Republic has shown the difficulties of working a Chamber composed of groups, nor is the same source of difficulty unknown in England. (Vol. i., pp. 286, 287.)

Thus we find the opinion unanimously held that the one great fault to which cabinet government is liable is instability of the ministry, owing to imperfect organization of public opinion into two definite lines of policy.  Bagehot called it a case of unstable equilibrium, and Bradford, in “The Lesson of Popular Government,” goes further when he declares:—­“Not to speak disrespectfully, the ministry is like a company of men who, after excessive conviviality, are able to stand upright only by holding on to each other.”

Yet, after all, the amount of stability simply depends on the state of organization; and England has demonstrated in the golden period of her political history (about the middle of the present century) that the cabinet form of government can be quite as stable as the presidential form.  Therefore, if the present position gives cause for alarm, it is not in the abolition of the cabinet or the restriction of the suffrage that the remedy must be sought, but in improved organization.  And this, we hope to show, involves improved electoral machinery.

+France.+—­Turn to France.  Is there no lesson to be drawn from the history of that unstable country since the Revolution let loose its flood of human passions, ambitions, and aspirations?  Has not every attempt at popular government failed for the same cause—­want of organization?

France before the Revolution had groaned for centuries under the burden of a decayed feudalism and an absolute monarchy.  The last vestige of constitutional forms had disappeared.  The representatives of the estates had not been convened since the meeting of the States-General in 1614.  The widespread and unprecedented misery of the people caused them to revolt against being taxed without their consent, and a cry went up for a convocation of the estates.  The finances were in such a bad way that Louis XVI. was forced to consent, and the three estates—­clergy, nobles, and commons—­met at Versailles in 1789.  At first they called themselves the National Assembly, but the King foolishly took up such a position with regard to the people’s representatives that they swore solemnly that they would not separate till they had laid the foundation of a new Constitution, and henceforth were known as the Constituent Assembly.  It was determined that the King should no longer be absolute, and the choice lay between a constitutional monarchy and a republic.  The Declaration of the Rights of Man was first drawn up, and the Assembly settled down to its task.  The leading spirit was Mirabeau.  He had been to England, and had studied the British Constitution, and he rightly saw that France was too distracted by faction to maintain an independent executive.  He therefore openly advocated a constitutional monarchy with a cabinet chosen from