History of the Union Jack and Flags of the Empire

by Barlow Cumberland

There is yet the other ideal phase in which the Union Jack in the outer realms of the Empire and in Canada reigns supreme—that of "liberty to the people." The inborn hope which buds and blossoms in the hearts of a growing people as their energies evolve and their circumstances advance, finds its fruitage in the possession of mastery over their own homes, and thus a nation's desire for liberty is concentrated in the absorbing dream of self-government.

It was this spirit which spoke in the old English colonies in America when they averred, in their address to King George III., that they were "being degraded from the pre-eminent rank of English freemen." The condition of a citizen in the old homeland was their highest ideal of the liberties of a people, and the only one with which, even in those times, they considered comparison could worthily be made.

The history of the Union Jack in the parent land has been connected, as we have seen, not solely with national allegiance, but yet more with parliamentary government; and its several parts have been combined in union to evidence the advent of union under representative institutions.

Such, too, has been the history of its expansion among the great groups of colonies of the British Empire which dot the outer world, a development of true democratic government which can best be realized by a comparison between the forms of government in Canada and that in the United States.

The creation of the constitution of England was not confined to a single date, nor was it the product of the men of a single period; its growth has been spread, like that of its flag, over century after century, as each successive phase of the ideal dream has become harmonized with the existing requirements of the day. Formed largely upon usage and upon precedent, it reflects the current views of the people, and, therefore, has never been restricted to invariable forms of words.

There are milestones such as Magna Charta, the Petition of Rights, the Habeas Corpus Act, the Act of Settlement, and the other landmarks which measure the way towards constitutional liberty; but as with the Union Jack, so, too, with the liberties of the British form of government, the story of the combinations is not the record of a revolution, but the gradual process of a reasoning evolution.

When, at the end of the eighteenth century, our neighbours in the United States framed their new constitution, they based it on the information and usages of that day when responsible government was almost unknown. Creating an elective King under the name of President, they endowed him with distinct and executive powers, which, as then, he still exercises, largely of his own private will, or only in consultation with a Cabinet which is nominated by and is responsible only to himself, whose members are not members of the House of Representatives, nor are they elected by the people.

How entirely he acts of his own motion, without the instructions or the initiation of Congress, was only too evidently shown in the recent Venezuela-Guiana incident,[163] when President Cleveland's message was promulgated with all the individual vehemence of an autocrat, and if it had not been for the temperate forbearance of the British Cabinet, war would have resulted.

The President of the United States, having been elected for a definite term of years, represents the opinion which prevailed at the time of his election; and no matter how much the opinion of the nation may change in the interval, or his policy be objected to, he continues to rule until his allotted term of four years shall have expired, even though he and his Cabinet be in absolute conflict with the expressed will of the people, as indicated in the elections which are constantly in progress.[164]

It is true there are provisions in the constitution for checking his course, or for his impeachment, but in cases in which this has been attempted to be enforced the trial has lasted longer than his term. His appointment as chief of the nation having been the result of an election contest, the President represents not the whole people, but only the political party which happened to be in the majority at the time of his election.