EXTRACT FROM THE REGULATIONS FOR

THE THIRLWALL PRIZE.

"There shall be established in the University a prize, called the 'Thirlwall Prize,' to be awarded for dissertations involving original historical research.”

"The prize shall be open to members of the University who, at the time when their dissertations are sent in, have been admitted to a degree, and are of not more than four years' standing from admission to their first degree."

Those dissertations which the adjudicators declare to be deserving of publication shall be published by the University singly or in combination, in an uniform series, at the expense of the fund, under such conditions as the Syndics of the University Press shall from time to time determine."

4

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION.

portance of the

wealth

THERE has been a tendency, both in the works of The imhistorians and in popular estimation, to underrate the importance of the Commonwealth period. Men Commonhave been struck by the glaring fact that, after all period the agitation and attempted reforms of army and underrated by public parliament, the Stuarts returned with a prerogative opinion, unimpaired, in theory at least, if not actually strengthened. The question upon which the Civil War had been nominally begun was, in 1661, with all constitutional solemnity, decided in favour of the Crown. A restored hierarchy, supported not merely by Court influence, but by the terrible strength of popular prejudice, proceeded to bind Dissent in legal fetters more galling even than those which it had escaped by the fall of Laud. The shame of Rochelle and Cadiz was outshamed by the disgrace of the Treaty of Dover and the impeachment of Danby. And, apparently, not one of the political reforms with which the air for twenty years had been thick was secured. Strafford and "Thorough" had been swept away, only to be replaced by the still more dangerous systems of Clarendon and the Cabal.

and also by historians.

Two great results from the period;

(1) assumption by Parlia

In the face of these facts it is not surprising to find that popular opinion regards the Commonwealth period as an era of fruitless pedantry. But historians of repute have sanctioned the popular view. Hallam devotes half a chapter to the period between the death of Charles and the Restoration. Professor Gneist dismisses the struggles of the Commonwealth statesmen in a few lines, with the disparaging remark that "as far as any constitutional advancement of England is concerned, the Commonwealth remained just as fruitless as it was for all the institutions of 'self-government'.'

It may then be not merely a platitude for me to state at once why I consider the Commonwealth period to have been of first-rate importance in the history of constitutional development.

Independently of the so-called "moral" effects of the Civil War and the interregnum, which, however, were by no means trifling, two great palpable results followed from the period.

In the first place the Parliament learnt the mysteries of government. No other explanation is ment of the adequate to account for the ease with which the business of Ministerial government of William and Anne glided,

govern

ment,

on the passing of the Septennial Act, into the Parliamentary government of the first two Georges. On the face of it, nothing could be more absurd than to suppose the Parliament of the eighteenth century capable of conducting the business of the country. Historically, with one exceptional period, the claim was unfounded. No one will pretend that the

1 The English Parliament (Shee's translation), p. 237.

Parliaments of the Middle Ages took any direct part in the government. Their utmost ambition (rarely gratified) extended to some voice in the appointment of Ministers, and their constitutional right consisted only of criticism, enforced by finance control and the occasional impeachment of the king's advisers. Even this right of impeachment fell into abeyance under the Tudors, and the substitution for it of bills of attainder was an idle form, for bills of attainder were, practically, the weapons, not of the Parliament, but of the Crown.

Still less in the Tudor period was the business of the country in the hands of Parliament. Henry VIII. and Elizabeth were the last persons to admit such a theory. It was the King's Council and not the Parliament which ruled England. The offshoots of the Council, the Star-Chamber, the Court of High Commission, the Councils of the North, of Ireland, and of Wales, were the centres of public business. The rebukes administered by Elizabeth to her most loyal Parliaments on the rare occasions on which they ventured to discuss matters of State, are too well known to need special reference. And to this day it is a matter of dispute whether Charles, in all his tyranny, really violated the forms of the constitution. It was his folly, not his illegality, which lost him the kingdom.

But the Long Parliament changed all this. The events of the Civil War, even while the result was doubtful, played into the hands of the Parliament. Whitehall was deserted, but was deserted, but Westminster was thronged, and so the business of Whitehall trans