Text 2the evolution of the British constitution in the 17-th century

The 1688 Revolution was a compromise designed to satisfy all influential political and economic interests. The seventeenth-century revolutionaries were not motivated by any single coherent philosophy. They formed a loose coalition of interests - religious, trading, and landowning - temporarily united against Catholicism and the pretensions of the monarch. The revolution was justified at the time in two inconsistent ways. On one premise James II had abdicated; on the other, reflecting the social contract theory propounded by John Locke, James was regarded as having broken his contract with the people by abusing his power. This entitled the people to rebel in order to preserve the fundamental law. The first theory was the dominant one. The 1688 settlement was not based on full-blooded ideas of the sovereignty of the people and fundamental rights of the individual such as a century later would influence the French and American revolutions. The 1688 settlement rejected the concept of absolute monarchy by claiming to be restoring the ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution under which it was imagined that kings ruled with the approval of a representative assembly. The 1688 settlement exacted concessions from the Crown in favour of Parliament but conferred few rights upon individual citizens. The 'right' of William and Mary to reign was justified on the basis of the common law doctrine of necessity. James II was regarded as having abdicated and the resulting vacuum had to be filled.

The settlement was legitimated by the summoning of a Convention Parliament which met early in 1688 and which mimicked the composition of a genuine Parliament. The Convention Parliament thrashed out the terms of the settlement and appointed William and Mary as joint monarchs (Bill of Rights 1688). William and Mary then summoned a 'regular' Parliament which ratified the acts of the Convention (Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689). Subsequent legislation (Act of Settlement 1700) consolidated the settlement by providing for the succession to the Crown and giving superior court judges security of tenure and therefore independence from the Crown.

Thus the law can be seen in the role of public relations device and an instrument of power politics. The legislative basis of the 1688 settlement remains in place today.

In the case of Scotland and Ireland force was needed to crush support for the Stuart monarchs which in Ireland has left a lasting legacy of anti- English sentiment.

Since 1688 the unwritten constitution has attempted to adjust to economic and social change within the broad principles laid down in 1688. The main issues were firstly how to reduce the influence of the Crown. This led to the development of the modern cabinet system. The second issue was that of Parliamentary reform. The ruling classes who manufactured the 1688 settlement did not speak for the whole people. The early nineteenth century nearly produced another revolution, this time by the urban proletariat, but this was staved off by electoral reform.

The 1688 settlement was not intended to be democratic in the modern sense, but to provide a balance between monarchy, aristocracy (the House of Lords), and representative government (the House of Commons). Only property-owners were thought fit to vote until well into the nineteenth century. Democracy was introduced slowly and reluctantly. The process was not completed until 1928 when women were given the franchise. By this time the main governmental institutions had become well established and the executive had come to dominate Parliament.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14