The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-20 00:00:00

united to make up the, requisite number. His
second proposal, and, as he deems it, the most
important, is that each voter• should vote for but

one 'member.

His chief reason for these suggestions, especially
the latter, ;As, that " a House of Commons so con-

stituted ?must of neeessity completely and thoroughly
represent the nation which elected it." We fail, 1
however, to perceive how it must do so. It would,
as. -we think, puzzle the acutest electioneering agent
—a very COPPOCK himself, could he rise from the
dead—to drill his voters to the required duty,
while chance voting would assuredly give a chance
result. It is easy to see, for instance, that one very
popular member, out of the six, might be returned
by an immense majority, while the whole remain-
ing five might actually be returned by small num-
bers for each, the total votes for them not equalling
these for the one popular member. We need not
suppose all kinds of intermediate cases ; but unless
we have entirely miscalculated the working of the
scheme, it would be exceedingly likely to give the
majority of members to the minority of voters. This
is notoriously the case now, but it should
be remembered that it is quite possible, even
though the intention were the reverse. Mr.
BUCHANAN was shown by some of the American
journals to have been returned by a minority of
the,electors through the system of double election
a result surely not contemplated by the framers

of the constitution.
We need not remark, just now, on the plan o
equal electoral divisions, or, what amounts to the
same thing, divisions with representatives in pro-
portion to their population. Both boroughs of any
standing, and counties, would, we apprehend, con-
tend earnestly for their electoral individuality. It
would be small consolation to the bodies which,
hitherto, have fought so many earnest party or
;political battles, to be aborbed, like Indian _Fakirs,
into the Deity of a perfect representative system,
and to lose their consciousness of separate exist-
ence. Any division, to be acceptable, must, we
are persuaded, retain substantially the ancient land-
marks. What we most strongly object to is any bou-
doir scheme for representing minorities. The idea
is, at least, un-English. We are accustomed from
years of reason to bow to majorities. Our practical
minds comprehend the necessity, so difficult a thing
for Frenchmen, of submitting to the majority till we
have convinced it. We do this in every municipal
constituency, in every parish vestry, ix every busi-
ness board, in every social club or society, and a
large portion, at -least, of our Christian
churches do it in their ecclesiastical manage-
ment. It is, we believe, the only sound prin-
ciple. If a minority be large, and have a
thorough lgood cause, it is their business to
enlighten the majority, and thus take their place
by the best of all means—the diffusion of know-
ledge, and the spread of right convictions. If the
minority is small, though the task is longer, yet it
must be performed. The House of Commons is not
the only lecture room for political instructors; and
the minority too small to obtain a footing there,
must avail themselves of the press, the platform,
and the hustings, till they can return their men.
We have seen nothing yet which exalts the
proposal of minority members above a dilettante
fancy.