Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:45:30.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bentham on the Theory of Second Chambers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Lewis Rockow
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When the problem of second chambers is discussed, we frequently find that interest is confined to the subsidiary question of technique, omitting the prior question, “Why have a second chamber?” It is in the main assumed that second chambers are universally valid, and therefore attention is centered on the varied methods of selection and the extent of functions. If the primary question is raised at all, it is invariably answered by an appeal to experience. It is claimed that almost all modern governments have for a considerable time had bicameral legislatures, and that it is hazardous to disregard a practice that is so nearly universal. Seldom is an attempt made to go beyond experience and to analyze critically this admittedly wide practice. In fact, a bicameral legislature is generally held to be an unassailable and eternal verity, one of the few axioms of political science.

Nevertheless, among the more systematic writers on political science the validity of the bicameral theory is far from unanimously supported. Even a hasty reference to the history of political ideas shows recurrent dissent. Thus, during the period of democratic ferment inaugurated by the French and American revolutions we find unmistakable opposition. To mention some examples, Samuel Adams, Paine, Turgot, Sieyès, and Condorcet were in favor of the unicameral form. The basis of their hostility is well summarized in the famous dilemma of Sieyès. Sieyès has indeed indicated the broad outlines of the objections; and a succeeding century of bicameral experience shows how difficult it is to escape from his vexatious alternatives. To reconcile faith in democracy with the assumption of the value of an effective check is assuredly not an enviable task. At any rate, for our present purpose suffice it to say that bicameralism has frequently been rejected.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , August 1928 , pp. 576 - 590
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1928

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Laski, H. J., The Problem of a Second Chamber, Fabian Tract No. 213, p. 12Google Scholar.

2 Jeremy Bentham to his Fellow-Citizens of France on Houses of Peers and Senates, 1830. A collected edition of the works of Bentham was published in 1843 in eleven volumes under the supervision of Bentham's literary executor, John Bowring. All reference to the theory of Bentham in this paper is made to this edition. For discussion of Bentham and his followers, see Stephen's, LeslieThe English Utilitarians, 3 vols.Google Scholar, and Éli Halévy's La Formation du radicalisme philosophique, 3 tom. On the history of the period see Éli Halévy's Histoire du peuple anglais au XIXe siècle. Mr. and Mrs. Hammond's The Village Laborer, The Skilled Laborer, The Town Laborer, and The Rise of Modern Industry are also valuable.

3 For Bentham's discussion of this problem see Works, vol. II, pp. 307–308Google Scholar; vol. IV, pp. 419–450; vol. VIII, pp. 468–70; and vol. IX, pp. 114–117. The words or phrases of quoted material given in italics are as found in the original.

4 The recent books on the problem of second chambers are Lees-Smith, H. B., Second Chambers in Theory and Practice (London, 1923)Google Scholar, and Roberts, G. B., The Functions of an English Second Chamber (London, 1926)Google Scholar. More important than these books is the Bryce report on reform of the House of Lords and the discussions of the same problem in the British Parliament. The Bryce Letter to the Prime Minister on the Reform of the Second Chamber is Cd. 9038, 1918. For the debate in the House of Lords on the Government resolutions of July, 1922, see Parliamentary Debates (Lords), fifth series, vol. 51, cols. 524–572, 642–682, 783–815, 963–996, and vol. 52, cols. 261–288. On the proposals of the Government in June, 1927, see Parliamentary Debates (Lords), fifth series, vol. 67, cols. 755–802, 862–950, 952–1006; vol. 68, cols. 664–677; and Parliamentary Debates (Commons), fifth series, vol. 208, cols. 1285–1406. On Canada and New Zealand see Lees-Smith, pp. 46–89 and 119-135 respectively.

5 Works, vol. IX, p. 116Google Scholar.

6 On Canada and Australia, see Lees-Smith, pp. 46–119, and Roberts, pp. 137–167.

7 On Norway, see Lees-Smith, pp. 179–204, and Roberts, pp. 211–221; on the Bryce suggestion, see the Bryce Letter, pp. 7–13. It is to be noted that the Norwegian Lagthing can hardly be called a second chamber.

8 Works, vol. IV, pp. 420–421Google Scholar.

9 See on this point Morgan, J. H., The Place of the Second Chamber in the Constitution (National Liberal Club, London, 1910), pp. 9–18Google Scholar.

10 Works, vol. IX, p. 115Google Scholar.

11 Works, vol. IX, p. 116Google Scholar.

12 See Lees-Smith, pp. 32–46; the Bryce, Letter, p. 4Google Scholar; and SirMarriott, John A. R., The Mechanism of the Modern State (Oxford, 1927), vol. I, pp. 404–405Google Scholar.

13 It is interesting to note that the Tory government was forced to withdraw its proposals to reform the House of Lords, as announced in that chamber on June 20, 1927, largely because of opposition among its own supporters. See reference to the Parliamentary Debates given above.

14 Quoted in Marriott, J. A. R., Second Chambers (London, 1910), p. 1Google Scholar.

15 Parliamentary Debates (Commons), fifth series, vol. 208, col. 1324.

16 See on this point Temperley, H. W. V., Senates and Upper Chambers (London, 1910), pp. 129–130Google Scholar, and Dickinson, G. Lowes, The Development of Parliament (London, 1895), pp. 160–183Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.