Hope I'm not too late! Now this is an interesting question and I'll try to bring in some historiography at the end because that it very important in gaining a full understanding.

Now if were going into semantics during the Anglo-Saxon period 'England' as a polity didn't exist because there were many kingdoms and it wasn't till the 10th century under the House of Wessex that power and land was unified to create the 'Kingdom of the English'.

From the 7thn century to the Norman Conquest there existed the Witenagemot (Witan) which was a meeting or assembly of all the major landowners, nobles, churchmen or even traders depending on the period who would advise the king. Also depending on the literature your reading sometimes the term Witan is used to describe assemblies present in the localities of the previous kingdoms post-unification, so the Witan of Northumbria, Wessex, East-Anglia, etc.

Now there is considerable debate to the actual functions and the power wielded by the Witan and assembly members throughout the period. For example they would advise on matters of taxation, justice and domestic or external security, but depending on the contemporary situation, such as the weak rule of Ethelred the Unready the Witan was able to exercise more power, though it must be noted that it was still very much a small advisory council compared to the larger gatherings of the 17th century Parliaments.

Now on to some historiography! The idea that British Parliament had ancient origins in the Witan was mainly expounded by the Whig historians of the 18th century who suffered from a problem of presentism in seeing the British Parliamentary state as the apex of human-political development and an outcome of the 'march of progress' of history. Additionally these Whig historians commonly liked to say many features of the British state derived from pre-Norman Conquest origins, which were sometimes called the 'Norman Yoke', because of course at the time there was much political and military enmity between France and Britain.

Medievalists do recognise the similarities of the Witan assemblies and the later Parliaments and some may point towards them sharing in the general tradition of landowner representation in England, but contemporary debate recognises the centuries gap between the Conquest and later Parliaments and the Whig tendency to romanticise the origins of the traditions of the British political state to ancient times.

Bibliography:

Barlow, Frank. William I and the Norman Conquest. London, 1965.

Chibnall, Marjorie. The Debate on the Norman Conquest. Manchester, 1999.^1

Davies, Wendy, ed. Short Oxford History of the British Isles: From the Vikings to the Normans. Oxford, 2003.

Edit: Woops forgot a bib reference.

^1 This is a brilliant resource for historiographical information on the late Anglo-Saxon and Norman period.

Edit: Sentence on Norman Yoke and bibliography formatting.

There's some controversy about the nature of the witenagemot -- did it exist continuously, or was it only only convened ad hoc when needed? What powers of legislation did it have and at what time periods? Could it really depose and elect kings, or was royal "election" just a rubber-stamping ritual of fealty to the pre-determined new king? -- but it was probably the closest analogy to the parliament.