sacrificed. This is the case in all the great confederations of British colonies, like Canada, Australia, and South Africa.

In the United States and Germany, where the Cabinet system has not been adopted, the upper house, which is distinctly representative of the states of the confederation as such, has lost in no respect its position as the peer of the lower house.

We may therefore conclude that Cabinet government, being inconsistent with the existence of two houses of equal strength, is also inconsistent with a form of government which attempts to recognize in equal degree the claims of national unity and state or local rights by providing two houses of equal strength, one of which is to represent the nation as a whole, and one of which is to represent the states or provinces as such. Cabinet government may, however, be reconciled with locality representation by the device resorted to by Australia and South Africa, which in ultimate analysis consists in the formation of a single chamber in which both principles of representation are permitted to have their influence. But it is to be remembered that such a onechambered system usually subjects local rights to national control, since the smaller state representation usually accorded is swamped by the larger national representation.

XIV

THE LOWER HOUSE OF THE LEGISLATURE AND PARTICULARLY OF THE SUFFRAGE AND THE METHODS OF

THE

REPRESENTATION

'HE original conception of the European Parliament was, as we have seen, that it should be representative of special interests. This conception was carried so far that in many cases each interest recognized had its own house or chamber. This conception finally is responsible both for the existence of what has come to be known as the bicameral system of Parliamentary organization, and for the fact that even at the present day most upper houses are frankly more or less representative of some special interest.

We have seen that, apart from confederations, where the problem of state or provincial representation has presented itself, the ordinary upper house is constituted in such a way that it represents more or less effectively the interests of the property-owning classes, and is therefore somewhat conservative in character.

Furthermore, in those countries in which such upper houses are to be found the tenure of their members is often, indeed, usually for life-sometimes membership is even hereditary-and is the result of appointment by the Crown. Where royal appointment is adopted the Crown is sometimes limited in its choice to certain classes of persons, usually those possessing certain specified

amounts or kinds of property, certain official classes or persons who have attained a certain degree of distinction by reason of their intellectual attainments. In Great Britain, where no such limitations are imposed on the power of the Crown to appoint peers, it is said that as a matter of fact seldom is a person, no matter what may be his attainments, so appointed who is not possessed of considerable wealth.

The upper house is therefore at the present time usually so composed that it is not merely representative of class, but that it also contains in its membership persons who presumably are endowed with the highest intelligence existent in the nation. The upper house ought theoretically, at any rate under these conditions, to be capable of wiser action than the lower house if the intelligence of its members can be exercised free from the class ties and prejudice which have of necessity so much influence over all men. Its presumably high intelligence has not, however, it will be noted, saved it from being made subordinate to the lower house, which is regarded as more nearly representative of the general opinion of the country.

The lower house of the legislature as distinguished from the upper house was originally representative of the masses rather than of the classes. The House of Commons, in Great Britain, got its name because it was originally representative of the common people. But the tendency of the last one hundred and fifty years has been to make the European lower house-and we must include within the term "European" all peoples of European origin-something more than representative of the common people. For it has become the organ more or less effective of the whole people.

The really representative character of a lower house is, however, in large measure determined by what is spoken of as the law of suffrage; that is, the law determining who shall vote and how those entitled to the right shall vote.

In the old days, even after the establishment of the English House of Commons, the common people supposed to be represented in it were not so common or at any rate not so numerous as at present. Really, what was originally represented, and what was originally sought to be represented even in the House of Commons was property rather than men. The House of Commons was frankly intended to be representative of the small property-owners. Therefore only those could vote at elections of members of Parliament who had a certain amount of property.

In the latter part of the eighteenth century, however, all throughout Europe the idea began to be expressed that the existing principles of representation were wrong. It was claimed that it was not property but men that should be represented. This feeling was expressed in two great documents which are usually considered to have had great influence on political institutions during the years following their publication. These documents were the American "Declaration of Independence," issued in 1776, and the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen," issued originally in 1789 on the eve of the French Revolution. The former declared that "all men are born free and equal"; the latter asserted that "men are born and remain free and have equal rights."

The logical result of the adoption of this principle of the equality of men would have been to give to all men

equal rights of representation in the government. The actual and practical effect of these two declarations was, however, merely an increase in the number of those who were permitted to vote. Thus in the United States, for quite a number of years after the publication of the Declaration of Independence, the property qualifications for voting which were at that time required were continued in existence. In Great Britain, where neither the American Declaration of Independence nor the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was regarded with any particular favor, no attempt at all to enlarge the suffrage was made until the passage of the Reform Bill of 1832.

Even the early French constitutions, adopted immediately after the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen," were not based upon the general foundation of universal adult male suffrage. But later European constitutions and suffrage laws have taken long steps in the direction of adult male suffrage, while the later American state constitutions have almost all, where racial questions have not been important, as is the case in some of the Southern states, followed in the same path. In the United States, it should be stated, the qualifications of voters even for those officers of the central government who are elected by the people are determined by the several states. For the United States Constitution provides that the qualifications of voters for the members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate, the only officers of the national government who by the Constitution are to be elected by the people, shall be the same as for members of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. The qualifications of voters for the members of the state