the ancient world or the modern, in the old hemisphere or the new, a thirst for empire and a readiness for aggressive war has always marked it.  Though governments may have an appearance and even a reality of pacific intent, their action is always liable to be superseded by the violent and vehement operations of mere ignorance.’  The United States are no exception to this rule.  They have extended their dominion by much the same means as the empire of the Tsars or our own.  Texas and Upper California, the Philippines and Porto Rico, were annexed forcibly; New Mexico, Alaska, and Louisiana were bought; Florida was acquired by treaty; Maine filched from Canada.  In no case were the wishes of the inhabitants consulted.  Our own experience of republicanism is the same.  It was during the short period when Great Britain had no king that Cromwell’s court-poet, Andrew Marvell, urged him to complete his glorious career by demolishing our present allies: 

    A Caesar he, ere long, to Gaul,
    To Italy an Hannibal.

On the other hand, none of the ‘autocrats’ wanted this war.  The Kaiser was certainly pushed into it.

Democracy is a form of government which may be rationally defended, not as being good, but as being less bad than any other.  Its strongest merits seem to be:  first, that the citizens of a democracy have a sense of proprietorship and responsibility in public affairs, which in times of crisis may add to their tenacity and endurance.  The determination of the Federals in the American Civil War, and of the French and British in the four years’ struggle against Germany, may be legitimately adduced as arguments for democracy.  When De Tocqueville says that ’it is hard for a democracy to begin or to end a war,’ the second is truer than the first.  And, secondly, the educational value of democracy is so great that it may be held to counterbalance many defects.  Mill decides in favour of democracy mainly on the ground that ’it promotes a better and higher form of national character than any other polity,’ since government by authority stunts the intellect, narrows the sympathies, and destroys the power of initiative.  ‘The perfect commonwealth,’ says Mr. Zimmern,’ is a society of free men and women, each at once ruling and being ruled,’ It is also fair to argue that monarchies do not escape the worst evils of democracies.  An autocracy is often obliged to oppress the educated classes and to propitiate the mob.  Domitian massacred senators with impunity, and only fell ‘postquam cerdonibus esse timendus coeperat.’  If an autocracy does not rest on the army, which leads to the chaos of praetorianism, it must rely on ‘panem et circenses.’  Hence it has some of the worst faults of democracy, without its advantages.  As Mr. Graham Wallas says:  ’When a Tsar or a bureaucracy finds itself forced to govern in opposition to a vague national feeling which may at any moment create an overwhelming national purpose,