Prof. Bryce on "Constitutions, Flexible and Rigid."

We clip the following from reports of two lectures given by Prof. Bryce before the students of Oxford, Eng. It will be remembered that this distinguished professor delivered two lectures in Sanders Theatre last winter. His remarks will be of interest to those who are studying constitutional history.

"The two Constitutions, which, by reason of the length of their history, and the influence which they have exercised on statesmen. have most interest for the student of political evolution-those of Rome and England-belong to the same type ; the type usually described as unwritten, because in the main their rules and principles rest far more on usage than on any organic statute or body of statutes. In contrast with these is a class of Constitutions now beginning to attract more notice, and illustrated by those of Switzerland and the United States ; Constitutions usually know as written, because they are wholly contained in written enactments. But the current fashion of expressing, this distinction is unsatisfactory. It does not indicate the true nature of the difference. The real and essential difference is that in Constitutions of the flrst kind all laws are of equal validity. The Queen, Lords and Commons, if they agreed, might legally effect the most radical changes in our constitution. In political systems of the other type, the law of the Constitution is exalted above the ordinary legislature, which can, by itself, effect no change in it whatever ; it is law of a different kind from that made in the ordinary way, because it does not admit of "tinkering," save by a special process, which can be worked only by a diferent body of workmen. Hence the first kind of constitution is elastic, the second rigid ; the flrst is admirable, able to bear sudden strains without any injury to its effectiveness, and modifies itself almost insensibly, so as to satisfy new ideas, new wants, new interests. An elastic constitution meets revolution half way. But when the people live under a constitution contained in an organic written law, the slightest change will produce a visible strain, because every wheel, every bolt, and every connection of a highly elaborate mechanism is in clear light before their eyes.

The Rigid Constitution gains in influence by age, and its permanency is shown by the fact that amendments carried in the legislature are usually rejected by the mass of the people The magic of self-love increases the respect felt for it ; but it is weakened by becoming a less adequate expression of the growing people's needs. The two great defects of the American Constitution are the absence of a uniform law of marriage, and the method of electing a president ; but so complicated is the machinery for altering the constitution that a reform in these points is hardly possible.

Is the tendency of a fixed constitution, on revision, to an extension of legislative powers? No. The constitution of the Union has only been altered once or twice, at any rate before 1865, but the particular states afforded many instances of narrowed legislative competency. Some states, e. g. Lomsiana, South Carolina, Georgia, have had as many as five constitutions. Contrary to our experience of corporate bodies, in whose charters general wording leaves room for the framing of byelaws, the newer American constitutions embody much criminal, family and police law. Such constitutions frequently need amending.

Common people relish definiteness in a constitution, and the more rigid it is the better it is suited to the democratic mind, and by being rigid avoids two democratic dangers, disrespect for a minority and for fixed rules. Is there a progress from rigidity to flexibility ? The time comes in a democracy when the people are completely masters, and do not value restrictions. The tendency to rigidity will therefore stop, and a larger authority be given the executive. A rigid constitution is an absolute necessity in a federation ; but a semi-international compact of England and her colonies had better be effected by a British Statute. The benefits of a flexible constitution, a more developed common law, temperate habits of compromise, etc., are shared only by the small ruling class ; thus the new voters in England, though teachable, will be ignorant. What is the effect of living under a rigid constitution ? In America the constitution is found in every house and taught in every school, and can be read aloud in seventeen minutes. The consequence of this is that politics tend to become legal, and the Bar has far more importance than in England, where Parliament is omnipotent. Americans often say that their whole political history has been a struggle of strict as against loose constructionists. It is only fair to say that the American constitution works well, because it was imposed on a people educated in English legal habits. Hence the very conservative tone prevailing in America, and the love of old and fixed forms which they show."