A FRENCH VIEW OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION.*
THE Count de Franqneville was formerly a maitre des requOtes in the Council of State, in the days when, he says," it was an honour to form part of that institution." France is evidently no longer what it was to him; and he has lately lived much in England, studying our system of government and learning to admire the British character. Over twenty years ago, he pub- lished a volume on The Political, Judicial, and Administrative Institutions of England, which he has now expanded into these three bulky volumes on the Government and Parliament. He appears to promise three further volumes, going into greater detail on the judicial, administrative, and financial systems of this country. The present is a serious undertaking, "hard for • Le Gourernetnent et le Parlement Britanniques. Par lo Comte de Franquevine. 3 vols. Paris: .1. Rothschild. 1887.
an Englishman, almost impossible for a foreigner ;" but he excuses his hardihood by pleading that a stranger may notice many important details which we overlook through familiarity ; that he can look with impartiality on party questions, and with cool judgment on questions which an Englishman's national pride takes for granted. We may at once acknowledge that his industry in amassing details, familiar or the reverse, is most praiseworthy, that his impartiality is generally unimpeachable, and that his criticisms are most fair and friendly.
Instead of writing a consecutive constitutional history, which he might have done by "summarising the works of three eminent authors—Stubbs, Hallam, and Erskine May—and analysing besides the materials gathered by Cobbett and Hansard," the Count has chosen the harder task of "taking successively each part of the Constitution, and describing in a separate chapter its origins, transformations, and actual condi- tion. This method has the serious disadvantage of exposing the author to constant repetitions which are as unsatisfactory to himself as they are indispensable to the convenience of the reader. It presents, on the other hand, the incomparable merit of clearness, and best shows in all their details the advantages and disadvantages of the English system of government." The result is, that with its full table of contents and fairly complete index, it forms a book of reference that would be of use to students in this country as well as abroad.
In a general introduction, the author shows broadly the successive steps by which England, as Livy said of Rome, " starting from small beginnings, has grown to such a degree that it is now tottering under its own weight" (absit omen) ; he points to an intimate connection between the British Constitution and the national character, which makes the former no cut-and-dry paper Constitution, but a living organism uniquely conspicuous for its combined antiquity and "flexibility ;" be finds the national character roughly drawn in Tacitns's description of the Germans, but he completes the picture by noting some qualities not observed by Tacitne, such as seriousness, perseverance, coolness, love of fair-play, loyalty, and, above all, good sense. After quoting "England expects every man to do his duty," he adds that the English nation beyond all others extends the idea of duty to the other world, as expressed in the Royal motto, "Dien et mon droit." Admitting the religious element among the causes of the national greatness, he is careful, as a true Catholic, to remark that much of this greatness had its root in pre-Reformation days ; but he does not inquire how far it may have been due to those very qualities which of necessity led England in course of time to secede from Rome. The Constitution which has slowly evolved itself out of our national character he sums up, after Montesquieu, in the two words, "Liberty, Equality." We wonder how long it will be before the theory of equality and the practice of liberty in our land are perfected by the sentiment of fraternity ?
After a few general remarks on the form and origin of the Constitution, which depends on the three elements of written law, common law, and usage, or "understandings," he proceeds to trace the development of each of the several parts of the system. Commencing with the Crown, he shows that the hereditary principle was by no means strictly followed in earlier days, when might was more unblushingly right than it is now, and that at last it was fixed by an Act of Parliament as one, but not the only, condition of the succession. Next, the limita- tion of the Royal power is traced through its struggles with the ever-growing authority of Parliament ; the gradual growth of the Kingdom is described from the Heptarchy to the Union with Scotland and Ireland, and the later expansion into the British Empire; a chapter is devoted to the personality of the Sovereign, showing how the case of his minority, absence, or illness is pro- vided for, his coronation and his deposition, which last has become unnecessary since the creation of a responsible Ministry. The prerogatives of the Crown are specified,—and here we note a few errors in the section devoted to the Sovereign as the fountain of honour ; for instance, the Orders of St. Michael and St. George, and of the Star of India, are each credited with a much smaller number of members than they now possess ; and Knights of the Bath are said to be an exception to the rule that all Knights carry the title "Sir" before their names. The role of the Sovereign in relation to the Army, Navy, and general administration, and in relation to Parliament, is described; and we are told how the legal rae is " very different from the actual ride, the days of personal govern.
ment having passed away. The next chapters are devoted to the Royal family, the Court functionaries, and the Civil List. Then comes an important account of the Privy Council, its origin, history, organisation, and present functions ; and of the Cabinet, with a separate notice of the several members thereof, as also of the subordinate Ministers. The account of the public offices is too brief to give any idea of the mode and scope of their action, which may be expected to be shown in the coming volume on "Administration "; but it is unfortunate that the author did not add a few lines, for instance, to the description of the Colonial Minister's duties, so as to indicate the distinction between Responsible Government Colonies and Crown Colonies. We are simply told that the Secretary of State exercises a general control over all British possessions, and, in a note, we are referred for all details to the "Colonial Office List." The first volume concludes with an explanation and favourable criticism of the English system of party government. In this connection the Count has fallen into a curious error in regard to the composition of the present Liberal Unionist Party, which he evidently thinks that the bulk of the Radical Party has joined. "A part of the Liberals," he says, "and nearly all the Radicals, are in agreement with the Conservatives in opposing Home-rule ;" and, again, "The National Radical Union serves as a centre of the Radical Asso- ciations throughout the country," which will be news to most of the Radical Associations outside Birmingham.
The second volume is devoted to the constitution of Parlia- ment. After a chapter on the sources and early history of that institution, he makes an apparent digression to describe the political history of the Roman Catholic Church in England, the Established Churches of England and Scotland, and the various sects of Dissenters.- In regard to the Reformation in England, he considers that there was "no profound movement of opinion," but that it was only due to Henry's desire to divorce Catherine of Arragon. Surely this was the occasion, and not the cause. Again, in describing the subsequent perse- cation of the Roman Catholics, he entirely omits any mention of the equally (if not more) cruel persecution of Protestants in Mary's reign, which was largely responsible for the exaggerated fear and hatred entertained of Papists by the average English- man for the next two hundred and fifty years. He does not anticipate the early reconversion of England to the Church of Rome, but he is confident that "the ground trembles beneath the feet of the official Church, and that its days are numbered."
The history of the Peerage leads up to a criticism of the House of Lords, of which he supports the existing hereditary constitution, on the threefold ground that it is different from the constitution of the Lower House, that it is independent, and that it has a palpable stake in the prosperity of the country. It always yields to the popular will, be thinks, in good time ; if it did not, it could be compelled by the creation of new Peers, —an enormous restraining power, though hitherto held in reserve. He does not omit to notice, on the other hand, that the action of the House of Commons is greatly restricted by the certain knowledge that extreme measures would be rejected by the Lords, a fact which has doubtless more than once moderated the proposals of Liberal Cabinets. Turning to the House of Commons, he traces the history of the different consti- tuencies, the various extensions of the franchise, and its present extent, which is "nearly universal," except that all women, and about 30 per cent, of adult males, are excluded. Under the heading of "Preparation for the Elections," we have an account of the great party organisations, and of the registration system. He falls into the error, very general among Conservatives, that the plan of the Birmingham Liberal Association, now followed in almost every constituency in England, is imported from America, whereas Mr. Chamberlain, or whoever introduced it in Birmingham, deserves the credit of being the inventor of the scheme, which altogether differs from the American canons, in theory at least, seeing that it is based on the suffrage of all Liberals. Another assertion in this connection—viz., that Liberal Members have often been able to retain their seats in the teeth of strong opposition from an offended caucus—ought to be qualified by the remark that in these cases there has generally been solid support from the Conservative side. The volume concludes with chapters on "Election Proceedings," "Laws against Bribery and Corrup- tion," "Election Petitions," and "The Qualifications, &c., of Members of Parliament."
The third volume deals with Parliamentary procedure. To
begin with, the officers of the two Houses are specified,.the cere- monies at the opening and close of each Session are described, and the general rules of Parliament are detailed. The various proceedings of Parliament are most minutely described and discussed under the headings of "Private Bills," "Petitions and Motions," "Laying of Papers," "Questions to Ministers," "Questions of Privilege," "Public Bills," and "The Budget ;" and in the three cases of Private and Public Bills and the Budget, the exposition of the complicated proceedings is made clearer by accounts of actual examples of Bills and annual estimates, from their introduction, through every stage, till they are passed or rejected. The author remarks that the procedure on Private Bills involves enormous expenditure, and that the small Committees which practically decide their fate are not always possessed of the necessary technical knowledge ; but, on the other hand, be admits that these Committees are absolutely impartial, and eminently respectful of all personal interests, and in that respect the system is most different from the French plan of "satisfying the engineers' passion for a straight line, in utter disregard of most important private conveniences." Petitions to Parliament are of very little use, he thinks, except that when presented in very considerable numbers they indicate to a certain degree the opinion of the country on some burning question. He remarks that the papers laid before Parliament would be of greater use, if it were not for "the want of uni- formity and method in their preparation." The knowledge that papers on any subject may be asked for, and can generally not be refused, as also that questions may be asked on any point— however paltry the latter often appear—are, however, a great check on every public functionary who fears lest any abuse should be brought to light.
As to the procedure in Bills, the author observes that much time could be saved, without any real loss of efficiency, if the first formal reading was abolished, and the House went into Committee to discuss amendments immediately after the (now) second reading, and afterwards proceeded to the last reading without any further opportunity for amendments. Besides the proceedings of the House, the Committee of Supply, and the Committee of Ways and Means on the Estimates, he describes the Accounts Committee, which, without possessing any well- defined authority, tends to keep the Departments in order by the searching inquiries it makes into their expenditure. He points out that Governments have only rarely been defeated on their Budget proposals, and that the discussion of the Estimates excites very little interest except among a few Members (as Mr. Chamberlain remarked in a recent speech). But on this he makes two observations,—first, that the role of the House of Commons is rather "negative than positive," it is more power- ful in its indirect influence to prevent certain financial measures being brought forward, than in the direct action of rejecting proposals actually made ; and secondly, that it rarely rejects pro- posals, because it cannot do so without upsetting the Ministry.
The Count de Franqueville, like Sir Henry Maine, sees some of the dangers of popular government as it exists in England ; but he admits that "the noise and confusion that necessarily attend the life of a free people is less dangerous than the silence of a country under the yoke of a despot." Despite the restless- ness inherent in any democracy, he thinks that there is hope for the future of England's democracy, both from the experience of the past centuries, during which we have been "guided by instinct rather than by reflection," and specially from that of the half-century just passed, which, with Mr. Gladstone, he considers has shown the popular judgment to be jester and truer than that of the majority of the upper classes. On the other hand, the English people has, he says, no stupid envy of the upper classes, and seems unlikely to be in a hurry to destroy that saving "principle of heredity" which, incarnated in the Sovereign and the House of Lords, is the useful bit in the mouth of the fiery steed. The author has, however, a larking fear that the days of this "bit" are numbered, and so concludes his work with a solemn friendly warning to such Englishmen as may hanker after the Republican form of government.
Previous page
