5A

AQA A-LEVEL HISTORY (7042)

HIS1D Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy, 1603-1702

________________________________________________________________

SECTION ONE Monarchs and Parliaments, 1603-1629

Topic 5 Relations and disputes with parliaments, 1604-29

Key Question A: What factors caused tension in Crown – Parliament relations during the reign of James I?

James I’s attitude to Parliament and parliamentary privilege

In order for Parliament to function effectively, MPs were afforded the right of ‘parliamentary privilege’. This was a form of legal immunity and enabled them to exercise a certain degree of autonomy during proceedings without fear of repercussions. Its vaguely-defined nature allowed a range of possible interpretations and applications, but four broad ‘ancient rights’ can be determined:

free access to the Monarch and Lords;
the right to correct mistakes or misunderstandings that might be made in Commons debates;
freedom from arrest during parliamentary sessions, and for twenty extra days after the dissolution of parliament;
freedom of speech (i.e., the right to question or criticise the monarch or government).

By contrast, the monarch could claim the royal prerogative (derived directly from the theory of Divine Right) in matters in which he or she claimed to be able to act of their own authority and initiative, e.g., the formulation of foreign policy. In his treatise The True Law of Free Monarchies (1598), James maintained that the King owned his realm in the same way as a feudal lord owned land, because Kings arose “before any estates or ranks of men, before any parliaments were held, or laws made, and by them was the land distributed, which at first was wholly theirs. And so it follows of necessity that Kings were the authors and makers of the laws, and not the laws of the Kings”. Perhaps more significantly, James added that “the King is above the law, as both the author and giver of strength thereto”.

Early 17th century Europe was characterised by conflict between monarchies seeking to extend their powers, and representative institutions desperately trying to safeguard their own positions. As a result, English MPs were highly sensitive to any apparent attack on their privileges and were liable to perceive a challenge to their status where none was intended.

James I’s first parliament, 1604-11

Proposed Union of England and Scotland: For James, the chief purpose of his first Parliament was to bring about the statutory union of England and Scotland, for as he explained in his opening address to the Members of both Houses, he hoped “no man will be so unreasonable” as to wish him to be “a husband to two wives”. In his opening address to his new subjects, James announced that it was “God’s will” that the two nations be united, and an Anglo-Scottish Treaty of Union was drawn up in 1604 to legitimise his plans. Aware that the English MPs would have concerns about assimilating their economically poorer Scottish equivalents, James even went as far as to promise them that they “would be the husband, and the Scots would be the wife” to denote the relative status of the two peoples within the newly-formed state of Great Britain.

However, it soon became apparent that most MPs did not share James’s enthusiasm for this project. Not only did they fear that a formal union would necessarily extinguish the Common Law of England and allow the King to re-write the laws in his own favour, but they detested their northern neighbours, and already regarded the presence of the King’s Scottish ministers at court with deep suspicion and loathing. By applying a combination of racial intolerance but also economic and political logic, the Commons therefore successfully delayed all the King’s requests. During the first parliamentary session, they declined to pass legislation allowing him to adopt the title ‘King of Great Britain’. When James attempted to overcome this opposition by seeking a legal opinion, he was dismayed to discover that the judges concurred unanimously with MPs.

James continued to seek the Union until 1610. Its ultimate failure was a bitter disappointment to him and caused him to lose faith in the Commons. He was, however, pragmatic enough to preserve a working relationship with Parliament by letting the matter quietly drop when he eventually realised there was no chance that it would ever succeed.

The Buckinghamshire Election, 1604: Early in James’s first Parliament, a dispute arose over the election in the county of Buckinghamshire. Francis Goodwin, who had been returned as the MP for the area, had his election annulled by the Court of Chancery as a result of unpaid debts. When elections were re-held, the county returned John Fortescue, a member of the Privy Council, in Goodwin’s place. It was subsequently decided in the Commons that Goodwin had been illegally outlawed, and he was duly reinstated. James saw this as an illegal procedure and insisted that the Court of Chancery, rather than the Commons, should decide such cases. This opened up a constitutional debate about how Parliament derived its power and from where, with angry speeches from both the King and MPs.

However, once James had asserted his defence of the royal prerogative and made his point, he pragmatically decided to compromise by suggesting that both Goodwin and Fortescue should be dismissed and a new election be held in Buckinghamshire. In doing so, the King was acknowledging the right of the Commons to act as judge in election returns, on the proviso that they followed his instructions in this particular case.

The Shirley Case, 1604: In 1604, Thomas Shirley, the MP for Steyning in Sussex, was arrested for debt. This upset the Commons as it ignored the parliamentary privilege of freedom from arrest while Parliament was in session. A number of attempts were made to order Shirley’s release, but the Warden of the Fleet Prison would not free him, unless he received assurance that he would not himself be held liable for Shirley's debts, or blamed for what might technically be seen as allowing an ‘escape’. Parliament had the Warden placed in the Tower of London and sent the sergeant-at-arms of the Commons to the Fleet Prison to set Shirley free. The Warden was later forced into making a humiliating apology on his knees to the House of Commons.

Shirley resumed his seat as an MP and The Privilege of Parliament Act was passed. This confirmed Members had freedom from arrest, but also gave creditors an opportunity to recover what they were owed when the debtor ceased being an MP. This case is generally regarded as having finally settled the question of privilege from arrest in the Commons’ favour. Although James wisely avoided any direct involvement in the case, it was a clear illustration of Parliament’s zealous attitude in defending their ancient liberties.

Wardship and Purveyance: Both wardship and purveyance were widely unpopular and MPs were anxious to secure their abolition. Purveyance was the right of the Crown to purchase provisions for the royal household at below the market rate, while wardship was the right of the Crown to manage the estates of minors whose lands it held. Early in the session the King’s chief minister, Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, indicated that he would be prepared to allow the Commons to buy out wardship in exchange for a regular annual payment, but he subsequently abandoned his proposal, to the intense irritation of many. The Lower House also failed to make headway in respect of purveyance: although a bill was prepared, there were doubts about whether the legislation enacted would be respected, previous statutes on this subject having proved largely ineffective.

Bancroft’s Canons, 1604: MPs hoped that James would allow Parliament to reform the Church by doing away with various rites and ceremonies widely considered to be ‘popish’ (including some of those that had been listed as part of The Millenary Petition). Although James initially encouraged the House to debate matters of religion, his attitude hardened after the Commons initially refused to vote him supply (this was on the grounds that the subsidies voted for in Elizabeth’s final Parliament in 1601 were still being collected). Despite their best efforts, those Members in favour of reforming the Church proved unable to persuade James to prevent Convocation (the representative body of the Church which met at the same time as Parliament) from promulgating a fresh set of Canons requiring all parish clergy to observe the Church’s existing practices. Consequently, not long after the Parliament was prorogued for the summer, around one hundred Puritan ministers (the ‘Silenced Brethren’) were deprived for refusing to subscribe to the new articles.

At the end of the 1604 session, the Commons produced a statement of their position called The Form of Apology And Satisfaction, which was recorded in their journal, although it was never presented to the King. Their concerns were summed up as: “The prerogatives of princes may easily and do daily grow; the privileges of the subject are for the most part at an everlasting stand”. Based on their experiences so far, it was easy for the Commons to believe that the King was determined to increase his own power at the expense of their own.

Reaction to the Gunpowder Plot, 1605: The second session of the first Parliament was adjourned on the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot. When the session did meet at the beginning of 1606, it was marked by an atmosphere of patriotic gratitude. MPs overcame their doubts about the King’s extravagance in a desire to show him how relieved they were that the plot had failed: James was given over £400,000, the largest peacetime supply ever recorded. In return, the King passed tougher legislation on Catholics (The Popish Recusancy Act of 1605 and The Oath of Allegiance of 1606). Nevertheless, the spirit of cordiality proved to be short-lived, as by the end of the session the Commons’ suspicious attitude had returned. An attempt to abolish purveyance was defeated in the House of Lords and months were wasted debating the Union of England and Scotland to little effect.

The Great Contract, 1610: The final session of James’s first Parliament was largely taken up with negotiations over The Great Contract. Underlying all the reasons for the breakdown in negotiations was the lack of trust between King and Parliament. Neither side felt the other could be relied upon to keep its side of the bargain: that the King would rule in the best interests of the country, and that MPs would support him with necessary money and legislation. Instead, both sides dredged up alleged misdemeanours that the other had made since the opening of Parliament in 1604. For example, James accused MPs of grossly exaggerating the extent to which he was infringing on parliamentary privilege in The Form of Apology and Satisfaction, while Parliament recalled a tactless speech in which the King had lectured them for two hours on the overriding and unrivalled power of monarchy.

While James had shown a great deal of skill in managing his Scottish Parliaments before 1603, he made some elementary mistakes in dealing with his English subjects. His failure to ensure sufficient representation of Privy Councillors in the Commons meant Crown policies were seldom explained in the clarity and detail that MPs required. They were therefore often ready to suspect James of sinister intentions, which led them to be uncooperative. The collapse of The Great Contract was proof of this for James, who angrily dissolved his first Parliament in February 1611.

The Addled Parliament of 1614

In need of money after a financial arrangement with France over the marriage of two of the royal children had fallen apart, James reluctantly called Parliament again in 1614. Before the first session began, a number of Privy Councillors, led by Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, entered into secretive negotiations designed to make the new House of Commons more amenable to granting the King supply. These preliminary discussions were not well-concealed, however, and rumours of a conspiracy that would see Parliament manipulated into obedience to the King were soon in circulation. As a result, Parliament commenced in an atmosphere of deep distrust.

By the time these rumours had finally been dispelled, the Commons had once again turned its attention to impositions. The Lords refused to support MPs grievances on this subject heard, and the Commons went into uproar when the Arminian Bishop, Richard Neile, announced that impositions were a matter for the royal prerogative alone.

Now fast running out of patience, the King announced that unless the Commons immediately turned its attention to granting him supply, they would be dissolved. Far from galvanising MPs into action, however, James’s message merely served to harden the attitudes of the malcontents in the Lower House, many of whom clearly thought that the King must be bluffing, given the weak state of his finances. Instead of considering supply, many Members accused the King of being the author of his own financial misfortune, and demanded the expulsion of his Scottish favourites from Court. Shortly after this outspoken attack, James not only dissolved the Parliament, but had four MPs sent to the Tower; several more were summoned before the Council to answer for their alleged misconduct. Because it neither passed any legislation or voted supply, the 1614 assembly has become known as the ‘Addled Parliament’.

The 1621 Parliament

Monopolies: Having not received any substantial funding from Parliament since 1610, James desperately needed a parliamentary grant by 1621, especially with the onset of the Thirty Years’ War almost certain to impact England’s finances. However, the country was experiencing an economic depression at this time, and the Commons felt able to vote only two subsidies totalling around £140,000, which was far short of the required amount. MPs then swiftly turned to raising their grievances. The issue of monopolies was the first to be debated – by 1621, there were over 100 of these. For once, King and Commons were in firm agreement: monopolies were deemed harmful as a cause of inflation. James allowed some of the most lucrative to be suppressed and authorised an investigation into their use. During this process, it was found that the Lord Chancellor, Sir Francis Bacon, was guilty of taking bribes.

Anxious to not jeopardise his unexpectedly good relations with Parliament, James allowed Bacon, one of his most talented ministers, to be stripped of office, fined and imprisoned.

Although the fall of Bacon represented a parliamentary success, several members of both Houses were anxious to press their advantage in the hope of toppling the royal favourite, Buckingham. During the Commons’ investigation into the abuses of monopolies, several of Buckingham’s clients had been deeply implicated, among them Sir Giles Mompesson, who was stripped of both his parliamentary seat and knighthood. In order to prevent a full-blown attack on his favourite from developing, James ended the first session of Parliament prematurely in June. Convinced they had conspired against him, Buckingham ordered the arrest of Henry Wriothesley, the Earl of Southampton, and Sir Edwin Sandys. Though no charges were pressed, both men were mysteriously absent when Parliament reassembled for its second session in November.

The Spanish Match: Arguably the most pressing problem in 1621 was the Palatinate and the best means of securing it for Frederick of Bohemia, the King’s son-in-law. The Commons were eager to see England take a lead in defending the Protestant cause abroad, and petitioned that Prince Charles “may be happily married to one of our own religion”, so as to create a Protestant alliance with a strong European nation against Spain. James reacted angrily to this clear infringement of his prerogative, warning MPs “not to meddle with anything concerning our government or deep matters of state” or else face punishment. When the Commons cited freedom of speech, James immediately threatened that such privileges that had been derived from the good grace of the monarch in the first place could easily be lost. In response, MPs entered a formal account of their privileges in their official journal in a document known as The Protestation.

When he learnt of The Protestation, James sent for the Commons’ journal and ripped out the offending page. This was partly done in rage, but was part calculation as well. The claim that Parliament had the right to discuss foreign policy could have in the long-term given MPs a powerful voice in international relations, possibly curtailing the Crown’s future freedom of action at the same time. James dissolved Parliament, and had the author of the document, the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke, imprisoned.

The 1624 Parliament

The Thirty Years’ War: Trouble had flared in the 1621 Parliament when the Commons discussed foreign policy, yet in 1624 they were invited to do so again. This time, conditions were very different. Charles and Buckingham had returned from their expedition to Madrid determined to exact revenge for THE Spanish rejection of marriage terms. Their mood matched that of the Political Nation at large, and Buckingham even enjoyed a brief period of popularity as he sought to form a ‘patriot coalition’ of MPs who backed the war.

James remained reluctant to declare war and was supported by some of his Privy Councillors. By this point, however, the King was clearly in the final year of his lifetime and was increasingly inclined to leave parliamentary business to Charles, who regularly attended debates in the House of Lords and was pleased with the anti-Spanish sentiment expressed there. The heir’s desire for war made him willing to accept a number of developments that would have damaging effects on the authority of the Crown:

The Subsidy Act – in return for a grant of just under £300,000, Charles accepted that Parliament specify how the money could be used, setting a dangerous precedent for the future formulation of policy;
The Statute of Monopolies – this 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 fourteen years;
the impeachment of Lionel Cranfield, Earl of Middlesex– the Lord Treasurer had proved a capable minister (even if he had amassed a personal fortune for himself), but was the chief obstacle to Charles’s aim of waging war because he knew entering the Thirty Years’ War would undo all of his attempts to improve the Crown’s financial position.

Parliament was prorogued in the summer of 1624, and due to the deterioration of the King’s health, it was never recalled. It had seen a significant strengthening of the position of MPs, who had restricted the way in which money was spent, impeached some of the more unpopular ministers and curbed aspects of the royal prerogative through the passing of legislation.

Yet almost as soon as Parliament had been prorogued, the Crown reneged on some of its promises. As part of The Subsidy Act, Charles and Buckingham had agreed to spend the parliamentary supply on a naval expedition against Spain. Instead, against the express intentions of the Commons, the money was used to raise a land army which was sent to the Continent under the command of the German General, Count Ernst von Mansfeld, to recover the Palatinate. Worse still, Charles had assured Parliament that no religious concessions would be made in the negotiations over his marriage treaty with France. This assurance was also forgotten, with the laws against recusancy suspended and a public Catholic chapel opened in London for Henrietta Maria.

Thus, it appeared outwardly that upon James’s death in March 1625, the new King and his subjects were united in a common purpose. In practice, however, royal actions had already aroused deep suspicion of the new monarch’s ultimate intentions, suspicion which would surface regularly in the first few years of Charles’s reign, with damaging results.

Historians have generally assessed James’s handling of Parliament in favourable terms, and are only recently beginning to acknowledge that some of the problems experienced by Charles were the result of his father’s poor judgement and mismanagement.