Constitutional
Sep. 13th, 2020 08:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
qatsiBook Review: The English Constitution, by Walter Bagehot
I stumbled upon this on our shelves a few months ago. Given the state of affairs over the past few years, perhaps some shared knowledge and opinion would be useful. However, on balance this feels more like a historical work. Bagehot mixes up "British" and "English" a few times, a slip raising a perennial and growing quandary - Scotland and Wales don't get a mention; there is a little discussion on the subject of Ireland. His unconscionable views against universal suffrage and proportional representation (the latter with a curiously quaint explanation) seem to have dated particularly badly, yet his argument, however patronisingly phrased, that some people can't be trusted to make decisions for their own best interest, has an exasperating whiff of reality to it. Another thing that sticks out prominently is his attitude towards royalty: I doubt that many people today would be of the belief that the Queen runs the country. His deferential attitude towards the late Prince Albert, with the sovereign Victoria almost inconsequential, feels misogynist, but he is also pretty dismissive of most of the House of Hanover and perhaps his attitude should at least in part be seen in that light. Finally, there is an almost unbearable smugness in comparing Britain (or is it England?) to France and the USA, let alone any other nations. But this was written in the 1860s, and at the time he may have had a point. I'm not sure I feel any better informed on the constitution, but within the bounds of the work, Bagehot has an eye for witty turns of phrase, and I am perhaps better informed of the perspective of a "liberal" (for so he claims) politician of the period.
I stumbled upon this on our shelves a few months ago. Given the state of affairs over the past few years, perhaps some shared knowledge and opinion would be useful. However, on balance this feels more like a historical work. Bagehot mixes up "British" and "English" a few times, a slip raising a perennial and growing quandary - Scotland and Wales don't get a mention; there is a little discussion on the subject of Ireland. His unconscionable views against universal suffrage and proportional representation (the latter with a curiously quaint explanation) seem to have dated particularly badly, yet his argument, however patronisingly phrased, that some people can't be trusted to make decisions for their own best interest, has an exasperating whiff of reality to it. Another thing that sticks out prominently is his attitude towards royalty: I doubt that many people today would be of the belief that the Queen runs the country. His deferential attitude towards the late Prince Albert, with the sovereign Victoria almost inconsequential, feels misogynist, but he is also pretty dismissive of most of the House of Hanover and perhaps his attitude should at least in part be seen in that light. Finally, there is an almost unbearable smugness in comparing Britain (or is it England?) to France and the USA, let alone any other nations. But this was written in the 1860s, and at the time he may have had a point. I'm not sure I feel any better informed on the constitution, but within the bounds of the work, Bagehot has an eye for witty turns of phrase, and I am perhaps better informed of the perspective of a "liberal" (for so he claims) politician of the period.