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]
Having looked at how constitutional
questions were argued, and the culture of and discussion and
dialogue which helped facilitate these arguments, it is worth
looking at the actual conclusions which emanated form these
debates. Doing so is valuable, because it further illustrates
how Jacobean political culture discouraged definitive conclusions
which terminated debate and discussion. Indeed, Jacobean political
culture was very much characterized by theoretical flexibility,
again illustrating the heavy emphasis these politicians placed
on deliberation and examination
[
]
When members of Parliament
reached a decision, this did not mean that all discussion suddenly
terminated. Even after the Commons had achieved some form of
consensus, members of Parliament continually questioned their
own theories and encouraged a critical dialogue whereby they
could examine those theories
[
]
In fact, the Commons actively
encouraged members of Parliament to dissent with the majority's
views. In 1614, Sir Dudley Digges moved that "if any Man be
unsatisfied concerning the Impositions, he may now speak." Likewise,
when Hakewill learned that some men had objections, he urged
a conference with the king's attorney's "that so nothing may
be omitted, nor any Man put out of his Part. Moveth, every Man
may set down the Heads of what he will speak; and that all they
shall speak, may be agreed by all the Committees."
[View the actual
document
here.]
The Commons provided all
its members with an open forum whereby everyone could voice
their disagreement [
] Simply because some members of Parliament
had reached a conclusion did not mean that further discussion
and reevaluation was prohibited.
[
]
However, it is precisely
this culture of theoretical and constitutional flexibility which
is absent in the reign of Charles. Ideas which were once open
for discussion and examination became more rigid and solidified,
and ideological lines of demarcation began to emerge. Whereas
members of Parliament during the Jacobean era sought to examine
and dispute, those who served in the Carolingian era became
increasingly more concerned with issuing protestations. When
the Commons Protestation of 1629 declared that anyone caught
levying a tax on trade without parliament's consent "shall
be reputed a betrayer of the liberties of England, and an enemy
to the same," they were clearly using a tone which differed
dramatically from the cautious and tentative rhetoric employed
only five years prior.
[
]
Likewise, the contrast between
the speeches of Charles and those of James could not be more
dramatic. Whereas James presented carefully reasoned arguments,
and elicited discussion, Charles was more inclined to be abrupt,
as he noted on March 17, 1628 : These are times for action;
wherefore for examples sake, I mean not to spend much time in
words, expecting accordingly, that your (as I hope) good resolutions
will be speedy, not spending time unnecessarily, (or that I
may better say) dangerously, for tedious consultations at this
conjuncture of time is as hurtful as ill resolution. The reign
of James was an era of theoretical conversation, the reign of
Charles was a period of theoretical confrontation [
] No longer
was the English government "searching and disputing," they were
now defending.
[
]
And the contrast between
these two reigns provides a vivid illustrating of the aspects
of the Jacobean era which were so unique. Different ideas did
emerge, but they did not confront one another as was the case
during the reign of Charles. Political theory maintained is
fluidity as politicians cautiously and carefully tried to define
it.
What then is the
significance of Pym's decision to quote the late king James?
In doing so, whether consciously or not, he was referring not
only to a monarch who had since passed away, but also to an
entire political ethos which has disappeared with him. During
the reign of King James, political theory had not achieved the
degree of solidity that would have mad e such a citation unusual.
Political theory during the reign of king James remained very
fluid and open ended, and the political culture which dominated
this era sought to keep this flexibility. There was no shortage
of fear, but this fear coexisted with an emphasis on dialogue,
discussion and deliberation. When Pym stood up to make his speech,
this culture no longer existed. It is quite possible that his
reference to King James was a tacit recognition of this fact.
