Roman Catholic Christendom is, in a word, to suffer for the inability of Italian ecclesiastics to realise that there are other sacred compositions than those of Italian choir-masters, who have been mainly responsible for the low standard of church music in Italy, and especially in Rome. The limited space at our disposal obliges us now to pass to the consideration of the last of the three errors which, in our opinion, stamps the papal edict as ill-advised.

In Italy, as in other Roman Catholic countries, the attendance at the Low' Masses is far larger than at the High Mass. It is a common fallacy of English Protestants that in Italy and France the men do not go to church, the fact being that, at the hours of the morning when the men do go to church in these countries, the English Protestant is usually in bed, or ruining his digestion by eating an English breakfast. Musical 'services' are not much in favour with the Italian of the male sex. His natural gift for music precludes him from appreciating the confusion of sounds, only to be described as 'caterwauling,' with which his ears are regaled, even in the great basilicas. The length, moreover, of the functions bores him. The papal edict, therefore, will not have so far-reaching an effect in Italy as in Protestant countries.

Nobody who has attended a High Mass at a large London church, such as the Oratory, can fail to have noticed the very large proportion of non-Roman Catholics among the congregation. It is scarcely too much to say that the greater part of these visitors are there for the gratification of the eyes, the ears, and, possibly, the nose-for the gratification, in short, of their senses.

When the stately ritual of the Church is shorn of the varied and excellent music to be heard at, we will say, the Brompton Oratory, where will be the attraction to the Protestant? The Anglican churches will supply better music, or at least music which falls more sympathetically on the ear; and some among them furnish a very respectable parody of the picturesque details of a High Mass. There will always remain, no doubt, the attraction of toying with the Scarlet Woman. But we are confident that when once it is generally realised that the beautiful and varied music formerly to be heard is a thing of the past, there will be fewer converts to Rome, and more converts to ritualism. We regard the papal edict as the grand opportunity for the Ritualistic party in the Anglican Church.

It were folly to say that men and women are not led to religion through the senses.

We wonder what the percentage of converts to Roman Catholicism or Anglican Ritualism may be that owes its conversion to the eyes and ears. We suspect that the Oratorian Fathers, for instance, know it to be very considerable; and we do not hesitate to affirm that the majority of wandering sheep are pulled into the fold by

the ears.

Does the Holy Father realise the British love for long 'services' accompanied by good and varied music? His recent action would seem to imply that he does not.

And yet we have reason to believe that the question has been strongly represented to him from more than one quarter. The Vatican, however, is, after all, nothing but a sacristy, with the peculiar mental outlook of the sacristy.

It is difficult to understand why Pope Pius X. should not have confined himself to the reformation of church music in Rome, and in Italian cities generally, where reform is most certainly needed. From the purely musical point of view, to insist upon country choirs, either in Italy or elsewhere, rendering Gregorian music is almost as inartistic a proceeding as to insist upon those choirs performing Beethoven's Mass in D.

We believe that when the recent action of Pius X. comes to be generally realised, the educated portion of the community, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, will openly resent the insult offered to music by those responsible for this unfortunate and illogical decree.

RICHARD BAGOT.

Rome, May 21, 1904.

THE MIS-REPRESENTATION OF THE

PEOPLE IN PARLIAMENT

UPON the correct representation of the people in Parliament depends the maintenance of all our much-boasted liberties. By incorrect representation a minority of the people may obtain a majority of the power. If a minority rules the whole, it is an oligarchy. It can appoint the executive Government, can make laws which the nation as a whole would not desire, and unmake laws which the whole nation has passed. The possible abuses of minority power need no telling. But, apart from wilful abuse, the nation unequally represented cannot express or even ascertain its own will. The greatest good of the greatest number, how can it be ascertained? The greatest of our liberties-the right to govern ourselves and to make our own laws and protect our own freedom-becomes a phrase only. By processes of centuries we obtained that right and wrested our freedom successively alike from autocratic power and from oligarchic sway. Our King has become one of his people-the best of subjects of the Constitution. He never affects to be more than one-greatest among us, the servant of all. Our barons only form a regulating branch of our one Parliament, with the useful function of making us think twice when we are going to act in a hurry. Are we to throw all this progress away by paralysing our own power to govern by our defective machinery? The will of the nation--the Commons of the kingdom-can only be expressed and the power to govern can only be effectuated by careful machinery-machinery which will insure that the majority in numbers of the representatives of the people in the House of Commons are duly elected and represent the majority of the people. That is the machinery we have established for the purpose. This right and power to govern ourselves is the safeguard of every other liberty we possess. If the machinery works tortuously, the result may be the reverse of the nation's will. If a majority of the representatives of the people represent only a minority of the people, and conversely a majority of the people only have a minority of the representatives, it is obvious that the decisions of Parliament may be exactly the reverse of the will of the

majority of the people, and, if not the actual reverse, can scarcely in any case be what the majority would desire.

But this is exactly the case we are in now. Here are the facts. We are a population of 42,000,000-men, women, and children. Of these, the registered electors are 7,066,702. These electors send 670 members to Parliament to represent the nation. By them the voice of the nation is expressed; by them its will is executed. Their decision is given by a majority of their voices or votes, each counting one only. If their votes were all counted by value of electorates, or if the electorates were equal, the voice of the majority of the nation would be shown. But their voices are not equal in value. If they were equal, each member would represent 10,547 electors, which is the average of the whole. But, instead of that, one member is sent by 41,759 (Romford) electors, and another by 1,489 electors (Kilkenny). This is at present the extreme disparity. It is twentyeight to one. One-half of the 670 members represent 4,652,878 electors, the other half 2,413,825 electors. One-half of the electorssay, three and a half out of the seven millions-send 464 members to Parliament; the other half send 206. A majority of 370 members in the House of Commons represent 2,758,780, against 4,307,922 which the remaining 300 members represent.

There are 99 members who represent over 15,000 electors each, and 55 members who represent less than 5,000 each. The 55 lowest represent 119,111 electors, or an average of 2,165 each. The 55 highest represent 1,095,491 electors, or an average of 19,918 each. My own constituency of Wandsworth has 27,403 electors, But there are two higher than mine-viz. Romford, above mentioned, and Walthamstow, which has 32,945 electors-and several others nearly as large as mine. Indeed, five of us in the House of Commons represent more electors than 45 other members. We five represent 154,789, against 152,332 which the 45 others represent-the average representation of the five members being 30,900, and the average of the 45 only 3,380. Five voices and votes in Parliament against 45! How can this be called representation?

In face of these facts how can it be said that the decisions expressed by the votes of the House of Commons represent the voice of the nation? It may, of course, do so by chance; but is it by chance that we are to be governed?

One would think that such a case has only to be stated to produce conviction and a remedy without further argument. And, indeed, no one denies the injustice and anomaly-the utter inadequacy of such a machinery thus out of order to effect its own object and declared purpose, viz. the expression and execution of the nation's will. The evil is admitted. The remedy is known. The way to apply it is known. What hinders it? Let us see.

In 1893 I brought the matter in an abstract motion before the

6

House of Commons, having obtained a good place in the ballot. The present Opposition were then in power. Sir W. Harcourt was Leader of the House, and in replying admitted my facts and conclusions, similar to those above stated, though the figures were not so forcible then as now, and stated that 'very soon'-and I recollect he added, sooner rather than later'-these anomalies must be remedied; and in particular he referred to the deficient representation of the large constituencies of London and the excessive representation of Ireland. His Government went out of office in 1895 without having done anything. They could not afford to lose the Irish vote. Lord Salisbury came into power. I again in 1897, 1898, and 1899 brought the question before the House and the Government. It was always admitted, attention promised (without undue delay,' said Mr. Balfour), but nothing done. Mr. Balfour, just before the war, promised to make it a Cabinet question. The war then preoccupied all attention. It was a reasonable excuse. The country

as well as the House was evidently with the Government. The machinery of representation was accidentally working right. The majority inside the House was the same as outside. The Government went to the country in 1900, and their mandate was renewed by a majority big enough to overwhelm any accidental mis-working of the electoral machinery. The majority was again the same way. A Minister in power while strong enough to hold on does not want to prematurely disturb the machinery which placed him there. He knows that a Redistribution of Seats Bill is usually followed by an early dissolution, though this, as the Times has pointed out, is not as necessarily so as is assumed. There is nothing to prevent the Bill enacting that it should take effect at the expiration of the Parliament by effluxion of time, or sooner if it happens, or at any given date. However, these were the hindrances, to say nothing of the enormous and increasing number and pressure of subjects constantly occupying Ministers and House as well. Our worthy Premier's illness was another. But at length, as soon as was considerate after his happy recovery, we succeeded in getting him to promise to receive a deputation of fifteen members, nominated by about a hundred others or more. He received us accordingly on the 5th of May inst. The result was stated in the papers of the next day in the following form, which is verbatim as authorised by him :

Mr. Balfour expressed his strong sense of the hardship and public injury caused by the present anomalies in our electoral system, and said the whole question had engaged the serious attention of the Government, and he promised to communicate to his colleagues the substance of the representations made to him by the Committee. He did not think, however, that any declaration as to a policy would be expedient at the present moment, but it was a question which he would bear in mind.

So that here again we have the case admitted, after a very