than in the following passage, or gone so far in applying it:--

Representation is a mental act; it is the presentation or
reproduction of the state of mind of another person; and before one
person can represent another person he must first know what the
opinions of that other person are. A representative is a
substitute; he stands in the place of, and acts for, another
person. But one man cannot act for another unless he knows what
that other would do were he acting for himself. In other words, he
requires to know the motives which actuate that other person, or
what influences his motives, namely, his principles and beliefs.
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 c