Thematic Essay: British Political and Social Thought

I

Introduction

Thematic Essay: British Political and Social Thought

Thematic Essays combine a broad survey of a particular topic with key supplementary readings to create a comprehensive learning experience. This essay by historian Isaac Kramnick traces the development of British political and social thought. Accompanying the essay are Sidebars consisting of excerpts from the works of some of Britain’s most influential thinkers.

By Isaac Kramnick

Many of the central ideals of government that are taken for granted today have their origins in the traditions of British social and political thought. Respect for the rule of law and rejection of arbitrary and despotic authority are rooted in the English tradition. The parliamentary system of government that exists in many countries is a legacy of British political and social thought. Peaceful, evolutionary reform—as opposed to violent, revolutionary change—and respect for individual rights also derive in part from British political thought. Indeed, the basic notions of liberal and conservative stem from British tradition, as do the workings of politics and government in much of the world today.

---

---

The British model of parliamentary democracy has influenced many nations, including the United States. The thought behind this system of government began to take form during a particularly tumultuous period in British history: the English Revolution of 1640 to 1660. The seeds of the revolution were planted in the 16th century, when the monarchy and the British Parliament competed for political authority. During that period a fundamental transformation occurred: Thinkers began to challenge the very assumptions and ideals underlying British government. At the beginning of the 16th century, the ruling ideas in England were those of the nobility who held the view that they were God’s agents on Earth. Since their power over common people derived from God, the resulting political and social inequality was, in effect, divinely ordained.

II

Division of Power under the Tudors

In the 16th century the ruling Tudor monarchy increased the level of cooperation among royalty, local aristocrats, and wealthy merchants. Although the Tudors maintained their belief in the divine right of kings—the doctrine that rulers derive their right to rule directly from God—they demonstrated an unprecedented willingness to share power with the elites of the realm. Division of power in England dated back to the Magna Carta, sealed in 1215 by King John, which decreed that the king's nobles must be consulted over issues of taxation. In the late 16th century Queen Elizabeth I shared authority and actively sought guidance from the British Parliament. At that time Parliament consisted of the House of Lords, representing landed aristocrats, and the House of Commons, representing the wealthy commercial classes. In cooperation with Parliament, the Tudors established a mixed constitution, a set of rules both formal and informal that regulated the workings of government. The British constitution differs from the constitutions of the United States and many other nations because it is not a single document; instead it is a complex collection of acts of Parliament, judicial rulings, statutes, and conventions.

The British constitution, as it evolved under the Tudors, established that power would be shared among the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the wealthy commercial class. In the religious realm the Tudors compromised as well. They followed the Protestant break from the Roman Catholic Church and established Anglicanism as the national Church of England. Anglicanism maintained many features of Catholicism, such as a hierarchical clergy presided over by archbishops and bishops, but it included some important differences from Catholicism, such as allowing Anglican priests to marry.

III

The Constitutional Crisis and the English Revolution

After Elizabeth I died in 1603, James I became the first of the Stuarts to ascend the English throne. The Stuarts had ruled Scotland since 1371. James and his successor, Charles I, rejected the constitutional middle ground that the Tudors had established and governed as absolute monarchs, refusing to share authority with Parliament. Their authority came directly from God, they claimed, and they ruled alone by divine right. In addition to opposing the sharing of power, James and Charles repudiated the Tudor theological compromise. They sought to return England to the Catholic fold, and they actively persecuted radical English Protestants, called Puritans. Some of the Puritans fled to settle the New England colonies in America. Those Puritans who remained became central actors in the great constitutional crisis of the 17th century known as the English Revolution.

Between 1640 and 1649 Parliament raised an army, led by military administrator Oliver Cromwell, that fought to overthrow Charles I and his royalist followers. Charles was captured, arrested under charge of treason, and executed in 1649. Cromwell abolished the monarchy and the House of Lords, and became the first commoner to rule a great European power. England was declared a commonwealth, in which government was to function according to the common consent of the people. Cromwell’s government failed, however, and the Stuart monarchy was restored in 1660, when Charles II ascended the throne. Both he and his successor, James II, reasserted the divine right principle of ruling without Parliament and sympathized with the Catholic cause. In 1688 opponents of James II forced him to abdicate the throne and replaced him with William III and his wife, Mary II, who were crowned as joint rulers in 1689. This Glorious Revolution of 1688, as it came to be called, occurred without bloodshed and restored the division of power between Parliament and the monarchy.

The tumultuous half-century of crisis that preceded the Glorious Revolution inspired a reconsideration of government and produced many enduring strands of British political and social thought. In deriving their theories regarding government and society, thinkers of the time explored a rich variety of ideas. They examined British and classical history for inspiration, proposed truths about human morality, and questioned whether society actually benefited from stern leadership.

IV

Common Law and the Absolute Rights of Englishmen

In the 17th and 18th centuries some thinkers looked to England’s legal history to justify a greater role for Parliament and rule by law rather than by royal authority. Jurists such as Sir Edward Coke and Sir William Blackstone played a key role. They developed the theory that English common law, an intricate set of legal precedents and customs that had evolved over centuries, in combination with statutory law created by acts of Parliament, formed the foundations of the absolute rights of Englishmen. At the time rights for women were not even considered. These moderates argued that the rule of law took precedence over arbitrary decree by a monarch. Both statutory and common law guaranteed the sanctity of an Englishman's life, liberty, and property, including the rights of trial by jury, representative government, and habeas corpus (protection against illegal imprisonment).

In the hands of 17th-century jurists such as Coke, common law emerged as a major constraint on the power of the Stuart kings. Coke claimed that common law was the surviving legacy of an ancient constitution that had appeared in Saxon England but was subsequently lost. Coke believed that the ancient constitution had both established royal authority and placed limitations on it. Despite the loss of the ancient constitution, its tenets were reaffirmed through common law and charters, including the Magna Carta.

By the 18th century, jurist and legal scholar Sir William Blackstone emerged as the central spokesman for rule by law. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law of England (1765-1769) became the definitive statement on the British constitution. In his writings, Blackstone produced the first clear and relatively concise summary of constitutional law. In doing so, he supported the ideals of the ancient constitution as the source of parliamentary government and common law as a constitutional alternative to arbitrary rule.