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]
…[I]n order to really understand
the dynamics of this political culture, it is necessary to probe
deeper and explore how these debates were processed on an individual
level. Of course, due to the inherent difficulty of probing
into the minds of a seventeenth-century politician, such an
explanation is problematic. However, there is some evidence
that may provide insight, and this evidence again suggests that
politicians in this era did not enter into debate with any preconceived
ideological dogma, but instead formulated their beliefs as the
debate progressed. For instance, on April 11th, 1606, the Commons
proceeded to debate impositions for the first time. During this
debate, Sir John Saville made a lengthy speech in which he noted
that he had changed his mind half way through the debate. As
he noted, "[f]or my own part…I was by the speech of the learned
gentleman that first spoke almost transported to the other opinion
until I now hearing more have further considered the matter."
Indeed, the entire structure of Saville's speech suggests that
he was a man torn between two very convincing arguments. In
the opening of his speech, he thoroughly reviewed the main arguments
advanced in favor of impositions, acknowledging their strengths.
Here he noted some of Francis Bacon's main points, particularly
that the king had a right to impose on trade so he should also
be able to tax it. Following this summary, he then went on to
review the "other side," focusing on arguments that claimed
that the king could tax excessively if impositions were legal,
thereby creating an enormous burden on the kingdom. What Saville
was essentially doing here was balancing two competing views,
both of which he found very convincing. He was careful inspecting
each argument, even reversing his opinion when necessary.
[…]
[He was a] part of a political
culture which discouraged hasty conclusions and they remained
receptive to a variety of different opposing arguments. […]
But perhaps the most fascinating and intricate example of an
individual who acknowledged the need for cautions and flexible
examination comes from Sir Edward Coke
[…]
For instance, in 1615 Coke
presided over the trial of Edmund Peacham, an ecclesiastic who
was discovered to be in possession of allegedly treasonous writings.
During the proceedings, Bacon, acting on behalf of the king,
ordered the judges to meet individually with the king so that
the outcome could be discussed. Most of the judges acquiesced,
but Coke refused, declaring that such a consultation was against
the common law and was a violation of his oath to uphold justice,
much as he would later do in the Commendams case. However, after
a series of correspondences between the two men, Coke began
to prevaricate, requesting more time to consider the matter
and review the precedents with which he had been provided. Finally,
Coke agreed to discuss the case with Bacon, admitting that he
had taken his initial objections too far. Coke was grappling
with difficult questions and at times had to modify his opinions
and question his beliefs. [As with members of parliament, Coke
valued cautious, open-minded examination]
[...]
[Saville and Coke] were afraid
of the consequences of certain royal actions, but that fear
coexisted with a very deliberative political culture.
