Law and Orders.
| Published date | 01 December 1945 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1945.tb01936.x |
| Author | C. K. Allen |
| Date | 01 December 1945 |
Reviews
Law
and Orders.
An
Inquiry into the nature and scope
of
Delegated Legislation and Executive
Powers
in England
By
C.
K.
ALLEN.
(London: Stevens and Sons, Ltd.) Pp. mi
+
385.
15s.
ONE
of the best things in
Mr.
Allen’s latest, most painstaking and most thorough
review of the problem of delegated legislation, a problem which our readers
will be aware has long disturbed him profoundly, is the quotation he has put
on the title page as his motto.
It
is
so
good
and, despite the fact that
it
was
written
335
years ago,
so
relevant to some of the deepest problems of coatem-
porary
civilisation, that it is worth reproducing here.
It
is a quotation from a
petition by the
House
of Commons to James
I
in
1610,
and is as follows:-
“Amongst many other points of happiness and freedom which your
Majesty’s subjects
of
this Kingdom have enjoyed under your royal progenitors
.
. .
there is none which they have accounted more dear and precious
than
this, to
be guided and governed by certain rule of law.
. . .
Out of
this
root hath
grown
the indubitable right of the people of this Kingdom not
to
be
made subject to
any punishment that shall extend to their lives, lands, bodies or
goods,
other
than such as
are
ordained by the common laws
of
this land or the statutes made
by their common
consent
in Parliament:”
With this ancient and honourable doctrine inscribed upon his banner,
Dr. Allen ranges widely over the vast field of modem government.
A
more
seasoned and practised warrior since the earlier days when the battle cry was
“
Bureaucracy Triumphant,” he nevertheless wields his broadsword with energy
and
a
sustained,
if
no longer a somewhat reckless, enthusiasm.
His
motto
proclaims his belief that a fight
is
still to be had
on
this particular battleground.
He has done his best
to
provoke one, but the results
on
the whole are dis-
appointing. Some of the objects
of
his lance are already corpses. The notorious
“Henry VIII” clause which, until it was discovered to be
a
harmless skeleton,
did brief duty
as
a bogey
man
and arch-fiend
of
the
New
Despotism, is no
longer
able to rattle its chains. Indeed, the search for the enemy has not proved at
all
rewarding. At times what
seems
to
be
smoke
on
the field of battle turns
out
after a brief reconnaissance to
be
mere morning
mist
.
.
.
but wait, an advanced
guard who should know what he is talking about reports
:
“
A despotic power
which at one and the same
time
places Government departments above the
Sovereignty
of
Parliament and beyond
the
jurisdiction
of
tbe courts.“
The
chase is on: with
his
1610
banner streaming in the wind, Dr. Allen
spurs towards the
foe,
who,
if
the report is right, is
“in
the highest degree
formidable
”
for he
“
amounts
tb
nothing less than a deliberate conspiracy to
overthrow democracy.” The report-out
of
sympathy with
Dr.
Allen, we almost
add
“
alas ”-turns out to be
a
false alarm. He
returns
with the admission
that
“
it
is
little short of absurd to conceive the average civil servant as a cloaked
Guy Fawkes placing barrels of gunpowder under the Houses of Parliament.”
But he met with one
or
two
ill-featured rascals on the way-“ Civil servants
.
.
.
of extremely autocratic temper
.
. .
who did not disguise their contempt for
Parliament and all its works nor their confidence
in
the efficacy
and
su@ority
of
their
own
methods.” However they did not
amount
to
an
army,
yet
Dr. Allen, with little blood on
his
sword, is still by no means content.
The
fact is that the psychology of combat is out of place in this sphere. The
evils
he
wishes
to
expel
“
do not spring from the sinister designs or the perverted
151
To continue reading
Request your trial