maintain that it is a tyranny that will rapidly decrease before the onslaught of Liberalism. Also the tyranny of capital is loose and chaotic, so that it is difficult to tell whether we are in its grip, or whether we are the victims of the vast and age-long economic laws of this povertystricken planet. At any rate the tyranny of capital has a tendency towards increasing individual liberty, since there is in existence a power greater than itself, the power of the Liberal State to interfere in its capacity as the guardian of liberty, from whatever quarter that liberty may be threatened. But the tyranny of bureaucracy has no tendency whatever towards increasing individual liberty, since, like Louis XIV, it is the State, and there is no power in existence greater than itself, to protect us from its organized control.

WE

CHAPTER X

THE LIBERAL FUTURE

E have endeavoured in the preceding chapters to show that Socialism represents the Conservative influence in modern political society. It is made up of all the ingredients of Conservative thought. It is invented by philosophers on the premise of a clean slate. It maintains that Government is a science and not an art. It is grossly materialistic. It denies all natural rights. It creates a Static State, gives it the sanction of patriotism and idolatry, endows it with unlimited power, authority, and control, and control, and, after dividing society into two definite classes, hands over to one of them, and that a natural aristocracy of brains, the unchallenged and permanent possession of the machine. It refuses to wait for the processes of evolution, and, by the very impetus of its own principles, is obliged to follow the path first of national revolution, and then of international war, in order to impose its doctrines. Above all, it possesses a disas

trous tendency to decrease the individual liberty of men.

Against systems based upon such ideas Liberalism has been contending since the dawn of history, and the need for it to continue the struggle against the Socialist re-incarnation of Conservatism is obvious and vital. But Liberalism is not merely concerned with opposition, it is also necessary for it to construct and reform. And in order to discover the direction of its constructive and reformatory activities, we must ask ourselves what it is in Socialism that has drawn towards it so strong a support in a Democracy ignorant of its history and its tendencies.

In spite of the mass of material with which the intellect of man has overlaid the broad outlines of history, making it continually more difficult to see the wood for the trees, the years that divide Mr. Sidney Webb from Moses are very few compared with the ages that were necessary to reach the Mosaic standard of life. We grow impatient with progress by comparing it with our own short lives. The attempt of mankind to emancipate itself has the appearance of failure to those who are eager to record achieved results, and we attempt to forestall the processes of time either by consolidating the imperfect present or by constructing a system that will to-morrow produce the millen

nium. Both these types of mental attitude are Conservative and contrary to the law of evolution. In its own time, and when it is ready for it, mankind will be completely free, and the necessity for government will be gone. In the meantime it is our business to add a stone or two to the building of the temple, and to see to it that no one, Prussian or otherwise, either obstructs the building or succeeds in persuading us that it is built. At this moment Capital is obstructing the building of the temple of liberty, while Socialism is asserting that it can complete the building at once. The appeal that Socialism makes is not, however, contained in that assertion, since very few believe in its truth. The appeal that Socialism makes is that it alone is genuinely and sincerely determined to oppose the obstruction that Capital makes to human progress. The problem of distribution is economic, and by no means insoluble. But Liberalism has to show that it genuinely desires to solve it, and that it is not tied by a secret treaty to the selfish status quo of Capitalism. There is after all some justification for the growing distrust of our democratic institutions. They have the appearance of having had their day and of being unfit to deal with the difficulties that surround the future. Parliament and politicians, and all the inherited paraphernalia of Democracy, have

fallen into disrepute just at the moment when the full fruition of the franchise has been obtained by the masses of the community. This fall in the value of the vote has been accelerated by the methods of Mr. Lloyd George, who has shown too clearly how the democratic machine can be misused and manipulated. The mobilization of the Press, the secret employment of party funds, the sale of honours, the subtle distortion of Parliamentary procedure, have had the effect of destroying both the independence of the constituencies and the usefulness of the franchise. It is not surprising, therefore, that men should turn to the direct action of the Trades Union Congress, or even to the Soviet, as political methods by which there is more chance of their influencing policy and events. The power of the Cabinet as opposed to the power of the House of Commons has rapidly increased during the last generation, and that process has culminated in the almost despotic power of the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister is surrounded by a secret Junta of unofficial intellectuals who cannot be removed or assailed. That Junta controls the House of Commons by the power of the Whips, who decide what is to be discussed and what is to be forgotten, who use the closure for their own political convenience, and hold over the private member not only the threat of a general elec