5. ENGLISH HISTORY OF THE 17TH CENTURY. The intensely dramatic nature of the events of the political life of England in the 17th century has led every English and American historian to attribute to the period an exaggerated importance. The generally ac cepted view held by these historians is that the Stuarts attempted to perpetuate or to live up to the pure type of Tudor despotism, and that partly because of their want of personal popu larity, and partly because of the silent growth of national self-consciousness, the attempt was a failure; and that as a consequence the century witnessed the definitive overthrow of the Tudor system of paternal despotism — an overthrow in which the chief operating factor was the Great Rebellion.
Such a view involves a serious misconcep. tion of the real nature of the problem which the century had to solve and at the same time a still more serious misconception of the actual constitutional advance which that century achieved.
The real problem which the century had to solve was not the setting up of one ideal of state or government upon the ruins of another ideal. History does not concern itself with ideals. It concerns itself with men and things — men who are flesh and blood and intensely practical, and things which are more sternly practical still — such things as, when they mount the saddle, ride mankind. The real problem of the century was how to bridge over the gulf between the executive and the legis lative.
Under Elizabeth the central power from which the whole executive machinery radiated was the Privy Council. That body was simply a small permanent Council of Government or Council of State. With the sovereign at its head, it was the government The whole execu tive administration of the country rested upon it. Without dividing itself up into committees at all, but simply sitting together as a single and permanent body, this Council decided each and every question of administration, whether relating to the land forces, the calling out of the militia, their equipment, and the whole plan of any military operations, or to the naval forces, including the arranging of transport, the mak ing of contracts with the victualler, and the stragetical distribution of men and ships, or again to diplomacy, including every species of confidential letters and instructions to ambassa dors and agents abroad, or again to finance, in cluding especially a most strict control of issues out of the exchequer, or finally to every branch of internal administration and law, the main channel of communication in this last instance being the justices of the peace in the counties.
Where does the Parliament, England's glory, come in in such an enumeration? The answer is simple. It finds no place whatever in it. And if Elizabeth, to take her for the moment as the type, had been able to live off her own, as the kings of England were then supposed to do, never a word would have been heard of a Parliament. So long as it could pay its way the executive was efficient and sufficient without the Parliament. During the 44 years that Eliza beth reigned she called 13 Parliaments at ir regular periods but with an average interval be tween each of more than three years. These Parliaments sat as a rule about two months. The total aggregate period of session of the whole 13 Parliaments was less than 34 months. So that out of the whole 44 years of her reign the Privy Council or executive had uncontrolled management of the nation f or, nearly 42 years. Nor would it be correct to say that during the remaining two and a half years the executive was confronted by the Parliament. That body was called simply for the purpose of supplying the government with money. Having dutifully voted its tenths and fifteenths it was allowed to legislate on non-contentious matters and was then dissolved. In the whole of the statutes of Elizabeth's reign there is not one of any con stitutional importance. More than this, not the slightest attempt was ever made by the legisla tive to extort from the executive an account of the expenditure of the money thus granted by the Parliament. Once the subsidies were voted there was an end of the matter as far as the two Houses were concerned.