the Young Pretender hastily laid his head. In democratically governed countries where Socialism has had to take its place in the political conflict of actualities not only have these antiquities been left behind amongst the discarded baggage, but they hardly influence Socialist thought. The virtues of republicanism and the conveniences of a monarchy are subjects of abstract interest which may ruffle for an hour the surface of debating societies, but in this country and under present circumstances, they do not cause a ripple in Parliamentary controversy or take up a line in Parliamentary programmes. One can conceive of a time when a foolish monarch and foolish court advisers might make the question a practical one by interfering in polities as the House of Lords recently did when it rejected a Budget. In such a case, the Socialist movement would be bound to stand for democratic control, and it would strive for root and branch changes. But from the purely practical point of view, Socialism, as is shown by the writings of many of its most distinguished exponents, of whom I may mention Lassalle, does not consider republicanism of essential importance. Theoretically it would say that a republic is a more intellectually defensible system of government than any other, and there it would leave the matter for the folly of other people to make it of practical moment.
Socialism declares for the sovereignty being in the hands of the people; it is opposed to property being the qualification for voting;
