The English constitution, unlike the American or French constitutions, has normally evolved because of some immediate political need.
It is not a product of the enlightenment, of an attempt to perfect the imperfectible in search of rationality. It has tended to be a product of human fallibility and has, therefore, worked in the context of human society. Indeed, it has been much more successful than most modern enlightenment constitutions.
Magna Carta, as discussed last week, in relation to Stephen Langton, is in this mould. It was a careful political response to an immediate crisis. None of the barons thought they were creating a constitution. In fact, it was proclaimed as a confirmation of rights, rather than the creation of new ones.
Examples continue until modern times of this approach. The Habeas Corpus Act 1679, was again seen as a confirmation of ancient historic rights dating back to Conquest. The 1832 Reform Bill was intended to be a permanent settlement of some inconsistencies, not the beginning of a democratic constitution, and the 1911 Parliament Act itself claims in its preamble to be a temporary measure, albeit, one that has lasted 114 years so far.
An exception to this rule is the period of office of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, when a carefully thought through plan of constitutional change was implemented. The removal of most of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords, the introduction of the Human Rights Act, devolution of Scotland and Wales (Northern Ireland is rather a separate case), and the establishment of the Supreme Court were all seen as an effort to modernise the constitution and to change it deliberately.
Listen to this episode with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Letters from an Englishman by Jacob Rees-Mogg to listen to this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.
