An English View of Federalism in 1829
| Author | J. H. Burns |
| Published date | 01 October 1956 |
| Date | 01 October 1956 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1956.tb00850.x |
| Subject Matter | Article |
AN ENGLISH VIEW
OF
FEDERALISM
IN
1829
J.
H.
BURNS
University of A berdeen
THE
publication, in
1835
and
1840,
of de Tocqueville’s
Democracy in America
permanently
and profoundly affected European (and perhaps especially British) thought on the subject
of federalism. The reading public was provided, for virtually the first time, with
a
compre-
hensive account and analysis
of
American social and political institutions, and in particular
with
a
description of what John Stuart Mill was to call’ ‘the more perfect mode
of
federa-
tion’. It may be of some interest to
see
what sort of view had been formed
of
federalism in
the period between the launching
of
the American experiment and the appearance
of
de
Tocqueville’s book. Some evidence about this is furnished by an essay written in
1829
by
George Anthony Denison, Fellow
of
Oriel and later Archdeacon
of
Taunton,* and entitled
The Power and Stability of Fc,deraiive Governments.’
The author of the essay makes
no
secret of ‘his very limited acquaintance with the social
and political circumstances of the United States’ (p.
289).
while he acknowledges that the
United States ‘have an unquestionable title to be regarded
as
the best model of that [federal]
form
of
government, whether in ancient
or
modern times’ (p.
247).
His
method is, first,
to
attempt the establishment
of
a general thesis about federalism and then to consider the
United States in relation to this thesis. The thesis
is
an extreme version
of
one of Dicey’s:
‘Federal government means weak g~vernment.’~ From the outset, Denison regards federal
government
as
a
form ‘whose tendency, unless counteracted by the operation of more
prevailing causes, is disunion and decay’ (p.
244).
And this tendency is not accidental, but
necessary: for the first essential
of
good government, in Denison’s view, is that the legisla-
ture-the sovereign in
‘a
free government (and it is such only we
are
considering)’-should
have ‘full and unfettered scope for the exercise
of
their functions’ (p.
246).
Now by definition
such
a
power cannot subsist in
a
federal system:
‘To
suppose, indeed, the existence of such
a
power in
a
confederacy involves
a
contradiction
of
terms’ (p.
248).
More than this, how-
ever-‘the acknowledged principles of human nature’ oblige us to deny ‘that confederate
states will be inclined to concede even that full degree
of
power to the federal head, which
is
compatible with the principles
of
their constitution’ (pp.
248-9).
Here and elsewhere
Denison makes use of an argument which de Tocqueville was to render familiar-that the
general government in a federation must be weak in proportion
as
its concerns are remote
from the citizens
of
the several regions.
When he turns from
a priori
syllogistic reasoning to historical illustration, Denison at
once draws attention to ‘one great radical and vital error’ which is inherent in the denial of
supreme power
to
‘the federal head‘-namely ‘the principle which assigns to the national
I
Considerations
on
Representative Government,
chap. xvii: Everyman’s Library edn.,
p.
370.
*
Denison
(1805-96)
was educated at Eton and Christ Church and elected a Fellow of
Oriel in
1828.
In the following year the essay which forms the subject
of
this note won the
Chancellor’s Prize. A convinced
High
Churchman and vigorous controversialist, he was
appointed Archdeacon
of
Taunton in
1851.
Cf.
D.N.B. Supplement,
ii, pp.
127-9.
It was published in Oxford by Baxter in
1829,
having been read on
1
July. In
1830
it
was reprinted in vol. iv
of
The Oxford English Prize Essays,
Oxford, Talboys, pp.
239-94.
References in the text are to the latter edition.
Introduction
10
the Study
of
the
Law
of
the Constitution,
9th edn., London,
1939,
p.
171.
To continue reading
Request your trial