how desperate would have been the case of our ancestors if those high ideals had not existed. An act of cruelty committed in the name of the Christian religion always seems the worse, because of our instinctive resentment of the incongruity. We have always had an exaggerated notion of the extent and the horrors of such events as the Massacre of St. Bartholomew and the persecutions of the reign of Mary Tudor. And the reaction and the repentance in view of such events is made more prompt and vital because of their obvious inconsistency with the essential spirit of the religion.

It is true that many of the civil conflicts have been fostered by religious differences, and that religious controversies have had an important part in the development of political parties. But it should be borne in mind that the modern party strife is much less brutal and less divisive in its tendency than were the class factions which it has displaced. We do not, however, get an adequate idea of the uniting power of the Christian religion by an effort to balance advantages and disadvantages which may have resulted from religious controversy. That power is seen in the fact that at all times, in the midst of the fiercest political and religious contests, there have been those who believed and acted upon the belief that religion itself was more than any authoritative human expression of religion; more than Romanism, more than Protestantism, more than Puritanism, more than Episcopalianism, more than Presbyterianism, more than Methodism. There has been much vindictive cruelty in the treatment of religious opponents, yet there have always been those who revolted at the unchristian spirit of such a course, and who have insisted upon the duty of placing religion above sect or religious party. The strife between Romanist and Protestant was long and bitter, but it was partly due to the many cruel and unjust political acts committed in the name of reli

gion. The time came, however, when both Romanist and Protestant were ashamed of their anti-Christian hatred. There can be no doubt, upon the whole, that in spite of the many religious controversies Christianity has been the strongest influence toward the unity of the nation.

Literature has had no mean share in the promotion of national unity. In politics, it is often difficult rightly to distinguish cause and effect. A literary product may be a result of the national spirit, while it may likewise be a promoter of the national spirit. Chaucer and Wiclif stand at once for a revival in learning, for a religious awakening, and for unusual social and political activity. The great literary baptism came to England after the strong Tudor hand had kept order for the greater part of a century. The Tudors patronized learning, and they also respected the dominant elements among the people. The literary revival of the Elizabethan Age coincided with the birth of conscious political importance on the part of large numbers of the middle-class folk in town and country. It is not unlikely that one of the causes of the growth of freedom of debate and freedom of criticism upon the acts of the government was the development in the House of Commons of a style of oratory fascinating both to speakers and to hearers. The higher forms of literature are non-contentious and belong to the uniting forces of the nation. Oratory plays an important part in the contentions of politics. The men who maintained the cause of Parliament before the Rebellion against Charles I. were for the most part good speakers. The later Stuarts were also resisted by men who knew how to speak. Walpole relied upon oratory as well as upon bribery to carry his measures through the Houses of Parliament. Later, in the time of George III., when corruption had destroyed the effect of oratory in Parliament, it was for a time still made effective before popular audi

ences. Still later, when tyrannical rule had suppressed public meetings, the advocate in the courts of law found a place where the voice of liberty could still be lifted.

It hence appears that both literature and religion have been made to play a part in the strife of class against class, and have thus become factors in that balancing of the high powers of State which we call the Constitution. Yet the important fact to be observed is that by far the most important contribution of literature and religion to the stability of the government has been the influence which they have exerted against factional and party strife and in favour of the feeling of national unity.

It is to be hoped that as Democracy attains an assured success, political contention and strife will hold a less prominent place in the constitution of the State. It is not unlikely that the fundamental ideas of all constitutions will undergo yet greater changes. Thus far, democracy has made progress in the various Christian nations, not so much because of an intelligent, clearly defined belief in its principles, as because of the necessity of a choice between evils.

Political wisdom has been gained chiefly through actual suffering. At every stage the people have felt themselves to be victims of a system which they did not create. They have been induced to change or modify the system only when it has seemed intolerable. So long as the people think themselves to be victims of their political institutions, they will want their constitutions to appear to abound in safeguards against hasty action. But the rational democrat looks forward to a time when the people will understand each other better; when they will cease to distrust one another; when the consciousness of the forces which unite them will displace the consciousness of forces which threaten their ruin; when they will feel themselves to be not the victims of their system, but

the masters of it. If such a condition should be reached, there would be no longer any need of a constitution of checks and balances, and the preventing of encroachments would cease to be the chief business of political agents. After such an attainment, the thing of chief interest in the history of the constitution of a nation would be not political strife and contention, but those qualities of character which have enabled the people to hold together in spite of continual conflict.

APPENDIX

MAGNA CARTA1

JOHN, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, KING OF ENGLAND, LORD OF IRELAND, DUKE OF NORMANDY AND AQUITAINE, AND EARL OF ANJOU: To the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earls, Barons, Justiciaries, Foresters, Sheriffs, Reves, Ministers, and all Bailiffs and others, his faithful subjects, Greeting. Know ye that We, in the presence of God, and for the health of Our soul, and the souls of Our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, and the exaltation of Holy Church, and amendment of Our kingdom, by the advice of Our reverend Fathers, Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church; Henry, Archbishop of Dublin; William of London; Peter of Winchester, Jocelin of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry, Benedict of Rochester, Bishops; and Master Pandulph, the Pope's subdeacon and familiar; Brother Aymeric, Master of the Knights of the Temple in England; and the noble persons, William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke; William, Earl of Salisbury; William, Earl of Warren; William, Earl of Arundel; Alan de Galloway, Constable of Scotland; Warin FitzGerald, Hubert de Burgh, Seneschal of Poictou, Peter Fitz-Herbert, Hugo de Neville, Matthew Fitz-Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeney, Robert de Roppelay, John Marshal, John Fitz-Hugh, and others, our liegemen, have, in the first place, granted to God, and by this Our present Charter confirmed for Us and Our heirs forever

1. That the English Church shall be free and in their integrity and her liberties untouched.

enjoy all her rights And that We will

1 Translated by William Basevi Sanders, Assistant Keeper of Her Majesty's Records.