No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
The first statute to become law during the Long Parliament of the 1640s was the Triennial Act, the act “for preventing Inconveniences happening by the long intermission of parliaments.” The statue was enacted in extraordinary circumstances. Ambiguously phrased, substantially amended, and ultimately supported as a means to other ends, the act provided no real solution to the problems which had given it birth. Had it done so, it most assurredly would have failed to pass. The strange tale of the genesis and passage of this act is the subject of this article.
The Triennial Act developed from a bill for annual parliaments introduced by William Strode, MP for Beeralston, Devonshire, on 24 December 1640. Strode's was the first bill for that purpose actually to be introduced since James Stuart had acceded to the throne in 1603. The idea that there should be annual parliaments was not, however, new. Twice during the reign of Edward III statutes providing for yearly meetings of parliament had been enacted. Although these measures were not observed, they had not been forgotten. They had coexisted over the centuries with the belief that the summoning and dissolving of Parliaments was an indisputable prerogative of the Crown and were cited from time to time when men became anxious about subjects' liberties. Sir Francis Bacon reports that during the debate in the Privy Council in 1615, the earl of Exeter “insisted upon a speech of the Lo. Cooke's that there was a law inforce to require a Parliament to be holden every year for redress of the people's grievances.” There is, however, little evidence that Englishmen prior to 1640 believed that the confirmation of these statutes, or enactment of other measures to that effect, was of prime importance.
1 16 Car. I, c. 1.
2 Notestein, Wallace, ed. The Journal of Sir Simonds D'Ewes (New Haven, 1923), p. 188.Google Scholar
3 4 Ed. III, c. 14; 36 Ed. III, c. 10.
4 Spedding, James, ed. The Life and Letters of Sir Francis Bacon, 14 vols. (London, 1857–1874), 5:194–207.Google Scholar
5 Foster, Elizabeth R., Proceedings in Parliament, 1610, 2 vols. (New Haven, 1965), 2:71.Google Scholar
6 Ibid., pp. 258-61; see also Cope, Esther S., Parliament and Proclamations, 1604-1629 (Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr College, 1969).Google Scholar
7 Yale Center for Parliamentary History, transcript of Pym diary, p. 127.
8 21 Jac. I, c. 33.
9 Gardiner, S. R., ed. Commons Debates, 1625 (Camden Society, 1873), p. 114.Google Scholar
10 The Venetian ambassador reports that the earls of Danby and Warwick each urged the king to call Parliament, but they made their pleas on the basis of the particular needs of the time (Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 1636-39 [hereafter cited as CSPV], #122 [12 December 1636], 124 [19 December 1636], 139 [16 January 1637]). I have discussed attitudes concerning the absence of Parliament during the 1630s in more detail in “Lord Montagu and the Absence of Parliament,” an unpublished paper presented to the Southern Conference on British Studies, November 1977.
11 Proclamation for suppressing false rumors touching Parliaments, 27 March 1629. Kenyon, J. P., The Stuart Constitution (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 85–86.Google Scholar
12 Cope, Esther S. and Coates, Wilson H., Proceedings of the Short Parliament of 1640 (Camden Society, 1977), p. 155.Google Scholar
13 E.g., SP 16/464/82; see also SP 16/453/52; CSPV, 1640-42, #118.
14 SP 16/465/16. See also SP 16/471/22. The Committee of the Estates instructed the Scots Commissioners appointed for the treaty at London that there should be parliaments in both both kingdoms every two or three years at the most.
15 See SP 16/474/8. Although Laud was inclined to paranoia, other evidence suggest that this list, endorsed by him and titled “Intents of the Lower House,” has some basis.
16 Notestein, , Journal of D'Ewes, p. 196.Google Scholar
17 Ibid., pp. 196-97.
18 See Russell, Conrad, Politics and Parliament, 1621-29 (Oxford, 1979).Google Scholar
19 Commons Journal, 2:60 (hereafter cited as C. J.).Google Scholar
20 Ibid., 2:70.
21 Notestein, , Journal of D'Ewes, p. 263.Google Scholar
22 Ibid.
23 Rushworth, John, Historical Collections (1692), 4:146Google Scholar; British Library, E. 196 (7).
24 Notestein, , Journal of D'Ewes, p. 263.Google Scholar
25 Ibid., pp. 263-64 notes.
26 C. J., 2:70.
27 Ibid.
28 Lords Journal, 4:139 (hereafter cited as L. J.).Google Scholar
29 BL, E. 159, pp. 4-6. Reports of the speech were made on 25 January (L. J., 4:42; C. J. 2:72; Harleian MS 6424, fols. 8v-9v.
30 House of Lords Record Office (hereafter cited as H. L. R. O.), Braye MS. 17, fol. 109, the Lord Privy Seal's report of the king's speech to the House of Lords, 25 January.
31 H. L. R. O., MS Journal, 28 January; also Draft Journal, 28 January.
32 CSPV, 1640-42, #158.
33 See the king's speech of 23 January.
34 Notestein, , Journal of D'Ewes, p. 282nGoogle Scholar; also CSPV, 1640-42, #158.
35 H. L. R. O., Braye MS 17, fols. 108-109; L. J., 4:42.
36 Ibid., pp. 145, 147; H. L. R. O., Braye MS 17, fols. 113, 116-16v.
37 See Draft Journal, 28 January and final act.
38 Monatagu MS. 30 (Historical Manuscripts Commission [hereafter cited as HMC], Report on the MSS of the Duke of Buccleuch, 3:411Google Scholar); CSPV, 1640-42, #158, 162.
39 MS Journal, 28 January.
40 L. J., 4:150, 152.
41 C. J., 4:80; Notestein, , Journal of D'Ewes, p. 331.Google Scholar
42 C. J., 2:83.
43 Notestein, , Journal of D'Ewes, p. 354.Google Scholar
44 L. J., 4:161.
45 Ibid., p. 162; C. J., 2:85.
46 Ibid., p. 86.
47 L. J., 4:162.
48 CSPV, 1640-42, #165.
49 L. J., 4:163; C. J., 2:87.
50 Notestein, , Journal of D'Ewes, p. 365Google Scholar; B L, E. 159, pp. 7-8.
51 C. J., 2:86; L. J., 4:164.
52 HMC, Ninth Report, App. p. 499.
53 Foster, Elizabeth R., “Petitions and the Petition of Right,” Journal of British Studies 14, no. 1(1974):21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54 The act was repealed in 1664. See Robbins, Caroline, “The Repeal of the Triennial Act in 1664,” Huntington Library Quarterly 12, no. 2 (1949).CrossRefGoogle Scholar