« AnteriorContinuar »
Russia an adoption of the Anglo-Saxon polity, more or less modified. Such has been the case with France, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Germany, Hungary, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, and Portugal. In all these lands, except France, which has a President, a Sovereign stands at the head of the state, in whose name executive acts are done, who is irresponsible and irremovable. The power lies with the ministers of the Sovereign, nominally appointed by him, but really owing their positions in a greater or less degree to the voice of the majority of the representatives of the people. The representatives, therefore, through these, their agents, possess executive as well as legislative power. This is the general scheme, the details of which vary widely. The supremacy of the legislature is most complete in France; least so in the German Empire, and in Prussia, where the power of the Emperor and King is great and not declining 1
A still farther extension of Anglo-Saxon freedom is perhaps possible. The two hundred and fifty millions of India, it is believed, have a capacity for self-government. Every village has its headman and a ruling committee. Sir Henry Maine, in his study of the village communities of India, presents interesting points of correspondence between them and those of other Aryan peoples. In them exists a germ of local selfgovernment, if not of representative institutions, which might be developed far. East Indians often possess high administrative talent. Mysore and Baroda, two of the largest provinces, within a few years have been given over to native rule. So it might be in
1 Bryce: American Commonwealth, I, p. 271, etc.
whom it is something alien, but as upheld by the English-speaking race, so many million strong, its separate nationalities planted at so many points of vantage the world over, no more one in speech than one in blood and institutions.