How does the structure of English government differ from its structure in the 18th century?

Question

...specifically the moment of the American Revolution.

Is it the case that Parliament operates the same way now as it did then and that the only difference is that it operates with fewer restrictions from the crown?

Was English government considered "representative" at the time of the American Revolution, and is it considered so now?

Thank you. I am writing an essay about the causes of the American Revolution for my own purposes and will be very grateful for any help provided here.

Answer 1

As you say, it IS the case that Parliament operates about the same then as it did now, except that the crown has greater powers.

Parliament was sufficiently powerful that the UK could 'muddle along' even with two 'mad' kings in a row. (George II & III)  But, there was a great decline in royal power after George III, such as though George III took the blame for losing the Am. colonies,

Prime MInister Pitt took the credit for defeating Napoleon.

Government was considered representative, except that SOME members of Parliament were still appointed, and the size of the ridings (what Americans call a district) varied widely.  Thus one member of Parliament could be elected by thousands of votes; another - in the case of Old Sarum -

elected only by 2 or 3.  (I am not making this up - surveys of the ridings hadn't been done in centuries, so some of these abuses remained, well into the 19th century.)

Answer 2

It was probably better in the 18th century  as it worked then,at least the fuel was cheaper!

Answer 3

Parliament was supposed to be representational in the 18th c. I don't enough about British gov. of that time or the present except from what I've read in historical novels that try to give a cultural impression of that era.

Because of the social and economic structure of Brittish society of that time,  I would believe that 75% of the citizenry didn't feel represented by Parliment. Especially the colonists. Just as corporations have many lobbyists that push for their agenda in Washington today; the wealthy merchants of the trade companies in the 18th c. influenced politics in Parliment , so they could control trade and increase their wealth.

Not enough members questioned the wisdom of various trade acts such as the Townshend Act or the East India Act. Most saw it as a way to increase the Wealth of England because it provided new taxes and thus increase Brittish power in the world. Either they did not understand or didn't care how trade policies that favored a few English companies, could be so burdensome to the colonists.

My knowledge about trade of the 18th c. is limited. I suggest you go to Wikepedia.com

My simplest answer is Colonial merchants did business by arranging for the transportation of goods from the colonies to ports in Europe, West Indies and England and visa versa. This was carry trade. Merchants usually didn't own ships and didn't always buy the goods they sold. A merchant made agreements for a percentage of the profit where the merchant would find a buyer. When the ship returned the merchant would take his cut of the profits and give the rest to his suppliers. The merchant, out of his portion of the profits would pay the captain for the cargo he carried. When merchants were able to freely trade all over the Atlantic, the colonies prospered. It support many levels of trade from those that supplied goods like the farmer and distiller, to the seaman, craftsman and the shipwright.

Trade suffered when merchant ships had to go to England first to have their cargo inspected, and had to pay extra duty  tax. This meant merchants had to have cargo unload twice (once in England and then at the port of destination). This wasted precious time, so perishables rotted and goods were late getting to their destinations. They had to pay for extra freight, wages and storage of goods in England until they could be inspected. The following Acts may have had good reasons for beinging made law, but to many colonists it hurt trade and they feared that the colonies would be reduced to poverty and servitude, making a few companies rich and owners of America.

In the Townsend act, goods that were imported to the Colonies such as paper, ink, paint, linen, etc were taxed to pay for the support of  governors in the colonies, pay for French and Indian war, and to curb smuggling.

Some colonists felt that it favored only a few companies, so they were forced to buy only from them. To sell or trade with other companies or countries not aproved by this act, made one a smuggler.

the East India Act gave the East India Company the right to sell tea and some other products duty free. (Now at three in the morning my memory may be fuzzy. ) If I find other info. I will give you another answer.