66

qualification long after the Union had assumed its present form. Ultimately, as Jefferson and his colleagues doubtless foresaw, universal suffrage prevailed, and there can be no doubt that many of the constitutional provisions were adopted as safeguards against possible danger from that quarter. The President is irremovable and possesses a veto, which it requires a two-thirds vote to override; the members of the Cabinet, although their nominations must be confirmed by the Senate in the first instance, are responsible only to the President, and independent altogether of Congress, like English judges, quamdiu sese bene gesserint; and the Senate itself was obviously designed as a bulwark against assaults from the popular side. Then, again, above all sits the Supreme Court, with its unprecedented jurisdiction over the action of Congress; and although this tribunal was no doubt established to arbitrate between the central government and the States, so as to protect the sovereignty" of the latter, it is essentially a conservative institution. In Canada, we occupy a middle position between the mixed monarchical democracy of England and the uncontrollable pantocracy of the United States. Our system is framed on the English model --for have we not a House of Lords, such as it is?—yet there are obvious differences between the two, in practice, if not in theory. For our present purpose, the qualification required of a voter in Canada may be taken to be the same as that which confers the borough franchise in England under the Act of 1867, and the inquiry remains :-What are the peculiar weaknesses and dangers attending the system, and how may they be overcome? One thing is certain, that, even if we find ourselves in the desert, there is no use in hankering after the flesh-pots of Egypt. The franchise once conceded cannot be taken away; we may go forward, but we cannot go back. Those who would be disfranchised are not likely to submit to the withdrawal of the boon; and they would be much to blame if they did. Whether the concession was wise or not, is a matter of opinion. Some Englishmen are lamenting over the glories of the past as earnestly as if by some legerdemain it could be transmuted into the future. It is possible that, in England, under the somewhat reckless whip of Mr. Disraeli, the coach has been going down hill too fast; still it has not yet

been upset as "Johnny" once upset the party drag. The cords have been lengthened, and the only desirable thing now is to strengthen the stakes. The infirmities and dangers of a widely-extended franchise are two-fold, those arising from the character of the electorate as a voting mass, and those which impair the efficiency of government by swamping the talent, the culture, and it may be, the integrity of the country.

In the first place, it is obvious that every addition to the constituency involves the taking in of an increment of lower intelligence and inferior education and judgment. There is no ground for alarm in this evident fact per se, for although the value of the franchise, as an educator, has perhaps been valued too highly, it nevertheless is an educator of no mean importance. Certainly if you refuse it to any class having a reasonable claim to enjoy it, on the ground that they are not yet intelligent enough to exercise the privilege judiciously, and on that ground only, you make a great mistake. The man who proposes to wait until he can get ideal electors out of any stratum of unenfranchised society, will wait for ever, and wait in vain. The sole question to be asked is-Are these classes sufficiently intelligent to know their duty, or sufficiently docile to be taught it? If so, then their admission to political privileges, notwithstanding temporary trouble and inconvenience, will strengthen the nation, and they should be admitted. The matter, as was before observed, resolves itself into a question of expediency and, in the natural march of events is only a question of time. Every portion of the people, above the "residuum," will ultimately obtain the privilege of voting, unless we mistake the signs of the times; representative government means progress, and therefore people may as well reconcile themselves to the inevitable. The agricultural labourers of England will as certainly be enfranchised within the next decade, as the artizans in the boroughs have already been, and therefore, the pressing duty of the hour, in England, is, so to elevate them mentally, morally, and socially, as to make them worthy, or at least promising members of the electorate when the time arrives for their admission.

No apprehension for the future, therefore, need be entertained, so far as the essentials of civic institutions are concerned; and the

or unheeded. The net results of our extended franchise, for the present are, a mass of humanity struggling to the light, and a herd of Polyphemuses satisfying them with smoky torches in the cavern, the guides ultimately, or perhaps from the first, as blind as those they essayed to lead into the azure. The weaknesses then, so far as the electorate is concerned, are, want of political instinct or training, want of judgment, want of appreciation, where culture is concerned, fused into one base metal by the amalgam of flattery. Upon the rulers of the people, especially upon the representative assemblies, the results have been eminently disastrous. To whatever cause it may be attributed, there can be no question about the deterioration of statesmanship in all English-speaking countries. Having purposely avoided speaking particularly of Canadian politics hitherto, we shall not ask, Where are the giants that were in the old days? But where in our own England, in this her hour of possible peril, are peace-makers like Walpole or Fox, or war Ministers like Chatham, or Canning, or even Palmerston? Where are the orators of England -its Burkes, its Sheridans, its Windhams, and all the other brilliant names not yet forgotten? One man only, survives as a scion of the old stock; and Mr. Gladstone, great as he is in most things, and weak in some, is the best-abused man in the kingdom. There are at present many able men, and even a larger number of conscientious men still, but none of them ever rises to the moral dignity of the ex-Premier. Whilst Mr. Disraeli, his senior in age, was setting off childish squibs of his own, brilliantly devised by the irregular fancy of an ill-directed genius, the only living statesman, whose pupil is Mr. Disraeli's Chancellor of the Exchequer, was sitting at the feet of depart ing Gamaliels.

In the United States, the outlook is not promising; what has been the past we know. The Van Burens, the Tylers, the Polks, the Pierces, the Buchanans, and, we must now add, the Grants, have degraded the government of the Republic. No Clay, Webster, Calhoun, or even Seward, has filled the chair during the last half-century; they who have are mediocrities all. Lincoln, in peace times, would not have been a Grant certainly, but he might just as well have been for all the intelligent electorate knew about

him. They, or Providence, turned up a trump card, and thus, in some mysterious way or other, according to some law which Buckle failed to discover, and Tyndall may live to the end of another century without finding out, the man was found when the hour came. Lincoln's case, however, was an exceptional one: the general rule of survival of the unfittest remains.

The problem then may be briefly stated thus :-Let the franchise be extended as widely as the security of government and a due regard to its ultimate objects may permit, how may the superior advantages-we do not say rights or claims-of cultured statesmanship be conserved? Or, to put it in another form, how may we combine the broadest popular basis with any adequate representation of the organizing thought of the leisured and thoughtful class? It is evident that there is a division of labour here which is ultimately of benefit to both parties. Non omnia possumus omnes, and most of us feel the necessity of guidance in leadership in all beyond the stretch of everyday thought. The ordinary elector has his work before him; the struggle for existence is his first duty, no doubt, and if he is not as well instructed as his teachers and preachers may desire, it does not at all follow that he is self-satisfied and stupid; he is only uninterested. In such a state of society, there is an imperative necessity binding upon the culture of the country to look after its own interests, not in the selfish sense, for there is nothing morally self-seeking in intellect, except that which is imported into it by immoral bias, but because its interests are coincident with the best interests of the community. It would, of course, be absurd to undertake a proof of the advantage which cultured ability gives to free governments-that is conceded, the only remaining difficulty being how to secure it in the sphere of government.

Mr. Walter Bagehot, in the paragraph immediately preceding the one quoted, recognizes, as all his predecessors have done, the crucial difficulty. For the present we intend, indeed space forbids any other course, to leave the matter as it stands, merely repeating the solutions suggested with one or two observations. Mr. Hare's system is one which commends itself to an intellectual man at the first blush, but we are not so sure that, as at present formulated, it

would be even comprehensible to the electorate at large. The other schemes may well be reserved for another opportunity. There is only an opportunity here for hinting at what we intended to show at length, that Canada, without endangering the peace of the Dominion or unsettling the foundations of her constitution, may put to the proof some of those suggestions on behalf of culture and intellect, as opposed to the brute uniformity of numbers, which have been advanced by every publicist from the dawn of Rome's organizing power until the latest magazine article, In Canada we have unexceptional opportunities. There is no absolutely crass and ignorant peasantry amongst us. Our people, high and low, may, on the whole, compare with any community on the face of the globe. There are no class interests to be consulted, whatever may be said of trade interests-" we are each of all, and all of one another." Here then is the most favourable opportunity that could be imagined for introducing culture as an element of government. Without contracting the franchise, without following the fatal example of France and America in the matter of theorizing, it is our conviction that in Canada a solution may be indicated, and its steps marked out with some confidence of success.

The Minister of Justice has once more got himself into trouble by a commutation. Mr. Blake's regime has been eminently the reign of mercy, and in our opinion, rightly SO. Moreover, it has been consistent; whether present or absent, a uniform principle may always be found underlying the exercise of the royal prerogative. Simply stated it amounts to this-that the death penalty, however nccessary its infliction may be in some cases, should be exacted with great caution, and only on clear evidence, not merely of guilt, but of sanity. In the case of Ward, the matter is set at rest by an autopsy of the brain-the man was cerebrally diseased, and that should finish the argument. It appears, however, that it does not. The Globe, which has constitued itself the organ of Jack Ketch, elevates the gallows, now that the party "standard" needs it no longer. The Blake influence in the Privy Council, since the admission of Mr. Mills, could not be made more apparent than it is. The Globe and its "manag

ing director" have been shorn of their power; the old "Brown days are gone, and another Pharaoh, who not only knows not the immaculate Joseph, but would be puzzled to identify him if he did, has presented himself. Mr. Blake's course in the matter of commutation, is readily comprehensible. Regarding the hangman as, on the whole, a monstrosity in modern civilization, he proposes to give him as little work to do as possible. Recognizing the necessity of execution, as a deterrent penalty on fitting occasions, he also realizes equally the necessity of reserving it for extreme cases. The Minister of Justice is incapable of arguing, with the Globe, that a criminal should be hanged whether he be sane or insane. To do so, is simply following the precedent of the Scotch Judge of the last century-" Ye're a verra clever chiel; but ye'll be nane the warse o' hanging." The royal prerogative of mercy, we take it, ought to be beyond impeachment. Only in one case in history, has it ever been called in question, and then with good reason. In the eighth letter of Junius, the law of commutation is laid down with accuracy and precision, and applied in the case of M'Quirk. The culprit in that case was a prominent partizan, and deserved punishment; he was pardoned, however, and Junius thus speaks of the matter in an address to the Duke of Grafton :-" Before you were placed at the head of affairs, it had been a maxim of the English Government, not unwillingly admitted by the people, that every ungracious or severe exertion of the prerogative should be placed to the account of the Minister; but that whenever an act of grace or benevolence was to be performed, the whole merit of it should be attributed to the Sovereign himself." And in a note, a quotation is made from Montesquieu :-Les rois ne se sont reservé que les graces. Ils renvoient les condamnations vers leurs officiers. It would appear that, under our new rule, all this is changed. The admirable principle which resigns the exercise of the prerogative into the hands of the executive is to be repudiated, and the whole subject made material for discussion. In the case of Ward there is no longer room for dispute. The man was mad unquestionably, as the autopsy of the brain clearly showed. Nevertheless, the Globe says, he ought to have been executed. Perhaps so, if inhumanity

is to be the guiding spirit of the penal code; but not otherwise. To hang a man who is insane is murder, whatever the Globe and its fellows may make of it. One who is not responsible for his acts, because of a diseased brain, is not responsible to the law, and to hang him, therefore, is to be guilty of homicide. Moreover, it does not by any means follow, that a criminal who knows right from wrong is, on that account, amenable to law in the sense that ordinary murderers are. No greater delusion could possibly prevail than that which supposes that mere knowledge, without power of will, can constitute responsibility. The one, as Dr. Workman has over and over again shown, may, and often does, exist, without a glimmering of the other. It is, of course, easy to talk of the theories of experts," and to deride them, but it is not quite so easy to confront the facts they marshal, or to meet the conclusions they deduce from those facts. Either the legal theory of insanity is widely astray, or the medical notion of it; where the error is, remains to be proved, perhaps; meanwhile the Minister of Justice has a right to err, if it be an error, on the side of mercy.

66

Another Cabinet office having become vacant by the retirement of M. Geoffrion, a new election has become necessary for Jacques Cartier. M. Laflamme, the new Minister of Inland Revenue, appears to have many enemies, and yet, it is hard to say what he has done seriously amiss. Admittedly he is a good lawyer and an able parliamentary orator, and there is little objection to him otherwise, if we except those objections which party men always make to their opponents. The clerical question, however, has come up again in a novel aspect, and may, perhaps, cause a closely contested election. It is by no means certain that the new Minister will be re-elected; but even if he should, the chances are ten to one that the result will be disputed. As in the case of M. Langevin, the interference of the clergy would appear to have cropped up at this election-at least the attempted interference of curés has served to do so, although in a contrary way. M. Langevin was charged with owing his election to clerical interference; M. Laflamme, on the other hand, should he lose his election, will owe his defeat to a similar cause. In a Province

where "the decrees of our Holy Father, the Pope, are binding," one meets with curious things at times. The new Minister, finding himself opposed by a curé, takes upon himself to warn the priest of his duty; the latter is threatened with the vengeance of the Archbishop and driven perforce out of the political domain. It is something new to find coercion applied to the shepherds as well as to the flock-perhaps it is right that. it should be so. Intimidation of any sort is not to our taste; still it is not altogether a mischief that the turn of the habitual intimidators has come. If the Hon. Mr. Laflamme has succeeded in cowing the sacerdotalists, no one on this side of the Ottawa will feel aggrieved.

It may not be amiss here to consider the subject of clerical interference as it presents itself to us. We take it that anything which interferes with the free exercise of the voting power is a sin against the State, whether it be landlord power, capitalist power, or priest power. For practical purposes, all these influences stand upon a level, and, so far as they are used illegitimately, they are equally bad. The right to forbid the one involves the right to forbid the other. If it be right to prevent a landlord or employer from coercing, it is equally right to forbid a priest; and if it be wrong, it is wrong in all cases. The fallacy into which the Globe falls ought to be sufficiently obvious to any one who gives the subject a moment's thought. The intimidation of the voter, of whatever kind it may be, is an injustice to him; it may be weak in him to succumb to threats, whether clerical or lay, yet this want of moral courage is far from being uncommon all the world over. In all constitutional countries, the law has steadily set its face against coercion as well as against bribery, Indeed, the one is only, mutatis mutandis. a phase of the other. There is not, after all, much difference between threatening a tenant with eviction unless he votes as his landlord wishes, and saving him from it by offering to pay his rent; or between threatening with loss of employment on the one hand, and promising to find employment for the voter on the other. In both cases, a corrupting influence is exerted, whether it passes under the name of bribery or of intimidation. In both instances the franchise is directly poisoned at the fountain, and the power of force and the power of money are