whom, like Mr. Henry Hazlitt, he differs. My purpose is the very different one of attempting to annotate some of his conclusions, both on the British system and on the American-for, as it seems to me, his account of the first is hardly aware of the changing social order of which it is the expression; and his account of the second, if a foreigner may judge, suffers somewhat seriously from those sins of omission in description which it is the natural temptation of a patriot to exhibit as virtues. And the whole argument, if I may say so, is built upon a series of unexplored and unstated assumptions which have an importance far beyond anything that Mr. Price is ready to recognize. I am, therefore, in no way seeking to eulogize the parliamentary system at the expense of the presidential, or vice versa; each seems to me to have its own special merits, and neither is likely to be capable of transference to another environment, where alien traditions are deeprooted, without becoming something very different from what it was in the country of its origin. I begin by noting that the "classic" parliamentary system, which Mr. Price is so emphatic this country "long ago" abandoned, has never existed outside the imagination of the publicists. In each epoch of its history since the time of Bagehot, the character of parliamentary government has changed with the problems it has had to solve. It was one thing in the days of Gladstone and Disraeli; it was another thing in the ten years when Mr. Balfour led the House of Commons; and it was different again in the years of the Liberal government from 1906 to 1914. The adaptation of Parliament to the demands of the first