THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION

Waikato Times, Volume 117, Issue 19515, 2 March 1935, Page 6

THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION

Sir John Simon, the British Foreign Minister, has been on a visit to Paris to tell a French audience something about that wonderfully elusive thing—the British Constitution.

France, it was reported some time ago, was anxious to model her system of government on British lines, and it is probable that Sir John’s lecture was the outcome of that desire. The British Constitution is at once the admiration and the despair of almost all countries in the world. Many have expressed a wish to adopt it, but before it can be adopted it has' to be defined, and it is indefinable. Sir John Simon has evidently found it so.

M. Flandin, the French Prime Mini-Tx;, who presided over the Paris gathering, if he had any hopes of getting anything tangible upon which he could act, must? have felt disappointed, as must all in the assemblage. They were told that the British Constitution was not attainable to the French. It suits the Briton; it would not fit the alien. It is British out and out, and bears the characteristics of the British people. Sir John Simon sums it up thus:

“It might be that the English constitutional system illustrated certain British characteristics such as want of logic, a certain contempt for formality, a great respect for lessons of the past, a deep sense of realities, and then, above all, moderation which results in no one claiming the literal fulfilment of all his rights beyond limits imposed by good sense. “ Strictly speaking there was no British Constitution, but only uncodified results of long experience of parliamentary government. This allowed certain liberties to be taken with it in a new situation, the danger of abuses being checked by the inherent respect for tradition. “ All he claimed for the British system was that it suited the British and was the result of long experience of- British conditions. It was like an old garment which had come to fit the figure of its owner but could not be co]iicd and worn with ecpial convenience by everybody.” This is a masterly exposition on an intangible theme, and we can imagine that the French audience would be greatly thrilled. It would, however, be grievously disappointed, for it was in effect told that the British Constitution was not for the French people. They can copy the English form of parliamentary procedure if they will, but that is only the form not the essence of the thing they crave. To make it a success they would have to assiduously cultivate the characteristics inherent in the British. This would mean a fundamental change in the temperament of the people as a whole —from the excitable to the phlegmatic, from the impulsive to the reasonable. This is not a matter of days, weeks or months, but of years, decades, centuries. Before she can attain to the calm placidity exemplified by the British Constitution France has to traverse a long and weary road.