Henry Parker's 'The Contra-Replicant'

Henry Parker’s The Contra-Replicant, his Complaint to His Maiestie asserts a ‘reason of state’ justification for parliamentary absolutism more forcefully than any other tract in the Royalist-Parliamentarian debates of 1642/3. Yet despite recent work on Parker’s parliamentary sovereignty, Michael Mendle observes a dearth of scholarship on his parliamentary absolutism. In addition, David Wootton’s contention that the 1642/3 debates witnessed ‘the transition from rebellion to revolution’ and enabled the emergence of the Levellers highlights the significance of these two years for the development of parliamentarian propaganda. Understanding the impact of Parker’s ‘reason of state’ doctrine will inform scholarship on the philosophical context
Writing anonymously may represent Parker’s desire to advertise his tract as the majority opinion of Parliament. Publishing in quarto and omitting a title page permitted the printer to save paper and ink, accommodate thirty-one pages, and reach a broader audience. Furthermore, a 1643 reprint of The Contra-Replicant under the innocuous title Accommodation Cordially Desired and Really Intended cultivated the appearance of moderation and sanity. Although the duplicate publication gives no justification for its existence—the two texts are identical—Accommodation may represent the intent of Parker or his printer to win over undecided members of
Experience from a legal and administrative career informed The Contra-Replicant: Parker had been counsellor to Parliament, lawyer-for-hire, and in the year of publication (1643), secretary to both the army and the Earl of Essex. Placing reason of state on a higher plane than common law, Parker gave the state an extra-legal recourse for self-defence. Whereas ‘Lawes ayme at Iustice, Reason of state aimes at safety.’ Parliament’s scrupulous over-reliance on law had generated a political emergency. ‘Nothing has done us more harme of late’, Parker admonished his parliamentary allies, ‘then this opinion of adhering to Law only for our preservation.’ Without changing the playing field, ‘the King and his party’ would continue to manipulate legal arguments against ‘the simpler sort of our side.’ Having generated a sense of emergency, Parker supported only one corrective: the aggrandisement of Parliament over the