Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 09.djvu/111

* GOVERNMENT. 89 GOVERNMENT. exist throughout the Russian autocracy, and that the comimuial goveiimients of the Krciioh Re- public should be strictly suix-nused and con- trolled from Paris, would hardly be expected from the nature of the cenlnil yovenunent in either case. The inconsistcncj- is explained by the fact that the local govenuucnts, which touch the average citizen most nearly and by which all of the ordinary affairs of life are regulated, are seldom created by the c-entral governmenl, but in most instances had been fully developed before the latter came into being, and not only is the hamlet or village government usually much older than the general government of the .State, much older, indeed, than the .State itself, but it is also much more enduring, nuich more tenacious of life, and. upon the whole, much more important to the State than the central government. The latter may be a usurpation, or the accidental result of a war; it may change with the deatli of a ruler or the end of a dynasty, without affecting the internal structure of the State or the organ- ization of society. But the local government is the slow growth of time, interwoven with the habits and compoimded of the customs of the community; it is never foreign, never alien; wliile it lasts the State endures, and w-hen it is dissolved the social foundations of the State are disintegrated. Other elements of complexity result from the union of different States in one political organ- ization, or under one sovereign, or from the ad- ministration by one State of a variety of colonies or dependencies. The first of these is the fed- eration, or federal State, of which the United Slates of America, the Dominion of Canada, the Au.stralian Commonwealth, and the German Km- pire are the leading examples. Akin to this is the union of England, Scotland, and Ireland in the Kingdom of Great Britain. The imion of two or more States under a common ruler, but without becoming one nation, is illustrated by the ephemeral political leagues of ancient Greece, by the German Confederation of 18G7. and by the modem kingdoms of Austria-Hvmgary and Scandinavia. The British Em])ire affords the most striking illustration of the union of a great vai'iety of governmental forms under one central authority. The government of Great Britain is a score of different governments rolled into one. In England and the self-governing colonies, it is a democratic kingdom: in Ireland, a parliament- ary autocracy limited by constitutional foniis; in India, an empire wholly autocratic; in Egypt, a satrapy; and everywhere, in the villages of India, ^n the conunonwealths of Canada and .Aus- tralia, and in the counties of England, it shelters a variety of local governments which perform their ancient functions under the central author- ity of the Empire. See Federal Government; Great Britain ; United States. Modern Innovations in Government. The rise of democracy and the spread of popular government have been referred to above, and are elsewhere described. (See Oemocraty. ) But one result of this movement remains to lie considered — the discovery and wide application of the prin- ciple of representation in government. It was the lack of this principle that hampered the development of the republics of antiquity and which forced them to assume the imperialistic fonn. Expansion under those conditions could mean only imperialism — the extension of the rule of the republic over populations which could not, in the nature of the case, participate in the gov- ernment. It is to England that we owe the dis- covery of this principle. an<l to the United Slates that we owe the demonstration of its capacity to serve the needs of a great and expanding nation, stretching over a vast continent, livit it has not only performed the inestimable service of creating grciit States on the republican model; it has also furnished means for introducing a measure of popular government into the ancient monarchies of Europe, and thus of satisfying the political aspirations of the democracy of the Old World. Since its introduction in Eiigland it has become the accepted iiioilel of a ]iopular government wherever such government has been introduced. See Caiunet; CONSTITUTION; Par- LIA.MENT; REPRESENTATION. Objects of Governjient. Broadly spcaJving, the objects of political government are well ex- jiressed in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States, to "establish justice, insure domestic trant|uillilv, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." That these are the principal objects for which governments exist, and that they are all within the sphere of proper governmental action, are propositions which no one denies. It is in the definition of these general objects that differences of opinion appear. A recent writer of authority has divided the functions of govern- ment into t^wo groups: the coiixtiliient functions. or such as arc fundamental and necessary in every organized political society, and the niinix- Irnnt functions, which are undertaken, not of strict necessity, but in order to minister to the general welfare. The former include the defense of the State against foreign aggression, the pres- ei"vation of the peace, the administi'ation of justice, the definition and punishment of crime, the regulation of the domestic relations and of property rights, and the determination of the political rights and duties of citizens, and the status of aliens — all of them purely public func- tions which could not be left to he deteniiiiicd by chance or committed to the citizens individ- ually. The ministrant functions, on the other hand, are such as might conceivably be left un- performed or left to private initiative, as the coinage of money, the regulation of trade, the maintenance of highways and of postal and telegraph systems, sanitary regulation, public education, the care of the poor and incapable, and the, like. It is in determining the extent to which government should go into this broail field of sei-vice to society that political philo.so- phers and statesmen are at odds. The laissrs- faire school, represented by .Tohn Sluart Mill and Herbert Spencer, would confine the functions of government as closelv as possible to those of the constituent class; while, «t the other extreme, there are many thinkers of advanced socialistic views who favor a great extension of ministrnut activity on the part of the governnicnt. Though the last quarter century has witnessed a decided reaction from the principles of the laisse.::-fnire philosophy, it has as vet produced no consider- able effects in England or in the TTnited States. On the Continent of Europe, however, and still more in the British colony of New Zealand, the field of governmental action has of late been greatly widened. That these enlarged views of