ESSAY-REVIEWS 253 



Specialised knowledge ! But is it certain that the crowd has 

 no flair for capacity, no instinct leading it to sort out the 

 wheat from the chaff, in the throng of political aspirants ? 

 Let men turn back to those pages in J. S. Mill's Autobiography , 

 where he describes his " political meeting " with the working- 

 class electors of Westminster. Yet, there may be a racial 

 difference here, those Westminster people being not quite 

 typical of either nation. 



M. Faguet's insistence on specialised knowledge is speci- 

 fically French, while we raise to the " nth " our method of 

 removing the shoemaker from his last. Where we debate the 

 wisdom of letting a lawyer control the Army, a philosopher 

 manage the Navy, and anybody in general conduct Education 

 and Finance, the French do not hesitate to declare that such 

 plans originate in Bedlam and go out in disaster. Yet, some- 

 times, among ourselves, it is not so ; what, in France, would 

 prove sheer folly, turns out, in England, shall we say a re- 

 spectable second best ? 



Modern France, too large to practise " pure democracy " — 

 that system possible in ancient Athens where the adult males 

 could assemble at the summons of one herald — has chosen to 

 elect law-makers by the crowd from the crowd, a device M. 

 Faguet calls competence par collation arbitraire. He criticises 

 it by a comparison : "As a certain bishop, addressing a 

 haunch of venison, said, ' I baptize thee carp,' so the people 

 says to those of its choice, ' I baptize you jurisconsults, I bap- 

 tize you statesmen, I baptize you social reformers.' " Further 

 comment seems needless. He proceeds in the third chapter 

 to arraign salaried officialism, describing it with singular felicity 

 by employing an indirect method ; indicating the " refuges 

 of efficiency " whereunto the abler members of the community, 

 having been eliminated or excluded from public functions, 

 betake themselves, finding an outlet for their ability in private 

 employment. Even some of these can still be terrorised, if 

 they have relatives in the public service who could be made 

 to suffer for their too independent temerity. To those who 

 argue that a thoroughly nationalised, or socialised, State would 

 be free, he replies — Not while the government is electoral, for 

 that involves the retention of the party system. His dismal 

 conclusion is : " Nothing would be altered, save that wealth 

 and the last remnants of freedom would be suppressed. . . . 

 17 



