„King-in-Parliament“. Das Recht zur Einberufung, Vertagung und Auflösung des Parlaments in Englands Mischverfassung. Untersuchung der Debatten und Gesetze zur Parlamentsdauer (1660-1716)
Loading...
Files
Date
Authors
Publisher
Philipps-Universität Marburg
Supervisors
Abstract
The initial reason to examine the duration of the English Parliament between the restauration of the Stuarts after the Civil War and the Republic until the beginning rule of the House of Hanover (1660-1716) derives from a controversial academic discussion over the status of the Imperial Diet in the Holy Roman Empire (1663-1806) depicted as Europe’s first „Standing Parliament“.
The study aims to answer the question, why the English opted first for triennial Parliaments by passing the „Triennial Act“ (1694) and later for septennial Parliaments by passing the „Septennial Act“ (1716), although they experienced two permanent Parliaments (The „Long Parliament“ 1641-60 and the „Cavalier Parliament“ 1661-79) at the same time as the Imperial Diet became a permanent institution (1663) until the end of the Holy Roman Empire (1806). English periodical Parliaments with a seven years duration were being in force until the „Parliament Act“ (1911) with a five year duration of Parliament was passed. So why did the English opposition demanded a limitation of Parliament in its duration?
It is a noticeable fact that the research in the history of late 17th century Parliaments was clearly neglected in comparison to the Parliaments of the Tudors, Early Stuarts, Civil War and Republic. The rather small attention given to the later Stuart’s Parliaments is paralled by the the little attention given to the Permanent Imperial Diet.
It is even more noticeable that no studies existed about the Right to summon, to adjourn, to prorogue and to dissolve Parliament. The question why periodical Parliaments were legally established was not asked at all, although controversial debates about the right to summon, adjourn, prorogue and to dissolve took place in Parliament and in Pamphlets during 1660 and 1716.
The study proves that only a glance at the official duration of Parliament between summoning and dissolving is not sufficient to answer the question. The excessive use of adjournements and prorogations provoked an overwhelming difference between factual and official duration. Long recesses of over one year duration were not seldom. Thus a precise research in the government’s politics during recess and Parliament’s reaction to it is required. Due to the long interruptions it is justified to speak of a deparlamentarization and erosion of representation. A common and regular accusation of the contemporary opposition in the debates. The official eighteen years „Cavalier Parliament“ (1661-79) of King Charles II. is the paramount example of the excessive use to adjourn and prorogue parliament. The „Cavalier Parliament“ is therefore central to this study.
The „Standing Parliament Debate“ about the long duration of the „Cavalier Parliament“ was only one of many debates between 1660 and 1716 about the crown’s Parliamentary Management. Too many adjournements and prorogations were criticized as well as bribery, spoils system and willfull emergency cases (Securitization).
Securitization has to be understood as a regular pattern: „Venner’s Rising“ (1661) influenced the election of the „Cavalier Parliament“ (1661), „Farnley Wood Plot“ (1663) helped to pass the second „Triennial Act“ (1664), the „Popish Plot“ (1679) was crucial in the dissolution of the „Cavalier Parliament“ (1679), the „Assassination Plot“ (1696) let to the passing of the “Act for continuing, meeting, and sitting of a Parliament […]” (1696) and the Jacobite Rising of 1715 was decisive in passing the „Septennial Act“ (1716).
The passing of the third „Triennial Act“ (1694) should be observed as decisive point in the history of the English Parliament and constitution. After passing the law there was no return to a unilateral right of the crown to summon, adjourn, prorogue and dissolve Parliament. The later „Septennial Act“ (1716) does not alter this result, although the controversial debates about the duration of Parliament continued until the passing of the „Parliament Act“ (1911) almost two hundred years later on, introducing a five year term of Parliament.
The study also shows the importance of laws to settle what had to happen in case of a monarch’s demise. The “Act for continuing, meeting, and sitting of a Parliament […]” (1696) and the “Regency Act” (1706) were decisive steps in the institutionalisation of Parliament. But it is to remember that all laws passed are corporate decisions by Lords, Commons and the King. Only together they form the mixed constitution of „King-in-Parliament“.
Review
Metadata
Contributors
Supervisor:
Dates
Created: 2018Issued: 2020-03-03Updated: 2020-03-03
Faculty
Fachbereich Geschichte und Kulturwissenschaften
Publisher
Philipps-Universität Marburg
Language
ger
Data types
DoctoralThesis
Keywords
Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury„Farnley Wood Plot“ 1663„Venner’s Rising“ 1661 ,Constitution„Popish Plot“ 1679„Assassination Plot“ 1696AdjournementConventionCharles II.Cavalier Parliament 1661-79
DFG-subjects
Karl II.BürgerkriegJakob II.Georg I.EnglandRestaurationRepublikGlorreiche RevolutionGesetzGroßbritannien
DDC-Numbers
900
show more
Borrello Beckmann, Piero Del: „King-in-Parliament“. Das Recht zur Einberufung, Vertagung und Auflösung des Parlaments in Englands Mischverfassung. Untersuchung der Debatten und Gesetze zur Parlamentsdauer (1660-1716). : Philipps-Universität Marburg 2020-03-03. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17192/z2019.0466.
License
This item has been published with the following license: In Copyright