Politics 1603-1642

Front 1

James I

Back 1

• same monarchical positions
• James is terrible at finance, argues with advisers and keeps favourites (Buckingham)
• bad relationship with Parliament
• Parliament not wishing to grant supply to the King; source of conflict, i.e. Great Contract in 1610 (Crown to give up wardship and purveyance in exchange for annual income of £200,000)
• foreign policy based upon dynastic policy

Front 2

Charles I

Back 2

• tries to close down Parliamentary debate
• Personal Rule 1629-1640
• scholarship: Charles creates/doesn't address conditions for civil war

Front 3

Conflict

Back 3

• Parliament's desire for foreign policy to be based on Protestant principles: foreign policy as responsibility of king, not Parliament; basing foreign policy supply on religion is very expensive so parl refuse to grant king supply
• lack of agreement on what the constitution itself actually is: divine right of kings or three estates?
• constitution becomes unfit for purpose; leading to civil war?

Front 4

Scottish Parliament

Back 4

• Wormald argues that James' handling of Scottish Parliament was actually quite skilled, but the Scottish Parliament was...
• unicameral and small
• easily packed
• lacked institutionalisation and a common identity
• Lords of Articles allowed the king to sit in parliament
• held no monopoly on legislation
• therefore far easier to manage

Front 5

English Parliament

Back 5

• strong collective identity
  
• was much larger (500 in Commons alone)
• could not be packed
• could be influenced by patronage and ideological influence
• could choose the topic of debate
• could not influence religious or foreign policy
• James found it frustrating; Charles saw it as a direct attack on his prerogative

Front 6

Interpretations

Back 6

• political strata widening and becoming more important; stable government now linked to Protestantism
• James saw parl as deriving its power from the Crown; he was a firm believer in his own divine right
• Commons saw ancient parliamentary privilege as theirs by ancient rights and common law; rejection of divine right and assertion of political attitude
• exposes changing attitudes towards monarchical authority

Front 7

Key dates

Back 7

1603: accession of James I

1604-1610: first sitting of Parliament

1604: attempt at anglo-Scottish union; Commons 'apology' to James; blatant xenophobia

1605-6: Gunpowder Plot; James granted £450,000

1606-7: Union fails and James is angry

1610: Great Contract fails

1614: Addled Parliament (lasted less than a month)

1621 and 1624: parl called b/c of foreign wars; foreign policy now dictating parliament

1625: death of James and accession of Charles

Front 8

Changing attitudes

Back 8

• James viewed foreign policy as dynastic business
• Parliament now wanted to debate foreign policy; shift mainly down to religion
• in 1618 there was a Protestant rebellion and Frederick V takes Bohemian crown; loses it and the Palatinate in 1620 and forced into exile
• as a result, dynastic foreign policy is now forced into parliamentary discussion
• Thirty Years War - religious (1618-1648)

Front 9

1621: what James wanted

Back 9

• Spanish marriage in exchange for peace and return of the Palatinate
• needed dowry from Parliament
• foreign policy still dynastic
• knows war is expensive and wanted to avoid it at all costs

Front 10

1621: what Parliament wanted

Back 10

• war with Spain and end to marriage negotiations
  
• many saw 30YW as apocalyptic battle between Calvinists and Protestants
• moral and religious duty to fight for Protestants
• thought foreign policy was a religious matter

Front 11

1623 marriage disaster aka Charles and Buckingham Nearly Ruin Everything

Back 11

• rebuttal made them determined to wage war against Spain
• James would not declare war until Parliament granted him money; Parl would not grant money until James declared war
• James supported Arminians, who promoted royal authority and were anti-Puritan/pro-Spanish
• Parliament angry about rise of Arminians
• AS A RESULT, foreign policy now fitted religion into domestic policy; a link between Arminianism and tyrannous Catholicism emerged

Front 12

Personal Rule

Back 12

• why did Charles decide to rule without Parliament?

  
  

  Whig/Marxist view: impending crisis

  
  

  Revisionism: consensus with later breakdown around 1637-8

  
  

  fractures in constitution made worse with poor management

Front 13

Charles and Parliament

Back 13

• James not inherently hostile to parl but chose bad advisors
• Charles hated parl
• neither could see subtle shifts in parl's attitudes and function
• Charles' saw parl's right to debate topics as political deviancy
• saw sittings as testing loyalty: this caused parl to radicalise in fear of its own future
• parl now believes that it represents the political nation

Front 14

Parliament in 1626

Back 14

• Charles petitions in an attempt to stop his critics from sitting; tyrannous?
• Parl wanted to seek redress of grievances before granting supply: technically illegal and v controversial
• Charles turns to royal prerogatives and taxations

Front 15

Parliament in 1628

Back 15

• crisis of parliaments: mood of reconciliation in 1st session
• Charles tries to stop parl debating religion
• Petition of Right asks for parl to be able to sit and debate policy as it wishes
• technically have no right to debate: Speakers realises this but is held down
• Petition is PRINTED AND DISTRIBUTED INTO THE POLITICAL NATION HELLO PRINT CULTURE
• second session = utter collapse