CHAPTER X.
THE DESIGNATION OF MEMBERS AND CONSTITUENCIES.
A system which anticipates the progress of the nation, and admits of the formation of new constituencies, as the occasion and desire shall arise, must also contemplate, as has been already observed, the existence of many more constituencies than there can be members,—and, therefore, that one member may represent several constituencies.[1] This is substantially the case at present in the contributory boroughs. The member for Ayr, for example, may be called with indifferent accuracy the member for Campbeltown or Irvine. So, in the proposed system, it would be unimportant, in point of nomenclature, whether a member who had been returned for several constituencies should, in the ordinary appellation by which he is addressed in the House, be styled as the member for one rather than the other, although it would be reasonable that he should be usually referred to as the representative of that constituency for which he had also been especially a candidate. Throughout the frame of this scheme it has been an object to create and maintain a connection between the member and the constituents, which shall be due to no selfish or sordid cause, but be solely owing to the estimation by the one of the virtues of the other. Under the existing system of majorities, every elector may throw upon others the blame of a contemptible choice. "Thou canst not say I did it," may
- ↑ See pp. 50–54, 56
