SECTION A: The Personal Rule Flashcards
The role of parliament in 17th century England
Lords: 90 hereditary, bishops + judges appointed by crown
Commons: about 500 members, gentry, lawyers, gvt. officials. Elected by wealthiest/landowners
Function:
- Approve taxes
- Advise King
- Pass legislation
- Voice grievances
Braddick: Parliament was an event, not an institution. No constitutional grounds to prevent dissolving it
The royal prerogative:
Ordinary power:
Choose advisers, command armed forces, oversee law and order, summon and dismiss parliament
Absolute power:
Given in times of emergency when it was necessary for the King to rule ‘above’ the law
necessary to conduct war, be impartial arbitrator, cope with rising population, crime rate and threat of popular rebellion from poor
Was England an absolute monarchy?
Coward: English monarchs did not govern in this sense. They had both theoretical and practical limitations on their exercise of power
No reduction of localised authority, or concentration of legal authority
Had told son not to “fall out of love” with parliaments, but did not call them until they could understand him better.
No standing army
In personal rule, Charles sought advice of privy council more
The royal court
- “Point of contact” between crown/political powers in the country
- Place where political conflicts could be contained by the crown acting as a royal arbitrator
- Place where royal patronage was distributed
- Advisors of Charles I selected by him for Privy Council
- Not a constant battle of crown vs subjects. Subjects needed patronage, low taxation, influence, to prevent insurrection from below
Local government
- Most familiar ‘government’ to most
- Ruled by Justices of the Peace (JPs )
- Wealthy local landed men/Assize judges (crown appointed visiting judges) were sources of authority
- Lord/Deputy Lieutenants organised militia
- 1/40 would be parish constable (of total 5.1 million population)
- Braddick: “Chains of government were…short” (not far between central and local)
- Little control over central as poor couldn’t vote, but lots of control over how general instructions were interpreted and carried out. Policies that were unpopular might not be enforced properly…foot dragging and evasion
- Ethic based on hard work, relief of honest poor and punishment from laziness in parishes. C.f. Swallowfield, Berkshire in 1596…no JPs so establishes own rules
Character of Charles I
SMITH
- “Inflated sense of the dignity of kingship”
- “deeply reserved”
- “He invited misunderstanding because, convinced of his own rectitude, he made little efforts to explain his actions”
- “deeds rather than words…reputation for duplicity”
COWARD
-“posessed none of his father’s political shrewdness or flexibility”
YOUNG
-when he encountered criticism, he interpreted it as disloyalty, hardened his position, and turned against his critics
CUST
-“Sharp distinction” emphasised in recent historiography between James I/Charles I
SCOTT
- Charles was flawed, but how dramatically would this impact his rule at a time of declining monarchical power? “This brings us from a verdict of pilot error to mechanical failure”
Impact of Charles’ personality on government
LJ REEVE
-“[he] was never much involved in political life unless he say it as the work of necessity”
VS….
K. SHARPE
-(Earl of Clarendon): “[Charles] resolved to hold the reins in his own hands and put no further trust in others than was necessary for the capacity they served in”
CUST
- “readiness to intervene…helped to create a climate in which those involved felt they needed to be seen to be working towards meeting his wishes”
Evidence:
- Annotated documents
- Attended 40/137 meetings in 1637…more than James had in his lifetime
- Privy council increasingly efficient and powerful, common council was neglected
- Unreliable sources due to royal order of 1630, no clerks in meetings with king so his attendance was unrecorded
-Smith emphasises constitutional “grey areas” that Charles sought to solidify. Three kingdoms were religiously divided, so in establishing unyielding reformation values he sparked conflict
Impact of Charles’ personality on the court
LUCY HUTCHINSON
-“The face of the court was much changed in the change of the king”
CUST
(i) High moral standards
Evidence:
-Smith: “courtiers and servants were expected to condduct themselves with proper decorum”
-Servants considered to be immoral or improper were dismissed
- the Court of the Marshall of the Household in 1630
- 1629, Revival of monarch’s Garter procession to Windsor Castle on St. George’s day
(ii)Hierarchy and order
Evidence:
-“a rule of great decorum” - Venitian ambassador
ordinances (decrees) all signed by Charles
- Charles’ day became more scheduled, and each event was ritualised
(iii) Reverence due to the King’s person
- Privy chamber limited to Privy council, Nobility, Gentlemen of Privy Chamber
- Access to Bedchamber could only be granted by King/Groom of the Stool
- 1626-37, locks changed at Whitehall to prevent access to King
CULTURE
- Masques in 1633, 1638 and others emphasised King’s virtuous order>chaos. Expensive, held in illustrious banqueting hall. Ordered seating, scenerery and stage planning placed Charles at centre of events. Anti-masque gives way to virtues with King’s arrival, then dance with audience (nobility, lesser virtues)
- Paintings commissioned and painted by Peter Paul Rubens and Van Dyck
Why did Charles I decide to rule without Parliament in 1629?
1) Peace abroad
- Treaty of Susa, April 1629, ended war with France
- Treaty of Madrid, May 1630, ended war with Spain
- Withdrawal from conflict made Charles less financially dependent on Parliament
2) Financial policy
- Forced loan to finance foreign wars was controversial. C.f. 5 Knights case 1627, Habeus Corpus…
- Crown was solvent for the first time in seven years as a result of peace with France and Spain
- If Parliament were summoned, it might want to get rid of tonnage and poundage, the crown’s main source of income
- “If Charles could finance his government by other means, then he had no need for Parliament” - Anderson
3) Impact of individuals and council
- Shift in balance of power at court
- Buckingham’s death meant Coke, Coventry and Manchester yielded less influence
- Westen, Laud, Cottington, Windebank (Pro-Spanish) were opposed to recall (esp Westen and Laud)
4) Charles’ own views
- Preferred to govern alone
- Distaste for puritans and proto-republicans (Cust) in the Commons
- Parliament of 2nd March 1629 declared that anyone assisting the collection of tonnage and poundage that wasn’t granted by Parliament was a capital enemy
- Charles felt misunderstood, and that he should dissolve Parliament to do what he felt was right until his subjects had a better understanding of it
- Petition of right encroached on Charles prerogative
Personal Rule: Book of Orders
Michael Young
- January 1631
- given to JPs to oversee their enforcement of law in the localities
- In practice, JPs were self evaluating so were not a reliable. If a report was filed the council didn’t have time to review it. Only 1/10th ever were
- Didn’t do any damage, and may have impacted JP’s handling of their offices
Personal Rule: Exact Militia + Charles’ effect on the nobility
Exact Militia
- Charles wanted to maintain a well trained militia
- Muster masters sent to localities to train them
- People to be armed with proper weapons and well trained
—>
Nobility:
- Exact Militia was intended to make the nobility and gentry perform their duties better, returning to their districts to train people
- Gentry were fined for remaining in London when Charles asked that they leave. He asked four times between 1626-1632
- 248 summoned to Star Chamber in Feb 1633 alone…William Palmer fined £1000 in 1632
Impact:
- Generated ill will
- Further isolated the court
- But stresses Charles’ determination to see his orders carried out
The Personal Rule: Popish Soap
What was it?
- Lord Treasurer Portland + Friends create soap monopoly. Company backers are Catholic hence name ‘Popish’ soap
Impact?
- Annual £30 000 profit by late 1630s
- But alienated merchant class/business community?
The Personal Rule: Fenland drainage
What was it?
- Earl of Bedford and minor court officials receive patents to drain parts of fenland
- They could profit from land development, claiming 24000 for themselves
- Charles personally became involved in 1637 when he took over drainage of the Great Fen and increased his share from 12 000 to 57 000
Impact:
- Mark Kennedy saw this as a means of the men serving their own interests
- Sharpe believed Charles had the public interest at heart, even if they couldn’t see it
- Injustice that elite with court connections could seize best land for themselves. Showed Charles in a bad light
Different views on Charles’ societal reforms
SHARPE
- “an ambitious renovation of the fabric of the church and state”
YOUNG
- “problems with Sharpe’s effort to portray Charles as the architect” (old elements revived)
- “all he can really show that was new under Charles was the severity with which the policy was enforced”
Why did Charles need money in the Personal Rule?
- Royal debt was £2000 000 in 1629
- Costs of household, court and government to be paid
- -> Made more difficult by James I’s spending and rising inflation
- Parliament was the traditional means of getting money, but that required the King to address grievances which encroached on his prerogative
- Magna Carta stipulated that the King could not raise taxes without the consent of Parliament. Now he needed to find a way to raise extraordinary (taxed) funds and use ordinary (private sources) funds as efficiently as possible
- Annual revenue of £1000 000 by 1637
Rent from Crown lands as a source of income in the personal rule
What was it?
-Income from Crown lands, rented for 99 years
Problems?
-Crown had sold lots of land since 1550s
-Inflation ate away at fixed rates
Purveyance as a source of income in the personal rule
What was it?
-Crown’s right to purchase food and other necessities at below market value. Could either be paid in kind with livestock ect, or by composition in cash
Problems?
-Unpopular, met widespread resistance
Wardship as a source of income in the personal rule
What was it?
-When a landowner died and left a child as heir, the Crown could administer the estate until the heir came of age
Problems?
-Crown accused of exploitation
Tonnage and Poundage+ new impositions as a source of income in the personal rule
What was it?
- Custom duties on import/export
- Trade rose with peace with France and Spain, and so did export duties
- New impositions were similar. Collected approx £53 000 annually from 1631-5 + £119 600 from 1636-41
Problems?
-Not approved by Parliament, a cause of friction since 1625
Credit as a source of income in the personal rule
What was it?
-Borrowing money from the City of London and other financiers (people who make their living from investments)
-Crown jewels pawned in Netherlands in 1620s
Problems?
-Lord Treasurer Sir Richard Weston and William Juxton, Bishop of London, tried to ween crown off borrowed money to reduce the crippling interest on outstanding rates
Monopolies as a source of income in the personal rule
What was it?
-Selling corporations the sole right to produce, import or sell product
-Individual monopolies were illegal
Problems?
-Charges of corruption at court. C.f. Sir Richard Weston, Lord Treasurer, ‘Popish soap’
Distraint of Knighthood as a source of income in the personal rule
What was it?
-Men holding estates worth £40 annually were obliged to present themselves to be knighted at a new King’s coronation. Charles fined people for doing so
- Committee established in 1630 to collect fines, raised £165 000 by 1635
-Oliver Cromwell fined
Problems?
-Archaic, out of date practice which had no been used for many years. Many felt injustice at this
Revival of Forest Laws as a source of income in the personal rule
What was it?
-Research into the boundaries of the ancient Royal forest showed which estates technically crossed boundaries with them
-Earl of Sainsbury fined £20 000
Problems?
-Tax targeted the rich and powerful, as well as population growth (new estates to keep up with rising populations)
- Many couldn’t show a title deed to land, even if it had been in their family for generations
Fines for breaching building regulations as a source of income in the personal rule
What was it?
-According to ancient laws, you weren’t allowed to build outside the chartered boundaries of a town/city
-This was used to fine property developers
Problems?
- Seen as way to target London specifically
- since 1603, 60 000 houses built outside boundaries
Enclosure as a source of income in the personal rule
What was it?
- Land owners who fenced off common land for herding could be fined
Problems?
-Loathed by landowners
William Noy’s hand in Charles I’s financial policy during the personal rule
- Attorney General
- Tasked with finding forgotten laws that could be used to raise funds without Parliament
Ship Money as a source of income in the personal rule
What was it?
- Taxation of the costal counties for the preservation of the navy. Caused sheriffs to once again rise to prominence
- Requested for the first time in six years in 1634, and then again less than a year later for £218 500 - More than 4* the rate of a Parliamentary subsidy. 90% paid
- Requested again in 1636, which indicated that it had become an annual tax, and was no longer simply for emergencies
- 9/10 of the £196 400 requested in 1637 still paid, but slower. Foot dragging caused by Scotland’s progression towards a rebellion+the trial of John Hamden
Pros
- The Ship Money Fleet was the best England had had for a long time
- The money raised by the tax was used exclusively to fund the navy, nothing else. - Stressed by Sharpe
- Levy was huge, but the number of people paying was too, so often only a small amount was requested
- Cust: “by modern standards, ship money was a remarkably successful tax”
- Brought thousands into the national rating system for the first time. Essex shows 12 000 taxed for the first time in 1637
Cons:
- Seen as violation of the Petition of Right
- Ship money attracted disputes over the ratings and questioned whether it was a constitutional tax
- Rates fixed by sherifs. Conrad Russell sees this as an attack on government by consent as the sherifs acted “arbitrarily and alone”
- Separate card for details of opposition*
Opposition to Ship Money as a source of income in the personal rule
Rating disputes:
- Ie people challenging how much they had been asked to pay, as opposed to challenging the tax itself
- E.g.
(i) Hard to meet the assessment in Cambridge as many were exempted through privileges attached to the university - Some believe these were a veil for opposition on constitutional grounds (Braddick), others, believe they were simply as they seemed (Sharpe). Russell stresses that even if they are taken at face value, they were still serious
Constitutional challenge to the tax:
- The tax was deemed unconstitutional. It allowed the King to tax without Parliament’s consent, in peacetime and advocated non-consensual government (Russel, C.f. sherifs)
- John Hampden (separate card) was the first to truly challenge the tax on constitutional grounds. Others deemed it too risky as it seemed to challenge the royal prerogative
- Constitutional grievances may have been hidden behind rating disputes
Case study: John Hampden’s opposition to Ship Money
- Gentleman who was encouraged by Lord Saye and Seyle (SAME PERSON) to oppose the tax
- He refused to pay £1
- Crown argued that it was the King’s right to demand taxation when faced with danger, and that Charles was the sole judge of whether danger was immanent
VS
- Hampden’s defence lawyer argued England was not at war and that the writs gave seven months to pay the tax, plenty of time to call a Parliament
Outcome:
- Crown won, but 5/12 judges in Hampden’s favour
- Russell stresses that judges were hand picked, so to vote against Charles was a major victory in some senses
Impact:
- Watershed for constitutional challenges to the tax
- Caused ‘tax revolt’ 1639-40 with increased non payment + foot dragging
Ship Money ‘tax revolt’ percentages
1635: 90% paid
1638: 80% paid
1639: 25% paid
How serious was opposition to Ship Money?
Not serious:
- Ship Money was paid by most until 1637
- 800 000 collected
- Sharpe: “…not all expressions of loyalty were a rhetorical veil over the reality of opposition”
- Costal counties had best records of payment. Sharpe suggests that this indicates attitudes towards ship money were determined by local considerations, not high levels of principle
Serious:
- Pyrrhic victory for Crown, as 5/12 judges voted against the Crown
- Tax revolt showed substantial dissent
- Braddick: “Reluctance to pay was almost universally expressed in technical or bureaucratic complaints.” (Ratings disputes were a way of challenging the tax, and by extension Charles’ prerogative
- Ibid: “Reactions to Ship Money surely demonstrate that quietness on the surface does not necessarily indicate the existence of stability and consensus
Religion: In what way was the Church of England a compromise between the Catholic and Protestant traditions?
CATHOLIC:
Structure: Episcopalian. Monarch is ‘governor’, not ‘head’.
Doctrine: Two of the sacraments included. Eucharist open to interpretation so might be transubstantiation
Practices: Combination of preaching and ceremony. Vestements worn. Communion table was placed where high alter had been in Catholic worship. Bowing and making sign of cross at Jesus’ name was encouraged. Iconoclasm discouraged.
PROTESTANT:
Structure: Run at local level by clergy and elected, unpaid churchwardens
Clergy: No miracles, and clergy may marry
Doctrine: Five of the seven sacraments omitted. Salvation by faith alone, and all that is necessary to achieve it is in scripture. Also predestination and double predestination. Eucharist open to interpretation
Practices: Bible and liturgy were in vernacular (English). High altar replaced with communion table. Minister conducts service facing congregation and delivers sermon from pulpit. No veneration of saints or relics
Important to note that in practice there was LOTS OF VARIETY, something that Charles I and Laud sought to rectify
Important Acts of Parliament relating to the Church of England
Act of Supremacy 1534: Monarch is ‘Supreme Governor’ of the Church
Act of Uniformity 1559: Church services - the liturgy - to conform to the Book of Common Prayer
Thirty-nine Articles 1563: Asserting the doctrine of the Church of England following the controversy of the Reformation
Religious European context: Martin Luther’s 99 Thesis
- Luther was acting against Catholic corruption, especially the sale of indulgences
(i) Johann Tetzel visited Wittenberg in 1517 to sell indulgences. These could even be purchased post-mortem by an intermediary to release someone from purgatory
(ii) Frederick the Wise of Wittenberg had a large collection of relics that could supposedly offer salvation if seen - -> –> –> Caused Luther to post his 99 Thesis to the church door in Wittenberg in Oct 1517, condemning the sale of indulgences and the corruption in general <–
Religious European context: The result of Martin Luther’s 99 Thesis
- Excommunicated by the Pope Leo X and outlawed by Charles V at Diet of Worms in 1520
- Luther gathered support as the attempt to silence him backfired. Students in Wittenberg burned papal papers, as did Luther burn his papal bull
- Translated Bible into German vernacular by 1534
- 1524 Peasant’s revolt saw 100 000 rebels crushed by aristocrats. Luther supported aristocrats
- Philip Melanchthon writes Augsburg confession in 1530 after Charles V summons Protestant princes and says he will bring them into the Catholic church by force –> Instability for two decades –> Peace of Augsburg 1555 asserts a Prince’s right to choose his religious orientation
Religious European context: Luther’s impact on Catholic belief
- Transubstantiation –> Consubstantiation (Bread+Wine in union with one another)
- Justification by faith alone
- Pope had betrayed Christ
- Bible was the word of God
- Priesthood of all believers (less divide between clergy and laity)
- Priests could marry
- Purgatory not real
- Mary and the Saints not holy powers, just good people
Religious English context: Religious instability from Henry VIII to Elizabeth I
Henry VIII: Closed monasteries, prayer book latin, bible English, ritualistic services, priests/nuns to marry
Edward VI (1547-1553): English prayer book and bible, no ritual, priests/nuns to marry
Mary I: (1553-1558): Prayer book and bible in latin, priests/nuns could not marry, ritualistic, execution of Protestants
Elizabeth I (1558-1603): ‘Elizabethan Settlement’ found middle way between Protestant doctrine and Catholic ceremony. English prayer book and bible, priests/nuns to marry, but ritual used
Religious European context: Calvinism
- John Calvin created a sort of ‘perfect working model’ of Protestant Xnity when Geneva adopted the faith in 1536
- Biblical Law of Moses applied strictly, no alcohol
- Very uncompromising doctrine of predestination and double predestination: Some were saints whilst the unregenerate were damned. Sainthood lay in struggle against sin and for God’s will in daily life. –> Struggle required the aid of the Church, hence why it was so strict
- John Knox was trained in Geneva and established Calvinism in Scotland. He condemned Mary for holding Catholic mass. Elizabeth I was shocked by degree of control people in Scotland had to choose their religious orientation
