A
MESSAGE FROM ANGLO-AUSTRALIANSEnglishmen
need to be reminded of their own cultural and historical heritage from which we
drew to establish our own Commonwealth of Australia.
THE
CULTIVATION OF HISTORY
by
Hewlett Edwards "The Fig
Tree," 1954 There is a saying among
the south sea islanders: Know the roots and you will know the tree. Know the tree
and behold! It will answer to your cultivation. History
is the endless record of experiments; a series that cannot be broken and of which
there is never complete specification nor adequate separation from a multiplicity
of similar operations. The movement of events cannot be arrested for examination
and analysis, history shows and must show approximation upon approximation. Within
itself each event appears to be complete and completed, it cannot be undone; but,
as a part of a series which is one whole, what is so indeterminate as an isolated
event? It seems conclusive, yet it is always moving on to fresh conclusions. It
is in this difficult complexity that policy is crystallised and becomes history
in which men of understanding as well as of action have erected signposts for
the use of their successors. To illuminate one of these is to select that particular
incident or aspect as being of a significance exceeding that of a thousand other
happenings which might have been chosen. He who writes history, chooses history. This
group of ideas clusters round the word Constitution: One
such signpost firmly erected in early Christian days was the Athanasian Creed.
This draws attention to the threefold nature of reality, and sets forth ideas
which, perhaps necessarily, were in advance of common usage. This incomprehension
was extravagantly illustrated in the major controversy of those days, for amongst
and throughout the wars, revolutions, plagues, pestilences and famines of early
Christendom, in which individuals and nations were racked, shaken and overwhelmed;
throughout these confusions ran the thread of a controversy in which an idea was
not so much pursued, as eventually discovered.
This was the idea, or group
of ideas, which clusters round the word constitution in its social and political
connection. The content of this controversy concerned the veridical relationship
between Pope and Emperor; between Authority and Power. In
this discussion, argument was continued by canonists and legists for more than
a millennium. From the first, the problem seems to have been envisaged in limited
perspective as a simple struggle for power between the Papacy and Empire; but
even in a thousand years, neither party attained complete domination although
both came near it.
Out of the strife, however, came extensive results though
these were not those consciously aimed at. To a high degree, Canon Law and Roman
Law stand as memorials to this disputation, truly notable monuments, though inconclusive
as solvents of the constitutional issue.
The controversy was the thread along
which the rival disputants groped towards ideas and institutions which could satisfy
both spiritual and temporal requirements. The
lawyers and theologians were bent on realising a dualistic Constitution In
the sixth century, Justinian confirmed a strategy already adopted when, in his
Novellae Constitutiones, he said that the mercy of God had bestowed upon mankind
the two greatest gifts, the sacerdotium and the imperium, the one ministering
to the divine and the other presiding over and caring for the human.
Following
this directive, the lawyers and the earlier generations of theologians were bent
on realising the strict separation of Church and State according to the ideal
of a dualistic constitution. In this, success appeared to have been attained when
in 800 A.D. the Pope, assuming spiritual leadership of the world, crowned Charles
V of France Emperor, with temporal Headship. But
Charles' Empire did not survive his life, and all was again in confusion. In the
tenth century the position was reversed, and we find Otto the Great, a German
Emperor, crowning and deposing Popes from 963 until his death. Nothing was settled.
Indeed, by this time, the political content of the Middle Ages had become one
long quarrel turning upon this question of constitutional ascendency.
By the
thirteenth century all was again changed. Dualism became heresy, and all effort
was turned towards a unification of control, the concentration in one person of
Power and Authority. It was Alanus, an English monk, who, writing in the decade
following 1200 A.D., originated the view that the single head of medieval polity
for matters both spiritual and temporal, was the Pope. The
establishment of "what touches all should be approved by all": To
the medieval mind, absolute government was the only possible form of government,
and although the democratic derivation of a Prince's powers was closely canvassed,
a democratic share in central administration was neither thought of nor discussed.
This did not prevent the establishment early in the thirteenth century of
the principle that 'What touches all should be approved by all', while, later
in the same century, canonist scholarship demanded that representation should
have full power to consent to the ordinances of the King in Council. Again,
it was laid down that, wherever a matter of faith was disputed, laymen as well
as clerics were to be consulted. Discussion on such points was a lively interest
and the consideration and adoption of constitutional principles was perennial.
In England, theologians were active in the general disputation; while English
lawyers worked out the typically inductive system of the Common Law. This was
a development parallel to Roman Law, both originally being in part derived from
the endeavours of the Church Fathers to perpetuate and establish in legal form
the moral teachings of the Gospels, interpreted as Natural Law. Following
this idea, it was held that liberty was derived from Natural Law and therefore
seemed immune from human restriction. Later this was evidently found inconvenient,
as liberty came to be regarded as a 'mundane benefit' of which anyone might be
deprived by a Prince of the Church. It was upon this argument that slavery was
recognised and Magna Carta was discredited by the Church (Innocent III).
Both
Roman and Common Law were concerned with the temporal aspect of human relations,
whereas Canon Law was focussed upon the spiritual aspect of the individual and
carried greater prestige and dignity. While Roman legists depended chiefly upon
argument and deduction from scriptural texts (Mosaic and New Testament), the emphasis
in Common Law was upon circumstances and conditions then obtaining. Reality
is Threefold, not Unitarian, not Dualistic The
conversion of the Emperor Constantine early in the fourth century marked the emergence
of Christians from a long period of persecution and martyrdom. Authority, in the
persons of the Elders of the Church, was no longer oppressed, but stood in an
unfamiliar - indeed in an unknown - relationship to Power as personified in the
Emperor. Whatever the earliest contacts may have been, it is known that about
twelve years after the attainment of this unique position Constantine called together
the leaders of the Church in a Council at Nicea (A.D. 325), which indicated on
the highest and most authoritative plane, fundamental principles bearing on this
very predicament.
A strong directive was issued making clear a position which
had long been obscure, and in so doing promulgated verities - discovered rather
than devised - which must be observed by those who would go with and not against
the nature of reality. Reality it was stated,
is threefold; not unitarian, not dualistic; a Mystery best described as Three
in One. This was the Nicene Creed recited at the second session of the Council,
where the young Athanasius distinguished himself. The elaborate Athanasian "Confession
of our Christian Faith" became current later. The
modern world is not without instances of flagrant evasion of obvious truth. To
us it seems extraordinary that the principles enunciated should not have been
related to the predicament experienced; that the Creed should not have been seen
to have its political analogue precisely suited to immediate - and difficult -
circumstances.
It must have seemed, if only for a brief moment, that Spiritual
Authority and Temporal Power were at one; and the realisation that there was no
precedent governing their fruitful co-existence must have followed quickly. The
Council of Nicea did not specifically consider the principles upon which Authority
and Power might together work out the spiritual and material advancement of the
new Christendom, but in the Creed it stated them. Reality
is threefold, and that idea, as developed in the (Athanasian) Creed, must to the
extent of man's capacity, be reflected in his institutions. But there is no trace
of any attempt to grapple with this problem, instead, the unique opportunity was
allowed to pass and political society slide back into just another phase of contending
parties. Or was it inconspicuously propelled? Such
must have been the background of that age-long quarrel which turned its back upon
the Athanasian thesis, making a prolonged excursion into dualism and turning at
last towards centralised autarchy. For papalism did not remain satisfied with
spiritual leadership, and, failing to distinguish between Authority and Power,
the supremacy of the Pope was taken far into the temporal sphere. This
direction, pursued over generations, built up the stresses and pressures which
prefaced the 'Reformation'; an explosion in which papal absolutism was broken
into fragments which, Sysyphean, sprang to the same monopolistic ideal (e.g. in
Henry VIII of England and Phillip II of Spain).
With this catastrophe, the
controversy between the protagonists of Pope and Emperor ceased to be a focal
issue. The prolonged endeavour to force action which was against the nature of
reality shattered the polity in which it existed, as in the end it will shatter
any polity in which it is tolerated. Rejection
of the tripodal (trinitarian) framework - the only framework which fits man and
society into the universe - has, in its later course, exalted 'Totalitarianism',
'Communism', and now an oncoming Luciferianism salutes and summons the 'Atomic
Age'. Conjunction of Authority and Power
made apparent the third member of the political triad: The
most significant and fruitful facet of this historical perspective is that, despite
the following of many false trails, the trinitarian idea was not to be always
or completely denied, as is to be seen in the unfolding of the English constitution. The
formative period was in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when English law
was administered by the ablest and best men of the Kingdom; it was then that the
emerging principles of Common Law were being shaped, Canon Law performing the
function of a bridge connecting legal process with ethical and theological discussion.
During that period, the argument between the Papacy and the Empire was mainly
dualistic (it was certainly not trinitarian) and yet in England at that time the
conjunction of Authority and Power made apparent the third member of the Political
Triad - the Common Law with all that followed it. Directional
inspiration plus executive action only exist by virtue of their issue, or content.
THE THREE ARE ONE. In use they can and must be distinguished, but they can never
be separated.
King John failed in this. He did not distinguish
but tried to combine Authority, Power and Law in his own person; and, in this
violation of well-understood but largely unformulated principles, he brought the
constitutional issue to a head.
The Barons at Runnymede may not have realised
fully the part they played: but they played it. They stood as an embodiment of
the people of England, all England; the outcome and incarnation of the inter-locking
activities of Church, King, and People; and their purpose was to bring the King
to recognise his limitations in this threefold structure by the implementation
of the rights of the other parties. Magna Carta was the sign and confirmation
of this. It was a truly English document,
containing neither explanations, argument nor reasoning. Of the seventy-nine clauses
it contains, only five are in abstract terms; four are administrative; seven lay
down sanctions and the other sixty-three directly concern the settlement of specific
cases.
It is a lesson in what not to say. These decisions fixed established
custom, binding the law back to then current usage.
Upon ground so secured
was cultivated a comprehensive organism of many parts which sustained the King's
Justice, Canon Law and the Common Law including in the Inns of Court, virtually
a university.
For more than three-hundred years this organic relationship
developed, reaching its climax in the life and person of Sir Thomas More. The
thread of this fruitful continuity was broken by Henry VIII whose absolutist ambition
and determination to transcend the law, which More resisted, led to the great
Chancellor's execution in 1535. With his death, the Law Reports which were a continuous
record of the being and becoming of the Law, fluctuated and then ceased. It
is true to say that the English people with their customs, characteristics and
achievements sprang out of and exist because of the adequacy of this trinitarian
setting - though something was lacking or we should have it yet.
In 1535,
the current induced by these conditions was immensely strong and neither Henry
nor Cromwell and their like could do more than check or divert the flow. But the
tide had turned. The disruption of the Common
Law and the undermining of the Constitution has taken another three or four hundred
years, and still continues, as has been shown by such distinguished lawyers as
Lord Acton and Lord Hewart. Major Douglas summed it up " ... we now have
the merest shell of a Constitution, Single Chamber Government dominated by Cartels
and Trade Unions". Constitutionalism
must have a relation to the Universe Consider
then these signposts of the past: the Gospels, the Athanasian Creed and Magna
Carta. Although so widely different in content and expression each is a crystallisation
of the same policy, which has become history. It is this history which we must
cultivate; Christian charity (caritas) in which to live and grow, Athanasian (Greek)
penetration of reality as the guide to growth, and British determination to secure
results.
These also are one in our Constitution but that Constitution has been
crippled and made impotent. For its restoration, another crystallisation of policy
is needed. In the opinion of Douglas: ·
"Constitutionalism must be organic; it must have a relation to the Universe.
·
"…the restoration of the supremacy of Common Law, the removal of encroachments
upon it, and the establishment of the principle that legislation by the House
of Commons impinging upon it is ultra vires is an urgent necessity.
·
"It is necessary to provide individuals, as individuals, not collectively,
with much more opportunity to judge political matters by results, and to be able
to reject, individually and not collectively, policies they do not like…"
· To crystallise these directives into history is to bring substance
to things hoped for and to provide evidence of things to come: it is the establishment
of the threefold Constitution as a production unit of truth and freedom. Acknowledgements
are made to the following sources: Medieval
Popalism by Walter Ullman, J.U.D., F.R. Hist. S.;
Christian Philosophy in
the Common Law by Richard O'Sullivan. K.C.;
Realistic Constitutionalism by
C.H. Douglas.
------------------------------------------------------------Wall-to-wall
republican governmentsSource:
Taken from An Opinion Column from the national convenor of AUSTRALIANS
FOR CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY
Kevin
Rudd may well have inadvertently made the prospect of a one party nation an issue
in the coming election. What is disturbing
is not the prospect of wall-to-wall Labor governments. Rather, it is the prospect
of wall-to-wall governments firmly committed to fundamental constitutional change
the people have clearly rejected. Of the major parties only Labor is so committed.
Although founded by that great constitutional monarchist, Sir Robert Gordon Menzies,
the Liberals have somehow managed to make this a conscience issue, while the Nationals
remain solidly monarchist. The consequence
is that even with a republican prime minister,the Coalition will be divided and
not vote as a bloc. On the other hand, it is doubtful that the monarchists in
the Labor Party would be allowed a free vote. Rather, it is likely thatthey would
be compelled to follow the party line. In this
context, Kevin Rudd's recent intervention in support of a republic was as unexpected
as it was unwise. He clearly has not done his homework on the question. How else
can would this conservative Labor politician observe that he is "relatively
relaxed" about the prospect of a republic in which the president is chosen
by the electorate? No other conservative politician of any standing is. This statement
was reckless.
Equally unprofessional is the Labor Party's continued outsourcing
of the detail of this issue to the declining republican movement.
This is even
more curious when it is remembered the movement is headed by a Liberal candidate
in the coming election. More importantly, by
his introduction of the republican issue into the electoral debate Mr. Rudd has
raised to theforeground the fact that since 1986, the powers of the state and
federal parliaments acting together seem to be absolute and without limit. It
is not so much that they can they raise the GST - the Federal Parliament could
do this alone if it so wished, just as it could
change the Flag without a popular
vote. Mr. Keating and Mr.Beasley planned to do precisely this before they lost
office, and
Mr Howard's subsequent amendment to the Flag Act could be repealed
by a determined government with the numbers and the
requisite discipline. Our
seven parliaments acting together could, on the very best legal advice available,
not only bring in any sort of republic
without a referendum, it could also
abolish the Senate, turn the states into regions, extend the terms of the politicians
to five
or seven years or more, subvert the judiciary and gag the media. Only
a determined High Court could stop this, and there is no guarantee of that. Now
no one is saying they are going to all or
even any of this. But by raising
the prospect of change to some sort of republic, Mr Rudd has handed control of
the introduction of this issue to his opponents.Once it is on the agenda, the
electorate may begin to wonder whether any party should have this power. They
may ask
whether the temptation to do something will be too strong?
Would
the parliaments ignore the peoples' will as, say, the Queensland Parliament once
did over the abolition of the upper house?. | 
