Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T20:48:48.881Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Old Despotism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

The Rt. Hon. Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Get access

Extract

Seventy years ago there appeared in Britain a series of newspaper articles, which in the autumn of the year were published in book form. To this book the author, perhaps drawing on his earlier career as a journalist, gave a headline-catching title: The New Despotism. In the Richter scale of world events this publication was not, as even the most introverted lawyer would have to acknowledge, the most memorable event of 1929. But on the more specialised Richter scale which measures movements in the landscape of constitutional and administrative law, and standards of judicial conduct, a noticeable tremor was registered. For the author of The New Despotism was Lord Hewart of Bury, who held office as Lord Chief Justice of England, and the book was a coruscating attack on what he pejoratively called the bureaucracy, the great departments of state, whom Hewart accused of acquiring and exercising legislative and administrative powers in a manner which circumvented Parliament, excluded judicial control through the ordinary courts and undermined the rule of law.

Information

Type
The Lionel Cohen Lecture
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , Spring 1999, pp. 169 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 The Rt. Hon. Lord Hewart of Bury, The New Despotism (Benn, 1929) (hereinafter referred to as “ND”)Google Scholar.

2 Quarterly Review, No. 477, October 1923.

3 Quarterly Review, No. 483, January 1925.

4 “Some Aspects of Administrative Law”, (1929) JSPTL 10Google Scholar.

5 Robson, W.A., Justice and Administrative Law (Macmillan, 1928) at 91Google Scholar.

6 Principles and Practice of the Law Today, at 17.

7 Port, F.J., Administrative Law (Longmans, 1929)Google Scholar.

8 Cooper, T.M. KC, “The Limitations of the Judicial Functions of Public Authorities”, (July 1929) Public Admin. 260, at 263Google Scholar.

9 Kidd, Margaret H., “The Encroachment of Administrative Bodies on the Judicial Sphere”, (November 1929) XLV Scottish L.R. 325 at 325, 329Google Scholar.

10 “Bureaucracy and the Courts”, (January 1930) Can. Bar R. at 77Google Scholar.

11 “Manchester Revisited”, in Essays and Observations (Cassell 1930) at 142Google Scholar.

12 Ibid., at 142, 143.

13 Ibid., “His Majesty's Judges”, at 122-123.

14 Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, s. 67(1).

15 ND, at 11.

16 Ibid., at 13.

17 Ibid., at 13.

18 Ibid., at 13.

19 Ibid., at 17.

20 Ibid., at 19.

21 Ibid., at 26-27.

22 Ibid., at 36.

23 Ibid., at 36.

24 Ibid., at 37.

25 Allen, C.K., “Some Aspects of Administrative Law”, (1929) JSPTL 10–13Google Scholar.

26 ND, at 41-42.

27 Ibid., at 43, 45.

28 Ibid., at 43.

29 Ibid., at 43-44.

30 Ibid., at 44.

31 Ibid., at 47.

32 Ibid., at 49-50.

33 Ibid., at 51.

34 Wade, E.C.S., “Departmental Legislation. The Civil Service Point of View”, (1933) 5 Camb. L.J. 77, at 79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 ND, at 60.

36 Ibid., at 63.

37 Ibid., at 64.

38 Ibid., at 65.

39 Ibid., at 66.

40 Ibid., at 69.

41 Ibid., at 74.

42 Ibid., at 75-76.

43 Ibid., at 77.

44 Ibid., at 79.

45 Ibid., at 81.

46 Ibid., at 81-82.

47 Ibid., at 82.

48 Ibid., at 85 passim.

49 Ibid., at 103.

50 Ibid., at 103-104.

51 Ibid., at 104.

52 Ibid., at 105.

53 Ibid., at 104-107.

54 Ibid., at 108.

55 Ibid., at 109.

56 Ibid., at 109

57 Ibid., at 119.

58 Ibid., at 124.

59 Ibid., at 143.

60 Ibid., at 147.

61 Ibid., at 147-148.

62 Ibid., at 148.

63 Ibid., at 148-149.

64 Ibid., at 150.

65 Ibid., at 150.

66 Ibid., at 151-152.

67 Ibid., at 154.

68 Ibid., at 155.

69 Ibid., at 156.

70 Jackson, R., The Chief: The Biography of Gordon Hewart Lord Chief Justice of England 1922-40 (Harrap, 1959) at 214Google Scholar. He nurtured a particular animus towards the Lord Chancellor's Permanent Secretary, Sir Claude (later Lord) Schuster, to whom he referred, unflatteringly, as “Shyster”, ibid., at 258.

71 Ibid., at 214.

72 See, for example, (1929) 168 L.T. 364-365; (1929) Sol. J. 291; (1929) 43 JP & LGR 710; (1929) TLS 833; (1930) Can. Bar R. 77-82; (1930) 39 Yale L.J. 763–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 (1930) 46 L.Q.R. 107.

74 (1929) Sol. J. 291.

75 (1930) SLT 34.

76 Ibid., at 36.

77 For example, (1930) SLT 34, at 35; Robson, , Contemporary Review (January 1930) 88 at 90Google Scholar.

78 “A Charge of Despotism”, Contemporary Review (January 1930) 88, at 89–90Google Scholar.

79 Report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers (Cmd. 4060, April 1932), at (v) (hereinafter referred to as Report).

80 Robson, op. cit., at 350.

81 Report, at 3. The fact that Sir Claude Schuster was a member of the Committee may have contributed to his unwillingness to appear: R. Jackson, op. cit., at 215.

82 Section II of the Report, at 8.

83 Report, at 58.

84 Ibid., at 58.

85 Ibid., at 58-59, 64-65.

86 Ibid., at 59, 61, 65.

87 Ibid., at 59.

88 Ibid., at 61

89 Ibid., at 61, 65.

90 Ibid., at 62.

91 Ibid., at 62-63, 66-67.

92 Ibid., at 67.

93 Ibid., at 70.

94 Section III of the Report, at 71.

95 Report, at 113-114.

96 Ibid., at 114.

97 Ibid., at 114.

98 Ibid., at 115.

99 Ibid., at 116.

100 Ibid., at 116.

101 Ibid., at 116.

102 Ibid., at 116.

103 Ibid., at 116.

104 Ibid., at 116-117.

105 Ibid., at 117.

106 Ibid., at 117.

107 Ibid., at 118.

108 Ibid., at 118.

109 ND, at 162-164.

110 Report of the Crown Proceedings Committee, April 1927 (Cmd. 2842).

111 (1932) 46 JP & LGR 377.

112 (1932) 48 L.Q.R. 307.

113 (1932) 76 Sol. J. 351, at 353.

114 (1932) SLT 169.

115 Robson, W.A., “The Report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers”, (1932) Pol. Quarterly 346, at 351Google Scholar.

116 Ibid., at 357.

117 Ibid., at 360.

118 Ibid., at 361.

119 Ibid., at 364.

120 Wade, and Forsyth, , Adminstrative Law (7th ed., 1994) at 18Google Scholar.

121 Ibid., at 18.

122 The Nineteenth Century and After (1949) 230Google Scholar.

123 R. Jackson, op. cit., at 216.

124 Ibid., at 334, 335.

125 Ibid., at 336.

126 Wade and Forsyth, supra n. 120, at 18.

127 E.g., R. v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal ex parte Shaw [1952] 1 KB 338; Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] AC 40; Secretary of State for Employment v. ASLEF (No 2) [1972] 2 QB 455; Secretary of State for Education and Science v. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014; Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997; Conway v. Rimmer [1968] AC 910.

128 [1969] 2 AC 147.

129 [1985] AC 374.

130 R v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Rees-Mogg [1994] 1 All ER 457.

131 Cmnd. 218 (1957).

132 At 89-90.

133 At para. 402.

134 At para. 409 (10).

135 At para. 409 (13).

136 At para. 409 (22).

137 At para. 409 (25)(26)(28).

138 E.g., 5th Report, Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, 13/1/99, HL Paper 17; HL Hansard, 19/1/99, col. 483 et seq.