YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE
COLLEGE OF MISSIONS LIBRARY
at the
YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL

By D. D. Wallace

Life of Henry Laurens
The Government of England
The Civil Government of South Carolina and
the United States

The Government of
England
National, Local, and Imperial

By
David Duncan Wallace, Ph.D.
Professor of History and Economics in Wofford College
Author of "The Civil Government of South Carolina and the
United States," "The Life of Henry Laurens."

G. P. Putnam's Sons
New York and London
Gbe fcnlcherbocfcer pteea
, 1917

Copyright, 1917
BY
DAVID DUNCAN WALLACE

Ube IKnicfcerbocIier press, mew Wort

no
S. A. W.,
Head of the Home Department,
this little book is dedicated
BY
The Permanent Under-Secretary

A land of settled government,
A land of old and just renown,
Where freedom slowly broadens down
From precedent to precedent. Tennyson.
A republic under the forms of a monarchy. Montesquieu.

PREFACE
I have attempted to describe the English govern
ment as it is without distracting the reader with a
long account of how it came to be what it is. More
over, I have avoided the common habit of first de
scribing the government as it is supposed to' be in
theory and then following this with an equally de
tailed account explaining that it is not really this,
but something very different.
The reader will observe too that I have all along
kept in mind the resemblances and contrasts between
the government of England and that of our own
country, not only because of the interest in such a
parallel, but because of the practical lessons which
it supplies.I hope that the book may find a serviceable place
in college classes where the time at command, as is
frequently the case, is too limited for an extended
treatment of so large a subject as the British govern
ment. The general reader desiring a brief, untechni-
cal account of the British government will also
doubtless find it a convenient handbook.

vi Preface
I wish to acknowledge my obligations to President
Henry N. Snyder, of Wofford College, Professor J. A.
Tillinghast, of Converse College, Doctor W. W. Car
son, of Depauw University, and Professor Frank G.
Bates, of Indiana University, for their criticism of
my manuscript and their many helpful suggestions,
and to my father for his kindness in reading the
proof. D. D. W.
Wofford College, Spartanburg, S. C.
December 30, igi6.

CONTENTS

BOOK I. THE CENTRA L GO VERNMENT

PART I. THE LEGISLATURE

CHAPTER
I. — The English Constitution

PAGE 3

II. — Parliament ....

. 18

III. — The House of Commons .

• 29

IV. — The Cabinet and the Commons

• 42

V. — Organization and Work of the
House of Commons — Govern
ment Bills ..... 57
VI. — Organization and Work of the
House of Commons — Private Bills
and Private Member Bills . 67
VII. — Customs of the House of Commons . 72
VIII. — The House of Lords . . .81
IX. — The Lords as a Law-Making Body . 89
PART II. THE EXECUTIVE
X.— The King  98
XI.— The Cabinet  120
XII. — The Prime Minister . . . 133
XIII.— The Treasury . . . .140

viii Contents
CHAPTER PAGE
XIV. — Other Executive Departments . 144
SX XV. — The Permanent Civil Service . 157
PART III. THE JUDICIARY
XVI. — The Criminal Courts . . . 164
XVII.— The Civil Courts . . . .187
XVIII. — Miscellaneous Facts about the
Courts ... . 202
PART IV. POLITICS AND ELECTIONS
XIX. — Party Organizations . . . 208
XX. — Elections to Parliament . .217
BOOK II. LOCAL GOVERNMENT
XXI. — City Government .... 227
XXII. — County Government . . . 243
XXIII. — Smaller Divisions of the County . 250
XXIV. — The Government of London . . 258
BOOK III. EMPIRE AND COLONIES
XXV. — Colonies and Mother-Country . 267
XXVI. — Irish Home Rule .... 274
XXVII. — Self-Governing Colonies and
Dominions ..... 281
XXVIII. — Crown Colonies .... 304
XXIX. — India — Protectorates . . . 309

Contents ix
BOOK IV. SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CHARACTERISTICS
CHAPTER PAGE
XXX. — The Established Church . -337

XXXI. — Education ....
XXXII. — Aristocracy and Democracy .
XXXIII. — Lessons England can Teach us
Bibliography ....
Index 

349
35436437i373

TABLES
PAGE
Duration of Parliaments since 1837 . 41
Officials Composing Cabinet and Ministry 130
Prime Ministers since the Passage of the
Great Reform Act of 1832 . . .138
Table of the Courts of Justice . . . 372

The English Government

Book I. The Central Government
PART I. THE LEGISLATURE
CHAPTER I
THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION
England's Contribution to Government. Each
of the great nations of history is marked by its own
peculiar qualities and has accordingly made a contri
bution to the world's civilization different from that
of other nations. Perhaps the most valuable of the
distinctly English contributions to modern civiliza
tion is popular constitutional free government.
Even nations antagonistic to the English in other
respects have copied their free institutions and practi
cal political principles to such an extent that we may
say that the larger the degree of freedom which a
nation enjoys, the more closely will we find that
3

4 The Legislature
its government has been modelled after that of
England. *
Varieties of Government. Although practically
all modern free governments are organized directly
or indirectly in imitation of that of England, they
are not mere slavish copies, but are rather adapta
tions to meet their own specific conditions, without
inconveniencing themselves with unessential or
even undesirable features which would not be
suitable to their circumstances. Hence among
the self-governing countries of the world there
are varieties of institutions, differences of meth
od, and degrees of freedom. In order to make
this clear, let us use a diagram, with illustrations
drawn from various countries. The governments
of the world may be grouped in classes as shown
on page 5. *
While it might be possible to place every existing
government under some heading of this table, we
must admit that it would require some forcing; for
many are in such a stage of their development as
not to be decidedly one thing or the other. A class-

1 "England in the nineteenth century has served as a political
model for Europe. The English developed the political mechanism
of constitutional monarchy, parliamentary government, and safe
guards for personal liberty. Other nations have only imitated
them. " — Seignobos.
' Based on the table in Leacock's Elements of Political Science,
120.

The English Constitution 5
ification to be of any value must be based upon the
nature of the things classified. This table seeks to
show what is most characteristic, and to indicate at
a glance, without confusing and cumbersome details,
the broad resemblances and differences of the various
governments of the world.

Modern governments

Absolute (Afghanistan)

" Limited
monarchy

. Constitutional

{Presidential (Prussia)
Parliamentary (England)

. Republic

Federal

/-Centralized

Federal

Presidential (German
Empire)
Parliamentary (Canada)

I Presidential (Cuba)
Parliamentary (France)

Presidential (UnitedStates)
Parliamentary (Switzerland1)

Absolute Governments. Let us understand the
terms of our table, beginning with the most general
classes and going down to the particular country.
First, an absolute government means one in which
there is a monarch (king, emperor, czar, duke, khan,
shah, or what not) whose will is law. The acts of
the government are done by his command, and not

1 But note that, though the Swiss executive must yield to the
will of the Legislature when outvoted, it does not resign, but simply
follows the expressed will of the Legislature.

6 The Legislature
by the deliberation of the people or their elected re
presentatives. There are, of course, many tribal or
national customs which he is obliged to observe;
and also he is liable to be murdered or deposed if he
uses his authority with too great disregard for the
rights and interests of any influential element of the
people. But so far as there are choices or orders or
the passing of laws, they are his decisions, orders,
or laws.
Constitutional Governments. In describing all
governments that are not absolute as being constitu
tional, we use a term which covers countries of widely
differing degrees of freedom. We only mean that
in all these there is some effective check upon the
mere will of the ruler and that the people have some
voice in their government.
A constitutional government may have at its
head either an hereditary monarch or an elected
president. Its degree of freedom depends on whether
the people are the real law-makers, and not on the
way in which the chief executive is placed in office.
For instance, the hereditary limited monarchy of
England is immeasurably more free than the elective
republic of Mexico. Hence by a limited monarchy
we mean one in which the monarch must rule in
obedience to law and is in fact as well as profession
only the first servant of the State. By a republic
we mean a country which periodically elects its

The English Constitution 7
chief ruler. These are simply two forms of the large
class known as constitutional governments.
Centralized and Federal Governments. Let us
take up the next subdivision. Either a limited
monarchy or a republic may be either centralized
or federal. By centralized we mean that all au
thority is derived from the central government,
or the consolidated nation, and that any local
government may be changed or disestablished or its
acts controlled by the central power. That is, the
entire body of the nation can, through its central
government, do anything it chooses, , and the local
subdivisions have no powers or rights that are re
served from interference, control, or destruction by
the rest of the country. The limited monarchy of
England is such a centralized government, and so is
the republic of France. One is a centralized limited
monarchy;- the other, a centralized republic, and
both are free, self-governing, and constitutional.
The United States, on the other hand, is a federal
republic, and the German Empire is a federal limited
monarchy; that is, these countries are made up of
States, each of which has its rights which the central
government must respect. Matters of national
interest are under the control of the federal, or
national government, but matters concerning only
one State or its people are under the control of the
government of each State and cannot be touched by

8 The Legislature
the central authority. - The federal form of govern
ment is suited to large countries whose various sec
tions differ in traditions or local conditions, and
centralized government for small countries all of
whose sections are very similar. Indeed, the people
of a very large country could hardly preserve their
freedom under any except a federal form of govern
ment; for they would be practically deprived of
their liberties either by the impossibility of a central
legislature's finding time to discover and attend to
the varying needs of vast and widely separated
regions, or through mere indifference to the rights
of localities that were not large enough to compel
attention. Presidential and Parliamentary Governments.
The last division is into presidential and parliamen
tary governments. The fact that the head of the
state is a president does not necessarily indicate that
the government is what for our present purpose we
call presidential. The term is adopted from the
United States and means that the chief executive
has powers and independence similar to those of the
American President; that is, he is elected indepen
dently of the legislature and continues to hold office
to the end of the term for which he is chosen, no
matter whether the legislature approves of him and
his policies or not, and further that he possesses the
reality of executive power. Parliamentary govern-

The English Constitution 9
ment means, however, that the real executive officers
are given their positions because they are favoured
by the legislature (though usually they are not for
mally elected by it) and must resign if they cannot
induce a majority in the popular branch to vote for
their policies. Parliamentary government is thus
one in which the legislature is the dominant author
ity that makes or displaces the executive. England
is the typical example of this form of government,
and its name is derived from her Parliament.
Thus by reference to our table we see that Eng
land is a parliamentary, centralized, constitutional,
limited monarchy ; while the United States is a presi
dential, federal, constitutional republic. They fall
into the same class only in being constitutional,
or free; but this is of more significance than all the
other classifications; because where the people are
really free to govern themselves, the forms which
they choose to use, though a matter of importance,
are entirely secondary to the fundamental fact of
freedom. Written and Unwritten Constitutions. There is
another difference between states, one which we
have not indicated in our table, that is, between
those which have a written and those which have
an unwritten constitution. Despotic countries, gene
rally speaking, have no written constitutions; but
among free countries there are none that are without

10 The Legislature
them- except England and Hungary, which have
what is known as the unwritten constitution.
We are familiar with the written constitution from
our knowledge of the Government of the United
States, the best example of that form of government.
'That is to say, in the United States (and in all free
countries, except England and Hungary, it is more
or less the same) there is one legal document, adopted
at a particular time, which lays down the organiza
tion and authority of the various departments and
officers of government, grants them certain powers,
and denies them others. This is the fundamental,
or supreme, law and must be obeyed by the legisla
ture, president, king, and judges. At least, all offi
cials are sworn to obey it, but in very few countries
besides the United States is there an effective method
of restraining legislative or executive acts that are
contrary to the constitution. The existence of a
written constitution, however, is of little value un
less the people have the spirit and power of freedom;
for there are countries with elaborate written con
stitutions which have not a tithe of the freedom of
others whose constitutions are what we call un
written. England's Unwritten Constitution. England fur
nishes the great example of the unwritten constitu
tion. That is to say, her constitution is not written
in any one document, and parts of it have grown up

The English Constitution n
by custom and have never- been formally adopted
by any governmental body or court. Let us, then,
enquire, What is the constitution of England? It
consists of three elements: First, great statutes, or
acts of Parliament, in which from time to time have
been embodied the fundamental liberties of Parlia
ment and people, such as Magna Charta, the Bill
of Rights, the Habeas Corpus Act, and the laws
establishing the well-nigh universal right of adult
males to vote. Some of these laws were exacted by
the nation in arms against tyrannical kings or by
the masses of the people in threatened insurrection
against the aristocracy, amounting in effect to poli
tical revolution. Most, however, were adopted
after unusually serious deliberation in times of
crisis, but without popular disorder.
But it should be understood .that these great con
stitutional statutes, or acts of Parliament, are not
marked in any way or treated by the courts as of
any different character from ordinary laws. They
are recognized as the basis of the constitution simply
by common consent. It is sometimes said that
Parliament can repeal Magna Charta or the Habeas
Corpus Act by the same process as that by which it
provides for building a bridge across the Thames or
combating the cattle tick. While this is formally
true, it is really misleading; for as a matter of fact
no fundamental change in the great laws recognized

12 The Legislature
as a part of the constitution can be made without
such a prolonged and obstinate opposition that the
nation would be fully roused to the importance of
the issue. It is even becoming an established custom,
itself a part of the constitution, that no important
law of the kind called constitutional should be
adopted without first having been fully discussed
and then passed upon by a new Parliament elected
principally for that purpose.
Second, a part of the English constitution consists
of fundamental property and personal rights de
veloped through centuries by the courts and con
stituting the most important part of the common
law.1 Third, the English constitution consists in part
of a number of political customs which are obeyed
as though they were law, but which are not law and
would not be enforced by the courts. These are
the customs, or conventions, of the constitution, as,
1 Statute law is law passed by Parliament or legislature. Com
mon law did not originate by being passed by any legislature, but
consists of rules and customs which have been observed by the
people and enforced by the courts for centuries, and is in some of
its parts in fact older than Parliament itself. Asthe old writers put
it, it hath been law and custom since the memory of man runneth
not to the contrary. Common law has to do with the fundamental
relationships of life, as, e.g., the right of a parent to discipline his
child, or of a person to protect himself from assault. The ordinary
crimes are common law crimes. E.g., before there was any Par
liament, men punished murder, house-burning, and theft. Common
law is often changed by statute law, as, e.g., abolishing a man's
common law right to whip his wife. See pages 188 and 189.

The English Constitution 13
e. g., the rule that the Prime Minister must be the
leader of the party having a majority in the House
of Commons, and that the King is obliged to sign
any bill that passes both houses of Parliament.
Summing up, we may say that the1 English consti
tution consists of certain great fundamental statutes ;
of a body of rights and rules grown up in the courts
as a part of the common law, and of a number of
rules governing the conduct of Ministers, King, and
Parliament which are so generally recognized that
any man or group of men would find it impossible
to disregard them. The fact that such a compli
cated and delicate organism can persist amidst the
fierce collisions of politics is largely due to the fact
that the English government has been developed
and directed by a governing class, who recognize
the necessity of playing the game according to the
rules, and entertain no extreme or violent policies for
the accomplishment of which they would be willing
to upset the machinery of the state. What might
be the effect of the general participation of the
masses of the people in the administration of the
government upon the structure and character of
the English constitution, suggests some very serious
questions. Ease of Amending the English Constitution. It
is evident that under such a system changes in consti
tutional custom may take place almost unnoticed,

14 The Legislature
and that even fundamental constitutional laws may
be altered much more easily than under the written
Constitution of the United States, as only a majority
vote in Parliament is necessary. Hence the Eng
lish constitution is spoken of as flexible and ours as
rigid. Americans understand that to alter their constitu
tion the amendment must be formally proposed,
voted on in a special way, and carried by a larger
majority than is required for an ordinary statute.
There is no special procedure in amending the con
stitution in England; though it is of importance to
remember, as explained above, that it is coming to
be a recognized custom that no fundamental change
in the law of the constitution should be made with
out its having been thoroughly discussed and a new
Parliament's having been elected on that 'issue. A
certain formality and deliberation are thus secured
which tend to avoid ill-considered, hasty change.
And let us notice, too, that the gradual solidifying
of this very proper idea into a generally recognized
rule itself illustrates how the English amend the
custom, or conventions, of the constitution.
We understand, then, that when an Englishman
denounces a proposed statute as unconstitutional,
he does not mean, as would an American, that it
would be null and voideven if enacted by Parliament,
but that it is contrary to the existing constitutional

The English Constitution 15
laws and customs which ought to be regarded as
sacred. Fusion of the Departments. Perhaps as striking
a feature of the English government as its unwritten
constitution is the fusion of the great departments,
the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. To
exhibit this by way of contrast, let us take the system
of the United States. In this country, in both the
State and National governments, a very thorough
division of governmental powers is made by assign
ing the making of the laws to the legislature, their
enforcement to an executive, irremovable by the
legislature, * and their interpretation and application
in cases between individuals to the judiciary, simi
larly independent. This characteristic of our gov
ernment, the main feature of which is the rigid
separation of the executive and legislative branches,
is largely due to a failure of the framers of the
American system to perceive the real nature of their
English model.
In 1787, the King was theoretically, as he still is
for that matter, the independent executive branch
of the government; whereas, as a matter of fact, he
had been for more than sixty years gradually losing
his authority through its absorption by the Cabinet,
which had been in the meantime becoming in effect
the executive committee of the House of Commons.
1 Except of course, on conviction upon impeachment.

1 6 The Legislature
The extent to which this process had gone and its
ultimate tendencies were by no means realized even
by many thoughtful observers, and consequently,
the theoretical separation of the executive, legislative,
and judicial departments was being very much
praised as still a reality, especially by certain writers
in England who desired to magnify the power of
the King and save what remained of it from the
encroachments of the Commons, and for the opposite
reason by others in France who wished to break
down the royal despotism then dominant in that
country by emphasizing the necessity of an independ
ent legislature. These theories, coupled with the
fact that as colonists the Americans had been ac
customed to a strong executive, the royal Governor,
who was independent of the colonial Assembly,
led our forefathers to arrange for the most thorough
separation of the three departments to be found in
history, with the result that the political institu
tions of the two great branches of the English speak
ing peoples, inheriting the same political traditions,
were from that time marked by a very decided
difference. In England the absorption of the royal power
continued to such an extent that the control over
the entire executive passed into the hands of the
House of Commons. Thus the nation from whom
we copied our system of "checks and balances"

The English Constitution 17
i
as supposedly the only means by which tyranny
could be prevented has almost wholly cast aside all
checks and balances, and seems to have proved, up
to, the present time, that the popular will, among a
highly civilized people notably gifted in public self-
control and following the leadership of a patriotic
governing class, is itself a sufficient safeguard to
individual and national liberty.
Even the judiciary are not independent of control
by Parliament; for they may be discharged without
any reason assigned at the request of a mere majority
vote of the two houses, and Parliament may even,
as it has occasionally done, direct them to change
their interpretation of the law. As a matter of fact,
the judges are as free and unintimidated in England
as in the United States, and Parliament would never
interfere in the management of an individual case.
The nature and extent of the fusion of govern
mental functions will appear as we study the rela
tions of the Cabinet and the House of Commons, when
we shall perceive that this second fundamental charac
teristic of the English Government is mainly due to
the other, the absence of a written constitution.

CHAPTER II

PARLIAMENT

Place of Meeting. The body which rules over
the British Empire has been called not only the
Parliament of the United Kingdom,1 but "the
mother of Parliaments," since from it have sprung
by descent or imitation, direct or indirect, the scores
of legislatures all over the world through which men
govern themselves.
Parliament meets in a vast Gothic building in the
heart of London covering an area of eight acres of
ground, and called The Houses of Parliament, or the
New Palace of Westminster. Immediately to the
west across the open square called the Old Palace
Yard lies Westminster Abbey, containing the re
mains of many of the famous characters in the
'It was the English Parliament until 1707, when England and
Scotland were united to form the one kingdom of Great Britain.
When Ireland was joined to Great Britain by the act of Union in
1800, the name was changed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland. The word England is often used when Great Britain
or the United Kingdom would be more accurate.
18

Parliament 19
nation's history, in contemplating whom Holmes
exclaimed of England:
One half whose dust has walked the rest
In heroes, martyrs, poets, sages.
Though the Abbey reaches far back into the Middle
Ages and the Parliament building is less than a
century old, they both, with their soaring pointed
.architecture, call up England's past. The innumer
able epoch-making events which have centred around
this place for the better part of a thousand years
make it one of the great historic spots of the world.
Besides the halls of both houses, there are in the
Parliament building many offices and a number of
official residences. The chamber of the Commons
lies in the northern and that of the Lords in the
southern end. Both are so small as to seat only
about half the members, the others having to stand
or crowd into the gallery when important business
draws a large attendance.
Unlimited Power of Parliament. "The High
Court of Parliament" strictly speaking consists of
three branches, the King, the House of Lords, and
the House of Commons; though, on account of the
disappearance of the King's authority, we generally
think of its including only the two houses. It is
the supreme legislature1 over the entire British Em
pire and has unlimited legal authority to pass any

20 The Legislature
law, good or bad, to bind all parts of the Empire or
any part separately.
The better to realize the two aspects of this un
limited authority, let us contrast it with the powers
of the American Congress. By the Constitution
of the United States, the authority of Congress is
limited in breadth, so to speak, by the rights of the
States. That is to say, certain broad fields of legisla
tion are closed to it and reserved for State action.
Second, the authority of Congress is limited in height,
so to speak. That is to say, many rights are placed
above the power of Congress to touch, because it is
not considered just that any government should be
allowed to restrain the freedom of the citizen in
these particulars.
To shift our figure to England, the authority of
Parliament is without limits in breadth; for every
legislature of a distant colony, an English county,
a Scottish town, or an Irish parish exists by its crea
tion or consent, has no reserved rights which it must
respect, and may by it be legally abolished. Noth
ing could better illustrate the character of a cen
tralized, consolidated state, so different from the
federal system of the United States. Likewise the
powers of the British Parliament are unlimited in
height; for there are no rights of the citizen on which
it may not lay its hand to restrict or even destroy.
No written constitution forbids it to proclaim martial

Parliament 21
law, to deny the right of trial by jury, or openly to
build up one section of the country at the expense of
another by exempting it from taxation or forbidding
rival regions from competing with its industries.
We must not be misled by the description of this
legally unlimited and potentially despotic power.
Despite the apparent contradiction, this all-powerful
Parliament is as truly a limited, constitutional
government as any in the world; for it is bounded by
the conservatism and free spirit of a people wonder
fully gifted and long practiced in the art of political
self-control. Any gross violation of the people's
interests would lead to the overthrow of the offending
representatives, and serious disregard of the rights
of the colonies would lead to their rebellion, as Eng
land learned to her sorrow in 1775.
Disappearance of the Power of the King. The
three factors legally composing Parliament vary
greatly in importance and power, and have varied
in the past. Under mighty sovereigns like William
the Conqueror, the King really made the laws "by
and with the advice and consent" of his Great
Council, as what was later to develop into Parlia
ment was then called; and in fact he often made
laws without the advice or consent of anybody at
all. But as the great nobles in the House of Lords
became more concerned with the nation's rights
and the House of Commons grew in independence

22 The Legislature
and influence, the advice and consent became so
real that the King was forbidden to proclaim any
thing law that the houses had not passed. The
influence of the houses finally grew to be so great
that their advice could not be ignored, and accord
ingly since 1707 no sovereign has ventured to reject
any bill which has been passed by them; and it may
now be correctly stated that the King has to sign
any law that Parliament sends him.
Decline of the Power of the Lords. Not only has
the power of the King declined as compared with
that of the houses, but that of the Lords has
sunk while that of the Commons has risen. After
the Lords and Commons had together suppressed the
power of the King, thus abolishing despotism, the
Commons took away most of the power of the Lords,
thus abolishing class rule and establishing demo
cracy. For many years the House of Commons
has been the driving wheel of the British govern
ment, and in future it is destined to be still more
nearly the whole machine.
Supremacy of the Commons. This growth in
power of the Commons has gone so far as to convert
Parliament from a genuine two-chambered legisla
ture to one in which the so-called upper house has
been reduced to a mere "house of cautious revision."
The fact that the original two-chambered legislature,
copied all over the world and praised as the best

Parliament 23
means of checking hasty and ill-advised action,
should have now become so nearly a legislature of
one supreme, unchecked house, only illustrates how
governments as well as plants and animals must
adapt themselves to new circumstances.
Since 1832 it has been recognized that if the Com
mons persisted in demanding the passage of a law
that the people wanted, as proved by an election
in which this was the principal issue, the Lords must
yield and pass the bill. If they refused, the King,
acting under the necessity of popular demand, would
appoint in sufficient numbers new lords who would
favour the law to pass it. As a matter of fact the
creation of new lords has never been necessary;
for when the Lords have seen that further resistance
would be overcome in this way, they have yielded.
But this was too cumbersome and allowed the Lords
to block much needed legislation to carry which it
was impracticable to be constantly employing such
unusual means. Hence in 191 1, Parliament passed
an act making it possible in future for the Commons
to pass any law without the consent of the other
house. The Lords, whose consent was legally neces
sary, would of course never have submitted to a
measure so considerably restricting their own power
except, under compulsion. And so it was; for after
the people had repeatedly endorsed the position of
the Commons, the King was obliged to force their

24 The Legislature
submission by the threat of creating enough new
lords to pass it over their opposition.
The Parliament Act of 191 1.1 The terms of this
revolutionary amendment to the English constitu
tion, known as the Parliament Act of 191 1, are as
follows: First, the Lords may not alter in any way a bill
to raise money, whether by taxation, loan, or any
other means, or to appropriate or expend in any way
the public funds; and if they do not pass such a bill
within one month of receiving it from the Commons,
it shall be sent to the King for his signature and
thereby become law without their consent. If a
dispute arises as to whether any bill or clause of
a bill concerns finance, the decision of the Speaker
of the House of Commons shall be absolute and
final. Second, if the Commons pass any other bill in
three separate sessions, with at least two years
between the first and las.t passings, that bill, after
allowing the Lords a month to' consider, is sent to
the King for his signature and becomes law without
the consent of the Lords.2

1 An account of the circumstances leading up to the Parliament
Act of 191 1 will be found at pages 91-4.
'The Parliament Act does not apply to private bills, i.e. bills
referring to some particular person or locality, as, e.g., the request of
a certain town to be allowed to build its own waterworks, or to
certain other bills of minor importance. In fact the services of the

Parliament 25
The fact that these bills, like all others, must be
signed by the King before becoming law is of slight
significance. If he should refuse to sign, a resolution
that his signature should be presumed, or some other
means, would be devised to overcome this difficulty,
just as in the case of the opposition of the peers.
During the past hundred years, the absorption of
power by the Commons has so largely drawn poli
tical interest and influence away from the other
house that the transfer of a man from the Commons
to the Lords by reason of his succeeding to a title
on the death of his father has arrested many a pro
mising political career.
Control of the Commons over the Raising and
Spending of Money. The supreme authority in the
state has been attained by the Commons through
their control over the government's income. True,
in the long struggle there were other issues at stake
and in any event it was almost inevitable that the
majority should come to rule; and yet it is none the
less true that it was with this weapon chiefly that
the representatives of the people won their victory.
Long ago it came to be an established principle of
Lords in considering private bills are recognized as very valuable.
See Chapter VI, pages 68-9.
It makes no difference whether the second and third passings of
a bill are by the same House of Commons as that which initiated the
bill, or whether a new house has been elected since the first passage
of the bill.

26 The Legislature

&*

the English constitution that no one should tax the
people except their elected representatives. Thus
the Lords ceased to take any part in levying taxes,
except merely to pass the bill as a matter of form,
even though they were themselves also taxed at the
same rate as other people, and, being very rich, paid
correspondingly large amounts. This came to be re
garded as one of the strongest customs of the constitu
tion, and it is safe to say that the English people
would rise up in civil war rather than surrender it.
Whoever controls taxation soon comes to control
the whole government ; for he can take the position
that unless his wishes are regarded in other matters,
he will stop the whole machinery of government by
cutting off the income.
Time of Meeting. The ancient statute requiring
Parliament to meet once in three years long ago be
came obsolete through the adoption of two customs
regarding the revenue and the army that make it
necessary for it to meet every year. Parliament
grants appropriations for one year only,1 and passes
the law authorizing the King to maintain the army
only for the same length of time; and hence the

1 Certain fixed charges, as interest on the national debt, the
support of the royal family and of the courts of justice, and a few
trivial items are provided by standing law which does not require
annual enactment. These charges equal, in ordinary years, almost
one fifth the total expenditures. See Statesman's Year Book for
1913.43-

Parliament 27
wheels of government would soon stop if Parliament
were not summoned. They meet about the first
part of February and remain in session until about
the first part of August, with a recess at Easter and
another seven weeks later at Whitsuntide. In
extraordinary circumstances, they are assembled
as the occasion requires, the date of meeting in all
cases being fixed by the King, or more correctly, by
the Prime Minister acting in his name.
"The height of the season" for society and busi
ness is not the winter, as in American cities, but May
and June. Parliament being in the midst of its
session, the nobility are in their London houses, and
the capital is crowded with the brilliant social and
political leaders of the kingdom. The most famous
actors, singers, and musicians fill the theatres, and
tourists from every quarter of the globe throng this
the greatest city of the world.
Opening and Closing of Parliament. At the be-i
ginning of the session, the King goes in state, gor
geously apparelled and magnificently attended, from
his palace in London to the Houses of Parliament.
He takes his seat upon the throne in the House of
Lords and a messenger is sent to summon the Com
mons. The latter stand in the rear of the hall, and
the King reads "the speech from the throne,"
which has been written by the Prime Minister and
revised in the Cabinet, outlining the program which

28 The Legislature
the Ministry intend to carry through.1 The King
then retires and the Commons withdraw to their
chamber. At the conclusion of Parliament, the
sovereign again appears in the same place and dis
misses the assembled houses."
Proroguing and Dissolving Parliament. Only the
King can call or dismiss Parliament; but in this, as
in other respects, his authority is only that of Par
liament itself expressed through the Ministry. This
is a relic of the time when he really called it to give
him advice or money, and sent the members home
when he had got what he wanted. At the end of its
regular annual session, its desire to go home having
been signified, the King prorogues {i. e. adjourns)
the body. If instead of a temporary adjournment,
the service of its members is to be ended and a new
House of Commons chosen, the King issues a pro
clamation, either at the time of closing the session
or later, dissolving Parliament and naming the date
on which a new House of Commons is to be elected.
If not sooner dissolved, Parliament would by law
expire at the end of five years since the last election ;
but as a matter of fact, it is always dissolved and is
never allowed to live out the full term for which it
was elected.2
'In the absence of the sovereign, some high official reads the
speech and formally opens Parliament.
2 See pages 39 and 46-50.

CHAPTER III

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Membership. The House of Commons consists
of 495 members from England and Wales, 72 from
Scotland, and 103 from Ireland, making a total of
670. z The attendance, however, when the proceed
ings are dull is very small, frequently falling as low
as 25 or 30; but the average is of course much higher;
and when important votes or speeches are expected,
the greater part of the members are found in their
places. Election Districts. The six hundred seventy mem
bers of the House of Commons are elected by single
districts, z as are our Congressmen, with the exception
that a few districts elect two members each. The
1 The act for Irish Home Rule passed in 19 14, but temporarily
withheld from going into operation, reduces the number of repre
sentatives from Ireland to 42, thus leaving the total, after that
act shall go into effect, 609. See Chapter XXVI.
2 They are called parliamentary divisions; but I shall speak of
them as districts as more natural for Americans, not to speak of the
danger of confusion in the other term with "division" in another
sense. See page 77. 29

30 The Legislature
population of the districts varies greatly. There is
no attempt to have the districts of equal population.
It is surprising, for that matter, to find how widely
Congressional districts vary in population, on account
of the necessity of following certain established
boundary lines. The average population of a par
liamentary district is about 60,000, which gives
each member between a third and a fourth as many
constituents as are represented by a member of
Congress in the United States. Some districts
contain less than a third of the average of 60,000
and a few about three times more than that. The
proportion between the largest and smallest district
is in fact almost fifteen to one.1
The districts, or more properly constituencies,
which elect members are of three kinds: counties,
which elect 377 members; boroughs, which elect 284,
and universities, which elect 9.2
County Members. It would seem more correct
to speak of country rather than county members;
for the member is no longer elected by the whole
county, except in the case of a few small ones, but
by a small division of the county set off for this

1 Lowell, i., 200. Compare the United States Senate, where the
Senators from New York represent one hundred and twelve times as
many people as those from Nevada.
2 The membership of the House of Commons being reduced about
one tenth by the Irish Home Rule act, these figures will be changed
in about that proportion when that law goes into effect.

The House of Commons 31
purpose. Places of less than fifteen thousand in
habitants are, with a few exceptions, treated as
country and go along with the rural region by which
they are surrounded.
Borough Members. The parliamentary borough
is, roughly speaking, a city of over fifteen thousand
inhabitants' — usually much larger — which elects its
own member or members to Parliament. If it is a
small city, it elects as a whole its one member; if a
large city, it is divided into as many separate districts
as the number of members to which it is entitled.1
There are many boroughs, or cities, however, which
have their regular city government, but simply form
part of a country district for electing a member of
Parliament. University Members. Lastly, the eight leading
universities of the United Kingdom2 send nine mem
bers to the House of Commons, several sending two
each, several one, and in several cases two universi
ties combining to elect one member. These members
are elected by the graduates of the university, and
it is a fact that the constituency which has the right
1 The "city" of London, i. e., the square mile in the heart of the
metropolis, as one district elects two members. The rest of the
metropolis is divided into single member districts like any other large
city. 2 After the Home Rule Act goes into effect, two Irish university
members will sit in the Irish Parliament, but the two Irish university
representatives will not then be among the forty-two Irish members
of the Imperial Parliament.

32 The Legislature
to vote for one of these members is more numerous
than the voters in a number of the smaller districts.
Reasons for County, Borough, and University
Constituencies. The reason for assigning repre
sentatives to the cities, rural districts, and univer
sities separately, instead of dividing the country
uniformly into districts without attempting any
distinction or grouping of urban and rural popula
tion, is that thus each of these differing interests is
assured a fair representation. Otherwise it might
happen that in times of political excitement one or
the other of the elements might be shut out, virtually
if not absolutely, by the one which was in the major
ity refusing to permit the election of any man not of
their class of the population; and so a large element
of the people would be deprived of all voice in the
government. This could not happen to such a serious
extent in a region, such as an American State or an
English county, which contains many large cities
and also extensive and vigorous farming sections;
for in that case some cities are virtually independent
election districts, through the control which they
exercise over the districts in which they lie, and the
rural population is sure to triumph in some sections.
And yet even then there might be much ruthless
overriding of the minority element in many quarters.
To avoid these evils, several American States have
adopted the English custom of setting off large towns

The House of Commons 33
as separate election districts from the counties in
which they lie.
The reason for allowing the university graduates
to collect at their alma mater and elect a member or
members is to secure definite representation for the
highly educated and conservative element in the
country. As the general influence of this class upon
the thought of the country is far greater than any
that can be exercised by their special representatives,
it can hardly be supposed that this arrangement
accomplishes much beyond giving a few seats to the
Conservative party.
The Franchise. The parliamentary franchise,
i. e. the right to vote for members of the House of
Commons, is not so wide as that for the election of
local officials, for it includes no women, as does the
latter, and is somewhat stricter as to the qualifica
tions for men. The movement towards manhood
suffrage, however, is quite strong, as is also that for
woman suffrage for all elective positions.
The law defining the qualifications for voting are
quite complex; but the following summary is suffi
cient for our purpose: In boroughs, every man, not
a lord, may votev who, either as owner or tenant,
occupies as head of a household (though he himself
might constitute the entire household), any house,
flat, room, or set of rooms in the city constituting a
separate family abode; and also every man who
3 .

34 The Legislature
occupies as a lodger a room or rooms of an annual
rental value of at least £10. Hence we may
adopt the usual brief statement that in the boroughs
all "occupiers" and "£io lodgers" may vote for
members of Parliament.
In the counties it is more complex. There all
"£io lodgers" may vote, and also the following:
all men who own land of a certain small value, and
all men who occupy as owners or tenants quarters
or lands on which local taxes are paid.
We may say roughly for the whole United King
dom, that the parliamentary franchise is possessed
by all men who own land or occupy a home rated as
a separate dwelling, either as owner or tenant, or
rent as lodgers quarters worth £10 a year.1
Three further requirements apply to all classes of
voters, viz.: they must be twenty-one years of age
and must have paid all taxes due upon any land or
houses the ownership or occupancy of which secures
their right to vote, and all occupiers or lodgers must
1 Dwelling or residence does not necessarily mean a complete
building; a tenement house might include under one roof dozens of
"residences." Two more points are to be remarked: The "county" districts
include many considerable towns; hence particularly the qualifica
tion for lodgers in the counties. Also the voters in the "county
boroughs," i. e. cities having the powers of independent county
governments (see page 230 below), have the same qualifications as in
the counties. The qualifications for voting in Scotland and Ireland
are similar, though not identical, to those in England. For details,
see Statesmen's Year Book.

The House of Commons 35
have occupied the same quarters for a full year
previous to the 15th of July preceding the election
at which they propose to vote.
The law is enforced by requiring that the voters
shall be registered every year. The registration
officers will place no man's name upon the list who
does not possess the legal qualifications.1
Members not Necessarily Residents of their
Districts. A fact strange to Americans is that there
is no rule, custom, or even general feeling, that the
member should be a resident of the district by which
he is elected. In fact about half of the members of
the House of Commons are not residents of their
districts. In the United States a member of Con-
gress is required by law to be a citizen of the State,
and by custom to be a resident of the district from
which1 he is elected. Ours is the only great self-
governing country in the world which thus limits the
? Plural voting. As the qualifications for voting require the own
ing or renting of property in a city or district and say nothing as to
one definite legal residence, it is evident that a man might qualify to
vote in several different parliamentary districts, as, e. g., by renting
a store in a city, living in the nearby country, and keeping a summer
cottage at the seashore, or being a university graduate. That was
the practice before 1914, which was recognized as having an im
portant influence in close elections. There had been for many
years widespread opposition to it as undemocratic, and in 1914 it
was abolished by the first law "enacted by the King's most Excellent
Majesty (as the legal expression is), by the advice and consent of the
Commons" as provided under the Parliament Act of' 191 1. It is
estimated that 500,000 voters, mostly Conservatives, were affected.
The plural vote by university graduates was included in the abolition.

36 The Legislature
right of the people to get the best services wherever
they can find them and refuses to trust them to choose
their servants from whatever part of the State or
country they please. Or to put it in a way which
better indicates its significance, we are the only
people who are so absorbed in local politics and "pull"
as to prefer an inferior resident to a highly superior
fellow-citizen from just across the river or the county
line. Consequently men whose services are greatly
needed in Congress by their entire party, and per
haps by the whole country, are sometimes kept out
of public life by happening to live in a district which
for purely local reasons does not choose to elect such
a representative. The same is true regarding the
State legislatures and the counties within the State,
and, except where the commission form of govern
ment has been adopted, even of the city councils
and the wards within the city. In other countries
able men who live in districts where the majority
is opposed to them may be secured for the public
service by being elected from districts which agree
with them in politics, but have no candidate within
their borders of such eminence and ability.
Salary. In modern times members of the House
of Commons did not receive salaries until 191 1 ; but
in that year it was enacted that they should be paid
the small sum of £400 annually. This was done
because it was considered contrary to democratic

The House of Commons 37
principles to deprive a poor man of the opportunity
to serve by reason of the requirement that the
member should bear his own expenses; but the
small salary provided really makes very little
difference; for not only is it insufficient to support
the member in London, but it is entirely inadequate
to enable a poor man to stand the heavy expenses of
the campaign and the social and charitable obliga
tions which it is almost impossible for a member of
Parliament to escape. The distinction of belonging
to the House of Commons costs the ordinary mem
ber at least $15,000 to $20,000 a year.1
The Speaker. The presiding officer of the Com
mons is the Speaker. He is chosen by each newly
elected House of Commons and is formally approved
by the King, though the day is far past when the
sovereign would think of disallowing whomever
they should choose. The Speaker's term lasts as
long as that of the house which elects him, and it is
customary to re-elect him, irrespective of the fortunes
of parties, as long as he desires to serve. From the
moment of his election he becomes an impartial,
non-party man, never voting except to break a tie,
1 Cf. Lowell, ii., 48-49. £5000 a year is often spoken of as neces
sary. The £400 salary was established mainly at the demand of the
labour unions, whose former practice of supporting Labour Party
members, of whom there are in 191 1 about fifty, was checked by the
courts. Labour Party members are supposed to deny themselves
the social ambitions and the "nursing " of constituencies whicn make
such drafts upon others.

38 The Legislature
and presides with a fairness and dignity which have
earned his office the highest universal respect. He
receives a salary of five thousand pounds a year, a
residence in Westminster Palace, and when he
chooses to retire, is made a peer.
Disqualifications. In order to check the influence
of the King, it was enacted two hundred years ago
that royal officials should not be allowed to sit in
the Commons. But this does not apply to army and
navy officers, nor to the holders of the great offices
in the executive department filled by the King's
Ministers. On the contrary, the custom of the con
stitution requires that the Ministers must be mem
bers of Parliament, and if this were not so, the Eng
lish system of government could not exist. With
the exception noted above, r any adult male subject
of the King from any part of the Empire may be
elected to the House of Commons, except an English
or Scotch Lord or an Irish Lord who has been elected
by his fellow Irish Lords to sit for life in the House
of Lords of the United Kingdom. If the heir to a
peerage is a member of the House of Commons when
his father dies, his membership immediately ceases
without any ceremony whatever, and he is not per
mitted even to complete any business in the house
upon which he might have been engaged.
* And a few others not important; e. g., clergy of the Scotch and
English establishments, Catholic priests, and certain criminals.

The House of Commons 39
In view of the fact that the power of the House of
Lords has been so diminished1 that it can no longer
be regarded as an "estate" of the realm in the medi
aeval sense of a separate class absolutely protected
by the organization of the state against the encroach
ments of other classes, there appears no good reason
for retaining the rule against any peer's being elected
to the House of Commons. The Irish Home Rule
Act recognizes this and makes all peers eligible to the
Irish House of Commons. It is a strange thing in a de
mocracy, founded on confidence in the people, to for
bid the people to get their representative where they
please. The third estate would have suffered sadly in
the French Revolution if they had been protected
against electing Count Mirabeau their representative.
Ministers in Parliament. The King's Ministers,
then, are members of Parliament, and moreover
they are the leaders of that body and, as will be
later explained, they exercise a vast influence upon
its action in passing laws.
Term, Dissolution, etc. The Commons are elected
for a term of five years2; but, as will be explained
later, they are always dissolved sooner; so that
the average life of a Parliament has proved for many
years past to be a little over four years.3 A dis-
1 Cf. the Parliament Act of 1911, page 24.
3 The term was seven years from i7l6to 1911. The term of the
Parliament elected in 191 1 was extended because of the Great War.
3 See page 41, table of the duration of Parliaments since 1837.

40 The Legislature
solution sometimes comes much sooner than this,
however, long before the end of the term for which
the existing House of Commons was elected ; for if the
Ministry find themselves in disagreement with the
Commons and believe that the people will agree
with them instead of with the Commons, they dis
solve the existing house and call for the election of
another.1 Furthermore, it is coming to be re
cognized that, if a considerable number of bye-elec
tions to fill the places of members of the house who
have died or withdrawn and who were supporters
of the Ministry go against the party represented by
the Ministers, they should resign their positions or
order a dissolution in order to give the people the
opportunity to change the party in power if they
really so desire. The Commons are thus the direct
representatives of the people and as such are much
the most powerful element in the government.
Hence it is, as was explained in the preceding chap
ter, that they have the absolute control over bills to
impose taxes or spend money, and can pass any law
over the protest of the Lords by simply enacting it in
three successive sessions in not less than two years.
Impeachments. Another special power possessed
by the. Commons alone is that of bringing impeach
ments against any executive or judicial officer of
the Crown. The origin and method of operation of
1 Cf. pages 46-50.

The House of Commons

4i

this powerful weapon of defence against tyranny
are described on page 102, which might be read at
this point as a part of this chapter. Though im
peachment has not been employed in England for
over a hundred years, and probably will never be
used there again, it played its part in the long war
fare against tyranny in former times. It has been
rendered unnecessary by the law making judges
removable on a request passed by a mere majority
vote of both houses of Parliament, and the develop
ment of the modern system of Cabinet government,
by which the Commons force the resignation of the
King's Ministers as soon as they become objection
able, to say nothing of dangerous.
The Duration of Parliaments since 1837'
Victoria's 1st Parliament 3 years, 9 months, 12 days

2d

((

5

(1

n "

4

11

3d

11

4

11

9 "

10

11

4th

II

4

K

7

1

ii

5th
tl
1
11
n
23
11
6th
II
6
11
1 "
6
11
7th
II
3
11
2 "
27
11
8th
II
5
11
1 "
16
11
' 9th
11
6
11
0 "
19
tt
' 10th
It
5
11
6 "
20
f t
nth
II
0
u
5 "
14
fi
' 1 2th
11
5
11
10 "
23
11
13th
11
2
it
n "
20
ii
' 14th
II
5
11
1 "
13
"
15th
11
5
11
1 "
5
"
Edward VII's ist
tl
3
ii
n "
24
1
2d
tt
0
tt
9 "
14
ii
George V's ist
tt
Began January 31,
1911
1 From the Statesmen's Year Book for 1915, p. 6. Note that before
191 1 the House of Commons was elected for a term of seven years,
unless sooner dissolved; since 1911, for a term of five years. On
account of the Great War, the term of the Commons then sitting was
extended to seven years.
CHAPTER IV
THE CABINET AND THE COMMONS
Departments of Government not Separate in
England. Though it is common to discuss govern
ment under the heads of its three great departments,
the legislative, executive, and judicial, it is impossible
to treat any one of these, particularly the legislative
and executive, entirely separately in any country;
for they are more or less associated in practice.
This is particularly the case in England. Though
we may for clearness adopt this method of discussing
first the legislature and then the executive, we must
constantly speak of the two together, because they
are in fact intimately united.
The King and the Cabinet. The King, as will be
explained in Chapter X, long ago ceased to be the
real executive of England. That position is held
by the Cabinet, which, though in legal terms merely
the King's Ministers, is by the custom of the constitu
tion in effect the executive committee of the House of
Commons. This is only another illustration of the
42

The Cabinet and the Commons 43
fact that England is not a government in which one
department is balanced against the other to prevent
either from grasping an excess of power, but is one
in which one branch, namely the House of Commons,
has actually acquired almost all power.
The Cabinet the Leaders of the Majority Party.
Let us make this plainer. In the times when the
King was a much more active factor in the govern
ment than today, he would sometimes appoint a
prominent member of Parliament as his Minister
in order by the influence of such a man to get their
consent to the royal plans. As Parliament increased
in power, it insisted on the Ministers' being chosen
from among its members, in order to exercise control
over administration; and as the Commons gradually
came to be the more powerful branch of Parliament,
that house succeeded in establishing as one of the
firmest customs of the constitution what King
William III had begun merely as a sort of experi
ment for getting his measures adopted more easily,
namely, the rule that the Ministers must be the
leaders of the party having a majority in the House
of Commons.
In a later chapter we shall take up the various
executive departments. It is sufficient now to
understand that in their ordinary executive duties
they are similar to the departments headed by the
members of the President's Cabinet in the United

44 The Legislature
States. But here the similarity ends ; for the members
of the American Cabinet are merely administrators
of their various departments and advisers of the
President; whereas the British Cabinet are all this
and something very important besides.
Cabinet and Ministry. Two terms, which may
sometimes be used interchangeably, but at other
times must be kept distinct, are Cabinet and Minis
try. The Ministry consists of about forty men,
comprising all the heads of departments, such as the
treasury, navy, home affairs, etc., a few important
assistants, and a number of high officials of a some
what formal and honorary character without any
routine or departmental duties. The Cabinet, how
ever, is an inner council of the Ministry that includes
only about half its members. These more important
officials (often called "Cabinet Ministers") are the
recognized leaders of the party which at the time
commands a majority in the House of Commons.
For the better planning of the work of administra
tion, they hold for counsel among themselves weekly
"Cabinet meetings." It is they who really conduct
the policy of the government, without consulting the
rest of the Ministry. It is their task to determine
what measures shall be introduced into Parliament ;
and on them rests directly and conspicuously the
duty of carrying out the party platform and pledges
and of maintaining the interests and honour of the

The Cabinet and the Commons 45
nation. In a word, the Cabinet is the real executive
in England.
Responsible Ministry. This whole body of offi
cials, including both the Cabinet and non-Cabinet
Ministers, are said to form a "responsible Ministry."
Of course any Minister is responsible in the sense
that he must obey the laws of his country and is
subject to discharge if not satisfactory to his superior,
as, e. g., the Postmaster-General of the United States
would be punished for violation of the law and might
be discharged for inefficiency or disregard of the
wishes of the President. But the English Ministry
is "responsible" in another sense also. It is respon
sible politically to Parliament; i. e., if it is not ap
proved by a majority of the House of Commons, it
must resign, without reference to its honesty, wis
dom, efficiency, or any other matter except that it
is unacceptable to a majority of the' representatives
of the people. In this way the people control both
the Parliament and the executive officers also.
A Minister's resigning his position as Minister
has no effect upon his remaining a private member
of Parliament.
Collective Responsibility. Moreover the Ministry
is responsible as a body, not separately; for their
policy is the party policy, and if the majority in the
Commons vote against them, it means that the house
wishes their party to give up the conduct of the

46 The Legislature
government. It is understood, of course, that if a
Minister has been guilty of misconduct or indiscre
tion as an individual, he alone is condemned and
resigns, because no question of the conduct of the
Cabinet or the policy of the party is involved. z
Appealing to the Country. In attempting to make
clear the responsibility of the Ministry, I have said
that if they are outvoted in the House of Commons,
they must resign. They may sometimes adopt an
other course, however. If they believe that the
people are really in sympathy with them and do
not approve of the attempt of the Commons to turn
them out, they may refuse to resign and appeal to
the people by dissolving Parliament and ordering
an election of a new House of Commons. In the
campaign which follows, between the dissolution
and the choice of the new Commons, the country
rings with the speeches of Ministers, their followers,
and opponents, in a mighty effort to secure a majority
in the coming house. It is similar to an election in
the United States in which a President and a new
Congress are to be chosen.
If the result of the election is to place in the
House of Commons a majority belonging to the
party of the Ministry, the Ministry are sustained
by the people and retain their positions; but if the
new house is in the control of their opponents, the
1 Cf. pages 126-127.

The Cabinet and the Commons 47
people have condemned them, and they should re
sign immediately upon the announcement of the
result, as they will otherwise be compelled to do as
soon as Parliament meets.
Vote of Lack of Confidence. The Ministry may
be turned out or forced to appeal to the country, as
described above, not only by defeating one of then-
measures before the House of Commons, but also by
carrying a motion that they no longer possess the
confidence of that house. This motion can be made
at any time and must be voted upon as soon as
reasonable opportunity has been afforded each side
to defend its position. As a matter of fact, this is
the usual way in which the Ministry is overthrown
in the Commons, the defeat of their bills being very
rare. Taking of Office by a New Ministry. The Min
istry, when defeated in the House of Commons, or
in a general election, wait upon the King and sur
render their offices. The King at once sends for the
recognized leader of the new majority party, request
ing him to call at the palace. The gentleman upon
his arrival is simply informed that, the Ministry
having resigned, he, being the recognized leader of
the majority party, will please form a Ministry.
There is usually no doubt as to whom the party
recognizes as its leader, as this is, except in rare
instances, determined by the general consensus of

48 The Legislature
approval of a chief who has won his position through
long parliamentary service. A few times it has been
necessary for the members of the party in Parliament
to determine in caucus whom they will recognize as
their head. A chief once definitely accepted usually
continues to be recognized as such as long as he re
tains his health and strength.
It occasionally occurs that the pre-eminence is
doubtful between two or three really strong men, no
one of whom is clearly the preference of the majority
of his party. Under these circumstances the King
is free to use his own judgment as to which he will
summon. If, however, he has been evidently mis
taken, the gentleman himself will so inform His
Majesty and advise the summoning of the one whom
he considers entitled to the position. Thus, e. g.,
Lord Hartington when requested by Queen Victoria
in 1880 to form a Ministry declined to do so and
advised Her Majesty to send for Mr. Gladstone, as
the sovereign promptly did. It can hardly be
doubted that the Queen was somewhat influenced by
her personal dislike for Mr. Gladstone in this case,
as she plainly was against another Liberal statesman
in 1855. On that occasion, after vainly trying in
succession to induce Lords Derby, Lansdowne, and
Russell to form a Ministry, she finally had to resort
to "her old enemy Palmerston." In both cases, of
course, the sovereign was obliged to yield. In the

The Cabinet and the Commons 49
event, however, that a politician who was not
acceptable to the Commons should obey the order
of the King to form a Ministry, he would soon
discover his mistake; for the leading politicians
would refuse to accept office under him, and if he
should still be so foolish as to persist, the Commons
would drive him from office by a vote of want of
confidence. The Verdict of the People. It is now a recognized
principle that the government must be acceptable
to the people. Hence, if the new Ministry have
taken office in consequence of the resignation of
their opponents on account of an adverse vote in the
House of Commons, they will dissolve Parliament
and order a new election in order to allow the people
at once to declare which of the two parties they pre
fer to bear rule; and it occasionally happens that
the voters return to power the party of the recently
defeated Cabinet, whose members thereupon resume
office. This is rare, however; for the House of
Commons, and more especially the Cabinet, keep in
close touch with public opinion, and if a Cabinet is
so far convinced of its weakness as not to venture
an appeal to the people when defeated in the Com
mons, it is very likely correct in thinking thai the
political complexion of the country has changed. *
If a new Ministry is formed simply by redis
tributing the offices among the leaders of the party

50 The Legislature
already in power, the election of a new Parliament
is not necessary. It must be remembered, however,
that in a system whose operation depends in so
many particulars upon the experience, judgment,
and sense of propriety of the men in charge, many
circumstances arise for which no set rule can be
stated. In such a flexible system all statesmen
would act in the same way in the more obvious and
regular cases, though different men might, without
being considered as violating the constitution, act
differently in cases less clear and typical.
Voluntary Dissolution by the Cabinet. Another
fact in connection with dissolving Parliament may
be explained here. It will be recalled that the
Commons are elected for a term of five years, but
are never allowed to serve out the full term. If
their term is not ended by a dissolution for the rea
son just described, they will be dissolved independ
ently of any such crisis shortly before the expiration
of the five-year period. The Cabinet of course
desire that the election shall come at a time when
the people are favourably impressed with their
party ; and hence, as the day draws near which would
put an end to the existing house, they seek to hit
upon some such occasion to order a new election as
the successful termination of a war, the passage of
some popular law, or the appearance of favourable
results from some of their measures. This may give

The Cabinet and the Commons 51
the existing Ministry a certain unfair advantage,
though one which would be of little help to a weak or
really unpopular or unsuccessful Cabinet; while it is
undoubtedly true that a party would be subjected to
an unfair disadvantage of much more serious charac
ter by having the election at a certain fixed time,
immediately before which their opponents, or the
mere course of events, might produce circumstances
which would prejudice the people against the govern
ment. This is frequently the case in the United
States where the fixed date for the election not only
offers tempting opportunities to the party in opposi
tion, but also frequently deters the party in power
from conducting the government with an eye so
single to the public good as they otherwise would
do. The remark that it is as fair for one party aS
the other does not dispose of the matter. The
principal question is, which system is fairer and
better for the people?
Public Interest in Parliamentary Proceedings.
We can understand why the public takes such keen
interest in the debates in Parliament; for the vote
upon any question may turn out the Ministry, or at
the least show that it is rapidly approaching its
doom. Politics in England are a war in which „a
decisive battle may occur at any time; while in the
United States, no matter what the President or Con
gress may do, there is no chance of getting them out

52 The Legislature
until the next election, and hence their struggles are
not of such importance to the contestants or of such
interest to the voters.
" The Government " and Popular Control. So
great is the power which rests with the Cabinet as
the responsible officials in control of public policy
that they are in fact spoken of as "the government."
As the leaders of the political party for the time
being in power in the country, they are the dominat
ing feature of the House of Commons. This
concentration of authority and responsibility openly
and plainly in the hands of a small united group
enables the voters to perceive whether the party
pledges are being redeemed and the government
administered in a proper manner; for these twenty
or so men are absolutely responsible for the passage
of all important laws and are obliged at any time to
answer questions touching any fact or feature of the
public business, except, of course, such as military
secrets or phases of foreign relations which cannot
properly be discussed before the world.
Dominance of the Cabinet. The system involves
not only the dominance of the Cabinet over the time
and business of the House of Commons, as of the
officers over a disciplined army, but also the relative
insignificance of the individual member. It is
distinctly a system of brilliant leaders and loyal
followers. The new man is given a fair chance to

The Cabinet and the Commons 53
show what is in him ; and mere claptrap or buncombe
count for little before such judges as the House of
Commons ; but if he proves to be only a commonplace
fellow, the public business is not long impeded by his
interruptions. There are, however, many men valuable in the
laborious duties of the committee room who are
almost entirely unknown for anything they say upon
the floor of the house and are yet esteemed by those
who know their work as useful public servants.
Yet, strong as is the leadership of the Cabinet, it
is by the consent of the House of Commons, which
can overthrow the leaders, or indeed the whole
system, if it chooses. Hence it is an exaggeration
to say that the Cabinet rules the country. Rather,
it administers the government with firmness and
with independence from trivial interference. Eng
land supplies the most decided example of rule by
party, the most perfectly worked out system of
personal and party responsibility — a responsibility
which enables the House of Commons instantly to
call the Cabinet definitely to account, and the
country on important occasions similarly to call to
account both Cabinet and Commons.
Advantages of Co-operation of Legislature and
Executive. The advantages of the system of re
sponsible Ministry are great and evident; and yet
there are also dangers. It seems to be peculiarly

54 The Legislature
suited to the English who developed it, fitting them
like their skins do their bodies; but in many of the
countries which have copied it, it has not worked
well. It should be remembered, however, that
these are nations which had previously, either
through lack of aptitude or of opportunity, not dis
played the highest ability in self-government. It is
easy to copy the mere forms of a government, but it
is not possible to reproduce the spirit, character, and
circumstances out of whose workings through the
centuries it has been developed.
The people of the United States, though deriving
their political and legal principles from England,
have not adopted this parliamentary system, as it is
called, but have developed the presidential form.1
Many consider that with us the English system
would involve a dangerous degree of popular passion,
political violence, and instability. It is certain,
however, that we would be benefited by adopting
to a certain extent the English principle of a closer
touch between the executive and legislative branches
of the government, so that each might better under
stand and co-operate in the tasks for which their
agreement is necessary. Presidents Washington's,
Adams's, and Wilson's reading their important mes
sages before Congress in person, as also their freer
personal communication with the Senate on treaties
1 See page 8 above for explanation of these terms.

The Cabinet and the Commons 55
and appointments, are efforts to avoid the great
disadvantage in the performance of the duties of
President and Congress which has resulted from the
excessive separation of these branches of our govern
ment — a separation that we have allowed to extend
far beyond reasonable degree and to become almost
a binding custom.
The Future of Party Government. Our discussion
has assumed the system of parliamentary govern
ment to be operating in normal times of foreign
peace and party strife. The reader is familiar with
the action not only of England, but of other parlia
mentary countries also, during the Great War of
putting party dissensions aside and forming a coali
tion Ministry, without any appeal through a new
election to the people, from men of both parties, so
that the strongest talents and the patriotic zeal of
all groups may be brought into co-operation for the
common good in a crisis so severely straining the
material and moral resources of the State. Some
eminent English publicists prophesy that the waste
ful opposition of faction must be permanently
superseded by such a non-party system. As pleasing
as is such a vision of a sort of political millennium,
human nature and the experience of the past hardly
promise its realization. Even during the American
Revolution, as the years wore on, two well-defined
factions arose in the Continental Congress on the

56 The Legislature
methods and aims in the conduct of the war. Wash
ington hoped for a non-party administration under
the Constitution, but in vain. Nor are the present
coalition Cabinets in Europe the first to be formed
under similar circumstances. In the face of threat
ened destruction all factions unite; but the peril
passed, differing views of the rights of classes, the
obligations of wealth, and the best means of serving
the common good or protecting special interests
make party divisions and party government inevita
ble. Not only so, but doubtless no other system
serves so well to winnow good from bad and modify
extremes in the formulation and administration of
laws.

CHAPTER V
ORGANIZATION AND WORK OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
— GOVERNMENT BILLS1
The Speech from the Throne. Just as the Presi
dent sends or delivers to Congress a message at the
beginning of its annual meeting, reviewing the state
of the country and recommending needed legislation,
so the King, as described above,2 delivers to Par
liament an annual speech from the throne. The
American custom in fact originated in imitation of
the British, with which the founders of the republic
had all their lives been familiar as British subjects.
Since the executive authority is really in the hands
of the Cabinet, and the "speech" is their declaration
of the program of the party in power, it is written
by the Prime Minister, with the benefit of the criti
cism of the Cabinet, without any participation by
the monarch. Its importance may be judged by the
fact that it not only reviews the state of foreign and
1 Government bills are those which are introduced by the Ministry.
* Page 27. 57

58 The Legislature
domestic affairs, but announces the measures which
the Cabinet propose to present to Parliament.
His Majesty's speech is read by him or his re
presentative in person before both houses assembled
in the House of Lords. On the return of the Com
mons to their chamber, the Speaker reads a copy of
the speech to his fellow commoners, only a portion of
whom probably had cared to crowd into the small
chamber of the Lords and stand outside the rail,
as even their Speaker must do, thus recalling the
time when the Commons were really the "lower"
house. Debate on the Speech from the Throne. Being
in reality the platform of the party in power, the
speech from the throne is treated accordingly. Its
consideration begins the work of the House of Com
mons. Some member selected for that honour moves
in a few brief remarks that the house thank His
Majesty for his most gracious speech. This is called
moving the address in reply to the speech from the
throne. The leader of the Opposition (i. e. the party
in a minority in the Commons) rises and attacks the
King's speech with all the vigour and venom with
which politicians are accustomed to denounce each
other's plans. The Ministers of course defend the
speech. The debate is perhaps the most general
one that occurs in Parliament ; for it ranges over the
entire policy of the party in power, and the general

The House of Commons 59
merits and demerits of its principles and aims. The
battle may continue for ten or fifteen days. If the
motion to thank the King is carried, the Ministry
win; but if an amendment is carried expressing regret
that some subject was omitted or in any other way
manifesting the dissatisfaction of the house, the
Ministry know that they do not command the sup
port of the majority, and therefore they dissolve
Parliament and appeal to the people, or resign, as
described in the preceding chapter.
Arrangement of Seats. The Speaker's chair is
stationed in one end of the small hall, measuring
seventy-five by forty-five feet, in which the house
meets. Except a few seats in the rear which are
placed across, the benches run lengthwise of the hall,
four rows on each side, rising one above the other so
that their occupants sit facing each other with a
broad aisle between. The supporters of the Minis
try occupy the side of the hall to the Speaker's right ;
those of the party in opposition, *". e. the minority,
the side on his left. The front bench on the Speaker's
right and nearest his chair is called the Treasury
bench and is occupied by the Cabinet. The one
opposite is called the Opposition bench and is occu
pied by the late Ministry of the defeated party. The*
supporters of the two rows of opposing chiefs are
arranged upon the benches behind the respective
groups of leaders. A member who does not count

60 The Legislature
himself a follower of either party sits in the rear of
the hall, "below the gangway," as it is called.
Dominant Position of the Cabinet. It is impos
sible to understand the working of the House of
Commons without keeping in mind the dominant
position of the Cabinet. Since they are held re
sponsible for all government actions, they must be
allowed a very free hand in shaping public policy,
conducting the administration, and passing laws
through Parliament. The Ministry in power is
called "the government," and to a very consider
able extent it does govern. The King, the nominal
chief executive, is completely in their hands and
does not in any way rule the country.
" Government Bills " and " Private Member
Bills." Much the greater part of the time of the
house is taken up by the Ministers or by the dis
cussion of their proposals, "the government meas
ures." Every large body with a great variety of
duties must necessarily assign many matters to
committees, and the House of Commons, like all
modern legislative bodies, also does this. But the
committees do not play any such part in Parliament
as they do in our Congress, where they perform prac
tically the bulk of the real work of legislation.
In Parliament all bills by private members, with
few exceptions, are referred to a committee which
conducts the real investigation and discussion and

Government Bills 61
recommends the house to either kill or pass the
measure. But not so the great measures which
constitute the program of the party in power.
These are introduced by the Ministers and are dis
cussed in the meeting of the whole house, either in
regular session or sitting as the Committee of the
Whole. Rules of the House. The rules for transacting
business, though much simpler than formerly, are
so complex that only a skilful parliamentarian can
steer his way. They are similar to those- of our
Congress or legislatures; for, as one should keep in
mind, the American system is derived from the Eng
lish. Though we shall, of course, not trouble our
selves with the intricacies of parliamentary practice,
we should understand clearly the following rules:
First, a bill must ordinarily be discussed both in
the regular session of the house and in committee.
Remember, though, that in the case of the great gov
ernment bills the committee is the Committee of the
Whole, which is virtually the house itself. Second,
to become a law, it must pass three readings in both
houses, i. e. must be passed three separate times in
each house.
First Reading of a Bill. The procedure upon a
bill, is as follows: The Minister in charge of the
department most nearly concerned with the proposed
law asks leave to introduce the bill. He explains

62 The Legislature
the nature of his measure, and a thorough debate
follows upon its outstanding features and general
principles. Discussion at this stage does not enter
upon minor details, nor are amendments now offered.
The house grants permission, and then passes the
bill through its first reading.
If public necessity requires, a bill may be passed
through all three readings in one day; but this is
very unusual, and practically always the different
readings are separated by several days.
Second Reading and Discussion in Committee.
On the second reading the house again considers
the bill upon its general character and does not allow
amendment. Upon passing the second reading,
the bill goes to "the committee stage." It is in the
detailed committee discussion following the second
reading that amendments are considered and either
approved or rejected by the committee. After this
the committee reports to the house, stating what
amendments, if any, it recommends. The house
then approves or rejects the amendments which
have been recommended by the committee; but if
further amendments are desired, the bill must be
sent back to the committee for their consideration.
Third Reading and the King's Signature. This
stage being completed, the house takes up the ques
tion, Shall the bill pass its third reading? At this
stage the bill is either killed as a whole or passed as

Government Bills 63
a whole, without further amendment. In the latter
case it is sent to the House of Lords, where it goes
through a similar process; or if it has already passed
the Lords, it is sent to the King, who signs it, without
reference to whether he likes it or not.
It often occurs that one house insists on amend
ments to which the other is averse. If the houses
cannot agree, the entire bill fails; for it must be
adopted in identical form by both. The Commons,
however, as explained above, have sole control over
all money bills, and can have their way in any other
matter by waiting two years and meantime passing
the measure twice more in the form which they
desire. z
Initiative Generally with the Commons. The
Commons are plainly much the more important of
the two houses. The Lords in fact originate few
bills, but principally confine themselves to amending,
adopting, or rejecting those sent up by the other
branch, thus illustrating their character as "a cau
tious house of revision."
The Budget. An all-important feature of the
work of the Commons is the passing of money bills.
Their customary control over the raising and spend
ing of money has been growing stronger for centuries,
until it was made absolute by law by the " Parliament
Act " of 191 1, as for many years it had been supposed
1 See above, page 24.

64 The Legislature
to be by long established custom.1 In finance the
house follows very closely the lead of the Cabinet,
and hence we must first notice the part played by
these officials.
In England, the minister of finance, called the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, presents annually to
Parliament a carefully balanced statement of the
amounts necessary to support the various govern
ment services and an estimate of the taxes which
will be required to meet the total. This is called the
budget. Its compilation by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer will later be described. The speech in
which he introduces his budget, especially if he is a
man of eloquence and genius like Gladstone, is one
of the great events of the session.
As explained above, the house discusses the details
of money bills in Committee of the Whole. When
dealing thus with the appropriation bills, it is called
the Committee of the Whole on Supply, and when
dealing with the tax bills, the Committee of the
Whole on Ways and Means.
Adjustment of Income and Outgo. The Commons
have an inflexible rule, amounting to one of the
strongest customs of the constitution, that they will
make no appropriation of money not requested by
the Ministers, that they will increase no amount
above what they recommend, nor change any
1 Cf. page 24.

Government Bills 65
amount requested for one purpose from that purpose
to another. The house allows itself by this rule to
reduce the amounts which the Ministry request,
but they rarely do so. A surer system for repressing
extravagance, particularly for unjustifiable purposes
benefiting special localities, can hardly be imagined.
"Log-rolling"1 and irresponsible expenditure are
rendered well-nigh impossible.
Since the Cabinet guide in both the income and
the expenditures, they can adjust them with such
remarkable balance that the difference is on the
average only about three and a half per cent. Some
of our State legislatures seek to obtain system in
their finances by employing the guiding hand of the
Committee on Ways and Means or some similar
group, in both taxing and spending. In 1915 seven
States took decided forward steps in budgetary legis
lation, several giving strong leadership to the Gover
nor. New York City and Boston have greatly
improved their finances by adopting the English
system. The lack of any such arrangement in
Congress is one of the chief causes of extravagance
and of the immense surpluses or deficits which fre-
1 Log-rolling is the practice of a member or a group of members
supporting another member's or group of members' measure on
condition that the latter repay the service by supporting the measures
of the former. It is commonly resorted to in order to secure the
passage of measures neither of which could be passed on its merits.
Cf. page 368.
5

66 The Legislature
quently occur in the federal treasury. Of late years,
ex-President Taft and other leading American states
men have strongly urged the adoption by Congress
of some means by which they can transact the great
business of taxation and expenditure through a bud
get which shall bring these to a proper balance and
promote economical administration. An excellent
step was taken in this direction by the law of 1909,
which authorizes the President to go over the esti
mated expenditures and income and make recom
mendations for bringing them into balance. z
1 Beard's American Government and Politics, 211.

CHAPTER VI
ORGANIZATION AND WORK OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
— PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE MEMBER BILLS
Distinction between Private Bills and Private
Member Bills. Having examined the procedure of
the House of Commons in dealing with the great
measures introduced by the Ministry and known as
"government bills," we shall seek in this chapter to
understand, first, the procedure on private bills and
private member bills, and second, the system of
committees which largely attend to these matters.
First, as to the distinction between public bills and
private bills. A public bill is one that is of general
interest and operation and applies to the whole
country, or such portions of it as fall within its pro
visions. A public bill may be introduced either by a
Minister, in which case it is called a government bill,
or by a private member, in which case it is called a
private member bill. A private member bill thus
may be as really public in character as one intro
duced by the Prime Minister himself. Few public
67

68 The Legislature
bills are introduced by private members, however,
for the reason that the system of a responsible
Ministry leaves them small chance of passing. About
forty government bills annually become law and
about ten or fifteen private member bills, and few
of these are on subjects which arouse argument.1
Private Bills. A private bill on the other hand is
one which deals with some particular person or
persons or some particular place, as, e. g., granting a
group of men the right to build a trolley line along
certain roads or streets, or empowering a city to
acquire the ownership of its water works.
It is largely for attending to private bills and
private member bills that the committees exist.
Besides the Committee of the Whole, which is not
strictly a committee at all, the Commons have select
committees and standing committees.
Select Committees. A select committee consists
usually of about fifteen members, and is appointed
to investigate, consider, or report upon some special
subject or bill. All sides of a measure can be more
freely and thoroughly discussed in such a small
body. If it is made up of capable and fair-minded
men from both sides, Parliament can usually rely
with safety upon its judgment and accept its recom
mendations, thus saving the time of the whole body
for matters of larger importance.
'Lowell, i., 314, 356.

Private and Private Member Bills 69
Committee Work on Private Bills. Private bills
are of course introduced by some private member;
but we must keep in mind, as explained above,1 how
they differ from private member bills. A private
bill is considered by a small committee of disinterested
members, who conduct a hearing very much of the
nature of a trial between the persons who desire the
bill to pass and those who consider it contrary to
their interests. Lawyers present the two sides, and
the expenses are quite heavy, which often works
injustice to the poor. The advantage of the system
is that it puts private bills upon the basis of their
merits, as in. a court of law, and prevents that
reproach to American legislatures known as "log
rolling."2 Parliament generally follows the advice
of the committee in passing or rejecting private bills.
The Lords and Private Bills. In view of the fact
that the Lords do not discuss financial measures and
in fact allow a great deal of other legislation to pass
without opposition, they have more time for private
bills; and it is generally recognized that their services
in thoroughly sifting these applications in their
passage through their house are of great value in
protecting the interests of the public. The Parlia
ment Act of 191 1 limiting their powers as to public
bills does not apply to private bills, and so leaves
1 Page 67.
* For meaning of log-rolling, see page 65, note.

70 The Legislature
their authority in regard to these as large as that of
the House of Commons.1
Standing Committees. The standing committees
are four in number. They consist of from sixty to
eighty members each, chosen from the parties in the
House of Commons as nearly as possible in proportion
to their relative numbers. They are intended in fact
to be miniatures of the house and to save its time
by threshing out the discussion and amendment of a
large number of bills.
The Committee of Selection. Most of the com
mittees are appointed by a small committee consist
ing of eleven members called the Committee of
Selection, which is itself elected by the house at the
beginning of each session. Its members are in fact,
however, chosen in accordance with the wishes of the
heads of the two parties in the house and so consist
of representatives of both parties, with a majority
belonging to the party in control.
Necessity of Committees. All this serves to il
lustrate how the pressure of a vast amount of busi
ness has continually reduced the freedom of the
house as a whole. In order to cope with its duties
it has been obliged to delegate much of its work to its
committees and much of its authority and leadership
to the Cabinet, so. that the Ministry has become more
important and influential than ever. Every large
1 See page 24 and note.

Private and Private Member Bills 71
modern legislative body has had to economize its
time and energy in some such way; and the English
are satisfied that their method of concentrating
power and responsibility in the hands of a small
group standing in the light of constant public interro
gation and criticism supplies the best means by which
government may be made efficient without being
allowed to escape from popular control.

CHAPTER VII
CUSTOMS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
A Real Deliberative Assembly. "The mother of
Parliaments" has some peculiar and interesting
ways all her own. But before taking up these let us
emphasize the fact that the House of Commons and
the House of Lords are true deliberative assemblies.
There is a strong tendency for a large body to become
a mere machine for registering the decrees of a ring
of leaders or a set of committees. That such has not
been the fate of Parliament is largely due to the fact
that it is not overwhelmed with the thousands of
bills which crush the freedom of debate out of some
legislatures. The number of bills introduced annu
ally into the House of Commons is only from 350
to 500; and among these, some 40 or 50 great gov
ernment bills consume very much of the time of
the whole house, the detailed discussion of the others
being disposed of in the committees. The number of
bills introduced into the American House of Repre
sentatives averages over 10,000 a year. During
72

Customs of the House of Commons 73
the two years' duration of the Fifty-ninth Congress
there were passed 692 public and 6940 private
bills, the latter principally private pension bills to
place names upon the rolls which could not meet
the requirements of the pension law.1
The small size of the chamber, both of the Lords
and of the Commons, in which a member may easily
be heard in a conversational tone, favours serious
and effective discussion. As Lord Bryce . remarks
regarding immense legislative halls capable of seating
vast throngs of visitors, it is hard to talk sound sense
at the top of one's voice.
Applause and Disapproval. Applause and dis
approval are expressed in Parliament by cries of
"Hear! hear!" — an expression, as has been said,
capable of varying from thunderous cheers of
approval to the most contemptuous sarcasm.
Another custom of the Commons is that of " cough
ing down" a tiresome speaker. A new member is
given a fair opportunity, and is even generously
encouraged if he appears earnest and capable ; but
if he is foolish or pompous, he soon finds that his
attempts to exhibit his talents are extinguished amid
a chorus of coughs and hoots. It is related of Dis
raeli that he was coughed down when he attempted
his first speech, and that he sat down with the remark,
"The time will come when you will hear me! " And
1 Beard's American Government and Politics, 271.

74 The Legislature
it did; for his brilliancy and persistence finally made
him a Prime Minister upon whose words the world
hung with intense interest.
It can easily be understood why experienced
members speak of the Commons as both the most
trying and the most sympathetic audience in the
world. It is a body before which the most experi
enced parliamentarian appears with a certain awe.
John Bright said, after his fame as an orator
had become world-wide, that he never rose to ad
dress the house without his knees knocking to
gether. In the face of a regularly tiresome speaker the
members simply walk out as soon as he begins; so
that such a one may acquire the name of "the dinner
bell" from the promptness with which he empties
the benches.
" Naming " a Member. A peculiar custom in
connection with the Speaker's extensive power in pre
serving order is "naming" a member. If a member
so far forgets parliamentary decorum as to use offen
sive language and refuse to withdraw it, or to persist
in disorder, the Speaker makes one or two courteous
appeals to his sense of propriety. If this fails, he says,
"Then I name you, Mr. Blank." Immediately the
government leader, or in his absence the senior
Minister present, rises and moves that the member
be indefinitely suspended. The motion is always

Customs of the House of Commons 75
carried. Reinstatement follows after a time propor
tionate to the gravity of the offence.
Stopping a Member's Remarks. The Speaker may
stop a member because of his remarks being entirely
off the question under discussion or because of his
merely repeating virtually the same thing with the
evident intention of delaying business.
Hats. Except when speaking, or during prayers,
and on a few ceremonial occasions, the members wear
their hats; and sometimes, it might be remarked, an
embarrassed inexperienced speaker creates the chief
part of his impression upon the house by sitting down
on his tall silk headpiece after finishing his remarks.
Closing Debate. The cloture rule of the Commons
is rather strict, as in the American House of Repre
sentatives. In a body of such size it is essential to
fix the time at which debate must stop and a vote
be taken. The absence of such a rule in the Lords
and in our Senate has often been abused by the minor
ity in order to prevent a vote's being taken on a
measure favoured by a majority of both houses.1
"Talking a bill to death, " as it is called, might some
times be justifiable, as any other desperate means
of defence in the presence of a public peril threatened
by an ignorant or corrupt majority; but its employ
ment except for some such extraordinary purpose is
1 In March, 1917, the Senate adopted a rule by which a two-
thirds vote may close debate.

76 The Legislature
contrary to the principles both of democracy and
good government.
The Whips. Among the most interesting officers
in the conduct of the British government are the
whips, although they have no part in shaping legisla
tion or executing the law, and do not even take part
in debate. The fact that an adverse vote in the
House of Commons on any except some insignificant
matter would require the Ministry to resign, or else
appeal to the country, makes it necessary always to
have on hand more of the supporters of the govern
ment than of the opposition. To secure this is the
principal duty of the whips. z Both sides have whips,
the Ministry four and the opposition three. The
chief ministerial, or government whip, holds an
official position without duties as Patronage Secre
tary, or Parliamentary Secretary, of the Treasury,
with a salary of £2000. His three assistant whips
hold sinecures as Junior Lords of the Treasury with
salaries of £1000. They are counted among the
Ministry, but are not in the Cabinet.
Duties of the Whips. The chief whip particularly
must be a man of strong personality, popularity, and
1 The name is from the whippers-in at a fox chase, whose duty is to
keep the dogs from wandering off the trail. Of recent years the
parties in the American Congress are beginning to employ certain
members in very much the same task, though in our system of
government their duties, though very useful, cannot be of the same
importance as those of the English whips, on whose efficiency the
life of the Ministry may depend.

Customs of the House of Commons 77
high social position, in order the better to exercise
pressure in keeping the party members in good
discipline. He must know the disposition and ten
dencies of every member of his party and must keep
the Prime Minister informed of all undercurrents
of feeling in the house. Another important duty is
to keep the members true to party interests, and to
persuade or intimidate any one who threatens to
desert. The word whip is also used for the written notes
sent out by the chief whip to every member of the
party, requesting them to be present at such and
such times in order to vote upon important questions.
The words of these brief notices are underlined in
proportion to their urgency; and a member who dis
regards a " five line whip, " as the most pressing ones
are called, suffers grave discredit from his associates.
" Division." In votes on important motions, it is
common, when the Speaker announces that the ayes
(or noes, as the case may be) have it, for some mem
ber on the losing side to shout, "Division," i.e. to
call for an actual count. This serves the same pur
pose as the American custom of demanding the yeas
and nays, as the members are not only counted, but
are taken down by name according to their votes.
On a member's demanding a division, a two-
minute sandglass is turned and electric bells are set
ringing in every part of the building. Members rush

78 The Legislature
in from the dining-rooms, terrace, library, lobbies,
etc., and with the dropping of the last grain in the
little glass the doors are locked. The Speaker says,
"Ayes to the right; noes to the left, " and the mem
bers file into the rooms called "division lobbies" on
the sides of the chamber. Those not desiring to vote
retire to the room behind the Speaker.
Whips as Tellers. If the vote is one which con
cerns the measures of the Ministry, or if the opposi
tion wishes to make it a test of strength, either side
requests the Speaker to appoint whips as tellers, and
this indicates to every member that he is expected
to vote with his party. Otherwise everyone is free
to vote as he pleases.
Counting the Vote. The chamber being empty, a
pair of tellers (each pair consisting of one man from
each party) take their stand at the doors of the
division lobbies and count the members as they pass
back into the chamber. The four tellers then march
up the entire length of the hall to the Speaker's chair
to announce the vote, the tellers for the winners
marching on the right. When the tellers for the
opposition are seen on that side, indicating that the
Ministry have been defeated, the shouts that rend
the air are such as would burst forth in America if
the result of a Presidential election could be an
nounced in an equally sudden and dramatic manner
before the most intensely interested audience in the

Customs of the House of Commons 79
nation. For, although the Ministry may triumph at
the general election which must follow, probably it
will not, and there will be a fallen Ministry and a
change of the party in control of the government.
Standing Vote. A division requires a little over
ten minutes, but is probably the quickest method of
taking a test vote. If the Speaker thinks that it is
demanded frivolously or merely for delay, he may
refuse it and, instead, count the ayes and noes by a
standing vote.
Re-election of a Member who Accepts a Minister
ship. A rule going back to the times when the King
sought to control Parliament is that when a member
of the House of Commons is appointed a Minister,
he must resign his seat and submit himself for re
election, and thus obtain the approval of his con
stituents to his connection with the court. He is now
hardly ever opposed for re-election, and indeed the
reason for the rule has ceased with the disappearance
of the power of the King. It was very sensibly dis
pensed with on the organization of the new Ministry
in December, 19 16, and might very well be per
manently abandoned.
Warden of the Chiltern Hundreds. A rule going
back to the Middle Ages, when it was difficult to
induce men to incur the expense and danger of leaving
their homes unprotected, travelling the robber-
infested highways, and accepting the loss incident

8o The Legislature
to the neglect of their affairs, is that a member may
not resign. There is a way of escape, however.
None of the King's officers, except Ministers, naval
and army officers, and a few others, may legally sit
in the Commons. Hence, if a member accepts such
an appointment, his seat is thereby vacated. In
bygone days the hills to the north-west of London
known as the Chiltern Hundreds were so plagued
with highwaymen that the King appointed to check
them a special officer called the Warden of the Chil
tern Hundreds. Though the occasion for his duties
has long since passed, the position is still retained, in
order that a member of the Commons wishing to
retire may at his request be appointed to that office.
He holds it for one day, and then resigns it in order
that it may be available for any other member who
may wish to retire. This is very queer, but not more
so than the law .in some American States of asking an
accused person at his trial, "How will you be tried?"
simply because in England seven hundred years ago
he had the right of choice between ordeal (the judg
ment of God) and jury (the judgment of his country
men). Now he answers this useless question, "By
God and my country"; but would it make any dif
ference if he made some other choice?

CHAPTER VIII
THE HOUSE OF LORDS
Ancient Origin of the House of Lords. Though
the House of Lords has come to have far less power,
it has a much longer ¦ history, than the House of
Commons ; and in the days when the latter was young
and weak, the Lords nobly championed not only
their own privileges, but on many occasions the
liberties of all England!
In a sense, the House of Lords (or House of Peers,
as it is also called) is descended from the legislative
council and supreme court of the Anglo-Saxon kings,
the Witenagemot, or meeting-of-the-wise-men. A
sharp break was occasioned by the virtual passing
away of this ancient body and the creation of a new
set of lords by the Norman conquest. From that
time, however, there is a steady development from
the Great Council of the Norman kings — the ad
visers whom those sovereigns regarded or overrode
as they saw fit — on through the mighty barons who
deposed rulers and browbeat Commons, to the pre
sent condition, when they are again merely the ad
visers of the new sovereign, the people, who, as the
6 81

82 The Legislature
sovereigns of old did, override them when they
choose. Composition of the House of Lords. The House
of Lords is made up of several different elements.
First, it includes all hereditary English nobles.1
These constitute about seven eighths of the whole
number. Second, there are sixteen elected from
their own number by the Scotch peers every time
there is an election of a new House of Commons.
These are called Scotch representative peers and sit
in the House of Lords only for the Parliament to
which they were elected. Third, there are twenty-
eight elected for life from their own number by the
Irish nobility. These are called Irish representative
peers. Fourth, the two archbishops and twenty-
four of the bishops of the Church of England hold
seats in the House of Lords. And fifth, there are
four Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, to perform certain
duties to be described later; for the House of Lords,
from the dim ages of the Anglo-Saxon Witenagemot,
has been the supreme court of appeal in England.
These four "law lords" hold their positions, like
1 To be strictly accurate we must state that these, who are here
called briefly English peers, are themselves of three classes: First,
English peers created before the union of England and Scotland in
1707, i. e. those whose title was created before that time; second,
peers of Great Britain, created between 1707 and the union of Great
Britain and Ireland into the United Kingdom in 1801; and third,
peers created since that time. About three fourths of the peerages
have been created since 1800.

The House of Lords 83
other judges, during good behaviour, which practi
cally means for life, and meanwhile enjoy all the
privileges of their fellow-peers, but they do not
transmit their positions or titles to their sons. They
may resign or be deprived of their offices in the same
way as other judges. In that case, they would also
lose their membership in the House of Lords, though
not their titles. The bishops are in these regards
in the same situation. J The total membership of the
house varies, both on account of peerages becoming
vacant by lords dying without male heirs, or with
only minor male heirs, and on account of new cre
ations. In 1917 the total number was about 643.
Ranks in the Peerage. There are five grades of
peers, in descending scale of honour as follows, the
number in each in 19 17 being indicated by the figures
in parentheses: dukes (21), marquises (26), earls
(121), viscounts (46), barons (356). A duke is
always referred to by his title; marquises and earls
often so, while the lower ranks are generally spoken
of simply as Lord Tennyson, e. g., or Lord Bacon.*
1 Though there are thirty-four bishops of the established church
(besides the two archbishops) in England, only the archbishops and
twenty-four of the bishops sit in the House of Lords. When a bishop
in the house dies, .the one without a seat who has been longest a
bishop becomes a member in his place. But the archbishops of
Canterbury and York and the bishops of London, Winchester, and
Durham are always members of the house. No Scotch, Irish, or
Welsh bishop has a seat in the Lords.
2 The above figures include only the peers having seats in Parlia
ment. There are besides 19 Scottish and 59 Irish peers not in

84 The Legislature
Wealth of the Lords. The wealth of the nobles is
very great, and varies as a rule directly as their
rank. Besides their immense property in commercial
and industrial enterprises, they own almost a third
of the cultivated land of the United Kingdom and
over one fourth of all the land, and exercise thereby
a vast influence and draw a stupendous revenue
from the industry of their fellow-subjects. This
constitutes the real basis of their power, and is a far
greater impediment to democratic ideals than every
thing else connected with their order.
The Character of the Lords. We have spoken of
the fact that three fourths of the existing peerages
have been created since 1800. The King is called
"the fountain of honour," and as such confers
titles, medals, or other honours for eminent public
service of any kind; but the real authority is of
course exercised by the Prime Minister. Thus titles
of nobility have been conferred on many great sol
diers, such as Wellington, Nelson, and Roberts; on
great authors, as Tennyson and Macaulay; on great

Parliament, besides 24 ladies who are peeresses in their own
right. The place name in a nobleman's title no longer necessarily
implies any connection between him and that locality, though it
does sometimes indicate that the man upon whom it was originally
conferred won distinction there, as Lord Kitchener of. Khartum, or
Lord Roberts of Kandahar — places at which they won brilliant
victories for which they were given the title. It has been centuries
since the title indicated any governmental authority over the region.

The House of Lords 85
scientists, as Kelvin and Lister; on eminent men of
business whose work has been particularly useful to
the nation, as Lord Strathcona and Baron Roths
child ; on great statesmen, as Chatham and Beacons-
field; on great colonial administrators, as Lord Clive
and Earl Cromer. It would be a great mistake to
regard the British peerage as a collection of fossils or
degenerates. It is true that, although probably most
peers were originally made such for some brilliant
service, many of their descendants are in no wise
distinguished; and it is also true that in past ages the
honour often went to mere royal favourites, and in
some instances to depraved characters on account
of some disgraceful connection with the King. Some,
too, are even to this day given a coronet for no good
reason except that they are very rich and contribute
liberally to the campaign fund of the party whose
leader as Prime Minister is responsible for the con
ferring of the honour. This sounds very bad; but
before1 expressing too severely our virtuous republi
can indignation, let us ask ourselves whether a man
ever became a Senator or Governor or Vice-President
in the United States for similar reasons. But taken
all in all, the peers, on account of the wide distribu
tion of titles in many lines of honourable service,'
and the traditions of their order, comprise a remark
ably large proportion of able and high-minded men.
Probably no other class of very rich men anywhere

86 The Legislature
in the world sends such a large proportion of its
members into useful public service. ]
It may well be doubted whether the British people
would have allowed the House of Lords to continue
to exist but for the constant refreshing it has re
ceived from the best blood of the nation in a real
instead of a merely conventional sense. The hope
of winning a peerage, or at least a baronetcy, is a
powerful impulse in leading thousands of brilliant
young men to put forth their best efforts to rise to
eminence in their professions or the government
service. The descendants of the men who win their
titles often turn out commonplace, despite the fact
that "blood will tell." The Chinese have sought to
gain the advantages of class distinction and yet
counteract this defect by providing that a title of
nobility shall expire after a certain number of
generations, according to the merit of the original
holder. Other nations seek to avoid the evils of
hereditary aristocracy and yet gain the benefits
arising from stimulated ambition by bestowing life
membership in such bodies as, e. g., the "forty
immortals" of France. It can hardly be doubted
that the American spirit which makes a man even
of great distinction prefer plain "Mister" to any
title, even bestowed for merit, assures a freedom
from false valuations, flunkeyism, and social hypo-
1 Cf. Moran's English Government, 176.

The House of Lords 87
crisy which far outweighs any advantages that flow
from hereditary class distinctions.
Popularity of the Lords. Strange as it may seem
to an American, who often observes that aristocratic
connections are a hindrance to political success, the
people of England look upon the peers, if men of real
ability and public spirit, as among the safest and
most popular guides in politics. This is because they
are not pursuing special favours in legislation, as ship
owners, manufacturers, or other business men often
do ; because they are rich enough not to need to be self-
seeking, and because the eminence of their hereditary
position is such that they can view public employment
and affairs without being blinded by the glamour of
office or subdued by the necessities of salary.
Privileges and Disadvantages of the Lords. The
lords are under a very serious disadvantage in not
being allowed to sit in the House of Commons; and
of course they cannot vote for members. Now that
that body has come to be the real government, this
prevents some brilliant careers. Neither can a lord,
except through an act of Parliament, resign his
lordship; for he is born a peer as another man is a
commoner. The peers enjoy, of course, the highest social
privileges. Besides occupying a pre-eminent posi
tion at all times, they are conspicuous at coronations,
royal weddings, and court functions. Their legal

88 The Legislature
privileges now amount to so little as to be a poor
compensation for their legal disabilities. A peer may
at any time demand admission to the sovereign as
one of his ancient constitutional advisers; but this
amounts to nothing, as the King is now entirely in
the hands of the Cabinet. Every person is entitled
to a trial by his "peers," i. e. his legal equals, and
hence a lord or his wife, or his widow if she has not
forfeited the privilege by marrying a commoner,
may be tried for treason or felony only before the
Lords; but for misdemeanors he is tried before a
magistrate or jury like any other Englishman. In
either case, if found- guilty, he is given the same pun
ishment as a commoner. The indictment is by an
ordinary grand jury.
In the past, peers have sometimes been tried by a
special jury consisting of not less than twenty-three
lords; but since 1685, all trials have been before the
whole House of Lords. In either case a majority is
sufficient to convict or acquit. x In civil suits, the fact
that one or both parties may belong to the peerage
makes no difference, and the case is tried in the
ordinary courts. If, however, the claim of a person
to a peerage is at stake, the claim to the title is
decided by the House of Lords.
1 Britannica, nth ed., xvii., 4; Macaulay's England, " Delamere "
in Index; Vernon-Harcourt, His Grace the Steward and the Trial of
Peers, 417, 434; Burke, Trials of the Aristocracy, 158, 357; State
Trials, xix., 1235; Blackstone (Jones's ed., 1916), 2584.

CHAPTER IX
THE LORDS AS A LAW-MAKING BODY
Irrational Basis of Membership. No progressive
nation would today create a law-making body like
the House of Lords. Its existence is based on historic
precedent and habit, not on reason. What could be
less reasonable than to suppose that a man is suited
to make laws for a great empire simply because he
inherits a title, earned, perhaps, by an ancestor for
distinction in some line of activity in no way con
nected with the science and art of government?
Many of the lords in fact care nothing for politics
and never appear in Parliament except when some
interest of their class needs their votes.
Elements of Strength and Usefulness. And yet
the House of Lords, though violating both common
sense and the principles of democratic self-govern
ment, works a great deal better than might be ex
pected, as, in fact, do many features of the British
constitution which, on their face, appear quite
dangerous or absurd. To begin with, the actual work

90 The Legislature
of the peers is conducted by a small group who really
take a deep interest in public life and give it a life
long study and practice. Some of these are simply
earnest men of ordinary capacity, but some are
trained minds of great ability. The bishops, too,
though appointed because of eminence in the church,
and not primarily as legislators, are men of high
character and much above the average in intellect;
and though they are not constant attendants except
when religious, moral, or educational matters are
under discussion, they frequently make formidable
debaters. Why the Lords have Lost their Power. The
steady decline of the House of Lords in power has
not been due primarily to their hereditary tenure's
being contrary to the democratic character of the
times, but to their overwhelming majority's having
been steadily for generations members of the Con
servative, or Tory, party. Over four fifths of the
hereditary peers are Conservatives, as are practically
all the bishops, and all the Scotch and Irish repre
sentative peers, since the great majority of their
fellows who elect them are of that party and allow
no representation to the Liberal minority in their
own ranks. Liberals (or Whigs, as they are still
sometimes called), when created peers, themselves
drift into the Conservative camp, or at the least their
descendants soon do. Thus for generations one party

The Lords as a Law-Making Body 91
in the state was always in control of one house of the
legislature and could defy, up to the danger point
of inviting revolution, the will of the people as ex
pressed in the representative branch of Parliament.
The Lords regularly used their power as Conservative
partisans, and so killed many of the measures passed
by the Liberal House of Commons. If they had
voted impartially on all questions, independently
of favouritism towards any party, they would have
proved a valuable check upon temporary passion
and would have been regarded as of such utility that
the people would have left them undisturbed, or
might even have come to regard them with a venera
tion similar to that entertained in this country for
that almost equally undemocratic, but by no means
equally partisan, body, the United States Supreme
Court. But no vigorous modern democracy would
permanently endure an hereditary house steadily in
the possession and service of one party, and that the
party opposed to democratic progress. Hence it had
been apparent for years that some reform must soon
come. Clash of the Lords and Commons in 1909-11.
The occasion for the reform arose when the Lords, in
1909, in violation of one of the most sacred customs
of the constitution, killed the tax bill, because it
increased the taxes on their land in a way to lead
them to think that large estates held generation

92 The Legislature
after generation in the same families would ultimately
be subjected to such burdens as to render the system
of land monopoly in a few hundred families unprofit
able. In other words, the social and economic
constitution appeared to them to be threatened with
a revolution whose object was the extinction of the
landed aristocracy. The Lords consider that such a
landed aristocracy, with the freedom which comes
from assured hereditary wealth, is of great value in
supplying public-spirited men of leisure, friends of
learning and art, who may set dignified standards of
customs and manners, give society a certain stability
and grandeur of style, and impress the masses with
respect for property and government. It is always a
question, however, whether such means of accom
plishing these ends do not rather create a hatred for
property and government, and thus, while affording
a temporary sense of security, in reality render them
insecure. At all events, the Liberals were convinced
that, whatever the value of these considerations, they
had been carried entirely too far and were being
maintained at too great an exemption of the rich
and too heavy a cost to the nation at large. Accord
ingly, when the Lords vetoed the tax bill, the Prime
Minister dissolved Parliament and appealed to the
people. The election returned a strong majority in
favour of the Liberals, and the Lords felt compelled
to yield.

The Lords as a Law-Making Body 93
Overcoming Permanently the Lords' Power of
Obstruction. Several other important bills of the
Commons had been killed at the same time as the
tax bill, and it was therefore determined to use
the occasion, the people being thoroughly aroused, to
break forever the power of the Lords to defeat the
popular will. The Lords themselves admitted that
their house should be reformed and their power
reduced; but no agreement as to details could be
reached with the leaders of the Commons, and the
Lords accordingly found themselves confronted with
the demand that they accept the more radical reform
proposed by the Commons alone. On their refusal, a
dissolution and appeal to the country again sustained
the Ministry. The " die-in-the-last-ditchers " among
the peers still refusing to yield, the only alternatives
remaining were the submission of the people, revolu
tion, violent or peaceable as the event should deter
mine, or swamping the Lords with new appointees
in agreement with the desire of the nation. The
first was unthinkable, the second unnecessary, and
the crisis was relieved by the threat of the third.
The Ministry simply announced that His Majesty
considered it his constitutional duty to take such
steps as might be necessary to secure the passage of
the bill. This courteous expression was perfectly
understood as meaning that the King would appoint
a sufficient number of Liberal peers to overcome the

94 The Legislature
Conservative majority. It would be senseless to
have their titles cheapened and their permanent
control of their house annihilated by incurring this
inundation of new nobles; and so the opposition
absented itself and the "Parliament Act of 191 1"
was passed through the upper house by its few titled
supporters. The terms of this law have already been given on
page 24, which should be reread at this point. Its
effect is simply to reduce the House of Lords to "a
cautious house of revision," which cannot partici
pate in the raising or spending of public revenue,
and which can only compel the Commons to wait
two years for mature consideration before finally
enacting a measure on which the people have set
their minds.
The Lords Still a Useful Part of the Government.
It would be a mistake to suppose that this act
destroys the power of the House of Lords; it only
limits their power. Aside from the fact that their
veto of private bills is still absolute, their veto may
also defeat any except those great party measures
which the majority of the nation are thoroughly
determined to pass. It may be confidently expected
that they will prove more useful in their new ca
pacity of "a cautious house of revision" than in
their former one of reactionary obstructionists.
The Ministry and the Lords. We may explain

The Lords as a Law-Making Body 95
here the relations of the Ministry to the Lords.
Many of the Ministers in fact belong to that house,
proving that there is no objection whatever to a lord
as such in the government, but that the only objec
tion is to his being a master instead of a servant of
the people. It is in fact customary to have several
of the more important executive departments repre
sented in one house by the head of the department
and in the other by his first assistant, or Parliamen
tary Under-Secretary, in order that there may be a
responsible representative of the government to
defend its policy in either place. Though the Prime
Minister is himself often a peer, it is becoming more
and more a disadvantage for him to be removed from
the Commons as the arena where the decisive battles
of policies are fought; and hence we may expect to
see the head of the government in future less and
less frequently chosen from the Lords.
An adverse vote in the Lords may even now prove
a serious inconvenience; and before the Parliament
Act of 191 1 it often necessitated the abandonment of
some of the Ministry's cherished plans; but it has
no effect in depriving the Ministers of office or forcing
a dissolution. Procedure in the House of Lords. The rules for
transacting business in the House of Lords are in
general similar to those in the Commons, but, due
to the greater leisure of the upper house, they are

96 The Legislature
simpler. The Lord Chancellor presides, but he has
no such power as the Speaker of the Commons. The
Lords decide all points of order, even as to which
of two members rising at once shall have the right to
speak. Three constitute a quorum, and on one occasion
the presiding officer, after being bored for an hour,
put a stop to the orator on the ground of no quorum,
as they were the only two members present. It often
happens that a session cannot be held for the lack of
the necessary three; and frequently when a quorum
is present there is no business to occupy them. The
rules, however, do not allow a bill to be passed with
out the presence of at least thirty members, though
other business may be transacted with a smaller
number. The Lord Chancellor the Presiding Officer. One
of the numerous duties of the Lord Chancellor is to
preside over the House of Lords. It is not necessary
that he should be a peer, and in fact the "wool sack,"
as the seat which he occupies is called, is technically
outside the bounds of the house, though it is of
course as really in the chamber as any other of its
furnishings. Though a commoner might exercise all
the duties of the Lord Chancellor, he is in practice
always created a peer if not one already. If a peer,
he votes as any other member of the house. Whether
peer or commoner, he does not have the deciding

The Lords as a Law-Making Body 97
vote. In case of a tie in the House of Lords, the
affirmative simply loses, as it fails to secure a ma
jority. Principally a Chamber of Revision. Even before
the reduction of their power in 191 1, the Lords had
been tending for many years towards becoming a
mere chamber of revision who pass, amend, or veto
measures sent up from the Commons, but who intro
duce very few measures of their own. They possess
for this reason the great advantage of not being
hurried. Also, as their votes have no effect in sus
taining or turning out the Ministry, they are more
free to vote according to their individual opinions
without having their freedom shackled by the obliga
tions of party loyalty.1 Hence they often perform
good service in correcting faults or oversights in
legislation; and their careful threshing out of private
bills is of great public value.
We may well believe that in being deprived of
their excessive powers, the Lords have secured a
longer and securer hold on those which they retain,
and also a firmer place in the respect of the nation.
1 A little consideration will show that this is not inconsistent with
what was said on page 90 as to their steady support of the Conserva
tives.

PART II.
THE EXECUTIVE
CHAPTER X
THE KING1
The King as He Is. Writers on the English
government frequently amaze the reader with a
long Hst of things that the King can do, and then
proceed to say that he cannot do any of them at all.
I shall not do this, but shall attempt rather to de
scribe the King, first and last, as he really is.
The Law of Succession. The law of succession to
the Crown is passed by Parliament, just as any other
statute. Parliament could at any time abolish the
kingship itself and establish a republic or any other
form of government. The King would be compelled
by the custom of the constitution to sign his own
deposition, and the new regime would continue so
'All that is said regarding the powers of the King applies, of
course, to the Queen when the sovereign is a woman.
For the full legal title of the King, see page 309 and footnote.
98

The King 99
long as the people chose to elect a House of Commons
which approved of it. Parliament has frequently
changed the succession to the Crown, and though it
has always confined itself to shifting it from one
branch of the royal family to another, it is just as
free to go to an entirely new stock.
The law decrees that the Crown shall descend
through the eldest line of the royal family, sons
having precedence over daughters, even though the
daughters be older. The descent is through the
direct line from parent, to child, whether male or
female, in preference to the collateral line of brothers
of the sovereign, even though • the latter should
represent an unbroken fine of males. Thus a
daughter, or any descendant of a daughter, of a
dead man who would have inherited the Crown had
he been alive when the last sovereign died, takes pre
cedence over living brothers of that King. Accord
ingly when William IV died without descendants, his
niece Victoria became Queen, even though William
left a brother; because her father, though dead, was
older than the King's surviving brother.
If the heir or the reigning sovereign becomes a
Catholic or marries a Catholic, he thereby becomes,
so far as the succession to the Crown is concerned,
legally dead, and the throne passes to the next heir
who is a Protestant. This law had its origin in the
religious struggles of the seventeenth century and is

ioo The Executive
also connected with the fact that church and state
are united under one head in England. So long as
the sovereign is head of the established church and
must swear as part of his coronation oath, along
with the pledge to observe and uphold all the laws,
that he will maintain and defend the Protestant
religion as by law established, it would be almost
impossible to do away with this rule.
Though we speak of the King and Queen, only
one of them is the sovereign, and the wife or husband,
as the case may be, has no more legal authority than
any other subject.1
"The King never Dies." Though Parliament
fixes by law the order of succession, no action is
necessary in the case of each new sovereign, and in
fact in legal theory "the King never dies." What is
meant is that the kingly office is never vacant; and
accordingly, on the death of the sovereign, an official
steps out before the people and proclaims: "The
King is dead; long live the King!"
The Long Struggle between King and People.
Magna Charta. There was for centuries a struggle
between King and people as to which should rule.
The story of this contest, its variations and combina-
1 Only in the case of William and Mary have both King and Queen
been sovereign ; and even in that case it was ordained that the govern
ing authority should rest with William alone. The proper title of the
husband or wife of the real sovereign is Prince Consort or Queen
Consort.

The King 101
tions, failures and successes, forms a large part of
English history— the part that gives that history its
most distinctive characteristics and contributes
principally to its value to the rest of the world.
In 12 15, the barons, with armour on and swords in
their hands, and backed up by the people, forced
King John to sign Magna Charta, and as a part of
that law compelled him to agree that if he should
violate their liberties as therein defined, a com
mittee of twenty-five barons appointed to watch
him should summon the others to make war upon
him. Very soon this was necessary, and though
they won a sort of victory, men saw that civil war
was a high price to pay, and moreover that it was
a very ineffective remedy.
Origin of the House of Commons. On the next
great occasion of resistance to royal tyranny, they
sought a more peaceful means in the Provisions of
Oxford of 1258, and under the leadership of Earl
Simon de Montfort, again backed up by the common
people, the nobles forced a committee of fifteen upon
the King as his rulers and guardians. This likewise
soon led to civil war. But Earl Simon's efforts had
not been in vain; for thirty years later the most
valuable and characteristic feature of his program,
the association of representatives of the common
people in the work of government, which he had
inaugurated in 1265, was made a permanent part of

102 The Executive
the constitution; and from that day to this no Parlia
ment has ever met without the elected representatives
of the English nation.
Impeachment. But even with the nobles grown
stronger and the people represented in the House of
Commons after 1295, T the royal despotism was still
heavy. Having twice found by sad experience that
to lay hands upon the King's person shocked the
sense of loyalty and hence led to civil war and failure,
Parliament in 1376 adopted the method of striking
at the men who carried out the King's despotic
schemes. This consisted of a trial by Parliament of
an official considered dangerous to the public wel
fare, and was called an impeachment. The "high
crimesand misdemeanours " for which it was sought
to bring the offender to account were usually con
nected with the discharge of his public duties and
were committed while he held the office from which
it was sought to remove him; but Parliament was
not obliged to observe these limitations.
The impeachment began with a mere majority
vote in the Commons to prefer charges against the
obnoxious official, after which they elected several
xAt first the nobles and commons deliberated together, though
they voted as separate orders, each granting the King such a pro
portion of their goods as they saw fit. As the granting of supplies
was in those days the principal business of Parliament, this arrange
ment worked fairly well. The Commons did not begin to meet as a
separate house until about 1350.

The King 103
of their members to conduct the prosecution of the
accused before the House of Lords. The trial was
carried on in much the same fashion as in the ordi
nary courts, the Commons seeking to support their
charges by evidence and argument, while the accused
personally or through his lawyers conducted his
defence. The Lords acted as judges and by a mere
majority vote declared him innocent or guilty. If
found guilty, he was removed from office, and might
in addition be reduced to poverty by a tremendous
fine, be banished or imprisoned, or even put to death. z
Removal of Ministers at the Mere Wish of
Parliament. A royal official could assist his master
to do many tyrannical acts before provoking his
1 The method is thus seen to be similar to that in the United
States, which was copied from the English example, except that in the
United States a two thirds vote of the upper house is required for
conviction and the punishment is limited. In the Congress of the
United States, punishment on impeachment cannot extend further
than removal from office and incapacity ever to hold office again
under the federal government. In many of the States, punishment
cannot extend beyond removal from the office then held. This is
partly due to the democratic spirit of the times, which considers that
the people should have the right to endorse the action of their repre
sentatives by refusing the official a re-election, or vindicate him by
returning him to office; partly to American good nature, which
believes in giving a man another chance; and partly to the feeling
that no individual can be a really serious menace to the public safety.
In any case, the accused may be prosecuted in the courts and
punished like any other criminal, irrespective of whether acquitted
or convicted in the impeachment trial; for the impeachment, in this
country at least, does not put him in peril of life or member, but is
simply to remove him from a position in which he is injurious to the
State.

104 The Executive
removal by impeachment; and consequently Parlia
ment made efforts, generally unsuccessful, from time
to time for the next three hundred years, to secure
the right of selecting the Ministers of the King. It
is expressive of the political talent of the English
race that as early as the first quarter of the fifteenth
century they had hit upon this and seemed in a fair
way towards its accomplishment. But events, upon
whose history we cannot enter, checked the devel
opment, and so the work had almost all to be
done over again in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries. Cabinet Government and the Supremacy of the
Commons. Since the expulsion of James II in 1688,
the kingship has been merely an office, like the post-
mastership, and the King simply the first official
under the law. The development of cabinet govern
ment which soon followed made royal despotism
impossible. The continued growth of the power of
the people and the decrease of that of the nobles
recently culminated in the Parliament Act of 191 1,
by which the House of Commons is made supreme. z
The Prime Minister the Real Chief Executive.
Let us remember, therefore, that the King is the
executive only in name, and that the Prime Minister
as head of the Cabinet is the real chief executive:
The authority which the_Crown could in former
1 See page 24.

The King 105
centuries exercise was very great, and theoretically
most of those powers still belong to the Crown, for
they have never been taken away by any law. But as
a matter of fact they have all settled by custom as
strong as law into the hands of the Prime Minister,
Cabinet, or other responsible officials. "The King
reigns, but does not govern. "
Prerogative. The immense powers nominally
residing in the Crown are of two kinds: first, the
prerogative; and second, the powers conferred by
act of Parliament. The word prerogative conveys
the idea of absolute and undeniable right the exercise
of which is not derived from any superior, and can be
questioned or checked by no one. The royal pre
rogative consists at any particular time of all the
powers, rights, and privileges, not taken away by
Parliament, which the sovereign was accustomed to
exercise in the days of the mighty monarchs of
mediaeval England. The prerogative is still very
extensive, though it is now, of course, exercised by
the courts of justice, the Prime Minister, or some
other responsible branch of the government.
Statutory Powers of the Crown. Aside from its
prerogative rights, the Crown enjoys other powers
needful for the public service that Parliament has
from time to time conferred. All these executive
powers, both prerogative and statutory, are useful
and needful for conducting the government. There

106 The Executive
has, therefore, been no occasion for modern de
mocracy to destroy them; it has simply captured
them and entrusted them to men of its own choice
for its own interests and service.
Consent of Ministers Necessary for All Acts of the
King. The King cannot exercise even the slightest
of his royal powers without the consent of his Minis
ters; for it has been for generations firmly established
that no governmental act of the sovereign can be
carried out without the order's being signed by some
Minister responsible to Parliament and the courts of
law for his act. The King is of course free to follow
his own inclinations in his purely personal conduct,
such as deciding whether he will attend the opera or
the drama or choosing a place where he will spend
the summer, provided even this is not such as to
have a political significance, as, e.g., going to a
foreign country; but he has no more power to do a
governmental act than the private secretary of the
President of the United States. In fact the King
cannot choose his own private secretary, lest he
should select a man who might seek to interfere with
the supremacy of the Ministers. He cannot even
name as Lords of the Bedchamber (certain courtiers
closely associated with him personally) noblemen
not acceptable to the Cabinet.
"The King can do no Wrong." Hence it is that
English law has the maxim, "The King can do no

The King 107
wrong." Instead of being, as is sometimes igno-
rantly misunderstood, a statement of irresponsible
personal despotism, it indicates the impossibility of
such. Neither can he do any right — as sovereign.
This was the sense of Charles II 's witty retort upon
an equally witty courtier who wrote upon the door
of the royal bedchamber:
Here lies our sovereign lord the King,
Whose word no man relies on; -
He never says a foolish thing
Nor never does a wise one.
"'Tis true," replied the King, "because while my
words are my own, my acts are my Ministers'."
Therefore, if tyranny should be attempted, the
responsible Minister or Ministry would be turned
out of office by Parliament; and if the criminal law
had been violated, the guilty official would be
promptly punished by the law courts, while the
majestic figure of the sovereign, typifying the
nationality, patriotism, loyalty, and imperial unity
of all who own the British flag around the seven seas,
would still rise calmly above the din of party strife
and personal wrong-doing, instead of being dragged
into the conflict, with resulting disorganization of
government and possibly civil war.
How the King Appoints his Ministers has already
been described in Chapter IV, where it was ex-

108 The Executive
plained that he does not act upon his own preference,
but must bestow the positions upon the leaders of
the party having a majority in the House of Com
mons. As we all will recall, he must name as his
Prime Minister the recognized leader of this party,
while that man really appoints the other Ministers.
Disappearance of the Royal Veto. We may now
examine the principal royal prerogatives. The King
was in remote times practically the chief part of the
legislature, merely asking the nobles to confirm
what they could not well refuse; later he legislated
really by the advice and consent of Parliament; still
later he formed in fact a third house, in that no act
of Parliament could become law without his consent;
and though the royal signature is still legally neces
sary, it has never been refused to any bill passed by
the two houses since 1707; and hence the so-called
royal "veto" is as much a thing of the past as the
feudal system or the Crusades. z To speak of this as
part of the royal prerogative is mere fiction or word
juggling. As well lecture on the comparative effi
ciency of long bows and cross bows in modern war
fare. Custom even forbids the King to enter either
House of Parliament except on certain formal
occasions, because long ago he used to appear in
1 Though the royal disapproval was final and could not be over
ridden, it was not strictly a "veto"; for the King simply withheld his
signature, and did not kill the bill with a veto message, as does our
President.

The King 109
order to intimidate the members; nor may any
member allude in the debate to the opinions or
desires of the sovereign.
Appointments and Honours. The royal preroga
tive of the appointing power is exercised solely by
the responsible Ministers or by such inferior officials
as have been given the power to fill minor places.
By a quaint expression, the Crown is described as
"the fountain of honour"; i.e. it confers all titles
such as peerages and baronetcies,1 and awards
medals or badges, and membership in certain dis
tinguished orders of merit. But appointment to all
these honours is in the hands of the Prime Minister,
though the King may personally confer the title upon
the fortunate recipient.
Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy. By
another ancient prerogative, the King is the com
mander-in-chief of the army and navy, as is the
President of the United States, whose powers in this,
as in many other respects, were copied from the
ancient powers of the English Crown; but the duties
are performed by those Ministers in charge of these

1 A baronet is a member of the knighthood, but not of the nobility,
and is called Sir, as Sir Walter Scott. His wife, like the wife of a
nobleman, has the right to the title Lady instead of plain Mrs. The
ladies of the higher ranks of the nobility, however, are usually re
ferred to, as are the higher ranks of peers, by their distinctive titles,
as Duchess, Marchioness (the wife of a Marquis), or Countess (the
wife of an Earl).

no The Executive
departments, subject to the supervision of the
Prime Minister, while not a boat nor a soldier would
move at the personal order of the King.
" The Fountain of Justice." In memory of the
time when mediaeval kings actually heard the pleas
of their subjects or sent out judges to right their
wrongs, the Crown is called "the fountain of jus
tice." Legal papers still run in the name of the
sovereign and certain offenders are still tried in the
King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice ;
but the prerogative has disappeared well-nigh com
pletely here, instead, as in many other cases, of
having been merely transferred to some representa
tive of the King; for the judicial department, though
the judges are selected by the Prime Minister or his
fellow-minister the Lord Chancellor, is virtually as
unmolested by executive interference as is the
judiciary of the United States.
Pardoning Power. The pardoning power might
be considered a little rill of the prerogative still
flowing down beside "the fountain of justice."
Applications for pardon are examined by the Home
Secretary and approved or disapproved by him.
The King could no more free his own son from the
clutches of the law without the consent of that official
than could the humblest coal miner swinging his
pick in the dark caverns of the earth as he mourns
for his wayward loved one.

The King in
The King Personally Exempt from Punishment or
Suit. Since "the King can do no wrong," at least
in legal theory, as explained above,1 if he were to
amuse himself some morning by shooting dead each
of his servants as they arrive, it would be no crime
in the eyes of the law. If Parliament should consider
this conduct conclusive evidence of confirmed in
sanity, however, they would have him confined in a
proper hospital and appoint some person, preferably
some near relative of the sovereign, to perform the
duties belonging to the royal office under some such
title as Regent.2
The King is sued like an ordinary person in civil
1 See pages 106-7.
"Apparently the President of the United States could not be
arrested during his term of office for any crime, not on account of
any theory as to his being unable to commit wrong, however, but
from the necessity of having some person as the executive head of the
government whose liberty cannot be restrained on any pretext.
Certainly the President could not be arrested while in office for
violating the law of any State, since even minor United States officials
are protected from the possibility of arbitrary interference with the
performance of their duties, and therefore with the activities of the
federal government, by arrest at the hands of State authorities for
crimes alleged to have been committed in the performance of their
duties, though they can be punished for such crimes by the consent of
the federal authorities, or after their removal from office.
It is a disputed legal question, which fortunately no court has
ever been called upon to decide, whether the Governor of an Ameri
can State could be immediately arrested and tried for a serious crime
committed while he was in office or whether his arrest and trial would
have to be postponed until he was no longer chief executive. Either
President or Governor after leaving office is triable and punishable,
like any other person, for any crime either personal or official com
mitted while in office.

112 The Executive
matters, though his permission must be obtained,
on the theory that the sovereign cannot be sued
without his consent. Permission is readily given. z
The answer to the objection that the King's legal
immunity is unjust and absurd is that practically it
is neither, but on the contrary is. a necessary part of
the system of government by a responsible Ministry
through which royal injustice and absurdity have
been made impossible. If any King should presume
upon his personal immunity, he would soon be
taught as effectually as was Charles I, though doubt
less not in just the same way, that the liberties of
the subject cannot be violated with impunity.
Foreign Affairs. Another of the ancient royal
prerogatives is the conducting of foreign relations.
This is a duty which it is always necessary to entrust
with large freedom of action to the executive. In the
United States it is lodged with the President, but is
shared by the Senate, in that treaties must receive
the approval of that body. In England, however,
the Ministers of the Crown conduct all foreign rela
tions, including even the declaration of war, the
1 Presidents and Governors, not being sovereign in any sense, but
only public servants, may be sued in the civil courts at any time for
personal debts or wrongs. But the United States and each of the
several States is free from suit without its consent, except by some
other sovereign. The States sometimes sue each other in the United
States Supreme Court and might be sued there by foreign states; but
in practice, claims of different nations against each other are adjusted
through diplomacy.

The King 113
concluding of peace, and the making of treaties,
without any confirmation by Parliament or any
consultation, further than they see fit, with that
body. The more extensive and pressing character
of diplomatic problems in Europe necessitates the
Foreign Minister's -having a free hand and consider
able power for prompt and decisive action. Although
the Minister manages these affairs in harmony with
the general aims and principles of the party, Parlia
ment allows a larger degree of freedom there than in
any bther department.
The "Foreign Secretary," as he is commonly
called, acts in closer and more constant consultation
with the Premier than does any other Minister, and
the momentous issues which arise in his department
are submitted to the most serious consideration of
the whole Cabinet. The Premier reads every impor
tant dispatch and exercises a firm and unremitting
control over the general course of the country's
foreign policy. The King also insists more strongly
on his right to be consulted in the business of this
department than in* any other. He sees all the
important dispatches and although he can only
express and not enforce his views, his advice is here
sometimes of great value. This was particularly
true of King Edward VII.
The reason for the closer attention by the King
and the stricter control by the Prime Minister in

114 The Executive
foreign affairs than in other departments is because
of the immense consequences of peace or war,
national benefit or national calamity, that depend
upon the conduct of relations with other countries.
We must understand, of course, that, though the
Foreign Secretary acts under these necessary limita
tions, the fact that he is selected because of his
eminent qualifications of information and judgment
secures for his opinions and leadership great con
sideration.|" Another difference between this office and all others
is the necessity of secrecy in diplomatic affairs. This
often makes it proper for the Secretary to reply to
questions in Parliament that the public interest for
bids his furnishing the information requested. This,
and the fact that at least one of the five Secretaries
of State must be a member of the Lords, leads fre
quently to his being chosen from that house.
War and Peace. The prerogative even includes
the right of declaring war and making peace, as well
as treaties on any subject, so long as they do not
involve any tax upon the people or violate the law
of the land. The power of the Cabinet, or we might
even say of the Prime Minister as the depositary of
this ancient royal prerogative, to plunge the country
into war seems inconsistent with the supremacy of
Parliament. The inconsistency is, however, mainly
apparent; for the Premier, even though backed up

The King 115
unanimously by the Cabinet, would not take such a
step without learning the sentiments of the Commons
and of the country. An interesting contrast is
offered here with the government of Germany, where
the power to declare war is lodged in the Bundesrath,
or upper house of the imperial Parliament, which
represents the sovereigns of the twenty-five states
composing the Empire. But it cannot be doubted
that the destinies of peace and war are far more
removed from popular influence or control in Ger
many than in England. The difference is in the
spirit that permeates the two systems and the extra-
legal customs that modify the effect of the formal
constitution, thus rendering the apparently despotic
power of_ the Prime Minister far more democratic
in fact than the formally less autocratic method of
the German constitution.
Many authorities are of the opinion that, not
withstanding the large degree of moral control
exercised by Parliament, the power of the Cabinet
is in these affairs dangerously extensive. If they
should err in the fateful decision for war, neither the
Parliament nor the country would have any effective
remedy; for, although they could force the resigna
tion of the offending Ministry and the appointment
of another more in harmony with the desires of the
nation, this would not of itself bring about peace
nor heal the public harm. To bring more quickly

116 The Executive
to an end a war that should never have occurred
would be the extent of their power.
Statutory Orders and Orders in Council. A great
authority which has been conferred upon the Crown,
acting of course through the proper Minister, is the
issuing of "statutory orders" which have the force
of law. They are of course subject to repeal by
Parliament. The orders relate generally to such
subjects as education, public health, etc. Though
conferred by Parliament and therefore statutory,
this right of the Crown is closely akin to the preroga
tive right of issuing Orders in Council, a function
which in time of war assumes immense importance
in regulating the relations with neutral countries in
regard to such matters as commerce, blockades,
contraband, of war, etc.
Head of the Established Church. Derived from
act of Parliament, and not a part of the prerogative,
is the peculiar function of the English sovereign,
due to the union of church and state, of acting as
head of the established church. In this capacity the
King is supposed by law to appoint the bishops and
to exercise other momentous powers, the nature of
which will be explained in Chapter XXX. Either the
sovereign, or the Prime Minister who actually exer
cises the power, may be a member of some other
denomination,1 or for that matter even an infidel,
1 Though the King cannot be a Catholic. See page 99.

The King 117
as both have at times in the past been men of disso
lute lives.
The King not a Figurehead. It is evident, then,
that the King, though in theory clothed with such
majestic power, is in fact entirely without authority.
It is an error, howeyer, to speak of him, as is often
done, as a mere figurehead. Though he has no power,
he has great influence. He is in constant communi
cation with the Premier, and to a less extent with
the other Ministers, and the policy of the Cabinet in
all important matters is announced to him. He is
thus in a sense a permanent Minister, a member of
every Cabinet, but without authority and without
" responsibility. "
Though the King must be kept informed of govern
ment business, he is not consulted in the discussion
or shaping of measures, but only receives the report
of what the Cabinet has already decided. His
opportunity of enforcing his views is thus seriously
hampered by the fact that he is invited simply to
comment upon an already matured decision in the
framing of which he has had no part and which the
Ministers will not readily modify, instead of being
allowed to participate in the discussion while opinions
are still unsettled. For it is one of the peculiarities
of the English Constitution that the King is forbidden
by custom to attend the meeting of the Cabinet, who
have no legal existence except as the King's own

n S The Executive
Privy Council. z Still, his weight of influence may be
considerable on many occasions in matters not
concerned with important party policy. We have
just observed2 how his information and long fa
miliarity with foreign relations through the terms of
many Ministries may be of great value. In this
branch his advice makes for permanence and steadi
ness, the two great essentials in foreign relations, and
is, even a man of Mr. Gladstone's views thought, on
the whole of benefit to the country.
The real position of the King under the English
Constitution is well stated by Bagehot as follows:
he has "three rights — the right to be consulted, the
right to advise, and the right to warn. And a king
of great sense and sagacity would want no others."
Attachment of the English to the Limited
Monarchy. The English people are strongly at
tached to their form of government under a limited
constitutional monarchy and regard the King with
devoted loyalty. Even in our republic, we .may
observe how strong are the enthusiasm and affection
aroused in the people by the personality of political
leaders. In England, or for that matter in any
monarchy in which the sovereign has for generations
conducted himself with true liberality, intelligence,
and patriotism, this sense of personal loyalty, which
is one of the finest and strongest traits of human
1 See page 124 for the Privy Council. ' Pages 116 and 117.

The King 119
nature, is aroused to the highest degree, and makes
the King the personified embodiment of the nation,
its aspirations, its interests, and its ideals. However
fierce may be party strife and the denunciation of
party leaders, these men are not the government
itself. The King of England must never express any
views or commit the slightest act indicating political
bias, nor must he ever be referred to or involved in
any way in partisan strife. Standing apart from all
this, he- serves as a buffer to prevent the shock of
party antagonism from wrenching the framework of
the ship of state.

CHAPTER XI
THE CABINET
Union of Executive and Legislature. In describ
ing a government in which the executive and legisla
tive functions are so much united in the same hands,
it is necessary constantly to pass from one to the
other. So we return to the Cabinet in discussing
the executive, although we have noticed some of its
features in describing Parliament.
Cabinet and Other Positions. The Cabinet con
sists of the heads of certain executive departments,
about twenty in number, the principal ones being
the First Lord of the Treasury, who is generally
Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, the Secretary of State for War, the Secretary
of State for Colonies, the First Lord of the Admiralty,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the President
of the Local Government Board. As merely a
Minister, each of these men heads an administrative
and executive department ; as a member of thl Cabi
net, or a Cabinet Minister, as it is often called, he is

The Cabinet 121
one of the directing council which carries the party
program through ParHament and shapes the general
policy of the government. z
The Ministry, as explained on page 44, includes
in addition to the Cabinet a number of officials of
less importance, who, like the Cabinet Ministers,
must be of the same politics as the party in power,
and hold either the headship of certain departments,
high executive positions of the second rank, or
certain ceremonial positions about the court. Among
them are most of the first assistants of the leading
Ministers (called Parliamentary Under-Secretaries2),
the party whips, and certain officers of the royal
household who are in such close personal touch with
the King that they must not be of such political
views as possibly to impair the harmonious co-opera
tion of the sovereign with his Ministers. 3
Sinecures. The Cabinet as distinguished from
the Ministry is a counselling and directing rather
than an administrative body. Though its members
are the heads of administrative departments, their
chief duties are shaping and directing the affairs of
government and carrying out the party policy as a
consistent, unified platform, while the details of ad-
1 For a complete list of the Ministry, with the Cabinet positions
specified, see table at end of this chapter.
2 Or Political Under-Secretaries.
s For a fuller description of the difference between the Cabinet
and the Ministry, see pages 44 and 45.

122 The Executive
ministration are left to subordinates. Hence there
are several sinecures, or offices with practically no
duties. One of these, the First Lordship of the
Treasury is as a rule held by the Prime Minister,
whose hands are full enough with general supervision
and the responsibilities of leadership. Three others,
the positions of the Lord President of the Council,
the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal, and the Chancel
lor of the Duchy of Lancaster, are bestowed often
upon aged or infirm statesmen whose counsel- and
experience are desired, but who would not under
take the arduous duties of administration, or some
times upon party leaders practically all of whose
time is required upon the floor of Parliament. While
such an office may be called a sinecure viewed as an
administrative department, it may as a position of
Cabinet responsibility be anything else.
Concentration of Power during War. The growth
of the Cabinet in recent years to a number exceed
ing twenty has impaired its efficiency as a directing
council and tended to draw it more into the character
of a deliberating body, a sort of select third house
of the legislature exclusively in the hands of the
party in power. The Premier has consequently
fallen into the habit of counselling more particularly
with a few of his most trusted colleagues, thus giving
occasion for the remark that there was emerging a
Cabinet within the Cabinet. This tendency to

The Cabinet 123
gather a small group, capable of prompt and vigor
ous action, around the leader received formal sanc
tion in the creation of Mr. Lloyd-George's Ministry
in December, 191 6, during the Great War. The
Premier, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the holder
of one of the ancient sinecures, and two more called
"Minister without Portfolio" were made "the War
Cabinet." This body met daily to direct the war,
and since two of its members were very much occu
pied on the floors of the two houses of Parliament or
in the Exchequer, the Premier and the two Ministers
without Portfolio formed a group reminding one of
a Roman triumvirate or the French Consuls of 1800
with Bonaparte and two assistants. Lord Curzon's
duties as leader of the House of Lords allowed him
to attend the War Cabinet with some frequency,
thus supplying a fourth member; and when Mr.
Law's duties permitted him to leave the Commons
and the Exchequer, it was really a council of five.
The other Ministers usually known as Cabinet
Ministers were officially designated as Heads of
Departments and took no part in the direction of
the war. The vital Cabinet duties that remained
after taking out of their hands the multifarious
and far-reaching powers connected with the war
left them in a situation hardly to be recognized as a
Cabinet in the modern sense of the word. The
Premier occupied a position more nearly resembling

124 The Executive
a dictatorship and the ordinary Cabinet meetings
sank to a lower importance than at any time in
modern English history. But we must remember
that this was with the full consent of Parliament,
involved no suggestion of usurpation, and could be
terminated at any time by a simple Parliamentary
majority. Though the future will hardly see such
an extreme concentration of power and responsibil
ity in so few men, many competent judges expect
either that there will develop a permanent and
recognized Cabinet within the Cabinet or that the
Cabinet will be reduced in numbers. It is not im
possible that we have seen the beginning of a process
by which the Cabinet will join the Privy Council,
which it shoved aside, as an interesting historical
relic surviving only as an empty form. That which
emerged through the law of change may submerge
by the same law.
The Cabinet not Known to the Law. It may be
remarked here that there is no such body known to
the law as the Cabinet, nor, as a united group, the
Ministry. The confidential advisers of the King
are supposed to be the Privy Council ; but that body,
embracing at present over two hundred persons,
long ago grew to be so large as to make counselling
and secrecy impossible. Membership in it is now
only a distinction, carrying with it the title of "Right
Honourable." Yet, in accordance with the English

The Cabinet 125
way of retaining ancient forms, the leading Ministers
on first taking office are sworn into its membership.
The lords and gentlemen who at any particular
time compose the Cabinet are the real successors of
those ancient advisers and are in fact the persons
referred to in modern statutes as "His Majesty's
Most Honourable Privy Council."1
Difficulties in Forming a Ministry.2 The gentle
man to whom the King's message comes, after the
resignation of a Ministry of the opposite party, direct
ing him to form a new Ministry has probably al
ready been considering with himself and his leading
party associates the persons to whom he shall offer
the various ministerial posts. The presumptive
claimants are, in the main, the same men who were
Ministers when their party was last in power, unless
that has been so long ago that the old leaders have
disappeared. Forming a Ministry is sometimes
extremely difficult ; for rival ambitions must be some
how reconciled, disappointed aspirants soothed,
wounded spirits healed, and every influential wing
in the party given representation in proportion to
its strength. The task of the Prime Minister calls
for the most delicate tact, as well as great firmness
1 See, e. g., the British North America Act, ix., 146. > The
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (see page 202) and certain
executive departments presided over, like others, by a Minister, are
nominally committees of the Privy Council.
' Cf. page 47.

126 The Executive
of will and clearness of head; for a great victory at
the polls may now be thrown away by bad general
ship. Discussions in Cabinet Meetings. A bill is pre
pared by the Minister whose department it most
nearly concerns and is then discussed in Cabinet
meeting. Every member is expected to suggest
and criticize with the greatest freedom and vigour,
and there is not the slightest idea that in doing so
he is intruding upon the rights of the department
in question.1
The Cabinet meets usually once a week. Mem
bers are in honour bound to the strictest secrecy; no
minutes are kept, and even a private memorandum
is looked upon with disfavour.
Unity of the Cabinet. The Cabinet must be a
unit upon its legislative program, and hence its
members can introduce no measure into Parliament
until it has first been threshed out in Cabinet meet
ing and brought into such shape as to induce all
members to accept it, or at least to refrain from
opposition. Some of the Prime Minister's hardest
work and finest argument consists in convincing his
unwilling colleagues. Mr. Gladstone remarked that
it was sometimes a harder task to get his meas
ures through the Cabinet than through the House
1 Of course no Minister would attempt to interfere with the
routine administration of another department.

The Cabinet 127
of Commons. The Cabinet is thus in a sense a
highly competent third house of the legislature;
and its debates result in removing most of the
weaknesses of bills before they come before Parlia
ment. It is very desirable to secure the willing assent and
hearty co-operation of the entire Cabinet, and hence
it is always sought to come to a general agreement
without overpowering the minority by a formal
vote. r
Freedom and Restrictions of the Individual Cabinet
Minister. If a member cannot accept the views of
the Cabinet on any measure and considers it one
that he cannot conscientiously allow to pass in silent
acquiescence, his only course is to resign. On the
other hand, a Minister must not express himself in
public on any Cabinet measure in a sense contrary
to the plans of the Cabinet or take up a position that
might embarrass his associates on important ques
tions on which the Cabinet has not come to a deci
sion. Such an offence would lead to a private
remonstrance from the Prime Minister, and per
sistence in it would make it necessary for that official
to dismiss his indiscreet associate from office. A
Minister may, however, introduce a bill on his own
individual responsibility on a subject that is not in
the party platforms or likely to become a matter of
» Cf. page 45.

128 The Executive
party controversy, and may speak on non-party
questions on either side he chooses.1
Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. The Minister
at the head of several of the more important execu
tive departments has an assistant minister, called
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, or the Political
Under-Secretary. The duties of the Minister2 are
mainly to direct the general policy of his department,
to see that its officers are competent and faithful,
and to defend in Parliament the measures of the
government, particularly those concerning his own
department. He makes a mistake if he tries to
direct too minutely the work of subordinate officials,
just as the captain of a ship might if he sought to
teach the engineer how to operate the engines.
• Frequently the Minister and his Parliamentary
Under-Secretary are members of different houses,
so that one can speak for the department in the
Commons and the other in the Lords; but in some
cases the labours upon the floor of the Commons are
so incessant as to require both to be members of that
house. The duties of the Under-Secretary are
much the same as those of his chief, except that he
gives more of his time to the details of administra
tion. He is usually a young man of promise in

1 Cf. page 45.
' The duties of the different departments are described in Chapters
XIII and XIV.

The Cabinet 129
training for the higher positions, and if he makes good
as a successful administrator and effective debater,
he will probably by middle life be rewarded by being
made a Cabinet Minister at the head of a depart
ment. If of first rank in the gifts of leadership, he
may even attain the highest goal of the ambition of
every man in English national politics, the Premier
ship, which is the equivalent in England to the hon
our of being made President in the United States.
Permanent Under-Secretaries. Under the Min
ister at the head of each of the great executive
departments is a Permanent Under-Secretary. He
and his numerous subordinates are picked and
trained men who take no part in party politics and
hold their positions as long as they prove efficient,
irrespective of what party is in power.
The bulk of the actual running of the department
is done by the Permanent Under-Secretary, for he
is master of every detail of the office and is not
interrupted by the necessity of daily attendance on
Parliament during six or seven months of the year.
He is as unswervingly loyal to his new chief after
a change of Ministry as to his old; for his duty is
not to help any party, but solely to serve the
permanent interests of the country by doing well
whatever the people through their representatives
command to be done. The Minister would not
expect nor the Permanent Under-Secretary consent

130 The Executive
to the betrayal of any personal confidence of former
Ministers. But he of course furnishes the fullest
information on everything connected with the official
business and acts of the department. It can be
easily understood that the advice of a capable Per
manent Under-Secretary is of high value to a Minis
ter, and that his influence on the government is
great and useful. Competent judges consider that
this combination of the judgment of the trained ex
pert and that of the statesman of wider experience,
fresh from the great outside world and in constant
touch with its untechnical human life, is an essential
factor in any system that shall at the same time
attain the efficiency of trained skill and escape the
narrowness and stagnation of official red tape.1
Cabinet Positions
The holders of the following positions were, in
1915, members of the Cabinet. Sometimes the
Attorney-General and a few others of these are
members of the Ministry only, but not of the Cabinet.
Frequently one man holds one of the sinecures in
addition to his regular department, thus making the
number of men fewer than the number of offices.
First Lord of the Treasury (almost always the
Prime Minister).
Chancellor of the Exchequer.
1 See Lowell's Government of England, i., 176, 187-90.

The Cabinet 131
Lord High Chancellor.
Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
Secretary of State for the Colonies.
Secretary of State for India.
Secretary of State for War.
First Lord of the Admiralty.
Minister of Munitions.
Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
President of the Board of Trade.
President of the Local Government Board.
President of the Board of Education.
President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Secretary for Scotland.
Postmaster-General.
First Commissioner of Works.
Attorney-General.Lord Privy Seal. z
Lord President of the Council. z
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.1
The Ministry also contains the following members
who are not members of the Cabinet :
Solicitor-General.Lord Advocate.
Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Home
Department. Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Colonies.
Parliamentary Under-Secretary for India.
Parliamentary Under-Secretary for War.
Two Joint Secretaries of the Treasury (one called
Parliamentary or Patronage Secretary of
Treasury, being the "chief whip").
Three Lords Commissioners of the Treasury (the
assistant ' ' whips " ) .
1 Sinecure.

132 The Executive
The three "household officials":
Lord Steward. v
Lord Chamberlain.
Master of the Horse.
Scotland: Secretary and Keeper of the Great Seal.
Lord Justice-General.
Lord Advocate.
Keeper of the Privy Seal
Lord Justice Clerk.
Lord Clerk Register.
Solicitor-General.
Ireland: Lord Lieutenant.
Lord Chancellor.
Attorney-General .
Solicitor-General.

CHAPTER XII
THE PRIME MINISTER1
Gradual Development of the Premiership. Be
fore taking up the departments separately, we must
complete our study of the Cabinet as the united
responsible executive branch of the government by
some further description of the position of the Prime
Minister. This great office, one of the three most
eminent political positions in the world, 2 has grown
up under the custom of the constitution, and in
fact was never even referred to in any law until
1906. 3 Robert Walpole, from 1721 to 1742, was
the first Prime Minister, and the position was at
first regarded with jealous dread. But the utility
of having executive authority centred in one person
caused the position continuously to grow in power
1 See list of Prime Ministers, by parties and dates,, since 1830,
at end of this chapter.
' The other two being those of the American President and the
German Chancellor. The powerful sovereigns of Germany and
Russia are not considered, because as hereditary monarchs they
fall into a different class. > Lowell, i., 68.
¦133

134 The Executive
and esteem until it has come to be imitated in almost
all free countries of the world that have not followed
the American plan called Presidential government.1
Preferably a Member of the Lower House. The
Premier, as the Prime Minister is often called, may
be either a lord or a commoner; but the concentra
tion of power in the Commons makes it much better
for him to be a member of the ' ' lower ' ' house. Being
Prime Minister does not remove a Lord's incapacity
to appear upon the floor of the Commons. He would
thus have to be represented in the field of conflict
by some trusted subordinate, known as the leader of
the House of Commons, who, as being of subordinate
authority, could do full justice neither to himself,
his chief, nor his party.
General Character of the Position. As an aid to
reaching a clear understanding of the, position of the
Premier, let us remember that he answers* more
nearly than any other person in the English Govern
ment to the President in the United States. As he
is charged with the responsibility for the entire
administration, he, like the President, has no sepa
rate administrative department under his charge,
but holds one of the sinecures in the Cabinet. 2 Oc
casionally a man of rare ability and energy in addi-
1 For the definition of Parliamentary and Presidential govern
ment, see above, page 8.
2 See page 121 for names and explanation of these positions.

The Prime Minister 135
tion to the weighty responsibilities of the Premier
ship also administers a particular department, as,
e. g., Mr. Gladstone's being Chancellor of the Ex
chequer or Lord Salisbury's being Foreign Secretary
at the same time that he was head of the govern
ment ; but in the case of the latter, it is to be remem
bered that the Premier must in any event give much
attention to foreign affairs, and that Salisbury by
reason of his seat in the Lords was spared the inces
sant labours which fall to a Prime Minister who is
the leader of his party in the House of Commons.
Though the exception in the case of Lord Salisbury
is thus more apparent than real, no such considera
tions relieved the situation in the case of Mr. Glad
stone, who twice held both the Premiership and the
Chancellorship of the Exchequer, itself one of the
most burdensome portfolios. Mr. Asquith, for a
short time during his Premiership, assumed also the
duties of the Secretaryship of State for War; but
this was from the first recognized as a temporary
expedient, and was terminated by the appointment
of Lord Kitchener to that department as soon as
its duties assumed unusual importance. Such in
stances are sure to become still more exceptional
under the greater mass of duties which recent times
have brought. Consequently it is usual for the head
of the Ministry to hold the office of First Lord of
the Treasury, an ancient post of honour whose

136 The Executive
duties have been transferred to other treasury
officials. The Premier's General Supervision of Other
Departments. It is understood, of course, that the
Premier selects all the other Ministers, though he
and they alike are officially appointed by the King.
He directs the general policy of the whole govern
ment, and must be consulted on every matter of
importance which arises in any department. Since
he directs the general policy of all departments, he
must know of their conditions and tasks, which
involves a vast amount of labour and study. Every
Minister has a right to his counsel at- any time, and
indeed must consult him before taking a new course
or introducing, even in Cabinet meetings, a measure
of importance.
The fact that the Prime Minister exercises a con
stant supervision over the Foreign Office, and the
reason for this, are explained at pages 112 to 114,
which should be re-read at this point.
Settling Differences between Ministers. If dif
ferences arise between Ministers they must be
referred to the Prime Minister. His decision, how
ever, is not necessarily final; for in these clashes
between colleagues in matters relating to their
departments, or in regard to any decision of the
Premier as to measures or policy, a dissatisfied
Minister may carry his grievance to the Cabinet,

The Prime Minister 137
either by friendly agreement with the Premier or
without regard to his wishes in an attempt to over
ride him. The extent to which the head of a Min
istry will submit to such appeals or reversals of his
policy depends upon the vigour of his personality
and his hold upon his Cabinet; but it is safe to say
that one who often submitted to such treatment
could not long hold his position.
The Minister who is overruled must either loyally
submit or resign.
The Premier's Appointing Power. In addition
to these duties the Prime Minister appoints all the
more important officials, as e. g., his fellow-Ministers,
ambassadors, bishops, all the higher men in the vari
ous departments, and the highest judges. Of this
last group are the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief
Justice, the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, who dis
charge for the House of Lords its functions of a
supreme court, and the Lords Justices of Appeal,
who hold the highest court of appeal below the House
of Lords. All other judges are appointed by the
Lord Chancellor.1 The varied duties of guiding
legislation in Parliament, marshalling party forces,
and conducting administration call for - character
and ability of the highest order.
As the Ministry is appointed by the Prime Minis
ter, it also hangs upon him. The resignation of
1 Statesman's Year Book for 1915, p. 36.

138 The Executive
any other Minister only creates a vacancy, but his
resignation or death puts an end to that Ministry
entirely. If he should resign because of (say) ill
health, or any cause other than a defeat in Parlia
ment, the King would, of course, appoint as his
successor the one among his colleagues who at the
time stood next in party leadership, and the new
Premier would make up his Ministry of very much
the same men already in office, though he would
probably take advantage of the opportunity to
shoulder out a few members who had disappointed
expectations. It would nevertheless be a new
Ministry and would be called by his name, as when
Mr. Gladstone's fourth Ministry was succeeded by
Lord Rosebery's, or Lord Salisbury's third by Mr.
Balfour's.
Prime Ministers Since the Passage of the Great Reform
Act of 1832.
Lord Grey {Liberal) 1830-34
Lord Melbourne (first Ministry — Liberal) July-Nov. 1834
Sir Robert Peel (first Ministry — Conservative) 1834-35
Lord Melbourne (second Ministry — Liberal) 1835-41
Sir Robert Peel (second Ministry — Conservative) 1841-46
Lord John Russell (first Ministry — Liberal) 1846-52
Lord Derby (first Ministry — Conservative) Feb.-Dec. 1852
Lord Aberdeen (coalition Liberal-Peelite1) 1852-55
1 The Peelites, followers of Sir Robert Peel after he lost the sup
port of the bulk of the Conservative party by repealing the tariff
on grain, generally drifted into the Liberal Party.

The Prime Minister

i39

Lord Palmerston (first Ministry — Liberal) 1855-58
Lord Derby (second Ministry — Conservative) 1858-59
Lord Palmerston (second Ministry — Liberal) 1859-65
Lord John Russell (second Ministry — Liberal) 1865-66
Lord Derby (third Ministry — Conservative) 1866-68
Benjamin Disraeli1 (first Ministry — Conservative) Feb.-
Dec. 1868
William E. Gladstone (first Ministry — Liberal) 1868-74
Disraeli (second Ministry — Conservative) 1874-80
Gladstone (second Ministry — Liberal) 1880-85
Lord Salisbury (first Ministry — Conservative) 1885-86
Gladstone (third Ministry— Liberal) Feb.-July 1886
Lord Salisbury (second Ministry — Conservative) 1886-92
Gladstone (fourth Ministry — Liberal) 1892-94
Lord Rosebery {Liberal) 1894-95
Lord Salisbury (third Ministry — Conservative) 1895-1902
Arthur Balfour (Conservative) 1902-05
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman (Liberal) 1905-08
Henry Herbert Asquith (Liberal to 1915; from 1915
coalition Liberal- Conservative) 1908-16
David Lloyd-George (coalition Liberal-Conservative) 191 6—
1 From 1876, Earl of Beaconsfield.

CHAPTER XIII
THE TREASURY
Importance of the Chancellorship of the Exchequer.
The Minister over the treasury department is called
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are cer
tain boards and officers but they have no control.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is one of the most
important members of the government, for two
reasons; first, he has the general oversight over the
amount of money which each department shall
spend; and second he devises the taxes by which the
government is supported. He has thus a sort of
superintendence over both income and outgo. This
is the office in which Mr. Gladstone made himself
famous as a Cabinet Minister and in which Mr.
Lloyd-George at a later time made himself so pas
sionately hated and admired. It is an office which,
with the fearful burden of war debts and the growing
tendency to correct social and economic injustices
by. means of taxation, promises to become still more
important in future. Its holder is looked upon as
140

The Treasury 141
second in importance only to the Prime Minister;
and if he measures up to the wider responsibilities
of his position, he is manifestly material for the
making of a future head of the government.
Preparing the Estimates. In the autumn in pre
paring his proposals to be made to Parliament in
the following February, the Chancellor of the Ex
chequer has the head of every other department
give him an itemizedestimate of the exact sums of
money which will be needed to support his depart
ment for the coming year. These estimates are
made out by the experienced under-officials and are
passed upon by the head of the department in ques
tion. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer objects
to any item or wishes to reduce its amount, he~and
the Minister seek to adjust the matter. If they
cannot agree, they carry it to the Prime Minister,
and if he cannot bring them together, they take it
before the Cabinet, whose decision is final.
Control over Other Departments. The Treasury
also has the right to veto certain contracts by other
departments, to forbid changes in the departments
which are likely to involve later expense, and to
authorize a department to use for another purpose
any surplus moneys remaining over from the de
partment's apportionment or from other unexpended
appropriations. And lastly, the Treasury has at
its disposal a certain Umited sum which it may use

142 The Executive
for any emergency, though there may have been no
law passed for that particular object.1 Money
matters are liable to lead men into complications,
difficulties, and burdensome extravagances, and
hence these wide powers of oversight which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer as guardian of the
national purse is given over his associates.
The Budget. Having received the estimates
from the various departments and finally scaled
them to the amounts at which they are to stand, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer is ready to report his
budget. This consists of all the items of expense for
the various departments and the taxes by which it
is proposed to meet them. After having been gone
over in Cabinet meeting, it is presented to the House
of Commons sitting in Committee of the Whole
soon after the opening of Parliament in February.
Its passage through Parliament is described at
page 63.
Sources of the Revenue. The revenues are chiefly
from the tariff, or customs duties, income and in
heritance taxes, the internal revenue, and the post-
office. Import duties are imposed for revenue only,
on tea, coffee, chicory, dried fruit, tobacco, wine,
whiskey, and a few other articles, and in order to
avoid giving any advantage by "protection" to one
business over another, an equal internal revenue is
1 Lowell, i., 124-6.

The Treasury 143
collected on any of these articles produced within
the country.1
Fixed Charges and Annual Appropriations. A
few charges of a permanent and steady character
are fixed by a standing law and do not have to be
voted annually. These are interest on the public
debt, the support of the royal family, the salaries of
judges, and a few others of trivial amount3; but all
other appropriations are "for one year only, and
hence the budget is an annual task. The origin of
this custom was connected with the long struggle
of the representatives of the people to restrain the
despotism of the King. At last the custom was
adopted of allowing the government revenues for
»
one year only, and of permitting the maintenance
and discipline of the standing army for one year
only. So long as these two rules are observed,
tyranny is impossible.
1 We should bear in mind that our entire discussion at this point
is confined to the finances of the central, or general, government of
the United Kingdom. Every city, county, and parish in England,
Ireland, and Scotland, as well as every colony in the Empire, has
its own income from taxation by which to meet its own public ex
penses, without any connection with the finances of the central
government, except that the central government to a certain extent
contributes to the assistance of certain local governments.
2 Lowell, i., 120. Cf. page 26 above and note.

CHAPTER XIV
OTHER EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS
Foreign Affairs, Colonies, and India. These three
departments include some of the most important
duties with which the government is charged. They
are not treated in this chapter, where they might be
logically expected, for the reason that a full account
is given at other places at which some notice of them
is necessary in connection with associated topics.
The duties of the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs are described at page 113, of the Secretary
of State for the Colonies at pages 270 and 272, and
of the Secretary of State for India at pages 311 and
following. War
The War Office and the Minister of Munitions.
The Secretary of State for War has nothing to do
with determining questions of war and peace, except
as every Minister has by his influence and vote.
His duty is to see that the country's army is kept in
proper condition to meet the emergency should war
144

Other Executive Departments 145
arise. The Secretary of State for War is assisted by
a small board or council consisting of the chief officers
of the army, but they cannot veto or in any way
control his acts.
An excellent illustration of the flexibility of the
ministerial system was afforded during the Great
War by the creation of a new department to relieve
the Secretary of State for War of a part of his duties,
to redistribute the unusual burdens, and to meet the
peculiar problems of a situation which threatened
to overwhelm a government and people organized so
preponderatingly for peace as to find themselves
almost entirely unprepared for a gigantic struggle of
land forces. The situation was mixed up with the
personality of two of the existing Ministry. Lord
Kitchener, in charge of the War Office, was excel
lently qualified for the duties of raising and directing
a vast army, but very much lacked certain qualities
necessary to meet the economic and human elements
of the problem of drawing out the industrial forces
for equipping his soldiers. The Ministry of Muni
tions was created and placed in charge of David
Lloyd-George, a man of great executive ability and
wonderful talent for bringing the English working-
man, jealous of his individual and trade-union privi
leges, into such subordination to the great national
effort as to save the state from being overwhelmed
by the military organization of Germany.

146 The Executive
The duties of the Minister of Munitions are to
exercise such supervision over government and pri
vate manufactories as to secure the most loyal and
efficient co-operation of employers and labourers,
and hence the largest possible output of arms and
ammunition for the armies at the'front. Even private
plants are reduced to a semi-military organization,
and the control of private business is carried further
than modern England has ever before dreamed of
permitting. '
Other ministerial positions created to meet the
necessities of the Great War were the Minister of
Blockade, the Food Controller, and the Shipping
Controller. The Army. Before the Great War, the armed
land force of the United Kingdom consisted of the
regular army, the army reserve, the special reserve,
and the territorial army. Men enlisted in the regu
lar army for twelve years. Most served seven years
of this time with the colours and five years with the
army reserve. The special reserve consisted of
men enlisted for six years. They were given five
months in camp the first year and a few weeks'
training every year for the remaining five. The
reserves of both kinds are at once called to the front
in case of need.
The territorial army consisted of what in the
United States is called the militia. The men were

Other Executive Departments 147
given two weeks' instruction in camp every year.
They could not, without their consent, be sent out
of the country. z
In a great war the regular army was increased
by voluntary enlistments. England's system was
entirely voluntary, unlike the systems of countries
on the continent of Europe, which, having powerful
rival states immediately upon their borders, consider
it necessary to force all able-bodied men to serve
for a term of years in the army. In the gigantic
conflict with Germany and her allies England raised
a volunteer army of five million men — incomparably
the greatest expression of patriotic devotion through
voluntary enlistments that the world has ever seen.
But it finally proved necessary to adopt conscrip
tion in order to draw out the full military resources
of the country. The Great War has so revolution
ized the British army and military ideas as to render
it doubtful whether the system previously in opera
tion will long be retained. The near future will
reveal whether England will modify her previous
system as described above more or less towards the
continental system of universal compulsory service
in times of peace.
Organization of the Navy Department. The
navy is under the Board of Admiralty, whose head
is a Cabinet Minister, called the First Lord of the
1 The "yeomanry" are simply the cavalry part of the militia.

148 The Executive
Admiralty. He has general direction, and the other
eight members (most of them eminent naval officers)
have charge of various branches of the naval service.
These are, of course, not in the Ministry.
The management of modern war vessels requires
long and careful training. Hence the naval force
consists of men enlisted for a term of twelve years.
The Committee of Imperial Defence. For the
consideration of the large problems of naval and
military policy, apart from the more technical ques
tions which naturally fall to the army and navy de
partments, there is the Committee of Imperial
Defence. It consists of the Prime Minister as chair
man, together with the heads of the departments of
foreign affairs, war, navy, treasury, colonies, and
India, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and
several other high naval and military officials. It
has its regular permanent secretary and pursues
a continuous policy in organizing the nation's
resources against the emergency of war.
Contrasts between Foreign and Home Affairs.
It is remarkable how much of the business of the
government, even in time of peace, is taken up with
affairs away from home. There is constant danger
that an ambitious statesman will be so dazzled with
the idea of playing a brilliant part in the stirring
affairs of world politics that he will allow the more
direct interests of the people and the more prosaic

Other Executive Departments 149
things making for their permanent welfare to suffer
neglect. On the other hand, a Prime Minister whose
heart is warm for doing good for his own people may
forget the necessity for strength and foresighted
planning in foreign and imperial affairs. Disraeli
and Gladstone among modern English statesmen
illustrate respectively in striking fashion these
opposing tendencies. Internal Interests of the Kingdom
So far in this chapter we have been taken up with
the departments concerned with foreign and imperial
interests. Let us turn now to those which touch
more immediately the life of the people.
The Home Department is under the Secretary of
State for the Home Department, or, as he is briefly
called, the Home Secretary. He is in charge of a
great variety of duties, such as granting or refusing
petitions for the pardon of criminals, the supervision
of the police, and the management of prisons. He
also appoints and removes certain city magistrates,
and has the duty of enforcing, through a corps of
inspectors and commissioners, the numerous laws
regulating the hours, safety, and conditions of labour
in mines and factories. In addition to all these
numerous duties, requiring an infinite acquaintance
with detail, he has a right of veto over the by-laws

150 The Executive
of county and city councils, except in the case of
nuisances. It is understood of course that all these things
are said to be done by the King and that the Secre
tary simply advises such or such action. As a
matter of fact, as in all the other departments, the
King is the one who may merely advise, and the
word of the Secretary is the word that controls.
The Local Government Board. A Cabinet Min
ister called the President of the Local Government
Board has control over poor relief, old age pensions,
registration of births and deaths, sanitation, roads,
etc. He also exercises oversight of the local legisla
tive bodies of the counties and cities with a large
degree of authority for preventing imprudent or
extravagant action.
A peculiar illustration of the difference so often
observed between the nominal and the real in the
English Constitution, is the fact that the Local
Government Board and the four or five other boards
whose heads hold the positions of responsible Cabi
net Ministers are nothing more, as Professor Lowell
expresses it, than phantom boards. The President
is a quorum and conducts the business, and the
Board never meets.
The Board of Trade. The President of the Board
of Trade is a Cabinet Minister of great importance,
in that he has general supervision over railroads,

Other Executive Departments 151
trolley lines, the equipment and safety of merchant
vessels, and the granting of copyrights and patents
giving authors or inventors the sole right to sell
their productions. His control is exercised through
" provisional orders " made after investigation on
the complaint of aggrieved persons or on his
own motion. Such orders, if not complied with,
are given force of law through confirmation by
Parliament. The railway problem in England, as in the United
States, has called for special regulation. Parliament
fixes maximum rates, allows the Board of Trade
extensive powers in provisional orders, and provides
a court known as the Railway and Canal Com
mission, composed , of judges and railway business
experts. To this body the Local Government Board
may refer any case in which their orders touching
common carriers by land or water within the United
Kingdom are disregarded. The functions of the
Commission are similar to those of the Interstate
Commerce Commission in the United States, but
its powers are more extensive and stronger. The
English Commission can regulate more subjects,
such as the safety of passengers, the safety and
hours of employees, sidetrack and terminal facilities,
and correcting unjust and unreasonable rates, though
it has so far declined to accept the doctrine that it
may undertake the fixing of general rates ab. initio.

152 The Executive
Non-compliance with its orders incurs a penalty of
£100 a day. More important, it is not merely a
commission, as its name would imply, but really a
court. Its findings are final in all matters of fact,
but appeal lies from its decisions in points of law to
the Court of Appeal, the highest court of civil juris
diction below the House of Lords.1
The Post-Office. The Postmaster-General in
England has supervision over the telegraph and
telephone, as those have been made parts of the
postal service under government ownership and
management as an obvious means for the transmis
sion of news.2 The parcel post, rural free delivery,
and postal savings banks are highly developed..
The Postmaster-General is thus not a political
character in any such sense as the Foreign Secretary
or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but is in effect
the head of a vast busmess.
The population of England is so dense and distances
so short as to give the post-office a great advantage
as compared with the post-office in a country of vast
extent, like the United States, including many long
'For the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, see pages
182 and 199-200 below. On the functions of the Board of Trade and
the Commission, see elaborate statement in Ripley's Railway Prob
lems, 602-49, reprinting " The English Railway and Canal Commis
sion," by S. J. McLean, from Quarterly Journal of Economics, xx.
(1905), 1-55; brief statement, Britannica, ii., 213; xxii., 227-8.
'Telegraph was taken over by the government in 1870; the tele
phone in 1912.

Other Executive Departments 153
and thinly settled stretches; and hence the vast
business of the English post-office nets the govern
ment a handsome revenue.
Agriculture and Education. These departments
are each generally under a Minister who is counted
a member of the Cabinet. Though their depart
ments are not strictly political, as are most of the
others, the vital importance of the interests com
mitted to their charge leads generally to their heads
being included in the Cabinet.
Law Officers
No Department of Justice. England has no dis
tinct department of justice like most modern coun
tries. The duties of such a department are
distributed among the Home Secretary, the Lord
Chancellor, and the Law Officers of the Crown.
The first has already been described; a few words will
indicate the general character of the others.
The Lord Chancellor is one of the most ancient
officials of the kingdom and is still one of great im
portance as the head of the judicial system. It is
strange that the official answering to the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court in the United States
as the presiding head of the highest court in the land,
should go into and out of office as a member of the
Cabinet with the changes of political parties; but,
like many usages of the English Government that

154 The Executive
appear absurd upon their face, this works well be
cause not abused. The Lord Chancellorship repre
sents the highest ambition of English lawyers.
Judicial Duties of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord
Chancellor's judicial duties are now to sit as a mem
ber of the Court of Appeal (next to the highest
court in the land), to sit with the Lords of Appeal
in the House of Lords when that house is acting as
the supreme court of the United Kingdom, and to
sit as a member of the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council, which is the supreme court
for questions coming from the church and from
colonial courts.1
The Lord Chancellor's Appointing Power. The
Lord Chancellor appoints the county judges and the
justices of the peace, in the selection of whom he is
guided by information and advice from local officials ;
and he also chooses all the higher judges, except
himself, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Lords of
Appeal in Ordinary, who are selected by the Prime
Minister. The Lord Chancellor also appoints many
preachers of the Church of England to congregations
whose pastors are in the appointment of the Crown.
As Presiding Officer of the House of Lords. An
other duty of the Lord Chancellor is to preside over
1 The judicial system is described in Chapters XVI-XVIII.
Although the House of Lords is legally the supreme court, only the
learned judges who are members ever take part in those duties.

Other Executive Departments 155
the House of Lords. His functions and powers in
that position have already been described at page
96, which should be re-read here as a part of this
chapter. Mingling of Functions in the Lord Chancellor.
This ancient official therefore represents in the
highest degree the combination of the powers of
government in the same hands, as opposed to the
American principle of their separation among differ
ent departments ; for he is a real member of the exe
cutive in being a Cabinet Minister, an active judge
in the three highest courts, and when a peer (as he
practically always is), a member of the upper house
of the legislature, in which he may not only vote,
but may leave the chair and take part in debate.
The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General.
The principal law officers of the Crown are the
Attorney-General and his colleague and substitute
the Solicitor-General. These are always members
of the Ministry, as they go in and out of office with
changes of party, but they are generally not members
of the Cabinet, as they take no part in the directing
councils of the party leaders. In Mr. Asquith's
Ministry, however, the Attorney-General was a
member of the Cabinet.
The duties of the Attorney-General are much the
same as those of the official of the same title in the
United States Government ; but he has not such a

i56 The Executive
large degree of direction and discretion in these
matters, and in general his responsibility may be
said to be less extensive. He and the Solicitor-
General prosecute a few important cases, give legal
advice to the Ministry, and defend the legal points
of the Ministry's bills in Parliament. z
The salaries of the Attorney-General and Solicitor-
General are large and the honour great, and from men
who have held these positions are filled the higher
judgeships. Their positions are therefore worthy
objects of ambition for the highest class of English
lawyers. 1 It is interesting to notice how the officers derived from these
in the United States sometimes bear the title of the one and some
times of the other, as the Attorney-General of the nation or the
State, or the Solicitor of a judicial circuit; while "in many cases some
new title, as Prosecuting Attorney or Commonwealth's Attorney,
is substituted.

CHAPTER XV
THE PERMANENT CIVIL SERVICE
Who Compose the Permanent Civil Service. By
the permanent civil service is meant those officials
or employees who merely carry on the regular opera
tions of the government, such as the post-office, etc.,
as laid down by law, but have nothing to do with
making the laws or directing the political policy of
the government. They are permanent, because
they do not go into or out of office with party victory
or defeat, like the Ministers. They are civil officers
in distinction from those who are naval or military.
Political and Non-Political Officials. There is in
England, says Professor Lowell,1 a "sharp distinc
tion between political and non-political officials."
That is to say, the men who lead parties and shape
legislation in Parliament are recognized and fol
lowed as political chiefs because through them the
people can have their will enacted into law; while
the men who have simply the faithful and competent
'I.. i45- i57

158 The Executive
carrying out of existing law are looked upon by the
people as a business man looks upon his clerks — to
be retained or discharged because of their possessing
or lacking efficiency and honesty. This seems so
reasonable that it is surprising that it should not
be universally recognized by all except persons hav
ing some private interest to serve ; and yet there are
thousands of respectable citizens in the United States
today who regard it as a grievance to have their
letters handed to them or delivered to their cor
respondents a thousand miles away by an honest,
capable, and courteous young man who happens to
disagree with them on the tariff or the future inde
pendence of the Philippine Islands.
As in this country, civil officials (the Ministry,
of course, excepted) are not allowed to sit in Par
liament — a very useful rule for preventing the
executive from buying the support of members by
appointments to office.
Civil Service Reform versus the Spoils System.
By civil service reform is meant making appoint
ments to government positions depend on merit
instead of political favouritism. The opposite prac
tice, of appointing persons because of their services
to the successful party at the last election, is called
the "spoils system," because it treats the public
offices as spoils of war to be divided among the poli
ticians, instead of public trusts belonging to the

The Permanent Civil Service 159
people and to be administered for their benefit.
Fortunately civil service ieform has made great
progress both in England and the United States,
though, as will be later explained, it has been ex
tended much further in the former.
Necessity of Examinations in Selecting Employees.
Fitness for administrative office can be discovered
in several ways; but the only way that can be used
on a large scale in appointments to government
positions without leaving the way open for insincere
politicians to evade the real intention of the law to
get the best employees is a competitive examination.
There is no possibility of pretending that a grade of
50 assigned by an impartial board of examiners is
better than a grade of 90; whereas if the law simply
directed the head of a department to appoint the
person whom investigation proved to be the best for
the public service, the politician could without the
possibility of being conclusively contradicted say
that the meanest corrupt ward heeler in the city met
those requirements. We can hardly hope to see
politics on such a high level that politicians would
voluntarily appoint only the best subordinates; nor
can we hope to see politics very pure in the hands of
even the best leaders so long as we keep before them
the constant temptation to use the offices as rewards
for their friends.
Limitations on the Principle. There are limits

160 The Executive
to the usefulness of an examination for selecting
government appointees. These must be sensibly
recognized, or else the public will become so impatient
of the absurdities as to throw over the whole system,
and hence lose the benefits which it contains. The
highest positions cannot be filled in this way, for
the reason that their holders should possess in much
larger degree than is necessary with others certain
qualities, such as judgment, moderation, moral
courage, common sense, wide experience, which
cannot be discovered or tested by a written examina
tion. But the experience of England, as well as
the light of reason, teaches that it can, with the most
beneficial results, be applied to a far greater number
of positions than is done in our country.
Two Principles on which Examinations may be
Based. There are two different principles which
might be adopted by a government in making out
examinations for testing the fitness of applicants for
these administrative positions. One is to make the
questions such as to discover the preparation of the
person for immediately performing the duties of
the particular position sought. This is in general
the character of the civil service examinations in the
United States, though the examiners are fortunately
liberating themselves to some extent from this limi
tation. The other is to ask such questions as test
rather the natural ability and general education of

The Permanent Civil Service 161
the applicant. This is the principle forcibly urged
by Lord Macaulay at the adoption of the examina
tion system in England, and the one on which their
examinations are based, except for positions in which
a certain amount of technical skill is necessary from
the first, as, e. g., in the case of machinists. The
advantage of Lord Macaulay's system as adopted
in England is that it brings into the government
service men and women of natural ability and broad
education who will quickly learn the routine duties
at which they are first placed, and who are capable
of developing into valuable public servants.
Excepting merely unskilled labourers, all positions
in the English civil service are awarded to candi
dates successful in the examinations. The appoint
ing power in England does not have the right to
choose between the three highest contestants, as is
the rule under our system with the view of selecting
the applicant best suited by personal qualities for the
position in question. Candidates are appointed in
exact order of the standing they have earned, though
the tests include physical examination and personal
interviews. Except for merely clerical posts, the ex
aminations are of such a grade that trial by any
except university graduates is almost hopeless. A
glance down the list of appointees shows almost all
bearing degrees from the great universities, and most
with a good number of academic honours. , A con-

162 The Executive
siderable portion of the best young intellect of the
country goes each year into the civil service, and the
result is government by gentlemen, but a corps of
gentlemen who are highly educated and rigorously
selected professional administrators. Whether it is
democratic or undemocratic depends entirely upon
your definition of democracy.
No " Political Pull." Political influence has thus
been so thoroughly eliminated in securing office or
promotion that the attempt to use it is treated "as
an admission on the part of such officer that his case
is not good upon its merits."1 All postmasters and
revenue officers, all clerks in government depart
ments, obtain and hold their positions by merit
alone. A member of Parliament would no more
think of trying to have the postmaster discharged
because he belonged to the defeated party than
because he was a member of a different church.
Forces Favouring Civil Service Reform in Eng
land. It was far easier for the friends of good govern
ment in England to secure the adoption of the merit
system of appointments and promotions to office than
in the United States, for three reasons. First, the
English have a deep respect for what is called "vested
right," i. e. a person's right to whatever he has held
for a long time.2 Second, the parliamentary system
1 Lowell, i., 1 70-1, quoting from the Admiralty Office.
' IK i-. 153-4-

The Permanent Civil Service 163
of government offers little opportunity to members
of Parliament to demand offices for their supporters
under the threat of voting against the party leaders ;
for the voters choose their representative primarily
to support the Ministry of which they approve and
would not tolerate disloyalty to this trust in order
that a politician might pay political debts to other
smaller politicians in which the general public has
no interest. z And third, the political life of England,
from being a hundred years ago very corrupt, has
come to be perhaps the freest from the grosser forms
of corruption of any great popular government in
the world.2
Civil Service Pensions. Public servants who have
served for ten years may retire on a small pension
on becoming sixty years of age or on becoming physi
cally incapable of work. The employees cannot be
expected to exhibit fidelity and efficiency unless they
are assured of the tenure of their positions so long
as they do manifest these qualities, and the neces
sary familiarity and skill in their duties cannot be
attained without long service. But the salaries are
too low to admit of much saving, and hence some
system of civil service pensions is a necessity for the.
successful and efficient operation of the administra
tive machinery of the government.
1 Lowell, 171-2.
2 On the insidious influence of money through the practice of
"nursing" a constituency, see below, page 218.

part m
THE JUDICIARY
CHAPTER XVI
THE CRIMINAL COURTS
Complicated System. Though the English system
of courts has been greatly simplified of recent years,
the fact that it grew by irregular additions through
many centuries renders it still quite complicated.
Probably the best method of making it clear will
be to take up first the administration of criminal
justice, trace that from the lowest to the highest
court ; then do the same with the courts dealing with
civil cases; and lastly, give a view of the judicial
system as a whole.
The Justices of the Peace. The lowest judicial
officials in England are the justices of the peace.
There are many of these in every county, drawn
usually from the landed gentry in the country and
the successful men of business in the cities, and
serving without any pay.1 They are generally not
1 For the appointment and tenure of all judges, see page 203.
164

The Criminal Courts 165
educated as lawyers, though they of course acquire
considerable knowledge by practice.
Clerk of Petty Sessions. This lack of technical
knowledge is met by the requirement that they shall
choose as a recording officer and adviser a person
who is not only qualified as an efficient secretary,
but is also a lawyer of long training and practice.
This official, known as the Clerk of Petty Sessions,
advises the justices on all points of law, both in
conducting cases and in rendering their decisions,
while they contribute their common sense, experience
in affairs, and judgment on matters of fact.
Powers of a Single Justice. The powers that a
single justice may exercise may be summed up as
three: first, issuing warrants of arrest; second, try
ing without a jury trivial offences, and third, binding
over for trial at a higher court and granting bail to
persons whose offences exceed his jurisdiction.
The first and third items require no explanation.
In regard to the second, in the pettiest offences the
single justice may try the case without a jury.
There are also many other petty offences which he
may either dispose of in the same way or send up to
a higher court ; but he cannot in these cases impose
fine or imprisonment exceeding twenty shillings or
fourteen days, even though the higher court' might
inflict a heavier penalty. *
1 Alexander, 57.

1 66 The Judiciary
The Petty Sessions. Misdemeanours z above those
of ordinary police court jurisdiction are tried by
two or more justices sitting as a Court of Petty
Sessions in regularly designated places known as
petty sessions court-houses. These are dotted over
the county so as to bring justice near to every man's
door. The two or more justices present judge, both
law and facts without a jury. The accused, if con
victed, has the right of appeal for a complete new
trial to the Court of Quarter Sessions,2 or with cer
tain restrictions of an appeal on points of law to the
High Court of Justice in London. 3
Summary Jurisdiction. The trial of an offender
by Petty Sessions is known as summary jurisdiction ;
i. e. it is prompt, quick, and cheap; and in fact it
disposes of the vast mass of lesser misdemeanours
above petty police court cases. The accused cannot
demand to be tried summarily; for if the justices
think his offence sufficiently serious, even though
they have the right to try it, they will bind him over
to the Quarter Sessions or the Assizes.4 Nor can
summary trial be forced upon the accused; for the
1 Crimes are divided into misdemeanours (i. e. minor offences),
and "high crimes," or felonies (i. e. serious criminal acts). Viola
tions of city ordinances are not ordinarily spoken of as crimes.
3 For Court of Quarter Sessions see page 167.
' Lowell, ii., 454. For the High Court of Justice, see page 176
below. * For definition of Quarter Sessions and Assizes, see pages 167
and 176.

The Criminal Courts 167
justices must explain to him his right to be tried by
jury in the Quarter Sessions or the Assizes, inform
ing him that he will be immediately tried by them
selves summarily if he does not choose now to claim
the right of trial by jury before the higher court.
The court of summary jurisdiction (*. e. the Petty
Sessions) can impose no heavier punishment than
three months' imprisonment or a fine of £20, though
a higher court trying the same case with a jury
might inflict a severer sentence. z
Quarter Sessions. Next above the Court of Petty
Sessions stands the Court of Quarter Sessions.2
This consists of all the justices of the peace in the
county, or so many of them as attend, at least two
being necessary. Yorkshire and Lincolnshire are
each divided into three parts for the purpose of the
Quarter Sessions, the justices and courts of each
division being as separate from the others as those
of any two counties. Many large cities enjoy the
privileges of a county3 and have their own Court of
Quarter Sessions. In fact any city incorporated as
'The Petty Sessions may, with the consent of the parent, try
summarily any case against a child, except homicide; but a con
victed child under fourteen years of age cannot under any circum
stances be sentenced to imprisonment by any court, but must be
placed in a reformatory or otherwise dealt with as its interests seem
to require.
2 Or General Quarter Sessions, whence the custom in some Ameri
can States of calling the principal criminal court the Court of General
Sessions. » See page 230.

1 68 The Judiciary
a borough may have this arrangement. Thus we
have County Quarter Sessions and Borough Quarter
Sessions ; but in the latter there is a paid professional
judge who conducts the court as its sole judge, like
a judge with his jury in an ordinary criminal court
in America.
In the Quarter Sessions all questions for the deci
sion of the bench are settled by a majority vote of
the justices participating.
If business is heavy, the justices may divide into
groups, each group conducting business as a complete
court. The Clerk of the Peace. Though, as stated on
page 165, the justices do not generally possess legal
training, yet it is a fact that the one of their number
whom they choose. to act as their permanent chair
man of Quarter Sessions is usually a lawyer. z None
the less, the entire bench of justices for the county,
like the smaller groups in the various sections of the
county with their Clerk of Petty Sessions, are re
quired to elect as their clerk and legal guide a lawyer
of long standing. This official is known as the Clerk
of the Peace. Like the similar officer in the Petty
Sessions, 2 the Clerk of the Peace gives the justices
all necessary assistance during the course of the trial,
and after the hearing of evidence and argument,
advises them of the law in the case. It is, as de-
'Porritt, 111. 2 See pages 165-6.

The Criminal Courts 169
scribed above, a method of combining technical
training with the freer non-professional outlook.
Jurisdiction of the Quarter Sessions. Besides a
limited class of civil business, the jurisdiction of the
Quarter Sessions includes all criminal cases except,
first, mere police court offences, and second, a few
cases which are of the most serious character or
which involve difficult questions of law. This court
is, in fact, the great clearing house for criminal justice,
as much the larger portion of all indictable offences1
in the kingdom are tried in the Quarter Sessions of
the counties and boroughs.
Original, Appellate, and Concurrent Jurisdiction.
In order to understand some functions of the courts
which will presently appear, it is necessary at this
point to define the terms which stand at the head of
this paragraph. The original jurisdiction of a court
means its right to try a case in the first instance.
E. g., a single justice has original jurisdiction in
petty police court offences, such as simple disorderly
conduct. By appellate jurisdiction is meant the right of a
court to try a case over again on appeal from a lower
court in which it has already been tried. E. g.,
the Court of Quarter Sessions may in many instances
re-try on appeal the case of a person who has been
1 Indictable offences include all above the jurisdiction of a mere
police court. For fuller account of the indictment, see pages 174-5.

170 The Judiciary-
convicted in the Court of Petty Sessions, and may
either confirm or reverse the verdict first given.
By concurrent jurisdiction is meant the right of
either of two courts to try a case. E. g., except in a
few cases, either the Court of Quarter Sessions or the
Court of Assize (the court next above the Quarter
Sessions) can try in the first instance any of the
offences which come within the jurisdiction of the
Quarter Sessions. That is, the proper official may
send the accused before either court, choosing the
one which meets first or in which he believes stricter
justice will be administered.
Appellate Jurisdiction of the Quarter Sessions.
The appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Quarter
Sessions extends both to law and fact. That is, it
may on re-trial reverse the decision of the Court of
Petty Sessions, either because the latter court de
cided wrongly as to the facts as shown by the evi
dence, or because it misinterpreted and misapplied
the law governing the case. Also, new evidence
may be heard on the appeal. In brief, the appeal to
the Quarter Sessions secures an entirely new trial,
the same as if the case had been originally begun in
that court. But it is to be noted that, though the
Court of Quarter Sessions tries all criminal cases in
the first instance by a jury, in trying a case on appeal
it uses no jury. It is evident, however, that the
Clerk of the Peace, solving legal difficulties as they

The Criminal Courts 171
arise and at the conclusion of the evidence and argu
ment explaining the law bearing on the case, is in
effect a judge in the American sense, and that the
justices are virtually a standing jury of more than
usual intelligence, training, and authority.
What Cases May be Appealed. The law govern
ing the right of appeal from the lowest court to the
Quarter Sessions is too complicated to attempt here
more than the following rough summary :
Cases of petty police court character may be ap
pealed from a single justice to the Quarter Sessions
if the convicted person has been sentenced to im
prisonment without the alternative of a fine ;
Cases in which the punishment exceeds a certain
limit may be appealed from the single justice;
Cases of conviction before a single justice may
often be appealed although an appeal could not be
made if the accused had been convicted of the same
offence before two or more justices.
Many cases may be appealed from the Petty Ses
sions for a new trial before the Quarter Sessions.
A serious defect in the scrupulous fairness which
as a rule permeates British justice is the expense
attending an unsuccessful appeal from the single
justice or the Petty Sessions to the Quarter Sessions ;
for the appellant must enter into bond in a sum
of £20 or more to stand the costs of the appeal if
unsuccessful. This amounts to nothing less than

172 The Judiciary
practically denying to the poor the right of appeal
and without doubt causes much injustice.
Besides the appeal to the Quarter Sessions for a
re-trial before that court, there is allowed with
certain limitations an appeal from a single justice,
Petty Sessions, or Quarter Sessions on a point of
law to the High Court of Justice. *
Different Functions of the Judge and the Jury.
It is well to explain at this point the difference in
function of the judge and the jury. The judge's
duty is to know and apply the law to the case in
question. He is not to decide upon the facts. That
is the prerogative in a free country of the jury of the
fellow-citizens of the person on trial in a criminal
case or of the parties to the controversy in a civil
case. The citizen is thus protected from having his
life, liberty, or property imperilled by the say-so of
a government official, but rests in the security of the
judgment of his peers and fellow-citizens, men who
hold no public place, have no professional impulse
to vindicate their official position or to enforce mere
authority as distinct from justice and the public
good. While it is true that the trained and practised
mind of an educated judge is far better fitted to
decide a matter of pure logic or intellect, it is also
true that a judge almost inevitably comes to imbibe
such a preconception in favour of law and the su-
1 For the High Court of Justice, see page 176.

The Criminal Courts 173
premacy of the state that he would in many cases
be unfavourably biassed against the accused. Con
sequently the jury, though not so well trained or of
such natural intelligence as the judge, is a safer
guardian of the liberty of the citizen. The jury, if
properly guarded against the admission of ignorant*
or corrupt men, is pretty sure to be capable of saying
which of two sides has made the better showing, in
the mere facts' of the case.
But however intelligent a jury might be, it cannot
be expected to know the rules and enactments of the
vast body of law which has been built up through
centuries. It is therefore necessary that the judge
shall state and explain to them the law bearing upon
the particular case before them, in order that they
may intelligently render their verdict on the facts
in the light of the legal rights and obligations of all
concerned. Right to Trial by Jury. We may here summarize
the part played by the jury in the criminal courts.
The single justice and the Court of Petty Sessions
in trying the petty cases which fall within their
jurisdiction employ no jury. In the Court of Quar
ter Sessions the accused is always tried by jury,
except on appeal from the lower court, in which case
the justices judge both law and fact. We may state
here also that the Court of Assize1 — the court for
1 See page 176.

174 The Judiciary
serious crimes — always employs a jury, as does also
the King's Bench Division of the High Court of
Justice,1 when trying a person by original jurisdic
tion. Grand Jury and Petty Jury. Since practically
everyone is in a general way familiar with the trial
of a case by jury, we have so far assumed that the
word jury referred to a trial jury. The jury which
hears a criminal case and declares the accused guilty
or not guilty is called the petty jury, or trial jury.
In England it consists of twelve men chosen from
those who possess a certain low property qualifi
cation, namely owning or occupying land of an an
nual rental value of £io.z Their verdict must be
unanimous. Before any one can be put to the humiliation and
expense of a trial for a serious offence, he must be
indicted by the grand jury. The grand jury is
drawn from citizens of a considerably higher property
qualification and consists of not less than twelve
nor more than twenty-three members. They ex
amine the broad general facts of the case as brought
to their attention by a private citizen, the public
prosecutor, or their own investigation. If the charge
is evidently frivolous they say "no true bill," and
the accused is dismissed. If, however, there appears
1 See pages 177 and 179.
* With certain other qualifications for non-landowners.

The Criminal Courts 175
sufficient evidence to warrant a trial, they say "true
bill," and the case is given to the petty jury for trial.
For this at least twelve of the twenty-three members
of the grand jury must agree.
The Indictment. A "true bill" is also called an
indictment. The accused can be tried only for the
crime specifically charged in the indictment. The
purpose of the grand jury and the indictment is thus
to prevent vexatious and unjust affliction to innocent
persons through prosecution arising from lack of
judgment or personal spite, and also to enable the
accused to know exactly the nature of the charge
against which he must be prepared to defend himself.
Even though the grand jury may find "no true
bill," a "true bill" may later be found by another
grand jury on the same accusation. But when a
person is once acquitted by a petty jury, he can
never be tried again for that offence, even if it should
be proved that he was acquitted by false testimony
or if new evidence conclusively establishing his guilt
should be discovered. Though a person richly
deserving punishment may at times escape in this
way, it is a proper provision; for one must be able
to know that he is free from the peril of trial after
trial, after, perhaps, the witnesses who could estab
lish his innocence are dead. "It is better for ten
guilty men to escape rather than for one innocent
person to perish."

176 The Judiciary
There is no grand jury or indictment in the small
cases tried without a petty jury.
Assize of the High Court of Justice. Next above
the Court of Quarter Sessions stands the Court of
Assize, or the Assize of the High Court of Justice.
This august tribunal, with which lie the issues of
life and death, of liberty or life imprisonment, and
the weightier matters of the civil law, presents the
most imposing aspect of English justice outside the
highest courts in London. The judge's entrance to
the court-house is marked with solemn ceremony.
His head is covered with a great wig that adds dignity
to his appearance; while administering civil justice
he wears a black silk gown, and when he takes up
criminal business the change is impressively an
nounced by his being clothed in a robe of crim
son. When he performs the solemn duty of
passing sentence of death, he removes his wig and
places upon his head a black cap worn only for this
occasion. The organization and relationships of this court
are so complex that we shall explain them at this
point only so far as is necessary for the purposes of
this chapter.
The High Court of Justice. In London there is
a body of twenty-five judges having authority over
the whole country, and called "the High Court of
Justice." There are three divisions of this court,

The Criminal Courts 177
for trying different kinds of cases. z The one which
concerns us now is the King's Bench Division of the
High Court of Justice, or, for short, the King's Bench
Division. This consists of sixteen judges chosen
from among the eminent lawyers of the country.
The judges of the King's Bench Division are the ones
who are sent out from London to hold the Assizes
of the High Court of Justice. 2
Circuits. For holding the Assizes, England (in
cluding Wales) is divided into eight circuits, each
containing several counties. One or two of the
judges of the King's Bench Division of the High
Court of Justice are assigned to each circuit, to visit
either singly or together their circuit four times a
year. In case they go together, one holds criminal
while the other holds civil court. The court is held
in at least one place in each county; but several of
the larger counties are cut up for this purpose into
two or three divisions, each of which is treated as a
separate county. This system of circuit courts
1 Any judge may sit on any kind of case, and any of the three
divisions of the court may apply either common law or equity.
2 The Central Criminal Court. Not to break the systematic de
scription of the courts of the text, an account of the Central Crimi
nal Court is inserted here. This court serves as a Court of Quarter
Sessions for the City of London proper and as a Court of Assize for
the metropolitan district. It meets monthly and is presided over
by judges of the High Court of Justice or certain judges of the
City of London. It sits usually in three, or if pressure of business
demands, in four or even five divisions, each in effect a separate
court.

178 The Judiciary
presided over by royal judges sent out from London
was organized in the twelfth century by Henry II
and stands as one of its founder's surest titles to
statesmanship. By means of it uniform laws and
justice were made possible throughout the realm and
England was put centuries ahead of the countries
of the continent in nationality, union, and legal
development. Jurisdiction of the Court of Assize. The Assize
of the High Court of Justice can try any indictable
offence, i. e. any crime above the petty misdemean
ours which are reserved for the lowest courts, or to
put it more exactly, any case for the trial of which
the finding of a " true bill " by the grand jury is neces
sary. Cases involving the death penalty or life
imprisonment or difficult points of law are reserved
for the Assize alone, but less serious indictment
cases may be tried either in it or the Court of Quar
ter Sessions. As a matter of fact, the Quarter
Sessions dispose of most of the latter, and the Assizes
are occupied mainly with the graver cases.
Relations of Assizes to Other Courts. Though
the judge who goes out to hold the Assizes is a mem
ber of the King's Bench Division of the High Court
of Justice, he is not, on Assize, holding the Court of
King's Bench, ' nor is he performing that duty under
the control, supervision, or appellate jurisdiction of
1 There is in fact now no Court of King's Bench.

The Criminal Courts 179
the King's Bench Division. He is, on the contrary,
holding the Assize, or local meeting, of the High
Court of Justice, the great national court of which
the King's Bench Division is only one part. The
Assize is indeed co-ordinate with the King's Bench
Division, z and* appeals lie from either of them to
their common superiors, the Court of Appeal in
civil cases and to the Court of Criminal Appeal in
criminal cases.
Though the Assizes are superior in grade to the
Courts of Petty and Quarter Sessions, yet they have
no appellate jurisdiction over those courts, appeals
from which go straight to London to the King's
Bench Division of the High Court of Justice or the
Court of Appeal or the Court of Criminal Appeal,
according to the nature of the case. 2
The Original and Appellate Jurisdiction of the
King's Bench Division. The King's Bench Division
of the High Court of Justice, though not superior
in jurisdiction to the Court of Assize, is superior in
learning and dignity, as it comprises all the judges
who separately hold the Assizes. It is provided,
therefore, that certain cases of exceptional impor
tance may be, at the desire of the government, tried
before the King's Bench Division. Such cases are
comparatively few.
'Alexander, 118.
2 The functions and relations of the Court of Appeal and the Court
of Criminal Appeal are explained on pages 180-82, and 199-200.

180 The Judiciary
The King's Bench Division of the High Court of
Justice acts as a court of appeal for errors in law by
the courts of Petty and Quarter Sessions, and as
such it has extensive duties.
The Court of Criminal Appeal. In 1907, Parlia
ment established a court for hearing appeals from
the Courts of Quarter Sessions and Assize, a right
which had previously existed in such a limited degree
as to lead to the statement generally made that there
was no right of appeal in criminal cases. The state
ment in that extreme form is inaccurate; for even
before 1907 there was the right of appeal on account
of an unmistakable error in the record, and Petty
and Quarter Sessions could be restrained from com
mitting wrong or compelled to perform a manifest
duty by an order obtained from a superior court.
Moreover the presiding judge in these courts could
of his own will refer a point of law for decision to the
higher court. All this was inadequate, however,
and permitted many a wrong for which no remedy
whatever existed. It was the occurrence of a pecu
liarly outrageous miscarriage of justice from the want
of a proper system of appeals that led to the estab
lishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal.
This court may hear appeals in any indictable
offence, i. e. any crime above mere police court
offences, which is the same as to say in any case in
which there has been found a true bill by a grand

JThe Criminal Courts 181
jury. Its duties are of course mainly to deal with
cases of a serious nature. The Court of Criminal
Appeal consists of three or more judges uneven in
number chosen by the Lord Chief Justice (the head
of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of
Justice) from the King's Bench Division for that
purpose. It hears its cases, of course, without a
jury. The appeal to this court may be on account of
any one of a number of reasons, or on account of
several reasons taken together. First, the con
victed person may ask the court to reverse the con
viction because the verdict was not sustained by
the facts. Second, he may appeal on a point of
law; i. e. he may ask to be set free because the judge
in the lower court either committed or permitted
some error which caused him to be convicted unjustly.
Third, he may appeal to have his sentence reduced,
unless its amount is fixed by law without discretion
on the judge's part. z
In no case can the Court of Criminal Appeal
order a new trial. It disposes finally of the case by
either confirming, reversing, reducing, or increasing
the sentence of the lower court. In most cases this
is eminently proper and contributes greatly to the
promptness! and certainty of justice — qualities so
1 On points of law the right to appeal is absolute; on other points
leave must be granted by the Court of Criminal Appeal or the
court from which appeal is made.

1 82 The Judiciary
seriously impaired in this country by undue pro
longation through appeal, remanding to the lower
court for re-trial, and again appeal, and so forth
until years are consumed and justice dies, so to
speak, of suspended animation. There arise cases,
however, in which an entire re-trial before a jury
is needed, and the judges of the English Court of
Criminal Appeal have expressed their regret that
it is not possible for them at times to order this.
No appeal can be taken from the decision of the
Court of Criminal Appeal unless the Attorney-General
certifies that the case involves points of exceptional
public importance. In that event, appeal lies from
the Court of Criminal Appeal to the House of Lords,
the ancient supreme court of England.
The Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. In remote
times, when laws were few and simple, the House of
Lords could perform the duty of a supreme court
acceptably; but now none can do so except trained
lawyers. For this purpose there are four eminent
lawyers appointed lords for life (i. e. they do not
transmit their titles to their sons) to discharge this
duty for the Lords. They are called Lords of
Appeal in Ordinary, or law lords, and together with
the Lord Chancellor and any other lords who may
have held high judicial office whom they choose to
invite, they constitute in effect the supreme court of
Great Britain. Though any member of the House

The Criminal Courts 183
of Lords has the legal right to attend and vote on
appeals, a custom as strong as law forbids; and
should any lord attempt such conduct it would
promptly be made impossible in future by an appro
priate statute.
Prosecution of Offenders. Prosecutions are con
ducted in England with less system than in other
countries. The Attorney-General, or his assistant
and substitute the Solicitor-General, conducts the
prosecution of a few cases of national importance.
There is also an official called the Director of Public
.Prosecutions, with several assistants, who is obliged
to prosecute in all capital offences, in those of great
public importance, and in a fewothers. As a matter
of fact these amount to only a few hundred cases
annually for the whole country.
The vast bulk of cases are still prosecuted, in
theory, by private persons, usually those having
suffered the wrong; but the expense is now borne by
the county. The prosecution is conducted by a
lawyer employed for the purpose, as there is no regu
lar prosecuting attorney for ordinary cases as in the
United States.1
The Power of the Judge. An English judge not
only states and explains the law to the jury and sees
that the whole trial is conducted legally, but also
in his address, or charge, to the jury immediately
'Alexander, 127-35; Lowell, i., I33~4; Porritt, 109, 115.

184 The Judiciary
before their entering into consultation, he sums up
and comments upon the evidence on both sides.
This practice regarding the evidence is still allowed
in some American States, while in others the judge
is confined to explaining and applying the law.
While it allows an unfair judge a dangerous oppor
tunity, it doubtless on the whole is of assistance to
the jury in administering justice to have the services
of a trained lawyer who is interested in neither side
call to their attention the essential and unessential,
the important * and the negligible features of the
evidence, "and thus concentrate their minds upon the
points in the proper consideration of which a correct
decision rests.
' Promptness of English Courts. Justice in Eng
land is swift and sure. While there is no hurry,
there is also no useless delay. It is unusual for more
than three months, says Porritt, to elapse between
the arrest of a guilty murderer and his execution.
"British justice" is reputed to be as scrupulously
fair as it is relentlessly prompt, and this reputation
is the better deserved since the establishment of the
Court of Criminal Appeal; for not only do the number
of cases reversed by this court prove the imperative
need of such a court, but its presence has exercised
a wholesome effect in making the courts below more
careful. z
1 Alexander, 124.

The Criminal Courts 185
Not only is British justice proverbially fair and
prompt, but it is little coloured by passion and sen
timentality, either in the trial or the pardon of
offenders. When to the pleas for the life of Sir
Roger Casement when convicted of treason on the
ground that his execution would affect public senti
ment unfavourably, particularly in America, the
Ministry replied that in England they neither exe
cute innocent men nor pardon guilty ones for reasons
of policy, but in accordance with the demands of
justice, they pointed out the immovable corner-stone
on which the temple of justice must be squarely
built; but to many Americans it was an utterance
very hard to comprehend.
The rarity of crimes of violence in England is of
course largely due to the settled and mature stage
of its society; but it cannot be doubted that it is
also largely due to the certainty of punishment.
The vast majority of homicides are hanged inside
of a year. England has the lowest average of
murders of any country in the world. Men will not
kill each other if speedy hanging is a practical cer
tainty, any more than they will thrust their hands
into a fire knowing it will surely burn them.
Pardon. The right of pardon lies nominally
with the Crown, but actually with the Secretary of
State for Home Affairs. It is exercised sparingly.
Summary. In closing this chapter, we may review

1 86 The Judiciary
the various grades of courts in the reverse order
from that in which they have been considered. At
the top is the House of Lords (really the Lord Chan
cellor and the four Lords of Appeal in Ordinary);
immediately below is the Court of Criminal Appeal,
composed of an odd number of judges of the High
Court of Justice; next are two courts which are of
the same grade but different dignity, the King's
Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, com
posed of sixteen judges, and the Assizes of the High
Court of Justice held in each county by one of these
judges. Appeal from either of these may be made
to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the former also
decides appeals on points of law from the Quarter
Sessions and Petty Sessions. The Quarter Sessions
try cases on appeal from the Petty Sessions and also
try in the first instance any crimes except the most
serious, which are reserved for the Assizes. At the
bottom of the system are the two justices without
jury exercising summary jurisdiction in petty cases
and the single justice committing to a higher court,
granting bail, or acting as a sort of police court in
trivial offences.
We shall now take up the courts for the trial of
civil cases. ,

CHAPTER XVII
THE CIVIL COURTS
The Nature of Civil Business. Civil law is much
more complicated and difficult than criminal law;
for the latter is concerned more directly with those
fundamental principles of right and wrong that ap
peal to the common conscience and intelligence of
mankind, whereas the former has to do with the
innumerable questions and issues arising from the
endless relationships of men in society over their
property, personal rights, and obUgations. Any
right which one person claims and another disputes,
or any injury which one person does another, may
become the subject matter of a civil suit. If one
person harms another by repeating a slanderous
rumour, he unquestionably commits a wrong and
injury, and for this the injured party may secure
money damages in the civil court. Even a crime,
such as murder, may form the basis for a civil suit;
for the civil court will award damages to the heirs
of the murdered man if they bring suit, since an
187

1 88 The Judiciary
injury has been done to them. In trying the case
in the civil court for the purpose of awarding damages
to the injured person, or in the criminal court for
meting out such punishment as justice and public
safety demand, the civil and criminal courts act
entirely independently of each other. Thus a per
son may be acquitted in a criminal prosecution for
assaulting another, but may nevertheless be com
pelled by the *civil court to pay heavy damages to
the person assaulted.
Common Law. In early times there was little
law-making by King or Parliament and society was in
such a slowly developing state that few new laws
were needed. Under such circumstances, the customs
of a people come to be regarded as binding and in
time acquire the force of law. It is necessary, how
ever, that some authority shall interpret and apply
these customs. This was the duty of the courts.
Thus through the centuries the English courts grad
ually built up a set of rules governing most of the
circumstances which are likely to arise in the rela
tions of men in a simple society. This body of
customs having the sanction of the courts is known
as common law. Common law is generally defined
to be that which hath been law and custom since the
memory of man runneth not to the contrary. All
the ordinary crimes violating the fundamental
rights of our fellow-men, such as murder, assault

The Civil Courts 189
and battery, robbery, house burning, were thus
recognized as wrong and were punished by the
courts long before any Parliament undertook to pass
on the subject. These are known as common law
crimes. Similarly the fundamental rights of life,
liberty, and property were early recognized and
protected by the courts, such as the right of the
father to discipline his children and his obligation
to furnish them with the necessities of life.
The law governing all these matters has been
expanded and applied to new conditions by the
courts through the centuries of the development of
English institutions, until it has become an immense
body of law which requires years of study to master.
The courts which enforce it are known as common
law courts.
Statute Law. As time went on, the right of the
judges to declare what should be binding as custom
and law was limited by the determination of the re
presentatives of the people in Parliament to make
law for themselves. Acts passed by Parliament
(or any such legislative body) are known as statute
law, because it originated in some definite statute.
The common law courts, however, enforce statute
law just as they do common law.
Equity. It is impossible for men to foresee every
circumstance that might arise and the peculiarities
of every individual case. Therefore many cases

190 The Judiciary
arose in which the law did not properly apply, or if
it should be enforced, would work manifest injustice,
such as was not intended by its makers. In such
cases it was customary in early times in England for
the person aggrieved to apply to the King, as no
other remedy existed, for such equitable (that is
just) relief as the King's sense of justice might sug
gest. The King referred such cases to the high
official called the Chancellor, who was considered
the "keeper of the King's conscience" and was in
those days practically always a churchman, with
directions to afford such relief as the case demanded.
The necessity for this extraordinary power arose not
so much out of conflict with the provisions of the
common law, but rather because of the fact that the
common law had not provided for such cases and
hence afforded no remedy; though in some cases the
Chancellor did actually overrule the common law
in his decisions.
The court which the Chancellor thus came to
hold was called the Chancery Court, and the body of
principles and rules which he built up came to be
called equity, in distinction from law; though in the
general meaning of law, equity is a part of the law
of the land.
There thus grew up two sets of courts, law courts
and equity courts, each with its own judges, its own
rules, and its own methods.

The Civil Courts 191
No Jury in Equity Cases. Bearing in mind the
difference in the functions of the judge and the jury
as explained on page 172, we can readily understand
the different practice in the law courts and the equity
courts in regard to the jury. Since the settlement
of disputed matters of fact is one of the chief duties
of the law court, it always employs a jury, z and the
judge simply guides and assists the jury by instruct
ing them in the law in the case before them and in
general sees that all the proceedings are in accord
ance with law. In other words, the jury ascertains
the facts, and the judge applies the law to the facts
so determined.
Since in cases in equity, however, the chief task
is to determine what is essentially just in a certain
set of circumstances, and the determination of the
mere matters of fact is not so prominent, the pre
sence of a jury is not only unnecessary, but would
render impossible the attainment of the object in
view, namely, the determination of the right arid
just decision by a trained mind in a difficult and com
plicated set of circumstances. Hence the rule in
law cases is to have a jury; in equity cases to have
no jury, but to leave the whole case to the Chancellor. 2
1 Except in civil cases as explained on page 195.
'Since even in an equity case, however, it is often necessary to
settle disputes between the parties as to the facts themselves, the
Chancellor may refer the determination of the facts to a jury, while
reserving entirely to himself the determination of what shall be done
when the facts are so established.

192 The Judiciary
Steps towards Uniting Law and Equity. It is
now provided in England that either a law judge or
a chancery judge may apply either law or equity
in any case that comes before him. This seems a
step in the direction of removing the artificial separa
tion of cases, practice, methods, and courts into two
divisions ; but as a matter of fact little progress has
been made in that direction. The law judge or the
Chancellor does indeed apply either law or equity
as is necessary; for frequently a case is one partly
in law and partly in equity ; but it is a fact that the
cases are still divided sharply between the two sets
of courts according as they fall principally under law
or equity.
In most American States the separate equity
courts have been abolished, and the same court
applies law or equity in the trial of the case as occa
sion requires. But each case is still regarded as an
equity case or a law case as its circumstances dictate,
and the functions of the judge and jury respectively
are as described above.
It is also interesting to note that equity has lost
most of its early flexibility and has come to be nearly
as rigid as the "law," whose rigidity it was designed
to remedy. The Chancellor's opinion as to what
is equity should not of course be any individual's
mere notion. If the decrees of the Chancellor were
to be of practical value in guiding men in their

The Civil Courts 193
difficulties they must be consistent in themselves
and permanent in effect. An equity case once
decided became a precedent for similar cases, until
a long line of decisions by his predecessors left the
Chancellor deprived of the option of granting justice
on the untrammelled and unsupported dictates of
his own reason and conscience almost as completely
as was the judge, bound by acts of Parliament and
the rules of the common law.
The County Courts. Having now explained the
meaning of civil cases and pointed out the two
varieties, law and equity, we shall proceed to de
scribe the courts in which the civil law is adminis
tered, beginning, as in the previous chapter, with
the lowest courts and passing upwards to the
highest. For the settlement of cases of minor importance
there exist a large number of courts called County
Courts, though they have no connection with county
lines, but simply retain the name apparently for
the sake of tradition. For this purpose England is
divided into more than five hundred districts, in
each of which there is a County Court which meets
at least once a month.1 The districts are grouped
into about fifty circuits, and for each circuit there is
a judge, who must be a lawyer of many years' train
ing. These circuits have no connection, with those
1 Porritt, 116.
13

194 The Judiciary
which have been described in connection with the
Assizes. Jurisdiction of the County Courts. The business
of the County Courts is purely civil, as they have
no criminal jurisdiction whatever. Their purpose
is to supply prompt and cheap settlement of the
vast mass of controversies involving small amounts
which arise in the ordinary business of commerce
and the relations of men in society. The procedure
is much more simple than in the higher courts, so
much so that many persons conduct their own
cases. They administer both law and equity, and
can try any case in the former in which the amount
involved does not exceed £100 and in the latter in
which it does not exceed £500. Certain cases,
however, which involve unusual difficulties of law
are withheld from them, no matter how small the
amount. In cases involving over £20, or in smaller cases
with the consent of the judges, appeal may be made
from the County Court to the High Court of Justice
in London.1 The appeal is generally heard by the
King's Bench Division of the High Court.2
1 Lowell, ii., 452, n. 3.
'For the divisions of the High Court of Justice, see pp. 176-77.
Admiralty cases go by appeal to the Admiralty Division. Though
the Chancery Division does not formally receive " appeals " except
from its own subordinates, the masters and conveyancing counsel,
it sometimes reviews or restrains the County Courts in equity
matters. For brief statement, see Britannica, ii., 211-12.

The Civil Courts 195
Juries in Civil Cases. While the jury is always
used in criminal cases above the courts of summary
jurisdiction, z this is not true in civil cases. Both in
the Assizes and in the inferior courts, either party in
a lawsuit has the right to demand a jury; but it is
probably more common to agree to do away with the
jury and submit both law and fact to the decision
of the judge. In the County Courts the jury num
bers eight; in the higher courts twelve. In any
civil case a verdict may, by the consent of both
sides, be rendered by a majority of the jury, though
in criminaf cases a unanimous verdict is always
required. There are three classes of juries in England for
civil cases. First are ordinary juries, which are drawn
from citizens owning land worth an annual rental
of £10 a year, with certain other qualifications for
non-landowners — the same qualifications as required
for jurors in criminal cases. Second, there are special
juries drawn from bankers, merchants, or men occu
pying land or buildings of considerably greater value ;
and third, there are extra special juries drawn from
the list of the special jurors of a considerably wider
area than is the case with other juries. The ordinary
juror receives only a shilling a day ; the special juror
receives in addition a lump sum of one guinea for
each case. The special jury can be demanded by
1 /. e. courts trying small cases without jury. See page 166.

196 The Judiciary
either party to a suit. The one making the demand
pays the extra expense. They are growing in popu
larity, as their judgments are more relied upon than
are those of the ordinary jury.1 This presents a
striking contrast with the tendency in the United
States, where instead of putting the qualification
for jurors higher than that for voters, and then in
addition providing for the employment of men of
unusual intelligence and training for the more diffi
cult cases, the law too often exempts large classes of
the community whose daily vocations and general
education and intelligence best fit them for_ the
difficult task of weighing evidence and keeping
themselves free from the appeals of prejudice and
passion. The justification for the special jury in civil cases
lies in the fact that such questions are often more
difficult than criminal trials, and that they sometimes
involve facts of commerce or land tenure of such a
technical nature as to render long familiarity with
these matters very needful in the juror. The guilt
or innocence of a man being tried for his life on the
charge of killing his neighbour is of much more
importance, but is not nearly so difficult as to ascer
tain the right to the property involved in a disputed
bill of exchange or a deed transferring an entailed
estate. 'Lowell, ii., 459-60; Porritt, 108; Britannica, xv., 590-92.

The Civil Courts 197
The Assizes. We recall from the last chapter
that the Court of Assize consists of a judge or judges
of the High Court of Justice in London sent down on
circuit to hold court in the various counties of the
country. The Assizes have both criminal and civil
jurisdiction. In the latter they can try any case
in law or equity; though the more important cases in
equity are carried in the first instance directly to the
Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in
London. The Assizes are held in each county at
least four times a year for criminal business and
generally twice a year for civil business.
The High Court of Justice. It is now necessary
to explain more fully the nature and organization of
the High Court of Justice, to which frequent allusion
has been made. This court has authority over all
England and Wales, and is the successor of the
great national courts of the kings of the Middle
Ages by means of which law was made national
and uniform and England given such a start be
yond the nations of the continent in the orderly
administration of justice.1 It is organized in three
divisions: the Chancery Division, with seven judges,
of which the Lord Chancellor is President; the
King's Bench Division, with sixteen judges, of
which the Lord Chief Justice is President ; and' the
Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division, with
1 See page 177, above.

i.98 The Judiciary
two judges, one of whom is designated as President
of that Division.
The duties of the Chancery Division are to hear
cases in equity.1 These may be heard by masters,
conveyancing counsel, County Courts, or the As
sizes, or may be carried to the Chancery Division
in London in the first instance. The Chancery
Division sometimes interferes to correct a County
Court, but regularly hears appeals only from its
equity officers, the masters and conveyancing
counsel. 2
The King's Bench Division will be recalled as
that Division of the High Court of Justice whose
judges are sent on circuit to hold the Assizes. The
King's Bench Division has original jurisdiction in
certain criminal cases of unusual importance.3 Its
other duties are to hear appeals on errors in law from
the Courts of Petty and Quarter Sessions.4 It
hears such appeals in civil matters also from the
County Courts except in a few classes of cases.
The Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division hears
in the first instance all divorce cases and hears
on appeal cases from the lower courts having to do
with wills (Probate) and maritime law (Admiralty).
It is thus plain that though the seven judges of
1 See above, pages 189-90.
' Jenks's Short History of English Law, 362.
3 See above, page 179. ¦> See pages 166-9 above.

The Civil Courts 199
the Chancery Division, the sixteen of the King's
Bench Division, and the two of the Probate, Divorce,
and Admiralty Division are called as a whole the
High Court of Justice, there is really no such court ;
for they never meet as a whole and have no duties
as a whole. From their number are chosen the
judges who go on circuit to hold "a court of the said
High Court," called the Assize of the High Court of
Justice; and so on with all the courts which its
judges hold. Such courts are made up of one or
more of the judges chosen from the High Court to
hold some special court, called the Chancery Divi
sion, or some other, of the High Court.
Though the High Court of Justice is organized in
three Divisions each with its own group of judges, yet
a judge of one Division may sit in any other Division.
This has the advantage of flexibility; but more im
portant than this is the fact that any Division of the
court may administer either law or equity, as ex
plained on page 192.
The Court of Appeal. This eminent tribunal consists
of five Lords Justices of Appeal appointed specifically
to this office and of the following ex-officio members:
the Lord Chancellor and any former Lord Chancellor
whom he may invite, the Lord Chief Justice,1
'The Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench Division of the
High Court of Justice (see page 197), commonly spoken of as The
Lord Chief Justice of England or the Chief Justice.

200 The Judiciary
the Master of the Rolls, z and the President of the Pro
bate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division.2 Stated
more briefly, the Court of Appeal consists of its own
six justices (for the Master of the Rolls belongs only
to it) and the Presidents of the three Divisions of the
High Court of Justice ex-officio. The six regular judges
work in two sections and so virtually constitute two
courts. The absence of a member or the necessity of
organizing a third section or of securing wider judg
ment may be met by calling in ex-officio members.
The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is purely
civil, but in this it is quite far reaching. Except in
prize cases, it hears appeals from any Division of
the High Court of Justice and from certain courts
below that tribunal. We may say briefly, without
any attempt at outlining the complex rules governing
the matter, that its jurisdiction extends to appeals
arising in England and Wales in cases of equity, to
appeals on errors in law, to certain appeals from
County Courts, 3 and to appeals on questions of law
from the Railway and Canal Commission. 4
The Supreme Court of Judicature. To conclude
our description of this very complicated system, the
1 An ancient and honourable judge; until 1881 a member of the
Chancery Court, but since that time "a member of the Court of
Appeal only."
2 See page 197.
3 Cases under the Agricultural Holdings Acts and the Working-
men's Compensation Acts.
¦1 For appeals from Scotland, Ireland, the colonies, and church
courts, see Chapter XVIII.

The Civil Courts 201
High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal
taken together are called the Supreme Court of
Judicature. This, however, is really not a court,
but only a name for a collection of courts, each of
which attends separately to its own business. No
such body as the Supreme Court of Judicature ever
meets, deliberates, tries cases, or renders decisions.
The Supreme Court of Judicature was created be
fore the Court of Criminal Appeal, * and hence the lat
ter was not included as a part of the former. It is
virtually a part of it, however, as its judges are chosen
from it, and as it is the counterpart in criminal
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in civil business.
The House of Lords. The function of the House
of Lords as the supreme and final court of appeal in
England has already been explained on page 182.
In civil cases there is not the necessity of obtaining
the Attorney-General's or any one else's consent
for an appeal from the Court of Appeals to the Lords.
A civil suit not being a matter concerning the gov
ernment, no government official has any part in it
save to sit as judge or to perform such duties as
sheriff or clerk as the judge may direct.
Reference to the table of courts following page
372 will serve as a review of the last two chapters
and help to make clearer a quite difficult subject.
1 See page 180.

CHAPTER XVIII
MISCELLANEOUS FACTS ABOUT THE COURTS
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
First among the features of the English judicial
system, omitted in the two preceding chapters in
order to give a clear account of the courts, is the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The
Privy Council, as explained on page 124, is now
merely an honorary body, taking no part in the
government. Yet certain important officials or
groups of officials are nominally committees of the
Privy Council. Such is the case in the present
instance. A half dozen or more persons who bear
the title of Privy Councillor and have the requisite
qualifications of profound legal learning are de
signated as the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council. These are the Lord Chancellor, the four
Lords of Appeal in- Ordinary, several judges who
have held high judicial positions in India or some
self-governing colony, and, if invited, several other
judges of high standing. 202

Miscellaneous Facts about Courts 203
Powers of the Judicial Committee. The Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council is the highest court
of appeal in all cases from the church courts and
from the highest courts of the colonies, and, after
the Home Rule Act goes into force, from the highest
court of Ireland.1 The strange fact that this body
of laymen, any member of whom might be a mem
ber of some other than the established church or
of no church at all, should have the last word as
to what is law in religious matters, is an incident of
the union of church and state.
The Central Criminal Court. In describing the
criminal courts we passed over the fact that there
is a different arrangement in London from that in
the rest of the country. There a judge of the High
Court of Justice and several judges for the city
hold the Central Criminal Court once a month.
They sit in four or five divisions, each being in effect
a complete court. The court discharges for the
metropolis the functions of both the Quarter Ses
sions and the Assizes. It tries a large proportion
of the criminal business of the entire kingdom,
due to the vast population and peculiar problems
of the capital.
Appointment and Tenure of Judges. The Lord
Chancellor appoints all judges from the highest to
1 Previous to that, the House of Lords was the supreme court of
appeal from Ireland as from Scotland.

204 The Judiciary
the lowest, including justices of the peace, with four
exceptions: he himself and the Lord Chief Justice
(the head of the King's Bench Division of the High
Court of Justice), the judges of the Court of Appeal,
and the four Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are ap
pointed by the Prime Minister.1 The justices of
the peace and the judges of the County Court
are removable on the recommendation of the Lord
Chancellor; but removal occurs only for improper
conduct, and never for partisan or personal reasons.
The judges of higher grade are removable by im
peachment, or they may be removed by the Crown
on petition of a mere majority vote of the two
houses of Parliament.
The salaries of all English judges are much higher
than those in the United States. The justices of the
peace, however, receive no pay.
Non- Judicial Duties of the Justices of the Peace.
The justices of the peace were originally a superior
grade of police officer rather than judges, and with
time they came to be "the state's man of all work";
for on them were placed the increasing tasks of the
care of the poor and the administration of local
government in general. They still retain a few of
these powers, one of the chief of which is to call out
* It is of course understood that they are all appointed nominally
by the King; the actual selecting of the men is, however, as stated in
the text.

Miscellaneous Facts about Courts 205
the troops in case of riot. They have the authority
to read the riot act, and after waiting a reasonable
time for the rioters to disperse, to order the troops
to fire.
Barristers and Solicitors. A distinction exists be
tween the members of the bar in England to which
the practice in America is a complete stranger. This
is the division of lawyers into two classes with differ
ent privileges and to a great extent with different
tasks. The lower rank of attorneys are called so
licitors. They are admitted to practice after an
examination by an association of solicitors authorized
by Parliament to conduct examinations and main
tain the standards of the profession. A solicitor
cannot practice in any court above the grade of the
County Court and the Court of Quarter Sessions.
If the case is of a character which requires argument
in a higher court, the solicitor collects the evidence,
prepares all the papers, and in general gets the case
in shape for trial. He then employs a lawyer known
as a barrister to conduct the case before the court.
The barrister is admitted to the bar on examination
by one of the four ancient associations in London
known as the Inns of Court. He can practice in
courts of any grade and may render legal service of
any kind; but he must not be employed directly by
the client, or person interested in the case. The
client employs a solicitor and has communication

206 The Judiciary
only with his solicitor. If a barrister is required or
desired, the solicitor employs him, though of course
the client pays. While solicitors are found all over
the country, the barristers generally reside in London
and go out to the Assizes with the judges of the High
Court on circuit; but a few barristers have their
residence in the larger cities outside London.
While barristers confine themselves strictly to the
practice of law, the solicitors perform many services
for their clients of a business rather than a legal
nature. It is thought by some that this division of
the legal profession into two classes, one of which is
employed only by another class of the profession
itself, makes for the dignity and purity of practice
and for the development of law as a science to a higher
degree than does the American system in which the
members of the bar observe no such distinction. z
Scotland and Ireland. Before the union of Scot
land and England, the former was in close contact
with France and hence its law came to be much
influenced by the Roman law. The two systems of
courts and practice are still kept separate, although
appeal lies from the highest court in Scotland to the
House of Lords in London. '
In Ireland certain differences exist in the organiza
tion of the courts ; but the system of law and practice
is essentially the same as in England. As in Scot-
1 Lowell, ii., 468-69.

Miscellaneous Facts about Courts 207
land, appeal lies from the highest court in Ireland to
the House of Lords in London; but after the Home
Rule Act goes into effect, final appeal from the Irish
courts will be to the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council. z
1 See page 202.

PART IV. POLITICS AND ELECTIONS
CHAPTER XIX
PARTY ORGANIZATIONS
Party Organizations less Powerful in England than
in the United States. Though the United Kingdom
is covered with party clubs and associations, the
organizations are not so systematic or important as
in the United States. The principal reasons for the
greater power and more thorough system of the party
organization in our country seem to be, first, the fact
that our elections come at regular stated intervals,
thus making it easier to prepare and maintain a vast
political machine to be wheeled into action at the
appointed time ; second, the fact that the election of
the President has Called for a national nominating
convention resting upon a whole series of lesser con
ventions; third, the American custom of distributing
thousands of offices, and in many States and cities
lucrative public contracts as well, in reward for po
litical support. We do not assert the absence of all
208

Party Organizations 209
these causes of strong party organization in England;
we only point out their greater frequency and power
in the United States.
Local Party Organizations. In every town or
city in England there is likely to be found an Asso
ciation of the members of each of the great parties,
Conservative and Liberal. They usually comprise
only a small proportion of the voters in the locality,
but they form a serviceable nucleus for agitation.
These local Associations send delegates in proportion
to the population of the community to the party
Association for the whole parliamentary election
district. z
The District Association and the District Executive
Committee. In the district Association we have a
more important wheel in the machine of party man
agement. This wheel does not move itself, however,
but is turned by the executive committee for the
district. That is to say, the most important action
is taken on the suggestion and leadership of the execu
tive committee, and the district Association is mainly
used for confirming their action and rallying party
enthusiasm. Those familiar with party manage-
1 The English speak of the area electing a member of Parliament
as a parliamentary division, but on account of the word division
being used in the United States in connection with parliamentary
bodies only to indicate a certain practice in voting (see page 77),
the word district is here used to indicate the portion of the country
electing a member.
14

210 Politics and Elections
ment in the United States know that, although not
so openly professed, much the same is true in this
country. It is impossible for a large convention as
sembled for a day or so only at long intervals, and
composed of men previously unacquainted, to act
with much real self -direction or to do otherwise than
follow the lead of prominent party men who are
entrusted with the conduct of the campaign.
Nominating the Parliamentary Candidate. The
district Association formally nominates the party's
candidate in that district for Parliament; but as a
matter of fact the real nominating body is the district
executive committee. If the executive committee is
satisfied with a man who intimates his ambition, it
has him put forth as the candidate. If they wish to
see an exhibition of his powers, a public meeting may
be arranged at which he addresses the voters. In
case of several aspirants, the executive committee
may suggest two or three names to the meeting of the
Association; but it is expected that the committee
will give the party the benefit of their care and judg
ment at least to the extent of eliminating all but the
two or three most desirable men.
The District Agent. Another feature of the organ
ization of the parliamentary election district must be
noticed — the district Agent of the party. This use
ful party servant is peculiar to English politics. He
holds a recognized salaried position and gives in some

Party Organizations 211
instances his whole time to serving the interests of
the party. The law requires every candidate for
Parliament to have a responsible election Agent, in
order that illegitimate practices may be prevented,
or at least may be more definitely fixed upon some
person who may be held to account. It is customary
for the candidate to choose for this purpose the party
district Agent.
The National Convention. Above the district
Association is the national convention,' composed of
representatives in rough proportion to population
from the various district Associations. That of the
Conservatives is called the Conservative National
Union; that of the Liberals, the National Liberal
Federation. As there is no duty of nominating a
President or Prime Minister or really framing a party
platform, these gatherings are really little more than
organizations for developing party enthusiasm, keep
ing the voters in line, and winning elections. They
meet annually, rotating year after year among the
large cities of the country, and are addressed by the
most prominent party leaders.
Though the national convention adopts a formal
declaration of party principles, its action in this
regard is merely the perfunctory registering of ap
proval to a set of declarations on which the party is
well agreed and rarely gives rise to serious contro
versy. The platform adopted by the national con-

212 Politics and Elections
vention even in America has often been found quite
impracticable when later brought to the test in
Congress; and in England the very nature of parlia
mentary government under the leadership of a re
sponsible Ministry makes the authoritative statement
of a platform almost impossible for any other collec
tion of men than the Cabinet. If the Ministry are
to be responsible for carrying out a program and
liable to immediate expulsion from office in case of
failure, they must be allowed the shaping of it, sub
ject, of course, to dismissal if in this way they fail to
express the aspirations of the party.
The National Executive Committee. Any real
deliberation in connection with the national conven
tions of the two parties is in their executive com
mittees, and these are strongly under the influence of
their party chiefs. Any other plan under the English
system of politics would lead to disorganization in the
party and weakness in the government.
The National Central Office. Just as the party
has in each parliamentary election district the party
Agent, so each has for the whole country a Central
Office in charge of a skilful party manager. It is
the headquarters for political warfare, and is under
the immediate control of the national leaders of the
party. It advises local party leaders, sends out im
mense quantities of literature, and even gives money
aid in poor districts.

Party Organizations 213
Raising Funds for the Party. A word may be said
regarding the sources from which party funds are
drawn. As there is no protective tariff legislation
and little agitation on "trusts" and railroads, the
ever-present resource of squeezing the corporations
or their officers and stockholders on the implied pro
mise of immunity from unwelcome legislation hardly
exists. The Associations, local and national, have
a system of honorary vice-presidents, life member
ships, etc., with which they appeal to the vanity or
patriotism of their members and so draw a consider
able revenue from the well-to-do. It is a sad, but
generally recognized, fact that another fruitful source
of money sometimes employed is the virtual sale of
titles of honour, in some cases even peerages, in re
turn for long-continued generous contributions to the
party purse. Of course no word is hinted of a bargain ;
but doubtless if the honours did not come, neither
would the money. The party leaders protest that
they never recommend for honours any man who does
not fully deserve the recognition for some personal
distinction or public service. But after all is said,
it remains one of the ugliest features of the flunkey-
ism, title-worship, and influence of mere money in
English social and political life.
Influence of Women in Politics. Though women
cannot vote in parliamentary elections, their influ
ence in politics is considerable. Many ladies of

214 Politics and Elections
wealth and title take an active and intelligent inter
est in party success and public measures, and by the
great value of their friendship and social influence
are a power in swaying to their views members of
Parliament who have social ambitions, or whose
wives or daughters have such. It is hard for a social
"climber" to vote against the charming (though
none the less threatening) urgency of a brilliant social
leader whose invitations give prestige throughout the
kingdom. The women of the Conservative party are organ
ized in the Primrose League, which appeals with great
ingenuity to the reverence for rank and the pride in
being associated with nobility that is such a common
human trait. Its members include the highest
nobles and their wives and all social classes, down to
day labourers. The more prominent female mem
bers are "Dames," the men "Knights," while the
officers bear high-sounding titles drawn from mediae
val chivalry. The women are particularly active
workers, and the organization is one which its ene
mies, the Liberals, hate and fear.
The women on the Liberal side have organized in
opposition, but hardly with the success of the Con
servatives. Still, on both sides women make splen
did political workers and can frequently win votes
where men would be repelled.
Contrast between Liberals and Conservatives.

Party Organizations 215
We may notice briefly the differences between the
Conservative and Liberal parties and the classes of
which they. are composed. In. a vague general way
the Conservatives may be said to correspond to the
Republican party in the United States1 and the Lib
eral to the Democratic. The landed and aristocratic
classes are overwhelmingly Conservative, just as
most of the wealthy classes in the United States
are Republicans. The working classes in England
are mainly Liberal, and the professional and small
business men are divided between the two parties.
The Episcopalians generally are Conservatives and the
members of the other churches mostly Liberals. The
policies of the Liberals thus naturally include more
measures which would appeal to the masses of the
people; but the Conservatives bid hard for popular
support and sometimes even go beyond the offers of
their rivals. Consequently some of the great meas
ures of reform have been enacted by one party and
some by the other, though the initiative in such
movements usually lies with the Liberals.
Divisions along class lines have become more
marked of late years. As has been strikingly said,
there used to be Conservative peers and Conservative
cabmen, but now nearly all peers are Conservatives
and nearly all cabmen Liberals. The new alignment
1 Or more correctly in the North. As there is only one real
party in the South, these remarks have no application to that section.

216 Politics and Elections
is due to the masses' seeking to assert their interests
through the agency of political organization and
government activity and the natural rallying of most
members of the privileged and wealthy classes in
mutual determination to retain the advantages which
they possess. Whether this bodes ill or well for the
future is a very large and complicated question in
which the interests and prejudices of the individual
are inextricably mingled with considerations of the
general welfare. Of one thing we may be sure : either
people are very generally and peculiarly wrongheaded,
or there is something wrong in the social conditions
that produce such an alignment.

CHAPTER XX
ELECTIONS TO PARLIAMENT
.Selecting the Candidate. As remarked in the last
chapter, the real selection of the parliamentary can
didate is in the hands of the executive committee of
the party Association of the district, or perhaps of a
small special committee appointed for the purpose.
A few districts elect two members, but the great
bulk of them choose only one.
The party in power regularly renominates the sit
ting member and the other party the man who last
represented them, unless there is some special reason
to the contrary, such as neglect of duty or voting
against party measures. This is one of the many
manifestations of the conservative habits of the
English and their idea of a man's having a sort of
vested right in any position which he has held for a
long time. So generally accepted is this custom that
many districts have "permanent candidates," who
it is conceded shall represent their party at the
next election. Hence the temptation is strong for
217

218 Politics and Elections
these men to spend money constantly on objects
likely to win popularity, such as relieving the poor,
contributing to local causes, etc., instead of prac
tising these means of vote-winning extensively only
during the weeks comprising the campaign.
" Nursing" a Constituency. This is called "nurs
ing" a constituency. It constitutes one of the ugli
est features of English politics. Constituencies,
particularly if they are poor, like to be "nursed,"
and the candidate often does not hesitate on the eve
of election to remind the recipients of his charity of
their obligation to remember him in return. The
consequence is a decided tendency to flunkeyism,
mild general corruption, and the deterioration of
manly independence. The preference for rich re
presentatives is doubtless as much due to this seduc
tive influence as to the respect for rank in itself.
The pervading influence of money and social
prestige in England makes the son of a nobleman, if
possessed of capable and amiable character, always
a strong candidate. The labouring classes themselves
generally prefer such a representative, and indeed it
is said that a workingman of political ambitions is
likely to find his greatest difficulty in winning over
the opposition in his own class.
Relative Democracy of the English and American
Systems. Facts like these should be kept in mind
in considering the extent to which the English govern-

Elections to Parliament 219
ment is genuinely democratic. The method of legis
lation, the holding of the government to absolute and
immediate responsibility through Parliament, and
the fact of the Ministry's being subject to prompt dis
missal by the voters, with the consequent keeping of
both executive and legislature in full accord with the
people, would appear the most perfect means of
making the rulers responsive to the will of the major
ity that can be found in any national government,
with the possible exception of Switzerland with its
initiative and referendum. But against this must
be weighed the powerful and subtle influence of
money and class distinction. Even if the election,
expenses were reduced, it is a question whether, with
the small salary of £400, any but rich men could as a
rule afford to stand as candidates for a body whose
members must take their seats immediately after
election without several months' notice, as in the
United States, to adjust their business affairs, and are
liable at any moment to lose their places without
having time to plan private means of earning a
livelihood. While the 'American system of having
elections at stated periods and allowing several
months, generally over a year, to elapse between the
election and the seating of the new members fur
nishes no such effective means of putting the will of
the people promptly into effect, it makes it much
easier for the man of moderate means to seek the.

220 Politics and Elections
position. The American plan is more democratic
in the personnel of candidates; the English, in the
execution of the immediate popular will.
Election Expenses. The candidate bears not only
the expenses of his campaign, but also the expenses
of holding the election. Though so contrary to the
principles of democracy as to be much condemned
even in England, virtually the same practice exists
in some American States by assessing the candidates
a large entrance fee for the purpose of paying the
expenses of the party primaries. It is to be doubted
whether the well-to-do men in both countries who are
so often candidates would desire to see this bar
against poorer competitors removed.
Comparative Purity of English Politics. A few
generations ago English politics were shamefully
corrupt, so much so that bribery offices were openly
kept for buying members of Parliament, and public
criers sometimes went through the streets after the
election notifying all the voters for such and such a
candidate to go to a certain place for their pay. The
steady improvement in public sentiment has now
made English politics the least tainted by the
grosser forms of corruption of those of any large
democratic country in the world.
Corrupt Practices Act. The law rigidly prescribes
the amount a candidate may spend. More impor
tant than this, however, it also requires him to appoint

Elections to Parliament 221
an election Agent to conduct his campaign, for whose
acts the candidate and the Agent himself are both
responsible. The things which may be done are
named and also those which may not be done. It is
a punishable offence for any one to promise or seek
to secure any position or employment for a person in
return for votes, to treat to drinks, food, etc., or to
withdraw patronage from a tradesman on account of
his vote. Any illegal act by the Agent or candidate,
or by any one else with the candidate's knowledge and
consent, makes his election invalid and renders him
for ever incapable of sitting in Parliament for that
district. Any corrupt act by the Agent without the
candidate's knowledge makes his election void and
renders him incapable of sitting for that district for
seven years. Moreover, if corruption or intimida
tion be very general without any misconduct on the
part of the candidate or his Agent, the election may
be declared void and a new one ordered. The guilty
persons are also subject to fine and imprisonment.
The law against corruption is enforced by a special
court. z
These excellent laws have greatly reduced corrup
tion in elections; but there is still some which can be
eliminated only by the further purification of public
opinion. Election by Plurality. The candidate is successful
1 Lowell, i., 223-34.

222 Politics and Elections
who receives more votes than any other candidate
(a plurality, as it is called), and is not obliged to
receive a majority, i. e. more than half the votes cast
for all candidates, which is the same as to say more
votes for him than all the other candidates together
receive. This is the law of elections generally in the
United States, although in party primaries the rule
sometimes requires an absolute majority to win the
party nomination. Although it might theoretically
be more democratic to require a majority, the prac
tical results are such as to make it doubtful which
system would be better in the long run.
It is the rule in England, both in elections for
Parliament and in those for members of local bodies,
that if there is only one candidate, he is declared
elected without the expense and trouble of taking a
vote. ' Relations of the Member to his District. The
member of Parliament is supposed to represent the
entire Empire, and the idea of his being sent to get
whatever special advantages he can for his district,
unfortunately so strong in the United States, is
almost non-existent. The smallness of the country,
the absence of the spoils system of distributing ap
pointments, the great importance of sending a man
who will support the Ministry loyally, and the ad
vantage of having a rich and generous candidate, all
help to account for the absence of any decided pre-

Elections to Parliament 223
ference for having a member live in the district from
which he is elected. Hence about half the members
of the House of Commons do not live in their districts.
The member, however, keeps in close touch with his
constituents and is sometimes induced even to resign
by their dissatisfaction expressed through the dis
trict party organization. A good custom is that of
the member's once a year making an extended speech
to the voters, giving them a full account of the prin
cipal matters of public interest.
The Morals of Free Institutions. In leaving the
subject of elections, ministerial responsibility, cus
toms of the constitution, the honourable and uncom-
peUed observance of conventions and understandings,
and the whole machinery of parliamentary self-gov
ernment, it is with the conviction that such a system
has a profound influence over a government's conduct
even in foreign relations and war, and on the other
hand that "the long practice of autocratic principles
breeds intolerance towards opposition and violence
towards whoever resists the will of such a govern
ment. Absolutism not only considers itself not bound
by the sacred rights of other men and nations, but it
cannot understand why it should be blamed for re
fusing to consider such obligations. In other words,
free institutions are liberalizing and despotic institu
tions are brutalizing.

BOOK II
Local Government

IS 225

BOOK H. LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER XXI
CITY GOVERNMENT
Local Government in England Subject to the Cen
tra^ Government. We must keep in mind the dis
tinction between a federal system, like that of the
United States, where the powers of government are
distributed between the federal government and
the States, each in its own Sphere entirely independ
ent of any control by the other, and a centralized
government, like that of England, in which all au
thority is vested in Parliament. In the United States
control of the whole domain of criminal and civil law,
including all matters of contract, marriage, divorce,
education, the general relations of business and every
day life, and the qualifications for voting, even in
national elections (with the exception that they can
not disfranchise a person on account of race) are in
the control of the State; and the States and their
internal subdivisions are entirely beyond the control
227

228 Local Government
or supervision of Congress. In England on the con
trary, not only are all laws, except mere municipal
or county regulations, made by the national author
ity, but the very existence of every form and division
of local government depends upon the will of Parlia
ment, and their limited powers are conferred by that
body. Another and new consideration we must keep in
mind: In describing the system of parliamentary and
cabinet government, we have noted the resemblances
and contrasts to the American national government.
The viewpoint now changes, and we find that the
helpful parallel is between the powers, functions,
and relations of Parliament and English local govern
ing bodies on the one side and the powers, functions,
and relations of the American State government and
American county and city governments on the other.
The immediate superior of the local government
division in England is the government in London;
and by a proper correlation of the functions of the
two, great improvement has been accomplished.
The immediate superior of the local government di
vision in the United States is the State government,
and a study of what has been done in England sug
gests that by a proper extension of the unifying, co
ordinating, and regulating authority of the latter
great improvement is possible in that part of our
system which most needs improvement.

City Government 229
A Land of Cities. There are two general divisions
of local government, city and country, or urban and
rural. We shall describe the forms of city government
first, because among the more important existing
forms of local government in England they were
created first and served as a model for the others.
City government is of unusual importance in Eng
land, because about eighty per cent, of the population
five in large towns and cities; and the proportion is
increasing as England becomes more and more a
manufacturing country.
In 1835 the corrupt and inefficient city govern
ments dating from the middle ages were abolished
and the present excellent system created.
Definition of Terms. The word city in England
formerly meant a place which was the residence
of a bishop of the established church, whether large
or small; but this is no longer the case and the word
now means simply any large municipality. The
word borough is the word usually employed in Eng
lish law to describe an incorporated town or city,
and it is the word we shall generally use for that pur
pose. Boroughs with Incomplete Municipal Powers.
Boroughs are of three classes, varying in the extent
of their powers of self-government according to then-
size, though the form of government of each is much
the same. First, there are boroughs of ten thousand

230 Local Government
inhabitants or less, which are subject in some matters
of municipal government to the government of the
county in which they lie. Such boroughs elect
representatives to the governing body of the county
to be later described.
Boroughs with Full Municipal Powers. The
second class of boroughs are those with a population
of over ten thousand and under fifty thousand.
They possess the full powers usually belonging to a
self-governing city, differing in this from the smaller
boroughs, some of whose municipal officers are under
the control of the county. These larger boroughs,
however, form a part of a county and elect representa
tives to its government.
County Boroughs. The third class of boroughs are
those of fifty thousand inhabitants or over. They
are called county boroughs for the reason that they
have all the powers of a county in addition to those
of an ordinary borough; i. e. they have their own
quarter sessions, etc., and their borough government
discharges in addition to its functions as a city govern
ment also all those of a county government. Hence
the county borough takes no part in the government
of the county by which it is geographically surrounded
and is not subject to that government.1
1 A few cities having at the time fewer than 50,000 inhabitants
were allowed the privileges of county boroughs, and some that have
since grown beyond that size have chosen not to become county
boroughs.

City Government 231
Urban Districts. Small towns are usually organ
ized as urban districts instead of boroughs. As they
are subordinate divisions of a county, they will be
treated in the next chapter, though some of them
contain a sufficient population to make them small
cities in their circumstances, needs, and problems.
The Borough Council. A borough is governed by
a Council,^ consisting of one chamber. The English
do not use the system of a two-chambered govern^
ment for their very large cities, as some American
cities still do (though it is being abandoned in this
country as unsatisfactory); nor do they confer any
executive powers upon the Mayor. The government
is thus in the complete control of the one-chambered
body called the Borough Council having charge of
all the functions of the government of the city, except
the courts. This Council consists of two classes of
members — 'Councilmen and aldermen. They have
the same power and form together one body, but differ
in their election and terms of office.
The Councilmen. The Councilmen are elected by
the qualified voters of the city by wards, for a term
of three years. Usually each ward selects three, a
third of them from each ward being elected each year.
Thus two thirds of the existing councilmen are always
old members and it is impossible, except in the few
cities that elect all at once, to make a clean sweep of
the old Council. To do so is not often desirable, as

232 Local Government
corruption is uncommon, and the elections rarely
turn on questions of party politics. The govern
ment of a city is largely a matter of experienced busi
ness administration in which the chief requirements
are efficiency and honesty.
It is to be noticed that the commission form of
government for cities which is becoming so popular
in the United States often adopts the plan of electing
a third, or other fraction, of the councilmen annually.
Numbers and Residence of Councilmen. The
councilmen vary from nine in small boroughs to a
little over a hundred in very large ones. As with
members of Parliament, neither law nor custom re
quires the councilman to live in the ward by which
he is elected. It is not uncommon for a working-
man's ward to elect some wealthy citizen from an
other quarter of the city whose character and ability
they trust.
Election of Aldermen. The number of aldermen
on the Council is one third that of the councilmen.
They are chosen ..by the Council for a term of six
years, one half being elected every three years.
At the election of new aldermen, the hold-over al
dermen vote just as do the councilmen. It is evident
that this arrangement would sometimes make it
possible for the party in the Council that had been
repudiated by the people at the recent election of the
annually elected one third of the councilmen to

City Government 233
prevent the party thus receiving the popular approval
from securing control of a closely divided Council by
electing as the new aldermen men of the repudiated
party. This has occasionally occurred1; but there
are several reasons why it constitutes a slight danger,
as will presently appear, besides the fact that party
politics do not enter largely into English municipal
government. Importance of the Aldermen. The aldermen may
be elected either from the Council itself or from the
general citizenship, and are chosen without reference
to wards. As a matter of fact it is customary tp
elect councilmen who have proved their efficiency
and public spirit; and the alderman is generally re
elected for many terms. It is not uncommon to
find instances of continuous service for twenty-five
years. The aldermen, moreover, possess greater in
fluence upon the Council than their fellow-members
— an influence won by ability, character, and long
service — and are practically always the chairmen of
the most important committees. They are thus a
sort of permanent core which gives continuity to the
management of public business.
The place of a councilman who has been promoted
to alderman is immediately filled by an election in his
ward. Neither councilmen nor aldermen receive any
salary. 1 Lowell, ii., 157-8.

234 Local Government
The Mayor. The Council chooses annually, and
practically always from its own membership, a
Mayor. He is little more than the representative of
the city upon ceremonial occasions. He has no
executive authority and continues to be a regular
member of the Council with the same duties in its
business as before. His office gives him the powers
of a justice of the peace ; but in a large place his time
is so taken up with formal and social duties that he
is very much withdrawn from any participation in
the government.
Salary, Social Duties, etc., of the Mayor. In some
places the Mayor receives a small salary, but the
expenses of entertainment and display are so great,
reaching perhaps in a great city £5000 annually, that
few men would be willing to hold the office more than
one year. For this reason a rich man outside the
city, or even a neighbouring peer,'is sometimes chosen.
The honour is highly esteemed, and if good fortune
brings a formal visit from the sovereign to the city,
the Mayor is made a knight.1
Committees. The Council divides itself into com
mittees for attending to the various branches of the
city's business. As remarked above, the chairman of
a committee is usually an alderman. The chairman
and committee remain the same year after year, only
such changes being made as vacancies, etc., require.
1 Lowell, ii., 162.

City Government 235
Permanent Experts. Each branch of city business
is in direct charge of a permanent and trained special
ist who is elected by the Council, usually upon the
recommendation of the committee over that depart
ment. Thus there are engineers over streets,
drainage, sewerage, etc., health officers, school super
intendents, electricians, chemists, trained officers of
police. These positions are filled with entire disre
gard of whether the applicants are from the city or
from hundreds of miles away, just as in the United
States in selecting a superintendent of city schools.
The various branches of city business thus become
trained professions which young men adopt as they
would law or medicine, and the Borough Council
seeks to secure the best services for the citizens with
out reference to the applicant's politics or residence.1
The Civil Service as a Profession. A successful
administrator is called from a small city to a large
one just as in any other business or profession. In
other words, the people of England do not imagine
that public office is a private cinch for that small
1 The author has known the water commissioners of a so-called
progressive city in the United States to require an employee to break
up his home just outside the city limits and move inside because
some enlightened voters objected to an "outsider" holding the job.
What benefit the citizens received by the serious inconvenience thus
forced upon their servant never appeared; for in a year or two he
was allowed to move back into the suburb. Probably they felt that
they had maintained a valuable principle and also enjoyed thereby
a greater degree of security against the despotism of some foreign
tyrant.

236 Local Government
fraction of the population who chance to seek it, nor
that there is such a thing as Birmingham electricity
or Leeds bacteriology or Conservative or Liberal
mathematics and physics for the construction of
pavements. The Town Clerk. One of the most important of
the permanent skilled officials is the Town Clerk.
He is a lawyer and is supposed to be a man of admin
istrative talent. He not only gives legal advice to
the Council as a whole or to any of its committees,
but exercises also a general oversight of the details
of the city's affairs.
The influence of the various professional experts
with their respective committees on affairs under
their care, and of the Town Clerk on the whole
Council in matters of general policy, is very strong.
When the recommendations of the departmental
experts have been amended and approved by the
common sense and general knowledge of affairs of
their committees, the Council naturally can rarely be
induced to disregard them to any considerable extent.
Borough Suffrage. The right to vote for members
of Borough Councils differs somewhat from that for
members of Parliament. The voter must have oc
cupied any house1 in the borough for residence or

1 "House" means any separate part of a building rented or owned
on terms that make the occupier the head of a separate household,
shop, or office.

City Government 237
business, of any value whatever, or land of an annual
rental value of £10, and must have lived for one
year previous to July 15th in the borough or within
seven miles of it. No mere lodger1 may vote, how
ever. Widows or unmarried women may vote on
the same qualifications as men.
The suffrage is extended to residents within seven
miles who occupy houses or lands in the borough.
This is on account of the large number of persons
whose business is in the city but who live outside.
Though this rule might give a few persons a right to
vote who have slight interest in the city's affairs,
to exclude these suburban dwellers would cut off
many people having a high interest in the city's good
government and business prosperity.
Women on Councils. Women may not only vote,
with certain limitations,2 for members of any local
government Council, of either the borough, the
county, or any smaller subdivision, but they may
also be elected members of any of these Councils.3
The Borough Charter. Borough government is
not forced upon a place, nor are two towns which
have spread until they run into each other forced
to unite under one Council. If, on account of local
1 A lodger rents a room or rooms from some person who, whether
tenant or owner, is the head of that household.
2 See pages 237, 246, 250, and 260-1.
3 Of the Borough and County Councils only since 1907; of the
lower Councils for many years. Wilson, 420; Lowell., ii., 211.

238 Local Government
pride or fear of expenses of heavy taxation, the citi
zens of a region whose density of population really
makes it a city wish to continue to manage their
affairs simply as an "urban district " under the super
vision of the county government, or to remain a
separate borough from the city which is spreading
around them, they may follow their own preferences.
A charter creating a place a borough or merging it
with another borough may be obtained from the
proper authority of the central government in Lon
don.1 Central Control. The central government con
tributes to the expenses of all local governments
about one fourth of their total amount.2 This is
chiefly because Parliament controls many of the
sources of taxation that in the United States are left
in the hands of the State legislatures or local bodies.
All bonds for the borrowing of money by any local
government must be submitted to a department of
the central government having supervision of local
government. Also the by-laws, or ordinances, of
Borough Councils and all other local governments on
a number of important subjects must be submitted
for approval to the Home Secretary or the Local
Government Board, by whom they may be vetoed.3
This answers in a way to the constitutional limita-
* Lowell, ii., 145-6. 2 Ibid., ii., 190.
' Ibid., ii., 287-94; Wilson, 412.

City Government 239
tions under which all local governments rest in the
United States.
In few if any States have we worked out satisfac
torily the problem of how the city shall be allowed a
free hand in those matters properly falling within
a reasonable definition of "municipal home rule" and
at the same time be protected by the supervisory
power of the State from injuries to its own interests
by sinister influences within itself, restrained from
trespassing upon interests outside the city, and
brought to do its part in the maintenance of the com
monwealth's general system of law and order. The
common plan of rigid constitutional restrictions, with
great powers of arbitrary interference by the State
legislature, has not worked well. Benefit might be
derived from some more flexible system something
like the English, of an advisory and supervisory State
department better qualified to adjust the general and
local interests equitably in particular cases.
Absence of "Politics" in English City Govern
ment. Politics is a word frequently carrying an
unsavoury suggestion, because politics are so often
brought into affairs in which they can only do harm.
Politics as expressing the organized efforts of masses
of men to secure the control of the government in
order to enforce a certain set of principles instead
of another are a proper and necessary feature of the
life of a free people; but politics in the sense of seeking

240 Local Government
positions for the salaries or other profits coming to
those who hold the offices are necessarily bad and
most likely corrupt.
City government is mainly a matter of honesty,
efficiency, and business management. Hence to
introduce "politics" is to substitute dishonesty,
inefficiency, and mismanagement. From politics in
this sense city government in England is almost
entirely free.
Party Divisions in Municipal Elections. Holding
city and parliamentary (i. e. national) elections at
different times tends to keep city elections free from
the influence of national politics and to leave voters
free to vote for the best men instead of feeling bound
to support their party's nominees for councilmen.
The names of the two national parties are therefore
not generally used in local elections, but are replaced
by the names Progressive and Moderate.
The Progressives favor the extension of the city's
activity in such lines as municipal ownership of gas
and electric works, street railways, lodging houses
for the poor, etc., while the Moderates generally
oppose the further extension of these activities by
the city or urge more conservative plans. The Pro
gressives are naturally mostly Liberals in national
politics and the Moderates Conservatives, though
this is not always the case. National party feeling
enters comparatively little into municipal elections

City Government 241
and still less into the choice of permanent officials by
the Council. In the regular work of the committees
and Council and the question of retaining permanent
officials, politics do not enter at all. In some bor
oughs lines are not drawn on the candidates even as
Progressives and Moderates, thus eliminating party
politics entirely. z
Efficiency and Purity of English Municipal Govern
ment. To quote the opinion of one of the best in
formed authorities, Prof. A. Lawrence Lowell, English
city government is notably pure and efficient, though
not brilliant. Corruption is of course occasionally
found, and in some cases has been quite bad.
The prevalent efficiency and purity seem to be
due largely to four causes :
First, the short ballot. With a few trifling excep
tions, the voters choose only the councilmen and
hence can know the character and history of the
candidates. This is impossible where dozens of
officers are to be voted for, and hence even the intel
ligent voter is obliged to vote on somebody's advice
or blindly vote the straight party ticket, which prob
ably contains some very crooked individuals.
Second, the absence of the spoils system. As all
employees of the city are chosen on merit as deter
mined by examination as described above on pages
158 and following, and hold their positions in the
1 Lowell, ii., 152-3, 158.
»5

242 Local Government
same way as the employees of a bank or factory, i. e.
so long as they deserve them, there is no corrupting
influence of personal gain to interest the grafting
politician or to tempt him to organize the voters.
Third, the permanent tenure of city employees.
The influence on efficiency of employing expert officials
purely because of their character and skill arid retain
ing them so long as they perform their duties satis
factorily has already been explained on page 235.
Fourth, the re-electing of competent councilmen,
and especially aldermen. We have already seen
how this places the administration of the city in the
hands of those best qualified. It leads many men of
especial value to the public to offer as candidates who
would not consent to undergo the annual or biennial
recurrence of a violent campaign in which character
and motives are assailed with slander and insults.
Hence a very high class of citizen makes the service
of the city his chief concern who otherwise could
rarely be induced to do more than vote.

CHAPTER XXII
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Nature of the English County. There is nothing
in the government of the United States like the
English county, just as there is nothing in England
answering to the American State. The county is
the largest self-governing division in England, just
as our State is the largest self-governing area below
the federal government; but here the resemblance
ceases. The rights and powers of the States are
protected in the United States Constitution and the
States are the framework upon which the national
government is built ; but the county governments in
England are the recent creation of Parliament and
are not in any sense the foundations upon which the
national government rests, and can at any time be
legally destroyed by mere act of Parliament. This
is only another way of saying that ours is a federal
government, made up at first of previously existing
States which retain large powers of their own,
while England is a consolidated, or centralized, na
tion with all authority in the central government.
243

244 Local Government
Local Government Divisions. There are in Eng
land the following kinds of local government besides
the boroughs: Counties, urban districts, rural dis
tricts, parishes, and poor law unions. In this chap
ter we shall describe the county government system.
Origin" of the Present System. The old system
of county government by the justices of the peace
was displaced by the present plan in 1888. The new
system was modelled on the borough governments
which had been created in 1835, and hence will not
require such detailed description as we have given
those in the preceding chapter.
Administrative Counties. Some of the ancient
counties were too large for convenient administration,
and hence they were subdivided. Even where not
too large, the ancient outlines were often unsuitable,
and accordingly the boundaries of the respective
areas for the new' county governments were made
without strict regard to them. In fact in only about
a half-dozen cases are their bounds the same.
An area having its own county government is
called an administrative county, to distinguish it
from the ancient historic counties, or counties at
large as they are now commonly designated. There
are in England and Wales fifty-two of the ancient
counties at large, but sixty-two of the new adminis
trative counties. z
1 Lowell, ii., 141, n. 1.

County Government 245
The administrative counties differ in population
from about 20,000 to about 2,000,000, not to speak
of the administrative county of London with over
4,500,000. The ancient counties have no governing
bodies and are now used for only a few purposes; but
they still retain in many instances an important
significance in social and family life and much of
their historic individuality.
The County Council. The government of an ad
ministrative county (or, as we shall say for short, of a
county) consists of an elected County Council. The
term is three years, and the members are all elected at
the same time, one for each of the wards into which the
county is divided for this purpose. Representatives
are elected from every city, town, and rural section
within the county, except county boroughs, whose
Councils, as related in the preceding chapter, exercise
within their bounds the powers of a county as well
as city government, and which stand accordingly
entirely apart from the counties by which they are
surrounded. The councilmen, as in the boroughs, elect a number
of aldermen equal to one third of their own number,
but unlike the boroughs, the existing aldermen can
not vote for the new aldermen. MThe aldermen are
elected without regard to wards, and may come
either from the council or from outside. Their term
is six years, one half going out every three years.

246 Local Government
The Chairman of the County Council. The
County Council elects a Chairman. Unlike the
borough Mayor, however, he has few social duties,
but is an effective part of the working machinery of
the government. He is not the head of an executive
department, but remains simply a member and pre
siding officer of the Council; but he is customarily
re-elected year after year and comes to be the most
influential person in the government of the county.
County Suffrage. The qualifications for voting
for members of the County Council are the same as
for voting for councilmen in the boroughs, i. e. the
occupation for any purpose of any building in the
county for a year previous to July 15th, or of land for
the same period of £10 value, and residence during
the same period within the county or within seven
miles of it. Mere lodgers cannot vote. Women
without husbands may vote on the same qualifica
tions as men.
Authority of the County Council. No greater
mistake could be made than to suppose that the
English County Council possesses an- authority
similar to that of the legislature of an American
State. The great majority of the powers of an
American State are exercised in England by Parlia
ment. As already remarked, in comparing local
government in England and our own country, the
analogy to be kept in mind is that between the govern-

County Government 247
ment in London and that in the American State
capital in their relations to local governmental
agencies. Though the County Councils exercise de
cidedly subordinate functions, they possess a great
deal more power than any governing body in the
ordinary American county. California, however,
is making an extremely interesting and important
experiment in the difficult and so far sadly unsolved
problem of American local self-government by allow
ing the people of a county to adopt a charter of
government in very- much the same way that the
people of a State do a constitution. Under this
some of the counties have set up a considerable degree
of real self-government.
Perhaps it will give a fairly satisfactory idea to say
that the powers of the English County Council
cover in the districts outside the cities in general
what those of the Borough Council do in the city,
and some other things as well, such as roads, rivers,
contagious diseases among animals, reformatories,
lunatic asylums, and the smaller subdivisions for
local government.
Meetings, Committees, etc. On account partly
of the greater 'difficulty of getting together, the
County Council usually meets only so often as re
quired by law, namely, four times a year. For the
same reason it allows its committees a freer hand in
discharging business and possesses the right to dele-

248 Local Government
gate to a committee any of its powers except laying
taxes and borrowing money. z
The County Council employs a Clerk of similar
duties to those of the Borough Council Clerk and also
a number of sanitary and engineering experts, who,
as in the case of the similar borough officials, hold
their places by merit regardless of politics. The
members of the Council are even more generally re
elected than in the case of the boroughs, and also to
a greater extent represent the upper class in the com
munity. It is remarkable to how large an extent the
English common people choose to leave their govern
ment, from the parish up to the Parliament, in the
hands of a governing class. This class on their part
accept it as a trust and keep in close touch with
public opinion.
Central Control. The control of the central
government is stronger over the county and other
rural governments than over that of the borough.
The by-laws and borrowings of both are subject to
the approval or veto of the central government ; but
in addition to this, in the case of all local governments
except that of the borough, the central government
inspects their accounts and may compel any official
who is responsible for the wrongful paying out of
money to replace the amount. Also all matters
relating to police, health, sanitation, education, gas,
1 Lowell, ii., 272 et seq.

County Government 249
electric, water, and street car companies are very
considerably under the central government's control,
both in the boroughs and other local divisions.
These powers of the central government are exercised
in part by the Home Secretary, but principally by
the Local Government Board.
As explained in regard to boroughs, the central
government supplies about one fourth of the running
expenses of the county and other local governments.

CHAPTER XXIII
SMALLER DIVISIONS OF THE COUNTY
Names of Local Subdivisions. For other pur
poses of local government the county is divided into
smaller areas. These are the urban district, the
rural district, the parish, and the poor law union.
Each of these has its own elected Council, consisting
only of the councilmen elected by the people, without
any aldermen.
Suffrage in Local Elections. Women, whether
single or married, can vote in the elections for all
these smaller districts on the same terms as men.
As Prof. Lowell puts it, no woman can vote for
members of Parliament; women without husbands
can vote in county and borough elections, and all
women may vote for officials of the smaller district
governments. Women can also be elected members
of any local government Council, in either city or
county. The Urban District. The urban district is a
thickly settled neighbourhood, or even a town or
250'

Smaller Divisions of the County 251
small city which has not grown large enough to need
all the powers of a borough government or does not
choose to avail itself of them. The principal differ
ences are that the urban district does not enjoy all the
powers of self-government that belong to a borough
and that its Council contains no aldermen. Some
places retain this form of government, however, after'
they have become much larger than many that have
borough charters. They vary in fact from small
villages to cities of almost fifty thousand inhabitants. *
The Rural District. The rural district is simply
a subdivision of the county. It is a country dis
trict exercising certain limited powers of self-govern
ment through its own elected Council.
The Parish. The parish is the smallest and least
privileged of the governmental divisions of the
county. If it has a population of over three hundred,
it discharges its duties through an elected Parish
Council; if it has fewer inhabitants, the voters meet
in mass-meeting for the exercise of the slight powers
belonging to the parish, in the same way as in a New
England town meeting.
The Poor Law Union. The Poor Law Union
consists of a number of parishes united for the sup
port of an almshouse and* the care of the helpless
poor. Its officers, called Poor Law Guardians, are
elected by the people. American cdunties of small
" Lowell, ii., 278.

252 Local Government
population might well adopt such a plan for united
support of their dependent poor.
Collection of Local Taxes. The only other im
portant function of the parish is that it serves as
the collection district for all local taxes outside the
boroughs.1 Just as in many American States, the
county treasurer collects all taxes except for city
purposes and turns over to the school district, town
ship, or State authorities the amounts due each, so
the parish officers turn over to the county, urban,
or rural district and parish officials the taxes which
they have collected upon the authority of the Coun
cils of each of these local divisions respectively.
Local Activity and Central Supervision. Thus
we see that England is subdivided in the most
thorough manner for purposes of local self-govern
ment, although the central government through the
Home Secretary, and particularly through the Local
Government Board, exercises a considerable degree
of control.
A much more suggestive contrast with the system
of American State and county government is the fact
that Parliament does not permit to locally elected
officers, irresponsible to the central government, the
enforcement or non-enforcement of parliamentary
laws. The laws made in London are enforced by
men responsible to London, just as in America the
1 Lowell, ii., 283.

Smaller Divisions of the County 253
laws made in the State capital should be enforced by
men responsible to the State government. As Presi
dent Wilson pointed out many years ago, in the
American State law is central, but its enforcement is
local, without adequate power in the State govern
ment to see that its will is executed. z We boast of .
our genius for self-government and then enact State
laws to be enforced by county officers whom neither
Governor nor other State officials can give orders to
or remove for refusal to perform the duties under
State law which they are sworn to perform. We
call the Governor the Chief Executive and expect
him to achieve results when we have deprived him
of the largest part of the machinery by which alone
he can execute the law. The Comptroller-General,
Auditor-General, or other such official is declared to
be the chief tax officer of the State whom all county
tax officers must obey; and yet these local officials
defy his orders and the law itself with complete im
punity and irresponsibility, so long as they avoid
acts indictable by a grand jury. The Governor
orders a sheriff to execute the decrees of a court and
receives in reply an insulting message to enforce the
law himself if he does not like the way it is being
done; and to do this the Governor has no machinery
except the militia, and government by rtiilitia is both
bad and impossible; nor can he remove the sheriff
•Wilson, The Stale, 506-7.

254 Local Government
who thus defies the law of the State, the chief execu
tive officer of which he is in his county, except on
conviction of crime. J
The English have been as deeply prepossessed in
favour of local self-government as the Americans,
who brought from England both the instrumentalities
and the love of local self-government. Their pre
possessions have had to yield to their reason and the
logic of the changed circumstances which modern
life has brought. 2
Even in the highest days of " State sovereignty " we
never dreamed of leaving the enforcement of federal
law to State agencies irresponsible to the federal
government. That experiment proved sufficiently
futile under the Articles of Confederation. But we
still pursue the less logical system — a system more
over without the excuse of historical or constitutional
argument to bolster it up — of a sort of county officer
sovereignty, a sort of sovereignty our law has never
known except by oversight. The State does possess
sovereign authority for all matters of local govern
ment; and yet it contents itself with pronouncing its
will, while it leaves its execution, which is the part
that really counts, to locally elected officials over
1 This description is of course not accurate in all details for every
American State; it is believed, however, to be a fair representation of
the general American system of State and county government.
2 1 thank Prof. Frank G. Bates, of Indiana University, for calling
this to my attention.

Smaller Divisions of the County 255
a
whom it retains no administrative control, and re
tires into vacuity. No other civilized government
commits such an act of self-effacement. We can
imagine what a similar plan would do for the en
forcement of federal law; we see plainly enough
what it has meant for the enforcement of State law.
Associated with this irresponsibility of local officials
for the proper administration of State law which is
committed to them are the divided, independent,
and sometimes mutually hostile executive depart
ments of the State governments. It has happened
in a number of States that the Governor did not
dare to consult his constitutional legal adviser, the
Attorney-General,1 and has been in bitter conflict
with the State Treasurer, Auditor, Adjutant-General,
and other heads of executive departments with whom
he must co-operate in conducting the government.
A moment's reflection reveals, as does even a cursory
1 In South Carolina in 191 5 the absurdity of the system of divided
executive responsibility was exhibited in unusually high light when
the Legislature felt obliged to go so far as to appropriate for the use
of the Governor in. employing legal counsel in place of the Attorney-
General, with whom he was in conflict, a sum exceeding the munifi
cent salary of #1900 provided for that important official. The money
did not have to be used; but no one seemed to see in the incident
anything to suggest an improvement in the system. Many thought
doubtless that it was a splendid example of the system of checks and
balances, and that if the Governor had the right to appoint the
Attorney-General, after the manner of the President, he might select
some man who would advise him to do something that would en
danger the liberties of the people before he could be removed at the
next election.

256 Local Government
glance at the operation of the system, that no
government can be efficiently conducted on such a
plan. No other civilized government is conducted
in such a tangle of mutual hindrance and irresponsi
bility. The President is the executive of the United
States and appoints and directs the heads of the
executive departments; and hence whatever his
promises or policy, he has the machinery for their
execution. If he proves a bad executive we know
whom to relieve of office.
The States fell into the habit of dividing executive
power in colonial days in order to take power from
the Crown, and their experience with George III
threw them into a panic at "one man power" from
which they have not yet recovered. Now that the
people have been their own sovereign for almost a
hundred and fifty years, it seems that they might
commit to their own servant, the Governor, a degree
of authority somewhat similar to that committed
to the President, so that their own servant might be
able to do the things for which he is employed. So
much the more is it necessary to improve both the
personnel and the machinery of our government in
view of the more extensive duties, the more difficult
tasks, and graver responsibilities that the near future
seems sure to lay upon the servants of the public.
Scotland and Ireland. Local government is on
the same general plan in these countries as in England,

Smaller Divisions of the County 257
with such modifications as are suggested by their
historical peculiarities and sparser populations. In
Scotland and Ireland women possess the right of
suffrage and office-holding in local governments on
the same terms as men.
*7

CHAPTER XXIV
THE GOVERNMENT OF LONDON
Special Position of London. Though the govern
ment of the great metropolis of London is in general
similar to the governments of the borough and county
which have already been described, its- importance
and the experiments which it has made in the govern
ment of a great city require separate notice. London
has always enjoyed a position of special privilege,
from the time when William the Conqueror granted a
charter guaranteeing her ancient liberties — a treasure
still religiously preserved. Even to this day, on for
mal occasions the King is met at Temple Bar, the
spot where stood the gate of the mediaeval city, now
of course in the heart of the metropolis, and is granted
permission by the Lord Mayor to enter.
"The City" of London. Let us understand
the different meanings of the name London. In the
narrowest sense it applies to the area covered by the
ancient mediaeval walled city. This is a region
covering barely over one square mile on the northern
258

The Government of London 259
bank of the Thames in the centre of the modern
London which spreads away for many miles in every
direction. It is still legally "the city of London,"
or for short, " the city. " It extends from the Tower
on the east to a point a little short of Westminster
Abbey and the Houses of Parliament on the west.
The population of this teeming business centre is by
day among the densest in the world; by night it is
less than twenty thousand. To this day it has its
own city government.
The Acirninistrative County of London. Sur
rounding "the city" is the administrative county of
London with a population in 1911 of 4,522,961. This
vast population is under the government of the
London County Council; but even this does not
include much over half of the people who live in
what is called " Greater London. " It is the London
which the people of our own metropolis mean when
they say that New York is the largest city in the
world. The Metropolitan and City Police District of
London. "Greater London," of which we usually
think when using the name, comprises an area of
693 square miles and in 191 1 contained 7,252,963
people. Its legal name is the Metropolitan and
City Police District. For a few purposes, such as
police and water supply, all this vast area is under
a common authority; but for most purposes of local

260 Local Government
government the part of the metropolis outside the
administrative county of London is cut up into a
number of local divisions such as have been described
in previous chapters.
Let us examine in turn the several governments
to which we have referred. We shall take up first
"the city."
Common Council of "the City." The "city of
London" is under the government of its own elected
Common Council, except for matters of street cars,
sewers, fire protection, education, and a few other
matters controlled by the London County Council,
and except for water supply, which is under the
Metropolitan Water Board. z
"The city" is divided into twenty-six wards, each
of which chooses one alderman, who, strange as it
may sound in the twentieth century, holds for life.
The wards elect also annually two hundred and six
councilmen. The aldermen and councilmen all sit
in one body as the Common Council.
The Lord Mayor. The twenty-six aldermen elect
annually from their own number. the Lord Mayor of
"the city." Though he exercises the powers of a
magistrate, his duties are mainly ceremonial and
social, and his salary of £10,000 by no means covers
the expense of this much coveted honour.
The Suffrage. The right to vote for Council
1 Lowell, ii., 208-10.

The Government of London 261
members is somewhat wider in the whole area within
the bpunds of the county of London than it is in other
cities ; for it includes not only all men and unmarried
women who can meet the ordinary borough franchise
requirements, but also all men not in this class who
may vote for members of Parliament. I. e. it in
cludes not only all occupiers of lands worth £10 a
year or of houses of any value, but also all £10 lodgers.
As in all other boroughs and counties, women may be
elected to the London County Council or to any of the
Borough Councils now to be described.
Boroughs of the County of London. The vast
city known as the administrative county of London
is divided into twenty-eight boroughs, each of which
has its own government, modelled after the form
which we have already studied.1 Each of these
elected Councils governs its own borough in most
matters like any other Borough Council; but the
need of uniformity in many important matters neces
sitates the exercise of authority over the whole great
city within the administrative county by one body,
the London County Council.
The London County Council. Apart from the
legislatures of great states or nations, the London
County Council is one of the most important govern-
1 The Borough Councils in London have only one sixth as many
aldermen as councilmen, and the existing aldermen are not allowed
to vote for new aldermen.

262 Local Government
irig bodies in the world, presiding, as it does, over
many of the interests of four and a half million
people. The entire area of the county of London,
including "the city," is under this body. The dis
tricts for electing members of Parliament serve as
wards, each electing two members for three years.
The councilmen elect aldermen, as usual, for six
years, equal to about one sixth of the councilmen,
one half going out at a time.
The Council, as in other counties, elects a chairman ;
but in London he is not re-elected and so acquires
little influence. As in other places, the method is
followed of transacting business through committees,
permanent professional expert officials, etc.
Politics. The London County Council differs
from most English County and Borough Councils in
the prominence of politics in elections and Council
meetings. This is largely because the Progressives
in London have adopted an extensive program of
social and economic reforms, covering such matters
as street car transportation, model tenements for
rental to the poor at moderate rates, etc., that raise
strong enthusiasm or opposition. But their politics
are independent of national party lines and turn
almost wholly on matters of local concern. z
1 Lowell, ii. , 2 1 7-1 8 ; 23 1-2. Lowell points out that while London
is strongly Conservative in national politics, it is strongly Progressive
in local; also that party lines are so closely drawn that the Moder-

The Government of London 263
Metropolitan Boards. A few matters, the chief of
which are concerned with police and water supply,
so plainly require unified control that they are man
aged by the Metropolitan Police Board and the
Metropolitan Water Board of the entire metropolis
of seven and a half million people, only a little over
half of whom live within the county of London.
Though Greater London forms the Metropolitan
Police District, the police are under the control of
the national government, except that "the city"
has its own system.
Parts of the City outside the County of London.
When the first steps were taken towards a new system
of government for modern London, it was intended
to include under one authority the entire metropolis ;
but the- rapid and unforeseen growth of population
has extended into a surrounding region almost six
times the area of that then organized under the new
government and containing already almost as many
people. These three million city dwellers outside
the county of Lcjndon are organized into separate
boroughs or urban districts independent of any
common management, except so far as controlled by
the Metropolitan Boards of Water and Police. The
English have come to fear that setting one Council
over such an immense population as that contained
ates and Progressives employ whips in the Council to keep their
members in line. For definition of whips, see page 76.

264 Local Government
in the entire metropolis might prove dangerous,
and are watching with interest such experiments in
the management of great urban areas under one
administration as that afforded by Greater New
York.

BOOK III
Empire and Colonies

265

BOOK m. EMPHIE AND COLONIES
CHAPTER XXV
COLONIES AND MOTHER-COUNTRY
Peculiar Character of the British Empire. The
only other empire in history that can be compared
in extent, variety, and complexity with the British
Empire is that of ancient Rome. And yet they are
very different. The British Empire is unique in
history for several reasons. In the first place, it
includes large numbers of almost every race and
colour of men. Second, it lies in every zone of tem
perature from the regions around the poles to the
tropics. Third, it has no territorial connection, but
is scattered in every part of the world, exposed to
possible enemies from any quarter. This vast
empire, comprising more than a fifth of the land and
more than a fourth of the people of the earth, has
been built up by pne of the smallest of the great
nations of the world through its genius for statecraft.
Enlightened Administration. The government of
267

268 Empire and Colonies
the numerous and varied dependencies, though in
the past sometimes marked by ignorance, error, and
selfishness, before English statesmen had come to
realize the nature of the responsibilities that ex
panding dominion imposed upon them, is today
conducted with a liberal regard for the well-being
of the governed. Indeed experience has proved
that in no other way can its subjects be kept loyal;
and they are far too numerous to hold down by
force. An inestimable blessing has been the exten
sion of England's just and liberal criminal law
throughout her dominions. Provisions exist, of
course, to meet local needs ; but the underlying basis
of the criminal law throughout the Empire1 has been
made the same as that with which Americans and
Englishmen are familiar. The Empire presents the
object lesson of a small number of civilized white
men gradually repressing the barbarous customs of
the backward races of mankind and leading them
into a higher life. Admiral Dewey declared: "After
many years of wandering I have come to the con
clusion that the mightiest factor in the civilization
of the world is the imperial policy of England."
No Tribute. The possessions pay nothing to the
support of the British Government, but on the con-
* With the exception of a few possessions. Some colonies also
retain their own system of civil law. Cyclopcedia Britannica, vii.,
462.

Colonies and Mother-Country 269
trary are a source of expense to the government, as
e. g., because of the great navy which must be main
tained for their defence. Each colony, however,
bears the cost of its own government, paying out of
its taxes the salaries of the governor and other offi
cials sent from England, as well as of those who are
natives or are elected by the people of the colony.
The Advantages which England Derives. Though
the colonies pay no tribute, they are nevertheless of
great advantage to Great Britain. First, her trade
with these vast regions is much greater than it would
be if they were not under her flag. This makes her
manufacturers, merchants, and ship-owners very
rich and thus creates immense resources for taxation
and other national needs. The merchants, etc.,
are the sponges which absorb gold from all over the
world; the government then squeezes the sponges.
Associated with this advantage is the employment
for millions of working-men who carry on the labour
of this system of manufacture and commerce.
A second benefit is that the colonies that lie in
the temperate zones furnish homes for. the large
numbers of people who leave the British Isles because
of crowded conditions. Instead of being lost to the
mother-country, they build up new and powerful
Englands all over the world.
A third advantage is that these possessions supply
means of defence against enemies who, if they held

270 Empire and Colonies
them, would forbid England's trade or cripple her
industries; for, although England has heretofore
allowed all nations to trade with her colonies on an
equality with herself,' such a policy could not be
expected of most of the powerful European nations,
whose policies are along lines of restriction rather
than of free trade.
A fourth benefit is that in time of war the colonies
send troops, and some of the larger send warships,
for the defence of the mother-country. In ordinary
emergencies the armies sent by the colonies are paid
out of the British treasury; but in a great struggle
the colonies pour out their money as well as men for
the defence of the Empire, which they feel is as
much theirs as it is the mother-country's.
Secretary of State for the Colonies. The rela
tions of mother-country and colonies are in charge of
a Cabinet Minister entitled Secretary of State for the
Colonies. He has oversight of Britain's world-wide
empire, with the exception of some "protectorates,"
which, though practically colonial possessions, are
technically foreign and are hence under the Foreign
Secretary, and with the exception also of India,
whose vastness necessitates a department of its own.

1 A few restrictions are laid on outsiders by colonial, not by
English, law. What will be done to execute the threat of severe
strictions against the commerce of former enemies after the Great
War, only time can tell.

Colonies and Mother-Country 271
Varying Degrees of Control. The degree of
authority which the Crown actually exercises in
managing the affairs of different colonies varies
greatly, as will appear when we reach that subject;
and hence the duties of the Colonial Secretary range
all the way from keeping a great colony like Canada
in good humour to directing entirely the government
of some savage possession in Africa.
Four Classes of Dependencies. The numerous
varieties of dependencies belonging to the Empire
may be grouped into four main classes : Self-govern
ing colonies, crown, colonies with partial self-govern--
ment, crown colonies without self-government, and
protectorates. The general character of each class
is apparent from its name, and each will be described
in detail in the following chapters.
A Loosely Organized System. The'Empire has
no organic common life in which] all the parts par
ticipate. There is no common government in which
each has its share. One colony has no connection
with the others, except that in some cases, to be
described, several lying near each other have been
united into unions; but a union of this sort is rather
of the nature of one separate colony whose parts
exercise control in local affairs. So free, in fact,
are the self-governing colonies to follow their own
devices that they lay tariffs against each other and
against the mother-country and in some cases even

¦272 Empire and Colonies
forbid immigrants from certain other colonies, as, e. g.,
British Columbia attempting to exclude the Hindus.
The unity of the Empire consists in a common
patriotism and the dependence upon a common
mother-country. The Empire, as suggested by
this term, may be thought of as a mother with her
family of daughters; but all the daughters are never
gathered in any family circle, though the more ad
vanced of them are beginning to meet together with
the mother for common council, and many of them
do not even know each other.1
Colonial Agents. For each colony there is an
agent residing in London, in close touch with the
colonial department. In the self-governing colonies
he is elected by the colony, in the non-self-governing
he is appointed by the Secretary of the State for the
Colonies. It is his duty to keep his colony informed
of anything affecting its interests, to prevent un
favourable measures in Parliament or the colonial
department, and to put such information at the
disposal of these authorities as will guide them in
the proper discharge of their duties. Benjamin
Franklin was for many years the Agent for Penn
sylvania, and at times for as many as four colonies
at once, in which position he discharged his duties
in a way that ranked him in importance with the
most distinguished ambassadors.
1 For the imperial Conferences here referred to, see page 332.

Colonies and Mother-Country 273
Means of Imperial Control. The control of the
mother-country is exercised through these four
means :
First, the royal Governor, who represents every
where the authority~of the same Crown and loyalty
to a common Empire.
Second, the power of the Governor, and above
him of the Crown (i. e. the Minister for the Colonies)
to veto any act of a colonial legislature, thus pre
venting measures which tend to injure common
interests or weaken the imperial tie.
Third, the control of foreign affairs, by which
means any foreign power is prevented from inter
fering with any part of the Empire or winning away
the allegiance of a colony, and a colony is prevented
from sacrificing the interests of the Empire to its
own particular interests.
And lastly, the right of appeal from the highest
court of a colony to the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council in England. z
After a brief account of the system of home rule
provided for Ireland, we shall explain more fully
the government of the various classes of colonies.
1 Lowell, ii., 402.
18

CHAPTER XXVI
IRISH HOME RULE1
Peculiar Situation of Ireland. Ireland is not a
colony, but she occupies such an important and pecu
liar position in the Empire as to demand a separate
notice. Due to racial, religious, and economic
differences, the problem of ruling Ireland and Eng
land under one government presents unusual diffi
culties. Complete national independence for the
smaller island would be perilous in the foreign
relations of both; to admit Ireland to full participa
tion in a common Parliament is a delusive equality,
as she is so much smaller in population as to be practi
cally reduced to subjection to her larger partner.
The Home Rule Act of 1914, passed over the opposi
tion of the House of Lords,2 is an attempt to preserve
the advantages which both peoples derive from union
towards the rest of the world and at the same time
1 The statements in this chapter are based on the law itself, as
passed in 1914, and hence differ in some points from statements
made from the incompleted bill.
¦ See page 24. 274

Irish Home Rule 275
allow the smaller country the freedom of ordering
her own internal affairs. The provisions of this
law are as follows; but on account of the outbreak
of the Great War in Europe and the violent opposi
tion in north-eastern Ireland to Home Rule, the
system has been suspended from going into immediate
operation. Representation in the Imperial Parliament. The
legislative union between England and Ireland
dating from 1800 is not destroyed, though pro
foundly modified, by the Home Rule Act. Ireland
is still to send forty-two members to the British
House of Commons,1 possessing full powers in de
bating and voting on all questions concerning any
part or the whole of the Empire. The twenty-eight
Irish representative peers continue to sit in the
House of Lords.
The Irish Parliament. The Irish Parliament,
meeting in Dublin, consists of two houses, a Senate
and a House of Commons. The House of Commons
consists of 164 members, elected for five years unless
sooner dissolved. Nine districts elect • three, four,
or five representatives on one ticket; many elect two,
and the others one. In the case of the nine first
mentioned, the election is arranged in such a way
that any considerable minority of the voters* who
agree to concentrate their preferences may elect
' Instead of 103, as before.

276 Empire and Colonies
one member of the three or perhaps two of the five.
Some representation of the minority is necessary
for just legislation and good administration in any
government, and particularly in a country in which
minority and majority consist of permanent classes
with opposing interests.1
For the first five years, the Senators, of whom
there are forty, are to be appointed by the Lord-
Lieutenant of Ireland, the representative of the
imperial government in Ireland, after which they
are to be elected all at the same time, for a fixed
term of five years, which is not to be affected by
dissolution of the House of Commons. Each of the
four provinces into which the country is divided
elects, in proportion to population, from six to four
teen Senators on one ticket. The same means of
securing representation for the minority is employed
as in the election of the Irish House of Commons.
Not only any commoner, but any peer, either
Scotch, English, or Irish, may be a member of either
house of the Irish Parliament. Unlike the British
usage, a Minister may speak in either house, though
he may vote only in the one of which he is a member.
Supremacy of the Commons. Following the
principle achieved in the Parliament Act of 191 1,2
xThe Irish Parliament will contain two university members
(see page 31).
2 See page 24. The same exception is made as in the British
ParHament Act of 191 1 in the case of private bills.

Irish Home Rule 277
the Irish Senate cannot interfere with bills for rais
ing or spending the public revenues; and their op
position to bills of any other kind may be overcome
within two sessions, by the Commons demanding a
joint sitting, in which the two bodies vote as one. If
the measure had any decided majority in the House,
it would be almost sure of passage by this joint vote.
The Responsible Ministry of the Irish govern
ment will exercise the same functions and stand in
the same relations to the House of Commons as
have already been explained in describing the
English Government.1
Limitations upon Home Rule. The Irish Parlia
ment possesses by no means the unlimited power,
even in Ireland, that the imperial Parliament exer
cises in England or other parts of the Empire. Its
limitations are such in fact as to cause serious dis
satisfaction among most of the Irish people, though
it is difficult to see how they could at present be
made less without inviting rebellion by the minority
in the north-east who are opposed to Home Rule in
any form.
Some of the restrictions are temporary and may
be removed after a few years if the Irish Parliament
so desires, as, e. g., the control over the police,2 old

1 See Chapters IV and XI.
2 The police pass under Irish control automatically at the end
of six years.

278 Empire and Colonies
age pensions, working-men's insurance, postal and
other savings banks. Of the permanent restrictions,
the most important are that the Irish Parliament
(i) may not pass any law concerning the Crown,
(2) nor coinage, (3) nor levy any tariff, income, or
internal revenue duty more than ten per cent.
higher than the rates enforced in England1; (4)
nor charge any import duty on any article not on
the English list of dutiable articles; (5) nor impose
an import of export duty on commerce with Great
Britain; (6) nor legislate on treason, peace and war,
and foreign relations; (7) nor alter the laws estab
lished during the past few decades for accomplishing
the gradual transfer of land from the great land
lords to small farmers2; (8) nor establish any state
church, nor set up any religious test for office, em
ployment, or any other purpose, nor in any way
give one religion an advantage over another. Nor
may Ireland alter the Home Rule Act itself.
Privileges. In view of the poverty of Ireland —
largely the result of England's injustice in the past
— Ireland is not only to contribute nothing to the
support of the imperial government, but is to re
ceive from that source a gift, beginning at £500,000
1 Except that they can tax liquors as high as they choose.
'The Irish Land Purchase Act of 1903 is said to have turned
from renters to owners 300,000 farmers, occupying more than half
the area of the country. — William O'Brien in Nineteenth Century
and After, lxvii., 429 and 433.

Irish Home Rule 279
a year, and gradually sinking after nine years to
£200,000 a year.1 Ireland is thus relieved of the
stupendous burden of military and naval expenditure
while enjoying all its benefits. Irishmen who choose
to enlist will of course still form part of the armed
forces of the Empire.
Reserved Powers of the Imperial Government.
Besides the fact, which must always be kept in
mind, that the British, or as it is often called, the
imperial, Parliament is supreme throughout the
Empire, there are the following reservations specifi
cally stated in the case of Ireland:
* The Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland (the appointee
and representative of the Crown) can veto any act
of the Irish Parliament, and so may the imperial
government itself. The King's Privy Council
(which practically means the British Ministry) can
quash any law of the Irish Parliament or act of an
Irish official that is contrary to the Home Rule
Act in much the same way in which the United
States Supreme Court annuls an unconstitutional
act of Congress or of an executive officer. And
finally, the imperial Parliament (in which the forty-
1 If Ireland shall in future come to be more prosperous, a revi
sion of the financial arrangement with Great Britain may be made
by the imperial ParHament, for which purpose the Irish w^ll send
to that Parliament a number of representatives proportionate to
her share of the population of the United Kingdom. This would
be almost double her forty-two there regularly under the Home
Rule Act.

280 Empire and Colonies
two Irish members have voice and vote) may in
case of need pass any law for Ireland that it deems
fit. Final appeal from Irish courts may be taken to
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council1 instead
of to the House of Lords as formerly.
The Future. The degree of Home Rule which has
been attained marks a long step towards removing
the ancient blighting animosity between England
and Ireland. So far "the Emerald Isle" has less
self-government than Canada, Australia, or South
Africa, and it is certain that her demands will not
cease until she is placed more nearly on an equality
with other parts of the United Kingdom. The
difficulties of the problem have already caused Brit
ish statesmen to study more carefully the federal
system as it exists in the United States. The solu
tion, not only of this, but of other serious imperial
problems, may ultimately come through the adoption
of some form of federalism, which has so wonder
fully succeeded in our own country in serving the
common national interests of the people and at the
same time preserving their rights of local self-
government. 1 See page 202.

CHAPTER XXVII
SELF-GOVERNING COLONIES AND DOMINIONS1
Legal Supremacy of Parliament. Though Par
liament has supreme authority over every part of
the British dominions, it cannot conveniently inter
fere constantly in the affairs of distant colonies,
first, because of lack of time and information, and
second, because that would create dissatisfaction.
In the case of the great self-governing colonies it
has accordingly passed laws somewhat similar to the
constitution of an American State, describing the
form of government and laying down the duties,
powers, and limitations of the various officers and
departments. Just as a State constitution is the
directions of the sovereign, the people, for conduct
ing the government of the State, so these laws are
the directions of the sovereign, Parliament, for
conducting the government of the colonies.
1 An exhaustive work on every detail of the subject is A. B. Keith's
Responsible Government in the Dominions. 3 volumes. Oxford,
1912. 281

282 Empire and Colonies
The self-government of the great confederations
of Canada and Australia goes so far that their con
stitutions were in fact drawn up in the colonies and
then at their request enacted by Parliament; and
much the same is true of South Africa.1
Dominions. Canada, Australia^ South Africa, and
New Zealand are called dominions. Though New
Zealand is not a federation, as are the other three, and
cannot rival them in area of population, yet her po
litical vigour, her critical geographical situation, her
imperial loyalty, and the importance of binding her
as closely as possible to the Empire, led in 1907 to
her being raised to this honourable rank. A Domin
ion occupies a position of prestige and consideration
distinctly superior to that enjoyed by an ordinary
self-governing colony. It is consulted "automat
ically" so far as possible on international agree
ments affecting its interests, and the four Dominions
may together almost be regarded as a sort of advisory
council on imperial affairs. For instance, in July,
191 1, the Anglo- Japanese alliance was revised and
renewed with their knowledge and concurrence.2
Confederations of Colonies. In somewhat the
same way that the thirteen colonies which formed
the United States perceived that they could serve
'Lowell, ii., 400; Cyclopedia Britannica, nth edition; Sir Charles
Fitzpatrick "On the Constitution of Canada," Repts. Amer. Bar
Asso., xxxix., 410.
'Cross's England and Greater Britain, 1081, n. 2.

Self-Governing Colonies 283
their common interests by uniting for certain pur
poses of government, so in later years groups of
British colonies have drawn together for ' common
ends, but without any idea of separating from the
mother-country. These confederations present a
combination of the principles of the governments
of England and the United States. The responsible
Ministry and the parliamentary system are derived
from the former; but the federal principle of uniting
for purposes of common concern, while retaining the
functions of local self-government in each province
is copied from the latter.
THE DOMINION OF CANADA
Composition of the Dominion. The oldest and
most important of the colonial federations is the
Dominion of Canada, which dates from 1867. The
principles of responsible government by Parliament
and Ministry are practised here more completely
than in any other place outside of the mother-
country. The Dominion consists of ten member
provinces, as our own country consists of forty-eight
States, and has also one territory without the privi
leges of membership and self-government. *
1 Yukon, though called a territory, has a representative in the
Dominion Parliament and an elected Council for local government.
"The Northwest Territories" has neither. — Statesman's Year Book
for 1915, 274-5, 312-13; Northwest Territories Act of 1906, section
6; Yukon Act of 1908, section 7.

284 Empire and Colonies
The Governor-General. The formal head of the
Dominion executive is the^Glffiernpr^General, who
is appointed by the Crown, i. e. the Prime Minister,
after consultation with the Colonial Secretary. The
position of the Governor-General in Canada is
similar to that of the King of England, and hence
the law in saying that he does thus and so is always
to be understood as meaning that he acts in accord
with the advice of his Ministers. Yet a wise and
tactful Governor-General exercises a very real and
important influence on the course of administration
and legislation.1 One Governor-General has even
declared that he found that he could accomplish
more as the executive of Canada without legal power
than he could in some other colonies with it.
The Veto. Laws in Canada, as in other colonies,
are subject to two vetoes; that of the Governor-
General and that of the British Government. The
Governor-General may take any one of three courses
regarding bills passed by the Dominion Parliament.
First, he may refuse to sign. This is commonly
called vetoing the bill, and kills it at once, though
the King {i. e. the British Ministry) may reverse
this action and save the law. Second, he may sign
the bill. The King (i. e. the British Ministry) may,
after this, kill the law by vetoing it within two years,
but not after that time. Third, the Governor-
1 Cf., e. g., Repts. Amer. Bar Asso., xxxix., 414.

Self-Governing Colonies 285
General may decline either to sign or veto the bill
but instead may reserve it for the King's decision.
The King may veto or confirm the bill at any time
within two years. If he does neither within that
time, it dies of itself. z The tendency seems to be for
the veto, whether by the Governor-General or by the
King, to settle into a sort of supreme court function
of annulling at once laws thought to be unconsti
tutional because transcending the powers granted
the legislature in the fundamental law, instead of
waiting for their annulment by judicial process in the
course of a lawsuit.
Yet the veto is so rarely exercised over Dominion
legislation that we may say that it is gradually
becoming almost as much the Governor-General's
obligation to sign all acts presented to him as it is
the King's to affix his signature without question
to any act of Parliament in England, unless the act
of the Canadian Parliament be one which is clearly
injurious to important imperial interests. In fact
it is admitted that the Governor-General has practi
cally no choice but to sign measures concerning
Canadian affairs alone ; and he exercises less and less
power of vetoing even laws, such as tariffs, that
affect the mother-country or relations with foreign
states. The Prime Minister the Real Chief Executive.
1 British North America Act, sections 56-7; Keith, ii., 1009, 1010.

286 Empire and Colonies
The prominence of the Governor-General must not
blind us to the fact that the real chief executive in
Canada is the Prime Minister of the Dominion.
His position is as exact a copy as possible of that of
the British Premier.
The Governor-General must act in accordance
with the advice of his Ministry. If he should refuse
to do so, they would resign. If the Governor-
General could obtain a new Ministry who would
adopt his views and could command a majority in
the Canadian House of Representatives, he would
succeed in having his way; but only because the
event proved that the people's representatives ap
proved his policy rather than that of his former
Ministers. If the House of Representatives refused
to sustain his new. Ministers, he would be obliged to
recall his old ones and submit to their policy. Such
an attempt of the Governor-General would be most
unusual, if indeed we may not consider it today
entirely in the realm of theory. z
Parliament and Ministry. The Dominion Parlia
ment consists of a Senate appointed for life from
Canadians by the Governor-General (acting, of
course, on the advice of the Canadian Ministry),
and a House of Commons elected by the people for
a term of five years unless sooner dissolved. Parties,
1 Sir Charles Fitzpatrick in Repts. of Amer. Bar Asso., xxxix.,
4H-5-

Self-Governing Colonies 287
Premier, and a Ministry responsible to the lower
house play the same part as we have already ob
served in England. The Commons are much the
more powerful body, as they make and unmake
Ministries and introduce practically all legislation.
The only legal limitation on the power of the Senate
is that it may not originate any bill for imposing
taxes or spending money; but by custom it has
settled into a position ¦ similar to that of the Lords
in England as a house of cautious revision. The
Senate rejects measures of the House of Represen
tatives but rarely.
No colony has any system of nobility or other
hereditary titles, though the title of Sir has been
conferred by the British Government upon a number
of colonials and titles of nobility on a few. Those
created peers, however, have been so closely identi
fied by long residence or otherwise with the mother-
country as to be almost as much Englishmen in the
narrower sense as citizens of the colonies. In Austra
lia the aversion to titles is so strong that numbers
of prominent statesmen have declined them, and a
resolution has been offered to make the bearing of
them in that country illegal. z
The Supreme Court. There is a Dominion su
preme court to hear appeals from the provincial
supreme courts. Appeal lies in the last resort from
' Keith's Responsible Government in the Dominions.

288 Empire and Colonies
this to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
in England. Among the most important and diffi
cult cases have been those involving the relative
rights of the provinces and the Dominion. They
have usually been decided in favour of the latter.
The position of the Canadian court will appear
more plainly by comparison and contrast with the
Australian Supreme Court, as explained on page 294.
Though the Canadian Supreme Court may declare
an act of the Canadian Parliament null because in
conflict with the constitution, as we might call the
British North America Act by analogy with the
American written Constitution, it is not the supreme
guardian and ultimate authority in defending the
constitution, and hence cannot be considered co
ordinate with the legislature. In fact it is not created
by the constitution, but is simply authorized as a
court which the Canadian Parliament may create
and organize as it sees fit.1 The final decision rests
with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
in London. This body, like the Supreme Court of
the United States, annuls Canadian laws because
of their conflict with the Canadian fundamental law,
and not because of any opinion simply as to their
injustice or unwisdom.
Both the Dominion judges and the provincial
judges are appointed by the Dominion executive
'British North America Act, section 101.

Self-Governing Colonies 289
during good behaviour. There is no separate sys
tem of provincial and Dominion courts, as the State
and federal courts in the United States, but pro
vincial and Dominion law is administered in the
same courts. *
The Provinces and the Dominion. The ten mem
ber provinces of the Dominion conduct their own
local affairs in much the same way as do the States
of our Union. Except Nova Scotia and Quebec,
each . has an elected Legislative Assembly of one
house. These two ancient provinces have also an
appointed upper house, or Legislative Council,
though, as in the others, the provincial Ministry is
responsible to the popularly elected branch in the
same way as the British Ministry is to the House of
Commons. The Canadian provinces do not, however, enjoy
such an extensive or secure body of powers that the
central government must respect, as does an Ameri
can State. Their taxing power is so far restricted
that they receive large gifts annually from the Do
minion government, and they occupy in every way a
place much inferior in independence and dignity
to that of a member of our federal Union. In fact
the principle of reserved powers in the United States
and Canada is exactly opposite; for, whereas in the
1 British North America Act, section 96; Egerton's Federations
and Unions in the British Empire, 210, n. 1.
19

290 Empire and Colonies
United States certain enumerated powers are granted
to the central government and all others are reserved
to the States, in Canada the powers which the pro
vinces are intended to exercise are named and all
others are reserved to the Dominion government.
The latter can accordingly control a great many
things which in our country are reserved to the in
dividual States. As indicated in the last section,
the tendency of constitutional interpretation by the
supreme court is distinctly towards magnifying the
power of the central, or Dominion, government.
Another feature of the supremacy of the Dominion
government is the fact that the Governor-General
may within one year veto any act of a provincial
legislature. In this, as in the performance of his
other governmental functions, he acts on the advice
of his Ministry, or, in the rare cases calling for the
veto of a provincial law for imperial reasons, on the
orders of the government in London.
The Provincial Executive. The chief executive
in each province is the Lieutenant-Governor, ap
pointed by the Governor-General and possessing a
theoretical veto power. But "the official Canadian
view is that refusal of assent" by the Lieutenant-
Governor "is never legitimate" except on the advice
of the Prime Minister of the province or the Do
minion Ministry. The method of vetoing or consent
ing to provincial laws is the same as that described

Self-Governing Colonies 291
for the Dominion, except that the Governor-General
stands in the place of the King and the Lieutenant-
Governor in that of the Governor-General, and the
period during which the provincial law may be vetoed
or allowed to die of neglect by the Governor-General
is one year instead of two. The Lieutenant-Gov
ernor of a Canadian province in fact represents the
Governor-General rather than the King. Provincial
laws involving grave imperial interests may be sent
to England for the consideration of the King (i. e.
Ministry), but the Canadians object so seriously that
it is rarely done.1
The actual executive is the Ministry of the Pro
vince, similar in its small sphere to that of England
or the Dominion, after which it is modelled. They
must resign when out of sympathy with the provin
cial legislature, unless by a- dissolution they can
obtain a new house to support them.
Yukon has not yet developed a responsible min
istry, though the Commissioner, as the executive is
called, is expected to govern in accord with public
opinion, and may dissolve the little legislature of ten
members and call for a new election to ascertain this. z
THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Nature of the Commonwealth. The next oldest
of the colonial federations is that of Australia, which
1 British North America Act, section 90; Keith, ii., 725-32, 1009.
2 Keith's Responsible Government in the Dominions, ii., 767.

292 Empire and Colonies
went into operation in 1901. It includes Tasmania
as a member, one Australian territory not yet ad
mitted to membership, and controls the neighbouring
British possession of Papua. The members, called
"States," form a union which is modelled much more
upon the government of the United States of America
than is that of Canada. In fact, it is a striking
example of the fusion of the distinctive features of
the English and American systems. As in the United
States, the powers of the central (or "Common
wealth") government are enumerated and all other
powers are reserved to the "States," though the
powers granted to the federal government are more
extensive and touch more intimately the daily lives
of the people than is the case in our American federal
republic. "State rights," however, are jealously
guarded. In fact the Australian Supreme Court
regularly speaks of the "sovereignty" of the State
alongside the "sovereignty" of the Commonwealth.1
Decisions of the United States Supreme Court
are quoted freely by the Australian courts in their
bearing upon the principles of federal government.
The " Federal " Parliament of the Commonwealth
consists of a House of Representatives elected for
three years in proportion to population and a Senate
of six members from each State elected, one half at
a time, for six years. A prolonged disagreement
1 Keith, ii., 809.

Self-Governing Colonies 293
between the two houses may be settled by dissolv
ing both and appealing to the people in an election
of new members. In all elections, State and federal,
men and women vote on equal terms.
The Governor-General and the Ministry. The
executive of the Australian Commonwealth is similar
to that of the Dominion of Canada, the nominal
executive being the Governor-General sent from
England, and the real executive the Australian Pre
mier and Ministry responsible to the Commonwealth
House of Representatives.
The Veto. The Governor-General may refuse
his assent to acts of the Commonwealth Parliament
or reserve acts for the consideration of the King (i. e.
the British Ministry), in the same way as described
on page 284 for the Governor-General of Canada,
except that the time limit for the veto is one year
instead of two. A bill neither signed nor vetoed
dies by neglect at the end of two years, as in
Canada.1 Though the veto is more often used in Australia
than in Canada, its employment in either Common
wealth or State government is rare.
The State Governments. Each of the six States
has a two-chambered legislature and a Ministry
responsible to the lower house. The States jeal
ously maintain their rights against the federal
1 Keith, ii., 966, 1015, and 1019.

294 Empire and Colonies
government, and are much more independent than
the provinces of Canada.
/The nominal executive is the Governor, appointed
directly by the Crown (*.- e. the Secretary of State
for Colonies). The functions of the Governor and
King in the signing or vetoing of State laws are the
same as described on page 290 for the Governor-
General of Canada. The Governor-General has
no veto over State laws.1
The Commonwealth Supreme Court. The Aus
tralian, or as it is called, the Commonwealth Supreme
Court, enjoys a greater authority than that of Canada;
for it is created by the Constitution and is recognized
as a co-ordinate branch of the government with the
legislative, as is the judicial department in America;
while the Canadian court is created and its rights are
defined by the Dominion Parliament and is clearly
subordinate to the Parliament.
The Commonwealth Supreme Court declares null
acts of either the Commonwealth or the State legis
latures because contrary to the Constitution, i.e.
' ' The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. ' '
Only with the consent of the Supreme Court can
appeal be taken to the Privy Council in London
"upon any question, howsoever arising, as to the
limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the
Commonwealth and those of any State or States, or
1 Keith, ii., 1013-16.

Self-Governing Colonies 295
as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers
of any two or more States. "
Let us carefully note that the prohibition of appeal
to the Privy Council is forbidden only in cases touch
ing the relations of the Commonwealth and the States.
It would therefore appear that matters of law not
raising constitutional questions might still be carried
to that tribunal. It is in fact provided that, ' ' except
as provided in this section, this Constitution shall not
impair any right which the Queen may be pleased to
exercise by virtue of Her Royal prerogative to grant
special leave of appeal from the High Court1 to Her
Majesty in Council." It is provided, however,
that the Australian Parliament may by statute limit
this right of appeal, but that such laws shall be sent
to England for the approval of the sovereign, i. e.
the British Ministry. 2
Appeals on constitutional questions can go from
the State courts only to the Commonwealth Supreme
Court, though on some matters not constitutional
appeal may be carried from the State courts to the
English Privy Council. ,
Amending the Constitution. The method of amend
ing the Commonwealth Constitution offers too sug
gestive a lesson in federal government to be over-
1 The title of the Australian Supreme Court.
3 Australian Constitution Act, Chapter III, Section 74. Cf.
Egerton's. Federations and Unions in the British Empire, 58, 67, 212-
13 and notes.

296 Empire and Colonies
looked. To many Americans, accustomed to the
unusual rigidity of our own Constitution, the Aus
tralian process will appear to permit a dangerous
instability; to others it will appear to offer a model
towards which we should at least in some degree in
cline. If both houses propose an amendment by a
simple majority, or if one house thus passes it twice
in not less than three months in the same or the suc
ceeding session, it must be submitted to a popular
vote. It is ratified by a mere majority of the total
vote, provided it also has a majority in more than
half the States. Senator La Follette in fact in 19 12
introduced in Congress an amendment to adopt this
plan for amending our federal Constitution.1 This
is doubtless erring almost as badly on one extreme as
does our present constitutional method on the other,
by which it is possible for the thirteen smallest States
containing about a forty-fourth of the country's
population to defeat an amendment demanded by
practically the whole country. Of course the thir
teen smallest States will never range themselves in
this way; but none the less it is to be doubted whether
any amendment to the American Constitution can
secure adoption until after it has long been demanded
by an overwhelming majority of the people.

1 Australian Commonwealth Constitution, Chapter VIII. ; Beard's
American Government and Politics, 63.

Self-Governing Colonies 297
THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA
The Union Parliament. This latest colonial union,
dating from 19 10, consists of the four southernmost
provinces of Africa — the only ones inhabited largely
by white men — and provides for the eventual ad
mission of Rhodesia. The Union Parliament con
sists of a House of Representatives elected by the
people and a Senate of eight members elected from
each of the four provinces of South Africa, and eight
more members for the entire union appointed by
the Governor-General on the advice of his Ministry,
making a total of forty. A deadlock between the
houses may be settled by appealing to the people
by a dissolution and new election of both. Negroes
are excluded from politics, except that some can
vote by meeting an educational qualification in the
province of Cape of Good Hope.1
Governor-General and Ministry. These parts
of the government of South Africa are much the
same as have been described for Canada and Austra
lia. The Ministry is responsible to the lower house.
The law on the veto by the Governor-General or
King is the same as described on page 284 for
1 Keith, ii., 962;' South Africa Act, section 35; Egerton's» Federa
tions and Unions in the British Empire, 246, n. A few negroes may
theoretically but hardly practically vote in Natal, and negroes may
theoretically but not practically be elected to the assembly of Cape
of Good Hope.

298 Empire and Colonies
Canada, except that the time limit is one year instead
of two.1
Provincial Governments. The Governor-General
{i. e. the South African Ministry) appoints an
"Administrator" for each of the four provinces who
is much more of a real executive than is the provin
cial Lieutenant-Governor in Canada or the State
Governor in Australia. Each province has an
elected Assembly, but of much less extensive
powers than the similar bodies in the other two
confederations, and there is no provincial responsible
Ministry. 2
Canada, Australia, and South Africa Contrasted.
Thus we have in the three great self-governing
colonial confederations within the British Empire
three widely varying types of federal government.
The understanding of the profound and extensive
benefits of that system and its wonderful fitness for
solving or preventing some of the most serious difficul
ties involved in governing wide-spreading dominions
had not come generally to be so well understood
outside the United States at the time of the adop
tion of the British North America Act of 1867. It
is probable too that the framers of the Act, in the
somewhat strained relations then existing between
England and the United States, were not unmindful
of the possibility of Canada's needing at some time
1 Keith, ii., 966, 1016. 2 Keith, ii., 967 et seg_.

Self-Governing Colonies 299
the organization necessary for prompt and vigorous
action in defence of British interests against her
powerful neighbour to the southwards. Hence
Canada was given a powerful, close-knit central
government under which the provinces are merely
what their name indicates — provinces, though very
happy and highly privileged provinces.
In the case of Australia neither of the considera
tions applied which led in Canada to the central
government's being given such predominance. She
is removed from the danger of aggression by power
ful neighbours. By 1901 the experience of the
United States and Switzerland, re-enforced by the
success of the federal German Empire since 1871,
had exhibited to the world more impressively than
ever the possibilities of the federal idea. Moreover
that idea had by that time taken powerful hold upon
English opinion as offering perhaps a solution of the
problem of the unity and permanency of the Empire.
Australia therefore presents almost as thorough
going an illustration of the true federal state as does
its great American prototype. The more independ
ent and dignified position of the Australian "State"
is seen in the fact that not the Governor-General,
but only the King («'. e. the British Ministry), can
veto a law passed by a "State" legislature and
Governor, while in Canada not only the King (i. e.
the British Ministry), but the Governor-General

300 Empire and Colonies
also, has this control over the provincial legislatures.1
Again, the Governor of an Australian "State" is
appointed by the King (i. e. the British Ministry),
and is his immediate representative, whereas the
Governor of a Canadian province is appointed by
the Governor-General and represents him rather
than the sovereign.
The circumstances of South Africa are quite differ
ent from those of the other two, and hence her
constitution possesses its own peculiar character.
Australia presents strong and vigorous State and
federal governments, with the emphasis on the
autonomy of the State; Canada presents the same,
with, however, a decided emphasis on the central
government; and South Africa amounts almost to
a supreme central government with the provinces
as subdivisions for limited purposes of local legisla
tion. Some authorities consider that it is so highly
centralized as hardly to be considered a federation.
The reason for this is the necessity of united strength
in the face of the racial and other dangers which
threaten these provinces.
The consolidated character of the South African
government is illustrated too in its judiciary, which
is not called upon to draw the delicate and dangerous
line between central power and state rights. "The
government," says Egerton, "being a union and not
1 Keith, ii., 1013-16.

Self-Governing Colonies 301
a federation, and the powers of Parliament, within
certain limitations, being absolute, the Supreme
Court will not play the leading part that it does in
the great federations; but there will be considerable
convenience in the abolition of four independent
Supreme Courts, none of which was bound by the
decisions of the other."1 Though no litigant pos
sesses the right of appeal from the South African
Supreme Court, the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council may grant in any case special leave of appeal
to itself; but this may be limited by act of the South
African Parliament, with the condition that such
laws must be reserved for the royal approval.
These great republics, Canada and Australia,
each about equal in size to the United States, and
South Africa eventually to equal more than one
third as much, and sure to increase greatly in wealth
and population, thus present three vast experiments
in varying applications of the federalizing and cen
tralizing principles. The results will be watched by
all the world with intense interest in their bearing
on some of the most momentous problems of organ
ized government. OTHER SELF-GOVERNING COLONIES
Newfoundland and New Zealand. So far has the
process of confederation gone where the character
1 Egerton's Federations and Unions in the British Empire, 266, n.

302 Empire and Colonies
of the population and the geographical situation
make it practicable that, besides the colonies in con
federations described above, we have left of the fully
self-governing class only Newfoundland and New
Zealand. The latter, on account of its importance,
is now ranked as a " Dominion," along with' the three
great confederations of colonies already described.
It is necessary to say little in addition regarding
Newfoundland and New Zealand. The nominal
chief executive is the Governor, appointed by the
Crown (i. e. the Colonial Secretary in the British
Ministry), and representing the authority of the
British Government and the unity of the Empire.
He is generally an Englishman, but practically every
other position in a self-governing colony is filled
from the inhabitants, either by the people themselves
or by some appointing power in the colonial govern
ment.1 The relations .between the Governor, the
responsible Ministry of the colony, and the colonial
legislature are the same as already described for
Canada, etc. The Governor, however, is rather
freer to refuse his assent to laws than in the great
confederations of colonies.
The legislature consists of two houses, one ap
pointed by the Crown from the colonial citizenship
and one elected by the people, with the superior
power in the latter.
1 Lowell, ii., 418-19.

Self-Governing Colonies 303
Loyalty versus Compulsion. It would be a mis
take to suppose that the diminution of control by
the mother-country has lessened the bonds of alle
giance between herself and this wonderful sisterhood
of self-governing countries. /On the contrary, the
loss of the thirteen American colonies and some
Jater rebellions made it evident that in seeking to
exercise too much control the home government,
as Benjamin Franklin put it, was following the pro
per "rules by which a great empire may be reduced
to a small one." Loyalty is stronger than compul
sion, and the unity of the Empire has increased in
proportion as its parts have been allowed to manage
their own affairs. The possibility of binding the
whole together in some system of central govern
ment for affairs of common interest in which the
mother-country and colonies shall all participate
will be discussed under the subject of imperial
federation.1 ¦See pages 329-34.

CHAPTER XXVIII
CROWN COLONIES
Definition. A Crown colony is one in whose
government the power of the King (i. e. of the Brit
ish Ministry), is real and constant through its control
over part or all of the colonial officials, instead of
being for most purposes little more than a mere ad
vising influence as in the self-governing colonies.
The constitution of the Crown colony may be ex
pressed either in a charter or in a set of instructions
from the sovereign or in an act of Parliament. It
is not this, but the degree of authority exercised by
the Crown, that determines its class.
First Group: Largely Self-governing. Though
the degree of self-government allowed Crown colo
nies varies greatly, we may fairly set them off into
three groups. First, there are those which are
largely self-governing. The Governor, who in colo
nies of all kinds is appointed by the King, has in
these the free use of the veto and other executive
powers. The legislature consists of two houses,
304

Crown Colonies 305
the consent of both being necessary for the passage
of a law. The upper house is appointed by the King
and insists on its co-ordinate rights in law-making.
The lower house is elected by the people. It is
thus impossible for either element to enforce an
unwelcome law over the other. The upper house
can defeat any measure hostile to the interests of
the Empire at large, and the lower can likewise
protect the interests of the inhabitants of that parti
cular colony, though they cannot without the consent
of the other house enact laws which are demanded
by its needs. This is readily recognized as the form
of government in a royal province in America before
the Revolution. It remains, now, however, in this
pure form only in three instances — Barbados, the
Bermudas, and the Bahamas.
Second Group: Crown Rules with People's Co
operation. The second group of Crown colonies
consists of those in which the Crown retains full
control, but associates with itself representatives of
the people whose advice and information are often
of great influence. Such a Crown colony has a
Governor and a Council with law-making power,
a majority of whose members are appointed by the
Crown and a minority of whom are elected by the
people. These are the colonies in which represen
tative self-government cannot be allowed on account
of the ignorance of the population or the military

306 Empire and Colonies
necessities of the situation. Jamaica has a govern
ment of this sort.
Third Group: Government by Crown Alone. The
third group of Crown colonies consists of mere mili
tary posts like Gibraltar or barbarous regions like
Central Africa, in which the prompt exercise of
untrammelled authority is necessary. In these the
Governor's power is independent of any Council.
The Veto. The Crown, of course, possesses the
right of veto over the acts of the legislatures of Crown
colonies as over those of self-governing colonies,
but with two important differences. First, in a
Crown colony the King (i. e. the British Ministry)
can, in some cases, veto parts of laws without killing
the whole law. Second, except in a few cases, the
King (i. e. the British Ministry) can veto an act
of the legislature of a Crown colony at any time, and
is not limited to doing so within one or two years,
as in the case of the self-governing colonies.1 This
applies, of course, only to new laws; for after the
King has once signed a law, it cannot be undone
except by a new law repealing the former one.
Difficulties. It seems that the best results are
obtained at the two extremes of the colonial system,
i. e. in the great self-governing colonies and in the
Crown colonies which are administered by the Gov
ernor and an appointed Council.2 In the first there
1 Keith, ii., 1019-20. 2 Lowell, ii., 416.

Crown Colonies 307
is no strife, because the Crown recognizes that it
can hope to accomplish anything only by reasonable
advice, and the legislature of the colony is accord
ingly not likely to become alarmed, resentful, or
quarrelsome. In the colony whose inhabitants
have no representation or only a minority upon the
legislative Council, the Governor is not likely to
become angry or to seek by sudden and violent poli
cies to checkmate opposition, as he is secure against
being overridden and hence is the more ready to wel
come the reasonable advice of the inhabitants. The
conflicts in American colonial history because of the
efforts of the royal and popular elements to gain
supremacy where governmental power was divided
between them are often reproduced now in the colo
nies which are still under that system. Where
either side may hope for victory and yet recognizes
that it may be defeated, each will be jealous of the
power which it has and always on the alert to seize
more. The Colonial Civil Service. The a&ninistrative
offices in the self-governing colonies are of course
filled by the colonists themselves by the rules which
they choose to adopt. In the Crown colonies there
are many positions which are filled by men sent out
from the British Isles. The time is long past when
these places were treated as rewards for politicians
or shiftless sons of the nobility, and the colonial

308 Empire and Colonies
civil service today is organized on the principle of
merit. Young men enter the lower ranks by com
petitive examination and seek by efficiency and
character to win the approval of their superiors and
the respect of the colonists. The Governors are
usually chosen from among the men who have proved
their ability in the more responsible colonial posi
tions. Some of the finest examples of English states
manship have been afforded by the work of such
empire builders as Lord Clive in India, Cecil Rhodes
in South Africa, and Earl Cromer in Egypt, the first
and last named of whom were given their titles for
their achievements. The spirit of loyalty to the
service is intense, and many a bright young man
puts forth his best efforts in emulation of the deeds
of these great leaders in the hope perhaps of earning
a knighthood or a title of nobility.

CHAPTER XXIX
INDIA — PROTECTORATES
The Indian Empire. India is not legally classed
as a colony. It is in fact an empire in itself and
is recognized as such by the British government.
Hence the title of the English sovereign is King of
Great Britain and Ireland and Emperor of India,
and his official signature, "George R. & I." — Rex
et Imperator.1
Discordant Racial Elements. India is equal in
area to almost two thirds of the United States and
contains over 315,000,000 people. Though an em
pire in extent and population, it is not a nation, but
on the contrary is a conglomeration of races, lan
guages, and religions which divide it into many
distinct and jealous peoples.2 It is this absence
1 The exact legal title of the reigning sovereign is "George V.,
by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, De
fender of the Faith, Emperor of India."
"In 191 1 the Indo-European Indians, or Aryans (i. e. those
whose race is akin to the ra~es of Europe, though mingled in various
309

310 Empire and Colonies
of any common race unity or national patriotism
which has made it possible for the country to be
conquered by a comparatively small number of Eng
lishmen. Though many educated Indians desire
independence, or at least self-government on some
such plan as enjoyed by Canada, Australia, or South
Africa, yet many of them fear that this would lead
to control and consequent tyranny by some powerful
racial or religious element. These jealousies are
so strong that, whatever changes the near future
may bring, there is little likelihood of any system
in which England will be without the moderating
and directing authority.
Degree of Parliamentary Control. Though the
British Parliament has legally the same unlimited
sovereignty over India as over any other part of the
Empire or over England itself, it wisely chooses to
leave the government of the great dependency in
the hands of experienced men who know from long
residence there her peculiar problems and difficulties.
Having prescribed the form of government, Parlia-
degrees with that of the dark-skinned aborigines) equalled 232,820,-
000; the Dravidians (ranging from 'almost black when pure to
Hght when mixed with Aryans), 62,720,000. The latter are mainly
in the south. The Aryans, having pushed in from the north-west,
occupy the northern bulk of India.
There were in 191 1 217,586,892 Hindus, 66,647,299 Moham
medans, 10,721,453 Buddhists, 10,295,168 Animists, 3,876,203
Christians, 3,014,466 Sikhs, 1,248,182 Jains. Other religious
sects are insignificant. — Statesman's Year Book for 1915, 128, 131.

India — Protectorates 311
ment rarely interferes further than to control the
general policy or relations of India toward the rest
of the Empire or the outside world. Parliament,
says Sir Courtenay Ilbert, not only passes few laws for
India, but in legislating for that country uses "wide
and general terms, leaving all details and some im
portant matters of principle to be determined by
regulations and rules made by the authorities in
India."1I The Secretary of State for India. The immediate
agent of communication between Parliament and
this great dependency is the Secretary of State for
India, who is a member of the Cabinet and so directly
responsible to the House of Commons. He resides,
of course, in London. He is the supreme authority
in the administration of India and can issue such
orders as he sees fit, within the bounds of law, to
the officials throughout that country. Though he
may veto any act of an Indian Legislative Council,
he rarely does so.2
The Secretary of State's Council for India. The
Secretary is assisted by a Council, consisting of
fourteen members appointed by himself, nine of
whom must have recently resided at least ten years
in India, and two of whom are natives. The expen-
1 Journal of Comparative Legislation, n, 245.
1 Rt. Hon. Syed Ameer Ali in Nineteenth Century and After, 67,
402.

312 Empire and Colonies
diture of Indian revenues must receive their approval,
and Indian affairs in general are submitted to their
discussion, though not control. In matters of peace
and war, foreign affairs, relations with native states, z
and those requiring secrecy and dispatch, the Secre
tary may act without consulting the Council. The
purpose of the latter is thus to supply advice, warn
ing, suggestion, and the supervision of a sort of
prudential body of opinion without hampering the
freedom and responsibility of administration.
The Viceroy. We may now consider ourselves
transferred to the territory of India itself. Over
the whole country is an English official, usually a
great nobleman, entitled the "Viceroy and Governor-
General." He is appointed by the Crown for a
term of five years, resides in India, and represents
the sovereign. His selection rests, of course, not
with the King, but with the Prime Minister. He
consults with the Secretary of State for India; but
the responsibility for this great appointment is the
Premier's. On the accession of a new King in Eng
land, the Viceroy celebrates the sovereign's accession
as Emperor of India in a magnificent pageant called
the durbar, similar to the royal coronation in Lon
don, in which turbaned sepoys with their flashing"
arms, bejewelled princes riding on elegantly capa
risoned elephants, and all the blaze of oriental colour
1 For the meaning of "native states," see page 325.

India — Protectorates 313
are employed to Stir in the people a sense of reverence
and pride towards the successor of the Grand Mogul.
King George V and his Queen, themselves, visited
India and held the durbar, with excellent results.
The Governor-General in Council. The Viceroy,
or, as he is commonly called, the Governor-General,
has an Executive Council of eight members besides
himself appointed by the Crown {i. e. by the Secre
tary of State for India), one of whom is a native.
Subject to the ultimate authority of the British
Government, supreme executive power over all
India rests with "The Governor-General in Council."
He may veto the acts of the Central Legislative
Council1 or of any Provincial Legislative Council,'.
and important laws or expenditures of the latter
must receive his approval. Although he usually
acts in accord with the advice of his Executive
Council, he can disregard them and follow his own
opinion. The responsibility assumed by a Governor-
General, in India for only a few years even if reap
pointed after his five-year term, who chooses tiius
to act on his own opinions in defiance of those who
have grown old in the service, is so overwhelming
that only a man of great courage or great rashness
will assume it. Yet it is the Governor-Generals
who know how and dare to use their personal author
ity in proper measure who accomplish reforms and
'See page 314. 'Seepage 317.

314 Empire arid Colonies
leave their marks on Indian progress. But it is also
true that they frequently confer their great benefits
upon the ignorant and prejudiced masses of the
Indian people at the peril of serious discontent at
the change of ancient custom.
The fact that a great deal that falls into the control
of the Legislature at home is assigned to the executive
in India makes the Governor-General's power for
good or evil immense, and raises his office to a posi
tion of almost unexampled responsibility.
The Legislative Council of India. Law-making
power for this vast empire rests with a Legislative
Council consisting of sixty-eight members. z Twenty-
five are elected directly or indirectly by the natives.j
The others consist of the eight Executive Council
lors and in addition thirty-five members appointed
by the Governor-General in such a way as to secure
representation for the various interests and classes
of the population. Twenty-eight of the latter must
be officials. These, added to the eight Executive
Councillors, give the officials a majority of four; so
that in the last resort the English element by acting
together can exercise control.
The Governor-General may forbid the candidature
1 The Rt. Hon. Syed Ameer Ah, in The Nineteenth Century and
After, 67, 401, n., says "68, inclusive of the Viceroy." But Sir
Courtenay Ilbert's statement (Journal of the Society of Comparative
Legislation, 11, 246), that there are 68 exclusive of the Viceroy.
seems clearly correct.

India — Protectorates 315
among the elected members of any one whom he
considers dangerous to the Imperial interests. Not
withstanding this and the limitations described in
the next section, the Legislative Council is a most
valuable means of bringing native aspirations and
the views of different minds, English and native,
to bear upon the shaping of the laws.
The Powers of the Legislative Council of India,
though far in advance of what Indians have ever
enjoyed, are quite limited. They consist of three
functions, (a) legislative, (b) deliberative, and (c)
interrogatory. (a) The Legislative Council possesses really no
initiative in law-making, but may simply adopt or
reject laws that are proposed to it by the Governor-
General or members of his Council. Many matters,
moreover, are subject to determination by the ex
ecutive without consultation with the Legislative
Council. (b) The deliberative functions are concerned,
first with the budget.1 The estimate of expendi
tures and necessary taxes to meet them is presented
by the member of the Executive Council in charge
of finance. The provisions for the army, interest
on the public debt, government railways, and a few
other services of supreme necessity cannot be dis
cussed. With these exceptions, any member may
1 For definition of the budget, see pages 63 and 142.

316 Eriipire and Colonies
debate and may make any motion he chooses on
any item of the budget. The' votes of the Council
are merely advice, which the executive may either
accept or reject.
The second deliberative function of the Legisla
tive Council consists of the right to debate and vote
upon resolutions offered by any member upon any
subject of public interest, with a few exceptions, as,
e. g., relations with foreign countries and native
states.1 The vote of the Council is merely advice
to the executive, which may be ignored or may be
accepted as the basis for a bill to be presented to the
Council for enactment into law.
(c) The interrogatory right permits any member
of the Legislative Council to put any resqectful
question to the officials at the head of the various
executive departments.
The Provinces. Only 61 per cent, of the territory
containing 78 per cent, of the population of the
Indian Empire is under direct British administra
tion. The rest, though under British sovereignty,
is ruled by native princes.2 The two thirds ruled
directly by England is divided into fifteen provinces.
Over each of the seven leading provinces there
is a Governor or Lieutenant-Governor, and over
the eight lesser ones a Chief Commissioner.3 The
1 For definition of native states, see page 325. 2 See pages 325-6.
a Bombay, Bengal, and Madras are called Presidencies. Their

India — Protectorates 317
government of the seven principal provinces allows
a considerable representation of native opinion, as
will be presently described. The lesser provinces
lie among- the less developed regions of the Empire
and are governed by their Chief Commissioner or
the Governor General and his Executive and Legis
lative Councils without the participation of their
inhabitants in law-making.
Councils in the Provinces. In the seven leading
provinces, the Governor or Lieutenant-Governor
is assisted by a small Executive Council including
one native; and local law-making is entrusted, to a
certain extent, to Legislative Councils, over a third
of whose members are elected and a clear majority
of whose members are non-office-holding natives.1
The appointed members are named by the chief
executive of the province, who may also forbid the
candidature of an elective representative whom he
considers dangerous.
The procedure of the Provincial Councils regard
ing the budget, proposed laws, etc., is similar to that
of the Central Legislative Council.2
The functions of the Provincial Governors and
their Councils are so extensive and important, that,

executive is styled Governor and is appointed by the Crown. The
executives of the other provinces are appointed by the Governor-
General. 1 North American Review, 192, 373. ' See page 315.

3i 8 Empire and Colonies
it is reliably stated, "good or bad administration
in India depends to a greater extent upon the pro
vincial government than on the authorities in Cal
cutta or London."1
The Suffrage. Indian society is so cut up into
hostile racial and religious factions that it is con
sidered impracticable to apportion representation on
the basis merely of population as in many western
countries. Accordingly, the members of the Central
and Provincial Legislative Councils are elected to
represent classes and interests, as, e. g., the Moham
medans, the merchants, the farmers, etc. The
qualifications for voting are complex and are based
upon honours, higher education, or the ownership
of property. The people in some cases elect the
Councillor directly, and in others choose electors,
who in turn elect the Councillor. The term is three
years.2 Reserved Power of the Executive. The Governor
or Lieutenant-Governor (as the case may be) of the
province has a veto on the acts of the Legislative
Council; and if that body fails to enact measures,
that he considers necessary, he may appeal to the
Legislative Council for India to enact the desired
law. The Viceroy and the British Government in
1 Political Science Quarterly, xxvi., 305. Calcutta was until
recently the capital of India; but Delhi, the ancient Mogul capital,
has again been made the seat of government.
2 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, 11, 248-51.

India — Protectorates 319
London also may veto any act of a provincial legis
lature. In further limitation, the provincial legisla
ture is forbidden to deal with certain subjects, the
handling of which might lead to dangerous conse
quences. The presiding officer in the Legislative
Councils possesses wide authority to rule out of
order any question or resolution without assigning
his reasons. The government of India is, in fact,
as has been well said, "a compromise between con
flicting principles — the absolutism of the Mogul
emperors and the democratic ideal of the House of
Commons. These are the sources of the British
sovereignty in India, and certain necessary con
sequences flow from them."1 But despite these
restrictions, the government of India is now admin
istered in closer touch with native opinion than ever
before. Effects of Increased Native Power. The increased
participation of natives in the directing authority
of the government was enacted by Parliament in
1909 under the leadership of Secretary of State for
India Lord Morley and Viceroy Lord Minto, against
violent criticism. This was the answer of the British
Government to the demands of the " Indian National
Congress"2 and the widespread popular discontent
1 Blackwood's Magazine, 188, 706.
2 The Indian National Congress is a convention of entirely un
official character which has met annually from city to city since
1885. Its proceedings are in English, as the common language

320 Empire and Colonies
during recent years. Only a small educated class
in India cares for political power or is prepared to
exercise it; and a part of that class is fully as selfish
as patriotic in its aims. Already the English
members have had to protect the interests of the
vast mass of small farmers against the grasping class
policy of the native landlords and lawyers in the
Legislative Councils, though in general the native
members have co-operated cordially with the English
official members in the tasks of government.1
On account of the bitter rivalry between the
Hindus and Mohammedans and the further sharp
division into castes, with the consequent absence of
the feeling of community interest, the cultivation
of the proper spirit for popular self-government is
more difficult in India than in any other civilized
country in the world; and it is not by any means
certain that either the justice or efficiency of the
government would for many years to come be
increased by enlarging any further the element of
native control.
The District. The province is divided into dis
tricts, containing on an average almost a million

of the educated native classes, whose aspirations for self-govern
ment it voices. The "Moderates" desire a system similar to that
of Canada, Australia, or South Africa; the "Extremists" demand
absolute independence.
1 Political Science Quarterly, 26, 310; Blackwood's Magazine, 188,
711.

India — Protectorates 32 1
people. Over the district is an English official who
is the responsible arm of the provincial government
in the execution of all its powers, except the judiciary.
It is this group of some two hundred and fifty men
who are the actual executors of the vastest system of
paternal government that the world has ever seen,
and whose fidelity and efficiency are the basis for
ex-President Roosevelt's remark that "The success
ful administration of the Indian Empire by the
English has been one of the most notable and admir
able achievements of the white race during the last
two centuries."
Municipal and Rural Self-Government. In the
administration of local affairs the English are employ
ing more and more the services of the natives. In
over seven hundred cities1 there are municipal coun
cils called Committees. In many of the smaller
places and all the larger, the majority of the Commit
tee are elected by the taxpayers. In all places a
majority of the members, and in many places all,
are natives. They "have the care of , the lighting
of the roads, water supply, drainage, sanitation,
medical relief, vaccination, and education, particu
larly primary education; they impose taxes, enact
by-laws, make improvements, and spend money."2 *
'Having a population aggregating about 17,000,000. — States
man's Year Book, for 1915, 123; Lord Curzon in North American
Review, cxcii., 154.
2 Statesman's Year Book for 1915, 123.

322 Empire and Colonies
All these functions are performed under the super
vision of the provincial government, which possesses
the right of veto.
The same system exists also to a considerable
extent for rural affairs.1
The Indian Civil Service. The officers of the
Indian civil service are selected by competitive
examination and promoted according to efficiency
and loyalty. Almost all the higher positions are
filled by men from the British Isles, though there is
a steady tendency to give more and more positions
of responsibility to Indians. Two considerations
with reference to the appointment of natives must
always be held in mind — the necessity of keeping
the administration loyal to the Crown and the lack
of governing ability among most of the native races.
Natives are found, however, in the highest courts
and Executive and Legislative Councils. Most of
the lower and all of the lowest positions are filled by
Indians, so that the government of this vast empire
is in the hands of about twelve hundred higher and
six or eight thousand lower English officials and a
million and a half natives.2

1 Statesman's Year Book for 1915, 123.
2 Lowell, ii., 422. Lord Curzon says that he has seen the state
ment that the government employees of all grades in India (not
including the army) include 1,500,000 natives and 10,000 Europeans.
(North American Review, vol. cxci., p. 156; August, 1910.) The
Cyclopadia Britannica, xiv., 386, and other authorities, indicate

India — Protectorates 323
Law and Judiciary. The teeming millions of
India have received the inestimable blessing of
England's just, humane, and uniform system of crimi
nal law. By some of the ablest judicial minds
the criminal law has been systematized into a code,
which is made the clearer by illustrations of actual
cases briefly stated under each section. The code
is drawn in part from Indian and Roman law, but
is fundamentally English law simplified and adapted
to Indian conditions.1
In civil law the situation is somewhat different.
It is necessary to regard in the relationships of life,
business transactions, etc., the habits to which a
people have long been accustomed. Hence, "for
many civil purposes the law of race, religion, and
caste governs."2
The English jury system has been introduced in
a modified form in criminal trials. There is no
grand jury, and the. trial jury consists of three, five,
seven, or nine members according to the gravity of
the case and the grade of the court. A verdict is
rendered by a majority. The right of appeal is
much more extensive than in England itself,3 due
doubtless to the lack of confidence in the lower native
courts. The higher courts even review the decisions
that 6,500 would be nearer the total number of Europeans. Cf.
N. A. R., cxcii., p. 374.
1 Cyclopadia Britannica, vii., 463.
' lb. 1 lb., vii., 464.

324 Empire and Colonies
of the lower courts without appeal being made, in
order to correct injustice. The government retains
extensive power of banishment or imprisonment
without trial in emergencies.
The jury is never employed in civil cases in
India.1 India has a body of well-educated and well-paid.,
judges. Indians hold the great majority of the lower
and many of the higher judgeships, and some are
found even in the highest courts. In the great pro
vinces having the more liberal forms of government,
final appeal lies to the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council in London.
The Army. The government of India keeps a
standing army of about 230,000 men, two thirds
being natives and one third British, with the pur
pose of preventing insurrections, wars between native
princes, and conquest by foreign powers. They are
all supported out of the Indian taxes, as are all civil
officials of the Indian government. When on service
outside India, they are paid by the British treasury.
The government maintains about 100,000 troops
besides these for police purposes, etc. The princes
of the native states keep armies aggregating about
100,000 men, organized and officered as they see
fit. The British Government has nothing to do
1 Ilbert's Government of India, and Imperial Gazetteer of India, iv.,
on juries.

India — Protectorates 325
with these troops further than to limit their number,
etc., as they think proper.
Native States. What has been said so far de
scribes the government of that portion of India
which is under the direct control of the English.
Almost a fourth of the population1 is still under the
government of native princes. The agencies for
the improvement of the condition of the people and
the rudiments of self-government which have been
introduced by the British in their territories have
been set up by some of the more progressive native
rulers in their states, while in others the ancient
personal authority of the sovereign remains unmodi
fied by popular elements. The Gaekwar of Baroda,
e. g., a state of almost two and a half million inhabi
tants, has adopted progressive western methods with
such success as to be regarded with the greatest
pride by the party of Indian self-government, who
proclaim Baroda as "regarded all over India as. a
model state."2
Such serious discontent was caused by the aboli
tion of the native dynasties that their dethronement
by conquest and the annexation of their possessions
directly to the British Crown has long ago been

1 Thirty-nine per cent, of the territory and twenty-two per cent.
of the population.
3 See account by Saint Nihal Singh in the North American Review
for September, 191 1; cxcii., 376.

326 Empire and Colonies
abandoned. There are almost seven hundred of
these native states, varying in size from eighty-two
thousand square miles with thirteen and a third
million people down to little areas hardly bigger
than a large plantation.1
The British Resident. The native prince is by
no means free to govern as he pleases ; for at his court
there is a British Resident, whose advice he is
virtually obliged to follow. The English King as
Emperor of India is the prince's immediate overlord,
something as the King of mediaeval France, e. g.,
was the overlord of the Duke of Burgundy, and may
interfere in any way that he sees fit to protect either
his own interests or those of the prince's subjects.
The British did not create this feudal relation, but
found it in a state of decay and restored it in its
full vigour when the King as Emperor of India
assumed the duties of the deposed Grand Mogul.
Bad government brings a warning; and if the
prince proves permanently stubborn or incapable, he
is deposed and his place filled by some proper relative. 2
British control over such public works as railways
and telegraphs extends throughout the native states
the same as through other parts of India, and
Europeans can be tried only before an English court.
The native states thus cannot be called colonies
1 Lowell, ii., 425; Statesman's Year Book for IQI$, 125.
2 lb., ii., 425-6.

India — Protectorates 327
so much as protectorates, or dependencies. They
are protected both against invasion by enemies and
rebellion by their subjects, but are dependent upon
the British Government.
Egypt. After exercising an authority amounting
to sovereignty for over thirty years, England, in
1914, in consequence of the Khedive's joining his
nominal overlord, Turkey, in declaring war against
England, deposed the Khedive, put his uncle on the
throne with the more exalted title of Sultan, and
declared the country annexed to the British Empire
as a protectorate. England had fortunately the
very year previous set up a very liberal degree of
self-government for an oriental country, and hence
the dangers to British rule were there, as in India
and South Africa, forestalled by the just and reason
able recognition which had been given to national
aspirations. The Sultan and the Lord High Commissioner.
The Sultan has as chief adviser an Englishman
known as the Lord High Commissioner. Though
the Sultan is treated with great respect, and though
his consent is necessary to acts of government, he
has slight freedom in resisting the determination of
his British adviser.
The Ministry. The executive departments are
in charge of seven native Ministers; but each has
an English adviser whose opinion carries great weight,

328 Empire and Colonies
and over them all is the British Lord High Commis
sioner. Englishmen fill so many of the higher ad
ministrative positions as to cause serious discontent
among ambitious educated Egyptians.
The Legislative Assembly. This body, dating in
its present enlarged form from 1913, affords the
natives an ample opportunity to express their desires,
and a strong means of inducing the government to
enact them into law. The Assembly consists of
ninety members. Of these the ministers and cer
tain members appointed to represent different
classes constitute twenty-four. The other sixty-six
are chosen by the people through electoral colleges.
No new tax can be imposed without the consent
of the Assembly. If the executive cannot convince
the Assembly of the need of a law which it desires,
it can, after full discussion, enact it without their
consent. The executive also has the power of abso
lute veto upon any bill passed by the Assembly.
The latter, however, possesses the right of compel
ling the government to veto any proposal three
times before it is considered disposed of for that
occasion. It is thus made unpleasant and even
unsafe persistently to disregard the desires of the
inhabitants. A Local Legislature is elected by the people in
each province. It has authority to pass ordinances
on certain local affairs, particularly markets, vii-

India — Protectorates 329
lages, elementary education, and the pay of local
police.1 Effects of English Rule. England feels that she
must remain in Egypt to insure her route to India;
but, in accord with the enlightened policy on which
she has learned to rule her Empire, she has made
good her position by a series of economic, engineer
ing, sanitary, and political improvements and safe
guards for the small farmer which have given Egypt
a prosperity beyond anything which the people
have ever known.
The Future of the Empire. What will be the
fate of England's far-spreading and heterogeneous
Empire as its various constituent nations of non-
English blood come to national consciousness, intel
ligence, and wealth, only the future can tell. If all
the colonies were of English stock and traditions,
the problem would still be one demanding the high
est talent for government; but to devise a plan of
holding together permanently vast nations scat
tered over the whole face of the globe, differing
in race, religion, traditions, ideals, and degree of
civilization as widely as they do in geographical
position, would constitute a triumph of constructive
statesmanship beyond anything history has yet wit
nessed. While giving these peoples the benefit of those
1 Statesman's Year Book for 1913, 1325.

33° Empire and Colonies
elements in English civilization that appear suitable
to their needs and temperaments, England studi
ously refrains from the policy which has made
foreign domination so hateful to several subject
peoples on the continent of Europe — the policy of
seeking to force upon them a civilization not their
own. The bond of union must be the realization of a
common interest, ennobled with a sense of a common
patriotism. That the non-English races are coming
to share this spirit is testified by many such expres
sions as that of a noted Indian in picturing the
effects of British rule upon his country:
Unmindful of their ancient name
And lost to Honour, Glory, Fame,
And sunk in strife
Thou found'st them, whom thy touch has made
Men, to whom thy breath conveyed
A nobler life.1
Except by giving life itself, as many Indians have
done, no more eloquent or significant expression of
this same sentiment could be given than the follow
ing cry of devotion to "the mother-country" by a
native Indian newspaper on the outbreak of the
Great War, in 1914:
Behind the serried ranks of one of the finest armies
in the world, there stand the multitudinous peoples of
1 Nawab Nizamut Jung, High Court Judge of Hyderabad.

India — Protectorates 331
India, ready to co-operate with the Government in the
defence of the Empire, which, for them, means, in its
ultimate evolution, the complete recognition of their
rights as citizens of the freest State in the world. We
may have our differences with the Government — and
what people have not? — but in the presence of a common
enemy, be it Germany or any other Power, we sink
our differences, we forget our little quarrels, and close
our ranks, and offer all that we possess in defence of the
great Empire, to which we are all so proud to belong
and with which the future prosperity and advancement
of our people are bound up.1
Not only an affection that instinctively speaks of
England as "the motherland," but a clear under
standing of what the British connection means for
India, appears in the following extract from another
native newspaper:
India's fortunes are indissolubly linked up with those
of England. As Lord Curzon rightly said, India cannot
do without England, and England would be impotent
without India. It is not implied that the mother-
country has not enough men to fight the battles, or that
it cannot unaided crush Germany! But the Indians
and the Europeans in this country owe it to themselves
to don the armour in defence of the Empire, to defend
India, and, if need be, to go to any other part of the
world at the call of the motherland.*
With due moderation, strength, and wisdom, the
1 The Bengalee, Calcutta. 2 The Beharee, of Bankipore.

332 Empire and Colonies
Empire may go far to teach the world a peaceful
federation of mankind; for if such a vast proportion
of the race can live at harmony with itself, why
cannot a still larger portion?
Imperial Conferences. The staggering weight of
the imperial problem, together with ideas of an indi
vidualistic philosophy, led a large part of the English
people a few decades ago to anticipate with com
posure the ultimate dissolution of the Empire into
independent nations. Such views are now held by
practically nobody, and the leaders of politics took
up some years ago with the enthusiasm of a great
ideal the task of binding the Empire into closer
material and spiritual union. In pursuance of this
there have been several conferences in London
between representatives of the mother-country and
the self-governing colonies, and it is now arranged
that these shall occur every four years. The mother-
country will be represented by the Premier and the
Colonial Secretary, and the colonies by their Pre
miers and other delegates. Steps have been taken
for the representation of India at future conferences,
in recognition of her splendid loyalty and service
in the Great War. These imperial conferences
have no law-making authority. They indicate a
spirit of closer union, however, as does the fact that
several of the self-governing colonies, even before
the Great War, began granting slightly lower tariff

India — Protectorates 333
rates to products from the British Isles than to those
from other countries.1
Imperial Federation. Any form of world-wide
federal government for the Empire including pos
sessions inhabited by non-European stocks seems
far beyond the possibilities of the present. Even a
federation of the mother-country and the great
white man colonies in an imperial legislature to
make laws on matters of common interest, such as
war, navy, foreign affairs, and commercial relations
between parts of the Empire and with the outside
world, presents difficulties greater than have ever
confronted the framers of a successful confederacy.
But in the crucible of a common agony and peril
things have come to light that could not be discovered
by the cold speculations of current politics. The
Great War revealed to an astonished world how
powerful and how nearly universal is the love of the
Empire, its ideals and blessings, when at the cry of
the mother the men of the lion line from over land
and sea came and kept coming to seal their devotion
with their lives. Since history has been written the
world had never witnessed such a sublime expres
sion of uncompelled devotion among so many
different kinds of men and countries to a motherland
whom they loved for what she was and what she
had done for them and for all mankind.
1 Lowell, ii., 435-8.

334 Empire and Colonies
The meaning of this is too plain to be overlooked;
but what changes it will produce in the organic
structure of the Empire can only be conjectured.
Some expect early a common council of mother-
country and colonies with authority over such mat
ters as army, navy, peace, war, international and
mtra-imperial relations, tariffs, etc. But some of
the wisest and most experienced empire builders
perceive so many difficulties in the way of any formal
imperial constitution that they expect the organiza
tion of the past, to any considerable extent, for a
long time yet to be modified in spirit rather than
mechanism.

BOOK IV
Social and Political Characteristics

335

BOOK W. SOCIAL AND POLITICAL
CHARACTERISTICS CHAPTER XXX
THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH
Origin of Union of Church and State. Like many
other European countries, England has an "estab
lished church," i. e. one particular denomination
which enjoys a peculiar and privileged position.
This system originated in the Middle Ages when
practically all the inhabitants of one country were
of the same religion, and it was considered that a
person must belong to the church as it is now that
he must be a citizen of the state, whether he cares
to or not. A natural conclusion was that the ex
penses of religion should be supported by taxation,
either by the state itself or by church officials backed
by the power of the state. With the division of
people among different creeds in the modern world,
this system has become impossible; although it took
centuries of bloody warfare and fruitless persecution
22 337

338 Social and Political Characteristics
to convince mankind that the only way to secure
peace is to allow every person to belong to any
church he pleases or to none at all. Although they
realize this in England as fully as in this country,
still some remnants of the old system remain and
are among the most productive causes of strife and
ill-feeling. The established church, called the Church of
England, bears the name of Protestant Episcopal
and corresponds to the denomination known in the
United States by the same title; and though it enjoys
many special advantages, its privileges are by no
means what they once were.
Support of the Church. In the Middle Ages vast
tracts of land were donated to the church. Many
of these it still holds and of course draws their in
come. Also in those distant times it was the law
that a tenth of the products from the land should
be paid to the church. Though the right to collect
these tithes was at the time of the Reformation in
many cases taken by the government from the
church and sold or given as a favour to laymen,
mere private persons, the church still retains from
this source an annual income equal to perhaps fifteen
or twenty million dollars.1 The voluntary contribu-
1 Lowell, ii., 375. The voluntary contributions to the Church of
England amounted for the year 1913-14 to £8,207,000 or $39,924,-
262. — Statesman's Year Book for 1915, 26.

The Established Church 339
tions of its members, though more than twice that
amount, are nevertheless made much less burdensome
than must be the case in other churches.
The Tithes. The tithes are not strictly a tax
today upon the landowners, though they are, of
course, a portion of the national income appropri
ated to the benefit of one particular part of the
community. When the tithes were first imposed
they were in full effect a tax on the landlords at that
time. They do not now constitute a burden on the
landowners; for when they or their ancestors bought
their lands, they got them at a price less in amount
in proportion to the amount of the tithes, and hence
received as good a return on their investment as they
would have received on a larger sum if they had had
to pay a higher price on account of the land's being
free from tithes. To abolish tithes today would
amount to a stupendous gift to the landholders.
Therefore, even though the Church of England
should be disestablished, *. e. deprived of its special
privileges and required to five, like other churches,
by the voluntary contributions of its members, the
tithes would not be abolished; but, being in the
nature of a charge for public purposes, they would
be appropriated by the government for the support
of education, charity, or other general benefits for
the nation at large.
Thus, though in a sense the established church

34° Social and Political Characteristics
lays no burden of tax on the people, it does enjoy a
vast income contributed by the nation at large, and
hence possesses a special privilege out of harmony
with the principles of justice and modern democratic
equality before the law. This unfairness is dimin
ished, but not entirely relieved, by the fact that
the larger part of the lands from which the tithes
are derived are owned by members of the established
church. *
The last privilege of the church to lay a special
tax on the people in addition to the tithe was abol
ished in 1868, and it has been almost a hundred
years since Parliament appropriated money for its
assistance. The King the Head of the Church. One result of
the Reformation in England was to make the King
by act of Parliament Supreme Head on Earth of the
established church. Until modern times this con
ferred upon the sovereign some of his most im
portant powers and lodged in his hands momentous
opportunities for good or evil. Though the personal
authority of the King in this as in other matters is
gone, and the modern principle of keeping religion
and politics apart has deprived the legal union of
1 Though the tithes are sometimes collected from the landlord
and sometimes from the tenant, they are theoretically deducted
from the income of the landlord, as otherwise his rents would be
higher. We cannot enter upon the complicated subject of the
shifting of the burden between the landlord and the tenant.

The Established Church 341
church and state of much of its former significance,
we shall perceive in the following paragraphs that
there still remain certain important effects.
Government Control. As strange and unper-
missible as such a thing may seem to an American,
the organization of the established church, and even
its creed and religious ceremonies, are prescribed
by act of Parliament. Though these are not now
subjects of political controversy, a Parliament
composed of a majority of men of a hostile religion
could legally force upon it a creed denying every
article of Christian, belief. Any serious interfer
ence with religion would, however, put an end to
the union of church and state ; for a powerful faction
within "the establishment" itself jealously resents
any control by the state; and though the people of
modern England tolerate the remnants of the an
cient system, they would not endure any attempt to
revive its activity.
Bishops and Dioceses. For purposes of church
government, England is divided into two provinces,
Canterbury in the south and York in the north, the
former being much the larger. Each province is
divided into a number of dioceses, there being thirty-
six.1 Over each diocese there is a bishop, and

1 The Welsh Disestablishment Act of 1914, by putting the Episcopal
Church in Wales on the same basis as other churches reduced the
number of bishoprics in the "established church" from 40 to 36.

342 Social and Political Characteristics
over each of the two provinces there is an arch
bishop. There are also suffragan (i. e. assistant)
bishops, about equal in number to the bishops,
each having charge of a particular part of the diocese
of the bishop whom he assists.
The authority of the bishop is confined to his
own diocese. The archbishop has a diocese of his
own, in which he performs all the ordinary duties
of a bishop; but he also possesses in addition cer
tain rights of leadership and supervision over all
the dioceses of his province. Neither archbishop
can interfere in the province of the other; though the
Archbishop of Canterbury, as "Primate of all Eng
land," is considered the head of the church under
the King and enjoys the distinction of crowning the
sovereign and taking precedence on all official occa
sions of every person in the realm after princes of
the royal blood.
Convocation. Every year the King as legal head
of the church orders the archbishops respectively
to summon the ancient representative legislative
body of each of the two provinces, called Convoca
tion. One of the most important consequences of
the union of church and state is that Convocation
can neither meet nor deliberate without the express
permission of the King, and that its resolutions
The four Episcopal dioceses and bishops in Wales continue their
religious duties as before.

The Established Church 343
*
have no binding force without the royal sanction.
Their meetings are ordinarily simply for consulta
tion, and only on rare occasions are they allowed to
discuss church legislation.
Convocation consists of two houses. The upper
is made up of the bishops, presided over by the arch
bishop. The lower consists of the suffragan bishops,
certain higher clergy called archdeacons and deans,
and of representatives of the parish pastors and
cathedral chapters elected at the same time that
parliamentary elections occur.1 In the province
of Canterbury the parish pastors in each diocese
elect two representatives called proctors, and
each cathedral chapter elects one proctor. A
cathedral chapter consists of four (in a few in
stances five or six) eminent clergymen who form a
sort of council to the bishop and have duties con
nected with the Cathedral, i. e. the bishop's
church, of the diocese. The rule in the province
of York is the same, except that the parish clergy
there elect two proctors for each archdeaconry.
The lower house consists of about 160 members in
Canterbury and about 80 in York. It is evident
1 For suffragan bishops, see page 342.
The bishop's assistant, known as the dean, is next in rank below
the bishop. There is ordinarily one for each diocese. Some dio
ceses are divided into two and some into four archdeaconries, and
over each is an archdeacon with extensive powers in carrying out
the authority of the bishop. In 1913 there were about thirty-two
deans and one hundred archdeacons in England.

344 Social and Political Characteristics
that the system is very undemocratic, as the repre
sentatives of the thousands of parish pastors are
outnumbered by the upper ranks of the clergy who
are members of the lower house.
The House of Laymen. Of late years there has
been created in both the provinces of Canterbury
and York an extra-legal body called the House of
Laymen, with the object of obtaining their view
point and co-operation in the work of the church.
It consists of delegates chosen by elected representa
tives of the laymen of the church. They have,
of course, no authority in church government.
The Representative Church Assembly. The con
vocations of Canterbury and York are entirely inde
pendent of each other ; but a means has been devised
for bringing together a body which may express
the aspirations and counsels of the entire body of
the established church. This is the Representative
Church Assembly. It consists of the Convocations
and the Houses of Laymen of both provinces all
meeting as one body. Though entirely outside the
legal constitution of the church, and enjoying no
function except consultation, the Assembly has
proved of great value in stimulating religion and
unifying the church.
Appointment of Bishops. The archbishops,
bishops, and suffragan bishops of the established
church are appointed by the Prime Minister acting

The Established Church 345
in the name of the King. It is not surprising that
the bishops, though always men of upright character,
are sometimes of a religious tendency quite different
from what the church itself would have endorsed.
No sovereign or Minister would now tyrannically
threaten one of these "chief pastors," as Queen
Elizabeth is said to have done by saying: "Proud
prelate, remember what you were before I made you
what you are. Unless you comply with my demand,
by God, I will unfrock you." None the less, the
bishops and archbishops of this great spiritual
body still stand in the same legal subjection to the
political head of the country.
Bishops in Parliament. The membership of
twenty-six bishops1 in Parliament has already been
described. This virtually gives double representa
tion to the Episcopal interest and the Conservative
party, and hence has been strongly opposed by other
bodies, but it has lost much of its importance with
the abolition of the veto power in the House of Lords.
Powers of the Bishops. Only a bishop can or
dain a clergyman of the established church. The
bishops appoint many of the pastors of churches;
but a majority of these are appointed by laymen
whose predecessors in ownership of certain lands or
endowments hundreds of years ago obtained *this
right by founding the church, or in some other way;
1 See pages 82-3, and 83, n.

346 Social and Political Characteristics
and many more are named by the Lord Chancellor
as the representative of the King.1 The congrega
tion itself never has the right to choose its own
pastor. The bishop of the diocese, however, has
the right to reject any appointee (or more correctly
nominee) on the ground of bad character, but not
because of unfitness for the particular position.
Irregularity of life or teaching in a clergyman of
the established church will incur an investigation
by his bishop and trial either by him or a govern
ment court of laymen. The final appeal in all cases,
either of morals or doctrine, lies to the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council — a body composed
of laymen forming, we will recall,2 a part of the
appellate court system of the kingdom and Empire.
Nominally, of course, the final authority rests with
the King as Supreme Head of the Church. The
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are simply
the men to whom, in the process of depriving the
sovereign of authority, this particular power has
fallen. Theoretical Difficulties versus Practical Success.
The system would break down entirely if the govern
ment should fall into the hands of a hostile denomina
tion or of a party opposed to the Christian religion;
1 The Statesman's Year Book for 1915, page 26, states that private
persons appoint the pastors of about 8500 of the 14,387 parishes
in England and Wales.
2 See above, page 202.

The Established Church 347
but as it is, like many other English customs that
appear absurd to an outsider, it works better than
might be expected. If we point out all the terrible
things that a mere majority in Parliament might
do either in religion or politics, the Englishman may
reply that, despite the guarantees with which we
surround our property and liberties in our written
constitutions, the majority of the people, or at most
a two-thirds majority- — and in times of revolution
fractions are not carefully considered — can at any
time destroy both the constitution and what it is
supposed to protect. The truth is that in both
cases private rights and public welfare depend upon
the virtue and intelligence of the people; and when
these are present, the particular form of government
is of secondary importance, though doubtless differ
ent forms serve best in different circumstances. If
virtue and intelligence disappear, constitutions both
written and unwritten will soon follow.
The Future of the Establishment. Probably a
majority of Englishmen, like practically all Ameri
cans, think that the cause of true religion and moral
ity would be benefited by the complete separation
of the church from the government. Disestablish
ment is strongly urged by a growing body of people,
and as the Episcopalians now only slightly outnum
ber the Dissenters, though still considerably more
numerous than the Roman Catholics, probably not

348 Social and Political Characteristics
many decades will pass before at least a partial
abolition of the special privileges of this one
denomination. z
The church was disestablished in Wales in 1914.
Scotland and Ireland. In Scotland the Presby
terian is the established church; but there is no
appointment of ministers by laymen and there are
of course no bishops. The congregations choose
their own pastors. Almost a hundred years ago
the Scotch Church split because many of the mem
bers were opposed to the "lay patronage," i. e.
the appointment of the minister by some layman,
as described above on page 345; and although lay
patronage has long been abolished in the Scottish
Church, the small seceding factions have never
reunited with the establishment.
In Ireland there is now no established church,
though the Episcopal Church still retains much of
its former income-producing property.1'
1 In 1914 the Church of England in England and Wales num
bered 2,445,114; other Protestant bodies ("Dissenters"), 2,134,655;
the Roman Catholics (estimated) 1,900,000, including unconfirmed
children presumably. — Statesman's Year Book for 191$, 27.
"About three fourths of the inhabitants of Ireland are Roman
Catholics; 13 per cent, are Episcopalians and about 10 per cent.
are Presbyterians. Other denominations are small. The Pro
testants are mainly in the north. — Statesman's Year Book for 1915,
28.

CHAPTER XXXI
EDUCATION
Education and the Modern State. Every pro
gressive government recognizes the necessity of its
citizens' possessing at least an elementary education,
as it is impossible for an ignorant people either to
govern itself properly or to succeed in industrial
competition with the educated nations of the world.
England has not gone so far as several other nations
in providing adequate education for all her people,
and yet she has done much.
/We may divide English schools into three grades —
elementary, grammar school, and higher institu
tions. The means of support are public taxation,
tuition fees, and the income from endowments.
Elementary Schools. First, there are the elemen
tary schools. Some of these are supported entirely
by taxation and are therefore called "provided
schools," i. e. they are provided by the government.1
1 These were formerly called board schools, because they were
under the control of boards of trustees before the institution of the
present system of control by the borough and county councils.
349

35° Social and Political Characteristics
Other elementary schools are the property of re
ligious denominations and are called unprovided, or
voluntary schools. They are supported in part by
the contributions of , their friends and in part by
funds from the government. Education in practi
cally airelementary schools, both provided and vol
untary, is free. The provided schools are attended
mainly by the children of the working classes. It
is hardly necessary to say that there are in addition
expensive private schools for the class of the popula
tion who care to pay for such instruction.
Compulsory Education. Every parent is required
by law to send his children of proper age to some
elementary school. Above the elementary school, -
however, education is neither free nor compulsory;
though there are. in the higher schools scholarships
which are awarded to the children of the poorer
classes for excellent work in the elementary school.
Public Supervision. Control by public officials
is absolute over the provided schools and very ex
tensive over the voluntary, with the object of main
taining standards throughout the country.
Secondary Schools. Next in order come the
grammar schools and the great "public schools,"
which answer respectively to the American "high
school" and the grades just below, and to the col
lege preparatory schools. Let us first dispose of the
latter. The term "public school" has for genera-

\ \

Education 351
tions been used in England to describe the celebrated
institutions for preparing boys for the universities,
such as Eton, Harrow, etc. They are supported
by large endowments and the fees of their patrons,
and are "public" only in the sense that anyone who
chooses to pay the fees and the cost of the rather
expensive social life may enter. They are, of course,
patronized principally by the well-to-do and aristo
cratic classes.
The grammar schools are supported in part by en
dowments, in part by tuition fees, and in part by
public taxation. They are attended mainly by the
children of the middle class, as, the children of the
poor rarely go beyond the elementary schools.
Universities. The ancient universities of Oxford
and Cambridge, supported by their liberal endow
ments and fees, are still patronized mainly by the
wealthy and aristocratic. The opportunities of
forming influential friendships and the bearing of the
popular and practiced man of the world make them
the favourite resorts for young men contemplating
a public career.
A number of the great cities of the country now
maintain large universities with magnificent build
ings and equipment where the middle and labouring
classes can obtain at moderate cost thorough general,
technical, or professional education.
The Religious Question. The proper correlation

35? Social and Political Characteristics
of the school and religion has always been a vexed
question where large elements of the population
differ in religious belief. In America we leave reli
gious education out of the public schools, which,
though necessary, is recognized as no solution of the
essential question at stake — the religious and moral
training of the rising generation.
England follows the opposite plan, of supplying
religious instruction in the schools, but experiences
grave difficulties in its operation. The trouble
arises largely from the fact that most of the volun
tary schools are owned by the established church
and the religious instruction therefore is by Episco
palians and is in accord with their creed. The law
attempts to meet this difficulty by requiring that
the religious exercises may take place only at the
opening or closing of school, and that no child may
be compelled to be present at them. Other denomi
nations object violently to paying taxes to support
religious instruction of which they do not approve,
even though their children are not compelled to
attend during those exercises. This is the most
serious subject of controversy in England on the
relation of church and state.
In the provided schools, which belong entirely
to the public, the law states that any denomination
may employ a religious teacher to give instruction
in the school building to the children of their faith

Education 353
after school exercises. This is obviously unsatis
factory. It is well-nigh universally recognized that religious
and moral instruction for the young is of supreme
importance, and also that, sad to say, many parents
are not qualified to give it in their own homes. Sun
day-school meets only once to the day school's five
times, and many children do not attend the Sunday-
school at all. What satisfactory solution the world
will ultimately adopt is not yet apparent.
Education in Scotland and Ireland. Scotland has
had general elementary education for a much longer
period than England, which goes far to account for
the extraordinarily large proportion of her small
population who have attained high success in all
parts of the world. In Ireland the poverty of the
people and the unfortunate religious controversies
which have divided them and the government have
checked popular education; but progress is now
being made along lines in general similar to those
we have sketched for England.
23

CHAPTER XXXII
ARISTOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY
Complexity of English Society. Society and life
are much more formal and complex in England, as
in all old countries, than in the United States. This
is partly due to the fact that with long time many
of their ideas, customs, and institutions have
become solidified into a firm system, influencing
all relations and impeding the free manifestation
of individuality.
Social Classes. The most characteristic feature
of this rigid social system is the hereditary nobility.
This is simply the topmost layer of an intricate
system of class distinctions extending to the lowest
stratum, each acknowledging its social inferiority
to that above and with a more decided arrogance
than is observed in a country like the United
States maintaining its superiority over the one next
below. Under royalty are the nobility, numbers of them
354

Aristocracy and Democracy 355
connected with the royal family. The younger
members and relatives of these noble families are
also of the aristocracy, though not of the nobility.
The knighthood are above the ordinary citizens in
social standing, but not so exalted as the untitled
relations of the great noble families. Next come
the upper middle class, consisting of prominent
lawyers, large financiers, eminent professional men
in all lines, wealthy merchants, and large landowners.
Of course members of the nobility and aristocracy
may engage in any business or profession. Many
of them are found in the higher financial and profes
sional pursuits. The lower middle class consists of
men of less success and wealth in the same pursuits
as those that make up the upper middle class, to
gether with such men as clerks, salesmen, etc., of
the better sort. The yeomanry consists of the sub
stantial farmers below the large landowners.
The rest of society is spoken of in a general way
as the lower classes, though subdivided into a number
of groups. First come the artisans, or skilled me
chanics, of all sorts; next the unskilled common
labourers, and below them the unfortunate shiftless
mass ending in the criminals and paupers.
It is of course understood that none of these
classes enjoys any legal position or privilege, except
that of the lords and their wives to be tried for
serious crimes by their peers; but even then the

356 Social and Political Characteristics
penalty is the same as for the lowest pauper.1 Even
the word gentleman has no definite social, to say
nothing of legal, definition.2
The stiff structure of these social classes has a
strong influence in determining advancement in
business, professions, and politics, and all the thou
sand phases of social life. But marked ability will
raise a man from the lowest to the highest station.
There have been Cabinet Ministers who began life
as manual toilers, and there are said to be lords
whose grandfathers were labourers. When Lloyd-
George became prominent in politics, it was com
monly stated that his father was a poor Welsh miner;
when he entered the Ministry, it was discovered that
his father was a humble school-teacher; and when
he rose to be the most influential man in England,
the genealogists reported that his paternal prede
cessor was " a poor but respectable attorney. ' ' What
sire will be supplied him now that he has been sum
moned to the premiership to save his country from
threatened ruin, imagination awaits with interest.
Perhaps they will discover that, like heroes of old,
he is a son of the gods, which after all is not a bad
explanation. 1 Peers enjoy a certain immunity from arrest and several other
distinctions of slight moment, which may be looked up in any
modern edition of Blackstone.
2 The idea that right to a coat of arms is necessary in England to
constitute a man technically a gentleman is entirely groundless.

Aristocracy and Democracy 357
Nevertheless, the presumption is felt to be much
in favour of the man of the upper class, and a man
of ambition seeking to rise is not so freely encouraged
as in the United States. This spirit causes many
men of moderate abilities to remain, without effort
on their part, or the ability which could have placed
them there on merit, in the upper class in which
they were born ; but it also saves an immense amount
of fruitless striving and sour disappointment and
jealousy on the part of those whose talents prove
unable to support their ambitions.
Forces for Social Unity. Though the classes are
firmly set, yet they are not castes compelling one
to remain in the station of his birth. Even the
nobility is being constantly recruited by men who
have achieved the highest eminence in war, science,
art, literature, business, etc. Moreover all the
daughters of a nobleman and all the sons except the
eldest are legally commoners. To these considera
tions has been added the mutual respect of men and
women of all sorts of standing at the common heroic
sacrifices in factory, hospital, and field since 19 14.
These all prevent the English nobility from being
spoiled by the arrogance and narrow class feeling of
the aristocracies of the continent of Europe or from
being hated by the common people.
The Governing Class. Associated with the idea
of an aristocracy is that of a governing class. This

358 Social and Political Characteristics
is fairly well defined, not in the sense that they
possess any special legal privileges, but in the sense
that they are willingly recognized as such by the
masses of the people. Since this governing class
is sharply divided into two parties, each of them bids
heavily for the support of the masses by promising
laws for pbpular benefit. England thus presents
the strange spectacle of a country whose govern
ment is conducted by the wealthy and aristocratic
classes, and yet has upon its statute book more laws
for the benefit of the masses than many countries
of a much more democratic society.
The governing class is generally recruited from
the aristocracy and the wealthy business and pro
fessional classes and from men of independent in
come. Not all members of these classes care for
public life; but with a. large proportion of them,
politics are of absorbing interest, for success in which
they are willing to spend large sums without any
prospect of financial reward. As Professor Lowell
remarks,1 office is rarely if ever used to obtain wealth,
but wealth is freely used as a means of obtaining
office. Whether this attitude of the governing class
has back of it a sort of semi-consciousness that the
perpetuity of the whole social and economic structure
which they find so agreeable depends upon their
retention of power, would be an interesting question.
'II., 510-n.

Aristocracy and Democracy 359
Politics as a Profession. Men of political ambi
tion usually enter Parliament in early life. They
thus acquire a lifelong training which gives them an
immense advantage both in the mastery of the
details of public business and in the competition for
the higher political positions.
Defects of the System. As great as are the bene
fits flowing from the conduct of the government by
a recognized governing class, there are also certain
disadvantages. It is largely responsible for the
undemocratic character of the educational system,
the undemocratic privileges of the established church,
and the many undeserved advantages conferred on
the fortunate by the firmly graded social system;
and it doubtless fosters in the common people such
a degree of reliance upon their "betters" as to be
unfavourable to the growth of self -direction and dem
ocratic equality of opportunity. Whether the masses
will continue to support the system which gives them
efficient and honest government and confers many
special aids upon the poor and which they can at
any time rebuke or overthrow by their ballots, or
whether with the growth of self-reliance as fostered
by the trade unions and a higher grade of general
education they will insist upon putting men of their
own class into possession of the offices, is a question
which only the future can decide. Certainly there ap
pears but slight tendency in that direction at present.

360 Social and Political Characteristics
Undemocratic Features. Though England has
felt the wave of modern democracy very powerfully,
she yet exhibits many features in addition to those
already described that are directly opposed to demo
cracy. Chief of these is the ownership of the land
by a small number of landlords.1 About fourteen
hundred persons own half the land in England, and
in Scotland and Ireland the concentration of owner
ship has been still more decided, though in Ireland
great improvement has been wrought by the land
purchase acts. The vast rents of these lands main
tain in ease hundreds of very wealthy men whose
existence is of no benefit to the country. The reply
that the class as a whole is of immense benefit by
setting standards of conduct, social propriety, and
public service, is far from convincing to persons not
directly the beneficiaries of privilege.
Democratic Features. There are, however, cer
tain features of the government of England as dis
tinct from its society that are decidedly democratic.
Partly in a sincere desire to help the masses and
partly in bidding for party success, Parliament has
1 It has been stated, on figures of Lord Derby's investigation in
1874-5, that 525 peers own 15,303,165 acres of the 48,000,000 acres
of cultivated land in Great Britain and Ireland, and 5,000,000 acres
of uncultivated land, thus making an ownership of 20,303,165 acres of
the total 77,750,000 acres of the entire area of the United King
dom. The number of acres transferred to small farmers of recent
years, said to approximate half the area of Ireland, must be de
ducted from these aristocratic holdings.

Aristocracy and Democracy 361
passed a number of laws such as old-age pensions,
laws forcing employers to compensate injured work
men without lawsuit, etc., while the Councils of
large cities have done much in providing cheap gas,
better homes, and other benefits for the poor.
American democracy, in its ruling idea of an equal
chance for everyone, cultivates a decided individ
ualism, guarantees a career to ability, no matter
where born, and largely neglects the welfare of the
great mass of commonplace poor who can never hope
to rise above their surroundings. England's demo
cracy emphasizes the other side, and in its attempt
to make the life of the permanently poor as comfort
able and safe as possible, tends towards paternalism
and the decline of vigorous self-reliance. A com-
bination of the two tendencies would be better than
either alone.
Supremacy of the Voters. A still more important
circumstance making for democracy is the fact that
in England there is no written constitution requir
ing elaborate processes and extra majorities for
amendment, by which the will of a few men long
since dead may today defeat the will of a majority
of millions now living. A government of checks
and balances, like that of the United States, may in
the long run be safer and wiser; but the defeat of
the popular will by these checks and balances is
certainly undemocratic.

362 Social and Political Characteristics
The English idea, which is fast growing into a
custom, of ordering a parliamentary election when
ever the Ministry becomes notably weak, and the
fact that a defeated Ministry must immediately
resign instead of holding on for two or four years
contrary to the recently expressed preference of the
people, as frequently with executive or Senate in
the United States, also assures the supremacy of
the popular will beyond what is possible under the
American system. The recent movement in the
United States for the initiative, referendum, and
recall indicates a desire to establish for the people
a more effective means of immediate control.
Unequal Size of Election Districts. The fact
that parliamentary election districts vary much in
relative population is of not near such significance
as is the variation in population of American States ;
for the large and small districts in England do not
differ nearly so much as do the States of the Ameri
can Union, and are so thoroughly scattered over the
country as to average up between different sections
and parties. In this country, however, not only is
the disproportion of population between small and
large States much more decided, but the sparsely
settled States are largely concentrated in the West
and South, making it possible for a small minority
of the population of the country situated in these
sections to dominate the United States Senate.

Aristocracy and Democracy 363
However wise some persons might think, it is cer
tainly the very opposite of democratic that 80,000
people in Nevada can nullify through their two
Senators the votes of 9,000,000 people in New York;
nor does any reason appear for supposing that
Nevada will regularly produce wiser voters or greater
Senators than the one hundred and twelve times
more populous State of New York, whose people
have the constant training of managing the vast
interests and responsibilities which crowd upon one
of the world's greatest commercial and industrial
centres. Since every State is guaranteed by the Constitu
tion equal representation in the Senate, we may be
forced in time to defeat that undemocratic arrange
ment in some such manner as in England they have
done with the Lords, by enacting that any bill
shall become law when passed by a two-thirds vote
by two succeeding lower houses and signed by the
President, without the consent of the Senate. When
we marvel at the submission of the English to the
undemocratic features in their institutions, let us
remember that it is this undemocratic Senate, and
not the more representative House, that commands
the greater power in our government and generally
the greater respect and confidence of the people.

CHAPTER XXXIII
LESSONS ENGLAND CAN TEACH US
Flexibility and Progress. Notwithstanding the
differences in circumstances between England and
the United States, there are several important
lessons in government that our old teacher can still
give us. One reason that England has been the
pioneer in self-government is the flexibility of her
unwritten constitution. In spite of some dangers
that attend it, this leaving Parliament unfettered
allows the fullest freedom in meeting new needs
by the best methods. It is astonishing to observe
what a large proportion of the highest intellectual1
effort in the history of American legislation has
been consumed in proving, not that proposed
measures are good or bad, but that they are con
stitutional or unconstitutional. Thus the English
constitution is in continual gradual change, and new
social and economic problems are being experimented
upon with a freedom which is not possible under
our rigid written constitution. 364

Lessons England can Teach us 365
Co-operation of Legislature and Executive. One
of the most important lessons for us is the benefit
to be derived from a closer co-operation between
the legislative and executive departments. It is
common both in our State and national governments
to see such serious quarrels between these two essen
tial agents in the making of our laws as to lead for a
considerable time to an almost complete stoppage
of important legislation. Though most competent
authorities agree that Cabinet government would
not be best for the United States, that is no reason
for the extreme separation of legislative and execu
tive from which we suffer. Much can be done to
make the co-operation between the two departments
more effective without adopting the entire English
system or impairing the valuable features of our
own. The deadlocks, as well as innumerable less
serious failures of co-operation which it is so desir
able ^o avoid, are often due to misunderstandings
between the departments, to ignorance of some of
the circumstances, or to misjudging the motives of
one by the other. Nothing equals personal consul
tation for the removal of such difficulties. The
framers of the Confederate Constitution, judging
from the experience of seventy years under that of
the United States, provided that Cabinet officers
might speak, but not vote, in Congress. This could
be permitted under the United States Constitution.

366 Social and Political Characteristics
It would not only give legislation greater unity,
but would lead to the selection of stronger men for
Cabinet positions. If it is thought that this would
weaken the position of the President, it could be
arranged for him also to appear on the floor of Con
gress. President Wilson has done much to improve
the machinery of legislation by returning to the
practice of Washington in delivering his important
messages in person ; and sooner or later this co-opera
tion in one way or another will doubtless be carried
further. The fact that we have delayed this reform
so long is doubtless in large measure due to the
deeply ingrained feeling of hostility to the inter
ference of the executive derived from the experience
of the colonies with George III.
A Budget Committee. A reform in Congressional
finance, the need of which is generally recognized,
is some plan by which expenditure and income can
be kept in closer agreement. The extent to which
steps have been taken in American national, State,
and city governments towards adopting some such
economical plan as the English budget system is
described at page 142. Only the prodigal wealth
of our national government and the desire of certain
powerful interests to keep expenditure up to a high
figure have prevented our long ago ending the pre
sent shiftless and wasteful system. 1
The Civil Service. We have in part removed the

Lessons England can Teach us 367
civil service from the spoils system; we should fol
low the example of England and other leading Euro
pean countries and free it entirely from the blight
of partisan politics and political corruption.
We could also elevate the quality of the men and
women in our civil service if we adopted the English
idea of testing their general character, education,
and ability, rather than their immediate preparation
for the positions for which they apply. The Dutch
abandoned the latter system after many years'
experience, because it failed to secure men of per
manent value, and adopted the English plan, based
upon the idea of securing men and women capable
of developing into strong public servants of per
manent value.1 Our civil service already suffers
from the presence of many men of excellent prepara
tion for one task, but without the originality or
force which is necessary to permeate the govern
ment service with the adequate enlightenment and
progress. Purity in Politics. While the day is past when a
leader in the United States Senate would publicly
proclaim that "purity in politics is an iridescent
dream," or another in the same position scoff at
civil service reform as hypocritical scoundrelism,2
« Lowell, ii., 516.
'John J. Ingalls is the first-named case; Roscoe Conkling is the
other.

368 Social and Political Characteristics
yet we are far short of the ideal. Several generations
ago politics in England were more corrupt than any
where now in America except the very worst spots.
Yet today public sentiment and law have been so
far improved that corruption is much rarer than in
our country, many writers even going the unwarrant
able length of saying that it is non-existent. Eng
land's accomplishment of this task under conditions
in some respects more difficult to overcome than
those which confront us should inspire Americans
to remove every stain of corruption from our elec
tions and public officials. Especially should we
break, as they have done, the power of the great
corporations in politics.
Log-Roiling. The practice of one member or
group of members agreeing to help another with
their bill in return for similar favours is known as
log-rolling, from the frontier habit of neighbours
helping each other in clearing their fields or forests.
But unhappily political log-rolling is not so legiti
mate a form of co-operation as the agricultural, for
the reason that it is generally resorted to in order
to secure the passage of laws which could not get
a majority on their merits. So long as our economic
and legislative system remains as it is, we cannot
escape this evil entirely; but our people and public
men alike should employ every means possible of
discouraging this semi-corrupt practice.

Lessons England can Teach us 369
The lesson of united executive responsibility and
the control by State authority over the administra
tors of commonwealth law which English experience
holds for our State governments is one of the most
useful and impressive of any she can teach. This
has been so fully treated above on pages 253-6 as
not to require repetition here.
Regard for Law. Finally, England can teach us
very effectively the lesson of regard for law. Cer
tain forces in our development have led high and
low, rich and poor alike, to treat law with slight
regard when it crosses their own self-will or greed.
The rate of homicide in the United States as a whole
is six or seven times as great as in England, and in
some States twenty times as great, while many of
our trust magnates have been as flagrant in their
contempt for all legal authority as bandits or train
robbers. Too often our courts have not seriously
cared ; for the current disregard for the sacred rights
of individuals has so permeated them along with
the rest of the community at large that juries acquit
of the most heinous crimes, judges frequently impose
almost farcical sentences on desperate criminals,
and even State supreme courts often foster crime
and injustice by reversing long and expensive pro
ceedings in which a just verdict has been at last
obtained because of some trifling technicality not
affecting the merits of the case in the remotest
24

37° Social and Political Characteristics
degree.1 We might well follow the example of the
country from which we derived our law and govern
ment by making the one a terror to the evil-doer and
the other a protection beneath which all good citizens
may feel secure.
And lastly, let lis feel about our government, as
the Englishman does about his, that it is the greatest
and wisest and freest in all the world, and that it
must never be dishonoured by falling into the hands
of self-seeking and dishonourable men.
1 A French critic says that many American officials seem to have
adopted that part of the motto of the Japanese monkeys that says,
"See no evil; hear no evil."

A BRIEF READING LIST
This brief list is intended as a guide for general
reading, not for detailed investigation. Such cita
tions as are made for that purpose are found in the
footnotes.Alexander, G. G. The Administration of Justice in
Criminal Matters in England and Wales. [Cam
bridge University Press, 191 1.
American Year Book. Appleton, New York.
Bagehot, Walter. The English Constitution. Apple-
ton, New York, 1904.
Courtney, L. H. The Working Constitution of the
United Kingdom. Macmillan, 1901.
Cross, J. L. The History of England and Great Britain.
Macmillan, New York, 1914.
Cyclopaedia Britannica, nth edition. Numerous articles
by title.
Dicey, A. V. The Law of the Constitution. Macmillan,
London, 1908.
Egerton, H. E. Federations and Unions in the British
Empire. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 191 1. (Text of
Canadian, Australian, and South African Constitu
tions, with brief historical and legal explanations.)
Howe, F. C. The British City. Scribners, New York,
1907.
Ilbert, Sir Courtenay P. Parliament. Holt, New
York, 191 1. 37i

372 A Brief Reading List
Leacock, Stephen. Elements of Political Science.
Houghton, Boston and New York, 1906.
Lefroy, A. H. F. Canada's Federal System. Carswell
& Co., Toronto, 1913.
Low, Sidney. The Governance of England. Unwin,
London, 1911.
Lowell, E. J. The Government of England. 2 vols.
Macmillan, New York, 1908.
Macy, Jesse. The English Constitution. Macmillan,
New York, 1909.
Marriott, J. A. R. English Political Institutions.
Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1913.
Medley, D. J. Student's Manual of English Constitu
tional History. Macmillan, New York, or Blackwell,
Oxford, 1913.
Moran, T. F. The Theory and Practice of the English
¦ Government. Longmans, New York, 1908.
Ogg, F. A. The Governments of Europe. Macmillan,
New York, 1913.
Porritt, Edward. The Englishman at Home. Crowell,
New York, 1893.
Statesman's Year Book. Macmillan, London.
Webb, Sidney, and Beatrice. English Local Govern
ment. 3 vols. Longmans, New York, 1907-8.
Wilson, Woodrow. The State. Heath, Boston, 1901.

Court of Criminal
Appeal

House of Lords

'Court of
Appeal

Scottish
Supreme Court

Judicial
Committee of
Privy Council

Church of
England
Courts

I
Colonial Supreme
Courts

I
Irish
Supreme
Court i

1
Assize of
ligh Court
of Justice
(Criminal business)

Quarter
Sessions

1
Assize of
High Court
of Justice
(Civil business)
fie

1
1 King's Bench
Division of
High Court
of Justice '

1
1 Chancery Division
qf High
Court of
Justice3 (Equity)

ralty >f
:t

r

etty

1
Sim

Sessions

Justice of
the Peace

I
Quarter
Sessions
(Civil business)

I
County Courts(Civil)

(This table aids in understand
ing the court system. Relation
ships, appeals, etc., must be studied
in the text. The same court is
named under two heads in several
instances, so as to show clearly its
various relations.)

1 These four to which note i
refers make up the Supreme Court
of Judicature.
' These three to which note 2
refers make up the High Court of
Justice. 3 Occasional appeals to Judicial
Committee of Privy Council.
¦•Until the Home Rule Act's go
ing into force, the House of Lords
heard appeals from Ireland.

INDEX

A
Aberdeen, Lord, 138
Absolute governments, 5
Adams, John, 54
Administrative counties, 244-
245; of London,259,26i-262
Administrator, in South Africa,
298
Admiralty, First Lord of, 147;
cases, appeal in, 194, n. 2;
courts and cases, 197-198.
See also First Lord of
Admiralty
Afghanistan, 5
Africa, government of un
civilized parts, 306. See
also South Africa
Agent, in politics and elections,
210; colonial, 272
Agriculture, department of, 153
Agriculture and Fisheries, Presi
dent Board of, 131
Aldermen, 232-233
Amendment of constitution,
English, 13; Australian, 295;
American, 296
Appeal, from Petty Sessions,
166; power of Quarter
Sessions, 171; in equity
cases, 194, n. 2; to House of
Lords, 201; from Irish
courts, 280; from Australian
courts, 294-295; from
Canadian courts, 288; from
South African courts, 301;
in church cases, 346;
mentioned, 179, 180
— Court of, 179; members and
jurisdiction, 199-200

— Court of Criminal, 179; not
part of Supreme Court of
Judicature, 201
— Lords of, 82-83, 154; on
Judicial Committee of Privy
Council, 202
Applause, 73
Appointments, 109, 137
Archbishops, 342. See also
Bishops
Archdeacons, 343 and n.
Aristocracy, compared with
democracy, 354 et sea.;
, ownership of land, 356 and
n.
Arms, coat of, 356, n. 2
Army, 26, 146-147; in India, 324
Asquith, H. H., 135, 155
Assizes of High Court of Justice,
jurisdiction; relations to
other courts, 178; co-ordin
ate with King's Bench
Division; no appeal to, from
lower courts, 179; sessions
and business, 197; men
tioned, 167, 176
Attorney-General, 130, 131,
155-156, 182, 183; in
appeals, 201
— for Ireland, 132
Auditor-General, 253
Australia, drafting Constitution
of, 282; government of,
2910/^2.; Supreme Court,
292; federal Parliament,
292-293; Governor-Gen
eral, 293; government of,
contrasted with those of
Canada' and South Africa,
298-301

373

374

Index

B
Balfour, A. J., 138, 139
Baroda, 325
Barons, 83
Barristers, 205
Beaconsfield, Lord. See Disraeli
Bills, procedure on, 60 et seq.;
number in England and
United States, 72-73
Births and deaths, registration,
150
Bishops, in House of Lords, 82,
83, n.; dioceses, 341; suffra
gans, 342; appointment of,
344-345; in ParHament;
powers, 345; mentioned, 229
Blockade, Minister of, 146
Board of Agriculture and
Fisheries, 131
— of Education, President of,i3i
— of Trade, 150-152; President
of, 131
Boroughs, members of Parlia
ment from, 30-31; classes
of, 229-230; Councils, 231
et seq.; suffrage, 236-237;
charters, 237; central con
trol; contribution of central
government to finances of,
238; of London, 261. See
also Municipal government,
and County boroughs
Boston, 65
Bright, John, 74 "'
British Columbia, 272
British Empire, character of,
267-269; no tribute,
268-269; advantage to
England, 269-270; means of
control, 273; future of, 329
British North • America Act,
285, 288, 292, 295
Bryce, Lord, 73
Budget, preparation of English,
142; need of, in Congress,
366; mentioned, 63-66
Bundesrath, 115

Cabinet, development, 104;
leaders of majority party,

43; distinguished from Min
istry, 44; leadership of,
52-53, 60; future of, 120-
121, 124; inner circle] of,
122; unknown to law, 124;
meetings and discussions;
unity of, 126; positions in,
130-13 1 ; mentioned, 15.
See also Ministry.
Cambridge University, 351
Campbell - Bannerman, Sir
Henry, 139
Canada, drafting constitution
of, 282; government of,
283 et seq.; Governor-
General, 284-286; Ministry,
286-^287; Supreme Court,
287-288; relations^ of pro
vinces and Dominion, 289;
government of, contrasted
with those of Australia and
South Africa, 298-301 ; men
tioned, 5
Candidates, Parliamentary, se
lecting, 210, 217
Canterbury, province of, 341;
Archbishop of, 342; Con
vocation of, 343; other
assemblies of, 344
Cape of Good Hope, 297
Casement, Sir Roger, 185
Cathedral, 343
Catholics.j See Roman Catholics
Central control over local gov
ernment, 252-256
Central Criminal Court, 203
Centralized government, 5, 7
Chamberlain, Lord, 132
Chancellor. See Lord High
Chancellor
Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster, 122, 131
— of the Exchequer, general
oversight, 140; preparing
estimates; control over other
departments, 141; budget,
142; mentioned, 64, 130
Chancery court, 190. See also
Equity
— Division of the High Court
of Justice, appellate juris
diction, 194, n. 2; judges of,
197; duties, 198

Index

375

Chapter, cathedral, 343
Charles I., 112
Charles II.,, 107
Charter, borough, 237; of
colony, 304
Chatham, Lord, 85
Chief Justice, England. See
Lord Chief Justice.
— of United States, 153
Chief Secretary to Lord Lieu
tenant of Ireland, 13 1
Children, before courts, 167, n. I
Chiltern Hundreds, 79
China, 86
Church, supreme court of appeal
for, 203; the established,
337 et seq.; support of;
tithes, 338-339; govern
ment control, 341 ; Convoca
tion, 342 ; House of Laymen;
Representative Church As
sembly, 344; bishops and
dioceses, 341, 344; future
of establishment, 347; in
Scotland, 348
Circuits, 177
Cities, importance of, in England,
229. See also Boroughs,
and Municipal government
Civil service, officials excluded
from Parliament, 158;
examinations for, 159-161;
pensions, 163; in English
cities, 235; colonial, 307;
Indian, 322; merit system
in various countries, 366-
3^7
Classes, in English society,
354 et seq.; governing,
357-359 .
Clergy, ordination and appoint
ment, 345-346
Clerk, of borough, 136; of Petty
Sessions, 165; of Peace, 168,
170
Clive, Lord, 85, 308
Cloture, 75
Colonial Secretary. See Secre
tary of State for Colonies
Colonies, relations with mother
country, 267 et seq.; classes
of, 271; Agents,' 272; self-
governing, 281 et seq. See

also Secretary of State for
Colonies
Commissioner, Lord High, of
Egypt, 327
— of Works, 131
Commission government for
American cities, 232
Committee of Imperial Defence,
148
Committees, in Parliament, 60,
64-65, 68-70; in Congress,
60; of political parties,
209-212; of Borough Coun
cils, 234; in County Coun
cils, 247
Common law, 12 and n., 188, 190
Commons, House of, growth of
power, 22 et seq.; numbers,
29; members not required to
live in district, 35; salary
and expenses of members,
36-37; qualifications for
membership, 38; term, 39,
50; dissolution, 39; resigna
tion from, 79-80; origin of
House, 101-102; impeach
ment by, 102. See also
Parliament.
Comptroller-General, 253
Confederacy, Southern, Con
stitution, 365
Congress, United States, un
representative, 30 and n. 1 ;
compared with Parliament,
51, 60; mentioned, 20, 35
Conkling, Roscoe, 367, n. 2
Conservatives, organization, 211,
214; contrasted with Liber
als, etc., 215-216
Constitution, written and un
written, 9-10; English, 11
et seq.; amending Austra
lian, 295; amending Ameri
can, 296
Constitutional government, 5, 6
Continental Congress, 55-56
Conventions, political* 211
Conveyancing Counsel, 194, n. 2
Convocation, 342-344
Copyrights, 151
Corruption, political, rare in
English politics, 231-232,
241; mentioned, 220-221

376

Index

Council, Borough, 231 et seg.;
committees of, 234; County,
245 et seq. ; London County;
London Borough, 261-262;
of Governor-General of
India, 313; Legislative, of
India, see Legislative
Council of India
Counties, members of Parlia
ment from, 30; government
of, 243 et seq.; divisions of;
administrative, 244, 250
et seq.; Councils, 244-248;
suffrage, 246, 250; central
control over, 248; London,
259, 261-262
County boroughs, 34, n., 230
— Courts, 193 et seq.; jurisdic
tion; appeals from, 194 and
n. 2, 200; juries in, 195
Court of Appeal, hears appeals
from Railway and Canal
Commission, 152; members
and jurisdiction, 199-200
— of Criminal Appeal, 180-182,
184, 201. See also Appeal
Courts, Canadian, 288-289;
civil, 187 et seq.; table of,
following page 372. See
also Assize, Central Crimi
nal Court, Chancery Divi
sion, King's Bench Division,
Probate, Divorce, and Ad
miralty Division of High
Court of Justice, County
Courts, High Court of Jus
tice, Petty Sessions, Quar
ter Sessions, Supreme Court,
Supreme Court of Judicature
Cromer, Lord, 85, 308
Crown, succession to, 98-99
Crown colonies, government of,
304 et seq.; classes of, 304-
306
Cuba, 5
Curzon, Lord, 123, 322, n. 2, 331
Custom of the Constitution, 12
D
Deans, 343, n.
Deaths and births, registration,
15°

Democracy, English and Ameri-.
can, 218-220; democracy
and aristocracy traced, 354
et seq.; in English politics,.
360-362
Democrats and repubhcans, 215
Derby, Lord, 48, 138, 139
Diocese, 341 et seq.
Director of Public Prosecutions,
183
Disestablishment of church,
in Wales, 341, n.; general)
question of, 347-348; in
Ireland, 348
Disraeli, Benjamin, 73, 85, 139
Dissenters, statistics, 348, n. 1
Dissolution, 50
District, Indian governmental,
320
Division, 77
Divorce, 198
Dominions, 282, 302
Dukes, 83

Earls, 83
Education, department of, 153;
president board of, 131;
general, 349 et seq.; com
pulsory, 350; religious ques
tion, 351; in Scotland, and
Ireland, 353
Edward VII., 113
Egypt, English government in,
327-329; annexed to British
Empire; _ Sultan; Ministry,
327; legislative assembly;
local government, 328;
effects of British rule, 329
Elections, parliamentary, 46,
49, 217 et seq.; expenses of,
220; corruption, 220; by
plurality, 221-222; munici
pal, 240
Empire, British. See British
Empire
Episcopalians, statistics, 348,
notes 1 and 2. See also
Established church
Equity, 189-192; appeals, in,
194. n- 2
Established church, 116

Index

377

Eton, 351
Examinations, for civil service,
159-161
Executive, Prime Minister head
of, 104; in legislature, 120;
co-operation with, legisla
tures, 365 et seq.; Canadian,
290-291 passim
Experts as borough employees,
235-236

Federal government, 5, 7; forms
of, in various countries, 298
Federation, imperial, 333
First Commissioner of Works,
131
— Lord of the Admiralty, 131,
H7
— Lord of the Treasury, 122, 130
Fisheries. See Agriculture and
Fisheries
Food Controller, 146
Foreign affairs, 112-115. See
also Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs
France, 5, 86
Franklin, Benjamin, 303

General Staff, 148
George III., 256, 366
George V., 313
Germany, comparison with, 1 15;
federal government in, 299;
otherwise mentioned, 5, 7,
145. 331
Gibraltar, 306
Gladstone, W. E., 48, 64, 118,
135, 138, 139, 140 „
Government, varieties of, 4-9
Governor, in United States,
legal status, in, n., 112,
n.; lack of proper authority,
253-256; of Australian state,
294; of self-governing col
onies, 302, 304; of colonies,
how chosen, 308; of Indian
province, 318-319
Governor-General, Australia,
293; Canada, 284-286; of

_ India, appointment and
powers, 312-313, 318-319;
South Africa, 297
Grand Mogul, 326
Grey, Lord, 138 H
Habeas corpus, 11
Harrow, 351
Hartington, Lord, 48
Hats, 75
High Court, Australia. See Su
preme Court, Australia
— Court of Justice, appellate jur
isdiction, 166, 172; divisions
of 197-198; composition
and character, 199; other
wise mentioned, 176
Hindus, number of, 310, n.;
rivalry with Mohammedans,
320
Home Rule. See Ireland
Honours, influence of money, 85
House of Commons. See Com
mons, House of
— of Laymen, 344
— of Lords. See Lords, House
of
— of Representatives, United
States, bills in, 72-73; Cana
dian, 287
Household officials, 132 ¦
Hungary, 9, 10

Impeachments, 40-41, 102-103
and n.
Imperial conferences, 332
— federation, 333
India, army, 324; aspirations,
310; juries, law, and judi
ciary, 323-324; British resi
dent, 326; government of,
309 et seq.; Governor-Gen
eral of, 312-313; Governor-
General's Council, 313-314;
Legislative Council of, 314-
316; participation of natives
in government, 322; num
ber of officials, 322, n. 2;
governmental districts, 320;

378

Index

India — Continued
municipal government, 321 ;
civil service, 322; native
estimate of British govern
ment, 330-331; in Great
War, 330-331 ; native states,
312, 325; population, races,
and religions, 309 and n. 2;
provinces, 318-319
Indian National Congress, 319
_ and n. 2
Indictment, 175
Ingalls, John }., 367, n. 2
Inns of Court, 205
Instructions to colonial Gover
nor, 304
Interstate Commerce Com
mission, 151
Ireland, church in; religious
statistics, 348 and n. 2;
education in, 353; union
with Great Britain, 18 n.;
suffrage, 34 n.; supreme
court of appeal for, 203,
206-207; representation in
Imperial Parliament; ditto
under Home Rule Act,
275, 279 n.; local govern
ment in, 256; women in
politics, 257; Home Rule
Act, 29, n. 1, 30, n. 2, 39,
274-280; passage and sus
pension of, 275; limitations
upon Home Rule, 277-280;
transfer of land to cultiva
tors, 278 and n. 2

Joint Secretaries of the Treas
ury, 131
Judges, functions, 172; appoint
ment and tenure in Eng
land, 137, 203-204; ditto in
Canada, 288-289; salaries,
204; India, 324; power of,
in England and United
States, 183, 184
Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council, membership, 202;
duties, 203; in relation to
Ireland, 207, 280; appel
late jurisdiction, 288, 294-

295; in church cases, 346;
otherwise mentioned, 154
Jurisdiction, original, appellate,
concurrent, 169, 179
Jury, and juror, functions, 172;
right to trial by, 173;
grand and petit, 174; none
in equity cases, except,
191 and n. 2; in civil and
criminal cases; qualifica
tions; classes; fees, 196-
197; in India, 323-324
Justice, department of, duties
distributed, 153
Justices of the peace, 164-170;
powers of single, 165; in
petty sessions, 166; in quar
ter sessions, 167; non
judicial duties, 204
K
Keeper of the Great Seal, 132
Kelvin, Lord, 85
Khedive, 327
King, as part of Parliament,
19, 21; decline of power,
22, 102; not real executive,
42; speech from the throne,
57-58; signing bills, 62-63;
general account of, 98-119;
statutory powers of, 105;
legal title, 309 and n. 1;
head of established church,
340; powers over Convoca
tion, 342; in appointment of
bishops, 345. See also
Crown
King's Bench, Court of, abol
ished, 178, n.
— Bench Division of High Court
of Justice, jurisdiction, 179,
180, 194, 19S; co-ordinate
with Assize, 179; judges, 197
Kitchener, Lord, 84, n., 135
Knights, 355

La Follette, R. M., 296
Land, owned by lords, 84, 360
and n.; ownership of, in
Ireland, 278 and n. 2

Index

379

Lansdowne, Lord, 48
Law, practice of, 205-206; re
gard for, 369; enforcement
of, in United States, 252-
256; Indian, 323
Law, Andrew Bonar, 123
Lawyers, 205
Laymen, House of, 344
Lay patronage, 345, 348
Legislative Council, of India,
314-316; of Indian pro
vinces, 317
Legislature, co-operation with
executive, 365 et seq.
Liberals, organization, 211, 214;
contrasted with Conserva
tives, etc., 215-216
Lieutenant-Governor, of Cana
dian province, 290-291; of
¦Indian province, 318-319
Lincolnshire, 167
Lister, Lord, 85
Lloyd-George, David, 123, 139,
356
Local government, subject to
central control, 227-228,
252-256; English and
American, 227-228
Local Government Board, Presi
dent of, 131; authority over
1 local governments, 248-249,
252; otherwise mentioned,
150
Log-rolling, 65 and n., 368
London, "city" of, Parliamen
tary representation, 31, n.
I; criminal court for, 203;
government of, 258 et seq.;
ancient . charter, 258; ad
ministrative county of ; Met
ropolitan and City Police
District, 259; Common
Council of "the city"; Lord
Mayor, 260; suffrage, 260-
261; boroughs of county;
County Council, 261; poli
tics, 262; Metropolitan
Boards, 263
Lord Advocate, 131, 132
— Chancellor for Ireland, 132
— Chief Justice, on Court of
Appeal, 199; otherwise men
tioned, 137, 181

— High Chancellor, 'presides
over Lords, 96, 154-155;
appointment^ 137; judicial
duties; appointing power,
154-155. 203-204, 346; on
Court of Appeal, 199; on
Judicial Committee of Privy
Council, 202; otherwise
mentioned, 131, 153, 182,
190, 192
— High Commissioner of Egypt,
327
— Justice Clerk, 132
— Justice General, 132
-i— Keeper of the Privy Seal, 122,
132
— Lieutenant of Ireland, 132,
276, 279
— Mayor of London, 258, 260
— President of the Council, 122,
131
— Privy Seal, 131
Lords (as individuals), wealth,
84; trial, 88; influence of
money in securing titles,
85; privileges and disad
vantages, 38-39, 87, 355-
356 and n. 1; ownership of
land, 360 and n. H
— House of, private bills, 24
and n.; part in legislation,
63, 69; origin, 81; composi
tion, 82-84 ! decline in power,
22 et seq., 90 et seq.; relation
to Ministry, 94-95; pro
cedure, 95-97; value of, 94,
97; try impeachments, 103;
appeals to, 152, 201, 280;
oppose Irish Home Rule, 274
— of Appeal, 182
Loyalty, versus compulsion, as
an imperial binder, 303
M
Macaulay, Lord, 85, 161
Magna Charta, 11, 101
Marquises, 83
Mary, Queen, 100, n.
Master of the Horse, 132
— of the Rolls, on Court of
Appeal, 200; former duties,
200, n. 1

380

Index

Masters (equity), 194, n. 2
Mayor, 231, 234
Melbourne, Lord, 138
Members of Parliament, salary,
219; relations with con
stituency, 222
Metropolitan Boards, 259, 260,
263
Mexico, 5
Minister of Munitions, 131, 144-
146
Ministers, re-election on appoint
ment, 79; removal of, 103;
without Portfolio, 123; re
strictions on, 127. See also
, Ministry, and Cabinet
Ministry, Australian, 293
— British, distinguished from
Cabinet, 44, 120-121, 131;
responsible, 45 et seq.; rela
tions with Lords, 94-95;
difficulty of forming, 125;
power over Ireland, 279
— Canadian, 286-287
— Egyptian, 327
— Irish, 277. See also Cabinet
Minto, Lord, 319
Moderates, 240
Mohammedans, representation
of, 318; rivalry with Hindus,
320
Money, influence of, in politics,
213, 218-221
— bills, control of by Commons,
24-26
Montfort, Simon de, 101
Morley, Lord, 319'
Municipal government, in India,
321. See also Boroughs,
and Cities
Munitions, Minister of, 131,
144-146 N
Naming a member, 74
Napoleon, 123
Natal, political status of negroes
in, 297, n.
National Liberal Federation, 211
Native states of India, 312, 316,
325
Navy department, 147

Negroes, political status of, in
South Africa, 297 and n.
Nelson, Lord, 85
Nevada, 30, n. I, 363
Newfoundland, government of,
301-302
New York, State, 30, n. I, 363;
city, 65, 264
New Zealand, 282, 301-302
Nobility, 354; recruited by men
of talent, 357
Nominations of Parliamentary
candidate, 210
Nova Scotia, 289
Nursing constituencies, 218
o
Opposition, the, 58-59
Orders in Council, 116
Oxford University, 351

Palmerston, Lord, 48, 139
Papua, 292
Pardons, no, 185
Parish, 251
ParHament, British, 18 et seq.,
time of meeting, 27; pro
roguing and dissolving, 28;
duration, 41; salary of
members, 219; supremacy
of, _ 281; poHcy towards
India, 310; Australian, 292;
Canadian, 286-287; Irish,
275-277; South African, 297.
See also Commons, and
Lords
ParHament Act of 191 1, 23-24,
Parliamentary government, 5,
8
— Secretary of Treasury, 76
Parties. See Political parties
Patents, 151
Patronage Secretary of the Treas
ury, 76, 131
Peel, Sir Robert, 138
Peeresses, 84, n.
Peers. See Lords
Pensions, old age, 150; civil
service, 163

Index

38i

Petty Sessions, Court of, dealing
with children, 167, n. 1;
appeal from, 171, 179;
otherwise mentioned, 166
Platform, political, 211-212
Plural voting, 35, n.
Political parties, comparison be
tween English and Ameri
can, 208; local organiza
tions, 209; national con
ventions, 211 ; national com
mittees, 212; raising funds,
213; women workers, 213-
214; contrast between Con
servatives and Liberals, 215-
216
PoHtics, 208 et seq.; purity of
EngHsh, 220; absence of,
from EngHsh city govern
ment, 239-242; in London
County Council, 262; pro
fession of governing class,
359; corruption in, 367.
See also Political parties
Poor Law Unions, 251
— relief, 150
Postmaster-General, 131, 152
Postoffice, 152
Prerogative, 105, 108-115
Presbyterians, 348 and n. 2
Presidential government, 5, 8
President of Board of Agricul
ture and Fisheries, 131
— of Board of Education, 131
— of Board of Trade, 131, 150
— of the Council, 131
— of Local Government Board,
— 131
— of United States, immunity
from arrest, in, n.; suits
against, 112, n.; compared
with Prime Minister, 134
Prime Minister, British, writes
King's speech, 57; power
over estabHshed church, 116;
development, 133; general
character of position, 134;
general supervision by, 136;
appointing power, 137, 284,
293, 312; Hst of Prime Min
isters, 138-139; settles differ
ences between Ministers,
141 ; on Committee of Imper

ial Defence, 148; in imperial
conferences, 332; otherwise
mentioned, 104-105
— Canadian, 285; colonial, in
imperial conferences, 332
Private bills, 67 et seq.
Private member bills, 67 et seq.
Privy Council, 117-118, 124,
I25, 279. See also Judicial
Committee of the Privy
Council
— Seal, 131
Probate, Divorce and Admiralty,
Division of the High Court
of Justice, judges, 197;
jurisdiction, 198; President
of, on Court of Appeal,
200
Progressives, 240
Prosecutions, 183
Protectorates, 325-327
Protestants, statistics, 348, notes
1 1 and 2
Provinces, Canadian, 289, 290-
291; Indian, 318-319; South
African, 298
Prussia, 5 Q
Quarter Sessions, jurisdiction,
169, 170-171; appeal from,
179; otherwise mentioned,
167
Quebec, 280 R
Races, in India, 309 and n. 2; in
Ireland, 274
Railroads, government super-
_ vision, 150-152
Railway and Canal Commission,
appeals from, 200; otherwise
mentioned, 151
Register, Lord Justice, 132
Religion in school question,
351-353
Religious sects in India, 310, n.;
in British Isles, 348, notes
1 and 2
Representative Church As
sembly, 344

382

Index

Repubhcans, 215
Resident, British, at court of
Indian native states, 326
Revenue, sources of, 142
Rhodes, Cecil, 308
Rhodesia, 297
Roads, 150
Roberts, Lord, 84, n., 85
Roman Catholics, debarred from
throne, 99; statistics of,
348, notes 1 and 2
Roosevelt, Theodore, 321
Rosebery, Lord, 138, 139
Rothschild, Lord, 85
Rural District, 251
Russell, Lord John, 48, 138

Salary of members of Parliament,
219
Salisbury, Lord, 135, 138, 139
Sanitation, 150
Schools, 349 et seq.
Scotland, union with England,
18; suffrage, 34, n.; Secre
tary for, 131; law of, 206;
appeals to House of Lords
from, 206-207; local govern
ment in, 256; women in
politics, 257; church in,
348; education in, 353
Seal, Lord Privy, 131; Keeper of
the Great, 132
Secretary for Scotland, 131
— of State for Colonies, duties,
270; in imperial conferences,
332; otherwise mentioned,
131, 148
— of State for Foreign Affairs,
113-114, 131
— of State for Home Depart
ment, no, 131, 149, 153;
authority over local govern
ments, 248-249, 252
— of State for India, powers,
etc., 311-312; Council of,
311; otherwise mentioned,
131, 148
— of State for War, 131, 144-
145
Senate, Canadian, 287; United
States, 75 and n., 362-363

Separation of departments, 15-
16
Sheriff, American, 253
Shipping Controller, 146
Short baHot, 241
Sinecures, 121-122, 134
Solicitor-General, 121, 132, 155-
156, 183; for Ireland, 132
Solicitors, 205
South Africa, drafting ef con
stitution, 282; government,
297 et seq.; Parliament of;
Governor-General of; Min
istry of, 297; provinces in;
comparison with Canada
and Australia, 298-301 ;
powers of Parliament of, 301
South Carolina, 255, n.
Speaker of Commons, 3 7 ; powers,
74. 79
Speech from throne, 57
Spoils system, 158-159, 241.
State rights in Australia, 293'
States, Australian, veto of laws
of, 299; appointment of
Governors of, 300; other
wise mentioned, 292, 293-
294
Statute law, 189
Statutory orders, 116
Steward, Lord, 132
Strathcona, Lord, 85
Suffragan bishops, 342, 343
Suffrage, parliamentary, 33-34;
in Scotland and Ireland,
257; borough, 236-237;
county, 246, 250; in London,
260-261; in South Africa,
297 and n.; in India, 318
Sultan of Egypt, 327
Summary jurisdiction, 166-^167
Supreme Court, Australian, 293,
294; Canadian, 287, 288
— Court of Judicature, 201
Switzerland, 5, 299

Taft, W. H., 66
Tasmania, 292
Taxes, local, 252
Tennyson, Lord, 85
Tithes, 338-339

Index

383

Trade, President Board of,
131
Treasury, Lords Commissioners
of, 132; department of,
138 et seq., 148. See also
Chancellor of the Ex
chequer
Treaties, 113
Turkey, 327 U
Under-secretaries, pariiamen-
tary, 121, 128, 131; per
manent, 129
United States, Constitution, 10;
State Constitutions, 281;
Congress compared with
ParHament, 51; lack of co
operation of executive and
legislature, 365-366; parties
in, compared with parties in
England, 35-36, 215; polit
ical customs compared with
English, 219; influence of
example of federal form of
government, 298; ditto in
Canada, Australia, and
South Africa, 283; city
government in, 232, 235, n.,
239; local government in,
compared with English,
227-228, 243, 246-247; lack
of proper control over local
government in, 252-256;
courts, 289; judges, 184;
juries, 196; equity and law
in, 192; regulation of rail
roads, 151; influence of
money in, 85; social system,
357. 361; democracy of,
compared with English,
218-220; democratic and
undemocratic features, 361-
363; conflicts of American
colonies with Crown, 307;
government compared with
English, 54-55. 65-66, 106,
112, 156, n. Otherwise
mentioned, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15.
See also Congress, Senate,
etc.
Universities, members of Parlia

ment for, 30-31 and n. 2;
otherwise mentioned, 351
Urban districts, 231, 250-251

Veto, royal, 22; disappearance
of, 108; in Crown colonies,
304, 306; in self-governing
colonies, 302; of Canadian
Governor-General, 284; of
provincial acts in Canada,
290; of Australian Common
wealth acts, 293; of Austral
ian State acts, 294, 299; by
Governor-General of India,
313; of Governor-General
or British government over
Indian Provincial Councils,
318-319; in South Africa,
297
Viceroy of India. See Gover
nor-General .
Victoria, Queen, 48, 99
Viscounts, 83
Voting in Commons, 77-79.
See also Suffrage W
Wales, disestablishment in,
341, n.; Episcopal church
in, 342, n.; reHgious statis
tics, 348, n. 1
Walpole, Robert, 133
War, Cabinet during, 122-124;
declaration of, 114-115; de
partment of, 144 et seq.;
the Great War of 19 14,
effect of, on India, 330-331;
effect of ditto on imperial
problems, 332-334
Warden of the Chiltern Hund
reds, 79
Washington, George, 54, 366
Wellington, Lord, 85
Westminster Abbey, 18
Whips, 76-78, 131-132
William the Conqueror, 258
— III., 100, n.
-IV., 99

384

Index

Wilson, Woodrow, 54, 366
Witenagemot, 81, 82
Woman suffrage, in England,
250; in Scotland and Ireland,
257; in Australia, 293
Women, as political workers,
213-214; on Councils,
237

York, province of, 341; Arch
bishop of, 342; Convocation
of, 343; other assemblies of,
344
Yorkshire, 167
Yukon, 283, n., 291

Jt Selection from the
Catalogue of
G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS

Complete Catalogues sent
on application

The American Plan
of Government By
Charles W. Bacon, A.B., Harvard
Assisted by Franklyn S. Morse,
A.B., A.M., Harvard
With an Introduction by
George Gordon Battle,
Univ. of Va, M.A.
o . $230 net. Postage additional
The Constitution of the United States,
which originally was intended merely
to keep the peace between the States as
they existed a century and a quarter
ago, has become a system of adminis
tration affecting the lives and happi
ness of all the people of the United
States. This volume presents the
Constitution as a logical whole with
the amendments dealt with in connec
tion with the clauses which they alter
or supersede.
• G. P. Putnam's Sons
New York London

Frederic William Maitland, Downing Pro
fessor of the Laws of England. A Biographical
Sketch by H. A. L. FISHER. Demy8vo. With
portrait and facsimile of handwriting. $ 1 .65
The Collected Papers of Frederic
William Maitland, Downing Professor of
the Laws of England. Edited by H. A. L.
FISHER. In three volumes. Demyovo. $10.00
The Constitutional History of England.
A Course of Lectures delivered by F. W. MAIT
LAND, LL.D. Demyovo. $3.25
Township and Borough, being the Ford
Lectures delivered in the University of Oxford in
the October Term of 1897. Together with an
Appendix of Notes relating to the history of the
town of Cambridge. By F. W. MAITLAND,
LL.D. Royal 8vo. $2.50
Equity, also the Forms of Action at
Common Law. Two Courses of Lec
tures by F. W. Maitland, LL.D., D.C.L., late
Downing Professor of the Laws of England in the
University of Cambridge. Edited by A. H.
CHAYTOR, M.A., LL.B., and W. J. WHIT-
TAKER, M.A., LL.B. Demy 8vo. $4.00
English Law and the Renaissance. (The
Rede Lecture for 1901. With some Notes.)
By F. W. Maitland, LL.D., Hon. D.C.L.
Crown 8vo. Cloth 60 cents. Paper 40 cents

G. P. Putnam's Sons
American Publishers for the
University Press, Cambridge, England

By JAMES A. WOODBURN

The American Republic and Its Government
An Analysis of the Government of the United States,
with a Consideration of its Fundamental Principles
and of its Relations to the States and Territories.
Revised Edition, 8°, net, $2.50.
Political Parties and Party Problems in the United
States
A Sketch of American Party History and of the De
velopment and Operations of Party Machinery, to
gether with a Consideration of Certain Party Problems
in their Relations to Political Morality.
Second Edition, revised and enlarged. 8°. $2.50.
American Orations
Edited by Alexander Johnston. Re-edited, with new
Material and Historical Notes, by J. A. Woodburn.
Four volumes. Sold separately. 12°. Each, $1.40.
Set, 4 vols, in box, $5.50.
American Political History— 1763-1876
By Alexander Johnston. Edited and supplemented
by James Albert Woodburn. In two volumes, each
complete in itself and indexed. Each, net, $2. 50.
L — The Revolution and the Constitution The Growth
ot Nationality, 1763-1832.
2, — The Slavery Controversy, Secession, Civil War,
and Reconstruction, 1820-18 76

G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
NEW YORK LONDON