Home > History > The Magnum Concilium: the Germ of Parliament

The Magnum Concilium: the Germ of Parliament

The Accord of Winchester, with William I's signature

The Accord of Winchester, with William I's signature

“William the king extends friendly greetings to William the bishop and Geoffrey the port-reeve and all the citizens of London, both French and English.  And I declare to you that I wish that you to have all the laws of which you were worthy in King Edward’s time.  And I want every child to be his father’s heir after his father dies.  And I will not tolerate that any man harms you.  God preserve you.”

King William the Conqueror was able to rule his lands virtually unchallenged, but even he was but human.  His lands spread from the Scottish border to deep into France, and he couldn’t know the ins and outs of every problem.  His court, the Curia Regis, could only do so much.  Therefore Great Councils, the Magnum Concilium, was born.

The Magnum Concilium was born out of a need to represent the strongest interests of the realm before the King to address grievances, hear judicial pleas, and discuss matters of public concern.  From this, parliament eventually grew.

William’s sons continued this practice, but as time went on, the interests of the Barons and the clergy increasingly differed from that of the King; worse, the country, gradually getting wealthier after the civil wars of the tenth and eleventh Centuries, rankled and revolted under taxation decreed from above.  Eventually, as some point in the early twelth Century, the communitas, or communities of the realm were permitted to take part in fiscal discussions.

When summoning a Concilium, the King would issue Writs of Summons, as the Queen still does, requiring law officers, such as High Sherriffs, to nominate representatives of the communitas, the towns and countryside, in the form of knights and burgesses, to attend.  Some High Sherriffs preferred to allow their regions to elect their representatives from among the few wealthy men that existed – though most didn’t.

The communitas would meet with the King, the clergy and the nobles to discuss matters of finance and taxation (the meetings often timed to coincide with sessions of the Court of Exchequer), but would be dismissed when the agenda moved to matters of high policy, legislation, and waging war.

Magna Concilia were frequently used as councils of war before a major battle, with evidence in some surviving Writs of knights being summoned ‘with arms’.  Over time, kings increasingly saw Magna Concilia not only as a means of gaining advice on policy and to inform their subjects of their will, but as a means to quieten discontent and encourage cooperation against powerful foes.  A king who seeks to involve, engage and compromise will not be labelled a tyrant so easily, and could undermine the power base of a strong subordinate.

At some point, the term ‘parliament’ arose to coexist with that of ‘Concilium’ and also ‘colloquy’, as is evidenced in the numerous Pipe Rolls (a certain form of Treasury record) dating from the late twelth Century.  The significance of the Magnum Concilium’s role in the heart of English political life was reflected in this change – the word ‘Council’ was fast ceasing to adequately reflect its import and purpose.  Technically, the Magnum Concilium (i.e. a meeting purely of nobles, clergy and the Sovereign) was never abolished, and indeed, its last summons occurred in 1640 under Charles I, in the wake of his catastrophic defeat in the Covenanters War.

In 2008, Lord Glanusk, most likely tongue-in-cheek, proposed the reconvening of a Magnum Concilium, following the ejection of almost all the hereditary peers from the House of Lords.

It is unusual that in England, unlike other countries, such as France and Scotland, the term ‘Estates-General’ never really caught on and ‘parliament’ became the term.  Englishmen’s views of the word ‘parliament’ were that of a fundamentally political assembly; this is probably why it did not, unlike the Estates-Generals, eventually become reduced to a mere court of law.  That, and the achievements of Simon de Montfort.

Categories: History
  1. hivesofactivity
    April 29, 2010 at 11:09 am

    I once heard Hans Blix remark that it was interesting that Britain had a Parliament, from the verb “to speak”, and the Russians had a Duma, from the verb “to think”…

  2. Liz
    April 29, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    how do you know this much?!

  3. April 29, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    Hives – sounds about right! I’d love to investigate more fully at some point in the future the histories of parliaments in other countries.

    Liz – most of it is research really. Feel free to suggest topics 🙂

  4. May 1, 2010 at 9:02 am

    I usually wouldn’t comment on a blog entry like this, because I have nothing to dispute, add, or argue about.

    But … keep ’em coming. This is fascinating.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: