World History: Daily Assignment

Unit 4: The Emergence of Modern Nations

Chapter 16: Revolution and Change in England

35. Thu, Jan 16, 2014

To us today, a governing body that did not meet regularly would be strange. Some states in the US only have legislatures meet every other year, which seems strange enough to me. But this idea is relatively new in the world. In England prior to the Glorious Revolution, Parliament was still a body intended to help the monarch rule, and only existed when summoned into existence at the ruler's whim. Thus Charles I could simply not have one for eleven years, and then wind up with the Long Parliament (i.e., no new elections for years) for longer still. Thus Cromwell could weed the Long Parliament down to sixty men and then, after they too had disappointed him, dismiss them with the memorable (and possibly apocryphal) cry, "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. …Depart, I say, and let us have done with you."

But the barons at Runymede with their swords at King John's throat had loosed something new into this world: an official check on royal power. So as France, Spain, and the other monarchies of Europe gathered more power, England's government moved the other way, with consequences down to the present. The shift from advisory body under Henry VIII to constitutional legislature under William and Mary is thus one of the decisive shifts in the history of government, and is worth studying in detail.

Particularly noteworthy in this is the House of Commons. Originally just the lower-ranking knights of England, this body began to include representatives of the cities, knighted or not, and by the 17th century represented the wealthier but non-noble classes. It was into this body that Puritans could be elected, and thus wield greater and greater power; it was this body that more regularly represented the shifting will of the English people, or at least some of them.

It is worth remembering that poverty was on the rise in England, in part because of the enclosure system. This began in the 1600s and yet oddly the book does not describe it until Ch. 19. "Enclosure" meant fencing off land that had previously been held in common, legally or tacitly. As a result, more and more non-landowning people had a hard time making ends meet. This impoverished class had no rights and was usually despised, leading to an era that both increased the power of the people but also held human life startlingly cheap.

Clearly the most important Parliament of this era was the Long Parliament, which was summoned into being by Charles I and wound up beheading him. While it was called by Charles and indeed many of its members stayed loyal to him, the Long Parliament was always somewhat hostile and prepared to deal with him, declaring that they had to meet at least every three years, that only they could decide when it would be dissolved, and abolishing Star Chamber justice within months of being formed. The decisive step was outright rebelling against Charles — but Parliament had, in fact, deposed a king or two before. The real precedent was taking over the country and ruling, not just swapping one king for another. Of course there had been republics in the past. But that act of setting itself up as the government of England, not merely as an adjunct to the crown, was decisive. Parliament has in essence been the prime power in Britain ever since. (With the House of Lords and Queen Elizabeth II surrendering all but the most ceremonial rights in the last decade or two, Britain is now essentially a republic in all but name, ruled by the House of Commons alone — quite the rise to power for a body once only the occasional junior partners to the House of Lords.)

But the swords at Runymede had their darker reflection here, as well. The Long Parliament was purged on Cromwell's orders, and later Cromwell simply locked them out: "I say you are no Parliament," he said, and because the army followed him, they weren't. What the army could disband, it could also restore, and General George Monck called the Long Parliament back into session twenty years after it was first formed so that it could vote to dissolve itself. Then Monck went a step further and restored not only Parliament but the monarchy itself.

Since then, however, Parliament has had the upper hand in most matters. It could depose James II and install William and Mary, then later George I. And while both George I and II (used to the Continental style of absolute monarchy) were occasionally frustrated and baffled by it, they knew that Parliament had called them in and that Parliament could drive them out. Robert Walpole became the most powerful man in Britain not because of birth or military might, but because he was elected.

Considering the absolutism of the rest of Europe, England's slog toward a limited constitutional monarchy, with almost republican elements, is particularly striking. Magna Carta is clearly the dominant factor, but what other causes might there have been for England's different path?
It's also striking that England took the limitation on the monarchy to its extreme, decapitated Charles I, and did without a king at all… and yet eleven years later, the monarchy was restored. What led England to backtrack?
It is worth noting that the Restoration came less than two years after the death of Cromwell. Was Cromwell an example of the "great men" theory of history, holding out monarchy by his force of will alone? Or was he just a monarch in all but name? It is said that the Founding Fathers of the United States dreaded a Cromwell arising in America more than anything else. Why might that be?

Contents of this page © Copyright 2011, 2012 by Paul Christiansen and Bruce A. McMenomy.
Permission to download or print this page is hereby given to members of Scholars Online for purposes of personal study only. All other use constitutes a violation of copyright.