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
Zagorin - English religion compared to other wars at the time
Exceed all others in magnitude of political change, destruction of the state church and significance of its ideological debates
Zagorin - nature of the English national state
Cohesive and better unified and integrated than any in Western Europe
Crown did not have to reckon with a still only partially subdued nobility
Reflected in increasing political sophistication of the dominant class - acquainted with public affairs and shared a general national horizon, giving them a more impersonal loyalty to the state
Zagorin - opposition in parliament
Not only vocal, but organised and tended to grow stronger
Explains why the crown ran into such problems and both James and Charles had to imprison leading members for their conduct
Clear that Commons sought to expand its influence, infringing on crown prerogative
Zagorin - increase in resistance of parliament
Had never been a revolutionary body prior to 1640, however it then showed itself to be far more refractory to royal control than its predecessors
Could be due to double number of seats contested as in 1620s, also wider turnout as qualifications eroded by inflation
MPs began to show greater allegiance to their constituents and the liberty of the kingdom than the crown
Zagorin - growth of the revolution origin
The resistance to absolutism in a breakdown of government and regime - division between Court and Country
Political system based on reciprocal patronage and service with nobility
Nobility broke down under Charles, as the Court came so signal corrupt interest and Country signified patriotism and public spirit
Zagorin - ‘Country’ taking shape
As an opposition to the crown - a fluid, diffuse, shifting group of alliances
Like a party in nucleus of activists and allies in Lords
Zagorin - revolutionary situation by the end of personal rule
Under the surface of personal rule, discontents festered - gradually welded into a common animosity agains the government
By 1640 there was a revolutionary situation, as national politics affected elections more heavily than ever before, and the crown was limited in its ability to influence the elections
Morrill - no civil war before 1642
Because there was no royalist party - what is surprising is loyalty to a King who had disregarded the rights of his subjects and supported a Church which persecuted an old nonconformity while championing another
Morrill - importance of provincialism
Meant that national political and constitutional issues took on local colours and were articulated within local contexts
Morrill - caveats to the use of Court and Country
Most accounts focus on the country, ignoring the coherent, if irresponsible, program of 1630s Court reform
Also assume that the terms are synonymous with the ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ - many transcended these barriers
Morrill - Charles’ exclusion
Elizabeth had made sure no groups were excluded from the Court, however Charles excluded many, and groups were forming around prominent Lords
Unlike Elizabethan factions, they could only make themselves heard through confrontation
Morrill - limits of the term ‘country’
No more than a small number of frustrated courtiers
Good for explaining the political crisis of 1640, however it had split by the summer of 1641
No pattern between those peers considered Court and Country and civil war allegiances
Morrill - provincial gentry misunderstanding
So formidable and united in their opposition to crown because they did not understand the innovative royal policies
Responded to the effects of royal policies rather than their origins or purpose
Morrill - ship money
Fall in payment was not due to constitutional issues, but due to a growing fear of social and economic instability, the breaking point being Charles requesting coat and conduct money
Morrill - choosing sides
Most ruling groups were united by the apparent collapse of order, with many rejecting both sides’ arguments and unaware of the gravity of the dispute
Many driven to neutralism which became a great force
Most forced to choose sides bu the arrival of commissions from each side - many moderates simply obeyed whoever commissioned them first
Morrill - impact of religion
Royalists were defenders of the episcopacy, parliamentarians determined to introduce a godly reformation
Charles had excluded important currents of thought from court, divided the Church over doctrine and posed a threat to gentry control over the Church
Rise of Arminianism forced the moderates into the arms of the radicals
Morrill - rough pattern of allegiance
South and east Puritan minorities were strong enough to seize power
in north and Wales the great territorial magnates chose the king
Hughes - other struggles between European rulers and their people
French monarchy collapsed late 1640s with much resistance in Frondes rising
Spanish revolts in Catalonia, Portugal, Naples Sicily
Tensions in Sweden and United Provinces
Hughes - 30 Years War
Began with rebellion of Protestants in Bohemia against Austrian Habsburg rule in 1618
1621 - merged to include struggle between Spain and Netherlands
1635 - France entered the war against Spain, renewing attempts to avoid encirclement
Most of Europe embroiled in these vast and complex wars where religious ideology was mixed with power politics
Hughes - rising cost of war
Brought Spain and France to the brink of collapse
‘Military revolution’ produced tensions between rulers and ruled, as costs increased hugely
Hughes - English crown weakness
In a condition of ‘functional breakdown’ (Russell)
Civil war in many ways was a reaction against Charles attempting to fix the systemic weaknesses of the English crown
Adamson - obsession with medieval precedent
Had been around over a decade - trial by combat reintroduced 1631, war without parliament in 1640
Adamson - essay’s aim
Understand how contemporary fascination with precedent influenced politics, addressing 2 Qs:
How did medieval precedent preoccupation affect terms in which aristocratic leadership defined their conduct and comprehended their experience?
How did the solution to ‘evil counsels’ affect nobility’s choice of political options?
Adamson - seeing conflict as a baronial war
Popular outlook, not just of parliamentarian nobility
King set up his standard against the ‘late rebellion of the Earl of Essex’
Essex was the leader and personification of the parliamentarian cause
Brought with it an aristocratic reaction agains the over-mighty subject, and a profound change in the nobility’s attitude to its military tradition
Adamson - role of history
Seen as the tutor of politics, and at the time works recounting the C14 and C15 baronial crises were popular
Books like ‘the civill warres of England’ published in relation to the ‘commonwealth party’
Unsurprising, since they had the most to gain from advocating a return of the great medieval offices of state, taking a baronial view of the nobility as the counterpoise to the king
Adamson - Nineteen Propositions
Steeped in and informed by a heightened awareness of the medieval past, most striking evident in provision for re-establishment of ‘great officers of the kingdom’
Baronial council would replace privy chamber, Lord High Steward and High Constable
Essex had powers of the high constable, so war seemed like a baron’s war when he marched out in 1642
Adamson - clash over control of arsenals and military strength
Not just a clash of the two sides - influenced by a series of localised aristocratic struggles for regional control
1/3 of nobility led armies in the field - their battles dominated published accounts of the war
Adamson - parallels with earlier baronial conflict
Emphasised by rhetoric on both sides - ‘evil counsellors’ and the ‘rebellion of the earl of Essex’
Perception had its correlative in the chivalric code by which fighting was engaged - trial by battle and personal combat e.g. earl of Newcastle challenging Lord Fairfax
Part of a political and chivalric culture in which the challenger identified himself with virtuous culture, and within the nobility’s ‘just rights’
Offers of trial by battle were not eccentric anachronisms, but part of political culture
Adamson - importance of Essex
Set an influential precedent for Cromwell - entry to the city after Edgehill modelled on Charles’ royal entry the previous year
Removal from command with the self-denying ordinance set a precedent for the decline of military influence of the nobility
Kishlansky - two alleged fundamental deficiencies of Charles
Rigid inability to compromise and transparent dishonesty (Hill)
Due to deep personal insecurity, he regarded all who opposed him as personal enemies
Uncompromising, authoritarian attitudes mixed with a deep streak of mendacity
Kishlansky - basic Charles argument
Failed in all his primary responsibilities, but also a victim of circumstance
Was not an internal exile, but very widely travelled and accessible
Also dealt well with the Scots
Kishlansky - early modern monarchs not compromising
Kings expected obedience from their subjects - strong reaction to disobedience should not be surprising
Charles had been taught to see his subjects as children
Kishlansky - Charles’ flexibility
Seen through allowing vocal critics like Sir Dudley Digges into government, treaties with France and Spain, willingness to compromise in impeachment of Buckingham and Petition of Right
Kishlansky - Charles absentee monarch question?
Charles made many public appearance (6 months out of London in 1625)
Suggests a pattern of visibility and travel continued throughout Charles’ reign
Kishlansky - Charles and the Scots
Scots’ fault - postponed his 1628 and 1630 trips
Prayer Book developed in consultation with Scottish bishops and clergymen, also sent to Scottish Privy Council
Charles tried to ameliorate the situation, and withdrew the book within 2 weeks
Holmes - accessible ruler
Asserts Charles was never an accessible ruler - regular hunting peregrinations did not include any outside the charméd circle
Great progresses of 1634 and 1636 were not received well, led to uneasy reflections on the role of the king
Holmes - Charles with access and dialogue
Ignorant of the rules - used Earl of Newcastle as a broker between the crown and his region, however treated him merely as an errand boy
Holmes - Charles with the legal system
Greatly interfered with judges, tried to bend the legal rules around royal prerogative to the detriment of his subjects’ rights
Holmes - Charles and administration
Showed a blinkered obtuseness - ignored the ideal of consensual government, imposing great burdens on local officers
Annual tax collected by them soon broke down
Goodare - opinion of the Revocation
A ‘legal bludgeon’ which tried to buy teinds compulsory then sell them back
Seen as predatory, upsetting many Scots
Goodare - prayer book
Neither was it popular nor introduced with consent of the General Assembly (as Kishlansky claims)
Mainly English book, Scottish General Assembly had no authority over the book, and it was sent to very few people
Charles should have made more concessions to the Scots based on the accurate intelligence he got in throughout 1638
Goodare - use and failure of Kishlanky
Opens up the prospect of a reappraisal of comparisons between Charles and James, since James clearly left many long-term problems to his successor
However, Charles was clearly inflexible and bent on war - he had a losing hand, bu he might have played it with skill
Cust - critics in Charles’ government
Entered it on Charles’ terms, not their own - they had to sign up to an ideological programme not to criticise the crown
Cust - Charles as malleable
Not at all - most parliamentary wishes were forced on him by his need for their supply
It was his grudging tone and ungracious style that suggested an unwillingness to compromise
Cust - Charles as deceitful
Displayed contradictory patterns of behaviour and conveyed false impressions - his closest councillors trusted him less
By his own admission he saw trust as a flexible commodity
His behaviour convinced a lot of experienced and responsible politicians that he was not to be trusted
Stoyle - Englishness and allegiance
Nationalism was not a product of the modern age
Patterns of allegiance with parliament were strongest in the south and east, where the idea of Englishness was most clearly defined
Stoyle - Wales
Most Welsh lived in isolated communities and resented the English
As accusations levelled against them in the capital grew ever more defamatory, so the inhabitants of the principality aligned themselves more closely with the king
Stoyle - Cornwall
Had a unique cultural heritage, which was treated with disdain by the English
Cornwall held clearly for the king
Como - disruption of parliamentarians
Soon the relatively conservative rhetoric of loyalty to the king and godly reformation gave way to all manner of religious and political fragmentation
Accompanied in some circles by parallel processes of radicalisation , allowing the constitutional upheaval that eventually occurred
Como - press licensing at beginning of the Long Parliament
Traditional system of licensing effectively crumbled, opening space for a somewhat unregulated market of print
Understandable due to retreat and abolition of High Commission and Star Chamber
Como - position of king vs parliament on press
King and council in defensive position - had to watch as obnoxious, unlicensed publications attacking courtiers and the church spilled out London’s presses
Prevailing sentiment in Parliament was sympathetic to much of the complaint literature, satire and news
Como - when political situation became more contentious
Both the king and parliament made attempts to work with stationers to stem the tide of unlicensed pamphlets
Clear that there were dangerous consequences for both sides it continued unchecked
Skinner - assertion of loss of liberty
Critics of the crown spoke about a loss of liberty
Contention was that the existence of royal prerogatives condemned the whole nation to bondage and servitude
Skinner - Roman thinking
Roman thinking about liberty
Distinction between freedom and slavery at the forefront of the minds of parliamentary leaders
Morrill - three distinct perceptions of misgovernment at parliament
The localist, the legal-constitutionalist, and the religious
One man could hold two or three of them, but many did not do so
Morrill - lack of impetus behind localist and constitutionalist
Localist and legal-constitutionalist lacked the momentum, the passion, to bring about the kind of civil war England experienced
Morrill - Localist view
Gave men widespread feeling of need to return to older forms of self-determination
Morrill - legal-constitutionalist view
Restorative and conservative, and reform was sluggish (in contrast to religion)
Ultimate goal was to preserve the essence of the ancient and established political order
Morrill - religious view
Religion drove minorities to fight, and forced majorities to make reluctant choices
Attack on evil councillors was immediate, and religious issues were inflammatory
Almost impossible to overestimate the damage cause by Laudians
Walter - subject of the study
Richard Drake, Fellow of Pembroke Hall, who was appointed to the Essex living of Radwinter in 1638
He was a Laudian ceremonialist of advanced views and practices which he tried to introduce uncompromisingly
Kept a record of ‘Affronts and Insolencies’ in the early 1640s
Walter - initial incidents
August 1641 - churchwarden Richard Durden refused to provide bread and wine for Holy Communion repeatedly, as well as locking away the surplice and hood
Also locked church on the feast of St Matthew
Walter - height of opposition
January 1643 - Drake threatened with cudgel, thrown to floor, kicked and stamped before being dragged out the church
Walter - main reason for opposition
Ceremonialism and its theological implications
Hated kneeling in the middle alley before the litany, turning back on congregation when reciting litany and creed, bowing ‘superstitiously’ to communion table
Also repaved and raised chancel, decorated a screen with images
Walter - use of the account
Lack of reference to support for him suggests widespread opposition in parish
Drake was certainly selective in his records, and all complaints come alongside a rebuttal from him
However, the microcosm of Drake’s pastoral experiences allows us to see how iconoclasm in the early 1640s was neither random nor spontaneous, but the visible tip of a denser pattern of everyday conflict
