In the UK the Sovereign’s power to refuse assent is allowed to remain precisely because it’s understood that it will never be used. The last time assent was refused was over three hundred years ago.
Remember too that the “Sovereign” generally has no independent power of action; what he or she does, or declines to do, is in accordance with ministerial “advice”, and the ministers offering that advice are (simplifying a little) drawn from the political party possessing the majority of the seats in the House of Commons.
Incidentally, we’re British citizens, not “subjects”!
I would imagine that the respective federal and state constitutions would touch upon the legality of trial by combat.
It’s one of those odd items that has been ignored for centuries, as I recall, NO state ever prohibited it, whatsoever. Mostly because it’s preposterous, in this modern age, to consider someone requesting it.
I was unaware that all of the minsters who advise the Queen are from commons, I thought they’d be from the house or lords. One learns something new every day!
Ministers advising Her Majesty can be from either the Lords or the Commons, I thought. Lord Palmerston was PM around the time of the American Civil War, for instance, and there are lords in the Cabinet even now. Certainly the current practice is that the PM, at least, must be in the Commons: Cameron ministry - Wikipedia
It was only abolished for England and Wales in 1813 or so, precisely because someone had indeed requested it!
One principle generally applied in colonial courts was that the colonists had brought England’s common law with them, but only to the extent that that law was applicable to the conditions in the colony. I have no idea whether anybody ever did, but I would guess that in principle it could have been argued that trial by combat was not so applicable, being relevant only to a mediaeval feudal society.
You’ve (understandably) misunderstood what I said: ministers are indeed drawn from both Houses of Parliament, but they’re still only drawn from the political party possessing the majority of the seats in the House of Commons. Thus, if the Labour Party win a general election by gaining more seats in the Commons than any other party, their leader will become Prime Minister, and his or her ministers will be picked from amongst (a) Labour members of the Commons and (b) Labour members of the Lords even if there are more members of another party in the House of Lords.
There is no legal requirement that ministers be members of either House of Parliament, but the doctrine of “responsibility” does require it; a minister is expected to defend his or her actions in parliament, which would be impossible unless he or she was a member of one of its Houses. Nevertheless, once in a blue moon a minister is indeed appointed who is not a member of either House. There was even a brief period in 1963 when the Prime Minister was not a member of either House!
A further simplification in what I said earlier was that we presently have a coalition government in the UK, a situation which is even more unusual. The coalition is a voluntary agreement between two parties which collectively possess a majority of seats in the House of Commons; ministers are thus drawn from both members of both parties, from both the Commons and the Lords.
What you say is entirely correct, except that Lord Palmerston was a member of the House of Commons.
Before the House of Lords Reform Act 1999 came into effect, two groups of people bearing peerage titles could be members of the House of Commons. By convention, oldest sons of substantive peers use a “courtesy title”; thus the “Earl of Arundel” could have been an MP because he wasn’t actually a peer, even though named as if he were. The other group, of which Palmerston was one, were holders of titles in the Peerage of Ireland. The Acts of Union allowed holders of titles in the Peerage of Ireland* to choose from amongst their ranks a certain number of so-called “representive peers”, who became members of the House of Lords for life; the remaining holders of titles in the Peerage of Ireland were entitled to be elected as members of the House of Commons. (Holders of titles in the Peerage of Scotland also chose representative peers, but in their case the election was for the life of a parliament, so those not elected were not entitled to vote for, or be, members of the House of Commons.)
The reason why I’ve used this long-winded description is because “Irish peer” is ambiguous; someone from Ireland could hold a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, which would be treated in the same way as a title in the Peerage of England, ie. they would automatically be a member of the House of Lords.
Lord Curzon is another notable example of an Irish peer. In his case, an Irish title was given to him so as not to interfere with his future political career. As it happens, some years later he was also given a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Curzon’s seat in the House of Lords was an issue in the 1920s, when he hoped to become Prime Minister; although as I understand it, his seat in the Lords was at least partly used as a polite excuse to deny the job to someone who was far from universally liked within his own party.
The last PM with a seat in the House of Lords was Lord Home [rhymes with “fume”], who used the recently passed Peerages Act 1963 to “disclaim” his peerage; as mentioned previously, this left him without a seat in either House for a short period, until he was returned at a by-election specially staged in order to get him into the Commons.
As the Curzon case demonstrates, the power to create peers who could nevertheless sit in the Commons was a handy weapon in any government’s armoury, which is why the Acts of Union expressly limited the number of new titles that could be created in the Peerage of Ireland.
Because of the existence of courtesy titles and those Irish titles, you’ll find a surprising number of “Lords” taking part in Commons debates in the nineteenth century. For example, the Commons debate of Feb. 4, 1830 on the King’s Speech had each of the following either speaking or voting: the Earl of Darlington, the Marquis of Blandford, Lord Althorp, Lord Howick, “Lord P. Leveson Gower”, Lord Tullamore, Lord Bentinck, Viscount Morpeth, Viscount Normanby, Lord Osborne, Viscount Encombe, Viscount Palmerston, Lord John Russell, the Earl of Sefton, and the Earl of Uxbridge! :eek:
Thanks for the clarification. I DO appreciate it.
I’m one of the rare folks who enjoy learning new things from all odd manner of fields.
But, that reflects the nature of my multiple careers in my half century of life, essentially becoming “A jack of all trades” and master of a handful.
For it is true, knowledge is power and a powerful weapon. One that is legal to carry in any nation of the world and if sufficient, prevents the necessity of any other weapon.
I don’t have a problem with a verbose answer, indeed, I prefer it!
It gives far more facts than a terse answer and prevents confusion.
In some topics, I’ll utilize the verbose exclusively, due to the highly technical or complicated nature of the subject.
But then, my life has been spent as one that is utilized as a walking encyclopedia.
To the point where, in a house with fully SIX dictionaries and three encyclopedias, I had the hardest time getting our children to do their own research, rather than simply asking me!
I made them to their OWN homework, THEY needed the knowledge, I didn’t and only guided their research efforts, to their frustration at times.
