Knowt
Stuarts timeline.docx
Stuarts Timeline
Key:
Red: Political events
Black: International events
Green: Religious policies
Blue: Economic
Yellow: Social
Event | Date | Overview | Facts |
James VI of Scotland becomes James I of England The court of James I James I inheritance | 1603 | When James became king of England in 1603, he was already an experienced monarch. He had been James VI of Scotland and had effectively been the ruler of that country since he was 17. James was an intellectual, outgoing man who enjoyed debate and dealing with people. Alongside his ability to communicate and engage with people, James was also pragmatic, and these two qualities enabled him for the most part to make the ill-defined English political system work. James I's court exhibited the different aspects of his personality. The court was an open and lively place that reflected the king's enjoyment of life. He was noted for his open, physical interaction with his courtiers. At its extreme, the court was, and has been, criticised as drunken, immoral and debauched. Yet James' intellectual interests were also emphasised at his court, particularly in his patronage of Shakespeare. One source of tension at James' court was the early dominance of the Bedchamber by Scots. Although the English elite held the major state offices, they were concerned about the influence the Scots could wield through their access to James. The first Englishman that James appointed to the Bedchamber was George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham, in 1615, and this created a new source of tension. Some historians may argue James’ inheritance was doomed from the beginning. The war with Spain, strenuous political relations, religion, external factors (e.g. Plague) and Economic duress (Inadequate taxation and inflation) were the problems James found himself with. |
|
The Political Nation (context) | The ‘Political Nation’ refers to people in 17th century England who wielded economic, political and social influence. At the top of the Political Nation was the monarch, theoretically, the monarch was seen as the source of all power and authority. This was due to the concept of ‘Divine Right’ (appointed by God). In practice, however, the monarch needed to maintain support of the majority of the nobility, gentry and clergy in order to govern effectively. One method of doing so was through patronage. Nobles used royal connections to advance the careers of friends and family; at Court and in the localities. Government came from the personality of the monarch with the help of a Privy Council of nobles and bishops, and a parliament of two houses drawn from the nobility, gentry and clergy. The legal system rested on Common Law, which had evolved gradually over many centuries from old English customs and precedents made by monarchs in Parliament and interpreted by judges. Parliaments were not a permanent part of government, but assembled as and when the monarch deemed it necessary. They would be called to make new laws and approve extra taxation when the monarch was unable to provide for all the functions of government from his or her own resources. The following factors contributed to the growing involvement of Parliament in Government:
|
| |
Finance (context) | It is arguable that James had a doomed inheritance. While Elizabeth was famously careful with money, any chance of a long-term improvement in England's financial situation during her reign was threatened by the lack of important reforms. The Queen did not support the idea of raising taxes, as she feared that this would alienate those who she most needed to support her. So, when war commenced with Spain in 1585, Elizabeth was reduced to borrowing vast sums from foreign bankers. Parliament was also asked to grant money to the Queen. The gentry collected this at a local level, and the sum recouped in the provinces was not the actual total that was sent to London. The rich were also allowed to assess their own contribution and it was an accepted fact that the money they gave was not proportionate to their wealth. However, as these were the same men that Elizabeth needed on her side, nothing was ever done to rectify the system. One way of coping with this would have been for the Queen to have an efficient bureaucracy - which unfortunately she did not possess. A series of poor harvests in the 1590s and a need to fund the presence of an English Army to quell a rebellion in Ireland had further negative impacts on the nation's economy. In 1600, the Crown estimated its expenditure to be £459,840. However, the Queen's income was approximately £374,000 - a shortfall of £86,000. When James inherited the throne in 1603, Crown debt stood at approximately £400,000. This weak economic inheritance was compounded by the fact that Elizabeth had been forced to sell Crown lands (leaving less for James to profit from) and raise forced loans, which she never intended to pay back. This created resentment from the Political Nation and a level of distrust surrounding the future levying of taxes. |
Crown Lands Wardship Marriage Livery Purveyance Monopolies Justice (fines,court fees)
Tonnage and Poundage Impositions
Benevolences Loans on Credit Sales of Crown assets
Tenths and Fifteenths Subsides Poll tax Ship money | |
Financial weaknesses under James I | 1603-25 | By 1603, the Crown's ordinary revenue had ceased to meet the actual cost of running the country. But James's extravagance concealed this fact. Elizabeth I had spent less than £300,000 a year in peacetime. Under James, this figure almost immediately rose to £400,000 and reached a peak of £522,000 in 1614. Determined to enjoy the greater wealth of his new country, James spent recklessly on his court and was excessively generous to his courtiers. Generally, annual household expenditure was twice that of Elizabeth's reign (although James did have a family to maintain). Patronage did, however, have the benefit of buying James some much-needed goodwill from the Political Nation at times. Contemporaries may not have minded so much about royal extravagance had it not gone so largely on conspicuous consumption, or into the pockets of the King's (often Scottish) favourites. One such favourite was James Hay, Earl of Carlisle. On one occasion he gave a banquet for the French ambassador costing £2,200. With the knowledge that James had paid off Hay's debts, it is scarcely surprising that the Commons believed that the King would be able to live comfortably on the Crown's traditional sources of revenue if he could learn to be more economical with his ordinary income. At the same time, however, there were members of the Political Nation who sought to enrich themselves at royal expense. A good example is Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, even though he was a loyal and dedicated servant of the Crown. In 1609, as Master of the Court of Wards, Salisbury gained £1,400 from a wardship that earned the Crown just £370. More spectacularly, in 1610, he negotiated the renewal of silk duties on their original terms, despite it being a greatly expanding trade. Instead of the modest profit of £430 which he had initially earned, he was now gaining over £7,000 a year. Ironically, Salisbury was Lord Treasurer, meaning it was his job to strengthen the royal finances. This illustrates the problem: too many people had a vested interest in the system remaining unreformed. Corruption also affected parliamentary taxation. Those who were liable to pay subsidies, which excluded the poorest of society, had to declare what they were worth, yet these assessments were usually hugely underestimated. With major noble landowners refusing to take a responsible share of the costs of running the country, it is small wonder that the Crown found itself in financial trouble. However, the glaring nature of James's personal extravagance could be used as an excuse for the Commons to ignore the fact that parliamentary subsidies were becoming less valuable. Thus, both King and MPs could view the actions of each other as unreasonable, with some justification. The record of James's reign, outlined below, illustrates that the Crown could not rely on Parliament granting sufficient taxation, though it should be said that the King did little to help himself at times. The Parliament of 1614 failed to grant any money, so a variety of money- raising schemes were implemented, but with little success. For instance, the overexploitation of honours and peerages devalued the amount at which they could be sold. James had already created a significant number of knights when he first came to power in 1603, and he had allowed some of his courtiers to buy themselves this honour at a price to raise extra cash. This had devalued the title, so in 1611 a new hereditary position of 'baronet' was created and sold to any interested parties for the sum of £1,095. Two-hundred baronets were established by 1614, bringing in a revenue of £90,885. By 1622, the title of baronet could be purchased for just £220. James also sold earldoms (for £10,000). In 1615, there were 27 earls; by 1928 there were 65. The number of earls increased from 28 to 65. However, this harmed the Crown's prestige in the eyes of the Political Nation, as many traditional nobles were appalled that a title that previously had been based on merit was now being handed out to anyone who had enough money to purchase it. In 1614, Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, became Lord Treasurer, replacing Salisbury (who had died in 1612). Unfortunately, his corruption surpassed anything yet seen. In his four years in office, Suffolk built himself a new estate, costing £80,000, and he was eventually dismissed in 1618, having been found guilty of embezzlement. By 1620, the economy had entered a depression and the royal debt stood at £900,000, more than double James's inherited debt from Elizabeth. By the time James died in 1625, there had been no systematic reform of Crown finances, and the King had become over-reliant on prerogative sources of income, such as import duties (known as 'impositions') and monopolies, which created mistrust within the Political Nation. Worse still, Cranfield, who had been effective in reforming the royal revenue system as Lord Treasurer after the fall of Suffolk in 1618, was himself impeached after falling foul of Buckingham's political manoeuvring. Cranfield opposed the war because of its potentially devastating effect on Crown finances and had attempted to clamp down on the amount of money spent on patronage, which had threatened the influence of Buckingham and his allies. Therefore, Charles was bequeathed a difficult financial legacy when he took over from his father as King in 1625. |
1. The Subsidy Act, 1624. It was agreed that the £300,000 must only be spent in areas that had been agreed by Parliament (the general defence of the realm, Ireland, sending aid to the Dutch Republic and the navy) and under the supervision of officials appointed by Parliament. 2. The Statute of Monopolies, 1624. This act made all past and present monopolies null and void. There was an important exception made for new inventions in a move that has been said to herald the beginning of patent law. Nevertheless, because these new monopolies had to be granted in accordance with Common Law (which was subject to parliamentary scrutiny), historians regard the statute as the first major infringement of the Royal Prerogative in the 17th century, as the King could no longer grant monopolies as he alone saw fit. |
Millenary Petition | 1603 | On James’ journey to claim the English throne in the summer of 1603, he was handed a list of requests by the puritans. It is claimed, but not proven, that the petition had 1,000 signatures of Puritan ministers. James was reasonably sympathetic to many of the articles contained in the petition, and in 1603 announced that all income from the tithes would go towards increasing the salaries of the Church ministers. He also announced that the terms of the petition would be discussed in further detail at a conference to be held at Hampton Court in January 1604. |
|
Hampton Court Conference | 1604 | The conference took the form of a disputation between several bishops on one side and Puritans on the other. In general, discussions were harmonious and there was much agreement. James agreed that baptisms should be performed by ministers, excommunication should be abolished for minor religious crimes and promised to examine the rushed trials of the church courts. James additionally consented to a revision of the Bible, which Puritans were hopeful about as it suggested further reform. However, this is regarded as a failure for Puritans as none of their major grievances were addressed, and they didn’t push further in fear of being labelled extremists. To impress upon the king the Puritans organised a petitioning campaign in many areas of the country, but this backfired as James disliked being subjected to what he deemed undue pressure. The Puritan critique of Scottish Presbyterianism was not in line with the king’s mantra of ‘No bishop, no King.’ |
|
Bancroft Canons | 1604 | Richard Bancroft became Archbishop of Cantabury in 1604. Some historians argue that because of James’ suspicions of Puritans exiting the Hampton Court Conference, he appointed Bancroft to this position, as he had been one of the bishops who argued against the Puritans being at the conference. After his appointment he subsequently published a set of canons which upheld many orthodox doctrines and liturgies of the existing Church of England. These included practices which had been condemned by the Puritans in the Millenary Petition, e.g. the wearing of vestments, and signing the cross during baptism. Enforcing these canons effectively meant persecuting Puritans. Bancroft declared any clergymen who didn’t adhere would be expelled from their position. This resulted in some criticism and a number of Puritans ministers (Silenced Brethren) to be dismissed. However, these dismissals only accounted for 1% of the clergy and the unpopularity of Bancroft’s Canons ensured that uniformity would only be a temporary measure. After the Gunpowder Plot in 1605, James publicly acknowledged the loyalty of the Puritans and replaced George Abbot, a Puritans sympathiser, as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1610 when Bancroft died. |
|
Treaty of London ends war with Spain | 1604 | This was one of James’ first acts of foreign policy, ending the long-standing war with Spain that had begun in 1585. As Spain was the largest Catholic power in Europe the peace was heavily criticised, especially as the terms were unfavourable to the Dutch Republic, England's Protestant allies. However, peace was a financial necessity. | |
Customs Farmers | 1604 | Direct collection of customs duties (i.e. taxes on imports and exports) was abandoned in 1604 in favour of 'farming out' this duty to a syndicate of merchants. In return for an annual rent, these custom farmers were able to collect and keep the revenue generated from customs for themselves. This was advantageous as the King received a regular income and an additional source of patronage with which to attract loyalty and favour, it created a wealthy group who would probably be willing to make loans to the King when he found himself in financial difficulty and for the farmer; the Crown never demanded a price for the customs that reflected their true worth because the King believed it was more important to have supporters in the merchant community than to gain the maximum income from customs duties. The new system meant customs farmers had a vested interest in collecting the full revenue from the customs, which, in effect, created a new indirect tax. This created great unease in Parliament, which saw its control of taxation being eroded. | |
Gunpowder plot | 5th Nov 1605 | The plot was supposedly an attempt by some radical Catholics (including some Jesuits), led by Robert Catesby, to blow up the Houses of Parliament, killing James I and most of the Political Nation in the process. This event would then trigger a widespread Catholic uprising, which aimed to install James's nine-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, as Queen. The plot was revealed to the authorities in an anonymous letter sent to William Parker, Baron Monteagle. During the subsequent search of Parliament, Guy Fawkes was discovered guarding 36 barrels of gunpowder in an underground tunnel. In response to the Gunpowder Plot, The Popish Recusancy Act made it high treason to obey the authority of Rome over the Crown. Added to this was an Oath of Allegiance in 1606, which forced all subjects to declare their loyalty to James I by asking them to swear that the Pope had no authority to depose Kings. Such was the success of these measures in quieting the Catholic minority in England for the remainder of the reign that many have speculated whether in fact the Gunpowder Plot had been orchestrated by the more Puritan members of the government (a faction of MPs led by the King's Chief Minister, Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury). It certainly seemed to persuade James to take harsher measures against Catholics than he had initially seemed inclined to do at the start of his reign. |
|
The Popish Recusancy Act and the Oath of Allegiance | 1605 | The Popish Recusancy Act made it high treason to obey the authority of Rome over the Crown. Added to this was an Oath of Allegiance in 1606, which forced all subjects to declare their loyalty to James I by asking them to swear that the Pope had no authority to depose Kings. |
|
Failure of the union between Scotland and England | 1606 | James had great hopes for unifying Scotland and England, referring to it as a ‘marriage’. The English Lords, however, did not share James’ desire. They did not want to unite with a country that was not as economically strong as they viewed it as a burden. James tried to appease them by stating Scotland would be the wife to England, implying a superiority for England, which he hoped would persuade the English Lords to agree. However, the Lords didn’t agree and the Scottish/English union wouldn’t come to fruition until 1707, a century later. | |
Bates’ Case | 1606 | Original fears from the customs farmers dramatically increased in 1606, when a merchant of the Levant Company, John Bate, was taken to the Court of Exchequer for refusing to pay a duty on the import of currants from the Middle East. Bate claimed that the duty had not been sanctioned by Parliament and thus was not a legal tax. The judges decided the case in favour of the King because it was deemed that the monarch possessed the prerogative right to 'regulate trade for the security of the realm'. | |
The Book of Bounty | Nov 1608 | Sir Robert Cecil, the Earl of Salisbury, took the office of Lord Treasurer with the brief of curbing James's extravagant spending. His initial attempt to achieve this was by issuing the Book of Bounty in November 1608. This prohibited the Crown from simply giving away major items such as lands, customs and pensions as gifts to favourites. However, James simply started to gift cash instead. Salisbury's next move was to commission a survey of Crown lands so he could generate more money from them by revising the leasing policy. However, his efforts were restricted by the ineffective nature of the royal bureaucracy and the King soon reneging upon his previous promise not to gift Crown lands to his favourites. Salisbury therefore found himself suggesting the direct transfer of Sir Walter Raleigh's manor at Sherbourne to Robert Carr, James's new favourite, as a way of bypassing the rules. (Raleigh had been found guilty of treason in 1604, meaning his estate was forfeit to the Crown.) For this he earned the gratitude of both Carr and the King, which was worth more to Salisbury than the long-term financial viability of the royal finances. This is just one example of how royal ministers bent the rules for James, and, it can be argued, helped enable his extravagance and over-generosity. |
|
The Book of Rates | 1608 | In the court's verdict of the Bates Case, the judge had stated that the Crown had an 'absolute prerogative' over impositions. This opened the possibility to vastly expand their scope. Salisbury issued a new Book of Rates to bring the valuation of each item fully up-to-date. This was the first revision of rates since 1558, and was much-needed, as fixed valuations meant that prices didn't tend to keep up with inflation. In the long-term, the Crown had become dependent for half its overall income on customs duties by the end of the 1630s. However, this was a politically risky move by Salisbury, because impositions were a blatant extension of the royal prerogative which posed a direct threat to Parliament's authority over taxation. Moreover, it was resented by many throughout the Political Nation, whether MPs or not, as entirely new custom duties were introduced on goods that hadn't ever been taxed before. |
|
Failure of the Great Contract | 1610 | Salisbury hoped that MPs would grant a £600,000 subsidy to cover the King's debts and state expenses. His request was rejected outright, but he had left himself some room for manoeuvre with the suggestion of an imaginative scheme that would replace the grant: in exchange for an annual subsidy of £200,000 from Parliament, Salisbury proposed that James would be willing to give up a range of feudal rights, such as his prerogative income from wardship and purveyance. This offer became known as the Great Contract. When MPs discussed the offer in Parliament, it was resolved that James would only receive the subsidy if in return he agreed to address some of their grievances about impositions. In dire financial need, James agreed to an act that would legalise all existing impositions but required him to obtain parliamentary consent before levying them in the future. However, doubts soon began to surface on both sides. MPs became increasingly suspicious of entering into any sort of deal with the King; funding the King's extravagance. Ultimately, negotiations for the Great Contract collapsed as neither side felt they were likely to secure a good deal. Its failure marked the end of James's first Parliament, which had lasted from 1604 to 1610, and meant the ineffective existing financial system would continue unreformed. |
|
The Petition of Relion | 1610 | This petition listed all the religious failings identified by the Commons in James's reign so far. It also highlighted the plight of the 150 'Silenced Brethren' who had been deprived of their benefices by Bancroft's Canons. However, the request for the King to give these dismissed clergymen the right of appeal was simply ignored. | |
Authorised version of the Bible published (James’ Bible) | 1611 | The most significant outcome of the Hampton Court Conference was the commissioning of a new version of the Bible. This is arguably the defining publication of English culture and shaped the English-speaking world. The new version deliberately removed some of the annotations of its predecessor (The Geneva Bible, created by Protestant reformers in 1560) that rejected the episcopacy as unnecessary and described certain monarchs as tyrannical. Therefore, James was using the process as a clever way to strengthen the concept of Divine Right. Although it was not until 1661 that The King James Bible replaced the Geneva version in The Book of Common Prayer (the order of service followed across the entire Church of England), over time it would become unchallenged as the official English translation of the Bible and has since become the most widely-printed book in history. |
|
The Addled Parliament | 1614 | The nickname ‘Addled Parliament’ alludes to its ineffectiveness. It lasted no more than eight weeks before James I dissolved it. The pertaining issues are why:
|
|
Cockayne Plot | 1614 | William Cockayne, a London merchant, wanted to break into the monopoly held by the Merchant Adventurers for the sale of unfinished cloth to the Netherlands, England's biggest export market. In 1614, he persuaded the King to prohibit the export of this item on the grounds that this would generate employment in the finishing of cloth, which in turn would increase customs revenue by increasing the value of the product. The scheme actually resulted in a decrease of customs revenue, for the following reasons: the Dutch reacted to the attempted attack on their industry by finding new sources of unfinished cloth, so they no longer needed to buy in vast quantities from England. Additionally, unlike the Merchant Adventurers, which was an extremely wealthy and well-established syndicate of merchants, Cockayne and his backers did not have the resources to purchase all the cloth that was produced, so unemployment soared in the textile industries. |
|
Cranfield’s Reforms | 1618-24 | Cranfield achieved financial success in departments such as the ordnance (supply of weapons) and the navy. He managed this by reducing waste, budgeting and accounting more accurately and by eliminating corrupt and unnecessary officials (his investigations revealed that many of the Crown's officials were guilty of accepting bribes, among them the Lord Chancellor, Sir Francis Bacon, who was impeached in 1621). As Lord Treasurer Cranfield attempted to control the flow of royal generosity by demanding an immediate stop to the payment of pensions and insisting that no financial gift was granted without his approval, however, James found it impossible to resist the greed of his courtiers. Worse still, Cranfield had risen through the influence of Buckingham. Part of Buckingham's enthusiasm for Cranfield's reforms lay in the fact he could use the subsequent investigations to bring about the downfall of his rivals in other factions. By 1620, Buckingham had taken control of the whole system of royal patronage, relieving James of the burden of making appointments, and using it to reinforce his own power, as well as to line the pockets of his family. While he encouraged Cranfield's efforts, he never allowed any of the financial restraints that were introduced to extend to himself, and the prosecution of Bacon was partly manipulated by Buckingham to deflect from growing attacks upon his own power. As Lord Treasurer, Cranfield achieved some impressive savings and increased royal income by about £80,000. However, he was unable to make any lasting difference because the King could not restrain his extravagant nature. In the end, even Cranfield, the would-be agent of reform, took the opportunity to become one of the richest men in the country at royal expense. |
In 1621, Cranfield was created Earl of Middlesex and promoted to Lord Treasurer. |
1621 Parliament | 1621 | At the start of James I’s 1621 parliament MP’s focused on the abuse of monopolies, partly as a means of attacking Buckingham. Monopolies were an issue because England was not trading well with its partners and monopolies had singularly exploited many courtiers as a means of attacking one another. For example, Bucking, with Cranfield, encouraged Parliament to impeach their rival, Francis Bacon, over monopolies. Monopolies are therefore an indication that politics of this period was not necessarily Crown vs Parliament, but instead factional infighting. Foreign policy was a Crown prerogative, thus, Parliament had no right discussing it. However, James implied that MP’s may discuss it in order to scare the Spaniards into the ‘Spanish Match’ (the dynastic marriage between Charles and the Spanish Princess). James knew many MP’s would be anti-Spanish and call for war, with this scare tactics James was confident that it could be a means to negotiate an end to the Thirty Years War. | Buckingham, with Cranfield, encouraged Parliament to impeach their rival, Francis Bacon, over monopolies. |
The Ante-Supper | 1621 | The most notorious example of the court’s extravagance. |
|
The Direction of Preachers | 1622 | The lack of any direct action to reform the Church gradually increased the numbers of vocal Puritans in Parliament. These MPs began to appoint lecturers to travel the country and propagate their cause. In response, in 1622, James gave his bishops more control over these preachers and decreed that it was unlawful for them to denounce Catholicism in their sermons. To Puritans, this seemed like the King was supporting 'popery', and their (unfounded) fears that Catholicism was going to replace the Church of England grew exponentially. | |
The Subsidy Act | 1624 | Due to Charles’ desire for war, he positioned himself in a state of financial dependence on Parliament and with this, the Subsidy Act, allowed for the damaging effects on the Crown's authority to take root. In return for a grant of just under £300,000, Charles accepted that Parliament specify how the money could be used. This set a dangerous precedent for future formulation of policy. |
The Subsidy Act stated that the money was to be primarily used in defence of the kingdom and on naval force |
The Statute of Monopolies | 1624 | The Statute of Monopolies limited the King’s right to grant monopolies to individuals, with an exception made for patents of new inventions, in which case the monopoly could only last 14 yrs. | New invention monopolies could only last 14 yrs, otherwise the King’s prerogative was revoked. |
Charles I crowned as King | 1625 | Although Charles had taken a more active role in Parliamentary debate and foreign affairs leading up to King James I’s death, he didn’t assume the throne until 1625. | |
Charles I married Henrietta-Maria of France | 1625 | Henrietta-Maria was the daughter of Henry VI of France. Charles and hers marriage was part of James I’s foreign policy. After trying and failing to secure a marriage with the Spanish Infanta, which James believed would help with negotiations for peace between Europe and the Palatinate (The conflict, which was started by Fredrick, James’ son in law). A match with the French, direct rivals to the Spanish, was a more aggressive approach to secure Palatinate from the Spanish. Something out of James’ character, however, he had initially tried to secure a more peaceful means of negotiation which affirm his image as ‘peacemaker’. | |
Foreign policy failure: Cadiz | 1625 | Charles’ problems with his first Parliament were immediately followed by his disastrous anti-Spain intervention in the Thirty Years War:
The failure to capture the fleet carrying gold was a particular blow for Charles and forced him to call another Parliament for financing. The failure to take Cadiz provided the backdrop for the 1626 parliament. |
George Villiers, Buckingham |
Forced Loan | 1626 | Without parliamentary finance and facing war against Spain and France, Charles called on the prerogative finance of a forced loan that would be equivalent to five parliamentary subsidies. The method of collection ensured that most of those liable paid up: they were all summoned to pay the loan. These public meetings where they were individually pressed to agree. This public manner of collection made any refusal to pay a very open act of opposition. Furthemore, Charles personally identified himself with the forced loan, making it, in the words of the historian Richard Cust, a ‘test of political loyalty’. There were, however, signs of opposition to the forced loan. Across the country, 76 people were imprisoned for the refusal to pay the loan. This number of open resistors was merely a reflection of the wider unrest caused by the forced loan. Only £267,000, 70% of the expected amount, was collected. The political tensions created by Charles’ prerogative demands made Parliament reluctant to cooperate with the king on future matters. |
76 people refused to pay |
York House Conference | 1626 | At the request of the Puritan nobleman the Earl of Warwick, and to avoid further pressure in Parliament on religious issues, Charles’ favourite Buckingham, chaired a theological debate in 1626. The focus was on the writings of Montagu. Warwick intended the conference to be a way to persuade Charles away from Arminianism (Montagu). However, even though Buckingham had ties with Warwick, he took the anti-Calvinism stance in support of Laud. Buckingham did this to reinforce his political position with Charles as Laud was the prominent religious advisor to Charles. From the conference, it was clear that Charles’ position would not be dissuaded from anti-Calvinist Arminians. |
|
Five knights’ case | Nov 1627 | 76 people were imprisoned for refusing to pay the forced loan. In November 1627 5 of the main resisters of the loan for claiming a writ of habeas corpus. Under this ancient right, they had to be tried for an offence or let go. Charles took them to court (The Five Knights’ Case) and the judgment upheld Charles’ prerogative to imprison those who refused to pay without trial. However, this was not a general right for Charles to imprison without showing good reason. Charles then had his Attorney General, Sir Robert Heath, falsify the records to state it was his general right. Parliament did find out about this dubious behaviour and this only intensified the internal conflict between the Crown and Parliament. |
|
Buckingham’s failed La Rochelle expedition | 1627 | Buckingham, as Lord High Admiral, was in charge of Charles’ reversal of Crown policy of aiding the Catholic French Monarch against the Protestant Huguenots. Thus, Buckingham’s force landed on Ile de Re, an island just off of La Rochelle, in order to attack the French. When the French retreated to the stronghold, Buckingham laid siege. However, it failed humiliatingly as the ladders to scale the stronghold were too short. Policy reverse was also pointless as the King of France, Louis XIII, had already made peace with the Huguenots. Of the 7833 soldiers that left with Buckingham, only 2989 came back. This attack meant that Britain was now at war with Spain and France, and Charles had no funds left for either, meaning he would need to call another Parliament. |
|
Petition of Right | 7th June 1628 | The Petition of Right was a response to the fear that Charles couldn’t be trusted to rule by an unwritten constitution (The Five Knights’ Case 1627). For MP’s like Edward Coke, Charles’ actions in the years from the past three years showed that his powers needed to be restricted, and this required a written definition to the ancient unwritten constitution. The four main points to the Petition of Right were:
Charles accepted the Petition on the 7th of June 1628 under the threat of further parliamentary proceedings on Buckingham and because he was desperate for parliamentary funds for his foreign policy. However, initially Charles had not given his royal assent to the bill, which denied the bill the force of law. But as he needed five subsidies, he did grant it. Although, for Parliament, Charles’ actions proved untrustworthy once again. |
|
Assassination of Buckingham | 1628 | 23rd of August 1628, Buckingham was dramatically assassinated by a disgruntled soldier named John Felton, whilst Parliament was sitting. |
|
The Three Resolutions | 1629 | Despite Charles’ obvious dishonesty, there were still moderates in Parliament who wanted compromise. On the 2nd of March 1629, however, just as the speaker of the House of Commons was preparing to read the royal order to suspend the parliamentary session, radical MP’s such as Denzil Holles and Benjamin Valentine held the speaker down whilst The Three Resolutions were passed (led by John Eliot), condemning the king’s conduct. The Resolutions expressed opposition to Arminianism, the collection of tonnage and poundage without parliamentary approval. Charles’ response to this was to dissolve Parliament two days later. He then had his critics, Holles, Valentine and Eliot arrested for treason. Charles saw the Resolutions as a revolutionary act and thus, started the 11 years of Personal Rule. |
|
Root and Branch Petition | 1640 | This was a petition by Parliament during the Long Parliament to completely eradicate any power bishops had. They wanted to abolish the episcopacy, and this was signed by 15,000 Londoners. Charles hated this- ‘no bishop, no King’, so increased tensions, arguably deliberately antagonising Charles. Contributed to the civil war as it broke down communications as this was too radical for Charles. Another example that religious differences caused tension and disagreement. |
Over issue of bishops |
Irish Rebellion | 1641 | In Ulster, Irish Catholics decided to massacre around 3,000 protestants. They claimed it was by order of Charles as they had a (fake) royal commission ordering them to seize the property of Irish protestants. They wanted an end to anti-Catholic discrimination, greater Irish self-governance, and return of confiscated Catholic lands. To Parliament, this was evidence that Charles was at the centre of a catholic plot, and the catholic conspiracy theory was true. As a result, Charles lost protestant support. Charles wanted to take the army over to Ireland to put down the rebellion, but Parliament refused as they were scared Charles would then use the army on them. Control of the army key issue. Pym saw the Irish rebellion as another opportunity to weaken the King and halt the steady growth of royal support that had been increasing since Charles had proved his willingness to work with Parliament since 1641. He prepared the Grand Remonstrance. |
Fears of catholic plot ‘confirmed’, with Charles involved |
Iconoclasm | 1641 | The tensions within Parliament over the English Church were increased by radical Protestants destroying perceived “idolatrous” religious images in churches during summer 1641. | |
Trial and execution of Wentworth (Strafford) | 1641 | Parliament hated Strafford, as they felt he influenced Charles too much now and in Personal rule, and he had used threats and intimidation to gain subsidies from the Irish Parliament, so they were fearful he may do the same in England. Trial- March 1641: Strafford defended himself intelligently much to Parliament’s annoyance- claimed that he was guilty of lacking political wisdom, not treason. Parliament claimed he had committed treason by deliberately causing division between Charles and his subjects. As a result, Pym’s Junto used a Bill of Attainder- a method that could sentence Strafford without needing a trial. Highly controversial as very radical. Bill of Attainder was passed by 204-59 votes due to rumours of an Army Plot- an attempt to release Strafford from the Tower of London that people assumed Charles had ordered. The Army Plot convinced the Lords to back the Bill. Charles agreed to sign the death warrant, and Strafford was executed on 12th May 1641. This was Charles’ “greatest sin of my life”, and this event was the breaking point in their relationship. From then on, Parliament could never let Charles have more power, for fear he would enact revenge on them for killing Strafford. They could never compromise or give him anymore power. Arguably where civil war became inevitable as they could never work together again- Parliament had pushed Charles too far and now had to keep going (becoming more radical) if they didn’t want to be killed. |
|
Grand Remonstrance | 1641 | A list of grievances by Parliament (mainly Pym and his Junto) which contained 204 articles that discredited Charles’ past and present conduct. It included topics such as his economic policies and Henrietta Maria (catholic). The vote for the remonstrance passed 159-148 votes, which highlights the 2 sides for the civil war forming in Parliament itself. It wasn’t even presented to the Lords, it went straight to Charles who rejected it. Unconstitutional as only put it through the Commons, not the House of Lords as well. Showed Parliament was gaining power and becoming more radical- they published the document (1st time this had occurred) so the public were influenced and became on Pym’s side. This was a dangerous and underhand move by Pym, and potentially treasonous against Charles. |
Nearly 200 members of Parliament abstained from the vote |
Outbreak of The First Civil War | 1642 | Examples of tensions towards civil war
Royal debt £900,000 by 1620 | Main themes Reasons for civil war:
|
Solemn League and Covenant | 1643 | An agreement between the English and Scots by which the Scots agreed to support the English Parliamentarians in their disputes with the royalists and both countries pledged to work for a civil and religious union of England, Scotland, and Ireland under a presbyterian– parliamentary system. It was accepted by the Kirk and Parliament. Scotland considered it a guarantee of Presbyterianism and religious stability, but Parliament saw it more as a military alliance. | |
Creation of New Model Army | 1645 | Officially formed on 4 April 1645, under the command of the Lord General, Sir Thomas Fairfax of Nun Appleton. The character of the New Model Army has been the subject of much debate. There is no doubt that it became a highly effective fighting unit, contributing significantly to Parliament’s victory. Opinions differ, however, as to the reasons for its effectiveness. As the Historian Sir Charles Firth, who published a study of 'Cromwell's Army' In 1904, explored the religious radicalism of the army, described in more hostile terms by critics like the Presbyterian minister, Thomas Edwards. Firth argued that the religious separatists recruited and protected by officers like Oliver Cromwell dominated the army. Its effectiveness came from their discipline and dedication in pursuit of what they regarded as God’s cause, which also explains the political role of the army after 1647. More recent research has challenged this view and argued that the effectiveness of the army came from thorough training, regular pay and professional discipline rather than religious fervour. The ‘Army of Saints’ was, in fact, an army of well-trained soldiers. The likelihood is that both factors played a part. The army was not made up of religiously motivated volunteers, but there were several of them, especially among the cavalry regiments. Such men set a tone of restraint and good discipline which enabled these standards to be more easily enforced. They also made egalitarian policies such as promotion by merit more effective, and this contributed to the spirit of comradeship that held the army together. The result was a formidable fighting unit, and a potential political force.
| The New Model Army consisted of:
|
Defeat of Charles I in The First Civil War | 1645-1646 | The New Model Army’s first success, at Naseby in June 1645, was helped by rivalries and misjudgements among the Royalist commanders, but thereafter it proved its value in the speed with which Fairfax could move around the country to mop up the remaining Royalist forces. In June he defeated Goring’s army in Somerset, in September Rupert was forced to surrender Bristol, and by the end of the year the Royalists had been driven back into Wales and the south-west. In early 1646 the New Model Army took control of Devon and Cornwall and in May the King accepted defeat, surrendering to the Scots at Southwell in Nottinghamshire on 5 May. From there he was taken to Newcastle, before being handed over (with considerable relief) by the Scots to their Parliamentary allies as they withdrew across the border. |
Navigation Act | 1651 | The Act specified that only English ships could bring goods into England and its colonies, and this extended to the transportation of fish. | |
First Dutch war begins | 1652 | The Rump struggled to maintain authority after 1649 (during the interregnum). A source of division between the army and the Rump was the Dutch War. The army viewed the Protestant, mainly merchant-class Dutch, Republic as an ally, because during the years of Laudian persecution, the religiously tolerant Dutch Republic was a heaven for many English religious radicals. The Army disliked the ensuing conflict as the Dutch were the only other strong Protestant power. The Dutch lost their economic advantage when the Rump passed the Navigation Act of 1651. There were escalating clashes at sea until a full naval engagement occurred in May 1652. The Dutch War not only created practical problems but also provoked the army as funds were being redirected towards the Navy. The Rump used the Navy as a political counterweight to the Army. |