ess than two hundred registered voters must be
wrong. But it seems to me that but few among us perceive,
or at any rate acknowledge, the real reasons for changing
these things and reforming what is wrong without delay.
One great authority told us the other day that the sole
object of legislation on this subject should be to get
together the best possible 658 members of Parliament.
That to me would be a most repulsive idea if it were
not that by its very vagueness it becomes inoperative.
Who shall say what is best; or what characteristic
constitutes excellence in a member of Parliament? If
the gentleman means excellence in general wisdom, or
in statecraft, or in skill in talking, or in private
character, or even excellence in patriotism, then I say
that he is utterly wrong, and has never touched with
his intellect the true theory of representation. One
only excellence may be acknowledged, and that is the
excellence of likeness. As a portrait should be like the
person portrayed, so should a representative House be
like the people whom it represents. Nor in arranging
a franchise does it seem to me that we have a right
to regard any other view. If a country be unfit for
representative government,--and it may be that there are
still peoples unable to use properly that greatest of
all blessings,--the question as to what state policy may
be best for them is a different question. But if we do
have representation, let the representative assembly be
like the people, whatever else may be its virtues,--and
whatever else its vices.

Another great authority has told us that our House of
Commons should be the mirror of the people. I say, not
its mirror, but its miniature. And let the artist be
careful to put in every line of the expression of that
ever-moving face. To do this is a great work, and the
artist must know his trade well. In America the work has
been done with so coarse a hand that nothing is shown
in the picture but the broad, plain, unspeaking outline
of the face. As you look from the represented to the
representation you cannot but acknowledge the likeness;
--but there is in that portrait more of the body than of
the mind. The true portrait should represent more than
the body. With us, hitherto, there have been snatches
of the countenance of the nation which have been
inimitable,--a turn