Dozen Lessons From British History. Reader

tage, became her greatest asset. The men she appointed to help her run and stage-manage the government were politiques like herself: William Cecil, her principal secretary and in 1572 her lord treasurer; Matthew Parker, her archbishop of Canterbury; and a small group of other moderate and secular men.

In politics every element was expected to obey «one head, one governor, one law» in exactly the same way as all parts of the human body obeyed the brain. The crown was divine and gave leadership, but it did not exist alone, nor could it claim a monopoly of divinity, for all parts of the body politic had been created by God. The organ that spoke for the entire kingdom was not the king alone, but «King in Parliament,» and, when Elizabeth sat in the midst of her Lords and Commons, it was said that «every Englishman is intended to be there present from the prince to the lowest person in England.» The Tudors needed no standing army in «the French fashion» because God’s will and the monarch’s decrees were enshrined in acts of Parliament, and this was society’s greatest defense against rebellion.

The controlling mind within this mystical union of crown and Parliament belonged to the queen. The Privy Council, acting as the spokesman of royalty, planned and initiated all legislation, and Parliament was expected to turn that legislation into law. Inside and outside Parliament the goal of Tudor government was benevolent paternalism in which the strong hand of authoritarianism was masked by the careful shaping of public opinion, the artistry of pomp and ceremony, and the deliberate effort to tie the ruling elite to the crown by catering to the financial and social aspirations of the landed country gentleman. Every aspect of government was intimate because it was small and rested on the support of probably no more than 5,000 key persons. The bureaucracy consisted of a handful of privy councillors at the top and at the bottom possibly 500 paid civil servants--the 15 members of the secretariat, the 265 clerks and custom officials of the treasury, a staff of 50 in the judiciary, and approximately 150 more scattered in other departments. Tudor government was not predominantly professional. Most of the work was done by unpaid amateurs: the sheriffs of the shires, the lord lieutenants of the counties, and above all the Tudor maids of all work — the 1,500 or so justices of the peace.

Smallness did not mean lack of government, for the 16th- century state was conceived of as an organic totality in which the possession of land carried with it duties of leadership and service

31

to the throne, and the inferior part of society was obligated to accept the decisions of its elders and betters. The aim of government was to curb competition and regulate life so as to attain an ordered and stable society in which all could share according to status. The Statute of Apprentices of 1563 embodied this concept, for it assumed the moral obligation of all men to work, the existence of divinely ordered social distinctions, and the need for the state to define and control all occupations in terms of their utility to society. The same assumption operated in the famous Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601the need to assure a minimum standard of living to all men within an organic and non-competitive society. By 1600 poverty, unemployment, and vagrancy had become too widespread for the church to handle, and the state had to take over, instructing each parish to levy taxes to pay for poor relief and to provide work for the able-bodied, punishment for the indolent, and charity for the sick, the aged, and the disabled. The Tudor social ideal was to achieve a static class structure by guaranteeing a fixed labour supply, restricting social mobility, curbing economic freedom, and creating a kingdom in which subjects could fulfil their ultimate purpose in life — spiritual salvation, not material well-being.

32

Lesson 7

The Stuarts

Government and society

Seventeenth-century government was inextricably bound together with the social hierarchy that dominated local communities. Rank, status, and reputation were the criteria that enabled members of the local elite to serve the crown either in the counties or at court. The king’s rule was based upon divine right. Most of the aristocracy and gentry were the king’s own tenants, whose obligations to him included military service, taxes, and local office holding. The monarch’s claim to be God’s vice-regent on earth was relatively uncontroversial, especially since his obligations to God included good governance. Except in dire emergency, the monarch could not abridge the laws and customs of England nor seize the persons or property of his subjects.

The monarch ruled personally, and the permanent institutions of government were constantly being reshaped. Around the king was the court, a floating body of royal servants, officeholders, and place seekers. There was no essential preparation for royal service, no necessary skills or experiences. Commonly, members of the elite were educated at universities and the law courts, and most made a grand tour of Europe where they studied languages and culture. But their entry into royal service was normally through the patronage of family members and connections rather than through ability.

From among his court the monarch chose a privy council. Its size and composition remained fluid, but it was largely composed of the chief officers of state: the lord treasurer, who oversaw revenue; the lord chancellor, who was the crown’s chief legal officer; and the lord chamberlain, who was in charge of the king’s household. The archbishop of Canterbury was the leading churchman of the realm, and he advised the king, who was the head of the established church. The privy council advised the king on foreign and domestic policy and was charged with the administration of government. It communicated with the host of unpaid local officials who governed in the communities, ordering the justices to enforce statutes or the deputy lieutenants to raise forces. In these tasks the

33

privy councillors relied not only upon the king’s warrant but upon their own local power and prestige as well. Thus, while the king was free to choose his own councillors, he was constrained to pick those who were capable of commanding respect. The advice that he received at the council table was from men who kept one eye on their localities and the other on the needs of central policy.

This interconnection between the centre and the localities was also seen in the composition of Parliament. Parliament was another of the king’s councils, though its role in government was less well defined than the privy council’s and its summoning was intermittent. In the early 17th century Parliament was less an institution than an event; it was convened when the king sought the aid of his subjects in the process of creating new laws or to provide extraordinary revenue. Like everything else in English society, Parliament was constituted in a hierarchy, composed of king, lords, and commons. Every peer of the realm was personally summoned to sit in the House of Lords, which was dominated by the greatest of the king’s officers. The lower house was composed of representatives selected from the counties and boroughs of the nation. The House of Commons was growing as local communities petitioned for the right to be represented in Parliament and local gentry scrambled for the prestige of being chosen. It had 464 members in 1604 and 507 forty years later. Selection to the House of Commons was a mark of distinction, and many communities rotated the honour among their most important citizens and neighbours. Although there were elaborate regulations governing who could choose and who could be chosen, in fact very few members of the House of Commons were selected competitively. Contests for places were uncommon, and elections in which individual votes were cast were extremely rare.

Members of Parliament served the dual function of representing the views of the localities to the king and of representing the views of the king to the localities. Most were members of royal government, either at court or in their local communities, and nearly all had responsibility for enforcing the laws that were created at Westminster. Most parliaments were summoned to provide revenue in times of emergency, usually for defense, and most members were willing to provide it within appropriate limits. They came to Parliament to do the king’s business, the business of their communities, and their own personal business in London. During the 17th century king and Parliament clashed over specific issues, but until the middle of the century they were part of one system of royal government.

34

Charles I (1625–1649)

At the beginning of his reign there was a growing feeling among Members of Parliament that they should have a larger voice in national affairs, including foreign policy, since they represent the taxpayers who are paying for foreign entanglements. Charles I disagreed and dissolved Parliament. He tried to obtain forced loans without Parliament’s approval. In protest at these high-handed actions, some knights refused to loan the king money. As a result, Charles had them imprisoned «by his special command». Five of the king’s prisoners, the “Five Knights,” brought a writ of habeas corpus arguing that they were being held without cause. In a horrifying setback, the Court of the King’s Bench ruled that they could not be bailed because they had not been accused of specific offenses. When one of the knights died as a result of his imprisonment people across the country rose in protest, and demand the Petition of Right.

Desperate for cash, Charles I had to bring Parliament back into session in 1628. Parliament agreed to give him what he needed, but only if he agreed to the Petition of Right (1628). The Petition is one of the great charters of liberty. It reaffirmed the freedoms established by the Magna Carta, and added several new freedoms:

•No imprisonment of freemen without cause shown. The king's command alone was insufficient to hold a man.

•No person was compelled to make loans to the king, and there was no tax without the approval of Parliament.

•Habeas corpus was not to be denied. Prisoners either were to be charged or released after a habeas hearing.

•Soldiers and sailors were not to be billeted on civilians. Their housing and feeding were the responsibility of the government.

•The government could not impose martial law during peacetime.

•The government could not imprison any man because he disagreed with the government’s policies.

Charles, however, did not feel himself bound by this docu-

ment, merely because he had signed it when nothing else would do. By 1629, it was clear to Charles that he could not govern with parliament. For eleven years, he ruled without it.

35

The Long Parliament

With his circumstances more desperate than ever, Charles I summoned Parliament to meet in November 1640. The king faced a body profoundly mistrustful of his intentions. The reform movement in the Commons was led by John Pym, who was prominent by his oratorical skills in debate and his political skills in committee. Pym was a moderate, and for the next three years he ably steered compromises between those who wanted too much and those who would settle for too little.

The Long Parliament (1640-53) opened with the imprisonment of Strafford and Archbishop Laud, who were responsible for the church reform and the following riots in Scotland. Strafford was put on trial and ultimately attainted for treason.

In fact, parliamentary reform took two different tacks. The first was to limit the king’s constitutional authority in order to protect the existence of Parliament and the liberties of the subject. The second was to reconstitute the church. In February the Triennial Act (1641) was passed, mandating the summoning of Parliament every three years. In May the king’s power to dissolve the Long Parliament was removed. Charles was forced to accept both bills. Meanwhile, the Commons abolished the prerogative courts of High Commission and Star Chamber.

In August 1641 Charles determined to conclude a peace treaty with the Scots. This successful negotiation removed the crisis that had brought the Long Parliament into being. When Charles returned to London at the end of November, he was met by cheering crowds and a large body of members of the two Houses.

While the king resolved one crisis in Scotland, another emerged in Ireland. Catholics rose against their Protestant overlords and slaughtered thousands in a bloody rebellion. Urgently an army had to be raised, but only the king had military authority, and in the present circumstance he could not be trusted with a force that might be used in London rather than in Ireland. In despair over the situation in Ireland and deeply suspicious of the king’s intentions, the leaders of the Long Parliament debated the Grand Remonstrance, a catalogue of their grievances against the king. The Grand Remonstrance (1641) divided the Commons as nothing else had. It passed by only 11 votes, and the move to have it printed failed. For the first time members of Commons began to coalesce into opposing factions of royalists and parliamentarians.

36

The passage of the Grand Remonstrance was followed by Pym’s attempt to create a militia. Bills were proposed to put the army under parliamentary control and to give Parliament the right to nominate officers. The political situation had reached a state of crisis. In Parliament rumours spread of a royal attack upon the Houses, and at court wild talk of an impeachment of the queen was reported. On January 4, 1642, Charles rode to Westminster intending to impeach five members of the Commons and one of the Lords on charges of treason. But, because the king’s plan was no secret, the members had already fled. Thus Charles’s dramatic breach of parliamentary privilege badly backfired. He not only failed to obtain his objective but also lost the confidence of many moderates left in Parliament. After ensuring the safe departure of his wife and children out of the country, Charles abandoned his capital and headed north.

In June 1642 a series of proposals for a treaty, the Nineteen Propositions were presented to the king. They called for parliamentary control over the militia, the choice of royal counsellors, and religious reform. Charles rejected them, though in his answer he seemed to grant Parliament a coordinate power in government.

The king, however, had determined to settle the matter by main force. His principal advisers believed that the greatest lords and gentlemen would rally to their king and that Parliament would not have the stomach for rebellion. On August 22, 1642, the king raised his standard bearing the device “Give Caesar His Due.” He then set up his court at Oxford, when his government controlled roughly the north and west of England, Parliament remaining in control of London and the south and east. Charles raised an army. The Civil War started on 25 October 1642 with the inconclusive Battle of Edgehill and continued indecisively through 1643 and 1644, until the Battle of Naseby tipped the military balance decisively in favour of Parliament. There followed a great number of defeats for the Royalists, and then the Siege of Oxford, from which Charles escaped in April 1646. He put himself into the hands of the Scottish Presbyterian army, and the Scots had to decide what to do with him. The Scots finally delivered Charles to Parliament in 1647. In July 1648 the Royalists rose igniting the Second Civil War, and the Scots invaded England. However, most of the uprisings in England were put down by forces loyal to Parliament and with the defeat of the Scots at the Battle of Preston, the Royalists lost any chance of winning the war.

37

Trial and execution

In January 1649 the House of Commons passed an Act of Parliament creating a court for Charles’s trial. After the first Civil War, the parliamentarians still believed that the King, although wrong, had been able to justify his fight, and that he would still be entitled to limited powers as King under a new constitutional settlement. It was now felt that by provoking the second Civil War while in captivity, Charles showed himself dishonourable, and responsible for unjustifiable bloodshed.

The idea of trying a king was a novel one; previous monarchs had been deposed, but had never been brought to trial as monarchs. The High Court of Justice established by the Act consisted of 135 Commissioners (all firm Parliamentarians). His trial on charges of high treason and «other high crimes» began on 20 January 1649, but Charles refused to enter a plea, claiming that no court had jurisdiction over a monarch. He believed that his own authority to rule had been given to him by God when he was crowned. The court, by contrast, proposed that no man is above the law. Over a period of a week, when Charles was asked to plead three times, he refused. However fifty-nine of the Commissioners signed Charles’s death warrant. On 30 January 1649 Charles I was beheaded.

38

Lesson 8

Charles II (1660–1685)

War and government

Charles II could not undo the effects of the Revolution, but they were not all negative. The Commonwealth had had to fight for its survival, and in the process England had become a potent military power. Wars against France and Spain had expanded English colonial dominions. Dunkirk and Jamaica were seized, Barbados was colonized, and the North American colonies flourished. Colonial trade was an important source of royal revenue, and Charles II continued Cromwell’s policy of restricting trade to English ships and imposing duties on imports and exports. The Navigation Acts (1660 and 1663) were directed against the Dutch, still the most powerful commercial force in Europe. This policy of Charles II resulted in the Dutch Wars (1665–67; 1672–74) which in economic terms were an English triumph. The American colonies were consolidated by the capture of New York, and the policy of the Navigation Acts was effectively established. Colonial trade and English shipping mushroomed.

In the long run Charles’s aggressive foreign policy solved the crown’s perpetual fiscal crises. But in the short run it made matters worse. The London plague (1665) and fire (1666) were interpreted as divine judgements against a sinful nation. These catastrophes were compounded when the Dutch burned a large portion of the English fleet in 1667. The crown’s debts led to the Stop of the Exchequer (1672), by which Charles suspended payment of his bills. The king now ruled through a group of ministers known as the Cabal, an anagram of the first letters of their names. None of the five was Anglican, and two were Roman Catholic.

Charles had wearied of repressive Anglicanism, underestimating its strength among rural gentry and clergy, and desired comprehension and toleration in his church. This fit with his foreign-pol- icy objectives, for in the Treaty of Dover (1670) he allied himself with Catholic France against Protestant Holland. In exchange he

39

received a large subsidy from Louis XIV, and in the treaty’s secret clauses, known only to the king’s Catholic ministers, the promise of an even larger one if Charles undertook, at some unspecified moment, to declare himself a Catholic. That moment came for the king on his deathbed, by which time his brother and heir, the Duke of York, had already openly professed his conversion.

In 1672 Charles promulgated the Declaration of Indulgence, which suspended the penal code against all religious nonconformists, Catholic and dissenter alike. But a declaration of toleration could not bring together these mortal enemies, and the king found himself faced by a unified Protestant front. Parliamentary Anglicans would not vote money for war until the Declaration was abrogated. The passage of the Test Act (1673), which the king reluctantly signed, effectively barred all but Anglicans from holding national office and forced the Duke of York to resign the admiralty.

By bribes, Charles built up a body of support in Parliament which could be relied upon for a majority. They came to be called “tories” by their opponents. “Tory” had been a term of abuse for Irish Catholic bandits. The tory and whig groups were known by their disagreement over the authoritarianism of the Crown. The tories were sympathetic to the doctrine of divine right and favoured a doctrinally high church. The tories represented landed property and the established church, and usually wore blue in contrast to the purple of royalty. Many royalists became tories. The whigs refused to accept the sacrosanct character of the monarchy. The whigs opined that government depended upon consent of the people and that the people had a right of resistance. They subordinated the Crown to Parliament. The whigs represented the dissenters and the mercantile classes, and often wore red. Many former Puritans became whigs. “Whig” had been a term of abuse for Scots Presbyterian rebels and horse thieves.

Under Charles II, the Treasury as a supreme financial body separated from the Exchequer as a depository of revenue. A gold guinea coin was issued. From 1690, government policy was controlled by specific appropriations. Money bills had to originate in the Commons, and could not be amended by the House of Lords.

In 1679 Parliament passed the Habeas Corpus Act, which gave sheriffs just three days to respond to a writ of habeas corpus. Thus, men and women could no longer be penned up in prison for months without being charged with a crime or brought to trial. As

40