Stuarts historiography Flashcards
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
Wished to remove key men and financial expedients of 1630s
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
Many had issue with justification by necessity rather than law
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 - 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 - 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 - Irish rebellion - causes and fear
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
Aroused latent fear of popery 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 - 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 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 - 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
At all social levels it was rooted in the fear of subversive militant puritanism
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 - 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 - more political sophistication and impersonal loyalty to the state
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 - 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
