No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The British Constitution and the Movement for a Modern Bill of Rights
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2019
Extract
It took the incisive pen of H.G. Wells to provide a simple understanding of the diffuse and arcane British constitution:
Nobody planned the confounded constitution. It came about; … but you see it came about so happily in a way, it so suited the climate and temperament of our people and our island, it was on the whole so cosy, that our people settled down into it. You can't help settling down into it.
The purpose of this paper is to briefly look at some aspects of the constitution that the British “settled down into” and to examine arguments calling for the incorporation of a written declaration of individual rights.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1987 by International Association of Law Libraries
References
1. Wells, H.G., Mr. Britling Sees It Through, bk. a, ch. 1, sec. 11.Google Scholar
2. 10 Halsbury's Statutes of England (4th ed. 1985).Google Scholar
3. 801 Parl. Deb., H.C. (5th ser.) 198 (1970).Google Scholar
4. The Chequers Estate Act 1917.Google Scholar
5. Bagehot, W., The English Constitution 111.Google Scholar
6. deSmith, S. A, Constitutional and Administrative Law 99 (3rd ed. 1977).Google Scholar
7. McIlwain, C. H., Constitutionalism and the Changing World 279 (1939).Google Scholar
8. Id. at 279-80.Google Scholar
9. British Coal Corp. v. The King, [1935] A.C. 500, 520 (H.L.).Google Scholar
10. See the opinion of the Privy Council declaring a Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) statute ultra vires and void: Liyange v. The Queen, [1967] 1 A.C. 259 (P.C.).Google Scholar
11. Burmah Oil Co., Ltd. v. Lord Advocate, [1965] A.C. 75 (H.L.).Google Scholar
12. Turpin, C., British Government and the Constitution 56-57 (1985).Google Scholar
13. City of London v. Wood, 88 Eng. Rep. 1592, 1602 (1701).Google Scholar
14. Jolowicz, “The Judicial Protection of Fundamental Rights under English Law.” In The Cambridge-Tilburg Law Lectures 1979 at 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Allen, “Legislative Supremacy and the Rule of Law: Democracy and Constitutionalism,” Cambridge Law Journal (1985). 11-12.Google Scholar
16. Scarman, L., English Law—The New Dimension 69 (1974).Google Scholar
17. Id. 74-5.Google Scholar
18. Jennings, I., The Law and The Constitution 247 (4th ed. 1952).Google Scholar
19. Malone, v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (No. 2), [1979] 2 All E.R. 620, 630 (Ch.D.), per Meggary, V-C.Google Scholar
20. Baldwin, Robertson v., 165 U.S. 275, 281 (1986).Google Scholar
21. Supra note 12, at 92.Google Scholar
22. For a descriptive account of the trial, see I. Stevens & D. Yardley, The Protection of Liberty 122-23 (1982) and G. Robertson & A. Nicol, Media Law 92-94 (1984).Google Scholar
23. Shaw v. D.P.P., [1962] A.C. 220 (H.L.).Google Scholar
24. Id. at 293-94.Google Scholar
25. Supra note 22, at 124.Google Scholar
26. Bonnard v. Perryman, [1891] 2 Ch. 269. 284.Google Scholar
27. Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1974] A.C. 273 (H.L.).Google Scholar
28. Sunday Times v. United Kingdom. [1979] 2 E.H.RR. 245.Google Scholar
29. Scarman, L., “Human Rights: The Current Situation,” in Do We Need A Bill of Rights? ed. C. Campbell 6 (1980).Google Scholar
30. Supra note 12, at 10.Google Scholar