Research Report English Privy Council (1640)

Foreword from the Student Officers Tham Chui-Jun, Director of the English Privy Council (1640) HI am a first-year undergraduate at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, where I am reading History. Each term, I study incredibly interesting eras and places. One of these eras was 1500-1700. One of these places was England. Tudor and Stuart England is known as the early modern period of English history, a finicky name for a finicky two centuries. Straddling the medieval and modern eras, Tudor and Stuart England was both very unlike and increasingly like England as we know it today. There was no high road to parliamentary democracy. There was no guarantee of the old trinity between crown, peer and commons. On the eve of the English Civil War, nothing was certain. I hope that as Director, I will be able to deliver to you an experience that will be encapsulate some of that urgency and conflict. I can’t wait to meet all of you!

Tham Chui-Joe, Crisis Director of the English Privy Council (1640) I am currently reading History at St Edmund Hall, Oxford, where I will starting my second year come October. Before university, I took my GCSEs and A-levels at The Alice Smith School, and previous to that, I was a student at a Chinese vernacular school in Kajang until Form Two. My interest is primarily in East Asian and Southeast Asian history, and more broadly in intellectual and cultural history. The history of the English Civil War is a subject I learned as part of my course this year, and I decided upon it as the topic for our crisis committee because I felt that the divisions of loyalty and ideology, as well as the very different political setting (a monarch’s advisory council rather than a cabinet) would be interesting for delegates to experience.   I have participated as a delegate in Selangor MUN’s Joint Crisis Cabinets, and in London International MUN’s Crisis Committees. This, following PenangMUN in early July, will be my second opportunity to be part of a Crisis Team, and my first opportunity in the role of a Crisis Director. I look forward to making it a stimulating and engaging (read, panic-inducing and exhausting) three days for all of you.

Jefferi Hamzah Sendut, Assistant Director of the English Privy Council (1640) After recently finishing my IGCSE examinations at the Garden International School, I am now eagerly awaiting(?) the start of A-Levels in September. The English Privy Council takes place during some of the most significant, formative years of the England we recognise today. Undoubtedly, the events of the time were unprecedented, with even the smallest change in action taken by certain select individuals having a huge impact on the eventual outcome. The ability of individuals to affect the course of history so profoundly forms part of the basis of our Crisis Committee, where any action taken has dynamic and unpredictable consequences. My first introduction to the fast paced world of Crisis Committees was also at SelangorMUN 2013’s Joint Crisis Committee. Since then, I had the amazing opportunity to contribute to PenangMUN’s Malayan Federal War Council as its Assistant Director. Having participated in MUN for 4 years, Crisis

Committees are definitely unique. They never fail to bring something new to the table. I hope to be able to help shape this Council into another fantastic experience.

Lam Kang Ren, Assistant Director of the English Privy Council (1640) Lam Kang Ren I am currently studying in a prestigious Chinese medium secondary school in Penang where I will be facing SPM. I am a particularly seasoned debater and a participant in the Company Of The Year / Young Enterprise programmes. I have been the national winner of the FedEx International Trade Challenge and have once represented Malaysia for trade. I love business and trade, however am studying in the Science stream as it is compulsory in my school (long story) however I read business law books as a hobby. Regarding history of ECW as a whole, the history of the English Civil War is something particularly new to me, but I am very interested in its forms of crisis and setting and is definitely something unusual compared to a common conference. I have participated in a few conferences, but have more experience to topics regarding human rights and economics. I was the Deputy Secretary General Of Public Relations in PenangMUN, and I am VERY nervous as this is my first time being part of a Crisis Team, and my first opportunity in the role of a Student Officer. I love making friends and experiencing new things, and I hope to have an amazing time with you all! Sincerely, Your Student Officers

Introduction to the committee It is October 1640, and Charles I of England, Scotland, and Ireland has just lost two English counties to his rebellious Scottish subjects in the Second Bishops’ War. He is forced to summon a parliament in order to raise the funds needed to pay Scottish military expenses as agreed in the Treaty of Ripon. This parliament, later to be known in history as the Long Parliament, attacks his prerogatives as monarch, his chief ministers, and every aspect of royal policy in the past decade. The Committee will cover the years from 1640 to 1642, during which Charles faced rebellions not just from his Scottish, but also his English and Irish subjects. These rebellions were both military and constitutional, and contemporaries saw these years as a time of unprecedented challenge to the ancient and God-appointed office of king. The Privy Council, composed of the king’s advisors, is tasked with the duty of advising the king, and ultimately, preserving the king’s position versus parliament. In the face of personal motives, vendettas, and mistakes, can you pull through and prevent the English Civil War? Can you change history?

History of the committee The Privy Council is an ancient constitution. Previously, its members were appointed by the monarch to advise on matters of state. Monarchs would rule through the Privy Council without turning to Parliament. Under some of them, as with Edward I, it was

difficult to identify whether legislative acts emanated from the King-in-Parliament or the King-in-Council. There were periods of friction between the Council and Parliament. Throughout the 14th century, and in the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V there is evidence of the Commons petitioning the King against the jurisdiction seized by the Council. By this time, the Council was exercising judicial powers in relation to both criminal and civil litigation. The Court of Star Chamber, the Council’s judicial arm, could enforce criminal law (where offences against the State were alleged or officers of State were involved). Parliament objected that the Star Chamber was usurping the function of the common law courts. F.W. Maitland writes of the council at this time that: The Tudor reigns are....the golden age of the Council: the Council exercises enormous powers of the most various kinds; but it is not an independent body – as against the King it has little power or none at all. By the reign of Henry VIII (1509 – 1547) the Council was made up of ‘Privy’ Counsellors – the elite King’s advisers – and Ordinary Counsellors – lawyers and administrators. The Privy Council survived the 17th century conflicts, although its judicial arm, the Court of Star Chamber, was abolished in 1641. (Quoted from: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-3708.pdf)

Introduction to the topics 1. The Wars of the Three Kingdoms On 22 August 1642, Charles I of England, Scotland, and Ireland raised his standard at Nottingham. This is commonly considered the date on which the English Civil War officially began, as Charles declared war on Parliament. Royalists joined the king’s army, while parliamentarians fought against a king who they believed ruled against England’s ancient and venerable constitutional law. However, it is important to remember that though these positions, royalist and parliamentarian, seem clear enough, the picture was often more complicated that it seems. The rise of constitutional law, the bubbling of popular and elite resentment against Charles’s religious policy, and indignation at his fiscal policy, worked in all three of his kingdoms to create a conflict that spanned a decade to 1650. By 1642, it was not just England that was at war with the king, but also Scotland and Ireland.

The rise of constitutional law Alan Cromartie has sought to explain the nature of Charles I’s political difficulties in England as the result of the rise of constitutionalism, and John Adamson has modified that explanation to suggest changing ideas among the nobility not only about the state and the monarchy but also the church. However, these arguments present a view of uniform intellectual progression that does not take into account the political and religious divisions in England, which prevented the formation of a unified armed rebellion to the king until 1642 and even then still divided the country between royalists and parliamentarians.

Fiscal indignation In England and Scotland, the policies with the most subversive impact were arguably Charles’s fiscal measures and religious reforms. Kevin Sharpe has tried to refute this argument, illustrating the well-intentioned motives behind Charles’s policies, and arguing for a less harmful or even positive effect from these policies. For example, Sharpe argued that it was out of financial necessity and parliamentary intransigence that Charles raised money for the war against Spain and France through extra-parliamentary means such as the Forced Loan in 1626, and through new unorthodox sources of revenue during the Personal Rule including: the revival of ‘obsolete’ laws such as the commission for defective titles and knighthood fines, the raising of Ship Money during peacetime, and fen drainage.[1] Popular response was quick, as when, for example, Ship Money was demanded in 1634, 1636, and 1637 and the Exchequer in each case received 85% to over 90% of the levy called for from the counties. Nevertheless, Sharpe fails to take into account the way that these extra-parliamentary taxations, revivals of obsolete laws, and levying of emergency taxation during peacetime created resentment amongst the localities in England. Ship Money was paid with a decreasing speed and increasing reluctance each time it was levied, and constables were often more willing to face the censure of the Privy Council than local anger.[2][3] Despite Charles’s determination to ensure that judges ruled his measures legal, the important factor in the foundation of local resistance to his fiscal policies was evidence that the people “believed that the payments demanded were indefensible”.[4] That fiscal policy generated opposition is apparent also in Scotland, but in Scotland the British context was more influential in the nature of resentment created by unpopular fiscal policy. For example, it was not only the imposition of higher, regular taxes and the extension in 1633 of the 1630 tax of £100,000 for another six years that led to resentments of increased fiscal burden in a troubled economic time – there were food shortages and a famine in the 1620s – but also a 1630 common fishing policy that seemed to “sacrifice Scottish trade to English interests”.[5] Therefore, in Scotland more than England, not only fiscal policy but also Charles’s being ruler over three kingdoms was important in creating a basis for opposition.

Religious policy Most historians agree that the religious policy of the king and Archbishop William Laud was what both created religious divisions and fostered resistance to the king’s authority in 1640-2. Kevin Sharpe has attempted to rehabilitate Charles and Laud’s religious reforms by arguing that neither of them were truly papist or Arminian in theological doctrine, and that their reforms attracted some resistance but not “universal antagonism”. However, some of his evidence is unconvincing. Churchwarden accounts that show that parish churches complied with demands to enhance their fabric and furniture demonstrate obedience to the king, but do not evince a lack of resentment against the financial burden of redecoration. Laud’s policies: the refurbishment of churches, liturgical reforms, and the elevation of the clergy, were imposed upon an England in which the lay majority both treasured the practice of religion in accordance with the 1559 Elizabethan Prayer Book, and possessed a tradition of anticlericalism. The

dissatisfaction these policies created in the localities and the aristocracy can be seen in the rapidity with which the Long Parliament re-established the pre-Laudian Church. Laud’s policies alienated the “broad spectrum of opinion” that had hitherto managed to co-exist in the open and inclusive Jacobean church.[6] The removal of Puritans from the mainstream radicalised an originally socially and politically conservative religious minority in opposition to the king, as is demonstrated by the fact that Puritan MPs and Lords, most notably the Petitioner Peers and John Pym, headed parliamentary resistance to and subversion of the king’s authority. However, the above argument neglects the role of the Scottish Covenanters’ revolt in 1639 in radicalising the Puritans and the wider English political spectrum to the extent that there arose severe parliamentary opposition to and subversion of the king’s prerogatives as monarch. Charles’s political difficulties in Scotland were the result of not only his fiscal policy but also his introduction, without consulting either the Scottish Parliament or the kirk (other than a few unrepresentative bishops), of the Scottish canons in 1636 and the Scottish Prayer Book in 1637. This attack on Scottish reformed religion infringed on both a fundamental Scottish insecurity in its position relative to England in the Stuart kingdoms, and its deep pride in its Reformation, which it had instituted largely on its own without the help of a monarch.[7] In Scotland, the king’s religious policy acted within the British context of three kingdoms and the historical context of differing paces of Reformation to generate the Covenant to defend king, rights of Parliament, and the reformed religion. His decision to raise an army to suppress the Covenanters by force led to armed conflict in the form of the Bishops’ Wars from 1639-40.[8]

The Tudor and Jacobean Legacy in Ireland In Ireland, however, the circumstances surrounding Charles’s political difficulties were somewhat different from the circumstances in England and Scotland. In his other two kingdoms, Charles ruled much more directly, and this resulted in his attempts to impose unpopular fiscal policy and uniform religion along English lines, attempts that were crucial to the foundation of popular and parliamentary resistance to his rule. Conversely, in Ireland, Charles did not rule directly, but appointed a Lord Deputy to rule on his behalf. From 1632-9, this was Lord Thomas Wentworth, later the Earl of Strafford, and Robert Foster argues that it was less “religious commitment and a national grievance against foreign rule” than English government after 1603 and particularly Wentworth’s alienating policies that fostered rebellion in Ireland.[9] However, while this argument has merit in that Wentworth did indeed pursue policies that counteracted the interests of not only the Old English in the refusal of key aspects of the Graces, but also the New English in the imposition of Laudian reforms in the highly Calvinist Church of Ireland, and thus accounts for the united Irish Parliamentary opposition to Wentworth and the king as symbolised by the Humble and Just Remonstrance of November 1640, it does not explain the Catholic revolt against Protestants in Ulster in October 1641. In this last revolt, Catholic and Protestant division within Ireland superseded any unity against Wentworth’s administration.

Despite Michael Perceval-Maxwell’s argument that Ireland as part of a triple monarchy was “inherently unstable”, and thus it was poor management of policy that contributed to Irish revolt in 1641, consideration of Tudor or Jacobean imperial rule over Ireland serves to modify the implications of that argument.[10] James reordered the Irish state more completely along English lines of law and government; he meddled with Catholic aristocratic wardships in favour of his New English subjects; and he pursued a more forceful policy of plantation in Ulster and elsewhere.[11] By these measures, he not only set into motion a process of increasing alienation of the traditionally loyal Old English as well as the Gaelic Irish, but also exacerbated ethnic and religious divisions in Ireland already created by Tudor rule and the establishment of the Protestant Church of Ireland. The Church was identified closely with the New English settlers and inhibited from fostering support for the English monarchs through conversions by structural and personnel limitations and its own doctrinal predilection toward a strict Calvinist and apocalyptic interpretation of salvation. Thus, in Ireland more than in Scotland or England, a Tudor and Jacobean legacy laid the foundations for resentment and resistance to an English monarch.

Suggested links for further reading • http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=13818 (Book review of The Constitutionalist Revolution by Alan Cromartie) • http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/361/361-25.htm (Short summary of the Personal Rule from 1629-1640) • http://bcw-project.org/church-and-state/the-kings-peace/personal-rule (Another short summary of the Personal Rule from 1629-1640) • http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-229X.2009.00476_27.x/abstract (On Ireland. Only available if you are a member of a university that subscribes to this website.) • http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=23591 (Book review of Divided Kingdom by Sean Connolly; the sequel to Contested Island) • http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/english_civil-war.htm (Summary of the causes of the English Civil War) • http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Timeline-for-causes-of-the-English-Civil-War.htm (Timeline)

[1] K. Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven, 1992), pp. 105-130, 537-600 [2] Sharpe, The Personal Rule, pp. 537-600 [3] C. Holmes, Why Was Charles I Executed? (London, 2006), pp. 1-34 [4] A. Cromartie, The Constitutionalist Revolution (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 234-274 [5] K.M. Brown, Kingdom or Province? Scotland and the Regal Union, 1603-1715 (Basingstoke, 1992), pp. 86-111 [6] A. Hughes, The Causes of the English Civil War (Basingstoke, 1991), pp. 58-113 [7] Russell, The Causes, pp. 109-130 [8] D.L. Smith, A History of the Modern British Isles, 1603-1707: The Double Crown (Oxford, 1998) pp. 105-130

[9] R. Foster, Modern Ireland, 1600-1972 (London, 1988), pp. 36-58 [10] M. Perceval-Maxwell, ‘Ireland and the Monarchy in the Early Stuart Multiple Kingdom’, The Historical Journal, 34 (1991), pp. 279-295 [11] S.J. Connolly, Contested Island: Ireland, 1460-1630 (Oxford, 2007), pp. 278-332

2. King (In) Parliament The term ‘parliament’ refers to ‘the act of having a conversation or to a general meeting where discussion took place’. Whilst parliaments themselves changed in size, duties and sometimes structure, it is arguable that their function in the eyes of the English monarchy never veered from this general definition. ‘Parliaments’ were: (1) ‘special meetings of the king’s council (2) to which a wider group of participants was summoned (3) to provide general advice to the king and (4) to give consent on behalf of a wider national community to royal taxation and legislation’. Parliaments were an organ of monarchical rule, used or ignored at the king’s pleasure. However, what kings believed and how their subjects behaved were often very two very different things. In the decade leading up to the English Civil War, many of the English people perceived an increasing gulf between the interests of the nation and the interests of the monarch. The ensuing conflict manifested itself in an argument about power: where the king’s ended and parliaments’ began.

Legislation Few historians would disagree that ‘the function of parliament was to make laws’.[1] The controversy lies in whether the meaning of parliaments’ legislative role changed. Did parliaments become more important in the eyes of the nation? Did their image stay stagnant, but their actual impact grow? Edward Coke put forth a theory based on the medieval notion of plenitudo potestatis. Having first arisen in the conflict between royal and clerical power, the latter of which looked to the foreign authority of the pope, this notion stated that England, as an autonomous political unit of the highest order’, owed subjection to no earthly power. Coke argued that the common law to which England adhered was also autonomous; it was the natural law as applied to England. Parliament, as the highest court in the land, was also naturally the body from which the common law derived its authority. English fundamental law was ‘as parliament without the king declared it’.[2] Bodin championed the opposite theory to Coke’s parliamentary sovereignty: monarchical absolutism. Sovereignty could not be be divided or shared. No part of sovereignty was alienable without the destruction of the whole. Fortescue’s ‘dominium politicum et regale’ sought to bridge the gap between these two polarities. To Fortescue, England’s monarchy was one ‘whose power ran in tow channels’: the political, which was subject to law; and the regal, which was not. But the question that this posed was, where did one begin and the other end? One example of

the confusion Fortescuean ideas of ‘mixed government’ led to can be found in the 1628 case about ship money. Ship money was a tax traditionally applied only to coastal towns during times of war. However, in 1634 Charles I began to apply the tax to all parishes, and during peacetime. Proponents of ship money argued that in emergencies, the crown could go beyond the common, ‘political’ law. Their opponents, on the other hand, denied that the emergency was not on such a scale that it was necessary to suspend the common law. Consider how the persons you are representing would view the legislative role of parliament and the prerogatives of the king, and how the events of the 1630s and during the crisis itself would change their opinions.

Fiscal In legislation, I have considered parliaments as a whole, and not in its two parts. Such an approach is inadvisable in regards to parliaments’ other functions, for the House of Lords and the House of Commons exercised these functions, the first of which was fiscal, differently. Whereas the Lords answered for themselves in agreeing to financing the crown, the Commons was seen to answer for all the constituents that had, in theory, elected them. The Commons’ impact on crown decisions as a source of supply was thus far more significant than that of the Lords’. Under the Stuarts, whose lavish expenditure did nothing to alleviate the pains of rising inflation and shrunken crown estates, it was the Commons’ financial role that had real potential for change. This change, in the atmosphere of growing mistrust between parliament and king in the reign of Charles I, was a major cause of discord. Distrustful of his father’s profligacy, the Commons decided to grant Charles I ‘tunnage and poundage for one year only’. Unwilling to throw money at an expensive land-based campaign in Europe, it provided Charles with only a fifth of the funds needed to run that campaign. Charles’s extra-parliamentary implementation of the Forced Loan alone produced more than that amount. [3] In light of this, it is not surprising that Charles decided to do away with parliaments altogether, and ‘live of his own’ in the 11 years of his Personal Rule. However, as Charles’s extra-parliamentary measures proved less and less effective, with income from ship money dropping drastically from 1634 to 1637, it can be argued that one reason for his calling of parliament, other than the shorter-term emergency of the Bishops’ Wars, was the Crown’s financial need. As the Privy Council, consider if and how your represented individual would choose to hinder or facilitate the Commons’ exploitation of this need for the redress of its grievances.

Judicial For the Commons, little changed in regards to parliaments’ judicial role. Thrush recorded the Commons’ failure to regulate judges and courts in the years 1604-29, and Roberts commented on its insistent, but failed attempts to ‘dictate’ to the Lords in matters of impeachment. Conversely, Thrush noted the greater success Commons’ judicial efforts when ‘in concert’ with the Lords, as in impeachment, where the Commons played the role of prosecutor and the Lords of judge. Furthermore, Peacey and Smith both refer to the revival and growing effectiveness of the Lords’ judicial role.[4] As can be seen, despite the fact that both Houses had once played judicial roles, fallen into disuse in Tudor England, the differing nature of and the specific means of exercising this role that each House had, meant that the judicial role of parliaments did not change uniformly between 1558 and 1640. Whereas the Commons failed to permanently or substantially regain its judicial role, the Lords, possessed of the legal right to judge in impeachment, and equipped with legal experts as assistants to its members, revived and, through its efficiency, increased the impact and prestige of its judicial role on the nation. The Star Chamber was an English court of law made up of privy councillors like yourselves, as well as common law judges. Held in secret, with no indictments, and no witnesses, it has become a political weapon. Charles I used it as a substitute for the Supreme Court of parliament during his Personal Rule, using it to protect his implementation of the ship money tax and also his policies in regards to the English Church. Now that Parliament has been called, how does the increasing importance of the Lords as a judicial body threaten Star Chamber? How can you use Star Chamber to your advantage?

Advisory What hindsight has depicted as the ‘political’ rise of parliament fails to take note of contemporary perceptions. The early modern parliament member did not see his role as ‘political. He did not see himself as   a ‘counterbalance’ to the misuse of monarchical power. Rather, he saw himself as an advisor to the king, called upon when the latter wished to consult a greater proportion of his subjects than was available at court.[5] Nonetheless, in 1621, James I’s exclusion of Parliament from religious and foreign affairs, namely the proposed marriage of his son to a Spanish or French Catholic princess, sparked ‘argument over the proper purposes of parliament’. Elizabeth’s exclusion from such had met only with futile resentment.[6] Clearly, even if parliaments’ image of itself was slow to change, its definition of the reach and gravity of its counsel was changing.

Voice of the King and Voice of the People The Lords communicated to and represented only themselves. The Commons, on the other hand, communicated the king’s policies and explanations to the people, and represented the grievances of the people in front of the king. Hirst believed that the Commons did carry out its representative function to more genuine effect in the years between 1558 and 1640. The increase over time of electoral contests and voter participation suggests that there was a greater correlation between the people’s grievances and the concerns put forward by the elite in parliaments. This improved representativeness was, nonetheless, limited largely to the middle classes. Furthermore, it did not indicate an increased receptiveness or responsiveness on the part of the monarch to the grievances brought before him by the commons’ representatives.[7] Receptiveness and responsiveness to grievance seemed a result of the government’s executive character, and not of any change to parliaments’ representative and communicative roles. Munden, for example, emphasised James’s personal commitment to reform of petitioned grievances in 1604, a commitment that his son did not share. It can be argued, instead, that the monarch continued to use parliaments’ representative and communicative functions the same reasons: as a means to devolve responsibility for controversial decisions onto the elite, who would have to implement them in the counties, and to ‘convey a message’ to the commons as a whole. As Elizabeth had used the 1558 parliament to repeal Mary’s treason legislation and the 1572 parliament to disperse responsibility for the Queen of Scots’ fate, James attempted in 1604 to achieve the acceptance by parliament of eventual union with Scotland, and thus, presumably, the acceptance of such by all his near-racially intolerant subjects.[8] As the Privy Council, would you and how could you make use of parliament and other means of testing public opinion to further either the agenda of the Council, or your own? Keep in mind, also, how your actions will influence the people. Represented in the process of political decision-making or not, they have ways of making those decisions bitter ones.

Conclusion At the beginning of the English Civil War, the king-in-parliament was considered the highest authority in the land. Statutes, the foundation of English law, could be passed into existence only with the agreement of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the king, in that order of priority. Now, as parliament and king are driven apart, and parliaments itself is torn asunder by the seething tensions of religious and political change, the king-in-parliament could very well lose its role as the greatest source of political legitimacy. In fact, some will begin to ask: when king and parliament collide, who must eventually bow to who?

Suggested links for further reading Some of these should be available in part through Google Books or as PDF documents, particularly A Short History of Parliaments. Russell is another important author that you should read. Anything by him that available online should be good. Developing your own ideas and conclusions is encouraged, as the version of events presented in this essay is only one of several arguments. As you will discover when reading Russell, even my references to ‘parliament(s)’ and not ‘Parliament’ is a source of contention!

[1] G.R. Elton, ‘Parliament in the sixteenth century: functions and fortunes’, The Historical Journal, 22 (1979), 260. [2] A. Cromartie, ‘The constitutionalist revolution: the transformation of political culture in early Stuart England’, Past and Present, 163 (1999), 76-120; M. Mendle, ‘Parliamentary sovereignty: a very English absolutism’, in N. Phillipson and Q. Skinner (eds.), Political Discourse in Early Modern Britain (1993), 97-119. [3] D.L. Smith, The Stuart Parliaments 1603-1689 (1999), 173-5. [4] A. Thrush (ed.), The House of Commons 1604-1629 (6 vols., 2010), I, 1-42; S.K. Roberts, ‘The House of Lords, 1660-1707, D.L Smith, ‘The House of Lords, 1529-1629’, J. Peacey, ‘The House of Lords and ‘the Other House’, 1640-1660’, 46, in Clyve Jones (ed.), A Short History of Parliament (2009), 68, 35, 46. [5] G.R. Elton, ‘Parliament in the sixteenth century: functions and fortunes’, Historical Journal, 22 (1979), 255; M.A.R Graves, The Tudor Parliaments: Crown, Lords and Commons, 1485-1603 (1985), 154-8. [6] A. Thrush (ed.), The House of Commons 1604-1629 (6 vols., 2010), 31; P. Seaward, The Cavalier Parliament and the Reconstruction of the Old Regime, 1661-1667 (1989), 71-99.   [7] D. Hirst, The Representative of the People? Voters and Voting in England under the Early Stuarts (1975). [8] R.C. Munden, James I and ‘the growth of mutual distrust’: King, Commons, and Reform 1603-1604’, in K. Sharpe (ed.), Faction & Parliament. Essays on Early Stuart History (1978), 43-72; J. Loach, Parliament under the Tudors (1991), 7; G.R. Elton, ‘Parliament in the sixteenth century: functions and fortunes’, The Historical Journal, 22 (1979), 257. [9] A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Year 1783, with Notes and Other Illustrations, vol. 3 (http://books.google.com.my/books? id=iggyAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA486&lpg=PA486&dq=1637+star+chamber+bishop+williams+of +lincoln&source=bl&ots=ntbKVQP9PA&sig=mnZb3U_S5B3UIAWJdI5VcB3s1I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wPjNU_JNYjY7Aanw4CYDQ&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=john%20lilburn&f=false)

Timeline of Significant Events Note: It would be useful to look up any terms you don’t know e.g. government organs, treaties etc. 1629

14 April - Treaty of Susa ends war with France

1630

28 January - Commission appointed to impose fines on those landowners worth £40 or more per annum who had not received a knighthood August - Exchequer (management and collection of taxes and revenues) judges confirm the King’s right to impose knighthood fines 5 November - Treaty of Madrid ends war with Spain

1631

January - Charles and the Privy Council issue new Book of Orders

1632

12 January - Thomas Wentworth appointed Lord Deputy of Ireland 15 June - Sir Francis Windebank appointed Secretary of State 20 June - Proclamation commanding nobility and gentry to return to their counties from London within 40 days

1633

February - At Laud’s instigation, Exchequer abolishes the Feoffees for Impropriations because of their Puritan sympathies February - William Prynne sent to the Tower for publishing Histriomastix: his denunciation of stage-plays and ‘female actors’ was seen as an attack on the Queen’s participation in Court masques 18 June - Charles I crowned at Holyrood in Scotland 23 July - Wentworth arrives in Dublin 6 August - William Laud nominated as Archbishop of Canterbury 18 October - Charles reissues the Book of Sports November - St Gregory’s Case: King and Privy Council rule that the bishop should have the right to decide the position of communion tables in each diocese Charles and Laud issue instructions that only ministers of parishes can preach sermons

1634

May - Prynne’s first trial by Star Chamber: sentenced to lose his ears 14 July - Irish Parliament meets: Wentworth blocks statutory confirmation of the ‘graces’ Summer - Beginning of systematic exploitation of forest fines to raise revenue October - Ship money levied on coastal towns and counties 10 December - Irish Convocation adopts Thirty-Nine Articles 12 December - Charles admits Gregorio Panzani to court: first papal agent at the English court since 1558

1635

March - Lord Balmerino convicted of treason and sentenced to death for opposing religious changes, but later pardoned (July) April - New Book of Rates issued, increasing customs duties August - Ship Money extended to inland counties: levied annually until 1639

1636

January - Scottish Canons promulgated 6 March - Bishop Juxon of London appointed Lord Treasurer: first clerical Lord Treasurer appointed since 1469 April - George Con succeeds Panzani as papal agent at court

1637

June - Trial of William Prynne, Henry Burton and John Bastwick by Star Chamber for criticising Laudian innovations: sentenced to be fined, imprisoned, and to lose their ears (the stumps in Prynne’s case) 11 July - Bishop Williams of Lincoln fined by Star Chamber and imprisoned for attacking Laudian altar policy 23 July - Introduction of the new Scottish Prayer Book provokes riots in Edinburgh

1638

February - Trail of John Lilburne by Star Chamber for circulating Puritan literature; sentenced to be whipped February - National Covenant drawn up in Scotland to maintain the ‘true religion, liberties and laws of the kingdom’ June - John Hampden’s Case: judges rule in favour of the king’s right to levy ship money by seven votes to five June-September - Hamilton pays visits to Scotland to negotiate with Scottish Covenanters September - Charles withdraws the Scottish Prayer Book and agrees to call Scottish Parliament and General Assembly November - Scottish General Assembly abolishes episcopacy; Charles resolves to quell Covenanting movement by force

1639

June - First Bishops’ War: English and Scottish armies confront each other at Kelso without coming to blows; Pacification of Berwick Summer - Charles agrees to Spanish troops marching across southern England on their way to the Dutch Republic Summer-autumn - Only £43,417 paid out of £214,000 assessed, compared to a yield of over 90% in the year October 1637-September 1638 22 September - Wentworth arrives in England

1640

12 January - Wentworth created Earl of Strafford 20 February - Charles summons a new Parliament for 13 April 5 May - Short Parliament dissolved: Charles fails to secure supply for another campaign against the Scots; he nevertheless prepares to attack Scotland May - Convocation passes 17 Canons 11 June - Scottish Triennial Act August - Montrose and 17 other Scottish Lords sign Cumbernauld Band against the Covenanters 28 August - Scots rout English forces at Newburn and gain control of northeast of England; 12 Peers submit Petition to Charles condemning royal policies and requesting the recall of Parliament 21 October - The Truce of Ripon: Scots to received £850 a day and to remain in northeast of England until a settlement is agreed and confirmed by the English Parliament 3 November - Long Parliament assembles

Roles Lord President of the Council (Position geld by the Director) Edward Conway was the son of Sir John Conway of Arrow. In 1596, he commanded a regiment at the sack of Cadiz in 1596, where he was also knighted. He then served as governor of Brill in the Netherlands. In 1622, he was appointed to the Privy Council. In 1624/5, he was created Baron Conway; and in 1627, he was created Viscount Conway, and received the Irish peerage title of Viscount Killultagh. He was appointed Lord President of the Council in 1628. (Note: The historical Sir Edward Conway died in 1631. However, because it is unknown who next held the position of Lord President of the Council until 1679, the Crisis Team has taken liberties with historical accuracy, and extended his tenure.) (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Conway,_1st_Viscount_Conway)

Lord Keeper (Position held by the Assistant Director) John Finch was the son of Sir Henry Finch of Eastwell, Kent. He attended Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and later Gray’s Inn. He was called to the bar in 1611. In 1626, he became King’s Counsel. He served as Member of Parliament for Canterbury three times, in 1621, 1626, and 1628; the third time, he was elected Speaker, a position he retained until Charles I dissolved Parliament. In 1634, Finch was appointed chief justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and upheld the king’s prerogative with active zeal. His judgement was brutal, especially noted in the cases of the Puritans William Prynne and

John Langton. He was primarily responsible for the decision of the judges that Ship Money was constitutional. In 1640, he was appointed Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England, and created Baron Finch of Fordwich. His responsibility as Lord Keeper is to discharge all duties connected with the great seal. He was so unpopular that one of the first acts of the Long Parliament in 1640 was his impeachment. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Finch,_1st_Baron_Finch)

Lord Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud was born to a wealthy clothing merchant, and educated at St. John’s College at Oxford University. He was ordained in April 1601, and thereafter was swiftly promoted within the church as a result of his patron, the Duke of Buckingham. In 1633, he was translated from the bishopric of London to the archbishopric of Canterbury, the foremost clerical position in England. He began to exercise real political power with Charles’s succession to the throne in 1625, elevating the position of the clergy and emphasising the visible church. Radical puritans in England accused Laud of ‘popery’, the Scottish were outraged at his attempt to enforce religious uniformity in the English tradition on the Scottish kirk, and the Irish New English resented the Laudian Irish canons. Deeply unpopular in England, he was one of the first to be arrested and impeached by the Long Parliament. (Sources: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Archbishop-William-Laud.htm   http://bcw-project.org/biography/archbishop-william-laud)

Lord Archbishop of York Richard Neile was the son of a tallow-chandler. He was sent to St. John’s College, Cambridge, by the wife of the Lord Treasurer, on the recommendation of the dean of Westminster. In 1608, he was elected Bishop of Rochester, and appointed Laud his chaplain. Thereafter, he was keenly interested in Laud’s advancement, procuring his chaplain’s election to the presidency of St. John’s College. In the 1614 debate in the House of Lords on the Commons’ demand for a conference on the impositions, Neile increased his own prominence with a violent attack upon the Commons and a strong declaration for the royal prerogative. Finally, he was forced to apologise, but the Commons continued with recriminations until the king dissolved Parliament. In 1627, Neile was sworn of the Privy Council. He was now recognised as one of the most prominent members of a ‘Laudian’ faction. The Commons accused him of silencing all opposition to popery. To compensate for this, he displayed uncompromising severity towards Catholic recusants. In 1631, he was enthroned as Archbishop of York. (Source: http://bob.fooguru.org/content/bio/RichardNeile.html)

Lord High Treasurer (William Juxon) William Juxon was educated at St. John’s College, Oxford, where he studied law. He was Bishop of London from 1633 to 1649. In 1636, he was appointed Lord High Treasurer of England, responsible for government finances and spending. He was well-liked by Parliament and by the king. During his lifetime, he had a reputation for strict honesty, loyalty to Church and king, and great charity to the poor. (Source: http://www.vauxhallcivicsociety.org.uk/history/william-juxon/)

Lord Privy Seal Henry Montagu was the grandson of Sir Edward Montagu, Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench from 1539 to 1545. He was educated at Christ’s College, Cambridge. In 1616, he was made Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, and in 1620, he was appointed Lord High Treasurer and raised to the peerage as Baron Montagu of Kimbolton, Huntingdonshire, and Viscount Mandeville. He became President of the Council in 1621, and created Earl of Manchester in 1626. In 1628, he became Lord Privy Seal, responsible for the monarch’s private (privy) seal. Although inclined from his first entry into Parliament in 1601 to the popular side of politics, he managed to retain the favour of the King. He was a judge of the Star Chamber, and one of the most trusted counsellors of Charles I. Clarendon praised his loyalty, ability, and honesty. In conjunction with the Lord Keeper, he pronounced an opinion in favour of the legality of Ship Money in 1634. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Montagu,_1st_Earl_of_Manchester)

Lord Duke of Lennox James Stuart, fourth duke of Lennox and first duke of Richmond, was a cousin of James VI and I and of Charles I, with a claim to the Scottish but not the English throne. In receipt of a royal pension of £1400 a year, Lennox became a gentleman of the bedchamber in 1625, was knighted in 1630, and was created appointed to the Privy Council in 1633. He accompanied Charles I to his Scottish coronation in 1634. He was appointed to several local English offices, notably Lord Lieutenant of Hampshire in 1635, Keeper of Richmond Park in 1638, and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports in 1640. His Scottish lands were small and unprofitable, but he owned extensive estates in England. Lennox was deeply loyal to the crown. In 1637, the covenanters hoped he would represent their case to the king, but Lennox defended king as having been misinformed. He questioned the wisdom of war with the Scots, but supported the king once the decision was made. (Source: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/26707)

Lord High Chamberlain Robert Bertie’s godmother was Queen Elizabeth I. He served in the army of Christian IV of Denmark in 1612 and in the Netherlands under Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange in 1624. At the time, the long Continental wars during the peaceful reign of James I and VI were treated by the English nobility as schools of arms. In 1626, he was created Earl of Lindsey, and served as vice-admiral to the Duke of Buckingham on the expedition to liberate La Rochelle in 1627. Upon his return to England after the failure of the expedition, he was appointed to the King’s Privy Council. In 1629, he was appointed Lord-Lieutenant of Lincolnshire, and in 1630, he became a Knight of the Garter. Five years later, he was appointed Admiral of the first of the Ship Money fleets, but was later rejected for the office of Lord High Admiral in favour of Algernon Percy, Earl of Northumberland. As a member of the House of Lords, he was a firm supporter of the King. His appointment to the office of Lord High Chamberlain took place in 1625, and gave him duties regarding coronations, the opening of Parliament, and responsibilities of the Palace of Westminster. He was also the channel of communication between the King and the House of Commons. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bertie,_1st_Earl_of_Lindsey http://bcw-project.org/biography/robert-bertie-earl-of-lindsey)

Lord High Admiral Algernon Percy was the eldest surviving son of Henry Percy, ninth Earl of Northumberland. The ninth Earl was accused in 1605 of either participation or complicity in the Gunpowder Plot, and thereafter imprisoned in the Tower of London until 1621. Nonetheless, he exerted influence over Algernon’s education, and Algernon stayed with his father in the Tower for four or five days at a time. In 1615, he was sent to study at St. John’s College, Cambridge. In 1618, he began a six-year tour of continental Europe with his tutor, Edward Douse. His first public service involved serving as Member of Parliament for Sussex in 1624-5, and for Chichester in 1625-6. He led the House of Lords faction opposed to Charles I’s favourite, the Duke of Buckingham. He succeeded his father as Earl of Northumberland in 1632. In 1636-7, he was appointed admiral of the Ship Money fleet. He was unenthusiastic about his second expedition as admiral, which was to transport Spanish money to the Netherlands in 1637, as he was politically strongly pro-French and anti-Spanish. In 1638, two of his prominent supporters at court, Thomas Wentworth and William Laud used their influence to have him made Lord High Admiral of England, a position that gave him command of the navy. Northumberland did not favour war with Scotland in 1637, defeatist about the possibility of beating the Covenanters and fearing that his estates in northern England would be occupied. As such, when Wentworth had him appointed general of the English forces in 1640, he was happy to let illness prevent him from joining the army in the field. He was one of only two members in May 1640 who opposed the dissolution of the Short Parliament, a move that confirmed his political break with Wentworth and put him out of favour with the King. He later became one of the leading critics of royal policy.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algernon_Percy,_10th_Earl_of_Northumberland)

Earl of Bridgewater (John Egerton, First Earl of Bridgewater) John Egerton was the son of Thomas Egerton, first Viscount Brackley. He served as a Member of Parliament for Callington from 1597 to 1598, and for Shropshire in 1601. He succeeded to his father’s titles in March 1617, and was created Earl of Bridgewater in May of the same year. In 1626, he was sworn of the Privy Council. Between 1631 and 1642, he was Lord President of Wales and Lord Lieutenant of Wales and the Marches of Herefordshire, Monmouthshire, Shropshire, and Worcestershire. He defended the King in Parliament and protected Welsh interests. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Egerton,_1st_Earl_of_Bridgewater)

Mr. Comptroller (Sir Thomas Jermyn, to be replaced by Sir Peter Wyche, formerly ambassador to the Ottoman Empire) Thomas Jermyn served under the second Earl of Essex in his later military campaigns. On James I’s ascension, he was granted a place in the Privy Chamber. He had a reputation for being ugly and awkward, but was highly regarded for his skill at falconry. After the dissolution, unlike many advocates of entering the war in Europe on religious grounds, he was not averse to the proposed Spanish Match between Charles, then the Prince of Wales, and the Infanta of Spain. However, in 1625, he urged that relations with Spain should be immediately severed, assuming that war was inevitable. Jermyn supported the Duke of Buckingham, admitting that the duke was guilty of ‘great indiscretion and rashness’, but that wise men were not always wise. In 1628, he pleaded with the Commons to put supply ahead of their grievances. Though he supported the Petition of Right, he warned that Parliament should look forward, not back, when John Eliot sought to follow up to the Petition by pursuing charges against Buckingham. Financial difficulties after the dissolution of Parliament prompted Jermyn to seek a post at Court. He succeeded Sir Humphrey May as Vice-Chamberlain of the Household, and was promoted to the comptrollership in 1639, the latter position which gave him the duty of supervising the expenditures of the King’s Household. He was re-elected to both the Short and Long Parliaments of 1640, in which he again acted as a spokesman for the King. (Source: http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/jermyn-sirthomas-1573-1645)

Mr. Secretary Windebanke (Francis) Francis Windebanke was the only son of Sir Thomas Windebank of Lincolnshire, whose patron was the Cecil family. In 1599, Francis enrolled at St John’s College, Oxford, where Laud’s ideas influenced him. A division between the two only occurred in 1635, when Laud discovered his efforts as treasury commissioner to shield corruption. After

travelling for a few years in Europe (1605-8), he settled in Berkshire and was employed in minor public offices. He became Secretary to the Privy Council in 1632, responsible for carrying out the monarch’s official correspondence and for advising the crown. A radical, Francis believes that subversive tactics are acceptable as long as the aim is purity in religion. He has Spanish and Roman Catholic sympathies. In 1635, he was appointed to discuss with the papal agent Gregorio Panzani the possibility of a union between the Anglican and Roman Churches. In 1636, he was briefly disgraced for issuing an order for the conveyance of Spanish money to pay the Spanish troops in the Netherlands, one of many actions he took as part of an inner group in the Council that facilitated secret negotiations between the king and other parties, notably Spain. Lord Cottington was also a member of this group. In 1640, he sent an appeal from Queen Henrietta Maria to the pope for money and men. He was elected to the Short Parliament in March and has been elected to the Long Parliament as member of Corfe Castle. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Windebank)

Earl of Strafford (Thomas Wentworth, First Earl of Strafford) Thomas Wentworth was born in London, the second son of Sir William Wentworth. He was educated at St John’s College, Cambridge, and studied law at the Inner Temple in 1607.  He inherited a baronetcy on the death of his father in 1614 and was elected to the Parliament of 1614 as MP for Yorkshire. He was regularly elected to subsequent parliaments under James VI and I and Charles I. He often found himself in political opposition to Charles, due to his bitter personal feud with Sir John Savile, a client of the influential Duke of Buckingham. He refused to pay the Forced Loan, and as such was imprisoned for six months in 1627. Despite this, he argued for greater moderation in the Petition of Right in 1628, but lost to Sir John Eliot’s and Sir Edward Coke’s radicalism. After Buckingham’s assassination in 1628 and the hasty conclusion of the wars against France and Spain, he declared his fundamental loyalty to the crown. As Charles’s lordpresident of the Council of the North, he established himself as a competent and efficient administrator, and became a Privy Councillor in May 1629. His third wife, Elizabeth Rodes, is the daughter of a prominent Yorkshire Puritan. In 1632, Wentworth was appointed Lord Deputy of Ireland. In alliance with Laud, Wentworth developed a policy of centralisation known as ‘Thorough’, by which they managed the adminstration of Church and State. Charles dominated the Irish parliament by political manoeuvring, and built an Irish army with the aid of the Earl of Ormond. However, his despotic methods alienated the Catholic ‘Old English’ by promoting the interests of the Protestant ‘New English’ and furthering the policy of plantation, and alienated the ‘New English’ by introducing Laud’s anti-Puritan reforms and imposing new taxes. In 1640, he was elevated to the position of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, empowering him to govern Ireland in his absence through a deputy. He was also created first Earl of Strafford. Strafford coerced the Irish Parliament into granting funds to raise an Irish army against the Scots. He also advised the King to summon an English Parliament to ask for more

money. Strafford encouraged Charles not to capitulate to the Short Parliament’s demands for redress of their grievances. But Charles’s defeat in the Second Bishops’ War, before Irish troops could be deployed, forced the king to call the Long Parliament in November 1640. (Source: http://bcw-project.org/biography/thomas-wentworth-earl-of-strafford)