ABSTRACT
Revisionist studies of early Stuart parliaments, like Elton’s of Elizabeth’s parliaments, suggest that a majority of members tended to be ‘neutrals’ on issues of high policy, preferring to focus their attention on regional interests and to avoid conflict. Beyond John Pym’s small circle, moreover, they did not particularly want to increase the power of Parliament in relation to the king. Conrad Russell’s very important examination of the 1620s parliaments (Parliaments and English Politics 1621-1629, 1979) did find plenty of complaint-that being one of the proper functions of parliaments-but he argued in that book that the difficulties of the early Stuart kings were not so much with their parliaments as reflected in them. The first two Stuarts suffered from very real problems, among them inadequate revenue, ineffective local administration of what revenue there was, and the inability of unpaid voluntary provincial officials to conscript an army of their neighbours. None of these problems, however, were created by Parliament. Even in the areas of revenue, while parliaments voted subsidies, local governors were responsible for assessment and collection. Parliaments simply discussed and complained about the problems of the Crown.
