parties must yield to any faction which becomes strong enough to
hold the balance of power between them, or suffer the inevitable
consequences--instability and impotence of government.

Dr. Snow evidently thought that it is not possible to direct the
current of public opinion into exactly two channels. He certainly had
not the slightest idea that it might be a matter of electoral machinery.

Finally, we may quote the opinion of Mr. James Bryce, M.P., whose
"American Commonwealth" is one of the most complete studies of the
tendencies of democracy in existence. Comparing the English and American
systems, he writes of the former:--

That system could not be deemed to have reached its maturity till
the power of the people at large had been established by the Reform
Act of 1832. For its essence resides in the delicate equipoise it
creates between the three powers, the ministry, the House of
Commons, and the people. The House is strong because it can call
the ministry to account for every act, and can by refusing supplies
compel their resignation. The ministry are not defenceless, because
they can dissolve Parliament, and ask the people to judge between
it and them. Parliament, when it displaces a ministry, does not
strike at executive authority; it merely changes its agents. The
ministry when they dissolve Parliament do not attack Parliament as
an institution; they recognise the supremacy of the body in asking
the country to change the individuals who compose it. Both the
House of Commons and the ministry act and move in the full view of
the people, who sit as arbiters, prepared to judge in any
controversy that may arise. The House is in touch with the people,
because every member must watch the lights and shadows of sentiment