Religious Conflict in Creating a Parliamentary Challenge and Royal Authority in the Years 1529- 1649 - Essay Example

ESSAY QUESTION: “ASSESS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RELIGIOUS CONFLICTS IN CREATING A PARLIAMENTARY CHALLENGE TO THE ROYAL ITY IN THE YEARS 1529- 1649”By Presented to Introduction James I of Scotland inherited the England throne in 1603, being the nearest relative of the preceding monarch. He was largely welcomed in England because it was expected and also it was not unusual that one monarch could rule over different states. However, before his death in 1625, he had strained relations with his English subjects. This was characterized by unending disagreements and tensions in the parliament. Upon his death, he was succeeded by Charles I who had been playing an active role in the government earlier on. The difficulties in James’ reign were passed on to the time of Charles and they were a major course of the conflict that occurred in 1629 (Kamen, 2005). The open conflict that developed between the King and parliament in 1629 arose from a series of clashes that had begun when Charles I succeeded to the throne in 1625, but its root course laid much deeper intensions that had existed since 1603. Discussion The reign of James I, 1603- 1625 James had inherited a monarch with conditions of a mixed inheritance from his predecessors. On one hand, he had inherited a very stable system of government where the royal power was accepted and also exercised through a legal system which drew from the common law in the kingdom. There were also areas where direct power was exercised through the royal prerogative. The society he inherited was relatively prosperous and well ordered with characteristics of increased education and able administrators (Noble, Strauss, Osheim, Nauschel and Accampo, 2010). During the same time, he was the head of the Church of England and so he had the responsibility of very contentious issues that could affect individuals in the society. He was also faced with major financial problems which were worsened by the war against Catholic Spain and the rebellion in Catholic Ireland. James religious policies Most of Elizabeth’s subjects welcomed the accession of James I into power because being a male protestant king with several children; he offered the prospects of security and stable succession. Catholics hoped that the respect for his dead mother, Mary queen of Scots would make him ease the persecution they suffered. The puritans on the other hand hoped that his upbringing in the Presbyterian church of Scotland would actually favor their plans for reform. However in the long run, both were utterly disappointed because James suspended the collection of fines for recusancy. However he re- imposed them in 1604 when he was faced with complaints in his parliament and thus feared the loss of income (Noble et al, 2010). His move led an extremist minority to look for help from Spain and this led to the Gun powder Plot in 1605 where the Catholic conspirators attempted to blow up the parliament while the king was present. The hopes of the Puritans which were expressed in the Milliner Petition did not survive either. James agreed to meet them at a conference held in Hampton Court in 1504 but while at the meeting he rejected their ideas. He also warned them that if they could not conform to the rules set in the Prayer Book, he would ‘harry them out of the kingdom’. James was actually not different from Elizabeth who saw the church in political terms thus he was determined to maintain his control through bishops who were loyal to him. Following his uncompromising character, he appointed the authoritarian Richard Bancroft as the new Archbishop of Canterbury. Bancroft enforced the rules contained in the Anglican prayer book on the use of ceremonies and ceremonial dress and some ministers who failed to conform lost their living. Some people who could not conform eventually left the country and set up their own independent churches in Holland and in the New World where they established Puritan colonies in North America. Most of them however remained within the Anglican Church and conformed to what was expected of them (Campbell, 2012). However, after a few years James had softened his stand after asserting his authority to the people. Although recusancy fines continued to be levied, discreet Catholics could often worship undisturbed for long periods. Puritan ministers who conformed to the Prayer Book could also ignore unpalatable rules and ceremonies in the knowledge of the king. When Bancroft died in 1611, he was replaced by the more sympathetic George Abbot. James did not object the Puritans widespread practice of lay impropriation which enabled many Puritans to be appointed in many parishes. It also enabled Puritan ministers to preach for a living without necessarily undertaking the ceremonial duties required of a parish minister (Kamen, 2005). This arrangement allowed Puritan reformers to coexist with others and also provided a measure of peace in the Anglican Church. In Scotland, James took cautious steps to bring Presbyterian practice in line with the English arrangement. His relations with parliaments The divine rights of kings The house of commons was sensitive on the matter of its rights and privileges. The MPs were also concerned about the king’s extravagant claims to divine power and status. James regarded himself as a political philosopher and in 1598 he had published a book entitled ‘The Law of Free Monarchies’. He also claimed that a just monarch would delight in conforming to his laws because he was above the law (Noble et al, 2010). The house reacted sharply in asserting the rights of the commons so as to determine their own membership. James reminded the MPs that their privileges had been granted by the monarchs and so could be removed in the same way. Union with Scotland When the parliament resembled in 1605 and 1606, a mood of Protestant unity which was created by the Gunpowder Plot led to reconciliation and a parliamentary grant to settle the king’s debts. At the same time, problems were arising in relation to the king’s Scottish background and his desire for an Anglo- Scottish constitutional union. James desired a perfect union which was between the English and Scottish kingdoms. However, many Englishmen were anti-Scottish and the MPs refused the idea that English constitutions could be improved by importing Scottish ideas. Government and Finance, 1603- 1624 By 1607, James had dropped all the ideas of forming a constitutional union between England and Scotland. This was because it was clear that serious conflicts would arise from the financial problems facing his monarch and his failure to recognize this and act accordingly. His generosity to the Scottish nations was majorly resented and his extravagance led to unending quarrels over taxation and revenue allocation throughout his reign. His predecessor Elizabeth had also faced financial problems and this arose from more fundamental weaknesses (Campbell, 2012). Revenue and resources The financial problems faced at the crown were caused by two factors which were; years of rising prices had left royal income increasingly inadequate for government expenses and James was extravagant with some aspects of financial irresponsibility and this worsened the situation (Kamen, 2005). According to the political conventions of that time, a king was expected to live of his own in times of peace. This meant that he was supposed to finance government and his household out of the revenue and custom duties he was allocated at the beginning of his reign. However, by 1603 this had become completely impossible because; 1. There was a combination of inflation and Elizabeth’s sale of crown land to finance the war in Spain before 1600. James had thus inherited a debt of about £100,000. 2. James was a family man and so his expenses were much greater than those of Elizabeth. 3. Elizabeth had failed to update tax assessments in line with inflation. Even when the parliament granted extra taxes, the king received much less than what as intended. Foreign policy and war, 1618- 1623 Since 1604, When James had ended Elizabeth’s war with Spain; he had managed to keep England at peace. This was partly a matter of necessity and on the other hand a matter of preference. He could not be able to finance any military action and he also hoped that by not participating in the religious struggles which engulfed Europe, he could maintain contact with both Catholic and Protestant powers thus acting as a peacemaker (Campbell, 2012). Due to all these pressures, he married his Daughter Elizabeth to a German Protestant prince and also sought a Spanish Catholic wife for his son Charles. Many of his subjects viewed his friendship to the Spanish ambassador with suspicion. Their fear of Catholic influence was exaggerated by the bitter memories of Spanish plots and their threats against Elizabeth. James was hoping to cultivate better relations with Hamburg rulers of Spain by marrying his son Charles to the Infanta Isabella. However the situation worsened by the outbreak of the thirty years war in Europe. The Reign of Charles I 1625- 1649 Individual attitude Charles I was the second son of James I and this had a considerable influence on his reign. He had lived in the shadow of his elder brother Henry until the age of twelve years. Henry was admirable, physically strong, outgoing and an aggressive protestant (Kamen, 2005). These qualities favored him as the heir of the throne of England. He died of a fever in 1612 and now attention was shifted to his brother Charles who was small and sickly. He was shy, could not communicate well, sensitive and lacked confidence in his own abilities. Charles opted for a protective reserve and placed great emphasis on orderly formality. He was a devout Anglican who was undoubtedly protestant in his beliefs but his appreciation of the beauty of holiness represented his secret respect for Catholic views. His lack of confidence was also worrying because his response to opposition was to take refuge in uncertainty and viewing those who disagreed as motivated by malice. He could not accept criticism and thus relied on advice from those who were close to him. Why the relations between the King and Parliament deteriorated so fast The brief alliance of Charles, Buckingham and the House of Commons collapsed when the MPs refused to vote the new king Tonnage and Poundage for more than a year. By agreeing to conduct a naval war and using the resulting subsidies to fund a disastrous land expedition, he had given the MPs every reason to distrust him. Granting the right for the King to levy custom duties for one year was a means of ensuring that a parliament will have to meet at the end of that time but indirectly it was a challenge to the monarch (Kamen, 2005). Charles new reign actually started on the wrong note and this trend continued downhill. As he was freed from the restraints imposed by James, the Duke embarked on an adventurous foreign policy which was actually designed to glorify himself and his king. However the whole experience turned to a disaster due to his lack of planning, failure to attend to detail and unrealistic expectations. In 1926, Charles dissolved his parliament without receiving any financial supply while trying to save a friend. In 1624, Buckingham had negotiated a marriage of Charles to Henrietta Maria, the sister of the French King. The promise was that she would be permitted to practice Catholic religion and that English ships would help to suppress a French Protestant rebellion in La Rochelle. The MPs became furious when in 1626, Buckingham inept diplomacy led to a war with France. In 1627, an expedition was sent to help Protestants in La Rochelle but it failed miserably due to inadequate planning. How tensions developed into a parliamentary crisis As complaints about Buckingham were mounting, Charles knew that he would not obtain any money from the parliament without sacrificing his friend but he could not do this. He was also angry when there was an attempt to call his chosen adviser to account in parliament. He was convinced that he could govern according to his own views and thus moved to obtain money by other means. This was through; Forced loans Charles continued collecting Tunnage and Puddage without parliamentary approval and also demanded a forced loan to be collected by the JPs. Anybody who did not comply with this would be imprisoned and conscripted to the army. While Charles believed that he was merely asserting his right to govern effectively, in real sense he was denying the rule of law and laying a foundation for tyranny. The Petition of Right In 1628, Charles was overwhelmed by a constitutional crisis which he could not handle. England was still at war and in a desperate need for money; he called a new parliament to ask for supply (Kamen, 2005). The Commons put together a petition of right which reversed the judgment on the five knights case and the King was asked to declare that in future there would be no; forced loans, imprisonment without trial, use of free lodging for soldiers in civilian households and use of martial law against civilians. In 1629, when the parliament wanted to prepare a bill to extend the kings right to extend Puddage and Tunnage, Charles said that it was not necessary thus undermining Parliaments control and taxation. Religion and the Church The caution and tactics used by James in making changes to the church had resulted in years of harmony in the organization and role of Bishops. Under the leadership of Bishop Abbot, majority of the Bishops used their powers of enforcement with care. The Calvinist beliefs held by the King and a majority of the bishops reassured Puritan minds and established an Anglican identity which could be accepted by a majority of the population. Conclusion Foreign policy was the major reason for the breakdown of crown parliament relations from 1625 to 1629. However there are other reasons which contributed to this which are; Charles personality and religion and finance (Campbell, 2012). Religion caused great division between the two, with Charles openly supporting anti Calvinism and Montagu and his two writings which made the parliament grow suspicious of his religious intentions. At the beginning of his reign, Charles brought unrest because he was the opposite of his father. This mainly stemmed from his personality flaws since childhood and his stammer that he tried hard to overcome. References Campbell, K. L. 2012. Western civilization: A global comparative approach, since 1600. London: M E Sharpe Inc. Kamen, H. 2005. Spain, 1469- 1714: A study of conflicts. London: Pearson Publishers. Noble, T. F., Strauss, B., Osheim, D, Nauschel, K. and Accampo, E. 2010. Western civilization: Beyond boundaries, volume 2 since 1560 (6th Ed.). London: Cengage Learning Read More