The Tudor origins of the grant of parliamentary representation to English universities in 1604
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11427445 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Peter R Roberts (Wolfson Foundation, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2006 |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 35-44 |
| Publication date | 2006-01-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Parliaments Estates and Representation (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0260-6755 • E-ISSN: 1947-248X |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/02606755.2006.9522227 |
| OpenAlex | W1971720558 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 1 |
The English universities were enfranchised as parliamentary constituencies in letters patent issued by James I in 1604. The various approaches made to the Tudor regime by some of the senior members of Oxford and Cambridge to have 'burgesses in parliament' to protect and promote the rights of the respective universities and their colleges were largely responses to the problems caused by the persistent contentions and conflict of interests between 'town and gown' in both places. These abortive attempts to add new constituencies to the expanding parliamentary system in the sixteenth century are seen against the background of medieval precedents for the summoning by the Crown of university lawyers to parliament. On three separate occasions after the Reformation, the petitions for the privilege of representation addressed to the monarch and privy councillors were associated with requests that the lower clergy in the Church of England be represented in the House of Commons as well as in the Convocations of the Church. Parliament itself does not seem to have played a part in initiating these overtures or in sanctioning the final grant of representation, which, like the enfranchisement of incorporated boroughs, was an exercise of the royal prerogative. Both universities responded positively to the advice tendered in 1604 by the attorney-general, Sir Edward Coke, that they return as their representatives civil lawyers rather than clerical members of their governing bodies. The possible constitutional significance of this recommendation and its implementation is considered in the context of some contemporary ideas of representation and the failure at this time of the 'inferior clergy' generally to gain a presence in the House of Commons to complement that of the spiritual lords in the upper chamber. In the later modern period the separate university franchise was extended in turn to all modern academic institutions on attaining full university status, but was abolished by the post-war Labour Government in 1948
Carpentry · Commons · Constitution · Context (archaeology · House of Commons · Parliament · Political science · Politics · Prerogative · Privilege (computing · Representation (politics · Select committee · Sociology · Virtual representation · American Constitutional Law and Politics · History · Law · Religion, Gender, and Enlightenment · Scottish History and National Identity
| Citations per year | 0.5 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2024 - 2024 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |