election. The only possible means of overcoming these defects
of the single member system is some mode of proportional
representation--perhaps qualified by the retention of single members in
those boroughs or counties which are just large enough to be entitled to
one member.

The main objection taken to proportional representation is that it would
probably involve small and composite majorities which would not give
sufficient authority to ministries. But our chief complaint is that the
authority of modern ministries is too great, their power too unchecked.
In the middle of the nineteenth century, when our system worked most
smoothly, parties _were_ composite, and majorities were small--as they
usually ought to be, if the real balance of opinion in the country is to
be reflected. The result was that the control of Parliament over the
Cabinet was far more effective than it is to-day; the Cabinet could not
ride roughshod over the House; and debates really influenced votes, as
they now scarcely ever do. The immense majorities which have been the
rule since 1885 are not healthy. They are the chief cause of the growth
of Cabinet autocracy. And they are due primarily to the working of the
single-member constituency.

The second ground of distrust is the belief that Parliament is unduly
dominated by party; that its members cannot speak and vote freely; that
the Cabinet always gets its way because it is able to hold over members,
_in terrorem_, the threat of a general election, which means a fine of
£1000 a head; and that (what creates more suspicion than anything) the
policy of parties is unduly influenced by the subscribers of large
amounts to secret party funds. I am a profound believer in organised
parties as essential to the working of our system. But I also believe
that there is real substance in these complaints, though they are often