ah WALVER BAGEHOT Born, Langer, Som + a Febnay 836 An + te The Tomeduenion by Eoxt § Batfour Salen Enghich Consihutivs, By “Hates Bagehol ByeQ- 0942) i Printed in INTRODUCTIONife at which he ‘looked closely and for himself” was of great interest. At home the generation of statesmen who fougitt over Reform Bill was dead or dying. Grey, Wellington, Pe died after the collected essays were first published, and about five years befor: the Introduction was written which constinuted the only change in the edition of 1872. In foreign affairs the first ofthe three Bismarckian INTRODUCTION vi wars which made the German Empire was over; the second took place while he was writing; the third, followed by the change in France from the Imperial to the Republican régime, occurred shortly Napoleon III. Austria and Russia were Empires ‘of the continental type; Imperial Germany was in the making. But no one denied States had for nearly three genet ‘exceedingly under free institutions larg own devising. It was natural therefore that he look across the Atlantic if he desired to find rast, to the constitution ion he could not, I sup- pose, have done better. For the part of the British constitution which most interested him, and on which, a8 I think, most obscured by like anything to be fowi INTRODUCTION real character could best be understood not through ‘observe where and how the two most obviously differ. T will venture to offer them 2 very summary comparison of my own. Under the Presidential system the effective head of the national administration is elected for a fixed term. He is (p removable. Even if he is proved to be , even if he Becomes tin= popular, even if his policy is unacceptable to the majority of his countrymen, he and his methods must be endured till the moment comes for a new lection. He is aided by Ministers who, however able or distinguished, have no independent political status, have probably had no congressional training, and are by law precluded from obtaining any during their term of office. position), is selected for the place on the ground ‘that he is-the-statesman best qualified to secure the support of a majority in the House of Commons. ‘member of one or other of the two Houses of Parlia- INTRODUCTION . ment; and he must be competent to the ke himself, have had some parliamentary experience, and gained some parliamentary reputa- ‘The President's powers are defined by the Constitution, and for their exercise (within the law?) hhe is responsible to no man. The Prime Minister + and his Cab.net, on the other hand, are restrained 1m constitution; but they are faced by power by a hostile vote From thess points of view the position of a Presi- policy does not?) it rests with Congress to supply. pursue any foreign policy he pleases, and negotiate what treaties he chinks fit, But after his negotia-x INTRODUCTION tions have ‘will be ly barren unless two-thirds of the Senate are prepared to agree with him—and again ‘the Senate may be hostile. He and his Cabinet must co-operate or there ‘would be no Government. His Government and the House of Commons’ majority which supports He must co-operate, or the Government must resign Moreover, these needs are not tnilaterat;-they-aro— ‘mutual. ‘The party majority which refuse to sup- port their leaders not only hamper a policy which (be it good or bad) is that of their Government, but they probably injure their own electoral prospects. ‘Leaders who refuse to work together not only weaken bly do litle ‘would seem, ‘he British model is more closely knit than Presidential Government after the American model, —and-this not because Ameri “while Britain is a unitary one, but because the great ely pre- ducting lependent ———08ion. The sweaknesses of the British cons people. ‘There is no constitutional reason why the __ President, the Senate and the House of Represents tives should co-operate to carry out any common 30. If these were to occur *poli formal machinery provided for it certainly does not suffer from too system of checks and balances. ‘The House of Commons need not keep 2 Government From the point of view of the business man con- templating the two-Party system, and asking himself how the business of the community can be carried ‘on through so unwieldy a body itish Parlia- ment, the British form of Cabinet Government seems simple and elective. Tn considering a constitution whose changes haveaii INTRODUCTION so often been of the silent sort, unmarked either by revolutionary violence or .drumatic legislation, we ‘are apt to lose our way for want of chronological —Cabinet system has been of greater importance than history since the for inetance, than the series of Reform Bills which began in 1832. Tenever became a Party watchword; clamoured for by a mob; it has ne nized by statute; nor can any man tell us exactly when it became fully effective, But now that it Governments depend for their existence must be ‘The second is that the public opinion, is organization by Party. ff these doctrines must obviously affect 2 obviously, but as I think in 2 much more important fashion, ought views on the modern position of the Crown. To these topics I now turn, INTRODUCTION sil 1 lemight perhaps be thought: _ analysis of Cabinet Government there was ‘Bagehot to say about the British Constitution ex- cept by way of epilogue. He had made a resolute effort to penetmte the legal forms and ceremonial ‘trappings which cluster round 1 and to all seeming he had found the answer. We ‘govern ourselves through a Cabinet, selected from the legislature, presided over by a Prime and entirely dependent on a House of Commons ——WHIgh We ourselves have-chosen. What more is ‘rue that we have a Second ndern times has ‘rue that we ot. It have a Monarchy system, can the the advice of |, why trouble much about the parts which are predominantly ‘dignified’? lignified” elements to be taken into account. And no doubt he is right. During thexiv INTRODUCTION last 140 years or so in which the making of con- stitutions has greatly occupied the Western World, the need_for_a Second Chamber has rarely been, successfully disputed ;—end -the Hows with much fuller opportu in Parliamentary deba “remedy” provided by the Const between Lords and Commons, leading. When there ta INTRODUCTION, ~ mn t0 these functions it can in. resent constitution, efficiently perform the duties of ‘delay and revision’ assigned wit by Bagehot is another matter. F'do n¢ +0 discuss this subject here, partly bec -take me on to ground more controversi this peaceful preface, partly because t sy charact the Monarchy. Here also Bagehot found elements which belonged to the ‘efficient’ rather than to the ‘dignified” parts -——nof-oor Constitution: He held most rightly) thay ute apart from-fori-and ceremonies, Monarch of experience and capacity affairs, and in close personalwi INTRODUCTION Destiny placed him on the throne. With some naiveté he has indicated the sort of spsech that on hing” cecasions such a King might make to his ——Ministers.“He would address them (it appears) somewhat a2 Follows: aginary address by ar. imaginary ‘Monarch to imaginary Ministers on the problems raised by an imaginary crisis, Its object, however, possess character, in matters of pure p the State ‘But he was haunted by the “if. He crgued that no long Lereditary line, be it of Kings of be it of Peasants, can maintain a steady level of excellence through ‘many generations. Royal line there ‘would daubtiess be Queen Victorias and Prince Alberts. But there would also be George the Thirds and George the Fourths;—in other werds, there ald be men-of character and industry but little there would also be men of some ability ctaracter and little industry. Both these ies, and others that could easily be imagined. dustry. may even do very valuable service to abil INTRODUCTION wit must, even at the best, make an occasional appear- tance. When that happened we should have a ‘bad promising; but his theories’ here require a com- mentary which T cannot’omit, yet cannot compress into a few paragraphs. Bagehot it appears, was profoundly impressedbe a theory radically false’ (p. 6). "This is certainly not a fault with which his own phile: Sophy can be justly charged. But what was eho moral he drew from these tncor two aspects, appealing igence of the few and the motions of the many. For the educated thousands there is the ‘efficent’ aspect, of course, bound up with the Monarchy; indeed to all intents and ‘Purposes it és the Monarchy. It provides the dane guise which happily prevents the ordinary English. ic which is suited Englishman in such a century Our author indeed docs not attempt to conceal INTRODUCTION a tempt?) with which he regard men (unhappily the vast maj -in by this travesty. 'So well ‘concealed,’ he says, ‘that if ‘drive to Downing Street he “have heard of i” But, excep! professic ‘sho i? Th her Cabinet was ‘etfii business of Government. But need such ignorance ——_ provoke ethos surprise or blame? If th nace Was a strong Party man it is even chances that he regarded the Cabinet Ministers then mecting in Downing Street as a danger he was not a strong Party man he regarded them as ( Id see, diel of thing in very much the ver they had the chanee. ‘comments indulged in by ifferent on each successiy while lamenting fortune which bad prevented them from be& INTRODUCTION, a ions, thus criti- —cized, thus-observed-andthus defended, differing, from'each other in opinion a jin the House of Commons, Party the constituencies. These cannot of themselves give us unity, because they are at once the product and the instrument of partisan separa tions. ‘They cannot of themselves give us conti- is it not at the cost of deepen- al divisions? If therefore country’s unity and continuity rather than of its controversies and quarrels, evidently it was to Buckingham Palace that he should have looked rather than to Downing Street. constitution. -¥er-he-would never have der INTRODUCTION Tam disposed therefore to think qualities possible |. Though the many uncom- sbout our national in- to solve it. He held (as we know) that the vast majority of his fellow "countrymen were ‘narrow-minded, incurious, un- telligent’, moved for the most part rather by the outward. shows than the inner’ verities of their throughout their history they had ehown # eminently fitted for self-government. He thought them individually incapable of comprehending. its ‘efficient’ parts. Yet he would certainly have owned that, collectively, they have given to the world an example of ordered freedom and reasonable states ‘manship which nations not of English race or speech have never found it easy to equal. He would have ‘owned that the institutions under which we are now appearance the unpremeditated pi qualities helped by oar good fortune. To comy the bundle of paradoxes, his own teaching seems to show that while this country as a whole yields to no other in its corporate sense of unity and continuity, the working parts ie (vith two except to be mentioned presently) onaii INTRODUCTION ‘a Party basis,—in other words, on systematized differences and unresolved dis ~The fines-on-shich-a solution of these problems —earr best be sotight-has already been indicated, bat Bagehot never followed them for any If __e-would find the true basis of the ‘process which has gradually com into a mode for impossible, It may indeed be least possibleiv INTRODUCTION ions? Could itTongsur- vive the shocks of revolutionary People so fundamentally st one afford to bicker and so sure of tion that they are not dangerously disturbed by the never-ending din of politcal conflict. May it always be so. cid ‘These observations bring us back to the question constitution itself elements able sses and strains inseparable from the ign arty warfare, I think there are two,—the Public Services and the Crown. Great indeed are the differences between them, ‘The Public Services are no more than a wheel in the ‘efficient’ part of our constitu- tional machinery. ‘The Crown is typical of the ‘dignified’ part. “The Public Services are (60 10 speak) below Party. ‘The Crown is ahove it. Yet both of them are, in a very zeal sense, i ofit, and both are indispensable. Of the Public Services ge Service in particular, I need #3 ‘they are not responsible Party, they are for that very res an invaluable element in Party Government. It is through them, especially through their higher Whether, apart from character and temperament, ——— ---—-descentand-oF hiv office, is the INTRODUCTION a branches, that the trans of responsibility snother involves, ative machine, ‘Phere may be change of direction, but the curve is smooth. If administrative ity has (0 far) been quite unbroken even ‘most abrupt rely t0 the work of the Civil Service that this happy result is due Wider horizons open before us when we turn to the second of the non-Party elements in our political * system—I mean the Monarchy. British Ki like most other parts of our ancient co ‘of our national history. popular character of supposed) he brings the leader of a party, nor the representative of a lass; he is the chief of a nation,—the chief indeed of many nations. He is everybody's King} by which I do not so much mean that he fs the ruler of ‘the Empire, as that he is the common possestion of, every part of it. He is the predestined link uniting all the various communities, whatever be their diverse races in scattered territories, for whose welfare Great Britain, jin the course of ‘generations, has made herselt responsible,si INTRODUCTION ‘These no doubt are developments unforeseen by Biches, and carcely revlzed, oven neo ee ie World at large. ‘They would have greatly: changed. his view of the Monarchy. He would no longer hhave treated it as little more than a dignified and hhave been if the twen= tieth-century Monarchy, like that of the eighteenth, hhad taken ahand in the Party game; or like that of Bagehot’s own day was acting in (what are now) Dominion affairs on the advice of Ministers de. pendent on British majorities. The Empite in its ‘modern shape is bold experiment and a very novel cone. On its success hangs the assurance of peace, happiness, and prosperity, world; and when we reflec wve been tried, we that among the transformations which byinsensiblede institutions to the meat modern ‘uses, not the east fortunate and successful has been the transformationof the British Monarchy. Warrrnscenasce BALFOUR, November, x027, 1 0 mu, “ow, CONTENTS Isrnopucrion ny nix Eant oF Baurour ‘Tae Camner ‘Tue Mowarcity ‘Tue Mowancsty (continued) ‘Tu House oF Loros —___VTue Houss-ov Comecosss VI. vu. vim. ON. Crawons oF Mixisray Ins Surposep Cuscxs ano BaLances ‘Tae Pxe-Reguistres or Camner Govsanmenr, AND tHe Prcutan Fonst wine Taey Have assumen 1 ENeLanp - Ins History, aNp rime Errecrs or taat Hisrony.—Conetuision INTRODUCTION To THE SECOND EoittoN* PAGE