"Far Worse Than Prussian Militarists."

It is not consonant with my subject to discuss whether revolutions are page 4 ever justifiable. It will be held by reasonable men that where the State is under democratic rule, that is, where all citizens have equal rights, where provision is made for the settlement of all disputes by judicial tribunals, whether the dispute may be between citizens, or between citizens and the Government, further, where there is a right to vote granted to all adults, where redress of every kind can be granted by a freely elected Parliament, there is no justification for a revolution. To say that in such a country a revolution was justified would be to proclaim that democracy had failed, and some other form of government was necessary. In a land where human life is sacred, where property is secure, and freedom reigns, to say that some citizens have a right by force of arms to insist on their views being carried out would be to declare that mankind was unfit for social life, and that strength or power must rule, and not freedom and reason. Those who would so contend are not democrats, and they have no right to the name of Socialists used by John Stuart Mill, John Buskin, and other great reformers. On the contrary, they, are militarists of a type worse by far than Prussian militarists. These Prussian military autocrats have the sanction of the laws of their country for their tyrannous military acts. But those who would, in a free democracy, where there is a free Government and universal suffrage, apply force to get their behests carried out, are properly termed military anarchists. The basis of social life is, first, that a majority must rule, and second, that the liberty of the individual is not to be invaded unless it is necessary to do so to protect the liberty of all and and the existence of the State. If page 5 the Executive of a State attempts ta encroach oil this human liberty, those oppressed are not without redress. First, in a country where there is a free Parliament they can appeal to it for redress. If the Parliament gives them no relief, they can wait till the triennial election, and appeal to the people, and a democracy is based on the assumption that the people can be trusted. If the people, cannot be trusted, then we must admit a democracy is not a proper form of government; but Socialists of all kinds have said that the people can be trusted, and that they favour democratic government. In the United States and in the Commonwealth of Australia, and, to a small extent, New Zealand, there are written constitutions which limit the powers of both the Executive Governments and the Parliaments, In such countries the highest judicial tribunals may set aside decrees of the Executive Government and Acts of Parliament. Even in England a few months ago, the highest judicial tribunal of the Empire set aside an Order-in-Council of the King as being contrary to natural justice and to international law. The Order-in-Council interfered with the law as administered in the Prize Courts, and the judgment of the Privy Council was given in favour of Swedish shipowners.