Thomas Sutcliffe, “The paths are open, the way is plain”: Political and Constitutional Theory in Jacobean England, 1603-1625

 

Excerpts                                             [see Tom's commentary here]

---

On June 4th 1628, William Pym launched an acerbic attack on one of King Charles’s court preachers, Roger Manwaring. And the event in which he chose to launch this invective was of no small significance, for at that moment the House of Commons was attempting to impeach Manwaring for expounding a theory which they felt threatened their entire notion of basic, fundamental liberty. As Pym phrased it, the teachings of Manwaring attempted to convince the king that royal power was “not bound to observe the laws of the realm concerning the subject’s rights and Liberties,” and as such the king was legally free to act in any manner he so chose. For the Commons, Manwaring’s political theory was the very antithesis of everything they held dear and far more was at stake then the fate of Manwaring himself. As a result, one would expect Pym to be very cautious in choosing which authorities to cite in his speech. And certainly, there was no shortage of famous common law theorists that Pym could have selected from: for instance, he could have cited Sir John Fortescue, the famed fifteenth century judge, or perhaps Henry Bracton, the thirteenth century jurist. In addition, he could have cited the Magna Charta, or one of its subsequent reaffirmations. Pym had all of these options available to him, and indeed, when members of Parliament sought to defend their liberties these were very popular choices. But instead, Pym decided to cite King James I of England, the late father of the current king who had passed away only three years prior. As Pym stated, Manwaring “labors to infuse into the conscience of his majesty, the persuasion of a power not bounding itself within the laws, which King James of famous memory calls, in his speech to Parliament, tyranny.” Nor was this an isolated reference, Pym later cited him again in the same speech.

Although Pym’s comments occurred during the reign of Charles, they nonetheless provide an appropriate epitaph for the reign of James I. His decision to reference the political theories espoused by his deceased king, a man who could often voice opinions which differed dramatically from his own, suggests that political and constitutional theory between 1603 and 1625 was very fluid and poorly defined, allowing for a political environment which lacked clear ideological lines of demarcation. Rather, the reign of king James I was largely a period of cautious theoretical experimentation and exploration. As this essay shall argue, Jacobean politicians operated in a political culture which placed a heavy emphasis on discussion and deliberation. They did not possess an a priori understanding of the English constitution, nor did they value such an understanding. Rather, the social elite valued debate and argumentation and saw this as the appropriate means by which they should comprehend the English constitution.
[...]

This paper will proceed by analyzing Jacobean constitutional debate over the nature of the king’s prerogative as it occurred in parliament, the judiciary and in private correspondences. […] In order to derive a better understanding of the relationship between constitutional theory and politics, this paper will concentrate less on the actual ideas that were espoused and more on the ways in which political theory was approached […]In this sense, this is not a political thought paper per se, but rather a study which focuses on how ideas were deployed and utilized in their political context.