a gallery on a level with the head of a gigantic image of Buddha. Finding that this gallery extended to right and left, I ventured to explore, and found on either side a circular building, containing a huge barrel, containing neither prayers nor scriptures, but a multitude of niches, each containing an image. So here was an easy method of worshipping all the gods of China-or, more probably, of doing homage to all the Buddhist saints-simultaneously, by simply giving them all a twirl.

A few days later, I discovered among the ruins of the Emperor's Summer Palace a small group of what must have been beautiful temples. Vast mounds of broken fragments of brilliantly coloured tiles tell of the departed glory, and here and there a fine pagoda of porcelain has survived the general destruction. One such seemed the centre of what was doubtless the Imperial private chapel. On either side of it were circular buildings, containing the ruins of cylinders, which evidently had been miniatures of those in the grand Lama temple; but, of course, not an image has escaped the hands of

successive relic-hunters.

I am inclined to believe that a similarly concentrated act of homage to all saints, was accomplished by striking certain gigantic bronze temple-bells, whereon are embossed the images of Buddha's five hundred disciples. I saw a particularly fine specimen of such a bell at an old temple in Ningpo. Each of the five hundred figures is in a different attitude, and the whole is a triumph of casting. I saw other bells thus adorned, with long passages from the sacred books. Before concluding these notes on mechanical worship, I must mention a Jewish custom which appears somewhat akin to those we have been considering. Bernard Picart, writing about Jews, in 1733, says:" At the doors of their houses, chambers, and all places of public resort, they fix up against the wall, at the right hand of the entrance, a hollow reed, or other pipe, containing a parchment, on which are inscribed the words from Deuteronomy vi. 4–9, concluding with, Thou shalt write them (i.e., the words which I command thee) upon the posts of thy house and on thy gates.' And also Deut. xi. 18-20, concluding with the same words. And at the bottom, through a small opening, is visible the Hebrew word, Shaddai, which is one of the names of God, and whenever the Jews come in or go out they touch this place very devoutly, then kiss the fingers which touched it. This is called the mezuzah, or door-post."

On inquiry, I learn that this practice continues unchanged at the present day, though a narrow upright tin box is a convenient modern substitute for the hollow reed. It is placed high on the right door-post, in a slanting position, and the inscription consists of twenty-two lines, which must be accurately written, without any correction. The person entering the house or room touches the

sacred name with his right hand, and then, kissing his hand, says :"The Almighty preserve me, deliver me, help me from all evil and distress." The mezuzah, the phylactery, and the fringes on the shawls worn by Jews in the Synagogue are declared by Jewish tradition to be a three-fold cord which preserve men from sin.

And now, for lack of a better British illustration of the subject, let me tell you how a worthy old Scotch minister applied the "turning the Wheel of the Law" to his own preaching. He had a large collection of old manuscript sermons, which he stored in a cask. Every time he had occasion to preach, he avoided the responsibility of exercising human judgment in his selection, by giving the cask a twirl, and whichever sermon first slipped out was deemed the Heaven-selected discourse most appropriate to the occasion!

C. F. GORDON CUMMING.

REDISTRIBUTION: ELECTORAL DISTRICTS.

IT

T is barely two years since space was accorded to me in the CONTEMPORARY REVIEW for some observations favourable to the Extension of the Franchise in the Counties, and other then so-called "Tory-Democratic" opinions, which in the judgment of many had lost to the Conservatives a seat in Liverpool.

Political education is, however, making rapid strides, and opinions which at that date some might regard as heresy for a Constitutional Tory to uphold, are to-day accepted as a part of the platform of the party.

This advance is, nevertheless, not a change of principle on the part of Conservatives, but simply a clearer appreciation of the policy embodied by our late great leader (Earl Beaconsfield) in his Franchise measure of 1867. Until the introduction of that Bill political parties had for years been wrangling over the amount of rental a householder should be required to pay as a qualification for the suffrage. The aim of one party was to fix such figures as would include the largest body of Radical dissenters, and yet exclude what they termed the residuum. The object of the Conservatives was to endeavour to neutralize this Liberal element by admitting the superior artisan classes to the franchise. Hence a contest was waged, extending over fourteen years. Under such circumstances the only solution of the problem was to place the suffrage upon a principle, and the principle adopted was that of a residential household qualification, thus removing the question out of the reach of manipulation to suit party purposes.

A similar state of affairs exists to-day with the Redistribution controversy. It is proposed to arrange the division of the electoral roll of the future in an arbitrary, haphazard fashion, without rule or

principle. Thus each political party is naturally tempted to seek party advantages out of the settlement of a question which ought to be determined solely with regard to national interests.

To attempt an adjustment of the matter on these lines must inevitably end in confusion and disaster. The worst trait in the human character-selfishness-will have free scope: every man for himself. Each place or member affected will find plausible reasons why they should be let alone. Log-rolling will be the order of the day-"Save me, and I will help to save you." The Prime Minister evidently realizes the chaos that must ensue in the House of Commons when he has to meet this fight for existence. Hence his anxiety to be armed for the fray, and he chooses no doubt a most potent weapon-the prior enactment of the Franchise

It is

Bill. With this in hand he hopes to be able to quell the turmoil, and ensure the acceptance of his measure of Redistribution. obvious that the picture here portrayed of the scramble that must follow the introduction of a Redistribution Bill, based only on expediency, and to be settled by compromise, is not overdrawn, if for one moment regard is had to the vast personal and local interests involved.

No Redistribution scheme can be just or equitable, and therefore have any degree of permanency, that allows any member to represent less than 5,000 electors. Examine the statistics of the boroughs in England, Wales, and Scotland, even by this minimum standard, and it will be found that the seats of no less than 197 members will be affected, of whom 132 sit on the Liberal benches. This calculation omits the counties of the United Kingdom, and the boroughs in Ireland from consideration, because under the Franchise Bill their electorate will be enlarged. Making every allowance, however, for such increase, 300 seats is a reasonable estimate of the total number that must be dealt with in any complete plan of distribution.

If justice, untinged with party designs, is to prevail, all interests must be placed on the same footing. Once establish this point, and people will accept the inevitable with a fair grace. No weapon for coercion will be required, no one-man power need be invoked; justice will win its own way. When Parliament has laid down the principle, its work will be simple; a judicial body, such as a Royal Commission, can carry out the details.

It is the bounden duty of every good citizen to endeavour to bring the Franchise and Redistribution questions to an immediate settlement. Judging from present appearances, they promise to continue to embitter the relations between political parties, affording food for agitation to the revolutionary anarchists of the kingdom, stopping necessary domestic legislation, and distracting the attention of the nation from the serious. position into which our foreign policy is drifting. There is only one

means by which this end can be accomplished, and that is, to establish some principle upon which Redistribution shall be determined, and not leave so grave an issue to the chapter of accidents.

It is now admitted that men, whether they live in town or country, are, irrespective of their worldly positions, as indicated by their rental, entitled to equal franchise privileges. The logical corollary is so to arrange that the votes of all electors shall carry the same influence and weight. To effect this it is necessary to accept as a principle equal electoral districts as regards numbers of electors, and each man to have the right to vote for the same number of members. The necessity of parting with old names and old associations in connection with the House of Commons is to be regretted. It is, however, only anticipating by a few years a change which in the end is inevitable.

Equal electoral districts are compatible with the retention of the sound principle of distinct representation being accorded to urban and rural districts. No difficulty need be experienced in grouping into electoral bodies populous centres, separately from their agricultural surroundings.

The objection that first occurs to the mind in considering such a scheme is the preponderating influence that it would accord to the metropolis over the legislation of the country. If the proposition required the election of the members for the London district by one constituency, or even by such overgrown bodies as the present metropolitan boroughs, there would be overwhelming force in the objection. A series of moderate-sized constituencies would, however, be formed, each returning one or two members, as might be determined. The danger of a large body of members being elected, representing only one class or line of policy, would thus be averted. London embraces a population more diverse in opinions, interests, and occupations, than can be found in any county. Hence, if divided, every shade of opinion would doubtless find its representative. At present the mere power of numbers in the metropolitan boroughs overwhelms all individuality, and destroys the personal interest of those whom every well-wisher of the country desires to see take an active share in our elections.

In the large provincial towns this effect would be even more marked. As a rule the industrial population, and those in a better position in life, reside in different districts. Therefore, if the towns are divided into parliamentary wards, every interest and class would have a fair chance of being represented.

There is much to be said in favour of single-member constituencies. They form a simple means of securing to the minority of the country its just share of representation, and ensuring that diversity of opinion and occupation, which is so essential in a deliberative assembly. A minor advantage that would arise from such an arrangement is,