The development of constitutional government in England

By the mid-fifteenth century, the English Parliament had met regularly for 200 years or more and the king needed its consent for taxation, in addition to the fact that it dealt with a number of other matters.

When Parliament became a permanent and very important institution in the following period, it was to a considerable extent because of war. The traditional doctrine, in England as well as in other countries, was that the king ‘should live from his own’, that is the royal estates and manors and the various feudal aids his vassals were obliged to contribute. If he wanted more, he had to ask permission.

According to the understanding at the time, the king’s demands were not simply suggestions that Parliament was free to accept or reject; the king could base his argument on a doctrine of necessity. It was the duty of the inhabitants of the realm to support the political community in the case of a necessity. Accordingly, the assembly was in principle bound to accept what the king demanded; the only way its members could reject the king’s demands was by denying that there was a necessity. In practice, some criteria for this emerged; Parliament refused to pay for the suppression of rebels or to finance the king’s debt, claiming that such expenses had to be covered by his regular revenues. Above all, it was an important principle that taxes were extraordinary, not something the king could claim as a matter of routine. Whereas the king’s need for taxes was the original reason for the existence of Parliament, its duties and competence increased during the later Middle Ages and the early modern period. Parliament demanded concessions in return for its taxes in the form of new legislation and reform of administration and govern­ment.⁴¹ New legislation had to be approved by the House of Commons. A number of petitions from individuals were also dealt with in Parliament. Policy­making and advising the king were for a long time a matter for the House of Lords, while the House of Commons presented petitions and gave assent. How­ever, the importance of this body increased during the troubled periods in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

England had the strongest monarchy in medieval Europe. The country had an elaborate judicial system and large tracts of land belonged to the king, feuds were forbidden and the Roman Law of Treason was implemented more harshly here than elsewhere in Europe. On the other hand, the courts of law and the local administration were run by the ‘people’ — namely, the nobility and gentry — to a far greater extent than they had been in the previous period. Thus, while the king of France had to pay the local elites to make use of their services, his English counterpart could use them without cost — at least, without direct monetary compensation, although of course, their positions gave prestige and influence and limited the king’s possibility to intervene directly in local society. The common people might also in some cases have acted politically and have had a direct rela­tionship to the king, but the aristocracy was clearly the most important class and in many ways acted as the link between the king and local society.

Despite the strength of the monarchy, however, no military revolution took place in England between 1450 and 1650.43 In the Tudor period, the army con­sisted partly of local militias and partly of private retainers of the nobility. The latter formed more than one-third of the army of 45,000 men mobilized when the country was threatened by the Spanish Armada in 1588. As we have seen, English taxes also amounted to far less than the French ones until the mid-seventeenth century. When England could manage with a small army most of the time, only increasing it at particular periods of crisis, the explanation is largely to be sought in its protected location as an island, notably after having gained control of the whole of it, which happened in 1603, when King James VI of Scotland succeeded Eliza­beth I as King James I.

This relatively peaceful period gives some impression of a reduced power of Parliament, which might seem to support the theory of war as the main reason for its existence. It met more rarely, and particularly during the reign of Henry VIII, the monarchy seems to have been almost absolute, more so than that of Louis XIV, with his numerous executions of nobles, his extensive use of the Law of Treason and his frequent introduction of religious changes, in either a Catholic or Protes­tant direction. There was one difference, however; in principle, Henry did not act arbitrarily, he always had the necessary legal support, either by a court of law or Parliament.

The Reformation strengthened the king by making him the head of the Church and increasing his wealth through the suppression of the monasteries but he also shared the spoils with his subjects, notably the nobility and gentry, whose members were given or allowed to buy the confiscated estates at favourable prices. On the other hand, the country was divided religiously and Henry needed allies to carry out his religious policy, which increased the importance of Parliament. Thus, despite an old-fashioned and inefficient army and the lack of a military revolution, the way the Reformation was introduced shows the strength of the monarchy. Moreover, the new dynasty, the Stuarts, which succeeded to the throne at the death of Elizabeth I in 1603, represented a further step in the direction of stronger monarchy, which led to the great conflicts between king and Parliament, ending with the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688.

According to the ‘Whig view’ of English history, developed particularly in the nineteenth century, the victory of Parliament in the seventeenth century, notably in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, comes as the logical conclusion to a long development of English constitutionalism dating back to the Anglo-Saxon period.

From the 1930s onwards, the English Civil War was often understood in social terms as a class struggle between the gentry and the burghers on the Parlia­mentarian side, while the high nobility supported the king.⁴⁴ These studies resulted in much valuable information on English social history in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries but most scholars nowadays agree that it is very difficult to find consistent patterns regarding the social background of the two parties. By contrast, the clearest distinction between them is religious. Most Catholics and High Church Anglicans supported the king whereas most Puritans favoured Par­liament. Otherwise, it is likely that the party division to a considerable extent was determined by patron-client relationships: influential local landowners or burghers formed networks joining one of the two sides. In addition, there were hard-liners and moderates on both sides and various aims and programmes.

Although long-term factors are clearly important for understanding the whole constitutional development in the seventeenth century, it therefore seems that the main explanation for the outbreak of the Civil War must be sought in short-term ones. In contrast to his predecessors, Charles I (1625—49) was inspired by Con­tinental ideas of the absolute power of the king and systematically attempted to rule without Parliament, which he actually succeeded in doing from 1629 to 1640. He also, unsuccessfully, tried to establish a standing army. Moreover, he challenged the Puritans through his religious policy, formulated and carried out by William Laud, from 1633, the Archbishop of Canterbury.⁴⁵ Theologically, Laud supported Arminianism, a doctrine developed by the Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius which rejected predestination.

The persecution of religious dissenters was sufficiently harsh to make thousands of people leave for America, but not harsh enough to suppress the opposition. On the contrary, the persecution led to grievances which came to the surface in the 1640s and resulted in Laud’s imprisonment in 1640 and execution in 1645. Moreover, Charles’ attempt to enforce Anglicanism in Scotland led to rebellion in that country in 1637, which eventually forced him to summon Parliament once more in 1640. In addition, the queen, Henrietta Maria, was a Catholic, the daughter of King Henry IV of France, which made people suspect that Charles really aimed to reintroduce Catholicism, a suspicion that was in all likelihood unfounded but which was nevertheless effective in anti-royal propaganda.

There was thus more than enough reasons for large sectors of the English people to oppose King Charles. When Parliament was once more summoned on 3 November 1640, only a small minority supported the king. Parliament now introduced a series of anti-royal measures, including the arrest and execution of the king’s leading councillor, Lord Strafford. However, an increasing minority even­tually found that the anti-royalist measures went too far and turned to support the king, who now made some, relatively minor concessions. When the Civil War broke out in summer 1642, a number of moderates who had earlier supported Parliament joined the king.

The Civil War led to the victory of Parliament, the execution of Charles in 1649, the proclamation of an English republic and the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell, the leader of the Parliamentarian army, until his death in 1658. Already in 1660, the monarchy was restored without much resistance and without any firm guarantees from the new king, Charles’ son Charles II, to respect the reforms that had been introduced since the deposition of his father. The king’s defeat had not led to the victory of Parliament; on the contrary, Parliament became the object of repeated purges. There were also suggestions that Cromwell should become king but he refused. He was nevertheless the real ruler and managed to uphold some degree of stability, but his death in 1658 and the succession of his son Richard led to a breakdown, which paved the way for the restoration. The victory of Parlia­ment after the Civil War was thus a mixed blessing. Cromwell apparently believed that Parliament would come to the ‘right’ conclusion without any suggestion from himself but was repeatedly disappointed and reacted by purging it. Thus, he showed even less skill in handling Parliament than the Stuarts had done.⁴⁶ The taxes also became heavier than they had been during Charles’ reign, due to the money needed to pay for the Civil War. In short, royal government was replaced by military dictatorship, not by a republican constitution.

Charles II was the last real baroque ruler, with a lavish court, plenty of mistresses, heavy drinking and a lot of entertainment. As a person, he was very different from his father who was a devoted husband and led an impeccable private life. Charles II was said to have had Catholic sympathies, but generally does not seem to have been very religious, as illustrated by the following story told by the court chaplain. When he was preaching at court, most of the congregation, including the king, was asleep. The chaplain addressed Lord Lauderdale, one of the sleepers, in the following way: ‘My Lord, I am sorry to interrupt your repose, but I must beg you that you will not snore quite so loud, lest you should awaken His Majesty.’⁴⁷ Politically, however, Charles held similar ideas as his father, but he was more flexible and showed greater skill in handling people. Charles was succeeded by his brother, James II, who was a Catholic and tried to make Catholicism tolerated. This led to his deposition and replacement by his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange in 1688. Although no detailed constitution was proclaimed, the basic principles for the rights of Parliament and the limited power of the king were settled, notably in the Declaration of Rights of 1689.

There has been less discussion among historians about the events of 1688—90 than about the previous Civil War.⁴⁸ English society was also clearly less divided at the time; James had little support in England; his main adherents were the Scots and above all the Irish. Not surprisingly, his defeat introduced a long period of suppression of the Irish. In contrast to the Civil War, when the main division was between High Church Anglicans and Puritans, both groups were now united against Catholicism, which was hated by the majority of the English population. In addition, powerful London merchants — the ones who invited William to Eng­land — might have regarded the union with the Dutch Republic as a means to commercial success.

In practice, the Glorious Revolution laid the foundation for the English parlia­mentary system that has lasted until the present. Once more, we are faced with the problem of causation. Was this the logical development of the English democracy back to the Middle Ages in accordance with the Whig view or the result of for­tuitous circumstances in the late seventeenth century? There are some obvious arguments in favour of the latter view. In the 1640s, the country was divided between two parties of approximately equal strength, which resulted in a pro­longed civil war. By contrast, the king was stronger in 1688 than he had been in the 1640s. Thanks to French subsidies, Charles II was able to rule without Parlia­ment during the last five years of his reign and James II had at his disposal a strong standing army and navy.⁵⁰ Nevertheless, these forces turned against him and joined his enemies. The reason for this is most probably that he had converted to Cath­olicism. Thus, if he had remained a Protestant, he might have retained the loyalty of the army, prevented the victory of Parliament and made England an absolute monarchy according to the French model.⁵¹

The problem with this reasoning is that contra-factual theories can only to a limited extent be used to construct an alternative future. It is reasonable to assume that James II would not have been deposed in 1688 if he had not been a Catholic but apart from that, English history might have developed in a multiplicity of ways that cannot be easily predicted. To take one example: In 1685, Charles II’s illegi­timate son, the Duke of Monmouth, led a rebellion against James II which failed and led to his execution shortly afterwards. If he had succeeded, it would no doubt have led to a contra-factual theory to the effect that if he had failed, James would have remained on the throne until his death in 1701, which would have enabled him to introduce a number of changes. Further arguments against the idea of English absolutism in the period include that fact that James’ Catholicism was lar­gely the direct cause of his conflicts with Parliament; he tried to introduce some measures in favour of religious freedom, which were in practice intended to favour Catholics. Actually, it has been argued that his reign represented a liberal move against the strict Protestant orthodoxy of the previous period and not necessarily a step towards royal absolutism.⁵²

Thus, if James had remained a Protestant, these conflicts might not have taken place. On the other hand, as most of his provocations of Parliament were results of his religious policy, he might also have had a better relationship to this body. Moreover, England at the time was developing into a great colonial power with a strong merchant aristocracy which resented royal privileges and which would hardly have been willing to accept absolutism according to the French model. Finally, it may be pointed out that increased militarization is hardly the only reason for French absolutism. More important is the fact that constitutional government had never worked in France. As demonstrated by the wars of religion, the Fronde and other internal conflicts, rebellion against the king led to chaos and internal division. By contrast, despite Cromwell’s limited success, the English Civil War had not resulted in chaos, and England had repeatedly shown that there were alter­natives to royal government and, above all, that opposition against the king did not automatically lead to regional division. Thus, despite the changes in the late seventeenth century, we have to take into account the long-term differences between England and France, going back to the thirteenth century.