make civilisation more humane and compassionate than it has been in the past.  Unfortunately, experience shows that none is so cruel as the disillusioned sentimentalist.  He thinks that he can break or ignore nature’s laws with impunity; and then, when he finds that nature has no sentiment, he rages like a mad dog, and combines with his theoretical objection to capital punishment a lust to murder all who disagree with him.  This is the genesis of Jacobinism and Bolshevism.

But whether we think that the bad in democracy predominates over the good, or the good over the bad, a question which I shall not attempt to decide, the popular balderdash about it corresponds to no real conviction.  The upper class has never believed in it; the middle class has the strongest reasons to hate and fear it.  But how about the lower class, in whose interests the whole machine is supposed to have been set going?  The working man has no respect for either democracy or liberty.  His whole interest is in transferring the wealth of the minority to his own pocket.  There was a time when he thought that universal suffrage would get for him what he desires; but he has lost all faith in constitutional methods.  To levy blackmail on the community, under threats of civil war, seems to him a more expeditious way of gaining his object.  Monopolies are to be established by pitiless coercion of those who wish to keep their freedom.  The trade unions are large capitalists; they are well able to start factories for themselves and work them for their own exclusive profit.  But they find it more profitable to hold the nation to ransom by blockading the supply of the necessaries of life.  The new labourer despises productivity for the same reason that the old robber barons did:  it is less trouble to take money than to make it.  The most outspoken popular leaders no longer conceal their contempt for and rejection of democracy.  The socialists perceive the irreconcilable contradiction between the two ideas,[4] and they are right.  Democracy postulates community of interest or loyal patriotism.  When these are absent it cannot long exist.  Syndicalism, which seems to be growing, is the antipodes of socialism, but, like socialism, it can make no terms with democracy.  ‘If syndicalism triumphs,’ says its chief prophet Sorel, ’the parliamentary regime, so dear to the intellectuals, will be at an end.’  ’The syndicalist has a contempt for the vulgar idea of democracy; the vast unconscious mass is not to be taken into account when the minority wishes to act so as to benefit it.’[5] ’The effect of political majorities,’ says Mr. Levine, ‘is to hinder advance,’ Accordingly, political methods are rejected with contempt.  The anarchists go one step further.  Bakunin proclaims that ’we reject all legislation, all authority, and all influence, even when it has proceeded from universal suffrage.’  These powerful movements, opposed as they are to each other, agree in spurning the very idea of democracy, which Lord Morley defines as government by public opinion, and which may be defined with more precision as direct government by the votes of the majority among the adult members of a nation.  Even a political philosopher like Mr. Lowes Dickinson says, ‘For my part, I am no democrat.’