The Psychology of Intelligence

Question

Consider the shift from answering the royal speech "paragraph by paragraph" to a "single resolution." What does this change suggest about the evolving nature of parliamentary debate or the relationship between the government and the sovereign?

Synthesized answer

The shift from answering the royal speech "paragraph by paragraph" to a "single resolution" suggests a change in how parliamentary debate addressed the government's policy and its relationship with the sovereign. Previously, the royal speech was answered section by section, implying a more detailed and perhaps granular engagement with the proposals outlined. However, since the session of 1890–1891, "the address" is now moved as a single resolution, thanking the sovereign for the speech [1].

This change indicates that the debate now serves as a broader opportunity to range over the "whole government policy," with amendments introduced by the opposition [1]. The government's performance is now more significantly tested, as a defeat on an amendment to the address is generally viewed as a vote of no-confidence [1]. The passages do not further elaborate on the specific implications of this shift for the relationship between the government and the sovereign, beyond indicating the increased significance of the debate on the address as a measure of confidence.

Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.

From the book

sence. The sovereign then reads his speech. If the sovereign is not present in person, the speech is read by commission. The Commons then return to their House, and an address in answer is moved in both Houses. The government of the day selects two of its supporters in each House to move and second the address, and when carrying out this honourable task they appear in levee dress. Previous to the session of 1890–1891, the royal speech was answered paragraph by paragraph, but “the address” is now moved in the form of a single resolution, thanking the sovereign for his most gracious speech. The…
Passage [3]
← Addison's Disease 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 "Address, The" Adelaer → See also Address on Wikipedia ; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer . 39691 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 — "Address, The" ​ “ADDRESS, THE,” an English parliamentary term for the reply of the Houses of Parliament (and particularly of the House of Commons) to the speech of the sovereign at the opening of a new parliament or session. There are certain formalities which distinguish this stage of parliamentary proceedings. “The king’s speech” itself is divided into three sections: the first,…
Passage [2]
← Abdera (Thrace) 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 Abdication Abdomen → See also Abdication on Wikipedia ; abdication on Wiktionary ; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer . 12965 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 — Abdication ​ ABDICATION (Lat. abdicatio , disowning, renouncing, from ab , from, and dicare , to declare, to proclaim as not belonging to one), the act whereby a person in office renounces and gives up the same before the expiry of the time for which it is held. In Roman law, the term is especially applied to the disowning of a member of a family, as the…
Passage [508]
32. As a Scotsman, Aberdeen was interested in the ecclesiastical controversy which culminated in the disruption of 1843. In 1840 he introduced a bill to settle the vexed question of patronage; but disliked by a majority in the general assembly of the Scotch church, and unsupported by the government, it failed to become law, and some opprobrium was cast upon its author. In 1843 he brought forward a similar measure “to remove doubts respecting the admission of ministers to benefices.” This Admission to Benefices Act, as it was called, passed into law, but did not reconcile the opposing parties.…
Passage [647]
lly resign the crown, and the question was discussed in parliament whether he had forfeited the throne or had abdicated. The latter designation was agreed on, for in a full assembly of the Lords and Commons, met in convention, it was resolved, in spite of James’s protest, “that King James II. having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of the kingdom, by breaking the original contract between king and people, and, by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons, having violated the fundamental laws, and having withdrawn himself out of this kingdom, has abdicated the government, and that…
Passage [509]

More questions about this book