Democracy in the Making

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLV, Issue 21186, 5 November 1938, Page 12

Democracy in the Making

CONSTITUTIONS IN ENGLAND AND FINLAND

Sir John Marriott, a tireless and ■ efficient historian, has contrived, in | “This Realm of England,” within a i compass of 400 pages, to write a ser- j ious constitutional history which cov- I ers the whole ground rapidly, yet without sacrifice of accuracy or lucidity. | Moreover, he has daringly performed his task by treating his subject in reigns, while he has embodied the latest research of modern specialists, as well as making abundant use of historians of former times. His plan has been to treat the Crown as a personal monarchy down to 1714, and to speak of “constitutional monarchy” since that time. In his four sections we are shown the making of England between A.D. 43-1215, the building of the Constitution from Magna Carta until 1485, the evolution of a new system from the time of the first Tudor until 1714, and what he describes as “parliamentary monarchy” from the Peace of Utrecht to the abdication of Edward VIII. How Democracy Grew Quotation is difficult, for here is the whole gamut of British history in highly condensed form; but it is noteworthy that Sir John writes of Magna Carta, which some writers have labelled a “myth,” that the interpretation of certain words contained in it may matter much to legal specialists, but little to the historian, since it defined the King’s powers “which he had by right of law,” and that “those powers were entirely bounded and limited.” The limitations of the King’s powers are the text on which he pegs most of his book. He traces the evolution of the Parliamentary idea, the issues between Lancastrian and Yorkist and their result, the idea and growth of Cabinet rule, enters into Parliamentary privilege, the rise and extension of party and local government, the waning of clerical Influence; and, indeed, omits nothing that has helped to make the Constitution tvhat it is. Sir John, discussing the “martyrdom” of Charles I, agrees that by sacrificing his convictions he could have saved himself, but argues that his execution was “due to a canker of personal character. ... He protested that a King could not be bound; his enemies forcefully retorted that Charles Stuart could not be trusted. ... If Charles would not be bound he must die.” His character sketches are little masterpieces of etching. Hear him on Anne: “That the Good Queen made any important contribution to the greatness of her reign it would be fulsome to pretend; but she did nothing to diminish it or obstruct those who rendered it one of the most illustrious in our annals . . . she was Good, and among her subjects her memory was fragrant. . . . She was not a great Queen, and yet until her death the Crown was the centre of political gravity. . . . She was the last ‘personal monarch’ in England.” Royal Influence A change came with the reigns of the first two Hanoverians, who "reigned but did not rule;” and we are informed that the history of the Cabinet is “a shitting scene in which events move forward with uncertain step but continuous tendency”—and this tendency is minutely followed. Walpole hotly denied that he was a Premier, since he did not meddle in foreign affairs; and Sir John mentions cunningly that such language was “not appropriate to the I Cabinet system, but to the departmenI talism preferred by the United States.” Of the Crown we are told, in Balfour's words, that its importance in the British Constitution is not a diminishing but an increasing factor. “It increases and must increase with the development of those free self-govern-ing communities beyond the sea who are “constitutionally linked to us through the person of the Sovereign, the living symbol of Imperial Unity.” The growth of Royal influence is followed from the opening of Victoria’s reign to the recent abdication, the relations between the Crown and Colonial enterprise are indicated, there is a short recital of events that caused the disruption of the first Colonial Empire and the rise of its successor; comment on Colonial Conferences, Royal visits, the Empire, and the war, Statute of Westminster, trade preference ,and what not. Sir John writes of Edward VIII with great admiration, and finally with sorrow, and sees the cause of his abdication only as a matrimonial dispute in which the British Commonwealth surmounted a crisis “with no breach of constitutional continuity, and without any disturbance of the public order.” This is a book for layman as well as for student—a most handy and well set-out annotated work of reference. Finnish Hero The second work under review is the story of the President of Finland and his work and varied fortunes during long years of striving to stave off first Czarist, and later Bolshevist, dominion in his country; and of the final independence of his State and its recognition by other Powers. For 700 years, Finland was united to Sweden; in 1809, Alexander I of Russian attacked and conquered the country. The Finns had to be placated, so they were granted the Constitution they had enjoyed under Swedish rule. Later it became a Grand Duchy connected with Russia, and was autonomous except in regard to foreign policy. It has its own Government—its Senate and its Diet, the latter represented by the four estates until 1907, when the single chamber system was introduced. The Constitution could not be amended without the consent of the Diet. Next, the Finnish army was disbanded, and the Constitution fell to the whim of Russian rulers. There followed the first and second Russian revolutions, and the Finns realised the military importance of their own land. They found their champion in Svinhufvud when he was released from Siberia in March, 1917, but the “Red Guards” seized power and exercised

such brutality that party leaders became impotent spectators, since their people were unarmed. The poor parts played by Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin are here narrated —we find their promises broken in their eagerness to foment revolution in Finland; but Svinhufvud formed first a “white” party and then an “Independence Senate.” In November, 1917, he announced his “declaration of independence” and finally obtained European recognition. Another “red terror” waxed and waned, arid the first shots fired in the Finnish war for independence were heard in the following January, when General Mannerheim returned from Russia and obtained at length the use of German troops and arms. The man in whom Finland reposed her hopes and four of his Senators had to flee to hiding, and the parts of the book dealing with their various perils, escapes from strange lairs, and “red” interference are as exciting as a John Buchan or Oppenheim “secret service thriller.” But Svinhufvud became the first President of a free Finland, and he appears in these pages as a man of infinite courage, honesty, patriotism, and resource. Those who know little of this “country of a thousand lakes” should read this brief, but most eventful history.

(“This Realm of England,” by Sir John Marriott. London: Blackie. ‘‘Svinhufvud: The Builder of Finland,” by Erkki Raikkonen. London: Alan Wilmer.]

Everyman’s Library already contains selections from the stories, essays, and poems of G. K. Chesterton, Mr Aldous Huxley, and Mr Walter de la Mare. The latest modern author to be represented in this way is Mr Hilaire Belloc, who has written a preface for a volume comprising his famous pastiche, “Belinda,” self-contained chapters from the novels, extracts from “The Path to Rome,” and other books, his uproarious verse satire, “The Modern Traveller,” and a miniature anthology of his poems. The selection has been made by Mr W. N. Roughhead.

All over the world, the circus is and has been for centuries one of the most popular forms of entertainment. Its processions with elephants and caged lions have awakened the delight of countless towns and villages in every country. Its great tents have been centres of ecstatic enjoyment. Mr Willson Disher has written the history of one of the most celebrated circuses in “The Greatest Show on Earth as Performed for Over a Century at Astley’s (Afterwards Sanger’s) Royal Ampitheatre of Arts, Westminster Bridge Road.” (Bell). How many youthful hearts have thrilled at the very names of Astley and Sanger? But how many know the story attaching to those famous names? Philip Astley, in 1759, did what many a boy had done. He ran away and joined the army. Service in a cavalry regiment introduced him to horses. When he got his discharge in 1766 his commanding officer gave him a white charger. That white charge: was the beginning of everything. Two years later he built a circus and riding school on a piece of land near Westminster Bridge. In time his activities extended to Paris. His career did not consist entirely of ups; he had his downs too and twice his circus was burned. His successor in this glamorous ring was “Lord” George Sanger who carried it on until 1893 when the site was wanted for other purposes. Mr Disher’s tale is a rich one. He tells of the illustrious Ducrow, of clowns and riders, of that multitude of strange people who make up a fairyland of sawdust, spangles and thudding hoofs. Astley’s of Westminster was as much a national institution as Lloyd's of London.