Chapter X: Conclusion 227 (3)

Because the English common law forms so large an element, and because it has among us been modified only by English-speaking people, the Pan-Angle law, though drawn from many sources, {70} still presents a certain homogeneity. "An English barrister . . . when once he enters an American court, or begins debating legal questions with American lawyers, . . . knows that he is not abroad, but at home; he breathes again the legal atmosphere to which he is accustomed. The law of America, he finds, is the law of England carried across the Atlantic, and little changed even in form. In all legal matters it is the conservatism, not the changeableness, of Americans which astonishes an English observer. Old names and old formulas meet us in every law court. Some twenty-six years ago there were to be found in Chicago in daily use forms of pleading which had long become obsolete in England."[70-1]

It is in our common tendencies, however, that the legal attitudes of the seven nations show most striking accord. Jenks, quoted earlier, concludes that we are in favour of uniformity, simplicity, greater freedom of the individual, and more fluidity of capital and labour, so much so, that "The courts will not even enforce effectively a contract of service. To do that, it is said, would be to legalize slavery, and the fact that the slave has become such by his own act makes no difference. It is considered that the perfect spontaneity of labour is of more value than the sacredness of contract."[70-2] Further than this, actual legislation repeats itself in the many Pan-Angle law-making bodies. The British Isles, {71} Massachusetts, New Zealand, and Australia test the merits or demerits of a minimum wage law. Compulsory insurance, old age pensions, maternity benefits, and arbitration statutes spring up everywhere. In efforts to solve some problems one part of the Pan-Angles leads; in others another part. Whether this is regarded as reform or experimentation is not under present discussion. The whole Pan-Angle civilization appears headed towards what is called by some social amelioration and by others paternalism. Whatever its true name, this race progress starts from a greater recognition of the individual and hopes for his greater comfort and welfare.

Of law among the Pan-Angles it may be said that it shows plainly its relation to English common law; that it is affected by local conditions resulting from historical causes; that it exhibits certain common tendencies, and among those is a regard for the individual and a passing from the viewpoint of status to that of contract.

All this can be seen in the laws regarding marriage and divorce. These, as well as our prejudices in such matters, are still largely determined by the dead hand of the Middle Ages. But the Teutonic ideal of the equality of the marriage partnership has survived the accumulation of dogma. Our release from its grip has not depended on the divorce of an English king, nor the accompanying religious schism. There is in us that which was destined to carry us up through the pains of changing social conditions to more satisfactory relations between the husband and the wife and society.

{72}

In our efforts to attain our ideals we are using many local laws. The British Isles have three: English, Scottish, and Irish. If the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man were considered, there would be six. Besides this, members of the royal family are subject to special restrictions. Newfoundland and New Zealand have marriage laws of their own. Canada has eleven, the Union of South Africa has four, and Australia six.[72-1] In the United States there are forty-eight. This makes a total of seventy-four sets of laws in the seven self-governing nations regarding who may marry and divorce and how.

These seventy-four different sets are not, however, strange and dissimilar. As in the case of suffrage, each one has many points identical with many others, and the range of variation is small. All are monogamous; all allow freedom of choice to the marrying parties; all hold marriage and divorce to be civil matters, and consider ministers and priests of religious denominations as civil officials for the legalizing of marriages. All prohibit marriage within certain degrees of relationship, the tendency being not to include among them the relationship-by-marriage impediments surviving from medieval practice, such as the various deceased spouse's brother or sister laws. The majority allow divorce, although in some, like Newfoundland and South Carolina, marriage is by law indissoluble. The trend at present seems to be towards safe-guarding marriage, but to make easier the means of divorce. Men and women are coming more {73} nearly to an equality before the law. Such enactments as that of New South Wales permitting a husband and wife to contract financially with each other shows the trend of our beliefs in the rights of any individual to be a distinct personality.

The sacred beauty of the marriage tie no people hold higher than do the Pan-Angles. With them it is not a status imposed from without, but the voluntary union of two individuals. John Stuart Mill voiced an aspiration of the entire Pan-Angle civilization when he wrote: "What marriage may be in the case of two persons of cultivated faculties, identical in opinions and purposes, between whom there exists that best kind of equality, similarity of powers and capacities with reciprocal superiority in them--so that each can enjoy the luxury of looking up to the other, and can have alternately the pleasure of leading and of being led in the path of development--I will not attempt to describe. To those who can conceive it, there is no need; to those who cannot, it would appear the dream of an enthusiast. But I maintain, with the profoundest conviction, that this, and this only, is the ideal of marriage; . . . "[73-1]

In no sphere is the individualism of the Pan-Angle more rampant than in matters of religion. Liberty of conscience to him is as necessary as liberty of body, and he has struggled to obtain it with the same persistency.

Once the status of nationality carried with it {74} automatic inclusion in the national church. A diversity of faiths in one nation was unthinkable. Any who refused to conform, in semblance at least, were considered by the group as outsiders and enemies, to be harried and pillaged, perhaps slaughtered. Later, though leave to live was granted to those of minority creeds, they were debarred from the exercise of certain civil privileges. In the British Isles, not until 1858 were Jews able to take oaths as members of the Houses of Parliament. Still later, though all might share equally in the duties and rights of citizenship, all were compelled to contribute directly or, indirectly to the support of the state church, and, unless openly avowing otherwise, were presumed to belong to it. Some Pan-Angles still linger in this stage--those, for example, who reside in Quebec or England. This is the significance of the state church to-day.

To the majority of the Pan-Angles, however, religion is a private matter--not a public matter. In short, it is a concern in which the majority are not to interfere with the minority and in which the minority are not asked to acquiesce in the feelings of the majority. This is a condition not easily achieved. Migration from the British Isles by no means ended all contention. "Everywhere, indeed, that British settlers went this strife of sects went with them."[74-1] Six out of the seven nations were founded after our British predecessors had begun the battle for religious freedom. All six have known state churches in one form or {75} another, sometimes with attendant persecutions. To-day five thrive without state churches. Even in Quebec and England taxation for the benefit of one's neighbour's church is the only penalty against free worshipping. Elsewhere, throughout the Pan-Angle world, one may hold any creed he will, and the state does not ask him to contribute to any church, nor does the state assist, or recognize one creed above another.

In certain places, notably portions of the United States, individualism in religion goes to extremes. In 1906 there were estimated to be in that country one hundred and eighty-six different kinds of Protestant churches,[75-1] some of them approaching the bizarre in character, others so like one another that the differences which divided them were scarcely discernible. Certain denominations were known only in very circumscribed areas.[75-2] There may be a certain extravagance in maintaining the large amount of equipment necessary for so many establishments. Apart from that, however, there seems to be no objection to the multitudinousness of American faiths that is not more than balanced by the benefits to the individual from free self-expression.

"After God had carried us safe to _New England_, and wee had builded our houses, provided necessaries for our livelihood, rear'd convenient places for {76} Gods worship, and setled the Civill Government: One of the next things we longed for, and looked after was to advance _Learning_ and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministery to the Churches, when our present Ministers shall lie in the Dust."[76-1] So runs an account of the founding of one of the Pan-Angle universities as it was written in 1643. In a near-by city a public library was later established. On the building that shelters it to-day are inscribed these sentences: "The Commonwealth requires the education of the people as the safeguard of order and liberty," and "Built by the people and dedicated to the advancement of learning." Over the door are the words: "Free to all."

Here is evidenced the attitude of one early colony toward education, and it is typical of all. Education, education free to all, education compulsory on all, is the ideal in each of the six new nations. Free instruction is in some places offered to a child from the age of three, when he enters kindergarten, to any age at which he wishes to attend the university. For certain years, very generally six to fourteen, attendance at school is compulsory. There is no discrimination in regard to sex, and the classes are frequently co-educational. Parents are in the main allowed to send children to private and church schools when these are of satisfactory excellence; though in many places no such exist, and no stigma is in any way attached to the acceptance of free education. In many places no other sort has ever been dreamed of.

The British Isles meanwhile have not been {77} insensible to the same impulses. If popular education there has seemed to lag behind that of the younger nations, it is because the British Isles had not so free a field for change. There, a more complex social structure, and a tradition that envelops every department of life, interfere with the movement that would cast aside the old and adopt the new. Reforms must go slowly under such conditions, but the opportunity for education for all is there now an accomplished fact. In 1832 began the history of state education in the British Isles.[77-1] To-day elementary education is compulsory between the ages of five and fourteen,[77-2] and free, if one desires to take it so. Since 1902 public grants to secondary schools have opened their doors to certain numbers of non-paying pupils. The differences between the educational systems of the British Isles and those of the other English-speaking nations can now be said to be differences of method or degree only, but not of spirit.

Throughout our civilization, education opens the way to achievement, "the only real patent of nobility in the modern world."[77-3] The success or failure of the group is known to depend on the individual. He holds the ballot, makes the laws, enforces them; his religion is part of the faith of the land and determines the character of its composite; his ideals of marriage are expressed in the practice of the race. Organization and a few picked men do not control our destinies. To {78} ensure the future of the group we educate our citizens. We "advance _Learning_ and perpetuate it to Posterity" so that wisdom may be heard in our councils, and that ballots may register considered judgments.

As individualists the Pan-Angles have come to their present state. As individualists they must continue to work out their destiny. The right they prize most is the right to develop further in individualism. That right will be secured to Pan-Angles only when they have cause to fear no human power.

[48-1] Modern England, 50,916 square miles, and all Pan Angle nations and their dependencies, 16,897,126. See _post_, p. 81, note 1.

[48-2] _Round Table_, London, February 1911, p. 207: "1817, 1823, 1825, 1828, 1832, 1835, 1836."

[48-3] A. W. Jose, _History of Australasia_, Sydney, 1911, p. 187.

[49-1] Cf. _Ency. Brit._, vol. xxvi. pp. 692-693, on the story of Texas.

[49-2] For an account of which, see Beckles Willson, _The Great Company_ (1667-1871), London, 1900.

[50-1] _The Cleveland Plain Dealer_, Cleveland, Ohio, September 2, 1913; but cf. _United Empire_, London, December 1913, p. 934 concerning a statue to his memory at Berbera.

[50-2] _Ency. Brit._, vol. ix. p. 556.

[50-3] _Ibid._, vol. iv. p. 660.

[51-1] Pierre Leroy-Beaulieu, _Les Etats-Unis au Vingtième Siècle_, Paris, 1904, pp. 37, 38, claims that the country to the south of the long Canadian frontier was opened up by successive waves of people of the same blood, the pioneers being almost entirely sons of pioneers.

[51-2] _Ency. Brit._, vol. xxvii. p. 691: "The new life bore most hardly upon women; and, if the record of woman's share in the work of American colonization could be fully made up, the price paid for the final success would seem enormous."

[51-3] W. M. West, _Modern History_, Boston, rev. ed., 1907, p. 300.

[52-1] C.A.W. Pownall, _Thomas Pownall_, London, 1908, pp. 400-401. _Cf._ Edmund Burke in _Conciliation with America_, par. 37.

[52-2] _Yearbook of the Commonwealth of Australia_, Melbourne, No. 4, 1911, p.122.

[53-1] J. E. Le Rossignol and W. D. Stewart, _State Socialism in New Zealand_, London [1911], p. 17: "The people of New Zealand are not doctrinaires, and the academic question as to the proper spheres of governmental and individual activity is seldom discussed. The State has taken up one thing after another as the result of concrete discussion of concrete cases. Usually, if not invariably, abuses have been thought to exist, which the State has been called upon to remedy: the great landowners have stood in the way of closer settlement: wages have been low and conditions of labour bad: rates of interest, insurance premiums, prices of coal, and rents of dwellings have been thought to be high: the oyster beds have been depleted by private exploitation: taxation has fallen too heavily upon the poor: for one cause or another there has been complaint, complaint has grown into agitation, and agitation into legislation."

[55-1] Arthur Murphy, _The Works of Cornelius Tacitus_, London, 1793, vol. iv. p. 16.

[56-1] _Ency. Brit._, vol. xxiii. p. 110.

[56-2] _Ibid._, vol. xx. p. 837: "The Angles, Saxons and other Teutonic races who conquered Britain brought to their new homes their own laws and customs, . . . and a certain rude representation in local affairs:' _Cf._ also Woodrow Wilson, _The State_, 1898, Boston, rev. ed., 1911, pp. 560, 561.

[56-3] _Ency. Brit._, vol. ix. p. 491.

[57-1] _Ency. Brit._, vol. xxiii. p. 109.

[57-2] _Ibid._, vol. xxiii. pp. 109-110.

[57-3] _Ibid._, vol. xxiii. p. 110.

[57-4] _Ibid._, vol. xxiii. p. 109: "In 1651 Isaac Penington the younger published a pamphlet entitled 'The fundamental right, safety and liberty of the People; which is radically in themselves, derivatively in the Parliament, their substitutes or representatives.'" Cf. _New English Dictionary_, Oxford, 1891, "Representative," where 1658 is mentioned as its first use.

[57-5] _Ency. Brit._, vol. xx. p. 835, and vol. ix. p. 491.

[57-6] The House of Lords contains a certain representative element in the Irish and Scottish members. These are some only of the peers of their respective countries, and are elected by their fellow peers to seats in the House of Lords--those from Ireland for life, and from Scotland for a session.

[58-1] _Ency. Brit._, vol. xii. p. 295.

[58-2] _Ibid._, p. 295.

[58-3] _Ibid._, vol. xxiii. p. 112.

[58-4] _Ibid._, vol. xxiii. p. 112.

[59-1] Alfred Caldecott, _English Colonization and Empire_, London, 1891, p. 129.

[59-2] Cf. _ante_, p. 56.

[60-1] Cf. _post_, p. 109, note 1.

[60-2] The variety of uses of the word "constitution" is referred to, _post_, pp. 95-108.

[60-3] _Cf._ W.H. Taft, _Popular Government_, New Haven, Connecticut, 1913, pp. 42-95, for a discussion of these three terms.

[61-1] C.A.W. Pownall, _Thomas Pownall_, London, 1908, pp. 207-208.

[62-1] Recourse to the grave process of impeachment lies outside normal procedure and is here disregarded.

[62-2] Cf. _post_, p. 113 _et seq._

[63-1] _Ency. Brit._, vol. xvii. pp. 315, 317; but also cf. _ibid._, vol. ix. p. 488: "It was the first of the many occasions in English history when the demand for reform took the shape of a reference back to old precedents, and now (as on all subsequent occasions) the party which opposed the crown read back into the ancient grants which they quoted a good deal more than had been actually conceded in them."

[65-1] W.H. Taft, _Popular Government_, New Haven, Connecticut, 1913, p. 155.

[65-2] The exception to this statement is apparent in the British Isles, where suffrage is a national affair, and no federal framework affords a basis for local option on this privilege.

[66-1] _Springfield_ (Massachusetts) _Weekly Republican_, November 20, 1913.

[67-1] W. B. Worsfold, _The Union of South Africa_, London, 1912, p. 126.

[67-2] _Ibid._, pp. 139-140.

[67-3] _An Analysis of the System of Government throughout the British Empire_, London, 1912, p. 44.

[68-1] _An Analysis of the System of Government throughout the British Empire_, London, 1912, pp. 44-45.

[68-2] Edward Jenks, _The Future of British Law: An Inaugural Lecture delivered before the University of Melbourne_, Melbourne, 1889, pp. 6-7.

[69-1] W.B. Worsfold, _The Union of South Africa_, London, 1912, p.438.

[70-1] A. V. Dicey, "A Common Citizenship for the English Race," in _Contemporary Review_, vol. lxxi., April 1897, p. 469.

[70-2] Edward Jenks, _The Future of British Law: An Inaugural Lecture delivered before the University of Melbourne_, Melbourne, 1889, p. 11.

[72-1] Eversley and Craies, _Marriage Laws of the British Empire_, London, 1910, pp. 61, 173, 192, 70, 239-392.

[73-1] John Stuart Mill, _The Subjection of Women_, London, 1906, p. 123.

[74-1] _United Empire_, London, January 1914, A. W. Tilby, "Christianity and the Empire," p. 57.

[75-1] _Ency. Brit._, vol. xxvii. p. 638.

[75-2] U.S. Bureau of the Census, _Special Reports of the Census: Religious Bodies: 1906_, Washington, D.C., 1910, pt. ii., pp. 225, 508, 626, 635, 659.

[76-1] _New England's First Fruits_, London, 1643, p.12.

[77-1] _Ency. Brit._, vol. viii. p. 971.

[77-2] _Whitaker's Almanack_, London, 1913, p. 489.

[77-3] Woodrow Wilson, _The State_, 1898, Boston, rev. ed., 1911, p.18.

{79}

IV

THE SEVEN NATIONS

"THE representatives of the great nations across the seas."

A British Colonial Secretary used these words[79-1] in a speech welcoming to the Imperial Conference of 1902 the Prime Ministers of the other Britannic governments. This should be enough to permit the terminology to any Pan-Angle, when he refers to New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Newfoundland or Canada, and the men who govern them. These "great nations across the seas" are themselves conscious of nationhood on a parity with that of the British Isles. A representative of one of them in the same year thus spoke of his country and its fellow nations: "The British Empire . . . a galaxy of independent nations . . . There is not in Canada at the present moment a single British soldier to maintain British supremacy--moreover it is Canadian soldiers who are today garrisoning Halifax . . . The whole Australian continent {80} has now been moulded into another nation under the flag . . . and I can see dawning in South Africa the day when there will be another Confederation . . . "[80-1] Eleven years later in that South Africa another national Prime Minister spoke of _his_ country and _his_ countrymen. "Their country was part of the British Empire. They could not get away from it; it was their Constitution; and yet they were as free as if they were their own State, and they took up the position--he had said so in England--that they were not a subject State, but part of the British Empire, and were on an equality. They were a sister State of England."[80-2]

When throughout these lands writers similarly use the word "nation," the student of Pan-Angle affairs need proceed to no further investigation, though he may be unable to justify the word by current dictionary definition. Enough if he notes its political significance. In the same class are such words as "independent," "self-governing," and "autonomous": subject to the same theoretical queries but established by the same practical usage. Anyone who would question such usage is silenced by the recognition that it only conforms to facts. On such facts is based the thesis of these pages.

The seven units of the Pan-Angle world differ {81} both in size and density of population,[81-1] Hence it might be objected that to classify according to these divisions is to neglect the relative strength and importance of the various political groups, Newfoundland is not as important in population or wealth as the British Isles; while near Canada, it cannot be considered a part of Canada, New Zealand is two-thirds as far from Australia as Newfoundland is from Scotland, and emphatically is no part of its huge neighbour,[81-2] One of its citizens writes: "Although one thousand miles distant from Australia at the nearest point, although situated in a different climate and inevitably destined to display a different national temperament, although already possessed of a national {82} character, national aspirations and national peculiarities, although already served by Imperial affiliation much better than it could be served by any mere local federation, the Australian Prime Minister has no deeper insight than to predict the sinking of New Zealand into the _status_ of a petty and subordinate Australian State. . . . before New Zealand denies its independence under the Empire, and seeks shelter under the mantle of the [Australian] Federal Parliament, there will be a new political heaven and a new political earth. At the present time the proposal is simply absurd." [82-1]

Some might prefer to treat the Pan-Angle world as made up of two groups, those under the British and American flags respectively. This, however, fails to give the true character of the five younger Britannic nations, and might suggest erroneously that they bear a position to the British Parliament similar to the position of the American states to the Congress of the United States. Some American may resent the implied insignificance of the forty-eight states, some of which are larger in size or population, or both, than certain of the Britannic nations. Texas is over twice as large as either the British Isles or New Zealand, and has a population about four times that of New Zealand, or somewhat less than that of Australia. Similarly, it may occur to an Australian, or a Canadian, or a South African, that the states of the first, or the provinces of the two latter nations should receive more prominence. Others again might consider that the yet undivided areas of the British Isles, which may some time be {83} organized under a federal system, or else the ancient historical parts as they were before the days of union, should be among the basic units of this discussion.

To all these questionings the same answer applies. It is not easy to generalize in a system which, like ours, is the result of growth and adaptation. There are many local peculiarities of governments and grades of autonomy which, significant in themselves, are immaterial to the question of Pan-Angle federation, and which for simplicity's sake are here ignored. The classification here used does not forbid others. Each reader may consider these people according to any scheme of which he approves. The seven nations here designated are entities. Their pride of personality is in most cases very great. This is reason enough, in spite of huge discrepancies in size and population, for utilizing a classification based on existing national feelings.

The British Isles[83-1] and the United States[83-2] are {84} entirely independent of each other and of all other powers. Neither recognizes the right of anyone to dictate to it in any matter, except by war or its threat. The other five of the Pan-Angle nations do not yet perhaps go so far.

In the past certainly the British government legislated for them as it saw fit. The abolition of slavery under the British flag early in the nineteenth century serves as an example. This outside interference while humane was even then considered arbitrary.

In South Africa "what mainly angered the Cape colonists was the inadequacy of the compensation which was awarded in their case. The value of the slaves on Dec. 1, 1834, when the Emancipation Act came into effect, was estimated by the commissioners specially appointed for the purpose at three million sterling. The sum allotted by the Imperial Government was no more than one and a quarter million, payable, not in South Africa, but in London, and with a deduction of any expenses incurred in carrying out the work of emancipation. The result was to impoverish the former slave owners, and to awaken in them a bitter feeling of resentment against the government which had deprived them of their property, and against the philanthropists by whom the policy of emancipation had been inspired."[84-1] This step had been taken without the consent of the governed, {85} the slave-holding communities having no representation in the Parliament that enacted the law.

Theoretically the same right exists to-day.[85-1] "In granting self-government to the British Dominions Britain did not change her constitution. Conscious that the British Government could not rule great communities in America, Australasia, and Africa, . . . Britain has agreed that they shall manage their own affairs. But she has never undertaken, and could not undertake, a clear division of functions, nor could she in theory explicitly divest herself of final responsibility in any sphere of government. The British North America Act is a constitution by which the relations of the Federal Government of Canada with the Provincial Governments are fully regulated and defined; but it is not a constitution by which the relations of that Federal Government with the Imperial Government are fully regulated or defined. . . . Any constitutional powers vested in the English Government before the grant of self-government to the Dominions are in theory still vested in that Government today."[85-2]

In practice this theoretical right has yielded to the stronger claim of self-government. "My vindication of the preference policy was given not at Ottawa or on Canadian soil, but in the heart of the Empire at London, at the Colonial Conference, when I declared to the Empire that {86} I and my colleagues of the Government were ready to make a trade treaty. We said, 'we are ready to discuss with you articles on which we can give you a preference, and articles on which you can give us a preference. We are ready to make with you a treaty of trade.' Mark those words coming from a colony to the mother country without offence being given or taken."[86-1] "What has never been questioned since the War of Independence is that a democracy pretending to a sovereignty over other democracies is either a phantom or the most intolerable of all oppressions."[86-2] "Nobody dreams in these days of the British Parliament making laws for Canada or Australia. Such an idea is alien to all thinking men, . . . [86-3]

In sum, the government of the British Isles no longer dictates to the "great nations across the seas." All that is now apparent of its former right of interference consists of appeals from the courts of these younger nations to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the British Isles, and the seldom used veto power of the governors sent out from the British Isles to these younger nations. The appeal power, though of great theoretical importance, is of such limited practical use that a British writer has overlooked its existence in the following description: The {87} Governor is the only link between the Home Government and the Colonial, and in all of them his powers are limited to the exercise of the veto. Even this is circumscribed. It is tacitly understood that the _veto_ will be resorted to only when the _foreign relations_ of the empire are affected, or when some Act is passed which the Secretary of State decides to be incompatible with existent Imperial legislation."[87-1]

In place of the former parental-filial attitude between the British Isles and the five younger nations there is growing up a sympathetic and sentimental friendship. The younger nations as yet have no representatives chosen by their voters to sit in a common legislature with Britishers, but claim, nevertheless, to act with the British Isles as equal partners in the Britannic world. This claim is acknowledged by the British Isles government. In the words of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain at Glasgow, October 6, 1903: "And when I speak of _our_ colonies, it is an expression; they are not ours--they are not ours in a possessory sense. They are sister States, able to treat with us from an equal position, able to hold to us, willing to hold to us, but also able to break with us."[87-2]

In the light of the foregoing testimony, the exact political status of New Zealand, Australia, Newfoundland, Canada, and South Africa becomes increasingly difficult to define. It seems, on the whole, more nearly accurate to regard them as {88} independent and autonomous with certain limitations, than to consider them as dependent with excessive liberties. Accordingly, each of the seven Pan-Angle nations is here considered to be the equal of each of the other six.

The collective Britannic nations have often been styled Greater Britain, or the Britannic Empire. The word empire, though constantly used for lack of a better term, is a misnomer. As Seeley says: "Greater Britain is not in the ordinary sense an Empire at all."[88-1] Another authority says: "The British Empire is not an Empire in the ordinary meaning of the word. It is a system of government."[88-2] "There is no Imperial Government."[88-3]

Men speak of an Imperial Parliament, but in reality no such thing exists. It is an ambitious name applied sometimes to the Parliament of the British Isles which has no members from the other nations, and whose power to enforce its legislation in the other Britannic nations is denied. "By a fine tradition it has the full dignity of sovereignty; but in reality it is as impotent as the Continental Congress, and only less ridiculous because it has learned from experience the timid wisdom not to court rebuffs."[88-4]

Downing Street is often referred to. Downing Street is a term used to sum up the six administrative departments of the British Isles government: the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the India Office, {89} the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Board of Trade. Of these the India Office, does not enter into the matters here discussed, and the Colonial Office "in its present relations with the Dominions, . . . is in reality little more than a clearing house of information and correspondence."[89-1] The remaining four, _i.e._ the Foreign Office, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Board of Trade have their normal administrative functions in the government of the British Isles. They are filled by the ministry of the day, and hence are responsible to the majority of the House of Commons and ultimately to the British people. They are in no way representative of, nor responsible to, the other five self-governing nations. Through the theoretical veto of the governors sent out from the British Isles, Downing Street is supposed to wield its power and to prevent legislation in the five younger nations that in matters touching foreign affairs is contrary to the will of the British Parliament. As a matter of fact, this veto is rarely exercised. Its exercise would be, "in plain words, the tyranny of one Parliament over another--of one democracy over another."[89-2] "The theory of the British Constitution is, as it stands, clearly intolerable except in disuse. The powers which are imagined to exist in it would never stand the strain of being put in force."[89-2] What does happen when a veto appears called for by Britannic safety is that the Parliament of the younger nation is induced to reconsider matters in the light of whatever {90} argument Downing Street has at hand. Here, obviously, are not officials who as executives and legislators are part of any common government. They are part of only one government, viz. that of the British Isles. Certain matters in government must proceed from a single source. In the United States the federal government, which represents all the people and each state, has this in its charge and has machinery by which to enforce its power. Among the Britannic nations, the government of one of them controls these matters with no other machinery than persuasion to enforce its often debated authority.

A member of the British Ministry of 1913 is quoted as saying that "the only political organisations common to the whole Empire, . . . are the Crown, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and the Committee of Imperial Defence, but not one of them has any executive or legislative power."[90-1] By "the Crown" is meant the power of Downing Street just discussed. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the British Isles is the supreme appellate court for courts under the British flag outside the British Isles. A like function is performed for British Isles courts by the House of Lords. There is no single court of appeal for the six Britannic nations.[90-2] Consequently, the Judicial {91} Committee of the Privy Council can hardly be called an institution common to all these nations, even were its activity not so limited as to be negligible. As to the Committee of Imperial Defence, in it "the Dominion representatives are guests and not constituents."[91-1]

All this is to say that through certain makeshifts and survivals, whose forms and functions are nowhere clearly defined, the governments of the six Britannic nations come in occasional contact with each other.

Such is the complexity of the English-speaking world control, and such is its lack of uniformity of classification and naming, that it is not safe to say the five new nations and the British Isles and the United States are the only English-speaking autonomous groups. "The British Empire exhibits forms and methods of Government in almost exuberant _variety_." [91-2] For example, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands and such outposts of Pan-Angle civilization as Pitcairn and Tristan da Cunha might well be considered self-governing. These areas are omitted from enumeration in this discussion, not by reason of any lack of appreciation of their worth, but because the inclusion of these many assets and liabilities of the Pan-Angle concern would unduly expand this discussion. These groups have their respective positions with the several Pan-Angle nations to which they are to a greater or less degree connected. On the continued career of the seven Pan-Angle nations {92} depend the political existences of a multitude of these smaller Pan-Angle localities.

Moreover, no direct discussion of the politics of any of the many dependencies is here made. Their needs are not for their own solving. Our control we try to make materially beneficial to their inhabitants by "giving them only what is good for them, not always what they want."[92-1] Our control of ourselves is based on the entirely opposite theorem of taking what we want, not necessarily what someone else thinks is good for us. In short, we govern our dependencies in one way, ourselves in quite another. The dependent countries which "belong to" the several nations may present many problems to the Pan-Angles, but these form no "part of" the Pan-Angle problem. This is no place to question whether Seeley was justified in his doubt as to the value of India to the British Isles.[92-2] Enough here to acknowledge that our present economic policy leads many of our seven nations to believe that the holding of dependencies, especially in the tropics, is of value. To enumerate all these dependencies would be tedious and needless. It is only to distinguish the dependent from the independent that space is here given to the subject.

A united government over and between these seven Pan-Angle nations would be unaffected by the existence of these possessions. At the present {93} time New Zealand and Australia hold dependencies. This in no way interferes with their being somehow, as they believe, parts of a political entity with the British Isles. Similarly, in case of the uniting of the seven Pan-Angle nations, New Zealand and Australia could each retain its dependencies, and the United States could retain its dependencies, without impairing the success of a Pan-Angle government. The history of our civilization shows that such a complicated procedure is the way of natural growth among Pan-Angle peoples.

"Empire," from its long association with states builded of conquered peoples, is no fit word to use for a voluntary combination of Pan-Angles. Nor would any form of government be acceptable that blotted out the individuality that each of the seven nations has established. They are members of a great civilization, each to-day practically self-supreme. Whatever arrangement they may choose to enter upon to protect themselves and their civilization, they will wish to continue always nations.

[79-1] Richard Jebb, _Studies in Colonial Nationalism_, London, 1905, p. 187.

[80-1] Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the Dominion Day Banquet, 1902; quoted Richard Jebb, _Studies in Colonial Nationalism_, London, 1905, p. 1.

[80-2] General Botha at South African Nationalist Congress, November 24, 1913; quoted in _The Times_ Weekly Edition, London, November 28, 1913.

[81-1] Area in Per cent White Per cent sq. miles of total population of total area 1911 population New Zealand 103,658 .92 1,008,468 .71 Australia 2,974,581 26.59 4,455,005 3.15 South Africa 473,954 4.23 1,276,242 .81 Newfoundland 162,750 1.45 242,966 .17 Canada 3,729,665 33.34 7,204,838 5.10 British Isles 121,089 1.08 45,211,888 32.03 United States 3,617,949 32.35 81,735,623 57.91 Total 11,183,646 141,135,030

In comparison with the above figures, England contains 50,890 square miles and 34,045,290 population. United States and South Africa contain 9,828,294 and 4,697,152 respectively of negroes, which together with other non-whites are excluded from the figures in the above table, These figures are based on _Whitaker's Almanack_, London, 1913, pp. 584, 603, 660-667; and _Britannica Year Book_, London, 1913, pp. 680, 682,663, 678,699, 703, 714, 557.

[81-2] Auckland to Sydney, 1264; Wellington to Sydney, 1233; Bluff to Hobart, 940; and St. John's to Glasgow, 1859 miles.

[82-1] _Round Table_, London, September 1912, p. 753, quoting _New Zealand Herald_, Auckland.

[83-1] The British Isles is here used in preference to United Kingdom. None of the other Pan-Angle nations are "kingdoms "; and the term is applicable only historically to that democratic group of people of which England contains the largest portion. For a modern Pan-Angle attitude, see W. H. Moore, _The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia_, 2nd ed., Melbourne, 1910, p. 66, where he says concerning the naming of a nation: '"Kingdom of Australia' would be acceptable to none."

[83-2] _Ency. Brit._, vol. xxvii. p. 612: "The United States, the short title usually given to the great federal republic which had its origin in the revolt of the British colonies in North America, when, in the Declaration of Independence, they described themselves as 'The Thirteen United States of America.' Officially the name is 'The United States of America,' but 'The United States' (used as a singular and not as a plural) has become accepted as the name of the country; and pre-eminent usage has now made its citizens 'Americans,' in distinction from the other inhabitants of North and South America."

[84-1] C.P. Lucas, _Historical Geography of the British Colonies_, vol. iv., _South Africa_, Oxford, 1913, pt. i., pp. 146-147.

[85-1] _An Analysis of the System of Government throughout the British Empire_, London, 1912, p. 58: "It should be remembered that in theory there is nothing to prevent the Parliament of the United Kingdom legislating for the internal affairs of a self-governing colony or even imposing taxation on such a colony."

[85-2] _Round Table_, London, September 1913, pp. 588-589.

[86-1] Sir Wilfrid Laurier at Sorel, September 28, 1904, quoted in Richard Jebb, _Studies in Colonial Nationalism_, London, 1905, p.151.

[86-2] F. S. Oliver, _Alexander Hamilton: An Essay on American Union_, London, 1906, p. 448.

[86-3] Lord Milner, November 3, 1908, at Canadian Club, Montreal, in Lord Milner, _The Nation and the Empire_, London, 1913, p. 362.

[87-1] Alfred Caldecott, _English Colonization and Empire_, London, 1891, p. 134.

[87-2] Richard Jebb, _Studies in Colonial Nationalism_, London, 1905, p.272.

[88-1] J.R. Seeley, _The Expansion of England_, London, 1883, p.296.

[88-2] _Round Table_, London, May 1911, p. 232.

[88-3] _Ibid._, February 1911, p. 167.

[88-4] F. S. Oliver, _Alexander Hamilton: An Essay on American Union_, London, 1906, p. 449.

[89-1] _Round Table_, London, September 1913, p. 590.

[89-2] F. S. Oliver, _Alexander Hamilton: An Essay on American Union_, London, 1906, p. 449.

[90-1] _United Empire_, London, January 1914, p. 1.

[90-2] _United Empire_, London, October 1913, p.767: ". . . there is no ultimate court of appeal for the Empire as a whole. A proposal to create one, by fusing the judicial functions of the House of Lords, which hears United Kingdom appeals, and the Privy Council, which hears appeals from oversea, has long been favoured by Australian statesmen." Cf. _The Times_ Weekly Edition, London, August 22, 1913, "An Imperial Court of Appeals."

[91-1] _United Empire_, London, January 1914, p. 1.

[91-2] Alfred Caldecott, _English Colonization and Empire_, London, 1891, p. 121.

[92-1] W. C. Forbes, lately Civil Governor of the Philippine Islands, Address concerning the Philippines, before Boston City Club, November 20, 1913, quoted in _Boston City Club Bulletin_, Boston, January 1, 1914, p. 40.

[92-2] J.R. Seeley, _The Expansion of England_, London, 1883, p. 11.

{94}

V

GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICES

THE seven Pan-Angle nations are similar in their forms of government. This similarity is often obvious, but even where differences of procedure seem to exist the foundations of government are still the same.

In each of the nations the people rule. In each they follow in governing three practices: ultimate control on all questions is in the voters; immediate legislative control is in legislatures composed of representatives who act on behalf of the voters, and subject to restrictions, if any, by the voters only; and executive or administrative control is in charge of elected persons. If "a country where a large portion of the people has some considerable share in the supreme power would be a constitutional country,"[94-1] then these seven nations are more than constitutional countries, for in them the people not only have "some considerable share," but are the final judges on any matters which they desire to adjudicate. As such these nations meet Burke's definition of a free government: "If any man asks me what a free government is, I answer, that, for any practical purpose, it is what the people think {95} so,--and that they, and not I, are the natural, lawful, and competent judges of the matter."[95-1]

Ultimate control in all these nations is secured to the voters by elections and referenda. By these two means the voters choose their representatives and sometimes actively participate in legislation. Often, too, they state the forms under which their representatives shall work and limit the work they shall be allowed to perform. In the British Isles there is no formal limitation on the power of the representatives elected to the House of Commons. In the other six nations the elected representatives are empowered to act only in certain fields. Their power is conveyed to them through written instruments or constitutions which are beyond their control. All power in either case lies ultimately in the voters, whether through the ballot and their ability to defeat at the polls alone, or through this plus a written constitution. Accordingly, as already stated, all seven of our nations have constitutional governments. Outside the British Isles they are, in a sense, doubly constitutional, because not only is this power of election in the voters, but the framework, or written constitution, of each government under which the representatives must act is likewise in the control of the voters.

The word constitution[95-2] is variously used in Pan-Angle {96} parlance, and it may be well here to discuss some of its meanings.

The Constitution of the British Isles consists partly of laws, determining the form of government, which have been passed at various times and are still in force. To this extent it is written. The bulk of the Constitution, however, lies in a mass of tradition, and depends for its force upon the respect in which Parliament holds that tradition. For this reason the British Constitution is frequently called "unwritten." "In one important respect England differs conspicuously from most other countries. Her constitution is to a large extent _unwritten_, using the word in much the same sense as when we speak of unwritten law. Its rules can be found in no written document, but depend, as so much of English law does, on precedent modified by a constant process of interpretation {97}. Many rules of the constitution have in fact a purely legal history, that is to say, they have been developed by the law courts, as part of the general body of the common law. Others have in a similar way been developed by the practice of parliament. Both Houses, in fact, have exhibited the same spirit of adherence to precedent, coupled with a power of modifying precedent to suit circumstances, which distinguishes the judicial tribunals. In a constitutional crisis the House of Commons appoints a committee to 'search its journals for precedents,' just as the court of king's bench would examine the records of its own decisions. And just as the law, while professing to remain the same, is in process of constant change, so, too, the unwritten constitution is, without any acknowledgment of the fact, constantly taking up new ground."[97-1] "'Constitutional law,' as the expression is used in England, both by the public and by authoritative writers, consists of two elements. The one element, which I have called the 'law of the constitution' is a body of undoubted law; the other element, which I have called the 'conventions of the constitution,' consists of maxims and practices which, though they regulate the ordinary conduct of the Crown and of Ministers and of others under the constitution, are not in strictness laws at all."[97-2] It must be borne in mind that Parliament, and Parliament alone, can change these laws of the Constitution, and that the change can occur whenever a majority of Parliament so decides. {98} What these traditions are changes from year to year and even from day to day--in fact, it is difficult to find two Britishers who will agree on what is the Constitution at a given date, so greatly are these traditions a matter of personal, not national, conviction.

In each of the other Pan-Angle countries the Constitution consists of laws and traditions similar to those in the British Isles, plus a written document (or documents) which is a power of attorney limiting in certain ways the power of the national representatives-be they executive, judicial, or legislative. These written documents are either enactments of the Parliament of the British Isles, or successors to such enactments. The Canadian Constitution was drafted in London by delegates from the Canadian colonies and various British officials,[98-1] and was passed by the British Isles Parliament, March 29, 1867, to take effect July 1. It was never submitted to the people,[98-2] although it was pleaded that the general election which ensued was "virtual ratification." The Australian Constitution, drafted by Australians in a national constitutional convention, ratified by referenda in each colony,[98-3] now to become a "state," was altered by the British Isles Parliament only in reference to the clause which prohibited appeals to the King in Council, and was passed by that Parliament July 9, 1900, to take effect January 1, 1901. The South {99} African Constitution was drafted in South Africa by South Africans in a national constitutional convention, ratified by the legislatures in three of the South African provinces, and in Natal by a referendum of the voters, was altered by the British Isles Parliament only in reference to matters affecting "natives" and "Asiatics," and was passed by that Parliament September 20, 1909, to take effect May 31,1910.[99-1] The Constitutions of New Zealand and Newfoundland are to be found in the charters and enactments framed in London for their government, and are historically similar in composition to the constitutions of the thirteen American colonies. The American Constitution was based on the previous experience of the race, especially as acquired under various colonial charters. It was drafted at a national convention, and was subsequently ratified by state representative conventions successively. The work of the National Convention "was a work of selection, not a work of creation, . . . the success of their work was not a success of invention, always most dangerous in government, but a success of judgment, of selective wisdom, of practical sagacity,--the only sort of success in politics which can ever be made permanent."[99-2] The American people changed governmental responsibility from the British Isles to themselves, but did not and could not change the source of their ideas.

Such written documents are so often referred to as "The Constitution" that citizens of some of the {100} six younger nations often assume that "The Constitution" is the whole Constitution of their respective governments. The first such written power of attorney to the legislators, and as such an expression of the views then held by a certain body politic, was signed aboard the _Mayflower_ in 1620.[100-1] This Constitution by which the forty-one signers "solemnly and mutually . . . covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame-[laws]--unto which we promise all due submission and obedience,"[100-2] did not, however, supersede all other, including unwritten, governmental traditions of that body politic. Constitutions written later have similarly left for their respective groups much continuing tradition, that has been respected and has been enlarged upon. We have written down that which we felt strongly about, but we have also continued other customs. Written "constitutions" have been expressions of public belief as to the form of framework of any given body politic, but for interpretation they have had to rely on unwritten or previously written tradition, as developed to meet arising needs. The mere writing has not arrested our constitutional growth nor rendered inflexible our governmental forms.

The American Constitution consists really of {101} two portions, the written and the unwritten. The tenacity with which the nation clings to certain traditions never put in writing or even at variance with the spirit of the writing, makes it advisable, if not absolutely necessary, so to consider it. Lord Bryce, familiar with the nature of the British Constitution, calls the usages that have grown up apart from the written Constitution "parts of the actual or (so to speak) 'working' Constitution"[101-1] of America. As illustrative of the latter he mentions certain American customs: "The president practically is limited to two continuous terms of office. The presidential electors are expected to vote for the candidate of the party which has chosen them, exercising no free will of their own. The Senate always confirms the nominations to a cabinet office made by the President."[101-2] These instances, of what he calls the American working Constitution, are supported by the same force that maintains the entire British Constitution--public opinion.

To the Britisher, this point of view is thoroughly natural. He has at home a Constitution which is also compounded of written and unwritten parts. To the American this phraseology may sound strange, for he has long been accustomed to think the "Constitution" refers to a particular written document and the judicial decisions thereunder. For the unwritten or working basis of his government he has had no word.

The real difference in the two Constitutions must be sought in the amending power. To the amending of the unwritten portions of either there is no check on Parliament or on Congress, other than public {102} opinion. To the amending of the written portion of the British Constitution, there is likewise no check other than public opinion. Parliament amends the written and unwritten portions of the Constitution,--at the will of a majority of the House of Commons. Congress cannot so amend the written portions of the American Constitution; that is a prerogative of the voters alone. Therein lies the mystery of the alleged respective "flexity" and "rigidity" of the two. But the mystery is less, and the distinctions of flexity and rigidity grow of uncertain value when it is realized that both Constitutions are being constantly changed by the genius of our race. As in the case of our laws, our Constitutions are being steadily interpreted in accord with the will of the voters. That we do not change more suddenly is due to the conservative, yet discreet, action of our representatives, sanctioned by the voters.