by Carlyle as the ‘‘bonfire of feudalism.’’ Government, according to Rosseau, in all its Departments, was the agent of the General Will of the sovereign people whose welfare must always be its aim and object, But, the General Will for the time being was also liable to err about the particular means chosen to achieve the ends of good Government. There was, according to Rousseau, also another part of the ‘‘General Will’’ which was more permanent and stable and unerring and decisive. He hinted that there was what Bosanquet (See: The philosophical Theory of the State – Chap. V) called the ‘‘Real Will’’, the basis of which was found in Rousseau’s philosophy. As pointed out by T.H. Green, in his Lectures on ‘‘Principles of Political Obligation.’’ (1931 Edn P. 82) Rousseau’s theory of sovereignty was designed to bring out that: ‘‘there’s on earth a yet adjuster thing, Veiled though it be, than Parliament and King.’’ T.H. Green said: ‘‘It is to this ‘auguster thing’, not to such supreme power as English lawyers held to be vested in ‘Parliament and King’, that Rousseau’s account of the sovereign is really applicable.’’ 540. The ideas of Rousseau were subsequently used by Hegelian and Idealist political philosophers to deify the State as the repository of the ‘‘Real Will’’ of the people and by Marxists to build their theory of a dictatorship of the proletariat. But, the views of Locke and Montesquieu were sought to be given a practical form by American Constitution makers, who imbued with them devised a machinery for the control of sovereign power of the people placed in the hands of the three organs of State so that it may not be misused. Suspicion of Governmental power and fear of its misuse, which characterised liberal democratic thinking, underlay the doctrine of separation of powers embodied in the American Constitution. 541. ‘‘The merits of democracy’’. According to Bertrand Russel (See: ‘‘Power: A new Social Analysis’’ p. 187) are negative: it does not insure good Government, but it prevents certain evils.’’ He pointed out (at p. 188): ‘‘It is possible , in a democracy, for the majority to exercise a brutal and wholly unnecessary tyranny over a minority ................ The safeguarding of minorities, so for as is compatible with orderly Government, is an essential part of the taming of power.’’ He also said (at p. 192): ‘‘Where democracy exists, there is still need to safeguard individuals and minorities against tyranny, both because tyranny is undesirable in itself, and because it is likely to lead to breaches of order. Montesquieu’s advocacy of the separation of legislative, executive and judiciary, the traditional English belief in checks and balances, Bentham’s political doctrines and the whole of nineteenth century liberalism, were designed to prevent the arbitrary exercise of power. But such methods have come to be considered incompatible with efficiency.’’