Page:
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 |
Next
On the restoration of Charles II. parliament was at once restored to its old constitu tion, and its sittings were revived as if they had suffered no inter ruption. No outward change had been effected by the late revo lution ; but that a stronger spirit of resistance to abuses of pre rogative had been aroused was soon to be disclosed in the deposi tion of James II. and "the glorious revolution" of 1688. At this time the full rights of parliament were explicitly declared, and securities taken for the maintenance of public liberties. The end of the Stuart dynasty marked the final triumph of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Henceforth it is never again disputed that parliament may abolish the prerogatives and alter the com mon law. (See PREROGATIVE; COMMON LAW; PRIVY COUNCIL.) The theory of a constitutional monarchy and a free parliament was established ; but after two revolutions it is curious to observe the indirect methods by which the Commons were henceforth kept in subjection to the Crown and the territorial aristocracy. The representation had long become an illusion. The knights of the shire were the nominees of nobles and great landowners ; the bor ough members were returned by the Crown, by noble patrons or close corporations ; even the representation of cities, with greater pretensions to independence, was controlled by bribery. Nor were rulers content with their control of the representation, but, after the Restoration, the infamous system of bribing the members themselves became a recognized instrument of administration. The country gentlemen were not less attached to the principles of rational liberty than their fathers, and would have resisted further encroachments of prerogatives ; but they were satisfied with the Revolution settlement and the remedial laws of William III., and no new issue had yet arisen to awaken opposition. Accordingly, they ranged themselves with one or other of the political parties into which parliament was now beginning to be divided, and bore their part in the more measured strifes of the 18th century. From the Revolution till the reign of George III. the effective power of the State was wielded by the Crown, the church and the territorial aristocracy; but the influence of public opinion since the stirring events of the i 7th century had greatly increased. Both parties were constrained to defer to it ; and, notwithstanding the flagrant defects in the representation, parliament generally kept itself in accord with the general sentiments of the country.
On the union of Scotland in 1707 important changes were made in the constitution of parliament. The House of Lords was rein forced by the addition of 16 peers, representing the peerage of Scotland, and elected every parliament; and the Scottish peers, as a body, were admitted to all the privileges of peerage, except the right of sitting in parliament or upon the trial of peers. No prerogative, however, was given to the Crown to create new peerages after the union ; and, while they are distinguished by their antiquity, their number is consequently decreasing. To the House of Commons were assigned 45 members, representing the shires and burghs of Scotland.
III.—With the reign of George III. there opened a new period in the history of parliament. Agita tion in its various forms, an active and aggressive press, public meetings and political associations, the free use of the right of petition, and a turbulent spirit among the people seriously changed the relations of parliament to the country. And the publication of debates, which was fully established in 1771, at once increased the direct responsibility of parliament to the people, and ultimately brought about other results, to which we shall presently advert.
In this reign another important change was effected in the con stitution of parliament. Upon the union with Ireland, in 1801, four
Irish bishops were added to the lords spiritual, who sat by rota tion of sessions, and represented the episcopal body of the Church of Ireland. But those bishops were deprived of their seats in par liament in 1869, on the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland. Twenty-eight representative peers, elected for life by the peerage of Ireland, were admitted to the House of Lords. All the Irish peers were also entitled to the privilege of peerage. In two par ticulars the Irish peerage was treated in a different manner from the peerage of Scotland. The Crown was empowered to create a new Irish peerage whenever three Irish peerages in existence at the time of the Union have become extinct, or when the number of Irish peers, exclusive of those holding peerages of the United Kingdom, has been reduced to 1 oo. And, further, Irish peers were permitted to sit in the House of Commons for any place in Great Britain, forfeiting, however, the privilege of peerage while sitting in the lower house.
At the same time Ioo representatives of Ireland were added to the House of Commons. This addition raised the number of mem bers to 658. Parliament now became the parliament of the United Kingdom. In 1922 (see p. 326) the provisions of the Act of Union as to the representation of Ireland in the Commons were, save in the case of "Northern Ireland," repealed and the term "United Kingdom" is now restricted to Great Britain and Northern Ire land.
By the union of Scotland and Ireland the electoral abuses of those countries were combined with those of England. Notwithstanding a defec tive representation, however, parliament generally sustained its position as fairly embodying the political sentiments of its time. Public opinion had been awakened, and could not safely be ignored by any party in the State. Under a narrow and corrupt electoral system the ablest men in the country found an entrance. into the House of Commons; and their rivalry and ambition ensured the acceptance of popular principles and the passing of many remedial measures. As society expanded, and new classes were called into existence, the pressure of public opinion upon the legislature was assuming a more decisive character. The grave defects of the representation were notorious, and some minor electoral abuses had been from time to time corrected. But the fundamental evils —nomination boroughs, limited rights of election, the sale of seats in parliament, the prevalence of bribery, and the enormous ex pense of elections—though constantly exposed, long held their ground against all assailants. All moderate proposals were re jected till the concurrence of a dissolution, on the death of George IV., with the French Revolution in 183o, and an ill-timed declaration of the duke of Wellington that the representation was perfect and could not be improved, suddenly precipitated the memorable crisis of parliamentary reform. (See also REFORM MOVEMENT.) The Reform Acts of 1832.—The result of the memorable struggle which ensued may be briefly told. By the Reform Acts of 1832 the representation of the United Kingdom was recon structed. In England, 56 nomination boroughs returning III members were disfranchised ; 3o boroughs were each deprived of one member, and Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, which had re turned four members, were now reduced to two. Means were thus found for the enfranchisement of populous places. Twenty two large towns, including metropolitan districts, became entitled to return two members, and 20 less considerable towns acquired the right of returning one member each. The number of county members was increased from 94 to 159, the larger counties being divided for the purposes of representation.