WI Written Constitution in the United Kingdom?

WI there was a written constitution in the United Kingdom?

When would it most likely have been written and what would the plausible catalysts have been for this to occur?

How would it have changed UK politics to this day?
 

Thande

Donor
I suppose it's possible that it could have been re-codified after the 1801 Act of Union, but at that point written constitutions were associated with The Enemy (revolutionary France and the USA) so it would probably have been a political no-no.

Prior to then it was largely a case of being heavily based on the English Bill of Rights (which was codified, of course) plus convention. There wasn't really any need to write down how MPs are elected and so forth when it was just a case of "the same way it's been done for centuries".

Another possible time it could have been written is after the 1830s' reform acts, given that the Chartists wanted exactly this with their People's Charter.
 
It would depend on the type of consitution.

Typical late 19th century constitution from the British Empire was a framweork document for the running of the state. It didn't typically talk about personal rights or anything like that. So civil litigation like that may not increase a lot if such a formal written constitution was implemented.

The real issue I think is what exactly would a constitution say or do? How far would it go to address the Union - interactions between the various units (nations) etc? A lot of these questions are things that I suspect the powers that be probably didn't want to answer or have written down anywere
 
Kingdom?

England HAD a Constitution. Two of them, actually. Instrument of Government, and Humble Petition and Advice. Plus a plenty of petitions and projects that did not go through.

Convention Parliament considered placing conditions on Charles II-s restoration in 1660. Monck argued against it, on the pretext that once the King was back in England, he´d be in Parliament´s power and the Parliament could dictate the restoration settlement. The Parliament did not force much on the King, and the King accepted what the Parliament asked.

So, you could have a butterfly where the Convention Parliament, instead of simply declaring the customary laws restored, wrote down what they thought the constitution of England was and ought to be, on the example of Instrument of Government and Humble Petition and Advice.

Then there was Bill of Rights, after the Dutch conquest. And the Act of Union with Scotland.

Since the precedent existed for written constitution, you could have a butterfly where the Bill of Rights spells out the whole constitution, rather than just the abuses and changes.

Or the Scots could request codification of English constitution for Union, so that the powers and limitations of GB constitution would be written down for the benefit of Scots ignorant of English customs.
 
I would prefer a later POD I think. Say late 19th century, after Home Rule (demonstrating a need) and the various colonial federations (showing it possible to create such institutions and documents in a British context) become an issue.

I'm not sure exactly what would be needed to get the GB polity to swallow such a change however, as the country as a whole seems pretty dammed resistant to legal or constitutional innovation
 

Thande

Donor
England HAD a Constitution. Two of them, actually. Instrument of Government, and Humble Petition and Advice. Plus a plenty of petitions and projects that did n

Ahh, that's a good point, the only time the country did have a written constitution was under Cromwell...another reason why they were associated with arbitrary republican power and dictatorship, and hence a bit of a no-no.
 
Ahh, that's a good point, the only time the country did have a written constitution was under Cromwell...another reason why they were associated with arbitrary republican power and dictatorship, and hence a bit of a no-no.

I am not sure that it was the case. England had very different flavours of constitutional projects during Interregnum, from the radical Leveller ones up to the Protectorate monarchy. It was kind of difficult to rely on "how the things had always been", because Long Parliament already was a very different thing from the earlier ones, so it might be desired to write down what a "free Parliament" means.
 
Ahh, that's a good point, the only time the country did have a written constitution was under Cromwell...another reason why they were associated with arbitrary republican power and dictatorship, and hence a bit of a no-no.

You have a (mostly) written Constitution now, it's just on significantly more pieces of paper than anybody else's :D
 
It would depend on the type of consitution.

Typical late 19th century constitution from the British Empire was a framweork document for the running of the state. It didn't typically talk about personal rights or anything like that. So civil litigation like that may not increase a lot if such a formal written constitution was implemented.

That's a good point. In Australia for instance the Constitution is mainly concerned with how the Parliament and Government works. The only particular passage similar to a personal rights statement is a prohibition of the establishment of a religion.

Actually that is an interesting point as in the USA the Constitution prohibits the establisment of 'religion' whereas in Australia it prohibits the establishment of 'a religion'. This means that the Australian Govt can give funds to religious groups so long as it doesn't discriminate between them, much easier than in the USA.

Also if in this ATL the UK adopts a written constitution in the late 19th century or early 20th century, is it plausible that the Church of England would be disestablished? I know that in the latter half of the 19th century many Non-Conformist Protestants were in favour of this and I would assume that there would have been significant support for this in the Liberal Party and later on the Labour Party.
 
I would prefer a later POD I think. Say late 19th century, after Home Rule (demonstrating a need) and the various colonial federations (showing it possible to create such institutions and documents in a British context) become an issue.

I'm not sure exactly what would be needed to get the GB polity to swallow such a change however, as the country as a whole seems pretty dammed resistant to legal or constitutional innovation

I agree that the late 19th century would be a plausible time for this to happen. I also think that in the early 1830's around the time of the Reform Act would be another likely time.
 
An interesting point I've thought about is the question of the power of the House of Lords. If this written constitution is put in place in the 19th century, then it would presumably give the Lords quite considerable power.

To some extent, given that for a written constitution to be put in place, there would have to be a more radical political environment in the UK at the time, the Lords may to some extent be democratised in a limited fashion. However it will still have more powers and given that written constitutions are usually designed to be hard to change, we could in this ATL have a House of Lords that is today more powerful than it is in OTL.
 
I'd think with some sort of revoution is indeed the way (ala otl).

I suppose the progressives in the late 19th century could do it if you must go there.
 
Also if in this ATL the UK adopts a written constitution in the late 19th century or early 20th century, is it plausible that the Church of England would be disestablished? I know that in the latter half of the 19th century many Non-Conformist Protestants were in favour of this and I would assume that there would have been significant support for this in the Liberal Party and later on the Labour Party.
Yes, but there was antidisestablishmentarianism as well.

OTL, Anglican Church was disestablished in Ireland in 1871, and in Wales in 1920, but not in England. So, a written constitution in that timeframe would probably explicitly establish the Church.

If this written constitution is put in place in the 19th century, then it would presumably give the Lords quite considerable power.

To some extent, given that for a written constitution to be put in place, there would have to be a more radical political environment in the UK at the time, the Lords may to some extent be democratised in a limited fashion. However it will still have more powers and given that written constitutions are usually designed to be hard to change, we could in this ATL have a House of Lords that is today more powerful than it is in OTL.

Sure. And what about Lords who are elected by people? They would have a democratic mandate to compete with the MPs in Commons, more than the hereditary lords.

In OTL, Lords lost their final veto in Parliament Act of 1919, when the Commons term was limited from 7 to 5 years, and Commons could not extend their term without permission of Lords. In 1958, life peers were introduced to pack the Lords.

There were elected Lords in the united Parliament, 16 representatives of Scottish peers and 28 representatives of Irish peers.

Suppose that sometime end of 19th or early 20th century, the Lords were reformes so that the 16 representatives of Scottish peers and 28 representatives of Irish peers remain, and the other peers get to elect their representatives - like 100 or so. And the majority of House of Lords is filled by popular election - for life. In this case, the new Life Peers have direct popular mandate, and they also are a different set of people than MPs in Commons because Commons are elected for 5 years, and Rerpresentative Peers for life.

What next?
 
Top