The deductive method was no less prevalent in physical philosophy.  Now, induction is more accessible to the average understanding than deduction.  The deductive character of this Scottish literature prevented it from having popular effect, and therefore from weakening the national superstition, from which Scotland, even to-day, has been unable to shake herself free.

* * * * *

WALTER BAGEHOT

The English Constitution

Walter Bagehot was born at Langport in Somerset, England, Feb. 3, 1826, and died on March 24, 1877.  He was educated at Bristol and at University College, London.  Subsequently he joined his father’s banking and ship-owning business.  From 1860 till his death, he was editor of the “Economist.”  He was a keen student not only of economic and political science subjects, which he handled with a rare lightness of touch, but also of letters and of life at large.  It is difficult to say in which field his penetration, his humour, and his charm of style are most conspicuously displayed.  The papers collected in the volume called “The English Constitution” appeared originally in the “Fortnightly Review” during 1865 and 1866.  The Reform Bill, which transferred the political centre of gravity from the middle class to the artisan class had not yet arrived; and the propositions laid down by Bagehot have necessarily been in some degree modified in the works of more recent authorities, such as Professor Dicey and Mr. Sidney Low.  But as a human interpretation of that exceedingly human monument, the British Constitution, Bagehot’s work is likely to remain unchallenged for all time.

I.—–­The Cabinet

No one can approach to an understanding of English institutions unless he divides them into two classes.  In such constitutions there are two parts.  First, those which excite and preserve the reverence of the population, the dignified parts, if I may so call them; and, next, the efficient parts, those by which it, in fact, works and rules.  Every constitution must first win the loyalty and confidence of mankind, and then employ that homage in the work of government.

The dignified parts of government are those which bring it force, which attracts its motive power.  The efficient parts only employ that power.  If all subjects of the same government only thought of what was useful to them, the efficient members of the constitution would suffice, and no impressive adjuncts would be needed.  But it is not true that even the lower classes will be absorbed in the useful.  The ruder sort of men will sacrifice all they hope for, all they have, themselves, for what is called an idea.  The elements which excite the most easy reverence will be not the most useful, but the theatrical.  It is the characteristic merit of the English constitution that its dignified parts are imposing and venerable, while its efficient part is simple and rather modern.