Origin and development until the early 19th century
Parliament developed from the Royal Council, which advised the king during the Middle Ages. This council, which always met for short periods of time, consisted of clerics, peers and representatives of the counties, known as knights of the shire. The most important task of the Council was to agree to taxes proposed by the Crown. Often, however, the Council required complaints from the people to be redressed before it went to a vote on taxation. Legislative powers evolved from this.
In the Model Parliament of 1295 representatives of the Boroughs, i.e. the country towns and cities, were also admitted. Thus it became the custom for each county to send two knights (Knights of the Shire) and each town two burgesses (Burgesses). At first the representatives of the towns were almost entirely powerless. While the representation of the shires was fixed, the monarch could give or take away the right of suffrage from the towns at his pleasure. Any visible aspiration for independence by the citizens would have led to the exclusion of their town from parliament. The knights of the shire were in a better position, but even they were less powerful than their fellow high nobles in the parliament, which still consisted of one chamber. The division of Parliament into two houses occurred in 1341 during the reign of Edward III, with the knights and burgesses forming the House of Commons, and the clergy and high nobles forming the House of Lords.
Although it remained subordinate to both the crown and the lords, the House of Commons acted with increasing boldness. During the Good Parliament (1376), the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Peter de la Mare, complained about the oppressive tax burden, demanded an accounting of royal expenditures, and criticized the king for his management of the military. The House of Commons even set about removing some of the royal ministers. The brave speaker was imprisoned, but released soon after the death of King Edward III. During the reign of the next monarch, Richard II, the House of Commons again began to remove errant ministers of the crown. It insisted on being allowed to control not only taxation but also public expenditure. Despite these gains in authority, the House of Commons nevertheless remained less powerful than the House of Lords and the Crown.
The influence of the crown increased still further through the civil wars of the late 15th century, while the importance of the high nobility declined. In the years that followed, the two Houses of Parliament retained little power, and the absolute supremacy of the monarch was renewed. In the 16th century, under the Tudor dynasty, the power of the crown actually increased. On the other hand, King Henry VIII, at the instigation of his senior minister Thomas Cromwell, for the first time granted Parliament a say in church and constitutional matters in order to achieve the separation of the English Church from Rome. From 1603, after the House of Stuart came to power, both the absolutist aspirations of the Crown and the self-confidence of Parliament continued to increase. Under the first two Stuart monarchs, James I and Charles I, the Crown increasingly came into conflict with the House of Commons over taxation, religion and royal powers.
Under Charles I, these disputes took such fundamental forms that they could only be decided by the English Civil War. After the victory of the parliamentary army under Oliver Cromwell, the king was condemned as a traitor and beheaded in 1649. The House of Commons abolished the Crown and House of Lords and established the English Republic for 11 years. Although in theory it was the supreme organ of the state, Cromwell ruled quasi-dictatorially as Lord Protector. Therefore, in 1660, two years after his death, there was a restoration of the monarchy and the House of Lords. King Charles II had to make concessions to the House of Commons, which his father had strictly refused. His brother and successor James II was declared deposed in 1688 in the course of the Glorious Revolution. Despite continuing to have strong powers, subsequent kings had to be careful to conduct politics in accordance with the parliamentary majority of the House of Commons.
In the 18th century, the office of prime minister emerged. Soon, the modern view prevailed that the government remained in power only as long as it had the support of Parliament. However, it was not until later that the support of the House of Commons became crucial to the government. The custom of the Prime Minister coming from the House of Commons also developed later.
The House of Commons underwent an important period of reform in the 19th century. The Crown had made very irregular use of its prerogative to grant and withdraw suffrage from the cities. Further, some anomalies had developed in city representations. Thus some once significant towns had slipped into insignificance, so-called rotten boroughs. Yet they had retained their right to send two representatives to the House of Commons. The most notorious example was Old Sarum, which had only 11 electors. In all, there were 46 constituencies with fewer than 50 electors, 19 others with fewer than 100 electors, and another 46 with fewer than 200 electors. At the same time, large cities such as Manchester did not have their own representatives, but their eligible residents could vote in the relevant county, in this case Lancashire. There were also what were known as 'west pocket boroughs' - small constituencies controlled by a few wealthy landowners and nobles whose candidates were invariably elected. In this way, for example, the respective Duke of Norfolk held eleven parliamentary seats, and the Earl of Lonsdale nine. These mandates were given to younger sons, but could also be sold or let, e.g. for £1,000 a year.
Reform Act of 1832
→ Main article: Reform Act of 1832
The House of Commons attempted to remedy these anomalies in 1831 by passing a Reform Bill. At first, the House of Lords proved unwilling to pass the bill. However, it was forced to give way when Prime Minister Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey advised King William IV to appoint a large number of new members to the House of Lords who were favourably disposed to the Bill. However, before the King could act, the Lords passed the Act in 1832. The Reform Act of 1832 disenfranchised cities that had lapsed into insignificance, created a level playing field for elections in all cities, and gave cities with large populations adequate representation. It preserved, however, many of the west pocket boroughs. In the years that followed, the House of Commons increasingly claimed decision-making powers, while the influence of the House of Lords had suffered as a result of the crisis in the wake of the Reform Act. The power of the patrons in the west pocket boroughs had also diminished. The Lords were now increasingly reluctant to throw out legislation that had passed with large majorities in the House of Commons. It also became a generally accepted political practice that the support of the House of Commons alone was sufficient for the Prime Minister to remain in office.
Many other reforms were introduced during the second half of the 19th century. The Reform Act of 1867 lowered the property threshold at which someone was eligible to vote in cities, reduced the number of representatives from less populated cities, and granted new parliamentary seats to several emerging industrial cities. The electorate was expanded by the Representation of the People Act of 1884, which lowered the required property threshold for voting in counties. The Seat Redistribution Act of the following year replaced almost all constituencies with multiple representatives with constituencies with only one representative.
Parliament Act of 1911
The next important phase in the history of the House of Commons came in the early 20th century. The Liberal government, led by Herbert Henry Asquith, introduced a series of social welfare programmes in 1908. Together with the costly arms race with Germany, the government was therefore forced to raise revenue through tax increases. Therefore, in 1909, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George, presented a so-called "People's Budget", which provided for higher taxes on wealthy landowners. However, this unpopular measure was rejected in the predominantly Conservative House of Lords.
In the campaign for the election of 15 January / 10 February 1910, the Liberals made the powers of the House of Lords their main campaign issue and thus achieved re-election. Asquith then proposed that the powers of the House of Lords be greatly reduced. The legislative process was briefly interrupted by the death of King Edward VII in May 1910; it was soon resumed under George V. After the House of Commons election in December 1910, the Asquith government was able to push through the bill that curtailed the powers of the House of Lords. The Prime Minister, with the monarch's approval, proposed that the House of Lords might be flooded with the creation of 500 Liberal peers, provided it refused to pass the Bill. The same measure had already made possible the passage of the Reform Act of 1832. The Parliament Act 1911 came into force soon afterwards and removed the legislative parity of the two Houses of Parliament. The House of Lords was now only permitted to prorogue most legislative acts for a maximum of three parliamentary sessions, or for a maximum of 2 years. The 1949 Parliament Act further restricted this to either two parliamentary sessions or a maximum of one year. With the passing of these Acts, the House of Commons has become the more powerful chamber of Parliament.
Originally, MPs received no income for their office. Most who were elected to the House of Commons had private incomes, while a few depended on the financial support of wealthy patrons. Early Labour MPs often drew income from a trade union, but this was banned by a House of Lords decision in 1910. As a consequence, a clause was inserted into the 1911 Act of Parliament which introduced diets for MPs. Government ministers had been paid before.