[Footnote 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 Andre 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.] [Footnote 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.] Sec. 10 A Note on Democracy The outcry for "democratic" control demands, I think, a note, if not a volume,[8] on the limitations of democracy. We are all, I suppose, agreed nowadays that the government of the future must be democratic, in the sense that every adult has a _right_ to full citizenship, and every citizen can claim a vote. But it is obviously impossible for a modern State to be governed directly by the voices of say fifty or a hundred million citizens: there must always be a small legislative and a still smaller executive body; and these bodies should obviously be composed of the finest and most capable citizens. If then Aristocracy means, as it does mean, a government of the whole by the best elements, it follows that we are all equally agreed that the government of the future must be aristocratic. The solution of this antinomy is of course that democracy is not an end in itself, but only a means for the selection and sanction of aristocracy.[9] The best elements in the population can only come to the top if every man has an opportunity of using his voice and his intelligence. We may note in passing that a common objection, raised by writers like Emile Faguet, to the effect that democracy puts a premium on incompetence by choosing its officials almost fortuitously from the mob, is the exact opposite of the truth. It is our present regime that leaves the selection of our rulers to the chances of birth or wealth or forensic success. Real democracy will stimulate the selection of the best, just as trade union standardisation of wages encourages the employment of the better workmen.[10] FOOTNOTES: