k the
Party System, and for a long time I could not get an opposer. At
last, I got one. He defended the Party System on the ground that
people must be bamboozled more or less.

Second, he asks if the Party System does not govern the country to
the content of most citizens. I answer that Englishmen are happy
under the Party System solely and exactly as Romans were happy under
Nero. That is, not because government was good, but because Life is
good, even without good government. Nero's slaves enjoyed Italy, not
Nero. Modern Englishmen enjoy England but certainly not the British
Constitution. The legislation is detested, wherever it is even felt.
The other day a Cambridge don complained that, when out bicycling
with his boys, he had to leave them in the rain while he drank a
glass of cider. Count the whole series of human souls between a
costermonger and a Cambridge don, and you will see a nation in mutiny.

Third, "What substitute, etc., etc." Here again, the answer is
simple and indeed traditional. I suggest we should do what was always
suggested in the riddles and revolutions of the recent centuries. In
the seventeenth century phrase, I suggest that we should "call a free
Parliament!"

Fourth, "Is Democracy compatible with Parliamentary Government?"
God forbid. Is God compatible with Church Government? Why should He
be? It is the other things that have to be compatible with God. A
church can only be a humble effort to utter God. A Parliament can
only be a humble effort to express Man. But for all that, there is a
deal of commonsense left in the world, and people do know when
priests or politicians are honestly trying to express a mystery--and
when they are only taking advantage of an ambiguity.

G. K. CHESTERTON.

Encouraged by the excitement that had attended the publication of
_The Party System_ its authors decided to attempt a newspaper of
their own. This paper is still in existence but it has in the course
of its history appeared under four different titles. To avoid later
confusion I had better set these down at the outset.

The Eye Witness, June 1911-October 1912
The New Witness, November 1912-May 1923
G. K.'s Weekly, 1925-1936
The Weekly Review, 1936 till today

During the first year of its existence the _Eye Witness_ was edited
by Belloc. Cecil Chesterton took over the editorship after a short
interregnum during which h