THE CHURCH IN AMERICA

15

It

the theory of Queen Elizabeth and her successors. may be that the political reforms opposed by the State Church were mistaken measures and will ultimately prove disastrous. It may have been wise to exclude Jews and Catholics from office, and to prevent any one from obtaining a liberal education at the great universities unless he professed the faith of the State. It may be that a better class of ministers is obtained under the English system of appointment, where the office is said sometimes to be sold to the highest bidder, than under a system which permits the congregations to select their own ministers. All these claims may be well or ill founded; the system may be the best or the worst ever devised by man, but it certainly is the most important of English institutions, except, perhaps, the aristocracy, to which it is allied, and it is unknown in the United States.

Several of the American colonies, following the example of England, established churches supported by the State. But the Revolution, which severed the relations between the colonies and the mother country, soon put an end to these establishments. Here New York took the lead. In its first Constitution, adopted in 1777, a provision was inserted repealing and abrogating all such parts of the common law and all such statutes as could "be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers."* Virginia followed in 1785, and at later dates all the other old states in which the Church had been established did the same, except New Hampshire, concluding with Connecticut in 1818 and Massachusetts in 1833.+ The new states which have

* Constitution of 1777, sec. 35.

Schaff's "Church and State in the United States," p. 46. Some

joined the Union since the adoption of the Federal Constitution have, without exception, followed the example of New York, and have by constitutional provision placed a complete separation between Church and State.*

Here then, in the most important domain, that of religion, we find the greatest possible difference between the two countries, a difference which may furnish much food for thought to those who believe that America has English institutions. But when we pass to political matters, the differences are no less important and far-reaching.

Beginning at the bottom, we find that our whole political system is founded on a basis entirely different from that of the "mother country." The theory of all our institutions is summed up in the words of the Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal." This has been called a "glittering generality." So it is, and so is the refulgent atmosphere in which we live, and the crystal ocean which girds the globe. Yet what air and water are to man, human equality is to the life of the republic. We need not the authority of Sir Henry Maine for the statement that this doctrine comes from Roman jurisprudence, that it is not English, and that it is and ever has been unknown to English law, where the members of the noble order have always enjoyed peculiar privileges, extending even to the courts of justice. No one could persuade the Queen of Great Britain and Empress of India that any of her subjects is by

of the colonies had no established Church, and so seemed to require no constitutional provision upon the subject.

*See Poore's "Charters and Constitutions of the United States." + Maine's "Ancient Law," p. 91. "All men are equal," the most distinctive expression of the doctrine of Roman law. "The Early History of Institutions," Sir Henry Maine (Henry Holt, New York, 1888), p. 330.

WRITTEN CONSTITUTIONS OF AMERICA

17

birth her equal. Coming down the list to the pettiest baronet, the same feeling exists, and it is not confined. to the class which claims superiority. The lower orders, as they call them—and this is, perhaps, the most demoralizing feature of the system-share the sentiment, and look up to an earl and duke as a good Catholic looks up to a patron saint. So strange does all this caste spirit seem to an American that it is almost incomprehensible. It is one of the last things which travellers appreciate, but until they do so they will understand little of the English people, their institutions, or their history.*

Ascending now from foundation to superstructure, we find as radical a contrast. The United States and all the separate states have written constitutions. The importance of these formal written instruments all Americans appreciate, and even Englishmen are beginning to see their value. By them the powers of government are distributed among the executive and legislative departments, while above all sits the judiciary, not only to keep each department to its proper functions, but also to guard the rights of each individual citizen or stranger. These constitutions represent the will of the people, are superior to all congresses or legislatures, and can only be altered by the people, in such modes, as to time and majorities, as guarantee deliberation and a widespread settled feeling of a necessity for change.†

* Sec "Aristocracy in England," by Adam Badeau, 1886, for a full study of this subject; Taine's "Notes on England;" Emerson's "English Traits," pp. 185, 305, ed. 1857. Says Matthew Arnold, "Inequality is our bane. *** Aristocracy now sets up in our country a false ideal, which materializes our upper class, vulgarizes our middle class, brutalizes our lower class."— Nineteenth Century, Feb., 1885, p. 233.

No change can be made in the Constitution of the United

Of all this England knows nothing. Its so-called Constitution is a thing of tradition, sentiment, theory, abstraction, anything except organic, supreme, settled law. What is constitutional to-day, to-morrow may become unconstitutional by the mere fiat of the British Parliament, which, it has been said, can do anything except make a man a woman, or a woman a man. The courts construe the laws, but can neither protect one department of the government against another, nor the individual against the tyranny of the majority.*

States until proposed by two thirds of both houses of Congress, and ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the states. In New York a constitutional amendment has to pass through two legislatures, and then be ratified by a popular vote.

*"Parliament is, from a merely legal point of view, the absolute sovereign of the British Empire."-"The Law of the Constitution," Dicey, p. 354. "In spite of appearances," said Mr. Frederic Harrison, on the 1st of January, 1886, "and conventional formulas, habits, and fictions to the contrary, the House of Commons represents the most absolute autocracy ever set up by a great government since the French Revolution. Government here is now simply a committee of that huge democratic club, the House of Commons, without any of the reserves of power in the other parts of the Constitution which are found in the constitutions of France and America." Quoted in "French and English," by Hamerton, Atlantic Monthly, Sept., 1886, p. 321. "The Constitution, being unwritten, provides no special safeguard against revolutionary reforms like those in America and France."-Idem, p. 324. Says another recent English writer: "Our glorious Constitution, reduced to its simplest elements, consists merely of one unwritten article. If it were written, it would run: The majority of the English electoral body, having proved themselves to be a majority after a fierce electoral fight, in which every personal ambition, every selfish interest, and every malignant passion has been let loose, may do exactly what they like, without let or hindrance, with the organization of English society and with the resources of the British Empire.""-National Review, Sept., 1886, p.65.

THE EXECUTIVE IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA

19

Here is a fundamental difference at the outset. Now let us look at particulars. The United States has a real executive, who is commander-in-chief of the armies, appoints judges and subordinate executive officers with the approval of the Senate, has a substantial veto power, and holds office by election for a fixed term. England has two executives: one an hereditary figure-head, who holds levees, lays corner-stones, and leads, or is supposed to lead, society, being the supreme arbiter in questions of official etiquette; the other is a committee of the House of Commons, called a Cabinet, which exercises all real executive power, although unauthorized by statute, without any check on its authority, but also without any settled term of office, being subject to be swept away at any moment by a gust of popular passion.

Each country has two legislative houses, but the resemblance goes no further. The upper house in England, in which members keep their seats for life, simply represents the aristocracy, which means land, and the Church, which means religious caste in politics. In the United States the Senate represents the separate states, each one, large or small, having an equal voice, while one third of its members changes each two years. In England the upper house has no substantive power, except that of obstruction, fitfully and feebly exercised under the terror of annihilation. In the United States the Senate is a real body with authority, helping to make laws and serving as a check on the executive. Its confirmation is necessary to the appointment of judges and all executive officers, except those of the lowest class, while no treaty is valid without its approbation. Again, it must unite with the House of Representatives, before the President can make war or peace. None of these powers belong to the House of Lords. They are