Britain's Constitution | British Royalist Society

Encyclopaedia

An Uncodified Constitution

It is common knowledge that the United Kingdom has never codified its constitution. In taking this path, our constitution is bestowed with the unique capacity to change with the times, paying due respect to the centuries of tradition that have afforded our ancient rights and freedoms.

Our constitution is inherently political in nature. It has basis in law, but is subject to change through the democratic process of the King-in-Parliament, the sovereign lawmaking body in this country. This page will seek to identify some of the cornerstones, explain them in detail, and serve as a guide with which to interpret the role and extent of constitutional law in the United Kingdom.

Government by the People

How the sovereign electorate shapes the British constitution

"The people of the United Kingdom have in their hands, as clay, a constitution which they have, and will continue to, mould in the image of their ideal society. Through electing Parliaments, they make their sovereign will known."

Government by the people is a maxim that pervades many Western democracies. It is no less true of the British constitutional system that the people have the power to persuade politicians of the day to recognise the need to bow to public opinion. Through capturing the imagination of the sovereign electorate, the constitution of the United Kingdom has become an organ of democracy. It is no longer the case that a cosy aristocracy directs the conversation of the nation or public opinion, but those conversations which take place in the public house, the shop, and the street.

People who have the vote must be persuaded. Where they are ignorant of political problems such that they can be "stampeded by slogans or specious promises or allegations of unknown terrors", or if they "do not see that acquiescence in a corrupt government is to take part in a conspiracy to establish tyranny", a wide but uninformed franchise is the path to demagoguery and dictatorship.

It is not merely a wide, well-informed franchise that governs the success of a democracy. Rather, it is the following cardinal factors: free and fair elections (upon which the character of the government depends solely), exercised secretly; and a choice between rival candidates advocating rival policies. This has differentiated British constitutional democracy from the 'people's democracy' of communist states, and from the autocratic systems of other authoritarian jurisdictions.

Each Parliament must begin, and end. It is a constitutional necessity. There must be a general election at least once every five years; and the law has provided this from at least 1716 (in the form of The Septennial Act 1716 (1 Geo 1 St 2 c 38); amended down the centuries. This is a rule of law. It can be changed, as is evidenced, but not without the assent of both Houses of Parliament (with the Commons notably being unable to overrule the Lords on matters pertaining to the maximum duration of Parliament).

Thus, we come to the root of the matter. The people of the United Kingdom have in their hands, as clay, a constitution which they have, and will continue to, mould in the image of their ideal society. By electing Parliaments, they make their sovereign will known. A party that seeks election must present a mandate for the people to decide on at the ballot box. A Party is an agglomeration of Members of Parliament (explained below) who broadly agree on affairs of state. But through choosing a representative which is best for them, the constitution provides for the greatest outlet of democracy at the most local level — one constituency, one vote to each person, and one representative.

Government by Party

How political parties shape and carry the constitution forward

"They [parties] carry forward that which is required to secure an election victory, for the proportion of uncommitted sovereign electors is enough to determine the fate of any Party. They galvanise the people, helping to put long-standing principles into plain English, and enact policies that are in the collective welfare."

It is not difficult to defend the notion that the British Parliamentary system was the progenitor of the political party. It is yet another aspect, provided for through the custom of our constitution, that has developed out of a longstanding rejection of authoritarian "Councils of State". It represents the truly democratic suspicion that an individual may not always be right, and so a conglomeration of individuals who present articulate consensus is a better check-and-balance in times of controversy.

At the heart of government by Party is tolerance. A principle that has governed political machinations in Britain for centuries, carried out in its laws, it remains an attitude of mind. Because the majority of any democratic nation is never permanent, tolerance of different views has a strong root in our constitutional arrangement. Not only do opinions fluctuate, but they sometimes fluctuate violently, and a significant feature of British politics is the "swing of the pendulum".

What drives our politicians to conglomerate into Parties, instead of standing on their own merits? It hearkens back to what was said above. Collaboration, based on a set of principles, and the resolution of political differences being most conducive to the majority reaping the rewards of co-operation.

No party in the United Kingdom is founded upon an essentially unchangeable factor. You will not find a Labour Party comprised entirely of socialists, nor a Conservative Party of capitalists. Neither Party will draw its members from entirely one caste, class or creed. A wide range of members is the mainstay of consensus, and for proving the worthiness of a mandate to the electorate. The rise of the Labour Party in the first half of the 20th Century and the call for socialism did not fundamentally change the makeup of how we decide who to elect, the ways in which they put their mandate to the electorate, or the framework which they are governed by. They are beholden to a set of principles, agreed upon, handed down through collaboration and exchange, which the people have shaped to their collective belief in the welfare of society.

The Parties, as it is well-known, gather in Parliament, a sacred chamber of democracy and resolution of conflict. The policy decided upon when they come together is dependent upon the currents of public opinion. By contrast, in a dictatorship, freedom of speech and thought is muzzled, and it is difficult to ascertain what the prevailing opinion is. Britain, by its constitutional settlement, is confident in being quite the opposite. It leads, in most instances at least, to common sense prevailing, for politicians conglomerated into parties must, on the whole, federate themselves to the interests of their Party, inevitably bringing out the reasonable in them.

The purpose of the Party, therefore, is to support the Government in carrying out the policy of the party; or if in Opposition, to criticise the Government insofar as it fails to carry out its own mandate promised to the electorate. The Opposition must always be mindful that it will likely be in government within the decade, and so should responsibly keep its own fingers on the pulse of the nation. It should not oppose for the sake of opposition, or merely obstruct the business of government, but table important considerations which may point to flaws in the mandate of the ruling party.

It follows that Government decisions, and Opposition criticisms, are abed in a long history of politicians that have come before the Parties of today. Each steps into the shoes of Opposition and Government, but those shoes rightfully belong to a gradually eked out constitution of custom, convention and inherited wisdom.

Then what is 'Party policy', and its role in the constitution? It, too, reaches down the centuries and culminates ever in the present. Guiding hands from ages long since past shape that which is attractive to the modern Britons, and it reaches down through custom and convention because we are in effect the same people enjoying the same settlement as those two hundred years ago.

The role of Parties in the British constitution can aptly be summed up in their role as vehicles. In their capacity as vehicles, they carry forward that which is required to secure an election victory, for the proportion of uncommitted sovereign electors is enough to determine the fate of any Party. They galvanise the people, helping to put long-standing principles into plain English, and enact policies that are in the collective welfare. The constitution provides for them because they are conducive to collaboration, consensus and custom, three 'C's' that the constitution repeatedly returns to.

The Houses of Parliament

The Commons and the Lords — the legislative heart of the United Kingdom

The two chambers of the Houses of Parliament form the legislative heart of the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangement. Select a chamber below to read more.

House of Commons

The elected lower chamber

House of Lords

The appointed upper chamber

"The House of Commons is, under the constitution, the effective legislative authority in Great Britain, enjoying the right to impose taxes and vote money to, or withhold it from, various public departments and services."

The House of Commons is the popularly elected legislative body of the bicameral Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom. While technically, and traditionally, it is known as the 'lower' house, it is predominant of the House of Lords.

The origins of the House of Commons date from the second half of the 13th Century. Landholders and other owners of property in the counties and towns of England gradually began to send representatives to Parliament, to present their grievances and petitions to the king, and to accept commitments to the payment of taxes. This is still the main function of the Commons today, unchanged for hundreds of years.

The House of Commons is, under the constitution, the effective legislative authority in Great Britain, enjoying the right to impose taxes and vote money to, or withhold it from, various public departments and services. Nevertheless, there are important functions reserved by the Lords, and the Sovereign, that act as constitutional checks and balances on the power of the Commons.

The primary function of the Commons is to initiate the passage of legislation. It proceeds from the Party who holds the majority in the Commons, who forms the government and the Cabinet. The Cabinet is comprised of senior ministers chosen by, and belonging to the party of, the Prime Minister, nearly all of whom serve in the Commons.

The constitutional theory is that the Government controls the House. The Government, however, is responsible to the House. In this sense, the Government directs the business of the House, but the House holds the Government to account.

Much of this has made the constitutional role of the Commons sound very much like a dictatorship. But it is not so. Dictators who at short intervals have to beg the people for votes freely cast are the servants of the public, and not its masters. There is a most important apparatus that prevents the Commons from abusing its constitutional authority, and that is His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition.

Facing the Government, always, is the Opposition. If Parliament's main function is to criticise, the Opposition is its most important arm, for they are critics by profession. Unlike most other legislatures, the chamber of the Commons is arranged not as a semi-circle, but as two large blocks separated by a gangway. It is adversarial.

Debate is central to the Constitution. It has the capacity to embarrass the Government, prevent it from running away without telling the truth. An effective Opposition is a constitutional necessity; the whole cathedral suffers if the Opposition does not do its duty under the constitution. Its purpose is to criticise, not to hinder.

"The advantages of a second chamber, therefore, are clear. The ability to focus on the bill, and the bill alone, mostly independent of Party interests, is a valuable tool. Not only can the Peers keep their ear close to the mind of the nation, they also deal directly with it, refining bills from the Commons into something which genuinely represents the national interest."

The House of Lords is the upper chamber of the bicameral legislature of the United Kingdom. It originated in the 11th Century, making it the older of the two chambers. It continues to be comprised of two centuries-old elements: the Lords Spiritual, which includes the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishops of Durham, London, and Winchester; and the Lords Temporal, which from November 1999, includes 92 hereditary peers and all Life Peers and peeresses created under the Life Peerages Act of 1958.

The House of Lords' modern powers are quite limited, by the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. All bills which are defined as money bills become law one month after being sent for consideration to the Lords, with or without the consent of that House. Under the 1949 Act, all other public bills not receiving the approval of the Lords become law, provided that they are passed by two successive sessions of Parliament and that a period of one year has elapsed.

On rare occasions, the 1949 Act has been invoked to pass controversial legislation that lacked the Lords' support. The Salisbury Convention of 1945 prevents the Lords from rejecting a bill at second reading if it fulfils any of the Government's manifesto pledges.

In their traditional constitutional role, the Lords are the greatest representation of an apolitical chamber, which can focus alone on the important aspects of legislation that comes before it. It is an essential counterweight against the politicised Members of the House of Commons. A radical Government is kept from changing the entire face of the constitution as we understand it. In particular, the hereditaries who remain are the sacred guardians of the constitution, along with the Sovereign.

The House debates general issues of policy, not party politics. These debates are short, straight to the point, and those who are taking part are typically peers with experience as a minister, governor-general, ambassador or otherwise. A peer really speaks for the sake of speaking.

The advantages of a second chamber, therefore, are clear. The ability to focus on the bill, and the bill alone, mostly independent of Party interests, is a valuable tool. Not only can the Peers keep their ear close to the mind of the nation, they also deal directly with it, refining bills from the Commons into something which genuinely represents the national interest, and not merely as the politicians understand it.

The Monarchy

The Sovereign's role as the cornerstone of the constitutional order

"These examples show the importance of the monarchy as a stabilising force. The monarch is in a naturally advantageous position, being both 'above' politics, and being able to remain in close contact with the Government."

The Sovereign has a key role. And it is the role on which all other parts of the Constitution depend for their proper function. That is the appointment of the Prime Minister. Somewhere, in every constitution, there must be someone who takes the first step to form a Government when a gap is threatened. And for the United Kingdom, that role is occupied by His Majesty.

In every case, the Party victorious at the election will hold a miniature election amongst themselves, to propose a candidate and advise His Majesty that they should be the one who should become Prime Minister. And yet, it is essential to note, this advice does not bind the Sovereign. Moreover, the Sovereign has a choice in two cases: when the Party has a majority but no leader, or when no party has a majority. In the former case, the Sovereign must appoint a Prime Minister who can command the willing support of the party majority.

There have been historical situations where the Sovereign refused to ask for the advice of the outgoing Prime Minister. For instance, Queen Victoria did not ask Gladstone's advice in 1894 and had already decided to send for Lord Rosebery. Nor was it certain that Edward VII asked Lord Salisbury's advice in 1902, or again in 1908 as to whether Campbell-Bannerman was consulted. Even if a new procedure for putting the most popular Party figure in front of the Sovereign is developed, the Sovereign's prerogative in this matter remains unaffected.

The function is equally important where no party has obtained a majority. The resignation of Stanley Baldwin's government in 1924 saw George V called upon to decide whether to summon Asquith of the Liberal Party, or Ramsay MacDonald as leader of the Labour Party, to form a government, sending for MacDonald in the end. There was an even more complicated situation in 1931, where the Labour Government, with no majority, had resigned, and the nation was suffering a financial crisis. The King commissioned MacDonald to form a coalition, being much criticised for doing so, but this act was not unconstitutional.

These examples, although infrequent, show the importance of the monarchy as a stabilising force. The monarch is in a naturally advantageous position, being both 'above' politics, and being able to remain in close contact with the Government.

In many other cases the Sovereign exercises functions, many of them formal. The Sovereign is present at each meeting of the Privy Council. The Sovereign appoints Ministers, ambassadors, judges, and officers in the military and airforce, as well as senior civil servants. The Sovereign prorogues and summons Parliament, typically in the grand ceremony of the State Opening. In nearly every case, he will act on the advice of his Ministers, signing Acts of Parliament into law with Royal Assent, putting him in a position to ask for explanations and to give advice.

The Sovereign, to this day, receives a copy of the minutes of his Cabinet, and also of the 'daily print' of any communications circulated by the Foreign Office. He follows the debates in Parliament through the provision of an Official Report, supplementing that which is received from newspapers, personal inspections and interviews, as well as a staff to keep him informed of the developments of political life.

How may the Sovereign come to influence these events? It depends entirely on the Sovereign's personal qualities. Qualities such as industry, and common sense, can be extremely valuable if used at the centre of affairs. Some historical examples include King George V and Stanley Baldwin, and Queen Victoria and Gladstone, who famously complained about the latter as 'addressing me as if I were a public meeting'. The Sovereign therefore can do a world of good by simply injecting a little common sense.

What, then, can the Sovereign offer us? In his present constitutional role, a great deal. In the event that our Trinity of Government, Party, and People run into a complete deadlock, the Sovereign may step in to exercise these important powers, laying dormant until they are needed to keep the business of government moving.

Outside of the exceptional constitutional functions, the Monarchy regularly exercises what Bagehot terms 'dignified' functions. Monarchy, therefore, is an essential Fifth Column, a useful and important focus for patriotism. "King and Country" sustained the British people throughout two World Wars. The same immense popularity of the monarchy as a unifying force continues today. Each action of the Sovereign serves to create a common sentiment because he is a servant to his nation.