History Questions

[Anonymous]

I am preparing to teach about the events leading up to the American Revolution. Therefore, I must learn about these events in detail. I have some questions about this era. I’ve looked online for answers but it has been very time consuming and I have yet to find those answers. (Our text is useless.) I know many home school teachers frequent this board. Perhaps you, or others, can help me. I am in search of information about the relationship between Parliament and the king.

How did members of Parliament get to serve during the years leading up to the American Revolution? Were they voted in by English society in free elections or appointed by the King? Was the king the head of Parliament? What exactly was the relationship betweent the two?

I understand that members of Parliament believed that they had legal authority in the colonies and had the right to tax the colonies. Why then does the Declaration of Independence state in essence that the authority to govern belongs to the people rather than to kings? (This goes back to that relationship between Parliament and the king.)

Lastly, I understand that the colonists were “upset” about “taxation without representation.” Does this mean that they were not represented in Parliament or in England or both? **Could **they have been represented in Parliament if they wanted to be?

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful replies.

 

[Grayton]

Anonymous:

How did members of Parliament get to serve during the years leading up to the American Revolution? Were they voted in by English society in free elections or appointed by the King? Was the king the head of Parliament? What exactly was the relationship betweent the two?

The King was not the head of Parliament. The King was the unifying leadership in the British Empire. But by the time of the American Revolution, political governance rested in the Parliament, led by a Prime Minister chosen from among the representatives of Parliament.

The English Parliament was then, and is now, divided into a House of Lords and a House of Commons. The House of Lords was unelected. The House of Commons was elected by the voting population, but only a small number of men could vote in those days. Moreover, some members of the House of Commons were elected from what later came to be called “rotten boroughs” - jusridictions with only a small number of voters. Under this system, a small country estate might be able to elect a member of Parliament with a vote equal to the voters in a large city.

So most Englishmen were not “represented” in Parliament in the late 18th Century - not in the way we expect to be represented today.

 

[Grayton]

Anonymous:

I understand that the colonists were “upset” about “taxation without representation.” Does this mean that they were not represented in Parliament or in England or both? **Could **they have been represented in Parliament if they wanted to be?

No colonists were represented in the English Parliament. No colonists from the thirteen colonies or Canada, India, the West Indies, etc. Certainly, some colonists visited England and may have had some influence among some leaders, but they did not have “a vote” on how the British Empire was run.

Paul Johnson, in his book, “A History of the American People” (Harper Collins 1997) wrote on pages 133-134: “Moreover there were plenty of people in London, led by Pitt i.e., the great British statesman William Pitt the Elder], ready to agree with the colonists that parliament had no right to tax them in this way.”

Parliament could have voted to grant representation to colonists. This was not something the colonists could just assert on their own.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your time and attention to this. Note that I have several irons in the fire tonight but so appreciate this detailed response.

The English Parliament was then, and is now, divided into a House of Lords and a House of Commons. The House of Lords was unelected.

Does unelected mean appointed by the king? That would make sense.

I have the curriculum in hand and it is clear about what I am to teach about Parliament’s belief in its right to legislate and tax the American colonists. However a jump is made in the subsequent lesson about our Declaration of Independence in which students are to understand that the right to govern, which I interpret as the right to legislate and tax, is said to belong to the people and not to kings.

Thanks.

 

[Grayton]

You can read a brief history of the House of Lords at:

parliament.uk/documents/upload/HofLBpHistory.pdf

Before the 19th Century, the House of Lords was composed of “hereditary peers”, that is lords who inherited their status, and sometimes, bishops were also allowed to be members.

Beginning in the 19th Century, the King or Queen was allowed to appoint anyone he or she chose to be a “life peer.” Such a person could be a member of the House of Lords for life, but the title did not pass to his or her heir.

 

[Grayton]

Anonymous:

I have the curriculum in hand and it is clear about what I am to teach about Parliament’s belief in its right to legislate and tax the American colonists. However a jump is made in the subsequent lesson about our Declaration of Independence in which students are to understand that the right to govern, which I interpret as the right to legislate and tax, is said to belong to the people and not to kings.

I will share my understanding, in hope that it might help you. But you are touching upon some pretty deep philisophical issues.

From very early times, many societies have recognized that the rulers should not have absolute power over people. Those people with some power can replace the ruler, so the ruler must have their consent to some degree. Unpopular Kings were overthrown from time to time.

In England in 1215, King John I caused much grief among the barons of the land. They resisted him, and finally forced the King to sign the Magna Carta in 1215, by which he agreed to certain limitations on his power over them. Since then, Englishmen have kept alive a healthy sense that they have some degree of liberty that no King can take away. Over time, the scope of that liberty grew and grew. Obviously, the power to tax is always a point of tension.

The English settlers in the Thirteen Colonies drew upon that sense of liberty when they argued that they should not be taxed by a government that did not allow them representation. But they had many other grievances, and generally believed that the government in England was using them unfairly and limiting their potential.

The American colonists thought they were exercising thier rights as Englishmen against an oppressive King and Parliament. They overthrew the King’s power and the English Parliament’s power in their territory and eventually established a new republican style government. But they could have simply chosen a new King (and some seriously considered doing so.)

But both the colonists and those back in England would agree, in principle, that they had the right to limit a King’s powr over them, and to rebel against a tryannic King.

 

[darcee]

I thought they were called “pocket boroughs” not “rotten boroughs”

-D

 

[Grayton]

You might find it interesting to read about the American revolution from the British perspective. There is a nice summary at the following web address:

britannia.com/history/naremphist4.html

There, it is written:

"The publication of The Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson which was signed by 56 delegates was no doubt influenced by the publication of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense written in July 1776. It created a major shift in political emphasis. One of its immediate effects was to create a will and strength to see the thing through. Before the Declaration, the revolutionaries had seen their cause as mainly fighting for their rights as British subjects against a stubborn English Parliament; after the Declaration, they saw their fight as necessary to protect their natural rights as free men against a tyrannical and out-of-touch king. This indeed was a cause worth fighting for. "

 

[Grayton]

darcee:

I thought they were called “pocket boroughs” not “rotten boroughs”
-D

They were also called “Pocket boroughs” Historians have used both terms,“pocket boroughs” and “rotten boroughs”. I did a Google search and found many references to both.

It seems that some of these districts only had one or two voters.

 

[Anonymous]

Thank you, Grayton, for your detailed replies and for the links. You have clarified some things for me and intrigued me further. I think it’s a great idea to entertain the British perspective and to explore British history. Thanks again.