Rules similar to those adopted in the United States prevail in England to-day, but it is wrong to suppose that the institutions in the two countries are in all respects the same. In England, Parliament is supreme and can alter any law. In America, the legislature, executive, and judiciary stand on the same plane, and they are restricted by written constitutions. One of the well-known refinements of American institutions is the power of the judiciary to declare an act of the legislature that conflicts with the Constitution null and void.

In the history of the United States as a nation there have been many applications of Magna Carta. The latest that may be cited is the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution to admit women to the suffrage.

Will the influence of Magna Carta end? Surely, in view of what we have seen with the developing state of society, there is much reason to suppose that new applications of its authority will be constantly invoked. The real danger lies in invoking it for mistaken purposes. It has often been the case in the past that good causes have been ruined by objectionable remedies. Where the purpose is good, men are very apt to overlook necessary and indefeasible limitations. The history of the United States affords numerous instances of this. Thus the purpose of the abolitionist was good but he took measures which were sometimes wholly wrong, not to say very criminal. So, in present issues before the people, we cannot be too cautious. In seeking to avoid one evil, we must be careful not to encourage others just as objectionable.

Prohibition has received the approval of the people of Virginia and the United States, but, in enforcing the law, which is right and proper, we must be careful not to violate principles hallowed by time and protected by the ægis of Magna Carta. Any law which authorizes general warrants, whether they be in arrest of suspected persons, or the

breaking open of suitcases, or searching of automobiles, or entering houses, or breaking open places under lock and key, without naming the individual or the place, is against the constitution of Virginia, which has embedded in it the principles that have come down from the days of King John. Such a law establishes an arbitrary authority, which enables every officer to act the part of a tyrant. A precedent is afforded which may be invoked in the interest of a bad cause—perhaps to the injury of thousands. It is, therefore, better to keep within the old conservative lines and trust to public sentiment, though it may be slow in its processes. We should avoid rushing to remedies which carry in their wake consequences probably just as direful as the trouble sought to be corrected. If the usual punitive laws are not effective, the remedy should be had in increased penalties both on the offender and officers negligent of their duty. In the light of past history all boards of censorship are to be viewed with distrust.

Despite all temptation to resort to speedy and summary justice, let us stand by Magna Carta, which means with us, even more than it did with Mr. Jefferson, an affirmation of the rights of mankind, regardless of sex, rather than merely the rights of Englishmen or Americans, or the male sex. And as the natural law was ordained by God, so Magna Carta stands to-day for rights that are divine in their nature. Amidst all the storms of time, it stands a mighty barrier to evil, firm and unshaken, and, in the conception of its heavenly spirit, the patriotic citizens, like the pious Christian, will cherish it as "a rock of ages" and cling to it for protection.

THE EVOLUTION AND GROWTH OF PARLIA. MENT: THE CONSTITUTION AT THE

TIME OF THE STUARTS

By Oscar L. Shewmake, A.B., LL.B.

MR. PRESIDENT, ladies, and gentlemen, before proceeding to a discussion of the subject of this lecture it may be well for us to spend a few moments in refreshing our memories of some of the fundamentals of constitutional and representative government, that we may get the viewpoint necessary to a proper understanding of the matters before us. We have learned in our studies of political science that:

The constitution of a state is the fundamental law of the state, containing the principles upon which the government is founded, and regulating the division of the sovereign powers, directing to what persons each of these powers is to be confined and the manner in which it is to be exercised.1

We have also learned that constitutions are classified as written and unwritten. The constitutions, State and Federal, in use in our American system of government are written constitutions. That is to say, each of them is the production of the work of certain men clothed by the people with authority to frame a constitution and acting together in convention. On the other hand, the unwritten constitution is the result of a gradual growth, through the tedious process of "trial and error," and is evidenced by rules of established custom, legislative enactments, state papers, and decisions of courts of last resort. The English constitution, which claims our attention to-day, is of the 1 Black's Constitutional Law, p. 1.

latter kind. It consists in large measure of certain customs sanctioned by immemorial usage, acts of Parliament, royal grants, charters, declarations of rights, and decisions of courts of competent jurisdiction. Most important among these are those familiar landmarks in English constitutional history-Magna Carta of 1215; the Petition of Right of 1628; the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679; the Bill of Rights of 1689; and the Act of Settlement of 1701;-and so much of the common law of England as is declarative of the rights of the individual.

"But why," the student frequently asks, "is the study of the English constitution and of the growth of the English Parliament of importance to us in the United States?" More's the pity that such a question should ever need to be asked, or require an answer. No intelligent person in the United States questions the importance of our study of English literature; and yet, just as surely as we must go to England for the sources of our speech, our literature, our songs, and our traditions, we must make the journey back to the motherland to discover the sources of the system of government under which you and I are living at this hour. Nay, more, while we are debtors to many races and civilizations for much of our religious inspiration, our art, our knowledge of the sciences, our literature, and our institutional law; for our conceptions of political organization and representative government, we are indebted to England and to her alone. It was because of oft-repeated violations of the individual rights declared to Englishmen that our revolutionary sires, Englishmen living in Virginia and her sister colonies, took up arms in 1775, not so much for the purpose of establishing what was then termed an "independency" as to secure to themselves and their posterity the rights to which they were entitled under the English constitution and the enjoyment of which they were denied by the amazing stupidity of king and Parliament. The very