sented in the government far more than ever before. The factory compelled men to move to the city to work with machinery which did not belong to them and to be herded together under unsanitary conditions which they were powerless to remedy. The Industrial Revolution increased the quantity of manufactured goods very greatly and at the same time reduced the price. This had the effect of enabling the common man to live much better. He could have the necessities and even some of the luxuries of life. The education of the workingman's children became a possibility. These conditions caused the first half of the nineteenth century to be a period of intense agitation for the extension of suffrage. This agitation bore fruit in England in a series of reform bills which gave the English people practically universal manhood suffrage and made the government really representative of the people. In the United States people enjoyed a much more widely extended suffrage at the beginning of the century. The wave of democratic sentiment which swept over the country between 1820 and 1840, usually known as Jacksonian democracy, brought about universal manhood suffrage in most of the states. The suffrage bill of 1918 in England and the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gave women the ballot and completed the development of representative government in the two great English speaking nations.

The Value of Representative Government. Every citizen of our country should know something of the history of representative government. He should know of the hardships, difficulties and struggles of our ancestors and of the conflicts which they waged to win and transmit this priceless heritage. He will then understand that it is an institution of slow

growth, that it has been thoroughly tried out as it has developed, and that it has proved to be the most valuable plan of government the world has ever known. One who knows this history will appreciate the privileges of the government which we enjoy. He will think carefully before giving his approval to any plan that will do away with its fundamental principles.

All Our Officers Representatives. All of the states have modeled their constitutions after the Constitution of the United States. All have representative officials in the state governments similar to those of the national government. The various state constitutions and state governments have provided governments for local communities, such as cities, counties, townships, and school districts. In each of these local units the officers, whether elected or appointed, are representatives of the people. In all cases, if these officers are doing their duty, they are doing the work of the people, for the people, and in the name of the people.

Responsibilities of a Representative. While all officers in the United States are in the broadest sense representatives of the people, certain legislative officers are called representatives. These are the members of the lower house of Congress and in the state legislative bodies. Senators, though not so named, are representatives in the same sense as the members of the lower houses. The president is the representative of all the people of the United States in executing the laws. If he should give undue attention to his own state or city he would be unfavorably criticised, and justly so, because he is no more the representative of the people of his own state or city than of any other person in the United States. His responsibility is to all of the people; his work

is for the entire nation. Likewise the responsibility of a governor is to the entire state.

In the case of a member of a legislative body there is double responsibility. If he is a member of Congress he is a United States official, legislates for the entire nation, is paid from the national treasury, and passes laws that are binding upon every citizen of the country. As a lawmaker he is responsible to the entire nation and is bound by his honor and his duty to his country to do what he thinks is best for the entire nation. But he is elected by a district, or if he is a senator, by a state, and is in a special sense the representative of his district or state. He is in this sense responsible to his district or state and can be re-elected or defeated by it. The same situation exists in the case of a member of the state legislature. All legislators in our country have this double responsibility to the people of their district and in a larger sense to their state or nation. These responsibilities should never be in conflict, but in case they appear to be, the legislator should not hesitate to be guided by his greater duty to the state or nation as a whole.

Territorial or Class Representation. Unofficial delegates of medical associations, labor unions, teachers' federations and other organizations with class interests are often sent to Congress or state legislatures to furnish information which may secure favorable consideration of proposed laws which they wish to have passed. In a perfectly honest way they work for or against pending measures. Senators and representatives know of course that these delegates represent the interest of special classes; the laws they urge may or may not be for the "greatest good to the greatest number." In this unofficial way there are in the United States many hundreds of persons who represent "special interests" in lawmaking.

Honest Elections. The great dangers to representative government are fraud and dishonesty in elections, the political boss, bribe taking, and dishonesty sometimes found among elected officials. Honest and fair elections in which every legally qualified voter casts one vote-not more than one— and has that vote counted, lie at the foundation of representative government as practiced in our country. If we do not have an honest election, the man or woman who secures the election certificate is not the representative of the voters, but the agent of election crooks. If the official feels that he owes his position to the political boss, whether it be an appointive or elective position, he is likely to take instruction from the boss and feel that he is responsible to him. In case of a dishonest official who receives a bribe, it is obvious that he has surrendered his manhood and all he is to the bribegiver and is in no sense a representative of the people, but the tool of the criminal who has bought him.

Comparison of the English and American Systems. Sometimes we hear the English government praised as being more representative of the people than our government. In some particulars this may be true, but before agreeing that the English system is better because in some ways it responds more quickly to changes in popular opinion than ours, we should make a careful comparison. The following are a few of the more important differences in the two governments. 1. In England there is but one kind of official elected to represent the people in the government. That official is a member of the House of Commons. All others obtain their positions directly or indirectly through the action of the House of Commons except the hereditary officials (chief of whom are the members of the House of Lords) and such subordinate

officials as may be appointed by them. In the United States we elect two distinct kinds of representatives, our executive officials, such as the president and governors, and our law makers, who correspond to the members of the House of Commons. We also elect our senators who correspond to the hereditary Lords in England. A member of the House of Commons does not represent his district but represents all the common people of England. Frequently he does not live in the district which elects him. He has but one responsibility, the responsibility to the nation as a whole. Each member of an American legislative body, state or national, represents his district and is responsible to the people of his district for his official action. At the same time he has a higher and greater responsibility, that to his nation or state.

2. Members of the House of Commons are elected for a term of five years. If the politicians managing the political party in power can agree for five years, the people in England can have no chance to approve or disapprove of governmental action for that length of time. But politicians, even those holding office and members of the same party, can seldom agree that long. The leader of the majority party has the power to dissolve Parliament and order a new election. That means that he can bring the term of office of every member of the House to an end and order a new election at any time a measure he has proposed is defeated. In actual practice an English Parliament may end any day. Sometimes there are two elections within a year. An election is usually held when political discussion and excitement upon some one question is at its height and members of Parliament are elected solely with regard to their position upon that one question. Members of our House of Representatives are elected for a term of two years.

There is no power to dissolve a Congress.