Page "Parliament of England" Paragraph 26

When a bill became law this process theoretically gave the bill the approval of each estate of the realm: the King, Lords, and Commons.

In reality this was not accurate.

The Parliament of England was far from being a democratically representative institution in this period.

It was possible to assemble the entire nobility and senior clergy of the realm in one place to form the estate of the Upper Chamber.

However, the voting franchise for the House of Commons was small ; some historians estimate that it was as little as 3 % of the adult male population.

This meant that elections could sometimes be controlled by local grandees because in some boroughs the voters were in some way dependent on local nobles or alternatively they could be bought off with bribes or kickbacks.

If these grandees were supporters of the incumbent monarch, this gave the Crown and its ministers considerable influence over the business of parliament.

Many of the men elected to parliament did not relish the prospect of having to act in the interests of others.

So a rule was enacted, still on the statute book today, whereby it became illegal for members of the House of Commons to resign their seat unless they were granted a position directly within the patronage of the monarchy ( today this latter restriction leads to a legal fiction allowing de facto resignation despite the prohibition ).

However, it must be emphasised that while several elections to parliament in this period were in some way corrupt by modern standards, many elections involved genuine contests between rival candidates, although the ballot was not secret.