A more rational view of the distinction which often underlies party divisions is between those who desire change and those who oppose change.  J.S.  Mill points out how the latter may often be useful in preventing progress in a wrong direction.  There are times when such attitude is called for, but generally speaking we may say that the fundamental distinction between parties should be a difference of opinion as to the direction of progress.  Nor is it inconsistent for a party to change its opinion or alter its policy; on the contrary, it is essential to progress.  The majority must often modify its policy in the light of the criticism of the minority, and the minority must often drop the unpopular proposals which have put it in a minority.  These features are all essential to the working of the political machine.

+The Character of Representatives.+—­Granting that all sections of each party can be induced to work together, the beneficial effect on the character of representatives would be incalculable.  Instead of being forced to pander to every small section for support, they would appeal to all sections.  The enlarged electorates which are contemplated would be arranged to embrace the widest diversity of interest, and a representative would then be free to follow his own independent judgment, unfettered by the dictation of small cliques.  His actions might offend some sections who supported his election; but he has a wide field, and may gain the support of other sections by them.  Therefore, he may actually improve his position by gaining more supporters than he loses.  Contrast this with the present system, in which the representatives are cooped up in single-membered electorates to denned sets of supporters.  The very principle of community of interest on which these electorates must be arranged in order to get a fair result is destructive of the idea of representation.  It is no wonder, then, that the present system is tending towards delegation.  Local delegation we have always had, more or less, but we are now threatened by class delegation also.

The conclusion of Mr. Kent in “The English Radicals” may be quoted on this point.  He says:—­

The question of the relationship of members to their constituents is at the present time perplexed and undetermined; for though the control of Parliament by the people is an indisputable fact, yet it is maintained by means of quite another kind from those which the early Radicals proposed.  The result is somewhat paradoxical, for while the system of pledges has been contemptuously rejected, yet the theory that a member is a delegate tacitly prevails in English politics.  That members of the House of Commons have tended and do tend to lose their independence it is impossible to doubt.  A distinguished French publicist, M. Boutmy, for instance, has remarked the fact; and he thinks that in consequence a deterioration of the tone of politicians is likely to recur.  Mr. E.L.