Mother Of Parliaments Research Articles

‘This is a sovereign assembly’: popular sovereignty, parliament and the people in the Irish Free State

ABSTRACT The stability of Irish democracy since 1922 is often a cause for contentment with lines of succession drawn from ‘Grattan’s parliament’, O’Connell’s popular movement, and the achievements of the Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP) at Westminster through to Dáil Éireann. The IPP certainly disrupted the Commons, yet Irish politics was also shaped by the ‘mother of parliaments’ – MPs mastered parliamentary procedure and home rule legislation drew on British and colonial parliamentary models. By 1918, the party’s machine and parliamentary behaviour were rejected as much as British rule – but as Michael Laffan suggested, Sinn Féin triumphed by beating the home rulers at their own game. However, the 1922 constitution gave generous expression to the sovereignty of the people, and for judicial review. But, within short succession, facility for popular initiative was overridden. Ironically, the Irish Free State would never be amended by popular will or judicial review but by parliamentary majority in 25 amendments as the people only voted to adopt it in 1922 and replace it in 1937. In practice then, it was closer to a vision of Dicey's supremacy of parliament dogma that prevailed, so much so, that Seán Lemass acrimoniously proclaimed in 1934: ‘this is a sovereign assembly’.

There is something rotten in the mother of parliaments

There is something rotten in the mother of parliaments

Ustav, populizam i kraj liberalne demokracije - "referendumanija" ugrožava temelje ustavnog poretka

Democracies are at risk to be strangled by the populist demagogues, posturing as the only and true leaders of 'the people', while disregarding constitutional "structure of liberty", meaning that, the parliamentary supremacy, judicial review and, above all, the constitutional limits to the very direct decision making by the voters' constituencies. Referenda are being used ever more, often to push certain decision, which could not pass the parliament. The claim is that there must not be any limits to the power of the people. That phenomenon the most esteemed liberal magazine "The Economist" nicknamed coining the word "referendumania", apparently combining 'a mania' with 'referenda'. It has been received with a lot of sympathy by the general public, in circumstances when the television and the Internet shows all the misery of the numerous assemblies, not only in a new but also in the mature democracies. After the referendum on the Brexit has been used as an instrument of the political struggle in the mother of parliaments, Great Britain, which lead to the ongoing "melting down" of the highly valued British political system, it seems that the worst of prophecies are realized by advancing populist forces in a number of Euroepan states. Republic of Croatia has been for a long time exposed to such treats, by the political groups extremely opposed to governmental policies, first by the Catholic conservatives and most recently by the trade unionists. Due to the very inadequate regulation of the referenda on civil initiatives, whereas the decision is to be made by a majority of those who vote, without any quorum being provided, the posibilites of manipulation are enormous. In the lasting confusion, a number of politicians has already proclaimed their intention, if elected the president of the Republic, to use such a referendum in order to remove all the checks and balances between the chief of state and "the people". Taking such treats very seriously in the existing crisis of democracy, the author emphasizes hi plead for an interparty agreement which would enable the referendum to be properly regulated and thus incorporated into the system of a democratic constitutional democracy.

No (Parliamentary) Gender Gap Please, We're British

Although the number of women MPs has increased in recent years, there continues to be a pronounced gender gap in the British House of Commons. Most attempts to close this gap have involved political parties selecting candidates on the basis of some form of electoral gender quota, but quotas are problematic, and more radical steps need to be taken if we are serious about women being equally represented in the Mother of Parliaments. This article proposes a possible solution that accords as far as possible with Britain's governing and representative traditions: the modification of current electoral arrangements so that voters in each constituency vote for and are represented by both a male and a female MP.

Work Study Volume 26 Issue 3

IT was in September that we asked “What do Bullocks Produce?”. Well, now we know; and a right mess of controversy is the result. Or is it a result or, rather, a cause the result of which may well sound the virtual end of British business as we have known it and it has been built up over the years? It could also sound the death‐knell of the Mother of Parliaments; for power is being given, irrevocably, to the Unions.

The New African Chiefs

WHEN the parliamentary bodies, the national assemblies of Kenya, Sierra Leone, Tanzania convene, the mace, the wig, the Hansard, the speakership denote an endowment from the former colonial mentor and Mother of Parliaments, England. Front benches are reserved for the Ministers of Government. Oppositions, such as they are in many of the newly emergent African states of British vintage, face one another or, in one-party states, dissent is heard from the back benches. Inheritance of British parliamentary forms by youthful African states has been extensive. The substance of the democratic bequest from Britain as accepted and practiced by these and other new nations is quite another question. For African statesmen are quickly developing their ideals, adapting the colonial bequests to their own needs.

British Food Journal Volume 67 Issue 10 1965

For upwards of a century the Mother of Parliaments has pioneered social and particularly public health legislation all over the world. The parliamentary democracies planted by Mother England in forty new Englands beyond the seas followed our lead. We have grown accustomed to this and it is now something of a shock to find this is no longer completely true. Except perhaps in housing, we do not lead in this field, but seem to be following. It was always said of the law “You cannot legislate in advance of public opinion!” In the control of food purity and quality, public opinion cannot be the arbiter and for it, there has to be substituted research, technology and scientific knowledge. During recent years, this country has tended to follow the U.S.A. in food control legislation; at least that part of it which deals with chemical treatment and food additives. This casts no reflection on the advances made in Britain, but these are neither adequate nor fast enough to keep abreast of the food technological explosion. The vast research programmes in the U.S.A., are better able to do this; their complaint is not of the shortage of money, only of brains. In the taxed‐to‐death, economic wilderness that is now Britain, we have the brains, but no money. It is hardly surprising that those with brains should seek in foreign fields the rewards and appreciation to which they are entitled.

“MOTHER OF PARLIAMENTS”

“MOTHER OF PARLIAMENTS”

Basic Problems of the Canadian Constitution

Canadian constitutional lore is full of the most amazing paradoxes. The Dominion has a written constitution; but, if the function of a written constitution is to introduce certainty and finality into a polity, this is precisely what Canada's written constitution fails to accomplish. Preposterous as it may seem, no one knows where the constitution begins or ends. The usual answer to a question about the “document” is that the constitution consists of the British North America Act of 1867 and its amendments. The superficiality of this answer is immediately revealed when one asks, Which amendments? The Rowell-Sirois Commission, which made elaborate studies of the background and functioning of the constitutional system, accepts and prints six amendments, the last one of which is dated 1916. Yet this is patently mistaken, for the Statute of Westminster, 1931, placed by the Commission immediately after its “last” amendment, definitely implies at least one later change by its citation of the “British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930.” There is little doubt, too, that the British North America Acts referred to in the Statute of Westminster did not include two of the amendments printed by the Commission (those of 1907 and 1916) and possibly even a third (that of 1875). After meditating on the apparent inaccuracy of the Royal Commission, no one should be surprised to recall that in 1930 the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Ferguson) advanced the view that the number of constitutional “modifications” at that date totalled thirty-three instead of the three about which there is evidently no doubt. Indeed, even the Mother of Parliaments has been misled by one of her Daughter-Parliaments into an erroneous citation of these Acts in her most solemn constitutional enactment, the Statute of Westminster. This is clearly revealed by the belated and surreptitious attempt made in the constitutional amendment of 1940 to tack on one of the earlier amendments omitted from the British North America Acts as defined in the Statute.

British By-Elections Between the Wars

The electoral system of Britain provides students of representative government and observers of voting behavior with a large and valuable field of investigation. The Mother of Parliaments has been elected on a democratic basis since 1918, and the constituency pattern which was rearranged after the first World War has continued down to the present time. The party picture too, although constantly changing, has not been altered fundamentally during the period. We have therefore an interesting and satisfactory span of time between the two world wars in which to examine the various aspects of British electoral institutions and behavior.

The Teutonic Origins of Representative Government

Representative government, as every student of political science well knows, is now under fire. While it is not necessary to take too seriously the statements made by delirious purveyors of new remedies for old discontents, we cannot fail to take note of the fact that a strong tide of opinion has set in against this famous institution of democracy. On the continent of Europe, dictators either reject it entirely or seek to reduce it to purely advisory functions. In England, rumblings are heard to the effect that the Mother of Parliaments is not well herself; propositions for drastic changes come from members of the House of Commons; and if economic depression and unemployment continue for another ten years it is highly probable that some radical experiments will be made in the direction of concentrating economic powers. The United States is not without its troubles. When in the summer of 1931, with the deepening of the industrial crisis, it was urged that a special session of Congress be called to deal with national distress, President Hoover rather tartly rejected the petition and indicated that our great representative body was more likely to retard than to help “the process of recovery.”

The Position of the British Parliament

The British Parliament has been passing through a period of pianissimo. Its praises should be sounded very softly, while its inadequacies and imperfections should be given wide attention. This does not imply a lack of veneration and respect for the Mother of Parliaments, but merely that a realistic approach should be made to the present-day value of this progenitor of the sturdy race of legislatures. No political institution is eternally successful, and even British institutions which have evolved so slowly, and in general so soundly, are no exceptions. The halo which surrounds Westminster is so great, however, that it almost blinds one to the imperfections which exist within those hallowed precincts. It seems almost sacrilegious, as a great British statesman recently observed, to attempt to meddle with “those great forms of procedure which have been handed down to us.” And yet when the Mother of Parliaments has so obviously deteriorated as to lose much of the respect and prestige which was formerly its possession, one seems justified in calling attention to its inadequacies.The fact is that in the last thirty years Parliament has gradually become an inefficient legislative body which does not effectively control the government, and which the people can hardly be said to control. As early as 1908, President Lowell wrote that “the House of Commons is finding more and more difficulty in passing any effective vote, except a vote of censure.” In 1931, it is doubtful whether even this can be done in a satisfactory way.

The Mother of Parliaments

NO ONE who examines the present position of parliamen tary government in England can be satisfied with it. The sense is widespread that it no longer functions with the ease and efficiency which would make it the proper vehicle for carrying the burden it has to bear. It is not only that it is over whelmed by the pressure of business. It is not only that, in the ordinary conditions of majority rule, it is so dominated by the power of the Cabinet that the independent judgment of the pri vate member has virtually ceased to exist. It is not even that the composition of the House of Lords is a tragic anachronism in the democratic state. The difficulties go deeper than issues which even large procedural changes can solve. Such issues are, indeed, vital in all conscience. But what is coming rapidly into the foreground of discussion is the very thesis of parliamentary government it self.

The Bicameral System in State Legislation

The submission of proposals for the abolition of the state senate to the people of Oregon at the two preceding general elections is occasion for a summary of considerations in reference to the bicameral system of legislation.The bicameral system has been so long and so widely prevalent that until very recently its “necessity” has been almost universally regarded as “a demonstrated truth.” The British legislature, “the mother of parliaments,” is a development from the assembly of “estates.” Five distinct “estates” were present in the “Model Parliament” of 1295, but through the consolidation of interests, the organization of two legislative chambers, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, was soon evolved. The origin of the bicameral system was thus “not owing to any conviction that two houses would work better than either one or three, but was a matter of sheer accident,” and was not “the invention of any clever constitution-maker.” The bicameral system of legislation, generally based upon English precedent, has usually followed the extension of constitutional government, and at present most national legislatures consist of two chambers.

Remarks on President Goodnow's Paper

I have listened with unusual interest to the learned paper on “Reform in China” just read by President Goodnow. It seems to me, however, that the Occidental people find no end of difficulty in understanding and interpreting our Oriental laws, customs, and institutions. We are told, for instance, that the Chinese like other Asians, who are mainly agricultural peoples, are unfit for representative government. I doubt if this statement can stand the test of adequate proof. Take, for example, the people of China, whose recorded history runs back to 2800 B. C. These Celestials, these agriculturalists, had from time immemorial enjoyed local self-government, had been accustomed to “take communal action:” they would close up their business and resist the imposition of an unjust tax. It is to be remembered that the powers of the mother of parliaments developed in this fashion. “The financial functions of parliamentary assemblies are always the centre of their action.”In India, another agricultural country, we had the village community which contained the true germs of representative government. These village communities have frequently been described by such authorities as Sir Charles Metcalf, Sir Henry Maine as “little republics.”

The Relation Between the Legislative and Executive Branches of the Canadian Government

As is well known, the Canadian system of government belongs to the British type of responsible parliamentary government in which there is the most intimate connection between the legislative and executive functions, and in which also the constitution is a flexible combination of laws and usages, many of the latter more binding, and in some cases even more unalterable than the laws. However, the Canadian system of government was not always of this character, and even yet it differs in many more or less essential features from the central type. In the first place, the line of historic arrival in Canada, while presenting certain interesting though unconscious parallels with the development of the mother of parliaments, yet differs materially from the long, slow and tentative process by which the British government and its constitutional mechanism were worked out. In the second place, the colony of Canada, after its conquest from France, was first of all a definite dependency of the mother country, to which constitutional privileges were granted from time to time, and later the Dominion of Canada was a combination of several practically independent provinces and territories in varying degrees of economic and political realization. This involved a written constitution apportioning and defining the divided sovereignty assigned to the Dominion and the provinces, leaving that element of sovereignty which pertains to the mother country indefinite and debatable, a tide of imperial influence which ebbs and flows from day to day, and is subject to the high and neap tides of imperial sentiment.