The Kent Petition of 1701 and the discussion on the relationship between Parliament and voters in English journalism of the early XVIII century.

Knyazev Pavel Postgraduate Student, Section of Modern and Contemporary History, History Department, Lomonosov Moscow State University 115419, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Lomonosovskii Prospekt, 27, korp. 4 pavkneazev@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Makarova Elena Alekseevna PhD in History Associate Professor, Department of Modern and Contemporary History, Lomonosov Moscow State University 119991, Russia, Moskva oblast', g. Moscow, Lomonosovskii prospekt, 27 chernovsz@mail.ru

Representative institutions have played an important role in the formation of European political culture. A well-known Russian researcher N.A. Khachaturian noted that the political and social experience of the Middle Ages associated with the process of their development influenced the society of Modern times, giving rise to a democratic system ^{[7, p. 225]}. However, this process has not become fast and instantaneous. In the diversity of representative institutions of the XVI–XVIII centuries, we see only the "predecessors" of modern parliaments. Their formation went on for a long period, there was a gradual evolution of representative institutions, the approval of their powers and competencies. The development of institutions was closely connected with the emergence of new political ideas and concepts that not only justified the changes, but also became an integral part of the political culture itself. The Early Modern period can also be considered as a transitional period, during which the very nature of representation was gradually rethought – it begins to be perceived not as a representation of class, corporate interests, but as an expression of the will of the "people", a sovereign nation. An example of such a long, gradual assertion of political ideas and practices of parliamentarism, as well as the transformation of its perception by contemporaries, is the experience of the development of England throughout modern history ^[1]. American historian E.S. Morgan emphasized that the practice of parliamentary representation in this country preceded its theoretical understanding in the categories of "parliamentary" and "popular sovereignty" ^{[30, p. 39]}, later influenced by political attitudes and ideologies.

The specific experience of England allows us to show how in the early Modern times collective "national" interest was associated by contemporaries with representation through political institutions ^{[26, P. 196]}. The modern British historian M. Knights rightly notes that the influential at that time "the doctrine of state interest implied that the ideal representative, as well as the voter, should not be bound by party and private interests" ^{[26, P. 196-198]}. At the same time, not everyone perceived the presence of parliament as a guarantee against violation of the rights of the subjects of the kingdom. The British historian of political thought R. Thus, he noted that in the view of intellectuals of early Modern times, "the practice of electing deputies alone" was not considered as an expression of the entire will of the people: after the elections, the sphere of legislation was limited to a narrow circle of people ^{[40, P. X, 6-7]}. During the period under review, the concept of "parliamentary sovereignty" arises, based on the coincidence of the interests of representatives and those represented. Interpreting its features, the British researcher A. Cromarty showed that the publicist G. Parker (1604-1652) already considered parliamentary sovereignty "permanently embodied, without any hope of revoking it, in the representative assembly of the country" ^{[11, p. 143]}. In the treatise "The Right of the People" (Ius Populi), Parker insisted that a representative assembly either "cannot have interests other than the aspirations of the represented population, or has very few of them, and therefore they are insignificant" ^{[32, P. 19-20]}.

Nevertheless, the Parliament could be perceived as an institution that is capable of acting contrary to the interests of the represented population. Realizing this problem, the Levellers in the text of the "People's Agreement" (1647) prescribed that the powers of the parliament "and all future representatives of our people are subordinate only to their voters" ^{[3, p. 60]}. One of the ways in practice to control the activities of deputies after the elections was the filing of petitions. The American researcher D. Zaret, who studied the practice of drafting petitions in England in the XVII century, came to the conclusion that petitions had a great influence on the subsequent formation of the "liberal-democratic model of the political system" ^{[41, p. 265]}. According to the historian, the very experience of petitioning stimulated the emergence of new ideas that justified the "central" role of public opinion in the adoption of political decisions by the legislature. Other historians see an acute conflict in the relations between parliaments and the creators of petitions, because the practice of writing petitions actually "undermined the monopoly right of parliament to act as the "voice of the people"" ^{[25, p. 19]}.

This article will consider one of the attempts of English voters to influence the policy of the already elected parliament – the "Kent Petition" of 1701, the authors of which sought to get the English Parliament to finance military preparations. The petition led to a large-scale discussion on the relationship between parliament and voters, the very ability of the latter to influence the activities of a representative body outside the election procedure. The arguments of the participants in this dispute will be the focus of this article. To solve this task, it is necessary to briefly consider the context of the creation of the petition and analyze its structure, and then proceed to the consideration of the disputes that unfolded in English journalism provoked by the appearance of the document.

* * *

The petition was drawn up during the reign of King William III of Orange (1650-1702), who ascended the throne with his wife Mary II in 1689. On the one hand, during his reign, the monarch made significant concessions to parliament: under the terms of the "Bill of Rights" of 1689, he could not introduce new taxes without the consent of the latter, maintain a standing army in peacetime, and was deprived of the right to release any of his subjects from the English laws. At the same time, the "dispensation" of 1688-1689 left a number of important issues within the competence of the royal prerogative (mainly in the appointment of ministers and the administration of executive power), the status of which was often disputed. The situation was complicated by Wilhelm's foreign (Dutch) origin, which did not suit the xenophobic English political elite. Finally, it was not easy for the monarch to come to an agreement with a representative body because of the struggle within the Tory and Whig factions within the latter. Originated during the reign of Charles II (1660-1685), they successfully survived the "Glorious Revolution" and often "invaded" the monarch's affairs.

The "Bill of Rights" ordered Parliament to "convene quite often" ^{[3, p. 130]}, and the "Triennial Act" renewed in 1694 approved this practice ^{[23, p. 200]}. The Parliament turned into a stable political institution, which not only expanded its power prerogatives, but also became, according to the British historian M. Knights, "an important point of contact between the population and the state" ^{[26, p. 197]}. The Parliament was elected regularly. The latter circumstance also made relevant the question of his relationship with the electorate, which at that time was no more than 6-7% of the country's population ^{[1, pp. 40-46]}. Between 1698 and 1701, Parliament was partially controlled by the opposition, which twice won a majority in the House of Commons. There, the Tory deputies representing her strongly criticized the royal ministers and favorites, accusing them of corruption, and also sought to prevent the creation of a large standing army by the sovereign, which they considered a threat to English freedoms.

The processes outlined above were well manifested at the very end of William's reign, on the eve of the War of the Spanish Succession. After the Peace of Riswick was concluded between Louis XIV and William III (1697), they attempted to settle the problem of the Spanish inheritance. The fate of the Spanish monarchy, which was ruled by the seriously ill and childless Charles II of Habsburg, and which owned not only Spanish lands, but also the Southern Netherlands, Italian regions and an extensive colonial empire, caused particular concern among the European powers. By concluding the Hague (1698) and London (1700) treaties, representatives of England, France and the Republic of the United Provinces of the Netherlands sought to settle the issue of succession to the throne (which was claimed by the Austrian Habsburgs and French Bourbons related to the Spanish kings), as well as to draw lines of division of Spanish possessions. However, these attempts were unsuccessful, as the Spanish monarch before his death bequeathed his possessions to Louis XIV's grandson, Philip of Anjou. The French king recognized the will, thereby renouncing the terms of the "partition agreements" and expressing his willingness to fight for Philip's rights ^{[22, P. 108-109]}.

As the war of the Spanish succession was brewing, William was preparing for a confrontation, while the Tories perceived his preparations warily, fearing the strengthening of royal power. At the same time, the Whigs supported preparations for war: anti-French sentiments were very strong among them, they associated the opposition of France with the protection of the "Protestant interest", and the allies of England (mainly referring to the United Provinces of the Netherlands), hostile to Louis XIV. The Tories were much more "isolationist": their representatives proposed to focus on the defense of the British Isles proper, as well as to prevent excessive strengthening of the allies at the expense of the British.

Dissatisfaction with military preparations also had a deeper meaning, which should be discussed separately. In 1689, the English Parliament passed the "Act of Rebellion", which limited the king's right to maintain a standing army in peacetime for one year, thus strengthening parliament's control over the country's armed forces ^{[20, P. 800-801]}. After the conclusion of the Peace of Riswick in 1697, Wilhelm tried to maintain a large and combat-ready army ^{[10, P. 184-192; 33]}, but this was opposed by the opposition, some of which called for reducing the number of troops as much as possible and even replacing the permanent army with a civilian militia. The confrontation between the monarch and parliament ended in a compromise: William retained the army, but its size was so small that it satisfied the opposition: now "the danger to freedoms was minimized" ^{[6, C. 25]}. English politicians believed that the "corruption" of society and the loss of virtue were caused by "unlimited power", which was perceived as completely contrary to traditional "English freedoms". Such a government could be established, according to the opposition, only after the creation of a large standing army, existing both in wartime and in peacetime, and under the command of the ruler.

A similar position was also held by E. Marvell (1621-1678) in the treatise "On the growth of the Papacy and arbitrary rule", 1677 ^[29] and O. Sidney (1623-1683) in the work "Reasoning about the management of the state", (1681) ^[34]. But these ideas were especially clearly articulated in the period immediately following the "Glorious Revolution" by W. Moyle (1672-1721) and J. Trenchard (1662-1723) in the treatise "Arguments in favor of the fact that a standing army is incompatible with free rule, and is detrimental to the structure of the English monarchy", 1697 ^[31], as well as E. Fletcher (1655-1717) in the work "Reasoning about Government and Armed Forces", 1698 ^[21] believed that the monarch is able to use the army to "undermine" the English constitution and establish the "arbitrary" power of the king.

This approach considered the army and the court not as attributes of the sovereign power of the monarch, but as institutions that give the sovereign too much influence, both on parliament and on other subjects. A similar position on the issue of a standing army was taken by J. Toland (1670-1722). In his works, he not only pointed out the threat from the regular armed forces, but also proposed a whole scheme for the reorganization of the British army on the model of the army of the Roman Republic ^{[39, P. 70-78]}.

Similar sentiments were shared in 1701 by the Tories, who at that time formed the core of the opposition House of Commons and were in no hurry to allocate funds for William's preparations. The military sphere and foreign policy were part of the prerogative of the king, but at the same time they became the subject of active public discussion. The parliament, which retained financial regulation in its hands and feared the emergence of a "standing army", could seriously interfere with the plans of the monarch.

In an effort to support the king and accusing the House of Commons of indecision, the Whig-sympathizing freeholders from Kent County, with the assistance of a local Grand Jury, drafted a petition in the spring of 1701 that interests us. After writing, its text was publicly read, approved and immediately sent to the jury members. D. Defoe colorfully describes the process of signing the petition: "freeholders from all over the county gathered so quickly that in less than five hours, the parchment with the petition was filled to overflowing with signatures" ^{[14, P. 2]}. Defoe believed that that "many thousands of hands were ready to leave their signature," but the county authorities refused to provide additional scrolls of parchment, focusing more on the content of the petition, rather than on the number of signatures ^[14]. In total, more than 200 signatures were put under the petition ^{[26, P. 137]}.

Structurally, the "Kent Petition" consists of three parts. The first of them sets out the reasons for drawing up the document: according to the authors, the circumstances were "a dangerous situation for the kingdom itself and for the whole of Europe", with a military threat from France ^[37]. In this regard, the petitioners felt "obliged" (bound in Duty) to present the true state of affairs to the parliamentarians and encourage them to act in the interests of England. And it could have been done by parliament - according to the authors of the petition, the future of England "depends on the wisdom of our representatives in parliament." Thus, it was emphasized that the deputies acted and made decisions independently, but at the same time had to remember the interests of the country and the subjects they represented.

The second part concretizes the content of the first: "it is obvious from the experience of all epochs" that "no nation can achieve greatness or happiness without unity." The unity of the parliament, the monarch and the voters was implied.  Unity was opposed by the "lack of mutual understanding" (Misunderstandings) between the subjects themselves, as well as the dangerous "distrust" shown towards the king. As a justification for the position of the authors, an appeal to the era of the "Glorious Revolution" is introduced: the "great deeds" of the king in the interests of England were the basis of its unity and security, and parliamentarians were urged to continue the work begun by William. William's "deeds" remained deeply "in the hearts of his subjects", and they, according to the Kentish freeholders, simply do not have the moral right to repay the king with "the blackest ingratitude" and forget his merits. Thus, solidarity with the preparations of the monarch is tied not only to the "sacred" status and the will of the sovereign, but also to a kind of "contract": for the services rendered in 1688 by William, the British were offered to pay with loyalty ^[37].

Only the third part of the petition contains hints of specific demands to the House of Commons, and they are expressed in rather harsh language. It is assumed that the appeal will encourage parliament to adopt new bills on the financing of the army (Bills of Supply), which will help the monarch "gain power in order to help his allies [on the continent] until it is too late" - this is what the authors of the petition "urgently ask" (implore) representatives of the House of Commons. The bills were to be adopted not only for the purpose of protecting "[Protestant] religion and security" but also because of this requirement on the part of the voters ^[37]. The authors of the petition in the third part asked the parliamentarians not only to act in accordance with the current "external" situation, but also to "listen to the voice of the people." It follows from this that the deputies will adopt the bill on the supply of the army, as if not by themselves, but under pressure "from below". This is exactly how representatives of the English political "establishment" read the text of the petition. The resolution adopted by the House of Commons characterized the petition as "an outrageous, arrogant and treasonable action taken to overthrow the Constitution and parliament, destroying the centuries-old form of government of the kingdom" ^{[63, p. 140]}. The Tory majority voted for the arrest of the five creators of the petition ^[26]. The Whigs also published a number of pamphlets in defense of the latter ^{[26, P. 123-124]}. Campaigns were organized during which voters drew up "instructions" to deputies elected from each district. Thus, active residents of the districts sought to determine in advance how their chosen representative would vote ^[26].

Although the authors of the petition were soon released, the discussion between Whigs and Tories continued for several years (even after the Tory parliament was dissolved by the king in 1701), and the conflict between the House of Commons and the voters became the subject of satire. In the collection of the National Library of Scotland, a humorous ballad published in London has been preserved ^[38], written in the form of advice to the freeholders of Kent on behalf of the "Gotham wise Men" (Wise Men of Gotham; they are best known to the Russian-speaking reader as "three wise men in one basin" translated by S. Marshak). It elegantly ridicules the current situation:

It 's not for the citizens of Kent to teach our Senate,

How can they stop the rebellion, or repel the enemy…

(The Senate needs none of your Kentish Direction,

To prevent Foreign Insults, and Home Insurrection.)

At the same time, the author of the ballad, apparently, hints that the representative body has "crossed the boundaries" of its competence and is taking up a case that is not included in it:

Our people themselves are now at the helm,

The whole country will be led both through the shoal and through the rocks,

Taking care of the sailors, pacifying the whole country;

Everyone will become calm, having loved his lot.

(Our Commons will steer the Great Boat of themselves,

And save it from dashing on Rocks or on Shelves:

They'll provide for our Tarrs, and settle the Nation:

Then let each Private Man be content in his Station.)

Despite the public outcry, very little attention has been paid to the "Kent Petition" in the historical literature. Another contemporary of the events, the church and political figure G. Burnet (1643-1715) highly appreciated the document, believing that its authors "put the interests of society above their own personal aspirations" ^{[9, P. 686]}. Nevertheless, he reflected in his memoirs the discussions that unfolded in England: he mentions the position of the House of Commons and the criticism of its actions by the Whigs. In the 19th century, historian and journalist J.B. Smith paid great attention to the "Kent Petition" in his "History of England". He believed that the petition marked a "turning point in history" ^{[35, p. 82]}, while the stagnant House of Commons tried (but eventually failed) to ignore the sentiments of the English public, which the publicist D. Defoe (circa 1660-1731) expressed with talent ^{[35, p. 83]}. The Whig tradition of glorifying the authors of the petition successfully "lived" to the twentieth century.

In modern historiography, there are various approaches to the study of disputes about the nature of parliamentary representation: some researchers focus on analyzing the most significant doctrines, considering them through the prism of English public thought, while others pay special attention to disputes between representatives of various political groups and movements on specific issues, for example, the legality of petitions to parliament. In the XX century, the American historian E. Morgan, who devoted his research to the emergence of the concept of popular sovereignty, also addressed this problem. He calls the actions of the House of Commons an "excessively violent reaction" (overreaction), which provoked a wave of indignation and "served" the interests of the Whigs ^{[30, P. 226]}. If Morgan considered the history of petitions in the context of the confrontation of early political "parties", then the English researcher G.T. Dickinson "inscribed" it in the debate about the nature of parliamentary sovereignty. The researcher believes that in the XVIII century the point of view that the Tories held in the disputes about the "Kent Petition" was established: it was believed that "the power of parliament could not be curtailed by the desires of the electorate" ^{[17, P. 201]}. However, the discussion provoked by the "Kent Petition" has not been investigated in detail to date.

* * *

The controversy was opened by a small pamphlet by D. Defoe "The Appeal of the Multitude" (1701) ^[13], written in support of the initiators of the "Kent Petition" and presented by the author to the Speaker of the House of Commons R. Harley ^[14]. From the point of view of the publicist, the "Appeal" was created in order to explain to parliamentarians the position of "those who chose them", and also to show that "the undoubted right of the people of England, if their representatives in parliament act contrary to their duty and the interests of the people, is to notify them [deputies — auth.] about their dissatisfaction" and to achieve the fulfillment of their will "by peaceful means" ^{[13, p. 3-4]}. If the parliamentarians acted contrary to the interests of the people, the author of the pamphlet considered it possible to bring the deputies to justice as "traitors and traitors to [their] country" ^{[13, p. 4]}. The "Conversion of the multitude" ends with a quote from the Gospel – "our name is legion" ^{[13, p. 5]} In the biblical context, "legion" means a large number, while a negative assessment is usually given to the enumerated (in the Gospel of Mark and Luke, it is said about the healing of a demoniac by Christ and a myriad of demons - "for Jesus said to him: come out, unclean spirit, from this man. And I asked him: What is your name? And he answered and said, "Legion is my name, because there are many of us" (Mk. 5:8-9; cp. Lk. 8:30). Here, Defoe speaks of a myriad of voters – their numerical superiority and power should have persuaded the deputies to accept the petition and its conditions.

On the pages of another work by Defoe - "The History of the Kent Petition" (1701) - the Whig version of events is described in detail. The petition itself is called "peaceful" ^{[14, P. 22]}, and its goals are legitimate. Defoe here defends as immutable the very "Right of Petitioning" (Right of Petitioning) ^{[14, P. 20]}, which he justifies with examples from the history of English legislation. Defoe believed that any court or representative body (body) is limited in its power and has no authority to deprive subjects of the right to petition ^{[14, P. 21]}. In "History..." Defoe ironically says that "neither the Spanish Inquisition nor the Turkish Sofa is capable of completely prohibiting citizens from expressing their opinions ... and, as it seems, if the devil wants to show his court to the world, even he cannot forbid it" ^{[14, p. 21]}. Defoe interprets the arrest of petitioners as the "most ridiculous and inconsistent" act of parliament, since the Kent freeholders were detained for committing lawful actions ^{[14, P. 20]}. Thus, Defoe not only acted as an apologist for the "cause" of the Whig party, but also brought a solid justification under the protection of its interests: petitions are presented to him as a natural and very important element of English political life, and the voters submitting them can control the activities of their representatives and call the latter to account.

Of particular note is another treatise in defense of the petition of 1701 - "The Rights of the English People" (Jura Populi Anglicani), published anonymously in 1701. Its author is often considered one of the leaders of the Whigs - Baron Somers (1651-1716), who took an active part in the political struggle in connection with the "Kent Petition" ^[26]. The latter (or someone from his entourage) could well have been the author of this essay, since it contains a strong criticism of the activities of the House of Commons. For example, the author of the treatise accuses the Tory grouping of "disloyalty" towards the king: by subjecting the authors of the "Kent Petition" to persecution, the deputies of the House of Commons demonstrated their unreliability, expressed their refusal to protect England from the danger hanging over it. "Is this really the character and spirit of the Tory Party now?" ^{[24, P. VII]} - the author of the essay asked a rhetorical question. Further, the author actually accuses the House of Commons of trying to usurp part of the royal prerogative – acting of their own free will, without the sanction of the monarch or the House of Lords, the Tories committed an illegal act ^{[24, P. VIII]}. This act is presented in the work as a symbol of lawlessness (the author complained that in England of his time "reverence for the law fell unusually low" ^{[24, P. 14]}. At the same time, the Tories were accused of violating the laws solely for the purposes of their own party: "this is what they are ready to do in order to break the power of the opposite party," complained the author of the treatise ^{[24, P. 15]}. It is necessary to note two more curious aspects of the author's position. On the one hand, he draws the reader's attention to the heterogeneity of opinions expressed in the House of Commons. Many parliamentarians, all except "papists" and "Jacobites", opposed the harsh measures of parliament ^{[24, p. IV, X]}. Thus, the Tories were not just portrayed in an unsightly light for them, but were also declared the only party responsible for what happened, so the blame here was shifted to the Tories from the entire Chamber. communities. On the other hand, the deputies, according to the author of the treatise, acted as representatives of "their" voters directly, who can convey their complaints to the deputies ^{[24, P. 40]}. They were referring specifically to freeholders who have the right to vote and that is why they are able to make decisions about the governance of the state and influence parliament. Clearly delineating them from the "common people", the author of the "Rights of the English People" argued that parliamentarians are connected with voters, but not with the whole multitude of residents of England. Delegating power to deputies, freeholders, according to the author, had the right to influence the activities of their own representatives by submitting "modest" petitions.

In 1702, Defoe published a pamphlet entitled "The Original Power", in which he again drew attention to the injustice of the arrest of the authors of the "Kent Petition". His rhetoric remained extremely harsh: the publicist stated that the actions of the House of Commons had brought the British "to a state of slavery", while "their own representatives" became the masters of the people ^{[15, P. 14]}. Further, Defoe used the "contractual" theory of the origin of the state in order to justify the legality of the influence of the "people" on deputies. When a State is formed, the "original right" belonging to voters is transferred to a representative body only under certain conditions. However, just as the source is upstream of a full-flowing river ^{[15, P. 8]}, this "primordial power" of the people is above the power of deputies, which is only a derivative of the "primordial right" ^{[15, P. 16-19]}. Citing a number of historical examples, Defoe concluded that the House of Commons is sometimes able to "tacitly" approve all those abuses against which it was supposed to speak out. In such cases, the "people" have the right to be outraged by the actions of the "corrupted" parliament and resist it. Defoe argued that parliamentarians were only "proxies" of voters ^{[15, P. 7-8]}, whom the latter delegated to a representative body under a special agreement in order to take care of the "good of society": it was the "primordial", original nature of the power of voters that determined the priority of their vote in the development of certain political decisions, and the right to influence the decisions of parliamentarians remained with the "people".

Summing up, it should be noted that the defenders of the "Kent Petition" relied on the concept of a "social contract" - precisely because of this, they placed special emphasis on the "original" nature of the government, at the base of which it is represented. J. Locke (1732-1704) believed that the legislative body should be "elected and appointed by the people", thus approving the consent of society to the adoption of certain normative acts ^{[4, C. 339]}. According to the Two Treatises on Government, taxes cannot be raised "without the consent of the people, given by themselves or through their representatives." This is possible in a state where the parliament acts continuously, or at least "where the people have not retained some part of the legislative power for deputies who are elected by themselves from time to time." In addition, the legislative body "should not and cannot transfer legislative power to anyone else or entrust it to anyone other than those to whom the people entrusted it" ^{[4, p. 346]}. Locke thus not only emphasizes the direct connection between the parliament and the body of voters, but also hints that it is the latter that is the source of all the power of deputies and a factor in its limitation. This line was continued by the Whigs at the beginning of the XVIII century: being at the origins of representative government, the people retain the right to control the activities of institutions. One can agree with the way this idea was briefly formulated by G. Burnet: he expressed the position of the defenders of the petition as follows: "The House of Commons is the creation of the people," and, therefore, should listen to his "voice", submitted through such appeals ^{[9, P. 686]}.

* * *

It is also necessary to consider the position of the opponents of the petition: the Tories defended the sovereign rights of Parliament and considered the actions of the House of Commons justified and legitimate. Publicist and politician, member of the House of Commons Sir Humphrey Mackworth (1657-1727) expressed the opinion that the practice of drawing up instructions for deputies can undermine the very principle of independence of parliament ^[27]. He wrote that the decisions of the parliament cannot be "prescribed" in advance and should be taken in a completely different way — after "debates and discussions" with the participation of all deputies ^{[27, P. 38]}. In the essay of the publicist, in addition to considering the rights and precedents of filing petitions, the political structure of the English kingdom was described in detail. The author shared the point of view, widespread during the period under review, that according to its political structure, England is a "mixed monarchy", where the royal power, the House of Lords and the House of Commons represent, respectively, "monarchical", "aristocratic" and "democratic" elements of government. Developing this concept, Mackworth argued that these elements are interconnected by a complex system of "Checks" that contribute to maintaining a balance between the above-mentioned "foundations" of power ^{[27, P. 28-29]}. The politician considered such a balance to be the basis for the stability and durability of the English "unwritten constitution", protection from the establishment of both excessively strong royal power and popular discontent. In this regard, the Tory author believed that, despite the interconnection and mutual limitation of the three sources of power, their powers as a whole cannot be considered limited. The politician argued that the unified power of the King, the House of Lords and the House of Commons "cannot be limited by any other power than its own" ^{[27, P. 5]}. Consequently, attempts to force the House of Commons through petitions to certain actions were regarded by Mackworth as unacceptable and dangerous.

The anonymous author of the pamphlet "Exposing the Enemies of England" (1701) argued the position of the House of Commons by the fact that as soon as deputies are elected to parliament, "the power and rights of the elector (the Elector) pass entirely into the hands of his representatives" ^{[19, P. 30-31]}. Thus, the author of the pamphlet denied the "division" of sovereignty between voters and deputies, being to a certain extent a supporter of the Hobbesian interpretation of sovereignty (although he does not refer to it directly), rejecting the possibility of its "preservation" in the hands of voters. In chapter XVIII of Leviathan, T. Hobbes wrote that "once established, the form of government can no longer be changed by subjects," and people who have concluded a contract and delegated sovereignty to the sovereign are no longer able to return to their natural state. Consequently, "no one can, without violating justice, protest against the establishment of the sovereign proclaimed by the majority" ^{[2, II, C. 134.]}. From this, the anonymous author concludes that the voter can criticize the policy of the parliament, but does not have the authority to "compel" him to commit any actions.. For this reason, even if the opinion of the population of the "locality, city or town" from which the deputy was elected does not coincide with the position of the latter, the parliamentarian has the right to vote in accordance with "his own, private judgment" ^{[19, P. 30]}.

In 1703, after the dissolution of Parliament, another member of the Tory party, the publicist and thinker Charles Davenant (1656-1714), took part in this discussion. Part of his treatise "Reflections on Peace in the country and war abroad" is devoted to the problem of parliamentary sovereignty. The main principle from which the thinker proceeded is the priority of reason, which is contradicted by the "dangerous" practice of forcing deputies to vote in accordance with an externally imposed decision. He wrote about the danger of this practice ^{[12, IV, P. 287]}, because it undermined the foundations of the English constitution and was carried out "bypassing" parliamentary procedures. Davenant assessed the campaign of 1701 extremely negatively — in his opinion, its success could lead to the fact that the common people "would feel themselves the arbiter of the entire administration of affairs [of the state]." The publicist believed that behind this was an attempt by voters to "recapture (wrest) from their own representatives those powers" that are assigned to the parliament by the constitution ^{[12, IV, P. 296]}.

Davenant believed that voters transferred all their powers to representatives, after which parliament was no longer accountable to voters. He argued that sovereignty does not remain in the constituencies, but is "concentrated" in the capital of the country and embodied in the person of the Queen (King) and Parliament. "If the people get" sovereignty into their own hands, Davenant believed, "then our country will become a democracy, but not a monarchy in any way" ^{[12, IV, P. 294]}. He wrote that the deputies "represent the whole country as a whole" and make decisions on the appropriate scale. From his point of view, "when the voters (the commonwealth) have made their choice, all their power is now transferred (devolv'd) and delegated, concentrating in the hands of deputies ^{[12, IV, P. 293-294]}. "The rights and privileges of the House of Commons are the rights and privileges of the people; however, [now] they are transferred, from the people who elected — the people elected," wrote the Tory politician. Thus, Davenant's position is similar to the views of the author of "Exposing the Enemies of England": sovereignty after the elections was broadcast, passed into the hands of parliamentarians, and the further influence of the electorate on their policies had to be minimized.

"The art of governing is [the art of] ruling the few over the many," the thinker argued. From his point of view, "when a few follow the lead of many and do everything they want, then there is a return to the wild state of nature in society." Thus, as a result, the principle of "strength" will take the place of "reason" and "wisdom" in the state, and the foundations of reasonable government will be undermined ^{[12, IV, P. 291]}. Thus, unlike the anonymous predecessor, the publicist makes more explicit references to Hobbes' theory. Davenant considered the following arrangement of the English constitution to be "reasonable": the king stands at the top of it. "The sovereign is the head of the Commonwealth, and he has his prerogatives," the publicist argued. The spiritual and secular lords go down vertically, and then the communities ^{[12, IV, P. 292]}. Davenant believed that together they make up the "three estates of parliament," or "three sources of power." An attempt to directly influence voters on deputies will certainly disrupt the harmony between them, giving rise to a previously unknown "fourth estate" or "fourth estate" — the fourth estate. Not embedded in the English constitutional structure, the "fourth estate" will create a new form of government and disrupt the "political" harmony ^{[12, IV, P. 292]}. As a result, the country will fall into the hands of a tyrant who will already make sure that "free elections to the House of Commons will not take place." From Davenant's point of view, freedom "is equally under threat — both when parliaments are frightened and under the influence of popular outrage (popular clamours), and when they are corrupt and "bought" by ministers" ^{[12, IV, P. 296]}. Therefore, for Davenant, the path of freedom is a middle, moderate path.

The right to submit petitions was recognized by Davenant, "but not as a dictate" ^{[12, IV, P. 292]}: petitions and instructions were to be exclusively advisory in nature. The publicist recalled that the practice of writing "imperative" instructions took place in the management system of the Dutch provinces and cantons of Switzerland. "But can a person say that this has ever been an element of our constitution"? ^{[12, IV, P. 293]} - he asked. In his opinion, if the practice contradicted the English constitution, then it was dangerous to borrow it.

 Thus, the Tory criticism of the "Kent Petition" was based on several arguments. Firstly, they considered petitions to be an "external" limiter in relation to the traditional elements of the English political system. Secondly, they used Hobbes' concept of the indivisibility of sovereignty to prove the legitimacy of the concentration of power in the hands of parliament. Finally, an educational appeal to the priority of reason over coercion draws attention to itself – acting rationally, a deputy is able to make the right decision independently for the benefit of the whole country. Algernon Sidney also argued that "we should often give instructions to our delegates ^{[34, II, P. 368]}, but the less we restrict (fetter) them, the more we assert our own rights" ^{[34, II, P. 368-369]}. Thus, Sydney recognized the right to give instructions to deputies, while at the same time realizing the importance for parliamentarians to make their own decisions. It is curious that during the polemic of the beginning of the XVIII century, this idea of the Republican thinker was actualized by the Tories.

* * *

The answer to Davenant's treatise the following year was made by D. Defoe. In his opinion, the House of Commons should have "finally informed us [the people] about the extent to which its power over the people its members represent is expanding" ^{[16, P. 5-6]}. Defoe not only defended the right of the population to speak out against the "bad" resolutions of parliamentarians, but reserved for them the right to even annul ("make void", make void) the decisions of deputies. The publicist again insisted that the people "have some part of the power that is never transferred to representatives" ^{[16, P. 7]}. Thus, Defoe believed that if the people are sovereign, then they cannot give all their sovereignty to parliament. Arguing with the Tories, Defoe wrote that it is impossible "to call the people of England by the names that you are used to doing it — a crowd, a multitude, or something similar" ^{[16, P. 11]}. The "people" (or rather, the body of voters no lower than the freeholder) was presented to him as a community that had to be treated with great respect and for which it was necessary to recognize a "part" of sovereignty even after the elections. Defoe rejected accusations of supporting the idea of creating a "fourth estate", and placed representatives of the people creating petitions "in the middle of the three estates" ^{[16, P. 13]}; he argued that the practice of drafting instructions to deputies does not contradict the constitution at all.

Defoe again used the "contractual" theory, this time to provide a counterargument. Firstly, the people never transferred their right to choose deputies into the hands of the representatives themselves, but retained it for themselves ^{[16, P. 19-22]}. Thus, the people have left sovereignty and the rights associated with it in their hands. Defoe also argued that the people have never been against parliament as such, and their interests do not contradict each other. But when it comes to specific deputies, as well as specific measures taken by them, the people have every right to be outraged ^{[16, P. 7-10]}. This is how Defoe explains the legality of the "Kent Petition" and other Whig appeals at the beginning of the XVIII century. The dissolution of parliament in 1701 was carried out in accordance with the right of the people to transfer mandates to their representatives, and showed that the power of the government should be obtained both from the hands of the people and, at the same time, by the will of God ^{[16, P. 21]}. Proceeding from this, Defoe believed that Davenant's arguments in favor of the "special" rights of parliament were not sufficiently sound.

* * *

The positions of the Tories and Whigs on the issue of the relationship between parliamentarians and voters, as can be seen, differed markedly. The Tories (H. Mackworth, C. Davenant) believed that the electorate transfers all its power into the hands of representatives, and any attempt to create a center of power other than the House of Commons would lead to insubordination and the fall of the very foundations of the English state system. For Davenant, only the "middle way" is acceptable — parliament should not listen to manipulators "from below" and "from above", and thus remain a defender of English freedoms. The Whigs, on the contrary, defended the "Kent Petition", believing that voters still have a certain amount of power after the elections, and they are able to call deputies to account. The authors note the influence of the concepts of political thought that were widespread at that time on the positions of the parties: for example, the Whigs used the idea of a "social contract" to justify their own position, while the Tories relied on the principle of "balance" between the elements of the English political system.

The dispute between the Tories and Whigs at the beginning of the century was still far from over even under the kings of the Hanoverian dynasty, and the question of whether parliamentarians were only delegates or voters endowed with their own will remained relevant throughout the XVIII century. In English society, doubts expressed at the beginning of the century even intensified about the legitimacy of "popular pressure" on the activities of parliamentarians ^[25]. M. Knights argues that during this period, supporters of the government and parliament often claimed "the superiority of formal representation through parliament over informal representation, expressed in the practice of petitioning" ^{[25, P. 18]}. In 1774, Edmund Burke made a speech in which the point of view of deputies was justified precisely as "representatives of the nation", and not as "delegates" from specific counties. The thinker argued: "you really choose a member (of the House of Commons – author); but when you have already chosen him, he ceases to represent only the interests of Bristol, he becomes a member of Parliament" ^{[8, I, P. 447]}. Modern political scientists distinguish two models of representation — the "trustee" (trustee model of representation), in which deputies sent to parliament have the right to make their own decisions and vote at their own discretion, and the "delegate" model (delegate model of representation), in which a deputy must vote in strict accordance with a pre-prescribed decision of voters ^{[28, P. 87-90]}. In modern states, these models coexist, complement each other and a permanent parliament and elements of direct democracy (referendum).

It is important to remember that the discussion between Mackworth, Davenant and Defoe was conducted on the issue of the relations of parliament with voters, with a certain part of the population, called "the people". But there was another approach to the problem: if the parliament is not able for some reason to adequately express the interests of voters, it is not necessary to force it to "correct mistakes" through petitions. A possible way is the expansion of the right to vote, which was of particular interest to thinkers of the XVIII-XIX centuries.  Historian G.T. Dickinson argues that it was in this context that the idea of parliamentary reform gained importance. According to the scientist, in the period of Modern times in England, the idea was formed that the expansion of suffrage could make the House of Commons "able to more adequately represent the nation as a whole" ^{[18, P. 223]}. Another consequence of the disputes about the "sovereignty" of parliament was the maturation of the ideological prerequisites of American democracy: Dickinson emphasizes that the "founding fathers" opposed the "parliamentary sovereignty" to the sovereignty of the people, and the slogan "no taxation without representation" influenced the idea that everyone who paid taxes should have received the right to vote ^{[17, p. 204]}. Consequently, in addition to the problem of relations between parliament and voters, the views of the electorate about itself deserve attention, and this problem remains relevant for further research.