Talk:Parliament of the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Parliament of the United Kingdom is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 16, 2006.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Parliament of the United Kingdom is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

Contents

[edit] Naming of the article

Hum... A quick search on Google indicates that there are at least two other Houses of Parilment in the world -- in India and Tasmania. Shouldn't this page become a disambiguation page and the content moved to Houses of Pariliament of the United Kingdom? --maveric149

I don't think so. It is like Paris, there is one famous one and the rest are not so. Houses of Parliament, people think Britain not Tasmania.

Wasn't sure so that is why I asked. Thanks! --maveric149
Nonsense, parliament is a common name. Paris is a proper noun. A more apt comparison would be linking Cola to Coca Cola. As mentioned below, House of Representatives doesn't discuss the US HoR, even though I'm sure more people (e.g. US+Britain+Canada, rather than just Britain+US) would default to that one than the Parilament->British Parliament. --202.147.117.39 01:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm for turning Houses of Parliament into a disambiguation page, but couldn't this be better named as Houses of Parliament, UK or UK Houses of Parliament?

That would be like disambigulating [[O'Connell Street (Dublin)]] on the basis that, even though 98% of the world would think Dublin when they saw O'Connell Street, there is a street in a small village somewhere else that also is called O'Connell Street.

To be fair, this seems consistent. See House of Representatives or Congress. Mr. Jones 19:57, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Parliament of Cornwall (History of)

Since we have all the other ones here, and the Cornish one was as genuine as the Parliament of Ireland, ought it not get a mention. Graldensblud 01:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Limitations on sovereignty prior to joining the EC

The article makes the standard claim that the UK parliament was sovereign prior to joining the EC, which for all significant purposes it was. However legally speaking, I believe that there were a few limits on its powers. The main one being its relationship with the Church of Scotland, for which it is not allowed to legislate (although it did until the 1920s). The 1707 Treaty of Union also allowed the Scottish judges to abolish laws which broke the Treaty, a power which was never used as the judges came to the conclusion that doing so would break their oath of loyalty to the Crown (I think). Still, in principle, there were always limits to Parliament's sovereignty. Comments ? -- Derek Ross

I don't know the details but if that is correct then that qualification needs to be added in. (Great! I've learned another new fact learned tonight on wiki.) ÉÍREman 00:36 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I would definitely check. These are "facts" that I've picked up over the last twenty years. But I can't remember the sources now. A quick check on the web seems to show that there's at least some basis for them.

However, in the same spirit as above: I believe that there are other limits to Parliament's sovereignty in England, tied up with the provisions of the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, etc. In particular the precedence of common law over statute law guaranteed by MC mean that Parliament can't effectively legislate in English law to change things like the presumption of innocence during trial. Of course none of these provisions mean that Parliament won't or hasn't legislated in whatever manner it sees fit at one time or another. It just means that they need friendly (or ignorant) judges to make it stick. -- Derek Ross

I may be wrong (it is fifteen years since I did a course on UK government and politics! Jeez, that long!) but I thought that parliament could overrule common law. I know in Ireland, for example (and it is nothing to do with the provisions of the constitution giving it that right) the Oireachtas can and does overrule common law and replace it with statute law. I understood that in the UK the Magna Carta no longer has practical significance, merely symbolic significance, not least because it was applicable to a state (England) and a system of government that have both been replaced, albeit along lines of evolution rather than revolution, in the last millenium or so. I understood the situation to that parliament theoretically could do almost anything, just that convention said there were certain things it should not touch. I presume there are many places where common law principles and decisions have been replaced by statute law. (I was looking for my copy of de Smith but I cannot find it. I really must sort out my library of books here. ÉÍREman 05:12 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

You could be right, I'm no expert on law. Even so I'd like to comments on your sentence about different state, different system of Government. While that's something I would agree with, I would be less inclined to say "different legal system". Legal systems have changed very slowly in the UK and in many ways have ignored the various Treaties of Union. For instance, nearly three hundred years after the Union of the Scottish and English parliaments, the two criminal legal systems still treat each other as belonging to foreign governments, making it as difficult for an English court's search warrants to be served on Scottish residents (or vice-versa) as it is for an Irish court's search warrants to be served on Scottish residents. With this pace of change, I'd hesitate before saying that Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights has no practical significance although there's little doubt that UK governments have always acted as if there were no limits on their legal powers. -- Derek Ross 00:26 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Supremacy of Parliament

In response to previous discussion relating to the supremacy of Parliament when it comes to the Treaties of Union, I would argue that Parliament has the authority to amend these Treaties. For example, the Treaty of Union with Ireland suggests that Ireland and Great Britain be united "forever". Obviously, this provision was violated when the Irish Free State was formed. So I don't really think that the Treaties of Union are a barrier to Parliament's sovereingty, or rather, the Queen's sovereignty in Parliament, and I wonder why the notes relating to Parliament's lack of sovereignty over the Church of Scotland remain in the article. -- Lord Emsworth 03:18, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] The source of legislative authority

The opening sentence is wrong. It says In the politics of the United Kingdom, legislative authority (that is, the power to make laws) is vested in Parliament . . .

Incorrect. Legislative authority is vested in The Queen-in-Parliament, ie the participation of the monarch and the two houses. Unless the Queen Assents to a Bill, it cannot become law. In fact no monarch since Queen Anne with a Militia Bill in I think 1714 has declined to grant Assent. But Assent is still a legal requirement. Legislature authority exists only through The Queen-in-Parliament. Executive authority only exists through The Queen-in-Council with the cabinet exercising executive power as a committee of the (Privy) Council. (That's why every minister must be a Rt. Hon, ie a member of the Privy Council.) So this article contains a fundamental mistake in its opening sentence. Oh dear! :-) FearÉIREANN 05:47 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Parliament and the Queen-in-Parliament are actually synonymns. Both refer to the Queen, gathered with the House of Lords and House of Commons, making laws. 141.156.238.169 04:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When did the parliament first appear?

Hi, I have a really stupid question on the birth of the British Parliament. According to the information on this web, there was no standing parliament pre-1640s. So, when was the embrio of Parliament first formed, for what cause and under what circumstance? -- 147.8.44.10 20:40 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Informal parliaments were held from about 1234, but the first one with elected representatives was in 1254 when two knights from each shire were sent. Simon de Montfort's parliament introduced burgesses representating some selected boroughs. During this period parliaments were usually summoned in order to raise money for wars. Mintguy (T)
As is now clear from the article, the first British parliament was in 1707. The terms British and Great Britain had been coined as a political construct promoting the idea of unity after James VI of Scotland acceded to the English throne in 1603, becoming James I of England. Both countries then came under his personal rule while retaining separate parliaments, both of which dated back to the 13th century with earlier roots. (A bit later the term "Celtic" was coined for the indigenous peoples who had previously been called "British" following the Greek Pytheas of Massalia who sailed round Pretaniké around 325 BC)....dave souza 17:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I have just done TONS of research for a research paper for college about the origins of the British parliament. In 1295, an English parliament was set up by Edward I of the Plantagenet family (NOT Edward the Confessor of the Saxons). It was full of people outside the aristocracy and the clergy (no politics, no Church). The main reason it was set up was because Edward needed money for his wars to conquer Scotland, Wales, and France. He only conquered Wales fully out of the three, but may have temporarily held Normandy or where Luxembough is today. In 1301, Edward's son, Edward II, was named Prince of Wales in respect for the Welsh. It has become a custom today for the prince or next king/queen to be named Prince/Princess of Wales. Hence, Princess Diana was the Princess of Wales when she married Prince Charles, next in line to the throne. She was also from Wales, so that worked out great for her. Anyways, eventually, the Parliament thought about what else they could do...and a 'redress of grievences' was made by the king to fix wrongs in the society for the support of the Parliament. Basically, the king had to do something good for the country before the country would invest in his costly wars. The first model parliament was summoned to go meet in the St. Stephen's Chapel in the Palace of Westminster, which later burnt down in 1834 and was fully rebuilt into what is the gothic/big ben structure you see today. The Parliament you see today has a great, large structure with the House of Commons and the House of the Lords. The Lords have less power because the seats are inherited or appointed while the Commons has the seats elected. Of course, a parliament can be dissolved if necessary...
Do you mean "the first Parliament" or the first British Parliament? Although Westminster is called the "mother of all Parliaments" it isn't actually the oldest. That honour goes to Iceland or the Isle of Man, depending upon whic criterea you use (in each case in about the 11th century). Legis 14:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

This article lacks images I think. There are some works by Monet which could be used here. I believe the copyright on his works has expired as he died over 70 years ago.

http://www.art-artist.co.uk/impressionist/monet-parliament.htm

Check on that. It is so famous, and you may want to see who owns it now. You may be right; however, don't just 'think' the copyright is gone. Plagerism and the lack of credibility to someone's artwork can land you in deep do-do. If anything is copyrighted, I don't bother with it. (Don't forget to look at the bottom of a webpage for copyright information. It hides in odd places.) I can usually find a google image that isn't copyrighted and it can be twice as good for representing what I am attempting to represent. Be careful and have fun...sometimes just looking at it is enough for better ideas.
The paintings are not copyright, but these photographs of the paintings probably are copyright. Unless someone takes a camera to the art gallery where these hang and takes their own shots for Wikipedia and assigns the copyright appropriately, you still need to check out where the image you're using comes from. Richard Gadsden 11:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seat

I know what people mean when they use seat while discussing the British parliament and British politics, but I suspect many Americans do not. It would be a handy addition to this article, to Parliament, or as its own article: Seat (parliament). -Acjelen 17:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

This article manages to contradict itself within the space of two paragraphs:

For instance, the Fifty-Second Parliament assembled in 1997, but was dissolved after only four years.

Thus, each Parliament is separately numbered, the present Parliament being the Fifty-Third Parliament of the United Kingdom

If 1997 saw the assembly of the 52nd Parliament, then 2001 would have seen the assembly of the 53rd and 2005 would have seen the assembly of the 54th (not the 53rd as stated). Is it possible that this article has just been overlooked since the General Election in May?

It also contradicts List of Parliaments of the United Kingdom - which states that the Parliament assembled in 1997 was the 51st (not the 52nd) ; this would mean the second statement above about the present Parliament being the 53rd is correct -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 12:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Further contradictions occurs with the article MPs elected in the UK general election, 2001 - this states that the current (2005) Parliament is the 54th, that assembled in 2001 was the 53rd and that assembled in 1997 was the 52nd.

I can see there might be some checking of enumeration to be done here... -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 12:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

From [1] and Cases of controverted elections, in the second Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1802, it looks to me as though the first was in 1801 and the second 1802 so List of Parliaments of the United Kingdom is one out all the way through. --Cavrdg 18:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Surely to be verifiable, this numbering system should be used by the organs of government. Otherwise, isn't it just OR ? Us counting from the start and putting numbers ? -- Beardo 22:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seaparation of Powers, and Separation of Church and State

Well, as an American, I am always apalled to hear that there remain Bishops and other religious positions in Parliament. Clearly, there should be a separation of church and state, the Church should not control the government in any way, and the government should not control any church in any way. I am surprised the British have not asserted their freedom in this venue.

Furthermore, having the courts as part of the Parliament is a conflict of interest. The men who make the laws clearly should not be the ones interpreting them.

Of course, Britain still has a King, so ultimately the people only have a say in British government because the Royal Family decides to allow it. Here in the great nation of the United States of America, we do not acknowlege the authority of any god or any representitive thereof to dictate policy. The goverment derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, not by drawing a sword from a stone.

I am sure the great men at www.republic.org.uk would agree with me on these points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.97.207 (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the very young nation of USA defeated Britain twice (in 1776 and 1812) clearly shows that natural right is on the side of democracy. It is a matter of fact that Britain only exists due to the grace of USA, without their economic aid the britons would be starving under a communist regime following the 1949 red army landing. Without the engineering and economic might of the USA, the free world would not exist, there would be no Internet, no freedo of speech, only the red banner with the sickle. USA has created more than all other nations throughout the entire written history have done, combined!
We can only hope that the European Union will force Britain to abolish its feudalistic roots and establish a modern state based on the french and yankee derived democratic principles. Peerage, nobility, royality and any other birtright is against the good order of nature and thus invalid. Church must be separate from state. If Britain would convert to elective democracy, they would be just as successful as USA in their own right, because they are made of the same creative anglo-saxon genetics. BTW, Ireland should be entirely united in an independent republic.
"Here in the great nation of the United States of America, we do not acknowlege the authority of any god or any representitive thereof to dictate policy." LOL! If that's what you think, you should probably pay more attention to what your policy-makers are saying! — Trilobite 14:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
This Yank is off his head in delerious grandeur!!!
"I am surprised the British have not asserted their freedom in this venue." Errm... help, help, I'm feeling oppressed? No, wait, I'm not.
"Here in the great nation of the United States of America..." Yes at this point you kinda lost ALL creditability.
"The goverment derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, not by drawing a sword from a stone." Our government derives its powers from Parliament and the Crown - it's worked very well for over 300 years without any serious constitutional problems. Constitutional monarchy is a very, very stable form of government, especially when tied in with parliamentary democracy.
Or is this getting a little too complicated for our over-zealous American visitor?
(Sorry to all the normal Americans out there reading this, but you do have some pretty ignorant and arrogant people amongst you!) David 22:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
"...based on the french and yankee derived democratic principles" - oh, give us those American democratic principles. However, we Brits are a practical people, so forgive us if we make a few small changes to them so they fit our way of life. For a start, we might re-arrange things a little so that they guy who gets to be in charge is the one who actually gets the most votes. Yeah, yeah, I know, we're so retarded, sorry....Bedesboy 09:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, um, up to a point. The voting mechanism in the UK does not guarantee that the governing party necessarily polled the most votes merely that it controls the most seats and that could be by coalition. Speaking as a Brit, I would say that there is a serious democratic deficit in the current arrangements in that we vote for an MP but elect a government. Although, as mentioned above, we seem to bumble on somehow (actually we seem to be quite good at that.) 217.154.66.11 12:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... I smell troll dung. Ajkgordon 13:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Boy, if he was excited about the fact that Bishops could sit in the HoL, it is a good thing nobody put in the articles that Irish Peers were allowed to sit until comparatively recently. Legis 14:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There's also the thing about the General Synod itself having law-making authority...Graldensblud 01:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revise this?

[edit] The current article includes

... House of Lords and the House of Commons meet in separate chambers in the Palace of Westminster (commonly known as the "Houses of Parliament ...

[edit] Commentary

It is not generally known that the word "House" does NOT only mean a building, but also a group of legislators. The article as written may leave the impression that the "Houses of Parliament" means the building, the Palace of Westminster.QUITTNER142.150.49.166 20:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic?

I think that refering to the Commons as "democratically" elected needs to be re-thought. The simple plurality system used for elections to the Commons, although giving universal sufferage, does not give equal weight and value to every vote cast. As such i suggest that the word democratically be removed from the opening paragraph of the article and just left at "the elected House of Commons." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.147.43 (talk)

I disagree, because:
  1. Most people accept the elections to the HoC as democratic (if they have trouble with democracy in the UK it is usually with other things).
  2. The meaning of the word demos (the root of democratic) is people, MPs are elected by the people.
  3. There is no perfect electoral system; and in any system you don't end up giving equal weight to every vote case (STV, Condorcet etc, might give a fairer distribution of weighting, but not equal).

Incidentally, please sign your name on talk pages by using ~~~~, also please consider getting a username. Thanks CaptainJ (t | c | e) 19:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parliament of the United Kingdom and the UK Overseas Territories

Congratulations for making Today's Featured Article! By the way, I noted that the article says:

The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the supreme legislative body in the United Kingdom and British overseas territories.

I doubt the validity of this statement; for all I know the UK overseas territories have their own written constitutions providing for a process of legislation of which the Wstminster Parliament is no part. Legislation in the Falklands, Gibraltar, Bermuda etc. is entirely a matter of their elected legislative bodies, with some laws (such as constitution amendments) enacted by Queen's Orders in Council under her Royal Prerogatives. (Even if the UK Cabinet ministers may have the actual saying in this process, this is still not the UK Parliament.) The UK Parliament does not legislate even for uninhabited overseas territories such as South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; legislation there is enacted by Queen's Orders in Council. One exception might be the Akrotiri and Dhekelia territory though. Apcbg 09:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

British overseas territtories often have their own legislatures, but Acts of Parliament are supreme in these places. For instance, the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 states "This Act extends to- (a) the United Kingdom, (b) the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and (c) the British overseas territories." [2] It is in the nature of dependent territories that they are ultimately subject to the laws of the colonial power. 141.156.238.169 03:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West Lothian Question

I think this article should include a brief mention of the West Lothian Question. I've included this under the first paragraph of the "Legislation" section.

This has lead to what is known as the West Lothian question: the situation where Westminster MPs for Scottish constituencies may vote on legislation that will have no effect on Scotland. For example, the Higher Education Act (2004) only passed with the votes of Scottish MPs, yet the act had no bearing on higher education in Scotland.

If there's a better place, feel free to move it. But I think the article is missing a relatively important point by not including it. Kayman1uk 12:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

On this note, is it not true that Northern Irish law is also separate, and that Parliament can pass laws pertaining only to NI (or, for that matter, only to England and Wales and Scotland)? --Jfruh (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This has led to what is known as the West Lothian question: the situation where Westminster MPs for Scottish constituencies may vote on legislation that will have no direct effect on Scotland. For example, the Higher Education Act 2004 passed only with the votes of Scottish MPs, but the act had no bearing on Scotland.

This is nonsense. A little forgotten fact in the malay of the West Lothian question is that parts of this bill DID affect Scotland directly, however minimally. It is even stated on the Higher Education Act 2004 page here!! I am deleting this to reflect this. Panthro 16:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article, but...

The Irish House of Commons by Francis Wheatley (1780).
The Irish House of Commons by Francis Wheatley (1780).

...there's only two pictures. We should put more in my opinion. --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 15:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a historical picture (rather than a present day picture). Perhaps the "Irish House of Commons", or something similar? Grimhelm 15:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, exactly what I was looking for! It would be nice to have some pictures of people and historical events that have something to do with the subject. --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 16:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, if no one minds, I'll add it. Grimhelm 14:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Privileges

A. P. Herbert, in one of those curious historical footnotes, reported the Commons to the criminal justice system for breach of the licensing laws (none of the bars in the House were licensed, and many opened outside normal hours); it reached the High Court, which eventually decided that Parliamentary privilege extended even to such prosaic activities - indeed, to anything which they can claim with a straight face. I'm not sure if working this in as an example would be appropriate, but it sprang to mind... Shimgray | talk | 17:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Binding future Parliaments"

I was reading the featured article on Canada and noticed the following:

"The Canada Act 1982 is an Act of Parliament passed by the British Parliament that severed all remaining constitutional and legislative ties between the United Kingdom and Canada,"

I'm not clear how this stacks up with this:

"No Act of Parliament may be made secure from amendment or repeal by a future Parliament."

Do these two statements contradict? Are these types of act an exception to the rule? Or is it simply the case that the UK could, in theory, repeal the act but that Canada would laugh heartily and ignore it? In which case, what would the position of the monarch be? Kayman1uk 08:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. It's not just a theoretical question. I'm trying to say that I don't see how the statement about never binding future parliaments is supportable for acts severing sovereignty over territories. Kayman1uk 09:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I can answer this now having looked through the UK article more carefully. Parliament can give up sovereignty (whether over another territory or, for example, the churn of Scotland), and thereby diminish itself. That doesn't change the specific sovereign powers of parliament, but it does lessen their scope. This is presumably the case with all sovereign bodies. Kayman1uk 22:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I can definately answer this question as I am a Lawyer, Parliament can pass legisation that binds itself but, Parliament retains the power to repeal that legislation therefore unbinding itself. For example, India and Pakistan received independence through the Indian Independence Act 1947, Parliament can repeal this Act which would result in India and Pakistan becoming a united British Colony once more.

Unfortunately, that is not a definitive answer. Academic lawyer William Wade advanced the theory, echoed by the questioner, that such a law would be valid from the point of view of the United Kingdom, but Canadian authorities would ignore the new statute as a contradiction of their patriated Constitution, just as India and Pakistan would presumably disregard such an Act aimed towards them. We shall not know for sure until the UK Parliament tries it. 141.156.238.169 04:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Portcullis

Isn't the portcullis the symbol of the UK Parliament? Shouldn't that go up - either as a symbol at the top of the article, or as a mention somewhere? See, for example, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/82573.stm. Wikiman, 14:04, 27 August 2006

Probably. HM Gov't have a PDS giving the history of the portcullis available at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g09.pdf (search Google for 'Crowned Portcullis'. Copyright of the Crowned Portcullis mark are detailed at http://www.parliament.uk/site_information/parliamentary_copyright.cfm. A few further historical notes on the Portcullis badge are also available from the College of Arms at http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/About/06.htm. The Portcullis probably needs its own dedicated page as it's use is not restricted to Parliament as the PDF details - Westminster council use it, and it's also the symbol on the back of a 1 penny piece 82.38.168.60 00:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upper/Lower Houses

Is the British Parliament symmetrical (equal balance of power between Upper & Lower Houses, like in the United States) or asymmetrical (unequal balance of power between Upper & Lower Houses, like in Canada)? And is this mentioned in the article? I tried to find it but couldn't, I might have just skipped over it. Also, if it isn't in the article, perhaps it's a good idea to include it. Stop The Lies 09:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Unequal - the Lords have limited powers to block. -- Beardo 18:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The Parliament Acts have shifted the balance of power wholly in the favour of the Commons. That's part of a trend that's been going on for a number of years, but historically there have been times when each house was the stronger. Graldensblud 01:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The various former colonies, in their constitutions, reflect British practice at the time of their independence. The USA has two equally strong chambers and a strong executive unconnected with either, exactly as Britain had in the late 18th century (King, Lords, and Commons). Canada and Australia have two chambers, of which the upper chamber is strong but definitely subordinate, and in which the executive is drawn from the lower chamber. This reflected British practice in the late 19th century. Current British practice has evolved still further, with the upper chamber being extremely weak and little more than a rubber stamp. TharkunColl 08:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where did parliament meet after 1834?

The old Palace of Westminster burnt down in 1834, and according to its own article, the new (current) building wasn't ready for use until some 20 years later (specifically, the House of Lords chamber was completed in 1847, and the House of Commons chamber in 1852. The building as a whole wasn't finished until as late as 1870). So where did parliament hold its meetings in the interim? Also, after the House of Commons chamber was destroyed by German bombs in 1941 the Commons met in the House of Lords chamber until 1950 (when the House of Commons chamber was rebuilt) - so where did the Lords meet during this period? TharkunColl 16:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Having a look at 'Notes and Queries' at the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-87066,00.html), someone's posed this very question. Out of all the answers, one stands out by someone having actually done some research (apparently) ... I have a definitive answer to this question from the House of Commons information office. It wrote me the following: "When the Chamber was destroyed the House of Commons moved to sit in old Court of Requests (which had been used by the Lords from 1801) and the Lords moved to the remains of the Painted Chamber. The site of the Court of Requests is now marked by the statue of Richard Lionheart. 82.38.168.60 21:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with some stated facts

On the section entitled Italic textParliament of England Italic text I believe there were two erroneous facts. It is stated that the `so called "Model Parliament" of 1295 (was) adopted by Edward III.` However, I thought Edward III did not become king until 1327, therefore this cannot possibly be true. Was the Parliament not adopted by Edward I considering he was in power at the time? Also was it not during the reign of Edward III and not Edward II that parliament was separated into two houses? Please feel free to dispute me if I am wrong but I have become confused after cross referencing these facts with other literature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ne14abeermatt (talk • contribs) 01:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] How were early parliamentary elections held?

I've often wondered about this and wish this article would be more enlightening on this point. Were there ballot-boxes (and secret ballots?), or public town meetings of some kind? Designated polling places? Who counted the votes? Did these practices vary by region? Did candidates campaign, and are there any early surviving examples of campaign literature? Were there any antecedent "parties" to the Whigs and the Tories of the late c. 17?

More info on how members of parliament were elected would be a useful addition to this article, and/or a worthwhile subject for a separate article.

[edit] Small question (judges)

Can a judge become a Member of Parliament? --Weenie beenie 13:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misrepresentation of the People Act

I thought a link to that article would be in place here or in related articles, but I don't know where. It's something that will be voted on tomorrow, so maybe temporary links could be placed (also depending on the outcome). DirkvdM 11:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mother of Parliaments quote

I found a ref to the John Bright speech being reported in The Times of January 19, 1865. Has someone assess to this newspaper's microfilms, or any other version, to provide a citation? TIA ww2censor (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I went to look at the microfilm of The Times at the New York Public Library yesterday and found the article. It was made during a speech to his constituants in Birmingham on Wednesday January 18, 1865. ww2censor (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repetition

When reading this article, it seems as if the subsection on Parliament of England repeats itself, as if 2 versions of the same history run back to back. We get up to the Glorious Revolution after six paragraphs, then dive back to Curia Regis and Anglo Saxon times. Should not the whole second half be deleted, or merged into the first? Honyng (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)