[6] The duties of a jury are, of course, very carefully limited by law. But even in this reduced sphere they are remarkable chiefly for their incompetence, prejudice, inattention, and stupidity. See particularly André Gide's Souvenirs de la Cour d'Assises, all the implied criticisms in which apply, mutatis quibusdam mutandis, with equal force to English and indeed to all juries.
[7] It is possible to argue, though of course impossible to prove, that if every diplomatic document of recent years had been immediately made public, the relations between the Powers would have remained very much what they are with "secret diplomacy"; that "public diplomacy" would if anything have intensified the existing jealousy and distrust. As a matter of fact anyone who takes the trouble can approximately discover the diplomatic situation existing at a particular moment between any two Powers, even if he cannot know the verbal text of a particular treaty. And if the supporters of "public diplomacy" reasonably point out that "publicity" is desired only as a means to ensure the democratic control of Foreign policy, the answer is that the only way to ensure the democratic control of diplomats or any other public servants is to educate the people.
[8] Such a volume or something very much like it has actually made its appearance, since these lines were written, in Professor Robert Michels' Political Parties (Jarrold, 1916).
[9] Cf. Bernard Shaw, in Pease, History of the Fabian Society, p. 268: "Sooner or later, unless democracy is to be discarded in a reaction of disgust such as killed it in ancient Athens, democracy itself will demand that only such men should be presented to its choice as have proved themselves qualified for more serious and disinterested work than 'stoking up' election meetings to momentary and foolish excitement. Without qualified rulers a Socialist State is impossible."
[10] Cf. Webb, Industrial Democracy, p. 718.
[11] Several books have been published giving details of the Armament Ring and international "Kruppism." I don't think that the language here used does any injustice to the facts.
[12] See below, § 7.
[13] They usually add to their mental confusion the elementary blunder of using the word "fittest" in a moral instead of in its biological sense.
[14] If anyone were to suggest that this is disproved by the unparalleled nobility of Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and Indians in the present campaign, I should reply that they are actuated by devotion not to the Empire but to England, not to the Company but to the Chairman of the Company. This may be a quibble, but I think the distinction is real. Anyhow, I leave it at that, as the point has no primary relevance.
[15] See below, Chapter IV, § 5.