This institutional history charts the development and evolution of parliament from the Scottish and Irish parliaments, through the post-Act of Union parliament and into the devolved assemblies of the 1990s. It considers all aspects of parliament as an institution, including membership, parties, constituencies and elections.

This history describes in narrative form, the way in which Parliament evolved from politics through the Middle Ages, taking the reader to what can be regarded as the end of the English medieval period in 1485.

Parliamentary theory, practices, discourses, and institutions constitute a distinctively European contribution to modern politics. Taking a broad historical perspective, this cross-disciplinary, innovative, and rigorous collection locates the essence of parliamentarism in four key aspects—deliberation, representation, responsibility, and sovereignty—and explores the different ways in which they have been contested, reshaped, and implemented in a series of representative national and regional case studies. As one of the first comparative studies in conceptual history, this volume focuses on debates about the nature of parliament and parliamentarism within and across different European countries, representative institutions, and genres of political discourse.

Condemned as 'useless and dangerous', the House of Lords was abolished in the revolution of 1649, shortly after the execution of the King. When it was reinstated, along with the monarchy, as part of the Restoration of 1660, the House entered into one of the most turbulent and dramatic periods in its history. Over the next half century or more, the Lords were the stage on which some of the critical confrontations in English and British constitutional and political history were played out: the battles over the exclusion from the throne of the later James II; the key debates over the 'abdication' of William III; the many struggles over the Act of Union with Scotland. This highly illustrated book presents the first results from the research undertaken by the History of Parliament Trust on the peers and bishops between the Restoration and the accession of George I. It shows them as politicians at Westminster, engaging with the central arguments of the day, but also using Parliament to pursue their own projects; as members of an elite intensely conscious of their status and determined to defend their honour against commoners, Irish peers and each other; as a class apart, always active in devising new schemes - successful and unsuccessful - to increase their wealth and 'interest'; and as local grandees, to whom local society looked for leadership and protection. From the proud Duke of Somerset to the beggarly Lord Mohun, from the devious Earl of Oxford to the disgruntled Lord Lucas, the material here presents an initial impression of the nature of the Restoration House of Lords and the men who formed it, showing them in their best moments, when they vigorously defended the law and the constitution, and in their worst, as they obsessively concerned themselves with honour and precedence and indefatigably pursued private interests. Edited by Ruth Paley and Paul Seaward, with Beverly Adams, Robin Eagles, Stuart Handley and Charles Littleton

P.R. Cavill offers a major reinterpretation of early Tudor constitutional history. In the grand 'Whig' tradition, the parliaments of Henry VII were a disappointing retreat from the onward march towards parliamentary democracy. The king was at best indifferent and at worst hostile to parliament; its meetings were cowed and quiescent, subservient to the royal will. Yet little research has tested these assumptions. Drawing on extensive archival research, Cavill challenges existing accounts and revises our understanding of the period. Neither to the king nor to his subjects did parliament appear to be a waning institution, fading before the waxing power of the crown. For a ruler in Henry's vulnerable position, parliament helped to restore royal authority by securing the good governance that legitimated his regime. For his subjects, parliament served as a medium through which to communicate with the government and to shape - and, on occasion, criticize - its policies. Because of the demands parliament made, its impact was felt throughout the kingdom, among ordinary people as well as among the elite. Cooperation between subjects and the crown, rather than conflict, characterized these parliaments. While for many scholars parliament did not truly come of age until the 1530s, when - freed from its medieval shackles - the modern institution came to embody the sovereign nation state, in this study Henry's reign emerges as a constitutionally innovative period. Ideas of parliamentary sovereignty were already beginning to be articulated. It was here that the foundations of the 'Tudor revolution in government' were being laid.