The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-04-27

| Q,fnce. bNJ tnat peril nhVlnS Dccn over
como by the mastery craftsmanship and
tho splendid sclf-control Of tho dominant
race, Il need have no fears rs to its ability
to meet the social difficulties OF the future
Our Attempt to Copy the English Con-
| stitutipn.
| In the May number OF the North American
Rcrir,r there Is an article by Prof. GOODWIN
| SMITH in which the author shows that gov.
crnment by party. although in fact very
! different thing from the definition OF 1t
framed by BURKE. is nevertheless the only
| practical device yrt Invented for organizing
voters and assuring collective action under
| representative institutions. where these are
! applied t. large communities. Many strik-
| ing Illustrations of the seemingly inevitable
abuses of party government arc drawn from
! the recent political history of tho United
| Kingdom. of the Dominion of Canada, and
| OF tho United States. But perhaps to Amer
leans the most interesting feature Of the
article is the exposure OF the many and
serious misconceptions entertained by the
members of the Philadelphia Convention of
17sT. who supposed themselves to be trans
frrring to this country the essential ele-
mcnts of the English Constitution. With
some of these biunders We are familiar. but
others are now pointed out for the first time.
70 MAN. students OF American history 1t
ha, doubtless seemed unfortunate that our
Constitution makers should have assembled
al an epoch when rcactiun against the ON
impotence of the House OF Commons. and In
favor of conccding to the sovereign largo
share in the Government. hnd reached Its
height Under tho first two Hanoverian
rulers such Il party in the House OF Com
mons as that OF the Kings Friends was
unheard Of, and the notion that under the
Act of Succession an English monarch
could be anything but a puppet and figure
head. was propoundcd by no influential
Observation-Disclosures had no influence
until GEORGE III. assembled the throne in
1859. Now suppose that Canada had been
coded by France to England by the treaty
of Utrecht in l7l3. instead Of by the treaty
of Paris in 1763-this would probably have
happened had Wing Ministry remained
in power under ANNE-the chances are that
the uprising for colonial independence
would have taken place in Sir ROBERT WAL
POLES timc instead OF Lord NORTH's. II
at such juncture the colonists had pro-
ceeded to frame u Constitution OF their own.
they would have accepted the only view Of
their British model which then pre-
vailed. They would have made their
President IA mere fgurehead by depriving
him Of the right OF veto. which neither
GEORGE I. nor GEORGE II. had dared to
exercise. and by making the members
OF his Cabinet strictly accountable to the
popular branch OF the Legislature. They
would have detected instead OF adopting
the error OF MoNTEsQUIEU. who ayerred that
the Executive. the Judiciary. and the LeRis-
lature were coordinate parts OF the British
political system. In WALPoLEs time every
body understood that in England the Execu-
tive. the Judiciary. and the Legislature
were practically fused together, and that
WALpoLE himself was the Chairman OF the
Executive Committee OF the House Of Com
mons. and in that capacity dictated to the
roi fnineant every administrative and judi
cial appointment. Unluckily. however.
when our lawmakers met at Philadelphia,
the state of things had not only changed in
fact. but in what passed for Oh authorized
OF it. GEORGE III. had been
for twcnty-scven years evincng. not un-
Il determination to govern as
we'll az reign. and Sir WILLIAM BLACK
STONE. whose Commensurate" were gen.
orally accepted MS . trustworthy exposition
Of tho political us well rs civil and criminal
Law of England. had given the sanction Of
his name to the errors Of MoNTEsQUIEU. and
done his best to find II warrant for the arbi-
trary projects OF GEORGE III.
1t must, however. be acknowledged that
the mistaken views taken OF the British
no itical system at Philadelphia were
shared by many contemporary English
men. An observer who. like HORACE WAL
POLE. should have lived through the last
of tho eighteenth century.
must have felt that what he had supposed
to be the English Constitution In l74D had
by 1857 been materially changed in fact rs
wei! rs in the theory OF tho Kings friends
and iur site ilatterers. There Is one criti-
cism. however. on tho work done at Phila-
dolphin which. SO far as we know. Is now
made for the first time by Mr. GOODWIN
SMITH. He directs attention to the fact
that in placing tho elective principle at tho
base OF oar Federal Constitution, our low
civers mlsconcelved the actual state Of
things in the House Of Commons, whose
essential features they supposed them
selves to be reproducing. Elective In theory
the House OF Commons was. but it was not
SO in practice. and Mr.. SMITH suggests Q
doubt whether the qualities In that
assembly. which our fathers approved and
wished to initiate, depended on its elective
character. The truth is that OF the 55S mem
bcrs then composing the House. l79 were
returned by 81 places, in none OF which did
the voters exceed 900. Indeed n majority
of the House was elected by $4,000 voters.
not tho two-hundredth part OF the male
adults in the kingdom. Contested elections
were comparatively rare at the period when
our Federal lawmakers were studying the
workings OF the British Constitution. Thus
in 1850 there were contests In only coun-
ties and 50 boroughs in the whole Of Eng
land; and even in 1879. when the agitation
caused by the French revolution had be-
gun, there wero only contests In the coun-
ties and 81 in the boroughs. We are further
reminded by Mr.. SMITH that OF the II mem
hcra romDnsipU Lord TIyRRpaoI' "a cahipat