C2362 Forced dissolution of Parliament (1/2)

Once he said the word ”disbanded”, the entire House of Commons felt as if a cold wind had blown past them. Everyone looked at Benjamin with dumbstruck silence.

Did the British Prime Minister have the right to dissolve the council? The issue was very complicated, some said yes, some said no, because the Prime Minister's rights had not been set in stone in British history, but had undergone a very significant adjustment over the years.

Dissolution of Parliament was not uncommon in England, since each time a government ended its five-year term, the king would declare it dissolved and immediately organize the next, a system of procedure in which the king was nothing more than a rubber stamp, a mouthpiece, his rights not embodied.

This was a normal dissolution of Parliament, but forced dissolution of Parliament was a rare occurrence in British history. There were two types of forced dissolution of Parliament, the first was when the Charles I forcibly settled the Parliament in 1629, then restored the feudal dictatorship.

The other is the forced dissolution of parliament, led by the prime minister, which has happened many times in history but which no prime minister would normally be willing to use.

This was the result of mutual destruction. The prime minister who had used the power of dissolution would have no future if he had offended all the members of the parliament. It would be a form of harm to his political party as well.

It is well-known that the House of Lords is made up of two parts, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. In historical development, the House of Lords was once much more powerful than the House of Commons, which was made up of the powerful aristocracy and elected members of the House of Commons.

Before the nineteenth century, when human society was ruled by nobles, the power of the House of Lords naturally rose.

But with the development of the times and the awakening of the people's consciousness, the power of the elected members of Parliament began to grow, and gradually the power of the House of Commons began to approach that of the House of Lords.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the House of Commons and the House of Commons were on a par, and no one could deny that the House of Commons had become an irrevocable trend in replacing the House of Lords.

That is to say, as the rights of the elected House of Commons grow, the prime minister's rule of the country becomes more and more inseparable from their support.

Against this background, if a prime minister had not yet ended his term of office, and his administration had already disappointed the entire House of Commons, then the prime minister's various policy proposals would certainly be constrained in every respect, and even impossible to pass through in Parliament.

This was too good to be true. When the conflict became unmanageable, there would usually be two situations, one of which was a case of Parliament not trusting the Prime Minister to step down, just as Gladstone was doing now.

This was a common occurrence. After all, all political parties were represented in Parliament, and the impeachment of the Prime Minister was basically a piece of cake. People were already used to it.

The second was extreme. If the powerful Prime Minister was unwilling to give in and decided to become enemies with the whole Council, then he would use his power to disband the Council.

But that right was not his, it was given to the king by the constitution. Piet, who had once asked the king to force a dissolution of the House of Commons because he did not have the support of the House of Commons, re-elected the members of the House of Commons.

That is to say, the Prime Minister's forcible dissolution of the National Assembly began in 1784. It was only after Peter that the British political scene developed such a practice, and it was eventually written into the constitution.

But it must be made clear that the Prime Minister had no right to dissolve Parliament, he had only the right to make a request to the King, and of course, since the English Constitution restricted most of the royal power, the King would not normally refuse the Prime Minister's proposal, and the disbanded Parliament knew this, and would not blame the King if it was forcibly dissolved.

The point of animosity, then, was naturally with the Prime Minister.

If he understood the history of the evolution of British politics, then he understood Benjamin's madness. He actually had to exercise this extremely dangerous, heavy power just because he was impeached.