the representatives should be judged periodically on general lines of policy, and that the elector should not have the power of exercising control on single questions.  Under these conditions the result of the mutual relation will be an improvement on both sides.  But if, under the influence of irresponsible leadership outside Parliament, the people insist on increasing control over their representatives, then not only is Parliament degraded, but progress towards government in the general welfare is stopped.

This long digression as to the real meaning of responsible leadership is necessary in order to gauge the drift of the prevailing tendency towards the irresponsible leadership of the press in Australia.  The evil exists in all the colonies, but it is perhaps worse in our own colony of Victoria than in any other country in the world, although it is said to be very bad in Switzerland since the referendum was introduced.  We have two morning newspapers in Melbourne, which take opposite sides on nearly every question which arises.  They admit into their columns no facts and no arguments which tell against the position they have taken up; nay, more, they resort to downright misrepresentation to support it.  It will be said that this is only a form of the party game, but the danger lies in the fact that they circulate in different classes, and therefore these classes see only one side of every question.  Moreover, in their competition for the support of classes in which they desire to increase their circulation they use their influence to secure legislation which will appeal to class prejudices, or even undertake a prolonged agitation to relieve special interests from legitimate charges.  The Age has for a long time thrived by pandering to the prejudices of the working classes, and especially of the artisans; the Argus now seeks to get even by creating dissension between town and country.

All this interference with the functions of Parliament has a baneful influence on the working of the political machine.  The party lines are practically decided by the newspaper contest.  We have spoken of the resemblance to the “machine” control over American politics.  One of the newspapers is, in effect, managed by a “ring,” the other by a “boss.”  The despotism of David Syme in Melbourne is as unquestioned as that of Richard Croker in New York, or Matthew Quay in Pennsylvania.  How close the analogy is may be inferred from the fact that Mr. Syme has exercised, and still claims the right to exercise, control over nominations to Parliament.  It is notorious that the ten delegates who “represented” Victoria at the Federation Convention were elected on the Age “ticket.”  Again, Mr. Syme is known as “the father of protection,” and has been able, by the force of his indomitable will, to impose on the colony a tariff which can be compared only to the M’Kinley tariff in America, thus showing that irresponsible leadership in either form is more favourable to the rule of private interests than to the general welfare.