Search

Copyright of Journal of Modern Turkish History Studies / Cumhuriyet Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi (CTAD) is the property of Ataturk Institute for Modern Turkish History and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Historians of the Scottish parliament have paid little attention to shire elections because of an apparent lack of local source material. This article explores some of the reasons for this perception and argues that sheriff court records contain considerably more evidence than has been appreciated hitherto. It demonstrates that these records provide details of the electoral process, the regularity of elections, the numbers of electors, external interference in elections and internal divisions within the electorate, local responses to national political events, and attitudes to representation through such things as levying taxes locally to reimburse representatives' expenses. It challenges the once widely-held view that the lesser nobility, who comprised the electorate, were uninterested in parliamentary participation, suggesting instead that the statute of 1587, by which shire representation was established, was reasonably successful. Finally, it considers the potential for further research in these and other records which, it is argued, will provide a much deeper understanding of 17th-century Scotland's parliamentary history in particular and political history in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Questions regarding the origin and evolution of legislative institutions are at the heart of comparative legislative studies. Much research in this area focuses on the US Congress; in contrast, comparative studies of European democracies have been more limited. Addressing this imbalance, this special issue showcases newly emerging research on legislative organisation in Europe. In doing so, it brings together contributions that explore the rationales behind the emergence of, and variation in, national European voting practices, investiture rules, minority rights, committee power, agenda control, debating rules and individual MPs’ rights. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The gentleman usher of the black rod has long been acknowledged as an officer of the house of lords. Yet he was in origin an officer of the order of the Garter with no necessary connection with parliament. This note aims to throw light on the process whereby this association came about. By 1509, the house of lords had the services of an usher of the parliament chamber, a post always held in conjunction with an office in the royal household. By 1558, this post was being exercised by one of the gentlemen ushers daily waiters, who had been granted the office of black rod as an additional perquisite in 1554. From this point it became customary for the offices of black rod, daily waiter and usher of the parliament chamber to be held by one man. This association was broken in 1620, when the then usher relinquished the office of daily waiter but retained his parliamentary functions together with the office of black rod. In 1631, a decree was promulgated annexing the office of black rod to that of one of the gentlemen ushers daily waiters but it was only from 1660 that this became fully effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Parliaments in many countries have been using their power in order to govern. Until 1961, the bicameral system had been discussed by public opinion in Turkey. Turkish community met with some new governmental institutions by the 1961 Constitution. One of them was the Republican Senate actualy it was similar Ottoman Ayan that worked as the second division of Turkish Grand National Assembly between 1961 and 1980. It was a legislative assembly that was formed by members of the National Union Committee, members were selected by the president and members were elected after general elections. The fundamental functions of the Senate were to check and to balance practices and operations of governments. Furthermore, it was supposed that the Senate would have played a significant role in order to solve some serious social problems. In this article, scope of activities and arrangements of the Turkish Senate, which had an important place in Turkish parliamentary system, were scrutinized in the light of political, social and economic developments that were experienced throughout between 1961 and 1980 in Turkey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]