William Laud and the Parliamentary Politics of 1628–9

This article seeks to highlight the important part played by Bishop William Laud in the counsels of Charles I in the 1620s, and, in particular, his involvement in the parliamentary sessions of 1628 and 1629. Having demonstrated his usefulness as a parliamentary spokesman for the crown in the parliaments of 1625 and 1626, and having been promoted to the privy council, the parliament of 1628–9 witnessed the height of Laud's parliamentary engagement. His key role as a writer of memoranda and speeches both for the duke of Buckingham and for Charles himself demonstrate the weight accorded to his political views. These views, reflected in his writings, sermons and his contributions to parliamentary debate, embody a dislike of parliamentary bargaining, a firm commitment to uphold the royal prerogative, particularly in matters of taxation, and a determination to resist encroachments upon it by the common lawyers, whether by the confirmation of Magna Carta or in the form of the Petition of Right. The expression of these views in such an emphatic fashion would come back to bite him, in the parliamentary attacks on him in 1629, but above all at his trial in 1644. Nevertheless, his articulation of them suggests that Laud himself was a more considered political thinker, and a more active politician, than he has hitherto been given credit for, and that there were ideas around in influential conciliar circles that do not appear to reflect the ‘anti‐absolutist’ consensus that, it is widely claimed, prevailed within the early Stuart political nation.     

Israel–Syria: The Elusive Peace*

For 20 years, as of 1991, multiple rounds of negotiations took place between Syria and Israel. These negotiations revolved around the entire gamut of problems separating the two countries: borders, recognition, finality of the conflict, normalization, security arrangements, the Israeli civilian population in the disputed territory, water, Lebanon, the Palestinian issue, Iran, and terrorism. Israeli Prime Ministers, Syrian presidents, foreign ministers, and senior generals from both sides participated in the talks, and third parties such as the United States and Turkey were also involved. Yet peace was not achieved, although not for a lack of effort. This article tries to shed light on some of the reasons for this continuing failure.     

Drafting the Nineteen Propositions,January–July 1642*

This article analyses the drafting of the document eventually printed as the Nineteen Propositions. Section two addresses certain issues regarding the methods and concepts employed in the subsequent analysis, focusing on consensus‐building, constitutional leanings and the drafting of parliamentary declarations in early 1642. Section three examines the origins of the Nineteen Propositions in the draft Declaration of Ways and Means (January 1642) (hereafter cited as the Ways). Section four traces the emergence of the Declaration Concerning Grievances and Remedies (hereafter cited as the Grievances) from the Ways (January–February). Section five examines the junta's efforts to overcome the Lords' prevarication over passing the Grievances (February–May). Section six examines the emergence of the initial draft of the Nineteen Propositions from the Grievances (24–7 May). Section seven analyses the 28 May draft, while section eight explores the amendment of that draft (31 May and 1 June). Section nine examines parliament's abortive attempts to revise the Nineteen Propositions in light of His Majesty's Answer to the XIX Propositions (21 June–2 July). It is concluded that, contrary to the received view, the text of the Nineteen Propositions began to emerge in January rather than May 1642, and that the junta in the Commons rather than the Lords drove this process. The three appendices identify, respectively, the constitutional leanings of the relevant parliamentarians, the parts of the text of the Ways that were repeated in the Grievances, and dates on which the various parts of the final text of the Nineteen Propositions were written.     

The Determination of Policy and Politics in the American States, 1948–1974*

The picture of the American state policy-making process which emerges from this analysis is one of a system where politics as well as economics matter a great deal. Partisanship and legislative competition are shown to have demonstrable effect on policy output. The control partisan preference exerts over policy decisions is severely constrained in taxing and spending areas, however, and is conditional on forces external to the model presented here. Surpassing the control over policy output exhibited by partisanship is the extent to which the electorate, or the electoral process, holds the parties responsible for policy performance. Apparently the public doesn't believe that “politics doesn't matter.”