To devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union, and to report to Congress such an act, as, when agreed to by them, and confirmed by the legislatures of every state, would effectually provide for the same.

On the 25th of May, 1787, the Federal Convention met at Philadelphia and adjourned on the 17th of September following, having, in the intervening four months of deliberation with closed doors, worked out upon paper that Constitution which has made the United States what they are to-day. This is not the place to discuss in detail the nature of their work. The future history of this country will determine whether it will be covered with immortal glory, growing brighter as the centuries elapse, or whether, the Union being displaced by a military empire, or destroyed and local despotisms established as the result of bloody civil wars, it will be banished to the storehouse of political relics, as good enough for a country of limited population and almost boundless territorial and other resources, but, like so many other expedients, powerless against the conflict of human passions, in the fierce struggle for existence which follows upon density of population.

Two things must, however, be said of it: first, that it solved speedily and with almost magical effect all the difficulties which then threatened our very existence as a nation, and second, the lesson it teaches, that in a popular government, perhaps more than any other, sound organization is the basis and foundation stone of permanent success, and to it we in this country must turn our attention if we wish to escape evils which, if they are less obvious than those of a hundred years ago, are hardly less dangerous to the life of the republic.

THE

CHAPTER IV

POPULAR GOVERNMENT IN GREAT BRITAIN

HE inquirer into the history of popular government, at least in modern times, will naturally first turn his attention to Great Britain. Not that popular government first existed there, for it was not till half a century after the French Revolution had proclaimed the doctrine of political equality, not till the time of the first reformed Parliament in 1832, that Great Britain began even to recognize the fact that the masses of the people had any right to a share in the government. But in that country was first wrought out the application of the principles of modern representative government and the relation of executive and legislature as they exist there to-day.

After the long period of barbarism and anarchy which followed the fall of the Roman Empire before the invading tribes, the first relief was obtained through the feudal system. Great lords surrounded themselves with bodies of retainers, who received from them land and protection in return for military service. Order was thus secured within a limited jurisdiction, but the great lords fortified themselves in their castles and made war upon each other, while they plundered the commercial and producing classes, the latter defending themselves as best they could through the foundation and growth of cities. Although this system formed a great advance upon what preceded it, its evils were still so crushing that the lesser powers joined with the strongest of the great nobles to put down his rivals and establish a dynastic rule by individuals.

Within the space of two centuries this was brought about in England by the Tudors, in France by Louis XI., followed by Richelieu, in Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella, and in Russia by the Ivans. In Germany the process failed of accomplishment, and that country paid a terrible penalty for this failure in the Thirty Years' War. Even that effected but little amendment, and the chaos of small powers continued till it was broken up by Napoleon, while the process of consolidation has approached anything like reality only in our own time. Italy suffered as badly from the same cause down to the revolution which is associated with the names of Victor Emmanuel and Cavour.

The Thirty Years' War in Germany had its equivalent in England in the wars of the Roses. The desolation and the destruction of the nobles came to an end with the accession of Henry VII., while despotism reached its highest point under Henry VIII. Both the sex and the character of Elizabeth caused some yielding in this respect, and the elements of parliamentary resistance were gathering strength, which the qualities of the Stuarts were peculiarly suited to develope. Both James I. and Charles I. were firm believers in divine right and prerogative, while the former was a weak but obstinate pedant, and the latter so treacherous that it was soon evident that no faith could be kept with him. After Charles had governed for eleven years without a Parliament, himself exercising all the powers of the State, he found himself obliged to summon the body known as the Long Parliament, which was to sit for thirteen years and to conduct that struggle with the royal prerogative which was to culminate in the execution of the king.

The Long Parliament was not a revolutionary assembly. It comprised men of the best families in England, loyal country gentlemen, eminent lawyers, rich merchants, many faithful courtiers, and a large

body of resolute Puritans of unflinching purpose, but as yet aiming at nothing but effectual securities for liberty.1

Yet they were to prove themselves almost as tyrannical as the king.

Not contented with their unquestionable right to denounce abuses with a view to the passing of new laws, or the punishment of offences against the law before the legal tribunals, Parliament claimed to punish as delinquents all persons whom they adjudged guilty of offences against the law.2. . . Nor did they encroach upon the law alone their encroachments upon prerogative commenced very early in the strife. In August, 1640, the two houses passed an ordinance without the assent of the king for disarming all the papists in England, and in November another ordinance for raising forces for the defence of Ireland. And similar ordinances were passed throughout the time of the Long Parliament.3

The revolutionary spirit of the Long Parliament was further shown by the dealing of the Commons with the House of Lords, its own members, and the people. Their own will was the only law which they were prepared to recognize. They early displayed a determination to deny the Lords their lawful rights of legislation. Nor would they allow debates in the other House, of which they disapproved, to pass without censure. They punished the Duke of Richmond for a few words spoken in his place, and impeached twelve of the bishops for a protest against the validity of proceedings of the House of Lords while they were prevented from attending by the mob. In their own House they violently repressed all freedom of debate. Opposition to the majority was treated as a contempt and punished with commitment or expulsion. Privilege had become more formidable than prerogative.

Petitions had now become an important instrument of political agitation. But the Parliament would not tolerate petitions, however moderate and respectful, which opposed their policy, or represented

1 Sir Thomas Erskine May, "Democracy in Europe," Vol. II., p. 385. 2 Ibid., p. 388. 3 Ibid., p. 389.

the opinions of the minority. Often the luckless petitioners were even sent to prison. But petitioners who approved the measures of the majority were received with favor even when attended by mobs, which ought to have been discouraged and repelled. The leaders of the popular party also encouraged the assembling of mobs for supporting their cause and intimidating their opponents. On December 28, 1641, there were disturbances outside both houses of Parliament with cries of "No bishops!"; and an affray arose between some gentlemen and the mob. The Lords desired the Commons to join with them in a declaration against these disorders, which was discussed there. Strong observations were made upon the preferring of petitions by tumultuous assemblies. According to Lord Clarendon, however, some members urged that they must not discourage their friends, this being a time they must make use of all friends, and like practices were continued throughout the troubled period of this Parliament.1

These quotations are important as showing the inevitable tendency of a legislative body and foreshadowing the course of the French Revolution a century and a half later. From its discussions, both civil and religious, the Parliament rapidly lost its efficiency, and the more violent section gained the upper hand.

A republican spirit was beginning to be apparent, especially among the Independents. They were the first example of a democratic party in England. Liberty had often had its fearless champions, but democracy was unknown. The Independents had gradually separated themselves from the Presbyterians, and as their creed was more subversive of ecclesiastical institutions, so were their political views more violent and implacable. Their political ideal was a republic without king or nobles, in which all citizens should enjoy an absolute equality.

Cromwell, who had already risen to eminence as a soldier, clearly foresaw that the army would soon give law both to king and Parliament, and his character and opportunities alike led him to seek power from the soldiery rather than from Parliament. . . . The ambitious leaders of the Independent party, jealous of the ascendency of the Presbyterians in Parliament, in the army, and in the chief offices of the state, conceived a cunning scheme for stripping them of their power. Their preachers, having first denounced the self-seeking and

1 Sir Thomas Erskine May, "Democracy in Europe," Vol. II., pp. 390-392.