[1] See discussion in Aristotle's Politics.
[2] When the system of four estates was replaced in Sweden by a bicameral parliament in 1866, it essentially copied the model derived from the British model and its imitators.
[3] The United States copied Britain and many other countries, particularly in the Americas, copied the United States.
[4] Australia and its States are an example.
[5] Interestingly, this doctrine was evolved not directly for this purpose, but to improve the position of late medieval princes against the claims of the pope to be their overlord.
[6] The concept of the monarchy being theoretically elective, but in practice chosen from the 'royal family', was not unique to England but existed in Scandinavia. For example, in Sweden the monarchy was elective until 1544 and in Denmark until 1661.
[7] The word Parliament itself is derived form Norman French meaning discussion, so that in the Middle Ages the English Parliament was for a long time seen as calling representatives together for a discussion rather than as an institution.
[8] From 1291, which still exists as the annual meeting in a few Cantons.
[9] Traces of the original elective procedure are still to be found in the modern coronation ceremony.
[10] Hence the use of the term Elector to describe the rules of the many German States. An example of how the system operated was that following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the King of Sweden enjoyed three votes in the diet based on the Swedish possessions in Pomerania gained in the preceding 30 years war.
[11] As was Pope Gregory's enforcement of celibacy of the clergy.
[12] For example, in Sweden the monarchy did not become hereditary until 1544, and in Denmark not until 1661.
[13] House of Lords Act 1999(UK), s.2.
[14] Tenants in Chief were those who held land directly of the King under the feudal system, for practical reasons they probably only ever met in 1086 and 1116, see Taswell-Langmead's Constitutional History, 11th edition (1960) at 127-128.
[15] See Taswell-Langmead's Constitutional History, 11th edition (1960) at 142.
[16] This indicates the deliberative purposes of the assembly
[17] Internet Medieval Source Book: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html from summonses in E. P. Cheyney, trans., University of Pennsylvania. Dept. of History: Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European history, published for the Dept. of History of the University of Pennsylvania., Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press [1897]. Vol. 1, No. 6, pp. 33-35.
[18] These would have ended up in the House of Lords when bicameralism emerged.
[19] Internet Medieval Source Book: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html from summonses in E. P. Cheyney, trans., University of Pennsylvania. Dept. of History: Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European history, published for the Dept. of History of the University of Pennsylvania., Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press [1897]. Vol. 1, No. 6, pp. 33-35.
[20] Again these would have ended up in the House of Lords when bicameralism emerged.
[21] Internet Medieval Source Book: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html from summonses in E. P. Cheyney, trans., University of Pennsylvania. Dept. of History: Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European history, published for the Dept. of History of the University of Pennsylvania., Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press [1897]. Vol. 1, No. 6, pp. 33-35.
[22] In 1536 Henry VIII's Act of Union of England and Wales granted one representative to each of the 13 Welsh Counties and 14 Welsh Boroughs. This smaller representation was not unreasonable given the smaller average size of Welsh Counties and Boroughs.
[23] The only other changes being the addition of one member from each Welsh county and borough in 1543, two members for each of the Ancient Universities of Oxford and Cambridge in 1604, 45 members and 16 peers from Scotland as a result of the Union with Scotland in 1707 and 28 peers and the appropriate number of members from Ireland as a result of the Union with Ireland in 1800.
[24] Also, new boroughs could, and were regularly, easily be created by grant of a Royal Charter; whereas new counties were never created (until well after the Great Reform Act of 1832).
[25] By 25 Hen.8 c.19 Convocation was forbidden to enact constitutions or canons without the king's licence.
[26] Taswell-Langmead's Constitutional History, 11th edition (1960) at 151.
[27] The idea of an assembly of tenants in chief was a precursor of the House of Lords.
[28] This principle carries over into the law of landlord and tenant to this day, whereby denial of the landlord's title brings about an automatic forfeiture of a lease.
[29] By the early 15th century, most persons were holding as tenants in chief of the Crown, or had commuted feudal dues into monetary payments.
[30] United States Constitution, Art II, s2 (2).
[31] 15 Edw2.
[32] G. M. Trevelyan: History of England Longmans, Green & Co.Ltd. 1926, at 195; Taswell-Langmead's Constitutional History, 11th edition (1960) at 152-3.
[33] At Scara Brae in the Orkneys internal latrines with stone pipe work and quite sophisticated stone furniture has been found.
[34] Taswell-Langmead's Constitutional History, 11th edition, p.13.
[35] In 1642, when Charles I raised his standard at Nottingham to presage the start of the Civil War he was joined by approximately one third of the Commons and two thirds of the Lords.
[36] For example, the failure of the Spanish Armada in 1588, which had been designed to return England to the catholic fold which, incidentally, would have meant the demise of parliamentary independence. See also the explanations given for the development of democracy in some countries rather than others by James Q Wilson in Democracy for All? Commentary, 109(3) (March 2000) http://www.Commentarymagazine.com.
[37] Act of Supremacy 1534.
[38] See Statute of Uses 1535, Wills Act 1540, and legislation paving the way for dissolution of the monasteries, which greatly reduced Church landholdings for as much as one third of the Land in England to about a tenth.
[39] The final part of his will was ignored in 1603 when James I acceded in spite of Henry VIII's stipulation that his line be exclude in favour of the junior Suffolk Line, see Taswell-Langmead's Constitutional History, 11th edition (1960) at 330.
[40] However, there was reluctance to pass some legislation, notably the Statute of Uses in 1535.
[41] On 3 September 1658.
[42] So called because they had so few voters that they were in the 'pocket' of some individual.
[43] Where for some reason such as control of a borough by a clique, or the general operation of a corrupt practice, in some cases openly selling the seat to the highest bidder, the member was not properly representative.
[44] In fact, it was only late in the 19th century as the Whig element in the aristocracy gradually faded away, that a strong conservative majority appeared in the House of Lords.
[45] These are resolved by procedural rules which establish a conference committee consisting of equal members of both houses, whose agreed version of the legislation, if any, must be put to a vote in each house.
[46] As in the case of enactment of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, following a series of Constitutional Conventions in the Australian Colonies in the 1890's.
[47] This 'snapshot' theory has been expounded in more detail by the author in relation to Australia, New South Wales, Canada and the United States in a contribution entitled: The British Influence on the Australian Constitution to the book: Republic or Monarchy? Legal and Constitutional Issue 1994, University of Queensland Press particularly at 138-143.
[48] Very considerable discussion took place at the Australasian Federal Convention in the 1890's on the form of the Senate as a basis for federal representation. See Constitutional and International Law Perspectives (University of Queensland Press 2000, ISBN 0 7022 3160 6) Chapter 2: N. Aroney Federal representation and the framers of the Australian Constitution, extensively citing the convention debates on the need for a n upper house to represent the States.
[49] The only recent example of a tricameral legislature is that which operated in the Republic of South Africa in the 1980's. This replaced the bicameral legislature set up in 1909 under the South Africa Act 1909 (UK), and itself gave way to a single chamber legislature which was elected in 1994 after the dismantling of apartheid. Many would question whether this was a genuine attempt at democracy as opposed to a last desperate attempt by the leaders of the white minority to cling to power. There was a chamber each for the Whites, Coloured and Indians respectively. However, matters wer so organised that the Whites had ultimate control.
[50] Discussed in detail by the author in The British Influence on the Australian Constitution one of the Chapters in the book: Republic or Monarchy? Legal and Constitutional Issue 1994, University of Queensland Press
[51] United States Constitution, Art I, s 7.
[52] The United States did not adopt the limitations on upper house powers declared in the resolutions of 1671 and 1678 of the Commons mentioned above, but this may have been because sufficient colonial legislatures has been established in the mid 17th century there and had established different traditions
[53] Australian Constitution, ss 53,57.
[54] By 25 Hen.8 c.19 Convocation was forbidden to enact constitutions or canons without the king's licence.
[55] Virtually all other European constitutions evolved systems based on three or more estates. Even in England there was at one time the possibility that lawyers and merchants would have forms two separate sub-estates, Taswell-Langmead's Constitutional History, 11th edition (1960) at 151.
[56] Persons who held land directly of the Crown as Lord rather than from some lesser lord.
[57] Taswell-Langmead's Constitutional History, 11th edition (1960) at 152.
[58] Taswell-Langmead's Constitutional History, 11th edition (1960) at 155.
[59] This argument has recently (20 February 2001 see report in The Times) been advanced by Lord Sattchi when introducing a private members bill to change the rule in the Parliament Act 1911 that the House of Lords may not amend financial measures. This has occurred little more than a year after the drastic reduction of the hereditary element in that House.
[60] Taswell-Langmead's Constitutional History, 11th edition (1960) at 160, quoting Rotuli Parliamentorum, ii, 252, no 35.
[61] Section 54 provides that an act appropriating moneys shall contain no other provision.