in America the people, looking at political and social questions, "see straight and think clear," according to Matthew Arnold, while on the other side of the Atlantic, as he says, they certainly do not. This surprise will remain just so long as the delusion exists that the Americans are of pure English descent, and the influence of other nations upon them continues to be overlooked. Let any reader apply the test, and inquire among his acquaintances. He will probably find very few who, being able to trace their ancestry back on its different sides for several generations, are of unmixed stock. English blood most of them will have, and they ought to prize it for its pluck and sturdy manliness; but crossing this will be found, in almost every case, the blood of other nations with qualities that the English have never had.*

* A great modern thinker thus expresses his opinion as to the ultimate effect upon America of this intermingling of nationalities, now going on more rapidly than ever: "From biological truths it may be inferred that the eventual mixture of the allied varieties of the Aryan race forming the population will produce a finer type of man than has hitherto existed, and a type of man more plastic, more adaptable, more capable of undergoing the modifications needed for complete social life. I think that whatever difficulties they may have to surmount, and whatever tribulations they may have to pass through, the Americans may reasonably look forward to a time when they will have produced a civilization grander than any the world has known."-" Herbert Spencer in America," p. 19. I trust that I may be pardoned for saying here, once for all, that my quotations like those from Mr. Gladstone and Herbert Spencer are not made for the purpose of exciting the vanity of a nation which in so many departments has as yet little to be proud of, but simply to show that even intelligent English observers notice the marked difference between the people of America and those of the mother country. The sober-minded reader will draw his conclusions from the facts.

Turning now from the question of race to that of institutions, a subject which some may think much more important, we reach a simpler field. Here is no room for conjecture or mere opinion. We have the institutions of the two countries before us; they can be compared by any one acquainted with them both, and the result speaks for itself. Instead of those of the United States being derived from England, it is a curious fact that, while we have in the main English social customs and traits of character, we have scarcely a legal or political institution of importance which is of English origin, and but few which have come to us by the way of England.

The influence of institutions upon national character has been, perhaps, exaggerated by some writers; it certainly has been underestimated by others. The French are inclined to the exaggeration, the English to the underestimate. Of course institutions should be adapted to a people, just as a school should be adapted to a scholar's capacity. A tribe of savages would be benefited as little by a system of government borrowed from a civilized nation as a little child would be benefited by a postgraduate course at a college. All this is true enough, and in this is summed up much of what is meant when institutions are spoken of as a growth. But, on the other hand, as a child may develop into a scholar in one school who would have remained a dunce in another, simply on account of the difference in his teachers, so a people may make progress under one set of institutions, while with another set they would remain stationary.

The

There were no horses upon the American continent until they were introduced by the Europeans. horse, we are told, is an evolution, and perhaps in time might have been evolved in America, but his introduc

tion certainly has aided the development of the country. Institutions, likewise, are growths and not creations; but when grown they bear transplanting, and will thrive if the soil is fertile and the climate genial. Thus transplanted, they become most important factors in the evolution of society.*

Before considering the subject of American institutions, there is one English institution of the greatest importance, utterly unknown in the United States, to which a few words may be well devoted. This is the State Church. To Americans familiar with the history and literature of England, this subject is so well known

* Matthew Arnold was one of the English scholars who had been accustomed to undervalue the influence of institutions. A visit to America in 1884 modified his opinions. Upon returning home he wrote as follows: "I suppose I am not by nature disposed to think so much as most people do of institutions. The Americans think and talk very much of their institutions.' I am by nature inclined to call all this sort of thing machinery, and to regard rather men and their characters. But the more I saw of America the more I found myself led to treat institutions' with increased respect. Until I went to the United States, I had never seen a people with institutions which seemed expressly and thoroughly suited to it. I had not properly appreciated the benefits proceeding from this cause.""Last Words about America," Nineteenth Century, Feb., 1885. Matthew Arnold, before coming to America, did not apparently share the views of his illustrious father. The latter says: "The immense variety of history makes it very possible for different persons to study it with different objects. But the great object, as I cannot but think, is that which most nearly touches the inner life of civilized man-namely, the vicissitudes of institutions, social, political, and religious."-" Lectures on Modern History," Lecture III. William C. Brownell, in his "French Traits," has an instructive chapter on Democracy, in which he shows the importance attached by Frenchmen to the subject of institutions. "French Traits," Charles Scribner's Sons, 1889.

THE STATE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

13

that many persons are inclined to overlook the importance of such an establishment in one country and of its absence from the other; and yet there is no single institution in England which in the last three centuries has exerted a greater influence in moulding the national character and in shaping the national thought than the Established Church, while nothing, perhaps, has been so important to the United States as the absence of this institution.

In England the Church is an adjunct of the State. It is supported by a tax, levied on every one, whether believing in its doctrines and attending its services or not. Its prelates are appointed by the crown, under the form of an election, which is, however, nothing but a form. Its ministers are not selected by their congregations, but are appointed by the State, or by private individuals who have inherited or purchased this privilege, and who may be atheists or pagans. The influence of this organization, as shown in English history, is too familiar to need more than a bare suggestion. During the reigns of Elizabeth and the Stuarts it was little but the handmaid of tyranny. Ever since that time it has been the consistent opponent of almost every reform. This is natural enough, for in England reforms have always been forced on a reluctant State, of whose machinery the Church has formed an important part. It has always been the bulwark of the aristocracy; so that if one goes, the other will probably go with it. This, too, is natural enough, for its ministers depend for their bread upon the upper classes. Its organization extends over every square mile of English soil; its revenues are enormous some of its ministers enjoying princely incomes-and yet no Protestant Christian body has done so little, in comparison with its wealth and

numbers, for the cause of religion or morality.* In late years it seems in some quarters to have developed a new spirit, so that its future is uncertain, but nothing can change the record of the past.

This is not the place to discuss the question whether in all these matters the influence of the State Church of England has been well or ill directed. It has been claimed that it is an evil to educate the common people, or give them too much religious instruction. Such was

* Writing in 1850, one of the best informed of English observers said: "Here, where the aristocracy is richer and more powerful than that of any other country in the world, the poor are more depressed, more pauperized, more numerous in comparison to the other classes, more irreligious, and very much worse educated than the poor of any other European nation, solely excepting Russia, Turkey, South Italy, Portugal, and Spain."-"Kay's Social Condition of the English People," Amer. ed. p. 323. If any reader thinks that I have overcolored any statement in this chapter or elsewhere, regarding the condition of the poor in England, I ask him to consult this book. Mr. Joseph Kay was sent out by the Senate of Cambridge University to examine the comparative social condition of the poorer classes in the different countries of Europe. In 1850 he gave to the world the results of his investigations, extending over several years, in a work entitled "The Social Condition and Education of the People of England." The chapters on England, which have been reprinted separately in the United States, are made up from personal observations and official reports, and give evidence of an earnest desire on the part of the author to impress his countrymen with the gravity of their situation. The preface to the American edition of 1863 well says of these chapters: "They are a warning to us, and hence useful, although abounding in facts that are not agreeable, and of a description that needs to be read only by men who have duties at the polls, and those few women who take an active part in raising or guarding our various institutions." See also John Foster's essay on "Popular Ignorance," and Booth's "In Darkest England," published in 1890.