Parliament vs. Monarchy: The Extension of Anarchy

Amidst a turbulent and supercharged London Atmosphere in January 1642, a defiant King Charles I broke centuries of tradition and strode into a stunned meeting of the House of Commons. The agent he sent the previous day to arrest the five rabble rousing members of the Commons had been refused, and so he intended to fulfill the order himself.

On that fateful day, before all the bloodshed and chaos that would follow during the Civil War, Parliament seized the initiative. When the King demanded that Speaker William Lenthall turn over the five members for high treason, Lenthall responded with the powerful words that have now echoed through history, “I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak but as this House is pleased to direct me.”

In that moment the King lost all power he and his forefathers had over Parliament. In that moment they became equal.

The evolution of the English (later British) Parliament was one of the most momentous developments in human history. Not because of some misplaced infatuation with democracy, but because it enlarged the realm of anarchy within English society. It created multiple bases of power whose competition led to, among other things, checks on the Monarch, codification and acceptance of natural rights, and, later, capitalism.

As Alfred G. Cuzan brilliantly points out in his paper, Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?, anarchy is an inevitable fact of society. He defines this phenomenon as a social order without government, subject only to the laws of the market. A social order in which members of society can relate to one another on their own terms, absent an outside third party, i.e. the state.

As he succinctly describes, even under the so called governments of modern states, anarchy persists–between members of the political class. In other words, governments remove natural market anarchy for the majority of population, and replace it with a type of political anarchy in which members of society become subjects or citizens but members of the government live in anarchy with relation to one another.

A simple example is that if government commits an offense, that same government is the judge and punisher in its own case. They have no third party dictating terms to them as citizens and subjects do, and so can be said to live in a state of anarchy. Not natural anarchy based on market forces, but a hierarchical, malevolent political anarchy based on favors, leverage, and threats.

So what does all this have to with the English Parliament?

I am not saying that the development of Parliament was all rainbows and butterflies and liberty. Far from it. It was the spread of political anarchy, not market. But even so, its slow, continuous grabbing of power, climaxing in the 1640s and 50s, and culminating in its achievement of supremacy over the monarchy in the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 offers us a unique perspective of our own time.

The evolution of this body from what was King’s Council called in times of need, to a continuous institution and highest authority in the country was not planned. It was not enshrined and created by law. It was a slow process of carving out more and more space, pushing the envelope, and standing up to Kings.

The power of Parliament was born out of the fact that it effectively controlled the finances of the country and King. Again, not by law. At least in the earlier days. Taxes began as the prerogative of the Monarch. In theory they could demand taxes whenever they chose, and for whatever reason.

The rub, however, was that in order to practically collect the taxes the King or Queen needed the support of those on the ground. Support of those who were practically capable of raising the funds in the different counties and localities. The Monarch could not possibly have enough agents everywhere in the country to see to this on their own. So they relied on the gentry and greater Lords.

To ensure the support of those groups for their policies, the Monarch would invite the Lords and the elected representatives of the gentry to form a Great Council. This evolved into the two houses of Parliament. The Lords and gentry would use this opportunity to also submit bills and grievances to the Monarch while Parliament was in session. Thus began the idea of the Parliament being the people’s true representative.

Over the years, the members became aware of their own power and leverage. By the 17th century the Parliament was using that leverage to force the King’s hand in passing their legislation. If the King refused, they would refuse to grant his desired funds. If they would refuse to grant the funds, the King would have no way to fund his war or vision.

In fact, they were so successful in this that they were effectively in a state of anarchy vis-à-vis the Monarch by the ascension of King James I in 1603. The next 90 years were a struggle for dominance of each trying to force the other out of anarchy and back into submission. The Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 effectively subordinated the Monarch to Parliament, ending the struggle but with the Monarch retaining significant powers.

And For the subsequent 150-200 years before Parliament completely eclipsed the Monarch, the two separate institutions were on a near equal footing. They were in a state of anarchy with relation to each other and often had goals and aims at odds with one another. And in pursuing their respective goals and protecting their respective prerogatives they acted as the ultimate check on one another. As a result, England flourished.

The point that I want to get at, though, is one not often illuminated:

The English Parliament had no real, codified right to do any of this. They took it.

This is the main takeaway from our galavant into English history. That liberty is achieved through pushing the envelope. And that most of the critical liberal developments in history were not planned. They developed spontaneously.

This is an important lesson that would do us well to remember in our fight for liberty today. Our alternate power base is the market. Our leverage is our productive and creative capacity.

Freedom without Permission.