Chapter Three
Roots
of England’s Constitutional Monarchy
English
constitutionalism emerged from the same feudal roots as had produced absolutism
on the Continent, however a few critical events produced a system far different
from absolutists, and also markedly different from the Dutch. In England, a new
political direction was begun with the establishment of a system in which power
was shared by a hereditary monarchy and the feudal based aristocracy.
FEUDAL ROOTS
England in the 12th and 13th
centuries experienced the early build up of central power producing one of the
early New Monarchies; this English monarch was clearly a feudal monarchy. Early
Plantagenet monarchs such as Henry I (1111-1135) and Henry
II (1154 - 1189) built up monarchical power based on the oaths and
obligations of a powerful nobility which pledged service as loyal vassals to
the crown. By building a monarchy using existing feudal obligations, customs
and even laws, the early English kings were able to achieve a degree of central
control as early as the High Middle Ages.
However, building a
monarch based squarely on feudal relations meant the monarch was bound to
feudal expectations, and thus limits. The feudal king owed explicit obligations
to the great lords and barons who served as his vassals helping to rule his
kingdom. These obligations included strict limits on his ability to impose new
taxes or "aids" without their consent, and the obligations of
guardianship over their surviving families. To a lesser but still significant
degree, the emerging king of England
also had limits on what he could do to his lesser subjects; he could not do as
he pleased with life and property in relation to the peasants and the growing
urban class. His word was not they only form of law; feudal customs also
existed, to which he was bound. There were feudal limits on his authority and
even obligations to protect certain liberties.
The inherent limits of a
feudal monarch was made explicit and secured under the regime of one of the
more infamous English monarchs- John, youngest son of Henry II of the
Plantagenet family. John, less famed as a warrior than his celebrated brother
who preceded him Richard the Lion-Hearted (1189-1199), was nonetheless an
ambitious ruler. (see discussion) In the early 13th century,
John attempted to create more substantive central rule. He asserted his power,
ignoring and explicitly overstepping feudal based limits on his actions, for
example enacting unprecedented seizure of property from the lower classes and
imposing an array of new taxes or "aids" on the nobility. He also
disregarded his obligations to protect the widows and orphans of vassals who
had died; rather, he confiscated their properties and even forcibly married off
those under his protection for monetary compensation.
These egregious and
provocative actions led to an event that proved momentous in its effects; it
set England
on a unique political path. Angry barons (nobles) took up arms against John and
a rebellion erupted; the Archbishop of Canterbury
and other key leaders were able to broker a mediated solution on the
battlefield where armies were preparing to clash. This was the famous
1215 "Battle of Runnymede";
it was not an actual battle but rather a standoff where John backed down. He
agreed to several demands set forth by the barons, demands that the king
respect established feudal obligations and the liberties of his subjects. These
initial demands were then written into the "Great Charter", the Magna
Carta - one of the most important documents in Western political history, and
one of the primary documents you are to read for this week. (see discussion)
MAGNA CARTA
The Magna Carta was
actually revised and reissued under subsequent English kings, adding
stipulations from other charters and later agreements, however, the
fundamental principles remained the same as that first coerced agreement with
John. This Charter solidified and codified the fundamental limits that English
monarchs were forced to accept for the centuries that followed – and this
was done as early as the 13th century.
The Magna Carta
established three critical ideas and precedents in English political culture:
* The king
(monarch) was under the law, in this case feudal law as set out in the
Charter. The monarch in England,
it was forcibly asserted by the powerful nobility, could not do what he
wished. There were limitations on his powers and laws that he had to follow.
This was a critical stage in the evolution of feudal law to common law - laws
based on established common practice from the feudal age.
* There were
certain obligations the monarch had to fulfill and actions he could not
implement; in particular key stipulations of Magna Carta laid out what we can
now see as the founding assertions of cherished legal and property rights. Look
at this document and note these early and critical limits: Link to Magna Carta
Limits on Taxes:
Clauses: 12, 14.
Protections of Property:
Clauses: 9, 28, 30, and 31
Limits on the
Monarch’s Power: Clauses: 38 (no unsubstantiated charges), 39 (judgment
of peers - basis of grand jury and trial by jury), 40 (guarantee of justice to
all), and others.
* The monarch was
to be kept in line by the powerful nobility. The most important part of this
Charter was item 61, the so-called security clause, which stated that "…(the king will) give and grant them the following
security: namely, that the barons shall choose any twenty-five barons of the
realm they wish, who with all their might are to observe, maintain, and have
granted and confirmed to them by this our present charter...
".
If this group determined
that the king, or his sheriffs and bailiffs, were not abiding by this Charter,
the king pledged that "…anyone
in the land who wishes may take an oath to the orders of the said twenty-five
barons in the execution of all the aforesaid matters and to join with them in
distressing us to the best of his ability".
"Distressing"
was code for war or military opposition; thus, a council of barons was created,
evolving from the traditional feudal noble assemblies that fulfilled the
obligation of suit to court. This Great Council (as it came to be called)
was responsible for evaluating charges that the monarch ignored Magna Carta
limitations and it was empowered to take action if the monarch
overstepped his limitations. This Great Council, of course, became the House of
Lords (feudal lords), the founding body of what became known as Parliament.
Thus, as early as
1215, England’s political path of centralization differed
dramatically from events on the Continent of Europe.
The nobles would not be bought off or crushed. They asserted a shared role in
governance, and the right to "watch" the king. Certain limits to
protect fledgling rights were also established. This was a remarkably important
historical fork in the road.
TUDORS
For four centuries after
the confrontation at Runnymede, English
monarchs had to accept these limitations. Although over time, certain limits
were ignored, the English monarchy remained weaker than its counterparts in two
key areas. The monarchy had virtually no ability to independently raise money.
Taxes had to be approved by Parliament. Also, the monarch could not raise his
or her own army. If forces were needed to fight a war, suppress a rebellion
etc, the monarch had to request that Parliament raise a force for that
purpose. There was no standing army in England, thus no imposing military
force under the direct control of the monarch.
And the ability of the
nobles to assemble in this council, this Parliament, became a fiercely guarded
right; by the 15th and 16th centuries this assembly had actually
grown in size, scope and assertiveness. Parliament, as it was now called,
consisted of the House of Lords, representing the bloodline aristocracy, the
old, feudal based noble houses. There was also a second body, the House of
Commons. This House represented the wealthy upper middle class, the commercial
elite that did not have feudal titles, but who were a rising power in the
state. Recognize, it was still an elitist assembly since there was a high
property qualification. Only the very rich served in and were represented by
this body.
Monarchs remained
frustrated by and limited by Magna Carta and Parliament. Those who came closest
to circumventing limits on the power of the monarch were those of the Tudor
line. The Tudor Dynasty ruled England from
1485 -1603; the greatest of the Tudors were Henry VIII (1509-1547) and Elizabeth I (1558 - 1603).
Both used the same tactics to increase the monarch’s power; rather than confronting
Parliament and cherished rights overtly, sparking an inevitable confrontation
and rebellion, these monarchs paid lip service to both Magna Carta and
Parliament, while always trying to either control, manipulate, or circumvent
both of these limits.
Elizabeth was the master. She was the most
powerful of all the English monarchs. Under her reign, Parliament was swayed
and directed by Elizabeth's
remarkable ability to create internal divisions between groups and individuals
within Parliament, to play power blocks off against each other, to gain support
for her legislation through "network" building, and by her personal
charisma. Prior to asking Parliament to act, she prepared legislation
carefully, established her supporters and allies ahead of time, and worked to
hamper or divide/distract, her political opponents. She also employed a key
tactic, which was to go as long as possible without calling Parliament into
session. And, as England’s military, commercial and colonial fortunes improved
under her rule, she was also able to use her personal popularity as a political
tool. (see
contemporary description of Elizabethan England)
Elizabeth came to power,
as was discussed a few Units ago, in the midst of England’s religious wars. Her brother Edward VI (1547 - 1553)
had furthered the imposition of Protestantism in England by targeting Catholics. Her
sister Mary Tudor (1553 - 1558) had savagely persecuted, executed and tortured
Protestants in a failed attempt to restore England as a Catholic state.
Elizabeth, however, was a politique, who recognized the need to end the
swinging pendulum of religious persecution and imposition that had preceded
her. Elizabeth was able to achieve the compromise that eluded Catherine de
Medicis in France. She promulgated and passed through Parliament a series of
policies asserting the authority of the Church of England, but downplayed
persecution of those who disagreed. Those not practicing the faith of the
Church of England would be fined, but not hunted down or arrested. Elizabeth was able to
quell (though not erase) divisive religious passions. (see
speech regarding religion.)
However, there were some
ominous signs of political and religious confrontation near the end of Elizabeth's reign.
Parliament was increasingly restive and there were many members who were
cognizant and angry about the loss of Parliament's power. In particular, the
more aggressive House of Commons members, often referred to as the gentry and
representing significant commercial interests were anxious to assert more
authority both relative to the monarch, and in terms of the House of Lords.
Also, the religious
truce that Elizabeth
achieved was fraying. Some Catholics had not given up their dream of restoring England to the
Catholic Church, they were still ready to wage religious war. Anglicans were
concerned about the stability of the Church of England after Elizabeth. And more radical Protestants, in
particular Calvinists who came to be called Puritans, were passionately
unsatisfied with the degree of religious change in the Anglican Church. They
felt the Church of England still reflected too many remnants of Catholic
practice, doctrine, prayers and rituals, and especially too much of the
hierarchy and church structure of the Church of Rome. Puritan political power
was growing, in particular in the House of Commons.
Finally, England’s
control over its neighbors Ireland,
Scotland and Wales, which had resulted in the creation of
“Great Britain”,
was being challenged by growing regional movements. Henry VIII had attempted to
quell Irish, Catholic rebellion by forcibly seizing land in Northern Ireland,
and displacing Irish land owners, sending over Presbyterian Scottish loyalists
- the so-called "Plantation of Ulster".
The failure of this policy and resulting regional violence was evident by the
early 17th century (and still evident today!) Calvinist Scotland was
also showing signs of impatience with the pace of religious reform, and
nativist reaction against England’s control.
THE STUART DYNASTY
Although arguably England’s
greatest monarch, when Elizabeth
died, she left a state with serious underlying problems. The state was
suffering from deep debt (lack of ability to directly tax, and increase taxes
was a limit all English monarchs hated). Religious tensions, although subsided,
remained unresolved. Most critically, there was no direct Tudor heir. The
throne thus passed to the branch of the royal line with the nearest claim, the
Stuart family. Thus began one of the most turbulent periods of England’s political history.
The Stuart kings: James I ,
Charles I, Charles II and James II ruled England from 1603 - 1689. During
that period there were two civil conflicts in England over political and
religious issues. In essence, these monarchs challenged both the political
system of shared power, and the religious compromise achieved by Elizabeth. The major flaw
evident in all four Stuart monarchs was that they did NOT accept a limited
monarchy; they continually attempted to increase the power of the monarchy, to
achieve the absolutist control of their counter parts on the Continent. In
addition, the Stuarts came from a family known as being either Catholic or at
favoring and aligned with Catholic families, interests and alliances. Thus,
political and religious tensions converged, creating create a violent and
political significant century for England.
GO TO CHAPTER
FOUR
BACK TO CHAPTER
TWO
BACK TO UNIT
EIGHT PAGE