desires the public good without possessing a ready tongue.  And the ambitious windbag, as soon as he has become a power by the enthusiasm he has aroused, will sell his influence to the governing clique, sometimes openly, sometimes by the more subtle method of intentionally failing at a crisis.  This is part of the normal working of democracy as embodied in representative institutions.  Yet a cure must be found if democracy is not to remain a farce.

One of the sources of evil in modern large democracies is the fact that most of the electorate have no direct or vital interest in most of the questions that arise.  Should Welsh children be allowed the use of the Welsh language in schools?  Should gipsies be compelled to abandon their nomadic life at the bidding of the education authorities?  Should miners have an eight-hour day?  Should Christian Scientists be compelled to call in doctors in case of serious illness?  These are matters of passionate interest to certain sections of the community, but of very little interest to the great majority.  If they are decided according to the wishes of the numerical majority, the intense desires of a minority will be overborne by the very slight and uninformed whims of the indifferent remainder.  If the minority are geographically concentrated, so that they can decide elections in a certain number of constituencies, like the Welsh and the miners, they have a good chance of getting their way, by the wholly beneficent process which its enemies describe as log-rolling.  But if they are scattered and politically feeble, like the gipsies and the Christian Scientists, they stand a very poor chance against the prejudices of the majority.  Even when they are geographically concentrated, like the Irish, they may fail to obtain their wishes, because they arouse some hostility or some instinct of domination in the majority.  Such a state of affairs is the negation of all democratic principles.

The tyranny of the majority is a very real danger.  It is a mistake to suppose that the majority is necessarily right.  On every new question the majority is always wrong at first.  In matters where the state must act as a whole, such as tariffs, for example, decision by majorities is probably the best method that can be devised.  But there are a great many questions in which there is no need of a uniform decision.  Religion is recognized as one of these.  Education ought to be one, provided a certain minimum standard is attained.  Military service clearly ought to be one.  Wherever divergent action by different groups is possible without anarchy, it ought to be permitted.  In such cases it will be found by those who consider past history that, whenever any new fundamental issue arises, the majority are in the wrong, because they are guided by prejudice and habit.  Progress comes through the gradual effect of a minority in converting opinion and altering custom.  At one time—­not so very long ago—­it was considered monstrous wickedness to maintain that old women ought not to be burnt as witches.  If those who held this opinion had been forcibly suppressed, we should still be steeped in medieval superstition.  For such reasons, it is of the utmost importance that the majority should refrain from imposing its will as regards matters in which uniformity is not absolutely necessary.