Parliamentary_Procedure

Parliamentary Procedure The political realities of 17th century England shifted greatly from the beginning of the century to the end. At the start of the century, the government of England could easily be called an absolute monarchy; however it was by the end of the century clearly becoming the Parliamentary system we see today. It was due to the great struggles of this century that the English government was able to change so drastically. It is clear that at the beginning of the century, as witnessed by James I’s speech to Parliament, that all power should rest in the hands of the king. In the view of James I, Parliament is simply there to give him money when he needs it and to bring to his attention the grievances of his subjects. “First then, I am not to find fault that you inform yourselves of the particular just grievances of the people; nay I must tell you, ye can neither be just nor faithful to me or to your countries that trust and employ you, if you do not.”[1] James would go on to chide Parliament not to interfere with his rule of the kingdom. “I am now an old king. … I must not be taught my office.”[2] In addition he informs Parliament that they are not to attempt to diminish of outright deny him any of his rights as passed down from those who came before him. He argues that “All novelties are dangerous as well in a politic as in a natural body” as an attempt to stem the flow of changes that he perceives as threatening to his own base of power. Due to numerous abuses on the part of James I, it is clear from the Petition of Right of 1628 that the members of Parliament and the people of England as a whole were not content with the way things were. Many of the policies enacted by James I were contradictory to guarantees set forth by his predecessors in order to protect the rights of the citizens of the realm. One such protection was that the king could not force his people to lend him money. As stated in the Petition of Right, “no person should be compelled to make any loans to the king against his will, because such loans were against reason and the franchise of the land.” As Parliament was authorized to levy taxes in order to raise money for the king, loans of this type were seen as a means by which to circumvent the given powers of Parliament. “And whereas of late great companies of soldiers and mariners have been dispersed into divers counties of the realm, and the inhabitants against their wills have been compelled to receive them into their houses, and there to suffer them to sojourn against the laws and customs of this realm, and to the great grievance and vexation of the people.”[3] Centuries before James I, there had been guarantees passed into law that such forcible quartering of troops was unjust and would never again be forced upon the inhabitants of England. This was an attempt by James to keep a standing army intact without having to fund the lodging and feeding of said army, as these were now the responsibility of the people that the units were quartered with. Now, even with these blatant attempts by James to rule without consulting Parliament, the members of Parliament were not ready to openly revolt against the king. Instead, they would try to convince him through pleas and negotiation to abide by the policies that had been in place for generations. By the middle of the century, some in Parliament would call for an overthrow of the monarchy. Through scheming and deception, this minority of Parliament was able to not only overthrow the monarchy, but to take over the country and rule under a dictator that was in many ways worse than the king they had recently deposed. This would last for almost 20 years through the middle of the century. After the restoration of the monarchy, Parliament was intent on ensuring that its own power would be secure and that no future monarch would be able to rule without consulting Parliament. The very first statement of rights is likely the most important for the future regulation of monarchical abuses. “That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal.”[4] With this statement, Parliament is guaranteeing that no future monarch will be able to rule without at least some consent of Parliament. Another key aspect to Parliaments power would be the control over the military. “That the raising or keeping of a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace unless it be with consent of Parliament is against the law.”[5] In this manner, Parliament would be able to override if necessary the dictates of the king in regards to the army, whether it be the size or where it is to be garrisoned. Probably the single most important right was the one that would ensure that Parliament would be free from outside pressures in regards to how the members would rule. “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”[6] With this stricture, Parliament is ensuring that in the future, the members of Parliament will not be overly influenced by threats or intimidation meant to sway their administration of the law. As evidenced by the examples contained within, the changes in the structure of the English government were extensive throughout the 17th century. It changed from an essentially absolute monarch at the start of the century into the foundation for a modern parliamentary government with the monarch being primarily a figurehead for the government. While it was not an easy or straightforward path, the parliamentarians of the day managed to craft a fair and balanced basis for a parliamentary government. --------------------------------- [ 1 ]. Smith, Lacey, and Jean Smith, The Past Speaks (New York, 1993), 334. [ 2 ]. Smith, Lacey, and Jean Smith, The Past Speaks (New York, 1993), 334. [ 3 ]. Petition of Right of 1628. [ 4 ]. Smith, Lacey, and Jean Smith, The Past Speaks (New York, 1993), 395. [ 5 ]. Smith, Lacey, and Jean Smith, The Past Speaks (New York, 1993), 395. [ 6 ]. Smith, Lacey, and Jean Smith, The Past Speaks (New York, 1993), 395.