seeking the suffrage is that political power is shifting its basis, that we are in the midst of a transition of which we cannot plainly see the issue, and in a situation at once so obscure and so critical that it is as unprofitable as it is unwise to put further pressure on a Constitution already greatly strained, failing, as Lord Salisbury repeatedly tells us, to do its work. In form, the political system remains as it was; in essence it is becoming very different. Its value has declined; its credit is impaired; and circumstances of a new and unforeseen order have broken its strength and dimmed its glory.

Is it possible, then, that women are flocking in when the fair is over, and wasting worry and substance in buying no more than a poor remainder of the day's business? There is the more ground for circumspection after the experience of the last generation, when, for the Education question, there was the same activity the day after the fair. This country was then, in intellectual matters, at a dividing of the ways. Old systems of education were being discredited. England was proverbially behind other peoples. There were great difficulties in the way of men reformers, tied up by traditions and endowments. But women were absolutely free. They might, supported as they were by the most intelligent men in England, have made experiments in a new path, with the experience of all Europe to assist them. would have meant more intellectual labor, and, for a time, less credit and renown. They chose rather to throw themselves on the dull, old beaten track, for the sake of proving they could walk in it as well as the men. I do not deny that they have won credit in the conventional path they preferred, but a noble opportunity was lost of developing the highest form of intellectual life, of rendering original and conspicuous service to the State, and laying the

It

people of this country under deep obligations to women. We see the result of the whole business now when the question arises as to the form of a University in London, to be the centre of the high intellectual life of this mighty Empire, the expression of its loftiest intelligence. What influence have women had on the higher policy of this, the gravest and noblest of all problems? what counsels have they been able to offer? what has been their ideal? what have they wished the university to be? has there been anybody of opinion among women to be considered-except, indeed, on the point that if any privileges can be got out of the new scheme, women must share in them? Such a situation is almost inconceivable. Its significance cannot be exaggerated.

This sorrowful and humiliating experience is enough to show the grave disadvantages of jumping on the wheel of life, not on its ascending side, but as it takes the downward turn. I ask myself what reason we have to fear that women may snatch the vote at a moment unfortunate for themselves, and of complete indifference to the country?

For amid the great changes to which all institutions are subject, never was there such a transformation scene as we may now see passing under our own eyes in the uses of Parliament and the value of the suffrage. Forty years ago Disraeli showed the Commons their loosening hold on Government: "So you extend the franchise again, and you may go to manhood or universal suffrage, but you will not advance your case. You will have a Parliament then that will entirely lose its command over the Executive, and it will meet with less consideration and possess less influence." He foresaw a House emptied of authority, lying open to a "horde of obscure and selfish me

diocrities, incapable of anything but mischief."

We

Consider for a moment the conditions under which the voting system made its great reputation in England. had a country of very limited extent, perfectly homogeneous in character, no great diversity of occupations, an insular people who, in eight hundred years of uninterrupted family life, had got to settle down comfortably together. There were no railways, no public meetings, no daily press to speak of; public opinion was declared by the directions constituents gave to their members. The delegates of the people had nothing to manage but home affairs-it was a government of the English counties. An independent company ruled India; colonies of English settlers were left pretty much to follow their own way after the disastrous experiment of governing America. Ireland was the one dependency which Parliament undertook to rule, and its incompetence to deal with outside affairs was proved in a tragedy of error and ruin unparalleled in the whole history of civilized peoples. I repeat, the Parliamentary government of England, so far as it was successful, was a government of the English counties.

A system so successful in England was copied over half the world, and with this century began a new career under strange and unforeseen conditions. We have all heard of the unexpected problems raised in America by the mere effect of vast extents of territory and huge masses of people, and that continent has taught us to what noisy helplessness voters in over-large constituencies may be brought. In European countries the representative system is confronted with another difficulty-where opposed races fight their interminable duels, and by solid and immovable conviction steadily vote against one another, with lamentable waste of power and no appreciable reLIVING AGE. VOL. VII. 392

Our

sult. The suffrage, as we in these islands have already demonstrated, is not a system by which it is possible to solve complicated racial problems. Neither of these problems, we may say, seriously touches England. island is no bigger, and our races no more mixed than before. But remember that our race difficulties have not diminished. Observe also that our constituencies are growing vastly bigger; while every increase in size diminishes the value of discussion, and tends, in the experience of all practical men, to bring both arguments and conclusions down to the level of the lowest intellectual group in each assembly.

However, if we can still feel perfect confidence on these two grounds, in which we share the difficulties of other nations, consider the yet more formidable problem of our own which has arisen in the course of this generation. When the Queen came to the throne we had an empire of seven millions of square miles and over 250 millions of people. We have now an empire of twelve millions or so of miles and 400 millions of people. Our colonies were once English. The vast majority of the new subject races we have now annexed are of alien blood. We were once an insular Power; we have now created a huge land frontier touching the dominions of every European State. It is evident that the government which served the English counties is not a fit government for a British Empire of this sort. So clear is the fact that it is fast transforming the whole position of Parliament and the uses of representation. Parliament overburdened, consciously ignorant, wholly unfitted for imperial government, is quietly handing over its responsibilities to the various bureaux and the two front benches, and scarcely covers its gradual extinction of responsibility by a few swelling phrases. Every ten years sees something more withdrawn from its control.

India is taken from it. Foreign affairs are taken from it. West Africa was withdrawn from it last year. South Africa, if we may trust some very significant statements, is fast being withdrawn. All the English colonies have been withdrawn in the course of this reign. Not only so, but observe that both Houses of Parliament have abandoned legislation. The last attempt to carry any serious reform by Act of Parliament was the Education Act of 1892, and the experience will probably never be repeated; since then a few tentative, cautious Bills, very short, very obscure, for fear of adding a word where every word is disputed, are all that a government, whatever be its majority, can venture on; while private Bills are altogether ended. The yearly books which embody the laws of Parliament have shrunk from substantial volumes to unconsidered pamphlets; and the bureaux, who know their business, administer as best they can by ingenuity and dexterous management, above all things avoiding the 'need of fresh legislation. The government of England, in fact, is being transformed from a parliamentary to a bureaucratic government. No wonder that parties are disorganized, traditions overthrown, and men bewildered under the influence of this tremendous change. The Mother of Parliaments in her old age is very seriously disturbed. The indifference of the coun'try to her proceedings is complete; and for some years no one has cared what she said so long as she was obedient to the bureaux.

One useful function the Houses of Parliament will still perform, as Assemblies for asking questions. A great constitutional lawyer, Mr. Butt, warned the House of Commons a quarter of a century ago of what was coming. Parliament, he said, was abandoning all its other functions, but still remained the Grand Inquest of the na

tion; and Disraeli at once seized on this statement as the expression of the real truth. Remember, however, that to help in this very great work of turning public opinion on the obscure and gloomy offices of the bureaux, it is not necessary to have a vote. All that is necessary is to have knowledge, convictions and intelligence.

It is during this astounding decline in the position of Parliament that the agitation of women to have a vote for its members has reached its greatest height. You will say, perhaps, that women will, by their zeal, restore Parliament to its original authority and distinction. To do that you will have to roll back the tide of history; you must cut off the Empire and brave that terrifying nickname of "Little Englanders;" you must diminish the population by many millions; you must get back to a more sober England than we now know; cut off the sources of a wealth more excessive than the world has ever seen before; reduce the enormous leisured class, and bring it again under the discipline of work, even of poverty; check the extravagant individualism of the time and its hysterical emotions-in a word, women, who of all classes are the very embodiment of the Zeitgeist, have got to put the Zeitgeist down and trample it under their feet. It is a miracle I do not expect.

You will argue, however, that social and labor questions remain to Parliament, and that in these you can take your part and teach the Commons to benefit England if they cannot rule the Empire.

We may leave aside for the moment the vexed question of the effect of legislation on labor as distinguished from the natural growth of wealth, the work of trade unions and public opinion; above all, the rise of good leaders -for the slaves of Bristol traders were not freed, nor prisoners cared for, nor factory children protected because

pable of great affairs, help to remedy the chief errors of their country, and abate all sufferings of its subject peoples. If we neglect such work as lies The Nineteenth Century.

ready to our hand, how can we certainly know that the Vote will turn our Hearts and inflame our Intelligence? Alice Stopford Green.

The attack made in Brussels upon the Prince of Wales might have been a tragedy; it was a solemn farce, and the foolish Sipido's preposterous adventure is only memorable because it reminds us that Anarchy is still a genuine danger to the State. Happily the Anarchist is a fumbler, more inclined to suicide than to murder, and so long as he played with explosives it would have been sound to advocate a policy of "one Anarchist one Bomb." But the monstrous society, which preaches death, has of late discountenanced the indiscriminate use of infernal machines, and the murder of President Carnot six years since proved that the knife is more deadly than dynamite. Yet, while the implements change, the assassin remains at once wicked and futile. As he works underground, it is difficult to foresee his villainy, while it is impolitic to flatter his love of advertisement by a premature prosecution. All that Governments can do is to see that the Anarchist, when he is caught, has the briefest trial and the severest sentence that can be devised. For, after blood, he best loves publicity, and since his attacks can only be met by knowledge, it is worth while to attempt an analysis of his character.

The Anarchist, then, is a ruffian of feeble brain and weak inclination, who is pursued by a spirit of restless discontent. Sorry for himself, he believes, by an easy transition, that he is sorry for his fellows; and it is this sham sympathy, rooted in selfishness, which

generally wins for him the credit of amiability. When Caserio was charged with a useless murder, a dozen witnesses readily swore to the kindliness of his heart, and we are not surprised that Sipido, too, is reputed a miracle of good nature. So the discontent which he fondly construes into a general love of the human race, drives the Anarchist to attempt reform, and for himn reform means death. Indeed, so narrow is his brain, that he can conceive no other remedy for a trifling ill than murder; he would wipe out a spot of dust with blood, and his one war-cry is Kill, kill, kill! In other words, his diseased intelligence forbids him to understand the link which binds cause and effect. He recognizes his poverty, and believes that a change of system will ameliorate it; but he can imagine no method of changing a system which appears irksome, save the death of an innocent man. That is to say, he does not understand the rules of Society's game; he is like a man who would be taken for a gentleman, and yet cheats at cards. So he rushes into the street, armed with dynamite or dagger, and finds heroism in a lupine brutality.

Hence it follows that he is of a sanguine disposition. He is of those who hope always that the wickedness of to-day will be overlooked by the mercy of the morrow, and, in truth, nothing need appear hopeless to the brain which detects in an unreasoned crime a cure for poverty. As he is, so is his aspect. His san