laws, one relating to England, and the other to Scotland. Neither of the Bills dealt with the question of one man one vote, and there was no proposal to pass any measure of redistribution along with them. Both Bills were dropped. The object of the English Bill was to reduce the period of qualification from twelve months to three months, changing the date of termination of the qualifiying period from 15th July to 24th June, and withdrawing the necessity for claiming in the case of lodgers. It also provided for successive occupation with different qualifications within the same electoral area, and proposed to do away with rating as a requisite of qualification. The Scottish Bill made similar provisions. The provisions of this Bill, which would have had the greatest effect, were two in number. Clause one proposed to reduce the qualifying period from twelve months to three months, changing the date of termination of the qualifying period from 31st July to 3rd September. The effect of this would have been twofold. It would have anticipated one whole year's new voters, who would have got on the roll a year earlier than under the existing law, and in this way it would have increased every register by a number of probably from 10 to 15 per cent. of its present strength. These voters so added to the register would, however, have been of the same class and the same complexion as the old voters. They would have got on under the existing system, only it would have been a year later. In addition to these there would have been a certain number of the floating and residual population, who are never more than a few months in the same locality, and who never obtain votes at all under the existing system, but whom the provisions of the Bill would have enabled to get upon the register. It is to be noted that, according to the proposal in the Bill, a person would have been qualified to be enrolled before he has paid either rent or taxes for the qualifying premises. Now, there is much to be said for the view that the opinion of the majority of the permanent residents in a constituency ought not to be overborne by that of a temporary or migratory population, and that this can be secured only by requiring a year's residence to qualify. Moreover, if the period were shortened in the way proposed by the Bill, great difficulty would be experienced in the work of registration, and there would be likelihood of serious errors, and ample opportunity for fraud. At the same time it must be admitted that the period necessary to qualify a voter according to the existing law, so long as at present there is no provision for successive qualifications through different constituencies, is too long. The real grievance, however, would be removed if facilities were given to voters who have once been enrolled in any constituency according to the existing law, to be transferred on their removing

to another constituency, without the necessity of residing in the new constituency for the period at present required by law. Clause two of the Bill proposed to repeal the disqualification at present existing for non-payment of poor rates, assessed taxes, and consolidated or other rates. franchise is concerned, the disqualification for non-payment of So far as the Parliamentary poor rates is the only one that applies. At the same time, very serious objections exist to the change in connection with other franchises; it is a departure from the policy affirmned so recently as in the Local Government Act of 1889; and it is likely to prejudicially affect the efficient and economical working of local institutions. The repeal of the disqualification for non-payment of poor rates will add a very large number to the Parliamentary electoral rolls, especially in the larger burgh constituencies. The proportion which the number of those at present disqualified bears to the number of those at present enrolled varies in different constituencies. Thus to take the figures for the year 18921 applicable to the Parliamentary franchise in Stirlingshire, where the constituency numbers 13,112, 1406 were disqualified for failure to pay poor rates, while in the two divisions of Ayrshire, whose constituencies number 27,173, only 818 were so disqualified. The largest number disqualified are in the larger towns. There were disqualified in Edinburgh 3630, in Glasgow 18,451, in Dundee 6274, in Greenock 3399, and in Paisley 2933. It is obviously idle to pretend that the majority or even a large proportion of these persons so disqualified, who, it must be observed, are all adult inen and householders-fail to pay the shilling or two of poor rate required of them annually through inability by reason of poverty to pay.

Now, it is sometimes asked why voters should be disfranchised for not paying their poor rates. In every benefit society members in arrear are not allowed to take part in the proceedings, and if they do not pay up, their names are struck off. No doubt non-payment may result from innocent misfortune, but that makes no difference. The society could not be carried on without general rules, and general rules must be applied generally. In the same way the government of the State could not be carried on unless people paid their rates and taxes. Nonpayment may, no doubt, result from innocent misfortune, but there must be a general rule, and it is impossible to distinguish individual cases. Those who do not pay their rates owing to improvidence, dissipation, or wilful neglect of civic duty, cannot be allowed to throw the burden of the rates which they fail to pay upon their honest neighbours, many of whom can ill afford to bear them, and then to help to make laws which may have

1 For full particulars see Parliamentary Return, Rates-Non-payment (Scotland), No. 155, 30th March 1893.

the effect of still further raising the rates. Poverty is no crime, but no working man's institution or club in the world allows those who fail to pay their subscription to get inside the doors. There are, however, certain

ANOMALIES OF THE FRANCHISE,

which call much more for real reform than the plural vote, or the length of the period required for qualification. There are different franchises for Parliamentary elections, municipal elections (the roll for these includes women), School Board elections, Poor Law elections, and County Council elections. Taking the Parliamentary franchise of the United Kingdom by itself, there are many anomalies. An owner in the county may reside anywhere, an owner in a borough must reside in the borough, or within seven miles of it. A person may remove from one division of a borough to another without losing his vote. A person removing from one division of a county to another loses his vote for a year. A householder who removes from one part of a constituency to another does not lose his vote; if he remove from one constituency to another, it may be only across the street, he loses his vote for a year. A lodger on the roll loses his vote for a year if he becomes a householder. These are only a few of many anomalies. The Government Bill only proposed to remove one or two; the great bulk of these anomalies and grievances it proposed to leave unredressed. But perhaps the most unfair thing in connection with the Bill was that it was unaccompanied with any proposal for redistribution of seats. If the Bill had been passed, it is estimated that in Scotland there would have been added to the roll no less than 150,000 voters. Surely redistribution of seats would have been absolutely necessary.

In connection with the reform of registration laws there is another question that is worthy of notice, namely, that of

ILLITERATE VOTERS.

In England and Scotland the proportion of illiterate voters to the total electorate is rapidly diminishing. Those who are illiterate are chiefly Irish, and here, as in Ireland, these are

1 In Scotland there are some very remarkable anomalies. A person who occupies a £4 house may vote in a School Board election whether he has paid his poor rates or not, but may not vote for a Parliamentary election unless he has paid his poor rates. A person who occupies a £3 house may vote for a member of Parliament or of a County Council, but not for a member of a School Board. A lodger or a person who has a qualification under the service franchise may vote in Parliamentary, municipal, or County Council elections, but not in School Board elections.

under the domination of the priesthood. The question is presenting itself, whether steps should not be taken to prevent priests from having a large number of votes under their individual control. The operation of this priestly control in Ireland is explained, supra, p. 150. It is urged by some that illiterates ought to mark their own papers. If they cannot read, it is said they can count, and the order in which the names will appear on the ballot-paper is always known beforehand. At any rate, it would appear to be perfectly fair, in these days of free education, to treat every one who cannot, through ignorance, mark a ballot paper, as unfit to acquaint himself with, and give an intelligent vote on, political questions.

THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY AND PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

To whom must we look for a fair and thorough measure of reform, if there is to be reform at all? The Reform Bill of 1832 was a Liberal measure. It did not enfranchise the working classes; it disfranchised some working men and enfranchised the middle classes. The Reform Bill of 1867 was a Conservative measure. By it the household suffrage was introduced in the burghs, and to this measure every working man who votes in a burgh constituency owes his vote. The Reform Settlement of 1884 was a joint one shared in by both Liberals and Conservatives. Since then the Unionists have passed measures removing the voting disqualification of policemen, and securing that soldiers, sailors, and the like shall not lose their franchise rights by absence from home in the exercise of their duties. Conservatives and Unionists have dealt more liberally with the franchise in the past than the Gladstonians, and if real redress of grievances in connection with the franchise and registration is wanted, the Unionists must be looked to for it. Certainly, if there is to be a Reform Bill at all, let it be a genuine reform, redressing real grievances, and not merely an attempt to jerrymander the constituencies to suit the necessities of a party.

CHAPTER XXV.

THE UNITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE EMPIRE.

IT is the fortune of the people of this country to be the owners and trustees of the largest empire which the world has ever known. The area of the earth is estimated at 51,238,800 square miles. The British Empire (including 2,240,000 square miles of spheres of influence) contains 11,355,057 square miles. The population of the earth in 1890 was 1,467,900,000 souls, that of the British Empire 366,642,105. The area of Russia is 8,644,100 square miles; the population in 1888 was 113,354,649. The area of the United States is 3,499,027 square miles; the population in 1890 was 62,622,250. France and her foreign possessions have an area of 3,019,080 square miles, and a population of 68,739,196. The German Empire, with its foreign possessions, has an area of 1,144,310 square miles, and a population of 52,355.704.

Thus the British Empire has nearly one-fifth and the Russian Empire nearly one-seventh of the area of the globe, while the population under the flag of the Queen approaches one-fourth of the inhabitants of the earth, that of Russia being between one-twelfth and one-thirteenth. Ours is an empire which possesses every variety of soil and climate, and produces within its borders almost every article of food and luxury. It has the capacity of being "self-supporting, self-supplying, and selfdefending."

It is certain that never before was there an empire, not only of such an extent, but comprising men of so many colours, races, and traditions, held together by so small a military force, and ruled with so constant a regard to the welfare of the governed. History shows that a nation or an empire can no more stand still than can an individual, and that when states cease to grow they commence to decay. A few years ago it was a favourite doctrine that the burdens and responsibilities of the empire were already too heavy for the back of the British people to bear. The outcry was evidence that the statesmen who sought to rule them by proclaiming this were themselves weak-kneed, but it has been disproved by the facts that annexation was forced upon those who denounced it, and that while