Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-18T18:49:11.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

British Ideas of a Social Parliament

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Ernest Barker
Affiliation:
Cambridge University

Extract

The question has been raised from time to time by British thinkers whether there ought not to be some central organ of “society,” some social parliament or even some general system of social parliaments, which might be added to the political parliament of the State, and might stand by its side in some sort of relation, either subordinate or coordinate. Such an organ or parliament would function either as an advisory body (or system of advisory bodies), or as a sort of “relief” legislature, parallel to the regular legislature, to ease the burden of legislation by carrying some part of its heavy traffic. Hitherto, so the arguments run, there has been only a single political mirror, the political legislature, which reflects or “represents” the legal association as such (or in other words, the legally organized State). Ought we not also to have another mirror, or a set of mirrors, reflecting some one great aspect of “society” as such, or even several of its different aspects?

The suggestion most commonly made is of a single social mirror, an economic council, or “parliament,” or “sub-parliament,” reflecting the one great aspect of society implied in the adjective “economic.” That suggestion acquired vogue, and even seemed likely to be translated into fact, at the close of the War of 1914–18.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1950

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 phrase is vague and grandiose, but so was the general vocabulary of Italian Fascism. The functions of the Council were never clearly defined. In any case, its functions were “pre-legislative” or preparatory; it could only offer advice.

2 (London, 1920).

3 (London, 1928).

4 (London, 1947).

5 Strictly, indeed, the suggestions of Dr. Temple and Mr. Amery are not in favor of a concurrent parliament (or set of parliaments), but only in favor of a new House (or Houses) to frame and to submit measures to the existing Houses. But a new House which framed and submitted measures of economic policy to the two existing Houses, and which was styled by the name of a third House, would come near to being concurrent.

6 It is a logical fallacy to distinguish law, which is a general mode of action, from economics, which is simply a special set of things. The “vicious mixture” which makes law penetrate everywhere is inherent in the nature of law.

7 Vinogradoff, , Outlines of Historical Jurisprudence (London, 1920), Vol. 1, p. 97Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.