REVIEWS
| Date | 01 January 1953 |
| Published date | 01 January 1953 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1953.tb02768.x |
REVIEWS
PARLIABUCNT
:
A
SURVEY. Edited
by
LORD
CAMPION.
[George
Allen
&
Unwin, Ltd.
1952.
206
pp.
22s.
THIS
collection of
18
essays results from the formation of
a
Group, under
the
chairmanship of Mr. Craik Henderson, brought together on-the initiative
of the Department of Extra-Mural Studies of London University. A
series
of
10
lectures, given in
1950,
is
its
basis. Amongst the members of the Group
who did not contribute to
this
volume (a second collection is
hated
at) were
Mr. Ernest Brown, Sir Henry Banbury, Commander Stephen King-Hall,
Professor
J.
H.
Morgan, Mr.
J.
P.
Plamenatz and Lord Soulbury.
The Betish Parliament is an institution of some antiquity but
it
is not
80
old
as
the Executive and
a
survey
of
Parliament is
a
survey of its relations
with Governments.
It
is
implicit in almost
all
of the essays in this volume, and
uplicit to the point of explosion in some, that Parliament is too weak and
Governments
too
strong. Lord Campion in the first essay
on
Parliament and
Democracy looks back nostalgically to the period between
1WZ
and
1867
as
“the Golden Age of Parliament.”
It
was, he says, “an age of reason
in
politics, of individualism and
lairrer-faire.
Power was reasonably balanced
between the executive and the legislature; the problems of the period were
chiefly political-of
a
nature within the competence
of
the average member
of
the
House of Commons. The country
‘
looked up to
’
the Houw of Commons,
was
satisfied
with
the kind
of
representation the governing classes gave it, and
liked it the better for being ornamental.”
It
depends, one suspects, on what
is
meant by
‘s
the co~intry.”
These
vital
86
years saw, in fact, the origins of the
change. In
this
period, Governments began to put forward modest legislative
programmes,
party
discipline began to be exerted, proposals for
social
reforms
were adopted, drafting waa becoming’
a
specialised
and Governmental function
and if
1848
did not
see
a
revolution
in
England, it saw the Iiassing of the
Public HeaIth Act. If it was
a
Golden Age
for
Parliamentary pjwer, the Bold
was
of
a
sunset
The change over
the
past
180
years from aristocracy to deroocracy which
has given Governments more power and resulted in their incrarsed authority
through Parliament has frequently
led
to
the demand that the dangers should
be
guarded against by strengthening the House of Commons. But the suggeb
tibns which have been put forward generally seek, sometimes unconsciously,
to stand the Constitution on its head. Professor Brogan in
a
comparative
es88y
points to the advantages and disadvantages
of
adopting
a
system
of
Parliamentary committees like that either of France or
of
the United
States
of
America. Save for one short
period,
this
country has never been governed
6y Parliament through the medium of committees, and, unless we are prepared
to
change our traditional method, any increase in the power of Parliament must
stop short of administration. Mr. Craik Henderson purports to write an
essay
on
the Dangers of
a
Supreme Parliament and
is
at
once involved in
this
confusion. Thus the title of his essay is mistaken; he
is,
in fact, writing on the
Dangers of
a
Supreme Government.
So
he can write
:
‘‘
A minority
Party
may
question Ministeis,
may
criticise but they cannot control in the ordinary
case
a
Government with
a
reasonably large majority.” Of course they cannot.
Why
should they? How would the affairs of the country be conducted if they could?
He
is
worried because
a
Government could constitutionally suspend sittings.
arrest
Ministers, do away
with
habeas corpus and freedom of speech and
“atablish
virtually
a
dictatorship.” Of course they could. But his
media
(.troner
Second Chamber, wrftten constitution and a
system
of referenda)
108
108
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
VOL
I6
would not stop them.
If
the electorate return to power
a
revolutionary party.
they will presumably get a revolution. The safeguards lie deeper than Mr
Henderson has probed. There are more things in heaven and earth than are
dreamt of in his philosophy.
The central problem is again tackled by Sir Arthur Salter. He put4
forward several specific and iuteresting suggestions for controlling the Cabinet
and for its more efficient working but has little hope that they will be effective
unless
there is
a
great reduction in the mass of work falling upon the central
government. It is
a
pity that he had no space to elaborate
his
suggestion
that there should be more decentralisation to local authorities. Sir Arthur
would
also
like to see unofficial committees
of
Members formed
for
each niain
gmup of subjects which Ministers would be expected to attend. Ministers
would explain their problems and their policy and there would be discussions.
The official debates would then be “less discursive and uninformed than they
are at present.” This supgestion is
a
valuable example of the way in which
Parliament can influence Governments without attempting to usurp the
functions of the Executive though there is the danger of restricting the critical
function of Parliament by
“
off
the record
”
disclosures. Again, id
a
second
essay (on Parliamentary Procedure), Lord Campion returns to the relationship
between the two institutions. But this essay is neither
so
controversial nor
so
interesting
as
the memorandum and evidence which he submitted to the
Select Committee on Procedure in
1946.
Mr.
F.
W.
Lascelles attempts to deal
with the problem of
a
Second Chamber “not from the point
of
view of party
politics.” In the result, his essay ends with the question with which it could
have begun
:
should the second house be merely a
“
useful
”
chamber
or
should
it have power and authority
as
a balancing factor in the Constitution?
Professor A.
L.
Goodhart considers Parliamentary control over Nationalised
Industries. He puts his emphasis on the indirect Parliamentary control
exercised over the responsible Minister. He finds, rather surprisingly, that
Questions on serious derelictions of duty and the occasional debates arr
adequate “fmm the negative standpoint” and he does not favour
a
Select
Committee. On the
‘‘
positive
”
side, Professor Goodhart finds no answer to the
question whether Parliament can somehow ensure that the industries are run
as
efficiently as possible. It would have been interesting to the central problem
of the relationship
of
Parliament to the Executive branch (here
a
semi-
independent Board) to examine how far the efficiency of a Department is
affected by the complete responsihility of its Minister to Parliament and by
the knowledge of the whole Government that its continuance beyond, at most,
five years depends in part on the general reputation for efficiency acquired by
Ministers. The extent of Parliamentary influence depends finally on those
factors neither of which applies to the members of nationalivd industries in the
same way.
It
may therefore be impossible for Parliament
to
exert
n
rom
parable influence.
The two outstanding essays of this principal group are those by
Mr
1,
S
Amery and Mr
G.
M.
Young. The mistake of urging that Parliament should
be
SO
strong that it can, by means of committees, take over much of the burden
of gnvernnient finds an equally fallacious theoretical basis in the belief that
the Constitution is based on a system
of
delegation from the people to Parlia-
ment
m
hich then instructs the Executive.
This
is a heresy begotten, in modern
times, by Bagehot and sustained in the sickness of
its
later
hfr
by
Sir Ernest
Barker and others.
“Our
system,”’ he writes, “is one of demncracy, but of democracy by consent and
not by delegation, of government of the people, for the people, with, hut not
by, the people.” It is the Government nluch has the power and the duty to
govern;.the vital function which Parliament has to perform
must
be seen as
correlative to this.
Mr.
Young’s essay is
a
classic “last chapter” to
a
collectlon Fveq reader
will
find much to disagree with and much
to
applaud
Mr.
Coung recopnises that finally Parliament,
so
long
as
it continues to exist
Mr.
Aniery seeks to put it out of its misery.
To continue reading
Request your trial