The 1640 Political Nation Flashcards
(25 cards)
The short parliament
-the king recalled parliament in April 1640 to grant subsidies, and then he would redress grievances.
-He had proof the Covenanters wanted catholic france aid and felt this would give him parliaments support.
-Stafford had advised the opening
Reasons for dissolution - may 1640
-Charles still hoped for financial support from Spain or the Pope.
-Was considering using the Irish Army against the Scots.
-Strafford was ill and couldn’t manage political affairs.
-Some in Parliament sympathized with the Covenanters and didn’t want them crushed.
-Distrust in the king’s promises after subsidies were granted. May 5 1640.
Etc oath
-when convocation was recalled, laud tried to issue new canons which swore devotion to ‘bishops, deans etc..’-
- not only huge emphasises on episopacy and the interpreters of gods will (very anti puritan)
- the etc left interpretation for more popish alliegance
The long parliament
-November 1640.
-Triggered by the treaty of Ripon, which required the king to recall Parliament and not dissolve them until it had voted subsidies to pay off the Scottish army
Charles’ strengths going into long parl
-traditional respect and divine right
-house of lords saw him as cornerstone of respect and wealth
-he had control of the legal system and his perogative courts
-Command of the Army and Irish army
-Censorship of the Press:
-Foreign Relations: Charles maintained foreign policy control, including influence with the Pope and other European powers.
Charlesweakness going into long parl
-gov Issues: Charles’s government during Personal Rule alienated many, especially the gentry in the regions.
-Charles struggled with debate and dispute, interpreting it as disloyalty and rebellion and he had a bad stutter/ very antisocial.
-Monetary Problems: In 1640, Charles sought to raise an army of 30,000 foot soldiers and 3,000 cavalry, but there were no funds to pay them.
-Robert Sidney questioned the ability to afford the army, showing lack of financial planning.
-Lack of Consensus: Effective government required consensus, but Charles was reliant on local government officers’ voluntary cooperation.
-Ship Money collection rates dropped, highlighting lack of enthusiasm for the Bishops’ War.
Strength in opposition going into long parl
-Shared goals: Remedy abuses of Personal Rule, revive king-Parliament relationship. Enabled swift passing of measures to address grievances.
-Party Politics: Edward Hyde used “party” to describe those with the same opinion- very clearly factions were beginning to form.
-Quality of Intellect: Opposition leaders were well-educated, intelligent men (e.g., St John and Hampden were trained lawyers).
-Political Support: Root and Branch Petition gained 15,000 signatures, indicating popular support for reforms.
-Interconnections: personal rule created lots of close allies in the long parliament eg the providence island company, the hampden case and the petition of 12 peers
Parliamentary measures against prerogative courts
-Star Chamber abolished by Habeas Corpus Act, 1640.
-High Commission abolished by Triennial Act, Feb 1641.
Parlimentarymovement against fiscal feudalism
-Ship Money repealed by Ship Money Act, 1640.
-Tonnage and Poundage regulated by Tonnage and Poundage Act, June 1641.
Removal of ‘evil coucnelors’
-Strafford impeached, Nov 1640.
-Laud impeached, Dec 1640.
Parliamentary movement against laudian ideas
-Prynne, Bastwick, and Burton released from prison.
-Root and Branch petition presented to commons dec 1640
Parliamentary action to regulate parliament
Triennialact passed feb 1641
- act against dissolution may 1641
Sources of division in parliament
-Debate Over Solutions: Disagreement on whether to work with the king or push forward a strict agenda.
-Some wanted a negotiated settlement with the king, while others felt the king was in the wrong.
-Religious Division: Disagreement over how to handle Church governance and Laudian influence.
-Tensions between restoring the Church to its pre-Laudian state vs. a fundamental Puritan reformation
Bridge appointments
-Proposed by Bedford:
-Allow Charles to raise funds in exchange for regular Parliaments and removal of Strafford and Laud in place for pym and Bedford and other members .
-Scheme collapsed due to lack of cooperation from Scottish Covenanters who demanded episopacy bannned and Bedford’s death (March 1641).
Commonsintiiative after bedfords death
-Focus shifted to John Pym, who became the leader of a significant opposition group within Parliament.
-Venetian ambassador wrote that pym had become the ‘director’ and he formed a tight junto.
Ten propositions - June 1641
-List of demands from Pym outlining how the king could be constrained:
-Disband army in the north. Parliamentary input into the Privy Council. Oversight of the queen’s household.Parliamentary control over royal children’s education.
-These terms would dramatically limit the king’s power, very significant in the radicalism of the document.
-Never put in place as events had moved on.
-JP Kenvon called a ‘confused and rambling doccument’
Root and branch petition (December 1640)
-Aimed to reform the Church of England following Parliament’s regained influence.
-Sparked intense debates about the Church’s governance.
-Oliver St John redrafted the Petition into the Root and Branch Bill.
-The Bill was presented to the Commons by Henry Vane Jr and Oliver Cromwell.
Context of the root and branch petition- the early church reforms of the LP
-The Long Parliament aimed to address the ‘Laudian excesses’ introduced by Archbishop Laud.
-In three days in November, Key actions included: Petition for the release of imprisoned figures like Burton and Prynne. Removal of Catholics from London. Parliament asserting the right to appoint Church officials, including the next Dean of Durham Cathedral.
Objective of the root and branch bill
-Aimed to abolish the offices of archbishops and bishops, dismantling the Church of England’s hierarchical structure.
-Politically, it would reduce the king’s power since he appointed bishops, weakening his control over the House of Lords.
Political implications of the root and branch bill
-Removing bishops from the House of Lords would lessen the king’s influence, as bishops had been royal appointments
-. The Bill would reduce the king’s power in Parliament and the House of Lords.
For the bill: opposition to LAUD
-Some MPs wanted to remove Archbishop Laud’s influence because they felt he had elevated his power over the king’s authority.
-MPs like Pym believed Laud had made the king’s throne a footstool for his own ambitions.
For the bill: seeking restoration
-Some MPs wanted to restore the Church to its state before Laud’s reforms, which they saw as the ‘true reformed Protestant religion’.
-They felt the Root and Branch Bill was too radical and extreme.
Support for the bill: puritan
-A smaller group of MPs, particularly Puritans, saw the Bill as a step toward a ‘godly reformation’.
-They hoped to align the Church more closely with the Puritan Congregational churches, like those in New England.
Divisinessof the bill
The debates over the Root and Branch Bill were highly divisive, reflecting deep political and religious divisions within Parliament.
