John Finch Quotes

This was written shortly before he assumed the crown.

Some of the Patriots of Early America realized that the oppressions of British rule were coming from Parliament and initially took the position that only the King could make laws for the colonies and not Parliament. Therefore, they were as Englishmen challenging illegal English laws. Most American hostility was directed at Parliament and not the King. However, once there was any physical resistance, King George came down with such a heavy hand that American hatred transferred to him. For related quotes on the King/Parliament issue, see {639145}, {639144}, {639142}, {639141}, {639140}, & {639137}

In 1628 Parliament, in response to abuses by King Charles I, was about to pass The Petition of Rights–-a type of Bill of Rights. The King gave assurances that the practices—such as forcing nobles to lend him money—would not continue and didn't want to be embarrassed by passage of a law which he claimed would indicate that the Parliament did not trust him and weaken the dignity of the monarchy. The Petition of Rights passed with Cole’s leadership.

At the time there was no concept of serious separation of powers. For all practical purposes, the King ruled and he shared some of his powers with the Parliament. The next centuries in England would see the great battle for governmental power between the monarch and the Parliament. Today, the British monarch has no power but still retains a great deal of influence in England but largely because Queen Elisabeth is so well loved and respected.

Actually, Queen Elisabeth II, at that time the Queen of England, was very sophisticated about the policies of the nation. Chomsky’s point was not that the Queen was ignorant; it was that her role is ceremonial and it is not critical or even material that the monarch in a Constitutional Democracy understands or approves of the government program that is being presented.

When Henry came to “George II” he was interrupted by the Speaker, John Robinson, who shouted “Treason!” Henry had been railing against the Stamp Act.

In the English system the checks and balances of the American system are not present. Historically in England the Monarch and the Parliament acted as checks upon each other. With a Constitutional Monarch there is no institutional check on Parliament. The checks are their restraint--respect for precedent--and the voters. The Prime Minister is a member of Parliament and has no powers other than what Parliament gives him/her. The courts in England are under Parliament and the upper house, the House of Lords is the equivalent of the highest court—but it may always be overruled by the parliament itself.

Some of the Patriots of Early America realized that the oppressions of British rule were coming from Parliament and initially took the position that only the King could make laws for the colonies and not Parliament. Therefore, they were as Englishmen challenging illegal English laws. Most American hostility was directed at Parliament and not the King. However, once there was any physical resistance, King George came down with such a heavy hand that American hatred transferred to him. For related quotes on the King/Parliament issue, see {639145}, {639143}, {639142}, {639141}, {639140}, & {639137}

Sealed under duress and later repudiated by the King with Papal assistance

The Governor had warned the Board of Trade about the American reaction to the Stamp Act. He took the position that is was unconstitutional in the sense that it was contrary to Magna Carter. His and other warnings were ignored.

In the English system there is no “separation of powers”. Parliament makes the laws and its ministers execute them. The highest judges are members of Parliament (the House of Lords) as well. So Lord Bereford was in the legislature when the statute was debated and passed.

The issues of check and balances in the American constitution were radical by world standards of the day. However, it was by no means an new concept and as this quotation illustrates was discussed and debated in England, but although England was far ahead of almost all other countries with respect to eliminating absolute power, they never took it as far as the Americans did. That took a revolution.

Prior to Cooke’s indictment of English King Charles I, there was a concept of Royal Impunity—that a sovereign could not legally be called to account for his actions as ruler of the state. The concept of “sovereign immunity” was a concept where the sovereign and his agents could be given immunity for specific actions, but they never would have impunity again where there were no limits to the crimes they might commit against their own people. Charles I refused to even recognize Cooke’s indictment and so have heads of state called to account for their major crimes since then all the way down to Saddam Hussein in 2006 who made the same argument. Cooke was himself hanged, drawn and quartered almost 20 years after the Charles I trial for his part in the “Regicide” so the concept of Royal Impunity did not die quickly.