(Ebook) UK Government and Politics for AS/A-level

(Fifth Edition) by Philip Lynch, Paul Fairclough,

Toby Cooper, Eric Magee ISBN 9781471889233,
1471889238 2025 easy download

Now on sale at ebooknice.com

( 4.4/5.0 ★ | 295 downloads )

https://ebooknice.com/product/uk-government-and-politics-for-as-a-
level-fifth-edition-11176022
 (Ebook) UK Government and Politics for AS/A-level (Fifth
Edition) by Philip Lynch, Paul Fairclough, Toby Cooper, Eric
Magee ISBN 9781471889233, 1471889238 Pdf Download

EBOOK

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide Ebook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

(Ebook) UK Government and Politics for AS/A-level by Philip Lynch;

Paul Fairclough; Toby Cooper ISBN 9781471889257, 9781471889233,
1471889254, 1471889238, B06XCNJDYX

https://ebooknice.com/product/uk-government-and-politics-for-as-a-
level-34170382

(Ebook) UK Government and Politics for A-Level Sixth Edition by Philip

Lynch, Paul Fairclough, Toby Cooper, Eric Magee ISBN 9781398345072,
1398345075

https://ebooknice.com/product/uk-government-and-politics-for-a-level-
sixth-edition-43013008

(Ebook) Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook by Loucas, Jason; Viles, James

ISBN 9781459699816, 9781743365571, 9781925268492, 1459699815,
1743365578, 1925268497

https://ebooknice.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-6661374

(Ebook) Pearson Edexcel A Level UK Government and Politics Sixth

Edition by Neil McNaughton, Toby Cooper, Eric Magee ISBN
9781398311336, 9781398311138, 1398311332, 1398311138

https://ebooknice.com/product/pearson-edexcel-a-level-uk-government-
and-politics-sixth-edition-44581902
(Ebook) Matematik 5000+ Kurs 2c Lärobok by Lena Alfredsson, Hans
Heikne, Sanna Bodemyr ISBN 9789127456600, 9127456609

https://ebooknice.com/product/matematik-5000-kurs-2c-larobok-23848312

(Ebook) Cambridge IGCSE and O Level History Workbook 2C - Depth Study:

the United States, 1919-41 2nd Edition by Benjamin Harrison ISBN
9781398375147, 9781398375048, 1398375144, 1398375047

https://ebooknice.com/product/cambridge-igcse-and-o-level-history-
workbook-2c-depth-study-the-united-states-1919-41-2nd-edition-53538044

(Ebook) SAT II Success MATH 1C and 2C 2002 (Peterson's SAT II Success)

by Peterson's ISBN 9780768906677, 0768906679

https://ebooknice.com/product/sat-ii-success-
math-1c-and-2c-2002-peterson-s-sat-ii-success-1722018

(Ebook) Master SAT II Math 1c and 2c 4th ed (Arco Master the SAT
Subject Test: Math Levels 1 & 2) by Arco ISBN 9780768923049,
0768923042

https://ebooknice.com/product/master-sat-ii-math-1c-and-2c-4th-ed-
arco-master-the-sat-subject-test-math-levels-1-2-2326094

(Ebook) UK government and politics : Edexcel AS/A-level by Neil

McNaughton ISBN 9781471889325, 1471889327

https://ebooknice.com/product/uk-government-and-politics-edexcel-as-a-
level-11148358
This book is supported by Dynamic Learning. This digital platform contains a range of product types
that aid lesson planning, front-of-class teaching, assessment and independent learning.

Dynamic Learning for politics incorporates Politics Unravelled resources, Whiteboard eTextbook and
Student eTextbook elements that all work together to give you the ultimate classroom and homework
resource.

Politics Unravelled resources are written by experienced politics teachers and examiners to help you:
O Keep your teaching fresh with monthly updates on key political developments curated for A-level
teachers and students, with links to the new AQA, Edexcel and WJEC specifications
O Consolidate students’ political knowledge with worksheets linked to these key political developments
O Plan and deliver outstanding lessons by using the time-saving Lesson Builder tool
O Share lessons and resources with students and colleagues

Whiteboard eTextbooks are online interactive versions of the printed textbook that enable teachers to:
O Display interactive pages to classes
O Add notes and highlight areas
O Add double-page spreads into lesson plans

Student eTextbooks are downloadable versions of the printed textbook that teachers can assign to
students so they can:
O Download and view on any device or browser
O Add, edit and synchronise notes across two devices
O Access their personal copy on the move

Find out more and sign up for a free trial – visit: www.hoddereducation.co.uk/dynamiclearning
 FIFTH
AS/A-LEVEL EDITION

UK GOVERNMENT
AND POLITICS

Philip Lynch Teacher planning copy.

The final published book
Paul Fairclough
will include 2017 election
Toby Cooper coverage.

Editor: Eric Magee

Hachette UK’s policy is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products
and made from wood grown in sustainable forests. The logging and manufacturing
processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of
origin.
Orders: please contact Bookpoint Ltd, 130 Park Drive, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14
4SE. Telephone: (44) 01235 827720. Fax: (44) 01235 400454. Email education@bookpoint.
co.uk
Lines are open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday to Saturday, with a 24-hour message
answering service. You can also order through our website: www.hoddereducation.co.uk
ISBN: 978 1 4718 89233
© Philip Lynch, Paul Fairclough, Toby Cooper and Eric Magee 2017
First published in 2017 by
Hodder Education,
An Hachette UK Company
Carmelite House
50 Victoria Embankment
London EC4Y 0DZ
www.hoddereducation.co.uk
Impression number 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Year 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017
All rights reserved. Apart from any use permitted under UK copyright law, no part of this
publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or held within any information
storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or under
licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency Limited. Further details of such licences (for
reprographic reproduction) may be obtained from the Copyright Licensing Agency Limited,
Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
Photos reproduced by permission of: p. 2 Topfoto, p. 4 Topfoto, p. 13 Topfoto, p. 16
Wiktor Szymanowicz/Alamy, p. 22 eye35/Alamy, p. 27 Andy Buchanan/Alamy, p. 31
Homer Sykes Archive/Alamy, p. 35 Topfoto, p. 38 Victor Moussa/Fotolia, p. 45 Tupungato/
Fotolia, p. 48 Newsphoto/Alamy, p. 50 Topfoto, p. 59 Pete Maclaine/Alamy, p. 63 Corund/
Fotolia, p. 64 Roger Pilkington/Fotolia, p. 67 Topfoto, p. 68 Topfoto, p. 70 Josemaria Toscano/
Fotolia, p. 75 Mark Kerrison/Alamy, p. 82 Mark Kerrison/Alamy, p. 84 Topfoto, p. 87 Kirsty
Wigglesworth/AFP/Getty Images, p. 100 UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor, p. 108 Steven Scott
Taylor/Alamy, p. 117 Simon Dawson/Bloomberg/Getty Images, p. 129 Reuters/Alamy,
p. 142 Reuters/Alamy, p. 146 Reuters/Alamy, p. 152 Topfoto, p. 158 Reuters/Alamy,
p. 165 Evgesha/Fotolia, p. 168 Gary Lucken/Alamy, p. 170 David Levenson/Alamy, p. 173
Jelle van der Wolf/Fotolia, p. 178 lazylama/Fotolia, p. 182 wronaphoto.com/Alamy, p. 186
Patrick Hertzog/AFP/Getty Images, p. 195 BasPhoto/Alamy, p. 196 Tommy London/Alamy,
p. 202 7razer/Fotolia, p. 208 Adrian Buck/Alamy, p. 218 Topfoto, p. 224 Vibrant Pictures/
Alamy, p. 229 Charles Stirling/Alamy, p. 234 Steve Morgan/Alamy, p. 249 Oli Scarff/AFP/
Getty Images, p. 254 Bonzo/Alamy, p. 259 PjrNews/Alamy, p. 273 Mark Richardson/Alamy,
p. 277 Jeff J. Mitchell/Getty Images, p. 281 Jon Jones/Sygma via Getty Images, p. 286 Ian
Forsyth/Getty Images, p. 293 AFP/Getty Images, p. 295 The Conservative Party Archive/
Getty Images, p. 298 The Conservative Party Archive/Getty Images, p. 302 Jonny White/
Alamy, p. 310 Paul Bevitt/Alamy, p. 315 Topfoto, p. 319 Trinity Mirror/Mirrorpix/Alamy,
p. 324 Rupert Rivett/Alamy, p. 326 Jack Taylor/Alamy
Typeset in Bliss light 10.75/13.5 pts by Aptara Inc.
Printed in Italy
A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library.
 Get the most
from this book

This new edition of our best-selling textbook covers the key content of the
government and politics specifications for teaching from September 2017.

Special features
Key terms
Concise definitions of key

Chapter 6 The Supreme Court

the UK government could be
For many years this simply meant that
Key terms of Justice (ECJ). However, in the
called to account at the European Court
UK courts have also been able to
wake of the Factortame case (1990),
Chapter 6 Factortame A case in which
the European Court of Justice
established the precedent that
suspend UK statutes that appear to
be in violation of EU law.
terms where they first appear.
The Supreme Court
UK courts can suspend UK
statute law where it appears to Case study
violate EU law, at least until the
European Court of Justice is able The UK Supreme Court hearing a case
Key questions ,FZ
RVFTUJPOT
BOTXFSFE
At the end of this chapter you will have:
O knowledge of the role and composition
of the Supreme Court
to make a final determination as
to the legality of the statute in
question. The case took its name
relating to EU law
United States of America v Nolan (2015)
the US government under the Trade
such as the rule of law, judicial from a Spanish-owned fishing This case resulted from a claim against
O an understanding of key concepts Nolan, who had been employed by

answered independence and judicial neutrality

O an awareness of how the Supreme
Court uses its powers to review the
company, Factortame Limited,
which had challenged the
Union and Labour Relations Act 1992.
the US Army at a base in Hampshire,
had argued that there should have
representatives before making her
actions of other institutions and protect
O an appreciation of the impact
rights
that the court has through its work
legality of the Merchant Shipping
Act (1988) under European law.
been more consultation with workers’
redundant. The US government argued
that the secretary of state had
Communities Act (1972), because the Case study
Key topics covered O a grasp of what Brexit might
authority of the Supreme Court
mean for the jurisdiction, power and acted ultra vires under the European
regulations under which Nolan had made
her original claim went beyond
The Supreme Court found in Nolan’s
the basic rights given under EU Law.
favour, arguing that the secretary of
state had not exceeded his powers
Topical examples
in each chapter. Synoptic link
The UK Supreme Court’s power to hear
other public bodies allows it to establish
appeals and review the action of
new rules or ‘precedents’ that
when issuing regulations in 1995.

Questions
For more about the constitution,
please see Chapter 3.
affect not only the case in question,
At 2.30 a.m. on 10 June 2011, Paul Fyfe
later known in court as ‘Hirsi’. A
but also all subsequent cases.

third
was stabbed to death by a man
man, known as ‘Jogee’, had been
Activity
What are the likely changes in
how the judiciary works following
Q

Q
Why did the US government feel that

What does this case tell us about the

giving an employee a right to proper
consultation before making them redundant
was ultra vires?
nature and complexity of the
to use in essays.
on that evening. Although Jogee had Britain’s exit from the EU? Supreme Court’s work?
drinking and taking drugs with Hirsi
encouragement to Hirsi at the
not stabbed Mr Fyfe, he had been shouting
time of the fatal attack.
that followed, both Hirsi and Jogee Debate
However, at the Crown Court trial
the so-called ‘joint enterprise’ rule. in recent years?
Synoptic links were found guilty of murder, under
This rule or ‘precedent’ had been established
courts in earlier cases such as Chan
meant that any individual who was part of
in common law by the
Wing-Siu v The Queen (1985). It
a group that committed an
Has the UK judiciary become more
Yes
Q
politicised

The Human Rights Act (1998) has drawn

senior
them to rule
No
Q The appointments process for senior
made more transparent and less open
judges has been
to accusations
crime, even if they themselves had judges into the political fray by requiring of political interference through the
creation of the

Links between concepts offence could be convicted for that

not ‘pulled the trigger’.
Jogee’s appeal against his murder conviction
eventually made its
on the ‘merit’ of an individual piece of
opposed to its ‘application’.
Q The Factortame case (1990)
statute law as

established the
JAC and the separate Supreme Court
process.
appointment

associated with

that occur in more

way to the UK’s highest court, the Supreme
R v Jogee (2016), the court used its
joint enterprise. It was no longer enough
in order to
Court. In the case of
power to change the rules on
simply to be present
be convicted of that
precedent that UK courts can ‘suspend’
Parliament where they are thought to
law.
Acts of
contradict EU
Q Although ‘politicisation’ is often

political interference and/or control,

the UK senior
judiciary has, in fact, become more independent
the wake of the Constitutional Reform
Act (2005),
in Debate
when a crime was committed Q The creation of the Supreme
Court in 2009 and of the role of
crime; there would also have to be ‘intent’,
‘encouragement’ or judges to including, for example, the downgrading

The two sides of a

Theme 1 Government in the UK

the physical relocation of those senior

of the murder meant Lord Chancellor.
‘assistance’. Jogee’s actions on the evening

than one area of the

judges into
from 20 to 18 years but Middlesex Guildhall has brought senior Q Increased conflict between judges and politicians
that his sentence was only reduced the public arena and subjected them
to greater the courts
the case had a wider importance because
a new precedent is a positive thing because it shows that
scrutiny by the media. when it
are prepared to challenge the government

controversial question set

just 1 month after
had been established. In March 2016, Q Politicians have broken with
convention by publicly civil liberties.
the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Daily
Telegraph reported judges. appears to be encroaching upon our

specification. that two defendants in another

free after a judge ruled that they no
murder case had walked
longer had any case
that the Supreme
criticising rulings handed down by senior
Theresa May did this when she was home
secretary. Q The fact that senior judges
still benefit from security
of tenure and guaranteed salaries helps
them from political pressure.
to insulate

to answer. Some commentators argued

Court had, in effect, ‘changed’ the law,
‘applied’ the law.
rather than simply
87
out to hone evaluation skills.
86

What you should know

Chapter 6 The Supreme Court

as a result of the role that What you should know

Such a distinction will always be flawed

In focus
the following:
clarifying the law when resolving have knowledge and understanding of
Key term
Quasi-legislative Where the
impact of differences in the
senior judges play in interpreting and
disputes that arise under it. The Supreme
precedent through common law could
Court’s ability to establish
therefore be seen as a quasi-
Having read this chapter you should
Q The term ‘judiciary’ refers collectively
of the UK Supreme Court. However,
Supreme Court.
to all judges in the UK, from lay magistrates
students of politics are primarily concerned
all the way up to justices
with the work of the

the twin principles of judicial

A summary at the end
court’s interpretations over time

Key concepts
legislative power. judges are expected to operate under
Under the doctrine of the rule of law,
can appear tantamount to a are able to apply the law as

of the chapter against

Q
Court Judicial independence requires that judges
legislative change, even though The unelected nature of the UK Supreme independence and judicial neutrality.
controls. Judicial neutrality demands
that justices set aside personal
grounds that it is too powerful they see fit, free from external political
parliament has made no changes Criticism of the Supreme Court on the
misguided. As we have already bias when applying the law. as a result of reforms to the judicial
to statute law. for an entirely unelected body is clearly

explained.
the UK judiciary has been enhanced
no more power than the Appellate In recent years, the independence of

which students can

established, the Supreme Court has
Q reforms to the role of Lord
separation of powers achieved following
it replaced back in 2009. Although appointments process and the greater
Committee of the House of Lords that UK Supreme Court.
In focus wields too much power for an Chancellor and the creation of a new where government officials
it is often said that the House of Lords of citizens by making ultra vires rulings
levelled at the Law Lords who Q The Supreme Court can defend the rights the Human Rights Act
Max Weber’s three unelected body, that was never a criticism by issuing a declaration of incompatibility under
we should remember that it is have acted beyond their authority, an EU member state.
sources of authority
QTraditional authority based
on established traditions and
sat in the Appellate Committee. Moreover,
rare for those in senior judicial positions
Judicial independence requires that
law and dispense justice fairly, without
worldwide to be elected to office.
senior judges are free to interpret the
fear of being arbitrarily removed
(1998), or by finding that UK law violates
Q The Supreme Court has the power
of judicial review. This role is particularly
EU law — for as long as the UK remains
to establish legally binding
significant where
precedent or ‘common law’ using the power
statute law is ambiguous or unclear,
European law or are deemed incompatible
or where the
with the Human Rights
check their knowledge.
customs by any other means). laws passed by parliament conflict with
Charismatic authority based on from office through the ballot box (or
question: ‘Quis Act (1998). held by the Appellate Committee
any significant powers beyond those
Q

the characteristics of leaders The Roman poet Juvenal asked the rhetorical Q The Supreme Court was not afforded status and authority in recent
guard the guards themselves?’) in October 2009, but it has grown in
custodiet ipsos custodes?’ (‘Who is to
Distinguish between Q Legal–rational authority

granted by a formal process, such

as an election
From the perspective of the UK Supreme
independence demands a degree of
feature of democracy that we must at
Court, it is clear that judicial
unaccountability. It is an essential
times place our trust in those who
of the House of Lords, which it replaced
years and may well continue to do so.

citizenry at large.

A clarification of Distinguish between

are not directly accountable to the UK/US comparison
The UK and US judiciary
Q Under the US Constitution, individual
US states are free to organise their own
state-level judiciary largely as they see
federal judiciary in the USA and the
to focus on the higher levels of the US
European Court of Justice fit. As a result, UK/US comparisons tend

the difference European Court of Human Rights and

European Court of Human Rights
O The European Court
of Human Rights was
European Court of Justice
O The European Court
of Justice is the ‘supreme
Q
senior judiciary in the UK.
The US judiciary, like the UK judiciary,
Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal, with
is broadly hierarchical in structure. The
US District Courts, the US Claims Court
US Supreme Court sits above 13 US
and the US Court of International Trade

court’ of the European Union. at the lowest tier. the deputy president of the

between commonly established by the Council of Europe.

O It hears cases brought
under the European
Convention on Human Rights.
O It is based in Strasbourg
but is not an EU institution.
O It hears cases arising
under EU law.
O It is based in Luxembourg.
Q Whereas the UK Supreme Court comprises
court and 10 Justices of the court), the
justice and eight associate justices).
12 members (the president of the court,
US Supreme Court has numbered nine

are expected to operate with high levels

justices since 1869 (with one chief

of judicial independence and judicial US/UK comparison

US courts, like their UK counterparts, their judgements.
rely on other state institutions to enforce
Q

confused concepts or Exam focus

neutrality. Judges on both sides
Q The UK Supreme Court inherited
of

the House of Lords that the Supreme

the Atlantic must
its main powers from the Law Lords
who sat in the Appellate Committee
Court replaced in 2009. The role and
of
powers of the US Supreme Court are
but the court’s main power — that of
judicial review — is not clearly An end of chapter
minutes each) set out in Article 3 of the US Constitution of Marbury v Madison (1803) and extended
Short-answer questions (around 5 ‘discovered’ by the court in the case

institutions. of each of the following terms: enumerated. This power was instead
Theme 1 Government in the UK

Explain, using examples, the meaning

1 Judicial review
2 Ultra vires
3 Factortame
4 Judicial Appointments Commission
(JAC) Q
in a number of landmark cases thereafter.
The power of judicial review allows the
constitutional provisions. This makes
which, in the absence of a codified and
US Supreme Court to strike down regular
the US Supreme Court significantly more
supreme constitution, has the doctrine
Acts of Congress if they violate
powerful than its UK counterpart —
of parliamentary sovereignty and the
summary comparing
the USA and UK in
with.
Mid-length questions (around 10 minutes
each) supremacy of statute law to contend Human Rights Act (1998), which can easily be
Rights Act (1998). ignore than the UK
two arguments ‘against’ the Human Q The US Bill of Rights is far harder
to change or
to the US Constitution have offered
1 Outline two arguments ‘for’ and emergency. Subsequent amendments
repealed or derogated in times of national guarantees equal protection
2 Outline the main differences between: For example, the 14th Amendment (1868)
a US-style Bill of Rights citizens further entrenched guarantees.
(a) The Human Rights Act (1998) and

this topic area.

under the law.
105
Exam-style questions Judicial independence and judicial neutrality
(b)
and the European Court of Justice
(c) The European Court of Human Rights
104

Practice exam questions at

the end of each chapter.

iii
 Contents

Introduction
Chapter 1 Historical context of the UK political system 2
Anglo-Saxon institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Norman and Angevin rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Magna Carta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The creation of parliament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The journey towards parliamentary sovereignty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The monarchy and parliament clash: the English Civil War . . . 6
The Bill of Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Act of Settlement 1701 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The creation of the United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
The Parliament Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The European Communities Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
The rise of democracy in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Chapter 2 The UK political system 16
What is politics? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
British politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
The parliamentary system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Continuity and change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Democracy in Britain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Component 1 Government in the UK

Chapter 3 The constitution 38
What is a constitution? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Codified and uncodified constitutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
The sources of the UK constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Key principles that underpin the UK constitution . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Strengths and weaknesses of the UK’s constitution . . . . . . . . . . 48
Constitutional reform since 1997 and its significance . . . . . . . . 49
Should the UK adopt a codified constitution? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
‘Where next’ for constitutional reform?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Chapter 4 Devolution 63
What is devolution?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
The Scottish Parliament and government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
The Welsh Assembly and government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
The Northern Ireland Assembly and executive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
How should England be governed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
The impact of devolution on UK politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
iv
 Chapter 5 Parliament 82
The House of Commons: structure and members . . . . . . . . . . . 83
The House of Lords: structure and members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Comparative powers of the Commons and the Lords . . . . . . . . 89
Functions of parliament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
The relationship between parliament and the executive . . . . . 110
Chapter 6 The prime minister and executive 117
The executive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
The prime minister and cabinet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Ministerial responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
The relative power of the prime minister and cabinet . . . . . . . 142
The power of the prime minister and cabinet to dictate
events and determine policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Chapter 7 The Supreme Court 158
The role and composition of the Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Key doctrines and principles that underpin the work of
the Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
The power of the UK Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
The overall impact of the UK Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
The potential impact of Brexit on the jurisdiction, power
and authority of the UK Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Chapter 8 The European Union 178
The development of the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
The aims of the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
The roles and functions of European Union institutions . . . . 184
The European Union political system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
The impact of the European Union on British politics . . . . . . 189
The decision to leave the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Component 2 Political participation in the UK

Chapter 9 Democracy and political participation 202
What is democracy?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202
Forms of democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204
How effectively does democracy operate in the UK?. . . . . . . . .207
Extending the franchise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Political participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .223
How do pressure groups and other organisations promote
democracy and political participation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
The protection of rights in a democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
What could be done to improve democracy in the UK? . . . . . .243

v
 Chapter 10 Electoral systems 249
Elections and democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .249
The first-past-the-post electoral system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Advantages and disadvantages of the first-past-the-post
electoral system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .260
Other electoral systems used in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .264
The impact of the electoral systems used in the UK . . . . . . . . .268
Referendums in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
Chapter 11 Voting behaviour and the role of the media in politics 281
How do different regions of the UK vote? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
How do class, gender, age and ethnicity affect voting? . . . . . .282
Changes in voting trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .289
Explaining voter choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
The role of the party leader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
Voting trends across elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
The role of the media in politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .304
Chapter 12 Political parties 310
What is a political party? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
Types of political party in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
The UK party system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
The three main political parties in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
The structure and organisation of the three main
UK parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .330
Political party funding in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .334
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .340

Answers to the exam-style questions at the end of each chapter can be found at:
https://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/UKGovernmentandPolitics

vi
INTRODUCTION
 Chapter 1
Historical context of the
UK political system
From 1066 until 1215, when Magna Carta was introduced,
England was effectively run as an absolute monarchy. The king
was sovereign and held all power. Scotland had its own absolute
monarchy, while Wales and Ireland were ruled by a series of
princes and chieftains, with nominal oversight and domination
from England.
Today the monarchy is limited and sovereignty, or power, has
passed to parliament, while the separate nations have become
part of a United Kingdom.
Unlike many nations, there is no single point at which the UK
became the modern democracy it is today. Instead, the
system of government and politics in the UK has evolved
over time, thanks to its uncodified constitution, resulting
in a number of unusual features.
An understanding of this historical evolution will help you
to grasp many of the issues faced by the UK today, such
as devolution, relations with the EU, the idea of
parliamentary sovereignty and the nature of
parliamentary democracy.

Key term
Uncodified constitution This describes a constitution where the laws,
rules and principles specifying how a state is to be governed are not
gathered in a single document. Instead, they are found in a variety of
Magna Carta established
the first formal limits sources — some written (e.g. statute law) and some unwritten
to the power of (e.g. convention).
UK Government and Politics for AS/A-level

the monarchy and paved

the way for the creation of
parliament Synoptic links
Constitutions
A constitution is the set of rules that set out how a country is to
operate. Among other things it establishes links between the different
parts of the political system and the rights of the citizens. Many
constitutions are created in one go, usually after a revolution, and are
therefore set out in one document. The UK constitution has evolved,
rather than been created, and its various elements are not collected in
one place. You can find out more about this in Chapter 3.

2
Table 1.1 The development of the UK constitution

Chapter 1 Historical context of the UK political system

Date Event Date Event
924–1066 Development of the witan (the council of the 1800 Acts of Union create the United Kingdom of Great
Anglo-Saxon kings), trial by jury and habeas Britain and Ireland
corpus
1066 Norman invasion of England and building of 1832 Great Reform Act
Westminster Hall begins
1215 Signing of Magna Carta 1867 Second Reform Act
Beginning of the House of Lords
1275 Beginning of the House of Commons 1872 Ballot Act
1327 Edward II removed as king by parliament 1883 Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act
1534 First Act of Supremacy 1885 Redistribution of Seats Act (Third Reform Act)
1559 Second Act of Supremacy and the introduction of 1911 Parliament Act reduces the power of the Lords
the Oath of Supremacy
1603 James VI of Scotland becomes James I of 1918 Representation of the People Act gives all men and
England some women the right to vote
1642 Start of the English Civil War 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty leads to an independent Ireland and
the establishment of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland
1649 King Charles I tried and executed by parliament 1928 Representation of the People Act gives all women the
right to vote
1660 Restoration of the monarchy 1949 Parliament Act further reduces the power of the Lords
1688 Glorious Revolution 1969 Representation of the People Act lowers voting age
to 18
1689 Bill of Rights 1972 European Communities Act
1701 Act of Settlement
1707 Act of Union creates the United Kingdom of
Great Britain

Anglo-Saxon institutions
As England came into existence from a series of smaller kingdoms under
Key terms
the Anglo-Saxons, three key elements emerged that would have profound
Habeas corpus A process in effects on the development of politics in the UK:
law which means a person can Q the witan
appeal to the courts against Q the principle of trial by jury
unfair or illegal imprisonment. Q habeas corpus
Trial by jury The idea that a
group of twelve peers would The witan was a council that advised the king on taxation and military
hear the evidence in a case and matters. Although not a parliament as we would understand it today, it
decide if the accused was guilty. established the principle that the king of England should consult with the
Trial by ordeal The medieval lords before taxing and commanding the people. It was also the job of the
practice of putting the accused witan to decide who should be king.
through an ordeal to determine The principle of trial by jury was the Anglo-Saxon legal principle that
guilt, such as burning their hand any noble accused of a crime should be tried a jury of peers. The king
and waiting to see how well it would determine the sentence, but guilt was decided by the deliberation
healed. of his fellow lords. Elsewhere in Europe, guilt was often determined by a
decision of the king or through trial by ordeal, but England was governed
by law and the power of the monarch was limited.
The principle of habeas corpus meant that a prisoner had the right to
appeal to the courts against unfair or illegal detention. This meant that even
3
 the lowest ranked citizen could appeal to the law about unfair punishment
and imprisonment. In this sense, the weakest in society were protected by the
rule of law against unfair treatment by the strongest.
Although these three aspects of Anglo-Saxon society were
challenged and ignored in the years immediately after the Norman
Conquest, they became the underpinning of the revolt of the barons
in 1214 and later still became the founding principles of the UK
constitution when it emerged.

Norman and Angevin rule

From the Battle of Hastings in 1066 until the signing of Magna Carta in
1215, England was run as a feudal system. This meant the king effectively
owned all the land and everyone had to swear an oath of loyalty or
‘fealty’ to him. The king would give land to the nobles who would use
knights to manage it for the king. In return, the nobles would supply an
army to the king if the country needed it. Over time, rather than supply
an army, the nobles began to supply cash instead. To work out what the
nobles owed, the king’s chancellor would use a huge chequered mat (like
a giant chess board) to calculate the amount of money owed, hence the
title the ‘chancellor of the exchequer’.

Key term
Chancellor of the exchequer The government official responsible for
calculating, collecting and distributing government funds through taxation
and duties.

As well as being king of England, most kings — from the Norman

Conquest of 1066 until the end of the Angevin empire with the death of
Under the feudal system nobles had to King John in 1216 — were also lords in France, owning Normandy, Anjou
swear an oath of loyalty to the king and Aquitaine. As such, the kings were often absent and would leave their
nobles — chief ministers — to run England while they were away. These
chief ministers were nothing like modern prime ministers, but they helped
to establish the principle of royal powers being exercised by someone
nominated by the king.
Finally, the absence of the king meant he could not be relied on to preside
UK Government and Politics for AS/A-level

over court proceedings and dispense justice. To combat this, he would appoint
justices of the peace, or judges, who would travel the country and hear
cases on behalf of the crown. This marked the beginning of the English legal
system, and many of the common-law principles that were established then
continued to exist in UK politics until fairly recently.

Magna Carta
Unlike his immediate predecessors, King John (1166–1216) was seen as
a ruthless and ineffective king. The English nobles resented him raising
money in England to fund wars in France, as well as his abuse of royal
powers, his conflict with the Church and his arbitrary abuse of the justice
system for his own ends.
By 1214, these issues had come to a head and the barons of England
revolted against the king. The nobles referred to the Anglo-Saxon
4
 Chapter 1 Historical context of the UK political system
principles of the witan and habeas corpus as limits on the power of
the monarchy. They even went so far as to offer the crown to Prince
Louis of France. This revolt led to the defeat of the monarchy and John
was forced to sign a great charter, or ‘Magna Carta’, at Runnymede in
Berkshire.

Key provisions of Magna Carta

Magna Carta guaranteed the freedom of the Church from royal
interference (Clause 1) and curbed the powers of the king:
Q The king could not raise a tax without the consent of the people (Clause 12).
Q The right to due process in the law was guaranteed (Clause 29).
Q The right to trial by jury was guaranteed (Clause 39).
Q Justice had to be free and fair (Clause 40).
Q The nobles could select a committee of 25 to scrutinise the actions
of the king (Clause 61).
Magna Carta was the first time since 1066 that the powers of the
monarch had been limited and it was an acknowledgement that the rights
of the lords had to be respected. There were 63 provisions in total, mostly
concerning the rights of the nobles to be consulted about taxation and
about the legal protection they had from the power of the monarchy. By
consolidating these Anglo-Saxon principles into a formal legal document,
the lords created the first part of the UK’s constitution and established
the first formal limits to the power of the monarchy. Magna Carta also
paved the way for the creation of parliament.

The creation of parliament

Key terms The right of the nobles to be consulted on the king’s demands for tax to
defend England, the right to air their grievances to the king and the right
House of Commons The chamber
to have a committee to scrutinise the actions of the monarch meant the
where elected members of the UK
nobles had to be consulted regularly — this was effectively the creation
Parliament sit.
of the House of Lords.
House of Lords The second,
In 1275, King Edward I required money to fight against Scotland.
unelected, chamber of the UK
Parliament. Knowing the lords would object to this, he sent out writs demanding
Palace of Westminster Originally that each shire and each town elect two representatives from among
the royal palace attached to the knights and burgesses (town officials) to join with the lords in voting
Westminster Hall, today it is the to authorise the king’s demands for taxation. The knights agreed and
seat of government and comprises they, too, were regularly consulted by the monarch. Not being noble, the
Westminster Hall, the House of knights and burgesses were classed as ‘commoners’ — this was effectively
Commons and the House of Lords. the creation of the House of Commons.
parler A French term meaning to Both the Lords and the Commoners met to parler with the
speak or converse. monarch at Westminster Hall in the Palace of Westminster.
Parliament The British legislative Therefore, the Palace of Westminster became the parliament
body that is made up of the where the lords and the representatives of the knights met to
House of Commons, the House discuss their grievances with the monarch and confirm or deny the
of Lords and the monarchy. monarch’s requests for tax reform. This is where the concept of
Westminster Hall A large parliamentary democracy began.
chamber in Westminster where In 1327, following a period of civil war, King Edward II was formally
the early Norman kings would removed by parliament on the basis that his personal faults and weak
meet with the nobility. leadership had led to disaster in England. Parliament chose to replace
5
 him with his son, Edward III. This established the principle that the
government, in the form of the monarch, was answerable to parliament
and could be removed by parliament.

The journey towards parliamentary sovereignty

Most legislative chambers in the world have powers over taxation
Key terms
but few hold sovereignty in the way that the UK system does today.
Acts of Parliament Laws that Sovereignty usually resides in the constitution, especially if it is a codified
have been formally passed by constitution. While the lack of a codified constitution explains why
parliament and given royal the UK does not have a sovereign constitution, it does not explain why
assent by the monarch. parliament should be sovereign.
Codified constitution A single, The idea of parliamentary sovereignty began with King Henry
authoritative document that sets VIII. To justify his break with the church in Rome and change
out the laws, rules and principles religious practice across England and Wales, Henry used legislation,
by which a state is governed,
or Acts of Parliament, saying that the changes had been approved
and which protects the rights of
by the will of the people and should therefore be respected. Henry
citizens.
forced the members of parliament to pass the Acts he wanted but
Sovereignty The control
his repeated statements that parliament — as the representatives
of power and the ability to
of the people — had the power to approve the actions of the king
distribute and reclaim it in a
political system. established the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. This became a
major issue during the English Civil War.

The monarchy and parliament clash: the English Civil War

Between 1603 and 1642, tension increased between the monarchy and
parliament over who held power. This came to a head in 1642 when the
king declared war on parliament. There were many factors at work during
the English Civil War but the main ones concerned the nature of power
and the resulting conflicts between King Charles I, who believed that
he had a divine right to run the country as he wanted, and parliament,
whose members believed the monarchy had to consult them and listen to
their grievances following Magna Carta and Henry VIII’s use of parliament
to justify his actions.
The English Civil War was won by parliament when the royal forces
were defeated at Naseby. Parliament put King Charles I on trial as
UK Government and Politics for AS/A-level

a traitor and ruled that he was guilty and should be executed, thus
establishing the supreme authority of parliament over the monarchy.
From 1653 to 1658, England was ruled as a republic under the strict
military rule of Oliver Cromwell. This nature of rule proved unpopular,
so when Cromwell died and his son failed to be an effective leader,
parliament elected to restore the monarchy with limited powers.

The Bill of Rights

The year 1660 saw the restoration of the monarchy, initially under Charles
II and then under his brother, James II. The restoration was passed by
parliament, meaning it had decided to accept Charles II as the legitimate king
of England. However, Charles and James both attempted to rule as absolute
monarchs with a divine right, which created tensions with parliament.
6
 Chapter 1 Historical context of the UK political system
Key term In 1688, the invasion of William of Orange, who claimed the English
throne through his wife Mary, became known as the Glorious Revolution.
Declaration of Rights A Faced with this and mounting opposition, King James II resigned the throne.
statement of the rights of the As MPs debated a replacement for James, William of Orange
subject which also declared threatened to abandon the country if he was not made king. A
that the monarch could not
Convention Parliament was called and it drafted a Declaration of Rights.
act without the consent of
This was presented to William and Mary when they were offered the
parliament.
crown and the declaration was read aloud at their coronation.
The Declaration of Rights was modified in 1689 and placed on the statute
book as the Bill of Rights (see Table 1.2). The bill was heavily influenced by
the political philosopher John Locke, who believed that government existed
as the result of an agreement between the people and the monarch. Far from
the monarch having absolute power, Locke believed the people were entitled
to freedom from the government and that this should be protected by law.

Table 1.2 Key provisions of the Bill of Rights, 1689

Provision Effect
The suspension or execution of laws, without Only parliament could pass or remove laws.
parliamentary consent, was made illegal.
The levying of money for the crown through prerogative Only parliament could raise money for government expenditure.
and without consent of parliament was made illegal.
Subjects were given the right to petition the king. People could complain to the monarchy through parliament.
Raising or keeping an army in peacetime, unless by the Only parliament could raise and maintain an army during
consent of parliament, was made illegal. peacetime.
Members of parliament must be elected in free elections. The principle of free elections away from government influence
was established.
The impeachment or questioning of debates and proceedings The parliamentary privilege of being able to say things in the
in parliament was made illegal in any court or place outside chamber of the House of Commons without fear of prosecution
of parliament. Freedom of speech was protected. was established, in order to allow for full and open debate.
Imposing excessive bail or excessive fines was made The judicial power of the monarchy was limited and the court
illegal. Cruel and unusual punishments were made illegal. system could not be abused by the executive.
Parliaments were to be held frequently. The monarch could not simply ignore parliament by refusing to call it.

Synoptic links The Bill of Rights was a major milestone in the development of the UK’s
constitution.
The UK and US constitutions Q It removed royal interference in elections.
The framers of the US Constitution Q It placed limits on the use of the royal prerogative.
modelled many of its features Q It established the legal position of the army.
on the British constitution. Key Q It established key principles of rights or freedoms from the
elements of the American Bill of government.
Rights (the first ten amendments Q It formally established the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
to the Constitution) were based on
the English Bill of Rights. However, there were also problems with the bill:
Q The rights were vague and could be easily reinterpreted.
Study the American Bill of Rights
Q The precise definition of ‘free elections’ was unclear.
and try to identify which clauses
Q As a statute law it held no higher legal authority and so could be easily
were based on the English Bill
repealed or replaced by a future parliament.
of Rights. Were there any other
Q There was no formal procedure for removal of the monarchy.
principles from the English political
Q The monarch still held enormous powers over war, the peaceful
system that the USA may have tried
to replicate? Why do you think this? running of the kingdom and foreign policy.
7
 The Act of Settlement 1701
The Act of Settlement in 1701 marked another step in the changing
relationship between the crown and parliament. When it became clear that
neither William III nor his heir, Queen Anne, would have any children, the
succession should have gone to one of the heirs of James II or Charles I.
However, these heirs were Catholic and the Protestant Westminster
parliament objected to a Catholic monarch. The Act of Settlement was
passed to settle the succession problem and parliament decided to offer
the throne to George of Hanover. While there were nearly 50 closer
relatives to Queen Anne, George was chosen as the closest relative who
was not a Catholic, despite having never been to England and not being
able to speak a word of English.
So when George I became king in 1714 it was the result of an Act
of Parliament, not through any divine right of inheritance. In addition
to granting parliament the power to choose the monarch, the Act of
Settlement also established several principles that had been suggested
during the debates over the Bill of Rights:
Q Judges could not be removed without the consent of parliament.
Q Royal pardons were to be irrelevant in cases of impeachment.
Q The monarch could not take England into a war to defend their home
country, without the consent of parliament.
Q In governing Britain, the monarch could not make decisions alone and
Synoptic links
had to consult the full Privy Council.
The prime minister’s Q No foreign-born man could join the Privy Council, sit in parliament,
power of patronage hold a military command or be given lands or titles in Britain.
Today, the prime minister can Q The monarch had to be a member of the Church of England.
appoint any MP or peer to the Q The monarch could not be Catholic or married to a Catholic.
government. A return to the
principle of cabinet appointees Key term
having to stand again in a by-
Privy Council A group of senior political advisors who have the job of
election would limit the power of
advising the monarch on the use of the royal prerogative.
the prime minister and perhaps
force MPs to consider the wishes
of constituents rather than The Act contained a provision that, after the death of Queen Anne, ‘no
seeking career advancement, thus person who has an office or place of profit under the king, or receives a
improving democracy. However,
UK Government and Politics for AS/A-level

pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the

it may lead to a less effective House of Commons’. Had this clause not been repealed by the Regency
government and make the prime Act of 1706, the UK would have seen a strict separation of power and the
minister unwilling to make idea of cabinet government would not have become established.
necessary changes to the cabinet.
After the Act of Settlement, anyone appointed to the cabinet had to
resign their seat in the House of Commons and stand in a by-election, a
practice that continued until 1918. This meant the power of the monarch,
and then the prime minister, to appoint cabinet ministers was limited by
the fear of losing a by-election.
The Act also established the principle that the monarch could only
choose ministers who could command a majority of support across
both Houses of Parliament. This meant the king had to choose a ‘king in
parliament’ who could control both chambers, rather than appointing the
minister of his choice.

8
 Chapter 1 Historical context of the UK political system
Debate
Did the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement mark a significant change in the power
of parliament?
Yes No
Q The monarch was now of parliament’s choosing, rather Q Parliament remained only advisory in nature.
than ruling through divine right. Q The monarch remained the dominant force in British
Q They established the principle of regular and free politics.
elections. Q Parliament itself only represented the wealthiest
Q They restricted the monarch’s ability to interfere with 2% of the country.
laws.
Q They meant taxation could only be passed by
parliament.

The creation of the United Kingdom

England and Wales had developed as one country since the conquest of
Wales by Edward I in the 1270s. Wales still retained its own language and
customs for many years, but politically it was run from Westminster and
was often referred to as part of England, though, more accurately, England
and Wales together were ‘Britain’. Scotland remained an independent
kingdom until 1707, with its own monarch, laws and institutions.
In 1603, King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England.
The two kingdoms were still legally separate but they now shared the
same head of state, which brought a period of peace and stability to
Anglo-Scottish relations.
In 1155, Pope Adrian IV had offered the crown of Ireland to King
Henry II if he could bring the Irish under control. Following his own break
with Rome in the sixteenth century, King Henry VIII began a more formal
subjugation of Ireland, first by persuading the Irish Parliament to pass the
Crown of Ireland Act in 1542. This formally made the Kings of England
also Kings of Ireland.
Therefore, by the start of the eighteenth century, the same monarch
ruled the three separate kingdoms, but England (and Wales), Scotland
and Ireland all had separate parliaments, laws and customs, and were still
separate countries.

The Acts of Union

1707
The Act of Settlement allowed the English Parliament to decide who
should be the monarch in England and there was a real possibility that
the Scottish Parliament might choose a different monarch to rule their
country. This would lead to the breakup of the informal union between
the two kingdoms and the possibility of future wars.
In 1698 and 1699, Scotland attempted to establish its own colony
in Panama in the Gulf of Darien. The expedition proved disastrous
and effectively bankrupted the country. Urged on by King William III,
the Scottish Parliament was forced to accept terms from the English
9
 Parliament that would give Scotland a limited voice in Westminster,
or face the threats of financial disaster, internal division, commercial
blockade and war.
The Scottish Parliament passed an Act accepting the union with Britain
in January 1707 and the British Parliament passed its own Act of Union in
March, accepting jurisdiction over Scotland and Scottish representation in
parliament. These Acts of Union dissolved the Scottish Parliament and, when
the first unified parliament met in Westminster on 1 May 1707, the new
country of Great Britain was formally recognised by statute.
1800
In 1782, Ireland had gained effective legislative independence from Great
Britain with its own constitution. However, only Protestants could hold
political power, meaning the Catholic majority was largely excluded. This
led to a Catholic uprising in 1798 and an appeal to the French to invade
the country. The uprising was brutally suppressed, but with the continuing
threat of invasion, the Great British Parliament and Protestant Parliament of
Ireland agreed to form a formal political union to guarantee future security.
On 2 July 1800, the Westminster parliament passed the Union with
Ireland Act. This was followed by the passage of the Act of Union
(Ireland) by the Irish Parliament on 1 August. The Acts came into effect
on 1 January 1801 and saw the introduction of 32 Irish peers to the
House of Lords and 100 new Irish MPs, all of whom had to be Anglican
(i.e. members of the Protestant Church of Ireland). These Acts created the
new United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The Anglo-Irish Treaty, 1921

Following years of pressure for Irish Home Rule and a civil war in Ireland,
the British parliament passed the Government of Ireland Act in 1920 to
create two Irish regions with ‘Home Rule’ — the six northeastern counties
formed Northern Ireland and the rest of the country (the larger part)
formed Southern Ireland. In 1921, the Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed by
the British prime minister, David Lloyd-George, to formally create the
Irish Free State. The six counties of Northern Ireland opted to remain part
of the United Kingdom and so the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was established.
UK Government and Politics for AS/A-level

The Parliament Acts

1911
From the time of the Act of Settlement until the mid-nineteenth century,
the Lords had been the dominant force in UK politics, seen as a moderating
force between the crown and the House of Commons. Most prime
ministers had sat in the House of Lords, as had most leading statesmen.
However, the rise of democracy in the UK meant that the status of the
Lords as the ‘upper’ chamber was being increasingly challenged:
Q Lord Salisbury stepped down as prime minister in 1902, becoming the
last person to serve as prime minister while sitting in the Lords.
Q In 1888, the Lords had lost power to the new county councils, which
took over the role of running the shires.
10
 Chapter 1 Historical context of the UK political system
Q Opposition grew over the fact that the Lords had an inbuilt
Conservative majority, thanks largely to hereditary peerages, and could
block any measures taken by reforming parties.
Q The Lords defeated the Liberal Party’s ‘People’s Budget’ in 1909
because revenue was to be raised by taxes on land and inheritance in
order to fund welfare programmes. This would have impacted directly
on the Lords.
Q In January 1910, the Liberals appealed to the country and won a
decisive general election based on their financial measures. The
‘People’s Budget’ was accordingly passed by both chambers.

Synoptic links To prevent the Lords from ever again rejecting a proposal that had
popular support in the democratically elected House of Commons, and
Prime minister, cabinet in order to establish the primacy of the Commons through statute law
and parliament rather than via a convention, prime minister Herbert Asquith introduced a
The reduction in powers of the bill in 1910 that would:
House of Lords means there is Q give the Commons exclusive powers over money bills
no effective check on the power Q allow the Lords to delay a bill for 2 years only
of the House of Commons. Is it Q reduce the duration of a parliament from 7 to 5 years
better to have an all-powerful
Another general election was held in December 1910 and the Liberals
House of Commons that can
get things done, or to have an again secured a majority and went on to pass the Parliament Act in 1911.
effective second chamber that can A government needed the Lords to vote for an Act of Parliament in
act as a check on governmental order for it to be passed. Any reform of the upper chamber meant that
power? the Lords would have to vote to restrict their own powers. This did
not look likely until Asquith persuaded the king to threaten to create
enough new Liberal peers to flood the chamber and create a Liberal
majority. The threat did the trick and the Lords passed the Parliament
Act by 17 votes, confirming their lack of power over money bills and
to veto legislation.
While the restriction in the powers of the Lords was a step forward
for democracy in the UK, the removal of an effective second chamber
created the opportunity for elective dictatorship, where a party with a
clear majority would have no institution able to withstand it.

1949
The 1949 Parliament Act resulted from a conflict between the Labour
government of Clement Attlee and the Conservative-dominated House
of Lords. The Lords had voiced strong opposition to the nationalisation
programmes of Attlee’s government. To prevent the Lords from blocking
the Iron and Steel Act, the Labour-controlled Commons attempted to
pass a new Parliament Act in 1947 which would reduce the time by
which the Lords could delay legislation from 2 years to 1 year, or two
parliamentary sessions. The Lords voted against the Act and, after 2 years,
the Commons invoked the 1911 Parliament Act to bypass the Lords and
force through the legislation.
Unlike the 1911 Parliament Act, which had been passed by the Lords,
the 1949 Act did not have the consent of the Lords. In 2004, this led to a
legal challenge by the Countryside Alliance, which claimed the 1949 Act
was invalid on the common-law principle that a delegate cannot enlarge
his power (delegatus non potest delegare). This was rejected by the

11
 judiciary as the 1949 Parliament Act is statute law and therefore takes
priority over any other form of law.
The two Parliament Acts marked the formal shift in power in UK
politics from the House of Lords to the House of Commons. The
removal of the Lords’ power to veto primary legislation introduced in the
Commons, its loss of power over money bills, and the reduced time for
delaying legislation have made the Lords a much weaker second chamber.

The European Communities Act

The European Communities Act of 1972 was passed by parliament in
order to allow the UK to join three European institutions:
Q the European Economic Community (EEC) (the Common Market)
Q the European Coal and Steel Community
Q the European Atomic Energy Community

The Act also allowed EEC law to become part of domestic law in the
UK, with immediate effect. This meant that laws passed by the EEC (and
later the European Union (EU)) would take effect automatically in the
UK, without the need to pass new statute laws and therefore without
parliamentary approval. The Act also stated that no UK law could conflict
with European law. This meant that EU law had priority over UK law
and that the court system could strike down statute laws passed by
parliament.
The European Communities Act therefore marked the first time
since Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill in 1708 that another
institution took priority over parliament. The challenge to parliamentary
sovereignty covered several aspects:
Q The European Communities Act was, effectively, binding on future
Synoptic links parliaments.
The European Union Q EU law could take priority over statute law.
Q Statute law could be struck down by the courts if it was incompatible
For more information and
details about the EEC (EU) and with EU law, a principle confirmed by the Factortame case in 1991.
how membership has affected Despite this, it can be argued that parliament has remained sovereign since:
democracy in the UK, refer to the Q The European Communities Act was itself a statute law passed by
chapters on democracy (Chapter 9) parliament.
and the European Union (Chapter 8).
UK Government and Politics for AS/A-level

Q Parliament chose to accept the primacy of EEC (EU) law, which meant
that parliament had chosen to pass sovereignty to the EEC (EU).
Q Court rulings to strike down UK law are passed based on UK statute law.

Debate
Did UK membership of the EEC (EU) end parliamentary sovereignty?
Yes No
Q EEC (EU) law takes primacy over UK law. Q Parliament can repeal the European Communities Act.
Q UK law must comply with EEC (EU) laws. Q Parliament chose to pass power to the EEC (EU).
Q The courts can strike down statute laws if they are Q Membership of the EEC (EU) has limited the sovereignty
incompatible with EEC (EU) law. of parliament but it was a limit that parliament chose
to impose on itself and can choose to remove through
repeal of the European Communities Act.

12
 Chapter 1 Historical context of the UK political system
Activity
Leaving the EU should be a simple matter of repealing the European
Communities Act, but is it that simple?
Q The decision to leave was made by a referendum, not by parliament.

Q It is up to the prime minister, after getting permission from parliament, to

trigger Article 50 to formally leave the EU.

Q The negotiations to leave the EU will be conducted by the European Union

and parliament can only accept or reject the terms offered.

Carry out some research into the process of leaving the EU as established by
the Supreme Court and consider whether the process for leaving shows that
parliament is still sovereign or whether that sovereignty has been lost.

The rise of democracy in the UK

While much of the political history of the United Kingdom has been
about the transfer of power from the monarch to parliament, it was
not until the nineteenth century that issues relating to democracy and
representation became prominent. Before 1832, the Lords was clearly
the dominant house, with the Commons representing less than 2% of
the population. There were elections, but these were often undemocratic
affairs, with rotten boroughs, multiple votes and only the wealthiest of
landowners entitled to vote for members of the House of Commons.
From 1832 until 1969, Britain saw a huge
growth in democratic representation From 1832 until 1969, Britain saw a huge growth in democratic
representation, with the electorate growing from 2% to full universal
adult suffrage (see Table 1.3). This growth in democracy led to the shift in
power from the Lords to the Commons.

Table 1.3 Reforms to extend the franchise

Size of the electorate

(as a percentage of
Extension Who could vote the adult population)
Great Reform Act 1832 Anyone who owned property 8%
worth more than £10 (the
middle classes)
Second Reform Act 1867 Anyone who paid rent worth 16%
at least £10 a year or owned
a small plot of land (the
urban working classes and
rural middle classes)
Redistribution of the Extended the franchise to 28%
Seats Act 1885 (Third agricultural labourers (the
Reform Act) rural working class)
Representation of the All men aged over 21 and 74%
People Act 1918 women aged over 35
Representation of the All men and women aged 96%
People Act 1928 over 21
Representation of the All men and women aged 97%
People Act 1969 over 18

13
 Furthermore, the nineteenth century also saw significant reforms to the
way elections were held and seats were allocated, making representation
across the UK fairer (see Table 1.4).

Table 1.4 Reforms to the conduct of elections

Reform How it changed British democracy

Great Reform Act 1832 Rotten boroughs were abolished and more seats
were allocated to the new industrial towns.
Ballot Act 1872 Introduced the secret ballot to prevent voter
intimidation and reduce corruption.
Corrupt and Illegal Practices Rules were established for how much a candidate
Act 1883 could spend and what they could spend the
money on in a campaign, in order to reduce
bribery in elections.
Redistribution of Seats Act This reallocated 142 seats from the south of
1885 England to the industrial centres of the north and
Scotland, breaking the traditional dominance of
the south of England in Westminster politics.

What you should know

Q British politics is rooted in its history. For more than a thousand years it has developed and evolved into the
modern system of constitutional monarchy and a sovereign parliament that we have today.
Q Many of the key principles of British politics have been present to some degree throughout its history. The
idea of a group of representatives of the people who meet regularly, discuss what is best for the common
good and advise the monarch has been present since Anglo-Saxon times.
Q The principle of the rule of law with trial by jury and habeas corpus has curbed the power of tyrannical
monarchs and ensured judges have had a role in protecting rights and liberties to some degree for much of
British history.
Q Even the idea of people choosing their representatives has been present, in some form, for much of this
history.
Q As such, the ideas of representation, parliamentary power, scrutiny of the government and, above all, a
society governed by laws, have existed in Britain since Anglo-Saxon times.
Q These core principles have been present throughout British history but several things have changed
dramatically over time: the way the core principles are exercised, the balance of power between different
aspects of politics, the way the core principles are interpreted, and the very makeup of the United Kingdom
itself.
UK Government and Politics for AS/A-level

Q Sovereignty has passed from the monarchy to parliament and then been shared, to some degree, with other
institutions. The monarchy today has very little power. The Lords is no longer the senior House in parliament,
as the Commons takes the lead in representing the people.
Q Perhaps the greatest and most important change has been the development of democracy and
representation. The debates, decisions and actions of parliament and the government are now public and the
process of elections has become more free, more fair and far more open to ordinary men and women.
Q The people who choose their representatives are no longer a small group of wealthy and privileged men,
but almost everyone over the age of 18, regardless of wealth, race or gender, making the UK a modern
democracy, despite its traditional institutions.
Q An understanding of this history, and the continuity and changes that have occurred, will help you to
appreciate the way in which modern politics works, the United Kingdom’s unique institutions and the issues
which lead to many of the ideological, constitutional and social debates of today.

14
 Chapter 1 Historical context of the UK political system
Further reading
Bryant, C. (2015) Parliament: The Biography (Volume I: Ancestral Voices),
Black Swan.
Bryant, C. (2015) Parliament: The Biography (Volume II: Reform), Black
Swan.
Butler, D. and Kitinger, U. (1996) The 1975 Referendum, Palgrave
Macmillan.
Colley, L. (2014) Acts of Union and Disunion, Profile Books Ltd.
Field, J. (2006) The Story of Parliament: In the Palace of Westminster, Third
Millennium.
Jones, D. (2014) Magna Carta: The Making and Legacy of the Great Charter,
Head of Zeus.
Keates, J. (2015) William III & Mary II (Penguin Monarchs): Partners in
Revolution, Penguin.
The Constitution Unit: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit
Parliament: www.parliament.uk

15
 Chapter 2
The UK political system
Key questions answered
O What is the nature of politics?
O What are the main features of the Westminster model of British politics?
O What are the relationships between the main branches of government?
O What are the areas of continuity and change in British politics?
O What is the character and health of British democracy?

In December 2016, the Supreme Court heard an appeal from the UK

government against a High Court ruling that it could not trigger Article 50
of the Lisbon Treaty, and thus begin the process of leaving the European
Union, without the authorisation of parliament. The Supreme Court
ruled in January 2017 that triggering Article 50 did not fall within the
prerogative powers of the executive but required an Act of Parliament.
In the same month, the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled that the Scottish
government could implement its policy to set a minimum price for alcohol
of 50p per unit. This is a devolved power in which the Scottish Parliament
has primary legislative authority, but legislation passed 4 years earlier had
not come into force because of legal challenges by alcohol producers.
Both of these cases illustrate the complex relationships between the three
branches of government in the UK — the executive, the legislature and the
judiciary — as well as the impact of devolution and of leaving the EU.
Pro-Brexit supporters gathered outside
Parliament in November 2016 to oppose
the recent High Court ruling to give MPs
the final decision on the matter
UK Government and Politics for AS/A-level

What is politics?
Before starting to study UK government and politics, it is helpful to define
our subject matter. A student of English literature or chemistry may have
little difficulty in offering a definition of their chosen subject, but it is
16
 Chapter 2 The UK political system
harder to explain precisely what politics is. This is not surprising, given the
range of definitions and interpretations in common usage.

Definitions of politics
One of the most memorable and effective definitions of politics is found in
the title of a book by US political scientist Howard Lasswell: Politics: Who
Gets What, When and How (1935). Politics is, in essence, the process by which
individuals and groups with divergent interests and values make collective
decisions. It exists because of two key features of human societies:
Q Scarcity of resources. Certain goods, from material wealth to knowledge
and influence, are in short supply, so disputes arise over their distribution.
Q Competing interests and values. There are competing interests,
needs and wants in complex societies, as well as different views on
how resources should be distributed.

Power or conciliation
There are two broad perspectives on the conduct of politics:
Key terms Q Politics is about power. Power is the ability to achieve a favoured
Authority The right to take a outcome, whether through coercion or the exercise of authority. The
particular course of action. study of politics thus focuses on the distribution of power within a
Power The ability to do society: who makes the rules and where does their authority come from?
something or make something Q Politics is about conciliation. Here the focus is on conflict resolution,
happen. negotiation and compromise. Politics can be a force for good, a way of
reaching decisions in divided societies without resorting to force.

In focus
Power
Power is the ability to do something or make something happen. It can be subdivided into four forms:
Q Absolute power is the unlimited ability to do as one wishes and this exists only in theory.
Q Persuasive power is the ability to persuade others that a course of action is the right one.
Q Legitimate power involves others accepting an individual’s right to make decisions, perhaps as a result of an
election.
Q Coercive power means pressing others into complying, using laws and penalties.
In a democracy, governments exercise legitimate power, with elements of persuasive and coercive power.

In focus
Authority
Authority is the right to take a particular course of action. The German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) identified
three sources of authority:
Q Traditional authority is based on established traditions and customs.
Q Charismatic authority is based on the characteristics of leaders.
Q Legal–rational authority is granted by a formal process such as an election.
Only parliament has the authority to make and unmake laws in the UK. This legal–rational authority is legitimised
through free and fair elections.
Authority and power may be held independently of one another: a bomb-wielding terrorist may have power without
authority; a teacher might have authority without genuine power; and a police officer in a tactical firearms unit may
have power and authority.

17
 Key terms Politics, government and the state
Governance A form of decision The most common perspective on politics sees it take place primarily
making which involves a wide within the state. The state is the set of institutions that exercise authority
range of institutions, networks over a political community within a territory. It includes the institutions
and relationships. of government that determine the common rules of a political unit. The
Government (a) The activity or state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and its institutions
system of governing a political include those that enforce order, such as the police, courts, military
unit. (b) The set of institutions and security services. The remit of the state expanded in the twentieth
that exercise authority and make century as it took on a greater role in the economy and developed an
the rules of a political unit. extensive welfare state. But its role has shrunk in the last 30 years as
some of its economic and social functions have been contracted out to
the private sector, and functions have been transferred to international or
regional organisations. This marked a shift from top-down government,
in which decision making was conducted within central government, to
governance, in which a wide range of formal and informal institutions
and networks are involved in decision making.

Politics beyond the state

Politics is found in various spheres of human activity that lie beyond the
state:
Q Civil society. Politics is found in civil society — that is, the realm of
autonomous groups and associations found between the state and the
individual. Civil society thus includes pressure groups, businesses, trade
unions, churches and community groups.
Q All collective social action. In What is Politics? The Activity and its
Study (2004), Adrian Leftwich argued that politics is present in all
collective social activity, whether formal or informal, and in all human
groups and societies. This perspective rejects the notion of a public–
private divide in which politics is only present in the public sphere.
Although the focus is still on power and conciliation, it shows how
politics pervades our everyday lives — for example, ‘who gets what,
when and how’ in the family or school.

British politics
The rest of this chapter provides a brief overview of key features of the
UK Government and Politics for AS/A-level

Key terms British political system, examining continuity and change in the relationship
Executive The branch of between its institutions, and the character and health of British democracy.
government responsible for the These issues are then explored in greater depth in the rest of the book.
implementation of policy. The Westminster model is the traditional way of understanding
Legislature The branch of British politics. It focuses on the constitution and major institutions of the
government responsible for British political system, and reflects the long-standing British experience
passing laws. of strong, centralised government run by disciplined political parties. Key
Westminster model A form of features of the Westminster model include:
government exemplified by the Q The constitution is uncodified and can be easily amended.
British political system in which Q The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty concentrates authority at
parliament is sovereign, the the centre.
executive and legislature are fused Q The executive and legislature are fused, and the former is dominant.
and political power is centralised.
Q Government ministers are bound by collective responsibility and party
discipline is imposed in parliament.
18
 Chapter 2 The UK political system
Key terms Q An independent judiciary upholds the rule of law, but cannot strike
down laws made by parliament.
Judiciary The branch of Q Sub-national government is largely absent and local government is
government responsible for weak.
interpreting the law and deciding Q Single-party government is the norm given the operation of the
upon legal disputes.
single-member plurality electoral system and the two-party
Rule of law A legal theory holding
system.
that the relationship between the
Q A system of representative democracy means that government is held
state and the individual is governed
accountable through elections, which are the key form of political
by law, protecting the individual
participation.
from arbitrary state action.

Debate
Is the Westminster model a desirable political system?
Yes No
Q Government is representative and responsible. It Q There are insufficient checks and balances.
is accountable to parliament for its actions and Parliamentary sovereignty, the single-member
accountable to the people through elections. plurality electoral system and executive
Collective responsibility means that parliament can dominance of the legislature allow the government
force the resignation of the government. Individual to do whatever it wants. This can produce
ministerial responsibility means that ministers must elective dictatorship.
account for their actions in parliament. Q The concentration of power at the centre means that
Q Government is strong and effective. The electoral decisions are not taken close to the people.
system produces single-party governments with Q There are limited opportunities for political
parliamentary majorities. Executive control of the participation.
legislature ensures that governments deliver the Q There is not a strong rights culture: governments can
commitments they made to voters. use ordinary legislation or executive powers to restrict
Q Voters are presented with a clear choice between the the rights of citizens.
governing party and the opposition party.
Q The rule of law defends basic civil liberties and
ensures that power is not exercised arbitrarily.
Ministers and officials are not above the law.

Key terms In focus

Civil liberties Fundamental Elective dictatorship
individual rights and freedoms
This refers to the excessive concentration of power in the executive branch. It
that ought to be protected from
implies that the only check on the power of government is the need to hold
interference or encroachment by
(and win) general elections at regular intervals. Beyond this, the government is
the state.
regarded as free to do as it wishes because the constitution concentrates power
Elective dictatorship Where
in the executive branch and does not provide effective checks and balances.
there is excessive concentration
of power in the executive branch
of government.

19
 Case study
Majoritarian or consensual democracy?
Dutch political scientist Arend Lijphart located main parties with opposing ideological positions. Power
liberal democracies on a spectrum with majoritarian sharing is the norm in a consensual democracy.
democracy at one extreme and consensual democracy
The UK Westminster model is the archetypal
at the other (see Table 2.1).
majoritarian democracy, while Switzerland is a
In a majoritarian democracy, political power is leading example of consensual democracy. The Blair
concentrated at the centre and there are few limits to its governments’ constitutional reforms introduced
exercise. Common features include a flexible constitution, elements of consensual democracy (e.g. devolution
a plurality electoral system, a two-party system, a and the Human Rights Act), while multiparty politics
dominant executive and a unitary state. In a consensual and coalition government have also become more
democracy, political power is diffused. Typical features apparent. But the UK is still close to the majoritarian
are a rigid constitution, proportional representation, position. Parliamentary sovereignty remains the guiding
multiparty politics, the separation of powers and a constitutional principle, the fusion of the legislature and
federal system. There are also important differences in executive has not been disturbed greatly, and the first-
political culture. Politics is adversarial in a majoritarian past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system is still used for
democracy, characterised by conflict between two Westminster elections.

Questions
Q What are the main differences between a majoritarian and a consensual democracy?
Q Is the UK still a majoritarian democracy?

Table 2.1 Majoritarian and consensual democracy

Aspect of political
system Majoritarian democracy Consensual democracy
Constitution Flexible constitution is easily amended Rigid constitution can only be amended through
special procedures
Executive–legislative Executive is dominant and controls the legislature There is a balance of power between the
relations executive and legislature
Judiciary Courts cannot challenge the constitutionality of Constitutional court can strike down legislation
legislation
Territorial politics Unitary state with power concentrated at the Federal system with power divided between tiers
centre of government
Electoral system Majoritarian system produces single-party Proportional representation produces coalition
UK Government and Politics for AS/A-level

government government
Party system Adversarial two-party system Cooperative multiparty system

Activity
Using the information in Table 2.1 and the rest of this chapter, assess the
extent to which the UK has moved from the majoritarian democracy
Key term extreme towards the consensual democracy end of the spectrum.

Constitution The laws, rules and

practices which determine the The constitution
institutions of the state, and the
The British constitution is highly unusual as it is uncodified. This means
relationship between the state
and its citizens. that the major principles of the political system are not found in a single,
authoritative document. Instead they are located in various Acts of
20
 Chapter 2 The UK political system
Parliament, in decisions of the courts and in conventions. The uncodified
nature of the constitution has important implications for British politics:
Q The constitution does not have the status of fundamental or higher
law — it has the same status as other law made by the legislature.
Q There are no special procedures for amending the constitution — it can
be amended by an Act of Parliament in the same way as other laws.
Q Parliament, rather than a constitutional court, determines what is
permissible under the constitution — there is no definitive criterion for
determining what is unconstitutional.

Parliamentary sovereignty
Parliamentary sovereignty is the cornerstone of the British constitution.
It states that the Westminster parliament is the supreme law-making
Key terms body. Sovereignty means legal supremacy: parliament has ultimate law-
making authority. This legislative supremacy is constructed around three
Legitimacy Rightfulness: a
political system is legitimate propositions:
Q Parliament can legislate on any subject of its choosing. There are
when it is based on the consent
of the people and actions no constitutional restrictions on the scope of parliament’s legislative
follow from agreed laws and authority.
procedures. Q Legislation cannot be overturned by any higher authority. The

Sovereignty Legal supremacy or courts cannot strike down statute law as unconstitutional.
absolute law-making authority. Q No parliament can bind its successors. All legislation is of equal
status: legislation that brings about major constitutional change has
the same status as, say, animal welfare law. It is not entrenched: one
piece of legislation can be amended in the same way as any other.
The reality of parliamentary sovereignty is rather different from the legal
theory. As the executive dominates the legislature, it is the government,
rather than the House of Commons, that has the greatest influence
over legislation. But there are formal and informal constraints on what
it can do: a government that systematically ignores public opinion will
see its legitimacy undermined. In recent decades, several important
developments have challenged parliamentary sovereignty.
Membership of the European Union
European Union (EU) law has precedence over domestic British law. In
the event of a conflict between the two, EU law must be applied. This
challenges the notion that no higher authority can overturn Acts of
Parliament, but parliament retained ultimate decision-making authority
as it could decide to leave the EU. The extension of the EU’s policy
competence, the removal of the national veto in many policy areas, and
the strengthening of the European Parliament have also restricted the
powers of national governments. Withdrawal from the EU (Brexit) will end
the supremacy of EU law in the UK and restore decision-making powers
to the nation state. But political constraints on sovereignty will remain as
cross-border challenges such as migration and climate change cannot be
tackled effectively by any one state in isolation.
The Human Rights Act 1998
The Act incorporated the rights set out in the European Convention
on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK statute law. All new legislation
must be compatible with these rights and the UK courts decide cases
21
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
power to treat, but no further steps can be taken till Spain and
Holland have empowered Ministers for the same purpose.
"I shall inform you and Mr Adams, (if he does not come) of the
proceeding from time to time, and request your counsel in cases of
any difficulty. I hope you will not think of hazarding a return to
America before a peace, if we find any hopes of its being soon
obtained; and that if you do not find you can be useful in the
manner you wish, in Holland, you will make me happy by your
company and counsel here. With great and sincere esteem, &c.
B. FRANKLIN."
May the 26th, I received the following letters and papers from Mr
Hartley.
[One of these letters is dated May 1st, which, together with a paper
called the Breviate, is printed above, pp. 343, 351.]

DAVID HARTLEY TO B. FRANKLIN.

London, May 13th, 1782.
"My dear friend,
"I wrote you a long letter dated May 1st, 1782, by Mr Laurens, who
left London on Saturday last, but I will add a few lines now by a
conveyance, which I believe will overtake him, just to tell you two or
three things, which I believe I omitted in my last. Perhaps they may
not be of any consequence, but as they relate to my own conduct, I
could wish to have you understand them.
"After several conferences with the late Ministry, I gave in the paper,
called the Breviate, on the 7th of February, but I never received any
answer from them. They resigned on the 20th of March. Upon the
accession of the new Ministry, I heard nothing from them upon the
subject, nor indeed did I apply to them. I did not know whether that
paper would not come into their hands by succession, and I doubted
whether it might not be more proper for me to wait till I heard from
them. While I remained doubtful about this, I received your letters,
which determined me to go to Lord Shelburne. This was about the
beginning of the present month. I communicated to him some
extracts, such as those about the prisoners, &c. and likewise the
whole of your letter of April 13th, containing the offer of the late
Ministry, the King of France's answer, together with your reflections
in the conclusion respecting peace. As you had given me a general
permission, I left with him a copy of the whole letter.
"Upon the occasion of this interview, Lord Shelburne told me that he
had made much inquiry in the offices for the correspondence and
papers, which had passed between the late Ministry and me, but
that he could not meet with them. He expressed a regret, that he
had not conversed with me at an earlier day, with many civilities of
that kind. In short, I had been backward to intrude myself, and he
expressed regret that he had not sent for me.
"Upon this opening on his part, I stated to him the substance of
what passed between the late Ministry and myself, and I left a copy
of the Breviate with him. He gave me a very attentive audience, and
I took that opportunity of stating my sentiments to him, as far as I
could, upon every view of the question. Upon his expressing his
regret that he had not seen me sooner, I told him that I always had
been, and always should be, most ready to give any assistance in
my power towards the work of peace. I say the same to you.
"I do not believe that there is any difference of sentiment between
you and me, personally, in our own minds upon independence, &c.
&.c. But we belong to different communities, and the right of
judgment, and of consent and dissent, is vested in the community.
Divide independence into six millions of shares, and you should have
been heartily welcome to my share from the beginning of the war.
Divide Canada into six millions of shares, I could find a better
method of disposing of my share, than, by offering it to France, to
abandon America. Divide the rock of Gibraltar into six millions of
pieces, I can only answer for one portion. Let Reason and Justice
decide in any such case, as universal umpires between contending
parties, and those who wish well to the permanent peace of
mankind, will not refuse to give and to receive equal justice.
"I agree with you, that the equitable and the philosophical principles
of politics can alone form a solid foundation of permanent peace;
and the contraries to them, though highly patronized by nations
themselves, and their Ministers, are no better than vulgar errors; but
nations are slow to convictions from the personal arguments of
individuals. 'They are jealous in honor, seeking the bubble reputation
even in the cannon's mouth.' But until a confirmed millennium,
founded upon wiser principles, shall be generally established, the
reputation of nations is not merely a bubble. It forms their real
security.
"To apply all this, in one word, let all nations agree, with one accord,
to beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning
hooks, or give me wooden walls to Great Britain! I have nothing
further to add. My reason for writing this, was just to communicate
to you in what position I had delivered over my conferences and
arguments with the late Ministry into the hands of the present. And I
will conclude with your own words, may God send us all more
wisdom. I am ever, most affectionately, yours, &c.
D. HARTLEY."
"P. S. May 17th, 1782. Since writing the above, I have likewise left a
copy of the enclosed preliminaries with Lord Shelburne."
 PRELIMINARIES.
May, 1782.
"1. That the British troops shall be withdrawn from the Thirteen
Provinces of North America, and a truce made between Great Britain
and the said Provinces, for —— years. (Suppose ten or twenty
years.)
"2. That a negotiation for peace shall bona fide be opened between
Great Britain and the allies of America.
"3. If the proposed negotiation between Great Britain and the allies
of America should not succeed so far as to produce peace, but that
war should continue between the said parties, that America should
act, and be treated as a neutral nation.
"4. That whenever peace shall take place between Great Britain and
the allies of America, the truce between Great Britain and America
shall be converted into a perpetual peace, the independence of
America shall be admitted and guarantied by Great Britain, and a
commercial treaty settled between them.
"5. That these propositions shall be made to the Court of France, for
communication to the American Commissioners, and for an answer
to the Court of Great Britain."

The same day Mr Grenville visited me. He acquainted me, that his
courier was returned, and had brought him full powers in form to
treat for a peace with France and her allies. That he had been at
Versailles, and had shown his power to M. de Vergennes, and left a
copy with him. That he had also a letter of credence, which he was
not to deliver till France should think fit to send a Minister of the
same kind to London; that M. de Vergennes had told him, that he
would lay it before the King, and had desired to see him again on
Wednesday. That Mr Oswald had arrived in London, about an hour
before the courier came away. That Mr Fox in his letter had charged
him to thank me for that which I had written, and to tell me, that he
hoped I would never forget, that he and I were of the same country.
I answered, that I should always esteem it an honor to be owned as
a countryman of Mr Fox. He had requested me at our last interview,
that if I saw no impropriety in doing it, I would favor him with a
sight of the treaty of alliance between France and America. I
acquainted him that it was printed, but that if he could not readily
meet with a copy, I would have one written for him. And as he had
not been able to find one, I this day gave it to him.
He lent me a London gazette, containing Admiral Rodney's account
of his victory over M. de Grasse, and the accounts of other successes
in the East Indies, assuring me, however, that these events made
not the least change in the sincere desire of his Court to treat for
peace.
In the afternoon the Marquis de Lafayette called upon me. I
acquainted him with what Mr Grenville had told me respecting the
credential letter, and the expectation that a person on the part of
this Court would be sent to London with a commission similar to his.
The Marquis told me he was on his way to Versailles, and should see
M. de Vergennes. We concluded, that it would now be proper for him
to make the proposition we had before talked of, that he should be
the person employed in that service.
On Monday, the 27th, I received a letter from Mr Jay, dated the 8th,
acquainting me, that he had received mine of the 21st and 22d past,
and had concluded to set out for Paris about the 19th, so that he
may be expected in a few days.
I dined this day with Count d'Estaing, and a number of brave marine
officers, that he had invited. We were all a little dejected with the
news. I mentioned, by way of encouragement, the observation of
the Turkish bashaw, who was taken with his fleet at Lepanto, by the
Venetians. "Ships," says he, "are like my master's beard, you may
cut it, but it will grow again. He has cut off from your government all
the Morea, which is like a limb, which you will never recover." And
his words proved true.
On Tuesday I dined at Versailles with some friends, so was not at
home when the Marquis de Lafayette called to acquaint me, that M.
de Vergennes informed him, that the full power received by Mr
Grenville from London, and communicated by him, related to France
only. The Marquis left for me this information, which I could not
understand. On Wednesday I was at Court, and saw the copy of the
power. It appeared full with regard to treating with France, but
mentioned not a word of her allies. And, as M. de Vergennes had
explicitly and constantly, from the beginning, declared to the several
messengers, Mr Forth, Mr Oswald, and Mr Grenville, that France
could only treat in concert with her allies, and it had in consequence
been declared on the part of the British Ministry, that they consented
to treat for a general peace, and at Paris, the sending this partial
power seemed to be insidious, and a mere invention to occasion
delay, the late disasters to the French fleet having probably given
the Court of England fresh courage and other views.
M. de Vergennes said he should see Mr Grenville on Thursday, and
would speak his mind to him, on the subject very plainly. "They
want," said he, "to treat with us for you, but this the King will not
agree to. He thinks it not consistent with the dignity of your state.
You will treat for yourselves; and every one of the powers at war
with England will make its own treaty. All that is necessary for our
common security is, that the treaties go hand in hand, and are
signed all on the same day."
Prince Bariatinski, the Russian Ambassador, was particularly civil to
me this day at Court, apologised for what passed relating to the
visit, expressed himself extremely sensible of my friendship in
covering the affair, which might have occasioned to him very
disagreeable consequences, &c. The Count du Nord came to M. de
Vergennes, while we were drinking coffee, after dinner. He appears
lively and active, with a sensible, spirited countenance. There was an
opera at night for his entertainment. The house being richly finished
with abundance of carving and gilding, well illuminated with wax
tapers, and the company all superbly dressed, many of the men in
cloth of tissue, and the ladies sparkling with diamonds, formed
altogether the most splendid spectacle my eyes ever beheld.
I had some little conference today with M. M. Berkenrode,
Vanderpierre and Boeris, the Ambassador of Holland and the agents
of the Dutch East India Company. They informed me, that the
second letter of Mr Fox to the mediating Minister of Russia,
proposing a separate peace with Holland, made no more impression
than the first, and no peace would be made but in concurrence with
France.
The Swedish Minister told me he expected orders from his Court
relative to a treaty, &c.
I had, at our last interview, given Mr Grenville a rendezvous for
Saturday morning, and having some other engagements for
Thursday and Friday, though I wish to speak with him on the subject
of his power, I did not go to him, but waited his coming to me on
Saturday. On Friday, May 31st, Mr Oswald called on me, being just
returned, and brought me the following letters from Lord Shelburne,
the first of which had been written before his arrival.

LORD SHELBURNE TO B. FRANKLIN.

Whitehall, May 28th, 1782.
"Sir,
"I am honored with your letter of the 10th instant, and am very glad
to find that the conduct, which the King has empowered me to
observe towards Mr Laurens, and the American prisoners, has given
you pleasure. I have signified to Mr Oswald his Majesty's pleasure,
that he shall continue at Paris till he receives orders from hence to
return. In the present state of this business, there is nothing for me
to add, but my sincere wishes for a happy issue, and to repeat my
assurances, that nothing shall be wanting on my part which can
contribute to it. I have the honor to be, with very great regard,
SHELBURNE."

LORD SHELBURNE TO B. FRANKLIN.

Whitehall, May 29th, 1782.
"Sir,
"I have the honor to receive your letter of the 13th of May, by Mr
Oswald. It gives me great pleasure to find my opinion of the
moderation, prudence, and judgment of that gentleman confirmed
by your concurrence. For I am glad to assure you, that we likewise
concur in hoping that those qualities may enable him to contribute
to the speedy conclusion of a peace, and such a peace as may be
firm and long lasting. In that hope he has the King's orders to return
immediately to Paris, and you will find him, I trust, properly
instructed to co-operate in so desirable an object. I have the honor
to be, &c.
SHELBURNE."
I had not then time to converse much with Mr Oswald, and he
promised to come and breakfast with me on Monday.
Saturday, June 5th. Mr Grenville came, according to appointment.
Our conversation began by my acquainting him that I had seen the
Count de Vergennes, and had perused the copy left with him of the
power to treat. That after what he, Mr Grenville, told me of its being
to treat with France and her allies, I was a little surprised to find in it
no mention of the allies, and that it was only to treat with the King
of France and his Ministers; that, at Versailles, there was some
suspicion of its being intended to occasion delay, the professed
desire of a speedy peace being, perhaps, abated in the British Court
since its late successes; but that I imagined the words relating to the
allies might have been accidentally omitted in transcribing, or that,
perhaps, he had a special power to treat with us distinct from the
other. He answered, that the copy was right, and that he had no
such power in form, but that his instructions were full to that
purpose, and that he was sure the Ministers had no desire of delay,
nor any of excluding us from the treaty, since the greatest part of
those instructions related to treating with me. That, to convince me
of this sincerity of his Court respecting us, he would acquaint me
with one of his instructions, though, perhaps, the doing it now was
premature, and therefore a little inconsistent with the character of a
politician, but he had that confidence in me that he should not
hesitate to inform me, (though he wished that at present it should
go no further,) he was instructed to acknowledge the independence
of America, previous to the commencement of the treaty. And he
said he could only account for the omission of America in the POWER,
by supposing that it was an old official form copied from that given
to Mr Stanley, when he came over hither before the last peace. Mr
Grenville added that he had, immediately after his interview with the
Count de Vergennes, despatched a courier to London, and hoped,
that with his return the difficulty would be removed. That he was
perfectly assured their late success had made no change in the
disposition of his Court to peace, and that he had more reason than
the Count de Vergennes to complain of delays, since five days were
spent before he could obtain a passport for his courier, and then it
was not to go and return by way of Calais, but to go by Ostend,
which would occasion a delay of five days longer. Mr Grenville then
spoke much of the high opinion the present Ministry had of me, and
their great esteem for me, their desire of a perfect reconciliation
between the two countries, and the firm and general belief in
England, that no man was so capable as myself of proposing the
proper means of bringing about such a reconciliation, adding that if
the old Ministers had formerly been too little attentive to my
counsels, the present were very differently disposed, and he hoped
that in treating with them, I would totally forget their predecessors.
The time has been when such flattering language, as from great
men, might have made me vainer, and had more effect on my
conduct, than it can at present, when I find myself so near the end
of life as to esteem lightly all personal interests and concerns, except
that of maintaining to the last, and leaving behind me the tolerably
good character I have hitherto supported.
Mr Grenville then discoursed of our resolution not to treat without
our allies. This, says he, can only properly relate to France, with
whom you have a treaty of alliance, but you have none with Spain,
you have none with Holland. If Spain and Holland, and even if
France should insist on unreasonable terms of advantage to
themselves, after you have obtained all you want, and are satisfied,
can it be right that America should be dragged on in a war for their
interest only? He stated this matter in various lights and pressed it
earnestly. I resolved, from various reasons, to evade the discussion,
therefore answered, that the intended treaty not being yet begun, it
appeared unnecessary to enter at present into considerations of that
kind. The preliminaries being once settled and the treaty
commenced, if any of the other powers should make extravagant
demands on England, and insist on our continuing the war till those
were complied with, it would then be time enough to consider what
our obligations were, and how far they extended. The first thing
necessary was for him to procure the full powers, the next for us to
assemble the plenipotentiaries of all the belligerent parties, and then
propositions might be mutually made, received, considered,
answered, or agreed to. In the meantime I would just mention to
him, that though we were yet under no obligations to Spain by
treaty, we were under obligations of gratitude for the assistance she
had afforded us; and as Mr Adams had some weeks since
commenced a treaty in Holland, the terms of which I was not yet
acquainted with, I knew not but that we might have already some
alliance and obligations contracted there. And perhaps we ought,
however, to have some consideration for Holland on this account,
that it was in vengeance for the friendly disposition shown by some
of her people to make a treaty of commerce with us, that England
had declared the war against her.
He said it would be hard upon England, if having given reasonable
satisfaction to one or two of her enemies, she could not have peace
with those till she had complied with whatever the others might
demand, however unreasonable, for so she might be obliged to pay
for every article four fold. I observed, that when she made her
propositions, the more advantageous they were to each, the more it
would be the interest of each to prevail with the others to accept
those offered to them. We then spoke of the reconciliation, but his
full power not being yet come I chose to defer entering upon that
subject at present. I told him I had thoughts of putting down in
writing the particulars that I judged would conduce to that end, and
of adding my reasons, that this required a little time, and I had been
hindered by accidents; which was true, for I had begun to write, but
had postponed it on account of his defective power to treat. But I
promised to finish it as soon as possible. He pressed me earnestly to
do it, saying, an expression of mine in a former conversation, that
there still remained roots of good will in America towards England,
which if properly taken care of might produce a reconciliation, had
made a great impression on his mind, and given him infinite
pleasure, and he hoped I would not neglect furnishing him with the
information of what would be necessary to nourish those roots, and
could assure me, that my advice would be greatly regarded.
Mr Grenville had shown me at our last interview a letter from the
Duke of Richmond to him, requesting him to prevail with me to
disengage a Captain McLeod, of the artillery, from his parole, the
Duke's brother, Lord George Lenox, being appointed to the
command of Portsmouth, and desiring to have him as his aid-de-
camp. I had promised to consider of it, and this morning I sent him
the following letter.

TO MR GRENVILLE.
Passy, May 31st, 1782.
"Sir,
"I do not find, that I have any express authority to absolve a parole
given by an English officer in America, but desirous of complying
with a request of the Duke of Richmond, as far as may be in my
power, and being confident, that the Congress will be pleased with
whatever may oblige a personage they so much respect, I do hereby
consent, that Captain McLeod serve in his military capacity in
England only, till the pleasure of the Congress is known, to whom I
will write immediately, and who, I make no doubt, will discharge him
entirely. I have the honor to be, &c.
B. FRANKLIN."
America had been constantly befriended in Parliament by the Duke
of Richmond, and I believed the Congress would not be displeased,
that this opportunity was taken of obliging him, and that they would
by their approbation supply the deficiency of my power. Besides, I
could not well refuse it, after what had passed between Mr Laurens
and me, and what I had promised to do for that gentleman.
Sunday, June 2d. The Marquis de Lafayette called and dined with
me. He is uneasy about the delay, as he cannot resolve concerning
his voyage to America, till some certainty appears of there being a
treaty or no treaty. This day I wrote the following letter to Mr
Adams.

TO JOHN ADAMS.
Passy, June 2d, 1782.
"Sir,
"Since mine of May 8th, I have not had anything material to
communicate to your Excellency. Mr Grenville indeed arrived just
after I had despatched that letter, and I introduced him to M. de
Vergennes, but, as his mission seemed only a repetition of that by
Mr Oswald, the same declaration of the King of England's sincere
desire of peace, and willingness to treat at Paris, which were
answered by the same declarations of the good dispositions of this
Court, and that it could not treat without the concurrence of its
allies, I omitted writing till something should be produced from a
kind of agreement, that M. de Vergennes would acquaint Spain and
Holland with the overture, and Mr Grenville would write for full
powers to treat, and make propositions; nothing of importance being
in the meantime to be transacted.
"Mr Grenville accordingly despatched a messenger for London, who
returned in about twelve days. Mr Grenville called on me, after
having been at Versailles, and acquainted me that he had received
the power, and had left a copy of it with M. de Vergennes, and that
he was thereby authorised to treat with France and her allies. The
next time I went to Versailles, I desired to see that copy, and was
surprised to find in it no mention of the allies of France, or any one
of them, and, on speaking with M. de Vergennes about it, I found he
began to look upon the whole as a piece of artifice to amuse us, and
gain time; since he had uniformly declared to every agent who had
appeared there, viz. to Forth, Oswald, and Grenville, that the King
would not treat without the concurrence of his allies, and yet
England had given a power to treat with France only, which showed
she did not intend to treat at all, but meant to continue the war.
"I had not till yesterday an opportunity of talking with Mr Grenville
on the subject, and expressing my wonder, that, after what he told
me, there should be no mention made of our States in his
commission, he could not explain this to my satisfaction, but said, he
believed the omission was occasioned by their copying an old
commission given to Mr Stanley at the last treaty of peace, for he
was sure the intention was, that he should treat with us, his
instructions being fully to that purpose. I acquainted him, that I
thought a special commission was necessary, without which we
could not treat with him. I imagine, that there is a reluctance in their
king to take this first step, as the giving such a commission would
itself be a kind of acknowledgment of our independence. Their late
success against Count de Grasse may also have given them hopes,
that by delay and more successes they may make that
acknowledgment and a peace less necessary.
"Mr Grenville has written to his Court for further instructions. We
shall see what the return of his courier will produce. If full power to
treat with each of the powers at war against England does not
appear, I imagine the negotiation will be broken off. Mr Grenville, in
his conversation with me, insists much on our being under no
engagements not to make a peace without Holland. I have answered
him, that I know not but that you may have entered into some, and
if there should be none, a general pacification, made at the same
time, would be best for us all, and that I believe neither Holland nor
we could be prevailed on to abandon our friends. What happens
further shall be immediately communicated.
"Be pleased to present my respects to Mr Laurens, to whom I wrote
some days since. Mr Jay, I suppose, is on his way hither. With great
respect, &c.
B. FRANKLIN."
On Monday the 3d, Mr Oswald came according to appointment. He
told me he had seen and had conversations with Lord Shelburne,
Lord Rockingham, and Mr Fox. That their desire of peace continued
uniformly the same, though he thought some of them were a little
too much elated with the late victory in the West Indies, and when
observing his coolness, they asked him if he did not think it a very
good thing; yes, said he, if you do not rate it too high. He went on
with the utmost frankness to tell me, that the peace was absolutely
necessary for them. That the nation had been foolishly involved in
four wars, and could no longer raise money to carry them on, so
that if they continued, it would be absolutely necessary for them to
stop payment of the interest money on the funds, which would ruin
their future credit. He spoke of stopping on all sums above £1000,
and continuing to pay on those below, because the great sums
belonged to the rich, who could better bear the delay of their
interest, and the smaller sums to poorer persons, who would be
more hurt, and make more clamor, and that the rich might be
quieted by promising them interest upon their interest. All this
looked as if the matter had been seriously thought on.
Mr Oswald has an air of great simplicity and honesty, yet I could
hardly take this to be merely a weak confession of their deplorable
state, and thought it might be rather intended as a kind of
intimidation, by showing us that they had still that resource in their
power, which he said would furnish five millions a year. But, he
added, our enemies may now do what they please with us, they
have the ball at their foot, was his expression, and we hope they will
show their moderation and magnanimity. He then repeatedly
mentioned the great esteem the Ministers had for me, that they,
with all the considerate people of England, looked to, and depended
on me for the means of extricating the nation from its present
desperate situation; and that, perhaps, no single man had ever in his
hands an opportunity of doing so much good as I had at this present
time, with much more to that purpose. He then showed me a letter
to him from Lord Shelburne, partly, I suppose, that I might see his
Lordship's opinion of me, which, as it has some relation to the
negotiation, is here inserted. He left it with me, requesting that I
would communicate it to Mr Walpole.

LORD SHELBURNE TO RICHARD OSWALD.

Whitehall, May 21st, 1782.
"Sir,
"It has reached me, that Mr Walpole esteems himself much injured
by your going to Paris, and that he conceives it was a measure of
mine, intended to take the present negotiation with the Court of
France out of his hands, which he conceives to have been previously
commenced through his channel, by Mr Fox. I must desire that you
will have the goodness to call upon Mr Walpole, and explain to him
distinctly, how very little foundation there is for so unjust a
suspicion, as I knew of no such intercourse. Mr Fox declares, he
considered what had passed between him and Mr Walpole, of a
mere private nature, not sufficiently material to mention to the King
or the cabinet, and will write to Mr Walpole to explain this distinctly
to him.
"But if you find the least suspicion of this kind has reached Dr
Franklin, or the Count de Vergennes, I desire this matter may be
clearly explained to both. I have too much friendship for Dr Franklin,
and too much respect for the character of the Count de Vergennes,
with which I am perfectly acquainted, to be so indifferent to the
good opinion of either, as to suffer them to believe me capable of an
intrigue, where I have both professed and observed a direct
opposite course of conduct. In truth, I hold it in such perfect
contempt, that, however proud I may be to serve the King in my
present situation, or in any other, and however anxious I may be to
serve my country, I should not hesitate a moment about retiring
from any situation which required such services. But I must do the
King the justice to say, that his Majesty abhors them, and I need not
tell you that it is my fixed principle, that no country in any moment
can be advantaged by them. I am, with great truth and regard, &c.
SHELBURNE."
In speaking further of the Ministry's opinion of the great service it
might be in my power to render, Mr Oswald said, he had told them in
one of his conversations, that nothing was to be expected of me but
consistency, nothing unsuitable to my character, or inconsistent with
my duty to my country. I did not ask him the particular occasion of
his saying this, but thought it looked a little as if something
inconsistent with my duty had been talked of or proposed. Mr
Oswald also gave me a copy of a paper of memorandums, written by
Lord Shelburne, viz.

"1. That I am ready to correspond more particularly with Dr

Franklin, if wished.
"2. That the Enabling Act is passing, with the insertion of
Commissioners recommended by Mr Oswald; and, on our part,
Commissioners will be named, or any character given to Mr
Oswald, which Dr Franklin and he may judge conducive to a
final settlement of things between Great Britain and America;
which Dr Franklin very properly says, requires to be treated in a
very different manner from the peace between Great Britain and
France, who have always been at enmity with each other.
"3. That an establishment for the loyalists must always be on Mr
Oswald's mind, as it is uppermost in Lord Shelburne's, besides
 other steps in their favor to influence the several States to agree
to a fair restoration or compensation for whatever confiscations
have taken place.
"4. To give Lord Shelburne's letter about Mr Walpole to Dr
Franklin."

On perusing this paper, I recollected that a bill had been sometime

since proposed in Parliament, to enable his Majesty to conclude a
Peace or Truce with the revolted Provinces in America, which I
supposed to be the enabling bill mentioned, that had hitherto slept,
and not having been passed, was perhaps the true reason why the
Colonies were not mentioned in Mr Grenville's commission. Mr
Oswald thought it likely, and said that the words, "Insertion of
Commissioners, recommended by Mr Oswald," related to his advising
an express mention in the bill of the Commissioners appointed by
Congress to treat of peace, instead of the vague denomination of
any person or persons, &c. in the first draft of the bill.
As to the loyalists, I repeated what I had said to him when first here,
that their estates had been confiscated by the laws made in
particular States where the delinquents had resided, and not by any
law of Congress, who, indeed, had no power, either to make such
laws or to repeal them, or to dispense with them, and, therefore,
could give no power to their Commissioners to treat of a restoration
for those people; that it was an affair appertaining to each State.
That if there were justice in compensating them, it must be due
from England rather than America; but, in my opinion, England was
not under any very great obligations to them, since it was by their
misrepresentations and bad counsels, she had been drawn into this
miserable war. And that if an account was to be brought against us
for their losses, we should more than balance it by an account of the
ravages they had committed all along the coasts of America.
Mr Oswald agreed to the reasonableness of all this, and said he had,
before he came away, told the Ministers, that he thought no
recompense to those people was to be expected from us; that he
had also, in consequence of our former conversation on that subject,
given it as his opinion, that Canada should be given up to the United
States, as it would prevent the occasions of future difference, and,
as the government of such a country was worth nothing, and of no
importance, if they could have there a free commerce; that the
Marquis of Rockingham and Lord Shelburne, though they spoke
reservedly, did not seem very averse to it, but that Mr Fox appeared
to be startled at the proposition. He was, however, not without
hopes that it would be agreed to.
We now came to another article of the note, viz. "on our part
Commissioners will be named, or any character given to Mr Oswald,
which Dr Franklin and he may judge conducive to a final settlement
of things between Great Britain and America."
This he said was left entirely to me, for he had no will in the affair;
he did not desire to be further concerned, than to see it in train, he
had no personal views either of honor or profit. He had now seen
and conversed with Mr Grenville, thought him a very sensible young
gentleman, and very capable of the business; he did not, therefore,
see any further occasion there was for himself; but if I thought
otherwise, and conceived he might be further useful, he was content
to give his time and service, in any character or manner I should
think proper. I said, his knowledge of America, where he had lived,
and with every part of which, and of its commerce and
circumstances he was well acquainted, made me think, that in
persuading the Ministry to things reasonable relating to that country,
he could speak or write with more weight than Mr Grenville, and,
therefore, I wished him to continue in the service; and I asked him
whether he would like to be joined in a general commission for
treating with all the powers at war with England, or to have a special
commission to himself for treating with America only. He said he did
not choose to be concerned in treaty with the foreign powers, for he
was not sufficiently a master of their affairs, or of the French
language, which, probably, would be used in treating; if, therefore,
he accepted of any commission, it should be that of treating with
America. I told him I would write to Lord Shelburne on the subject;
but Mr Grenville having sometime since despatched a courier, partly
on account of the commission, who was not yet returned, I thought
it well to wait a few days, till we could see what answer he would
bring, or what measures were taken. This he approved of.
The truth is, he appears so good and so reasonable a man, that,
though I have no objection to Mr Grenville, I should be loth to lose
Mr Oswald. He seems to have nothing at heart but the good of
mankind, and putting a stop to mischief; the other, a young
statesman, may be supposed to have naturally a little ambition of
recommending himself as an able negotiator.
In the afternoon, M. Boeris, of Holland, called on me, and
acquainted me that the answer had not yet been given to the last
memorial from Russia, relating to the mediation; but it was thought
it would be in respectful terms, to thank her Imperial Majesty for her
kind offers, and to represent the propriety of their connexion with
France in endeavors to obtain a general peace, and that they
conceived it would be still more glorious for her Majesty to employ
her influence in procuring a general, than a particular pacification.
M. Boeris further informed me, that they were not well satisfied in
Holland with the conduct of the Russian Court, and suspected views
of continuing the war for particular purposes.
Tuesday, June. 4th. I have received another packet from Mr Hartley.
It consisted of duplicates of former letters and papers already
inserted, and contained nothing new but the following letter from
Colonel Hartley, his brother.

W. H. HARTLEY TO B. FRANKLIN.
 Soho Square, May 24th, 1782.
"Dear Sir,
"It is with the greatest pleasure I take up my pen to acknowledge
your remembrance of me in yours to my brother, and to thank you
for those expressions of regard which I can assure you are mutual.
My brother has desired me to copy some letters and papers, by way
of sending you duplicates. I am particularly happy at the
employment, because the greatest object of my parliamentary life
has been to co-operate with him in his endeavors to put a period to
this destructive war, and forward the blessed work of peace. I hope
to see him again in that situation, where he can so well serve his
country with credit to himself; and while I have the honor of being in
Parliament, my attention will be continued to promote the effects,
which will naturally flow from those principles of freedom and
universal philanthropy you have both so much supported. While I
copy his words, my own feelings and judgment are truly in unison,
and I have but to add the most ardent wish, that peace and
happiness may crown the honest endeavors towards so desirable an
end.
"I am, dear Sir, with the greatest respect and esteem, yours
sincerely,
W. H. HARTLEY."
Wednesday, June 5th. Mr Oswald called again to acquaint me, that
Lord Cornwallis, being very anxious to be discharged from his parole
as soon as possible, had sent a Major Ross hither to solicit it,
supposing Mr Laurens might be here with me. Mr Oswald told me,
what I had not heard before, that Mr Laurens, while prisoner in the
Tower, had proposed obtaining the discharge of Lord Cornwallis in
exchange for himself, and had promised to use his utmost endeavors
to that purpose, in case he was set at liberty, not doubting of the
success. I communicated to Mr Oswald what had already passed
between Mr Laurens and me, respecting Lord Cornwallis; which
appears in the preceding letters, and told him I should have made
less difficulty about the discharge of his parole, if Mr Laurens had
informed me of his being set at liberty in consequence of such an
offer and promise, and I wished him to state this in a letter to me,
that it might appear for my justification in what I might, with Mr
Laurens, do in the affair; and that he would procure for me from
Major Ross a copy of the parole, that I might be better acquainted
with the nature of it. He accordingly in the afternoon sent me the
following letter.

[See this letter above, p. 362.—Also the answer, p. 363.]

Friday, June 7th. Major Ross called upon me, to thank me for the
favorable intentions I had expressed in my letter to Mr Oswald,
respecting Lord Cornwallis, and to assure me, that his Lordship
would forever remember it with gratitude, &c. I told him it was our
duty to alleviate, as much as we could, the calamities of war; that I
expected letters from Mr Laurens, relating to the affair, after the
receipt of which I would immediately complete it. Or if I did not hear
from Mr Laurens, I would speak to the Marquis de Lafayette, get his
approbation, and finish it without further delay.
Saturday, June 8th. I received some newspapers from England, in
one of which is the following paragraph.
From the London Evening Post, of May 30th, 1782.
"If report on the spot speak truth, Mr Grenville, in his first visit to Dr
Franklin, gained a considerable point of information, as to the
powers America had retained for treating separately with Great
Britain, in case her claims, or demands, were granted.
"The treaty of February 6th, 1778, was made the basis of this
conversation; and by the spirit and meaning of this treaty, there is
no obligation on America not to treat separately for peace, after she
is assured England will grant her independence, and a free
commerce with all the world.
"The first article of that treaty engages America and France to be
bound to each other, as long as circumstances may require;
therefore, the granting America all she asks of England is breaking
the bond, by which the circumstances may bind America to France.
"The second article says, the meaning and direct end of the alliance
is to insure the freedom and independence of America. Surely then,
when freedom and independence are allowed by Britain, America
may, or may not, as she chooses, put an end to the present war
between England and America, and leave France to war on through
all her mad projects of reducing the power and greatness of
England, while America feels herself possessed of what she wishes.
"By the 8th article of the treaty, neither France nor America can
conclude peace without the assent of the other; and they engage
not to lay down their arms, until the independence of America is
acknowledged, but this article does not exclude America from
entering into a separate treaty for peace with England, and evinces
more strongly than the former articles, that America may enter into
a separate treaty with England, when she is convinced that England
has insured to her all that she can reasonably ask."

I conjecture that this must be an extract from a letter of Mr

Grenville's; but it carries an appearance as if he and I had agreed in
these imaginary discourses, of America's being at liberty to make
peace without France, and whereas my whole discourse, in the
strongest terms, declared our determinations to the contrary, and
the impossibility of our acting, not only contrary to the treaty, but
the duties of gratitude and honor, of which nothing is mentioned.
This young negotiator seems to value himself on having obtained
from me a copy of the treaty. I gave it him freely, at his request, it
being not so much a secret as he imagined, having been printed,
first in all the American papers soon after it was made, then at
London in Almon's Remembrancer, which I wonder he did not know;
and afterwards in a collection of the American Constitutions,
published by order of Congress. As such imperfect accounts of our
conversations find their way into the English papers, I must speak to
this gentleman of its impropriety.
Sunday, June 9th. Doctor Bancroft being intimately acquainted with
Mr Walpole, I this day gave him Lord Shelburne's letter to Mr
Oswald, requesting he would communicate it to that gentleman.
Doctor Bancroft said it was believed both Russia and the Emperor
wish the continuance of the war, and aimed at procuring for England
a peace with Holland, that England might be better able to continue
it against France and Spain.
The Marquis de Lafayette having proposed to call on me today, I
kept back the discharge of Lord Cornwallis, which was written and
ready, desiring to have his approbation of it, as he had in a former
conversation advised it. He did not come, but late in the evening
sent me a note, acquainting me that he had been prevented by
accompanying the Great Duke to the review, but would breakfast
with me tomorrow morning.
This day I received a letter from Mr Dana, dated at St Petersburgh,
April 29th, in which is the following passage. "We yesterday received
the news, that the States-General had, on the 19th of this month (N.
S.) acknowledged the independence of the United States. This event
gave a shock here, and is not well received, as they at least profess
to have flattered themselves, that the mediation would have
prevented it, and otherwise brought on a partial peace between
Britain and Holland. This resentment, I believe, will not be
productive of any ill consequences to the Dutch republic." It is true,
that while the war continues, Russia feels a greater demand for the
naval stores, and perhaps at a higher price. But is it possible, that
for such petty interests, mankind can wish to see their neighbors
destroy each other? Or has the project, lately talked of, some
foundation, that Russia and the Emperor intend driving the Turks out
of Europe, and do they therefore wish to see France and England so
weakened, as to be unable to assist those people?
Monday, June 12th. The Marquis de Lafayette did not come till
between eleven and twelve. He brought with him Major Ross. After
breakfast, he told me (Major Ross being gone into another room)
that he had seen Mr Grenville lately, who asked him when he should
go to America. That he had answered, I have staid here longer than
I should otherwise have done, that I might see whether we were to
have peace or war, but as I see that the expectation of peace is a
joke, and that you only amuse us without any real intention of
treating, I think to stay no longer, but set out in a few days. On
which Mr Grenville assured him that it was no joke, that they were
very sincere in their proposal of treating, and four or five days would
convince the Marquis of it.
The Marquis then spoke to me about a request of Major Ross's in
behalf of himself, Lord Chewton, a Lieutenant Colonel and
Lieutenant Haldane, who were aids-de-camp to Lord Cornwallis, that
they too might be set at liberty with him. I told the Marquis that he
was better acquainted with the custom in such cases than I, and
being himself one of the Generals, to whom their parole had been
given, he had more right to discharge it than I had, and that if he
judged it a thing proper to be done, I wished him to do it. He went
into the bureau, saying he would write something, which he
accordingly did, but it was not as I expected, a discharge that he
was to sign, it was for me to sign. And the Major not liking that
which I had drawn for Lord Cornwallis, because there was a clause
in it, reserving to Congress the approbation or disallowance of my
act, went away without taking it. Upon which I the next morning
wrote the following to Mr Oswald.
 TO RICHARD OSWALD.
Passy, June 11th, 1782.
"Sir,
"I did intend to have waited on you this morning to inquire after
your health, and deliver the enclosed paper relating to the parole of
Lord Cornwallis, but being obliged to go to Versailles, I must
postpone my visit till tomorrow.
"I do not conceive that I have any authority, in virtue of my office
here, to absolve that parole in any degree; I have, therefore,
endeavored to found it as well as I could on the express power given
me by Congress to exchange General Burgoyne for Mr Laurens. A
reservation is made of confirmation or disapprobation by Congress,
not from any desire to restrain the entire liberty of that General, but
because I think it decent and my duty to make such reservation, and
that I might otherwise be blamed as assuming a power not given
me, if I undertook to discharge absolutely a parole given to
Congress, without any authority from them for so doing. With great
esteem and respect, &c.
B. FRANKLIN."
I have received no answer from Mr Laurens. The following is the
paper mentioned in the above letter.
The Discharge of Lord Cornwallis from his Parole.
"The Congress having, by a resolution of the 14th of June last,
empowered me to offer an exchange of General Burgoyne for the
Honorable Henry Laurens, then a prisoner in the Tower of London,
and whose liberty they much desire to obtain, which exchange,
though proposed by me, according to the said resolution, had not
been accepted or executed, when advice was received, that General
Burgoyne was exchanged in virtue of another agreement. And Mr
Laurens thereupon having proposed another Lieutenant General, viz,
Lord Cornwallis, as an exchange for himself, promising that if set at
liberty, he would do his utmost to obtain a confirmation of that
proposal; and Mr Laurens being soon after discharged, and having
since urged me earnestly, in several letters, to join with him in
absolving the parole of that General, which appears to be a thing
just and equitable in itself; and for the honor therefore of our
country I do hereby, as far as in my power lies, in virtue of the
above resolution, or otherwise, absolve and discharge the parole of
Lord Cornwallis, given by him in Virginia; setting him at entire liberty
to act in his civil or military capacity, until the pleasure of Congress
shall be known, to whom is reserved the confirmation or
disapprobation of this discharge, in case they have made or shall
intend to make a different disposition.
"Given at Passy, this 9th day of June, 1782.
B. FRANKLIN,
Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States
of America to the Court of France."
I did not well comprehend the Major's conduct in refusing this paper.
He was come express from London, to solicit a discharge of Lord
Cornwallis's parole. He had said that his Lordship was very anxious
to obtain that discharge, being unhappy in his present situation. One
of his objections to it was, that his Lordship with such a limited
discharge of his parole could not enter into foreign service. He
declared it was not his Lordship's intention to return to America. Yet
he would not accept the paper, unless the reservation was omitted. I
did not choose to make the alteration, and so he left it, not well
pleased with me.
This day, Tuesday, June 11th, I was at Versailles, and had a good
deal of conversation with M. de Rayneval, Secretary to the Council. I
showed him the letters I had received by Mr Oswald from Lord
Shelburne, and related all the consequent conversation I had with
Mr Oswald. I related to him also the conversation I had had with Mr
Grenville. We concluded that the reason of his couriers not being
returned, might be the formalities occasioning delay in passing the
enabling bill. I went down with him to the cabinet of Count de
Vergennes, where all was repeated and explained. That Minister
seemed now to be almost persuaded, that the English Court was
sincere in its declarations of being desirous of peace. We spoke of all
its attempts to separate us, and of the prudence of our holding
together and treating in concert. I made one remark, that as they
had shown so strong a desire of disuniting us, by large offers to
each particular power, plainly in the view of dealing more
advantageously with the rest, and had reluctantly agreed to make a
general treaty, it was possible, that after making a peace with all,
they might pick out one of us to make war with separately. Against
which project I thought it would not be amiss, if before the treaties
of peace were signed, we who were at war against England should
enter into another treaty, engaging ourselves, that in such a case,
we should again make it a common cause, and renew the general
war; which he seemed to approve of. He read Lord Shelburne's letter
relating to Mr Walpole, said that gentleman had attempted to open a
negotiation through the Marquis de Castries, who had told him he
was come to the wrong house, and should go to Count de
Vergennes; but he never had appeared; that he was an intriguer,
knew many people about the Court, and was accustomed to manage
his affairs by hidden and round-about ways; but, said he, "when
people have anything to propose, that relates to my employment, I
think they should come directly to me; my cabinet is the place where
such affairs are to be treated." On the whole he seemed rather
pleased that Mr Walpole had not come to him, appearing not to like
him.
I learnt that Mr Jay had taken leave on the 7th past, of the Spanish
Ministers, in order to come hither, so that he may be daily expected;
but I hear nothing of Mr Laurens or Mr Adams.
Wednesday, June 12th. I visited Mr Oswald this morning. He said he
had received the paper I had sent him, relating to the parole of Lord
Cornwallis, and had by conversing with Major Ross, convinced him of
his error in refusing it; that he saw I had done everything that could
be fairly desired of me, and said everything in the paper that could
give a weight to the temporary discharge, and tend to prevail with
the Congress to confirm and complete it. Major Ross coming in,
made an apology for not having accepted it at first, declared his
perfect satisfaction with it, and said he was sure Lord Cornwallis
would be very sensible of the favor. He then mentioned the custom
among military people, that in discharging the parole of a general,
that of his aids was discharged at the same time. I answered, I was
a stranger to the customs of the army, that I had made the most of
the authority I had for exchanging General Burgoyne, by extending it
as a foundation for the exchange of Lord Cornwallis, but that I had
no shadow of authority for going further; that the Marquis de
Lafayette having been present when the parole was given, and one
of the generals who received it, was I thought more competent to
the discharge of it than myself; and I could do nothing in it. He went
then to the Marquis, who, in the afternoon, sent me the drafts of a
limited discharge, which he should sign, but requested my
approbation of it, of which I made no difficulty, though I observed
he had put into it that it was by my advice. He appears very
prudently cautious of doing anything, that may seem assuming a
power that he is not vested with.
Friday, the 14th. M. Boeris called again, wishing to know if Mr
Grenville's courier was returned, and whether the treaty was like to
go on. I could give him no information. He told me it was intended
in Holland, in answer to the last Russian Memorial, to say, that they
could not now enter into a particular treaty with England, that they
thought it more glorious for her Imperial Majesty to be the mediatrix
in a general treaty, and wished her to name the place. I said to him,
as you tell me their High Mightinesses are not well satisfied with
Russia, and had rather avoid her mediation, would it not be better to
omit the proposition, at least of her naming the place, especially as
France, England, and America have already agreed to treat at Paris?
He replied, it might be better, but, says he, we have no politicians
among us. I advised him to write and get that omitted, as I
understood if would be a week before the answer was concluded on.
He did not seem to think his writing would be of much importance. I
have observed, that his colleague, M. Vanderpierre, has a greater
opinion by far of his own influence and consequence.
Saturday, June 15th. Mr Oswald came out to breakfast with me. We
afterwards took a walk in the garden, when he told me, that Mr
Grenville's courier returned last night. That he had received by him a
letter from Mrs Oswald, but not a line from the Ministry, nor had he
heard a word from them since his arrival, nor had he heard of any
news brought by the courier. That he should have gone to see Mr
Grenville this morning, but he had omitted it, that gentleman being
subject to morning headache, which prevented his rising so early. I
said I supposed he would go to Versailles, and call on me in his
return. We had but little further discourse, having no new subject.
Mr Oswald left me about noon, and soon after Mr Grenville came,
and acquainted me with the return of his courier, and that he had
brought the full powers. That he, Mr Grenville, had been at
Versailles, and left a copy with Count de Vergennes. That the
instrument was in the same terms with the former, except that after
the power to treat with the King of France, or his Ministers, there
was an addition of words, importing a power to treat with the
Ministers of any other Prince or State whom it might concern. That
Count de Vergennes had at first objected to these general words, as
not being particular enough, but said he would lay it before the King,
and communicate it to the Ministers of the belligerent powers, and
that Mr Grenville should hear from him on Monday. Mr Grenville
added, that he had further informed Count de Vergennes of his
being now instructed to make a proposition as a basis for the
intended treaty, viz. the peace of 1763. That the proposition
intended to be made under his first powers, not being then received,
was now changed, and instead of proposing to allow the
independence of America, on condition of England's being put into
the situation she was in at the peace of 1763, he was now
authorised to declare the Independence of America previous to the
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebooknice.com