merely because there seems no danger of the latter being overlooked, and much that the former will be wholly forgotten. It is, moreover, to be remembered that the conduct of guideless parties has been chiefly in view. Since each member of such a party should be absolutely certain never to slip, the monotony of this precaution may in many places be relaxed with safety, and sometimes even with advantage.
I am, of course, aware that high authorities assert that a party should always be roped, and that it should never consist of less than three—does not the All England series tell that "whatever number may be right, two is wrong"? I must, however, confess that I fail to apprehend the reasons which have led to this unqualified dictum. It would rather appear that the best number depends on a variety of conditions, which vary with the expedition in view. For instance, on the Col du Lion, two is undoubtedly the best and safest number. Not merely is it desirable to reduce to the smallest dimensions the target offered to the mountain musketry and big guns, but it is also essential to move with the utmost speed attainable. Wherever this is the case each additional man is a source of danger.
Much recent writing on this question assumes that on steep slopes or cliffs three men are safer than two. It would, however, appear obvious that this is an error. If the leader slips, it almost of
