How should a senate propose and a people resolve?

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington proposed that the right of debate and proposing laws should be in the senate, while the power of result should be in the people. He also suggested that the senate should publish a law for six weeks before it is proposed to the people. "THAT the right of debate, as also of proposing to the people, be wholly and only in the senat; without any power at all of result, not deriv'd from the people. THAT the power of result be wholly and only in the people, without any right at all of debate. THAT the senat having debated and agreed upon a law to be propos'd, cause promulgation of the same to be made for the space of six weeks before proposition; that is, cause the law to be printed and publish'd so long before it is to be propos'd." [1]
• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington believed that a proposition to the people must be promulgated (printed and published) to the whole nation for six weeks before the representative can assemble and give the vote of the commonwealth. This is to allow the whole people to debate the matter through discourse and letters. "Now every proposition to the people is to be promulgated, that is, printed and publish'd to the whole nation six weeks before the time that the representative is to assemble and give the vote of the commonwealth" [2]
• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington proposed that in cases of law not already provided for by act of parliament, the result of the senate be preparatory only and be proposed by the senate to the prerogative tribe, or assembly of the people. This is based on his argument that the senate should not have ultimate authority in such cases, except in matters of speed or secrecy where delay might be detrimental or dangerous. "That in all cases of law to be made, or not already provided for by act of parlament, as som particular peace or war, levy of men or mony, or the like, the result of the senat be not ultimat, but preparatory only, and be propos'd by the senat to the prerogative tribe, or assembly of the people" [3]
• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington believed that the senate should propose laws to the people by opening the occasion, motives, and reasons of the law, and then put it by distinct clauses to the ballot of the people. If any material clause is rejected, it should be reviewed, altered, and proposed a third time at most. He believed that what is proposed by the senate and resolved by the people should be the law of the land, except in cases reserved for the dictatorian council. (key quote above) [4]
• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington believed that laws should be proposed by a lawful magistracy (like God or a political leader) and then voted on by the people, who had the power to accept, reject, or repeal them. He argued that in Israel, whatever was proposed by God or a lawful magistrat under him and voted by the people was law, and the people retained the power to reject or repeal any law. [5]
• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington believed that a senate should propose matters and the people should resolve them. He argued this based on the example of Sparta, where the senators proposed, and the people had the final choice in all affairs. [6]
• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington believed that the senate should debate matters proposed by councils or proposers and that its decisions should be subject to the prerogative tribe or representative of the people in cases where the result is not ultimate. He argued that the people's resolution should be the final authority in matters not already provided for by law, except in cases of speed or secrecy. (key quote above) [7]
• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington argues that a representative of the people must be constituted in a way that includes the interest of the whole people, and that such a representative should resolve according to the interest of the many, not the few. He contrasts this with a senate that is not elected by the people and may act in the interest of a party or the few, which he sees as dangerous and divisive. "Whether it be not natural unto the senate, especially being not elected by the people, but obtruded, and, as I suspect, for life, to debate according as they intend to resolve, and to resolve according to the interest of the few, or of a party." [8]
• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington believed that a senate should propose and a people should resolve, as demonstrated by his analysis of the Spartan commonwealth. He argued that Lycurgus instituted a senate eligible by the people for life, with the right to debate and propose, and a popular assembly with the power to resolve. "Lycurgus instituted a senate eligible by the people for life, with right to debate and propose, and a popular assembly with power to resolve." [9]
• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington argues that a senate cannot have a will to destroy itself and introduce monarchy, because such an action would be against its interest and impossible to achieve without the people's agreement, which requires reasoned debate. He believes that in a rightly balanced commonwealth, monarchy cannot have a balance unless the people are persuaded to give up most of the territory to a prince or nobility, which he deems impossible. "Now what interest can there be in a senate thus instituted, to destroy it self and set up monarchy? ... But if the introduction of monarchy can neither be in the will of the senate, though that should consist altogether of cavaliers and Presbyterians, then much less can it be in the will of the assembly of the people, though this also should consist altogether of cavaliers and Presbyterians." [10]

What cuts against it

• BELIEF (undated): In [2], Harrington believed that the people must not debate at all, which contradicts the idea of the people having any role in debate. "You allow to these less privilege than to the whole people." [2] This suggests a more limited role for the people in the resolution process than in other passages.

• ACTION (undated): In [11], Harrington discussed the church and nobility's interests in monarchy, which suggests a more limited role for the people in the resolution process than in other passages. "The king being (to use their word) no heretic, thro their great apprehension of the third estate, as that which is most addicted to the Protestant religion, may be confident they will never side with the people." [11]

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. James Harrington believed that the right of debate and proposing laws should be in the senate, while the power of result should be in the people. [4] [7] [12] [8] [9] [13] [14] [10] [15] [5] [6]

2. He argued that the people should have the final decision-making power in matters not already provided for by law, except in cases of speed or secrecy. [7] [8] [9] [13] [14] [10] [15] [5] [6]

3. He believed that the people should be able to debate the matter through discourse and letters for six weeks before the representative can assemble and give the vote of the commonwealth. [2] [4] [7] [12] [8] [9] [13] [14] [10] [15] [5] [6]

4. He argued that the people should be able to reject or repeal any law that was proposed by the senate. [5] [6]

5. He believed that the people should be able to debate the matter through discourse and letters for six weeks before the representative can assemble and give the vote of the commonwealth. [2] [4] [7] [12] [8] [9] [13] [14] [10] [15] [5] [6]

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: DIRECT

The record is silent on the specific mechanisms for how the people should debate and resolve, but Harrington's principles suggest that the people should have the final decision-making power in matters not already provided for by law, except in cases of speed or secrecy.

Extrapolation: James Harrington believed that the people should have the final decision-making power in matters not already provided for by law, except in cases of speed or secrecy. He argued that the people should be able to debate the matter through discourse and letters for six weeks before the representative can assemble and give the vote of the commonwealth. He also believed that the people should be able to reject or repeal any law that was proposed by the senate.

Competing readings: One reading is that the people should have the final decision-making power in matters not already provided for by law, except in cases of speed or secrecy. Another reading is that the people must not debate at all, which contradicts the idea of the people having any role in debate.

Confidence: Moderate, based on the record coverage and the competing readings.