to describe political reality for the first time, and to do so from a position of superior knowledge, wisdom and practicality.
The problem is that the reader is generally at the mercy of Bagehot, for the author does not footnote his work and offers no references or substantiation for many of his assumptions, arguments or conclusions. Bagehot rightly admits that the picture he draws of the Constitution and politics in England is one which in a few years will need revision because of changing events, but he assumes---and asks the reader to assume---that the portrait he draws of the moment (1865-66) is full and accurate and unbiased.
Having pointed out those flaws, however, Bagehot's book is useful for several reasons. First, it stimulates debate about not only the nature of constitutional law in England during the specific era covered, but also about the nature of politics and political science in general. He focuses from a number of angles on the question of who runs a constitutional government, with particular emphasis on socioeconomic/class differences and the right or even responsibility of the government to lie (or promulgate the "efficient secret") to the people.
Bagehot presents his arguments in a clear and straightforward way, so that we are drawn to either agree or disagree, but not to plead confusion. For example, when the author declares that the country is run by a Cabinet government, which he says is in fact not what is portrayed in other works on English politics, there is no doubt that he approves of such a situation, whether it is provided for in the constitution or not. He argues that the Cabinet government allows for swift transition of leadership in times of crisis, an advantage over Presidential government which does not allow for such non-electoral change in critical times (78-79).
With such views, Bagehot comes down firmly on the side of conservative political analysts who place continuity of governm...