British Constitution

Author: Luo Haocai
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2005-03-10
Features: Introduction: The book Constitutional Studies by Walter Bagehot has garnered some attention in our country, but it is a work worthy of even broader recognition. However, the title of the book offers little hint of its profound content and is certainly not to the taste of American readers, potentially leading to misinterpretation. Therefore, the publication of a new, more affordable edition of this book, accompanied by a few introductory remarks, may prove beneficial in avoiding such misunderstandings.
It is well-known that the term "constitution" carries vastly different meanings in the United States and the United Kingdom in a political sense. For us, it refers to a written legal document enacted at a specific moment, serving as the supreme law of the nation. Thus, when a book on the U.S. Constitution is published, without adopting a historical approach, it may resemble a commentary on the meaning of the constitution. In other words, it functions as a legal treatise offering a technical interpretation of a legal document. However, the British lack such a written document. For them, the constitution signifies their actual social and political order—a set of laws, customs, and precedents inherited from preceding generations and governing the actions of the current government. Consequently, a work on the British constitution naturally brings to mind its relation to the structure and practical functioning of British political institutions and social life.
The U.S. Constitution was "drafted" by a convention, while the British constitution evolved over centuries. Therefore, books on the two constitutions may differ significantly. Just as a carpenter's manual differs from a physiology manual—one belongs to the realm of construction art, while the other to the field of natural science. When studying the U.S. Constitution, we often delve into the meaning of printed text by exploring the "intent of the framers," "rules of construction," and the knowledge of legal scholars. In contrast, the study of British law allows us to confront facts and phenomena more directly—or to face the rules of political activity, social changes, and national growth. Clearly, these subjects are suitable for scientific treatment, aimed at uncovering natural causes and the operation of underlying laws, thus holding great appeal for students of political philosophy. Bagehot's work is, in fact (if not in form), written with this in mind. It is imbued with a scientific spirit, though technically it does not employ a scientific methodology. Many readers are already familiar with the author's tendency and ability to approach public issues from a scientific perspective through his influential work, Physics and Politics. Constitutional Studies belongs to the same category, with its themes often touching on the principles of human nature and the natural laws of human society. It is an exploration of British political experience; a perceptive, critical, and non-emotional discussion of British political institutions, aimed at explaining how these institutions function and identifying their strengths and weaknesses.
The author is more of a calm, wise explorer than a partisan activist or demagogue. He is erudite, insightful, and offers original perspectives, far free from the prejudice of "narrow-minded regionalism under the guise of patriotism" that he himself criticizes. His critiques of British institutional shortcomings are sharp and incisive, while his affirmations of their strengths are sincere, impartial, and well-reasoned. Guided by a scientific mindset, his discussions of ancient traditions and modern innovations, aristocratic privileges and democratic tendencies are free from bias. When considering the Cabinet, the Monarchy, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, he examines them from the perspective of their dynamic interplay and links them to British customs, traditions, culture, and character. The book is undoubtedly filled with instructive anecdotes, insightful reflections on the motivations behind human behavior, the exercise of power by individuals or political entities, the adaptation of social institutions to the living conditions and environments of different strata, and countless political and social philosophy concepts that will interest all students of politics and society.
Bagehot's work has much to offer in relation to the state of our own country. In various places, his comparisons between the Cabinet system and the presidential system raise questions relevant to our own institutions. The importance of these issues grows as our nation gains more experience. However, Americans should read this book not only for the interesting information it contains and its precise revelation of the internal political systems of a great nation (from which our own is largely derived) but also because it will exert an ever-expanding, liberalizing influence on the intellectual life of our country.
Our nation is prone to viewing the governments of all other countries with a prejudiced disdain. Our political science, preoccupied primarily with selfish and sordid interests and bitter individual competition, tends to exclude all scientific inquiry and broad, free research into political principles from this field of thought. Narrow-mindedness leads to contempt for all foreign things that differ from our own institutions and practices. A renowned professor at one of our famous universities remarked that when students finally acquire some ideas in political science in their later years, the lack of relevant knowledge—such as ignorance of comparative politics—due to their own national limitations is deeply embarrassing. The only remedy for this narrowness is to engage in travel and broader observation, or to conduct relevant research and read books that offer clear and fair concepts of the politics of other major nations.
Bagehot's analysis of the British constitution will help us achieve this purpose. Moreover, we doubt whether there is a more useful book available to citizens before traveling to Britain. It will help Americans understand many things that occur in an ancient country and initially may seem puzzling and unpleasant. In a nation with such a long history, all that impresses one is so different from what one is accustomed to seeing.
It should be further noted that Bagehot's book possesses engaging readability, which is evident from its title and subject matter. It is written in a natural, lively style, with a light, witty touch and appropriate diction, making it worthy of inclusion among the finest examples of high-quality prose. The appended articles on the personalities of Brougham and Peel, previously unseen in our country, are sure to be widely read, as they not only provide further clarification of modern British politics but also offer interesting insights into the intellectual lives of two outstanding figures of the public life of the past generation.
E. L. Y.
February 1877, New York