Unfortunately, another cause of dissension menaces the Commonwealth.  We allude to the class representation which we have already animadverted upon.  The separate representation of sections or classes within the States is just as much to be dreaded as the separate representation of States, and bodes as much ill.  It seems not unlikely that the fate of the first Federal ministry will be in the hands of the Labour party, which will be able to dictate its policy.  It is utterly inconsistent with the democratic theory that a small minority should have this power; and it is to be hoped that in the wider field of federal politics its true character will be recognized.  It is only by the mutual action of two great national parties that the true direction of progress, favoured by the people, can be worked out; a small minority studying only its own interests is sure to be a bad guide.  A steady pressure maintained through the two national parties will ensure the recognition of all just demands; such extreme and ill-considered demands as that for the initiative and national referendum can only provoke opposition and cause reaction.  Even those who sympathize with the ultimate objects of the Labour unions must see the folly of their present unpatriotic and suicidal tactics.

It is a matter for hope that in the wider sphere of federal politics the irresponsible leadership of the press is not likely to be the power for harm that it is in some of the individual States at present.  But while it may not dominate the Federal Parliament as a whole to the same extent, its control over nominations in the States will be quite as great, and immeasurably greater if the Block Vote is adopted.  Nor are signs wanting of a union of some of the larger newspaper ventures in the principal States, with a view to increase their power.

Such is a brief review of the outlook.  The great requisites essential for progress are the organization of two national parties and responsible leadership in the Federal Parliament.  The dangers to the Commonwealth may be summed up under the two heads of lack of organization and irresponsible leadership outside Parliament.  Is it possible that the dangers may be avoided and the requisites secured by a change in electoral machinery?  Those who have no conception of the working of social forces, and who do not trace the law of causation into the realm of mind, will be inclined to scoff at the suggestion.  To them the only hope of improvement lies in appealing to the people to elect better men.  They ignore entirely the reciprocal relation of the Parliament and the people, and while recognizing the influence of the people on the character of Parliament, they deny the influence of Parliament on the character of the people.  They declare that the people are “free agents” and will have better government when they make up their minds to get it; and no electoral machinery or parliamentary machinery can influence the result.  Such is the passive attitude which consciously or