them, it will exercise no influence in the direction of furthering its own views.  From this statement it is evident that no system of independent direct proportional representation within the party can be recognized as a right to which the different sections are entitled, as it would inevitably break up the party, and lead to sectional delegation.  The sections would then change in character, and become violent factions.  But, nevertheless, if the sections work together as described, every section will be proportionately represented in the party policy, and therefore by every representative of the party.  Moreover, no section can dictate to either party, or obtain more than a fair compromise.  For all the sections are interdependent, and any section which attempts to exert more than its just share of influence will sink in general favour, and will find those who are inclined to support its pretensions rejected at the election.

The difference between the two stages of representation may now be clearly appreciated.  In the first stage we have seen that the fear of the aggression of the monarchy held all sections together in one party.  In the second stage, however, it has been abundantly demonstrated by experience that the fear of each other will not hold the sections of the two parties together.  The electoral machinery must, therefore, supply the deficiency.

+Party Lines.+—­With the altered character of parties there is ground for hope that the basis of division will become questions of general public policy, and that all causes of factious dissension and of social disruption will tend to be repressed.  This improvement is indeed urgently needed.  For if in any country party lines are decided by geographical considerations, as town v. country; by class, as Capital v. Labour; by race as in South Africa; by religion as in Belgium; or by personal ambition for the spoils of office—­in any of these cases the future of that country is open to the gravest doubt.

Perhaps the greatest danger which assails most democratic countries to-day is the risk of the working classes being persuaded by demagogues that equal political rights have been extended to them in order that they shall govern, instead of in order that they shall not be misgoverned.  If the general welfare is to be advanced, all classes must influence the policies of both parties.  This condition is indispensable to bring about the ideal condition of two parties differing only as to what is best for all.

Equally to be condemned is the narrow-minded and intolerant view of those who can see no virtue in an opposing party; who define, for instance, the distinction between parties as the party for things as they are, and the party for things as they ought to be; the latter being, of course, their own party.  This is one of the objectionable features of Australian newspaper-made politics.