17A

Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy, 1603-1702

________________________________________________________________

SECTION THREE From republic to restored and limited monarchy, 1649-78

Topic 17 Charles II and the Restored Monarchy

Key Question A: What were the defining features of the Restoration Settlement?

Restoration: the return of Charles Stuart

Historians have put forward a number of reasons to explain why the monarchy was restored in 1660:

  • the unsuccessful domestic policies of the Republic had made its fall inevitable;

  • a significant proportion of the Political Nation had never really renounced their traditional Royalist sympathies or lost their respect for the office of kingship;

  • after the death of Oliver Cromwell in 1658, there was a very real fear of civil war between the New Model Army and Parliament;

  • fears of civil war were exacerbated by concerns about the growing religious radicalism that was threatening the stability of the Church (e.g., there were an estimated 60,000 Quakers by the end of the 1650s);

  • the majority of the Political Nation saw the monarchy as the most stable form of government, particularly after the numerous failed constitutional experiments of the Interregnum period;

  • Charles Stuart himself was an attractive option, especially after he made a public declaration that seemed to offer religious toleration and payment of arrears to the Army.

The final point gradually grew in significance as the events of 1659-60 unfolded. In a sense, all Charles needed to do after Monck’s dramatic entry into English politics was to wait and do nothing. He proved to be adept at this. His inaction created the impression that he was not seeking to impose himself on the nation, but was simply awaiting their invitation.

The issuing of The Declaration of Breda in April 1660 showed the same shrewd political judgement. In this manifesto, Charles outlined his initial terms for a restoration of the monarchy. Said to have been drafted by Edward Hyde, Charles’s chief advisor during his exile, it was a skilful act of conciliation, based on an astute perception of the outstanding grievances of the time and how they could be resolved. Wisely taking Monck’s advice to issue the statement from Breda in the Protestant Dutch Republic, rather than the Catholic Spanish territory of the Netherlands where Charles had been residing, the declaration was primarily geared towards satisfying the material concerns of the Army:

  • there was to be a general indemnity for all military actions carried out under orders;

  • a free pardon and amnesty was offered to all those who agreed to swear loyalty to the Crown within 40 days of the King’s return;

  • arrears of pay were to be fully met;

  • any titles to former Crown and Church lands that had been purchased during the Interregnum were to be guaranteed;

  • religious toleration for moderate sectarians was to be guaranteed under the vague (but encouraging) phrase ‘liberty to tender consciences’.

However, the main issues that might cause serious controversy were largely sidestepped, with the insistence that the final details of the full Restoration Settlement could only be fully determined by a future parliament.

The Convention Parliament, 1660

The ‘free elections’ of 1660 returned the expected result of producing a House of Commons containing at least 60 known monarchists and many other royalist sympathisers. From the first session (beginning on 25 April), it was clear that even those who had supported the Republic (possibly around half the MPs that sat) were now willing to acquiesce to the Restoration without limitations on the basis of the vague promises made in The Declaration of Breda. Charles’s representative, Sir John Grenville, read out the terms to the Convention Parliament on 01 May. On the 8th, England was formally declared to be no longer a Republic; government again resided in Crown, Lords and Commons. On the 14th , a parliamentary deputation visited Charles to invite him to retake the throne. On the 25th, he landed to a rapturous reception in Dover, and on 29 May, King Charles II, escorted by General Monck, made his ceremonial entry into London.

The Convention Parliament continued to sit until the end of 1660. It immediately proclaimed that Charles II had been the lawful monarch since the death of his father in January 1649. This body would be responsible for implementing the terms for the initial Restoration Settlement under which Charles II established the new regime. The Convention passed The Act of Indemnity and Oblivion, which was intended to reunite the nation under the restored monarchy by pardoning the majority of those who had opposed the Crown during the Civil Wars and Interregnum (albeit with a few notable exceptions). It also undertook the task of disbanding the New Model Army – one of the constant features of the Commonwealth and Protectorate regimes. The first steps were taken towards settling disputes over lands which had been sold off during the Interregnum, and initial legislation to provide revenue for the restored monarchy was also set out.

The Cavalier Parliament, 1661-79

The Convention Parliament was dissolved in December 1660 and new elections were held in the new year. During that time, a leading Fifth Monarchist, Thomas Venner, attempted an uprising in London, which reignited conservative fears of the growing radicalism of sectarian religious groups. Subsequently, the elections produced a parliament that was described as ‘more Royalist than the King’. The newly-elected MPs of this Cavalier Parliament, as it became known, were indeed far less inclined to be conciliatory when concluding the finer details of the Restoration. From 1661 onwards, therefore, the focus shifted to revenge. It could be argued that, as a result, the final settlement resolved little. It certainly failed to fix the problems that had been responsible for war and revolution in the first place.

The harsher attitude of the Cavalier Parliament can be illustrated by its treatment of Charles I’s regicides. The Convention Parliament had previously passed The Act of Indemnity and Oblivion in 1660, which had granted amnesty for all those who had supported Parliament during the Civil Wars and Interregnum, save for 104 named persons. In 1661, MPs decided that 49 of these should receive a capital charge, including 24 who had already died. The bodies of Oliver Cromwell, John Bradshaw and Henry Ireton were given a posthumous execution: their remains were exhumed, then hanged, beheaded and cast into a pit below the gallows. Their heads were placed on spikes above Westminster Hall, the same building where the High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I had sat. Although the other executions of this nature that had been ordered were subsequently never carried out, a further 11 living regicides did receive capital punishment. The others were sentenced to life imprisonment. A significant proportion of these managed to avoid capture, and flee the country, becoming the subjects of a large-scale manhunt that continued throughout the next decade.

Once these punishments had been carried out, the Cavalier Parliament could turn its attention to the business of finalising the Restoration Settlement.

  • The Political Settlement:

    • The Act of Indemnity and Oblivion (1660) gave a ‘free and general pardon’ for Parliamentarians and Republicans. All acts of hostility between 1637-60 were officially erased from public memory. However, the Cavalier Parliament excluded the regicides from this agreement – those men who had either signed Charles I’s death warrant or were closely associated with his trial and execution.

    • An important part of The Act of Indemnity and Oblivion delivered the long-promised arrears to the Army, leading to its peaceable disbanding.

    • Some legislation passed by the Long Parliament to limit monarchical power in 1641 was left to stand, e.g., the abolition of the prerogative courts (Star Chamber and High Commission) and the denial of the Crown’s right to impose Ship Money.

    • The temporal power of Bishops was restored, and they were permitted back into the House of Lords, thus giving the Crown an influential group of supporters.

    • A new Triennial Act (1664) reworded the 1641 version to state that it was ‘hoped’ the King would call Parliament every three years. Crucially, no mechanisms were included to enforce this.

    • Two Militia Acts gave Charles sole control of the armed forces and the power to raise up to £70,000 a year in militia rates.

    • It was declared that Parliament could not legislate without the monarch.

    • The Privy Council remained the most important organ of government and Charles doubled its size to 120 to accommodate an increasing number of different factions. As this made it difficult to manage, an ‘inner circle’ of key advisers evolved, initially led by Edward Hyde, who had been raised to Earl of Clarendon at the end of 1660.

    • The Licensing Act (1662) reintroduced the censorship of printed material, and a subsidiary act was passed to prevent petitioning.

Overall, the restoration made it clear that sovereignty lay unconditionally with the King. By 1660, most of the Political Nation had come to perceive revolution from below as a greater threat to the realm than the misuse of royal power. Charles jokingly promised Parliament that he would “not to go on my travels again”, but this was a serious point – above all else, MPs desired the stability offered by the King. Events since 1642 had demonstrated that attempts to alter the balance of power could lead to chaos and confusion. The theory of divine right returned strongly to political discourse, with Charles himself conscientiously emphasising his God-given powers by reviving the practice of ‘touching for the King’s evil’ (supposedly curing sufferers of scrofula by the touch of his hand). Although certain elements of the royal prerogative had gone for ever with the reforms of 1641 allowed to remain in the statute book, the continuation of other powers, e.g., the King’s right to choose his own ministers, appoint judges and control the army, ensured that a ‘personal monarchy’ was still fundamental to the workings of politics. The laxity of the renewed Triennial Act even opened the possibility for a return to arbitrary rule, should Charles be so inclined.

  • The Financial Settlement:

    • Parliament granted the Crown a fixed income of £1.2 million a year, raised mainly from customs and excise duties (including Tonnage and Poundage for life).

    • The King’s right to collect feudal taxes (e.g., purveyance, forced loans and wardships) was abolished.

    • Dunkirk was sold back to France for £400,000 – this was the final English possession dating back to the Hundred Years’ War.

    • A Hearth Tax (1662) was introduced to increase royal income. This was based on the number of fireplaces that existed in an individual’s property. However, it proved extremely unpopular and only one-third of the expected revenue of £250,000 was raised in its first year.

    • MPs estimated that the King could be expected to raise a further £100,000 a year from reclaimed Crown lands.

    • An Excise Act (1663) granted JPs jurisdiction over the taxes levied on certain commodities. Their collection therefore became less arbitrary and more efficient.

    • Royalists whose lands had been sequestered during the Civil Wars and Interregnum could try to regain them through the courts, but those who had been forced to sell land to pay Decimation Taxes, pay fines or to raise forces for the King had little chance of receiving compensation. This solution seemed to punish the most loyal Royalists, yet rewarded those who had compromised their beliefs to reach an accommodation with Cromwell’s government.

The financial settlement was unsatisfactory, although neither Charles nor Parliament were aware of this at the time. Its inadequacy was probably the result of miscalculation rather than any deliberate attempt to limit the Crown through the power of the purse. The sum of £1.2 million a year in ‘living costs’ was no more than an informed guess on the part of a variety of parliamentary committees. As these committees had still been in the middle of assessing the state of government finance since the Restoration, it was extremely difficult to accurately predict the total balance of payments. Moreover, MPs were consistently over-optimistic regarding the level of income that could be expected from various sources. For example, customs yielded less than had been hoped for during the years immediately following the Restoration because trade was temporarily depressed by war on the continent. In the end, the Crown was left around £120,000 a year short of the costs of government in peacetime, meaning Charles would have to rely heavily on extra help from Parliament for the first two decades of his reign.

  • The Religious Settlement:

    • All Church lands sold during the wars were restored without compensation.

    • The episcopal hierarchy of the Church was restored, allowing bishops to return to their dioceses.

    • The Book of Common Prayer was restored, with additions relating to ‘King Charles the Martyr’ and the wickedness of rebellion.

    • Following the Savoy Conference (1661), a series of acts collectively known as the Clarendon Code were passed between 1661 and 1665. These were designed to restore the religious monopoly of the Anglican Church, e.g., an Act of Uniformity (1662) stated that all clergy must swear to use the Anglican liturgy and that all clergy who had not been ordained within the Church of England must surrender their benefices. This led to 20% of the clergy being forced to resign.

    • The Corporation Act (1661) excluded members of the radical religious sects from holding public office. Thus, all members of corporations had to take Holy Communion according to the rites of the Church of England and swear loyalty to the King.

    • Penalties were applied for attendance at non-Anglican services.

    • Dissenting clergymen were prevented from coming into contact with schools and congregations.

    • The Sedition Act (1661 – also known as The Act for the Safety and Preservation of His Majesty’s Person and Government), made it treason to accuse of King of ‘Popery’.

    • Charles and Clarendon tried to ensure there was a role for Presbyterians by appointing some prominent non-Anglicans as royal chaplains, but a proposal that committees of both Anglicans and Presbyterians could rule on doctrinal issues was rejected by MPs.

While the return of an Anglican Church of England can be seen as a victory for the landed gentry and was also popular with many outside the Political Nation, support for it was far from universal. The punitive and intolerant nature of the religious settlement dashed the hopes of radicals and moderates alike that the Restoration would lead to a broad acceptance of different forms of Protestantism within the Church. Charles’s promise in The Declaration of Breda that there would be ‘liberty to tender consciences’ had not been fulfilled; instead a ‘High Anglicanism’ had been forced through by the Cavalier Parliament. Those who harboured different views to this narrow Church were now labelled as ‘non-conformists’ or ‘dissenters’ and were subject to severe penalties, to be administered by county JPs.

Overall, the Restoration Settlement left a bitter legacy.

  • Royalists judged that Charles II was “far too willing to forgive his enemies and forget his friends”. The King was certainly mindful that former Parliamentarians were a potentially dangerous faction, and was convinced by Monck (to whom he owed a considerable debt) to include in the new administration several prominent ministers who had served the Republic, even Denzil Holles, one of the Five Members from 1642.

  • Constitutional issues remained unclear, especially the extent to which the King should be independent of Parliament, and be constrained by the law.

  • Divisions in religious opinions were even more serious and would lead to repeated clashes, both within Parliament and between Crown and MPs. Imposing a narrow form of Anglicanism left large numbers outside the Church of England, opening up debates about whether religion should become more comprehensive to accommodate them, or whether the law should be more tolerant.

  • Complicating the matter further was the underlying fear of Catholicism, and its close association with arbitrary government. This would become a long-term issue which grew in severity as Charles’s reign progressed.