Such Parliaments require the imminent check of possible dissolution; but that check is (as has been shown) better in the Premier than in the sovereign; and by the late practice of our constitution, its use is yearly ebbing from the sovereign, and yearly centring in the Premier.
He argues that the check of possible dissolution is more effective in the hands of the Premier than the sovereign.
Share
More from Walter Bagehot
I own that I do not entirely sympathise with the horror of these anomalies which haunts some of our best critics.
It is natural that those who by special and admirable culture have come to look at all things upon the artistic side, should start back from these queer peculiarities.
These anomalies, in a hundred instances, mark the old boundaries of a constitutional struggle.
The casual line was traced according to the strength of deceased combatants; succeeding generations fought elsewhere; and the hesitating line of a half-drawn battle was left to stand for a perpetual limit.
Other voices in this conversation
