The idea of patriotic duty has usually, in the past, been confounded with the passion of hatred. An Englishman who did not hate the French was considered to be unpatriotic, especially if he objected to useless bloodshed and advocated, whenever possible, a policy of conciliation. A few reasonable beings on both sides of the Channel are now beginning to perceive that it is not always, in reality, the most patriotic policy to waste the treasure of their own country and send their own countrymen to slaughter; for this is what blind hatred always comes to in the end. The objects of a patriotic mind alter with the degree of its enlightenment. In rude and ignorant natures patriotism is hatred of the foreigner; in cultivated and generous natures it is a wise and watchful desire for the happiness and prosperity of one’s native land. When vulgar patriotism blusters and is quarrelsome, intelligent patriotism keeps a cool head and cleverly steers the ship. The passion of hatred ought to be kept out of international affairs, as a lawyer keeps it out of legal business, looking only to the interest of his client. The vulgar French are childish enough to hate the English; if the English do not hate them in return, the advantage will be all their own. PART III POLITICS CHAPTER I REVOLUTION There is a strong resemblance between the great French and English political movements of modern times, but they differ from each other chronologically, and also in the terms by which they are usually described. [Sidenote: Misleading Use of the Words “Monarchy” and “Republic.”] The resemblance is seen at once when we use the terms that are equally applicable to both. The word “Monarchy,” for example, is misleading, because it is still used in the case of England, where one man does _not_ govern, and where popular representative institutions have irresistibly developed themselves. The word “Republic” is misleading in another way, because it is insidiously associated with communism by the enemies of genuine parliamentary government. [Sidenote: The Words “Absolutism” and “Liberty.”] Such being the abusive power of words, it is evident that so long as we use the words “Monarchy” and “Republic” for England and France we convey the idea of a difference that does not really exist, at least with that degree of antagonism and contrast; but if we use the words “Absolutism” and “Liberty,” supposing “Absolutism” to mean government by one person, invested with authority, and “Liberty” to mean national self-government, not anarchy, then we shall much more clearly perceive the resemblance in the political movement of the two countries. [Sidenote: England preceded France.]