What do you think?
Rate this book
The English Constitution
Walter Bagehot's The English Constitution (1867) is the best account of the history and workings of the British political system ever written. As arguments raged in mid-Victorian Britain about giving the working man the vote, and democracies overseas were pitched into despotism and civil war, Bagehot took a long, cool look at the "dignified" and "efficient" elements which made the English system the envy of the world. His analysis of the monarchy, the role of the prime minister and cabinet, and comparisons with the American presidential system are astute and timeless, pertinent to current discussions surrounding devolution and electoral reform. Combining the wit and panache of a journalist with the wisdom of a man of letters steeped in evolutionary ideas and historical knowledge, Bagehot produced a book which is always thoughtful, often funny, and surprisingly entertaining.This edition reproduces Bagehot's original 1867 work in full, and introduces the reader to the dramatic
political events that surrounded its publication.
About the For over 100 years Oxford World's Classics has made available the broadest spectrum of literature from around the globe. Each affordable volume reflects Oxford's commitment to scholarship, providing the most accurate text plus a wealth of other valuable features, including expert introductions by leading authorities, voluminous notes to clarify the text, up-to-date bibliographies for further study, and much more.
political events that surrounded its publication.
About the For over 100 years Oxford World's Classics has made available the broadest spectrum of literature from around the globe. Each affordable volume reflects Oxford's commitment to scholarship, providing the most accurate text plus a wealth of other valuable features, including expert introductions by leading authorities, voluminous notes to clarify the text, up-to-date bibliographies for further study, and much more.
219 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1867
181 people are currently reading
1143 people want to read
About the author
Walter Bagehot
289 books54 followersBritish journalist Walter Bagehot edited
The Economist
and wrote
The English Constitution
(1867), an analysis of the comparative powers of the branches of government.
Walter Bagehot, a businessman and essayist, extensively covered literature and affairs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_...
Walter Bagehot, a businessman and essayist, extensively covered literature and affairs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews
March 6, 2018
This is not really a review, it's basically just a collection of notes for my records. I didn't finish the main body of the book, which is an analysis of the English constitution in the 1860s. Instead, more than anything - I read and gained insight from Richard Crossman's forward/analysis, and the 4 stars I have given the book pertain to that analysis. I would highly recommend that anyone buying this book makes sure they get an edition containing his foreword.
More than anything, this book was a catalyst to make me find out more about the workings of British government both today and in the 19th century. I also learnt a bit about the American system of government, which was also briefly mentioned. To help me with this I found an incredibly helpful source, in Roger Darlington's guides to various political systems in different countries. The one I read was fantastically helpful.
http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/2010...
Back to Bagehot and Crossman - this is one of the most difficult books I have ever broached - not least because I am so hideously ignorant about parliamentary matters - but the outcome, in the way it forced me to research and learn more, was great.
I shall end with my usual jumble of notes, nearly all taken from Crossman's forward.
More than anything, this book was a catalyst to make me find out more about the workings of British government both today and in the 19th century. I also learnt a bit about the American system of government, which was also briefly mentioned. To help me with this I found an incredibly helpful source, in Roger Darlington's guides to various political systems in different countries. The one I read was fantastically helpful.
http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/2010...
Back to Bagehot and Crossman - this is one of the most difficult books I have ever broached - not least because I am so hideously ignorant about parliamentary matters - but the outcome, in the way it forced me to research and learn more, was great.
I shall end with my usual jumble of notes, nearly all taken from Crossman's forward.
July 2, 2016
Introduction
Note on the Text
Select Bibliography
A Chronology of Walter Bagehot
--The English Constitution
Explanatory Notes
Note on the Text
Select Bibliography
A Chronology of Walter Bagehot
--The English Constitution
Explanatory Notes
October 30, 2015
Bagehot was a terribly conservative editor of The Economist about the time of the American Civil War. He did not believe in universal suffrage: "In theory, it is desirable that this highest class (rich, educated & 'cultivated') of wealth and leisure should have an influence far out of proportion to its mere number ..." He was a snob who believed whole-heartedly in an hereditary Monarchy: "Constitutional royalty ... acts as a disguise. It enables our real rulers to change without heedless people knowing it. The great masses of Englishmen are not fit for an elective government ..." He was a racial bigot convinced of the superiority of white Europeans: "An imposed government, a government like that of the English in India, may very possibly be better; it may represent the views of a higher race than the governed race ..." In 200 pages, he explores the ideas of the (still unwritten) English Constitution as it is embodied in the Parliament and compares it to the Greek city states, the American presidential system, and the French system of Napolean after the Revolution. He was considered among the intellectual elite of his day, and his message still rings true among British and American Conservatives. Looking at today's political landscape in the US, I have some sympathy for his otherwise outdated views, especially as I watch American voters elect Tea Party Republicans against their own best interests, but I am an unapologetic progressive liberal and find his views generally distasteful. He does write with erudition and an excellent grasp of English history, as well as a certain graceful style. Whether you end up agreeing with him or not, this is good history well written.
April 1, 2021
AmblesideOnline year 9 book - this book is hard...and honestly I’m not sure it’s worth the time and work. I trust the AO advisory but we also have to consider how we’re using our and our children’s time. My daughter was getting absolutely nothing out of this on her own so I started reading it aloud, just three pages a day, three days a week, and we got through most of the book. I found parts of it interesting and while I still don’t fully understand British government I have a better grasp of it than I did before. I was planning to push through and finish it (we read over 3/4 of the book) but I had already decided I probably wasn’t going to require the rest of my children to read it so I finally took pity on my daughter (and myself!) and we dropped it a few weeks before the end.
October 13, 2020
Long winded
Lots of words, little is said. A fascinating insight into the mind of a 19th century man on a mission to convince you that Parliament has changed enough.
Lots of words, little is said. A fascinating insight into the mind of a 19th century man on a mission to convince you that Parliament has changed enough.
May 31, 2018
Worth reading if you enjoy politics and/or history, simply for the experience of reading such a landmark text. Bagehot could also certainly coin a snappy phrase, and the book is peppered with them.
Of course, the actual legal commentary is a century and a half old. That’s not to say there’s nothing of value in his arguments - some things have not changed - but it does mean one has to tread carefully. The author rails against proposals for process-based guarantees of Commons superiority, fearing that they would lead to bad habits, but the Parliament Act was introduced about 35 years later and surely must go down as a successful piece of legislation. (Nobody said he was omniscient.) His heavy chapters on the Lords and the Commons are very interesting but both chambers have changed so much since he wrote that much of what he says is frankly obsolete.
Perhaps his most famous concept, the distinction between the dignified parts and the efficient parts of the constitution, is itself at the least in need of renovation. Some of his supporting logic will also seem profoundly elitist to a modern reader. However, yet again, beneath the faults there is a gem. Our public affairs remain steeped in history, and the rationale for various processes surely remains largely the same as the one Bagehot described.
A great one for the enthusiast; one to avoid for everyone else.
Of course, the actual legal commentary is a century and a half old. That’s not to say there’s nothing of value in his arguments - some things have not changed - but it does mean one has to tread carefully. The author rails against proposals for process-based guarantees of Commons superiority, fearing that they would lead to bad habits, but the Parliament Act was introduced about 35 years later and surely must go down as a successful piece of legislation. (Nobody said he was omniscient.) His heavy chapters on the Lords and the Commons are very interesting but both chambers have changed so much since he wrote that much of what he says is frankly obsolete.
Perhaps his most famous concept, the distinction between the dignified parts and the efficient parts of the constitution, is itself at the least in need of renovation. Some of his supporting logic will also seem profoundly elitist to a modern reader. However, yet again, beneath the faults there is a gem. Our public affairs remain steeped in history, and the rationale for various processes surely remains largely the same as the one Bagehot described.
A great one for the enthusiast; one to avoid for everyone else.
April 12, 2018
Though I have quite bigger expectations from the book to which people refer even after a century and a half of the very turbulent history that changed the very base of the subject. But I did not find the extravagant depth of thought or its breadth, the author almost religiously devoted to the cabinet form of the government and ignored its drawbacks even if mentioned them. Though Mr Bagehot did not meet my expectation, I really enjoy reading, maybe because of I've been reading this book in parallel with De Tocqueville's Democracy in America - different epochs, different views, different countries.
December 30, 2018
For those of us who heard of this book in the Netflix series the Crown, where Parliament is the efficient and the crown is the dignified, this was a worthwhile reading. It lays out how the British system of government works and explains their system of Parliamentary sovereignty. What that means is that the Parliament has the final say and can even vote to remove sovereign which they have done on prior occasions (e.g., dismissing King James II and calling in King William of Orange and King George I).
If you have an interest in British history or history in general or even how governments work, this is a good book and best of all, it was free on the Kindle.
If you have an interest in British history or history in general or even how governments work, this is a good book and best of all, it was free on the Kindle.
October 4, 2018
Forty-two years between buying it and reading it. Worth the wait. The chap knows of what he writes. I even have a little empirical sympathy for his belief that giving the uninformed the vote can lead to trouble.
A warmer, clearer understanding than Dicey.
Essential for politics students and constitutional lawyers but worth reading for its own sake. An ideal accompaniment to Trollope, Disraeli and Dickens.
A warmer, clearer understanding than Dicey.
Essential for politics students and constitutional lawyers but worth reading for its own sake. An ideal accompaniment to Trollope, Disraeli and Dickens.
January 27, 2008
Much better than a dull textbook. This book reads like the Economist would, if the Economist was to describe the workings of the English Constitution. Just as well, as the author was the editor of that esteemed magazine. Obviously out of date (by at least 100 years) but it makes up for in readability what it lacks in precision.
August 5, 2016
A study of the English constitution from more than a century ago, yet is still a pertinent and interesting book today. The book is divided into essays on sections of the constitution and the government that it defines. The journalistic nature of the writing along with its high quality combine to make this a pleasant read. The political analysis is sharp and the opinions are timeless.
December 6, 2020
Ended up dropping this book about halfway or so into it (including half of the analysis done by another person). There was a lot of interesting things to learn from this book but due to the difficult language for me and the history and ideas that I in no way relate to or know about, I found myself losing motivation to finish reading it. I got to better understand the English Constitution and what ideas have inspired it to be so particular from an international perspective, though, which was all I really came for.
April 2, 2019
Bagehot is a clever, nasty, charming writer with a great deal to recommend him and some very substantial reasons to loathe him.
His curious central idea is that government is a strange kind of engine which works by a form of near-deception (a major theme for him). Governments, or rather, constitutions, the makeup of Governments, summon power and motive force through this kind of appeal to the senses and emotions, and they spend it another way, in practical ways. So they convert dreams and misty visions, and feeling, into coherent action.
This is a really interesting concept and one I'm not familiar with seeing anywhere else. The first thing any system of government must do is convince everyone it is a system of government.
Not necessarily a good system of government, but a natural, appropriate and expected system. It must make a great many people feel. Even if they are opposed on any particular matter, they must naturally intuit that the process of performance and decision the system represents is the correct one.
Even that is overstating it, it cannot be a 'decision' at all, it must be a feeling, and a dull, subconscious one, it must be felt and acted, it cannot be dragged forth into the neocortex too much as it is not a thing to be argued with but the thing which sets the terms for other arguments.
Bagehot makes an elegant point, that England is ‘a Republic in disguise’. His reasoning for that; the ordinary people are too dumb and stupid to accept it as a real republic, is pure Bagehot, and pure dark-side Victorian. Like most of the bad things he says, it takes you a while, and some processing to work out he has said it.
His idea of Parliament as a kind of grand performance which educates and informs the nation about stuff by arguing about it is an interesting one. He is right that having an MP, or more than one, is essentially a Rubicon for whether a thing is politically ‘real’ or not. It makes Parliament a kind of psychic machine for translating thoughts from the deep of the nation into language that can be considered and worked over, for fishing up things from the nations subconscious and making them palpable.
His conception of the English government being representative not as a pure Democracy (heaven forfend) nor as a kind of representation of pure intelligence (which I think he would prefer) or as simple owning of property, but as embodying its nation through ‘a strange approximate mode of representing sense and mind’ is very Burkean and utterly fascinating to me, and the whole idea that Constitutions, while acting rational, are essentially wizards running on human magic.
There is a fundamental disconnect between Bagehots tone and the general sense of emotion we receive from his words, and what he is actually saying.
His tone makes you feel like you are smoking cigars at the Diogenes club. He speaks with beauty, cleverness, lucidity, penetration and with the textured knowledge of a *man in the know*. He is a pleasure to be around.
It takes time to process what he is actually saying and what he believes as it flows past in pieces and is never fully presented as an argument, only woven through the assumptions of the text. He disguises dark conclusions and assumptions as elegant aphorisms that slide past the mind with the false intimacy of a privately disclosed confidence that everyone in the know already know is true.
He is not just a conservative, but an arch conservative, and worse than that, he is something almost like a troll. He is a believer in authority and hierarchy who does not really believe, but only acts as if he does.
He is able to disguise this from us with his love of 'twilight', paradox, humour, and the beauty and subtlety of his language but underneath it all he is an empty, cynical man.
He certainly does not believe in the people. He thinks that 90% of them are idiots. And that’s inside Britain, the ones outside it are either Europeans, who have their own thing going on, or lesser races, made to be ruled.
He is writing a fundamentally ritual-worshipping book about the English Constitution, of which the King is an essential part. He does try to argue for the monarch, but his tongue turns against him again and again. He seems to loathe them actually.
Women do not exist in Bagehots universe, except for Queen Anne and Queen Victoria.
So what does Walter Bagehot believe in?
Business, and Men of Business.
The word ‘business’ means for him, business as we would think of it, but also doing things of meaning and practical difficulty, being in the inner circle, being a mover and shaker, having consequences attend you, being focused, getting things done and the things being important.
‘Men of business’ is to him, the men in offices and meeting rooms who make the world move. The only thing he valorises which seems to stick is the creation of this executive class of doers, thinkers, actors on others, men in boardrooms with cigars.
I find Bagehot simultaneously a beautiful, informative, clever and amusing guide to his age, and a shit. I think he is wrong about every major point he makes, regarding actual process of government which affect real people, I despise his clever emptiness and his contempt for the people generally, and I think everyone should read this anyway because on the small things, on the marginalia, the asides, the observations, details and secondary concepts, he is brilliant.
His curious central idea is that government is a strange kind of engine which works by a form of near-deception (a major theme for him). Governments, or rather, constitutions, the makeup of Governments, summon power and motive force through this kind of appeal to the senses and emotions, and they spend it another way, in practical ways. So they convert dreams and misty visions, and feeling, into coherent action.
This is a really interesting concept and one I'm not familiar with seeing anywhere else. The first thing any system of government must do is convince everyone it is a system of government.
Not necessarily a good system of government, but a natural, appropriate and expected system. It must make a great many people feel. Even if they are opposed on any particular matter, they must naturally intuit that the process of performance and decision the system represents is the correct one.
Even that is overstating it, it cannot be a 'decision' at all, it must be a feeling, and a dull, subconscious one, it must be felt and acted, it cannot be dragged forth into the neocortex too much as it is not a thing to be argued with but the thing which sets the terms for other arguments.
Bagehot makes an elegant point, that England is ‘a Republic in disguise’. His reasoning for that; the ordinary people are too dumb and stupid to accept it as a real republic, is pure Bagehot, and pure dark-side Victorian. Like most of the bad things he says, it takes you a while, and some processing to work out he has said it.
His idea of Parliament as a kind of grand performance which educates and informs the nation about stuff by arguing about it is an interesting one. He is right that having an MP, or more than one, is essentially a Rubicon for whether a thing is politically ‘real’ or not. It makes Parliament a kind of psychic machine for translating thoughts from the deep of the nation into language that can be considered and worked over, for fishing up things from the nations subconscious and making them palpable.
His conception of the English government being representative not as a pure Democracy (heaven forfend) nor as a kind of representation of pure intelligence (which I think he would prefer) or as simple owning of property, but as embodying its nation through ‘a strange approximate mode of representing sense and mind’ is very Burkean and utterly fascinating to me, and the whole idea that Constitutions, while acting rational, are essentially wizards running on human magic.
There is a fundamental disconnect between Bagehots tone and the general sense of emotion we receive from his words, and what he is actually saying.
His tone makes you feel like you are smoking cigars at the Diogenes club. He speaks with beauty, cleverness, lucidity, penetration and with the textured knowledge of a *man in the know*. He is a pleasure to be around.
It takes time to process what he is actually saying and what he believes as it flows past in pieces and is never fully presented as an argument, only woven through the assumptions of the text. He disguises dark conclusions and assumptions as elegant aphorisms that slide past the mind with the false intimacy of a privately disclosed confidence that everyone in the know already know is true.
He is not just a conservative, but an arch conservative, and worse than that, he is something almost like a troll. He is a believer in authority and hierarchy who does not really believe, but only acts as if he does.
He is able to disguise this from us with his love of 'twilight', paradox, humour, and the beauty and subtlety of his language but underneath it all he is an empty, cynical man.
He certainly does not believe in the people. He thinks that 90% of them are idiots. And that’s inside Britain, the ones outside it are either Europeans, who have their own thing going on, or lesser races, made to be ruled.
He is writing a fundamentally ritual-worshipping book about the English Constitution, of which the King is an essential part. He does try to argue for the monarch, but his tongue turns against him again and again. He seems to loathe them actually.
Women do not exist in Bagehots universe, except for Queen Anne and Queen Victoria.
So what does Walter Bagehot believe in?
Business, and Men of Business.
The word ‘business’ means for him, business as we would think of it, but also doing things of meaning and practical difficulty, being in the inner circle, being a mover and shaker, having consequences attend you, being focused, getting things done and the things being important.
‘Men of business’ is to him, the men in offices and meeting rooms who make the world move. The only thing he valorises which seems to stick is the creation of this executive class of doers, thinkers, actors on others, men in boardrooms with cigars.
I find Bagehot simultaneously a beautiful, informative, clever and amusing guide to his age, and a shit. I think he is wrong about every major point he makes, regarding actual process of government which affect real people, I despise his clever emptiness and his contempt for the people generally, and I think everyone should read this anyway because on the small things, on the marginalia, the asides, the observations, details and secondary concepts, he is brilliant.
May 23, 2022
video review: https://youtu.be/G3cT6xFdmJo
The more I read books like these, the more I am convinced of the folly of trying to go around the world imposing Western-style liberal democracies. People have the governments that suit their culture, language, and temperament. Just as there is no one way to eat breakfast or live the good life, there is no one way to govern a people.
The English have managed to build, over centuries, a system that suits them down to their core. Does it have its flaws? Indeed. But does it suit the English perfectly. Indeed. What should be admired (and emulated) from this brief study is the honesty with which the general populace is assessed: incurious and uneducated people who wouldn't know how to run a country if it were served up to them on a silver platter. But the English government gives them both the illusion that they have a role in the government and that it's run by the Crown. Neither are true, but so much of our society (these days particularly) is built on such pleasant fictions.
Read this before or after de Tocqueville's Democracy in America for a fine triangulation of competing Western forms of government by a Frenchman and an Englishman. Finish by reading the Federalist Papers.
"In such constitutions there are two parts...those which excite and preserve the reverence of the population, — the dignified parts, if I may so call them; and next, the efficient parts, — those by which it, in fact, works and rules....every constitution must first gain authority, and then use authority." (p. 7)
"The lower orders, the middle orders, are still, when tried by what is the standard of the educated 'ten thousand,' narrow-minded, unintelligent, incurious." (p. 8)
"The most intellectual of men are moved as much by what they are used to as by what they choose." (p. 9-10)
"We must expect what is venerable to acquire influence because of its inherent dignity." (p. 10)
"Cabinet governments educate the nation; the presidential does not educate it, and may corrupt it." (p. 16)
"English people, if they had no motive to attend to politics, certainly would not attend to politics." (p. 17)
(regarding the US President) "He is not the choice of the nation, he is the choice of the wire-pullers." (p. 20)
"The vice-presidentship being a sinecure, a second-rate man agreeable to the wire pullers is always smuggled in." (p. 24, footnote)
"[W]e trust our countrymen without remembering that we trust them." (p. 27)
"The conditions of life are so simple and so unvarying that any decent sort of rules suffice, so long as men know what they are." (p. 29)
"After generations of education, too, there arise varieties of culture — there will be an upper thousand, or ten thousand, of highly cultivated people in the midst of a great nation of moderately educated people." (p. 32)
"And if we can get them ruled by a decent capable thought, we may be well enough contented with our work." (p. 33)
"If you look at the mass of the constituencies, you will see that they are not very interesting people; and perhaps if you look behind the scenes and see the people who manipulate and work the constituencies, you will find that these are yet more uninteresting." (p. 33)
"There are whole classes who have not a conception of what the higher orders call comfort; who have not the pre-requisites of moral existence; who cannot lead the life that becomes a man." (p. 35)
"The mass of the English people are politically contented as well as politically deferential." (p. 35)
"A life of labour, an incomplete education, a monotonous occupation, a career in which the hands are used much and the judgment is used little, cannot create as much flexible thought, as much applicable intelligences as a life of leisure, a long culture, a varied experience, an existence by which the judgment is incessantly exercised, and by which it may be incessantly improved." (p. 35)
"You can use the best classes of the respectful country; you can only use the worst where every man thinks he is as good as every other." (p. 36)
"A people very rarely hears two sides of a subject in which it is much interested; the popular organs take up the side which is acceptable, and none but the popular organs in fact reach the people." (p. 36)
[A] Constitutional Monarchy...has a comprehensible element for the vacant many, as well as complex laws and notions for the inquiring few." (p. 41)
"Royalty is a government in which the attention of the nation is concentrated on one person doing interesting actions. A Republic is a government in which the attention is divided between many, who are all doing uninteresting actions." (p. 41)
"A monarch that can be truly reverenced, a House of Peers that can be really respected, are historical accidents nearly peculiar to this one island, and entirely peculiar to Europe." (p. 56)
"If constitutional monarchs be ordinary men of restricted experience and common capacity (and we have no right to suppose that by miracle they will be more), the judgment of the sovereign will often be worse than the judgment of the party..." (p. 59)
"[T]he king who feels most sure of his wisdom, (is) very slow to use that wisdom." (p. 62)
"[T]he sovereign has...three rights — the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn." (p. 64)
"The plans of Charlemagne died with him; those of Richelieu were mistaken; those of Napoleon gigantesque and frantic." (p. 68)
"[T]here is no reason to expect an hereditary series of useful limited monarchs." (p. 69)
"The benefits of a good monarch are almost invaluable, but the evils of a bad monarch are almost irreparable." (p. 72)
"This is the obvious and natural idol of the Anglo-Saxon. He is always trying to make money; he reckons everything in coin; he bows down before a great heap, and sneers as he passes a little heap. He has a 'natural instinctive admiration of wealth for its own sake.' And within good limits the feeling is quite right." (p. 74)
"A clerk in the public service is 'nobody;' and you could not make a common Englishman see why he should be anybody." (p. 75)
"As the picturesqueness, the featureless of society diminishes, aristocracy loses the single instrument of its peculiar power." (p. 76)
"But it is one thing for an institution to be natural, and another for it to be expedient." (p. 79)
(regarding a young lord) "Like Hercules, he may choose virtue, but hardly Hercules could choose business." (p. 91)
"'I never heard such a thing in my life,' the middle-class Englishman says, and he thinks he so refutes an argument." (p. 101)
"'If you want to raise a certain cheer in the House of Commons make a general panegyric on economy; if you want to invite a sure defeat, propose a particular saving.'" (p. 103)
"That a House of Commons may work well it must...elect a ministry well, legislate well, teach the nation well, express the nation's will well, bring matters to the nation's attention well." (p. 117)
"A Parliament is nothing less than a big meeting of more or less idle people. In proportion as you give it power it will inquire into everything, settle everything, meddle in anything." (p. 130)
(quoting Voltaire) "[T]he art of government is to make two-thirds of a nation pay all it possibly can pay for the benefit of the other third." (p. 140)
"I entirely concede that our recent foreign policy has been open to very grave and serious blame. But would it not have been a miracle if the English people, directing their own policy, and being what they are, had directed a good policy? Are they not, above all nations, divided from the rest of the world, insular both in situation and in mind, both for good and for evil? Are they not out of the current of common European causes and affairs? Are they not a race contemptuous of others? Are they not a race with no special education or culture as to this modern world, and too often despising such culture? Who could expect such a people to comprehend the new and strange events of foreign places?" (p. 149)
"A colonial governor is a ruler who has no permanent interest in the colony he governs; who perhaps had to look for it in the map when he was sent thither; who takes years before he really understands its parties and its controversies; who, though without prejudice himself, is apt to be a slave to the prejudices of local people near him; who inevitably, and almost laudably, governs not in the interest of the colony, which he may mistake, but in his own interest, which he sees and is sure of. The first desire of a colonial governor is not to get into a 'scrape.'" (p. 165)
"We see so much of the material fruits of commerce, that we forget its mental fruits, not acquainted with the niceties of words. In all labour there should be profit, is its motto." (p. 174)
"Modern life is scanty in excitements, but incessant in quiet action. Its perpetual commerce is creating a 'stock-taking habit'; the habit of asking each man, thing, and institution, 'Well, what have you done since I saw you last?" (p. 174)
"The natural impulse of the English people is to resist authority." (p. 187)
"Just so the lines of our constitution were framed in old eras of sparse population, few wants, and simple habits; and we adhere in seeming to their shape, though civilization has come with its dangers, complications, and enjoyments." (p. 190)
"A rough nation, where a common sort of education is plenty, and comfort sure, will yield a decent sort of parliament under any electoral system, though it cannot yield a refined one under any." (p. 192)
"A free government cannot be wiser than a free nation; it is but their fruit and outcome, and it must be as they are." (p. 197)
"Let anyone take to pieces the brains of any twenty persons he knows well, and think how little accurate knowledge, how little defined opinion, how little settled notion of State policy there is in any of them." (p. 197)
The more I read books like these, the more I am convinced of the folly of trying to go around the world imposing Western-style liberal democracies. People have the governments that suit their culture, language, and temperament. Just as there is no one way to eat breakfast or live the good life, there is no one way to govern a people.
The English have managed to build, over centuries, a system that suits them down to their core. Does it have its flaws? Indeed. But does it suit the English perfectly. Indeed. What should be admired (and emulated) from this brief study is the honesty with which the general populace is assessed: incurious and uneducated people who wouldn't know how to run a country if it were served up to them on a silver platter. But the English government gives them both the illusion that they have a role in the government and that it's run by the Crown. Neither are true, but so much of our society (these days particularly) is built on such pleasant fictions.
Read this before or after de Tocqueville's Democracy in America for a fine triangulation of competing Western forms of government by a Frenchman and an Englishman. Finish by reading the Federalist Papers.
"In such constitutions there are two parts...those which excite and preserve the reverence of the population, — the dignified parts, if I may so call them; and next, the efficient parts, — those by which it, in fact, works and rules....every constitution must first gain authority, and then use authority." (p. 7)
"The lower orders, the middle orders, are still, when tried by what is the standard of the educated 'ten thousand,' narrow-minded, unintelligent, incurious." (p. 8)
"The most intellectual of men are moved as much by what they are used to as by what they choose." (p. 9-10)
"We must expect what is venerable to acquire influence because of its inherent dignity." (p. 10)
"Cabinet governments educate the nation; the presidential does not educate it, and may corrupt it." (p. 16)
"English people, if they had no motive to attend to politics, certainly would not attend to politics." (p. 17)
(regarding the US President) "He is not the choice of the nation, he is the choice of the wire-pullers." (p. 20)
"The vice-presidentship being a sinecure, a second-rate man agreeable to the wire pullers is always smuggled in." (p. 24, footnote)
"[W]e trust our countrymen without remembering that we trust them." (p. 27)
"The conditions of life are so simple and so unvarying that any decent sort of rules suffice, so long as men know what they are." (p. 29)
"After generations of education, too, there arise varieties of culture — there will be an upper thousand, or ten thousand, of highly cultivated people in the midst of a great nation of moderately educated people." (p. 32)
"And if we can get them ruled by a decent capable thought, we may be well enough contented with our work." (p. 33)
"If you look at the mass of the constituencies, you will see that they are not very interesting people; and perhaps if you look behind the scenes and see the people who manipulate and work the constituencies, you will find that these are yet more uninteresting." (p. 33)
"There are whole classes who have not a conception of what the higher orders call comfort; who have not the pre-requisites of moral existence; who cannot lead the life that becomes a man." (p. 35)
"The mass of the English people are politically contented as well as politically deferential." (p. 35)
"A life of labour, an incomplete education, a monotonous occupation, a career in which the hands are used much and the judgment is used little, cannot create as much flexible thought, as much applicable intelligences as a life of leisure, a long culture, a varied experience, an existence by which the judgment is incessantly exercised, and by which it may be incessantly improved." (p. 35)
"You can use the best classes of the respectful country; you can only use the worst where every man thinks he is as good as every other." (p. 36)
"A people very rarely hears two sides of a subject in which it is much interested; the popular organs take up the side which is acceptable, and none but the popular organs in fact reach the people." (p. 36)
[A] Constitutional Monarchy...has a comprehensible element for the vacant many, as well as complex laws and notions for the inquiring few." (p. 41)
"Royalty is a government in which the attention of the nation is concentrated on one person doing interesting actions. A Republic is a government in which the attention is divided between many, who are all doing uninteresting actions." (p. 41)
"A monarch that can be truly reverenced, a House of Peers that can be really respected, are historical accidents nearly peculiar to this one island, and entirely peculiar to Europe." (p. 56)
"If constitutional monarchs be ordinary men of restricted experience and common capacity (and we have no right to suppose that by miracle they will be more), the judgment of the sovereign will often be worse than the judgment of the party..." (p. 59)
"[T]he king who feels most sure of his wisdom, (is) very slow to use that wisdom." (p. 62)
"[T]he sovereign has...three rights — the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn." (p. 64)
"The plans of Charlemagne died with him; those of Richelieu were mistaken; those of Napoleon gigantesque and frantic." (p. 68)
"[T]here is no reason to expect an hereditary series of useful limited monarchs." (p. 69)
"The benefits of a good monarch are almost invaluable, but the evils of a bad monarch are almost irreparable." (p. 72)
"This is the obvious and natural idol of the Anglo-Saxon. He is always trying to make money; he reckons everything in coin; he bows down before a great heap, and sneers as he passes a little heap. He has a 'natural instinctive admiration of wealth for its own sake.' And within good limits the feeling is quite right." (p. 74)
"A clerk in the public service is 'nobody;' and you could not make a common Englishman see why he should be anybody." (p. 75)
"As the picturesqueness, the featureless of society diminishes, aristocracy loses the single instrument of its peculiar power." (p. 76)
"But it is one thing for an institution to be natural, and another for it to be expedient." (p. 79)
(regarding a young lord) "Like Hercules, he may choose virtue, but hardly Hercules could choose business." (p. 91)
"'I never heard such a thing in my life,' the middle-class Englishman says, and he thinks he so refutes an argument." (p. 101)
"'If you want to raise a certain cheer in the House of Commons make a general panegyric on economy; if you want to invite a sure defeat, propose a particular saving.'" (p. 103)
"That a House of Commons may work well it must...elect a ministry well, legislate well, teach the nation well, express the nation's will well, bring matters to the nation's attention well." (p. 117)
"A Parliament is nothing less than a big meeting of more or less idle people. In proportion as you give it power it will inquire into everything, settle everything, meddle in anything." (p. 130)
(quoting Voltaire) "[T]he art of government is to make two-thirds of a nation pay all it possibly can pay for the benefit of the other third." (p. 140)
"I entirely concede that our recent foreign policy has been open to very grave and serious blame. But would it not have been a miracle if the English people, directing their own policy, and being what they are, had directed a good policy? Are they not, above all nations, divided from the rest of the world, insular both in situation and in mind, both for good and for evil? Are they not out of the current of common European causes and affairs? Are they not a race contemptuous of others? Are they not a race with no special education or culture as to this modern world, and too often despising such culture? Who could expect such a people to comprehend the new and strange events of foreign places?" (p. 149)
"A colonial governor is a ruler who has no permanent interest in the colony he governs; who perhaps had to look for it in the map when he was sent thither; who takes years before he really understands its parties and its controversies; who, though without prejudice himself, is apt to be a slave to the prejudices of local people near him; who inevitably, and almost laudably, governs not in the interest of the colony, which he may mistake, but in his own interest, which he sees and is sure of. The first desire of a colonial governor is not to get into a 'scrape.'" (p. 165)
"We see so much of the material fruits of commerce, that we forget its mental fruits, not acquainted with the niceties of words. In all labour there should be profit, is its motto." (p. 174)
"Modern life is scanty in excitements, but incessant in quiet action. Its perpetual commerce is creating a 'stock-taking habit'; the habit of asking each man, thing, and institution, 'Well, what have you done since I saw you last?" (p. 174)
"The natural impulse of the English people is to resist authority." (p. 187)
"Just so the lines of our constitution were framed in old eras of sparse population, few wants, and simple habits; and we adhere in seeming to their shape, though civilization has come with its dangers, complications, and enjoyments." (p. 190)
"A rough nation, where a common sort of education is plenty, and comfort sure, will yield a decent sort of parliament under any electoral system, though it cannot yield a refined one under any." (p. 192)
"A free government cannot be wiser than a free nation; it is but their fruit and outcome, and it must be as they are." (p. 197)
"Let anyone take to pieces the brains of any twenty persons he knows well, and think how little accurate knowledge, how little defined opinion, how little settled notion of State policy there is in any of them." (p. 197)
December 24, 2018
I read this out of an interest in reactions to democracy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Many would bridle at even getting the word “react,” with its connotations of “reactionary,” so close to Walter Bagehot, such a liberal touchstone the Economist (which Bagehot edited) has a column named after him. I cede the differences between him and your “real” reactionaries but he is part of an early draft of the great western freakout about the masses and power.
I expected this to be more historical, but it is in fact a description of how Bagehot saw the English constitution as working when he was writing, just before the second big Reform Act hit that would grant something resembling universal manhood suffrage to the British people. It was also at or near the peak of British prestige on the world stage. Bagehot placed much of the success of the British government on the cabinet system — which united legislative and executive functions, he has no time for separation of power — and the differing but complementary effective and “dignified” parts of government, the latter including the House of Lords and the monarchy. The effective parts of the state, notionally democratic but really controlled by the best people with a stake in the system, took care of the effective bits, whilst the dignified parts of the state, while explicitly undemocratic, actually brought the masses in to the system by appealing to some supposed universal human penchant for mystery and ritual.
For a great liberal, he goes back to conservative talking points about the nature of the people and governance quite frequently. This is just how people (sometimes the British in specific, sometimes everyone) just are and will always remain. For one thing, it ignored a lot of what was going on with the working classes in Britain, who as E.P. Thompson showed were engaged in a flurry of self-education and had been for most of a century by the time Bagehot was writing. Secondly, like I was lamenting earlier, these figures never make clear what, exactly, about elite education really makes them the only ones who can govern. If anything, much of their education was wildly impractical, which just goes to show nobody is entirely ignorant of their own interest, American voting behavior notwithstanding. But in the end, even if you accept the general premise or take it as a given for this kind of literature, Bagehot — and in my experience, British reactionaries, conservatives, and conservative-liberals (with few honorable exceptions, like Wyndham Lewis) do not bring the same analytical depth or literary imagination to bear on their reactionary visions as their continental counterparts did. I tend to assume this is because the British were so much stronger and more complacent during the nineteenth century, and it seems to me that Bagehot exemplifies this- the sort of attitude the Economist tries to cop. ***
I expected this to be more historical, but it is in fact a description of how Bagehot saw the English constitution as working when he was writing, just before the second big Reform Act hit that would grant something resembling universal manhood suffrage to the British people. It was also at or near the peak of British prestige on the world stage. Bagehot placed much of the success of the British government on the cabinet system — which united legislative and executive functions, he has no time for separation of power — and the differing but complementary effective and “dignified” parts of government, the latter including the House of Lords and the monarchy. The effective parts of the state, notionally democratic but really controlled by the best people with a stake in the system, took care of the effective bits, whilst the dignified parts of the state, while explicitly undemocratic, actually brought the masses in to the system by appealing to some supposed universal human penchant for mystery and ritual.
For a great liberal, he goes back to conservative talking points about the nature of the people and governance quite frequently. This is just how people (sometimes the British in specific, sometimes everyone) just are and will always remain. For one thing, it ignored a lot of what was going on with the working classes in Britain, who as E.P. Thompson showed were engaged in a flurry of self-education and had been for most of a century by the time Bagehot was writing. Secondly, like I was lamenting earlier, these figures never make clear what, exactly, about elite education really makes them the only ones who can govern. If anything, much of their education was wildly impractical, which just goes to show nobody is entirely ignorant of their own interest, American voting behavior notwithstanding. But in the end, even if you accept the general premise or take it as a given for this kind of literature, Bagehot — and in my experience, British reactionaries, conservatives, and conservative-liberals (with few honorable exceptions, like Wyndham Lewis) do not bring the same analytical depth or literary imagination to bear on their reactionary visions as their continental counterparts did. I tend to assume this is because the British were so much stronger and more complacent during the nineteenth century, and it seems to me that Bagehot exemplifies this- the sort of attitude the Economist tries to cop. ***
September 28, 2022
Outstanding and authoritative treatment of the subject, and a modern classic. Quite dated but still the classic work on the constitution of the UK and the functions of the British monarchy and Parliament. It is considerably less dated and more valuable for its keen observations of modern constitutional monarchy.
Read
December 18, 2014Used to be required reading amongst the British Royal family. Her Majesty Elizabeth II particularly devoted much time, at her father's request, to reading this book.
January 1, 2021
In this work of always smart and well-turned, and frequently brilliant, journalism, Bagehot takes issue with a misconception about the Constitution (the so-called 'literary theory'): that it rests on an ideal and absolute division of powers between monarchical, aristocratic and democratic principles. Such a division is not ideal; and the impressive, or ornamental, parts would not be necessary in a state made up of more or less equal, and equally thriving, farmers, as in America (a 'casual collection of loose people'). Indeed, the electors of Massachusetts would have the sagacity to turn any constitutional scheme to the benefit of the public good. (A bicameral system, further, would not be possible in many colonies, where there would be a shortage of good men in filling any single chamber). The British system grew up in a piecemeal and illogical way, and is not adjusted by principle to differences of wealth and ability between people, but rather based on 'ancient ... deference', the tendency of the poor to suppose that legitimacy rests on a show of pomp.
Bagehot is writing from the viewpoint of a moderate Whig, a reformer in theory who wants his reforms to secure a substantive need for good, strong government; for public order; for safety in emergencies such as the need to raise an army, and for continuity, especially in raising budgets, in peacetime. His opposition to a household franchise is that, in lowering the income bar, it would make almost all seats vulnerable to being bought, mostly by the new money of merchants and industrialists not previously interested in politics, and 'timid' in their revisions of law and policy. A system of patronage or party, or of one in which political administrators (men of 'business') emerged from a continuous cadre of civil servants, would be better suited to attracting men of talent to public office. Bagehot divides government into its 'dignified' and 'efficient' parts; the efficient actually do the work (in Commons, through Parliamentary committees and Blue-book reports). Most people who have to be represented in Parliament, he thinks, are 'narrow-minded, unintelligent, incurious' by the standards of the most cultivated ten thousand, almost as if they belong to an earlier era of human development. The most ordinary 'platitudes' of civilised intercourse for the leisured, when introduced to the 'housemaid and the footman', will seem 'unintelligible, confused, erroneous'. The dignified parts of the Constitution, its theatre, are needed to win their non-'argumentative' adherence. Further, it is desirable to have the opinions of the most cultured weigh in public affairs disproportionately to their number, while finding mechanisms for the government to reflect the country, not remain the preserve of a single e.g. aristocratic or landowning interest. There are many reasons why the 'cadets' of this social class, in being tied too closely to their land and exposed to the temptations of pleasure (not business), will make for ordinarily mediocre administrators. The monarch is likely to be a dud on similar grounds.
Britain is, he finds, a 'Republic that has insinuated itself under the folds of a monarchy'. Its administration is for the most part simple and modern. Cabinet government provides the link between an elected parliament and the ministry. The role that, in theory, would yield most satisfaction to a seasoned statesman and man of close business is that of the monarch--who has seen what happened fourteen years ago; whose advice is necessarily listened to, in the formation and 'comtinuance' of ministries; and who might be a very intelligent man shaping the opinions of the intelligent masses. Yet though he gives rich and imaginative accounts of the monarch's part in the formation of governments (balefully exercised, in fact, in the reign of the craftily insane George III), Bagehot finds that the ultimate executive power lies less with the monarchical prerogative of dissolving parliaments, than in the power of governments to create new peers.
Bagehot is writing from the viewpoint of a moderate Whig, a reformer in theory who wants his reforms to secure a substantive need for good, strong government; for public order; for safety in emergencies such as the need to raise an army, and for continuity, especially in raising budgets, in peacetime. His opposition to a household franchise is that, in lowering the income bar, it would make almost all seats vulnerable to being bought, mostly by the new money of merchants and industrialists not previously interested in politics, and 'timid' in their revisions of law and policy. A system of patronage or party, or of one in which political administrators (men of 'business') emerged from a continuous cadre of civil servants, would be better suited to attracting men of talent to public office. Bagehot divides government into its 'dignified' and 'efficient' parts; the efficient actually do the work (in Commons, through Parliamentary committees and Blue-book reports). Most people who have to be represented in Parliament, he thinks, are 'narrow-minded, unintelligent, incurious' by the standards of the most cultivated ten thousand, almost as if they belong to an earlier era of human development. The most ordinary 'platitudes' of civilised intercourse for the leisured, when introduced to the 'housemaid and the footman', will seem 'unintelligible, confused, erroneous'. The dignified parts of the Constitution, its theatre, are needed to win their non-'argumentative' adherence. Further, it is desirable to have the opinions of the most cultured weigh in public affairs disproportionately to their number, while finding mechanisms for the government to reflect the country, not remain the preserve of a single e.g. aristocratic or landowning interest. There are many reasons why the 'cadets' of this social class, in being tied too closely to their land and exposed to the temptations of pleasure (not business), will make for ordinarily mediocre administrators. The monarch is likely to be a dud on similar grounds.
Britain is, he finds, a 'Republic that has insinuated itself under the folds of a monarchy'. Its administration is for the most part simple and modern. Cabinet government provides the link between an elected parliament and the ministry. The role that, in theory, would yield most satisfaction to a seasoned statesman and man of close business is that of the monarch--who has seen what happened fourteen years ago; whose advice is necessarily listened to, in the formation and 'comtinuance' of ministries; and who might be a very intelligent man shaping the opinions of the intelligent masses. Yet though he gives rich and imaginative accounts of the monarch's part in the formation of governments (balefully exercised, in fact, in the reign of the craftily insane George III), Bagehot finds that the ultimate executive power lies less with the monarchical prerogative of dissolving parliaments, than in the power of governments to create new peers.
July 31, 2023
Britain occupies the most noteworthy place in the growth and expansion of constitutionalism. The age of Tudor Despotism ended with the 'golden age’ of Queen Elizabeth. The Stuart monarchs had to face the antagonism of the people. The civil war of 1640-48 was conducted on the issue as to who was ‘absolute’ -- the law (lex) or the king (rex).
The downfall of the king and the triumph of the people confirmed the sovereignty of the people. What remained uncompleted in the civil war was accomplished in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 that laid the practicalities of the sovereignty of the Parliament. The movement for the democratisation of the system continued with the result that the great Reform Acts were passed in 1832, 1867 and 1884 that empowered more and more people.
The Parliament Act of 1911 crippled the House of Lords and its amendment of 1949 further condensed the area of authority of the House in matters of passing a non-money bill. The rise of two political parties had its own contribution to the development of constitutionalism in this country. It made the functioning of the parliamentary government a possibility.
Consequently, the sovereign stands removed from the area of political authority; the power is exercised by the ministers accountable to the Parliament; and that all citizens of the country, regardless of their social and political position, enjoy the advantages of liberty and equality, what Dicey calls the 'rule of law’.
What is of special importance in this regard is that English constitutionalism has supplied a 'continuity of life to liberal institutions through many centuries when elsewhere they were dead or had never lived, permitted the growth of its own institutions among those communities in all parts of the world of which England herself was the mother and supplied the pattern of a constitution when the moment came for any newly- liberated community to found one.
In the light of the above-mentioned discussion, this book is a classic. This book is not just about England, or even Britain. Bagehot deliberates the unusual virtues of the English system in the light of his country’s closest neighbour and then utmost rival, France; and also in comparison to, as Bagehot saw it, the only other free government in the world, the United States of America. He also at different points in the book alludes to the constitutional experiences of the Australian states.
Bagehot’s persistence in organizing this proportional method is simple but effective. He wished to disabuse his readers of the quaint notion that English-style parliamentary institutions could be exported to other countries, irrespective of national differences, differences of character, and differences of historical development.
Much of his venom over conventional ‘literary’ theories of the constitution is in fact reserved for people who believe that the separation of powers model of government had been copied from England by the founding fathers of the American Constitution in the mid-eighteenth century, and was capable of transplantation to the new Australian states in the mid-19th .
A must-read.
The downfall of the king and the triumph of the people confirmed the sovereignty of the people. What remained uncompleted in the civil war was accomplished in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 that laid the practicalities of the sovereignty of the Parliament. The movement for the democratisation of the system continued with the result that the great Reform Acts were passed in 1832, 1867 and 1884 that empowered more and more people.
The Parliament Act of 1911 crippled the House of Lords and its amendment of 1949 further condensed the area of authority of the House in matters of passing a non-money bill. The rise of two political parties had its own contribution to the development of constitutionalism in this country. It made the functioning of the parliamentary government a possibility.
Consequently, the sovereign stands removed from the area of political authority; the power is exercised by the ministers accountable to the Parliament; and that all citizens of the country, regardless of their social and political position, enjoy the advantages of liberty and equality, what Dicey calls the 'rule of law’.
What is of special importance in this regard is that English constitutionalism has supplied a 'continuity of life to liberal institutions through many centuries when elsewhere they were dead or had never lived, permitted the growth of its own institutions among those communities in all parts of the world of which England herself was the mother and supplied the pattern of a constitution when the moment came for any newly- liberated community to found one.
In the light of the above-mentioned discussion, this book is a classic. This book is not just about England, or even Britain. Bagehot deliberates the unusual virtues of the English system in the light of his country’s closest neighbour and then utmost rival, France; and also in comparison to, as Bagehot saw it, the only other free government in the world, the United States of America. He also at different points in the book alludes to the constitutional experiences of the Australian states.
Bagehot’s persistence in organizing this proportional method is simple but effective. He wished to disabuse his readers of the quaint notion that English-style parliamentary institutions could be exported to other countries, irrespective of national differences, differences of character, and differences of historical development.
Much of his venom over conventional ‘literary’ theories of the constitution is in fact reserved for people who believe that the separation of powers model of government had been copied from England by the founding fathers of the American Constitution in the mid-eighteenth century, and was capable of transplantation to the new Australian states in the mid-19th .
A must-read.
May 24, 2025
Walter Bagehot, nato il 3 febbraio 1826 a Langport, è stato un influente giornalista, economista e saggista britannico, noto principalmente per il suo lavoro La Costituzione inglese, pubblicato nel 1867. Quest'opera è considerata una delle analisi più significative del sistema costituzionale britannico, in cui Bagehot esplora il funzionamento del parlamento e della monarchia, mettendo in evidenza le differenze tra il governo britannico e quello americano.
Bagehot scrisse La Costituzione inglese non solo come un trattato giuridico, ma come un'osservazione pratica del funzionamento della politica britannica. Egli sosteneva che la forza della Costituzione risieda nella sua capacità di adattarsi e rispondere alle esigenze di una società in evoluzione. La sua analisi si concentra su due principi fondamentali: il "government by discussion" (governo attraverso il dibattito) e il "deference" (rispetto) da parte dei cittadini verso l'élite politica.
Il suo stile di scrittura è caratterizzato da una chiarezza incisiva e da un'analisi acuta, tipica del giornalismo dell'epoca. Bagehot riesce a sintetizzare concetti complessi in modo accessibile, rendendo le sue opere non solo informative ma anche piacevoli da leggere. La sua capacità di osservare la vita politica con uno sguardo critico e distaccato gli permette di offrire una visione profonda delle dinamiche sociali e politiche del suo tempo.
La Costituzione inglese è stata tradotta in diverse lingue ed è diventata un testo fondamentale per lo studio del costituzionalismo. La sua influenza si estende oltre il suo tempo, contribuendo al dibattito contemporaneo sulla democrazia e sulla governance. Inoltre, Bagehot ha avuto un ruolo significativo nel rafforzare The Economist, ampliando la sua portata e aumentando la sua influenza tra i decisori politici.
Walter Bagehot non solo ha fornito una critica incisiva della Costituzione britannica ma ha anche offerto un modello di analisi politica che continua a essere rilevante nel contesto attuale. La sua opera rimane un punto di riferimento per studiosi e appassionati di scienze politiche.
-----
Walter Bagehot, nel suo celebre saggio La Costituzione inglese, pubblicato nel 1867, espone diverse idee fondamentali riguardo al sistema politico britannico. Ecco le principali:
1. La Monarchia e il Parlamento
Bagehot distingue tra le due parti della Costituzione britannica: il "sistema di governo" e il "sistema di rappresentanza". Sostiene che la monarchia ha un ruolo simbolico e cerimoniale, mentre il Parlamento detiene il potere legislativo effettivo. La monarchia è descritta come un elemento stabilizzante, che contribuisce alla continuità e alla tradizione dello stato1.
2. La Sovranità Parlamentare
Una delle idee centrali di Bagehot è la sovranità del Parlamento. Egli afferma che il Parlamento può fare qualsiasi cosa che non sia naturalmente impossibile, sottolineando che non può vincolare i suoi successori. Questa concezione implica che ogni legge approvata dal Parlamento ha la precedenza su quelle precedenti, affermando quindi l'illimitatezza del potere legislativo.
3. Il "Governo per Discussione"
Bagehot enfatizza l'importanza del dibattito pubblico e della discussione nel processo politico. Crede che la democrazia britannica si basi sulla capacità dei cittadini di discutere e deliberare sulle questioni politiche, piuttosto che su una mera espressione di volontà popolare attraverso il voto.
4. Le Convenzioni Costituzionali
Un altro aspetto importante trattato da Bagehot è il ruolo delle convenzioni non scritte nella Costituzione britannica. Egli sostiene che molte delle regole che governano il comportamento politico non sono codificate ma sono basate su pratiche consolidate nel tempo, le quali sono essenziali per il funzionamento del sistema.
5. Il Ruolo delle Istituzioni
Bagehot analizza anche il ruolo delle istituzioni politiche, come i partiti politici e le elezioni, sottolineando come queste strutture contribuiscano a mantenere l'ordine e la stabilità all'interno della democrazia. La sua analisi mette in evidenza la necessità di un equilibrio tra potere esecutivo e legislativo.
La Costituzione inglese di Walter Bagehot offre una visione articolata e profonda del funzionamento della democrazia britannica, sottolineando l'importanza della tradizione, del dibattito pubblico e della sovranità parlamentare come elementi chiave del sistema politico.
------
In Inghilterra (e nel Regno Unito in generale) non esiste una costituzione scritta come quella italiana. La costituzione britannica è un sistema non codificato, basato su una combinazione di fonti diverse, che includono:
Statuti scritti: leggi fondamentali come la Magna Carta (1215), il Bill of Rights (1689) e l'Act of Settlement (1701).
Common law: decisioni giuridiche che hanno valore costituzionale.
Convenzioni costituzionali: prassi consolidate che regolano il funzionamento delle istituzioni, senza essere codificate formalmente.
Prerogative reali: poteri esercitati dalla Corona, spesso delegati al Primo Ministro o al governo.
Differenze principali con la Costituzione italiana
Codificazione: La Costituzione italiana è un documento unico e scritto, mentre quella del Regno Unito è frammentata e non codificata 16.
Flessibilità: La costituzione britannica è considerata "flessibile", poiché può essere modificata attraverso leggi ordinarie, a differenza della rigidità della Costituzione italiana, che richiede procedure aggravate per le modifiche.
Sovranità: Nel Regno Unito, la sovranità risiede nel Parlamento, mentre in Italia appartiene al popolo.
Il Regno Unito si distingue per il suo approccio evolutivo e non codificato alla costituzione, che si basa su un intreccio di documenti storici, leggi e consuetudini piuttosto che su un testo unico scritto.
-----
La Costituzione del Regno Unito è caratterizzata dalla sua natura non codificata, il che significa che non esiste un unico documento costituzionale. Le principali fonti della Costituzione inglese includono:
1. Statuti
Magna Carta (1215): Considerata il primo documento che limita il potere del monarca e stabilisce diritti fondamentali.
Bill of Rights (1689): Stabilisce i diritti dei cittadini e il ruolo centrale del Parlamento, limitando i poteri della monarchia.
Act of Settlement (1701): Regola la successione al trono e stabilisce principi di indipendenza giudiziaria.
Parliament Acts (1911 e 1949): Consentono al Parlamento di approvare leggi senza l'approvazione della Camera dei Lords in determinate circostanze.
2. Common Law
Le decisioni giuridiche dei tribunali, che creano precedenti vincolanti, sono una fonte fondamentale del diritto costituzionale britannico. Queste decisioni influenzano l'interpretazione delle leggi e dei diritti.
3. Convenzioni Costituzionali
Le convenzioni, ovvero le prassi non scritte che regolano il comportamento delle istituzioni politiche, giocano un ruolo cruciale nel funzionamento della Costituzione. Ad esempio, la prassi secondo cui il Primo Ministro deve essere un membro della Camera dei Comuni è una convenzione fondamentale.
4. Trattati Internazionali
I trattati ratificati dal Regno Unito possono avere un impatto significativo sulle leggi nazionali e sui diritti dei cittadini, specialmente in relazione ai diritti umani.
5. Diritto Comunitario
Fino alla Brexit, le normative europee avevano un'importanza notevole nel contesto costituzionale britannico, influenzando i diritti e le leggi nazionali.
In sintesi, la Costituzione inglese si basa su una pluralità di fonti, tra cui statuti storici, common law, convenzioni e trattati internazionali, creando un sistema costituzionale flessibile e in continua evoluzione.
Bagehot scrisse La Costituzione inglese non solo come un trattato giuridico, ma come un'osservazione pratica del funzionamento della politica britannica. Egli sosteneva che la forza della Costituzione risieda nella sua capacità di adattarsi e rispondere alle esigenze di una società in evoluzione. La sua analisi si concentra su due principi fondamentali: il "government by discussion" (governo attraverso il dibattito) e il "deference" (rispetto) da parte dei cittadini verso l'élite politica.
Il suo stile di scrittura è caratterizzato da una chiarezza incisiva e da un'analisi acuta, tipica del giornalismo dell'epoca. Bagehot riesce a sintetizzare concetti complessi in modo accessibile, rendendo le sue opere non solo informative ma anche piacevoli da leggere. La sua capacità di osservare la vita politica con uno sguardo critico e distaccato gli permette di offrire una visione profonda delle dinamiche sociali e politiche del suo tempo.
La Costituzione inglese è stata tradotta in diverse lingue ed è diventata un testo fondamentale per lo studio del costituzionalismo. La sua influenza si estende oltre il suo tempo, contribuendo al dibattito contemporaneo sulla democrazia e sulla governance. Inoltre, Bagehot ha avuto un ruolo significativo nel rafforzare The Economist, ampliando la sua portata e aumentando la sua influenza tra i decisori politici.
Walter Bagehot non solo ha fornito una critica incisiva della Costituzione britannica ma ha anche offerto un modello di analisi politica che continua a essere rilevante nel contesto attuale. La sua opera rimane un punto di riferimento per studiosi e appassionati di scienze politiche.
-----
Walter Bagehot, nel suo celebre saggio La Costituzione inglese, pubblicato nel 1867, espone diverse idee fondamentali riguardo al sistema politico britannico. Ecco le principali:
1. La Monarchia e il Parlamento
Bagehot distingue tra le due parti della Costituzione britannica: il "sistema di governo" e il "sistema di rappresentanza". Sostiene che la monarchia ha un ruolo simbolico e cerimoniale, mentre il Parlamento detiene il potere legislativo effettivo. La monarchia è descritta come un elemento stabilizzante, che contribuisce alla continuità e alla tradizione dello stato1.
2. La Sovranità Parlamentare
Una delle idee centrali di Bagehot è la sovranità del Parlamento. Egli afferma che il Parlamento può fare qualsiasi cosa che non sia naturalmente impossibile, sottolineando che non può vincolare i suoi successori. Questa concezione implica che ogni legge approvata dal Parlamento ha la precedenza su quelle precedenti, affermando quindi l'illimitatezza del potere legislativo.
3. Il "Governo per Discussione"
Bagehot enfatizza l'importanza del dibattito pubblico e della discussione nel processo politico. Crede che la democrazia britannica si basi sulla capacità dei cittadini di discutere e deliberare sulle questioni politiche, piuttosto che su una mera espressione di volontà popolare attraverso il voto.
4. Le Convenzioni Costituzionali
Un altro aspetto importante trattato da Bagehot è il ruolo delle convenzioni non scritte nella Costituzione britannica. Egli sostiene che molte delle regole che governano il comportamento politico non sono codificate ma sono basate su pratiche consolidate nel tempo, le quali sono essenziali per il funzionamento del sistema.
5. Il Ruolo delle Istituzioni
Bagehot analizza anche il ruolo delle istituzioni politiche, come i partiti politici e le elezioni, sottolineando come queste strutture contribuiscano a mantenere l'ordine e la stabilità all'interno della democrazia. La sua analisi mette in evidenza la necessità di un equilibrio tra potere esecutivo e legislativo.
La Costituzione inglese di Walter Bagehot offre una visione articolata e profonda del funzionamento della democrazia britannica, sottolineando l'importanza della tradizione, del dibattito pubblico e della sovranità parlamentare come elementi chiave del sistema politico.
------
In Inghilterra (e nel Regno Unito in generale) non esiste una costituzione scritta come quella italiana. La costituzione britannica è un sistema non codificato, basato su una combinazione di fonti diverse, che includono:
Statuti scritti: leggi fondamentali come la Magna Carta (1215), il Bill of Rights (1689) e l'Act of Settlement (1701).
Common law: decisioni giuridiche che hanno valore costituzionale.
Convenzioni costituzionali: prassi consolidate che regolano il funzionamento delle istituzioni, senza essere codificate formalmente.
Prerogative reali: poteri esercitati dalla Corona, spesso delegati al Primo Ministro o al governo.
Differenze principali con la Costituzione italiana
Codificazione: La Costituzione italiana è un documento unico e scritto, mentre quella del Regno Unito è frammentata e non codificata 16.
Flessibilità: La costituzione britannica è considerata "flessibile", poiché può essere modificata attraverso leggi ordinarie, a differenza della rigidità della Costituzione italiana, che richiede procedure aggravate per le modifiche.
Sovranità: Nel Regno Unito, la sovranità risiede nel Parlamento, mentre in Italia appartiene al popolo.
Il Regno Unito si distingue per il suo approccio evolutivo e non codificato alla costituzione, che si basa su un intreccio di documenti storici, leggi e consuetudini piuttosto che su un testo unico scritto.
-----
La Costituzione del Regno Unito è caratterizzata dalla sua natura non codificata, il che significa che non esiste un unico documento costituzionale. Le principali fonti della Costituzione inglese includono:
1. Statuti
Magna Carta (1215): Considerata il primo documento che limita il potere del monarca e stabilisce diritti fondamentali.
Bill of Rights (1689): Stabilisce i diritti dei cittadini e il ruolo centrale del Parlamento, limitando i poteri della monarchia.
Act of Settlement (1701): Regola la successione al trono e stabilisce principi di indipendenza giudiziaria.
Parliament Acts (1911 e 1949): Consentono al Parlamento di approvare leggi senza l'approvazione della Camera dei Lords in determinate circostanze.
2. Common Law
Le decisioni giuridiche dei tribunali, che creano precedenti vincolanti, sono una fonte fondamentale del diritto costituzionale britannico. Queste decisioni influenzano l'interpretazione delle leggi e dei diritti.
3. Convenzioni Costituzionali
Le convenzioni, ovvero le prassi non scritte che regolano il comportamento delle istituzioni politiche, giocano un ruolo cruciale nel funzionamento della Costituzione. Ad esempio, la prassi secondo cui il Primo Ministro deve essere un membro della Camera dei Comuni è una convenzione fondamentale.
4. Trattati Internazionali
I trattati ratificati dal Regno Unito possono avere un impatto significativo sulle leggi nazionali e sui diritti dei cittadini, specialmente in relazione ai diritti umani.
5. Diritto Comunitario
Fino alla Brexit, le normative europee avevano un'importanza notevole nel contesto costituzionale britannico, influenzando i diritti e le leggi nazionali.
In sintesi, la Costituzione inglese si basa su una pluralità di fonti, tra cui statuti storici, common law, convenzioni e trattati internazionali, creando un sistema costituzionale flessibile e in continua evoluzione.
February 29, 2024
This book is one of the most famous explanations of the English Constitution and includes a critical analysis of the Reform Act of 1867. I was impressed with its insightful perspective in explaining the political structure, its erudition in comparing various systems, and its staunch defense of true liberty.
In Bagehot’s eyes, the English Constitution has two essential parts: the Dignified and the Efficient. “The brief description of the characteristic merit of the English Constitution is that its dignified parts are very complicated and somewhat imposing, very old and rather venerable; while its efficient part, at least when in great and critical action, is decidedly simple and rather modern.” It did not imply that the Dignified parts were useless; on the contrary, they played essential parts in arousing reverence, especially in the lower class, by their theatrical effects. Fundamentally, it was because of the unequal development of the human race. During the mid-Victorian era, there was still a large portion of people who did not receive sound education or occupied enough property. For instance, the monarch acted like a disguise, under which the real rulers changed frequently without the notice of heedless people. A constitutional monarch was different from a dictator. “The Emperor represents a different idea from the Queen. He is not the head of the State; he IS the State.” House of Lords was also essential, for it prevented the rule of wealth and the overdue desire for office. e. “If we had an ideal House of Commons perfectly representing the nation, always moderate, never passionate, abounding in men of leisure, never omitting the slow and steady forms necessary for good consideration, it is certain that we should not need a higher chamber.” The upper house checked the power of the lower one, which dominated the politics.
The author’s disapproval of universal suffrage was also instructive. He feared that politicians would bid for the support of the working class, who were ignorant and poor at that time, and therefore, “vox populi will be vox Diaboli.” In a word, he was afraid that the 1867 Reform would bring a multitude of uneducated men who were inclined to be passionate and would disrupt a moderate and calm parliament.
In Bagehot’s eyes, the English Constitution has two essential parts: the Dignified and the Efficient. “The brief description of the characteristic merit of the English Constitution is that its dignified parts are very complicated and somewhat imposing, very old and rather venerable; while its efficient part, at least when in great and critical action, is decidedly simple and rather modern.” It did not imply that the Dignified parts were useless; on the contrary, they played essential parts in arousing reverence, especially in the lower class, by their theatrical effects. Fundamentally, it was because of the unequal development of the human race. During the mid-Victorian era, there was still a large portion of people who did not receive sound education or occupied enough property. For instance, the monarch acted like a disguise, under which the real rulers changed frequently without the notice of heedless people. A constitutional monarch was different from a dictator. “The Emperor represents a different idea from the Queen. He is not the head of the State; he IS the State.” House of Lords was also essential, for it prevented the rule of wealth and the overdue desire for office. e. “If we had an ideal House of Commons perfectly representing the nation, always moderate, never passionate, abounding in men of leisure, never omitting the slow and steady forms necessary for good consideration, it is certain that we should not need a higher chamber.” The upper house checked the power of the lower one, which dominated the politics.
The author’s disapproval of universal suffrage was also instructive. He feared that politicians would bid for the support of the working class, who were ignorant and poor at that time, and therefore, “vox populi will be vox Diaboli.” In a word, he was afraid that the 1867 Reform would bring a multitude of uneducated men who were inclined to be passionate and would disrupt a moderate and calm parliament.
March 29, 2023
"The English Constitution" is a book written by Walter Bagehot, a British journalist and economist, in 1867. The book is a classic work on the British political system and has been considered a fundamental reference for students of constitutional law and political science.
In the book, Bagehot analyzes the political system of Britain, focusing on the monarchy, the cabinet, and the parliament. He examines the historical development of these institutions, their functions and powers, and their interrelationships.
Bagehot argues that the British constitution is unwritten and flexible, with no single document or code defining its structure and functioning. He emphasizes the importance of the monarchy as a symbol of national unity and continuity, and of the cabinet as the real source of executive power.
Bagehot's analysis of the parliament, its two houses and the role of political parties, provides an insightful explanation of the workings of the British political system. He also discusses the relationship between the judiciary and the other branches of government, and the influence of public opinion on the functioning of the constitution.
Overall, "The English Constitution" provides a comprehensive and thought-provoking analysis of the British political system, and has remained a significant reference for scholars and practitioners in the field.
GPT
In the book, Bagehot analyzes the political system of Britain, focusing on the monarchy, the cabinet, and the parliament. He examines the historical development of these institutions, their functions and powers, and their interrelationships.
Bagehot argues that the British constitution is unwritten and flexible, with no single document or code defining its structure and functioning. He emphasizes the importance of the monarchy as a symbol of national unity and continuity, and of the cabinet as the real source of executive power.
Bagehot's analysis of the parliament, its two houses and the role of political parties, provides an insightful explanation of the workings of the British political system. He also discusses the relationship between the judiciary and the other branches of government, and the influence of public opinion on the functioning of the constitution.
Overall, "The English Constitution" provides a comprehensive and thought-provoking analysis of the British political system, and has remained a significant reference for scholars and practitioners in the field.
GPT
December 17, 2019
A genuinely fascinating book, and a work of political philosophy and political science that has largely stood the test of time. Bagehot ably describes features of parliamentary governments, such as the tendency for the legislature and executive to be 'fused', more effectively than modern textbooks, and his discussion of the differences between parliamentary and presidential systems, though based off limited data, are eerily similar to those that take place today. Although some elements of the book have not aged so well (his mercifully limited description of Indians and his much more substantial musings on the idiocy of the lower classes), they are the prejudices of the time and to be expected. Overall, this is a classic text for good reason, and I cannot recommend it enough.
June 10, 2018
This book, though difficult to get through at times, has increased my understanding of, as the title states, The English Constitution. I was, admittedly, turned to this book by Netflix's "The Crown".
Bagehot does an excellent job of making his case (Though in posterity, the case may have changed quickly). As usual, the Oxford Worlds Classics team does a tremendous job at giving a historical background to the work itself. The chapters on the Monarchy, the workings of Cabinet, as well as the House of Lords were insightful, considering that most of British Politics that we come across are the result of the House of Commons.
A wonderful and insightful book.
Bagehot does an excellent job of making his case (Though in posterity, the case may have changed quickly). As usual, the Oxford Worlds Classics team does a tremendous job at giving a historical background to the work itself. The chapters on the Monarchy, the workings of Cabinet, as well as the House of Lords were insightful, considering that most of British Politics that we come across are the result of the House of Commons.
A wonderful and insightful book.
April 25, 2020
As the introduction makes clear, this book cannot be read as a conclusive, ahistorical guide to the realities of the English Constitution. It is, however, very useful if read in the context of the mid-19th century as the U.K. grappled with constitutional and suffrage debates and how reform may affect the historic constitution. Bagehot’s wit provides a number of phrases that transcend the period and his style itself is very enjoyable. For me, the book was most valuable in understanding how the constitution was understood then and comparing that with the conceptions of the constitution today.
May 23, 2021
Compare and Contrast
The English Constitution is not a concise written one. Rather, it descends from the English common law tradition of precedent and tradition. Bagehot was the consummate commentator of his time, and discusses the perils and pluses of the English Constitution and compares them to the American and the various European governments. Through his analysis of English Constitutional history, development and execution, Bagehot provides the reader with concise insights on modern British governance. An interesting read.
The English Constitution is not a concise written one. Rather, it descends from the English common law tradition of precedent and tradition. Bagehot was the consummate commentator of his time, and discusses the perils and pluses of the English Constitution and compares them to the American and the various European governments. Through his analysis of English Constitutional history, development and execution, Bagehot provides the reader with concise insights on modern British governance. An interesting read.
March 31, 2022
Fallen prey to the forgotten annals of history, more technical writing on how Parliament functions can be seen as irrelevant to Parliament today (for instance, the role of the Lords, which would be stripped of most of its powers in the decades following).
Nevertheless, certain elements have held up rather well. The role of media and public opinion in the loss of favour to present governments, the need for an opposition to hold the government accountable and the justification of the monarchy all remain relevant in these present times
Nevertheless, certain elements have held up rather well. The role of media and public opinion in the loss of favour to present governments, the need for an opposition to hold the government accountable and the justification of the monarchy all remain relevant in these present times
August 29, 2023
He offers some interesting thoughts on aspects of British political life and has the gift of writing beautifully – at times; however, this is weakened by saying three words when one would do. So often he writes in the most unnecessary and convoluted way that only weakens the flow of his essays. I cannot comment on the facts of his work, but considering the reputation it has amongst political scholars, there is obviously good reason for people to continue reading his work. Should what he says be true and fair, any person interested in British political history ought to read a copy.
October 5, 2020
I discovered Walter Bagehot and this work when it featured in a list of "Oxford World's Classics" on the final couple of pages of James George Frazer's "The Golden Bough". I am looking forward to reading it, because it is described as "the best account of the history and workings of the British political system ever written".
April 20, 2022
This isn't really my cup of tea. I found it a bit of a slog to read. Perhaps I wasn't in the right mood for it. It is interesting as a historical document I think but Bagehot is an utter snob and it helps make this a bit of a drag to read.
I'm sure someone can help explain why I should like it more than I did.
But nope. Not for me.
I'm sure someone can help explain why I should like it more than I did.
But nope. Not for me.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews