Greenleaf - Rise Collectivism

THE BRITISH POLITICAL TRADITION

THE BRITISH POLITICAL TRADITION

W. H. Greenleaf

VOLUME I
The Rise of Collectivism

VOLUME II
The Ideological Heritage

VOLUME IIIi
A Much Governed Nation
Part One

VOLUME IIIii
A Much Governed Nation
Part Two

THE BRITISH POLITICAL TRADITION

W. H. Greenleaf

Volume I

First published 1983 by Methuen and Co., Ltd.

This edition published 2003
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire OX14 4RN

imultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group

First issued in paperback 2012

1983 W. H. Greenleaf

Typeset in Times New Roman by Keystroke, Jacaranda Lodge, Wolverhampton

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Greenleaf, W. H.
The British Political Tradition.
Includes index
Contents: v. 1. The rise of collectivism.-v. 2. The ideological heritage.
1. Great Britain Constitutional history.
2. Great Britain Politics and government.
3. Great Britain Foreign relations.
4. Political Science Great Britain History. I. Title.
JN 118.G83 1983 320.941 82-18871.

ISBN 978-0-415-30300-2 (hhk)
ISBN 978-0-415-48863-1 (phk)

Publisher's Note

The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original book may be apparent.

We construct our world as an interpretation which attempts to restore the unity which the real has lost by our making its diversity explicit.

B. BOSANQUET, Logic, 11.ix.1(i)

The present study of the British Political Tradition will be published in four volumes. The first two appear together; the third will come out shortly; while the fourth will, I hope, be ready in due course. The purpose is fourfold. The overall intention is to suggest a particular point of view about the study of politics; and though this is no more than sketched at the outset it is subsequently exemplified at large, albeit indirectly. The second aim (pursued in the first volume) is to provide a certain historical perspective in the context of which the development of our modern politics may be seen. Then, given this prospect, a survey is offered (in volumes two and three) of both our political ideas and institutions. And I must confess that though the review of governmental and allied machinery is (if not profound) reasonably complete within the limits imposed, the examination of the doctrines is no more than illustrative. I suspect this is partly because there is little secondary literature to provide an obvious general guide or point of departure. I fear also that Michelet's ideal of showing how institutions and ideas react on and co-operate with one another has been too little pursued. But I did not master the material sufficiently well to attempt this exercise, supremely valuable though it would be. The final object is to consider (in the same general perspective) the overseas dimension of our affairs, foreign and imperial policy and administration, and ideas about them. These exotic elements have had a not inconsiderable effect on the growth of the collectivist state and will be reviewed in the fourth volume under the title 'The World Outside'.

The approach is in many ways determinedly old-fashioned. At the same time the work as a whole hardly constitutes a simple account of the British Constitution in the conventional way not being (for all its length) detailed or comprehensive enough for that in certain important respects; as well, it wanders rather far from the traditional institutional high road. In any case, there are already very many admirable surveys which provide a review of the system of government as such. Nor could I claim, despite all the references, citations, and similar paraphernalia, that this is a work of fundamental research. Apart from anything else I am very much aware how greatly the archival dimension has been neglected especially in respect of the institutional studies. I dipped a toe in this vast ocean and hastily, and guiltily, retreated..Moreover I have to confess (with Dicey) that the theme came first and then the task of illustrating or substantiating it. So I suppose one might say that for all its length and detail the entire study is really little more than an extended essay.

I embarked on an apparently limited task some years ago; as I now realize rather foolishly. What has been done was achieved with a growing sense of inadequacy as the array of potential evidence increased before my eyes to astonishing and quite unmanageable proportions. Of course, I should have known better at the outset and have anticipated this. And I suppose I might have avoided at least part of the difficulty by filling in one of those absurdly vast questionnaires and with a bit of luck got a massive grant from the Social Science Research Council and employed a brace of research assistants to do all the spadework for me, subsequently feeding the data expensively through a computer or two. But I have never fancied that way of working, regarding it (apart from anything else) as rather a cheat and believing it essential to brood over the details oneself so far as possible and not at second-hand. However, the actual result is (or so it frequently seems to me now) often little more than a sciolistic sketch of a matter both deep and complex, and revealing at best a kind of 'encyclopaedic half-knowledge' (I think Giinter Grass uses this apt phrase somewhere). Contemplating the result so far, I can only reach for Peer Gynt's lame excuse: