefore, to retire within the lines of the fortress of Olmütz, and
there re-form his broken ranks and recruit his dilapidated resources.
But the press and populace of Vienna clamoured vehemently for his
dismissal from the post of Commander-in-Chief; and this was
presently done, though not in such a manner as to disgrace him.
The Archduke Albrecht, the victor of Custozza, was appointed to the
command of the Austrian Army of the North, with General von John
for his Chief of the Staff. Benedek was left in command at Olmütz,
with orders to send all the corps lately under his command, as soon
as they were ready for the field again, by rail to Vienna, there to be
united under the Archduke for the defence of the capital. The
junction was effected, but the Prussian advance was alarmingly
rapid, and on the 20th of July the advance-posts of Herwarth were
within fifteen miles of Vienna.
Another battle lost—and with inferior numbers, inferior arms, and
inferior strategy, the Austrians could not reasonably count on victory
—must have laid Austria utterly prostrate at the feet of Prussia, and
would probably have resulted, considering the difficult and
exasperating constitutional questions at that time still unsettled
between the Emperor's government and the subject kingdoms, in
her dismemberment and political degradation. From this fate Austria
was saved, not by the moderation of Prussia, but by the firm and
friendly mediation of France. The Prussians, both officers and
soldiers, were eager to march on to the assault of Vienna, though
the Government was deterred by the facts that Hungary was still
intact, and the Italian army paralysed by the dissensions of its
commanders. But France, having accepted Venetia as a pledge that
she would discharge the office of mediator, discharged it effectually.
That description of mediation, to which Lord Russell was so much
attached, which proclaimed beforehand that it would employ no
other agency but "persuasion," did not commend itself to the French
mind. It is absurd to suppose that Count Bismarck would have paid

any attention to the pleadings of Benedetti had he not well
understood that France was mediating sword in hand. On this point
the Count's own frank declaration, made in the Prussian Lower
House in the December following the war—though its immediate
reference is to the question of Schleswig—does not permit us to
remain in doubt. He said: "In July last France was enabled, by the
general situation of Europe, to urge her views more forcibly than
before. I need not depict the situation of this country at the time I
am speaking of. You all know what I mean. Nobody could expect us
to carry on two wars at the same time. Peace with Austria had not
yet been concluded; were we to imperil the fruits of our glorious
campaign by plunging headlong into hostilities with a new, a second
enemy? France, then, being called on by Austria to mediate between
the contending parties, as a matter of course did not omit to urge
some wishes of her own upon us." Everything seems to show that
Austria owed to France, at this critical moment, her continued
existence as a great Power.
But for the time the negotiations hung fire, as Napoleon declined to
recognise the federation of all Germany under Prussian leadership,
even though Bismarck hinted that France should be allowed to
annex Belgium by way of compensation. On the 17th of July the
King of Prussia arrived at Nikolsburg, a place about forty miles to the
north of Vienna, close to the frontier line of Moravia and Lower
Austria. Benedetti was already at Nikolsburg, empowered by the
Emperor of Austria to agree to an armistice of five days, nearly upon
the conditions originally proposed by Prussia, viz. that Austria should
withdraw all her troops, except those in garrisons, to the south of
the Thaya; in other words, abandon all Moravia except the fortress
and entrenched camp of Olmütz, to the Prussians. On these
conditions an armistice was concluded at Nikolsburg, to take effect
from noon on the 22nd of July, and to last till noon on the 27th. It
was well understood on both sides that this armistice was
preparatory to negotiations for peace. These were conducted
actively at Nikolsburg, Austria being represented by General
Degenfeld and Count Karolyi; Prussia by General Moltke and Count

Bismarck. Preliminaries of peace between the two Powers were
signed on the 26th of July. The terms agreed to were—That Austria
should cease to be a member of the German Confederation; that she
should pay a contribution of 40,000,000 thalers towards Prussia's
expenses in the war; and that she should offer no opposition to the
steps that Prussia might take with regard to Northern Germany. The
principal measures thus sanctioned were—the annexation of
Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Nassau, and the portion of Hesse-Darmstadt
which lies to the north of the Main; the concession to Prussia of the
reversion of Brunswick on the death of the Duke then living, who
was without issue; the entry of Saxony into the new North German
Confederation about to be formed; and the grant to Prussia of the
supreme military and diplomatic leadership in that Confederation.
The Prussian armies were to be withdrawn beyond the Thaya on the
2nd of August, but were to occupy Bohemia and Moravia till the
conclusion of the final treaty of peace, and to hold Austrian Silesia
until the war indemnity was paid. It was with great difficulty that the
Emperor Francis Joseph wrung from the King of Prussia his consent
to the continued independence of Saxony. But the little kingdom and
its monarch had stood so nobly by Austria during the war that
honour demanded of the Emperor that he should not permit them to
be sacrificed, even though, by insisting, he risked the re-opening of
hostilities.

COUNT VON MOLTKE.
The definitive treaty of peace between Austria and Prussia was
signed at Prague on the 23rd of August. Austria was represented in
the negotiation by Baron Brenner, and Prussia by Baron Werther,
Bismarck having been obliged to return to Berlin to be present at the
opening of the Chambers. In substance the treaty did little more
than put into precise and legal form the stipulations agreed to at
Nikolsburg. The article respecting Venetia declared that, "his Majesty
the Emperor of Austria on his part gives his consent to the union of
the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom with the kingdom of Italy, without
imposing any other condition than the liquidation of those debts
which have been acknowledged charges on the territories now
resigned in conformity with the Treaty of Zurich." The fifth article
transferred to Prussia all the rights that Austria had acquired in the
Elbe duchies under the Treaty of Vienna; but the influence of the
French Emperor, who would not miss what seemed to him so good

an opportunity for the application of his favourite principle of the
popular vote, obtained the addition of a clause providing that "the
people of the northern district of Schleswig, if by free vote they
express a wish to be united to Denmark, should be ceded to
Denmark accordingly." With regard to Saxony, the King of Prussia
declared himself willing (Article VI.), "at the desire of his Majesty the
Emperor of Austria," to allow the territory of that kingdom to remain
within its existing limits, reserving to himself the right of settling in a
separate treaty the share to be contributed by Saxony towards the
expenses of the war, and the position which it should eventually hold
within the North German Confederation. This separate treaty was
not concluded till the 21st of October of the same year. Under it
Saxony retained little more than a nominal independence. She
agreed to pay a war contribution of 9,000,000 thalers, to give up all
her telegraphs to Prussia, and to enter the North German
Confederation; her troops were to form an integral portion of the
North German army, under the supreme command of the King of
Prussia; Königstein, her strongest fortress, was to be given up to
Prussia, and Dresden to be held by a garrison half Prussian, half
Saxon. While Prussia was stipulating for the cessation of all common
interests between her and Austria, and for the exclusion of the latter
from Germany, the question naturally rose: What relations are to
subsist hereafter between Prussia and the other South German
States—such as Bavaria and Baden—which are neither to join the
North German Confederation, nor yet to be excluded altogether from
Germany? This question was answered in the fourth article of the
treaty, in which the Emperor of Austria, after promising to recognise
the North German Confederation which Prussia was about to form,
"declares his consent that the German States situated to the south
of the line of the Main should unite in a league, the national
connection of which with the North German Bund is reserved for a
further agreement between both parties, and which will have an
international independent existence." The Treaty of Prague further
settled that from the war indemnity of 40,000,000 thalers which
Austria had agreed to pay, a sum of 15,000,000 thalers should be
deducted on account of war expenses claimed by the Emperor from

the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, and a further sum of
5,000,000 thalers on account of the maintenance of the Prussian
troops in the Austrian States which they occupied till the conclusion
of peace. The remaining net indemnity of 20,000,000 thalers was to
be paid within three weeks of the exchange of ratifications. This
sum, it may be mentioned, amounts to £3,000,000 of English
money. The principal articles of the treaty between Austria and
Prussia having been thus briefly summarised, it now only remains to
state that the ratifications of the treaty were formally exchanged at
Prague on the 29th of August.
The war was over, but the task of establishing the new internal
relations that were henceforth to prevail in Germany remained.
Armistices were agreed to on the 2nd of August between Prussia, on
the one hand, and Bavaria, Baden, Würtemberg, and Hesse-
Darmstadt, on the other, to last for three weeks. At first Bavaria was
very roughly dealt with. The Bavarian Ambassador, Baron von der
Pfordten, was some days at Nikolsburg before he could obtain an
audience of Count Bismarck. At last (July 27th) he obtained a few
minutes' conversation with the Prussian Minister, who curtly stated
as the terms of peace, the cession of all Bavarian territory north of
the Main to Prussia, the cession of the Bavarian Palatinate to Hesse-
Darmstadt, and the payment of a war indemnity. But the final treaty
of peace, signed at Berlin on the 22nd of August, was less onerous
for Bavaria, it imposed, indeed, a contribution of 30,000,000 gulden;
abolished shipping dues on the Rhine and Main, where those rivers
were under Bavarian jurisdiction; and transferred all the telegraph
lines north of the Main to Prussian control; but it required no such
cessions of territory as were exacted by the preliminaries. The
causes of this apparent lenity, which must have puzzled those
acquainted with the Prussian character, will be explained presently.
The treaty with Würtemberg, signed on the 13th of August, imposed
a war indemnity of 8,000,000 florins on that kingdom, and provided
for its re-entry into the Zollverein. A similar treaty with Baden,
signed on the 17th of August, burdened the Grand Duchy with a war
indemnity of 6,000,000 gulden. Peace with Hesse-Darmstadt was

only concluded on the 3rd of September. Great resentment was felt
in Prussia against the Grand Duke, who had been throughout a
staunch friend to Austria. On the other hand, the Court of Russia, for
family reasons, intervened with urgency on behalf both of
Würtemberg and of Hesse-Darmstadt; and the terms imposed on
these States were consequently more lenient than had been
expected. Darmstadt was required to give up Hesse-Homburg and
certain other portions of its territory to Prussia; it was, however,
indemnified to a considerable extent at the cost of what had been
the independent States of Hesse-Cassel, Nassau, and Frankfort; the
general effect being to consolidate and render more compact the
territories both of Prussia and of Darmstadt, where they were
conterminous. Hesse-Darmstadt, moreover, though, in respect of
that portion of her territories which lay south of the Main, she was a
South German State, agreed to enter the North German
Confederation.
Besides the public treaties with the States of South Germany which
have been just described, Prussia concluded with them at the same
time certain secret articles, which were not divulged until months
afterwards. According to these, Bavaria, Baden, and Würtemberg
severally entered into a treaty of alliance, offensive and defensive,
with Prussia, with guarantee of their respective territories, and the
concession of the supreme command in time of war to the King of
Prussia. Count Bismarck knew that he had been playing a perilous
game; he had mortified and exasperated the French Emperor,
immediately after the close of the war, by refusing to cede to him
certain demands for the Bavarian Palatinate and the Hessian districts
west of the Rhine. French vanity had been wounded by the victories,
French jealousy had been aroused by the aggrandisement, of
Prussia. The whole North German Confederation did but represent a
population of 25,000,000; if Germany was to be safe against France,
she must be able to dispose at need of the military resources of a
population of at least equal magnitude. Weighing all these things
with that profound forecast which characterised him, Count Bismarck
would seem to have purposely imposed at first harsh conditions on

Bavaria in order that he might obtain, as the price of their
subsequent remission, the adhesion of that kingdom to an
arrangement that would bring its excellent soldiers into line with
those of Prussia. Upon all these South German States he skilfully
brought to bear an argument derived from the recent demand of
France for German territory which he promptly divulged—a demand
which, he said, would infallibly be renewed; which it would be
difficult in all circumstances to resist; and which, if it had to be
conceded, could hardly be satisfied except at the expense of one or
other of them. Isolated, they could not resist dismemberment;
united with Prussia, and mutually guaranteeing each other's
territories, they were safe.
These secret treaties between Prussia and the South German States
first came to light in April of the following year. Count Beust, who
was then the Austrian Premier, commenting on the disclosure in his
despatches to Austrian representatives at foreign Courts, said that
Austria would make no complaint and ask for no explanations; at the
same time, with much dry significance, he directed their attention to
the fact, that the Prussian Government had actually concluded these
treaties with the South German States before it signed the Treaty of
Prague, the fourth article of which was by them rendered null and
meaningless. The Count justly pointed out that an offensive alliance
between two States forced the weaker of the two to endorse the
foreign policy and follow in the wake of the stronger, and practically
destroyed the independence of the former.
For the French Emperor, in spite of the efficacy of the French
intervention in favour of Austria, the events of this year must have
been full of secret mortification. In Mexico, the empire that he had
built up at heavy cost was crumbling to pieces; and he did not feel
himself strong enough on the throne—nor was he, in fact, gifted
with sufficient strength of moral and intellectual fibre—to persevere
in the enterprise against the ill-will of the American Government and
the carpings of the Opposition at home. He made up his mind to
withdraw the French troops from Mexico, and get out of the affair
with as little loss of credit as possible. In spite of checks and

disappointments, Napoleon still wore a bold front, and in his public
utterances continued to assume the oracular and impassable
character that had so long imposed on the world. In the sitting of
the Corps-Législatif on the 12th of June an important letter from the
Emperor to M. Drouyn de Lhuys was read, in which it was declared
that France would only require an extension of her frontiers, in the
event of the map of Europe being altered to the profit of a great
Power, and of the bordering provinces expressing by a formal and
free vote their desire for annexation. The last clause was a judicious
reservation, particularly as the doctrine of the popular sovereignty,
expressed through plébiscites, was not at all consonant with
Prussian ideas, so that there was no chance of Rhine Prussia, or any
part of it, being allowed the opportunity, supposing it had desired it,
of voting for annexation to France. However, notwithstanding the
imperial declaration, the map of Europe was altered to the profit of a
great Power, and France obtained no extension of territory. Soon
after the close of the Austro-Prussian War, the Emperor asked from
the Prussian Government the concession of a small strip of territory
to the extreme south of her Rhenish provinces, including the
valuable coalfield in the neighbourhood of Saarbrück and Saarlouis,
besides acquiescence in the annexations from Bavaria and Hesse-
Darmstadt. This was the last of a series of demands for
compensation dating from 1862, by judiciously playing with which
Bismarck had kept Napoleon quiet during two European wars. Count
Bismarck met the request with a decided refusal, on the ground that
the state of national feeling in Germany rendered the cession of a
single foot of German territory to a foreign Power an impossible
proceeding. The Emperor's mortification must have been extreme;
he concealed it, however, and nothing was more hopeful or
optimistic than the tone of the circular which he caused to be sent
on the 16th of September to the French diplomatic agents abroad.
Its object was to convince the nation and all the world that France
had not been humiliated, nor disappointed, nor disagreeably
surprised, by the late events; on the contrary, that she was perfectly
satisfied with what had happened. As to annexations, France desired
none in which the sympathy of the populations annexed did not go

with her—in which they had not the same customs, the same
national spirit with herself. From the elevated point of view occupied
by the French Government, "the horizon appeared to be cleared of
all menacing eventualities."
THE PALACE, DRESDEN.

CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).
Parliamentary Reform—Mr. Disraeli's Resolutions—Their Text—
Mr. Lowe's Sarcasms—The "Ten Minutes" Bill—Sir John
Pakington's Revelations—Lord John Manners' Letter—Ministerial
Resignations—A New Bill promised—Meeting at Downing Street
—Mr. Disraeli's Statement—The Compound Householder—The
Fancy Franchises—Mr. Gladstone's Exposure—Mr. Lowe and Lord
Cranborne—The Spirit of Concession—Mr. Gladstone on the
Second Reading—Mr. Gathorne Hardy's Speech—Mr. Bright and
Mr. Disraeli—The Dual Vote abandoned—Mr. Coleridge's
Instruction—The Tea-Room Cabal—Mr. Gladstone's Amendment
—His other Amendments withdrawn—Continued Debates and
Divisions—Mr. Hodgkinson's Amendment—Mr. Disraeli's coup de
théâtre—Mr. Lowe's Philippic—The County Franchise—The
Redistribution Bill—Objections to It—The Boundaries—Lord
Cranborne and Mr. Lowe—Mr Disraeli's Audacity—The Bill in the
Lords—Four Amendments—Lord Cairns's Minorities Amendment
—The Bill becomes Law—The "Leap in the Dark"—Punch on the
Situation—The Scottish Reform Bill—Prolongation of the Habeas
Corpus Suspension Act—Irish Debates—Oaths and Offices Bill—
Mr. Bruce's Education Bill—The "Gang System"—Meetings in
Hyde Park—Mr. Walpole's Proclamation and Resignation—
Attempted Attack on Chester Castle—Collapse of the Enterprise
—Attack on the Police Van at Manchester—Trial of the
"Martyrs"—Explosion at Clerkenwell Prison—Trades Union
Outrages at Sheffield—The Crimes of Broadhead—Tailors and
Picketing—The Buckinghamshire Labourers—Distressing
Accidents—Royal Visitors—Foreign Affairs—The French

Evacuation of Mexico—The Luxemburg Question—The London
Conference—Neutralisation of the Duchy—The Austrian
Compromise—Creation of the Dual Monarchy—The Autumn
Session—The Abyssinian Expedition—A Mislaid Letter.
ON the 11th of February, 1867, in pursuance of the pledges given by
the new Ministry in their various speeches before the beginning of
the Session, the House of Commons was once more invited to
consider the question of Reform, under the guidance, however, of
Mr. Disraeli, instead of Mr. Gladstone. The Conservative party
naturally felt somewhat strange to the work; they had turned out the
Liberal Government upon various pleas, all of which they were to
abandon, more or less completely, before the close of the Session of
1867; they had no such traditional or inherited policy to guide them
in framing a popular Reform Bill as the Liberals had; and they had a
dread of the Opposition, which, considering their own conduct
towards the defeated Reform Bill of the preceding year, was,
perhaps, not unreasonable. Still the fact that the whole question had
been already fully canvassed and discussed—that the House had
become familiarised with the details as well as the general principles
of Reform, and that its members had, one and all with more or less
sincerity, it is true, pledged themselves to Reform in some shape or
other—was in their favour. When the pros and cons of the situation
are considered, the course adopted by Mr. Disraeli, in introducing the
subject, seems, at first sight, both natural and ingenious. "We desire
no longer," said the Conservatives, "to risk the settlement of the
whole question upon a question of detail; the House is pledged to
Reform; let us then, instead of dictating to it a definite policy,
instead of bringing in a Bill of our own immediately, endeavour to
ascertain the general sense of the House upon disputed points
before framing it, that we may not frame it in the dark, and meet
the common fate of those Ministries that have hitherto dealt with the
subject." This was the meaning of Mr. Disraeli's famous Resolutions,
which he explained to the House in his opening speech. In this
speech, throughout ingeniously indefinite, the new Chancellor of the
Exchequer provided such men as Mr. Lowe, possessing a keen sense

of humour, with ample food for ridicule. After the resolutions had
been sufficiently debated, Government promised to bring forward a
Bill embodying the general opinion of the House, so far as the
discussions on the resolutions should have enabled them to
ascertain it. Mr. Gladstone, in answer to Mr. Disraeli, reproached
Government with wishing to shift the whole responsibility in the
matter from their own shoulders to those of the House. The principle
of Ministerial responsibility was one sanctioned by long usage, and
was not to be lightly abandoned. With regard to the resolutions
themselves, though at first sight he disliked the plan, he was willing
to give them a fair trial, provided they were not mere vague
preliminary declarations which it would be of no practical advantage
to discuss. The resolutions appeared in the papers next day, and
produced general disappointment. It was felt that Government, in
spite of all their protestations, were really "angling for a policy," and
that they were treating neither the House nor the nation
straightforwardly. The resolutions were as follows:—
1. "That the number of electors for counties and boroughs in
England and Wales ought to be increased.
2. "That such increase may best be effected by both reducing the
value of the qualifying tenement in counties and boroughs, and by
adding other franchises not dependent on such value.
3. "That while it is desirable that a more direct representation should
be given to the labouring class, it is contrary to the Constitution of
this realm to give to any one class or interest a predominating power
over the rest of the community.
4. "That the occupation franchise in counties and boroughs shall be
based upon the principle of rating.
[It will be remembered that it was upon this very question of rating,
as against rental, that the Russell Ministry had been thrown out of
office in the preceding year. After Lord Dunkellin's amendment, the
Conservatives were bound to make the principle of rating a part of
any scheme brought forward by them. How much they were obliged

to modify it before the end of the matter, and how amply justified
Mr. Gladstone's arguments against it were proved to be, will be seen
hereafter.]
5. "That the principle of plurality of votes, if adopted by Parliament,
would facilitate the settlement of the borough franchise on an
extensive basis.
6. "That it is expedient to revise the existing distribution of seats.
7. "That in such revision it is not expedient that any borough now
represented in Parliament should be wholly disfranchised.
8. "That in revising the existing distribution of seats, this House will
acknowledge, as its main consideration, the expediency of supplying
representation to places not at present represented, which may be
considered entitled to that privilege.
9. "That it is expedient that provision should be made for the better
prevention of bribery and corruption at elections.
10. "That it is expedient that the system of registration of voters in
counties should be assimilated as far as possible to that which
prevails in boroughs.
11. "That it shall be open to every Parliamentary elector, if he thinks
fit, to record his vote by means of a polling paper, duly signed and
authenticated.
12. "That provision be made for diminishing the distance which
voters have to travel for the purpose of recording their votes, so that
no expenditure for such purpose shall hereafter be legal.
13. "That a humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying
her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission to form and submit to the
consideration of Parliament a scheme for new and enlarged
boundaries of the existing Parliamentary boroughs where the
population extends beyond the limits now assigned to such
boroughs; and to fix, subject to the decision of Parliament, the
boundaries of such other boroughs as Parliament may deem fit to be
represented in this House."

The House and the country were naturally dissatisfied with such
vague statements as these, and between the 11th and the 25th of
February, when Mr. Disraeli promised something more definite, many
attempts were made to induce Government to declare themselves
more plainly. "The Resolutions of the Government," said Mr. Lowe
later, borrowing a happy illustration from the "Vicar of Wakefield,"
"have no more to do with the plan of the Government than Squire
Thornhill's three famous postulates had to do with the argument he
had with Moses Primrose, when, in order to controvert the right of
the clergy to tithes, he laid down the principles—that a whole is
greater than its part; that whatever is, is; and that three angles of a
triangle are equal to two right angles." However, Mr. Disraeli kept his
secret, in spite of attacks from Mr. Ayrton and arguments from Mr.
Gladstone, till the night of the 25th, when he rose to explain the
resolutions and to suggest certain constructions of them on the part
of Government; a very different thing, it will be understood, from
bringing in a Bill by which the framers of it are bound in the main to
stand or fall. In the first place, then, Government proposed to create
four new franchises—an educational franchise, to include persons
who had taken a university degree, ministers of religion, and others;
a savings bank franchise; a franchise dependent upon the
possession of £50 in the public funds; and a fourth dependent upon
the payment of £1 yearly in direct taxation. By these means the
Government calculated that about 82,000 persons would be
enfranchised. In boroughs the occupier's qualification was to be
reduced to £6 rateable value, and in counties to £20 rateable value—
reductions which it was supposed would admit about 220,000 new
voters. With regard to the redistribution of seats, four boroughs,
convicted of extensive corruption, and returning seven members
between them, were to be wholly disfranchised; and in addition to
these seven members, Mr. Disraeli appealed "to the patriotism of the
smaller boroughs" to provide him with twenty-three more, by means
of partial disfranchisement. The thirty seats thus obtained were to
be divided as follows:—Fifteen new seats were to be given to
counties, fourteen to boroughs (an additional member being given to
the Tower Hamlets), and one member to the London University. The

points of likeness and unlikeness between this scheme and that of
the Liberals in 1866 will be easily perceived by any one who takes
the trouble to examine the two plans.
This meagre and unsatisfactory measure, however, was short-lived;
and the secret history of it, as it was afterwards told by various
members of the Government, affords an amusing insight into the
mysteries of Cabinet Councils. The fact was that before the
beginning of the Session, and during the time that the thirteen
resolutions were lying on the table of the House, two Reform
schemes were under the consideration of Government, "one of
which," said Lord Derby, "was more extensive than the other." When
it was seen that the House would have nothing to say to the
resolutions, and that a Bill must be brought in without delay, it
became necessary to choose between these two schemes. At a
Cabinet meeting on Saturday, February 23rd, the more extensive
one, based upon household suffrage, guarded by various
precautions, was, as it was supposed, unanimously adopted, and Mr.
Disraeli was commissioned to explain it to the House of Commons on
the following Monday, the 25th. The rest of the story may be told in
Sir John Pakington's words. "You all know," he said, addressing his
constituents at Droitwich, "that, on the 23rd of February, a Cabinet
Council decided on the Reform Bill which was to be proposed to
Parliament. On Monday, the 25th, at two o'clock in the afternoon,
Lord Derby was to address the whole Conservative party in Downing
Street. At half-past four in the afternoon of that day—I mention the
hour because it is important—the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
to explain the Reform Bill in the House of Commons. When the
Cabinet Council rose on the previous Saturday, it was my belief that
we were a unanimous Cabinet on the Reform Bill then determined
upon. [Lord Derby, however, afterwards stated that General Peel,
one of the three seceding Ministers, had some time before the
Cabinet of the 23rd expressed his strong objections to the Reform
Bill then adopted, but had consented to waive his objections for the
sake of the unity of the Ministry.] As soon as the Council concluded,
Lord Derby went to Windsor to communicate with her Majesty on

the Reform Bill, and I heard no more of the subject till the Monday
morning. On the Monday, between eleven and twelve o'clock, I
received an urgent summons to attend Lord Derby's house at half-
past twelve o'clock on important business. At that hour I reached
Lord Derby's house, but found there only three or four members of
the Cabinet. No such summons had been anticipated, and
consequently some of the Ministers were at their private houses,
some at their offices, and it was nearly half-past one before the
members of the Cabinet could be brought together. As each dropped
in, the question was put, 'What is the matter? Why are we
convened?' and as they successively came in, they were informed
that Lord Cranborne, Lord Carnarvon, and General Peel had seceded,
objecting to the details of the Bill which we thought they had
adopted on the Saturday. Imagine the difficulty and embarrassment
in which the Ministry found themselves placed. It was then past two
o'clock. Lord Derby was to address the Conservative party at half-
past two; at half-past four Mr. Disraeli was to unfold the Reform
scheme [adopted on the previous Saturday] before the House of
Commons. Literally, we had not half an hour—we had not more than
ten minutes—to make up our minds as to what course the Ministry
were to adopt. The public knows the rest. We determined to
propose, not the Bill agreed to on the Saturday, but an alternative
measure, which we had contemplated in the event of our large and
liberal scheme being rejected by the House of Commons. Whether, if
the Ministry had had an hour for consideration, we should have
taken that course was, perhaps, a question. But we had not that
hour, and were driven to decide upon a line of definite action within
the limits of little more than ten minutes."
In Lord Malmesbury's "Recollections" is to be found a letter from
Lord John Manners, which corroborates this ingenuous confession. "I
am truly sorry," he wrote on February 26th, "to hear of the cause of
your absence from our distracted councils, and hope that you will
soon be able to bring a better account of Lady Malmesbury. I really
hardly know where we are, but yesterday we were suddenly brought
together to hear that Cranborne and Carnarvon withdrew unless we

gave up household suffrage and duality, upon which announcement
Peel said that, although he had given up his opposition when he
stood alone, now he must be added to the remonstrant Ministers.
Stanley then proposed that to keep us together the £6 and £20
rating should be adopted, which, after much discussion, was agreed
to. We have decided to abandon the Resolutions altogether, and to
issue the Boundary Commission ourselves. We are in a very broken
and disorganised condition."
It was soon felt, however, by the Ministry that this condition of
things was unsound, and could not last. The measure explained on
the 25th satisfied neither Conservatives nor Liberals. A large meeting
of Liberals held at Mr. Gladstone's house decisively condemned it;
while from their own friends and supporters Government received
strong and numerous protests against it. What was to be done? Lord
Derby once more called his Government together, and they agreed
to retrace their steps, even at the cost of the three objecting
Ministers. Upon the 4th of March Lord Derby, in the House of Lords,
and Mr. Disraeli, in the Commons, announced the resignation of Lord
Cranborne, Lord Carnarvon, and General Peel (who were replaced by
the Dukes of Richmond and Marlborough and Mr. Corry), the
withdrawal of the measure proposed on the 25th, and the adoption
by Government of a far more liberal policy than that represented.
Both in the House and in the country there were naturally some
rather free criticisms passed upon a Government who, three weeks
before the announcement of a Reform Bill brought forward by them,
had not come to an agreement upon its most essential provisions,
and upon a sudden emergency, and to keep their members together,
adopted and introduced a makeshift measure, which their own sense
of expediency, no less than public opinion, afterwards obliged them
to withdraw. In these marchings and counter-marchings of
Government much valuable time had been thrown away. "No less
than six weeks of the Session," said Lord Grey, "have been wasted
before any step whatever has been taken." The Conservative
leaders, however, vehemently protested that it was no fault of theirs;
and now that the confession had been made, and the three

refractory colleagues got rid of, affairs did at length assume a
businesslike aspect. "It is our business now," said the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, "to bring forward, as soon as we possibly can, the
measure of Parliamentary Reform which, after such difficulties and
such sacrifices, it will be my duty to introduce to the House. Sir, the
House need not fear that there will be any evasion, any
equivocation, any vacillation, or any hesitation in that measure."
In the interval between these Ministerial explanations and the
production of the real Reform Bill in Parliament meetings of their
supporters were held by the lenders of both parties. At a meeting
held in Downing Street on the 15th of March, Lord Derby explained
to 195 members of the Conservative party the distinctive features of
the proposed Bill. Startling as the contemplated changes in the
franchise must have seemed to every Conservative present, only one
dissenting voice was heard—that of Sir William Heathcote, who
declared, in strong terms, that he wholly disapproved of the
measure, and that he believed, if carried out, it would destroy the
influence of rank, property, and education throughout the country by
the mere force of numbers. The scheme, of which only a few
fragments were as yet generally known, was given to the public on
the 18th of March, when Mr. Disraeli described it at much length in
the House. And although the measure at first proposed was so
largely altered in its passage through Parliament that by the time it
had become part of the law of England its original projectors must
have had some difficulty in recognising it as theirs, it is worth while
to take careful note of its various provisions as they were originally
drawn up, that the action of the two great parties engaged
throughout the subsequent struggle may be the more plainly
understood.

LORD MALMESBURY.
(From a Photograph by Elliott & Fry, Baker Street, W.)
The first quarter of Mr. Disraeli's speech was taken up by a review of
the past history of the question—an old and well-known story,
somewhat impatiently listened to by the House. He picked the
various Reform schemes of his predecessors to pieces, and finally
declared that the principle at the bottom of them all—the principle of
value, regulated whether by rental or rating—had been proved by
long experience to be untenable and unpractical, and Government
were now about to abandon it altogether. Nor was Mr. Disraeli slow
to disclose his secret. The very next paragraph of his speech
announced that, in the opinion of Government, any attempt to unite
the principle of value with the principle of rating, any such solution
as a £6 or £5 rating franchise, would be wholly unsatisfactory. In the
boroughs of England and Wales, Mr. Disraeli went on to say, there
were 1,367,000 male householders, of whom 644,000 were qualified

to vote, leaving 723,000 unqualified. Now, if we examined these
723,000, we should find that 237,000 of them were rated to the
poor and paid their rates. So that if the law were changed in such a
manner as to make the borough franchise dependent upon the
payment of rates only, unrestricted by any standard of value, these
237,000 would be at once qualified to vote, making, with the
644,000 already qualified, 881,000 persons in the English and Welsh
boroughs in possession of the franchise. There would still remain
486,000, belonging mostly to the irregular and debatable class of
compound householders—householders paying their rates, not
personally, but through their landlords. Now, since Government
thought that the franchise ought to be based upon a personal
payment of rates, it became a great question as to what was to be
done with these 486,000 compound householders. "Ought the
compound householders to have a vote?" As a compound
householder Government thought he ought not to have a vote. But
he was not to be left altogether in the cold. Ample opportunities
were to be afforded him for raising himself out of the anomalous
position to which the Small Tenements Acts had consigned him. Let
him only enter his name upon the rate-book, and claim to pay his
rates personally; and having fulfilled the constitutional condition
required, he would at once succeed to the constitutional privilege
connected with it. It had been said that the working classes did not
care enough about the suffrage to take so much trouble to obtain it.
"That, however," said Mr. Disraeli, oracularly, "is not the opinion of
her Majesty's Government." Thus 723,000 additional persons might,
if they wished, obtain the franchise under the new Bill. To these
were to be added all those who paid 20s. a year in direct taxes,
whether compound householders or not; while, to prevent the
working classes from swamping the constituencies and nullifying the
influence of the middle and upper classes, Government brought
forward the curious expedient of dual voting. "Every person," said
the Chancellor of the Exchequer," who pays £1 direct taxation, and
who enjoys the franchise which depends upon the payment of direct
taxation, if he is also a householder and pays his rates, may exercise
his suffrage in respect of both qualifications."

The dual vote, however, provoked such hot opposition that, as will
shortly be seen, Government eventually withdrew it. The direct taxes
qualification, Mr. Disraeli calculated, would add more than 200,000
to the constituency; and the three other "fancy franchises," as they
were called—the education franchise, the funded property franchise,
and the savings bank franchise—another 105,000. In all,
Government held out the splendid promise of an addition of more
than 1,000,000 voters to the borough constituency. In counties the
franchise would be lowered to £15 rateable value—a reduction which
would enfranchise about 171,000 additional voters; while the four
lateral franchises mentioned above would bring the number of new
county voters up to about 330,000. With regard to the redistribution
of seats, Government had substantially the same proposals to make
as those originally described to the House on the 25th of February.
Mr. Disraeli, however, vigorously defended them from the charge of
inadequacy which had been brought against them in the interval.
Neither Government nor the country, he said, was prepared to go
through the agitating labour of constructing a new electoral map of
England; and this being the case, all that would be done would be to
seize opportunities as they arose of remedying grievances and
removing inequalities by some such moderate means as those
proposed in the Bill.
Alas! for Mr. Disraeli's figures when they came to be handled by Mr.
Gladstone. Instead of 237,000, it was stoutly maintained by Mr.
Gladstone that scarcely 144,000 would be admitted to the franchise
by extending it to all who personally paid their rates. And as to the
facilities to be offered in such tempting profusion to the compound
householder for obtaining a vote, they amounted to this—that he
was to have the privilege of paying over again that which he had
already paid. It was difficult to believe that he would ever avail
himself of this privilege to any great extent. Practically, the Bill did
nothing for the compound householder; so that, while it would
introduce household suffrage—nay, universal suffrage—into villages
and country towns where there was no system of compounding for
rates, in large towns, like Leeds, with a population of a quarter of a

million, where the majority of the inhabitants were compound
householders, its effect would be little or nothing. In fact, the results
of the Bill, had it been passed as it was originally drawn up, would
have been almost grotesque. In Hull, for instance, where the Small
Tenements Act was almost universally enforced, the number of
personally rated occupiers under the £10 rental who would have
been enfranchised by the Bill would have been 64 out of a
population of 104,873; while in the small borough of Thirsk, where
the system of compounding for rates was not in use, 684 would
have obtained the franchise as personal ratepayers. In Brighton,
where compound householders abounded, the Bill would have
enfranchised 14 out of every 10,000 occupiers under the £10 line;
while in York it would have enfranchised 100 out of every 1,000. The
enfranchising effect of the Bill would have been between "six and
seven times as great in the boroughs not under Rating Acts as in the
others." It is more than probable that in framing their measure
Government foresaw none of these anomalies, and that they were
revealed to them and impressed upon them in the course of debate.
There was, in fact, no adequate knowledge among them of the
working of those complicated details of rating machinery upon which
they made the whole effect of their Bill ultimately depend. With
regard to the secondary franchises—the direct taxes franchise, the
education franchise, etc.,—Mr. Gladstone contended that the figures
quoted by Mr. Disraeli were wholly erroneous and visionary, and that
the new voters it was supposed they would admit were no more
substantial than Falstaff's men in buckram. For himself, he had no
belief in the principle of rating as a bulwark of the Constitution; and
to base the possession of the franchise upon the personal payment
of rates, he thought fundamentally wrong. To the proposition of dual
voting as a safeguard of household suffrage, he declared himself
inflexibly opposed. It could only serve as a gigantic instrument of
fraud, and was nothing less than a proclamation of a war of classes.
And where was the lodger franchise, so highly praised by the
Conservatives in 1859, which all the world had expected to find in
the Bill? If that were added, and the so-called safeguards of dual

voting and personal payment of rates done away with, the Liberal
party would accept the Bill as a whole.
A short debate followed, in which Mr. Lowe reappeared, to do battle
as warmly against the Reform Bill of the Conservatives as he had
formerly waged it against that of the Liberals. Mr. Lowe had been
duped, but he was not yet prepared to confess it. Later, when
concession after concession had been made by Government, and a
far more Radical measure than any Liberal Ministry had ever dreamt
of was on the point of becoming law, Mr. Lowe did indeed make
ample and public confession of his mistake, and loud and bitter were
the expressions of his wrath and mortification. But at this stage of
the matter the "Cave" had still some confidence in Conservative
principles and time-honoured Conservative traditions, and refused to
believe that the party they had helped to put into power would ever
betray them so completely as was afterwards actually the case. They
disliked the Bill and said so; but for some little time they trusted to
the genuine Conservative influence still existing behind the
Ministerial benches for its modification. Lord Cranborne, a seceder
from the Tories, as Mr. Lowe had been from the Liberals, made a
short but energetic attack upon the Bill on this occasion. "If the
Conservative party accept the Bill," he said, "they will be committing
political suicide: household suffrage, pure and simple, will be the
result of it, for no one can put any faith in the proposed safeguards;
and, after their conduct last year, it is not the Conservatives who
should pass a measure of household suffrage."
During the interval between the introduction of the Bill and the
motion for the second reading, an important meeting of the Liberal
party was held at Mr. Gladstone's house on March 21st, to consider
whether opposition should be offered to the second reading. Mr.
Gladstone said, "Since the printing of the Government Bill, having
applied myself day and night to the study of it, I have not the
smallest doubt in my own mind that the wiser course of the two
would be to oppose the Bill on the second reading." He thought,
however, "that the general disposition of the meeting would not bear
him out in that course;" and to maintain the unity of the party, he

was willing to sacrifice his own personal opinion. "If Ministers were
content to abandon the dual voting, and to equalise the privileges
and facilities of the enfranchised in all cases, however the
qualification arose, then the measure might be made acceptable. If
they would not concede these points, then he thought that the
Liberals should not permit the measure to go into committee." It was
already evident that both sides had made up their minds to pass
some kind of Reform Bill during the Session, and that both were
prepared to make concessions rather than offer to the country once
more the pitiable spectacle of a great measure of necessary Reform
overthrown by party spirit and party warfare. Still the Liberals were
determined to wrest certain points from Government; and in his
speech on the second reading (March 25th) Mr. Gladstone thus
summed up the defects in the Bill, which must, he said, be amended
before the Liberals could give in their adhesion to it:—
1. Omission of a lodger franchise. 2. Omission of provisions against
traffic in votes of householders of the lowest class, by corrupt
payment of their rates. 3. Disqualifications of compound
householders under the existing law. 4. Additional disqualifications of
compound householders under the proposed law. 5. The franchise
founded on direct taxation. 6. The dual vote. 7. The inadequate
distribution of seats. 8. The inadequate reduction of the franchise in
counties. 9. Voting papers. 10. Collateral or special franchises. Every
one of these ten points, except the second, was finally settled more
or less in accordance with the demands of the Liberals,—an
instructive comment on the experiment of "government by
minorities," which Mr. Disraeli was making with such great success.
In contradistinction to Lord Cranborne, Mr. Gladstone maintained
that while the Bill seemed on the face of it to be a measure of
household suffrage, it was in reality nothing of the kind; every
concession in it was balanced by a corresponding restriction, and
what it gave with one hand it took away with the other. For the dual
vote he had nothing but hard words: "At the head of the list stand
those favoured children of fortune—those select human beings made
of finer clay than the rest of their fellow-subjects—who are to be

endowed with dual votes. Upon that dual vote I shall not trouble the
House, for I think that my doing so would be a waste of time." And,
indeed, the general opinion of the House had already pronounced so
decidedly against it, that no purpose would have been served by
discussing it at length. Mr. Gladstone went on to declaim afresh
against the fine which the Bill would inflict upon the compound
householder before he could obtain his vote. Then followed an
elaborate and masterly examination of the probable results of the
Bill if passed in its original form. Making use of some important
statistics, the return of which had been lately moved for by Mr. Ward
Hunt, he attacked the Bill as one that would "flood some towns with
thousands of voters, and only add a few in other towns." After
reading a long series of these damaging statistics, Mr. Gladstone
might well ask, "Is it possible that any one on the Treasury benches
can get up in his place, and recommend those clauses respecting the
compound householder with all their anomalies?" Men, however,
were not lacking to defend them, and to defend them with ability
and vigour. Mr. Gathorne Hardy, then Commissioner of the Poor
Laws, after a graceful tribute to the power of Mr. Gladstone's speech,
made out, perhaps, the best case for the Ministerial measure that
had yet been attempted. He denied that the Bill was a Household
Suffrage Bill; the proper name for it was a Rating Franchise Bill; and
so far from excluding anybody, as Mr. Gladstone had tried to prove,
it opened the franchise to every one who chose to claim it. And as to
the "fine" which it was said would be imposed upon the compound
householder by the Bill, he could recover whatever rates he paid
from the landlord—a statement in support of which Mr. Hardy quoted
an Act of Queen Victoria, allowing "any occupier paying any rate or
rates in respect of any tenement where the owner is rated to the
same, to deduct from his rent or recover from his landlord the
amount so paid." The Act, however, did not really bear out Mr.
Hardy's argument, since it only enabled the tenant to recover the
reduced rate, while the Bill obliged him to pay the full rate before
obtaining his vote. The personal payment, of rates, and the two
years' residence clauses, were, he admitted, meant as safeguards

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
testbankfan.com

Database Systems Design Implementation and Management 11th Edition Coronel Solutions Manual

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Database Systems Design Implementation and Management 11th Edition Coronel Solutions Manual (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Database Systems Design Implementation and Management 11th Edition Coronel Solutions Manual