The House of Commons is a representative body, not because every individual member of it represents the opinions of the whole nation, but because members in the aggregate represent those opinions, (p. 170).

This position is diametrically opposed to the principles we have laid down, for it eliminates entirely the ideas of organization and leadership.  Again, Mr. Syme says:—­“If the government is to be carried on for the benefit of all classes, representatives should be chosen from all classes.  We had class representation in the early parliaments, but then all classes were fairly represented.”  We have shown that the analogy from early parliaments is fallacious.  Representatives should now be chosen irrespective of class, and not as class delegates.  But Mr. Syme does not carry his theory to its logical conclusion.  For if representatives merely express the thoughts of others, and should be class delegates, surely all classes are entitled to have their thoughts “represented;” and Mr. Syme should range himself among the disciples of Mr. Hare.  But here comes in an interesting difference.  Mr. Syme would retain the present system and make members continually responsible to a majority of their constituents; he would even give this majority power to dismiss them at any time.  Now, this is practically an admission that representation involves the existence of a majority and a minority, or, in other words, is a means of organizing the people into a majority and a minority.  Again, as regards leadership, the theory will hardly bear the test of facts.  Could a man like Gladstone be said to merely express the thoughts of his constituents?  Was he not rather a guide and leader of the thoughts of a great part of the British nation?

In addition to the continual responsibility of members to their constituents, Mr. Syme would also make the individual ministers of state responsible to a majority of the members.  He adds:—­“The whole system of party government could in this manner be quietly and effectively got rid of.”  We do not propose to criticise the latter suggestion, as we do not believe it would be put forward to-day, in the light of fuller knowledge.  Mr. Syme’s book was written nearly twenty years ago.  But, as regards the continual responsibility of members, we consider it important that the electors should not have their way on single questions.  They should periodically express their opinion as to the general line of progress, and the representatives should then have complete control.  The necessity for this is to save the people from their anti-social tendencies, which we have already stated as the great objection to all forms of direct government.  Lord Macaulay once defined the position exactly in a letter addressed to the electors of Edinburgh.  “My opinion,” he declared, “is that electors ought at first to choose cautiously; then to confide liberally; and when the term for which they have selected their member has expired to review his conduct equitably, and to pronounce on the whole taken together.”