Relationship between Monarchy and Parliament in 1529-1640 - Essay Example

To what extent can changes in the relationship between monarchs and parliament from 1529 to 1640 be seen as crying from the long term financial problems of the monarchy rather than from divisions over the future of the church? Changes in the relationship between monarchy and parliament from 1529-1640 partly arose from ‘divisions over the future of the Church’, but it was Financial problems to a greater extent which caused change. Crown-Parliament hostility was caused by religious divisions which caused Parliament came to question absolute Royal power. But it was the Crown’s longer term financial problems, exacerbated by wars, in some cases were linked to religious tensions that caused parliament long term changes in crown-parliament relation. Comparing the role of parliament before the Tudor Revolution in 1530s and after the Long Parliament in 1640, it stayed the same in general, and yet, significant changes had occurred, providing Parliament with greater power and more functions. Even after the Bishops’ Wars the power of Monarch remained unequalled and Parliament’s jurisdiction was limited mainly to aiding and advising the Crown. Still, as the Parliament evolved, its influence was extended to more and more aspects of the domestic policy. The 1530s are considered by G.R. Elton1 as a key decade in the constitutional history of Britain. Beforehand, late 15th century parliaments were occasions where the King could meet with the elites to discuss their own personal interests, but the Monarch decided when parliament should meet and it gave advice on polices only if advice was rejected. Parliament’s main functions were related to taxation, legislation, and judicial powers. The Monarch could not tax without Parliament’s consent and had to follow the laws of the realm. The King and Parliament together acted as a legislative body which made the laws of the kingdom, and parliament acted as an advisor for the king in terms of policies, though the King selected which issues he asked advice about. The House of Lords was the highest court in the kingdom, and acted as a court of law, while parliament also provided a national forum for discussing local and national grievances. Thus, Parliament acted as a representative body which G.R Elton said provided a ‘point of contact’ between the King and his subjects because it gave a chance for the King to listen to his subjects grievances. However, Parliament essentially represented the landed and urban elites, King, Lords and Commons governed in their mutual self-interest. Sir Thomas Smith observed that ‘the most high and absolute power of the realm of England’ consisted in King–in-parliament. In the 1520’s, during the reign of Henry VIII, King and Parliament had been transmuted into a single entity, King-In-Parliament. It was “a gradual undramatic development”, according to Graves2. The Monarch had become a keystone within Parliament, which was made up of the Crown, Lords and Commons respectively. The new shift of power benefited the Monarch’s position; the divorce of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon serves as the strongest example of the absolute authority of King-In-Parliament. The Roman Catholic Church, the only potential power source independent from the Crown, had lost its influence. The divorce and following marriage of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn proved that King-In-Parliament was the only absolute authority in England, and no external influence could shake its sovereignty. Apart from King, Parliament still was important. For instance, when Charles I was considered as a propagator of Arminianism because of the forced Armenian reforms he introduced in the mainstream protestant church, Parliament reacted with 3 resolutions of 1629: Anyone bringing in popery or Arminianism should be `accounted a capital enemy of the king and kingdom Anyone who should advise the king to collect tonnage and poundage was also a `capital enemy Anyone who should pay tonnage and poundage under these circumstances was a `capital enemy These resolutions showed clearly that Parliament can be satisfied with King’s decisions as long it was kept being informed. By 1601 a lot had changed in Parliament, but all within a recognised framework. The positive relations between the Crown and the governing elites survived even though there were some stresses and strains. ‘Opposition’ to royal policies, even during the reigns of Edward and Mary or in the long Armada War of 1587-1604, never really jeopardized the co-operation and harmony between them. Parliament had dramatically enhanced its authority, but even though harmony and consensus survived intact, the Crown was now an integral part of Parliament was the chief beneficiary and by Henry VIII’s reign ‘one body politic’. The next significant change in Crown-Parliament relations occurred in the 1570s when, members of Parliament began to assert their rights and privileges. Obviously this process met resistance from the Crown. Elizabeth believed that MPs did not hold their privileges by right and as the Lord Keeper wrote in 1593, ‘Her Majesty granteth you liberal but not licentious speech, liberty but with due limitation’. Like Elizabeth, James I did also not accept that MP’s held their MP’s privileges by right, and refused to allow discussion of prerogative matters in the House without his consent. Clashes over the power of the Parliament occurred because some MPs argued that they should decide disputed matters, since all the judges were appointed by the Monarch and this meant that they were not impartial. Conflicts between the Parliament and King included other important issues such as freedom of speech, parliamentary privileges, and impositions until their abolition in 1641. However such conflicts continued without significant impact, leaving the last word to the Monarch. In fact, Parliament sat for less than three years during the forty-five reign of Elizabeth I, and it was completely dissolved by Charles I in 16293, beginning 11 years of personal rule. The situation has changed only in May 11, 1641, when Charles I agreed to the own Consent Act: “… And be it declared and enacted by the King, our Sovereign Lord, with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that this present Parliament now assembled shall not be dissolved unless it be by Act of Parliament to be passed for that purpose…” Another privilege held by MPs was freedom from arrest for offending the Monarch while Parliament was in since early Tudor times though this sometimes provided little protection. In 1593, in Elizabeth’s reign, Peter Wentworth suffered imprisonment for presenting a petition about the succession to the Crown. James I only tried to arrest offending MPs after a Parliamentary session had ended. In 1614, 9 MPs were summoned before the Privy Council, 4 of whom were sent to the Tower of London. In 1621, Sir Edwin Sandys spent a month in the Tower, and in 1622 Sir Edward Coke and Sir Robert Phelips spent the summer in the Tower. Charles I broke with precedent in 1626 when he ordered the arrest of Sir Dudley Digges and Sir John Elliot while Parliament was still in session. Parliament therefore refused to continue unless Charles released them. The effect on imprisonment changed over the years. Under Elizabeth and James I there was a consensus that those punished needed to be restrained4. While imprisonment of MPs restrained dissidence under his predecessors in Charles I’s reign it strengthened opposition by creating ‘martyrs’ of the arrested members. However criticism of royal polices should not be misinterpreted as opposition or as an attempt to seize the political initiative. Parliament was part of the system of royal government (King, Lords and Commons) and it was intended to promote harmony and consensus between King and Subject. On the whole, up until Charles I’s reign it successfully achieved it. The separation of English Church from Roman Catholic Church was a serious stress for England, which suffered from such as ‘Pilgrimage of Grace’ (1536), Kett’s rebellion (1549), Wyatt’s rebellion (1554), Northern rebellion (1569), and so forth. Of course this also had its imprint on relations between Parliament and Crown. However religious issues should not be overestimated. The distancing from Papacy authority started by Henry VIII was developed further by his successors. The Act of Supremacy under Henry VIII, which declared the King Supreme Head of the English Church, was repealed by his daughter Mary I, but reinstated in 1559 under the reign of Elizabeth I. Henry VIII’s first Bible in English published in 1536, was reborn in Edward VI’s Book of Protestant Prayer of 1552, and the Act of Supremacy of 1559 declared the Book of Common Prayer, the only legal form of worship. Catholics who opposed the separation from Papacy were dealt with without mercy. Sir Thomas More was executed in 1535 for treason, refusing to swear to the Act of Succession, which made Anne Boleyns daughter Elizabeth heir to the throne. Although there were other executions of Catholic priests, the hanging, drawing and quartering of the Catholic missionary Edmund Campion for raising sedition was particularly notorious. Campion arrived in England on 24 June 1580 and boldly ministered to Catholics until his arrest in July 15815. Whether he was deliberately courting martyrdom remains unclear. The campaign against Catholic missionary clergy lasted for another decade, serving as a final and most obvious evidence of religious division in England. Needless to say, religious changes met opposition, resulted in revolts and rebellions. The Pilgrimage of Grace during Henry VIII’s rule flashed in Northern England, which was always more conservative and Catholic than the rest of the country. When their monasteries were destroyed and the lands and money seized by Henrys prominent noblemen, the northerners rebelled. Further on, King Edward VI’s religious policy was the major cause of Kett’s rebellion in East Anglia in 1549. A Norfolk gentleman named Robert Kett led a rebellion against the kings religious policies, the dissolution of the monasteries, and the very unpopular enclosure of common lands by greedy noblemen. Another picturesque example of religious discontent was Northern rebellion of 1569. The rebels are led by the earls of Westmorland and Northumberland and the duke of Norfolk; they choose the five wounds of Christ as their symbol, as had the Pilgrimage of Grace rebels. Of course, the population was bewildered and disconcerted by galloping religious changes, but apart from religious division, there were other causes of rebellions: economic, social, and political. It was uneasy time for economics of England. Massive inflation of the 16th century seven times increased the price of grain, and bad harvests caused poverty and unrest in the end. From this viewpoint it can be seen that people blamed the dissolution of the monasteries for poverty because it was perceived that the charity and almsgiving of the monks was important for looking after the poor6. Therefore, not religion, but economics was the real cause of many revolts. Politics and culture also was a serious driving factor of uprisings. The way of life of common folk in 16th century used low birth as an excuse for their poverty. There was a ‘heavenly mission’ for everyone, from beggars to kings, and efforts aimed to rise one’s social status were perceived as actions against the God will. That is why the population was discontent when King’s decisions were made in accordance with advices of low-birth councilors, e.g. Oliver Cromwell. Politically-driven revolts were aimed against the King’s policy, or some ‘enemies of the state’, i.e. evil Kings councillors, the Spanish, rapacious landlords, etc. The religious upheavals in the society were inevitable consequences of too radical and rapid transition from one Church to another. Yet, most of them did not have significant influence over the decisions of Parliament. Most Tudor’s had complex causes. At that time the mask of the fierce Catholic struggling for a return to the pope was a very useful and potent tool for every social manipulator. However, the 1554 Wyatt rebellion was not against the restoration of the Papal Supremacy or Catholicism but against Mary’s marriage to Philip of Spain. His coronation as King of England, the restoration of former monestic and church lands, and Mary’s intended confiscation of the lands of Protestant exiles. Another example of such use occurred in 1579. With financial support from the papacy and ships supplied by Philip II of Spain, the exile James Fitzmaurice Fitzgerald returned to Ireland to raise a revolt against the English. Fitzmaurice was killed shortly afterwards, but the landing triggered a series of risings, forcing England into an expensive conflict that lasted until 1583. His was one of the first rebellions to use the Catholic faith as its explicit justification. Religion did contribute to people’s discontent, but rebellions reflected political, economical and social resentment and tended to push crown and parliament into close co-operation to defeat threats to social stability. In 1529-1640 England was involved with wars both with minor powers, like Ireland and Scotland, and major ones, like France and Spain. The episode known as the ‘War of the Rough Wooing’ lasted from 1544 to 1551 between English Crown and Scotland. In order to enforce the marriage of Edward and Mary Stuart, Edwards uncle and lord protector, Edward Seymour, the Duke of Somerset, invaded Scotland in the summer of 15477. However, the result of the conflict was quite opposite from expected: rather than agree that Mary be married to Edward, the Scots sent their queen to France, where she was betrothed to the Dauphin Francis, the son of Henry II. France became an ally of Scotland. Beginning with 1536, when Henry VIII deposed the Fitzgerald dynasty as Lords Deputy of Ireland starting the re-conquest campaign against Ireland, it became a powder keg at British Monarch’s nose. Even when the re-conquest was almost completed, two bloody rebellions (1569–1573 and 1579–1583), known as Desmond rebellions, took place in the southern province of Munster. Further on, the Nine Years War (1594-1603) led by Hugh O’Neill and aided by Spain developed into a multi-national conflict. Although James I was able to defeat Spanish expeditionary force and stifle the rebellion, it was not for long. During her conquest, Elizabeth I failed to assimilate the native Irish elite, which caused another bloody rebellion of 16418. During the decades in between the end of the Elizabethan wars of conquest in 1603 and the outbreak of rebellion in 1641, Irish Catholics felt themselves to be increasingly threatened by and discriminated against by the English government of Ireland. The bitterness created by the massacres of 1641 proved extremely long lasting. On the other political front the Treaty of Nonsuch signed by Elizabeth I and Netherlands, on August 20, 1585 offered military and financial aid from England. It was initially agreed to supply 400 horses and 4,000 foot soldiers and an annual subsidy of 600,000 florins a year in exchange for Ostend, Brielle and Vlissingen. Eventually this increased to a commitment of 1,000 horse and 6,350 foot. Philip II of Spain who was holding Antwerp in siege took this treaty as a declaration of war from England. Numerous liabilities of the English Crown combined with significant military expenses have led the treasury low. Only James I have signed peace with Spain in 1604, which greatly eased the English governments near bankrupt financial state. When Henry VIII gained Monastic and Church lands he became the richest and most powerful monarch in English history; however, this soon changed when he had sold off about two-thirds of it by 1547 and squandered the assets of about £3.5 million on 6 years war with France and Scotland. By 1552, the Crown was effectively bankrupt and the Tudors never again had sufficient wealth to fight large scale military offensives like France and Spain. Debasement and dissolution continued under Edward VI. Eventually, as Crown began to increase spending, the government became close to bankruptcy. For instance, Elizabeth I spent large parts of Royal treasury on Navy and royal palace building. Even at the start of her reign in 1558 there was a ₤300,000 debt floating over her head; at the end of her reign in 1603 the debt increased to £365,000, and James I inherited the land with more than £400,000 of royal debt. While unmarried Elizabeth I tried to cut down personal spending, James I with a family of a wife and two sons was a much greater spendthrift: by 1606 the royal debt was more than £600,000. Although his actions were beneficial to royal treasury, as he managed to end war with Spain and stifle the Irish rebellion, and by 1610 the royal debt decreased to £280,0009; still the debt continued increasing especially after the beginning of Thirty Years War in Europe in 1618. By 1629 at the early reign of Charles I, the royal debt stood at approximately £2,000,000. Of course, English rulers tried to find alternative sources of financing to Parliament loans. Elizabeth I tried to fix the financial health of the country through creation of ‘recusant fines’ and cutting spending. Finally, she tried to solve the long-term debt problem with short-term sale of crown lands worth £600,000. Unfortunately, this only worsened the situation as less land meant less annual rents, which were among main sources of treasury revenue. Charles I was even more radical. Relying on an all but forgotten feudal statute passed in 1278, requiring anyone who earned £40 or more each year to present himself at the Kings coronation so that he may join the royal army as a knight, Charles fined all individuals who failed to attend his coronation in 1626. Further on, he reintroduced the obsolete feudal tax known as ship money in 1634. Many attempted to resist payment, but Charles Is judges declared that the tax was within the Kings prerogative. In the end, the extreme tax policy of Charles I have laid base for uprisings and further Bishop Wars. Obviously warring with Spain and France at the same time along with unstable situation within England has generated enormous military spending, which Crown could not address. The Elizabethan war with Spain cost England an estimated £4,500,00010. From 1589 to 1603, taxes both direct and indirect were three times the amount raised in the previous 30 years. Parliamentary subsidies totaled £1,560,000 between 1585 and 1603, with requests becoming larger and more frequent through the 1590s to the end of Elizabeth I’s reign. While James I did not send financial support to European allies in Thirty Years War and managed to avoid serious military spending, his successor, Charles I was less skilled in foreign policy. Both Mansfeld in and Cadiz expeditions sent for help to allies in Northern Europe in 1624-25 respectively proved to be a complete disaster. Meanwhile 12,000 men were raised for Mansfeld expedition, and 10,000 men were levied for Cadiz expedition — almost twice larger amounts than for Elizabeth I war years. By 1630s the financial situation of the Crown was dire. Taxes have been raised, crown lands have been sold; however the state debt reached over £1 million and it took a very slight shock (the Bishops War) to tip it over the precipice of bankruptcy11. The king’s precarious financial position was highlighted during the Bishops’ Wars against the Scots. The promise by Thomas Wentworth, Charles’ Lord Deputy in Ireland, to get an army from Ireland and to quickly assemble one in England so as to avoid recalling Parliament came to nothing and the Scots not only defeated the English but following their victory encamped in the area around the lucrative coal mines near Newcastle. The only way they would leave was to be bought off. Charles did not have the necessary money to do this and had to recall Parliament. In turn, the Parliament used every opportunity to strengthen its position in the political system. Unlike his predecessor, Charles I was unable to convince Parliament for financing his aggressive external policy. For instance, in the case of war with Spain, Parliament preferred an inexpensive naval attack on Spanish colonies in the New World, hoping that the capture of the Spanish treasure fleets could finance the war. Charles, however, preferred more aggressive (and more expensive) action on the Continent. Parliament only voted to grant a subsidy of £140,000; an insufficient sum for Charles. Moreover, the House of Commons agreed to allow the King to collect tonnage and poundage, but only for a period of one year, although previous Sovereigns since 1414 had been granted the right for life. In this manner, the House of Commons hoped to keep a check on Charless power by forcing him to seek the renewal of the grant each year. On November 3, 1640, Charles I called the famous Long Parliament in order to finance his war in Scotland. This opportunity was used MPs to ensure their power. From now on the Parliament could be dismissed only by will of MPs themselves. The political consequences of this important step to republic, was the shift of power from monarch to Parliament. The king was no longer above the law, he had to act in consent with Parliament. Further execution of Charles I in 1649 and the declaration of republic until 1660 may seem to be a natural continuation from this viewpoint. Continuous wars have led the English Crown to bankruptcy, and the only way to end these wars was to seek help from Parliament. Obviously, no help in history was gained without payment. In this case political power was paid in return. Therefore, Parliament received the authorities not because of religious division of the country, but because of warfare spending of Monarchs, which led them to seek financing from the Parliament. References Fletcher, A., Macculloch, D. (2004). Tudor Rebellions. Pearson. Graves, M. (1987). Elizabethan Parliaments, 1559-1601. Elton, G.R. (1953). The Tudor Revolution in Government: Administrative Changes in the Reign of Henry VIII. Cambridge University Press. Hogge, A. (2005). Gods Secret Agents: Queen Elizabeths Forbidden Priests and the Hatching of the Gunpowder Plot. HarperCollins. Hughes, A. (1991). The causes of the English civil war. St. Martins Press, New York. Jewell, J. (2005). “Roundheads, Whigs, and Decivilization: A Hoppean Analysis of Stuart England”. Faulkner University. Retrieved March 31, 2007 from http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/jewell.pdf. Lenihan, P. (2001). Confederate Catholics at War 1641-49, Cork University Press, Cork. MacCaffrey, W. T. (1992). Elizabeth I War and Politics 1588-1603, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Popovsky, L.S. (1990). “The Crisis over Tonnage and Poundage in Parliament in 1629”, Past and Present, No. 126, pp. 44-75. Sadler, J. (2004). Border Fury:England and Scotland at War, 1296-1568. Longman. Wittke C. (1970). The History of English Parliamentary Privilege, Da Capo Press, New York. Read More