Almost every modern constitution has followed this pattern. The only exception to this almost universal rule is the case of the British Parliament as a constitution-making body. This is why the written constitutions of British Dominions like Canada and Australia embody no fundamental rights.

British politicians and constitutionalists are generally of the view that written rights are not of much practical value. Abstract declarations, according to them, are useless unless there exists the will and the means to make them effective. The real guarantee of liberty lies in an effective public opinion and the existence of a government that is amenable to such public opinion.

Fundamentally, this is a sound position. It is true that in Great Britain today there is perhaps more individual freedom that in most of the countries in the world. Yet, the British attitude towards written rights is not unimpeachable.

For, one might ask the simple question: “How long has it taken Britain to reach the present position? And at what price?” One can easily point out at least two revolutions in the process, one “bloody” and the other “bloodless”.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

For establishing the liberties which the present generation of Englishmen enjoys, thousands of their ancestors paid a heavy price with their life, liberty and property.

Further, no one can ignore the stupendous importance of documents like the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Petition of Rights, etc., in establishing the basic right which a citizen ought to enjoy both as a human being and as a member of a given political society, and safeguarding them against all encroachments by the executive authority of the State.

The most striking feature of the fight of the British people for civil liberties was that it was always directed against the arbitrary power of the executive but seldom against the legislature.

This was because the despotic power of the King stood in the way of Parliament, the representative of the people. Hence, the British were always anxious to cut down the power of executive and correspondingly increase that of the legislature. This is why the great charters like the Magna Carta speak only of limiting the powers of the King.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The British never accepted the idea that a legislature could also become a tyrannous body and that hence the individual’s liberties are to be safeguarded against legislative majorities too. The doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty is the product of such an attitude.