ecognizing in part the justice of the demand, and preferring, if
there were to be revision, to carry it through, rather than to incur
the risk of having it carried through by a radical cabinet, yielded to
the pressure and consented to the formal consideration of the
electoral question upon the floors of the two chambers. Three years of
intermittent, but animated, discussion ensued. At length, in May,
1892, the chambers were able to agree upon the primary proposition
that some sort of revision was necessary. Then came the dissolution
which is required by the constitution in such a case, followed by a
general election. The newly chosen chambers, which for the purpose in
hand comprised virtually a constituent convention, entered upon their
task later in the same year. In both the Catholics maintained a
majority, but by reason of the requirement of a two-thirds vote for
the adoption of a constitutional amendment, they were none the less
obliged to rely upon the Liberals for a certain amount of support. In
the scheme of revision which was finally adopted all parties had some
substantial share.

No fewer than fourteen distinct programmes of reform were laid before
the chambers.[759] The Conservatives, in general, desired the
introduction of a system based upon occupation combined with the (p. 541)
payment of taxes; the majority of the Liberals sought to secure
special recognition for electors of approved capacity--in brief, an
educational qualification; the Radicals inside, and the Socialists
outside, Parliament carried on a relentless propaganda in behalf of
universal, direct, and equal suffrage. The rejection in committee
(April, 1893) of a plan of universal suffrage occasioned popular
demonstrations which required the calling out of the military, and
when it was proposed to stop with a reduction of the age limit for
voters there were threats of a universal industrial strike. In the end
all elements wisely receded from their extreme demands and it was
found possible to effect agreement upon a compromise. A Catholic
deputy--Albert Nyssens, professor at the University of Louvain--came
forward with a scheme for manhood suffrage, safeguarded by the plural
vote, and September 3, 1893, the plan was adopted.[760]

[Footnote 759: It will be remembered that for the
purpose of considering constitutional amendments
the chambers meet in joint session.]

[F