Abstract
Parliamentarianism, as Kurt Sontheimer has observed, has a great traditionl. However, as with many concepts enjoying longevity and positive connotations, defining what is entailed by the term poses problems. “Essential to a reasonable understanding of parliamentarianism”, suggests Sontheimer, “is that the parliament has its own authority, that it is indispensable for the formulation of state will — that is, primarily for legislation — and also that it is capable of subjecting the government it has installed (the parliamentary system in the fullest sense) — or with which it works side by side — to a certain amount of control”2. Such a broad rubric provides us with the opportunity to identify parliamentary systems. But when we turn to the particulars of those systems, what is expected of the parliaments that occupy them? As Professor Sontheimer notes, parliaments in the western world have to fulfil quite different functions within their systems of government. Those functions are not static. The nineteenth century was seen by many as the heyday of parliamentarianism. Since then, the pressures of democracy and industrialisation have led to a ‘decline’ of parliamentarianism, various functions ascribed to parliaments being dispensed with, others being fulfilled with less than optimum effectiveness. For the political scientist, the problem is one of discerning trends that are common to parliaments — the decline in parliamentarianism — and those that are specific to one particular parliament. A study both of the history and the contemporary position of the British House of Commons demonstrates well the difficulty of the enterprise.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
K. Sontheimer, Parliamentarianism in Modern Times - A Political Science Perspective, in:Universitas 26 (1984), p. 1.
Ibid., p. 2.
Popular agitation, and the French Revolution of 1830, also provided a significant spur to action. Sir L. Woodward, The Age of Reform 1815–1870, Oxford 2 1962, pp. 77–78.
A table compiled about 1815 revealed that 144 peers, along with 123 commoners, controlled (in effect through money and patronage) 471 seats in the House of Commons. M. Ostrogorski, Democracy and the Organisation of Political Parties, Vol. 1: England, London 1902, p. 20.
Lord Campion, Parliament and Democracy, in: Lord Campion (ed.), Parliament: A Survey, London 1952, p. 15.
A. L. Lowell, The Government of England, Vol II, London 1924, pp. 76–78.
R.H.S. Crossman, introduction to W. Bagehot, The English Constitution, 1963, p. 39.
G. Sartori, Parties and Party Systems, Vol. I, Cambridge 1976, pp. 188–189
A.L. Lowell, op. cit., pp. 76–78.
On the conventions of individual and collective ministerial responsibility, see P. Norton, The Constitution in Flux, Oxford 1982, ch. 2.
See P. Norton, The Commons in Perspective, Oxford 1981, chs. 2, 4 and 5.
The Burkean concept of virtual representation nonetheless retained some influence. See Norton, The Commons in Perspective, ch. 4.
See especially P. Norton, The British Parliament and Regime Support, paper prepared for the Conference on Parliaments and Regime Support, Duke University, USA December 1982.
S.H. Beer, Britain Against Itself, 1982, p. 180.
For a summary of the competing explanations, see P. Norton, The British Polity, New York, London 1984, pp. 50–53.
See M. Camps, Britain and the European Community 1955–1963, Oxford 1964, R. J. Lieber, British Politics and the European Unity, Berkeley 1970, and P. Norton, The Constitution in Flux, ch. 8.
On 29 February 1972 the Chairman of Ways and Means had ruled that the Bill was not a Bill to approve the Treaty of Accession or any other treaties which were basic to membership of the Communities; it was a Bill to provide the “legal nuts and bolts” necessary if the U.K. was to become a member of the Communities.
See F.E.C. Gregory, Dilemmas of Government, Oxford 1983, ch. 3.
P. Norton, The Commons in Perspective, p. 11.
House of Commons Debates, Vol. 888, col. 414.
G. Jordan and J. Richardson, The British Policy Style or the Logic of Negotiation?, in J. Richardson (ed.), Policy Styles in Western Europe, London 1982, ch. 4.
For a summary of the arguments involved, see P. Norton, The Constitution in Flux, ch. 9.
Lord Hailsham, The Dilemma of Democracy, London 1978, chs. 20–21, and, by the same author, Elective Dictatorship, London 1976.
S.E. Finer, Adversary Politics and Electoral Reform, London 1975; S.A. Walkland, Parliamentary Reform, Party Realignment and Electoral Reform, in: D. Judge (ed.), The Politics of Parliamentary Reform, London 1983, ch. 2.
See P, Norton, The Influence of the Backbench Member, in: The Parliamentarian, 58 (July 1977 ), p. 169.
J. Richardson and G. Jordan, Governing under Pressure, Oxford 1979. The term is derived from the book’s sub-title: The Policy Process in a Post-Parliamentary Democracy.
P. Norton, Parliament and Policy Making in Britain: The House of Commons as a Policy Influencer, in: Teaching Politics, 13 (May 1984).
See P. Norton, Dissension in the House of Commons 1945–74, London 1975.
S. H. Beer, Modern British Politics, revised edition 1969, p. 350.
See P. Norton, Conservative Dissidents, London 1978.
P. Norton, Intra-Party Dissent in the House of Commons: A Case Study. The Immigration Rules 1972, in: Parliamentary Affairs 29 (Autumn 1976 ) pp. 404–20.
L. Epstein, “What Happened to the British Party Model?”, in: American Political Science Review 74 (1980) p. 19.
Ibid.
P. Norton, Conservative Dissidents, ch. 9.
P. Norton, Dissension in the House of Commons 1974–1979, Oxford 1980, p. 491.
Ibid., pp. 491–493.
See P. Norton, Government Defeats in the House of Commons: Myth and Reality, in: Public Law, Winter 1978, pp. 360–378
Quoted in A. King, British Members of Parliament: A Self-Portrait, London 1974, p. 59.
Beer, Britain Against Itself, p. 190.
G. Cunningham M.P., book review in: The Parliamentarian (July 1980) pp. 192–193.
P. Norton, Parliament and Policy Making in Britain, op. cit..
The Times (11 January 1982).
Confidential information to author.
The Select Comittee System, First Report from the Liaison Committee, Session 1982/83, HC 92, London 1983, p. 8.
As, e.g. B. George (Defence Committee), R. Maxwell-Hyslop (Trade and Industry) and T. Higgins (Chairman, Treasury Committee), among others, in various meetings and seminars in 1984.
Sir E. Gardner,M. P., chairman of the committee, commenting at a seminar in June 1984.
Report of the Committee Chairman, I. Lloyd, in: The Select Committee System, op. cit., p. 64.
Ex-civil servant to author.
P. Norton, The British Parliament and Regime Support, op. cit..
B. George M.P. and B. Evans, Parliamentary Reform - The Internal View, in: D. Judge (ed.), The Politics of Parliamentary Reform, p. 86.
The R. Hon. J. Biffen, M.P. speaking at a Policy Studies Institute seminar in London, 5 June 1984.
See the comments of George and Evans, op. cit., pp. 87–90
P. Norton, The Commons in Perspective, pp. 173–175. See also the memorandum by N. St. John-Stevas M.P. in: First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure (Supply), Session 1980/81, Vol. II: Minutes of Evidence, HC 118-II, London 1981, pp. 203–208.
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1987 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Norton, P. (1987). The Changing Nature of the House of Commons: External Challenges — Internal Reinforcements. In: Döring, H., Grosser, D. (eds) Großbritannien. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-93771-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-93771-1_6
Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-8100-0550-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-322-93771-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive