But while recognising the limitation, I have also in mind the practical requirements of having legislative assemblies of manageable sizes and as such, this kind of arbitrary selection is necessary. That can only be remedied, I think, if you continue the process of legislative organisation in units of smaller and smaller population, that is to say, carry it from your huge provinces down to some district or municipal level where perhaps you will have a much more direct representation and therefore direct self-government of the people. But as the provinces or States now stand, it seems unavoidable to select a figure such as the one that is selected and for that I claim no more merit than that it is likely to give you a more direct and more full representation of the people than any larger number. For the rest, the second part of the amendment gives the minimum and not the maximum. I am against keeping a clause which gives the maximum number of representatives to be found in any province of any State on the ground that by fixing such a maximum, whatever the figure may be, you deny the larger electorate really speaking, the right to assert itself. it is not that you are disfranchising, it is that you are combining them in such a manner that considerable portions may neutralise the effect of other portions and as such your representative body may not be truly representative. On these grounds I commend these two amendments to the House.
