Stuart historiography Flashcards
Coward and Gaunt - Whig position
Thought that the constitution and religious position of their own age were the culmination of a long and inexorable fight for liberties traceable long before 1642
Coward and Gaunt - Marxist position
Shared Whig belief in the inevitability of the historical process, but cited the civil war was caused by socio-economic changes and the rising middle class
Coward and Gaunt - work of the 1950s and 60s
Found little evidence for sweeping images of socio-economic or class-based rise and decline
Coward and Gaunt - ‘revisionists’ of the 1970s and 80s
Suggested there were no long-term divisions in the Elizabethan or early Stuart state
Saw the causes as the mistakes made after 1625
Coward and Gaunt - continent-wide problem
Suggestion due to the unusual concentration of rebellions and wars in Europe at this time
However, proponents of the ‘general crisis of Europe’ disagree on the fundamental cause; soceo-economic crisis due to demographic expansion during climatic downturn, or politico-military crisis due to centralisation attempts
Coward and Gaunt - British problem theory
Mishandling by Charles of Scotland and Ireland and the outbreaks of violence that resulted
Coward and Gaunt - geographical divisions in England and Wales
Scholarship has uncovered a far more detailed mosaic of divided allegiances than royalism in north/west and parliamentarianism in south/east
Coward and Gaunt - disarray of historiography
No single interpretation is currently dominant
Even historians who have doubts about the revisionist line continue to stress the failings of Charles
Coward and Gaunt - their own line of argument
Long-term causes greatly influenced the dramatic course of events after 1640 in terms of the different constitutional and religious attitudes and aspirations that emerged early C17
Coward and Gaunt - initial parliamentary unity
In November 1640, differences in attitude and aspirations were not yet apparent
Growth of electorate led to differing members in parliament
Dominant, unifying optimism prevailed both in and outside parliament, with many millenarian aspirations voiced
Coward and Gaunt - initial aims of MPs
Get rid of the men and measures that had caused offence in the 1630s
Laud, Strafford and Ship Money judges - all were vocal in denouncing them
Coward and Gaunt - where division in MPs arose
While MPs were happy to dismantle the worst features of Caroline government, divisions emerged when it came to replacing it
Coward and Gaunt - radical nature of MPs
Difficult to underestimate
Aristocrats (earls of Bedford and Essex, Lord Saye and Sele) worked with Pym, St John, Hampden, Holles
Coward and Gaunt - John Pym
Gained 1620s rep as fierce opponent of Laudians, leading role trying to impeach Buckingham
Also treasurer of the Providence Island Company
Coward and Gaunt - driving ideology of most parliamentary leaders
Constitutional parliamentarianism - amalgam of a desire to safeguard liberties and burning zeal for a godly reformation
Also motivated by needs to address pressing practical problems e.g. Scots money
Coward and Gaunt - Strafford and aftermath
Arrested first week due to ‘thorough’ and royal army command - Bill of Attainder only asserted guilt
After execution in May 1641, most opponents were dead, imprisoned or in exile
Next step was abuses themselves
Coward and Gaunt - parliamentary legislation against abuses
Support was unanimous, and comprehensiveness and speed of reform (after slow start) show hatred of financial expedients and prerogative courts
Also attack on Royal prerogative, attacking undisputed right to call and dismiss parliaments
Coward and Gaunt - problem of ensuring redresses would be permanent
MPs not prepared to commit to radical and effective solution to this problem until Nov 1641
Bedford groups had detailed programme of financial reforms to manipulate crown with
Coward and Gaunt - height of parliamentary unity
During removal of abuses, all groups were united, with key royalists supporting 1641 legislation
Pym and Junto able to steer business and committees
Also encouraged mass demonstrations in favour of parliaments (apprentices for Bill of Attainder)
Army Plot expertly revealed by Pym for full political effect, led to Protestaion Oath
Charles’ opponents were reacting to and interacting with pressure of outside opinion
Coward and Gaunt - disagreement over Strafford Trial
Many had qualms with its justification as an act of necessity rather than law
Baron Digby first Royalist convert
Coward and Gaunt - parliamentary disagreement over religion
Over what should replace Laudianism, as some hoped for ‘godly reformation’ and were anti-episcopacy
Root and Branch petition led to many different plans and pro-bishop petitions
Serious political and social implications for the de facto collapse of ecclesiastical hierarchy, also non-religious riots in Lincolnshire, etc.
Commons could only agree to set up assembly of the divines, postponing clash
Coward and Gaunt - Charles by 1641 and Scotland trip
Must have thought religious disagreement showed end of crisis, however no practical accommodation possible
June - announced plan to travel to Scotland to ratify treaty (hoping to appeal to potential royalists)
Great fear of Charles mobilising Scottish army led to committee of defence
Coward and Gaunt - Ten Propositions
June 1641 - demanded postponement of visit and removal of ‘evil councilors’
Also suggested parliament should control officers of state and military officers
Obnoxious does for any C17 monarch
Coward and Gaunt - early months of second Long Parliament session
Saw increased polarisation of opinion
Coward and Gaunt - Irish rebellion - causes
Fall of Strafford ended New and Old English coalition ; the latter worried about the former (Sir William Parsons) negotiating with parliament to repress Catholicism
Also Charles met with Old English earls of Ormonde and Antrim - many felt they were rebelling in defence of Charles
Coward and Gaunt - course of Irish rebellion
Hard to tell due to many inflammatory accounts
However it was clear that fear of popery was a latent force, buried beneath day-to-day business
Coward and Gaunt - effect of Irish rebellion
Destroyed Charles’ credibility, fear he would use army he proposed to raise against the Irish to attack parliament
Forced radical steps, crating the ideological as well as the functional nature of 1641 crisis
November Bill for King to only use councillors chosen by parliament in raising army
Coward and Gaunt - Grand Remonstrance and effect
Great polarisation, as moderates objected to its direct appeal to the public more than its content
When Charles returned from Scotland he had more supporters than before
Able to pose convincingly as the defender of the ‘fundamental laws’ against revolutionaries
Coward and Gaunt - wrong timing of Charles coup
Thought it was justified by growing support in Westminster and county petitions
Wrong timing due to new unity of Lords and Commons - Five Members incident awful
Coward and Gaunt - aftermath of 5 members
Commons committee declared it a major violation of privilege and city trained bands activated
Charles retreated to HC and 5 members triumphantly returned the next day
Strengthened parliamentary reform, passing Exclusion Bill and controlling militia, forts and tower
Coward and Gaunt - increase in petitions by 1642
Jan and Feb saw petitions supporting parliament, showing public support
Often presentations of the petitions caused mass demonstration - one on 11th Jan accompanied by 4-5,000 people (made Lords collapse to Exclusion Bill)
Coward and Gaunt - string of documents in later 1642
From both sides, physically drawing apart and outlining positions and arguments, intended to attract more supporters
Militia Ordinance worried many gentlemen, as did legislating without him
19 Propositions’ severity showed no intention of concluding a settlement (acceptance of all privy councillors and major offices, education of children, reform of the church)
Coward and Gaunt - summary of the divisions
Radical parliamentarians had feared that if they did not push on, Charles would reverse 1641 concessions and possibly charge them with treason
However, some claims (e.g. choosing advisors, controlling army) were more to be feared for many MPs than the King
Holmes - failure to fight Scots
Not pursuing prepared military option disadvantaged Charles - negotiations soon broke down in the face of mutual intransigence
Holmes - failure of structure of early-modern English government
The centralised creation and direction of policy was combined with localised enforcement, entailing a problem with the centre ensuring conformity from local officers
Had to pursue a double strategy of punishment and persuasion, which were difficult to accomplish effectively
Holmes - deficiencies of government by 1640
Council had received a series of bleak reports concerning the enforcement of its policies from all areas of England
Holmes - religious views as anarchy
For MPs like Hyde and Dering, the religious ideals of their colleagues were equivalent to anarchy - the fear of them drove them to the king
Holmes - status at raising of King’s standard
Only attended by 800 cavalry and few infantry, but there were indications he enjoyed considerable sympathy in the country at large
Also, the policies of Pym were being seriously questioned
Holmes - presentation of Charles in the paper war
A paragon of constitutional propriety
Hyde and his friends combined this image with a sardonic denunciation of the radical novelties in government practice and constitutional theory propagated by Pym and his cronies
Holmes - spring 1642 upheaval
Major rioting in the Fens, and Colchester
Royalists argued that the demotic language of parliament was promoting anarchy
Holmes - who became Royalists?
In the elite - those who worried about religious and social breakdown or motivated by ‘the punctilio of honour’
Main soldiers were drawn from volunteers offered cash and comradeship, but also roused by iconoclastic and aggressive actions of parliamentary supporters
Holmes - recruitment for royalism
At all social levels it was rooted in the fear of subversive militant puritanism
Efforts to recruit were far more successful in the winter than September, after the country had experienced the zeal of Essex’s army
