a number of instances where the simple question will be whether the existence of such considerations has been clearly made out. And it is doubtful whether Parliament will give this question the deliberate and judicial consideration it deserves. At no period in its history has the House of Commons been under greater and more direct pressure from the constituencies. The increasing practice of holding public meetings on every variety of subject, has largely facilitated the organization of opinion. The result is an immense amount of pressure upon members-pressure of a kind which is extremely difficult to withstand. It may be, for example, that considerations of expediency outweigh the presumption in favour of leaving men and women to rely on their own moral instincts as a protection from the temptations of the publichouse. It may be that these considerations are so strong as to justify, in the general interest, the subjection of the sober section of the public to some inconvenience for the sake of those whose motives are not enduring enough to save them from intemperance. However this is, it is apparent that in certain localities, at all events, although perhaps in fewer than is sometimes supposed, the public have come to a decision upon the point for themselves, and have returned members to represent their opinion upon it. Even if returned unpledged, it is not easy for any one to justify, on a local issue of fact, as distinguished from a general issue of principle, a decision in the teeth of the opinion of a majority of the only parties concerned. The main difficulty is generally to find out what this opinion really is, and to prevent decisions being come to on imperfect and

misleading evidence. It is not only in such matters as Local Option that pressure may be brought to bear under circumstances which require closer scrutiny than they generally get. Neither of the great parties in the State is free from the blame of being prone to yield unduly to influences which ought to be resisted. Each of these parties is subject to its own peculiar temptations. The Protectionist movement in the Conservative ranks is certainly not based upon any deliberate judgment about the fallacious character of the current economical reasoning. On the other hand, modern Radicalism is tinged with an element of the least well-considered Socialism. There is not the smallest appearance of a division of parties taking place, or even tending to take place, on economical grounds. The best that can be hoped for from the immediate future is that each party may, in an increasing degree, tend to fulfil the real functions of an opposition by watching closely and criticizing the tendencies of its opponents to violate the concrete maxims of such thinkers as Adam Smith. If modern politics came to be conceived from such a point of view; if the spirit and meaning of party came to be with the many what they once were with the few, and what they are to-day with fewer still, there would be much to be looked for from popular government.

A juster view of democracies than that which at this moment appears to be current with educated men throughout Europe, may recognize that the outlook is far from hopeless.

THE END.