The Principle of Liberty

PART ONE: POWER and PRINCIPLES

Chapter 1: DEFINITIONS - Defining Politics - Political Conflict - Conflict and Solutions

Chapter 2: IMPOSITION - A predatory Society - Slaves and Serfs - Industrial Poverty

Chapter 3: REFORM - Centralized Rule - The Great Charter of 1215 - Parliamentary Supremacy

Chapter 4: CONSTITUTION - Ideals of Constitutionalism - Constitution in the New World - Constitutional Government

Chapter 5: DEMOCRACY - Parliamentary Representation - The Socialist Revolution - The Demise of Extremism

PART TWO: PRINCIPLES and PRACTICE

Chapter 6: LIBERTY and LAW - The Ideal of Right Law - The Principle of Liberty - Liberty and Government Intervention

Chapter 7: PERSON and PROPERTY - Mind, Body and Property - Extending the Protection of Law - Liberty and Enforcement Services

Chapter 8: NATURAL RESOURCES - National Resources Plan - Urban Development - Landpricing

Chapter 9: ECONOMICS and COMMERCE - Value - Quality - Investment

Chapter 10: GOVERNMENT and CONSTITUTION - Liberty in Constitution - The Legislative Process - Quality, Productivity, Service

PART ONE: POWER and PRINCIPLES

Chapter 1: DEFINITIONS

Defining Politics - Political Conflict - Conflict and Solutions

Defining Politics

There are three major areas of challenge in our lives.

First is the provision of our physical needs such as food, clothing and shelter; second is the pursuit of our spiritual evolution; and third is the regulation of our contacts with one another. These three Areas of science and endeavor can be called Physical, Spiritual, and Political, three clearly definable categories each with its own specific problems and solutions.

Before anything else we need bodily sustenance: we need food, clothing, shelter, and all the other products and services necessary for physical maintenance. This is the Physical Area of science and technology, where we are concerned with meeting the challenges of research, invention and production in order to provide our many and varied physical needs as efficiently as possible.

In the Spiritual Area we are in the individual's private space of mind, intellect and spirit. Here we are concerned with mental, intellectual and spiritual growth, self-understanding, and a view of the individual's place in evolution and the wider universe.

It is possible for a hermit or an island castaway to pursue his or her Physical and Spiritual ventures entirely alone, producing physical needs through self-sufficiency and meditating in solitude. Politics would have no relevance in such circumstances.

But where there is contact between people there is the possibility of conflict, which leads into a further dimension: politics.

The Political Area is concerned with resolving potential or actual differences between people: matters of personal liberty, of trade and commerce, wages and prices, the apportionment and use of natural resources.

Physical, Spiritual, and Political. These three Areas, while clearly definable as separate entities, inter-relate in a number of ways.

For example, Spiritual development is dependent on the prior condition of physical bodily health. A story is told of the Buddha meditating in the forest. His meditation was not going well and he found difficulty in concentrating. A woman passed by carrying some food, and seeing the holy man in meditation, placed an offering of food before him and continued on her way. After he had eaten, the Buddha found that he was much better able to concentrate on his meditation.

We can most certainly do exercises which discipline the body and the demands it makes upon us; the Japanese branch of Zen Buddhism particularly stresses this aspect of training. But the fact remains that we are in physical bodies which require sustenance, an amenable temperature, and shelter from the extremes of the elements. If the body is not properly protected and maintained it will not function, physically, mentally or spiritually.

It is also necessary to have time and opportunity for the pursuit of spiritual matters, in surroundings of relative tranquility conducive to spiritual thought. This too may be difficult when work and commuting leave little time for other pursuits, or when the home is located in a noisy city street. Spiritual Evolution is dependent on a prior condition of Physical Wellbeing.

An inter-relationship can also be seen between Politics and the Physical Sciences.

The most obvious inter-action between technology and politics exists in employment and trade. Technology invents the products and processes, the "new and improved" washing powder, the computers and the laser discs, the scanners at the supermarket checkouts. These are the products of science and scientists working in the field of the Physical Sciences. But then we move into the area of production and distribution in a complex division of labor. Employment and trade, wages and prices, safety and quality standards: these now become political matters, relationships between people.

Technology is constantly striving to bring us new products and services. But good politics can also help. A just and fair political system will encourage industrial collaboration rather than confrontation, thus tending to produce greater prosperity. This is especially true in today's working conditions where intelligent and positive collaboration in industry can so greatly enhance productive efficiency. In this case, Good Politics can help to improve our productivity and thus Physical Prosperity.

Historically there is also a relationship between Physical Prosperity and Politics in terms of social conduct. It has generally been the threat of starvation or insufficiency which promoted wars throughout history. Societies in which everyone is prosperous do not tend to make wars, and their citizens do not steal. Physical Sufficiency makes for better national and international Political relations.

Spiritual Evolution can be affected by Political conditions, particularly if one's personal choice of religion, or if religion in general, is suppressed by Political decree and enforcement.

Good Politics can also be seen as having certain features in common with the broad principles of Religion, and here too there is an inter-relationship. Most religions, while dealing mainly with personal conduct, self-awareness and evolution, will also advise on proper conduct towards others, as for example in counseling that we should respect others as we would have others respect us. Mutual Respect, a feature of most leading religions, can also be seen as a basis of Good Politics.

The basing of law upon religious principles was common throughout the middle ages, and though the connection was lost when politics became increasingly "technical" following the industrial revolution, it may nonetheless be said that a strong sense of morality in the religious or spiritual area can provide some guidance for correct social and political conduct.

Politics too, at least in its ideal state, has its own form of morality in defining principles of justice, fair and honest trade, respect for one another and for the environment. So it might also be said that a political system which is based on high social principles of mutual respect and honesty towards others provides a good basis for individual spiritual evolution.

The recognition of these three Areas and the ability to distinguish between them (despite the often complex inter-relationships) is important in that religious, technological and political problems have different solutions.

When a man is starving because he is voluntarily undertaking a religious fast in the belief that it will purify his soul, that is a purely religious matter. Its harm or its benefits may be argued on purely religious grounds.

When people are starving because their crops fail as a result of cumulative mis-use of the land, the problem is technological and its solution lies in developing techniques of improved land husbandry.

But if those same people are starving because they have no land to cultivate, all the best land having been taken by a few influential families for the mass cultivation of export crops, that is a political matter. These people's need is not for technological advice on land use, but for a political solution in the form of fairer distribution of the nation's natural resources. This is a problem which can be seen in many developing countries today causing unrest, instability and frequently revolution.

Physical problems require technological solutions.

Spiritual problems require meditation or spiritual guidance.

Politics is concerned with relationships between people; political problems are caused to people by the actions of other people, and are addressed through political policies, laws and their enforcement.

Physical, Spiritual, Political: three Areas of science and endeavor in human development. Closely inter-relating in many complex ways yet clearly identifiable as separate entities, each Area having its own specific problems and its own specific solutions.

Where do we stand in each of these three Areas today?

The provision of Physical needs has always been mankind's major preoccupation here on Earth. Our earliest ancestors began with the minimum technology, living primitively in caves, eating whatever was available from day to day. Throughout the greater part of human history insufficiency has generally been the rule.

This very insufficiency provided the impetus for Physical and technological development. It also had a major influence on Politics: the insufficiency of Physical wealth has long provided an incentive to seek personal gain at the expense of others, leading to enslavement and war.

But history moves on, and today we have in our present world a level of technology potentially capable of giving us all a relatively high standard of living and leisure.

Our productive and distributive institutions do not always take advantage of the latest technology, but there is no doubt that technologically speaking we currently have in our world the knowledge and capability to provide for ourselves a comfortably high standard of living, and we can see a growing prosperity in the leading industrialized nations. Technology itself has already succeeded in giving us potential prosperity.

If this prosperity has not spread throughout the world it is more likely the fault, not of technology, but of politics in the form of inappropriate political systems, mis-use of resources, ineptitude and corruption in government.

In many of the politically less developed countries the quality of government varies from arrogant ineptitude to corruption and brutality.

Our western democracies give us stability and a veneer of prosperity. But while governments take an ever-increasing share of citizens' incomes, they remain incapable of ensuring for their citizens the basic necessities of employment, an affordable home, environmental protection, industrial and monetary stability, and a general social climate in which everyone can give of their best for a fair reward.

As we review the condition of our world today, there can be little doubt that political research and reform is the area in which we should focus our attention.

Political Conflict

Politics is broadly concerned with contacts and relationships between people; more specifically it is concerned with conflicts between people.

If we begin by considering a situation in which one person is living in near-isolation without any contacts or relationships with others (there are a few areas of our crowded planet in which this is still possible!), we can then observe the introduction of a second person "in slow motion" in order to examine the issues and conflicts which might arise.

In a remote area of wilderness, high among the hills and green trees of America's Rocky Mountains, a hermit is living a quiet life in his log cabin, practicing the arts of self-sufficiency.

The provision of his Physical needs such as food, clothing and shelter will doubtless occupy the major part of his time and energy. In surroundings of peace and natural beauty he will also take time to reflect upon Spiritual matters: his own evolution, his relationship with nature, his origins and purpose.

Politics and social relationships need not concern him. He will have little need to consider the effects of his actions on others, since in his world there are no others... until one day he finds he has a new neighbor not so far away who is also, it appears, seeking solitude and self-sufficiency.

At first they both try to ignore one another, concentrating on the provision of their own individual needs, the enhancement of their own lives and wellbeing. But contact and conflict appear inevitable. The quiet meditation-time of one is disturbed by the other chopping wood. The boundary lines, unofficial demarcation of what is otherwise public land, cause friction as one of them attempts what the other considers to be unreasonable territorial expansion. An exchange of fruit causes further enmity when it transpires that good plums have been traded for rotten apples.

What began as a peaceful corner of the woods, in which one or two individuals chose to live out their lives quietly providing for their physical and spiritual needs without affecting one another, is now threatened by social conflict.

When we live together, share the environment with one another, interact with and relate to one another as neighbors, in commerce or industry, it is likely that some of our actions may be injurious, harmful, or simply a nuisance to others.

Sometimes we cause harm or pain to others without even knowing it. Sometimes we know it but we go on doing it anyway.

And frequently we do it on purpose for the benefit we gain from it; we steal other people's goods, we injure those whom we dislike, or we deceive customers in trade because there's a good profit in it.

The potential differences and conflicts which can arise between people in a complex society may appear limitless as indeed they are. But we can be quite precise as to the fundamental cause of political or social conflict: it is that one person is doing something which is to his or her advantage, but which is to the disadvantage of another or others.

If an action by one person has no effect on others there will be no conflict; indeed it would not be a political act at all.

If one person's action affects others but is to the advantage of all concerned, there will be no conflict, and everyone is happy for it to continue.

Similarly if one person's action is disadvantageous for everybody, the person committing the action included, there will be no incentive to continue, so peace can quickly be restored and once again there is no conflict.

Political conflict arises when an action by one person is to their own advantage or profit, but is harmful, detrimental or injurious to another or others. This results in gain to one at the expense of loss to others.

Conflict exists because the person committing the action and benefiting from it naturally wishes it to continue; while those suffering injury or disadvantage from it would like it to stop.

Actions or activities which improve the wellbeing of some at the expense of others, actions which give advantage to some by causing disadvantage to others: these are the fundamental causes of social conflict and lie at the very heart of politics.

There have been many names for such actions through the ages.

Slavery and feudalism were institutionalized forms of work- or wealth-transfer. Following the industrial revolution, socialists used the term exploitation to imply that the owners of mines and factories were profiting at the expense of their workers' poverty.

Yet another term for harm or injury caused to others while seeking one's own benefit is infringement of liberty, which is caused when expansion of one person's liberty is brought about through the invasion or infringement of the liberty of others.

We may also use the simple term imposition in the sense that one person is imposing his or her will upon another or others. Simpler yet is injury when he actions of one are injurious to another or others.

Whatever we may call it, the essential, distinguishing element in political conflict is advantage/disadvantage. Political conflict arises when an action by one person or party is to their own advantage or profit, but is harmful, detrimental or injurious to another or others, resulting in gain to one at the expense of loss to others.

Conflict and Solutions

Social relationships, political policies and the machinations of government may appear infinitely complex; yet the fundamental cause of political conflict is simple and there are only two possible solutions.

Social or political conflict between people is caused by acts of injury which are initiated when an action which is advantageous or beneficial to one, is harmful or detrimental to others.

The resolution of political conflict presents two alternatives: acts of injury or exploitation can either be continued, or avoided.

The first alternative is for the individual to continue with the action, enjoying the benefit derived from another's loss, but risking the other's anger and retaliation.

The second alternative is to avoid such actions. This requires the practice of self-discipline and self-restraint; but benefit is gained by everyone when we all respect one another and avoid harming one another.

The path we take is a matter for individual choice at each moment. Societies and nations also make group choices which are reflected in the laws and governments they establish or tolerate.

Individuals in a position to do so may pursue the path of injury in a society and under laws which permit it.

Where society and its laws identify and prevent those actions which are harmful or detrimental to others, then such actions must of necessity be avoided.

Injury versus non-injury. The implications, advantages and disadvantages on both sides are complex.

The path of injury is immediately and clearly attractive.

Because the action is beneficial to the person committing it, it is clearly in his own interests for the injury to continue. And throughout history mankind has sought to exploit and impose upon fellow man.

But those who are wronged will not tolerate injustice indefinitely, and retaliation will surely come. It may be instantaneous, or it may be a long, slow process of class revolution. But revenge will come. And in the meantime social and economic progress will be retarded; injury and counter-injury, theft and counter-theft, confrontation, civil strife and war... no civilization was ever built or flourished on foundations such as these.

The path of non-injury is not immediately attractive. It requires the practice of considerable self-restraint and self-discipline. It requires that we monitor our actions in order to consider whether or not they are harmful or detrimental or simply a nuisance to others - our family and friends, our neighbors, our co-workers, our customers, those with whom we share the environment.

And having monitored our actions and identified those which are harmful to others, we must then avoid such actions, and forgo the pleasures or advantages or convenience or financial profit they might bring us.

But if we were all to observe the path of non-injury, we would all enjoy a condition of liberty and social stability, secure in the peace and prosperity that comes from life in a society where people respect the lives and liberty of one another. We would make rules which guide us towards personal conduct which is not detrimental to others; we would allocate resources fairly; in business we would collaborate rather than confront.

And in so doing we would not only live in peace, we would also create a greater prosperity, for prosperity grows through cooperation. Indeed the flowering of civilization in all its aspects is dependent on a foundation of liberty deriving from mutual respect.

The path of non-injury is not immediately attractive; but it is the path of long-term peace, stability, liberty, justice, prosperity, and the upward progress of civilization.

For the two mountain wilderness residents considering their condition of political discord, the solution of non-injury would require the two parties to devise a set of fair rules whereby both can enhance their own wellbeing either individually or in productive collaboration, but without diminishing the wellbeing of one another.

Both can use the natural resources, but they must share them equitably. The trading of surplus produce can help both to improve their wellbeing, but trades have to be fair. Life for each must go on, but each must be aware of and respect the property, privacy and peace of the other.

With rules such as these agreed and in place both could then live as neighbors in relative harmony, which would be an obvious advantage. The disadvantage is that this new lifestyle requires limitations and disciplines. If they are to live peaceably as neighbors they cannot live and act totally freely as they would if both were isolated.

Many are unable or unwilling to accept this principle of social conduct. It requires a degree of personal restraint and self-discipline; and those who consider that they have the strength or the cunning to get the better of their fellow beings may be unwilling to renounce this opportunity and the potential wealth it might bring them.

But it is a lesson which, in a civilized society, we all have to learn eventually; in our relationships with one another our freedom cannot be absolute and unlimited. Rather, it must be limited by rules of conduct which ensure that each of us respects the freedom of others.

So political conflict presents us with a choice.

Do we take the non-injury solution, opting for fair rules and a general peace, accepting a degree of social discipline, relinquishing the opportunity to gain at the expense of one another and thus living together in positive and productive collaboration?

Or do we take the injury solution, relying on personal power and taking our chances in an unregulated world, perhaps becoming extremely wealthy at the expense of others, or perhaps being robbed some dark night and losing everything in a world of near rule-less conflict?

The solution of non-injury is motivated by reason and ideals; its reward is the maximization of the general liberty.

The solution of injury is motivated by the desire for self-aggrandizement untempered by concern or respect for others; its result is the continuing conflict and instability of gain and revenge, social and industrial strife, and wars between nations.

Injury versus non-injury. This is the fundamental choice in politics.

It is a choice we must continually make in our daily personal relationships with one another. Do we respect the lives and choices of others, or do we attempt to impose our own decisions upon them? Do we deal honestly in business, or do we attempt to get the best we can out of customers or co-workers, whether honestly or dishonestly? These are individual choices which each can make for him- or herself.

Individual choices are also reflected collectively in the form of government which people either tolerate or purposely create. Do we seek a government guided by policies which maximize liberty for all by identifying and preventing those actions which are harmful to others? Or do we support a government which furthers the interests of our own group or class at the expense of others?

Politics has long been understood by idealists and political thinkers as the science whereby differences between people are resolved according to principles of universal justice, creating and maintaining a social environment in which all can enjoy the maximum liberty to pursue personal goals in collaboration with, but not to the detriment of, one another.

Such at least is an ideal view of law and government, and it may well be that we are now approaching the time when principles of universal justice and the maximization of the general liberty might gain increasing acceptance.

But this has not been the historical course of our political development. Mankind long ago rejected the ideals of universal liberty, choosing in what might be called the Original Sin of social and political conduct the path of injury, as each individual attempts to enhance his or her own wellbeing at the expense of others by the use of personal power or through manipulation of the legislative process.

It was a course chosen at the dawn of political history; and though in the politically developed world at least we now conduct our affairs more elegantly, the fundamental direction of intent has not yet been reversed.

Chapter 2: IMPOSITION

A Predatory Society - Slaves and Serfs - Industrial Poverty

A Predatory Society

As the sun sets in a blaze of orange giving way to the cool of evening, a mosquito appears from beneath some dark green leaves where she has been resting during the heat of the day. She flits around in her three-dimensional waltz movement, humming a high-pitched tune to herself. She wants some blood to assist her reproductive functions.

She finds some Humans sitting in a group on the lawn in front of the house. Fortunately they are all engaged in lively conversation so no one notices her. She makes her choice and at once inserts her needle-sharp, needle-strong proboscis deep into a tender patch of skin behind the ear. In a moment she is gone, her benefactor raising a hand unconsciously to scratch the irritation she has left behind.

The mosquito is a predator. She is not alone. We live in a predatory society.

The mosquito's lust for blood is reflected in man's age-old propensity to grow rich by drawing upon the work and wealth of fellow men. Look at the history of social and political institutions and what do we find? We find slavery, feudalism, and industrial low-wage exploitation.

We have consistently ordered society in ways which permit those enjoying superior wealth, background and the political influence that goes with it, to live comfortably from the proceeds of other people's toil. This transfer of work and wealth from the poor to the powerful took place through three major phases: slavery, feudalism, and low-wage industrial employment.

In early Greek and Roman times, a gentleman owned slaves; in the Middle Ages he owned land which was worked for him by peasants who were bound to him; in Victorian times he owned factories, paying workers barely enough to buy food and shelter.

Then Karl Marx and friends invited the "poor masses" to throw off the yoke of oppression, turn the tables and plunder the riches of their old masters. And this, encouraged by the newly invented doctrines of Socialism and Communism, they did.

Today we have Democracy or Majority Rule, in which everyone tries to enlist the aid of Government to provide them with subsidies or welfare which someone else - anybody or everybody, this generation or the next or the next - will have to pay for. We all have our personal wish-lists of very worthy and highly justifiable needs; and if we can get others to pay for them, all the better.

Whether autocratic monarchy or dictatorship, constitutional or democratic, government was not and is still not instituted by idealists to protect the general liberty.

The history of politics and social relationships is a history of continuous imposition exercised by people over one another with government "turning a blind eye", or with government's active participation - a fact of political life which still holds true today, to a much greater extent than most of us realize or would care to admit.

Slaves and Serfs

There is no parallel in history to the achievement which Greek civilization attained in Athens.

This single city produced great statesmen, poets, sculptors, historians, teachers. Here the very concept of philosophy was invented and expounded. Here were created the first popular governments, in which ordinary citizens were to practise another Greek "invention": Democracy.

Yet in this enlightened city over a third of the population were slaves, many obtained as prisoners of war or as criminals purchased from non-Greek lands around the Mediterranean. In neighbouring Thrace the people sold their children for export. As the demand for slaves increased traders roamed further afield, gathering in Persians, Egyptians and Libyans.

Slaves were used by households, landholders on large agricultural estates, in industry, and especially in the mines and quarries. At one time there were some 30,000 slaves in the silver mines and processing mills. In the large Laurion mine near Athens conditions were appalling. The underground galleries were dug only two feet square, and the miners had to crawl through them dragging their iron shackles. They worked a ten-hour day, and the mortality rate was extremely high.

Most Greek households had several slaves. Greeks spoke of the necessities of life as "cattle and slaves". Records show that when the philosopher Plato died he left five domestic slaves in his will. His pupil Aristotle left fourteen. The very rich would have as many as fifty slaves in their households. Many household slaves would have been treated relatively well; but as slaves they were the property of their masters who "owned" them and had the right to demand their work and its products. The wellbeing of the master was built in part upon the work and consequent diminishing of others.

Slavery was also to become big business. Following the successful Punic Wars with Carthage, Rome rapidly grew to a position of pre-eminence in the Mediterranean and became the centre of its trade. Chief among the commodities traded was the human slave arriving on the market in enormous quantities, bringing profit and prosperity to Rome's merchants and bankers.

Rome came to depend on large numbers of slaves to maintain its industries and agriculture. But its wealth and power rested upon untold suffering. Diodorus wrote of the conditions in Rome's gold and silver mines in Egypt: "There they throng, all in chains, all kept at work continuously day and night. There is no relaxation, no means of escape. No one could look upon the squalor of these wretches, having not even a rag to cover their loins, without feeling compassion for their plight. They may be sick, or maimed, or aged, or weakly women, but there is no indulgence, no respite. All alike are kept at their labor by the lash until, overcome by hardships, they die in their torments. Their misery is so great, the punishments are so severe, that death is welcomed as a thing more desirable than life."

Large agricultural estates became common throughout the Roman lands, dependent upon the availability of slaves to work them. On many plantations the slaves worked in a chain-gang system. They laboured under overseers in the fields and were locked in the prison house at night.

The Roman tradition of large estates and villas continued into the Middle Ages, evolving as the feudal system. As time passed, the slaves became feudal peasants regulated by the customs of the manorial system, and no longer lived in the complete state of submission that typified true slavery.

The peasants in the Middle Ages were called serfs, from the Roman word servus or slave. The serf was a "bound" tiller, who was compelled by the conditions of his existence as well as by law and custom to remain on the land, and to "donate" a major proportion of his time and labour to the cultivation of the owner's fields. This is still practised today, as can be seen for example in the share-cropping system in India.

Later the peasants gained more freedom; they became responsible for supplying their own needs, they paid rent and could now control more of their own time. Though they often had less to eat they now had more personal freedom. Indeed, the feudal peasants might even have counted themselves fortunate; as the manorial estates grew ever larger during the Middle Ages, and independent holdings dwindled, so rural poverty among those outside the feudal system became widespread.

But other influences were also at work, and as the 1700s drew to a close agriculture would now give way to industry as the engine of production and trade, and land would be replaced by machinery as the source of wealth.

Industrial Poverty

The new industrial era in Britain began in one of the oldest of all industries, the spinning and weaving of cloth. This had traditionally been a small-scale cottage industry. 1785 saw the invention of the power loom, which could weave automatically and much more cheaply. The hand weavers could no longer compete, and were forced by threat of starvation to move from their village homes to the crowded tenements of factory towns, where the over-supply of labour gave the factory owner the opportunity to employ them at minimal wages for long hours.

As the factories increased their output, so their capital costs per unit fell; and with the ability to pay low wages, factory owners found their overall production costs steadily falling. They were also able to maintain high prices; thus the profits and the wealth of the factory owners could only increase. The wealthy became wealthier, the poor remained poor.

The political doctrine of laisser-faire prevalent in the 1700s and early 1800s, happily espoused by factory-owning members of Parliament, opposed any government intervention in industry. No attempt should be made to regulate the price or quality of goods, nor should government fix the hours of work, or try to remedy the often dangerous and unhealthy conditions in factories.

The working classes were thus driven to embark upon a process of direct confrontation with their employers. This was facilitated by the repeal of the Combination Acts in 1824, which passed almost unnoticed through Parliament, legalizing the formation of and participation in Trade Unions.

As a result there was a sudden growth in Trade Unions, not only at local level, but also several "Grand General Trades Unions". One of the largest of these was founded in 1833 by the great social pioneer, Robert Owen, called the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union, which claimed at its peak up to a million members.

Another "self-help" development of this period in Britain was the creation of Co-operative Societies to avoid the ruthless profiteering by shopkeepers whose low-wage customers were eternally bound to them in credit. To assist the many newly created co-operative societies Robert Owen promoted the idea of a Labour Exchange in which products were exchanged for Labour Notes representing so many hours' labour, and which were the only form of currency accepted.

The poor were not without their Liberal humanitarian advocates in Parliament, working throughout the 1800s to help alleviate the sufferings of the working classes.

In 1833 Britain was the first country to pass an Act of Parliament abolishing slavery. In the same year, the Factory Act was passed to prevent the employment of children under the age of nine as well as limiting the excessively long working hours of older children. This was to be the first of several subsequent Acts attempting to improve working conditions and safety.

But such efforts provided small relief against the growing tide of migration from countryside to industrial cities throughout the second half of the 1800s; urban populations increased and living conditions for the poor deteriorated. The competition for work in the factories made it possible for employers to continue paying minimal wages for long hours of work in abysmal and often dangerous working conditions, with corresponding increases in profits and dividends.

While London's developers built ever more fine terraces of fashionable homes for the wealthy, the working people spent twelve hours a day in the factories, earning barely enough for minimal food and shelter, living in the expanding areas of urban squalor which the poor accepted as their lot, and which the wealthy knew little or nothing about.

On the morning of September 24th, 1849 wealthy Londoners sat comfortably at their breakfast tables, with bacon and eggs, kippers and fish kedgeree awaiting their pleasure in heated chafing dishes, oven-fresh buns kept warm in covered baskets, freshly brewed tea or coffee steaming in delicate china cups. Passing the Seville orange marmalade and exchanging light conversation, many would also be scanning London's Morning Chronicle.

Among the social tidbits, the Military Appointments, the Court Circular and who was wearing what and seen with whom, readers were to find an article contributed by one Henry Mayhew who had just returned with tales of horror from a land, not distant, but only a few miles away in their very own city of London.

This was to be the first in a year-long series which became one of the most thorough surveys of labour and conditions in working-class London during the mid 1800s and was to be influential in formulating the new ideas of Socialism.

The first article described Jacob's Island, a section of south London already made notorious as the setting for Oliver Twist.

"The striking peculiarity of Jacob's Island consists in the wooden galleries and sleeping rooms at the back of the houses which overhang the dark ditch that stagnates beside them. The houses are built upon piles flanking a sewer; little rickety bridges span the huge gutters and connect court with court. The water of the huge ditch in front of the houses is covered with a scum almost like a cobweb, and prismatic with grease. In it float large masses of green rotting weed, and against the posts of the bridges are swollen carcasses of dead animals, almost bursting with the gases of putrefaction. As I gazed in horror at it, a bucket of night soil was poured down from the next gallery.

"In a place called Joiner's Court, with four wooden houses in it, there had been as many as five cases of cholera. Here, I was taken up to a room so dark, that it was several minutes before I could perceive anything within it, and there was a smell of must and dry rot that told of damp and imperfect ventilation, while the unnatural size of the pupils of the wretched woman's eyes showed how much too long she had dwelt in this gloomy place."

In an issue of Punch the following March the distinguished author of Vanity Fair, William Makepiece Thackeray, remarked about these articles on Labour and the Poor written by Mayhew for the Morning Chronicle:

"Of such misery as this, do you confess you had no idea? How should you? You and I, we are of the upper classes; we have had hitherto no contact with the poor... until... some clear sighted energetic man like the writer of the Chronicle travels into the poor man's country for us, and comes back with this tale of terror."

While the consciences of reformers both in and out of Parliament were stirred into further acts of charity and legislation, the Labour Unions continued to grow from strength to strength.

One of the largest Union groupings, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers formed in 1851, initiated several major strikes in the 1860s, and successfully achieved a nine-hour working day in 1871 after a five months' strike.

There followed a series of successful strikes, starting in 1888 with the unexpected strike of the overworked and poorly paid girls who made matches for Bryant and May. That same year also saw strikes by the Gas Workers and General Workers' Union for more pay and an eight-hour working day. In 1889 came the Great Dock Strike, lasting a month, which was so successful in drawing public attention to workers' demands that it encouraged a great many more Trade Unions to materialize.

Reformers both in Unions and Parliament may have felt they were making progress; and indeed they were, relatively speaking. But research by Charles Booth in 1891 revealed that one-third of London's population was still living on the verge of starvation.

As the century drew to its close, Humanitarian Liberalism, Trade Union pressure, and perhaps a touch of idealism brought on by the approach of a new century, were to combine with the growth of workers' voting rights to produce a new political doctrine of Socialism. But Socialism would reveal itself as a doctrine of vengeance, taxing the rich, nationalizing industry, and in its more extreme form of Communism, subjecting its people to over-regulation and oppression. More than half a century thereafter, Socialism too would be discredited.

Yet despite this long history of self-interest, of man's exploitation of fellow man and its vengeance, idealists and reformers have constantly and consistently remained active, pressing not only for humanitarian reforms, but for the wider principles of universality and justice expressed in concepts of constitutional discipline over autocratic monarchies and governments.

Chapter 3: REFORM

Centralized Rule - The Great Charter of 1215 - Parliamentary Supremacy

Centralized Rule

When mankind chose the path of self-interest wherein people continuously attempt to impose their will on one another, rather than the universal ideal of maximized liberty for all, the initial natural development was a condition of anarchy in which differences are settled between individuals and power groups through a trial of physical strength without the formal intervention of society, law or government.

The word anarchy is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "absence of government; disorder; confusion". It is derived from the Greek an arkhos meaning without leader. Left entirely to their own devices people can, and will, injure, steal from and cheat one another. Then follows revenge, and counter-revenge. And so it continues. Civilization cannot develop without reasonable safety of person and property, without the stability of some agreed and enforced rules of conduct. Life is at best difficult, at worst intolerable.

The condition of anarchy still persists in many parts of the world. In the younger, less developed nations we learn frequently of a breakdown in law and order, either as a semi-permanent condition resulting from the impotence or non-existence or corruption of a central government, or sometimes temporarily in times of revolution or tribal conflict, or in the chaos following an earthquake or hurricane.

The first, fundamental step in political development is the movement from total lawlessness, or anarchy, to some kind of centralized law and order. The politically developed nations have long accepted the concept of a central authority or government, and the Rule of Law which sets restraints upon the scope of people's actions.

When power, that is the ability to physically influence the behaviour of others, is centralized, the Rule of Law is thus imposed. Instead of individuals arguing and settling their differences in a continuing series of battles based on personal power, the authority to establish decisions on social conduct together with the power necessary to enforce them is vested in a centralized institution - a Monarch, Dictator, or Parliament.

Society can benefit from the stability afforded by centralized Rule of Law. And if Government can formulate and enforce fair, just and universal rules of social conduct, citizens will be able to live at peace with one another in positive and productive collaboration.

But the temptation to gain at the direct expense of others remains, and throughout history - up to and including the present day - centralized power has been used by the rulers themselves, or by those influential in the exercise of power, to further enhance their own wealth at the expense of others by permitting and indeed institutionalizing social systems such as slavery and feudalism.

Nonetheless, the ideals of universal justice in law have been kept alive and actively pursued by reformers throughout history, though their progress has necessarily been long and often painful.

As Centralized Power takes over from Anarchy it generally takes the form of an autocratic, dictatorial rule by one strong man and his supporters. In Britain's case the earliest form of central political rule was an Absolute Monarchy. Clearly the first step for reformers must be to try and impose some degree of discipline over the Monarch in order to render his rule less "absolute".

Three major objectives of discipline over the Monarch were to be developed by reformers and pursued consistently over several centuries: the obligation to rule responsibly, to rule in consultation with his peers, and to conduct himself within the bounds of established law and custom.

These three guiding principles would come to form the very essence of the Anglo tradition of Constitutional Rule.

The Great Charter of 1215

A thousand years ago, in late Anglo-Saxon times, England was united into one Kingdom ruled by a King and his Council, and the institution of Kingship was already established as having limited powers.

The King was bound by his Coronation Oath to defend the Church, to punish crime and violence, and to rule with clemency and mercy. He was also bound by customary rules of law, and to some extent his power was restricted by his Council. He was viewed as a religious and moral leader, a protector of the people in war and in peace.

Following earlier tradition, the English King was not generally regarded as a source of law, although occasionally he might declare the law with the consent of his Council or issue written laws called "Dooms". The great body of Anglo-Saxon law was the unwritten folk law, handed down from one generation to the next, giving the common people rights and duties of what we would today call citizenship, and setting out procedures for determining fault or guilt and methods of punishing wrongdoers. While change was not impossible, arbitrary alteration of the rules was considered improper, and indeed, bordered on impiety.

This tradition did not of course preclude the frequent occurrence of abuse by Monarchs keen to enhance their own powers, or simply reluctant to recognize any form of constraint over their conduct. In such cases it would be the powerful Barons and Clergy who would bring the King to order in the name of Constitutional custom, reinforced by a growing body of written Constitutional documents agreed by the Kings either freely or under pressure.

When Henry I acceded to the English throne in 1100 his first aim was to secure his claim more firmly by pacifying the people's and particularly the Barons' anger, which had been roused by the irresponsible and expensive conduct of his predecessor William Rufus.

Henry therefore issued a Coronation Charter, also known as the Charter of Liberties, in which he promised to observe the Feudal Code and to correct the abuses of his predecessors against the Barons and the Church. He further commanded the Barons, his tenants-in-chief, to behave in like manner to their own tenants. Most significantly, he made the Charter applicable to all his subjects: "I henceforth remove all bad customs through which the Kingdom of England has been unjustly oppressed."

While the Charter was no more than a proclamation of intentions and promises binding only insofar as Henry saw fit to observe them, its form - a written Royal Grant - gave it legality and lasting significance. Its chief importance was its admission by the King that even his royal powers were limited under the feudal contract. It also helped to strengthen the principle of defined and disciplined Constitutional Rule, and as such it was to be influential in the formulation of a later and much more famous constitutional document: the Great Charter sealed in 1215 by King John.

The youngest child of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, John was born in Beaumont Palace, Oxford on December 24th, 1167. When his elder brother King Richard the Lionheart died, John succeeded to the throne on April 6th, 1199. He was crowned in Westminster Abbey on the 27th of May in that same year.

Richard the Lionheart had been totally preoccupied with foreign wars, holy crusades and French conquests, and had given very little time or energy to the affairs of his own country. As a result the Barons, Knights and Free Men had to a large extent become the true governors of England, governing in Council, though all was still done in the King's name.

At first John neither diminished those powers nor undermined the authority of the Council, and for a while England enjoyed the twin advantages of both the old form of government and the new: a strong and active King, and a powerful Council within which the voice of the subjects could be heard and from which power was to pass to the Knights of the shires and to all free men.

Shortly after John's accession however, the King of France had invaded Normandy, of which John was Duke, then pursuing his conquest throughout all the other provinces of the English Kings. John fought expensively but unsuccessfully to defend his lands and by 1204, five years after his accession, Normandy, Anjou and Maine were lost. All that remained were the Channel Islands and the province of Gascony. The Barons, now deprived of all but their English possessions, were angered by the King's defeat. They, as well as humbler men, were shocked and humiliated by the nation's losses. In derision they nicknamed the King "John Lackland". More seriously, the Nation now had to pay for his unsuccessful wars.

In 1205 John rejected the Pope's nomination of Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury. A Papal Interdict was laid over the whole country in 1208 and John was excommunicated. John was forced to submit at last by resigning his kingdom to the Pope and receiving it back as a fief of the Papacy before the Interdict and Excommunication were ended in May 1213, a humiliating experience for the whole nation.

In 1214 John conducted another campaign in France and suffered a catastrophic defeat at Bouvines. During his absence the Barons banded together under the leadership of Stephen Langton to protest against the longstanding misgovernment of the realm.

Gathered at Bury St. Edmunds in November 1214, the Barons agreed to petition the King to grant the liberties and laws set forth in the Coronation Charter of Henry I, swearing that if he refused they would renounce their allegiance to him and go to war.

In January of 1215 a deputation of Barons placed a list of their demands before the King; dressed in full armour they would have left the King in no doubt as to their mood. King John asked for and was granted three months to consider these weighty matters. But his ultimate response was clear: "Why, among these unjust demands, did the Barons not ask for my Kingdom as well? Their demands are vain, foolish, and utterly unreasonable."

This was taken as a declaration of war. On May 17 the Barons' army marched on London; the city opened its gates to them and they were joined by many others who had hitherto stayed out of the conflict. The King took refuge in Windsor castle where he became a virtual prisoner. John sent emissaries to the Barons, this time with the message that he was willing to grant the Charter of Liberties they demanded.

On June 10th the two parties met on neutral ground in a green meadow by the River Thames at Runnymede, midway between the King's castle at Windsor, and London which was now the Barons' stronghold. The name Runnymede suggests that this was not the first time councils had been held there; the first part is an old English word Runieg, meaning Council Island.

After considerable negotiation a preliminary document was formulated, briefly listing forty-nine points upon which the King was willing to yield. To it King John attached his seal and upon the basis of that initial document a formal Charter was to be drawn up for signature by the King at a further meeting a few days later.

The title of this preliminary document is significant. It read: These are the Articles which the Barons require and which the King concedes.

King John had been compelled by force of arms to comply with the demands of the Barons who had risen in armed and successful rebellion against him, and the preliminary heads of agreement recorded that the King conceded the demands which the Barons required.

Yet the final, formal version of the Great Charter which John sealed a few days later on June 15, the Charter we know today, begins with a greeting from the King to his Loyal Subjects, and records that he has acted with their advice. This change in wording clearly shows that the stability of the Monarchy was considered as important as its reformation, and nothing was done to diminish the apparent authority of the King even in the hour of his humiliation and defeat.

With the formal signing of the Charter, the Monarch had confirmed the essential principles of Constitutional discipline: the obligation to rule responsibly, to rule in consultation with his peers, and to conduct himself within the bounds of established law and custom. And this had been achieved without a reversion to anarchy.

The Magna Carta was dependent for its observance largely on the Monarch's goodwill, which was not always forthcoming. But in one respect at least, the King's subjects had a degree of leverage; it was upon them that the King depended for money to carry on his government and foreign wars, not to mention maintaining his lavish royal lifestyle.

Clause 12 of Magna Carta had already made the raising of taxes (aid or scutage) dependent on the general consent of the Kingdom, and Clause 14 laid down the method whereby the general consent "of the Realm for the assessment of an aid or scutage we will cause the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earls, and Greater Barons to be summoned individually by letter... to come together on a fixed day and at a fixed place".

The periodic convening of his influential men by the King continued during the 14th, 15th and 16th Centuries, developing gradually into an early form of Parliament which would later challenge and claim precedence over the power of the King.

Parliamentary Supremacy

By 1600 England had a recognizable Parliament; but its decisions, indeed its very existence, were subject to the King's will or whim. The focus of political and constitutional reform was now centered on the battle for supremacy between King and Parliament, in which the 1600s would prove to be a critical century. Beginning with absolute Monarchy and ending with Parliamentary Supremacy, it was punctuated almost midway, in 1649, by Parliament's highly symbolic trial, sentencing and execution of King Charles I.

King Charles I was the central player in what was to mark the turning point in Parliament's fight for supremacy. By claiming Divine Right to autocratic rule, by scorning Parliament and frequently dismissing it he brought matters to a head, and when in 1625 he attempted to suppress Parliament by force, entering the House of Commons in person with a large body of armed men, a state of civil war might already be said to exist.

For a time however both sides attempted reconciliation - or at least the pretence of it. Yet the old tensions remained, and in December 1641 the House of Commons felt once again moved to summarize its frustrations and its aspirations in the "Grand Remonstrance".

The Remonstrance was introduced with the words: "We, your most humble and obedient subjects, do with all faithfulness and humility beseech your Majesty�". But the demands themselves were uncompromising.

The King was to deprive the Bishops of their votes in Parliament; to remove from his Council those men to whom Parliament objected, and "to employ such counsellors, ambassadors and other ministers, in managing his business at home and abroad, as the Parliament may have cause to confide in."

There followed the lightly veiled threat that unless the King complied "we cannot give His Majesty supplies for support of his own estate..."

The Remonstrance was passed by the House of Commons; but the majority of only eleven votes and a number of strongly pro-Monarchy speeches encouraged Charles to believe that all was not lost. In 1642 he felt sufficiently strong to attempt the arrest of five members of the House of Commons for treason. He personally entered the House leading a posse of armed men to effect the arrest, but the five members had already gone by boat down the Thames to the City of London which supported reform.

Though now a matter of history in Britain, the attempted extinction of Democracy by Kings, Colonels and Presidents continues today.

"For a short while Charles tried a policy of conciliation. He abolished the rights of Bishops to sit in the House of Lords, a right which went back over a thousand years, and appointed as Councillors two men pleasing to the Commons.

"But this was in vain; and in 1642 the House of Commons went beyond the mere defence of ancient rights and sought new powers, setting their authority above the King's. They demanded not only that Parliament was to approve the appointment of all privy councillors, ministers and judges, but that it should also control the education and marriages of the King's children. War was inevitable."

["Documents of Liberty" by Henry Marsh, David & Charles 1971]

Charles raised his standard at Nottingham and the long struggle between Royalists and Reformers began in earnest.

Facing him were the Parliamentary forces which had been organized into the "New Model Army" under one Commander-in-Chief, Sir Thomas Fairfax. In overall command was Oliver Cromwell who had become increasingly important, both as a leading member of the Independent Party, and as one of Parliament's most successful commanders playing an active role in the organization and training of troops.

The Royalist troops were finally overwhelmed by the New Model Army at Naseby in 1645. Charles surrendered to the Scots in 1646 and was promptly handed over to the English.

After an imprisonment in Carisbrooke Castle on the Isle of Wight, he was brought to trial in Westminster Hall before a specially constituted Tribunal of Judges with as much pomp and ceremony as the King's opponents could muster.

The contradictions which existed and became clear during the course of the King's trial were wholly predictable, reflecting as they did the contradictions inherent in the very concept of Constitution.

The ideal that power should be used wisely and within defined limits need not be questioned; yet this can hardly be achieved by subjecting the Monarch to another Monarch, or to any form of personified superior power. The only superior power to which an autocrat can be subjected is the power of principles and ideals, given tangible form as a written document, or in England's case, the sum total, both written and unwritten, of ancient custom.

But if the Autocrat fails to obey this code of ideals, who can try him, and by what authority?

These contradictions were exploited by the King; they were also reflected in the differences and doubts within Parliament, and in the attempt by Parliament to stage a "special proceeding" resembling the not-yet-invented Supreme Court of the United States.

The trial was fully recorded in contemporary accounts, and is reconstructed by the Rt. Hon Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, in his book "What next in the Law "[Butterworths, 1982]:

"When Charles I was on trial for his life, the Lord President of the specially constituted High Court of Justice was John Bradshaw. With him were 150 Commissioners. He was a Serjeant-at-Law of some eminence. He was treated with all the forms of judicial state, decorated with a scarlet robe, a sword and mace were borne before him. If you should read the report in the State Trials you will see that John Bradshaw repeatedly quoted Bracton: "The King is under no man, but under God and the Law".

Both Bracton, writing in the early 1200s, and Bradshaw four hundred years later were stressing the second part of this phrase, namely that the King was responsible to God (which placed upon him a duty to rule wisely) and the Law (requiring that he conduct himself within the laws and customs of the land).

The King on the other hand, stressed the first part of the phrase. Claiming that he was "under no man" the King refused to plead, denying that the Court was competent to try him.

"Refusing to recognize the legality of a Court which could try a King, Charles declined to plead and was found guilty by 68 votes to 67, a majority of only one. A sentence of death was passed and on January 30th, 1649, Charles walked from St James's Palace, where he was last confined, to Whitehall, where a scaffold had been erected outside Inigo Jones's elegantly proportioned Banqueting House.

"Charles wore two shirts, for it was a cold day and he said if he were to tremble from cold people might mistake it for fear. He entered the Banqueting House and stepped onto the scaffold from a first floor window. He was attended by Bishop Juxon, to whom he spoke his last word, "Remember". When his head was severed from his body a great groan went up from the assembled crowd and people pressed forward to soak their handkerchiefs in the Royal blood. The cult of the Martyr King had begun."

["Kings & Queens of Britain" by David Williamson]

The execution of Charles I in 1649 was a dramatically symbolic turning point. It represented a final denial of the Divine Right of autocratic Monarchs and the assertion of Parliamentary supremacy.

But at the same time, the act of inherent violence both to the King and to all that he represented was a stark representation of that very constitutional disarray which the English had always tried to avoid.

Had they been asked, the ordinary people would undoubtedly have voted overwhelmingly for some kind of compromise between King and Parliament. Given the personalities involved this would probably not have worked; but neither did the alternative, for the Republic which followed was not destined to be a success.

Serious tensions soon began to develop between the Army and what was left of Parliament; and Cromwell, who had with the support of the Army set himself up as "Lord Protector", gave every impression of becoming himself an autocratic ruler.

Reacting to mounting opposition and renewed Royalist plots Cromwell put the country under the regional military control of eleven Major-Generals. Soon becoming equally unpopular, the reign of the Major-Generals was replaced after two years by a new Parliament, though it was subject to continuing disputes with the Army over access to power.

For ten years England suffered the uncertainties, instability and indignity of a Military Republic and near-dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell, and later under his ineffectual son Richard when Cromwell died in 1658.

The country seemed to be sliding inevitably towards anarchy through a succession of military despotisms. Loss of confidence in the Republic became widespread. The achievement of ten years earlier, when Parliament had won supremacy over Absolute Monarchy, was now forgotten, buried in the debris of constitutional chaos. "Reform, but without disorder" would have summarized the sentiments of a now politically weary and disillusioned nation.

Something had to be done to restore stability; in the words of contemporary diarist Samuel Pepys "either the fanatics must now be undone or the gentry and citizens throughout England will fall."

In 1660 George Monck, who had been Cromwell's Commander in Chief in Scotland, restored Parliament and recalled from exile King Charles' son who now became Charles II.

Though King Charles II had the sense to acknowledge the new position of the Monarchy and acquiesce to the wishes of Parliament, he died in 1685 and his brother James II who succeeded him once again opposed Parliament.

In 1688 Parliament invited James' daughter Mary and her Dutch husband William of Orange to land in England and save the country's liberties. This they did accompanied by a large army, immediately drawing wide popular support in England.

James fled the country, and William and Mary were invited to accept a specially drawn up Declaration of Rights which stipulated in precise detail the new relationship between King and Parliament and the limitations on Royal power.

The King could no longer suspend or dispense with laws by regal authority; the King could no longer levy taxes or maintain an army without the consent of Parliament; and the regular assembly of Parliament, without royal interference, was guaranteed.

Similar conditions had indeed been heard before; but the difference on this occasion was that England and its Parliament were offering a Crown, and these were the conditions upon which they would accept the new Monarchs. William and Mary accepted Parliament's conditions, as the text of the 1689 Bill of Rights relates.

"Their said Majesties did accept the Crown and Royal dignity of the Kingdoms of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons, contained in the said declaration. And thereupon Their Majesties were pleased, that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons being the two Houses of Parliament should continue to sit, and with Their Majesties' Royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this Kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted."

As William III and Mary became joint Sovereigns the old partnership between Crown and Parliament was resumed. But whereas Parliament had previously given assent to the wishes of the Monarch, now it was the Monarch who formalized the decisions of Parliament with the Royal Assent.

The battle for consultation had been won by the fact of Parliamentary supremacy. But the exercise of power in consultation is only one aspect of the wider concept of Constitutionalism: the concept that power and its use should be strictly defined by clearly enunciated and accepted principles.

Chapter 4: CONSTITUTION

Ideals of Constitutionalism - Constitution in the New World - Constitutional Government

Ideals of Constitutionalism

Though Constitutionalism, the spirit of Constitution, had already been alive and practised for many years, the Magna Carta, by general consent of history, is now widely accepted as the world's first major constitutional document. Indeed it is interesting to read the constitutions of the USA, both the Federal Constitution and those of individual States, as well as the constitutions of many Commonwealth countries, and to note how many passages from Magna Carta have simply been copied word for word.

Magna Carta provided Britain's reformers with a firm foundation, a cornerstone upon which subsequent constitutional documents could be added to form the assemblage which, combined with unwritten custom, is commonly referred to as Britain's "Constitution" today.

Constitution limits absolute power. This it achieves by placing conditions on the use of that power, by requiring the sharing of power with those subject to it through a process of debate, and by establishing boundaries beyond which the Law may not intrude.

In its early days the Constitution may be weak, it may have little of practical value to say. But once the principle has been established that the Central Power, whatever form it may take, is itself subject to some superior framework of rules and procedures which define the use of that power to any extent whatsoever, the nation is on the right path, and it is only a matter of time before the rules defining the use of Centralized Power are strengthened.

No Government, President or Monarch, no institution of Law or Enforcement, should be created or be allowed to exist and to function without a Constitution. No one should have power over others, unless and until that power and the conditions of its use have been strictly defined. In the words of Thomas Paine: "Government without a Constitution is power without right".

Today we understand clearly and accept fully the idea that Constitution limits absolute power. Yet for early reformers of autocratic Monarchies it was a contradiction in terms to talk of limiting absolute power. If the power is absolute, then how can it be limited except through a greater power, and what is the nature of that greater power?

The "greater power" which sets limits on Autocrats and Parliaments is the power of reason and custom.

Relying for support on the strength of public opinion, from the most influential to the broad mass of the people, the spirit of Constitutionalism was originated and developed by theorists and idealists, and based on a universally recognized, instinctive awareness of what is right and wrong in law and social conduct.

"The idea of Constitutionalism is older than the existence of written Constitutions. Constitutionalism places limits upon Government, proscribing the means by which official power may be exercised. Constitutionalism establishes boundaries between the State and the individual, forbidding the State to trespass into certain areas reserved for private action.

"Constitutionalism also has a deeper and older connotation, demanding adherence by Government to recognized customary procedures. The idea of a Constitution in this procedural sense can be traced all the way back to Aristotle, who in his Politics and the Constitution of Athens described all the known political arrangements of ancient Greece."

["Constitutions that have made History" Edited by Albert Blaustein and Jay Sigler, Paragon House Publishers, New York, 1988.]

The fundamental desire for disciplined and responsible use of Centralized Power was the catalyst which set in motion, then relentlessly pursued the gradual erosion of absolute power, subjecting it to the ideals of good government expressed in the essence of Constitutionalism, in successive specific constitutional documents, and in the writings of constitutional reformers.

One of the first major writers on the subject of English constitutional law and custom following Magna Carta was Henry Bracton.

Bracton was born, lived and worked in Devon during the early 1200s (his birth date unknown, he died in Exeter, in 1268). He was both a Cleric and a Justice - as indeed was common at that time, for few but the Clergy could read. From 1245 he was an Itinerant Justice for King Henry III, and from 1247 to 1257 was a Judge of the Coram Rege which later became the King's or Queen's Bench.

His (Latin language) document "On the Laws and Customs of England" is one of the oldest systematic treatises on English Common Law. It also deals in depth with the obligations of, and disciplines upon Royal power, concentrating on three major themes: that the King should himself be subject to and act within the Law, that he should rule wisely and justly, and that he should rule in consultation with his peers, the "eminent men" of the land.

The King must first of all be subject to, and act within the Law.

In stressing the King's relationship with the law, Bracton identifies two aspects of law and the apparent contradiction between them. One aspect of law consists of orders and regulations, and in this sense the King is the source of law. The other aspect of law is the body of custom we would now call the Constitutional Framework; here the King must himself be subject to law, for the King and the very institution of Monarchy owe their existence to law in this Constitutional sense.

So Bracton insists that "the King must be under God and under the Law, because the King's position owes its very existence to the wider framework of law.

"Let him therefore in his Laws, observe the due process of law through which he himself exists. For the King is not fulfilling his legal obligations when he rules by personal will, rather than by due process of law under the ultimate will of God."

Bracton also expects the King to obey his own laws, for the King, though the source of Law, is not outside the Law:

"What the King is bound by virtue of his office to forbid to others, he ought not to do himself. Let him, therefore, temper his power by the due process of law, which is the discipline upon power, that he may live according to the Laws, for the Law of mankind has decreed that the lawgiver should be bound by his own Laws.

"Nothing is more fitting for a Sovereign than to live by and within the laws, nor is there any greater sovereignty than to govern according to the due process of Law, and the Sovereign ought properly to yield to the tradition and process of Law that makes him King."

Bracton strengthens his argument with this forceful reference to Christian example:

"That the King must bow to the process and formality of law is paralleled in the example of Jesus Christ. Though many ways were open to Him to fulfill His destiny in the redemption of the Human race, He chose to destroy the devil's work, not through the arbitrary use of His great powers, but by subjecting Himself to the existing laws of justice. In this way He willed Himself to be under the law that He might redeem all those who must live under it. He chose to use not force, but judgment."

Monarchs of England and Europe have often claimed to rule by Divine Right. The Kings themselves interpreted the concept of Divine Right as placing them above and beyond the reach - or reproach - of the law, and of those they ruled.

Bracton however voices an earlier understanding of Rule by Divine Right, namely that the King is God's Minister, and as such is under obligation to rule wisely and responsibly:

"The King is Vicar and Minister of God on Earth, and from God comes the power of justice. Therefore the King's power is that of justice, not injustice. The power of injustice is from the Devil, not from God.

"The King will be the Minister of him whose work he performs. Therefore as long as he does justice he is the Vicar of the Eternal King, but he is the Devil's Minister when he deviates into injustice or injury.

"The King is called King, not from reigning, but from ruling well, since he is a King as long as he rules well, but a tyrant when he oppresses by violent domination the people entrusted to his care."

Bracton also stresses the requirement of participation in the formulation of laws:

"The King should not propose or enact laws rashly by his own will or whim; the law should be properly decided with the counsel of his peers, the King giving it formal authority only after full joint deliberation and consultation."

Bracton thus set out the three major ideals of Constitutional Monarchy: that the King should himself be subject to and act within the Law, that he should rule wisely and justly, and that he should rule in consultation with his peers.

The battle for consultation was won when Parliament gained supremacy over the Monarch, and Britain became a Constitutional Monarchy.

But now a new constitutional challenge would appear: the challenge of subjecting Parliament to constitutional discipline. Subsequent political development would attempt to ensure that, while Parliament would remain and grow as the institution of legislation and of popular representation, the power of Parliament itself should not become absolute, and Parliament should be subject to the same rules of underlying constitutional precedent which had previously been formulated to discipline Monarchs.

This was the background from which America's Founding Fathers drew both fear and inspiration: fear of re-creating a new autocratic monarchy or presidency, and inspiration for the creation of a new kind of government, a government representing its people, not dominating or oppressing them.

Constitution in the New World

Just as two thousand years ago the rulers of the Roman Empire dreamed of a world where all nations should share in citizenship of the Eternal City, and should have in their own lands assemblies and senates which typified Roman methods of government, likewise the British people during the 1700s felt their hard-won liberties and rights to participate in government could be transplanted. As British people over a period of three or four centuries crossed the oceans of the world, establishing new communities in every continent, their form of government has been planted and has blossomed in many lands.

When the thirteen British colonies in North America declared their independence in 1776, they laid down that Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. In so doing they were consciously echoing the words of the Great Charter which King John had sealed 561 years before, and wherein he had undertaken that no tax may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent.

Similarly, the Federal Constitution which the newly independent States drew up in 1787 was to a large extent the formal statement of rights and liberties already won in Britain.

"From the unwritten British Constitution came many ideas and principles". Such notions are common currency in American thinking; these words appear in The United States of America, a booklet published by the US Information Service.

However, while England had for centuries been intent on limiting the power of the Absolute Monarchy, American constitution-writers now focused on limiting the power and potential danger of the new "absolute ruler" - Congress, and the power of Federal Government institutions generally. This they sought to achieve not only through constitutional provisions and the Bill of Rights, but also through the celebrated "checks and balances" whereby two Houses, and the President as Executive, exercised discipline and restraint over one another.

The Judiciary was also placed to act as a restrictive force; indeed the US Supreme Court has traditionally seen itself as the ultimate discipline upon Government power, and champion of the citizen against Government excesses.

The supremacy of the Constitution over any and all branches of Government was seen by America's Founders as the essential assurance of orderly and disciplined Government.

The disciplines set out by America's Founding Fathers are clearly described by Mr Hugo LaFayette Black, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, 1937-1971 in his book "One Man's Stand For Freedom" - Mr. Justice Black and the Bill of Rights � [1963 Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.].

"The form of government which was ordained and established in 1789 contains certain unique features which reflected the Framers' fear of arbitrary government and which clearly indicate an intention absolutely to limit what Congress could do.

"The first of these features is that our Constitution is written in a single document. Such constitutions are familiar today and it is not always remembered that our country was the first to have one. Certainly one purpose of a written constitution is to define and therefore more specifically limit government powers. An all-powerful government that can act as it pleases wants no such constitution - unless to fool the people. England had no written constitution and this once proved a source of tyranny, as our ancestors well knew. Jefferson said about this departure from the English type of Government: Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.

"A second unique feature of our Government is a Constitution supreme over the Legislature. In England, statutes, Magna Carta, and later declarations of rights had for centuries limited the power of the King, but they did not limit the power of Parliament. Although commonly referred to as a Constitution, they were never the supreme law of the land in the way in which our Constitution is, much to the regret of statesmen like Pitt the elder. Parliament could change this English constitution; Congress cannot change ours. Ours can only be changed by amendments ratified by three fourths of the States.

"A third feature of our Government, expressly designed to limit its powers, was the division of authority into three co-ordinate branches, none of which was to have supremacy over the others. This separation of powers with the checks and balances which each branch was given over the others was designed to prevent any branch, including the Legislative, from infringing individual liberties safeguarded by the Constitution.

"All of the unique features of our Constitution show an underlying purpose: to create a new kind of limited government.

"Central to all of the Framers of the Bill of Rights was the idea that since government, particularly the National Government newly created, is a powerful institution, its officials - all of them - must be compelled to exercise their powers within strictly defined boundaries. As Madison told Congress, the Bill of Rights' limitations point sometimes against the abuse of the Executive power, sometimes against the Legislative, and in some cases against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority.

"Madison also explained that his proposed amendments were intended to limit and qualify the powers of government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. Mr. Madison made a clear explanation to Congress that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to grant greater protection than England afforded its citizens. He said: 'In the Declaration of Rights which [England] has established, the truth is, they have gone no farther than to raise a barrier against the power of the Crown; the power of the Legislature is left altogether indefinite. Although I know whenever the great rights, the trial by jury, freedom of the press, or liberty of conscience, came in question in that body, invasion of them is resisted by able advocates, yet their Magna Carta does not contain any one provision for the security of those Rights, respecting which the people of America are most alarmed. The freedom of the press and rights of conscience, those choicest privileges of the people, are unguarded in the British Constitution'.

"It was the desire to give the people of America greater protection against the powerful Federal Government than the English had had against their Government that caused the Framers to put these freedoms of expression, again in the words of Madison, beyond the reach of this Government."

Most of the original founder-States of the USA produced Constitutions, and as Territories were granted Statehood, they too felt the need to set forth the essential procedures, obligations and limitations controlling the function and laws of their governments. Right from her very birth, America would espouse the principles of Constitutional Supremacy and popular participation for which England had fought so hard and so long.

Constitutional tradition, as it developed in Britain and spread later to America and much of the Commonwealth, was indeed a slow and occasionally violent process. It is a thousand-year-old story, which may be said to begin in the year 1215 when the Great Charter sought to limit the powers of an Absolute Monarch. Yet despite the persistence of reformers and the progress made at the birth of the United States, the development of true constitutional security from autocratic rule is by no means complete today.

Indeed, when one compares the modern Government, with its unlimited rights of taxation, its total lack of financial discipline, and the tenuous relationship between elected Members and their voters, one may reasonably wonder how far real and effective constitutional discipline over those wielding political power has progressed since the Great Charter of 1215.

In 1215 Britain had an autocratic, costly and largely ineffectual Monarchy. Today throughout the developed world we have autocratic, costly and largely ineffectual Government.

The need for constitutional discipline over Government today is every bit as great as was the need for constitutional discipline over the Monarchy in 1215. It is therefore worth exploring the theory of Constitutional Government in more detail.

Constitutional Government

The Constitution in its basic form is a framework of rules telling Government in all its departments and all its functions what it must do, what it must not do, and how it should do it.

The detail of Constitutional provisions falls into three categories: the obligations which citizens may expect Government to fulfill; the limitations on the scope of Law; and the rules of procedure within which Government is required to operate.

We turn first to those provisions which define the obligations of Government to meet certain reasonable needs of its citizens.

One fundamental obligation of Government, that of "keeping the peace", is defined in many constitutions, as for example in the original 18th century manuscript of the Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

- "Government is instituted for the Common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people...."

- "Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, Liberty and prosperity according to standing Laws..."

- "Every subject of the Commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy by having recourse to the Laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character."

As with much of American constitution writing, this concept has its origins in English legal and constitutional tradition.

Clause 12 of the Coronation Charter which King Henry signed in 1101 states: A firm peace in my whole Kingdom I establish and require to be kept from henceforth.

"Clause 12 formally called into being the King's Peace, a conception that had been steadily growing during the Anglo-Saxon period. A disturbance of the peace was not only an offence against the personas aggrieved thereby but an affront to the King himself, and the Royal power would be deployed against the wrongdoer. The Crown was responsible for the maintenance of a peaceful environment within which men could go about their business undisturbed by violence. This conception remains to this day the basis of law and order within the Realm."

[Henry Marsh: "Documents of Liberty", David & Charles, 1971].

If the obligations of Government are set out clearly in the Constitution the citizen may have recourse to the Constitution in any cases where these obligations are not fulfilled.

But to tell Government what it should do for us is not enough. We must also, perhaps more importantly, tell Government what it may not do by setting clearly defined limitations on the scope of Law.

Popular and regularly recurring examples of Constitutional restrictions which protect citizens' liberties from encroachment by Government are provisions which protect freedom of religion, assembly and speech. Examples may be found in Article 2 of the Constitution of the State of Montana, as revised June 6, 1972.

- "Section 5. Freedom of Religion. The State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

- "Section 6. Freedom of Assembly. The People shall have the right peaceably to assemble, petition for redress or peaceably protest governmental action.

- "Section 7. Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech or expression."

These are rights which Government may not take away, areas which are effectively "off limits". If the Government over-steps the line, citizens may again seek remedy in the Constitution.

We turn now to those provisions of the Constitution which define the procedures of Legislative debate: facilities for participation and representation, the method of selecting incumbents for various offices, and their length of tenure. Through such established procedures details may be decided, representatives and officers can come and go, all in an orderly manner following agreed and accepted rules. Rules guiding the conduct of Enforcement Agents in their dealings with citizens may also be laid down in the Constitution.

Other rules of procedure may apply to the conduct of Government Administration, as for example in its finances.

One of the most basic ideals of Constitutional principle is that Government should not be permitted to conduct its affairs in any way which would be unacceptable in the private citizen or business.

That the Law-makers, either Monarch or Government, should be subject to their own laws is one of the fundamental principles of Constitutionalism. And yet if we apply this principle in the area of finance we can at once see the glaring disparity between the legally permitted conduct of private sector business and that of Government.

Government can go into debt on its current account, then simply continue to go ever deeper into debt without any hindrance whatsoever. Conduct which the Law would never tolerate in private citizens or business is, apparently, quite acceptable in government. This is a sure sign of a lack of Constitutional discipline.

Many of the world's governments today are deeply in debt, with an increasingly burdensome proportion of the National Budget now required simply to service the interest on that debt. Few show any signs of bringing their debts down. Many observers, and to their credit many legislators, openly express regret that their constitutions do not prohibit prolonged government deficits.

Though the Federal Constitution of the United States has no such provision, some individual States of the USA do preclude deficit financing in their State Constitutions.

Section 9, Article VIII of Montana's State Constitution, for example, is very explicit: "Balanced budget. Appropriations by the Legislature shall not exceed anticipated revenue."

Many economists argue that government deficits should be allowed during economic downturns in order to encourage recovery. However the same result can be achieved through the policy adopted by the State of Oklahoma, where the Constitution requires that expenditure be limited to only 95% of revenue, the balance being set aside as a credit against times of economic downturn.

The Constitutional approach to government operational and financial discipline is essential; the motivation to improve government efficiency and standards of business conduct is unlikely to come from inside government itself, and even if it does, the disciplines thus created are likely to be more cosmetic than real. Governments frequently pay lip-service to improving productivity and financial discipline, but seldom make any real changes. Self discipline is a noble ideal, but discipline is always more effective when it is imposed from outside, or more importantly, from above. This leads to a consideration of the status of Constitution in the totality of Government, Law and Enforcement.

Since it sets the rules for government, the Constitution must by its nature and definition stand above Government as the supreme authority in the land. This position of supremacy can be assured in a Constitutional system by placing the Constitution at a critical point in the governmental process.

There are two basic elements inherent in the process of governing. The first is decision, the second is force. Government decides what laws are necessary for the proper conduct of society, then sees that they are enforced. Decision, and Force. The process of governing depends on fulfilling these two functions individually, then uniting them so that they are mutually supportive.

This process of union is vital. There is no point in Government making laws if it cannot enforce them. Likewise there is no point in having Police, Judiciary, and Correctional institutions if they are given no orders, no laws to enforce.

The process of Government involves two elements: making laws, and enforcing them. And since neither of these two elements works without the other, they must have continuing contact.

Constitution exerts its supreme power in a Constitutional system by placing itself above and between the two processes of law-making and law-enforcement and thus controlling that vital link without which each process in itself is useless.

The essence of Constitutional Government is the separation of decision and enforcement, so that each can empower the other only through the Constitution, and only on condition that both comply with constitutional requirements.

We can thus visualize a theoretical Constitutional system of Government as three points of a triangle.

At the top point of the triangle we have the Constitution. At lower left, we have the Legislative Process; at lower right the Enforcement Agencies.

Legislation, at "bottom left", is formulated according to the appointed processes, but as yet has no "force of law". In the form of a proposal, each newly formulated Law is then passed up the left side of the triangle to the Constitution, where it is verified to ensure that its content and the procedures of its formulation are fully in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

If it passes this test, the Legislative proposal is then given "force of law" and is passed down the right side of the triangle to the Enforcement Agencies. But once again there is Constitutional Verification. For the Enforcement Agencies are also subject to Constitutional provisions and are constantly monitored to ensure that they so comply. If they do not, they will not be empowered to enforce laws until such time as they do comply.

The two points at the base of the triangle, representing the Legislature on the left, and the Enforcement Agencies on the right, are not directly joined. This is the very essence of Constitutional government. Decision and Force are allowed no direct contact; Legislative proposals cannot be passed directly to Enforcement. Only by moving upwards and passing successfully through Constitutional Verification can Legislative proposals gain the formal force of Law. And similarly, only through continuous compliance with the Constitutional provisions can the Enforcement Agencies qualify to receive Legislative instructions.

Decision and Force. Each powerless without the other. Each empowered, and the two joined, only by and through the Constitution, only on condition that each and both fulfil the provisions of the Constitution.

This represents an idealized, theoretical concept of Constitutional Government; in few if any cases today do Constitutions play such a key role.

In Britain the Constitution (unwritten, but largely based on Common Law and precedent) exercises little practical control over the process and content of Law formulated in Parliament, and is quoted more often in academic debate than in the practical operation of government.

Many of the institutions of government, from tax collection to the armed forces, as well as government itself, are preceded by the familiar initials "HM" for "His" or "Her Majesty" as Constitutional Head. But effective control remains in the hands of government under the Prime Minister.

In the USA Congress makes the Laws which the President as Executive signs more or less automatically into formal legislation. He may send them back on the grounds of disagreement, but Constitutional Verification as such is not a part of the process.

Nor does the US Supreme Court verify Laws prior to execution; it only does so when requested by individuals or Lower Courts. In this sense, the US Supreme Court acts as a Court of Appeal (or last resort) at the apex of the Judicial process, rather than a Constitutional Executive at the apex of the Legislative process.

The importance of Constitution, both in its content and its status, is little appreciated by the general public and is denigrated by politicians as being "undemocratic" since it limits the power of elected parliaments. Yet few are the voters in any country today who can claim that the political power to which they are subject is at all times exercised responsibly.

There is no form of Government yet devised, or yet devisable, which can be trusted to function successfully and honestly without the discipline of clear Constitutional rules laying down the essential principles to which government can be held accountable.

In the florid prose of the Constitution of the State of Vermont, adopted July 9, 1793:

"That frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, and a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep government free; the people ought, therefore, to pay particular attention to these points, in the choice of Officers and Representatives, and have a right, in a legal way, to exact due and constant regard to them, from their Legislators and Magistrates, in making and executing such Laws as are necessary for the good State."

Chapter 5: DEMOCRACY

Parliamentary Representation - The Socialist Revolution - The Demise of Extremism

Parliamentary Representation

With the signing by William and Mary of the 1689 Bill of Rights Britain's autocratic monarchy had finally been brought under constitutional discipline and Parliament had won its position of supremacy. But Parliament at that time represented only a small proportion of the population. Many there were, of course, who would be quite happy to keep it that way. The reformers however, both in and out of government, would now press for continuing expansion of the voting franchise.

Conservatism, preservation of the status quo, versus Reform; this theme was to dominate Parliamentary proceedings for some two hundred years.

Following a tradition of earlier times when the King's advisers sat on his right, likewise the Conservatives in Parliament loyal to the Crown and the maintenance of the status quo now sat on the Speaker's right, while the Radicals and Reformists sat on the left.

So Britain's Parliament assumed the confrontational shape still maintained today, of Right and Left, Conservatism and Reform facing one another across an aisle, and the terms Right and Left assumed the significance now familiar throughout the world.

When the Right-Left polarization first took shape, the Conservatives seated on the right supported the Monarchy and a degree of Royal prerogative provided the Nobility could share in it. They accepted the established order of Church and State, and furthered the interests of landowners, and later the big industrialists.

At first known as Royalists, they have subsequently become known by an early nickname: the word Tory is derived from an Irish word meaning robber, doubtless reflecting their appearance in the eyes of many common people.

On the other side were the Liberals, or "Whigs". Formerly Republicans, they now supported the Monarchy provided it was kept under constitutional constraints. They also supported reform generally, including a gradual widening of the franchise. The party of the Left later became more widely known simply as Liberals, until the 1900s when the Left position was taken by the Socialists.

Thus the battle lines were drawn, as Parliament struggled with and within itself for 200-odd years, from 1700 to 1900, culminating in the condition of broad participatory government popularly known today as Democracy.

Though now a matter of history in Britain, development of a broad and honest electoral system is a story which is still being enacted in many countries today.

Two areas particularly would be subject to continuing reform: Parliamentary Representation with its inequalities and corruption, and the physical process of casting votes.

The rapid growth of industry and the accompanying flight from the countryside during the late 1700s had unbalanced the traditional representation patterns. Some country "boroughs" (the so-called "rotten boroughs") still sent members to Parliament though they were now totally uninhabited, while huge new industrial cities were without any form of Parliamentary Representation.

Reform of Parliamentary Representation was very much a lively topic of debate; frequent meetings were held, and well attended, in coffee houses, public houses, and in the meeting rooms of Political Reform Societies, with proceedings carefully documented for posterity by the Society's "Hon. Sec." In May, 1809 a meeting of dedicated Reformers was held at the Crown and Anchor in the Strand; among the many items debated were calculations made by Grey in 1793, to the effect that 307 English Members of Parliament were appointed, through money and influence, by just 154 individuals.

Throughout the 1800s the demand for electoral reform grew steadily, though not without opposition from vested interests. As early as 1819 cotton workers from all around the cotton mill areas gathered in Manchester to demonstrate for male suffrage; they were ruthlessly suppressed by mounted Yeomanry Cavalry in what was to be known as the "Peterloo Massacre".

Yet the sheer pressure for electoral reform slowly gained momentum, and by 1830 the Liberal Party was able to defeat the Tories in a general election on this very issue. A Liberal committee was set up to compose a Reform Bill; this Bill was passed in the House of Commons and, after a protracted struggle in the House of Lords, became law in 1832.

It established male suffrage for all those with property worth more than �10 in annual rent, and reformed the various Constituency anomalies, abolishing the "Rotten Boroughs" and enfranchising the new industrial cities.

But even after this great Reform Act of 1832 the vast majority of the working classes were still unable to vote.

As to the process of election, "having the vote" certainly did not mean, as it does today, that one could in secret and without pressure vote for the Representative or the Party of one's choice.

Voting at this time was conducted not through secret ballot, but by a public show of hands; this allowed landlords and employers to "supervise" the voting of their servants and employees. The Tories as landlords, and many Liberals as wealthy merchants and industrialists, influenced voting in a way that made a mockery of the concept of free elections.

With the help of the new popular working-class newspapers, a major electoral reform movement developed, whose members were known as the Chartists. The movement centered around a "People's Charter", presented to Parliament with over a million signatures as a Petition of Right in 1839. The Charter contained the following six demands:

1. Universal suffrage for all men over the age of 21;

2. Vote by secret ballot to prevent the abuses of open ballot;

3. Payment of Members of Parliament so working men could afford to stand;

4. Abolition of the property-owning qualifications for membership of Parliament;

5. Equal electoral districts so that each Member of Parliament represented the same number of people;

6. Annual elections so that Members would keep constant note of their voters' requirements.

Despite Parliament's awareness of the need for further electoral reform, the majority in Parliament felt that this Charter was going too far, and defeated the motion to consider it as a Bill of Reform.

The Chartists later presented a second Petition, this time with three million signatures - a figure representing a quarter of the working population. But again it was rejected by the upper-class-dominated House of Commons. As a result there were riots and uprisings throughout the country; further reform was inevitable.

In 1867 the second Reform Act gave voting enfranchisement to all male rate-payers. This was followed in 1872 by the Ballot Act which brought in voting by secret ballot, thus at last giving the lowest classes real freedom to make their own choice of Parliamentary Representatives without pressure or influence.

The working classes were now enfranchised; but their interests were not accurately represented in either the Tory or the Liberal ideologies. They needed a Party in Parliament which would represent their own interests and views, a Party which would fight against the intolerably long working hours, poor pay, overcrowded housing conditions, and all the other perceived manifestations of injustice and exploitation.

Socialism had its origins in the writings of Karl Marx and Engels, but Marx's "Communist" theories were considered too radical and revolutionary for the taste of the British. The British Labour Party began as an alliance of Trade Unions and Co-operative Societies, its philosophy influenced by the Fabian Society, an intellectual group of Socialists founded in 1884, inspired by the playwright Bernard Shaw and husband-wife team Beatrice and Sidney Webb.

The last few years of the Century saw the gradual formalization of the Socialist programme featuring a shorter working day, improved housing, higher wages, social security, and a minimum standard of education for all. The Labour Party would now become the Party of the Left, with Socialism as the "alternative" political doctrine.

The Socialist Revolution

Thus far in political history there had really been only one political dogma, known as Capitalism, Laisser-faire, Free Enterprise. Whatever it may be called, it is based on the principle of minimal Government intervention. And that made sense, at least to the ruling classes. They were doing very nicely in industry, commerce and social organization, and they had naturally instituted a form of government which would leave them quite free to get on with it.

And of course, leaving people free to get on with it is quite literally what laisser-faire means.

For many, everything looked rosy. But the Humanist visionaries were concerned that the lax political climate permitted too much opportunity for some to exploit others, for some to accumulate huge fortunes through the impoverishment of others. Idealists saw this as a form of enslavement, enslavement being defined in simple terms as the involuntary transfer of work or wealth from one person or class to another.

They resolved, as the new Twentieth Century dawned, that there would be no more enslavement of man by fellow man.

A worthy aim indeed. And how was it to be achieved?

It could have been achieved by requiring Government to do more than just leaving people free to get on with it. Freedom is fine, but perhaps people should not be so free that they are permitted so grossly, so blatantly, even so brutally to plunder the freedom of others.

The solution would have been more Government involvement: specifically, sufficient to prevent people from exploiting one another. That would have been the ideal solution; with it the development of political ideals and institutions could have made a quantum leap from enslavement to liberty, from self-interest to universal-interest.

But human nature does not work in such exalted ways. We do not see injustice and replace it with justice; we see injustice and react to the other extreme, replacing one kind of injustice with another.

And the new political creed of Socialism was just such a reaction. Hailed by so many as the dawning of social justice, it was regrettably no such thing. Socialism did not abolish injustice but perpetuated it, merely reversing the roles.

Instead of the Strong and powerful exploiting the Weak, now it would be the Weak, the poor, the working classes who would, with Government help, exact vengeance from their previous masters.

Traditionally Governments had always served the interests of the powerful people who controlled them by doing as little as possible, thus allowing those with power to exploit those without it.

Now taking the side of the previously impoverished majority, Socialism would adopt the opposite approach.

Instead of doing nothing, or the very minimum, a Socialist Government would throw itself wholeheartedly into the fray on the side of the working people.

But it would be halfway through this century before Britain was to have its first real taste of Socialism.

In 1900 the first joint meeting of the various representatives of the Labour Movement was held in London to found the Labour Representation Committee, which later became the Labour Party.

The Committee adopted a resolution put forward by Keir Hardie, who would later become the first Labour MP in the House of Commons, to establish, not a Political Party in the first instance, but a Labour Group in Parliament which would co-operate with any existing Party promoting legislation in the direct interests of the Labour Movement.

Support for the new Labour Movement increased rapidly, and when the election came in 1906, to the horror of the press and the governing class, Labour captured twenty-nine seats in Parliament, swelled subsequently to over forty seats when the Miners' Federation instructed its MPs to join the Labour Party.

During the First World War of 1914-1918, many people lost confidence in the abilities of the Ruling Classes whose generals and politicians were perceived as being responsible for the War's immense and useless slaughter. By the end of the War much of the population had become politically cynical, even semi-revolutionary.

The election of 1924 gave Labour, through an Alliance with the Liberal Party, a majority over the Conservatives of 91 seats in the House of Commons. The Alliance with the Liberals, however, precluded a full Socialist programme of legislation, and after only a year in office, through an ineptly conducted attempt to restrict publication of a Pacifist article in a Communist paper, the first Labour Government was forced to resign.

In 1925, the Conservative Government supported the Coal Owners' bid to reduce miners' wages, demanding that "all workers in this country have got to take reductions in wages". A general strike was threatened and the government backed down, conceding temporary victory to the Left. When the subsidy which the government had given to the coal industry ran out in May 1926, the Government informed Labour leaders that wage cuts for the miners would be enforced.

This precipitated the great National Strike of 1926. For nine days the country was paralysed. However, through economic hardship the workers were unable to outlast the Employers and Government and were forced to capitulate. The Employers subsequently took advantage of this by reducing wages generally, and the Government then brought in a Trades Disputes Act, which impeded subscriptions by Trade Unionists to the Labour Party, made picketing more difficult and forbade the Civil Service Unions from membership of the Trades Union Council.

The Government also withheld social benefits from large numbers of unemployed on the pretext that they were "not genuinely seeking work" - an accusation not entirely sustainable within a context of large- scale unemployment.

This last action was mainly responsible for the Labour Party victory in the election of 1929, when they won a margin of seats greater than in their previous term of office; yet they were still dependent on Liberal support. This second Labour Government in power was, however, overtaken by the great financial collapse of 1929, which started in the USA and later spread to Britain. The Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald was forced to form a new coalition "National Government" which was itself soon dominated by the Conservatives.

Unemployment reached nearly three million in 1931 and had not fallen below a million-and-a-half in 1937. By the start of the Second World War in 1939, there were still up to a million unemployed, even though by then a degree of prosperity had returned to Britain.

At the conclusion of World War II in 1945 there was once again a reaction to the Left and the third Labour Government was voted in, this time with a large overall majority. For the first time Labour was able to introduce some sweeping Socialist changes.

Labour's main objectives were to extend public ownership in the economy, and to introduce a comprehensive "Welfare State".

By the second post-war election in 1950, when Labour was returned to power with a reduced majority, they had nationalised the Bank of England, Cable & Wireless, the major British airlines, coal, electricity, the railways, gas, and the iron and steel industries.

Developing the "Welfare State", they had introduced a National Health Service and a National Insurance Scheme.

In 1951 the Labour Government was split when the more radical members resigned over a budget reduction in social expenditure. An election was called, and the Conservatives returned to power for the next thirteen years. Labour's "finest hour" had come and gone.

With the benefit of hindsight we can see the idealism which motivated the principles of Socialism in its formative years. But we can also see that the Socialist Reformers in their attempts to eliminate enslavement overshot the mark and ended up with excessive and heavy-handed government.

This development was paralleled to an even greater extent in the USSR, where the Socialist/Communist regime created both heavy-handed government and considerable oppression.

Claiming that land ownership was unfair the Soviet State took it all. No longer would a small minority of powerful landlords control 90% of the cultivable land, leaving millions with no means of livelihood or sustenance.

But in practice of course, no one either rich or poor would have any direct or personal discretion in the use of land and other natural resources which would now be fully collectivized and centrally directed. Thus the State curtailed a substantial area of individual and economic liberty, depriving itself of the initiative, commonsense and pride of ownership of its agricultural workers.

Many of them left for the New World, where their imported seeds and hard work would lay the foundations for the great American and Canadian grain belts which continue to feed a large part of the world's population today.

Throughout production and industry the story was the same.

Claiming that the country's men of enterprise were not to be trusted, the Soviet State took over the total planning and operation of all industry and commerce. No longer would employer exploit employee by paying low wages and maintaining dangerous and unhealthy factory conditions: thus at least in theory.

But in practice the substitution of centralized planning and direction with the consequent elimination of individual enterprise and initiative would lead to a steady decline in productive efficiency. This in turn meant that real wages in terms of purchasing power remained low, and that the economy could not afford to invest in new technological development or to effect improvements in environmental and factory working conditions.

Wages and prices were fixed by the State on social grounds which bore no relationship to costs; this would ensure social justice of a kind, as well as monetary stability. But without the essential discipline of accounting to clarify income and expenditure, to control costs and measure efficiency, productive resources were mis-used and mis-allocated, contributing further to low productivity and low prosperity.

Resources-use and industry had been brought under full State control; and personal liberty went the same way.

To ensure that the people got what was best for them in their personal lives the State took upon itself to regulate the daily detail of personal, family and community life. Housing, health, education, transport, holidays, news, culture, entertainment... everything was government controlled.

Certainly every Soviet citizen would now have free healthcare and education and cheap transport and subsidized ballet... all those dreams which neither the poor nor the reformers in London could ever have thought possible in the late 1800s.

But the citizens of the Soviet Union would pay a price in terms of liberty; for they would no longer be able to choose how to spend the fruits of their labours nor exercise that discipline of choice upon producers so vital to maintain and continually raise standards of service and productivity.

Thus the Socialist revolution would gradually reveal itself. People with ideas and enterprise were suppressed and even persecuted. Hard work no longer had its own rewards. Freedom of speech, of the press, and access to information and knowledge of the outside world were denied to all ordinary people.

The new elite would be the Party members, the government functionaries and the police. For the rest of the population class equality, of a kind, had been achieved. As they used to say in Poland: "Under capitalism there's rich and poor; under socialism, we're all poor."

The old injustices of Capitalism were replaced with the new injustices of Socialism; and the world, having long experienced enslavement, had now experienced a new political phenomenon: oppression.

Enslavement occurs when man is permitted to infringe the liberties of fellow man. Oppression is created when the State itself invades the liberties of those it governs.

Have we learned the lesson? It might appear so.

Few are the Westerners who speak Russian; but we are all familiar with the Russian word perestroika. Literally it means reorganization; in practice it has come to mean the discrediting and the collapse of Socialism/Communism.

And yet as people in the West watch with an undeniable sense of superiority the continuing disintegration of the former Soviet Communist system, they are perhaps unaware that a part of every human soul yearns for the security of the Socialist regime.

Under Socialism, the Great State Machine takes care of us all from cradle to grave, educating, entertaining, employing, feeding and housing us, doing what's best for us. We know that without the vital spark of human initiative a nation cannot grow economically; yet we cling to our Socialistic dreams of "free" healthcare and education, and subsidies for everything we can possibly imagine without even wanting to know where the money is to come from.

But the same rules which have caused the downfall of Socialism in the former Soviet Union operate in the West too.

All the northern European health systems are now coming under increasing pressure from waste and abuse; the State school systems teach little or nothing at enormous expense; and the expansion of subsidies for anything and everything combined with a marked reluctance to pay for them has resulted in ever-increasing Government debt.

Government continues to grow in size and in cost, not only in Britain and Europe, but equally so in that bastion of free enterprise, the United States of America.

Do we blame Government, or do we blame ourselves? It is said that in a democracy people get the government they deserve; could it be that irresponsible government is the result and the wish of an irresponsible electorate?

President Kennedy once suggested that America's citizens should ask not what America can do for them, but what they can do for America. It might be suggested that voters today should ask not what they can get out of Government, but who on earth is going to pay for it.

Wherever it is practised, the nature and the problems of Socialism are the same and are simply stated.

The distinctive feature of Socialism is that it takes funds and decisions from individuals and places them in the hands of Government; the services supplied by Government are costly and inefficient, choice is reduced, and liberty is eroded.

Socialism has indeed reduced the opportunity for man to exploit fellow man which existed under right- wing, laisser-faire government; but the measure of liberty has not increased, for Socialist government creates its own exploitation through over-organization and oppression, in the name of social equality.

As they used to joke in the old days behind the Iron Curtain: "Capitalism is the exploitation of man by fellow man. Under Socialism it's the other way round".

Nations and their governments create three kinds of political environment: enslavement, oppression and liberty.

We have experienced enslavement, and oppression.

Liberty, full and universal Liberty, continues to elude us.

The Demise of Extremism

By 1900 the franchise, the ability to vote in secret according to conscience or self-interest, was widely held. And during the first half of this Century the Right-Left choice provided sufficient opportunity for the individual voter's interests to be reflected in Parliament. "Democracy" had arrived.

Democracy today, especially in America, holds a place of near-sanctity in our political thinking, yet its voters are increasingly dissatisfied and disillusioned. Is Democracy at fault?

Democracy's first and perhaps main attribute is that it is clearly an improvement over Autocracy or Dictatorship.

The word Autocracy comes from the Greek word kratos meaning power, and self (autos), the sense being that one Leader holds power for himself solely and exclusively. This term can apply to the Absolute Monarchs of early England or to the more recent dictatorships of Africa and Latin America.

Democracy gives power to the people, the word being derived from the Greek words power (kratos), and demos meaning people.

In order to ascertain the Will of the People, the Democratic system provides for periodic elections. Democracy is essentially a process whereby the People, rather than an Autocratic Monarch or Dictator, can peaceably present and review options, then select the policy of their choice.

The importance and stability of orderly electoral procedure should not be underrated. The alternative is a bullet in the President's head or a full-scale civil war. We should not forget that many countries, far too many, still change their Presidents and their Governments in this way.

But Democracy has its imperfections, and its limitations.

Democracy means power to the people. But this remains an ideal, and does not reflect the way Democracy works in practical reality. It is a matter of simple definition that we cannot have real and genuine power to the people unless all of the people are of one mind. And in practice, they never are.

Democracy, or power to the people, we do not have. What we practise today is Majocracy, or power to the majority of the people. In this sense we still give power to the Powerful; but now "the Powerful" are those in the numerical majority, or increasingly in the United States, those with the greatest financial support.

And what of the laws and social conditions which result?

The presumption of a Democratic system is that the Majority is "right". The rightness of a law exists precisely because it is a majority decision; it requires no other justification.

This presumption is not, nor ever has been, convincing.

The Law is not right simply because a majority of the citizenry supports it. Majorities can be financially irresponsible, oppressive of minorities, or simply wrong by the instinct of political morality which exists in every one of us - when we choose to consider "right" as opposed to self-interest.

America is justly considered the world's major latter-day exponent of Democracy; yet their Founding Fathers recognized that the unrestricted exercise of Majority Rule could result in irresponsible Government, or worse still, tyranny of the Majority. It was for this reason that they added to their Constitution a Bill of Rights which set boundaries of individual rights and freedoms beyond which the Law was not permitted to exercise any control.

But even when the powers of Law are thus limited, Government in a Democracy can only be as good as the policies which voters are offered, and the choice which voters make. Democracy is simply a system for making choices; as such it is not responsible for the range of options available, nor for the voters' choices, nor for the resultant social conditions.

It is the Party Policy presented and publicly supported within the framework of Democracy which creates Laws and forms the social environment in which we live and work.

If we are dissatisfied with our Government in a Democracy then we must look at Government policy, define and analyze our dissatisfaction, produce a new policy backed by a supporting Political Party, then vote it into office.

And there is every indication that the time for such a re-thinking of Government and Political Policy is now upon us.

The demise of Right-Left extremism and the apparent vacuum it has left in British politics today is paralleled in the politically developed countries across the world.

This situation may be viewed with dismay by the traditional political parties, and with disillusionment by the voting public.

But when we take the broad theoretical and historical view it becomes clear that our present condition of becalmed neutrality may be the signal for a change, a very fundamental change in the way we view and conduct our political and social relationships.

Where there is contact between people it is possible for one to profit by causing loss to others.

Since the dawn of political history it has always been possible for man to injure, impose upon and otherwise infringe the liberty of fellow man; this has been permitted by Laisser-faire Government of the Right, or perpetrated by Socialism and Communism on the Left.

The result is our present Democratic forum in which Right and Left battle out their perceived sectional interests, though now with ever-decreasing conviction.

Conservatives want high prices, high profits, low wages, and free unregulated markets.

Socialists want high wages with low prices and low profits, and a full compliment of Government- operated welfare facilities paid for by taxing the wealthy and if necessary through deficit spending.

Both policies are self-interest oriented, each attempting