Character analysis
The British Parliament
in Common Sense by Thomas Paine
In Common Sense, Thomas Paine views the British Parliament not as a narrative character but as a structural antagonist—an institution designed to maintain tyranny over the American colonists. With sharp criticism, Paine argues that Parliament only creates the illusion of fair representation. He describes two houses: one made up of hereditary peers whose power comes from conquest and birthright, and the other of elected commoners, who are still tainted by their closeness to monarchical authority. Rather than acting as a check on the Crown, Parliament serves as its supporter and echo chamber in Paine's argument.
Paine's main point is that no body located thousands of miles away can legitimately govern the colonies—a geographic and philosophical stance that removes any claim of consent-based authority from Parliament. He highlights Parliament's role in enacting punitive laws (implicitly alluding to the Intolerable Acts) as proof that the institution works against colonial interests rather than for them.
Throughout the pamphlet, Parliament's portrayal shifts from being the alleged protector of English liberty to a co-conspirator in monarchical oppression. Its defining characteristic is structural corruption—not the misconduct of individuals but the fundamental flaw of a system that combines hereditary privilege with nominal representation. Paine uses Parliament to argue that reform within the British system is futile, leading to the conclusion that full independence is the only sensible path for the colonies.
Connected characters
- Thomas Paine
Paine is Parliament's most direct prosecutor in the text. He methodically dismantles Parliament's claim to legitimacy, arguing that its bicameral structure—far from balancing power—merely dresses up aristocratic and monarchical dominance in the language of representation. Paine uses Parliament as a key exhibit in his case that no British institution can ever truly serve colonial interests.
- King George III
Parliament and King George III function as twin pillars of the oppressive British system. Paine argues that rather than checking royal power, Parliament amplifies and legitimizes it, making the two institutions complicit partners in colonial subjugation rather than adversarial forces holding each other accountable.
- The American Colonists
Parliament stands as the colonists' legislative oppressor. Paine emphasizes that a body in which the colonists have no meaningful voice cannot claim authority over them. Parliamentary legislation—taxation, trade restrictions, punitive acts—is presented as the concrete, daily mechanism through which colonial grievances are produced and ignored.
- The King of England (Monarchy as Institution)
Paine contrasts Parliament with the monarchy as institution to show that both are irredeemably flawed. Where the monarchy's corruption is rooted in the absurdity of hereditary rule, Parliament's corruption lies in its failure to act as a genuine counterweight—making the entire British constitutional framework a layered system of domination rather than liberty.
- William the Conqueror
Paine traces the hereditary peerage that populates Parliament's upper house back to conquest, implicitly linking the House of Lords to William the Conqueror's violent seizure of England. This genealogy delegitimizes Parliament at its root: its aristocratic component descends not from merit or consent but from the spoils of war.