The Manipulation of Committees in the Long Parliament, 1641-1642

1965 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lotte Glow
Keyword(s):  
Critical Period ◽  
English Civil War ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Grass Roots ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
Vital Functions ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Peace Negotiation ◽  
Parliamentary Politics

Historians of politics of the English Civil War have until recently studied the behaviour of members of Parliament through their speeches on the floor of the Houses. This practice led to the view that parliamentary policy was determined by the ascendancy of one of two opposing factions, composed of the most outspoken and influential members. J. H. Hexter's analysis of the tellers in divisions during the critical period of peace negotiation with the King in 1642 and 1643 expanded this rigid dichotomy and showed that political opinion in the House of Commons was divided into three “Parties,” the less committed centre being most susceptible to the winds of political change. He also showed that policy decisions did not depend solely upon the persuasiveness and stature of the leading politicians, but were shaped according to the temporary allegiances of a body of enthusiastic, though inconsistent, followers. The work of M. Frear Keeler, and of D. Brunton and D. H. Pennington shifted the emphasis further from the leadership to the rank and file by their interest in the background and grass roots of the most insignificant member alongside his more illustrious colleagues.The aim of this article is to examine another aspect of the dynamics of parliamentary politics. It seeks to show how the leadership of the Commons gained control over the members by skilfully delegating vital functions to carefully chosen committees, for the committee system, as it evolved during the early months of the Long Parliament and as it developed during the years of war, met the challenge of the absent Privy Council in providing Parliament with a new and responsible executive.

scholarly journals Unity and divisions on departmental select committees: A Brexit effect?

2020 ◽  
pp. 136914812096174
Author(s):  
Philip Lynch ◽  
Richard Whitaker
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Comprehensive Analysis ◽  
The European Union ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Fault Line ◽  
New Members ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Union Committee ◽  
Opposition Parties

Most reports from UK departmental select committees are agreed by consensus, underpinning their reputation for non-partisan working in an adversarial House of Commons. However, divisions (formal votes) are more common than is often assumed, occurring on 9% of reports between 2010 and 2019. This article provides the first comprehensive analysis of unity and divisions on select committees. It finds that the incidence of divisions increases when opposition parties chair committees, when there are more rebellious members of parliament present and when more new members of parliament are in attendance. Brexit provoked significant inter-party and intra-party divisions in the Commons. In committees, divisions on Brexit reports are higher than those on other reports and the Exiting the European Union Committee has a clear Leave-Remain fault line. But, more broadly, the Brexit effect on select committees is limited and unanimity remains the norm even when there are policy differences between parties.

II. Irish Parliamentary Elections and the Influence of the Catholic Vote, 1801–20

1967 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. J. Jupp
Keyword(s):  
Electoral Politics ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Parliamentary Elections ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
Degree Of Certainty ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Government ◽  
George Iii ◽  
Parliamentary Politics ◽  
Fair Degree

One generalization which can be made about politics in the reign of George III with a fair degree of certainty is that the vast majority of M.P.s did not consider their conduct in the House of Commons as predetermined by the wishes of their electors; they preferred to see themselves as elected as members of Parliament rather than as delegates to Parliament. Moreover, despite the recent concentration of some historians upon the history of Parliament, the discipline of psephology rarely engaged the attention of politicians after a general election. These two attitudes of mind, which together indicated a clear division between electoral and Parliamentary politics, were nowhere more prevalent than in constituencies where landed interests were predominant. These, which comprised the majority in Scotland and Wales, were, after 1801, also thought to predominate in Ireland. This, in fact, was part of the reason why the Whigs at Westminster so firmly opposed the Union during the debates in 1799 and 1800. They argued in effect that in Ireland, as in Scotland, there was little dependence upon electors and a great dependence upon patronage; that the union with Scotland had added a substantial proportion of the forty-five M.P.s to the ranks of the government of the day; and that the union with Ireland would add near a 100 more. In fact the traditional picture of Irish electoral politics between 1801–26 is that, notwithstanding the fact that in Ireland the economic and social position and above all the religious sentiments of the majority of the electors were nowhere more clearly opposed to those of their M.P.s, the constituencies remained firmly controlled by the leading landed, and therefore Protestant, interests, the majority of whom supported every administration. The purpose of this article, however, is to argue that the Catholic vote in Irish constituencies was an integral and important factor in elections before 1820; that it not only played its part at elections but that it also affected in some degree the conduct of Irish M.P.s in the House of Commons towards the question of Catholic emancipation.

Supremacy in the Commons

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Como
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Full Range ◽  
City Government ◽  
Political Life ◽  
The Political ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Grass Roots ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Final Settlement ◽  
The City

The creation of the New Model Army in 1645 brought unprecedented polarization to parliament’s cause. Common ground between “presbyterians” and “independents” eroded and, increasingly, Roundheads were driven into competing camps. This polarization was exacerbated by the polemical interventions of the most extreme independents, most notably the clique associated with Richard Overton’s secret press. The resulting political battles were conducted using the full range of techniques and practices outlined in previous chapters. Parliamentary maneuver was complemented by grass-roots mobilization, including petitioning, co-optation of the city government, sermons and countermeasures, rumors, street placarding, and calculated print campaigns, hinting at significant transformations in the conduct of political life. Paradoxically, these conflicts worsened with parliament’s victory at Naseby, as the competing sides gathered strength to struggle over the final settlement. The chapter concludes by examining the political rise of John Lilburne, with his controversial claims for the supremacy of the House of Commons.

Measures taken by the House of Commons in Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 173-180
Author(s):  
Sarah Priddy
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Daily Life ◽  
The Political ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Virtual Participation

Abstract As Covid-19 began to change all aspects of daily life, the House of Commons was no exception. The pandemic meant changes to parliamentary procedures such as ‘hybrid proceedings’ that required most MPs to attend the Chamber via Zoom. To track these changes, the House of Commons Library created a spreadsheet to record the COVID-related procedural changes, now published as a “https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/house-of-commons-coronavirus-timeline/” timeline on the Commons Library website. This article looks at changes to Commons procedures and practices, in response to the coronavirus pandemic, to allow for virtual participation and remote voting. Although the House of Commons has been significantly impacted by the ability of Members of Parliament to attend Westminster due to the coronavirus, the political parties and House administration have worked together to adapt procedures to allow virtual participation and remote voting at the height of the pandemic in the spring, followed by limited virtual participation in the summer.

10. The Legislature: membership, privileges, and standards

2021 ◽  
pp. 207-242
Author(s):  
Anne Dennett
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Constitutional Change ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
The Public ◽  
Core Business ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Standards Of Conduct ◽  
The Government

This chapter explores the role and membership of Parliament’s two chambers, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the operation of parliamentary privilege; and accountability of members. The key functions of Parliament include controlling national expenditure and taxation; sustaining the government; legislating and scrutinising government actions. The House of Commons is the pre-eminent chamber and dominates Parliament. The Commons’ membership consists of Members of Parliament (MPs) who are democratically elected by the public to represent their interests in Parliament. The membership of the House of Lords largely relies on patronage. Members of the Lords are appointed by the Queen on the Prime Minister’s advice. The House of Lords is an important revising and scrutinising chamber, and while it is subordinate to the democratically elected House of Commons, it is also a check on constitutional change by the Commons. The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 redefined the Lords’ legislative powers over public bills and established the Commons’ primacy. The chapter then considers the operation of parliamentary privilege. Parliament needs parliamentary privilege to conduct its core business effectively, independently, and without fear of outside interference, and to protect everything said or done in the transaction of parliamentary business. Indeed, Parliament is self-regulating and, as a sovereign body, operates outside the jurisdiction of the courts except for the criminal law. Each House has its own standards of conduct and disciplinary powers which ensure accountability.

Issues in the House of Commons 1621–1629: Predictors of Civil War Allegiance

1991 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Conrad Russell
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Half Life ◽  
Body Politic ◽  
English Civil War ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Look Back ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Parliamentary Politics ◽  
Shed Light

My past attacks on the use of hindsight as a tool for explaining the parliamentary politics of the 1620s were not based on any desire to evade the task of explaining the English Civil War. They were based on the belief that it was necessary to understand what did happen in the 1620s before it could become possible to use those events to shed light on the English Civil War. The argument was that the search for the causes of the Civil War had impeded any attempt to see the 1620s as they actually were. That was why I attempted to find out what had happened in the 1620s as a task in its own right, before going on to investigate the coming and the causes of the English Civil War.It is only because I have already attempted both these questions, and provided answers at least to my own satisfaction, that I now feel free to look back again at the 1620s, and attempt to ask the question what issues, and what attitudes, distinguish a future Royalist from a future Parliamentarian during those years. This is, of course, a very different question from asking what were the key issues of the 1620s. Very often, the issues that transpire to be the best predictors of Civil War allegiance were, at the time, low-priority and poorly reported issues. Attempts to investigate them are not meant to endow them with an importance they did not necessarily possess at the time, nor to suggest any inevitability about the division of England along the lines they suggest. The Civil War was only one of many ways in which the English body politic might have been divided: under a different king, for example, quite different disagreements might have been forced to the surface as the agenda developed. Yet, once it is granted this is not the only way Englishmen might have been divided, it is still worth asking whether the division that actually surfaced corresponds to any visible division in the politics of the 1620s. None of this is an attempt to reopen the debate on “revisionism” in the 1620s. That debate has now acquired a half life of its own, and this article is not intended to take any part in it. It is, though, inevitably informed by thirteen years' work on the politics of the Long Parliament, and so incorporates perceptions of how different the 1620s were from the 1640s, which no other programme of work could have made equally intense.

9. The House of Commons

2019 ◽  
pp. 181-206
Author(s):  
Anne Dennett
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
The Public ◽  
Core Business ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
The Commons ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk

This chapter explores the membership and functions of the House of Commons. The Commons' membership consists of Members of Parliament (MPs) who are democratically elected by the public to represent their interests in Parliament. The key functions of the House of Commons include sustaining the government; legislating and scrutinising government actions; authorising taxes and voting for supply to provide the government with the finances it needs to run the UK; facilitating a credible opposition; and ensuring that the voices of citizens are heard. The chapter then considers the operation of Parliamentary privilege. Parliament needs parliamentary privilege to conduct its core business effectively, independently, and without fear of outside interference, and to protect everything said or done in the transaction of parliamentary business. Indeed, Parliament is self-regulating and, as a sovereign body, operates outside the jurisdiction of the courts except for the criminal law.

The Arguments in King's Bench in 1629 concerning the Imprisonment of John Selden and Other Members of the House of Commons

1986 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 264-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Reeve
Keyword(s):  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
John Eliot ◽  
The Commons ◽  
John Selden ◽  
Financial Need

The demonstration in the House of Commons on March 2, 1629, by Sir John Eliot, John Selden, and several other members was an event with the most serious implications. Their protest against the Arminian movement in the English church and against the levying of Tonnage and Poundage without the consent of Parliament was in fact an appeal to the country over the head of the king's government. One is inclined to agree with Conrad Russell that this act was potentially revolutionary. Its immediate consequence was a stoppage of trade and a widespread refusal to pay customs duties, at a time of desperate royal financial need. On March 3, Eliot, Selden, and seven other members of the Commons were summoned to appear before the Privy Council, where they were later interrogated as to the meaning of their words and actions. When questioned, most of them appealed to parliamentary privilege, four (including Eliot) refusing absolutely to answer any question concerning matters in the House. Two of the delinquents, Coryton and Hayman, submitted themselves to the king and were released. The remaining seven were detained. The prosecution of these men by the Caroline regime was an important political episode too lengthy to be dealt with here in its entirety. But one aspect of these proceedings is worthy of examination in its own right. The hearings in King's Bench on the return of the prisoners' writs of habeas corpus have not received the attention and the analysis they deserve.

The ‘Royal Independents’ in the English Civil War

1968 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 69-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Pearl
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Public Safety ◽  
Political Power ◽  
Religious Movement ◽  
English Civil War ◽  
Religious Change ◽  
New Model ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Rump Parliament

Few historians of the Long Parliament would regard the form of Church government as the first concern of the parliamentary leaders in their negotiations with the king. Contemporary historians considered that the early struggle was not about religion. The royalist Clarendon, the parliamentarian Thomas May, even Richard Baxter, a deeply religious Puritan, were unanimous. To the aristocracy and gentry, it was essentially a conflict over political power and public safety. Religious fervour would inspire the New Model Army, rouse the London citizens, and stimulate the printing presses. But how many members of Parliament or of the gentry in 1640 supported fundamental religious change? Sir Edward Dering told the Commons on 20 November 1641 that he had heard no one there declare themselves for either Presbyterianism or Independency. When Baxter described the composition of the Rump Parliament, he did not see it as the culmination or fulfilment of a religious movement, the expression of Independency.

12. Private Members’ Bills

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Hazell ◽  
Fergus Reid
Keyword(s):  
House Of Commons ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Commons ◽  
A Priority ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Uk

This chapter considers the ways in which backbench Members of Parliament (MPs) exploit their right to introduce legislation — known as private members' bills (PMBs). The PMB process has been criticized for allegedly being opaque, misleading, and virtually discredited inside and outside the UK Parliament. Yet, each session, more than 450 backbenchers enter the Commons PMB ballot for a priority slot. The chapter first explains the terms ‘hybrid bill’, ‘private bill’, and ‘public bill’ before discussing the difference between PMBs and government bills. It also examines the importance of time when considering PMBs, the three routes to a PMB in the House of Commons, a typical second reading Friday in the Commons, and the PMB ballot in the House of Lords. Finally, it analyses efforts to reform PMB procedures and why, despite flaws and frustrations, PMBs are seen by many MPs as a useful tool for advancing their agendas and campaigns.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document