Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T16:34:02.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Position of the British Parliament

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

James K. Pollock*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan

Extract

The British Parliament has been passing through a period of pianissimo. Its praises should be sounded very softly, while its inadequacies and imperfections should be given wide attention. This does not imply a lack of veneration and respect for the Mother of Parliaments, but merely that a realistic approach should be made to the present-day value of this progenitor of the sturdy race of legislatures. No political institution is eternally successful, and even British institutions which have evolved so slowly, and in general so soundly, are no exceptions. The halo which surrounds Westminster is so great, however, that it almost blinds one to the imperfections which exist within those hallowed precincts. It seems almost sacrilegious, as a great British statesman recently observed, to attempt to meddle with “those great forms of procedure which have been handed down to us.” And yet when the Mother of Parliaments has so obviously deteriorated as to lose much of the respect and prestige which was formerly its possession, one seems justified in calling attention to its inadequacies.

The fact is that in the last thirty years Parliament has gradually become an inefficient legislative body which does not effectively control the government, and which the people can hardly be said to control. As early as 1908, President Lowell wrote that “the House of Commons is finding more and more difficulty in passing any effective vote, except a vote of censure.” In 1931, it is doubtful whether even this can be done in a satisfactory way.

Type
Foreign Governments and Politics
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1931

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Government of England, I, p. 355Google Scholar.

2 How Britain is Governed, pp. 14-15.

3 Manchester Guardian, Dec. 19, 1927.

4 See Labour Bulletin, Jan. and Feb., 1930, for the membership of this committee, together with the membership of all other committees which have been set up since Labor came to power.

5 See my study entitled British Party Organization,” in Political Science Quarterly, XLV, pp. 161180 (June, 1930)Google Scholar, for a treatment of this question.

6 Political Quarterly, I, p. 366Google Scholar.

7 Jan. 9, 1928, editorial.

8 Conference on Electoral Reform, Letter from Viscount Ullswater to the Prime Minister, Cmd. 3636 (1930).

9 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Vol. 211, col. 1768 (Dec. 9, 1927)Google Scholar.

10 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Vol. 69, col. 1023 (Dec. 15, 1927)Google Scholar.

11 Political Quarterly, I, p. 351361Google Scholar.

12 A good, recent criticism of the standing committees appeared in the New Statesman, XXXV, p. 460 (July 19, 1930)Google Scholar.

13 Op. cit., p. 169.

14 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Vol. 70, cols. 317-321 (March 1, 1928)Google Scholar.

15 Ibid., Vol. 70, col. 324.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.