The post of Chief Whip is characteristically English. It is an undefined offshoot of the constitution. It is not mentioned in Sir Erskine May's “Parliamentary Practice.” It has a sporting origin—“whipper-in of foxhounds.”

Formerly, when a division was taken in the House of Commons, members on one side remained and were counted in the House. The other side went into the lobby and were counted on their return into the House. But in 1836 the present system was adopted. Members divide into Aye and No lobbies and are counted by tellers. These tellers were, and are, appointed by the Speaker, from men identified with each side of the question at issue.

Obviously, the Government of the day was primarily concerned in the result of divisions on critical or important occasions. Before going to a division it was essential to know as accurately as possible what was the general sense of their supporters. The flock had to be herded in the fullest strength possible.

On October 14, 1935, the Conservative party, which had been in power in Canada since the general election of July, 1930, was resoundingly defeated. The Conservatives had carried 137 seats in 1930. In 1935 their numbers were reduced to 40. The 93 Liberal seats of 1930 were increased in 1935 to 179—a majority of 113 in a house of 245. Such a majority is without precedent in Canadian history. Even the Unionist government in the war election of 1917 received only 153 seats to the opposition's 82. The Liberal sweep was almost Dominion-wide. The Liberals carried all but one of the 26 constituencies in the three Maritime Provinces, 60 of the 65 Quebec constituencies, 56 out of 82 in Ontario (more than they have obtained in that province in any election since 1874), 14 out of 17 in Manitoba, 16 out of 21 in Saskatchewan, 7 out of 16 in British Columbia. Only in Alberta did they suffer a crushing defeat. There, only one Liberal was returned; 15 of the remaining 16 seats were carried by the new Social Credit party; the other seat went to the leader of the Conservative party, Mr. R. B. Bennett.

It may be assumed at the outset that any government based on the democratic principle should, regardless of the form it may take, reflect existing public opinion. The actual method by which expression may be given to the will of the people is of secondary importance. We have relied, in the past, and are still relying on representative institutions for the performance of this prime function of democratic government. Although satisfactory results have, on most occasions, been obtained, numerous instances are on record in which the action of the people's representatives has been at variance with definitely formulated public opinion. Such instances have been pointed to by critics as indicating serious defects in the working of the representative system.

To remedy these defects the devices known as the initiative and referendum were conceived and incorporated into many state constitutions. These instruments of government enable the voters, by means of the ballot, to supplant or supplement laws enacted by their representatives by laws of their own making. They were designed not to overthrow representative government but to prevent its diversion from its proper sphere of activity. When legislation does not seem to conform to public opinion the people may, by direct exercise of the law-making power, correct the error by popular vote, and the result is to be taken as the final word in determining what the will of the people really is on the subject in point. Public opinion is thus to find expression in the will of the electorate through the balloting process.