The First English Constitution - Essay Example

Section/# The Putney Debate: The First English Constitution Since the dawn of time, individuals have sought to solidify the political gains that have been achieved via the strengthening of institutions and the provision of laws. In ancient times, the power and authority that a new form of government was able to leverage was predicated almost entirely upon the authoritarian might that an individual ruler or monarch could exhibit. However, as societies matured and a more definitive level of understanding concerning the way in which subjects and rulers should interact with one another and be governed by law, the need for existing treaties and understandings that would stipulate and define this relationship came to be more profoundly understood. Looking back into more immediate history, the growth of representative democracy can ultimately traces its roots to the way in which constitutions and other such binding restrictions have defined the role and relationship that a government must play towards its citizens/stakeholders.1 As a function of this particular understanding, the following analysis will be concentric upon engaging the reader with an understanding and discussion for how the Putney Debates served as a formative and historical precedent for the way in which the constrained power of the state was understood and affected. Such an understanding evolves to engage the reader with the understanding that the English constitution was in fact first written during these debates. Beyond merely engaging the reader with a further understanding of the historical importance of the debates, it is the hope of this author that such a discussion can further underscore a level of historical understanding and key trends that culminated in a more realistic understanding of the manner through which subject and governed should interact with one another. The Putney Debates were unlikely to be considered as a formulary of a Constitution at the time in which they were held. However, in retrospect, the issues that the individual were wrestling with could only be understood in terms of the way in which a defining document, set of rules, and/or Constitution could address the contentious issues at hand. The core arguments that were taking place between the “radicals” and the monarchists was with respect to the role of the individual and the way in which such an individual should have a level of power and determinism with respect to the state. Naturally, this very question has been one which has contributed greatly to the way in which governments have interacted with their people since the beginning of recorded history.2 However, as was the case within the Putney Debates, the meaning of personhood, the role of native civil rights, the power that a document of constraint could provide to the system as a whole, and the need to divest authority away from the monarch and the House of Lords and towards the common people were all primary components of what the “radicals sought”. Ultimately, this debate was necessitated by the fact that a delegation of individuals had come together to form a new path for the nation as a result of the English Civil War. The underlying rationale for reducing the power of the King and the role that the house of lords played in determining the future of England was concentric upon the inherent belief, among many radicals, that the unrestrained level of power that these entities were able to display diminished the personhood and self determinism that sovereign citizens of England were able to display. Moreover, a level of Republicanism came to be born within the ranks of these “radicals” with regard to the assertion that an individual citizen of England should be able to have a level of equal representation on par with an influential landholder; at least in terms of power that is vote could provide to the nation.3 Naturally, it would be many years before this level of Republican ideals came to be witnessed throughout the world; however, by promoting them within the Putney debates, stakeholders throughout England were represented with a fundamentally different approach to the way in which power should be differentiated, constrained, and evidenced throughout England.4 A further level of importance with regards to the Putney debates has to do with the fact that these debates served as a forum in which differences, grievances, hopes, aspirations, and a desire to retain the status quo were all represented. Although prior disputes throughout the world had been solved utilizing different compromises, applications of force, and other means, this served as a primary and new direction for England; at least with respect to the manner in which these different viewpoints could all be Incorporated within a path forward that could see mutual compromise be evidenced between groups. In much the same way, when it came time to craft and pen the English Constitution, these very same, relevant, concerns were duly noted.5 Ultimately, the overall level of success that these “radicals” were able to achieve against the monarchists was notable. However, in helping to determine that the English Constitution was in fact inspired and read during these debates, is not necessary to engage in a discussion of how effective these radicals were in divesting power from the monarch.6 Instead, it is sufficient to understand that the changes that were put forward during this time helped to form a primary level of understanding with regard to the way in which the state had the responsibility of engaging with its citizens and respecting their wishes. Yet, perhaps one of the most profound reasons why the Putney debates can be considered as a formulary and first Constitution of England is predicated upon the fact that these debates, and the subsequent document that was produced, serve as a primary and singular example, up until this point in time, in which a document has constrained and provided a level of responsibility and expected engagement from the monarchy, representative government, and the role in which the civilian/citizen has within this particular entity.7 By providing a legal constraints and a discussion of the way in which each of these three fantasies should understand one another within the constraints of the law, the Putney debates are indicative not only of a movement towards representative democracy; they are also indicative of the very foundations of constitutional law and the manner through which the subsequent English Constitution would draw inspiration in the near future. Although many individuals might point to the Magna Carta as definitive proof of an initial development towards constitutional law, the Magna Carta cannot be considered as such due to the fact that it did not help to define the relationship between all citizens as compared to the government/King.8 Although it is true that the Magna Carta was effective in limiting the power of the monarch and defining the role in which the barons should play, the representation of the average individual was all but nonexistent from the Magna Carta and only served as a historical steppingstone for the development of further representation and the possibility for a Parliament to exist in the future.9 Further, the statues and articles of the Magna Carta were only agreed upon by a very select few individuals that were of noble birth and held a relatively important and/or powerful position within England at that time. By means of contrast and comparison, the Putney debates saw a situation in which military men from all walks of life demanded a more fundamental role with respect to the way in which the nation was to develop in the future. The rationale behind this constitutional right was predicated upon the fact that these very same men had fought and died for the wars of secession and the right for self determination; both on the side of the king and on the side of the radicals.10 As such, these stakeholders were of the profound conviction that they too must be given the right to vote and have their vote count of equal merit and meaning as compared to the votes that landholders may cast. Whereas the Magna Carta stipulated key restrictions for the monarch, the role of the common man and the way in which he should engage with the government was left out; mainly due to the fact that the common man was judged to be a rather unimportant aspect of the kingdom at the time in which the Magna Carta was penned.11 Through such an observation, the reader can come to the distinct understanding that even though the Magna Carta was a step forward on the path to greater representation, it cannot be understood to be a constitution in any way shape or form; namely due to the fact that it does not consider the commoner or his respective obligations or rights within the system.12 In keeping with the legal understanding that has thus far been presented, it must also be understood that the Putney debates were extraordinarily impactful with regard to the fact that they provided a new path forward for governance within the constraints of legal precedent. Whether on considers the English Constitution or the American Constitution, or indeed nearly any other constitution throughout the globe, one clear and apparent understanding comes to mind. These documents are born out of an inherent need to change the system as it exists and put forward a new approach towards the way in which governance will be defined, constrained, and understood.13 Regardless of the approach that the analyst takes in the case of the Putney Debates, it is clear and apparent that these served as a clear and instrumental change with respect to the manner through which the governed accented to the rule of law and power that the system itself should have over them. A final point that will be referenced within this brief analysis concerning the way in which the Putney debates were indicative of a primary Constitution for England is concentric upon the way in which the document that was produced allowed for a degree of alteration and potential change. For instance, within the past, edicts, proclamations, and an understanding of how the subject should engage with the monarchy were issues that were left to little debate.14 However, by providing a framework and rubric through which the Putney debates could be understood and amended in the future, the framework for a representative level of governments that understood the changing needs of the population was formerly represented. Looking forward, the researcher can clearly note that not a single Constitution exists within the global system without the ability to amend, change, or otherwise provide proposals to key information that was represented initially.15 This is of course done as a means of addressing the needs of the people and ensuring that the document remains relevant to the current world and the manner through which issues are represented. From the information that has thus far been represented, it is clear and apparent that the Putney debates had a primary in influential level of effect upon the way in which the English Constitution was formulated. Moreover, rather than merely arguing that this affects was either direct or indirect, the analysis has discussed and hopefully proven the manner through which the Putney debates can be understood as the first evidence of a preliminary constitution for England. Although it would of course be years before such a document formally existed, the provisions and approach that the Putney debates were able to offer clearly provided this framework through which subsequent individuals would come to understand the relation between the subject and government within the England. Further, this document has a profound level of importance with respect to the precedent that it set for further development in terms of representative governance and the way in which individuals within England were able to pool their power and influence to effect change that would bind and constrain the law that oversaw them. Rather than understanding this particular document as a fleeting example of the way in which a failed attempt at craft a level of democratic governance was exhibited within the 17th century, the reader should instead come to view this document as proof that the initial drive towards defining such a level of government integration existed long before the actual constitution of England came to be written. Bibliography Ardley B, Magna Carta: repositioning the secular as sacred (2010) International Journal Of Heritage Studies, 19, 4, pp. 341-352 Barton G, The History Magna Carta (2013) Britain & The World, 6, 1, pp. 1-4 Bass J, ‘The economic reduction of political equality in the Putney debates, 1647’ (1991) Quarterly Journal Of Speech, 77, 4, p. 427 Carpenter D, More light on Henry IIIs confirmation of Magna Carta in 1253 (2011) Historical Research, 86, 232, pp. 191-195 Carpenter D, Magna Carta 1253: the ambitions of the church and the divisions within the realm (2009) Historical Research, 86, 232, pp. 179-190 Gleissner R, The levelers and natural law: the Putney debates of 1647 (1980) Journal Of British Studies, 20, 1, pp. 74-89 Glover S, The Putney Debates: Popular versus elitist republicanism (1999) Past & Present, 164, 1, p. 47 Glover S, The Putney Debates: Popular versus Élitist Republicanism (1999) Past & Present, 166, p. 14. Graham C, English Rapport:The Coalition and the Constitution 2012) European Public Law, 18, 3, pp. 423-436 Hampsher-Monk I, The political theory of the levelers: Putney, property, and professor MacPherson (1976) Political Studies, 24, 4, pp. 397-422 Kishlansky M, Consensus politics and the structure of debate at Putney’ (1981), Journal Of British Studies, 20, 2, pp. 50-69 Kishlansky M The army and th elevellers: the roads to Putney’ (1978) Historical Journal, 22, 4, pp. 795-824 Morrill J,Rewriting Cromwell: a case for deafening silences (2003) Canadian Journal Of History, 38, 3, p. 553 Peacey J, "The English Civil War (Book)" Canadian Journal Of History  Thompson C ‘The Putney debate (1980) Past & Present, 88, pp. 63-69 Yu S, Chapter thirty-two of Magna Carta (2007) Juridical Journal, 79, 4, pp. 232-239 Read More