254 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



There is no solution there." With relentless pen he describes 

 complete nationalisation as " a harsh oligarchy, with defence- 

 less creatures under it, equal in their poverty, on a level in 

 their misery." 



This short chapter raises two points of capital importance, 

 viz. the greater burden of mass-tyranny than of individual 

 despotism benevolent or otherwise, and the ruin of all higher 

 life consequent on salaried dependence. Is he not absolutely 

 right when he contends that the harsh rule of the vague " many " 

 is more intolerable than any exactions of an individual, and is 

 so just on account of that vagueness ? In the last resort, one 

 man can be, often has been, dealt with, when his abuse of 

 power becomes too outrageous. But who can put restraint 

 on a shifting crowd of officials ? True, the electoral system 

 purports to afford a chance of change : yet of what avail is 

 change while the necessity of " toeing the party line " destroys 

 men's integrity ? We ought never to forget, when we are 

 estimating the chances of democracy, that public morality 

 never exceeds the private morality of the individuals com- 

 posing the " public " ; and that, as a general rule, mass- 

 action, lacking, as it does, the stimulus of direct responsibility, 

 tends to fall considerably below private standards. Nor should 

 we overlook the common inability to turn abstractions into 

 concrete action. Philosophically, theory and practice are 

 inseparable. In England, on the rare occasions when we pro- 

 pound abstract principles, we may still acquiesce in the most 

 flagrant neglect of their concrete realisation. 



Though an ideal form of government has never been agreed 

 on, some odd perversity in human things contrives occasion- 

 ally that schemes which look futile on paper work out fairly 

 in practice. The theory of the Roman Consulship, which 

 allowed each of the two to veto what the other did, has been 

 criticised as a fine example of what government should not be. 

 Probably it was superior to the rule of one, and infinitely so 

 to that of the irresponsible many. Nor is the reason far to 

 seek. If we look at psychological facts and not at fine-spun 

 political theory, have we not here an instance of rare practical 

 sagacity ? A paradox, let us remember, is not necessarily the 

 equivalent of a folly. Endow two persons with precisely 

 equal powers for thwarting each other, then, whatever their 

 work, provided they really care to do it, their obvious interest 



