Was England more parliamentary than most of Europe from:

Was England more parliamentary than most of Europe from?


  • Total voters
    48

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
So when in its history can we see England clearly diverge from France, Spain, the HRE and Russia as clearly a country of greater liberty, rule of law and limited government? And what specifically about English governance at that time supports dating English distinctiveness to that point in time.

Poll attached-

Was England more parliamentary than most of Europe from:
Before Magna Carta
Since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215
1300s
1400s
1500s
English Civil War
Glorious Revolution
 
The Glorious Revolution was the turning point, I would say. There were clear tendencies towards parliamentary control and sovereignty well before that, but in practice, the king retained absolute power. The Glorious Revolution ultimately changed that, leading directly to the age of Whig supremacy, where the whole idea of parliamentary independence really took shape.

George III attempted to reverse that trend, but failed. During the Regency era, the sovereignty of Parliament was confirmed once and for all.
 
The English Civil War saw far more changes than any other in my opinion. No more King. Effectively a pseudo Republic, and back when most of the other nations were still run by a Monarchy-Divine-Right-To-Rule.

Problem is, it all slid back after the Restoration.
 
I would say that De Montforts parliment was the first real stand out between England and the rest of Europe.

This introduced the idea that the King could be re-leaved of executive power and that power being given to commoners (even if they were inreadibly rich etc.)

Everything feeds from this point.
 
So when in its history can we see England clearly diverge from France, Spain, the HRE and Russia as clearly a country of greater liberty, rule of law and limited government? And what specifically about English governance at that time supports dating English distinctiveness to that point in time.

Poll attached-

Was England more parliamentary than most of Europe from:
Before Magna Carta
Since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215
1300s
1400s
1500s
English Civil War
Glorious Revolution

H) From about 1772. Until about 1945.

A question with the exact same wording ("England was consistently more parliamentary than most of Europe from what point in history?") as asked in Jan 13 in soc.history.what-if and, as was commented there, Sweden and Poland were more parliamentary until Gustav III dissolved the Riksdag (1772) and Poland was partitioned (1773). Spain was about the same (sometimes in front, sometimes behind).

You also have to ask whether divorcing "England" from the British Empire at this point in time (1700's) is legitimate. At this point the 1707 UK had colonial possessions and it is difficult to reconcile that with the characterisation of "limited government".

Plus characterising Cromwell's Government post-Civil War as a "greater liberty, rule of law and limited government?" is difficult to defend, as many dead Irish can attest.
 
The Glorious Revolution was the turning point, I would say. There were clear tendencies towards parliamentary control and sovereignty well before that, but in practice, the king retained absolute power. The Glorious Revolution ultimately changed that, leading directly to the age of Whig supremacy, where the whole idea of parliamentary independence really took shape.

George III attempted to reverse that trend, but failed. During the Regency era, the sovereignty of Parliament was confirmed once and for all.

Actually in practice the King had to take into account the views of the political community well before the GR, simply because these were the people he needed to raise money from to fight his wars. Before the 16th century the general expectation was that the King should "live off his own", i.e., that the day-to-day expenses of government should be paid for by the revenues of the royal estates and by things like import and export dues, and direct taxation levied only for extraordinary expenses like fighting wars. This in practice tended to limit Parliamentary control, since with careful financial management the King could avoid levying taxes and hence calling Parliament to approve them (which often led to various concessions being extorted from the King before the right to raise taxes was granted to him).

During the 16th century, however, a combination of inflation, the debt racked up by Henry VIII's continental wars, and the sale of ex-monastic land (which raised a lot of short-term cash but lost the monarchy a potential source of long-term revenue) meant that it was increasingly impossible to govern without raising taxes, which in turn meant that Parliament had to be called more and more frequently. Thus the balance of power gradually started shifting in favour of Parliament. The English Civil War was a major step in this direction, since it showed that the political community was willing and able to remove a monarch who refused to govern in concert with Parliament. The Glorious Revolution cemented this process, as did William's wars in Europe (need for cash = Parliamentary leverage to enforce concessions; spending all his time abroad = get Parliament to take care of domestic issues for him) and the reigns of the first two Hanoverian monarchs (who as foreigners didn't know enough about English politics to manipulate it effectively, and hence tended to leave political affairs in the hands of their ministers, who were usually noblemen and hence members of the House of Lords). George III was sometimes accused of exercising too much influence over politics through the use of patronage, but even then there was no question of him ruling Britain as an absolute monarch. During the 19th century the monarchy survived the spread of liberal and democratic ideas by positioning itself as a non-partisan unifying force, which necessitated withdrawing from politics altogether (you can't be non-partisan if you support one party or political philosophy). Nowadays the Queen theoretically retains a great deal of power, but it's very hard to imagine a situation when she might use it. Maybe if Parliament passed a law which would directly contradict the Coronation Oath (e.g., by disestablishing the Church of England) she might refuse to sign it, but even then it's more likely that she'd copy the example of the King of Belgium and let herself be temporarily declared incapable while the law was passed, before returning to reign again as normal.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
While rule of law, limited government and customary rights for the comman man are a big part of the English (and Anglosphere-wide) self-image, looking at medieval Europe tends to obscure some of this alleged English distinctiveness.

Classical traditions of English historiography cite the English as becoming distinctively more committed than other Europeans to rule of law, limited government and personal liberty by the time of the Magna Carta in 1215. Other traditions trace these characteristics back further to allegedly more egalitarian pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon England.

However, the more one looks at the histories of other European countries, the less uniquely English all these traits begin to appear.

Most medieval European states had a mix of monarchy and assemblies. Poland, Hungary and the Holy Roman Empire all had constitutionally limiting documents and traditions. Where England had its parliament, the HRE and Hungary had their Diet, Spain had the Cortes and Russian principalities had their Dumas. Kingship was often elective throughout Europe.

It seems that systems of mixed constitutions were ubiquitous in most European states rising from the collapse of the Roman Empire. One could call this a common Germanic tradition – later adopted by Slavic states. But if you go back further there’s the longstanding tradition of the Senate, from Rome’s early days through Byzantine times. So, this makes assemblies of nobles and leading citizens as a check on monarchical power at least an Indo-European tradition (at least for the European branch and possibly excluding much of the Indo-Iranian cultural sphere.) Depending on the organization of tribes at various points of development a mixed constitution may be as much the human norm as absolute despotism, if not more so.

Plus, in English history, strong monarchs would often marginalize parliamentary authority or impose their own judicial rules like Star Chambers.

So, that's why I posed the question. (in part its why I posed the questions in my unfortunately worded Russian and Spanish poll threads also) when in its history can we see England clearly diverge from France, Spain, the HRE and Russia as clearly a country of greater liberty? And what specifically about English governance at that time supports dating English distinctiveness to that point in time.
 
While rule of law, limited government and customary rights for the comman man are a big part of the English (and Anglosphere-wide) self-image, looking at medieval Europe tends to obscure some of this alleged English distinctiveness.

Classical traditions of English historiography cite the English as becoming distinctively more committed than other Europeans to rule of law, limited government and personal liberty by the time of the Magna Carta in 1215. Other traditions trace these characteristics back further to allegedly more egalitarian pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon England.

However, the more one looks at the histories of other European countries, the less uniquely English all these traits begin to appear.

Most medieval European states had a mix of monarchy and assemblies. Poland, Hungary and the Holy Roman Empire all had constitutionally limiting documents and traditions. Where England had its parliament, the HRE and Hungary had their Diet, Spain had the Cortes and Russian principalities had their Dumas. Kingship was often elective throughout Europe.

It seems that systems of mixed constitutions were ubiquitous in most European states rising from the collapse of the Roman Empire. One could call this a common Germanic tradition – later adopted by Slavic states. But if you go back further there’s the longstanding tradition of the Senate, from Rome’s early days through Byzantine times. So, this makes assemblies of nobles and leading citizens as a check on monarchical power at least an Indo-European tradition (at least for the European branch and possibly excluding much of the Indo-Iranian cultural sphere.) Depending on the organization of tribes at various points of development a mixed constitution may be as much the human norm as absolute despotism, if not more so.

Plus, in English history, strong monarchs would often marginalize parliamentary authority or impose their own judicial rules like Star Chambers.

So, that's why I posed the question. (in part its why I posed the questions in my unfortunately worded Russian and Spanish poll threads also) when in its history can we see England clearly diverge from France, Spain, the HRE and Russia as clearly a country of greater liberty? And what specifically about English governance at that time supports dating English distinctiveness to that point in time.

I voted for the Glorious Revolution, although a case for the War of the Three Kingdoms can be made.
However, the point is that England/Britain was not anything special. Absolutism really took off across Europe only in the late 1500 (earlier in France, but even then the process only solidified completely later). England diverged insofar her trajectory to absolutism was interrupted, but even this is hardly exceptional; it happened in Poland and, much later, in Sweden. One could say that for much of the Early Modern era, the Netherlands were much more distinctive than England in this regard.
 
Top