In short, race, language, physiography and history do not constitute nationality, but conduce to it in so far as they give rise to the sense of a common life. It is evident, then, that national individuality like personal individuality is a psychological fact which has many varying and supplementary causes. A man will possess nationality in so far as he identifies himself with a group by act of will and a less conscious but not less significant community of sentiment or idea. Although the difference is not a sharp one, and although the two factors act and react upon one another, it will be useful to distinguish between the bond of utility and the bond of culture. I shall therefore consider nationality under each of these aspects and endeavor to bring to light in each case the causes by which nationality tends to tyranny and intolerance, or the means by which this evil consequence may be prevented.

The bond of utility means simply that every individual finds it expedient to go into partnership with his fellows. He must attach himself to some organized society in which his interests are adjusted to those of other men according to certain rules which are defined and enforced by a common authority. Nationality in this sense is the same as polity, but only provided polity

is regarded as a voluntary association for mutual benefit, and not as an alien coercive force. The state is an expression of nationality only in so far as it is adopted and acknowledged as their own by a group of participating beneficiaries. There is, of course, a wide difference of opinion as to the scope of this political partnership, ranging from laissez-faire to state socialism.

But there are two benefits which are the least that is expected of the state: the benefit of internal peace, and the benefit of security against external aggression. A state is a social group living under one system of law, and making common cause together against dangers from abroad. A state has one police, and one military force, ruled by one ultimate authority. This account of the state ignores such ambiguous situations as have been created in the past by the temporal claims of the church, and such as are created now by federal systems and by alliances. These doubtful cases prove that it is impossible to distinguish the identity of the state in any absolute and unqualified manner; but they do not affect the particular considerations to which I wish now to turn.

The internal or domestic policy of a state defines the limits within which individuals may do

success.

as they please without getting in one another's way. Its object is to secure to each individual as large a sphere of liberty as possible; in short, to guarantee private privilege. Variety, originality, happiness and growth are the signs of its These things must, however, be attained by organization and discipline. And therein lies the difficulty and paradox of domestic policy. Repression and orderly routine are indispensable; but if carried too far they defeat their purpose. There is such a thing as a sort of national asceticism in which repression is deemed an end in itself, instead of an instrument of liberty. Organization is an art and requires experts; but these readily become a bureaucracy and eventually a ruling class which asserts its own interests in place of those it was designed to serve. "Whenever a single definite object is made the supreme end of the state," to quote Lord Acton once more, "be it the advantage of a class, the safety or the power of the country, the greatest happiness of the greatest number, or the support of any speculative idea, the state becomes for the time inevitably absolute." In other words, whatever the function which the state exercises, it requires submission. But this

1 Op. cit., p. 288.

submission may become a habit through confusion of mind or through helplessness, so that the instrument becomes a burden and a tyranny. Hence the just suspicion of authority which is characteristic of the peoples of western Europe and America. Hence "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Here is the danger which justifies the distrust of representatives and experts among the more advanced democraciesthe rude insistence that public officials shall be servants, and that if experts be necessary, then all must be educated to some competence in public affairs.

But this same characteristic difficulty is aggravated by the interplay of domestic and foreign policy. A common danger from abroad outranks in urgency any question of domestic rights, as in the case of the individual the question of life or death instantly eclipses questions of comparative happiness. Thus the threat of war invariably leads to a conservative reaction. It has led, in France before the war, and in all countries since its outbreak, to the postponement or slighting of such questions as the relations of church and state, or the extension of the suffrage, or the improvement of the conditions of labor. It is, moreover, unhappily the fact that the pol

icy which best serves individual interests at home, and the policy which makes a nation most powerful abroad, do not coincide. A liberal domestic policy implies protest and insubordination; it encourages claims and counter-claims in behalf of private interests, and leads to changes of the existing equilibrium. Power abroad, on the other hand, implies concentration of purpose, a forgetfulness of grievances, and a willingness to bear injustice in the presence of the great emergency. Thus the solution of the great problem of personal happiness and development is retarded or put aside, and society returns for a time to the rudimentary question of bare preservation.

I do not for a moment mean to belittle this question of preservation. It does and must take precedence of other questions. Aggression from abroad creates a genuine emergency. In order that nations shall be anything at all, they must first exist. Even such apprehension as has led Englishmen of to-day seriously to advocate a dictatorship is not wholly groundless. The tragic fact is that no people can give itself up whole-heartedly to the improvement of the lot of individuals, or to any of the higher spiritual purposes of civilization, until all peoples are engaged in the same task. A single aggressive