JO THE BRITISH APPROACH TO POLITICS

doubt"*; it is illegal to say in public things so provocative that a
"reasonable" man may fear they will cause a disturbance. To
translate this idea of reasonableness into law such as courts can
declare and citizens obey, is not easy, and the Constitution often
appears a tangled maze; but the* clue to it is the idea of reason-
ableness.

THE DEFENCE OF LIBERTY.

Yet, since it is true that a Government with a majority in
Parliament can legally do as it pleases, the legal defence against
tyranny seems weak. Tyranny, however* cannot be set up by
law alone; a Government with this ambition must control armies,
police, law courts and the Press. The red defence for British
liberty lies in the arrangements which make it difficult for a
Government ever to become strong enough to twist the Consti-
tution towards dictatorship without provoking revolt. Some
students of the British Constitution have argued that it checks
the Government by the device called SEPARATION OF
POWERS. Three powers are necessary for organising a State:-—
Legislative power to make laws, Executive power to carry them
out; Judicial power to apply the law to particular problems.
One view is that if these powers are placed in separate hands
no one body of people will be strong enough to be tyrannical,
and each power, jealous for its own authority, will keep watch
on the others. At first sight the British Constitution appears
to use this plan: the King and his Ministers carry out the law;
the King in Parliament makes it; the judges and magistrates
exercise judicial power. Until the iTth century this would not
have been a bad description of the Constitution, and the Separation
of Powers did then help to preserve liberty. It was because
Charles I could not by himself make laws to compel people to
pay taxes that he had to ask Parliament, and Parliament, thus
brought to the front of the stage, was able to voice the general
criticism of Charles* Government. This does not mean that
Parliament won the Civil War by a legal device; it won by wealth