Thomas Smith, de republica anglorum, the maner of governement or policie of the Realme of Englande

Résumé du document

Sir Thomas Smith was a jurist and specialist in languages, who had defended the Protestant church (or Ecclesia Anglicana) since the Reformation. He was an important man in the 16th century's British political life, as he had been a Member of Parliament, of the Privy Council of Queen Elizabeth I, a Justice of the Peace and a counselor of the young king Edward VI. Thomas Smith was actually a visionary man, who, thanks to his detailed analysis (which was very marked by his opinions on things), have led the way to many defendants of liberties and democracy in many ways. This analysis seems much evolved. The most surprising point is certainly the fact that few years after the writing of this book, when James I replaced Elizabeth, the role of Parliament had been totally overridden because of the theory of absolutism, according to which the King was the only and supreme authority of England. It was also believed that he took his powers directly from God, which meant that as God himself, the King was above the law, which was exactly the opposite of the ideas defended by Thomas Smith.

Extraits

[...] Another time, we notice that the principle of the Rule of Law (or equality of men under the law) was already a pillar of the society. Therefore we can say that at this time England had already stable political values that announced those of nowadays. In the same time, it was build upon very old institutions, in a kind of traditional way: it shows the idea of changes within continuity, according to which all the evolutions of the English constitution were in line with certain stability. [...]

[...] Thomas Smith, de republica anglorum, the maner of governement or policie of the Realme of Englande Sir Thomas Smith was a jurist and specialist in languages, who has defended the Protestant church (or ‘Ecclesia Anglicana') since the Reformation. He was an important man in the 16th century British political life, as he has been a Member of Parliament, of the Privy Council of Queen Elizabeth a Justice of the Peace and a counsellor of the young king Edward VI. Actually, it has to be noted that Sir Smith has been very close to all the monarchs that defended the protestant Church during his life (an important exception was so Queen Mary, who tried to re-establish the Catholic Church). [...]

[...] Smith enumerates some laws that Parliament can vote: for example, it is said that Parliament “establishes forms of religion” and “legitimates bastards”. Those words have to be set back in their context: few years before this book was written, England had known the Reformation episode, during which the Church of England won its independence from Rome. After that, the Protestant Church developed and had been supported by many monarchs. In fact, Queen Elizabeth was able to access the throne thanks to the Reformation. She was the daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, which married after the king's divorce. [...]

[...] Therefore we can see that even if Sir Smith declared that the Parliament represented the whole population, it was more a decision he took to justify its supremacy than a real situation: actually, all Englishmen weren't “present, either in person or by procuration” as Smith claimed. We have already seen that Smith did kind of an idealization of the English system. It can be found concerning the vote and the representation in Parliament, as well as in the relationship between the monarch and the Parliament too. According to Smith, the Parliament is kind of independent from the monarch, as it represents him too (as any member of the society). [...]

[...] Those men were chosen by the king; they were as many as he wanted, but they were only men of importance, and members of the upper classes. When Sir Smith got onto the description of the Privy Council, he stayed in a kind of worship of the monarch: he explained that this council had to be consulted daily, or more than that in times of troubles, but that its decisions weren't obligatory. This council was therefore seen as an advisory one, which helped the monarch but implied no obligation to be obeyed. [...]