3.  Several critics of democracy have accused it not only of rash iconoclasm, but of obstinate conservatism and obstructiveness.  It seems unreasonable to charge the same persons with two opposite faults; but it is true that where the popular emotions are not touched, the masses will cling to old abuses from mere force of habit.  As Maine says, universal suffrage would have prohibited the spinning-jenny and the power-loom, the threshing-machine and the Gregorian calendar; and it would have restored the Stuarts.  The theory of democracy—­vox populi vox dei—­is a pure superstition, a belief in a divine or natural sanction which does not exist.  And superstition is usually obstructive.  ’We erect the temporary watchwords of evanescent politics into eternal truths; and having accepted as platitudes the paradoxes of our fathers, we perpetuate them as obstacles to the progress of our children.’[1]

4.  A more serious danger is that of vexatious and inquisitive tyranny.  This is exercised partly through public opinion, a vulgar, impertinent, anonymous tyrant who deliberately makes life unpleasant for anyone who is not content to be the average man.  But partly it is seen in constant interference with the legislature and the executive.  No one can govern who cannot afford to be unpopular, and no democratic official can afford to be unpopular.  Sometimes he has to wink at flagrant injustice and oppression; at other times a fanatical agitation compels him to pass laws which forbid the citizen to indulge perfectly harmless tastes, or tax him to contribute to the pleasures of the majority.  In many ways a Russian under the Tsars was far less interfered with than an Englishman or American or Australian.

5.  But the two diseases which are likely to be fatal to democracy are anarchy and corruption.  A democratic government is almost necessarily weak and timid.  A democracy cannot tolerate a strong executive for fear of seeing the control pass out of the hands of the mob.  The executive must be unarmed and defenceless.  The result is that it is at the mercy of any violent and anti-social faction.  No civilised government has ever given a more ludicrous and humiliating object-lesson than the Cabinet and House of Commons in the years before the war, in face of the outrages committed by a small gang of female anarchists.  The legalisation of terrorism by the trade-unions was too tragic a surrender to be ludicrous, but it was even more disgraceful.  None could be surprised when, during the war, the Government shrank from dealing with treasonable conspiracy in the same quarter.

The Times for May 24, 1917, contained a noteworthy example of justice influenced by pressure, and therefore applied with flagrant inequality.  In parallel columns appeared reports of ‘sugar-sellers fined’ and ’strike leaders released.’  The former paid the full penalty of their misdeeds because no body of outside opinion maintained them.  The