Search Results

After 1782, many Irish patriots developed a genuinely radical agenda focused on parliamentary reform. This put the broad church of Irish patriotism under immense strain, as previous allies disagreed about the merits of radical reform and the prudence of Catholic inclusion in the polity. This chapter examines the emergence of the movement for radical parliamentary reform from patriotism, describes the various political languages and arguments used by early radical reformers between 1783 and 1785, and analyses the tensions between classical republicanism, Protestant superiority, and natural rights. These tensions reflected competing definitions of ‘the people’ and fundamental doubts over popular sovereignty caused by deep-seated Protestant concerns over Catholic rationality, virtue, and capacity for liberty.

The administration of Viscount Townshend, replacing reliance on local undertakers with direct rule by a resident lord lieutenant, was part of a wider tightening of imperial control. Between 1776 and 1782, on the other hand, a patriot opposition within the Irish parliament, backed by the Volunteers, achieved both free trade and legislative independence. This period represented the high point of patriot enthusiasm. However, the rejection of proposals for parliamentary reform along with the continuation of religious tests meant that Grattan's claim that Ireland was now a nation remained a hollow one.

The relationship between the executive and legislature at the national level remains heavily weighted in favour of the government but a far more balanced relationship is observable at the sub‐national level.

In 1865, Ernest Jones returned to the field of political agitation in England. He joined the parliamentary reform campaign, initially under the auspices of the Manchester Manhood Suffrage League, and then from the autumn of 1866 as a paid lecturer of the Reform League. Jones took part in one of the defining moments of the reform struggle, debating the merits of democracy with the Scottish scholar J. S. Blackie over two nights in Edinburgh in January 1867, and along with Edmond Beales and John Bright, he became one of the most indefatigable and in-demand speakers in the months leading up to the passage of the Second Reform Bill in July 1867. Jones added the Fenian trials to his curriculum vitae, but they also dampened the Reform League’s enthusiasm for him.

The previous chapter offered an overview of the distinctive ideologies associated with the main political parties. This chapter examines the way in which these broad positions informed debate at elections between the First and Third Reform Acts. The period falls into three distinct sections. Between 1832 and c.1847 the political atmosphere was intense: the introduction of parliamentary reform opened up a world in which old certainties were questioned, and fifteen years elapsed before a new status quo was established. The years between 1852 and 1867 were, by comparison, much quieter, though the calm surface of politics belied a ferment of new ideas in the principality. For this was the period in which the idea of Wales as a ‘nation of nonconformists’ gathered momentum. The passage of the Second Reform Act brought these fresh ideas into open play, and at elections between 1868 and 1886 they operated at various levels of intensity within the context of an increasingly adversarial political climate.

To contemporaries Ireland's contribution to Britain's security and wealth was of the utmost importance. Effective British control was therefore deemed to be essential. This control was seriously threatened in the last years of the American War when the Irish parliament, backed by a large movement of armed Volunteers, forced Britain to concede that its parliament had no authority over Ireland. Irish gains turned out, however to be limited. Britain still controlled the executive government of Ireland which was usually able to dominate a parliament elected by very few voters. Attempts to widen the Irish electorate, which were part of widespread movements of discontent, were defeated. In resisting popular turbulence the British regime increasingly identified itself with the maintaining the dominance of Irish Protestants over the Catholic majority of the population.

This book has used historical institutionalism because it not only forces us to take the long-term view of an institution's development, but also gives us insights into norms and values, institutional contexts, agents and ideas, path dependency and critical junctures, all of which assist in the analysis of institutional persistence and change. It is in facilitating consideration of the context in which parliament and its reform exist that the application of the historical institutionalist lens provides the most value. The historical development of the Westminster parliament in Britain points to three central norms and values that contribute to its structured institutional context: parliamentary sovereignty, ministerial responsibility, and party government. Parliamentary reform is pursued as a means to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Successive governments have been able to use their dominant position inside the House of Commons to implement effectiveness reforms, defined as those which seek to rebalance executive-legislative relations. This chapter examines some of the reforms implemented in the years prior to 1997, suggested for and implemented in the House of Commons to enhance its effectiveness. While effectiveness reforms in the early part of the century tended to suggest particularly radical solutions to the ‘problem of parliament’, such as electoral reform and devolution, that tendency was largely replaced in the post-war era by a desire to enhance effectiveness by promoting internal reform of the House of Commons itself. The chapter also considers the creation of investigative committees in the House of Commons, the decline of parliament, the establishment of Commons committees during 1961–1997, the Procedure Committee report of 1965 on parliamentary reform and how to improve the effectiveness of the Commons, the reforms initiated by Richard Crossman, and the introduction of select committees.

Norton (2000) outlined three conditions that must be met before effective parliamentary reform may proceed. The first necessary condition is a window of opportunity in which reform can take place. Second, there has to be a coherent reform agenda in place that provides a package behind which MPs might organise. Third, leadership must exist to exploit the window of opportunity and promote the reform agenda. In the summer of 1998, Charter 88 complained of the ‘disappointingly slow’ pace of reform and the ‘extremely cautious’ nature of the Modernisation Committee's recommendations. The Liaison Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Terence Higgins, used its 1997 report on the work of the select committees as an opportunity to explore the issues in greater depth. This chapter examines effectiveness in the House of Commons since 1997, focusing on various reports prepared by the Liaison Committee, the Commission to Strengthen Parliament, and the Hansard Society Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny. It also discusses the support of the Labour Party led by Robin Cook to institute reforms in the House of Commons.

The Westminster parliament has attracted attention in recent years in terms of how it can be changed and reformed so as to improve the role it plays in British politics. Think tanks, public commissions, and even parliament itself have all examined the way in which it functions as a political institution and how changes might lead to enhanced public engagement with politics and thus to more robust representative democracy. This book explores some of the history of parliamentary reform in Britain. It draws on a series of interviews with some of the key political actors, particularly MPs, who have been interested in and involved with parliamentary reform in the post-1997 era. It analyses the content and arguments of historical institutional theory; the course of House of Commons reform from 1900 to 1997 in terms of efficiency reforms; how the Labour Party government delivered its manifesto commitment to ‘modernise’ the Commons, with a particular focus on how this process of modernisation affected the legislative process; and the House of Lords reform since 1997.

To understand why parliamentary reform does or does not take place requires a prior understanding of the context in which it does or does not occur. The characteristics of the institution of parliament are a product of its historical development, and that development has fostered the emergence of particular norms and values that continue to shape its functioning and capabilities. Crucially, parliament cannot be understood in isolation from government and, consequently, parliamentary reform cannot be understood separately from its likely impact on government. Parliamentary reform can most usefully be analysed with reference to the norms and values that structure the institutional context in which parliament exists. It is necessary, therefore, to explore those norms and values, and the specific ways that they regulate and restrict parliamentary capabilities. This chapter discusses institutional theory and historical institutionalism with respect to parliamentary reform in Britain, along with ministerial responsibility, parliamentary sovereignty, strong party government, the power of the executive at Westminster, role of parliament and individual MPs within the political system, and approaches to parliamentary reform.

Emancipation as an issue defined Daniel O'Connell before 1829. After 1829, he faced more diverse challenges. He became a major figure in the House of Commons and became a force in British high politics. O'Connell had responded to the achievement of emancipation by switching emphasis to repeal of the union and the establishment of a Dublin parliament. The Whig constituency, on the other hand, saw Catholic emancipation as a harbinger of further reforms to come. In January 1830, O'Connell's ‘Letter to the People of Ireland’ put forward a new, comprehensive political programme, which included repeal of the union, parliamentary reform, and abolition of tithes. But in 1842, O'Connell noted that repeal would destroy Irish Protestantism because Protestantism was more an ideology of superiority and a patronage machine than a genuine religion. In 1845, he adopted a sectarian stand on higher educational questions which dismayed young Ireland.