Part 2 Historic evolution of Government To turn to the historic evolution of our system of Government it is essential to remember that, save for the one revolutionary period already referred to, [Part 1] there have never been a complete break in its continuity. It is still in a sense true, as Hearn states in his Government of England [Not so today in 2005] that ours is ‘the very constitution under which the [Edward the] Confessor ruled and which William [the Conqueror] swore to obey’. It has, at any rate, through all the changes in its working, retained certain main features and been inspired by certain vital principles which have remained constant, and which have continued to assert or reassert themselves according to circumstances. It is not so much flexible as elastic, tending to revert to form as the material or ideological influences which have deflected it in one direction or another have weakened or been superseded. It is to these main and vital features that I wish to draw
attention, because they may not only help to explain some of the changes of
recent years, [pre-1952] but also afford some guidance as to the nature
of the even greater changes which may follow the political and economic
development of the years immediately ahead of us. [Again to remind you that this was written in
1952] There are as Dicey points out in The Law of the Constitution two main features from which all our constitutional development has proceeded. The one is
‘the Rule or Supremacy of Law’
and the other ‘the omnipotence or undisputed supremacy throughout the whole country of the central government’. The former feature was one deep-seated not only in Saxon, but in all medieval thinking, until superseded elsewhere by the influence of Roman Law. The latter owes everything to the insight and masterful personality of William the Conqueror. With a clean slate to write upon he took care so as to distribute the spoils of the conquest among his followers as to prevent the building up of large territorial fiefs, which might in course of time dispute the royal supremacy. In this way he laid the foundation of a strong centralised government, which had no parallel in medieval Europe. In the long run, indeed, the clear gap thus created
between the King and his subjects, great and small, tended to draw the
latter together in resistance to arbitrary royal power and in defence of the
recognized law and custom of the land. The barons and citizens who met together at Runnymede represent the obverse of William’s policy when the royal power he created fell into tyrannous but weaker hands. At the same time William utilised the existing Saxon shire as the means of by-passing feudal authority through his sheriff, who, sitting in its court of freeholders as the King’s representative and at the same time bringing the King’s government in touch with local needs, foreshadowed the centralized parley between the Crown and the Commons or ‘communities’ of later days. From William’s day onwards the key to our constitutional evolution is to be found in the interaction between the Crown i.e. the central governing, directing, and initiating element in the national life, and the nation in its various ‘estates’, i.e. classes and communities, as the guardian of its written and unwritten laws and customs. The ambitions or needs of the Crown continually demanded
changes in the law, which the nation was only prepared to accept after
discussion or parley with its representatives and on terms. Out of that parley, progressively more
continuous and more intimate as needs increased, and out of those terms grew
our system, as we know it, of Government in and with Parliament, subject to the
ever-increasing influence of public opinion and to periodic review by the
nation as a whole. The story of that evolution is so familiar that I need only touch on a few of its salient features. The financial needs of the Crown long furnished the main lever by which Parliament increased its power. At the same time, the provision of actual money freed the Crown from dependence on feudal services and reinforced its effectively centralized authority. The same process of discussion and bargaining led to other changes or reinstatements of the law - at first suggested to the Crown by the way of petitions, but from the fifteenth century onwards embodied in detailed Bills. These, whether initiated by or on behalf of the Crown or by Parliament itself, were then in their final form submitted to the King for his personal approval. No less important was the development by which the occasional
parliamentary disapproval of the executive action of individual servants of the
Crown, expressed in impeachment or attainder, grew into that milder but
constant day-by-day questioning and criticism of Ministers with which we are
familiar. [Written in 1952- Today in 2005 we have a Prime Minister who has
in general ignored the House by reducing his appearances in the Commons to the
absolute minimum permitted by the now subordinate Representatives of the
Nation. The Executive rules Supreme in a subservient Legislature - a gross
insult to the People of this once Free Country.] To Continue -Out of that development, helped by the doctrine that the King can do no wrong, sprang that division between the personal and the official powers of the Crown which is one of the most characteristic features of our Constitution. Of this I shall have something to say presently. But to continue the main thread of my story. The Restoration of 1660 was, as I have already said, a true restoration of our national approach to the problem of government. It accepted both the Monarchy as the indispensable directing and initiating element in the national life, and Parliament as representing the no less indispensable element of national assent. It also unhesitatingly dropped into limbo, for good and all, those ideas of a formal written constitution, which had figured so prominently. And proved so ineffective, in the troubled years over which we were resolved to wipe the slate. At the same time, it was much more than a mere restoration. Taken together with the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement of 1700 it set the course of the development of our constitutional system for the future. The theory of Divine Right and Prerogative was superseded by that of Constitutional Monarchy and the Prerogative as a defined branch of the Common law, which was now definitely accepted as governing the whole constitution and not merely the mutual rights of subjects. The control of Parliament over the granting of revenue became complete. Meanwhile other elements of the future system of government began to emerge. Departmental ministers were found more useful to the Crown than a large and amorphous Privy Council, no longer itself a rival to Parliament as a partner in the sphere of government, and the happy repeal of a clause in the Act of Settlement which forbad their seating in the House of commons paved the way to the eventual interlocking of Government and Parliament. For most of the eighteenth century the fluctuating balance between the Crown and parliament was maintained by personal management, first by the great Whig lords through their hold over the grossly over-represented boroughs and with non-conformist support, later by George III’s placemen. This was the system glorified by Montesquieu, followed by Blackstone: “Herein consists the true
excellence of the English government that all parts of it form a natural check
on each other.”
[Unfortunately this is not the case in Blairdom in 2005
and unless the People shift themselves soon it will surely be the end of our
Inherited Constitution.] To Continue. - As based on the clear separation and equipoise of the different
powers in the State. Contrasting the
English give and take between equal political forces and the independence of
our judges [Now
under threat because they comply with the Human Rights Act which the Government
itself foolishly introduced and now find a hindrance in stopping the flood of
immigration into our already crowded Island] To Continue. - The natural and logical consequences of the reign of law- with the rigid centralization of all powers in the French monarchy, Montesquieu rightly emphasized the true secret of English freedom. But in doing so he tended to ignore the extent to which the separate powers were increasingly interlocking in Parliament itself. Where he went more seriously astray was in treating the division as one between the executive and legislative functions, abstractions bearing no relation to the reality of our political life. Parliament is not, and never has been, a legislature, in the sense of a body specially and primarily empowered to make laws. The factions of the legislature, while shared between’ kings, lords and Commons in Parliament assembled’, has always been predominately exercised by Government which indeed, has never allowed Parliament, as such, to take any initiative in one of its most important fields, that of finance. The main task of Parliament is still what it was when first summoned, not to legislate or govern, but to secure full discussion and ventilation of all matters, legislative or administrative, as the condition of giving assent to Bills, whether introduced by the Government or by private Members, or its support in the executive action of Ministers. But Montesquieu error was destined to exercise no small influence on the shaping of the American Constitution, and even to affect our own thinking about the function of Parliament, and still more that of other nations which have followed the outward forms of the British parliamentary system. It was not, however, until discontent with royal corruption and resentment at the loss of the American colonies stirred men’s minds to the need for constitutional improvement, that the informal business of the individual management of members of Parliament finally gave way to the conception of a government with some basis of political principle to support it. [Edmund] Burke’s definition of Party as ‘a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest upon some particular principle upon which they all agreed’, expressed a felt want. The existing Whig and Tory factions with their established clientele in the country furnished the natural working nucleus, and their old traditions, brought up to date by such critical issues as India and the French Revolution, provided a no less natural division of principle. The younger Pitt’s ministry of 1784 is generally regarded as marking the definite inauguration of our government by a Party Ministry able to guarantee a parliamentary majority for the business of the Crown, without recourse to the old methods of personal influence or corruption. The cabinet system itself had meanwhile been steadily developing. I need not go into detail into the well-known story, whether correct or apocryphal, of the origins of the Cabinet as the outcome, in part, of Harley’s informal Saturday dinners, and, in part, of George I’s reluctance to attend ministerial councils at which, as he knew no English and his Ministers no German, discussion had to be confined to such Latin as they could muster between them. The
essential is that the growth of the system of collective responsibility, based
on previous private discussion, strengthened the hands of the Ministry, not
only as against the monarch, but also as against Parliament.
To single an individual for dismissal or denunciation is far easier than to denounce or urge the dismissal of A TEAM, especially if the only alternative is another even less welcome team. All this naturally became more effective after 1784.
[We experience the same
problem with Blair and his cronies and the majority of Labour members in the
House in 2005]. What is essential to keep in mind is that the new system of Responsible Parliamentary Government, while in one sense subordinating the policy of the Crown to Party exigencies, yet is another, meant an accession of the actual power of Government, as such, in exercising control over Parliament. It meant converting the majority in Parliament into placemen, within at least the penumbra of office and influence, while at the same time under constant threat of losing their places (and nowadays [1952] their member’s salaries) if their lack of support to the Government should cause the later to dissolve Parliament
[Has this not been so for many years now?]
At the same time neither Ministers nor their supporters have, in their individual capacity, ceased to remain representatives of the nation or of their individual constituencies. Nor have they entirely abandoned to the Opposition the original critical and debating function of Parliament. Subject to the varying strength of party discipline, government supporters can still criticize this or that feature of the Government’s legislation or administration in public- and even more freely behind the scenes to the Whips or at Party meetings in committee rooms. So, too, Ministers feel a kinship with other members, with whom they share the responsibilities and problems with which they have to deal in their constituencies. What is more, they hope, even though they lose office, to remain in Parliament and so continue to exercise their influence over affairs pending their return to power. They are parliamentarians first and for the greater part of their public life; Ministers of the Crown at intervals. It is as parliamentarians they are first tested and judged, both for ability and for character, by their seniors and their fellows; that they win and then keep or lose their right to office. Above all, whether Ministers or backbenchers, in office or in opposition, they are all subject to the firm and impartial control of Mr Speaker, as the embodiment of the traditions of Parliament and the rights of its humblest Member. All these factors have combined to keep Parliament as the centre and focus of the nation’s affairs, the conspicuous stage on which the great drama is acted, the great game of politics played. [Though Today in 2005 the game is looking decidedly
unpleasant and devious when we see how politicians over the last 32 years have
used it in order to deceive the British people - while they destroy all ‘checks
and balances ‘built up over hundreds of years - in order to have allowed Tony
Blair to sign away the Inherited Constitution of our Land. And what is the Leader of Her Majesty’s
Opposition doing about this -NOTHING-_NOTHING- NOTHING. Yes! Michael Howard is
the man who was so grateful in being given the opportunity in our once Free
Country. And what does he do he sells out his adopted Country knowing that the
very Country which gave him sanctuary and opportunity has been and is still
being forcible changed into a mirror image of the Continental model alien to
the majority of the People of this Island.
Thanks a
Lot- Mr Howard -I Don’t Think So- and the People need to tell him so at the
forthcoming election.] To Continue. -
It is this interlocking and interchangeability, which have maintained
the unity and harmony of our political life, and it is in that sense that we
rightly boast of our system as one of parliamentary government. (?) [Written
in 1952]. All the same, throughout the evolution of that system, the
two main elements of our political life have remained distinct, though
progressively harmonised and integrated.
Our constitution is still, at bottom, based on a continuous parley or
Conference in Parliament between Crown, i.e. the Government, as the directing
and energising element, and the representatives of the nation whose assent and acquiescence are
essential, and only to be secured by full discussion. [Of course there are limits to what any citizen
considers open to assent -one issue certainly is not i.e. Freedom
to retain one’s citizenship of one’s Country and its inherited Constitution. A citizen of New England-USA would have no fears on
this issue-having a written Constitution and a Supreme Court to protect that
Right! Unfortunately with Prime Ministers with more power than a President of the USA we are not so lucky-that is why it has been so easy for so many traitorous politicians over the last 32 years to betray their Country.]
*
*
*
The abolition of Britain *
13th October,2007
So You Want Out Of The EU
THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Optout Details from petition creator With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the people of Britain were given DUAL CITIZENSHIP -both EUROPEAN and BRITISH The extra tier of citizenship was thrust upon the people without their consent -and in many cases knowledge. The PEOPLE of GREAT BRITAIN should be allowed the option of opting out of the EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP if they so wish. The GOVERNMENT will then be able to provide those who have opted out with BRITISH DOCUMENTATION -only such as British (not EU) passports, driving licences and other national documents. EU laws will also NOT APPLY to those who HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP *
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
| PAGE ONE/ PAGE TWO/PAGE THREE/ & LATEST- PAGE FOUR |
