s directly responsible
for the character of the government as when they can at one election
and by one verdict decide the fate of a government, whose policy on
great issues must be thoroughly explained to them at the polls. This
method of popular government is more real and substantial than a
system which does not allow the people to influence congressional
legislation and administrative action through a set of men sitting in
congress and having a common policy.

I think it does not require any very elaborate argument to show that
when men feel and know that the ability they show in parliament may be
sooner or later rewarded by a seat on the treasury benches, and that
they will then have a determining voice in the government of the
country, be it dominion or province, they must be stimulated by a
keener interest in public life, a closer watchfulness over legislation
and administration, a greater readiness for discussing all public
questions, and a more studied appreciation of public opinion outside
the legislative halls. Every man in parliament is a premier _in
posse_. While asking my readers to recall what I have already said as
to the effect of responsible government on the public men and people
of Canada, I shall also here refer them to some authorities worthy of
all respect.

Mr. Bagehot says with his usual clearness:--[32]

"To belong to a debating society adhering to an executive
(and this is no inapt description of a congress under a
presidential constitution) is not an object to stir a noble
ambition, and is a position to encourage idleness. The
members of a parliament excluded from office can never be
comparable, much less equal, to those of a parliament not
excluded from office. The presidential government by its
nature divides political life into two halves, an executive
half and a legislative half, and by so dividing it, makes
neither half worth a man's having--worth his making it a
continuous career--worthy to absorb, as cabinet government
absorbs, his whole soul. The statesmen from whom a nation
chooses under a presidential system are much inferior to
those from whom it chooses under a cabinet system, while the
selecting apparatus is also far less discerning."

An American writer, Prof. Denslow,[33] does not hesitate to express
the opinion very emphatically that "as it is, in no country do the
people feel such an overwhelming