MUTATION THEORY OF EVOLUTION. 395 



Nor can any such enlightened view be found in the speeches de- 

 livered by Burke on American Taxation. It is not too much to say 

 that there were no British statesmen who had any idea of such a 

 combination of national and imperial principles until after the 

 accession of Disraeli to power in the seventies of last century. 



But since that time — a time so recent — our views of empire 

 have fundamentally changed. Instead of regarding empire and 

 nationality as incompatible, statesmen in all parts of the empire are 

 inclining to the belief that nationality or dominion self-government 

 is a necessary stage in the development of Imperial unity. Such 

 a change effected within the past 25 years at the end of an imperial 

 experience starting with Angevin Kings, cannot be explained other- 

 wise than by a theory of breaks or leaps in the process of evolution. 

 The new stage of imperial development is so essentially different 

 from any other stage that has preceded it that he who would seek 

 to unite the British Empire must do so, not by reference to tradi- 

 tional methods of imperial administration, but rather by reference 

 to the new ideal of empire expressed in the phrase — " A free 

 association of Commonwealths." In other words it is not by using 

 the Privy Council, the House of Lords, or the House of Commons, 

 or any other part of the constitution of England that imperial unity 

 will be brought about, but rather by the use of some unpre- 

 cedented institution — such an institution perhaps as we may expect 

 to develop from the conferences of Premiers in London, which began 

 as recently as 1887. The principles underlying such an institution 

 need not conflict with the principles underlying new imperialism. 

 That is why, I think, we are justified in hoping much from these 

 conferences that now take place periodically in London. 



In my illustrations I have directed your attention more parti- 

 cularly to spiritual and political progress. Had I cared or had I 

 chosen to revert to the present condition of unrest in the United 

 Kingdom I might have illustrated my point by reference to social 

 progress. But it is unnecessary to multiply illustrations. The 

 careful student of history will find them in any authentic record 

 of England's development. There is more continuity in the con- 

 stitutional history of England than in any other department of 

 history ; but constitutional history would serve my purpose too. 

 There is a sense in which we may talk about the growth of the 

 constitution, but every student who has looked carefully into con- 

 stitutional history will agree with Mr. Dicey^ that such language 

 is metaphorical only, and, if taken literally, is absurd. " Con- 

 stitutions do not resemble trees, which once planted are aye growing 

 while men are sleeping. In every stage of their existence they are 

 made what they are by human voluntary agency." The more 

 closely we look into constitutional history the more fully we realise 

 the inadequacy of the current theory of evolution to explain it. 

 You must allow for breaks or sudden leaps in the production of 

 new forms. The difference between these new forms and the old 



1 " The Law of the Constitution," by A. V. Dicey, p. 183. 



