Educate an American on Parliament

Being an alternate historian, I consider myself to have an above average knowledge of history(at least by American standards) of my own country. However most Americans unfortunately do not know their own history, or system of government very well, let alone the system of other nations. Given this fact, most of our educational system doesn't teach us a whole lot about other governmental systems.

I know some of how a parliamentary system works, but I'm a bit fuzzy on details and other things as well. I am writing a timeline which will involve America adapting a parliamentary system, and I need to know as much about late 18th/early 19th century Parliamentary systems as I can.

So can anyone explain how the late 18th/early 19th century British parliamentary system worked? If not you directly then could you point me to any source that has the process simplified enough so that I don't have to read a British equivalent of the Brown Act or Robert's Rules of Order?

Thanks in Advance
IchBinDieKaiser
 
Why don't you just read this?

In short, parliament is the dominant branch of government, and the cabinet (the PM and other ministers) both serve in the legislature and act in an executive capacity.

Think of it that the Speaker of the House and the Chairmen of various congressional committees also have the powers of the President and his Cabinet.
 
Late 18th and early 19th century in Britain the franchise was varied from place to place but mostly very restricted Voting was open. Bribery was rampant.

The Prime Minister needed the confidence of Parliament. However he was chosen by the Soveriegn and often able to bribe more or less enough MPS to get his way
 
Any discussion of Parliament prior to Reform is not complete without the mention of rotten boroughs.

To give the summary in the article:
A "rotten", "decayed" or pocket borough was a parliamentary borough or constituency in the United Kingdom that had a very small electorate and could be used by a patron to gain undue and unrepresentative influence within Parliament.

In the 12th century Old Sarum had been a busy cathedral city but was abandoned when Salisbury was founded nearby; Old Sarum retained its two members. Many such rotten boroughs were controlled by peers who gave the seats to their sons, other relations or friends; they had additional influence in the House of Commons because they held seats themselves in the House of Lords.


In the 19th century there were moves toward reform. This political movement was successful with the Reform Act 1832, which disfranchised the 57 rotten boroughs and redistributed representation in Parliament to new major population centres.
 
A large part of Parliament is that the leader of the party is elected through the party, so that the Prime Minister is chosen by the party, not the people. Although the Prime Minister would have to be elected at some point to a seat in Parliament, there is no direct election of a leader, just the party.
 

Thande

Donor
I would write something but I'm on a Kindle. If you click on the Look to the West link in my sig and the search that thread for the word Montfort it will take you to a part of the TL where I start by explaining the OTL history of Parliament.
 
A large part of Parliament is that the leader of the party is elected through the party, so that the Prime Minister is chosen by the party, not the people. Although the Prime Minister would have to be elected at some point to a seat in Parliament, there is no direct election of a leader, just the party.

The "PM has to be MP" IMO blurs the line between legislative and executive branches, which is why I prefer continental system. Future PM can (and often does) run for parliamentary seat but gives it up if given mandate for leading government.
 
The "PM has to be MP" IMO blurs the line between legislative and executive branches, which is why I prefer continental system. Future PM can (and often does) run for parliamentary seat but gives it up if given mandate for leading government.
Which one?
The French semi-presidental system?
The German parliamental system?
The Swiss?
Etc.
 
The crucial thing to remember in British politics is the sovereignty of Parliament. I'm goign to sound like a UKIP crank going on about this, but it's very important especially in the time period being discussed. There are no checks and balances in the UK system; Parliament has absolute power to make any legislation it wants because there is no codified constitution (and because of the Civil War etc.). The lack of a codified constitution means that statute law combined with tradition are the closest thing Britain has to an actual constitution; this means Prime Ministers and other officials can virtually govern however they want; some like Thatcher were very domineering whereas others like Major were more collegial.

There's also the royal prerogative; the Prime Minister holds huge powers, such as the power to dissolve parliament and to declare war, because these are powers which the Crown devolves to them. If the Crown rescinds thre royal prerogative, the Prime Minister is effectively fired and results in a change of government.

The Cabinet is selected by the PM from among the Commons and the Lords and no one else; thus you can have lords in the cabinet (and indeed as PM e.g. Lord Liverpool or Lord Adonis) who weren't elected. The Cabinet governs collectively but the Prime Minister naturally dominates because of their power to hire and fire (the infamouscabinet reshuffle).

Hope that helps.
 

Anderman

Donor
Which one?
The French semi-presidental system?
The German parliamental system?
The Swiss?
Etc.

German and those similar to it. French system can be messy if PM and president are from different parties.

The "PM has to be MP" IMO blurs the line between legislative and executive branches, which is why I prefer continental system. Future PM can (and often does) run for parliamentary seat but gives it up if given mandate for leading government.

AFAIK all German Bundeskanzler were member of the Bundestag like most of the ministers.
 
Although the Prime Minister would have to be elected at some point to a seat in Parliament, there is no direct election of a leader, just the party.

Prime Ministers can be from the Lords, just like Cabinet members. (It's simply a convention from 1911 onwards that the PM should be from the Commons.)
 
Parliament has it roots as a feudal assembly. Medieval kings ruled by commanding the loyalty and support of the nobles and other powerful groups, not by the sort of direct power that 17th and 18th century absolute monarchs wielded. If a King alienates too many of his subjects, he tends to find his orders ignored, or he may even find himself overthrown. Of the 28 Kings of England between the Norman Conquest and the English Civil War, nine were overthrown (Matilda, Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI (overthrown twice), Edward IV, Edward V, Richard III, Jane Grey, and Charles I) and at least five more faced rebellions that seriously threatened their overthrow (Stephen, Henry II, John, Henry IV, and Edward VI), not counting the assassination attempts against Elizabeth I and James I.

Parliament was created and used as a tool to get buy-in from major power centers for the King's policies. Better to have your proposals voted down than to risk losing your crown and your head by forcing them through and triggering a rebellion.

The structure of Parliament reflects this: the House of Commons represents powerful/influential commoners in the cities and the countryside, and the House of Lords represents the landed nobility and the leaders of the Church. Any proposal subject to Parliamentary approval needs the approval of a majority of both houses, plus the King's approval. Approval of Commons indicates that a successful popular revolt is unlikely, and approval of Lords indicates that a successful revolt by the Aristocracy is unlikely.

The pre-Great-Reform structure of Commons districts reflects the idea of Parliament as a tool for getting buy-in from interest groups rather than as a true democratic body. Member of the House of Commons came in two flavors: Burgesses (representatives from each city or town) and Knights of the Shire (representatives from the rural areas of each County), and each town or county got two Burgesses or Knights regardless of population.

Originally, the House of Lords was the more important body, as this was the primary power center, and as individual Lords generally wielded enough influence that the commons MPs generally followed their leads. This gradually shifted as the age of gunpowder made the nobility less important as a military caste, and as the rise of commerce and manufacture reduced the economic dominance of the landed gentry. The War of the Roses, the Tudor campaign to break the power and independence of many of the big noble families, and the English Civil War also wiped out a number of major noble lines and left the rest weaker and more dependent on the Crown's favor. The English Civil War in particular also demonstrated that the militia and professional military (who generally aligned with the House of Commons) had become more important than the aristocratic/feudal military that generally aligned with the Lords.

By the 16th and 17th centuries, Parliament's role was largely centered on the power of the purse. The Crown needed continuous sources of revenue beyond feudal dues and the income of the King's personal lands, Parliament has firmly established that its consent was required to pass tax laws, and Parliament consistently refused to authorize taxes on a permanent basis. So Kings needed to call Parliaments periodically to get taxes re-authorized, and each Parliament would use their authorization of revenue as a bargaining chip to get the King's consent for policy changes requested by Parliament.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Crown's role became increasingly hands-off, and Parliament spent more and more time in session and took an increasingly active role in shaping and directing policy. By the reign of George III, the post of "Prime Minister" evolved. Formally, the Prime Minister's job title is "First Lord of the Treasury", i.e. the senior member of the commission that jointly exercises the ancient role of Lord High Treasurer. Informally, he's the executive official in charge of fiscal policy, particularly trying to formulate and negotiate policies that will command the support of the King and a majority of both houses of Parliament. The role started out as someone chosen by the King to get his preferred policies through Parliament, but a Prime Minister who can't command a majority in Parliament for his policies is useless, so the tradition rapidly evolved that a Prime Minister must resign if he loses a vote of confidence (either an explicit vote of "yes, we support the PM", or a major policy vote). This in turn evolved into the tradition that the PM is the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons, since that's the best person to command a majority.

If you want to get a good feel for the actual operations of the 19th century Parliament and their relationship with the Crown, I'd recommend starting with the wikipedia articles on William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli. It doesn't explicitly describe the legal theory, but the narratives do convey a good feel of how things actually operated.
 
This is slightly off-topic, but it's sort of related. And i didn't want to make a new thread for this question.

What does the House of Lords do in the modern day? From what I can see, it does nothing.
 
Under the current system, House of Lords can:

  1. Withhold consent to a money bill (budget, revenue, or appropriations bill in US terms), delaying it up to one month before it automatically goes to the Queen for Royal Assent without the approval of the House of Lords.
  2. Withhold consent from a non-money public bill, delaying it for up to two Parliamentary Sessions (about one calendar year total).
  3. I think the House of Lords can block private bills entirely.
  4. Add amendments to any non-money bill that originates from the House of Commons, which ping-pongs the amended bill back to Commons for approval by Commons of the amendments.
  5. Originate any bill other than a money bill, which then goes to Commons for consideration.
By custom, however, the House of Lords doesn't attempt to obstruct any policies that the majority party in the House of Commons ran on in the last election, even when they technically have the power to do so.

Effectively, the House of Lords can advise Commons, and can slow down acts of Commons to varying degrees depending on the type of bill, but has much less actual power than, say, the US Senate.
 
Top