THE UNION OF UTRECHT. BY LUCY M. SALMON. It is fifteen years since Mr. Gladstone in his "Kin Beyond Sea" expressed the opinion that "As the British constitution is the most subtle organism which has proceded from progressive history, so the American constitution is the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.” * The verdict was accepted by the American people, partly because they had always been taught the inspirational theory of their political origin, partly because they were proud of believing themselves self-made, partly because the well-rounded period of the great premier carried conviction with it. But questionings had already come in the minds of American scholars, and at Harvard, at Johns Hopkins, at the University of Nebraska, the English, and subsequently the Germanic, origin of our institutions had been shown. The two new schools were not rivals, for the English themselves, under the leadership of Mr. Edward Freeman, were studying the Germanic origin of their own local institutions. These theories seemed reasonable, the proof conclusive, and we had come to accept without question this explanation of the source of our political ideas. But a new school has lately risen, led by Mr. Douglas Campbell, urging the claims of the debt America owes Holland. We are persuaded that all of our political virtues are inherited from the Dutch, while our political vices come from England. The claims of the new school are yet to be proven, but its rise is of interest as showing that our political origin may yet be shown to be cosmopolitan in character, as were the settlements of the thirteen original colonies. These different, perhaps not altogether conflicting views, * North American Review, 127, 185. have concerned chiefly the source of our local institutions. But the fundamental principle in our National Government is federation; and the query naturally arises as to how this idea could have been developed. That some form of union was inevitable is seen at once from the position and character of the American colonies. But necessary as the union was, it is impossible that one so perfect as was the confessedly imperfect one of the New England Confederation should have been evolved from the inner consciousness of its framers. Four confederations had existed before the first formed on American soil. Those of Greece were as remote from the thoughts and experiences of the New England colonists as they were distant in time. The holy Roman Empire had little to commend itself to their respect even had they been familiar with its workings. "If a foreign example must be found for so natural an arrangement," says a recent writer,* "why not refer to the Confederacy of Switzerland, known by residence under its protection by English Puritans for generations?" But Switzerland had little standing among European nations. It had never harbored for any length of time any united company of English citizens, and in some of its fundamental principles it was totally unlike the union formed in America. The fourth confederation that Europe had known was that of the Dutch Republic. This had grown out of the Union of Utrecht, formed forty years before New England was colonized, and under which a considerable body of the New England colonists had lived during their eleven years' sojourn in Holland. That the Union of Utrecht had a direct and immediate bearing on the forming of the New England Confederation can not be stated, for the records of the Pilgrims of their residence in Holland are utterly barren of political impressions. It is impossible to believe that they walked as men not seeing, yet what was seen has not been recorded. What was the germ out of which the New England Confederacy was developed will prob ably never be positively known-the case can be decided only by circumstantial evidence, but all of this evidence points to the Union of Utrecht as a forerunner and prototype of the New England Confederacy formed in 1643. The Union of Utrecht signed in January, 1579, was intended George Leon Walker, Life of Thomas Hooker, p. 116, note. as a protest against the ineffectual manner in which Spain had kept the Pacification of Ghent drawn up more than two years previous. It did not in any way contemplate the establishment of an independent commonwealth-the preamble expressly states that the bond between them is formed without thought of "in any case separating themselves from the Holy Roman Empire." The Dutch Republic was certainly a result, but just as certainly it was not a premeditated result of the Union. It was two and a half years before the allegiance to Spain was formally renounced, and although the relations between the two countries had been greatly strained in 1579, it was not realized that a rupture was inevitable. The Union was intended solely to protect themselves against the attempts of Spain to dismember the Provinces, and to this fact must be attributed its incomplete nature as a permanent constitution. The Union consists of twenty-six articles, it is full of repetitions, and shows little or no skill in the arrangement of the material. It is provisional in character* and contemplates the securing of but two main objects-mutual defense against a foreign oppressor and religious toleration. It presents no wellordered, carefully devised scheme of government, and aside from these provisions securing protection and toleration, it is almost wholly negative in character. It provides for no general executive department, the nominal governor-generalship established in 1577 under the Archduke Matthias being accepted in its stead. Its legislative department is an assembly of independent envoys, representing sovereign States, who vote by provinces and not as individuals. It lacks a supreme judicial authority, providing for the settlement of the different classes of disagreements in several different ways. It makes no provision for a mutual concession of rights and privileges by the Provinces on the one hand and by the general government established on the other hand, except in the two matters of defense and religion. violates in every particular all those principles which Americans to-day consider fundamental in a federal governmentthe formation of a supreme legislative, executive, and judicial authority, the equitable adjustment of the mutual relation of the national and state authorities, and a power inherent in the national government of operating directly on every individual citizen. *Articles 5, 9. + Article 2. It |