may have to undertake the actual leadership. (Vol. ii., pp. 452,
453.)

In other words, that an industrial society is incapable of
self-government! Note the reason for this remarkable conclusion--a
splitting up into fractions, _i.e._, imperfect organization.

Take now the evidence of the distinguished historian and publicist, Mr.
W.E.H. Leeky, M.P., as given in his recent work on "Democracy and
Liberty":--

After all due weight has been given to the possible remedies that
have been considered, it still seems to me that the parliamentary
system, when it rests on manhood suffrage, or something closely
approaching to manhood suffrage, is extremely unlikely to be
permanent. This was evidently the opinion of Tocqueville, who was
strongly persuaded that the natural result of democracy was a
highly concentrated, enervating, but mild despotism. It is the
opinion of many of the most eminent contemporary thinkers in France
and Germany, and it is, I think, steadily growing in England. This
does not mean that parliaments will cease, or that a wide suffrage
will be abolished. It means that parliaments, if constructed on
this type, cannot permanently remain the supreme power among the
nations of the world. Sooner or later they will sink by their own
vices and inefficiencies into a lower plane. They will lose the
power of making and unmaking ministries, and it will be found
absolutely necessary to establish some strong executive
independently of their fluctuations. Very probably this executive
may be established, as in America and under the French Empire, upon
a broad basis of an independent suffrage. Very possibly upper