The Origins of the UK Constitution

One of the reasons why the UK does not have a codified constitution is that British political history over the past 3 centuries has followed an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary route. In other countries, written constitutions have been introduced following sudden and total changes to their political systems. The French Revolution of 1789 and the Russian Revolution of 1937 both led to the introduction of written constitutions. Similarly, new written constitutions were introduced in Germany after defeat in 1918 and 1945, and India drew up a written constitution when British rule ended in 1947.

Absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy

Until the 17th century, there was no real separation of powers. Instead, there was a system of absolute monarchy. The monarch could overrule decisions made by Parliament. Ministers were merely personal advisers and judges were appointed and removed by the monarch. It was only after the English Civil War of 1642-52, and the short period of republican gov’t before the monarchy was restored in 1660, that the power of the monarch was curtailed. Attempts by Charles II and James II to reassert royal power resulted in the latter exile in 1688 (the so-called ‘Glorious Revolution’) and the introduction of a Bill of Rights which granted parliament protection against royal absolutism. From the beginning of the 18th century, therefore, Britain was no longer governed by an absolute monarch. Constitutionally, although monarchs still exercised considerable power, they required the support of Parliament. The monarch’s business was carried out by the Cabinet (the monarch’s minister’s) which brought matters before Parliament for its approval. This system became known as a constitutional monarchy. Britain remains a constitutional monarchy today, although considerable changes in how it operates in practice have taken place along the way.

Checks, balances and corruption

With the abolition of absolute monarchy, the principal institutions of gov’t provided a set of mutual checks and balances – at least in theory.  The idea was that the HoC could reject what the nobility (the Lords) had proposed and vice versa. The monarch could act  as a check on both Houses while they, in turn, had sanctions which could be used to check the power of the monarch’s ministers. The theory of checks and balances was only partly borne out in practice. A very small electorate (even by the end of the 18th century, less than 5% of adult men and no women were entitled to vote) allowed patronage and corruption to flourish. The constitution operated essentially in the interests of the aristocracy since power was held primarily by a small group of substantial landowners in the Lords who were ‘in loose alliance’ with the merchants and the representatives of small towns who sat in the commons.

With the breakup of the old feudal system and the rapid economic and social changes that accompanied the industrial revolution, this constitutional set-up became unworkable. Industrialisation produced a few new class of wealthy factory owners. The economic power of this capitalist class was not matched, however, by political power since this new ‘middle class’ was not represented in Parliament. This produced the principal political division of the 19th century. The large landowners wanted to preserve the status quo. The new industrial capitalists were eager for political representation and power for themselves. Both groups wished to avoid granting any representation or power to the working class (the vast majority of the population). But the middle classes needed the support of working-class reformers to achieve any extension of the franchise and reform of the HoCs.

The Great Reform Act, 1832

Political conflict culminated in the Great Reform Act of 1832 which extended the vote to the new middle classes and gave parliamentary representation to the new industrial towns. It was now no longer possible for the Lords, through patronage, to control the composition of the HoCs. In addition, the powers of the monarch were limited further as the choice of the senior Cabinet members (the centre of executive power) now passed to the commons (the centre of legislative power). For a while, these changes produced a ‘golden period’ of dominance for the Commons, as the power of the Lords waned.

The constitution after 1832

The British constitution after 1832 was not democratic. The vast majority of the adult population was denied the vote. As the 19th century progressed, however, those in power grudgingly came to realise that some form of working-class representation in Parliament was necessary in order to avoid threats to the existing political and social order posed by the growth in ideas about equality and socialism. In 1867, the Electoral Reform Act gave the vote to some male workers and began the process of creating a mass electorate. Further extensions of the franchise were introduced in 1884 but women had to wait until the 20th century before they were permitted to vote at general elections.

The importance of a mass electorate

The growth of a mass electorate was of great importance constitutionally. It encouraged the development of mass political parties. These parties came to dominate Parliament. The result was a constitutional shift which ended the brief period during which the HoCs predominated. Power shifted to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet who were chosen from the party with the majority of seats in the Commons. At the same time, the growth of a mass electorate meant that parties could only govern if they gained they support of the electorate at election times. Some writers saw the need to consider public opinion as adding a new democratic dimension to the constitution. Parliament was the supreme legislative body, the executive (PM and Cabinet) was accountable to Parliament, the electorate chose their parliamentary representatives Political sovereignty, in other words, was now seen as resting with the voters.

An evolved constitution

It can be argued that developments since the late 19th century (the extensions of the franchise and the changes in the balance of power between the legislature and the executive) were achieved without fundamentally altering the dominance of the ruling classes and without threatening the continuation of the capitalist economic system. The constitution gradually evolved and continues to do so.

“The American constitution emerged from the smoke and gunfire of a revolution whereas the British constitution emerged from the mists of time.”
– Malcolm Walles