A Proclamation Declaring His Maiesties Pleasure Concerning the Dissoluing of the Present Conuention of Parliament

In Short

This document is a formal proclamation issued by King James I in 1621 to announce the dissolution of the English Parliament. It functions as a public justification for why the King, despite his initial hopes for a productive session, felt compelled to end the assembly early. By detailing the King’s grievances regarding the Commons’ focus on procedural liberties rather than royal needs, the text provides a vivid look into the escalating tensions of the early 17th century. It remains a significant historical record of the constitutional friction that defined the Jacobean era.

The Story

The narrative begins with a bold assertion of the King’s absolute authority. James I frames the act of dissolving Parliament not as a concession to failure, but as a prerogative uniquely belonging to his "Imperiall Crowne." Despite this claim to absolute power, he explains that he feels obligated to communicate his reasoning to his subjects, framing his decision as a matter of transparency and "princely care." The initial tone is one of disappointment; the King characterizes the Parliament of 1621 as having started with great promise and harmony, with the Commons initially showing deep affection for their sovereign. He notes with pride that he had even delivered justice against prominent figures within his own kingdom to prove his devotion to the common good.

However, the account shifts as the King describes the "distraction" of the session following the Easter recess. James argues that the Commons grew preoccupied with "curious, and vnprofitable" debates over their own privileges rather than focusing on the urgent legislative needs of the state. He highlights his attempt to manage these tensions by offering a prorogation, citing practical reasons such as the heat of the season and the need for his council members to attend to state business. This attempt at management, he claims, was met with "discontentment" and defiance from members who preferred to dispute the King’s motives rather than facilitate the passing of bills.

The story progresses toward a standoff. Even as the King describes his attempts to compromise—even offering to extend the session in person—he laments the "inconstancie" of the House. He recounts how the Commons, after initially pledging their support for the recovery of his children’s patrimony, became embroiled in a dispute over their parliamentary rights. James describes a atmosphere of "fire" and "distemper" where certain "ill tempered spirits" misled the majority. He argues that he repeatedly assured the Commons of his respect for their lawful privileges, yet they ignored his guidance and, in a "very thinne House," entered a formal protestation that he views as an encroachment upon his inseparable rights.

The document concludes with the inevitable: the formal dissolution of the Parliament. James declares that the assembly is to be brought to an end, explicitly stating that it should not be considered a complete session. He warns the members of both houses to disperse and discharge their duties, effectively ending the conflict by removing the platform upon which it occurred. He closes with a promise to continue his role as a just and traditional monarch, assuring his subjects that he remains eager to govern according to the customs of his predecessors and that he looks forward to a future, more harmonious assembly.

How It Unfolds

The assertion of prerogative The King opens by establishing that the management of Parliament is his exclusive right, yet he expresses a desire to be transparent with his subjects about the reasons for his sudden decision.

The promise of cooperation He recounts the early days of the session, highlighting a period of rare harmony where the King and his people worked together to address matters of national importance and foreign policy.

The shift toward discord Tensions emerge following the Easter recess, as the King complains that the Commons prioritized debating their own parliamentary liberties over the practical legislative business of the realm.

The failure of compromise Despite the King’s personal intervention and offers to extend the session to allow for the passage of useful laws, he describes the members as increasingly defiant and unresponsive to his overtures.

The final breakdown The conflict reaches a breaking point when the House of Commons pushes forward a protestation regarding their privileges, an act the King interprets as a direct usurpation of his royal power.

The dissolution Having exhausted his patience, the King formally declares the Parliament over, instructing all members to return home and releasing them from their responsibilities, while promising to continue his traditional duties.

The People

King James I occupies the center of the text, presenting himself as a benevolent and patient sovereign who is perpetually misunderstood by his subjects. He is motivated by the desire to maintain the dignity of his crown and the stability of his kingdom, specifically regarding the restoration of his children's patrimony abroad. He views himself as a victim of "ill tempered spirits" within the Commons, and he struggles to reconcile his self-image as a generous ruler with the reality of legislative defiance.

The House of Commons appears as a collective, often contradictory figure. To the King, they are a body that fluctuates between "infallible tokens of loue" and dangerous, "inordinate liberty." He depicts them as easily swayed by agitators, shifting from a group eager to grant subsidies for the defense of the realm to a contentious assembly obsessed with the "syllables" of his communications.

The "ill tempered spirits" and "discontented persons" are mentioned as the catalysts for the breakdown. Though unnamed, they serve as the primary obstacles to the King’s vision. They are the ones who supposedly sow "tares among the corne," turning a cooperative body into a site of constitutional crisis. By the end, they are held responsible for the collapse of the parliamentary process, effectively forcing the King to prioritize the preservation of his royal rights over the continuation of the session.

In Its Own Voice

Albeit the Assembling, Continuing, and Dissoluing of Parliaments, be a Prerogatiue so peculiarly belonging to Our Imperiall Crowne, and the times and seasons thereof so absolutelie in our owne power, that Wee neede not giue account thereof vnto any.

The King opens the proclamation by asserting the absolute nature of his authority over the legislative process.

By all which may appeare, that howsoeuer in the generall proceedings of that House, there are many footsteps of louing and well affected duetie to Vs: yet some ill tempered spirits haue sowed tares among the corne, and thereby frustrated the hope of that plentifull and good haruest.

James summarizes his frustration, arguing that a few disruptive members destroyed the potential for a productive parliamentary session.

What It's Really About

The fundamental question at the heart of this document is the nature of sovereignty and the boundaries of legislative power. James is grappling with an evolving political reality where the House of Commons is increasingly assertive about its procedural rights and its role in national discourse. He frames his struggle as a fight to preserve the "inseparable Rights and Prerogatiues" of the Crown against what he labels as usurpation. Underlying his specific complaints about the 1621 Parliament is a deeper tension regarding the "true causes" of political failure: is the breakdown the result of an overreaching king, or an insubordinate parliament? The text is essentially an argument for the former, claiming that the King is the guardian of stability against the chaos of parliamentary excess.

Why Read It Today

Reading this proclamation feels like stepping directly into the claustrophobic tension of 17th-century politics. For those interested in the constitutional history of Great Britain, it provides a primary, unfiltered look at how a monarch articulated his frustrations during a period of rising parliamentary ambition. You will encounter the formal, often dense prose of the Jacobean court, which can be challenging to navigate due to its archaic spelling and long, complex sentence structures. However, this is precisely what makes it worth reading; it is not a modern retelling, but an authentic artifact of a time when the relationship between a ruler and his people was undergoing a radical, often bitter, renegotiation.

The experience is less about the "story" and more about the rhetoric of power. You will notice how the King uses the language of paternalism—framing himself as a guide who is forced to punish a disobedient household. It stays with you because of the stark contrast between the King's self-perception and the emerging democratic impulses that he found so threatening. While the language requires patience, the document serves as a reminder of how quickly the language of "love and duty" can sour into political impasse, a dynamic that remains as relevant today as it was in 1621.