The Clericals wished to have the franchise granted on the basis of occupation and property; the Liberals thought it should be bestowed on all who were sufficiently educated to use the power intelligently; the Socialists, however, insisted upon universal suffrage for men and women alike, without preference or favour. The Clericals got their wish outright--property and professional rights were recognized generously. The Liberals also got what they wanted--a vote for every man with a college education. The Socialists got half of their demands, which was all that they could reasonably have expected at a time when votes for women were not being widely advertised. But of the three parties, only the first has shown any measure of satisfaction with the arrangement, for plural voting plays into the hands of the Church. Indeed, the only hope of the Clerical party was said to lie in its maintenance, while the great hope of the Liberal wing lay in its overthrow. Briefly, the system of plural voting is this: Every male citizen of Belgium who had reached the age of twenty-five years was qualified to cast--and by law must cast--one vote. Every man of thirty-five who had children and paid at least $1 a year income tax, might cast two votes, while those without children could get this second vote if they had real estate amounting to $400, or $20 a year income from state securities. Any man who had filled a public position, who had a profession, or who held a college diploma, was entitled to a third vote, or to two in addition to his first manhood suffrage. This third vote could also be obtained by a property qualification. No one might have more than three votes in all. This was the way it would work out in an individual case: A workman at twenty-five receives one vote. He marries, becomes the head of a family, and at thirty-five receives a second vote. Then, if he buys a house--even if it is mortgaged--he gets a third. It can easily be seen how such a system might encourage thrift and industry, and even responsible citizenship. Indeed, on the face of it, this system of plural voting seems nearly ideal. A writer in the _Contemporary Review_ seriously advocated its adoption in England. It has the advantage of putting the weight of power on the educated classes, while still giving to every man some share in the government. Our own "one man, one vote" appears rather crude and arbitrary by contrast with this carefully graded electorate.