+The Tasmanian Experiment.+—­Despite the fact that it has been advocated for over forty years, the trial now being made of the Hare system in Tasmania is the first application of the “representative principle” to any assembly modelled on the English plan of party government, and therefore deserves more than passing notice.  But the experiment is on such a small scale, and has been conducted for such a short time, that the result can hardly be expected to be conclusive as yet.  The objection against the Hare system is not so much that it is not suitable to present conditions as that it will speedily bring about altered conditions.  It is interesting to find that this is exactly what is taking place.  The system is applied in two electorates only, at Hobart and Launceston the former returning six members and the latter four.  At the first election, in 1897, the possibilities of the system were not appreciated, and electors voted on the old lines; and although the results were rather erratic and unexpected, they were considered fairly satisfactory.  But the second election, held early in the present year, proved a great blow to the system.  No less than three of the successful candidates were intensely unpopular; and one of them, an ex-minister, had recently been banished from public life on the report of a select committee of the House.  His reinstatement aroused a storm of indignation throughout the colony, and he was forced to retire again before Parliament met.  It will be as well to take the evidence of a strong advocate of the system—­the Argus correspondent.  Of one candidate he writes:—­“Judging by all available definite evidences, it seemed that five-sixths of the electors of Hobart were directly in favour of the construction of the railway by the present Great Western Railway Syndicate; while those of the remaining sixth were variously opposed to the company or to the project of constructing such a railway by private enterprise at all.  This sixth is represented by Mr. R.C.  Patterson, who headed the poll.”  Of another candidate we learn that “Mr. Mulcahy had fought a hard fight, and it is a fair assumption that on the list of the elected he represents the Roman Catholic vote.  As a member of a generally popular Government, the extent of Mr. Mulcahy’s personal unpopularity was remarkable and probably unique.”  But it was over the return of Mr. Miles that the storm raged most.  The excuse is made that “the fault of Mr. Miles’s return (assuming that it is a fault) lies with the electors who returned him, and not with the system under which his return was accomplished....  Once grant that a section of Hobart electors have the right to select for their representative whom they choose, and it would seem that the Hare system must be held free of all responsibility for the return of Mr. Miles.”  But this is precisely what cannot be granted for a moment, as we have endeavoured to show.  The assertion is made that Mr. Miles would have been returned as