In 1660 the four nations of the British Isles were governed by one imperial crown but by three parliaments.² In 1707 the Edinburgh parliament was abolished and the Scots given some representation at Westminster. In 1801 something similar happened to the Dublin parliament. At the same time (though somewhat independently) what Westminster did in terms of legislation, legal appeals, debate and inquiry developed significantly and in 1832 the nature of its representation was overhauled. Consequently, the nineteenth century marked the heyday of the idea of an imperial parliament and an imperial crown. But what did the making of that monolith...

In 1707, the Edinburgh parliament was dissolved; the Westminster parliament gained forty-five Scottish MPs in the Commons, and sixteen representative peers in the Lords, and was renamed the Parliament of Great Britain. In 1801, following the abolition of the Dublin parliament, Westminster gained 100 Irish MPs, twenty-eight representative peers and four Church of Ireland bishops, and was renamed the Parliament of the United Kingdom or the Imperial Parliament.

Clearly these changes did not leave Westminster unaffected. Not only did the parliament gain on each occasion a new name and new members – some of whose ways grated on English legislators²...

The increase in parliamentary activity following the Glorious Revolution of 1688 is one of the most conspicuous features of the eighteenth-century landscape, and a large proportion of the growing volume of legislation arose from local bills. More recently, historians have also been alerted to the significance of failed legislation which reveals even higher levels of business emanating from the localities.² Legislation of both kinds, national and local, attracted an even greater volume of petitions for and against, and the growth of petitioning activity was a crucial element in the development of an increasingly sophisticated political nation outside Westminster.³ As John...

There can be no doubt of the central nature of parliament in debates as to the religious nature of English, and increasingly of British, national identity between 1770 and 1830. The supremacy of statute law carried almost universal acceptance and attempts to influence parliamentary opinion dominated the efforts of those who sought to promote or resist ecclesiastical change. The belief that legislation could influence theological opinion was widespread. When advocating the Unitarian petition of 1792 John Disney alleged that ‘The people of this country would not, at this time of day, hold the belief in one god, the sole creator...

It is a commonplace that the two centuries following the Restoration of Charles II saw the apogee of landed power in Britain. At heart this view rests upon two related notions, of the rise of great estates and of the growing political importance of a parliament dominated by landowners. Moreover, in this view the landed are frequently characterised as being distinctively cohesive, often fighting for their interest with a passionate sense of common cause. So, for example, Sydney Checkland noted how ‘The state was largely in the hands of the landed interest. It consisted of the aristocracy and gentry, men...

Given that legislative autonomy was a major preoccupation of ‘patriot’ pamphleteers and politicians in eighteenth-century Ireland, we may naturally assume that the possession of a separate national parliament was closely bound up with notions of national identity. Moreover, the steady progress of the Irish parliament from its precarious re-establishment in the aftermath of the Williamite victory to a settled position at the heart of government seems to have run in parallel with the maturing of a sense of ‘Irishness’ among the Protestant propertied elite.¹ This close connection between parliamentary constitutionalism and the development of a distinctive Irish identity is particularly...

Union with England in 1707 presented the Scots with a series of opportunities, but it also created risks, as Devine has recently re-emphasised.² One such risk was political in nature, but appeared at the time potentially to have much broader repercussions. It is simply stated: how could Scotland ensure that its interests were properly represented in the new ‘British’ parliament which the Treaty of Union would bring into existence.

This question hung over the Union negotiations and the Treaty’s subsequent ratification in the Scottish parliament.³ How could Scots be certain that the new parliament, in which the English would be...

In the planning of the British–Irish Union British ministers gave little, if any thought to the likely effect that a united parliament might have on national identities. Their view, in common with that of many Britons, was that parliament represented kingdoms rather than nations; and within kingdoms, the leading economic interests and the different types of local communities rather than mere numbers of people. This coincided with what by today’s standards was a very limited view of parliament’s role. In essence this consisted of raising sufficient money to pay for defence and administration, of providing legal frameworks for maintaining...

The study of parliament and international law in the eighteenth century illuminates crucial distinctions among nation, state and empire. For example, after 1603 but before 1707, the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh represented a nation but aroused English opposition whenever it tried to legislate as if Scotland were an independent state. Before 1801, the Irish parliament in Dublin represented only a very narrowly defined Irish nation and, prior to the repeal of Poynings’ law in 1782, made no pretence of legislating as if Ireland were a state rather than a dependent kingdom. Only the Westminster parliament could claim that national representation...

In 1833, the ,Liverpool Timesreported: ‘The most illustrious of the Dicky Sams, the Magnates of the Town Hall and of the ’Change, have been dancing attendance on still greater men from the opening of the Session.’ Lobbying was not restricted to ‘Liverpool grandees’. In addition, ‘a host of tar jackets and freemen’ testified before parliamentary committees.¹ This intensive lobbying shows the lengths to which Liverpool townsfolk were increasingly prepared to go to ensure that parliament addressed their concerns. The 825 petitions that Liverpool groups presented to the House of Commons between 1775 and 1835 do not account for all...

On 5 November 1800 George III issued a proclamation which did away with the parliament of the Kingdom of Great Britain.¹ In doing so, he not only succeeded where Guy Fawkes had failed on the same day 195 years earlier, but he also paved the way for the opening of the new ‘imperial parliament’ of Great Britain and Ireland, which duly opened its doors for its first session at the beginning of February 1801. The British was to remain an imperial parliament – legislating for and reflecting the interests of not only Ireland, but its far-flung dominions and settlements worldwide...