The English Constitution

W >> Walter Bagehot >> The English Constitution

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22

Steve Harris, Charles Franks and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team.

THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION

By Walter Bagehot

No. I.

INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EDITION.

There is a great difficulty in the way of a writer who attempts to
sketch a living Constitution--a Constitution that is in actual work
and power. The difficulty is that the object is in constant change.
An historical writer does not feel this difficulty: he deals only
with the past; he can say definitely, the Constitution worked in
such and such a manner in the year at which he begins, and in a
manner in such and such respects different in the year at which he
ends; he begins with a definite point of time and ends with one
also. But a contemporary writer who tries to paint what is before
him is puzzled and a perplexed: what he sees is changing daily. He
must paint it as it stood at some one time, or else he will be
putting side by side in his representations things which never were
contemporaneous in reality. The difficulty is the greater because a
writer who deals with a living Government naturally compares it with
the most important other living Governments, and these are changing
too; what he illustrates are altered in one way, and his sources of
illustration are altered probably in a different way. This
difficulty has been constantly in my way in preparing a second
edition of this book. It describes the English Constitution as it
stood in the years 1865 and 1866. Roughly speaking, it describes its
working as it was in the time of Lord Palmerston; and since that
time there have been many changes, some of spirit and some of
detail. In so short a period there have rarely been more changes. If
I had given a sketch of the Palmerston time as a sketch of the
present time, it would have been in many points untrue; and if I had
tried to change the sketch of seven years since into a sketch of the
present time, I should probably have blurred the picture and have
given something equally unlike both.

The best plan in such a case is, I think, to keep the original
sketch in all essentials as it was at first written, and to describe
shortly such changes either in the Constitution itself, or in the
Constitutions compared with it, as seem material. There are in this
book various expressions which allude to persons who were living and
to events which were happening when it first appeared; and I have
carefully preserved these. They will serve to warn the reader what
time he is reading about, and to prevent his mistaking the date at
which the likeness was attempted to be taken. I proceed to speak of
the changes which have taken place either in the Constitution itself
or in the competing institutions which illustrate it.

It is too soon as yet to attempt to estimate the effect of the
Reform Act of 1867. The people enfranchised under it do not yet
know. their own power; a single election, so far from teaching us
how they will use that power, has not been even enough to explain to
them that they have such power. The Reform Act of 1832 did not for
many years disclose its real consequences; a writer in 1836, whether
he approved or disapproved of them, whether he thought too little of
or whether he exaggerated them, would have been sure to be mistaken
in them. A new Constitution does not produce its full effect as long
as all its subjects were reared under an old Constitution, as long
as its statesmen were trained by that old Constitution. It is not
really tested till it comes to be worked by statesmen and among a
people neither of whom are guided by a different experience.

In one respect we are indeed particularly likely to be mistaken as
to the effect of the last Reform Bill. Undeniably there has lately
been a great change in our politics. It is commonly said that "there
is not a brick of the Palmerston House standing". The change since
1865 is a change not in one point but in a thousand points; it is a
change not of particular details but of pervading spirit. We are now
quarrelling as to the minor details of an Education Act; in Lord
Palmerston's time no such Act could have passed. In Lord
Palmerston's time Sir George Grey said that the disestablishment of
the Irish Church would be an "act of Revolution"; it has now been
disestablished by great majorities, with Sir George Grey himself
assenting. A new world has arisen which is not as the old world; and
we naturally ascribe the change to the Reform Act. But this is a
complete mistake. If there had been no Reform Act at all there
would, nevertheless, have been a great change in English politics.
There has been a change of the sort which, above all, generates
other changes--a change of generation. Generally one generation in
politics succeeds another almost silently; at every moment men of
all ages between thirty and seventy have considerable influence;
each year removes many old men, makes all others older, brings in
many new. The transition is so gradual that we hardly perceive it.
The board of directors of the political company has a few slight
changes every year, and therefore the shareholders are conscious of
no abrupt change. But sometimes there IS an abrupt change. It
occasionally happens that several ruling directors who are about the
same age live on for many years, manage the company all through
those years, and then go off the scene almost together. In that case
the affairs of the company are apt to alter much, for good or for
evil; sometimes it becomes more successful, sometimes it is ruined,
but it hardly ever stays as it was. Something like this happened
before 1865. All through the period between 1832 and 1865, the pre-
'32 statesmen--if I may so call them--Lord Derby, Lord Russell, Lord
Palmerston, retained great power. Lord Palmerston to the last
retained great prohibitive power. Though in some ways always young,
he had not a particle of sympathy with the younger generation; he
brought forward no young men; he obstructed all that young men
wished. In consequence, at his death a new generation all at once
started into life; the pre-'32 all at once died out. Most of the new
politicians were men who might well have been Lord Palmerston's
grandchildren. He came into Parliament in 1806, they entered it
after 1856. Such an enormous change in the age of the workers
necessarily caused a great change in the kind of work attempted and
the way in which it was done. What we call the "spirit" of politics
is more surely changed by a change of generation in the men than by
any other change whatever. Even if there had been no Reform Act,
this single cause would have effected grave alterations.

The mere settlement of the Reform question made a great change too.
If it could have been settled by any other change, or even without
any change, the instant effect of the settlement would still have
been immense. New questions would have appeared at once. A political
country is like an American forest; you have only to cut down the
old trees, and immediately new trees come up to replace them; the
seeds were waiting in the ground, and they began to grow as soon as
the withdrawal of the old ones brought in light and air. These new
questions of themselves would have made a new atmosphere, new
parties, new debates.

Of course I am not arguing that so important an innovation as the
Reform Act of 1867 will not have very great effects. It must, in all
likelihood, have many great ones. I am only saying that as yet we do
not know what those effects are; that the great evident change since
1865 is certainly not strictly due to it; probably is not even in a
principal measure due to it; that we have still to conjecture what
it will cause and what it will not cause.

The principal question arises most naturally from a main doctrine of
these essays. I have said that Cabinet government is possible in
England because England was a deferential country. I meant that the
nominal constituency was not the real constituency; that the mass of
the "ten-pound" house-holders did not really form their own
opinions, and did not exact of their representatives an obedience to
those opinions; that they were in fact guided in their judgment by
the better educated classes; that they preferred representatives
from those classes, and gave those representatives much licence. If
a hundred small shopkeepers had by miracle been added to any of the
'32 Parliaments, they would have felt outcasts there. Nothing could
be more unlike those Parliaments than the average mass of the
constituency from which they were chosen.

I do not of course mean that the ten-pound householders were great
admirers of intellect or good judges of refinement. We all know
that, for the most part, they were not so at all; very few
Englishmen are. They were not influenced by ideas, but by facts; not
by things impalpable, but by things palpable. Not to put too fine a
point upon it, they were influenced by rank and wealth. No doubt the
better sort of them believed that those who were superior to them in
these indisputable respects were superior also in the more
intangible qualities of sense and knowledge. But the mass of the old
electors did not analyse very much: they liked to have one of their
"betters" to represent them; if he was rich they respected him much;
and if he was a lord, they liked him the better. The issue put
before these electors was, Which of two rich people will you choose?
And each of those rich people was put forward by great parties whose
notions were the notions of the rich--whose plans were their plans.
The electors only selected one or two wealthy men to carry out the
schemes of one or two wealthy associations.

So fully was this so, that the class to whom the great body of the
ten-pound householders belonged--the lower middle class--was above
all classes the one most hardly treated in the imposition of the
taxes. A small shopkeeper, or a clerk who just, and only just, was
rich enough to pay income tax, was perhaps the only severely taxed
man in the country. He paid the rates, the tea, sugar, tobacco,
malt, and spirit taxes, as well as the income tax, but his means
were exceedingly small. Curiously enough the class which in theory
was omnipotent, was the only class financially ill-treated.
Throughout the history of our former Parliaments the constituency
could no more have originated the policy which those Parliaments
selected than they could have made the solar system.

As I have endeavoured to show in this volume, the deference of the
old electors to their betters was the only way in which our old
system could be maintained. No doubt countries can be imagined in
which the mass of the electors would be thoroughly competent to form
good opinions; approximations to that state happily exist. But such
was not the state of the minor English shopkeepers. They were just
competent to make a selection between two sets of superior ideas; or
rather--for the conceptions of such people are more personal than
abstract--between two opposing parties, each professing a creed of
such ideas. But they could do no more. Their own notions, if they
had been cross-examined upon them, would have been found always most
confused and often most foolish. They were competent to decide an
issue selected by the higher classes, but they were incompetent to
do more.

The grave question now is, How far will this peculiar old system
continue and how far will it be altered? I am afraid I must put
aside at once the idea that it will be altered entirely and altered
for the better. I cannot expect that the new class of voters will be
at all more able to form sound opinions on complex questions than
the old voters. There was indeed an idea--a very prevalent idea when
the first edition of this book was published--that there then was an
unrepresented class of skilled artisans who could form superior
opinions on national matters, and ought to have the means of
expressing them. We used to frame elaborate schemes to give them
such means. But the Reform Act of 1867 did not stop at skilled
labour; it enfranchised unskilled labour too. And no one will
contend that the ordinary working man who has no special skill, and
who is only rated because he has a house, can judge much of
intellectual matters. The messenger in an office is not more
intelligent than the clerks, not better educated, but worse; and yet
the messenger is probably a very superior specimen of the newly
enfranchised classes. The average can only earn very scanty wages by
coarse labour. They have no time to improve themselves, for they are
labouring the whole day through; and their early education was so
small that in most cases it is dubious whether even if they had much
time, they could use it to good purpose. We have not enfranchised a
class less needing to be guided by their betters than the old class;
on the contrary, the new class need it more than the old. The real
question is, Will they submit to it, will they defer in the same way
to wealth and rank, and to the higher qualities of which these are
the rough symbols and the common accompaniments?

There is a peculiar difficulty in answering this question.
Generally, the debates upon the passing of an Act contain much
valuable instruction as to what may be expected of it. But the
debates on the Reform Act of 1867 hardly tell anything. They are
taken up with technicalities as to the ratepayers and the compound
householder. Nobody in the country knew what was being done. I
happened at the time to visit a purely agricultural and Conservative
county, and I asked the local Tories, "Do you understand this Reform
Bill? Do you know that your Conservative Government has brought in a
Bill far more Radical than any former Bill, and that it is very
likely to be passed?" The answer I got was, "What stuff you talk!
How can it be a Radical Reform Bill? Why, BRIGHT opposes it!" There
was no answering that in a way which a "common jury" could
understand. The Bill was supported by the Times and opposed by Mr.
Bright; and therefore the mass of the Conservatives and of common
moderate people, without distinction of party, had no conception of
the effect. They said it was "London nonsense" if you tried to
explain it to them. The nation indeed generally looks to the
discussions in Parliament to enlighten it as to the effect of Bills.
But in this case neither party, as a party, could speak out. Many,
perhaps most of the intelligent Conservatives, were fearful of the
consequences of the proposal; but as it was made by the heads of
their own party, they did not like to oppose it, and the discipline
of party carried them with it. On the other side, many, probably
most of the intelligent Liberals, were in consternation at the Bill;
they had been in the habit for years of proposing Reform Bills; they
knew the points of difference between each Bill, and perceived that
this was by far the most sweeping which had ever been proposed by
any Ministry. But they were almost all unwilling to say so. They
would have offended a large section in their constituencies if they
had resisted a Tory Bill because it was too democratic; the extreme
partisans of democracy would have said, "The enemies of the people
have confidence enough in the people to entrust them with this
power, but you, a 'Liberal,' and a professed friend of the people,
have not that confidence; if that is so, we will never vote for you
again". Many Radical members who had been asking for years for
household suffrage were much more surprised than pleased at the near
chance of obtaining it; they had asked for it as bargainers ask for
the highest possible price, but they never expected to get it.
Altogether the Liberals, or at least the extreme Liberals, were much
like a man who has been pushing hard against an opposing door, till,
on a sudden, the door opens, the resistance ceases, and he is thrown
violently forward. Persons in such an unpleasant predicament can
scarcely criticise effectually, and certainly the Liberals did not
so criticise. We have had no such previous discussions as should
guide our expectations from the Reform Bill, nor such as under
ordinary circumstances we should have had.

Nor does the experience of the last election much help us. The
circumstances were too exceptional. In the first place, Mr.
Gladstone's personal popularity was such as has not been seen since
the time of Mr. Pitt, and such as may never be seen again. Certainly
it will very rarely be seen. A bad speaker is said to have been
asked how he got on as a candidate. "Oh," he answered, "when I do
not know what to say, I say 'Gladstone,' and then they are sure to
cheer, and I have time to think." In fact, that popularity acted as
a guide both to constituencies and to members. The candidates only
said they would vote with Mr. Gladstone, and the constituencies only
chose those who said so. Even the minority could only be described
as anti-Gladstone, just as the majority could only be described as
pro-Gladstone. The remains, too, of the old electoral organisation
were exceedingly powerful; the old voters voted as they had been
told, and the new voters mostly voted with them. In extremely few
cases was there any new and contrary organisation. At the last
election, the trial of the new system hardly began, and, as far as
it did begin, it was favoured by a peculiar guidance.

In the meantime our statesmen have the greatest opportunities they
have had for many years, and likewise the greatest duty. They have
to guide the new voters in the exercise of the franchise; to guide
them quietly, and without saying what they are doing, but still to
guide them. The leading statesmen in a free country have great
momentary power. They settle the conversation of mankind. It is they
who, by a great speech or two, determine what shall be said and what
shall be written for long after. They, in conjunction with their
counsellors, settle the programme of their party--the "platform," as
the Americans call it, on which they and those associated with them
are to take their stand for the political campaign. It is by that
programme, by a comparison of the programmes of different statesmen,
that the world forms its judgment. The common ordinary mind is quite
unfit to fix for itself what political question it shall attend to;
it is as much as it can do to judge decently of the questions which
drift down to it, and are brought before it; it almost never settles
its topics; it can only decide upon the issues of those topics. And
in settling what these questions shall be, statesmen have now
especially a great responsibility if they raise questions which will
excite the lower orders of mankind; if they raise questions on which
those orders are likely to be wrong; if they raise questions on
which the interest of those orders is not identical with, or is
antagonistic to, the whole interest of the State, they will have
done the greatest harm they can do. The future of this country
depends on the happy working of a delicate experiment, and they will
have done all they could to vitiate that experiment. Just when it is
desirable that ignorant men, new to politics, should have good
issues, and only good issues, put before them, these statesmen will
have suggested bad issues. They will have suggested topics which
will bind the poor as a class together; topics which will excite
them against the rich; topics the discussion of which in the only
form in which that discussion reaches their ear will be to make them
think that some new law can make them comfortable--that it is the
present law which makes them uncomfortable--that Government has at
its disposal an inexhaustible fund out of which it can give to those
who now want without also creating elsewhere other and greater
wants. If the first work of the poor voters is to try to create a
"poor man's paradise," as poor men are apt to fancy that Paradise,
and as they are apt to think they can create it, the great political
trial now beginning will simply fail. The wide gift of the elective
franchise will be a great calamity to the whole nation, and to those
who gain it as great a calamity as to any.

I do not of course mean that statesmen can choose with absolute
freedom what topics they will deal with and what they will not. I am
of course aware that they choose under stringent conditions. In
excited states of the public mind they have scarcely a discretion at
all; the tendency of the public perturbation determines what shall
and what shall not be dealt with. But, upon the other hand, in quiet
times statesmen have great power; when there is no fire lighted,
they can settle what fire shall be lit. And as the new suffrage is
happily to be tried in a quiet time, the responsibility of our
statesmen is great because their power is great too.

And the mode in which the questions dealt with are discussed is
almost as important as the selection of these questions. It is for
our principal statesmen to lead the public, and not to let the
public lead them. No doubt when statesmen live by public favour, as
ours do, this is a hard saying, and it requires to be carefully
limited. I do not mean that our statesmen should assume a pedantic
and doctrinaire tone with the English people; if there is anything
which English people thoroughly detest, it is that tone exactly. And
they are right in detesting it; if a man cannot give guidance and
communicate instruction formally without telling his audience "I am
better than you; I have studied this as you have not," then he is
not fit for a guide or an instructor. A statesman who should show
that gaucherie would exhibit a defect of imagination, and expose an
incapacity for dealing with men which would be a great hindrance to
him in his calling. But much argument is not required to guide the
public, still less a formal exposition of that argument. What is
mostly needed is the manly utterance of clear conclusions; if a
statesman gives these in a felicitous way (and if with a few light
and humorous illustrations, so much the better), he has done his
part. He will have given the text, the scribes in the newspapers
will write the sermon. A statesman ought to show his own nature, and
talk in a palpable way what is to him important truth. And so he
will both guide and benefit the nation. But if, especially at a time
when great ignorance has an unusual power in public affairs, he
chooses to accept and reiterate the decisions of that ignorance, he
is only the hireling of the nation, and does little save hurt it.

I shall be told that this is very obvious, and that everybody knows
that 2 and 2 make 4, and that there is no use in inculcating it. But
I answer that the lesson is not observed in fact; people do not so
do their political sums. Of all our political dangers, the greatest
I conceive is that they will neglect the lesson. In plain English,
what I fear is that both our political parties will bid for the
support of the working man; that both of them will promise to do as
he likes if he will only tell them what it is; that, as he now holds
the casting vote in our affairs, both parties will beg and pray him
to give that vote to them. I can conceive of nothing more corrupting
or worse for a set of poor ignorant people than that two
combinations of well-taught and rich men should constantly offer to
defer to their decision, and compete for the office of executing it.
Vox populi will be Vox diaboli if it is worked in that manner.

And, on the other hand, my imagination conjures up a contrary
danger. I can conceive that questions BEING raised which, if
continually agitated, would combine the working men as a class
together, the higher orders might have to consider whether they
would concede the measure that would settle such questions, or
whether they would risk the effect of the working men's combination.

No doubt the question cannot be easily discussed in the abstract;
much must depend on the nature of the measures in each particular
case; on the evil they would cause if conceded; on the
attractiveness of their idea to the working classes if refused. But
in all cases it must be remembered that a political combination of
the lower classes, as such and for their own objects, is an evil of
the first magnitude; that a permanent combination of them would make
them (now that so many of them have the suffrage) supreme in the
country; and that their supremacy, in the state they now are, means
the supremacy of ignorance over instruction and of numbers over
knowledge. So long as they are not taught to act together, there is
a chance of this being averted, and it can only be averted by the
greatest wisdom and the greatest foresight in the higher classes.
They must avoid, not only every evil, but every appearance of evil;
while they have still the power they must remove, not only every
actual grievance, but, where it is possible, every seeming grievance
too; they must willingly concede every claim which they can safely
concede, in order that they may not have to concede unwillingly some
claim which would impair the safety of the country.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22