of these two factions again threatened to make government impossible.  In administration the evil was felt most; the union of ministers of both parties was proving unworkable.  So fickle did legislation become that no one could say one day what the House would do the next.  It was at this crisis, and about the year 1693, that William III., who cared more for a strong administration than for political differences, created what is known as cabinet government, and, as Professor Gardiner says, “refounded the government of England on a new basis.”  Recognizing that power should not be separated from responsibility, he affirmed the principle that the ministers of state should be selected from the party which had a majority in the House of Commons.  But the time was not yet ripe for the complete application of this principle.  Early in the eighteenth century Sir Robert Walpole set the example of resigning when he no longer possessed the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons; but in the latter half of the century the great Earl of Chatham introduced again the practice of selecting ministers irrespective of party.  Despite the fact that he was supported by the personal influence of George III., the attempt failed.  A succession of weak ministries followed; and out of the confusion the modern division of Liberals and Conservatives emerged.  Thus it was not until the beginning of the present century that the doctrines of the solidarity of the Cabinet and its complete dependence on a majority of the House of Commons were thoroughly developed in their present form.  England, now grown into the United Kingdom, had at last, after six centuries of strife, won her national independence, and for one brief century has enjoyed a full measure of self-government.

+Comparison of the Two Stages.+—­How do the conditions presented by the nineteenth century differ from those of the fourteenth?  And how is the problem of representation affected?  We have seen that the great forces which animated the nation in the fourteenth century were organization and leadership.  Have these forces ceased to operate?  Assuredly not.  In the fourteenth century we had a united people organized under its chosen leaders against the encroachments of the King and nobility on its national liberty.  In the nineteenth century the people have won their political independence, but the struggle is now carried on between two great organized parties.  The principle of leadership is still as strong as ever.  The careers of Pitt, Peel, Palmerston, Beaconsfield, and Gladstone attest that fact.  The one great difference, then, between the fourteenth and the nineteenth centuries is that instead of one party there are two.  The problem of representation in the fourteenth century was to keep the people together in one united party, and to allow them to select their most popular leaders.  Surely the problem is different in the nineteenth century.  The requirements now are to organize the people into two great parties, and to allow each