Chapter 30 The King in the House


    The predecessor of the British Parliament can be traced back to the Anglo-Americans from the 5th to the 7th centuries AD. Saxon period.


    In the middle of the 5th century, Angles, Saxons and Jutes invaded Britain.


    Taking advantage of the power vacuum that emerged after the Romans withdrew from Britain, they sessively conquered Britain and established seven kingdoms,rge and small.


    British historians call the period from the end of the 6th century to 870 the "Seven Kingdoms Age". In these kingdoms, representatives of the king and nobles jointly formed a "sage council". The main function of the Council of Sages is to assist the king in handling state affairs and to determine the sessor of the kingdom ording to the hereditary principle.


    During the development of the Norman Dynasty, the Norman Duke William I who conquered Ennd created an institution simr to the "Sage Council" called the "Great Council".


    It is mainlyposed of two major feudal lords, monks andymen, and direct vassals of the king, and a meeting is held every three years to decide important events of the country.


    Due to theplex organization of the congress and the fact that it is often impossible to hold it, just like our National People''s Congress, there are too many people.


    So a small meeting (simr to the Senior Officials Meeting) was constructed under the big meeting. The small meeting is the core body of the big meeting. It isposed of senior court ministers such as the chief of royal affairs and the chief security officer, and integrates legition, administration and justice. Also known as the "imperial meeting". It is seen as the predecessor of the British Parliament.


    In 1215, in order to resist the king''s excessive taxation, the noblesunched an uprising and forced the king to sign the famous "Magna Carta" in British history. Its main purpose is to rify the feudal rights of the king and nobles and prevent the king from viting these rights.


    From the 5th century to the 15th century, it seems that power has been shifting towards the direction of the parliament that restricts the power of the king, but the king still has practical decision-making power. Parliament is called only when the king needs it.


    For example, in the 24 years of Henry VII''s reign, Parliament was only convened seven times, and in the 45 years of Elizabeth I''s life, Parliament was only convened 10 times. , It haspletely be the **** wiper of the royal power, used when needed, and discarded when not needed.


    Thus, Congress in the feudal era was generally a subsidiary institution of the feudal monarchy. Only when the capitalist mode of production excluded the feudal mode of production could the Congress truly transform into a representative institution connected to assets.


    Since the "collective suicide" of nobles during the War of the Roses, the check and bnce parliamentposed of the king, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons has almostpletely be a master-servant parliament dominated by the king. Of course, it is a joke to expect such a parliament to limit the kingship.


    The Tudor dynasty did not abolish the parliament. On the contrary, it also supported the parliament well, and regarded its support as a symbol of public opinion for the Tudor royal family to rule Ennd. Being able to get the support of the parliament puts the cloak of public opinion on the legitimacy of the Tudor royal family''s royal rule, and greatly strengthens the Tudor dynasty''s dominance over Ennd.


    Edward’s title of Lord of Wales and title of King of Irnd were all titles that Henry VIII added to himself under the guise of Parliament. Even the reason for Henry VIII’s divorce was found by Parliament for him. Parliament has really be a loyal and obedient organization. This is also a proof thatter generations agreed that the Tudor monarchy was unprecedentedly powerful in English history.


    As for why the parliament was like a tame dog in the hands of the Tudor monarchs, but turned into a wild wolf in the hands of the Stuart monarchs, opposing the Stuart monarchs everywhere.


    Some people will say that this is the result of Charles I''s indiscriminate tax increase, but in fact Henry VIII did more excessively.


    After the Reformation, Henry VIII used troops against France year after year, no matter how strong the background of copying Catholicism was. So he convened five consecutive parliaments to collect taxes to make up for financial losses!


    The main reason is that Charles I was too independent. He didn''t discuss with the parliament when he usually raised taxes. He waited until the money was not enough to find the parliament. At that time, the House of Commons had the right to levy taxes nationwide, while neither the king nor the House of Lords had this right. This was a rule established in the Middle Ages.


    It is still a word, noparison, no harm. In terms of tax collection, although the Tudor dynasty sometimes instructed local authorities to force loans to residents, those who refused and those who did not have enough loans were even summoned by the Privy Council. Use only asionally in special cases.


    On the whole, the Tudor dynasty never set aside Parliament to impose a national tax.


    ording to records, in 1496, the Senate (a government agency at the time) had decided to levy a tax of 120,000 pounds without authorization, but it also announced that the decision could only take effect after the approval of the next parliament; The apportionment of movable property taxes to the monks andymen without the parliament resulted in nothing but usations of "breaking thew and liberty".


    The monarchs of the Tudor dynasty often yed with the parliament and gave them the opportunity to participate. Although they had no decision-making power and had to agree to any bill, the members were still willing to be abused and happy.


    Moreover, the monarchs of the Tudor dynasty treated the MPs like dogs, not only blindly asking for them, but also giving them a little sweetness.


    Because the members of the House of Commons are knights and citizens at the grassroots level, they do not have the same privileges as nobles. So the kings gave the parliamentarians some privileges to satisfy their desires.


    The king happily gave them the right to free speech, the immunity of parliamentarians, and the right to dispose of parliamentarians on their own. And without these privileges, at least half of the members of the House of Commons would have to leave.


    The Duke of Somerset left the House of Lords dryly, and was slowlying to the House of Commons.


    "Dear Your Excellency, wee to the House of Commons!" A fat gentleman in his fifties greeted Edward Seymour the moment he entered the House of Commons. He was very enthusiastic.


    The Duke of Somerset nced at the gentleman in front of him, Richard Stroud, with a natural and cheerful smile on his face, which made people unconsciously develop a good impression of him.


    "Dear Your Excellency the Duke, our Speaker is ill and recuperating at home, please don''t me him!" Gentleman Richard was very polite to the new Lord Duke standing in front of him.


    "Sir Moore''s heart for the public really makes us very ashamed! There is still a reason to me!"


    "Your Excellency the Duke''s tolerant heart, that really makes people feel like sunshine!"


    "Haha! Mr. Gentleman''s elegant gift also makes me admire!" As they spoke, the two praised each other.


    Edward Seymour was still very friendly towards Richard Straul, because during the period when Sir Thomas More was ill, he was almost the leader of the House of Commons, and he was very prestigious among some members. .


    For example, the freedom of speech of members of parliament is due to him. In the Parliament in 1512, Richard Straul was imprisoned by the judge of the tin mining court because he was young and ignorant, and recklessly wanted to introduce a bill on tin mines. As a result, the House of Commons insisted that the court be acquitted Release him, but how can the court agree, the two are at a stalemate.


    In the end, it was Henry VIII who made the decision to let Richard go, which set a precedent for the freedom of speech of members of parliament.


    Thanks: Best MEN, Autumn Industry Falling, Broken Rails, Minhang Dream Talk, jwh Wenhui 2005, Prussian Nobility, Ice☆Xiaoyi, Yuri Yefimovich Shelov, Graffiti Tty, KancasterKoo, I’m kidding, everyone Votes support!