conventions


Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Financial, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Related to conventions: Constitutional conventions

conventions

(of the British constitution) discernible rules of conduct that are considered binding by the Crown and those involved in government. They are not laws in the sense of legally binding people in such a way that they could be compelled to perform or be sanctioned for failure to do so in a court. Neither are conventions, strictly speaking, customs because custom is a source of actual law and a convention is not law.

The bulk of conventions regulate the following: the royal prerogative and the cabinet; the workings of Parliament, particularly the relationship of the House of Commons and the House of Lords; the organization of the Commonwealth; the making of war; the dissolution of government; the refusing of the royal assent to Bills; ministers being collectively responsible; the business of the House of Commons being arranged behind the Speaker's chair by the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition; the restriction on the UK Parliament legislating for a former dependent territory, now an independent member of the Commonwealth, unless it is asked to do so; the appointment of the governor general of an independent Commonwealth country.

References in classic literature ?
But if the people at large had reason to confide in the men of that Congress, few of whom had been fully tried or generally known, still greater reason have they now to respect the judgment and advice of the convention, for it is well known that some of the most distinguished members of that Congress, who have been since tried and justly approved for patriotism and abilities, and who have grown old in acquiring political information, were also members of this convention, and carried into it their accumulated knowledge and experience.
It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the late convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union.
To those who have been led by experience to attend to this consideration, it could not appear surprising, that the act of the convention, which recommends so many important changes and innovations, which may be viewed in so many lights and relations, and which touches the springs of so many passions and interests, should find or excite dispositions unfriendly, both on one side and on the other, to a fair discussion and accurate judgment of its merits.
Persons of this character will proceed to an examination of the plan submitted by the convention, not only without a disposition to find or to magnify faults; but will see the propriety of reflecting, that a faultless plan was not to be expected.
With equal readiness will it be perceived, that besides these inducements to candor, many allowances ought to be made for the difficulties inherent in the very nature of the undertaking referred to the convention.
The most that the convention could do in such a situation, was to avoid the errors suggested by the past experience of other countries, as well as of our own; and to provide a convenient mode of rectifying their own errors, as future experiences may unfold them.
Among the difficulties encountered by the convention, a very important one must have lain in combining the requisite stability and energy in government, with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to the republican form.
How far the convention may have succeeded in this part of their work, will better appear on a more accurate view of it.
The convention, in delineating the boundary between the federal and State jurisdictions, must have experienced the full effect of them all.
There are features in the Constitution which warrant each of these suppositions; and as far as either of them is well founded, it shows that the convention must have been compelled to sacrifice theoretical propriety to the force of extraneous considerations.
Would it be wonderful if, under the pressure of all these difficulties, the convention should have been forced into some deviations from that artificial structure and regular symmetry which an abstract view of the subject might lead an ingenious theorist to bestow on a Constitution planned in his closet or in his imagination?
This circumstance is a clear indication of the sense of the convention, and furnishes a rule of interpretation out of the body of the act, which justifies the position I have advanced and refutes every hypothesis to the contrary.