evil have met with little or no success, and there is reason to fear that, unless great care is taken, the evil may grow with each fresh extension of the suffrage. A veteran reformer, Mr. Baines, who for years devoted himself with unflagging zeal to secure a reduction of the borough franchise, speaking in the House of Commons soon after the last Reform Act was passed, said that as the constituency of Leeds, the borough he represented, had increased from 7,000 to 35,000, a great addition would be made to the necessary expenses of an election; and he expressed his conviction that this increase of election expenses would be more prejudicial to the constituencies than to candidates, for a greater evil could not be inflicted on the constituencies than to reduce the number of those who might be fairly and justly called upon to represent them.'5 Various proposals have from time to time been brought forward with the object of reducing the cost of elections. Hardly any of these, however, have been adopted by the House of Commons, and it is probable that Parliament will not take the question seriously in hand until the public more generally recognise the importance of the subject. It has often been suggested that the necessary expenses of conducting a Parliamentary election should be borne, as is now the case in municipal and School Board elections, by the constituencies and not by the candidates. Although the direct saving which would result to the candidates would be considerable, yet other and more important advantages might not improbably be secured, if such an arrangement were adopted. What is required in order to diminish the cost of elections is not so much a change in the law as a change in public opinion, and such a change in the law as is here suggested might gradually produce a marked change in the relations existing between constituencies and their representatives. It is almost hopeless to expect that anything really effectual in the matter can be done so long as the idea generally prevails that a candidate for a seat in Parliament is asking a favour from a constituency for which he ought to be willing to pay. Such a sentiment is undoubtedly encouraged by the existing law, for if the candidates have to pay the expenses of a Parliamentary election while the constituencies pay the expenses of a municipal election, the conclusion is not unnaturally drawn that in the former instance the candidates are trying to obtain some advantage for themselves for which they may be called upon to pay, whereas in the latter case the constituencies are endeavouring to obtain some one to discharge a public service, and consequently the expense is borne, not by those who do the work, but by those for whom the work is done. It has been sometimes objected that if the necessary expenses of an election were borne by the constituencies, fictitious candidates who were anxious to advertise themselves might come forward, and that this would lead to vexatious and unnecessary contests. Such a contingency, however, might easily be provided against. At the time each candidate was nominated, he

5 Hansard, July 18, 1868.

might be called on to deposit a certain sum-say 100l. or 200l.-on the condition that this deposit would be forfeited by a candidate who failed to obtain a sufficient number of votes to show that he had a reasonable chance of success. The real obstacle, however, which has stood in the way of the adoption of this proposal by the House of Commons is the fear which members seem to entertain of the unpopularity they might incur if they transferred a charge from themselves to their constituents. It would of course be possible to represent the conduct of any member who voted for such a proposal in this light, but, having myself brought forward the question on several occasions in the House of Commons, I can with confidence say that members have little or nothing to fear if their motives should be thus misrepresented. The charge which would be thrown upon he ratepayers would, with proper economy, be most insignificant. Thus in the borough of Cambridge, although there was a close contest at the last election, it was shown from the published returns that the returning officer's expenses, spread over the average period which elapses from one election to the other, would, if borne by the constituency, require a contribution from the occupier of a 10l. house of less than one halfpenny a year-even supposing the expenses remained as large as they now are. They would, however, in all probability be greatly reduced if the money were contributed by the ratepayers, who would thus have a direct interest in economy. It is, I believe, doing the people of this country great injustice to suppose that, in order to avoid making so infinitesimal a contribution, they would oppose a measure which can be defended alike on grounds of fairness and expediency. Those who have voted for the enfranchisement of all ratepayers cannot think that those thus enfranchised are so little qualified to exercise the suffrage as to be incapable of appreciating the importance of allowing no barriers to impede the return to Parliament of those who may not happen to be able or willing to spend a large sum of money in an election. This is a question in which many of the poorest electors have a special interest. Whatever may be said about the disadvantages of having members returned as mere class representatives, no satisfactory reason has ever yet been given why, when almost every great interest in the country is represented, when bankers, shipowners, manufacturers, the army, the navy, railways, gas and water companies, have all their representatives, the interests of labour should not be far more largely represented than they are. Working men when they have to listen to the many homilies that are addressed to them about the evils of class representation may fairly ask-How would the manufacturers of Lancashire and Yorkshire like to be entirely represented in Parliament by operatives? How would the owners of land like to entrust their interests solely to tenant farmers? Experience shows that the working men who may be returned to the House of Commons need not in any single respect be more influenced by mere class considerations than are othe,

r

members. In one of the most important debates which have taken place in recent years in the House of Commons-I refer to the occasion when the Afghan policy of the Government was considered-I believe it will be generally admitted that few more effective speeches were made, and certainly none that were conceived in a broader spirit, than the speech that was delivered by Mr. Burt.

Besides the change in the law with regard to the necessary expenses of elections which has been just considered, it is possible to suggest many other ways in which the present cost of elections might be reduced. When the ballot was first introduced, many confidently hoped that there would be so little use in canvassing that paid canvassers and paid agents would in future scarcely ever be employed. The expectations thus formed have unfortunately been so entirely disappointed, that it is believed that in many constituencies at the last election a larger amount was spent than had ever been expended before on paid canvassers and paid agents. It not unfrequently happens that the payments which are thus made simply represent a legalised form of bribery, for, although any elector who is paid as a canvasser or an agent is unable to vote, yet the money which he receives often prevents him voting on the other side, and secures many votes from his family and connections. So far as I am aware, no valid reason has ever been given why the number of paid agents which a candidate should be allowed to employ should not be restricted within very narrow limits, and why the use of paid canvassers should not be prohibited altogether. If a man has any claim to represent a constituency, he ought to have no difficulty in making his qualifications known, either by his own speeches or through the efforts of his friends, and there is something derogatory both to the candidate and to the constituency in the fact that it should be thought necessary to employ canvassers at two or three guineas a day who, often having no interest in the election except as to the amount of money which they receive, are perfectly reckless in the assertions they make and the pledges they give on behalf of the candidate by whom they are employed.

Reference has already been made to another circumstance which exercises a very powerful influence in increasing the cost of county elections. In boroughs it is not legal to pay the travelling expenses of any absent voter. As many of the electors in a county constituency are non-resident, the law with regard to counties is different. The travelling expenses of any elector may be paid at a county election, and the published returns show that the charges thus thrown upon the candidate for a county seat often amount to as much as 2,000l. or 3,000l. One advantage of imposing some limitation upon the ease with which those who are non-resident can now obtain votes for counties, would be that it would destroy one of the chief arguments which are adduced in favour of maintaining the legality of the payment of the travelling expenses of county voters, and in this way a

very important diminution in the cost of county elections would be effected.

In endeavouring to direct attention to some of the questions which will have to be considered whenever a measure is brought forward for the extension of household suffrage to the counties and the redistribution of seats, I have carefully avoided discussing the subject with any party bias. It is not possible, I believe, to foresee the effect which many of the changes which have been suggested would have upon the balance of political parties. Whenever any such attempt has been made thus to anticipate the future it has generally signally failed. Some of those who were regarded as the shrewdest political observers confidently supposed, when the last Reform Act was passed, that the newly enfranchised borough householders would, prompted by a feeling of gratitude, give a large majority to the Conservative Government. The general election of 1868, however, resulted in the greatest triumph for the Liberal party that had been won for nearly forty years. During the Reform debates in 1867 the opinion was very generally expressed that the minority vote would prove of great advantage to the Conservative party. At the general election of 1874, however, there is every reason to conclude that through the operation of the minority clause the Liberals only lost a seat in one constituency, Glasgow ; while they gained a seat in each of the four boroughs of Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester, and the City of London, as well as a seat in each of the following seven counties: Berkshire, Bucks, Cambridgeshire, Dorsetshire, Hertfordshire, Herefordshire, and Oxfordshire. Again, it was always contended that the ballot would be a great advantage to the Liberals, and that one of its most certain effects would be to free the counties from the influence of the landowners. In the first election that was fought under the ballot the Liberals sustained a signal defeat, and in no previous election did the power of the landed interest more decisively assert itself in the county constituencies. But even if it were possible to foresee what would be the immediate party result of any proposed change in our representative system, other considerations incalculably more important have to be taken into account in determining what principles ought to regulate a measure of Parliamentary reform. Electoral arrangements which one year may prove advantageous to Conservatives may next year prove equally advantageous to Liberals. There is, however, no fluctuation and no uncertainty in the benefit. which will be conferred on the nation in having its system of representation placed upon a just basis. All who care more for the permanent efficiency of Parliamentary institutions than for a temporary party triumph should unite in trying to give to every section of opinion in the community the opportunity of being represented by those who are most able and independent.

HENRY FAWCETT.

BURNS AND BERANGER.

THE second half of the eighteenth century, which produced several poets of the highest genius, whose works promise to be the imperishable heritage of future generations, also gave birth to two poets of a secondary rank, who exercised over the minds of their contemporaries a far greater influence and achieved a wider popularity than their gigantic compeers. Not that popularity is either the test or the reward of genius. Punch and Judy is a more popular play than Hamlet or Othello, and the waxen figures at Madame Tussaud's excite more admiration from the multitude than the masterpieces of Phidias or Canova. But these two poets were popular on their merits, and not only adorned the literature of the age in which they lived, but left their works as monuments for a future time. The first was Robert Burns, the idol of the Scotch, and representative of all that is most manly in the Scottish character. The second was Jean-Pierre de Béranger, the idol and representative of the French. Wordsworth says of the Sonnet that with that key Shakespeare unlocked his heart." With a less elaborate but more perfect instrument, the Song, Burns unlocked the hearts of his countrymen of every rank and condition; and Béranger charmed the fancy and guided the judgment of a less earnest but highly accomplished and generous people.

These remarkable men owed nothing to parentage or fortune; and if they owed something to culture it was not to scholastic training, but to the education which they painfully acquired for themselves in the school of poverty and suffering, and to the innate force of character which enabled them not only to triumph over obstacles that to inferior men would have been insurmountable, but to turn them to account in the formation of their minds and the development of their genius. The one was the son of a sturdy, independent gardener and farm-labourer, the other of a thriftless idler inhabiting the slums of Paris, too poor to support a household, and dependent on his father for the board and shelter he ought to have provided for himself. Born under such adverse circumstances, they had both of them to toil from boyhood to manhood for the scanty bread that did not always come when earned, fighting a desperate battle for bare subsistence against a world in which their presence did not appear to be needed,