Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution states that "by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect".
Thomas Paine in his Rights of Man (1791-2), insisted that all adult males were
involved in agreeing to the contracts which established civil society and civil government. He went on to argue that the only way to secure the natural rights of
all men was to create a written constitution in which all men had the right to vote
for the legislature which would make the laws and control the magistrates who
enforced them. It would be untrue to say that UK does not possess a written constitution; strictly speaking much of the constitution can be found in written documentation1. It is better to say that the British constitution is un-codified. Codification can be defined as "the reduction of legal rules in a logical and structural form, of all the source material on a given topic, changing the substance where necessary to meet contemporary requirements"2
In this essay we are going to examine the case for adapting a written constitution in Britain in order to do so we are going to first look at the history of British constitution in its present un-codified form then we are going to look at the case for and against adapting a written constitution. In conclusion we are going to look at the possible ways it can be done and what measures would have to be taken to make sure it functions effectively.
The age of the democratic revolution in the late eighteenth century saw the beginnings
of modern written constitutions, most notably the American Constitution of
787 and a succession of constitutions in revolutionary France in the 1790s. The
principal feature of the British constitution is not simply that it predates most
modern constitutions, but that it is unwritten. Although some fundamental features
of the British constitution can be found in legislative documents - for example,
the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, and the Act of Union between England
and Scotland - the English (later the British) constitution has evolved over centuries
in various ways which were never written down. It is therefore largely a prescriptive
and an organic constitution3.
Several different theories can be given to explain the origin of the British constitution, one of them is divine right. . The upholders of divine right had largely prevailed before the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Jacobites adhered to this doctrine well into the eighteenth century. The divine right theory had maintained that legitimate authority came only from God and that God favoured absolute monarchy. Kings ruled by the direct command of God and God had established a clear and inviolable rule, namely, indefeasible hereditary succession, to prevent a dangerous hiatus between the death of one ruler and his replacement by the legitimate heir. Subjects could not lawfully oppose the commands of their rulers and could not legitimately decide for themselves who would rule them. They could never possess the right to take up arms against the crown even to protect their lives, liberties and property. The willingness of men of property to put themselves at the mercy of an absolute king can be explained only by their horror of 'mob' rule and their fear of social revolution. They feared the tyranny of the unrestrained multitude more than the power of an absolute king.4 The role of monarchy has greatly diminished in the UK then why is it, that we find our selves following a system designed to support an undesirable and outdated concept. The only explanation that can be given is that, this change in the system of Government was gradual and there fore no need was felt to depart from a system (un-codified constitution) which has been in operation for centuries
Thomas Paine in his Rights of Man (1791-2), insisted that all adult males were
involved in agreeing to the contracts which established civil society and civil government. He went on to argue that the only way to secure the natural rights of
all men was to create a written constitution in which all men had the right to vote
for the legislature which would make the laws and control the magistrates who
enforced them. It would be untrue to say that UK does not possess a written constitution; strictly speaking much of the constitution can be found in written documentation1. It is better to say that the British constitution is un-codified. Codification can be defined as "the reduction of legal rules in a logical and structural form, of all the source material on a given topic, changing the substance where necessary to meet contemporary requirements"2
In this essay we are going to examine the case for adapting a written constitution in Britain in order to do so we are going to first look at the history of British constitution in its present un-codified form then we are going to look at the case for and against adapting a written constitution. In conclusion we are going to look at the possible ways it can be done and what measures would have to be taken to make sure it functions effectively.
The age of the democratic revolution in the late eighteenth century saw the beginnings
of modern written constitutions, most notably the American Constitution of
787 and a succession of constitutions in revolutionary France in the 1790s. The
principal feature of the British constitution is not simply that it predates most
modern constitutions, but that it is unwritten. Although some fundamental features
of the British constitution can be found in legislative documents - for example,
the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, and the Act of Union between England
and Scotland - the English (later the British) constitution has evolved over centuries
in various ways which were never written down. It is therefore largely a prescriptive
and an organic constitution3.
Several different theories can be given to explain the origin of the British constitution, one of them is divine right. . The upholders of divine right had largely prevailed before the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Jacobites adhered to this doctrine well into the eighteenth century. The divine right theory had maintained that legitimate authority came only from God and that God favoured absolute monarchy. Kings ruled by the direct command of God and God had established a clear and inviolable rule, namely, indefeasible hereditary succession, to prevent a dangerous hiatus between the death of one ruler and his replacement by the legitimate heir. Subjects could not lawfully oppose the commands of their rulers and could not legitimately decide for themselves who would rule them. They could never possess the right to take up arms against the crown even to protect their lives, liberties and property. The willingness of men of property to put themselves at the mercy of an absolute king can be explained only by their horror of 'mob' rule and their fear of social revolution. They feared the tyranny of the unrestrained multitude more than the power of an absolute king.4 The role of monarchy has greatly diminished in the UK then why is it, that we find our selves following a system designed to support an undesirable and outdated concept. The only explanation that can be given is that, this change in the system of Government was gradual and there fore no need was felt to depart from a system (un-codified constitution) which has been in operation for centuries
