A POLITICAL PEOBLEM. 39 



as it arose, by the voice of a majority. Hence it may be said (hat as eyery question 

 would in the end have to be determined by a majority, the Parliament as proposed would 

 be no improvement on the present. It will, however, readily be seen that there is a wide 

 difference between a Parliament representing the whole people, deciding- questions by a 

 majority of its own members, and a Parliament in which a part only of the electors has 

 any voice. The proposed assembly would not consist of men placed in their seats in 

 direct opposition to a large number of the people, but a Parliament formed through the 

 coôi^eration and assent of the whole body of the electors, to promote their common 

 welfare ; it would approximately be a microcosm, so to speak, of the nation. In and 

 through this Parliament each and every elector would have an equal voice in public 

 affairs. 



The pro^josal is to substitute in our Parliamentary elections the principle of co- 

 oijeration for the principle of antagonism, and by this means to choose representatives, 

 who when brought together in a deliberative assembly would realize the true idea of 

 Parliament — a " "Witenagemot or great council of wise men," representing every part of 

 the realm, and imbued with the spirit of the whole, to act in the name of the whole, and 

 speak the voice of the united nation. 



If such a Parliament be an object to be desired ; if it be a fundamental principle that 

 all who bear the taxation, should share in the representation ; if it be the sacred right of 

 every elector to have a just and proper representation in Parliament ; then it must be 

 recognized as a paramount duty, and an object worthy of the highest efforts of the 

 progressive statesman, to find some means by which such a legislative body may be 

 realized. A complete solution of the problem, may be remote, but, as has been stated. 

 Parliament is a growth and development, and in all matters into which the principle of 

 growth enters, the element of time must also enter. The question vitally concerns all 

 free communities, and any change must in the nature of things be preceded by a deli- 

 berate and impartial enqviiry. I have ventured to submit a scientiiic solution : it may not 

 be the best means of attaining the desired end, and I offer it with all diffidence merely as 

 a contribution to the general discussion, in the hope that it may not be wholly barren of 

 utility. I cannot but think that if the strictly scientific habit of mind be brought to bear 

 on the question, some practical method of solving the problem will slowly and surely be 

 evolved. Whatever the solution, I humbly think that it must be based on principles 

 which will not beget the conflicts and contestations which result from political activity 

 under the present system. 



It is held by the most eminent political economists that by cooperating, two men 

 will do more work and do it better than four men, or four times four men acting in 

 opposition. Is not the rule of universal application ? Can there be cooperation without 

 harmony ? Can there be antagonism without discord ? And are not discord and harmony 

 in the state likened unto disease and health in the human body ? This much will be 

 conceded : the chronic feuds between tribes and races which characterized the history of 

 the human family in a less advanced stage of civilization no longer exist. "War is 

 manifestly not the normal condition of society in our time. Is it not therefore an anachron- 

 ism to perpetuate hostility in the internal affairs of a nation ? Is it not in the highest 

 interests of the state that each member of the community, in every matter which concerns 

 him as a citizen, should have the fullest opportunity of acting up'to the injunction, " Live 



