the nation; that it strictly conserves the practice
of public discussion at every stage of a public trans-
action; that it requires the holders of high office to
be prepared to vindicate their acts before a tribunal,
which can punish them by dismissal, if it is dis-
satisfied or unconvinced. It creates a real sovereign
power, which is supreme in every department of
state, and in every region both of legislation and
administration; and it makes it possible to carry
out, by the normal course of constitutional pro-
cedure, reforms and changes of the most compre-
hensive character, provided they are really desired
by the majority of the electors.

The Parliamentary type of government is fre-
quently contrasted with the presidential and federal
types, the only other forms that seem likely to hold
their own in free and civilised communities which
have passed beyond the phase of autocratic monarchy.
From De Tocqueville downwards the comparison
has often been drawn. Foreign observers, naturally
desirous of improving their own institutions, have
sometimes over-emphasised the merits of the Eng-
lish system. Perhaps they do not always see how
much it depends upon circumstances which may
be called local or accidental. The mixture contains
numerous ingredients, "traces," as the analysts say,
of many diverse elements, and if one is omitted, or
introduced in undue proportion, the whole flavour
of the resultant is altered. None of the imitations,
with which the world is covered from Norway to
New Zealand, exactly reproduces the original. In
one country, they have failed to provide for the
secrecy and collective responsibility of the council
of ministers; in another, there may not exist a

-45-