[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR]
Sta,—I believe that it was Macaulay (though I cannot quote the passage) who pointed out that one of the differences between democratic and autocratic systems of government is that in the former the rulers of a State may sacrifice the interests of the people of that State to the interests of another people, because the people for whom they act have elected them and can turn them out of office. I forget how far Macaulay may have committed himself to the opposite principle in the case of autocratic governments. In the latter case, as a matter of courtesy, the principle must be concedgi even if its ethical basis is more debatable; because it is hopelessly unpractical _ to rule out group unselfishness. It is often very dangerous. for a group to act with group selfishness. "Nothing is so rash as fear."
The word " justice " looks well on paper, but we do not live long on earth without discovering that in practice it does not exist; there is no such terrestrial thing.. 'The nearest approxi- mation to it is usually some compromise reached by a willing- ness of all negotiating parties to make -concessions. Those who advocate action to free Spain from German and Italian interference cannot be impaled on a dilemma by a rhetorical question as to whether it is " selfish " or " unselfish " action which they propose.—! am, Sir, yours faithfully, E. PEASE.
Hindetwell.
Previous page
