But the working classes are hardly to be blamed in this matter, for it is a fact that before their action they were not able to exert their just share of influence.  The government was such as to promote the rule of private interests instead of the general welfare, and, consequently, their interests were shamefully neglected.  The real cause of the mischief was, as in America, the nominating system, which is inseparably connected with the present method of election.  The consideration of this question brings us to the second characteristic of Australian politics—­namely, the irresponsible leadership of the press.

We have seen how in America organization has been effected without responsible leadership in Congress, only at the expense of the irresponsible leadership of the “rings” and “bosses” who control the “machines.”  In Australia an analogous result has been brought about by different causes.  We have not had civil strife to teach us the necessity of organization, nor have we a spoils system available as a basis, but the disorganized state of the legislatures and the consequent weakness of the executive have thrown a large share of leadership into the hands of the press.  Both in America and in Australia the prevalence of the ultra-democratic theory that representatives should follow and not lead the people has been a powerful contributing cause.  And yet it is as clear as possible that the choice lies between two alternatives.  The people must either submit to responsible leadership in Parliament or to irresponsible leadership outside.  The ultra-democrats hold that responsible leadership in Parliament is incompatible with popular government.  We believe that this is the fundamental error which is leading both the Australian and the American democracies astray.  On the contrary, it is the irresponsible despotism which is exercised by the “bosses” in America and the newspapers in Australia which is really incompatible with free government.

The source of the error lies in the failure to grasp the meaning of the term “responsible leadership.”  It is assumed that either the people must lead and the representatives follow, or the representatives must lead and the people follow.  Bagehot may be taken as an exponent of the latter position.  He thought that cabinet government was only possible with a deferential nation as opposed to a democratic nation.  England he held to be the type of deferential nations, because the people were content to leave the government to the “great governing families”—­i.e., to defer to caste, which is in principle the same as deferring to a king, who is supposed to rule by divine right.  Mr. Bradford also gives a somewhat exaggerated idea of the importance of the force of personality when he declares that the mass of the people have no “views” on public questions; all they want is to be well governed.  The late Professor Freeman Snow, of Harvard University, U.S., was a supporter of the ultra-democratic view.  In the “Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science” for July, 1892, he declares:—­