How do parliamentary acts become law?


The current position of the crown in the British constitutional system is the result of a centuries-long process which, in the same way as it changed the position of the crown, first strengthened the power of parliament and later de facto transferred a large part of parliamentary power to the cabinet and the prime minister . In this respect, the development of the crown in the political system of Great Britain cannot be separated from the general constitutional development. The most important events in this context are: the Magna Charta Libertatum (1215), which obliged the English king to seek the advice of secular and spiritual lords when issuing taxes; the consultation of the king took place in the "Curia Regis", for which the designation "parliament" later became naturalized. Over time, the “Curia Regis”, the Council of Thrones, developed into a fully trained corporate body, which also differentiated itself into “Lords” and “Commons”, into “House of Lords” and “House of Commons”. In 1628, the now so-called “Parliament” was included in the “Petition of Rights” from König Charles I. from the Stuart-Dynasty confirm that it was allowed to meet at certain intervals and that the king had to clear up complaints from the subjects against his officials before granting him the required taxes and expenses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. See also the collection of the most important British constitutional laws Peter Cornelius Mayer-Tasch, The Constitutions of Europe, 2nd edition, Munich 1975, p.229ff.Google Scholar
  2. On the overall complex of British constitutional law, see the comprehensive work of Karl Lowenstein, Constitutional Law and State Practice of Great Britain, Tübingen 1967.Google Scholar
  3. Basically cf. the classical work of A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of Law of the Constitution, first published in London 1885. Google Scholar
  4. See. Karl-Ulrich Meyn, The "Constitutional Conventions" in the British constitutional order. At the same time a contribution to the three-party system and the European referendum, in: Public Law Yearbook, N. F., Vol. 25 (1976), pp. 133-192. Meyn explains the most important basic lines of British understanding of the constitution in connection with the constitutional conventions.Google Scholar
  5. See. Ivor Jennings, Cabinet Government, London 1959.Google Scholar
  6. Cf. in particular the study by, which was distinguished by its systematic access to the usual constitutional representations S.A. de Smith, Constitutional and Administrative Law, 2nd ed., Harmondsworth 1974. Google Scholar
  7. See. Economist dated July 14, 1986. Google Scholar
  8. Compare with this already Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution (first edition 1867), Introduction by R. H. S. Crossman, London and Glasgow 1963, p. 119. Google Scholar
  9. See. de Smith, loc. cit., p.111 Google Scholar
  10. See. Times dated January 17, 1984. Google Scholar
  11. See. Guardian dated July 18, 1985. Google Scholar
  12. Compare with this and the following Kurt Kluxen, History and Problems of Parliamentarism, Frankfurt / M. 1983, as well Kluxens own contributions in: Kluxen (Ed.), Parliamentarism, 3rd ed., Cologne and Berlin 1971. Google Scholar
  13. See John P. Mackintosh, The British Cabinet, 3rd ed., London 1977. Google Scholar
  14. See. Meyn, loc. cit. 167. Google Scholar
  15. See. David Butler (Ed.), Coalitions in British Politics, London and Basingstoke 1978.Google Scholar
  16. See. Bagehot, loc. cit., p.111 Google Scholar
  17. See. de Smith, loc. cit., 5.101.Google Scholar
  18. See. Rainer Klemmt, The Responsibility of Ministers in Great Britain, Tübingen 1983.Google Scholar
  19. See. Robert T. McKenzie, British Political Parties, 2nd ed., London 1964.Google Scholar
  20. See. de Smith, loc. cit., page 101 f.Google Scholar
  21. This also applies to the former Prime Minister, who was otherwise extremely communicative Harold Wilson, The Governance of Britain, London 1976.Google Scholar
  22. See. Financial Times dated July 23, 1986. Google Scholar
  23. See. de Smith, loc. cit., 144 f.Google Scholar
  24. See. Economist dated July 26, 1986. Google Scholar
  25. See also R. H. S. Crossman, a former Labor politician, whose analysis is based on Tradition Bagehots link: Inside View: Three Lectures on Prime Ministerial Government, London 1972, p.41, 53. Google Scholar
  26. See. Richard Rose and Dennis Kavanagh, The Monarchy in Contemporary Political Culture, in: Comparative Politics, 8th year (1975/76), 548-576.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 1989

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available