Editing Addled Parliament (section)

==Historiography==
[[File:Portrait of Samuel Rawson Gardiner.jpg|thumb|Victorian historian of James's reign [[Samuel Rawson Gardiner]] concluded that the Addled Parliament saw the "first dawning" of certain constitutional ideas in Parliament.]]
[[Victorian era|Victorian]] Whig historian [[Samuel Rawson Gardiner]], in his monumental history of the lead-up to the Civil War, took the view that the parliament of 1614 was primarily concerned with "higher questions" (i.e. those of a constitutional nature) "which, once [[wikt:mooted|mooted]], can never drop out of sight".{{sfn|Clucas|Davies|2003|p=1}}{{sfn|Gardiner|1883|p=228}} To this parliament, Gardiner wrote, one can "trace the first dawning of the idea that, in order to preserve the rights of the subject intact, it would be necessary to make some change in the relations between the authority of the Crown and the representatives of the people."{{sfn|Gardiner|1883|p=240}} Gardiner's judgement of the constitutional import of this assembly has met with the sympathy of some later historians.{{sfn|Russell|1990|p=31}} Moir, in his 1958 monograph on the parliament, held that "the development had begun which led ultimately to parliamentary control of the [[executive (government)|executive]]" as early as the exclusion of Parry.{{sfn|Russell|1990|p=31}} Maija Jansson, editor of the 1614 Parliamentary proceedings, wrote in 1988: "[f]ar from being the confused do-nothing assembly of tradition, the English parliament of 1614 addressed thorny constitutional issues and anticipated the concern with procedure and privilege that is evident throughout the sessions of the 1620s."{{sfn|Jansson|1988|p=xiii}}

This hypothesis regarding the Addled Parliament was criticised by the eminent parliamentary historian [[Conrad Russell]] in his 1991 [[Stenton lecture]]—entitled ''The Addled Parliament of 1614: The Limits of Revision''.{{sfn|Clucas|Davies|2003|p=2}} From Russell's revisionist perspective, the members of Parliament were engaged in a constitutionally conservative battle, aimed at preserving their own rights rather than extending them. The disagreement between Parliament and Crown was not a "battle between rival constitutional ideas"{{sfn|Clucas|Davies|2003|p=2}} but, as Russell concluded:
{{Blockquote|The central disagreement of James's reign was about the true [monetary] cost of government, and James’s central failure was his failure to convince the House of Commons he needed as much as in fact he did. From that single failure, all the constitutional troubles of the reign stemmed.{{sfn|Clucas|Davies|2003|p=2}}}}