Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John: With an Historical IntroductionMcKechnie, William Sharp
History
Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John: With an Historical Introduction
McKechnie, William Sharp
Constitutional history -- England -- Sources; Law -- England -- History; Law -- England -- Sources; Magna Carta
The new position and powers of Parliament logically involved a
corresponding alteration in the position and powers of the smaller but
more permanent council or _Concilium Ordinarium_ (the future Privy
Council). This had long been increasing in power, in prestige, and in
independence, a process quickened by the minority of Henry III. The
Council was now strengthened by the support of a powerful Parliament,
usually acting in alliance with the leaders of the baronial opposition.
The members of the Council were generally recruited from Parliament, and
their appointment as king’s ministers and members of the Curia was
strongly influenced by the proceedings in the larger assembly.
The Council thus became neutral ground on which the conflicting
interests of king and baronage might be discussed and compromised. Wild
schemes like that of chapter 61 of Magna Carta or like that typified in
the Committee appointed by the Mad Parliament in 1258, were now
unnecessary. The king’s own ministers, backed by Parliament, became an
adequate means of enforcing the constitutional restraints embodied in
royal Charters. The problem was thus, for the time being, solved. A
proper sanction had been devised, fit to change royal promises into
realities.
To sum up, Edward’s aim of ruling as a national king implied the
frequent assembling of a central parliament composed of individuals
fitted to act as links between the Crown and the various classes of the
English nation whom he expected to contribute to the national Exchequer.
It implied also that the national business should be conducted by
ministers likely to command the confidence of that parliament.[284]
Thus, Edward’s policy dimly foreshadowed some of the most fundamental
principles of modern constitutional government—parliament,
representation, ministerial responsibility. Edward Plantagenet was, of
course, far from realizing the full meaning of these conceptions, and if
he had realized it, he would have been most unwilling to accept them;
yet he was unconsciously helping forward the cause of constitutional
progress.
-----
Footnote 284:
The doctrine that the _Commune Concilium_ should have some voice in
the appointment of the Ministers of the Crown had indeed been acted
upon on several occasions even in the reign of Henry III. See Stubbs,
_Const. Hist._, II. 41.
-----
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account