Neuropharmacology is the study of how drugs affect function in
the nervous system, and the neural mechanisms through which they
influence behavior.
There are two main branches of neuropharmacology: behavioral and
molecular. Behavioral neuropharmacology focuses on the study of how
drugs affect human behavior (neuropsychopharmacology), including the study of how drug dependence and addiction affect the human brain. Molecular neuropharmacology involves the study of neurons and their neurochemical
interactions, with the overall goal of developing drugs that have
beneficial effects on neurological function. Both of these fields are
closely connected, since both are concerned with the interactions of neurotransmitters, neuropeptides, neurohormones, neuromodulators, enzymes, second messengers, co-transporters, ion channels, and receptor proteins in the central and peripheral nervous systems. Studying these interactions, researchers are developing drugs to treat many different neurological disorders, including pain, neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease, psychological disorders, addiction, and many others.
History
Neuropharmacology
did not appear in the scientific field until, in the early part of the
20th century, scientists were able to figure
out a basic understanding of the nervous system and how nerves
communicate between one another. Before this discovery, there were drugs
that had been found that demonstrated some type of influence on the
nervous system. In the 1930s, French scientists began working with a
compound called phenothiazine in the hope of synthesizing a drug that
would be able to combat malaria. Though this drug showed very little
hope in the use against malaria-infected individuals, it was found to
have sedative effects along with what appeared to be beneficial effects
toward patients with Parkinson's disease. This black box method, wherein
an investigator would administer a drug and examine the response
without knowing how to relate drug action to patient response, was the
main approach to this field, until, in the late 1940s and early 1950s,
scientists were able to identify specific neurotransmitters, such as norepinephrine (involved in the constriction of blood vessels and the increase in heart rate and blood pressure), dopamine (the chemical whose shortage is involved in Parkinson's disease), and serotonin (soon to be recognized as deeply connected to depression).
In the 1950s, scientists also became better able to measure levels of
specific neurochemicals in the body and thus correlate these levels with
behavior. The invention of the voltage clamp in 1949 allowed for the study of ion channels and the nerve action potential.
These two major historical events in neuropharmacology allowed
scientists not only to study how information is transferred from one
neuron to another but also to study how a neuron processes this
information within itself.
Overview
Neuropharmacology
is a very broad region of science that encompasses many aspects of the
nervous system from single neuron manipulation to entire areas of the
brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves. To better understand the
basis behind drug development, one must first understand how neurons communicate with one another.
Neurochemical interactions
Labeling of different parts of a neuron
To understand the potential advances in medicine that
neuropharmacology can bring, it is important to understand how human
behavior and thought processes are transferred from neuron to neuron and
how medications can alter the chemical foundations of these processes.
Neurons are known as excitable cells because on its surface
membrane there are an abundance of proteins known as ion-channels that
allow small charged particles to pass in and out of the cell. The
structure of the neuron allows chemical information to be received by
its dendrites, propagated through the perikaryon (cell body) and down its axon, and eventually passing on to other neurons through its axon terminal. These voltage-gated ion channels allow for rapid depolarization throughout the cell. This depolarization, if it reaches a certain threshold, will cause an action potential.
Once the action potential reaches the axon terminal, it will cause an
influx of calcium ions into the cell. The calcium ions will then cause
vesicles, small packets filled with neurotransmitters,
to bind to the cell membrane and release its contents into the synapse.
This cell is known as the pre-synaptic neuron, and the cell that
interacts with the neurotransmitters released is known as the
post-synaptic neuron. Once the neurotransmitter is released into the
synapse, it can either bind to receptors on the post-synaptic cell, the
pre-synaptic cell can re-uptake it and save it for later transmission,
or it can be broken down by enzymes in the synapse specific to that
certain neurotransmitter. These three different actions are major areas
where drug action can affect communication between neurons.
There are two types of receptors that neurotransmitters interact
with on a post-synaptic neuron. The first types of receptors are
ligand-gated ion channels or LGICs. LGIC receptors are the fastest types
of transduction from chemical signal to electrical signal. Once the
neurotransmitter binds to the receptor, it will cause a conformational
change that will allow ions to directly flow into the cell. The second
types are known as G-protein-coupled receptors or GPCRs. These are much
slower than LGICs due to an increase in the amount of biochemical
reactions that must take place intracellularly. Once the
neurotransmitter binds to the GPCR protein, it causes a cascade of
intracellular interactions that can lead to many different types of
changes in cellular biochemistry, physiology, and gene expression.
Neurotransmitter/receptor interactions in the field of neuropharmacology
are extremely important because many drugs that are developed today
have to do with disrupting this binding process.
Molecular neuropharmacology
Molecular
neuropharmacology involves the study of neurons and their neurochemical
interactions, and receptors on neurons, with the goal of developing new
drugs that will treat neurological disorders such as pain,
neurodegenerative diseases, and psychological disorders (also known in
this case as neuropsychopharmacology). There are a few technical words that must be defined when relating neurotransmission to receptor action:
Agonist – a molecule that binds to a receptor protein and activates that receptor
Competitive antagonist – a molecule that binds to the same site on
the receptor protein as the agonist, preventing activation of the
receptor
Non-competitive antagonist – a molecule that binds to a receptor
protein on a different site than that of the agonist, but causes a
conformational change in the protein that does not allow activation.
The following neurotransmitter/receptor interactions can be affected
by synthetic compounds that act as one of the three above.
Sodium/potassium ion channels can also be manipulated throughout a
neuron to induce inhibitory effects of action potentials.
GABA
The GABA
neurotransmitter mediates the fast synaptic inhibition in the central
nervous system. When GABA is released from its pre-synaptic cell, it
will bind to a receptor (most likely the GABAA receptor) that
causes the post-synaptic cell to hyperpolarize (stay below its action
potential threshold). This will counteract the effect of any excitatory
manipulation from other neurotransmitter/receptor interactions.
This GABAA receptor contains many binding sites that
allow conformational changes and are the primary target for drug
development. The most common of these binding sites, benzodiazepine,
allows for both agonist and antagonist effects on the receptor. A common
drug, diazepam, acts as an allosteric enhancer at this binding site. Another receptor for GABA, known as GABAB,
can be enhanced by a molecule called baclofen. This molecule acts as an
agonist, therefore activating the receptor, and is known to help
control and decrease spastic movement.
Dopamine
The dopamine
neurotransmitter mediates synaptic transmission by binding to five
specific GPCRs. These five receptor proteins are separated into two
classes due to whether the response elicits an excitatory or inhibitory
response on the post-synaptic cell. There are many types of drugs, legal
and illegal, that affect dopamine and its interactions in the brain.
With Parkinson's disease, a disease that decreases the amount of
dopamine in the brain, the dopamine precursor Levodopa is given to the
patient due to the fact that dopamine cannot cross the blood–brain barrier
and L-dopa can. Some dopamine agonists are also given to Parkinson's
patients that have a disorder known as restless leg syndrome or RLS.
Some examples of these are ropinirole and pramipexole.
Psychological disorders like that of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can be treated with drugs like methylphenidate (also known as Ritalin),
which block the re-uptake of dopamine by the pre-synaptic cell, thereby
providing an increase of dopamine left in the synaptic gap. This
increase in synaptic dopamine will increase binding to receptors of the
post-synaptic cell. This same mechanism is also used by other illegal
and more potent stimulant drugs such as cocaine.
Serotonin
The neurotransmitter serotonin
has the ability to mediate synaptic transmission through either GPCR's
or LGIC receptors. The excitatory or inhibitory post-synaptic effects of
serotonin are determined by the type of receptor expressed in a given
brain region. The most popular and widely used drugs for the regulation
of serotonin during depression are known as SSRIs or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. These drugs inhibit the transport of serotonin back into the pre-synaptic neuron, leaving more serotonin in the synaptic gap.
Before the discovery of SSRIs, there were also drugs that inhibited the enzyme that breaks down serotonin. MAOIs or monoamine oxidase inhibitors
increased the amount of serotonin in the synapse, but had many
side-effects including intense migraines and high blood pressure. This
was eventually linked to the drugs interacting with a common chemical
known as tyramine found in many types of food.
Ion channels
Ion
channels located on the surface membrane of the neuron allows for an
influx of sodium ions and outward movement of potassium ions during an
action potential. Selectively blocking these ion channels will decrease
the likelihood of an action potential to occur. The drug riluzole
is a neuroprotective drug that blocks sodium ion channels. Since these
channels cannot activate, there is no action potential, and the neuron
does not perform any transduction of chemical signals into electrical
signals and the signal does not move on. This drug is used as an
anesthetic as well as a sedative.
Behavioral neuropharmacology
Dopamine and serotonin pathway
One form of behavioral neuropharmacology focuses on the study of drug
dependence and how drug addiction affects the human mind. Most research
has shown that the major part of the brain that reinforces addiction
through neurochemical reward is the nucleus accumbens. The image to the right shows how dopamine is projected into this area. Long-term excessive alcohol use can cause dependence and addiction. How this addiction occurs is described below.
With chronic alcohol intake, consumption of ethanol similarly
induces CREB phosphorylation through the D1 receptor pathway, but it
also alters NMDA receptor function through phosphorylation mechanisms; an adaptive downregulation of the D1 receptor pathway and CREB function occurs as well.
Chronic consumption is also associated with an effect on CREB
phosphorylation and function via postsynaptic NMDA receptor signaling
cascades through a MAPK/ERK pathway and CAMK-mediated pathway. These modifications to CREB function in the mesolimbic pathway induce expression (i.e., increase gene expression) of ΔFosB in the NAcc, where ΔFosB is the "master control protein" that, when overexpressed in the NAcc, is necessary and sufficient
for the development and maintenance of an addictive state (i.e., its
overexpression in the nucleus accumbens produces and then directly
modulates compulsive alcohol consumption).
Research
Parkinson's disease
Parkinson's disease is a neurodegenerative disease described by the selective loss of dopaminergic neurons located in the substantia nigra. Today, the most commonly used drug to combat this disease is levodopa or L-DOPA. This precursor to dopamine can penetrate through the blood–brain barrier,
whereas the neurotransmitter dopamine cannot. There has been extensive
research to determine whether L-dopa is a better treatment for
Parkinson's disease rather than other dopamine agonists. Some believe
that the long-term use of L-dopa will compromise neuroprotection and,
thus, eventually lead to dopaminergic cell death. Though there has been
no proof, in-vivo or in-vitro, some still believe that the long-term use of dopamine agonists is better for the patient.
Alzheimer's disease
While there are a variety of hypotheses that have been proposed for the cause of Alzheimer's disease,
the knowledge of this disease is far from complete to explain, making
it difficult to develop methods for treatment. In the brain of
Alzheimer's patients, both neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine (nACh)
receptors and NMDA receptors are known to be down-regulated. Thus, four
anticholinesterases have been developed and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) for the treatment in the U.S.A. However, these are not ideal
drugs, considering their side-effects and limited effectiveness. One
promising drug, nefiracetam,
is being developed for the treatment of Alzheimer's and other patients
with dementia, and has unique actions in potentiating the activity of
both nACh receptors and NMDA receptors.
Future
With
advances in technology and our understanding of the nervous system, the
development of drugs will continue with increasing drug sensitivity and specificity. Structure–activity relationships
are a major area of research within neuropharmacology; an attempt to
modify the effect or the potency (i.e., activity) of bioactive chemical
compounds by modifying their chemical structures.
Self-esteem is confidence in one's own worth, abilities, or
morals. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs about oneself (for example, "I
am loved", "I am worthy") as well as emotional states, such as triumph,
despair, pride, and shame. Smith and Mackie define it by saying "The self-concept
is what we think about the self; self-esteem, is the positive or
negative evaluations of the self, as in how we feel about it (see self)."
The construct of self-esteem has been shown to be a desirable one
in psychology, as it is associated with a variety of positive outcomes,
such as academic achievement, relationship satisfaction, happiness,
and lower rates of criminal behavior. The benefits of high self-esteem
are thought to include improved mental and physical health, and less
anti-social behavior while drawbacks of low self-esteem have been found to be anxiety, loneliness, and increased vulnerability to substance abuse.
Self-esteem can apply to a specific attribute or globally.
Psychologists usually regard self-esteem as an enduring personality
characteristic (trait self-esteem), though normal, short-term variations (state self-esteem) also exist. Synonyms or near-synonyms of self-esteem include: self-worth, self-regard, self-respect, and self-integrity.
History
The concept of self-esteem has its origins in the 18th century, first expressed in the writings of the Scottish enlightenment thinker David Hume.
Hume posits that it is important to value and think well of oneself
because it serves a motivational function that enables people to explore
their full potential. The identification of self-esteem as a distinct psychological
construct has its origins in the work of philosopher and psychologist, William James.
James identified multiple dimensions of the self, with two levels of
hierarchy: processes of knowing (called the "I-self") and the resulting
knowledge about the self (the "Me-self"). The observation about the self
and storage of those observations by the I-self creates three types of
knowledge, which collectively account for the Me-self, according to
James. These are the material self, social self,
and spiritual self. The social self comes closest to self-esteem,
comprising all characteristics recognized by others. The material self
consists of representations of the body and possessions and the
spiritual self of descriptive representations and evaluative
dispositions regarding the self. This view of self-esteem as the
collection of an individual's attitudes toward itself remains today.
In the mid-1960s, social psychologist Morris Rosenberg defined self-esteem as a feeling of self-worth and developed the Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSES), which became the most widely used scale to measure self-esteem in the social sciences.
In the early 20th century, the behaviorist movement
shunned introspective study of mental processes, emotions, and
feelings, replacing introspection with objective study through
experiments on behaviors observed in relation with the environment.
Behaviorism viewed the human being as an animal subject to
reinforcements, and suggested making psychology an experimental science,
similar to chemistry or biology. Consequently, clinical trials on
self-esteem were overlooked, since behaviorists considered the idea less
amenable to rigorous measurement.
In the mid-20th century, the rise of phenomenology and humanistic psychology
led to a renewed interest in self-esteem as a treatment for
psychological disorders such as depression, anxiety, and personality
disorders. Psychologists started to consider the relationship between psychotherapy
and the personal satisfaction of people with high self-esteem as useful
to the field. This led to new elements being introduced to the concept
of self-esteem, including the reasons why people tend to feel less
worthy and why people become discouraged or unable to meet challenges by
themselves.
From 1997, the core self-evaluations approach included self-esteem as one of four dimensions that comprise one's fundamental appraisal of oneself—along with locus of control, neuroticism, and self-efficacy. The concept of core self-evaluations has since proven to have the ability to predict job satisfaction and job performance. Self-esteem may be essential to self-evaluation.
In public policy
The
importance of self-esteem gained endorsement from some government and
non-government groups starting around the 1970s, such that one can speak
of a self-esteem movement. This movement provides evidence that psychological research can shape public policy.
This has expanded to recent years such as 2023 where psychologists are
planning to re-invent the approach to research, treatments, and therapy.
The new approach emphasizes population health where psychological researchers have prioritized one-one therapy in
regards to analyzing social emotional conflict like low self-esteem.
The underlying idea of the movement was that low self-esteem was the
root of problems for individuals, making it the root of societal
problems and dysfunctions. A leading figure of the movement,
psychologist Nathaniel Branden,
stated: "[I] cannot think of a single psychological problem – from
anxiety and depression, to fear of intimacy or of success, to spouse
battery or child molestation – that is not traced back to the problem of
low self-esteem".
It was once thought that self-esteem was primarily a feature of Western individualistic societies, as it was not observed in collectivist cultures such as Japan.
Concern about low self-esteem and its many presumed negative consequences led California assemblyman, John Vasconcellos
to work to set up and fund the Task Force on Self-Esteem and Personal
and Social Responsibility, in California, in 1986. Vasconcellos argued
that this task force could combat many of the state's problems – from
crime and teen pregnancy to school underachievement and pollution.
He compared increasing self-esteem to giving out a vaccine for a
disease: it could help protect people from being overwhelmed by life's
challenges.
The task force set up committees in many California counties and
formed a committee of scholars to review the available literature on
self-esteem. This committee found very small associations between low
self-esteem and its assumed consequences, ultimately showing that low
self-esteem was not the root of all societal problems and not as
important as the committee had originally thought. However, the authors
of the paper that summarized the review of the literature still believed
that self-esteem is an independent variable that affects major social
problems. The task force disbanded in 1995, and the National Council for
Self-Esteem and later the National Association for Self-Esteem (NASE) was established, taking on the task force's mission. Vasconcellos and Jack Canfield were members of its advisory board in 2003, and members of its masters' coalition included Anthony Robbins, Bernie Siegel, and Gloria Steinem.
Theories
Many early theories suggested that self-esteem is a basic human need or motivation. American psychologist, Abraham Maslow included self-esteem in his hierarchy of human needs.
He described two different forms of "esteem": the need for respect from
others in the form of recognition, success, and admiration, and the
need for self-respect in the form of self-love, self-confidence, skill,
or aptitude.
Respect from others was believed to be more fragile and easily lost
than inner self-esteem. According to Maslow, without the fulfillment of
the self-esteem need, individuals will be driven to seek it and unable
to grow and obtain self-actualization. Maslow also states that the
healthiest expression of self-esteem "is the one which manifests in the
respect we deserve for others, more than renown, fame, and flattery".
Modern theories of self-esteem explore the reasons humans are motivated
to maintain a high regard for themselves. Sociometer theory maintains that self-esteem evolved to check one's level of status and acceptance in one's social group. According to Terror Management Theory, self-esteem serves a protective function and reduces anxiety about life and death.
Carl Rogers (1902–1987), an advocate of humanistic psychology,
theorized the origin of many people's problems to be that they despise
themselves and consider themselves worthless and incapable of being
loved. This is why Rogers believed in the importance of giving
unconditional acceptance to a client and when this was done it could
improve the client's self-esteem. In his therapy sessions with clients, he offered positive regard no matter what. Indeed, the concept of self-esteem is approached since then in humanistic psychology as an inalienable right for every person, summarized in the following sentence:
Every human being, with no
exception, for the mere fact to be it, is worthy of unconditional
respect of everybody else; he deserves to esteem himself and to be
esteemed.
Measurement
Self-esteem is typically assessed using self-report inventories.
One of the most widely used instruments, the Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSES)
is a 10-item self-esteem scale score that requires participants to
indicate their level of agreement with a series of statements about
themselves. An alternative measure, the Coopersmith Inventory uses a
50-question battery over a variety of topics and asks subjects whether
they rate someone as similar or dissimilar to themselves.
If a subject's answers demonstrate solid self-regard, the scale regards
them as well adjusted. If those answers reveal some inner shame, it
considers them to be prone to social deviance.
Implicit measures of self-esteem began to be used in the 1980s.
These rely on indirect measures of cognitive processing thought to be linked to implicit self-esteem, including the name letter task (or initial preference task) and the Implicit Association Task.
Such indirect measures are designed to reduce awareness of the
process of assessment. When using them to assess implicit self-esteem,
psychologists apply self-relevant stimuli to the participant and then
measure how quickly a person identifies positive or negative stimuli.
For example, if a woman was given the self-relevant stimuli of female
and mother, psychologists would measure how quickly she identified the
negative word, evil, or the positive word, kind.
Development across lifespan
Experiences in a person's life are a major source of how self-esteem develops.
In the early years of a child's life, parents have a significant
influence on self-esteem and can be considered the main source of
positive and negative experiences a child will have.
Unconditional love from parents helps a child develop a stable sense of
being cared for and respected. These feelings translate into later
effects on self-esteem as the child grows older.
Students in elementary school who have high self-esteem tend to have
authoritative parents who are caring, supportive adults who set clear
standards for their child and allow them to voice their opinion in
decision making.
Although studies thus far have reported only a correlation of warm, supportive parenting styles
(mainly authoritative and permissive) with children having high
self-esteem, these parenting styles could easily be thought of as having
some causal effect in self-esteem development.
Childhood experiences that contribute to healthy self-esteem include
being listened to, being spoken to respectfully, receiving appropriate
attention and affection and having accomplishments recognized and
mistakes or failures acknowledged and accepted. Experiences that
contribute to low self-esteem include being harshly criticized, being
physically, sexually or emotionally abused, being ignored, ridiculed or
teased or being expected to be "perfect" all the time.
During school-aged years, academic achievement is a significant contributor to self-esteem development. Consistently achieving success or consistently failing will have a strong effect on students' individual self-esteem.
However, students can also experience low self-esteem while in school.
For example, they may not have academic achievements, or they live in a
troubled environment outside of school. Issues like the ones previously
stated, can cause adolescents to doubt themselves. Social experiences
are another important contributor to self-esteem. As children go through
school, they begin to understand and recognize differences between
themselves and their classmates. Using social comparisons, children
assess whether they did better or worse than classmates in different
activities. These comparisons play an important role in shaping the
child's self-esteem and influence the positive or negative feelings they
have about themselves.
As children go through adolescence, peer influence becomes much more
important. Adolescents make appraisals of themselves based on their
relationships with close friends.
Successful relationships among friends are very important to the
development of high self-esteem for children. Social acceptance brings
about confidence and produces high self-esteem, whereas rejection from
peers and loneliness brings about self-doubts and produces low
self-esteem.
Self-esteem tends to increase during adolescence and young adulthood, reaching a peak in middle age. A decrease is seen from middle age to old age with varying findings on whether it is a small or large decrease. Reasons for the variability could be because of differences in health, cognitive ability, and socioeconomic status in old age. No differences have been found between males and females in their development of self-esteem.
Multiple cohort studies show that there is not a difference in the
life-span trajectory of self-esteem between generations due to societal
changes such as grade inflation in education or the presence of social media.
High levels of mastery, low risk taking, and better health are
ways to predict higher self-esteem. In terms of personality, emotionally
stable, extroverted, and conscientious individuals experience higher
self-esteem.
These predictors have shown us that self-esteem has trait-like
qualities by remaining stable over time like personality and
intelligence. However, this does not mean it can not be changed.
Hispanic adolescents have a slightly lower self-esteem than their black
and white peers, but then slightly higher levels by age 30.
African Americans have a sharper increase in self-esteem in adolescence
and young adulthood compared to Whites. However, during old age, they
experience a more rapid decline in self-esteem.
Shame
Shame can be a contributor to those with problems of low self-esteem.
Feelings of shame usually occur because of a situation where the social
self is devalued, such as a socially evaluated poor performance. Poor
performance leads to a decrease in social self-esteem and an increase in
shame, indicating a threat to the social self. This increase in shame can be helped with self-compassion.
Real self, ideal self, and dreaded self
There
are three levels of self-evaluation development in relation to the real
self, ideal self, and the dreaded self. The real, ideal, and dreaded
selves develop in children in a sequential pattern on cognitive levels.
Moral judgment stages: Individuals describe their real, ideal,
and dreaded selves with stereotypical labels, such as "nice" or "bad".
Individuals describe their ideal and real selves in terms of disposition
for actions or as behavioral habits. The dreaded self is often
described as being unsuccessful or as having bad habits.
Ego development stages: Individuals describe their ideal and real
selves in terms of traits that are based on attitudes as well as
actions. The dreaded self is often described as having failed to meet
social expectations or as self-centered.
Self-understanding stages: Individuals describe their ideal and real
selves as having unified identities or characters. Descriptions of the
dreaded self focus on failure to live up to one's ideals or role
expectations often because of real world problems.
This development brings with it increasingly complicated and
encompassing moral demands. This level is where individuals'
self-esteems can suffer because they do not feel as though they are
living up to certain expectations. This feeling will moderately affect
one's self-esteem with an even larger effect seen when individuals
believe they are becoming their dreaded selves.
firmly believe in certain values and principles, and are ready
to defend them even when finding opposition, feeling secure enough to
modify them in light of experience.
are able to act according to what they think to be the best choice,
trusting their own judgment, and not feeling guilty when others do not
like their choice.
do not lose time worrying excessively about what happened in the
past, nor about what could happen in the future. They learn from the
past and plan for the future, but live in the present intensely.
fully trust in their capacity to solve problems, not hesitating
after failures and difficulties. They ask others for help when they need
it.
consider themselves equal in dignity
to others, rather than inferior or superior, while accepting
differences in certain talents, personal prestige or financial standing.
understand how they are an interesting and valuable person for others, at least for those with whom they have a friendship.
resist manipulation, collaborate with others only if it seems appropriate and convenient.
admit and accept different internal feelings and drives, either
positive or negative, revealing those drives to others only when they
choose.
are able to enjoy a great variety of activities.
are sensitive to feelings and needs of others; respect generally
accepted social rules, and claim no right or desire to prosper at
others' expense.
can work toward finding solutions and voice discontent without belittling themselves or others when challenges arise.
Secure vs. defensive
Some
people have a secure high self-esteem and can confidently maintain
positive self-views without relying on external reassurance. However,
others have defensive high self-esteem, and while they also report
positive self-views on the Rosenberg Scale, these views are fragile and
easily threatened by criticism. Defensive high self-esteem individuals
internalize subconscious self-doubts and insecurities, causing them to
react very negatively to any criticism they may receive. There is a need
for constant positive feedback from others for these individuals to
maintain their feelings of self-worth. The necessity of repeated praise
can be associated with boastful, arrogant behavior or sometimes even
aggressive and hostile feelings toward anyone who questions the
individual's self-worth, an example of threatened egotism.
The Journal of Educational Psychology conducted a study in which they used a sample of 383 Malaysian undergraduates participating in work integrated learning
(WIL) programs across five public universities to test the relationship
between self-esteem and other psychological attributes such as
self-efficacy and self-confidence.
The results demonstrated that self-esteem has a positive and
significant relationship with self-confidence and self-efficacy since
students with higher self-esteem had better performances at university
than those with lower self-esteem. It was concluded that higher
education institutions and employers should emphasize the importance of
undergraduates' self-esteem development.
Implicit and explicit
Implicit self-esteem
refers to a person's disposition to evaluate themselves positively or
negatively in a spontaneous, automatic, or unconscious manner. It
contrasts with explicit self-esteem,
which entails more conscious and reflective self-evaluation. Both
explicit self-esteem and implicit self-esteem are theoretically subtypes
of self-esteem proper.
However, the validity of implicit self-esteem as a construct is
highly questionable, given not only its weak or nonexistent correlation
with explicit self-esteem and informant ratings of self-esteem,but also the failure of multiple measures of implicit self-esteem to correlate with each other.
Currently, there is little scientific evidence that self-esteem can be reliably or validly measured through implicit means.
Narcissism and threatened egotism
Narcissism
is a disposition people may have that represents an excessive love for
one's self. It is characterized by an inflated view of self-worth.
Individuals who score high on narcissism measures, Robert Raskin's
Narcissistic Personality Inventory, would likely respond "true" to such
prompt statements as "If I ruled the world, it would be a much better
place." There is only a moderate correlation between narcissism and self-esteem;
that is to say that an individual can have high self-esteem but low
narcissism or can be a conceited, obnoxious person and score high
self-esteem and high narcissism.
However, when correlation analysis is restricted to the sense of
superiority or self-admiration aspects of narcissism, correlations
between narcissism and self-esteem become strong (usually at or around r = .50, but sometimes up to β = .86). Moreover, self-esteem is positively correlated with a sense of superiority even when controlling for overall narcissism.
Narcissism is not only defined by inflated self-esteem, but also
by characteristics such as entitlement, exploitativeness, and dominance.
Additionally, while positive self-image is a shared characteristic of
narcissism and self-esteem, narcissistic self-appraisals are
exaggerated, whereas in non-narcissistic self-esteem, positive views of
the self compared with others are relatively modest. Thus, while sharing
positive self-regard as a main feature, and while narcissism is defined
by high self-esteem, the two constructs are not interchangeable.
Threatened egotism
is a phenomenon in which narcissists respond to criticism with
hostility and aggression, as it threatens their sense of self-worth.
Low
Low self-esteem
can result from various factors, including genetic factors, physical
appearance or weight, mental health issues, socioeconomic status,
significant emotional experiences, social stigma, peer pressure or bullying.
A person with low self-esteem may show some of the following characteristics:
Sees temporary setbacks as permanent, intolerable conditions.
Individuals with low self-esteem tend to be critical of themselves.
Some depend on the approval and praise of others when evaluating
self-worth. Others may measure their likability in terms of successes:
others will accept themselves if they succeed but will not if they fail.
People with chronic low self esteem are at a higher risk for
experiencing psychotic disorders; and this behavior is closely linked to
forming psychotic symptoms as well.
This classification proposed by Martin Ross distinguishes three states of self-esteem compared to the "feats" (triumphs, honors, virtues) and the "anti-feats" (defeats, embarrassment, shame, etc.) of the individuals.
Shattered
The
individual does not regard themselves as valuable or lovable. They may
be overwhelmed by defeat, or shame, or see themselves as such, and they
name their "anti-feat". For example, if they consider that being over a
certain age is an anti-feat, they define themselves with the name of
their anti-feat, and say, "I am old". They express actions and feelings
such as pity, insulting themselves, and they may become paralyzed by
their sadness.
Vulnerable
The individual has a generally positive self-image.
However, their self-esteem is also vulnerable to the perceived risk of
an imminent anti-feat (such as defeat, embarrassment, shame, discredit),
consequently, they are often nervous and regularly use defense
mechanisms.
A typical protection mechanism of those with vulnerable self-esteem may
consist in avoiding decision-making. Although such individuals may
outwardly exhibit great self-confidence, the underlying reality may be
just the opposite: the apparent self-confidence is indicative of their
heightened fear of anti-feats and the fragility of their self-esteem.
They may also try to blame others to protect their self-image from
situations that would threaten it. They may employ defense mechanisms,
including attempting to lose at games and other competitions in order to
protect their self-image by publicly dissociating themselves from a
need to win, and asserting an independence from social acceptance which
they may deeply desire. In this deep fear of being unaccepted by an
individual's peers, they make poor life choices by making risky
decisions.
Strong
People with strong self-esteem have a positive self-image
and enough strength so that anti-feats do not subdue their self-esteem.
They have less fear of failure. These individuals appear humble,
cheerful, and this shows a certain strength not to boast about feats and
not to be afraid of anti-feats.
They are capable of fighting with all their might to achieve their goals
because, if things go wrong, their self-esteem will not be affected.
They can acknowledge their own mistakes precisely because their
self-image is strong, and this acknowledgment will not impair or affect
their self-image. They live with less fear of losing social prestige, and with more happiness and general well-being.
However, no type of self-esteem is indestructible, and due to certain situations or circumstances in life, one can fall from this level into any other state of self-esteem.
Contingent vs. non-contingent
A distinction is made between contingent (or conditional) and non-contingent (or unconditional) self-esteem.
Contingent self-esteem is derived from external sources, such as what others say, one's success or failure, one's competence, or relationship-contingent self-esteem.
Therefore, contingent self-esteem is marked by instability,
unreliability, and vulnerability. Persons lacking a non-contingent
self-esteem are "predisposed to an incessant pursuit of self-value".
However, because the pursuit of contingent self-esteem is based on
receiving approval, it is doomed to fail, as no one receives constant
approval, and disapproval often evokes depression. Furthermore, fear of
disapproval inhibits activities in which failure is possible.
"The courage to be is the courage to accept oneself, in spite of
being unacceptable.... This is the Pauline-Lutheran doctrine of
'justification by faith.'" Paul Tillich
Non-contingent self-esteem is described as true, stable, and solid. It springs from a belief that one is "acceptable period, acceptable before life itself, ontologically acceptable". Belief that one is "ontologically acceptable" is to believe that one's acceptability is "the way things are without contingency". In this belief, as expounded by theologian Paul Tillich,
acceptability is not based on a person's virtue. It is an acceptance
given "in spite of our guilt, not because we have no guilt".
Psychiatrist Thomas A Harris drew on Tillich for his classic I'm OK – You're OK that addresses non-contingent self-esteem. Harris translated Tillich's "acceptable" by the vernacular OK, a term that means "acceptable". The Christian message, said Harris, is not "YOU CAN BE OK, IF"; it is "YOU ARE ACCEPTED, unconditionally".
A secure non-contingent self-esteem springs from the belief that one is ontologically acceptable and accepted.
Domain-specific self-esteem
Whereas
global self-esteem addresses how individuals appraise themselves in
their entirety, domain-specific self-esteem facets relate to how they
appraise themselves in various pertinent domains of life. Such
functionally distinct facets of self-esteem may comprise
self-evaluations in social, emotional, body-related, school
performance-related, and creative-artistic domains.
They have been found to be predictive of outcomes related to psychological functioning, health, education, and work.
Low self-esteem in the social domain (i.e., self-perceived social
competence), for example, has been repeatedly identified as a risk
factor for bullying victimization.
Importance
Abraham Maslow
states that psychological health is not possible unless the essential
core of the person is fundamentally accepted, loved and respected by
others and by oneself. Self-esteem allows people to face life with more
confidence, benevolence, and optimism, and thus easily reach their goals
and self-actualize.
Self-esteem may make people convinced they deserve happiness.
The ability to understand and develop positive self-esteem is essential
for building healthy relationships with others. When people have a
positive view of themselves, they are more likely to treat others with
respect, compassion, and kindness. This creates the foundation for
strong, positive relationships that are built on mutual respect and
understanding. For Erich Fromm,
the love of others and love of ourselves are not alternatives. On the
contrary, an attitude of love toward themselves will be found in all
those who are capable of loving others. Self-esteem allows creativity at
the workplace and is a specially critical condition for teaching
professions.
José-Vicente Bonet claims that the importance of self-esteem is
obvious as a lack of self-esteem is, he says, not a loss of esteem from
others, but self-rejection. Bonet claims that this corresponds to major depressive disorder. Freud
also claimed that the depressive has suffered "an extraordinary
diminution in his self-regard, an impoverishment of his ego on a grand
scale... He has lost his self-respect".
The Yogyakarta Principles, a document on international human rights law, addresses the discriminatory attitude toward LGBT people that makes their self-esteem low to be subject to human rights violation including human trafficking. The World Health Organization recommends in "Preventing Suicide",
published in 2000, that strengthening students' self-esteem is
important to protect children and adolescents against mental distress
and despondency, enabling them to cope adequately with difficult and
stressful life situations.
Not only does higher self-esteem increase happiness, but it is
also associated with improved stress coping and increased willingness to
take on challenging tasks.
In contrast, a study examined the impact of boosting self-esteem. It
found that high self-esteem does offer some benefits, but they are
limited. It is often a result, rather than a cause, of success. The
researchers also found that efforts to boost self-esteem may not
consistently lead to improved performance, and that self-esteem's
influence on life outcomes is modest, except for a temporary increase in
positive self-image awareness.
Correlations
From
the late 1970s to the early 1990s many Americans assumed as a matter of
course that students' self-esteem acted as a critical factor in the
grades that they earned in school, in their relationships
with their peers, and in their later success in life. Under this
assumption, some American groups created programs which aimed to
increase the self-esteem of students. Until the 1990s, little
peer-reviewed and controlled research took place on this topic.
Peer-reviewed research undertaken since then has not validated
previous assumptions. Recent research indicates that inflating students'
self-esteems in and of itself has no positive effect on grades. Roy Baumeister has shown that inflating self-esteem by itself can actually decrease grades.
The relationship involving self-esteem and academic results does not
signify that high self-esteem contributes to high academic results. It
simply means that high self-esteem may be accomplished as a result of
high academic performance due to the other variables of social
interactions and life events affecting this performance.
Attempts by pro-esteem advocates to encourage self-pride in
students solely by reason of their uniqueness as human beings will fail
if feelings of well-being are not accompanied by well-doing. It is only
when students engage in personally meaningful endeavors for which they
can be justifiably proud that self-confidence grows, and it is this
growing self-assurance that in turn triggers further achievement.
Research has found a strong correlation between high self-esteem
and self-reported happiness, but it is not yet known whether this
relationship is causal. This means that although people with high
self-esteem tend to report greater happiness, it is not certain whether
having high self-esteem directly causes increased happiness. The relationship between self-esteem and life satisfaction is stronger in individualistic cultures.
In addition, people with high self-esteem have been found to be
more forgiving than people with low self-esteem. This is because people
with high self-esteem tend to have greater self-acceptance and are more
likely to view conflict in a positive light, as an opportunity for
growth and improvement. In contrast, people with low self-esteem may
have a harder time forgiving others, due to a sense of insecurity and
self-doubt.
High self-esteem does not prevent children from smoking, drinking, taking drugs, or engaging in early sex.
Mental health
Self-esteem has been associated with several mental health conditions, including depression, anxiety, and eating disorders.
For example, low self-esteem may increase the likelihood that people
who experience dysfunctional thoughts will develop symptoms of
depression.
Consequently, cognitive treatment of depression helps with low
self-esteem, and vice versa, addressing low self-esteem improves
depressive symptoms.
In contrast, high self-esteem may protect against the development of
mental health conditions, with research finding that high self-esteem
reduces the chances of bulimia and anxiety.
Neuroscience
In
research conducted in 2014 by Robert S. Chavez and Todd F. Heatherton,
it was found that self-esteem is related to the connectivity of the frontostriatal circuit. The frontostriatal pathway connects the medial prefrontal cortex, which deals with self-knowledge, to the ventral striatum, which deals with feelings of motivation and reward.
Stronger anatomical pathways are correlated with higher long-term
self-esteem, while stronger functional connectivity is correlated with
higher short-term self-esteem.
Criticism and controversy
Albert Ellis, an influential American psychologist, argued that the concept of self-esteem is actually harmful and unhelpful.
Although acknowledging the human propensity and tendency to ego rating
as innate, he has critiqued the philosophy of self-esteem as
unrealistic, illogical and self- and socially destructive – often doing
more harm than good. Questioning the foundations and usefulness of
generalized ego strength, he has claimed that self-esteem is based on
arbitrary definitional premises, and overgeneralized, perfectionistic and grandiose thinking.
Acknowledging that rating and valuing behaviors and characteristics is
functional and even necessary, he sees rating and valuing human beings'
totality and total selves as irrational and unethical. The healthier
alternative to self-esteem according to him is unconditional self-acceptance and unconditional other-acceptance. Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy is a psychotherapy based on this approach.
"There seem to be only two clearly demonstrated benefits of high
self-esteem....First, it increases initiative, probably because it
lends confidence. People with high self-esteem are more willing to act
on their beliefs, to stand up for what they believe in, to approach
others, to risk new undertakings. (This unfortunately includes being
extra willing to do stupid or destructive things, even when everyone
else advises against them.)...It can also lead people to ignore sensible
advice as they stubbornly keep wasting time and money on hopeless
causes"
False attempts
For
persons with low self-esteem, any positive stimulus will temporarily
raise self-esteem. Therefore, possessions, sex, success, or physical
appearance will produce the development of self-esteem, but the
development is ephemeral at best.
Such attempts to raise one's self-esteem by positive stimulus produce a
"boom or bust" pattern. "Compliments and positive feedback" produce a
boost, but a bust follows a lack of such feedback. For a person whose
"self-esteem is contingent", success is "not extra sweet", but "failure
is extra bitter".
As narcissism
Life
satisfaction, happiness, healthy behavioral practices, perceived
efficacy, and academic success and adjustment have been associated with
having high levels of self-esteem. However, a common mistake is to think that loving oneself is necessarily equivalent to narcissism, as opposed for example to what Erik Erikson speaks of as "a post-narcissistic love of the ego".
People with healthy self-esteem accept and love themselves
unconditionally, acknowledging both virtues and faults in the self, and
yet, in spite of everything, are able to continue to love themselves. In
narcissists, by contrast, an "uncertainty about their own worth gives
rise to...a self-protective, but often totally spurious, aura of grandiosity" –
producing the class "of narcissists, or people with very high, but
insecure, self-esteem... fluctuating with each new episode of social
praise or rejection."
For narcissists, regulating their self-esteem is their constant
concern. They use defenses (such as denial, projection, self-inflation,
envy, arrogance, and aggression), impression management through
self-promotion, embellishment, lying, charm, and domination, and prefer
high-status, competitive, and hierarchical environments to support their
unstable, fragile, and impaired self-esteem.
Narcissism can thus be seen as a symptom of fundamentally low
self-esteem, that is, lack of love towards oneself, but often
accompanied by "an immense increase in self-esteem" based on "the defense mechanism of denial by overcompensation."
"Idealized love of self...rejected the part of him" that he denigrates – "this destructive little child"
within. Instead, the narcissist emphasizes their virtues in the
presence of others, just to try to convince themself that they are a
valuable person and to try to stop feeling ashamed for their faults;
such "people with unrealistically inflated self-views, which may be
especially unstable and highly vulnerable to negative
information,...tend to have poor social skills."
The Parliament of England was the legislature of the Kingdom of England from the 13th century until 1707 when it was replaced by the Parliament of Great Britain. Parliament evolved from the great council of bishops and peers that advised the English monarch. Great councils were first called Parliaments during the reign of Henry III (r. 1216–1272). By this time, the king required Parliament's consent to levy taxation.
Originally a unicameral body, a bicameral Parliament emerged when its membership was divided into the House of Lords and House of Commons, which included knights of the shire and burgesses. During Henry IV's
time on the throne, the role of Parliament expanded beyond the
determination of taxation policy to include the "redress of grievances",
which essentially enabled English citizens to petition the body to
address complaints in their local towns and counties. By this time,
citizens were given the power to vote to elect their representatives—the
burgesses—to the House of Commons.
Since the unification of England in the 10th century, kings had convened national councils of lay magnates and leading churchmen. The Anglo-Saxons called such councils witans.
These councils were an important way for kings to maintain ties with
powerful men in distant regions of the country. The witan had a role in
making and promulgating legislation as well as making decisions
concerning war and peace. They were also the venues for state trials, such as the trial of Earl Godwin in 1051.
After the Norman Conquest of 1066, the king received regular council from the members of his curia regis (Latin for "royal court") and periodically enlarged the court by summoning a magnum concilium (Latin for "great council") to discuss national business and promulgate legislation. For example, the Domesday survey was planned at the Christmas council of 1085, and the Constitutions of Clarendon were made at the 1164 council. The magnum concilium continued to be the setting of state trials, such as the trial of Thomas Becket.
The members of the great councils were the king's tenants-in-chief. The greater tenants (archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and barons) were summoned by individual writ, but lesser tenants were summoned by sheriffs.
These were not representative or democratic assemblies. They were
feudal councils in which barons fulfilled their obligation to provide
counsel to their lord the king.
Councils allowed kings to consult with their leading subjects, but such
consultation rarely resulted in a change in royal policy. According to
historian Judith Green, "these assemblies were more concerned with ratification and publicity than with debate". In addition, the magnum concilium had no role in approving taxation as the king could levy geld (discontinued after 1162) whenever he wished.
The years between 1189 and 1215 were a time of transition for the
great council. The cause of this transition were new financial burdens
imposed by the Crown to finance the Third Crusade, ransom Richard I, and pay for the series of Anglo-French wars fought between the Plantagenet and Capetian dynasties. In 1188, a precedent was established when the great council granted Henry II the Saladin tithe. In granting this tax, the great council was acting as representatives for all taxpayers.
The likelihood of resistance to national taxes made consent
politically necessary. It was convenient for kings to present the great
council as a representative body capable of consenting on behalf of all
within the kingdom. Increasingly, the kingdom was described as the communitas regni
(Latin for "community of the realm") and the barons as their natural
representatives. But this development also created more conflict between
kings and the baronage as the latter attempted to defend what they considered the rights belonging to the king's subjects.
King John (r. 1199–1216)
alienated the barons by his partiality in dispensing justice, heavy
financial demands and abusing his right to feudal incidents, reliefs, and aids. In 1215, the barons forced John to abide by a charter of liberties similar to charters issued by earlier kings (see Charter of Liberties). Known as Magna Carta (Latin for "Great Charter"), it was based on three assumptions important to the later development of Parliament:
the king was subject to the law
the king could only make law and raise taxation (except customary feudal dues) with the consent of the community of the realm
that the obedience owed by subjects to the king was conditional and not absolute
Clause 12 stated that certain taxes could only be levied "through the
common counsel of our kingdom", and clause 14 specified that this
common counsel was to come from bishops, earls, and barons.
While the clause stipulating no taxation "without the common counsel"
was deleted from later reissues, it was nevertheless adhered to by later
kings. Magna Carta would gain the status of fundamental law after John's reign.
The word parliament comes from the Frenchparlement first used in the late 11th century with the meaning of "parley" or "conversation". In the mid-1230s, it became a common name for meetings of the great council. The word was first used with this meaning in 1236.
In the 13th century, parliaments were developing throughout
north-western Europe. As a vassal to the King of France, English kings
were suitors to the parlement of Paris.
In the 13th century, the French and English parliaments were similar in
their functions; however, the two institutions diverged in significant
ways in later centuries.
Early meetings
After the 1230s, the normal meeting place for Parliament was fixed at Westminster. Parliaments tended to meet according to the legal year so that the courts were also in session: January or February for the Hilary term, in April or May for the Easter term, in July, and in October for the Michaelmas term.
Most parliaments had between forty and eighty attendees. Meetings of Parliament always included:
The lower clergy (deans, cathedral priors, archdeacons, parish priests)
were occasionally summoned when papal taxation was on the agenda.
Beginning around the 1220s, the concept of representation, summarised in
the Roman law maxim quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbetur (Latin for "what touches all should be approved by all"), gained new importance among the clergy, and they began choosing proctors to represent them at church assemblies and, when summoned, at Parliament.
As feudalism declined and the gentry and merchant classes increased in influence, the shires and boroughs were recognised as communes (Latin communitas) with a unified constituency capable of being represented by knights of the shire and burgesses.
Initially, knights and burgesses were summoned only when new taxes were
proposed so that representatives of the communes (or "the Commons")
could report back home that taxes were lawfully granted.The Commons were not regularly summoned until the 1290s, after the so-called "Model Parliament" of 1295. Of the thirty parliaments between 1274 and 1294, knights only attended four and burgesses only two.
Early parliaments increasingly brought together social classes resembling the estates of the realm of continental Europe: the landed aristocracy (barons and knights), the clergy, and the towns. Historian John Maddicott
points out that "the main division within parliament was less between
lords and commons than between the landed and all others, lower clergy
as well as burgesses".
Specialists could be summoned to Parliament to provide expert advice. For example, Roman law experts were summoned from Cambridge and Oxford to the Norham parliament of 1291 to advise on the disputed Scottish succession.
At the Bury St Edmunds parliament of 1296, burgesses "who best know how
to plan and lay out a certain new town" were summoned to advise on the
rebuilding of Berwick after its capture by the English.
Early functions and powers
Parliament—or
the "High Court of Parliament" as it became known—was England's highest
court of justice. A large amount of its business involved judicial
questions referred to it by ministers, judges, and other government
officials. Many petitions
were submitted to Parliament by individuals whose grievances were not
satisfied through normal administrative or judicial channels.
As the number of petitions increased, they came to be directed to
particular departments (chancery, exchequer, the courts) leaving the
king's council to concentrate on the most important business. Parliament
became "a delivery point and a sorting house for petitions". From 1290 to 1307, Gilbert of Rothbury was placed in charge of organising parliamentary business and recordkeeping—in effect a clerk of the parliaments.
Kings could legislate outside of Parliament through legislative acta (administrative orders drafted by the king's council as letters patent or letters close) and writs drafted by the chancery in response to particular court cases.
But kings could also use Parliament to promulgate legislation.
Parliament's legislative role was largely passive—the actual work of
law-making was done by the king and council, specifically the judges on
the council who drafted statutes. Completed legislation was then presented to Parliament for ratification.
Kings needed Parliament to fund their military campaigns.
On the basis of Magna Carta, Parliament asserted for itself the right
to consent to taxation, and a pattern developed in which the king would
make concessions (such as reaffirming liberties in Magna Carta) in
return for tax grants.
Withholding taxation was Parliament's main tool in disputes with the
king. Nevertheless, the king was still able to raise lesser amounts of
revenue from sources that did not require parliamentary consent, such
as:
county farms (the fixed sum paid annually by sheriffs for the privilege of administering and profiting from royal lands in their counties)
Henry III (r. 1216–1272) became king at nine years old after his father, King John, died during the First Barons' War. During the king's minority, England was ruled by a regency
government that relied heavily on great councils to legitimise its
actions. Great councils even consented to the appointment of royal
ministers, an action that normally was considered a royal prerogative. Historian John Maddicott
writes that the "effect of the minority was thus to make the great
council an indispensable part of the country's government [and] to give
it a degree of independent initiative and authority which central
assemblies had never previously possessed".
The regency government officially ended when Henry turned sixteen
in 1223, and the magnates demanded the adult king confirm previous
grants of Magna Carta made in 1216 and 1217 to ensure their legality. At
the same time, the king needed money to defend his possessions in Poitou and Gascony from a French invasion. At a great council in 1225, a deal was reached that saw Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest
reissued in return for taxing a fifteenth (7 percent) of movable
property. This set a precedent that taxation was granted in return for
the redress of grievances.
Ministers and finances
In 1232, Peter des Roches became the king's chief minister. His nephew, Peter de Rivaux, accumulated a large number of offices, including lord keeper of the privy seal and keeper of the wardrobe;
yet, these appointments were not approved by the magnates as had become
customary during the regency government. Under Roches, the government
revived practices used during King John's reign and that had been
condemned in Magna Carta, such as arbitrary disseisins,
revoking perpetual rights granted in royal charters, depriving heirs of
their inheritances, and marrying heiresses to foreigners.
Both Roches and Rivaux were foreigners from Poitou.
The rise of a royal administration controlled by foreigners and
dependent solely on the king stirred resentment among the magnates, who
felt excluded from power. Several barons rose in rebellion, and the
bishops intervened to persuade the king to change ministers. At a great
council in April 1234, the king agreed to remove Rivaux and other
ministers. This was the first occasion in which a king was forced to
change his ministers by a great council or parliament. The struggle
between king and Parliament over ministers became a permanent feature of
English politics.
Thereafter, the king ruled in concert with an active Parliament,
which considered matters related to foreign policy, taxation, justice,
administration, and legislation. January 1236 saw the passage of the Statute of Merton, the first English statute. Among other things, the law continued barring bastards
from inheritance. Significantly, the language of the preamble describes
the legislation as "provided" by the magnates and "conceded" by the
king, which implies that this was not simply a royal measure consented
to by the barons. In 1237, Henry asked Parliament for a tax to fund his sister Isabella's
dowry. The barons were unenthusiastic, but they granted the funds in
return for the king's promise to reconfirm Magna Carta, add three
magnates to his personal council, limit the royal prerogative of purveyance, and protect land tenure rights.
But Henry was adamant that three concerns were exclusively within
his royal prerogative: family and inheritance matters, patronage, and
appointments. Important decisions were made without consulting
Parliament, such as in 1254 when the king accepted the throne of the Kingdom of Sicily for his younger son, Edmund Crouchback. He also clashed with Parliament over appointments to the three great offices of chancellor, justiciar, and treasurer.
The barons believed these three offices should be restraints on royal
misgovernment, but the king promoted minor officials within the royal household who owed their loyalty exclusively to him.
In 1253, while fighting in Gascony, Henry requested men and money to resist an anticipated attack from Alfonso X of Castile.
In a January 1254 Parliament, the bishops themselves promised an aid
but would not commit the rest of the clergy. Likewise, the barons
promised to assist the king if he was attacked but would not commit the
rest of the laity to pay money. For this reason, the lower clergy of each diocese elected proctors at church synods, and each county elected two knights of the shire. These representatives were summoned to Parliament in April 1254 to consent to taxation. The men elected as shire knights were prominent landholders with experience in local government and as soldiers. They were elected by barons, other knights, and probably freeholders of sufficient standing.
Baronial reform movement
By
1258, the relationship between the king and the baronage had reached a
breaking point over the "Sicilian Business", in which Henry had promised
to pay papal debts in return for the pope's help securing the Sicilian
crown for his son, Edmund. At the Oxford Parliament of 1258, reform-minded barons forced a reluctant king to accept a constitutional framework known as the Provisions of Oxford:
The king was to govern according to the advice of an elected council of fifteen barons.
The baronial council appointed royal ministers (justiciar, treasurer, chancellor) to serve for one-year terms.
Parliament met three times a year on the octave of Michaelmas (October 6), Candlemas (February 3), and June 1.
The barons elected twelve representatives (two bishops, one earl and
nine barons) who together with the baronial council could act on
legislation and other matters even when Parliament was not in session as
"a kind of standing parliamentary committee".
Parliament now met regularly according to a schedule rather than at
the pleasure of the king. The reformers hoped that the provisions would
ensure parliamentary approval for all major government acts. Under the
provisions, Parliament was "established formally (and no longer merely
by custom) as the voice of the community".
The theme of reform dominated later parliaments. During the Michaelmas Parliament of 1258, the Ordinance of Sheriffs was issued as letters patent
that forbade sheriffs from taking bribes. At the Candlemas Parliament
of 1259, the baronial council and the twelve representatives enacted the
Ordinance of the Magnates.
In this ordinance, the barons promised to observe Magna Carta and other
reforming legislation. They also required their own bailiffs to observe
similar rules as those of royal sheriffs, and the justiciar was given
power to correct abuses of their officials. The Michaelmas Parliament of
1259 enacted the Provisions of Westminster, a set of legal and administrative reforms designed to address grievances of freeholders and even villeins, such as abuses related to the murdrum fine.
Henry III made his first move against the baronial reformers while in France negotiating peace with Louis IX. Using the excuse of his absence from the realm and Welsh attacks in the marches, Henry ordered the justiciar, Hugh Bigod,
to postpone the parliament scheduled for Candlemas 1260. This was an
apparent violation of the Provisions of Oxford; however, the provisions
were silent on what should happen if the king were outside the kingdom.
The king's motive was to prevent the promulgation of further reforms
through Parliament. Simon de Montfort,
a leader of the baronial reformers, ignored these orders and made plans
to hold a parliament in London but was prevented by Bigod. When the
king arrived back in England he summoned a parliament which met in July,
where Montfort was brought to trial though ultimately cleared of
wrongdoing.
In April 1261, the pope released the king from his oath to adhere
to the Provisions of Oxford, and Henry publicly renounced the
Provisions in May. Most of the barons were willing to let the king
reassume power provided he ruled well. By 1262, Henry had regained all
of his authority, and Montfort left England. The barons were now divided
mainly by age. The elder barons remained loyal to the king, but younger
barons coalesced around Montfort, who returned to England in the spring
of 1263.
Montfortian parliaments
The royalist barons and rebel barons fought each other in the Second Barons' War. Montfort defeated the king at the Battle of Lewes
in 1264 and became the real ruler of England for the next twelve
months. Montfort held a parliament in June 1264 to sanction a new form
of government and rally support. This parliament was notable for
including knights of the shire who were expected to deliberate fully on
political matters, not just assent to taxation.
The June Parliament approved a new constitution in which the
king's powers were given to a council of nine. The new council was
chosen and led by three electors (Montfort, Stephen Bersted, bishop of Chichester, and Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester). The electors could replace any of the nine as they saw fit, but the electors themselves could only be removed by Parliament.
Montfort held two other Parliaments during his time in power. The most famous—Simon de Montfort's Parliament—was held in January 1265 amidst threat of a French invasion and unrest throughout the realm. For the first time, burgesses (elected by those residents of boroughs or towns who held burgage tenure, such as wealthy merchants or craftsmen) were summoned along with knights of the shire.
Montfort was killed at the Battle of Evesham in 1265, and Henry was restored to power. In August 1266, Parliament authorised the Dictum of Kenilworth, which nullified everything Montfort had done and removed all restraints on the king. In 1267, some of the reforms contained in the 1259 Provisions of Westminster were revised in the form of the Statute of Marlborough passed in 1267. This was the start of a process of statutory reform that continued into the reign of Henry's successor.
Edward I (r. 1272–1307)
learned from the failures of his father's reign the usefulness of
Parliament for building consensus and strengthening royal authority.
Parliaments were held regularly throughout his reign, generally twice a
year at Easter in the spring and after Michaelmas in the autumn.
Under Edward, the first major statutes amending the common law were promulgated in Parliament:
The first Statute of Westminster required free elections without intimidation. This act was accompanied by the grant of a tax on England's wealthy wool trade—a half-mark (6s 8d) on each sack of wool exported. It became known as the magna et antiqua custuma
(Latin: "great and ancient custom") and was granted to Edward and his
heirs, becoming part of the Crown's permanent revenue until the 17th
century.
In 1294, the Anglo-French War
broke out over control of Gascony. Edward's need for money to finance
the war led him to take arbitrary measures. He ordered the seizure of
merchants' wool, which was only released after payment of the unpopular maltolt,
a tax never authorised by Parliament. Church wealth was arbitrarily
seized, and the clergy were further asked to give half of their revenues
to the king. They refused but agreed to a smaller sum. Over the next
couple years, parliaments approved new taxes, but it was never enough.
More money was needed to put down a Welsh rebellion and win the First War of Scottish Independence.
This need for money led to what became known as the "Model
Parliament" of November 1295. In addition to magnates who were summoned
individually, sheriffs were instructed to send two elected knights from
each shire and two elected burgesses from each borough. The Commons had
been summoned to earlier parliaments but only with power to consent to
what the magnates decided. In the Model Parliament, the writ of summons
invested shire knights and burgesses with power to provide both counsel
and consent.
Crisis of 1297
By
1296, the King's efforts to recover Gascony were creating resentment
among the clergy, merchants, and magnates. At the Bury St Edmunds
parliament in 1296, the lay magnates and Commons agreed to pay a tax on
moveable property. The clergy refused citing the papal bull Clericis Laicos, which forbade secular rulers from taxing the church without papal permission. In January 1297, a convocation of the clergy met at St Paul's in London to consider the matter further but ultimately could find no way to pay the tax without violating the papal bull. In retaliation, the King outlawed the clergy and confiscated clerical property on 30 January. On 10 February, Robert Winchelsey, archbishop of Canterbury, responded by excommunicating anyone acting against Clericis Laicos. Most clergy paid a fine for the restoration of their property that was identical to the tax requested by the King.
At the Salisbury parliament of March 1297, Edward unveiled his
plans for recovering Gascony. The English would mount a two front attack
with the King leading an expedition to Flanders while other barons traveled to Gascony. This plan faced opposition from the most important noblemen—Roger Bigod, marshal and earl of Norfolk, and Humphrey Bohun, constable and earl of Hereford.
Norfolk and Hereford argued that they owed the king military service in
foreign lands but only if the king were present. Therefore, they would
not go to Gascony unless the King went as well. Norfolk and Hereford
were supported by around 30 barons, and the parliament ended without any
decision. After the Salisbury parliament ended, Edward ordered the
seizure of wool (see prise) and payment of a new maltolt.
In July 1297, a writ declared that "the earls, barons, knights,
and other laity of our realm" had granted a tax on moveables. In
reality, this grant was not made by a parliament but by an informal
gathering "standing around in [the king's] chamber". Norfolk and Hereford drew up a list of grievances known as the Remonstrances,
which criticized the king's demand for military service and heavy
taxes. The maltolt and prises were particularly objectionable due to
their arbitrary nature.
In August, Bigod and de Bohun arrived at the exchequer protesting that
the irregular tax "was never granted by them or the community" and
declared they would not pay it.
The outbreak of the First War of Scottish Independence
necessitated that both the king and his opponents put aside their
differences. At the October 1297 parliament, the council agreed to
concessions in the king's absence. In exchange for a new tax, the Confirmatio Cartarum reconfirmed Magna Carta, abolished the maltolt, and formally recognised that "aids, mises, and prises" needed the consent of Parliament.
Later reign
Edward
soon broke the agreements of 1297, and his relations with Parliament
remained strained for the rest of his reign as he sought further funds
for the war in Scotland. At the parliament of March 1300, the king was
forced to agree to the Articuli Super Cartas, which gave further concessions to his subjects.
At the Lincoln parliament of 1301, the King heard complaints that
the charters were not followed and calls for the dismissal of his chief
minister, the treasurer Walter Langton.
Demands for appointment of ministers by "common consent" were heard for
the first time since Henry III's death. To this, Edward angrily
refused, saying that every other magnate in England had the power "to
arrange his household, to appoint bailiffs and stewards" without outside
interference. He did offer to right any wrongs his officials had
committed.
Notably, the petition on behalf of "the prelates and leading men of the
kingdom acting for the whole community" was presented by Henry de Keighley, knight for Lanchashire. This indicates that knights were holding greater weight in Parliament.
The last four parliaments of Edward's' reign were less
contentious. With Scotland nearly conquered, royal finances improved and
opposition to royal policies decreased. A number of petitions were
considered at the parliament of February 1305 included ones related to
crime. In response, Edward issued the trailbaston ordinance. The state trial of Nicholas Seagrave
was conducted as part of this parliament as well. Harmonious relations
continued between king and Parliament even after December 1305 when Pope
Clement V absolved the King of his oath to adhere to Confirmatio Cartarum. The last parliament of the reign was held at Carlisle in 1307. It approved the marriage of the King's son to Isabella of France. Legislation attacking papal provisions and papal taxation was also ratified.
One of the moments that marked the emergence of parliament as a true institution in England was the deposition of Edward II in January 1327. Even though it is debatable whether Edward II was deposed in parliament or by
parliament, this remarkable sequence of events consolidated the
importance of parliament in the English unwritten constitution. Parliament was also crucial in establishing the legitimacy of the king who replaced Edward II: his son Edward III.
Edward III (1327–1377)
Between 1352 and 1396, the House of Commons met in the chapter house of Westminster Abbey.
In
1341 the Commons met separately from the nobility and clergy for the
first time, creating what was effectively an Upper Chamber and a Lower
Chamber, with the knights and burgesses sitting in the latter. This
Upper Chamber became known as the House of Lords from 1544 onward, and the Lower Chamber became known as the House of Commons, collectively known as the Houses of Parliament.
The authority of parliament grew under Edward III; it was
established that no law could be made, nor any tax levied, without the
consent of both Houses and the Sovereign. This development occurred
during the reign of Edward III because he was involved in the Hundred Years' War
and needed finances. During his conduct of the war, Edward tried to
circumvent parliament as much as possible, which caused this power
structure to emerge.
The Commons came to act with increasing boldness during this period. During the Good Parliament of 1376, the Presiding Officer of the lower chamber, Peter de la Mare,
complained of heavy taxes, demanded an accounting of the royal
expenditures, and criticised the king's management of the military. The
Commons even proceeded to impeach some of the king's ministers. The bold Speaker was imprisoned, but was soon released after the death of Edward III.
During the reign of the next monarch, Richard II,
the Commons once again began to impeach errant ministers of the Crown.
They insisted that they could control not only taxation but also public
expenditure. Despite such gains in authority, however, the Commons still
remained much less powerful than the House of Lords and the Crown.
15th century
This period saw the introduction of a franchise
which limited the number of people who could vote in elections to the
House of Commons. From 1430 onwards, the franchise for the election of knights of the shires in the county constituencies was limited to forty-shilling freeholders,
meaning men who owned freehold property worth forty shillings (two
pounds) or more. The Parliament of England legislated for this new
uniform county franchise in the statute 8 Hen. 6. c. 7. The Chronological Table of the Statutes does not mention such a 1430 law, as it was included in the Consolidated Statutes as a recital in the Electors of Knights of the Shire Act 1432 (10 Hen. 6.
c. 2), which amended and re-enacted the 1430 law to make clear that the
resident of a county had to have a forty shilling freehold in that
county to be a voter there.
Tudor era (1485–1603)
Queen Elizabeth I presiding over Parliament, c. 1580 – c. 1600
During the reign of the Tudor monarchs,
it is often argued that the modern structure of the English Parliament
began to be created. The Tudor monarchy, according to historian J. E. Neale,
was powerful, and there were often periods of several years when
parliament did not sit at all. However, the Tudor monarchs realised that
they needed parliament to legitimise many of their decisions, mostly
out of a need to raise money through taxation legitimately without
causing discontent. Thus they consolidated the state of affairs whereby
monarchs would call and close parliament as and when they needed it.
However, if monarchs did not call Parliament for several years, it is
clear the Monarch did not require Parliament except to perhaps
strengthen and provide a mandate for their reforms to Religion which had
always been a matter within the Crown's prerogative but would require
the consent of the Bishopric and Commons.
By the time of the Tudor monarch Henry VII's
1485 coronation, the monarch was not a member of either the Upper
Chamber or the Lower Chamber. Consequently, the monarch would have to
make his or her feelings known to Parliament through his or her
supporters in both houses. Proceedings were regulated by the presiding
officer in either chamber.
From the 1540s the presiding officer in the House of Commons became formally known as the "Speaker",
having previously been referred to as the "prolocutor" or "parlour" (a
semi-official position, often nominated by the monarch, that had existed
ever since Peter de Montfort had acted as the presiding officer of the Oxford Parliament of 1258).
This was not an enviable job. When the House of Commons was unhappy it
was the Speaker who had to deliver this news to the monarch. This began
the tradition whereby the Speaker of the House of Commons is dragged to
the Speaker's Chair by other members once elected.
A member of either chamber could present a "bill" to parliament. Bills supported by the monarch were often proposed by members of the Privy Council
who sat in parliament. For a bill to become law it would have to be
approved by a majority of both Houses of Parliament before it passed to
the monarch for royal assent or veto.
The royal veto was applied several times during the 16th and 17th
centuries and it is still the right of the monarch of the United Kingdom
and Commonwealth realms to veto legislation today, although it has not
been exercised since 1707 (today such an exercise might precipitate some
form of constitutional crisis).
When a bill was enacted into law, this process gave it the
approval of each estate of the realm: the King, Lords and Commons. The
Parliament of England was far from being a democratically representative
institution in this period. It was possible to assemble the entire
peerage and senior clergy of the realm in one place to form the estate
of the Upper Chamber.
The voting franchise for the House of Commons was small; some historians
estimate that it was as little as three per cent of the adult male
population; and there was no secret ballot. Elections could therefore be
controlled by local grandees,
because in many boroughs a majority of voters were in some way
dependent on a powerful individual, or else could be bought by money or
concessions. If these grandees were supporters of the incumbent monarch,
this gave the Crown and its ministers considerable influence over the
business of parliament.
Many of the men elected to parliament did not relish the prospect of having to act in the interests of others. So a law was enacted, still on the statute book today, whereby it became unlawful for members of the House of Commons to resign their seat unless they were granted a position directly within the patronage of the monarchy (today this latter restriction leads to a legal fiction allowing de facto
resignation despite the prohibition, but nevertheless it is a
resignation which needs the permission of the Crown). However, while
several elections to parliament in this period would be considered
corrupt by modern standards, many elections involved genuine contests
between rival candidates, even though the ballot was not secret.
Establishment of permanent seat
It was in this period that the Palace of Westminster
was established as the seat of the English Parliament. In 1548, the
House of Commons was granted a regular meeting place by the Crown, St Stephen's Chapel. This had been a royal chapel. It was made into a debating chamber after Henry VIII
became the last monarch to use the Palace of Westminster as a place of
residence and after the suppression of the college there.
This room was the home of the House of Commons until it was
destroyed by fire in 1834, although the interior was altered several
times up until then. The structure of this room was pivotal in the
development of the Parliament of England. While most modern legislatures
sit in a circular chamber, the benches of the British Houses of
Parliament are laid out in the form of choir stalls in a chapel, simply
because this is the part of the original room that the members of the
House of Commons used when they were granted use of St Stephen's Chapel.
This structure took on a new significance with the emergence of
political parties in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, as the
tradition began whereby the members of the governing party would sit on
the benches to the right of the Speaker and the opposition members on
the benches to the left. It is said that the Speaker's chair was placed
in front of the chapel's altar. As Members came and went they observed
the custom of bowing to the altar and continued to do so, even when it
had been taken away, thus then bowing to the Chair, as is still the
custom today.
The numbers of the Lords Spiritual diminished under Henry VIII, who commanded the Dissolution of the Monasteries, thereby depriving the abbots and priors of their seats in the Upper House. For the first time, the Lords Temporal
were more numerous than the Lords Spiritual. Currently, the Lords
Spiritual consist of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishops
of London, Durham and Winchester, and twenty-one other English diocesan
bishops in seniority of appointment to a diocese.
The Laws in Wales Acts of 1535–42 annexed Wales as part of England and this brought Welsh representatives into the Parliament of England, first elected in 1542.
Rebellion and revolution
The interior of Convocation House, which was formerly a meeting chamber for the House of Commons during the English Civil War and later in the 1660s and 1680s.
Parliament had not always submitted to the wishes of the Tudor
monarchs. But parliamentary criticism of the monarchy reached new levels
in the 17th century. When the last Tudor monarch, Elizabeth I, died in
1603, King James VI of Scotland came to power as King James I, founding
the Stuart monarchy.
In 1628, alarmed by the arbitrary exercise of royal power, the House of Commons submitted to Charles I the Petition of Right,
demanding the restoration of their liberties. Though he accepted the
petition, Charles later dissolved parliament and ruled without them for
eleven years. It was only after the financial disaster of the Scottish Bishops' Wars
(1639–1640) that he was forced to recall Parliament so that they could
authorise new taxes. This resulted in the calling of the assemblies
known historically as the Short Parliament of 1640 and the Long Parliament, which sat with several breaks and in various forms between 1640 and 1660.
The Long Parliament was characterised by the growing number of
critics of the king who sat in it. The most prominent of these critics
in the House of Commons was John Pym.
Tensions between the king and his parliament reached a boiling point in
January 1642 when Charles entered the House of Commons and tried,
unsuccessfully, to arrest Pym and four other members for their alleged
treason. The Five Members
had been tipped off about this, and by the time Charles came into the
chamber with a group of soldiers they had disappeared. Charles was
further humiliated when he asked the Speaker, William Lenthall, to give their whereabouts, which Lenthall famously refused to do.
From then on relations between the king and his parliament
deteriorated further. When trouble started to brew in Ireland, both
Charles and his parliament raised armies to quell the uprisings by
native Catholics there. It was not long before it was clear that these
forces would end up fighting each other, leading to the English Civil War which began with the Battle of Edgehill in October 1642: those supporting the cause of parliament were called Parliamentarians (or Roundheads), and those in support of the Crown were called Royalists (or Cavaliers).
Battles between Crown and Parliament continued throughout the
17th and 18th centuries, but parliament was no longer subservient to the
English monarchy. This change was symbolised in the execution of Charles I in January 1649.
In Pride's Purge of December 1648, the New Model Army
(which by then had emerged as the leading force in the parliamentary
alliance) purged Parliament of members that did not support them. The
remaining "Rump Parliament",
as it was later referred to by critics, enacted legislation to put the
king on trial for treason. This trial, the outcome of which was a
foregone conclusion, led to the execution of the king and the start of
an 11-year republic.
The House of Lords was abolished and the purged House of Commons governed England until April 1653, when army chief Oliver Cromwell
dissolved it after disagreements over religious policy and how to carry
out elections to parliament. Cromwell later convened a parliament of
religious radicals in 1653, commonly known as Barebone's Parliament, followed by the unicameral First Protectorate Parliament that sat from September 1654 to January 1655 and the Second Protectorate Parliament that sat in two sessions between 1656 and 1658, the first session was unicameral and the second session was bicameral.
Although it is easy to dismiss the English Republic of 1649–60 as
nothing more than a Cromwellian military dictatorship, the events that
took place in this decade were hugely important in determining the
future of parliament. First, it was during the sitting of the first Rump
Parliament that members of the House of Commons became known as "MPs"
(Members of Parliament). Second, Cromwell gave a huge degree of freedom
to his parliaments, although royalists were barred from sitting in all
but a handful of cases.
Cromwell's vision of parliament appears to have been largely
based on the example of the Elizabethan parliaments. However, he
underestimated the extent to which Elizabeth I and her ministers had
directly and indirectly influenced the decision-making process of her
parliaments. He was thus always surprised when they became troublesome.
He ended up dissolving each parliament that he convened. Yet the
structure of the second session of the Second Protectorate Parliament of
1658 was almost identical to the parliamentary structure consolidated
in the Glorious Revolution Settlement of 1689.
In 1653 Cromwell had been made head of state with the title Lord
Protector of the Realm. The Second Protectorate Parliament offered him
the crown. Cromwell rejected this offer, but the governmental structure
embodied in the final version of the Humble Petition and Advice
was a basis for all future parliaments. It proposed an elected House of
Commons as the Lower Chamber, a House of Lords containing peers of the
realm as the Upper Chamber. A constitutional monarchy, subservient to
parliament and the laws of the nation, would act as the executive arm of
the state at the top of the tree, assisted in carrying out their duties
by a Privy Council. Oliver Cromwell had thus inadvertently presided
over the creation of a basis for the future parliamentary government of
England. In 1657 he had the Parliament of Scotland (temporarily) unified with the English Parliament.
In terms of the evolution of parliament as an institution, by far
the most important development during the republic was the sitting of
the Rump Parliament between 1649 and 1653. This proved that parliament
could survive without a monarchy and a House of Lords if it wanted to.
Future English monarchs would never forget this. Charles I was the last
English monarch ever to enter the House of Commons.
Even to this day, a Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sent to Buckingham Palace as a ceremonial hostage during the State Opening of Parliament,
in order to ensure the safe return of the sovereign from a potentially
hostile parliament. During the ceremony the monarch sits on the throne
in the House of Lords and signals for the Lord Great Chamberlain
to summon the House of Commons to the Lords Chamber. The Lord Great
Chamberlain then raises his wand of office to signal to the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, who has been waiting in the central lobby. Black Rod turns and, escorted by the doorkeeper
of the House of Lords and an inspector of police, approaches the doors
to the chamber of the Commons. The doors are slammed in his
face—symbolising the right of the Commons to debate without the presence
of the monarch's representative. He then strikes three times with his
staff (the Black Rod), and he is admitted.
Parliament from the Restoration to the Act of Settlement
The
revolutionary events that occurred between 1620 and 1689 all took place
in the name of Parliament. The new status of Parliament as the central
governmental organ of the English state was consolidated during the
events surrounding the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660.
After the death of Oliver Cromwell in September 1658, his son Richard Cromwell succeeded him as Lord Protector, summoning the Third Protectorate Parliament
in the process. When this parliament was dissolved under pressure from
the army in April 1659, the Rump Parliament was recalled at the
insistence of the surviving army grandees. This in turn was dissolved in
a coup led by army general John Lambert, leading to the formation of the Committee of Safety, dominated by Lambert and his supporters.
When the breakaway forces of George Monck
invaded England from Scotland, where they had been stationed without
Lambert's supporters putting up a fight, Monck temporarily recalled the
Rump Parliament and reversed Pride's Purge
by recalling the entirety of the Long Parliament. They then voted to
dissolve themselves and call new elections, which were arguably the most
democratic for 20 years although the franchise was still very small.
This led to the calling of the Convention Parliament which was dominated by royalists. This parliament voted to reinstate the monarchy and the House of Lords. Charles II
returned to England as king in May 1660. The Anglo-Scottish
parliamentary union that Cromwell had established was dissolved in 1661
when the Scottish Parliament resumed its separate meeting place in
Edinburgh.
The Restoration began the tradition whereby all governments
looked to parliament for legitimacy. In 1681 Charles II dissolved
parliament and ruled without them for the last four years of his reign.
This followed bitter disagreements between the king and parliament that
had occurred between 1679 and 1681. Charles took a big gamble by doing
this. He risked the possibility of a military showdown akin to that of
1642. However, he rightly predicted that the nation did not want another
civil war. Parliament disbanded without a fight. Events that followed
ensured that this would be nothing but a temporary blip.
Charles II died in 1685 and he was succeeded by his brother James II.
During his lifetime Charles had always pledged loyalty to the
Protestant Church of England, despite his private Catholic sympathies.
James was openly Catholic. He attempted to lift restrictions on
Catholics taking up public offices. This was bitterly opposed by
Protestants in his kingdom. They invited William of Orange, a Protestant who had married Mary, daughter of James II and Anne Hyde to invade England and claim the throne.
William assembled an army estimated at 15,000 soldiers (11,000 foot and 4000 horse) and landed at Brixham in southwest England in November, 1688. When many Protestant officers, including James's close adviser, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough,
defected from the English army to William's invasion force, James fled
the country. Parliament then offered the Crown to his Protestant
daughter Mary, instead of his infant son (James Francis Edward Stuart),
who was baptised Catholic. Mary refused the offer, and instead William
and Mary ruled jointly, with both having the right to rule alone on the
other's death.
As part of the compromise in allowing William to be King—called the Glorious Revolution—Parliament was able to have the 1689 Bill of Rights enacted. Later the 1701 Act of Settlement
was approved. These were statutes that lawfully upheld the prominence
of parliament for the first time in English history. These events marked
the beginning of the English constitutional monarchy and its role as one of the three elements of parliament.
.svg)
.svg)
