remarks will have been attained if it be shown that a way may be opened by which the flames of political discord may be extinguished, and the virus of evil which taints our body politic be neutralized.

A Parliament, fairly representing the whole people, would realize the idea of a true deliberative and legislative unit. Devotion to country would be substituted for devotion to party, and the tendency would be, not to exhaust and neutralize the mental forces of the people's representatives in fruitless agitation and barren debates, but to bring the united energies of the wisest and ablest statesmen on both sides to act with purposes in common. They would no longer appear as political enemies to lead on the rank and file in successive faction fights, and interminable struggles; if ever contentions arose it would be in generous efforts to determine who could accomplish the greatest public good.

As already pointed out, we have happily in this new land no social complications or traditional impediments to encumber our political constitution, or clog the working of any improvement in our system of government. In Canada we are in a state of general and continuous. development. Year by year we advance forward as our fathers did before us. If the methods of our fathers do not serve the purposes of the present generation, we must, as they would have done, abandon the methods of our fathers. When we find defects in our political condition, it is our duty to discover their origin and remove causes of friction by a re-adjustment of the legislative machinery. Now that the foundations. of the Dominion are laid broad and deep, we should, by every means in our power, endeavour to prevent and obliterate divisions which tend to cleave us in two. We should have one aim, one aspiration in our political partnership. We should seek to remove the causes which have led to divergence in the past and be animated with one desire, the welfare of Canada as a whole: one determination, to promote her prosperity and maintain her honour.

If imbued with these sentiments, the sons of Canada approach the consideration of the subject which the writer has humbly endeavored to present-who can doubt that we shall witness the dawning of a new day in public life in this fair land of ours? Let us with confidence entertain the conviction, that before long there will be a new departure in politics; that for divisions and weakness and instability, with a long train of evils, there will be the unity, and strength, and security, which proceed from wisdom, and peace, and concord.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE.

The writer feels himself called upon to express his great satisfaction that the Canadian Institute has been pleased to entertain the appeal to public opinion, contained in his letter of the 1st of January last, and that the Council has been enabled to bring forward the subject in a form to invite the serious consideration of all interested in the well-being of our common country.

The appendix contains several pages of extracts, expressing the deliberate opinion of well known public writers, which are worthy of careful perusal. They indicate the tone of thought in minds differently constituted in our own country, in Great Britain, in the United States and in other countries. In order to make the information as complete as possible, the writer begs leave to add the following excerpts:

1. A new Plan of Minority Representation by Professor J. R. Commons from the Review of Reviews, November 1891.

2. Proportional Representation--the Gove System-with Bill before. the commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1892.

3. Résumé of Hare's work on the Representation of Minoritiesspecially prepared for the present publication.

4. Translation and abridgement of the constitution and electoral law of Denmark-also specially prepared.

It is stated in the preceeding "Note" that the scheme of Messrs. Andrae and Hare in its main features was in 1855 included in the electoral law of Denmark constituting the Rigsraad or supreme Council* and that in 1867 it was extended to the Landsthing or upper house of the kingdom. As the new principles of election were first introduced into Denmark and have been in operation in that country for a number of years, it is a matter of the highest interest to ascertain full particulars concerning their application and working; a point of great importance as there is always room for objection against any untried system. The writer accordingly addressed the Danish Minister at Washington on the subject; the latter was pleased to respond by forwarding the constitution and electoral laws of Denmark; and to add, that the original law of 1867 continues to be in force, and that it is generally thought to have been very successful in its operation.

The Rigsraad belongs to the history of the past; it was the Parliament of the Realm before 1867. The Danish Parliament is now known as the “Rigsdag” and is composed of the Landsthing and the Folkething.

In the "Note" which the undersigned has submitted to the Institute, he has dwelt upon the expediency of tracing to the source whence they spring the political evils which prevail, and upon the necessity of contending with the first cause to which the difficulty may be attributed. The writer has continually kept before himself this view, and he has established to his own conviction, that the evils with which we are beset are traceable mainly to defects in the electoral system which prevail, and especially to the method followed in selecting members of Parliament by majorities of votes. This opinion is not confined to the writer.

Mr. Seaman in his work "The American System of Government" thus expresses himself on the subject: "The system of popular elections which gives all representation and power to majorities, however small, and none to minorities, however large, tends to stimulate both personal and partisan ambition too highly; to excite rivalship and strife, partisan passions and prejudices; to divide a people into parties, cliques, and factions; and to increase and intensify the violence of party spirit. It offers too great temptations to resort to improper means to insure success, for poor, weak, and selfish human nature to resist; and hence it tends to stimulate secretiveness and duplicity, petty scheming and trickery, falsehood and fraud, and to encourage social drinking and prodigality, as a means of popularity and of getting votes. It tends to stimulate and sharpen the intellect; but to paralize the conscience and the moral feelings; to foster demagogism and a despicable scramble for office, and to demoralize politicians, and great numbers of people."

Sir Thomas Erskine May, in his Constitutional History of England, points out that party has exercised the greatest influence for good or evil upon the political destinies of the country. "It has guided and controlled, and often dominated over the more ostensible authorities of the state; it has supported the crown and aristocracy against the people, it has dethroned and coerced kings, overthrown ministers and Parliament, humbled the nobles, and established popular rights." He takes the most favourable view of party, passes lightly over the meaner and more repellent features, which are attributable to it,—and gratefully acknowledges all that we owe to its influence. "The Annals of Party embrace a large portion of the history of England ;—we owe to party most of our rights and liberties :-we recognise in the fierce contentions of our ancestors, the conflict of great principles, and the final triumph of freedom." While thus forcibly admitting all that can be said in its favour he is constrained to add: "In the history of parties, there is much to deplore and condemn,—we observe the evil passions of our natures aroused,' envy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness.' We see

the foremost of our fellowcountrymen contending with the bitterness of foreign enemies—reviling each other with cruel words,―misjudging the conduct of eminent statemen, and pursuing them with vindictive animosity. We see the whole nation stirred with sentiments of anger and hostility. We find factious violence overcoming patriotism; and ambition and self-interest prevailing over the highest obligations of the state. We reflect that party rule excludes one half of our statesmen from the service of their country, and condemns them,-however wise and capable-to comparative obscurity and neglect. We grieve that the first minds of every age should have been occupied in collision and angry conflict, instead of labouring together for the common weal."

Men of both parties, and those who hold themselves apart from all party must assent to the truth as it is expressed in these forcible sentences: Those who so think may not all agree in attributing to the same cause the evils described, but they will acknowledge that our electoral system. requires amendment, and that the constitution of parliament calls for rectification, before we can claim that we are in the enjoyment of that national representative body which our political condition demands. The great mass of the people should have perfect confidence in the character and constitution of the Parliament by which our laws are made; and on the part of its members, there should be an earnest and deep sympathy with the people. Neither this confidence, nor this sympathy, is attainable so long as one half of the electors remains unrepresented. This necessary relationship was understood by William Pitt whose words spoken in England a century ago may fittingly be repeated in Canada to-day. "How truly important is it to the people of this country that the House of Commons should sympathize with themselves and that their interests should be indissoluble! It is most material that people should have confidence in the legislature. The force of the constitution as well as its beauty depends on that confidence, and on the union and sympathy which exist between the constituent and the representative. The source of our glory and the muscles of our strength are the pure character of freedom which our constitution bears. * * The purity of the representative is the only true and permanent source of such confidence. * * * Prudence must dictate that the certain way of securing their properties and freedom is to purify the source of representation and to establish that strict relation between themselves and the House of Commons which it is the original idea of the constitution to create."

The question before us to-day is not one of franchise. It is not a question involving any convulsion in our constitution. It is simply to

determine a practicable plan by which the whole body of electors, can form a standing committee chosen from among themselves, to manage and direct the national affairs. The present system places these affairs in the hands of a committee of a party-not a committee of the nation; and it is to this condition that we may trace the chronic political difficulties from which we are suffering, and which we would greatly lessen, if not entirely remove, by transferring the power of executive government to a committee, really and truly chosen, from a body of electors representing the whole people.

It must be only too plain to all, that however desirable a rectification. of system may be, it will not be easily attained, for those interested in its non-attainment are many and powerful, holding under control almost the entire press of the country. Nevertheless we should not be deterred from effort by the thought of the obstacles, real, or unreal, before us, nor yield to apathetic indifference as if the remedy were hopelessly unattainable. Our ancestors succeeded in overthrowing many theories which were destructive of the liberty of the subject and the well-being of the nation. We will be unworthy of our ancestry, if on our part we hesitate to grapple with the theory of party supremacy and injustice, however strongly entrenched by prejudice and interest. No one, whose opinion has weight, will contend that some clumsy machine of primitive times, which served its day and generation, is for ever to be regarded with superstitious reverence. Equally, no one can insist that a rude political contrivance introduced before the reign of Queen Anne is the best that can be conceived for the needs of this Dominion in the second half century of the reign of Victoria.

Edmund Burke, the orator and philosophic statesman of the last century, has frequently been alluded to as an advocate of Party government, and his well known definition of Party has been reproduced by nearly. every writer on the subject. It must be borne in mind that Burke spoke and wrote in defence of Party, at a period in history when political convulsions were impending, and the attention of the British Parliament was directed to questions of a kind to incite strong feelings; at a time, when, if ever, Party was justifiable and useful. The circumstances of Canada and America to-day are entirely different from the circumstances of England and Europe in Burke's time; moreover, we must allow that there is such a thing as progression in the views of thinking men. Burke himself did not remain stationary. In a very few years he considerably altered his opinions on several great questions. Before he passed from the political field he deliberately separated himself from his old political friends and completely dis-associated himself from