ABSTRACT
There was also a less conspicuous, but deep divergence between king and Commons over the nature of good government, which I have described as a contest between the rival claims of “patent” and “parliament”. Opposition to monopolies was part of the freedom of trade agenda, and illustrated the rejection of rule by patent. The Stuarts were addicted to monopoly grants for finance and economic regulation, but these methods were publicly deplored as an invasive restraint on the market. Historians have not appreciated the positive alternative offered by the Commons—freedom of trade, and the balanced regulative powers of parliamentary law. Thus in 1621, MPs initiated a programme of free trade bills to alleviate the depression. The measures were regarded as an urgent public necessity by the Commons, but aborted by the king’s untimely ending of the assembly. James was reluctant to concede the need for a legislative function that gave parliament a share in sovereignty, but the Commons and constituencies now saw it as essential to good government. The withdrawal of opportunities to legislate was a major cause of parliament’s determination to give itself a permanent presence in 1641.
