Theory and Practice OF The English Government CHAPTER I THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT REFERENCES: Todd's Parliamentary Government in Englund, i. 1–8; Dicey's Law of the Constitution, 37-81; Anson's Law and Custom of the Constitution, i. 33-41; May's Parliamentary Practice, 1-35; Bagehot's English Constitution, 1-67; Courtney's Working Constitution of the United Kingdom, 3-23; Creasy's English Constitution, 1-11. ENGLAND has taken the lead in solving the problem of constitutional government; of government, that is, with authority, but limited by law, controlled by opinion, and respecting personal right and freedom. This she has done for the world, and herein lies the world's chief interest in her history." These are the opening words of Goldwin Smith's recent and brilliant work, "The United Kingdom." These two sentences set forth admirably the great debt which the world owes to the English people. As we note the progress of civilisation from its beginnings on the banks of the Nile, the Tigris, and the Euphrates, we are led to the conclusion that every nation has made its peculiar contribution to this progress. Each seems to have contributed something to those forces which tend to civilise, something to the general good; and we of the present generation are the inheritors of these contributions. The Egyptians and the Chaldeans furnished the humble beginnings of literature, science, and art; the special mission of the Hebrews was to teach religion; the Phoenicians were the merchants, navigators, and colonisers of the Orient; the Greeks excelled in art and the Romans in law. In like manner the solution of the problem of constitutional government has been the great contribution of the English people to the world's civilisation. It is true that England's achievements in agriculture, commerce, and manufacturing are of no mean order and have added much to the welfare of the race; yet her supreme contribution has been along governmental lines. This being the case, a consideration of the English government with some reference to its development can hardly be amiss. An exposition of the English government must always be attended by difficulties not experienced in a study of American government; because the English Constitution, unlike our own, is exceedingly extensive and largely unwritten. The American form of government is comprised in a definite number of articles and clauses, while that of England is made up of a series of great documents like the Magna Charta, scattered over centuries of time, of Acts of Parliament, of decisions of courts, and of various customs which have slowly crystallised into the law of the land. These various component parts of the English Constitution have never been collected and reduced to writing, and probably never will be. The labour of collecting and unifying these scattered fragments would be a stupendous task, and the work could never be complete even for a single day, as Acts of Parliament affecting the fundamental law of England would still continue to be passed, and the decisions of the courts would still constitute an uninterrupted stream. The American Constitution can be amended only in the two ways specified in the document itself, and changes in our fundamental law are by no means easy. In England, however, no such difficulties present themselves, as Parliament may alter any law with equal facility. As far as the processes of passage, repeal, and alteration are concerned, there is no difference whatever between a law affecting the fundamental principles of the government and any other. As Sir William R. Anson puts it, “Our Parliament can make laws protecting wild birds or shell-fish, and with the same procedure could break the connection of Church and State or give political power to two millions of citizens, and redistribute it among new constituencies." When an Englishman says that a proposed measure is "unconstitutional," he means that it is opposed to the spirit of the English Constitution," but does not mean to say that it would be void if passed. When an American pronounces an Act of Congress "unconstitutional," he means that it is opposed to the written Constitution of the United States and would be declared null and void in case it were tested in the courts. For these reasons the English Constitution is more variable and intangible than the American, and its exposition correspondingly more difficult. 1 "Law and Custom of the Constitution,” part i. p. 347. |