At any rate, it shows that other nations are not deterred by anything in political experience from having a House with these large numbers; and this perhaps is of more value because European writers, political philosophers for successive generations, have warred against large bodies.
He notes that despite historical opposition from political philosophers, many nations have successfully adopted larger legislative bodies.
Share
More from Charles Sumner
Without yielding to any of these extreme views with regard to the mischiefs or the benefits of party, all should agree that the only true and legitimate object of such an association is to uphold, advance, and develop certain principles…
Nay, more,--if it would be criminal in these several clusters of States to reëstablish the Institution of War as Arbiter of Justice, then is it criminal in the Commonwealth of Nations to continue it.
They belong to a system so essentially irrational, that all the admitted virtues of many of its agents cannot save it from judgment.
Their existence is a disgrace to civilization; for it implies the common consent of nations to the Arbitrament of War, as regulated by these laws.
Other voices in this conversation
