Section G: The Controversy Flashcards
1
Q
The Whig View of History
A
- Whig party emerged in 17th C with view of excluding catholic Duke of York from throne (Later James II) and asserting dominance of parliament
- Dominant school from 18th-20th century
- Look far back into the past with the present in mind
- See progression in History as the inevitable progression towards a parliamentary democracy, religious toleration and a limited monarchy
- TUDOR MONARCHY –> CIVIL WAR PARLIAMENTARY TRIUMPH –> GLORIOUS REVOLUTION 1688 –> PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
- MPs were good, those limiting the power of the monarchy were bad
- Personal rule was 11 years of tyranny
- Associated with: T.B Macauley, Samuel Rawson Gardiner
2
Q
The Marxist View of History
A
- 1920-70s
- The driving force behind Historical progression is economic and social change. This will inevitably lead to two revolutions
- C Hill: Move from Feudalism to Capitalism, and liken Civil war to French Revolution of 1789… “a great social movement”
- Society became more commercialised, and the old political framework could not contain the sweeping social change, and challenge to the previously localised oligarchies and landed gentry
- Parliament was voice of rising gentry and ‘middling sort’ trying to overcome existing political barriers to economic progress
- Great rebellion was bourgeoisie
- Associated with Christopher Hill, R. H. Tawney
3
Q
The Storm Over the Gentry
A
- “One of the causes celebres of modern historiography” - R. C. Richardson
- R. H. Tawney and Lawrence Stone are criticised by H. J. Roper, Hill, Hexter and others attack both
NOW
- Richardson calls it the ‘long dormant gentry controversy;
- Tawney, the instigator of the conflict, declined to continue it post 1954 seeing no benefit from the debate and not wishing his view to be labelled a “stiffling orthodoxy’ (Richardson: 1998)
4
Q
The Storm Over the Gentry, Tawney’s views
A
- R. H. Tawney stresses the decline of the aristocracy and land owning class, and the rise of buisness-like gentry
- “The fate of the conservative aristocrat was, in fact, an unhappy one…[But] the conditions which depressed some incomes inflated others…”
5
Q
The Storm Over the Gentry, Stone’s views
A
- Lawrence Stone supported Tawney’s views in ‘The Anatomy of Elizabethan Aristocracy’
- Argued that decline of the aristocracy was the result of overexpenditure
- As a response to Roper’s attacks, he later released ‘The Elizabethan Aristocracy: a re-statement’ which was more by way of an apology than a counter argument
6
Q
The Storm Over the Gentry, Roper’s views
A
- 1951, storm over the gentry ‘broke…[with]…one of the most savage and devastating attacks ever to appear in the pages of a learned journal
- Undermined the statistical foundations of Stone’s thesis
- Then attacked Tawney in ‘The Gentry 1540-1560’ with the decline of the ‘mere gentry’ > rise of the gentry: middling men whose wealth was precarious, based on landed income when inflation was influencing land value. They overthrew Charles I and had access to lucrative income as well as yeomen (subjects of the monarch) who farmed intensively and lived strictly (austerely)
7
Q
Storm Over the Gentry, Hill and Zagorin’s criticisms of Roper
A
- Nonstatistical approach in favour of rhetoric
- Mere gentry, small gentry and declining gentry used synonymously
- Food prices were rising, yet Roper claims agriculture was not a source of wealth
8
Q
Storm Over the Gentry, Hexter’s views
A
- J. H. Hexter attacked both Roper and Tawney
- Accused of “subscribing to narrowed economic determinism” (Richardson: 1998)
- Military > economic decline pre 1640
9
Q
Revisionism
A
- 1970s/80s
- Associated with Kevin Sharpe, Conrad Russel, John Morril, Kishlanski
REJECT:
- Long term causes
- Teleological argument
- Approaching the period with preconceptions
ACCEPT:
- Civil War was a short and sharp decline
- No division in early 17th century
- State founded on consensus (?)
10
Q
Pre-revisionism, Lawrence Stone’s views
A
- From Lawrence Stone: The Causes of the English Revolution (1972), “The book that sparked off the revisionist revolt from the mid 1970s” - Morril
- Incorporates Whig and Marxist views
11
Q
Lawrence Stone’s overall impression of conditions before the civil war (not the five preconditions)
A
- NOT REVISIONIST*
- In 1640, there was a widespread desire among noblemen and gentlemen for widespread change
- Not revolutionary, but wished to….
(i) increase power of parliament
(ii) establish supremacy of common law as a ‘bulwark’ (defence) of property
(iii) counter ‘popish’ Laudian reforms and the power of bishops
(iv) make Protestant domestic/foreign policy
12
Q
Lawrence Stone’s first precondition for the civil war
A
- NOT REVISIONIST*
- A changing socio-economic balance
- Wealth shifted from Church/Crown, and very rich/poor, to the rising middle and merchant class
- Inevitable cause of friction
13
Q
Lawrence Stone’s second precondition for the civil war
A
- NOT REVISIONIST*
- ‘The Rise of Parliament’
- House of Commons had grown in terms of constitutional significance
- Constant running between the Crown and a Parliamentary ‘opposition’
- House of Commons was where this ‘opposition’ established itself as it was “strategically placed to demand redress of grievances”
- Serious opposition because*
- Challenged on a wide range of issues rather than select issues, a “formal oppositon”
- Gentry rose in numbers, size of parliament grew, more frequent sessions so more experienced
14
Q
Lawrence Stone’s third precondition for the civil war
A
- NOT REVISIONIST*
- Puritianism was the ideology that fuelled the revolution
- Provided a certainity in the rectitude/righteousness of the opposition cause
- Aided by publishing of the vernacular bible which allowed individual interpretation
- Puritan leaders banded together to form the opposition leadership. Ie against Duke of Buckingham in 1620s, the Providence Island Company
- Coward+Durston: “…without the ideas, the organisation and the leadership supplied by Puritanism there would have been no revolution at all.”
15
Q
Lawrence Stone’s fourth precondition for the civil war
A
- NOT REVISIONIST*
- Stone described a ‘crisis of confidence’ in leaders of the political system
- Emphasis on the failings of James I, who could not withstand rise of puritanism or rise of parliament and so accelerated along the ‘High Road to Civil War’
- Emphasis on failings in his persona…drunkness, alcoholism in poor sanitary habits
16
Q
Conrad Russel’s revisionist views on the ‘high road to Civil War’
A
- There was no ‘high road to Civil War’*
- Study of the Long Parliament of 1640 is dominated by the knowledge that it ended with a Parliament strong enough to challenge Charles I. Events in this parliament did not make this inevitable, and it should be viewed in its own right, independently of the Civil War.
- Utterances and grievances in Parliament in these years do not necessarily constitute the development of the parliamentarian opposition of the civil war
- Idea of two ‘sides’, government and opposition, should be rejected
- Only means of creating opposition was by playing on what parliament had that Charles didn’t…control of supply. Threat not to grant taxation was used four times 1604-1629, each unsuccessfully
- Therefore not coercion by opposition, but persuasion
17
Q
Conrad Russel’s revisionist views on gulf between parliament and council
A
- Impossible to find gulf between parliament and council before 1640*
- Issues of division, but they divided parliament and the council itself
- any MP could apply for state office positions, and if appointed would not have any strictures(restrictions on their personal views) as they could push the same ideas that they did in Parliament in their new office
- Gentry were not a divided society. No social division, no fuel to sustain opposition…
18
Q
Kevin Sharpe’s revisionist views
A
- “Court was not to be, as some historians have maintained, a retreat from the world of reality” but instead a mini model of the state
- Ship money was a “great success story”
19
Q
Contemporary Richard Baxter 1642
A
-Many from Commons and Lords defected after Edgehill
-Where the King’s army never came, people never sided with the King
-Gentry followed the King and the poor followed the gentry
‘Middling sort’ for Parliament
20
Q
Contemporary Lucy Hutchinson 1642
A
- Every country were impacted by the war in some way
- Dispute over Militia Ordinance and Commissions of Array
- Polarised: All for King or all for Parliament
21
Q
Contemporary Thomas May 1642
A
- Many chief gentry sided with King in Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire
- Not strong enough to engage in war
- Avoided conflict
- In East Anglia there was unanimity of opinion amongst common people
22
Q
Contemporary John Weare
A
- raised regiment of parliament as he wanted to promote purity of religion and public peace
- Other gentry tended towards both dishonour of God and overthrow of common liberties
23
Q
Contemporary Henry Slingsby
A
- Yorkshire Royalist
- Against anti-episcopalism
- removal of bishops would be “of dangerous consequences to the church”
24
Q
Contemporary Nehemiah Wharton
A
- Sergant in Essex’s army
- Soldier’s in Essex’s army damaging property of church including “a service book” and “holy rails”
- Preoccupation with religion suggests religious grievances
25
Q
Contemporary, Thomas Paske 1642
A
- “Troops” damaging interior of the church in an iconoclastic attack
26
Q
Contemporary Earl of Bath 1642
A
- The “common sort” overcome with “great rage”
- Suggests displeasure amongst lower classes with “the major and his company”
- Lower classes threatening to “beat them all down”
27
Q
Contemporary, John Ashe 1642
A
- Trained bands doubled by volunteers “who came best armed and most ready in the use of their arms”
- Parliamentarian volunteers in Somersett
28
Q
Contemporary, Minute books Exeter 1642
A
-South East Lancashire and Birmingham area, small holdings and craftsman most radical supporters of Parliament because they were not wholly dependent on large manufacturers or gentry
-Motivated by fears of popish attacks, Royalists and plundering soldiers
-Distress at disruption of livelihood and the stress of economic depression and war
-Hoped that Parliament would redress their grievances
Fearful of the intentions of all superiors, whether Royalist or Parliamentarian
29
Q
Contemporary, Clarendon 1642
A
-Royalist in Cornwall
-People have preference for Parliament but concerned more with submission to and love of established government
association of “church and state”
-Book of Common Prayer was especially important
30
Q
Kevin Sharpe and Conrad Russell agree! On?….
A
- Functional breakdown caused the “crisis” of 1640
- JPs were not ‘opposition’ but always prioritised local> national concerns
- link between central and local government was strained, as people were reluctant to pay tax so the King resorted to more uncompromising and unpopular methods of collection
- Charles was too conservative to start with, so unsuccessful, so became radical, so became unpopular
31
Q
John Morrill’s revisionist views
A
- ideological and functional crisis
- localist and legal-constitutionalist opposition lacked momentum
- religion was “primum mobile”
- Laudians did considerable damage
- ‘popish plot’ was the only accepted explanation for Charles’ behaviour
QUOTES
- “English Civil War was not the first European Revolution, it was the last of the Wars of Religion.”
- “It was religion that caused minorities to fight, and forced majorities to make reluctant choices”
32
Q
Conrad Russell’s revisionist views
A
- Charles I faced armed resistance in all three of his Kingdoms
- The ‘British’ problem
- [Charles] decided to drop a match into a powder keg by setting out to achieve one uniform order of religion within the three kingdoms
