Scottish Representation in the Protectorate Parliaments: The Case of the Shires

The 30 MPs elected for Scotland in the Cromwellian parliaments of 1654, 1656 and 1659 have often been seen as government‐sponsored placemen, foisted on constituencies by the military. Some were Scottish collaborators, but most were English carpetbaggers. Restrictions on voter qualifications, designed to weed out suspected royalists, and opposition to English rule among the Scots, further contributed to what has been described as the antithesis of representation, a ‘hollow sham’. This article revisits the question of Scottish representation in this period through the analysis of the surviving indentures for the shire elections of 1656. These documents – of which 17 of the 20 survive – give the date of election, the name of the presiding officer (usually the sheriff) and details of principal electors, often with signatures and seals attached. Four constituencies are used as case studies: Peeblesshire and Selkirkshire, Ayrshire and Renfrewshire, Perthshire, and Fife and Kinross. Each constituency had a distinct response to Cromwellian rule and to the parliamentary elections, but general themes emerge: the restrictions on voters were totally ignored; direct interference by the English authorities was rare; and the elections were dominated by local political and religious disputes between the Scots themselves. This analysis further suggests that there was no unified Scottish interest at this time, that local differences overrode other considerations, and that in many cases, choosing an Englishman as MP could be the least controversial option, as well as that most likely to secure influence at Westminster.     

The Culture of Fasting in Early Stuart Parliaments*

The fasts, proposed and observed by parliament in the first half of the 17th century, have always been defined as opportunities for propaganda. This article focuses, instead, on their cultural and religious meanings: why MPs believed that the act of fasting itself was important and what they hoped it would achieve. It argues that fasts were proposed for two reasons: to forge unity between parliament and the king at a time of growing division, with the aim of making parliamentary sessions more productive and successful, and to provide more direct resolution to the nation's problems by invoking divine intervention. Fast motions commanded widespread support across parliament because they were rooted in the dominant theory of causation – divine providence – and reflected the gradual conventionalisation of fasting in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. However, this consensus seemed to wane in the early 1640s as divisions between Charles I and some of his most vocal MPs widened, while the fast day observed on 17 November 1640 was used by some MPs to express their opposition to Charles's religious policy, especially regarding the siting of the communion table/altar and the position from where the service was to be read. The article concludes by reflecting on how a study of parliamentary fasting can contribute to wider debates on commensality and abstinence.     

Size and Executive-Legislative Relations in Australian Parliaments

In parliamentary systems of government, size of parliament (in absolute terms and, especially, relative to the parliamentary executive) is an important, but often underemphasised, aspect of constitutional design. An analysis is provided of change in the size of national and sub-national parliaments and ministries in one parliamentary democracy, Australia, during the twentieth century. The ratio of executive to non-executive members of parliament has grown dramatically in all Australian parliaments, due to differences in incentives to increase the sizes of parliament and the executive. It is argued that this process has contributed to the weakening of parliaments and limited the potential for parliamentary reform. A proposal for institutional redesign is brieflly discussed.     

The End of the Gamble: The Termination of the Virginia Lotteries in March 1621*

The sudden cancellation of the Virginia lotteries during the first sitting of the parliament of 1621 was not part of a general parliamentary attack on monopolies but a calculated political act intended to pressure the Virginia Company of London to pay more taxes than required by its charter of 1612. The appropriate context for considering the cancellation is the financial difficulties of James I and the search for funds by Sir Lionel Cranfield. The cancellation coincided with a rejection of a new charter for the company, possibly incited by Count Gondomar, the Spanish ambassador in England. The cancellation of the lotteries was the most important turning point in the history of Jamestown and started the company on its downward spiral.     

Two AHA Sessions: The Revolutionary Mr. Kuhn and the Evolutionary Mr. Bertalanffy

Abstract

Quantitative methods of content analysis have become established in most subfields of political science, but remain relatively unutilized in studies of political theory, despite the exclusive focus of that subfield on textual sources. This article develops a variation of content analysis—termed usage analysis—and employs it to resolve a standing debate in scholarship on Cicero's political theory regarding the synonymy of the major Latin terms for the state (civitas and res publica). The resulting distinction between these concepts then informs an exposition of Cicero's ideal state not as the Roman Republic itself or the mixed constitution alone, but as a universal, everlasting political society supported by justice, a mixed constitution, and active citizenship.     

Philip IV of Spain and the Portuguese Inquisition (1621–1641)

The historiography of the I berian I nquisitions has focused on analysing relations between the H oly O ffice and the secular authorities in the society in which it operated. The I nquisition was not an i sland. It influenced and was influenced by society. This line of inquiry will be reprised to study relations between the C rown and the P ortuguese I nquisition in a complex and difficult period in the history of the H ispanic monarchy, namely the reign of P hilip IV , during which the kingdom of P ortugal regained full independence in 1640. It will offer a holistic view of the institution (not restricted to policies designed to repress heresy), and a detailed reconstruction of events in order to demonstrate the dynamic nature of these processes. The essential problem will be to determine the impact of the C rown's offensive, launched in an attempt to dominate the T ribunal, and the strategies and results of the response of the I nquisition, commanded by its I nquisitor G enerals and the G eneral C ouncil of the H oly O ffice.     

The Fall of Thomas Howard, 1st Earl of Suffolk and the Revival of Impeachment in the Parliament of 1621

The revival of impeachment in 1621 has tended to be viewed exclusively through the prism of parliament. However, this article, which builds on the work of Professor Allen Horstman, suggests that a key factor in impeachment's revival was the dismissal of Lord Treasurer Suffolk for corruption in 1618. Suffolk's removal caused widespread disquiet, since it was assumed that senior officials held office for life. In order to silence these criticisms it proved necessary for the king not only to put Suffolk on trial but also to justify by precedent the lord treasurer's removal. This latter task was performed by the former lord chief justice, Sir Edward Coke, himself not long disgraced, whose researches in the medieval parliamentary record revealed the following year that errant crown ministers had hitherto been held to account by means of impeachment. Coke subsequently put this discovery to good effect when parliament met in 1621. Against the backdrop of mounting criticism against his hated rival, the lord chancellor, Francis Bacon, Coke revealed the existence of impeachment to the house of commons, whose attention was then focused on finding a way to punish the monopolists, Sir Giles Mompesson and Sir Francis Michell. In so doing, Coke not only aided the lower House, which had been struggling since 1610 to find a way of punishing non‐members, but also sought to settle an old score.