0

“What is all our

histories, but God showing himself, shaking and trampling on everything that he has not planted.”

Oliver Cromwell

AS Unit 3:

1

British Monarchy: the Crisis of the State, 1642–1689

AQA History Unit 3This unit is worth 60% of the A2 qualification, and 30% of whole A-Level qualification.

The State and the People: Change and ContinuityThis unit:

promotes an understanding of change and continuity over approximately 50 years focuses on the relationship between the state and the people and the forces which influenced this

relationship builds on skills and attributes and an understanding of the historical process, as developed in Units 1

and 2, in that the unit will require an understanding both in depth and breadth, as reflected in the assessment arrangements

develops students’ understanding of how a particular issue, such as the impact of religious belief, interacted with other issues in a short period and how this issue changed in significance over the 50-year period.

The ExamUnit 31 hour 30 minutesCandidates will answer two essay questions from a choice of three. Each question carries 45 marks. These will test understanding of change and development either in key critical periods or over the period as a whole (testing AOs 1(a), 1(b) and 2(b)). The use of the essay format is seen as essential to promote development and progression from Units 1 and 2 as it will allow the testing of synoptic understanding effectively and allows for greater stretch and challenge to the more able, whilst providing opportunities for all candidates to demonstrate their historical skills, knowledge and understanding.

Assessment Objectives (AOs)4 Scheme of AssessmentThe Assessment Objectives are common to AS and A Level. The assessment units will assess the following Assessment Objectives in the context of the content and skills.

AO1a - Recall, select and deploy historical knowledge appropriately, and communicate knowledge and understanding of history in a clear and effective manner.

A01b - Demonstrate their understanding of the past though explanation, analysis and arriving at substantiated judgements of:

key concepts such as causation, consequence, continuity, change and significance within a historical context

the relationships between key features and characteristics of the periods studied.

AO2b - Analyse and evaluate, in relation to the historical context, how aspects of the past have been interpreted and represented in different ways.

2

Unit 3: British Monarchy: the Crisis of State, 1642–1689

IntroductionThis unit promotes an understanding of change and continuity over a period of 47 years. Through the study of key events in depth, for example the regicide, candidates will be able to demonstrate an understanding of the interrelationship of individuals such as Charles I and Oliver Cromwell, as well as ideas like millenarianism and republicanism. Candidates will also examine other factors such as the role of religion and political radicalism and their relative importance to the processes of change and consolidation in the context of the relationship between state and people. Additionally, as a result of the study of the period as a whole, candidates will be able to explain the major political and religious issues in the context of how the nature of monarchy, parliament and the authority of the state developed within the period.

ContentFrom Monarchy to Republic, 1642–1653

• The personality and policies of Charles I and reasons for the defeat of the Royalist cause, 1642-1646; Charles I and the failure of attempts to reach a settlement, 1646–1649• Parliamentary factionalism and the politicization of the New Model Army; the ideas and influence of the Levellers and Diggers; military opposition to Parliament, 1646–1649• Radical religious groupings: Fifth Monarchists and Ranters; Presbyterianism and independency• The establishment of the Rump Parliament and the Commonwealth; its failures and Cromwell’s reasons for its dissolution• The parliament of the Saints: reasons for its creation, its failures and the decision to abandon it

From Republic to Monarchy, 1653–1667• Cromwell as Lord Protector and theories of government; Republican, Royalist and military opposition to the Protectorate and Cromwell; the influence of radical religious groupings, including the Fifth Monarchists and Quakers; ideas of religious toleration; reactions to the rule of the Major Generals; Cromwell’s foreign policy, including overseas trade and the use of sea power• Republican divisions, 1658–1660; the failure of republicanism and the Restoration Settlement, 1658–1667• Charles II and royal government to 1667; the role of Clarendon; Charles II’s relations with France and the Netherlands; the Second Dutch War; religious policies of Charles II, 1660–1667; the failure of opposition to Charles II, 1660–1667

The Consolidation of Charles II’s Rule, 1667–1678• The role of key personalities: Charles II and his ministers; relations between Crown and Parliament, including issues of finance• The clash between Court and Country – the emergence of Tories and Whigs;

continuing support for Republicanism• Divisions between Anglicans and Dissenters; the impact of the Test Act• Charles II’s relations with France and the Netherlands

Succession Crisis and ‘Glorious Revolution’, 1678–1689• Charles II, 1678–1685: the Exclusion Crisis and reasons for its failure; his growing absolutism• James II, his personality and aims; political and religious opposition to him and the crisis of 1688/9• The ‘revolution’ of 1689 and the position and power of monarchy

3

Suggested Resources for The Crisis of State, 1642-1689

Given below is a list of recommended resources. The books included in the lists which follow are not to be regarded as set texts. It is not envisaged that all of the material listed will be used. Some titles on this list may be out of print, but these should be available through libraries.

The shared area on the school network also includes PDFs of a variety of Historical Association publication which you can copy to your own memory sticks for personal use.

BOOKS D Farr A2 History: British Monarchy: The Crisis of State, 1642–1707 D L Smith A History of the Modern British Isles 1603–1707 B Coward et al Stuart England, 1603–1714 M Kishlansky Monarchy Transformed: Britain 1603–1714 A Anderson An Introduction to Stuart Britain 1603–1714 R Wilkinson Years of Turmoil: Britain, 1603–1714 R Hutton The Restoration: A Political and Religious History of England and Wales

1658–1667 T Barnard The English Republic 1649–1660 G Seel and D Smith Crown and Parliament 1558-1689 G Seel Regicide and Republic, England 1603-1660 J Miller The Restoration and the England of Charles II J Miller The Glorious Revolution R M Bliss Restoration England 1660–1688 S Doran and C Durston Prince, Pastors and People: The Church and Religion in

England, 1646–1689 E Cruickshanks The Glorious Revolution P Seaward The Restoration, 1660–1668 M Knights and T Harris Politics under the later Stuarts: Party Conflict in a divided

Society, 1660–1715 J Miller After the Civil Wars: English Politics and Government in the Reign of Charles II D L Smith The Stuart Parliaments, 1603–1689 J Miller Charles II R Hutton Charles II: King of England, Scotland and Ireland J Miller James II J Spurr The Restoration of the Church of England, 1646–1689 L Worsley Cavalier: The Story of a 17th century playboy T Hunt The English Civil War D Purkiss The English Civil War: A People’s History C Hill The Century of Revolution 1603-1714 C Hill The World Turned Upside Down J Adamson The Noble Revolt: The Overthrow of Charles I M O’Siochru God’s Executioner: Oliver Cromwell and the Conquest of Ireland

4

D Cressy England on Edge: Crisis and Revolution 1640-1642

DVDS available from the History Department• S Schama A History of Britain (2002 BBC)

o British Warso Revolutions

• The Kings and Queens of England: The Stuarts (2004 The History File)• Charles I: The Royal Martyr (1994 The History Makers)• The English Civil Wars (1992 The War File)• The Battle of Edgehill (1998 The War File)• The Battle of Marston Moor (1994 The War File)• The Battle of Naseby: Fairfax Triumphant (1995 The War File)• Oliver Cromwell: Traitor or Liberator? (1998 The History Makers)• Cromwell (1970 Columbia Pictures)• To Kill a King (2003 Film 4)• The Devil’s Whore (2009 Channel 4)• Charles II: The Power and The Passion (2003 BBC miniseries)

USEFUL WEBSITES• www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/in-our-time/• www.historyextra.com • www.jstor.org/• www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/• search.ebscohost.com• www.proquest.com• www.royal.gov.uk• www.british-history.ac.uk• www.rhs.ac.uk• www.history.ac.uk• www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

o http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/podcasts/cromwellian.htm

“Was the Cromwellian Protectorate a military dictatorship?”

OUR WIKISPACE

• thecrisisofstate.wikispaces.com/home• Follow us on Twitter @CrisisOfState

HIS3D: BRITISH MONARCHY: THE CRISIS OF STATE, 1642-1689

5

OUTLINE AND REVISION NOTES

A: FROM MONARCHY TO REPUBLIC, 1642-1653

Charles’s approach to ruling

From the start of his reign, Charles had identified with the more conservative (and more popular) wing of the English Church.

This was shown by his elevation of William Laud to the bishopric of London in 1628 and to the archbishopric of Canterbury in 1633.

He and other so-called Arminians found favour under Charles and this provoked opposition from the puritans.

Puritans also angered by what they saw as increasing influence of Catholics at court. Charles' approach to recusancy was to see it as a useful source of income rather than trying to eradicate it.

Why did Puritans become alarmed by Charles I’s policies?

Bishops seemed to be Charles' closest advisers. Bishop Juxon of London was made Lord Treasurer in 1636 - he and Laud were on the Privy Council.

Charles was also seen as soft on Catholics. He had Catholic wife - Henrietta Maria, who held Catholic services in England.

1636 Charles received first papal nuncio (ambassador) since the reformation - George Con. Laud offered but declined a Cardinal's hat by the Pope. Charles seemed to follow a pro-Catholic foreign policy - moved Spanish silver across southern

England. He refused to allow court mourning on the death of Protestant hero, King Gustavus Adolphus of

Sweden, in 1632. New canons (Church laws) introduced in 1640 by Laud. Upheld divine right of kings, denounced

Popery and Separatism, clarified the altar question and made all those in holy orders swear to uphold the government of the Church by bishops.

Opposition to religious reforms in England

Naturally many puritans were opposed to these changes. As early as 1629, John Eliot, the Speaker of the House of Commons, had denounced those who

brought in 'innovation in religion' as traitors. However open opposition during 1630s was limited. In1637, Bishop Williams of Lincoln, most prominent Puritan on the bench of bishops, sent to the

Tower because of his opposition to Laudian reforms. Stayed there until released by Long Parliament.

6

But there was little persecution of Puritans, even in the diocese of Norwich (a fairly Puritan region with a laudian bishop, Wren). The number of clergy suspended and Puritans censored was not out of the ordinary during 1630s.

Most famous prosecutions came in 1637. William Prynne, Henry Burton and John Bastwicke, were Puritan pamphleteers opposed to Laud's reforms.

Condemned by Court of Star Chamber, they were mutilated but none were executed. Laud's regime did not make martyrs of its opponents.

Scale of Puritan opposition in terms of propaganda was much less than in 1580s. Church of England was an Erastian church - it was governed by the king. Hard to oppose religious reforms without opposing the king.

Many welcomed the changes and the vast majority conformed. The most zealous (enthusiastic) Puritans were separatists who wanted to set up their own churches separate from Church of England.

They were not really a threat, since most emigrated to the Continent or the New World to seek a more congenial religious climate.

Opposition in Scotland

Opposition to Charles' regime on the issue of religion was much more significant in Scotland than in England.

Scotland's Church was much more Puritan than the one in England and Charles wished to bring it into line.

He brought in a new Book of Canons to replace John Knox's Book of Discipline. 1637 Charles introduced a new prayer book in Scotland. Written by Scottish bishops in

consultation with Laud. 1638 Scottish rebellion over the Prayer Book. Rebel leaders signed a National Covenant to

oppose it. Then met in Glasgow Assembly and abolished episcopacy in Scotland. 1639 First Bishops' War. Covenanters raised an army and seize Edinburgh Castle. Charles' forces

meet king at York but then melted away and Charles forced to accept Pacification of Berwick. A year too late, Charles sent for Thomas Wentworth, his Lord Deputy in Ireland to sort out the

mess.

The recall of Parliament and the road to war

At start of 1640 Civil War in England seemed highly unlikely, yet by the end of 1642 it had started.

April-May 1640 Short Parliament. Strafford advised the calling of Parliament after 11 years to vote money for the Scots War.

Fiasco of First Bishops' War (1639) had shown that Charles was unable to raise and equip a creditable army without parliamentary sanction. Also showed that Charles was not a tyrant!

Short Parliament refused to grant supplies without redress of grievances. Many parliamentary leaders were Puritans who are sympathetic to the Scots rebels.

After six weeks, Parliament was dissolved by the King.

7

August - October 1640 Second Bishops' War: English forces defeated at a skirmish near Newcastle. Scots occupy the city and surrounding counties.

Charles forced to agree to Treaty of Ripon - Scots to be paid £850 per day until a settlement is made. This forced Charles to recall parliament - he had no money left!

November 1640 calling of Long Parliament. Faced with apparently unanimous opposition Charles gave concessions.

In last two months of 1640:

Laud and Strafford were impeached as evil counsellors. Monopolists were expelled from Commons. The Canons of 1634 were condemned. Petition to Commons that episcopacy should be abolished ‘root and branch’.

In 1641:

Charles agreed to Triennial Act - Parliament to be called at least once every three years as well as Act declaring that the present parliament could only be dissolved with its own consent rather than at King's wish as heretofore.

Strafford was put on trial in House of Lords on a charge of high treason. Defended himself well against absurd charges but executed when Pym introduced a Bill of Attainder.

By Act of Parliament, Strafford was merely declared guilty of treason. Charles reluctantly signed the Act, even though he had promised Strafford that he would not allow him to suffer.

Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission used to persecute Laud's religious opponents, abolished.

By summer 1641, there appeared to be some chance of compromise.

Many MPs were won over by Charles' conciliatory attitude and sacrifice of Strafford. They were also worried about the religious and political radicalism of Pym and those who

supported him. They realized that opposition leaders were in alliance with rebellious Scots Covenanters who

still controlled Newcastle and thus London's coal supply. Settlement was prevented by death of moderate but influential Earl of Bedford in May 1641. He was replaced in negotiations with Charles by Lord Saye and Sele, a more determined Puritan,

who was deeply distrustful of Charles.

Autumn/winter 1641 events turned against Charles.

Just as moderates were beginning to win upper hand in the Commons came news of the Irish Rebellion (October 1641).

8

Irish Catholic uprising was exploited by Pym to claim that there was a Catholic conspiracy, approved of by Charles, to win victory in Ireland and then overthrow parliament in England. This would then culminate in restoration of Catholicism in England.

Pym thus passed (159 votes to 148) the Grand Remonstrance detailing a catalogue of supposed crimes committed by those who supported the king over the last decade or so.

Vote showed that many MPs had already gone home! At same time Irish Rebellion meant that king would have to raise an army to put it down. Parliament forced into revolutionary claim that Parliament not the King should control the army.

1642 - The drift to war

Charles attempted the arrest of 5 leaders of the opposition in Parliament. Motivated by Pym's rumour that the Queen (Henrietta Maria a French Catholic) was to be charged with high treason.

Charles failure to use troops at his disposal to close down Parliament led to his departure from London.

Thus rather surprisingly, the opposition leaders in Commons and Lords found themselves in control of London and able to claim that the King was being advised to resort to military force to destroy them.

Parliament was then forced into revolutionary claims about the powers of Parliament and the King.

Nineteen Propositions June 42 stated that:

All King's counsellors to be approved by Parliament. Parliament to control the militia and troops raised for defence of nation. All business concerning the kingdom to pass through King's Council and Parliament. Parliament to approve of those educating the King's children. Laws against Papists to be enforced.

Aug 1642 King raised his standard in Nottingham - war had begun.

Conclusion

War began in 1642 because the united opposition of 1640 became divided over the next 18 months and the King found that he had increasing political support.

At same time the radicals in parliament, finding that they could not trust the king and unwilling to risk destruction at his hands, moved from being conservatives (preserving the old order against the reforms of Charles and Laud) into revolutionaries (demanding genuine and far-reaching changes in the balance of power between parliament and the King).

Recent work by John Adamson - The Noble Revolt - claims that the main centre of opposition to Charles came from a group of Puritan nobles - Warwick, Essex, Northumberland - and their clients.

9

They had a revolutionary agenda and wanted to undermine the king's powers to make him a figurehead ruler, like the doge of Venice.

This group was politically astute and used ancient precedents to take charge of most of the king's income during 1641, thus rendering him powerless.

Charles failed to destroy the opposition because he was apparently unwilling to use the military forces at his disposal early enough and then in 1642 rediscovered the perennial military weakness of the English Crown - it was very hard to raise troops without the approval of parliament!

The First and Second Civil Wars

Time Line of main battles

1642 Edgehill – inconclusive: Rupert reached Turnham Green, (Brentford) closest royalists got to London.1643 Royalist three pronged attack on London and Southeast: Battle of Newbury - inconclusive.1644 Marston Moor - parliamentary victory in the North1645 Naseby - royalists defeated. War peters out.

War was very close fought over a long period of time.

Parliament's victory not inevitable and could not be forseen in 1642. If royalists had won either Edgehill, or Marston Moor or Naseby, they would have won the war.

Reasons for Parliament's victory

Parliament controlled London and the Southeast throughout the war.

This meant Charles had to capture London in order to win the war - this proved beyond his military capacity. While he raised and maintained several regional armies, none was big enough to besiege the capital.

London and Southeast plus East Anglia meant that Parliament held wealthier areas and had economic and financial capacity to maintain their war effort over a long period. Parliament controlled centres of commerce and credit (e.g. could raise money from London merchants).

This area also had more printing presses - Parliament had 6 newspapers during the war, royalists only 2.

London also had the most effective and efficient militia in the country. London militia saved London at Turnham Green 1642 and relieved royalist siege of Gloucester in 1643.

Parliament controlled all three arsenals throughout war - Tower of London, Portsmouth and Hull.

Charles, by contrast, relied on less well off areas and use of assets of wealthy supporters, which would become exhausted in the long-term.

10

Parliament controlled most of the sea ports and the navy.

Therefore could keep trade going, benefit from taxes on trade and keep London supplied. In addition helped to keep out possible aid to royalists from France. In fact Spain and France too

involved in Thirty Years War to offer serious help. Control of navy also meant that Parliamentary heartlands in Southeast could not be attacked by

sea, so can be lightly garrisoned. At same time Parliamentary ports in royalist areas - Liverpool and Lyme - can raid and tie down

royalist troops.

Nature of warfare

The war became a series of regional conflicts, based on sieges, storming of towns and small scale, indecisive battles.

The front line was very long and troops consequently dispersed to guard towns and territories. Therefore Charles could not focus on taking London or winning one decisive encounter, against

most of Parliament's forces, in open battle. Royalist advances on the capital would be piecemeal and slow, especially after the failure of

the three-pronged attack on the Southeast of England in 1643 - Newcastle from North, King from Oxford and Hopton from South-West.

Parliament's war effort

The raising of money and supplies by Parliament became more systematic as war went on. Set up county committees, which were ruthless in over-riding traditional rights of towns and

communities. Weekly assessments enforced - essentially a tax on land. Parliament tried civilians by martial law - showing that they were prepared to sacrifice ideals of

government (cut across traditional rights) in order to win the war. Introduced excise ordinance (1643) - a sales tax to raise money, Parliament was also quick to confiscate lands and goods of so-called delinquents.

Royalist war effort less severe in practice as King stressed traditional laws and constitution.

More hand to mouth in terms of supply for the army, which gained a reputation for plundering and taking free quarter.

New Model Army

Fairfax was commander in chief, Cromwell led the cavalry. Often seen as war winning army, created late on in the war in 1645, as Parliament became

desperate for final victory.

11

Certainly created a large, mobile and coherent army at a time when King's forces were still regional and being worn down.

Charles had better soldiers at start of war but Parliament caught up later. Strength of New Model Army derived from regular pay rather than religious zeal. Officers promoted according to ability rather than social status. Won decisive battle of Naseby in 1645. New Model Army stands firm even though Rupert may

have destroyed 1/3 of the Parliamentary forces in his initial cavalry charge. After Naseby, New Model Army was then able to mop up remaining royalist armies/garrisons.

Charles unable to raise fresh forces therefore surrenders.

Self-denying Ordinance 1645

This allowed parliament to get rid of commanders such as the Earls of Essex and Manchester who seemed unable or unwilling to inflict a decisive defeat on the King.

Cromwell was the exception to the new law because he firmly believes in the justice of parliament's cause.

Prince Rupert's failures

Though a brilliant cavalry commander, Rupert on several occasions failed to convert royalist supremacy at start of battle into victory - Edgehill and Marston Moor.

At Naseby he charged uphill into a parliamentary army twice the size of royalist forces. Royalists had no reserve cavalry to follow up Rupert's successful charges.

Parliament's allies more useful than the King's

1643 Parliament signed a Solemn League and Covenant with the Scots and Scots Covenanter army of 20,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry arrived Jan. 1644. Most English armies were 10-15,000 men.

In 8 months Scots captured 1/3 of royalist land in the North. Played important role in battle of Marston Moor - Parliament now had more cavalry than

royalists - and tied up royalist troops in the North. 1646 Charles surrendered to the Scots at Newark. Although there was a serious royalist army in Scotland under Montrose, its victories came after

Marston Moor and it was destroyed by returning Covenanter army at Philiphaugh (1645). Montrose's efforts did allow Parliament to get rid of an unwelcome ally when peace came!By contrast Charles had military aid from Irish Catholics.

Not as well trained as the Scots and helped to promote idea of Catholic conspiracy. Charles losing the propaganda war.

12

Only about 6,000 Irish infantry arrive in piecemeal fashion, half of which were destroyed at Battle of Nantwich.

Charles' tactical mistake in 1645

Charles divided his army in two, therefore faced Fairfax and New Model Army with smaller force at Naseby.

Religious idealism

Used to be thought that radical Puritanism inspired Parliament and its army so it had greater ideological resolve than royalists.

It is hard to measure. Certainly helped Parliament to keep going in bad times and it may have been the case that royalists were overconfident at start of war, thinking rebellion was bound to fail.

Second Civil War 1648

By playing his enemies off against each other, Charles helped to spark off Second Civil War (1648) by negotiating with the Scots but their 'Engager' army defeated by Cromwell at Preston.

Second civil war also led to Royalist stirs elsewhere in the country. Despite the resumption of war, Dec 48 Parliament voted to restart negotiations with the King

and planned to bring him to London. Looked as though Charles might get even better terms. Moderates in parliament determined to

make a settlement with king and destroy growing power of the army.

Situation resolved. In the end the Army took control.

Dec 1648 Colonel Pride purged parliament. Soldiers allow in only those MPs prepared to put the King on trial.

Army leadership and Rump decided to put king on trial and then execute him. (Jan. 1649). Charles called ‘this man of blood’. Army leadership realized that only way to stop surge in

support for the king was to execute him and declare a republic.

Scots were a further complicating factor.

In 1646 they had the King and were keen to see Presbyterian Church set up in England to match the one in Scotland.

Parliament not happy with this and wanted to pay Scots off. Scots hand over king to Parliament (Jan. 47), worried about royalist Scots back in Scotland

(Montrose and his royalist army). Therefore Scots leave empty handed.

13

Intransigence of the King

All parties in period 1646-8 assumed that the new constitution would see the King restored to power - albeit diminished.

Charles believed that he could use this to hold out for better terms. Said to Rupert in 1645 'God will not suffer rebels to prosper or His cause to be overthrown'.

He thought he could retain all his prerogative powers as his enemies were so divided. In addition he believed that God had turned against him (allowed his enemies to defeat him in

Civil War) because he had given up some of his God-given powers before the war and because he had broken his word to Strafford.

Charles therefore not interested in terms offered to him by Parliament (Newcastle Propositions) but played for time.

Almost successful and helped to spark off Second Civil War (1648) by negotiating with the Scots but their 'Engager' army defeated by Cromwell at Preston.

Dec 48 Parliament voted to restart negotiations with the King and planned to bring him to London. Looked as though Charles might get even better terms.

Situation resolved. In the end the Army take control.

Dec 1648 Colonel Pride purged parliament. Soldiers allow in only those MPs prepared to put the King on trial.

Army leadership and Rump decided to execute the King (Jan. 1649).

Reasons for execution of the King

Not for ideological reasons. Those who did it (the Army grandees and their supporters in Parliament) were not republicans.

Practical reasons predominated. Army leadership realized that there could be no lasting settlement with the King.

Charles not prepared to negotiate seriously and had sparked off Second Civil War - Army call him 'this man of blood'.

Real worry was that country would descend into anarchy if army failed to take charge.

14

Charles refused to negotiate with rebels, who had taken up arms against their lawful sovereign.

Saw his opponents as revolutionaries who wished to change fundamentally the ancient 'mixed' constitution of the country - see his answer to Parliaments 19 Propositions of 1642. Revolution would lead to anarchy.

Thought his enemies would fall out amongst themselves, which they nearly did! Thought God had moved against him in war because he had given up some of his God given

prerogative powers before war began. Would rather face martyrdom than give up more powers.

Parliamentary factionalism

Aftermath of war saw the failure to produce a peace settlement and ultimately the execution of the King and abolition of the monarchy because of a number of factors.

Victors were divided.

Parliament was worried by the power of its Army once victory in the field had been secured. Wanted to disband it as soon as possible but didn't have the money to pay soldiers' arrears.

Parliament also concerned about growing number of radical ideas and radical groups e.g. Levellers, Fifth Monarchists, Baptists and Ranters. Wanted quick settlement to avoid anarchy.

However, Parliament divided between hardliners (led by Vane, St. John and Cromwell) and moderates (led by Holles).

Moderates (reconstituted peace party of the war days) wished to pay off Scots quickly, disband New Model Army and send selected regiments to sort out continuing conflict in Ireland.

Hardliners (many of the 'win the war' party of the war period) think the disbanding of the army will allow King to dictate terms of settlement.

Parliament also divided between those who want a new coercive national Church based on Presbyterian lines and growing number of Independents (like Cromwell) who want to allow individual congregations some degree of independence in formulating their own theological ideas and practices - liberty for 'tender consciences'.

Army became politicised in reaction to growing split with moderates in Parliament.

Army owed about £3 million in arrears and frightened of 'cavalier' backlash in the counties once they are disbanded.

April 1647, Holles issued Declaration of Dislike - declaring that soldiers petitioning Parliament for redress of grievances were 'enemies of the State'.

Army officers and men elected a General Council of the Army. June 1647, Army seized King and in August took control of London. Issued the Heads of the Proposals as possible basis for new monarchical constitution. Army

wanted to limit power of Parliament as well as the King.

15

Army was also divided however.

Rank and file in the Army represented by agitators was distrustful of the officers (grandees) who were seen as self-seeking and corrupt.

Thought Heads of the Proposals as pathetic sell out to the King - why had they fought and died if it were merely to restore the pre-war constitution?

Also influenced by ideas of Levellers, who in October 1647 issued the Agreement of the People as basis on new constitution.

Divisions in army apparently patched up in Putney Debates (Oct.-Nov. 1647) but divisions within army had been exposed.

Nov. 1647 (Corkbush Field) and May 1649 (Burford) there were Leveller inspired mutinies in the Army.

Levellers, led by John Lilburne, were a group of intellectuals who: Wished to see the end of tyrannical kings (seen in 1630s) AND tyrannical parliaments (seen

during the Civil War). Most wanted to see all men given the vote and equality of electoral districts. Ultimately many wanted to see the end of central government with political decisions taken at

the local level. Although influential in the Army and in London, Levellers were not a serious threat to the Army

or Parliament. Most soldiers more interested in 'bread and butter' issues about arrears of pay and indemnity

against supposed crimes committed by soldiers during the war. Levellers were not a coherent political party, not well organized, had no clear programme and

leaders disagreed amongst themselves. Lilburne was charismatic but easily silenced by the authorities. Levellers were the only secular (non-religious) sect. In religion they wanted genuine toleration -

no national church and the abolition of tithes.

The establishment of the Rump Parliament and then the Commonwealth

Why the Rump was successful 1649-53

Although it was and is easy to be critical of the Rump, it did in fact achieve a real degree of settlement and internal peace and kept military dictatorship at bay.

Rump often criticised because it executed the king, it abolished the monarchy and the House of Lords, it was an illegal regime because it was merely a rump (small portion) of the original parliament.

16

It was seen as the instrument of the army grandees, it was destroyed by the army which claimed that it was self-seeking, self-perpetuating and had failed to introduced the necessary reform.

Clement Walker, one of the MPs purged by Pride described it as, ‘this fag end, this veritable Rump of a parliament with corrupt maggots in it’.

In reality Rump was a success because:

It was not revolutionary. Many of those MPs who voted for execution of King did so out of desperation.

They oppose this particular king not the office of king. Then realize that they cannot invite one of Charles' sons to take over.

Monarchy was abolished by default not out of revolutionary ideology. Rump was also conservative because many of the more conservative MPs who could not accept

Charles' execution, return in Feb. 49, so the radicals are outnumbered. Men such as Sir Arthur Haselrigge and Sir Henry Vane didn't like the Rump but realized it was all

they have left - determined that country will not descend into anarchy. Cromwell, now politically the most powerful army leader was also politically conservative - did

make strenuous efforts to prevent the execution of the King. Most MPs in Rump from traditional governing class of landowners and so moderate. At same

time very worried about growth in the number of radical sects, men who sought ‘to turn the World upside down’ - priority is to suppress the sects rather than bringing in reforms.

In addition Rump faced with massive internal problems in aftermath of war, therefore spend time on those not on new ideas.

Rump ruled via a Council of State of c.40 members which dealt with day to day administration and carried out matters referred to it by Parliament.

At same time more radical MPs divided in terms of what they want - politically and religiously - no clear ideology to guide them.

Rump's successes

Ireland

Rump sent Cromwell to Ireland to put an end to Civil War there (July 1649 - May 1650). Despite excesses committed at Drogheda and Wexford, where most of the inhabitants are slain,

Cromwell did end the fighting and imposed a harsh new settlement. English control more firmly established as Catholic landowners have estates confiscated. (Act

for the Settling of Ireland, 1652). 'Curse of Cromwell' stored up problems for the future but in short-term successful. Conquest continued after Cromwell's return in 1650 under Ireton and Fleetwood.

17

Scotland

Problems here as Charles I's heir Prince Charles hoping to use Scotland as spring-board for restoration of monarchy in England.

Charles proclaimed King in Edinburgh Feb. 1649. Crowned in Scotland 1651. Cromwell defeated Scots at Dunbar 1650 and again at Worcester in 1651. Prince Charles'

attempt to secure throne thwarted. No serious royalist uprisings after this, partly because Charles had tried to regain throne with

Scottish support - not popular in England. In 1660, Charles invited back to England and the throne of his father.

War against the Dutch

Growing trade rivalry between England and the Dutch, especially after 1648, when Dutch gained official independence from Spain at the end of Thirty Years War.

Rump passed two Navigation Acts 1650 and 1651. These led to naval war with Dutch 1652-3 in which English forces under Admiral Blake had upper hand, e.g. Battle of the Downs 1652.

Rump gained some support

Jan. 1650 all office holders had to take an Engagement (oath of allegiance) to the Rump. Non-subscribers banned from office. During 1649 Rump used this Engagement to purge local committees of its enemies - in

Herefordshire 40% of committee members were ousted.

Rump helped to ease government's financial problems.

Used land confiscated from royalists, Crown and Church to help pay soldiers and mount campaigns in Ireland, Scotland and against Dutch.

First English regime with a standing army to its name. Rump also kept taxation levels high. Treated its creditors badly and found it hard therefore to attract loans; little money squeezed

out of the city. Nonetheless, financial situation by April 53 was far from desperate - debt stood at less than £1

million.

Rump dealt with radical groups.

Levellers horrified at Rump's assumption of power with army backing. Lillburne produced ‘England's New Chains Discovered’ - claimed that Rump had usurped its

authority. However Leveller mutiny at Burford (1649) quickly dealt with, four leading Levellers put in

Tower - Lilburne, Overton, Walwyn and Prince in March 1649.

18

By 1650 Levellers a spent force - Rainsborough (leading advocate of Leveller ideas at Putney Debates) was dead, Lilburne in Tower, Sexby and Wildman pursuing other careers.

Ranters

In reality an anti-religious sect who did not believe in sin and damnation and claimed that these were invented merely to oppress the people.

God was the author of sin, so main idea was to enjoy life while you had it. One Ranter song claimed, ‘A short life and a merry is all the heaven that we expect, let's drink off our canary’.

Some disputes about the existence of such a group. Rump may have deliberately exaggerated the threat in order to justify more general suppression of radicals.

1650 Rump passed new wide-ranging moral code including death penalty for women (not men) guilty of adultery. May have been aimed at Ranter threat. In fact few prosecutions under the new Acts.

Diggers

A very small group led by Gerrard Winstanley. Most famous pamphlet was the Law of Freedom (1652) - blueprint of a communist society.

Earth was a 'common treasury' to be exploited equally by all men. Winstanley set up a Digger community in Surrey in 1649 on wasteland and other such groups

sprang up during 1650. Winstanley wanted the abolition of private property and as a pantheist, believed that God

existed in all living things. In fact threat from Diggers was very small indeed - easily suppressed by Rump.

Fifth Monarchists

Believed that end of world was at hand and that the Saints should rule in preparation for the Second Coming of Christ.

Major-General Harrison, associate of Cromwell, most notable leader. Ideas sounded radical. Claimed that force was legitimate to overthrow existing regimes and

wanted to establish the rule of the Godly (presumably fellow Fifth Monarchists). Also wanted abolition of the entire legal system. May have had 10,000 members at their height but most were from the lower orders and were

not a threat to the regime. Their importance in the Barebone's Parliament has exaggerated their political importance in this

period. Under Rump there is little persecution of this group because they are not seen as a threat and

had support in some sections of the Army leadership.

19

Rump's 'failures' in the eyes of the Army

In fact its unwillingness to introduce radical reform probably helped to maintain political stability and prevent further social unrest.

Failed to carry out extensive reforms of the legal system

Failed to carry out any extensive reform of the legal system. Levellers wanted big reduction in the number of laws and speedier resolution of legal cases.

Summer 1649 measures to relieve those imprisoned for debt were defeated. 1650 Rump decreed that all legal cases to be conducted in English. Hale Commission advocated series of law reforms but they were rejected by Rump in Feb. 1653.

Many MPs, like Bulstrode Whitelock, were lawyers who argued for status quo, claiming that those in favour of reforms knew little about the law.

Others opposed to reforms advocated by radicals like the Levellers and the Army leadership.

Rump failed to resolve the deep divisions over religion which had had helped to cause the war and which had widened thereafter.

If the Rump had tried to impose a religious settlement, there might well have been unrest. Church of England effectively already dismantled, episcopacy abolished and Prayer Book

banned. Parliament had introduced the Directory of Worship in 1644. Rump repealed statutes enforcing attendance at parish church. In reality Rump could find no easy solution to the religious divisions between those who wanted

a coercive national Church, probably Presbyterian in nature and those who were religiously Independents and opposed this idea.

Rump did deal with some practical problems in Church. Voted £20,000 p.a. from confiscated Church and Crown lands to bring inadequate church livings up to £100 p.a.

Carried out survey of parishes 1649 with view to mergers and rationalization of parishes. Little achieved in face of local opposition.

1650 Commission to propagate the Gospel in the North and Wales (the ‘dark corners of the realm’).

Rump ratified tithes in 1652, so everyone had to pay for upkeep of church minister even if they didn't attend his services.

Rump failed to deliver electoral reform.

Levellers and many Army leaders want to widen franchise, equalize electoral districts and have regular elections.

Three plans produced 1648 by Levellers, 1649 by Army grandees and 1650 by a Rump committee. None were enacted.

20

Rump was seen as self-perpetuating.

Cromwell dissolved Rump in April1653 claiming that it had sat too long and had failed to hold fresh elections to gain legitimacy.

More recent research claims that Cromwell dissolved Rump because it was planning to hold an election and Army were frightened that a new parliament would bring back royalists and moderates who would try to get rid of the Army.

Reasons for failure of the Barebone's Parliament (April- Dec. 1653)

When Cromwell dissolved the Rump, he had to decide what to replace it with. Fearing an election, he and the Council of Army Officers decided to opt for a nominated assembly.

Lambert wanted a small executive Council of State, dominated by Army leaders but with civilian members as well, while others wanted a nominated assembly of saints.

Called Barebone's by its enemies because one of MPs chosen was a leather merchant and Baptist lay preacher called Praise-God Barebon.

In fact Cromwell at first saw it as a body which might draw up a new constitution BUT once it met, it decided to call itself a parliament.

Radicals in fact in a minority of 40 or so (only 11-14 committed Fifth Monarchists) but they tended to dominate discussions in their quest for Godly reform. Socially the members were not from the lower orders, most were of lesser gentry status.

Their programme of reform sounded radical. They failed not because they were fanatical but because they threatened too many vested interests.

First assembly to have representatives of Scotland and Ireland.

What Barebone's wanted

A codification of the Law into a small pocket-book, abolition of Court of Chancery, abolition of tithes (compulsory taxes paid to the Church), abolition of a gentleman's right to nominate men to church livings.

Fifth Monarchists wanted the introduction of the Law of Moses. To the gentry, all this represented an attack on property rights.

What Barebone's did

Some sensible reforms –

Act to settle Ireland, Act to link Scotland, England and Ireland. 1653 Civil Marriage Act to allow marriage outside Church.

21

However more radical acts also passed

August 1653 voted to abolish Court of Chancery, which was only saved by the dissolution of Barebone's in December 1653.

In same month Barebone's voted by 56-52 in favour of the abolition of tithes. This was too much for moderate members.

While the radicals attended a prayer meeting, moderates came to the chamber and voted themselves out of existence.

22

Essay practice questions for Section A: From Monarchy to Republic, 1642-1653

A1 To what extent was Parliament more to blame than Charles I for the failure of settlement in the years 1646 to 1649? (45 marks)

A2 ‘Religion was more important than politics in the failure of Crown and Parliament to reach a settlement in the years 1646 to 1649.’Assess the validity of this view. (45 marks)

A3 To what extent was the abolition of monarchy in 1649 the result of political and religious radicalism rather than the intransigence of the King? (45 marks)

23

B: FROM REPUBLIC TO MONARCHY, 1653-1667

Cromwell as Lord Protector

Introduction

Whilst a great soldier, Cromwell was not a constructive politician. He did not initiate any of the constitutional experiments of the period. He was instead a

religious visionary and his speeches (especially to parliament) make for very hard reading! He was an effective politician because his own lack of practical ideas allowed him to blame

others when things went wrong. At the same time his control of the Army never wavered, so he was never in danger of being

overthrown.

Instrument of Government 1653 came after failure of Rump and Barebones.

Very few amongst Parliamentarians during the war were Republicans. They assumed that once the king was defeated, there would be a negotiated settlement.

24

Putting king on trial was a last minute decision by Army grandees after the Second Civil War. Executing the king (‘this man of blood’) meant that monarchy would have to be abolished or one of his sons would succeed him.

Rump and Barebones were attempts to avoid writing a new constitution. Their failure led to adoption of the Instrument of Government.

Instrument established Cromwell as Lord Protector (he had refused the Crown) as the chief executive of the realm.

Protector to be assisted by a Council of State (max 21 individuals) nominated by Protector. Council of State would have power to nominate Protector's successor.

Parliament to meet every three years (triennial) and to meet for at least 5 months in each three-year period.

Parliament was now a single chamber (no House of Lords). Some changes in county franchise favours wealthier men at expense of old 40-shilling

freeholder qualification. County seats redistributed to reflect county's tax burden rather than old 2 county MPs per

shire. Protectorate parliaments to have 30 MPs each from Ireland and Scotland. Therefore first British

parliaments. Protector had power to veto any bills contrary to the Instrument and 21-day suspensive veto on

other bills. Protector also allowed to legislate via Ordinances until Parliament met AND first parliament not

scheduled until Sept 54.

25

First protectorate parliament 1654-5

Consisted of 400 MPs for England and 30 each for Ireland and Scotland. Protector demanded an oath of loyalty to the new constitution and 100 MPs excluded for

refusing. They believed that the Instrument itself was constitutionally invalid. Only parliament had the

right to draw up a new constitution. Most MPs concerned that Protectorate allowed too much religious liberty. They want an agreed

doctrine for the Church of England and more oppressive measures against dissenters. MPs also shocked at high levels of taxation and want to reduce the size of the Army. MPs also attacked the Instrument and draw up constitutional bill of their own. This would have -

reduced powers of Protector - downgraded role of Council of State - increased power of parliament.

MPs also want to create a local militia system which would be controlled by parliament and which would undermine the power of the Army.

Parliament dissolved after 5 lunar months (shorter than calendar months) with no Acts passed.

Second protectorate parliament 1656-8

Called a year early because of the desperate financial position of the regime. Debt increasing at rate of extra £250,000 per year.

Major Generals interfere in elections but 100 MPs excluded by the army because of their opposition to the Instrument and further 30 stay away in protest. House only 66% full.

Lots of opposition to Major Generals when army MPs introduce a bill to legalize the decimation tax on suspected royalists, which has been introduced to pay for the Major-Generals.

Bill defeated and Major Generals abolished. Cromwell claimed that he was not behind the scheme but that it was foisted upon him.

Humble Petition and Advice devised by parliament in March 1657. In fact it was a new constitution and was introduced by second parliament.

Had support from Thurloe, some army grandees, most of the Council of State and most of the Commons.

Wanted Cromwell to accept title of king and bring back hereditary monarchy. He eventually refused because of pressure from Lambert, Fleetwood, Desborough and other Army grandees, who threatened to resign if he accepted kingship.

Set up 'Other' or 'Upper' House. = second chamber of 63 members like the House of Lords but members to be nominated by the Protector.

Assembly of Divines to be called by Cromwell to agree the doctrines of a national church. In the event Cromwell failed to honour his promise to do this.

Savage new laws against Catholics enacted. Common and statute law to be observed.

26

Triennial parliaments or more frequent if needed. Purging of parliament only with Commons approval.

The 2 Houses would have a veto on Protector's appointments to the Council of State. Revenues to pay for the government to include a fixed amount to cover cost of army/navy and

government. (In fact the sum suggested would not cover existing costs and would lead to increasing not diminishing government debt.

Religious freedom maintained BUT limits more strictly drawn.

Problems for new constitution in 1657

Although Humble Petition had widespread support and Lambert was stripped of his offices and commissions because of his opposition, the new constitution failed to reintroduce effective parliamentary government.

Many of the loyal Army MPs were sent to the 'Other House' with life peerages and so could not defend the regime in the Commons.

Part of the new constitution allowed back into the Commons, those 100 MPs originally excluded in 1656. They now attack the new constitution.

Continuing squabbles in Commons leads to dissolution of parliament in 1658. Cromwell was a great believer in ‘healing and settling’ but all his efforts had ultimately failed.

The rule of The Major Generals 1655-56

Major Generals are at the heart of debates about how tyrannical and militaristic the regime was.

Commissions issued August 1655 partly because of Penruddock's Rising (March). This was a small-scale rising (400 rebels) and easily quashed when local militias raised 4,000 men to oppose it in two days!

After Rising, government declared that all royalists since 1642 were under suspicion. Wealthier royalists to pay decimation tax. Royalists not to come near London.

By autumn, with more stories of Royalist conspiracies, government introduced Major Generals. Army commanders had already been interfering in local government, so this was not entirely

new. Country divided into 11 military districts and Major Generals to raise new county militias made

up of godly volunteers and regular soldiers to secure the peace and avert rebellion. Many volunteers had turned out against Penruddock in March.

Major Generals also charged with introducing godly reformation and in particular a reformation of manners amongst the people under their jurisdiction.

They tried to suppress certain sports and other local gatherings while also controlling or closing down alehouses.

Major Generals certainly unpopular. Most were foreign to their military district (deliberately so), while the decimation tax, which paid for them seemed contrary to the 1652 Pardon and Oblivion Act, which had sought to quieten wartime antagonisms.

27

Impact of Major Generals on the localities pretty limited. Impact of decimation tax limited by high threshold for payment.

In Kent, only 91 out of 500 royalists liable to pay it. Second parliament takes 3 months before it discusses Major Generals

Religion under the Protectorate

The religious situation under the Protectorate became more confused.

Cromwell, as an Independent did not want a coercive national church and this cut him off from Presbyterians as well as Anglicans.

Church under Protectorate therefore had no agreed doctrine/canon laws or Prayer Book. In addition no common liturgy.

Increasing number of 'gathered churches' appeared in 1650s, made up of those who believed themselves God's elect/saints.

Quakers growing in number-dangerous because they rejected the authority of scripture (the Bible) in favour of personal revelation. They rejected visible church and social hierarchy.

Elizabethan Prayer Book still used and many of the Protectorate clergy were old Anglican ministers hoping for better times.

Cromwell believed that if the Godly were given their chance, they would initiate the kind of Godly Reformation (deliberately a vague concept) that he and the Army had hoped would appear after the destruction of king and monarchy.

Cromwell always believed in God's ability to directly shape events. Therefore his policy was usually to ‘wait on the Lord’ and he had no clear, practical conception of how to bring together the different churches.

Material state of the church probably deteriorated. Serious shortage of ministers - 700 benefices empty in Wales plus stipends often very low.

To what extent was the Protectorate a Military Dictatorship?

In many ways the Protectorate was a military dictatorship

Instrument of Government, which sets up Protectorate, is a constitution drawn up by a cavalry commander in New Model Army - John Lambert.

Gave Cromwell as Lord Protector greater powers than Charles I had. Cromwell became Lord Protector because he is commander of the Army since the resignation of

Fairfax. His power, reputation and meteoric political rise came about because of his victories in the field

against Royalists (especially Marston Moor and Naseby) Irish and Scots.

28

Cromwell had already used military force to dismiss Rump (last vestige of a 'legal' parliament) in 1653 because it was threatening to hold a fresh parliamentary election. ‘You have sat too long for any good that you have done. In the name of God, go!’

Nominated Parliament had been invented and largely nominated by army men. Cromwell purged both of the Protectorate Parliaments of opposition MPs by force. 100 purged

in 1654 and 130 in 1656. Both parliaments dismissed early/suddenly. In 1655 parliament dismissed when it discussed setting up militias which would be controlled by

parliament and which would replace the Army. In 1658 parliament dismissed when MPs, purged earlier, returned and questioned the legality of

the Humble Petition and Advice. Cromwell ruled without parliament via Ordinances. Legality of these questioned by many. After first protectorate parliament, Cromwell governed by proclamations - these were illegal

under the Instrument, since Ordinances could only be used until the meeting of the first parliament.

Cromwell as Lord Protector had greater constitutional powers than Charles I and he had a standing army.

Cony's Case (1654) showed that Cromwell could be harsh on those who questioned these ordinances.

Cony, merchant and religious radical, refused to pay customs duties, claiming that Cromwell's Ordinance on the matter lacked legality. Cony and his lawyers locked up!

When all else failed, Cromwell introduced the rule of the Major Generals (August 1655) in wake of Penruddock's Rising.

England was divided into 11 military districts each ruled by a Major General including Lambert, Fleetwood and Desborough. Several of these men were related to him.

Protector set up effective spy network under Thurloe. Also involved in more censorship of printing presses.

Protectorate purged many town corporations, restricting membership of such bodies to the godly.

Military garrisons remained in place around the country. Protectorate was always short of money and subject to mounting debts. In 1654 the debt for

that year alone was £350,000. So, it is a period of high taxation. Protectorate starts with monthly assessment (National tax bill)

of £90,000 per month. This was much higher than anything Charles I could have dreamed of. In 1655, Protectorate cut

the monthly assessment to £60,000 per month - still a huge sum. In addition English people had been paying very high taxes since onset of war in 1642! Many of those who shared power with Cromwell were related to him, giving sense of a military

style monarchy to the Protectorate. Fleetwood was his son-in-law; Desborough was a brother-in-law whilst Henry Lawrence and

Edward Montagu were his cousins. Cromwell's sons Henry and Richard would also become powerful men.

29

There was serious tension during Protectorate between Army Officers and civilian politicians. In times of crisis Cromwell backed the Army, realizing that this was his vital power base.

E.g. Cromwell refused the Crown in 1657 because of opposition of Lambert and other Army commanders. Cromwell himself said he would not ‘set up again, that which God had laid in the dust’ (i.e. monarchy).

In other ways the Protectorate was not seriously oppressive/militaristic

Army leaders always hoped to set up a civilian government with regular parliaments. Hoped that enough MPs would accept Instrument to make this constitution workable in the long term.

Major Generals not unduly repressive. Had limited military force and spent most of their time hunting for royalists and rebels.

Closing down horseracing and other sporting events was partly because Royalists usually frequented these events.

Major Generals were a measured response to the alarm caused by Penruddock's Rising and many rumours of royalist conspiracies.

Charles II in France was a serious threat to the regime and encouragement to Royalists. Major Generals only temporary. Lasted from autumn 55 to winter 56. Proved very unpopular in

second protectorate parliament, so abolished. Cromwell was not a bigot, nor was he especially vindictive towards his enemies. While the Army

could be heavy handed, there was very little persecution. Troubled situation after execution of king and serious divisions left over after terrible Civil War

meant that a strong military government was the only way of keeping the peace. NB Rump and Barebones had been established and sustained by the Army.

Collapse of the Interregnum 1658-60

Sparked off by Cromwell's death in September 1658. Had nominated his son Richard as next Protector but he lacked his father's experience and

influence with the army. May 1659, Army tried to calm political disintegration in the country by recalling Rump

parliament of 1649-53, to give constitutional support for Army rule. Failure of this scheme and growing sense of anarchy led General Monck to march his Army from

Scotland to England. Long Parliament recalled and agreed to Restoration of Charles II. Seemed only alternative to

another round of Civil war or erection of another military dictatorship.

30

The Restoration of the Monarchy 1658-67

Reasons for Restoration of Monarchy

Main reasons were that:

Army and parliament could not agree and distrusted each other. Army was more powerful but leaders unwilling to set up a military dictatorship. Gentry and landowners increasing worried by rise of the Quakers. They and Baptists seen as

seditious and dangerous. Seemed to want to turn the world upside down. Threat was minimal but in the circumstances of the time seemed much worse. Problems made worse by economic downturn 1659-60. At crucial moment Charles II issued Declaration of Breda offering healing and settling rather

than vengeance in a restored monarchy. A settlement that would be a compromise and would be moderate. On all sides there was determination not to slide back into Civil War

Protectorate of Richard Cromwell Sept 1658-May 1659

Death of Cromwell in September 1658 robbed Republic of only man who could hold together the different groups in power.

Main split was between Army and those civilians who still believed in the Good Old Cause. Richard Cromwell proclaimed Protector but he retires in May 1659, as Army took control. Army upset about arrears in pay and at third Protectorate Parliament’s attempts to take control

of Army.

Rule by restored Rump Parliament May to Oct 1659

Army wanted Godly Reformation, Rump did not Rump attempted to sack Army leaders, Lambert and Desborough and to bring Army under

civilian control Army leaders dissolve Rump and establish their own Committee of Safety to rule the country.

Rule by Committee of Safety Oct-Dec 1659

Committee led by Army leaders in London dissolved itself after a few weeks. Lambert, main architect left London to deal with opposition from Monck, Army commander in

Scotland. Navy and Irish Army declare for Rump

Rule by Rump again Dec 1659-March 1660

Rump returned but situation still deadlocked.

31

Rump got rid of some Army leaders - Fleetwood, Desborough and Lambert Monck marched on London and re-established Long Parliament by re-admitting those MPs

excluded at Pride's Purge in 1648. Long Parliament then dissolved itself in favour of fresh elections.

Restoration April-May 1660.

New Convention Parliament met Charles issued Declaration of Breda. This offered general pardon except for a few regicides;

parliament to decide what should happen to lands confiscated from royalists during the Republic; liberty for 'tender consciences'- some degree of religious toleration for Protestant Dissenters.

Parliament then voted to invite back Charles and re-establish monarchy.

Restoration Settlement - the Monarchy

Convention Parliament and its successor Cavalier Parliament did impose some restrictions on power of restored monarchy.

Ship money still illegal Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission not restored Feudal rights - wardship and distraint of knighthood not restored.

However other restrictions on power of monarchy imposed in 1641/42 were not brought back.

There was a big contrast with Parliament's 19 Propositions of June 1642 (see Section A). Many realised that it was power of Parliament which needed curtailing.

Monarchy not parliament controlled the army - Militia Acts 1661 and 1662 King allowed to appoint his own ministers without reference to parliament King retained veto on parliamentary legislation. Claim that parliament could legislate without

the king made illegal. Act against tumultuous petitioning designed to put pressure on Parliament. Triennial Act modified in 1664. No compulsion on monarch to call Parliament every three years. Act of Indemnity 1660 went a long way towards healing and settling Lands confiscated from Crown and Church were restored but only a few royalist estates were

restored. Much bitterness about this but alternative might have been worse. Crown voted an annual income of £1.2 million (more than Charles I could have dreamed of!). Excise tax retained to make up for lost feudal revenues, new hearth tax brought in BUT never

effectively collected, so Crown still needed Parliament to top up income

32

Charles II and royal government to 1667

Charles' personality

Charles was personally charming and usually good humour A wily politician - he knew how to influence men and also when to concede. Converted top Catholicism on his deathbed but not before. Main aim was ‘not to go on his travels again’. Political nation shared this ideal after traumas of

Civil War and Commonwealth Charles was a participating monarch. Attended Privy Council meetings regularly. Did not have strong principles (unlike his father Charles I) but was energetic and enjoyed good

health. Politically he was cautious which was an asset in these times. Disliked paperwork but not lazy Fairly clever but not as intellectual as his grandfather (James I), which probably helped. Had wide range of interests - witty and urbane. Chose good ministers on the whole but prepared to sacrifice them if need be. Religiously fairly tolerant but 400+ Quakers died in prison during his reign.

The role of Clarendon

Clarendon, (Edward Hyde) who had shared Charles' exile naturally became his Lord Chancellor and chief minister in the first part of his reign - mainly 1661-64.

His daughter (Anne Hyde) married Charles' brother James, who was heir to the throne. Thought to be behind the various Acts of Parliament, 1661-4, concerning religion(see religious

changes below) known as the Clarendon Code, which re-established the supremacy of the Church of England.

In fact he was not heavily involved in the drafting of the legislation and it was given his name merely because he was the king's chief minister.

Clarendon was a useful mentor for Charles and stressed the need for caution and diplomacy in royal policy, so as to secure Charles' position and rouse as little opposition as possible.

Clarendon was important in drawing up many of the Acts designed to settle the realm after the shocks of civil war and commonwealth.

Act for safety and preservation of the king's person. Act restoring bishops to the House of Lords Act against tumultuous petitioning Militia Act Act for regulating corporations

33

Clarendon was impeached by the House of Commons in 1667 and forced to flee to France where he lived in exile.

Cause of downfall was the disastrous Second Dutch War 1665-7 (see below) and sending prisoners out of England, where they could be held without trial.

Also seen as arrogant by his political opponents, who resented his influence over the king. Members of so-called Cabal, which succeeded his administration, had all been critics of

Clarendon.

Charles II’s relations with France and the Netherlands

At first relations between England and the Dutch Republic were quite good.

Charles had been in exile in Low Countries. House of Orange had lent money to his father during Civil War.

Treaty signed with Dutch in 1662, in which outstanding issues between the two countries resolved. Most of the concessions were made by the Dutch.

1663 Louis XIV of France laid claim to parts of Habsburg Southern Netherlands. Clarendon saw Louis as the main danger to English interests.

But thereafter, growing hostility towards the Dutch

Arlington and Duke of York hostile to Dutch trade and sea power supremacy (York was Lord High Admiral). Both hoped to gain from trade war with Dutch and seizure of Dutch trading posts.

Idea of war was popular in parliament. Dutch seen as threat to expansion of English trade and by 1664 Dutch ships were refusing to salute English flag at sea.

Lots of anti-Dutch propaganda reminded people of Amboyna massacre in 1623. Charles not really in favour of war but thought that successful patriotic war might mean more

support for his regime.

The Second Dutch War (1665-7) (First Dutch war was 1652-4 at time of the Commonwealth)

War resulted in decisive Dutch victory.

English did win first naval battle off Lowestoft but.. French now allied with the Dutch against England. Dutch won naval battle in the English Channel - so called Four Days Battle 1666. 1667 Dutch raided the river Medway at the mouth of the Thames and destroyed 15 ships at

anchor. Royal Navy laid up because government had run out of money to put the fleet to sea. War meant that Charles had to sign humiliating peace with Dutch. Feared revolt at home after

Medway Raid Clarendon, who had been against the war, was used as scapegoat and forced into exile.

34

Charles signed Triple Alliance with Dutch and Sweden; seen as a good Protestant alliance against France.

In fact, Charles probably hoped that this alliance would force Louis into alliance with England. Charles began diplomatic advances towards Louis just 3 months after signing it.

Religious policies of Charles II, 1660-1667

Restoration Settlement - the Church

Attempts to settle the tangled matter of a national church via a national conference failed. Worcester House Conference 1660 and Savoy House Conference 1661.

Episcopacy reinstated and bishops re-admitted to House of Lords Instead of a national settlement, local gentry and great landowners re-established much of the

pre-war Church of England. Many bring back Elizabethan Prayer Book and those Anglican ministers ejected during Civil War.

Cavalier Parliament (1661-79) passed so-called Clarendon Code, which re-established the Anglican Church but mainly tried to crush Dissenters - Protestants who would not conform. Code consisted of:

Corporation Act 1661: Dissenters not allowed to hold town offices. Act of Uniformity 1662 brought in New Prayer Book based on Elizabethan Prayer Book. Those

ministers who refuse to use it forced out. Quaker Act 1662: severe penalties for Quakers. Conventicle Act 1664 made it illegal to hold religious meeting of 5 or more people unless Prayer

Book is used. Five Mile Act 1664. No preacher who does not accept restored church to come within 5 miles of

a town or city. It is easy to see this as a victory for the Church of Charles I and Laud and that was the intention

BUT as always, much of this legislation was not rigorously enforced. In fact there was de facto toleration for Dissenters and dissenting ministers provided they

were not guilty of sedition or belong to Quaker or Baptist sects.

Great Fire of London 1666 increased fears of Catholic plot against the government.

Charles banished all Catholic priests All recusants who refused oath to king's Supremacy over the Church were to be disarmed All officers and soldiers who refused Supremacy oath dismissed. Similarly the Medway Raid by the Dutch in 1667 provoked another backlash against recusants

by the government, fearful of being accused of negligence.

35

The failure of opposition to Charles II, 1660-1667

Opposition to Charles government and his restoration Settlement of these years was not that dangerous, though the government remained nervous about the possibility of revolt/rebellion.

Charles usually prepared to make concessions if he encountered serious opposition in parliament. 1662 withdrew his Declaration of Toleration (for those outside the Anglican Church) when it was attacked in parliament.

Rumours of plots against the government were many. One rising (Venner’s Rising) by 5th Monarchists in 1661 was not very serious in fact but it was

centred in London and caught government by surprise. It provoked serious repressive measures and meat that government was always fearful of

rebellion. Parliamentary opposition to government measures and policies was taken seriously but Charles

government had widespread support from the Cavalier parliament.

36

Essay practice questions for Section B: From Republic to Monarchy, 1653-1667

B1 Why did the governments of the Interregnum fail to find an acceptable settlement in politics and religion? (45 marks)

B2 ‘Religion was more important than politics in the failure of the Interregnum regimes of 1649 to 1660.’Assess the validity of this view. (45 marks)

B3 ‘Cromwell’s foreign policy failed because it was too ambitious.’ Assess the validity of this view with reference to Cromwell’s foreign policy in the years 1653 to 1658. (45 marks)

B4 To what extent did Charles II fulfil the expectations that existed for his Restoration in the years 1660 to 1667? (45 marks)

B5 ‘Clarendon was dismissed in 1667 because his policies had failed.’Assess the validity of this view. (45 marks)

37

C: THE CONSOLIDATION OF CHARLES II’S RULE, 1667-1678

Charles II and his ministers

The period 1667-72 saw the rise of the 'Cabal' - group of important ministers who served Charles.

Clifford - the Lord Treasurer and Catholic convert - wanted to see the advancement of Catholicism. Usually pro-French.

Arlington - generally pro-Dutch in terms of foreign policy but suppressed feelings to keep favour with Charles.

Buckingham - politically inconsistent, main aim was self-aggrandisement. Generally wanted more toleration for Dissenters.

Lord Ashley (Anthony Ashley Cooper) wanted toleration for Dissenters and was in favour of excluding James Duke of York from the succession because of his Catholicism.

Lauderdale (John Maitland, Duke of Lauderdale) spent most of his time governing Scotland for the King.

In fact the nickname is misleading as these ministers were not really agreed on policy and Lauderdale was rarely at Court.

All came together in 1670 to sign the Treaty of Dover, which allied England to France (see below).

Nickname used to highlight the idea of secret council/advice being given to the King, rather than being guided by Parliament. Highlights existence of Country interest opposed to the secrecy and corruption of the Court party.

Cabal fell apart by 1672. Clifford died. Arlington frightened of impeachment, took a non-political post in the King's household. Ashley (later Earl of Shaftesbury) and Buckingham went into opposition over treatment of Dissenters.

Cabal never dominant group. Charles himself took an active part in government and policy formation, as did his brother York.

Danby

1673-8, after the Cabal, came the ministry of Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby. His policies were largely Cavalier in tendency i.e. anti-Catholic and anti-French. In finance he

hoped to increase income and decrease expenditure. Came to prominence as Lord Treasurer. Said that ‘Parliament must be gratified by executing the laws both against Popery and Non-

Conformity and withdrawing apparently from the French interest. Orders in Council 1675 said Catholic priests to leave country, papists not to come to Court or to

send children abroad to be educated. Commissioners sent into each shire to enquire into recusants' lands and confiscate 2/3rds for the King.

Encouraged Charles to follow a Protestant foreign policy.

38

Danby did increase royal income.

Greater commercial prosperity after late 1660s saw rise in income from customs Improved collection of hearth tax, excise tax and customs. By 1678 Charles income has reached c£1.3 million from c£900,000 in 1663. Peace made with Dutch in 1674 BUT expenditure increased more rapidly than income.

Government debt increased by c£750,000 in period 1674-8

Danby did build up support for Crown in the shires.

26 shires saw JPs displaced by Danby in favour of Tories. By 1670 death rate amongst old Commonwealth JPs pretty high. They were usually replaced by

Anglicans.

Danby thought to favour increased use of the army in politics, as a way of bringing in absolutism.

Raised an army to fight a war against France in 1677/8. Advised Charles that he might use threat of the army to extract money from Parliament.

Opponents claimed the army was made up of Papists. Army used in Scotland. 1678 Andrew Marvell wrote a pamphlet An Account of the Growth of Popery and Arbitrary

Government. Big attack on Danby's policies.

Relations between Crown and Parliament, including issues of finance

NB Parliament from 1661-79 - the Cavalier Parliament - was the same group of MPs, meeting in different sessions.

1667 Parliament got rid of Clarendon 1670 and 71 Parliament passed the most generous additional supplies of the reign.

Big extra indirect taxes passed Favourable supply partly because of widening court policy of bribing important MPs.

Parliament met in 1673 (had not met since 1671)

Commons attack legal and religious aspects of Charles' Declaration of Indulgence (1672). Charles gave way. Realized that he could not hold out against Anglicans and Dissenters on this issue.

Charles also agreed to banishment of Catholic priests and enforcement of recusancy laws. Charles agreed to anti-Catholic Test Act 1673 (see below). Charles reversed his pro-Catholic policies in Ireland. Catholics in Ireland to be disarmed and

excluded from office.

39

As a result of these measures, Parliament made a grant of £1,260,000 for war against Dutch

Later sessions of Parliament in 1673 (Oct/Nov) and 1674 (Jan/Feb) saw increased opposition to Charles' government.

Dutch War going badly. Dutch propaganda spread idea that Charles had allied with Louis XIV in order to bring in popery

and absolutism especially Peter du Moulin's England's appeal from the private Cabal at Whitehall to the Great Council of the Nation.

Lots of hostility to Charles' extravagance. Opposition to foreign policy Fears about popish ministers Concerns about the Catholic heir - James, Duke of York but attempt at exclusion failed badly. Charles dismissed Shaftesbury, who claimed there were 16,000 papists ready to bring in

Catholicism by force.

Danby did try to manage parliament more than previous ministers

By 1676 about 20-30 important MPs are receiving government pensions and can be relied on to support government policies.

Loyal MPs encouraged to attend regularly. But this was not really successful. Number of court placemen was pretty small and Danby could

not try to influence elections, sine there isn't one until 1679.

1675 Parliament

Still worried about papists but encouraged by Danby's attempts to enforce laws against recusants.

Lords proposed new oath to office holders that they would not attempt to alter ‘existing government in Church and State.’

Attempts by James to build up support amongst Dissenters largely failed. Dissenters hated Catholics.

Oct 1675 Commons still worried about a plot ‘by fanatics and papists to dissolve this Parliament.’

1677 Parliament now really concerned about possibility of James becoming King.

Danby attempted to introduce a Bill to limit James' powers but this failed. Also proposed more regular system for fining papist recusants.

40

1678 Parliament voted unanimously that the so-called Popish Plot was ‘a hellish plot.’

Titus Oates claimed that there was a Popish Plot to put James on the throne by means of assassination of Charles, Catholic uprisings in Ireland and England and Catholic invasion from France.

35 people executed 1678-81 in connection with the plot, even though the plot story was pure fantasy.

Charles probably didn't believe it but had to stand aside in view of Parliament's fury.

Parliament brought down Danby 1678-9

Parliament shown letters written by Danby showing that he was involved in secret negotiations with Louis for secret subsidies for Charles.

Parliament immediately voted to impeach Danby. Jan 1679 Charles dissolved Cavalier Parliament in an attempt to save Danby

Clash between Court and Country - emergence of Tories and Whigs; continuing support for republicanism

Court and Country was a familiar political division between the Court/courtiers/ministers and powerful landowners from the shires not involved directly in central government.

Country party complained about

scandals and corruption at Court scale of royal expenditure and waste oppressive nature of taxation secret plots and cabals

Tories and Whigs

These are not established and well defined parties in modern sense but loose affiliations/tendencies amongst many (but not all) of those in Lords and Commons.

Tories stood for

established Anglican Church maintenance of the royal prerogative established line of succession to throne

41

Whigs stood for

limitations on powers of the monarchy increased power for Parliament tradition of Protestant dissent from the established Anglican Church greater hostility to papists/Catholic Church than Tories ‘Exclusion’ of Catholics from the succession.

Support for Republicanism

England had been a Republic 1649-1660. Republican ideas had been taken up and spread during that period and afterwards by a number

of propagandists including Milton. The failings of Republicanism during the Commonwealth could be easily forgotten as the

political elite became worried about the corruptions of Charles' court and feared popery and arbitrary rule.

In reality, few in politics advocated a return to full blown republicanism but many, like the Whigs, thought that the powers of the monarchy should be seriously curtailed.

Most of those in Lords and Commons felt that Parliament should be the dominant power in the land.

Divisions between Anglicans and Dissenters; the impact of the Test Acts

Dissenters more vigorously persecuted under new Conventicle Act (1670) Mainly passed as means of getting supply from parliament

1672 Declaration of Indulgence

Passed on eve of Third Dutch War Suspended all penal laws against Dissenters Offered licences to Dissenters to hold public worship. Allowed Catholics to worship in their own homes

Fear of popery

Dissenters and Anglicans united in their fear of popery. Believed that there were thousands of papists disguised as good Anglicans. Worried about popery at the highest levels of society - Charles, his mother (Henrietta Maria)

and his brother the Duke of York; ministers like Clifford and Arlington. Concerned at alliance with Catholic Louis XIV and war against Protestant Dutch Catholic Ireland - always a likely springboard for Catholic invasion of England

42

Test Act 1673

An Act ‘for preventing dangers which may happen from popish recusants’ Brought in by the Commons as reaction to renewed fear of Popish plot. 1673 had seen big outburst of Anti-Catholic pamphlets and propaganda in wake of alliance with

France - Louis seen as embodiment of Catholicism and arbitrary rule. In addition there were widespread rumours about the conversion of York to Catholicism. Act said that all those who refused to take oaths of allegiance and Supremacy or who refused to

take the sacrament according to the rites of the Anglican Church were to lose office. Result was that York resigned all his offices and Clifford resigned as Treasurer, being replaced by

Danby.

Test Act 1678

Passed in the wake of the Popish Plot Extended Act of 1673 to cover members of House of Lords. All peers and members of Commons to make a declaration against transubstantiation,

invocation of saints and sacrifice in the mass. York was excepted from the Act at Charles' insistence.

Danby keen to see laws against Non-Conformists enforced and so appeased Anglicans.

Holds conference with bishops in 1674 to get them to enforce laws against Non-Conformity more rigorously.

Wrote a memo to this effect to Charles in 1675 Charles declared to parliament in 1675 that he would spare no effort to support ‘the Protestant

religion as it is established in the Church of England from which I will never depart.’ Keen to see Anglicans appointed to Commissions of the Peace (JPs) in place of Dissenters

Charles II's relations with France and the Netherlands

This period saw new alliance with France (1670) and third Dutch War (1672-4) Charles wanted war against Dutch. Wanted to avenge humiliation of Second Dutch War War would allow him to increase strength of navy and army. War would increase English trade and his revenues from trade.

Key to Charles strategy was a French alliance with Louis XIV.

Louis not unpopular in England until his great success against the Spanish Low Countries in 1672-3.

French alliance would bring French pension. Louis XIV was Charles' sister's brother-in-law.

43

Charles jealous of fact that Louis ruled without recourse to parliament.

1670 Charles signed secret Treaty of Dover

Charles and Louis agreed to humble the Dutch States General in a future war. Louis to determine the timing of declaration of war.

Louis to pay Charles £225,000 per year for duration of war. Charles agreed to declare himself a Catholic at some unspecified time in the future (he never

did) and Louis to provide more money and troops to help Charles in event of rebellion after the declaration.

Third Dutch War 1672-4

Essentially this was a costly failure for Charles. Hopes of using the navy to blockade the United Provinces failed. Charles' French allies were much more successful on land against the Dutch. Charles forced to sign Treaty of Westminster 1674 to end the conflict. Essentially this confirmed

the 'status quo ante bellum'. England kept New York and the Dutch kept Surinam.

44

Essay practice questions for Section C: The Consolidation of Charles II’s Rule, 1667-1678

C1 To what extent was the weakening of royal authority in the years 1667 to 1678 due to the king’s own ministers? (45 marks)

C2 Were the difficulties faced by Charles II due more to financial concerns than foreign policy in the years 1667 to 1678? (45 marks)

C3 To what extent can the Restoration Settlement in the years 1660 to 1685 be regarded as a failure? (45 marks)

45

D: SUCCESSION, CRISIS AND ‘GLORIOUS REVOLUTION’, 1678-1689

Charles II, 1678-85: the Exclusion Crisis and reasons for its failure

Exclusion Crisis at end of the reign revolved around attempts by Shaftesbury and his supporters in Parliament (the Whigs) to excluded James, Duke of York from the succession.

First Exclusion Parliament March-May 1679

Impeachment of Danby failed but he spent next 5 years in the Tower. Attempted to impose limitations on a future Catholic sovereign. Parliament moved to impeach James when it was revealed that he had been negotiating with

Rome. Widely assumed that he was involved in Popish Plot. Commons pass Exclusion Bill for second time by 207-128 Charles dissolved Parliament

Second Exclusion Parliament Oct 1680- Jan 1681

46

Commons pass new Exclusion Bill without a division and send it to the Lords. Charles managed to get it thrown out by the Lords. Charles did sacrifice one minister Viscount Stafford, a Catholic accused of involvement in Popish

Plot. Commons renewed its attacks on James and most of the King's advisers. Charles dissolved Parliament. Charles sacked the Counsellors who had voted for James' exclusion - Essex, Sunderland and

Temple.

Third Exclusion Parliament March 1681

Met in Oxford not Westminster. Royalist HQ during Civil War. Charles offered a compromise deal on Exclusion ie James to be King in name but real rulers

would be William and Mary (James's daughter and son-in-law). Parliament refused, wanted full exclusion of Catholic heir. Charles dissolved Parliament, which did not meet again during his reign (died 1685).

Reasons for failure of Exclusion

Theoretically problematic. If Parliament could exclude a Catholic, they might want to exclude others.

No real alternative heir to James except his daughter Mary and how could she be monarch if her father wasn't? Plus she had Dutch husband.

Whigs assumed Charles would back down as he had before but he didn't. Anglicans/Tories accuse Whigs of fomenting Civil War. Power and mystique of monarchy depended on hereditary succession. Charles could dissolve Parliament when he wanted to. Whigs dominated Commons but not Lords. Charles did not need parliamentary money grants. No war at this stage. 1681 started receiving

a French pension worth £385,000 over three years.

Charles' growing absolutism

Charles' success over Exclusion Crisis showed that he had potential to become more absolute. In 1684 he broke the Triennial Act by NOT calling Parliament after a three year gap. No crisis

over this. Showed up parliamentary weakness - could not command elections. Charles financially stronger by 1680s with no wars, increased income and renewed French

pension. No-one knew that Charles would die in 1685. He could have ruled without parliament for

longer! Whig opposition largely destroyed after Exclusion Crisis. Shaftesbury fled. Charles produced new Commissions of the Peace in 1681, dominated by Tories in every county. Church appointments in hands of another Commission made up of Tories.

47

June 1682 Charles got Tories elected as sheriffs in Middlesex/London plus new Lord Mayor of London also a Tory.

Rye House Plot 1683, another plot to assassinate Charles - probably genuine - broke Whig Party and whipped up lots of loyal addresses to the Crown.

1684 Danby and 3 Catholic Lords, all caught up in Popish Plot released from the Tower. James Duke of York restored to his position in Privy Council and old office of Lord Admiral in

May 1684. In Scotland, increased persecution of Dissenters and Presbyterian extremists. 1685 new borough charters. 98 were introduced or in preparation at time of Charles' death.

New charters increased royal control of important towns.

James II, personality and aims

As a Catholic, James sought to end penal laws against Catholics (and also Dissenters). It is doubtful whether he really hoped to make England a Catholic country again.

Crushed Monmouth's Rising (1685) which hoped to depose him in favour of Charles II's bastard son.

1686 Godden v Hales case. Judge found in favour of James' dispensing power. ie he had the right as sovereign to appoint Catholics to the army or elsewhere despite the existence of the Test Acts.

1686 Directions to Preachers. These limited the power of Church of England ministers to denounce Catholicism.

Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes set up to oversee Church of England and to enforce 1686 Directions to Preachers.

April 1687 James issued Declaration of Indulgence. Swept away all penalties for non-attendance at Church of England. Allowed freedom of religious assembly.

1687 James mounted campaign to influence elections to Parliament. Wanted to bring in MPs who would agree to repeal of Test Act.

April 1688 Second Declaration of Indulgence to be read out in Anglican churches throughout the land.

James also active in Ireland. Irish army purged of many Protestant officers - replaced by Catholics. By 1687 40% of officers and 67% of rank and file are Catholics.

Political and religious opposition to James II

1687 and 1688 see real growth in opposition to James policies. Widespread fears of popery and arbitrary rule, so often seen in reign of Charles II but now even

more credible. James was thought to be packing the army with Catholic officers. Fears that Ireland could be springboard for Catholic rebellion (as in 1641). In France Louis XIV repealed the Edict of Nantes as forerunner to renewed persecution of

French Protestants (Huguenots).

48

James was attempting to repeal Test Act as prelude to introduction of Catholicism and destruction of Anglican Church.

Whigs who had always wanted to exclude James from the throne) now joined by Tories/Anglicans worried about future of the Church.

James in his Declaration of Indulgence spoke of his determination to protect the personnel of the Church NOT the Church itself.

Crisis of 1688-9

May 1688 7 bishops put on trial for seditious libel by James. They refused to read out the second Declaration of Indulgence. They refused bail so that they would be put in Tower.

June 1688 7 bishops acquitted amidst scenes of national celebration. June 1688 birth of Prince James increased opposition to James II. Now the heir was no longer

James' Protestant daughter Mary but a presumably Catholic son. Lots of stories that baby was not really James'.

Leading noblemen petition William of Orange (James' son-in-law and a Protestant) to lead an invasion supposedly to get James to change his ways not officially to take the throne.

Nov 1688 William landed in Torbay in Devon. James II fled - fortunately for the plotters - so they could argue that the throne was vacant.

Convention Parliament met and offered throne to William and Mary.

49

The revolution of 1689 and the position and power of the monarchy

Settlement of 1689 did restrict the powers of the monarchy in new ways. William and Mary owed their royal title 'de facto' to Parliament. The political reality was that

Parliament had unmade James and made them. William and Mary agreed to the Bill of Rights, passed in Parliament in Dec 1689. This invited them to become sovereigns on the basis that they recognize the existence of basic

unchangeable rights held by all Englishmen.

These included:

freedom from royal interference with the law; freedom from taxation by royal prerogative; freedom from a standing army during times of peace; freedom of speech in Parliament; freedom from royal interference in elections to Parliament.

Crown lost its power to suspend or dispense with laws passed in Parliament. Only Parliament could raise taxes. Crown could not maintain an army in peace time

BUT Crown did still retain many powers

Declaring war and peace Guiding foreign policy Control of the militia Could still appoint and dismiss ministers Could still summon, prorogue and dismiss Parliaments. Crown could still hope to influence composition of Commons and still had right to appoint peers

(both temporal and spiritual) in the Lords. Crown continued to be voted large revenue as William was committed to long-term war against

France.

50

Essay practice questions for Section D: Succession, Crisis and the ‘Glorious Revolution’, 1678-1689

D1 To what extent was the revolution of 1688 to 1689 caused by James II’s religious policies?(45 marks)

D2 To what extent was the Exclusion crisis of 1678-83 political rather than religious?(45 marks)

Essay practice questions by theme, 1642-1689

E1 How did the threat from religious radicalism change in the years 1646 to 1689? (45 marks)

E2 How important was the issue of multiple-kingdoms, the interrelation between England, Scotland and Ireland, in the political unrest of the years 1649 to 1689? (45 marks)

E3 How successfully did the rulers of England deal with religious divisions in the years 1649 to 1688? (45 marks)

E4 To what extent did relations between Crown and Parliament improve during the years 1660 to 1689? (45 marks)

51

EXEMPLAR ANSWERS – FROM MONARCHY TO REPUBLIC 1642-1653 QUESTION A2

‘Religion was more important than politics in the failure of Crown and Parliament to reach a settlement in the years 1646 to 1649.’Assess the validity of this view. (45 marks)

52

CANDIDATE A

53

Commentary – Candidate A

Candidate attempts to address the specific question and factors in the introduction, although this could be done more directly and particularly offer some focus on the issue of regicide.

The first paragraph deals with politics and religion causing division within the army and within the factions in parliament as well as between army and parliament. Knowledge here is generally secure but candidate should not use the later development of the Quakers and Diggers for examples in this period and should qualify the influence of the Levellers as well as their religious agenda to show more clearly precise knowledge of the period. There follows a good paragraph illustrating Charles’ role in the failure of settlement. The candidate touches upon Charles’ tactic of causing division, there is reference to his refusal of the Newcastle Propositions (1646), and the candidate links this

54

again to different factions in Parliament. This is then reinforced by reference to Charles and the grandees negotiating the Heads of Proposals in July 1647. The failure of these attempted settlements is also set in the context of Charles’ escape from Hampton Court, his Engagement and the Second Civil War. The candidate also illustrates the increasing radicalism through reference to the Windsor Prayer Meeting, again getting the chronology of these events correct. The paragraph is rounded off well with directed comment on the changed situation because of Charles as a factor compared to 1646.

This paragraph is, however, too long. The candidate would benefit from separate and more detailed treatment of the Second Civil War and the Windsor Prayer Meeting. This would also allow a slightly more developed consideration of the Heads of the Proposals.

The next paragraph is directly linked to the factor of religion and the candidate tries to explain this as a context for parliamentary division. Again the candidate tries to put too much into this paragraph by then going on to the Vote of No Addresses, their Repeal and Pride’s Purge. While this material is linked to the theme of parliamentary division the problem again of having so much in one paragraph means that these key events are not dealt with in enough precise detail.

The next paragraph is started well where all the previous themes are brought together indicating the candidate’s understanding of how they linked in causing the failure of settlement. Candidate also makes directed judgement about religion being the key underlying factor for all of these linked reasons as well as linking it to the continuing failure of settlement post January 1649.

The candidate was awarded Level 4, 32 marks as they have showed a very good understanding of the question, specifically the key factors of the failure of settlement as well as a grasp of the chronology of the key events of the period, linked to the factors, and have structured a response around these with directed comment. It is generally written quite clearly.

There is, however, much more scope for the development of the use of the key illustrative examples and comment to go further. This is particularly the case with regard to the events from December 1647.

55

EXEMPLAR ANSWERS – FROM MONARCHY TO REPUBLIC 1642-1653 QUESTION A2

‘Religion was more important than politics in the failure of Crown and Parliament to reach a settlement in the years 1646 to 1649.’Assess the validity of this view. (45 marks)

CANDIDATE B

56

Commentary – Candidate B

Candidate tries to address question and the specific factors directly in the introduction, although this would be more effective with the deployment of more precise specific evidence from the period 1646 to 1649. The first paragraph addresses Newcastle Propositions, the Heads of the Proposals and the politicisation of the New Model. Sound directed comment at the end as well as appreciation of the role of Charles. This could be more precise and development comment in relation to these themes but attempt is made in the next paragraph to add more weight by addressing the Levellers’ role in the politicisation of the New Model.

There follows a good paragraph on Charles’ role which is illustrated clearly with examples of settlements that he refused. The paragraph on divide in parliament, caused by attempts at settlement, builds on this with other directed specific examples, Ireton’s Remonstrance and Pride’s Purge. The candidate tries to address the concept of providence in the context of this division and the politicisation of the army.

All of these themes are brought together in the conclusion which is generally clear and focused on the specific question.

This essay is awarded Level 4, 32 marks as it shows a very good understanding of the question, is good on the themes and has a range of good evidence. However, it also fails to really develop some of these examples.

57

EXEMPLAR ANSWERS – FROM MONARCHY TO REPUBLIC 1642-1653 QUESTION A2

‘Religion was more important than politics in the failure of Crown and Parliament to reach a settlement in the years 1646 to 1649.’Assess the validity of this view. (45 marks)

CANDIDATE C

58

Commentary – Candidate CThis essay has a very good introduction that shows a very good grasp of the key themes and groups in the failure of settlement indicating immediately an understanding of the question and period.There is a good paragraph on Charles’ approach which shows a sound understanding of his motivation and links clearly to Newcastle Propositions and the army’s Heads of Proposals. While the next paragraph deals with New Model but is not clear in its deployment of evidence in terms of the chronology of the period. This candidate shows a clear understanding of the Second Civil War as a turning point in the politics of settlement but could have been more developed through a closer use of precise evidence and comment.

59

While the candidate attempts to bring this together in a conclusion and has shown enough for Level 4 there is definitely a need for greater detail and precision in this essay.

EXEMPLAR ANSWERS – THE CONSOLIDATION OF CHARLES II’S RULE 1667-1678QUESTION C1

To what extent can the Restoration Settlement in the years 1660 to 1685 be regarded as a failure?(45 marks)

CANDIDATE A

60

Commentary – Candidate A

Candidate writes a good introduction addressing the specific question directly shaping an argument and including key themes of the period and specific evidence. There is a good

illustrated

paragraph on foreign policy commenting on the

61

failure against the Dutch and relations with the French/Louis XIV. There is precise support, specifically with Treaty of Dover to illustrate this. The paragraph ends linking the French information to religion, finance and parliament. This ably sets up the next paragraph which deals with the issue of religion which again has a chain of evidence which runs through the period as well as underpinning the examples with reference to the longer term causes of anti-catholicism.

A paragraph dealing with the tension between Charles and MPs due to the nature of his court as well as Charles II causing tension with his councillors is effective and is followed by a very solid consideration of Charles’ successes in dealing with immediate issues resolved at the Restoration.

The candidate has a good paragraph on the Exclusion Crisis and why this was the main success of Charles II. Again there is some good detail, for example reference to the Triennial Act, from the candidate in support of the point being made. All of this is brought together in clear conclusion and the candidate gets a good Level 4 mark by showing a very good understanding of the specific question through dealing with the themes of the period and illustrating this through use of the key details of the period. Comment needs extension and further precision when using key events as examples.

62

EXEMPLAR ANSWERS – THE CONSOLIDATION OF CHARLES II’S RULE 1667-1678QUESTION C1

To what extent can the Restoration Settlement in the years 1660 to 1685 be regarded as a failure?(45 marks)

CANDIDATE B

63

64

65

Commentary - Candidate BThis essay starts with a good introduction which makes judgement and addresses the range of factors for this specific question. There follows a sound paragraph on religion with evidence. The candidate then deals with other themes, notably foreign policy, finance, ministers and Exclusion as they proceed through the essay. Some of this would be more effective in a clearer structure and there is a need for greater depth of illustration and comment. The candidate does bring the essay together in a sound conclusion. They have been awarded Level 4 as they have, however, shown a very good understanding of the specific question, have addressed the themes of the period, linked to some key details and shown an understanding of how the themes linked.

66

EXEMPLAR ANSWERS – THE CONSOLIDATION OF CHARLES II’S RULE 1667-1678QUESTION C1

To what extent can the Restoration Settlement in the years 1660 to 1685 be regarded as a failure?(45 marks)

CANDIDATE C

67

68

69

70

71

Commentary - Candidate CResponse C shares the same key features as responses A and B on Question C1. There is a good rounded introduction that has detail and addresses both sides of the question well. It deals with the immediate issues of the restoration with precise detail in the first two paragraphs and then illustrates the problems of religion effectively.

This is developed further in the next paragraph although the theme and evidence of this could be clearer. The candidate does become more precise towards the end when dealing with Exclusion, a key issue for this specific question. The treatment of Charles’ use of his ministers is valid but would be strengthened by more directed comment. Like the other two essays this candidate has a good range of evidence, addresses themes and generally has comment and on this basis has done enough to secure a good Level 4 mark – but again more precision more clarity with the themes of the paragraph would strengthen this essay.

72

EXEMPLAR ANSWERS – THEMATIC QUESTIONQUESTION E3

To what extent did relations between Crown and Parliament improve during the years 1660 to 1689? (45 marks)

CANDIDATE A

73

74

Commentary - CANDIDATE A

The candidate produces a clear introduction that provides the context of change over the period while making directed comment on James and his religious policies as a cause of the Revolution. The candidate also links the concepts of Catholicism and absolutism and sets this in context of James’ aims, which is also linked to different historians’ views of James’ aims. The candidate also shows an appreciation of the importance of the alienation of the church and gentry. Within this the candidate also supports their establishment of the context of the essay with precise support, referring to the defeat of the Whigs in the Exclusion Crisis and the improved financial position of the crown at James’ accession.

The candidate then follows through with evidence to illustrate religious policies causing problems – Godden v Hales, Commission for Ecclesiastical Causes, relationship with gentry, JPs etc are all dealt with as examples of James alienating key support. The candidate also deals with James’ relationship with Dissenters and then has more detail on Declarations of Indulgence and the Bishops.

There is an excellent direct attempt at balance in the argument by structuring the essay around other factors as well, like the underlying anti-catholicism of the population and thereby addressing a key concept of the whole period and the role of William of Orange. In dealing with these factors the candidate supports their argument with key details, including the trigger for William’s intervention, the birth of James’ son and the European context of the Netherlands’ struggle with Louis XIV.

All of this is effectively brought together in the conclusion and while there could have been more precision with the evidence, links between themes and comments the candidate has done enough to secure Level 5 as they have shown a relatively full understanding of the question. They have also, through the essay, illustrated a good conceptual grasp. This can be seen, for example, in an understanding of the importance of the gentry, the nation as represented in parliament, the link between Catholicism and absolutism and the importance of trust. Well structured with a range of evidence the candidate makes explicit comment as they proceed through the essay.

75

EXEMPLAR ANSWERS – THEMATIC QUESTIONQUESTION E3

To what extent did relations between Crown and Parliament improve during the years 1660 to 1689? (45 marks)

CANDIDATE B

76

77

Commentary - CANDIDATE B

Despite spelling throne as ‘thrown’ the candidate produces a good introduction establishing the context and shaping an argument to the key factors that caused the Glorious Revolution. They establish the religious context for James’ policies and more importantly the importance of the support of the church and landowners who the candidate argues James alienated by his religious and political policies. This is supported with reference to policies and the candidate also shows an appreciation of the process/escalation of alienation of this key group. The candidate makes directed comment on this material in relation to the specific wording of the question.

The candidate then addresses, in a similar structure, James’ alienation of landowners, specifically by using examples that link their role in parliament and in control of the localities. Such an approach in previous paragraphs indicates very good understanding of some key concepts and if developed by more lining comment would really be a feature of a Level 5 essay.

The candidate deals with William clearly as another factor and has the crucial trigger of the birth of James’ son and the fear of absolutism as a consequence. Touches upon the immortal seven and weaknesses of James’ reaction – but this needs more detail and while the candidate brings an argument together in their conclusion generally there needs to be a development of the evidence and comment.

78

EXEMPLAR ANSWERS – THEMATIC QUESTIONQUESTION E3

To what extent did relations between Crown and Parliament improve during the years 1660 to 1689? (45 marks)

CANDIDATE C

79

80

Commentary - CANDIDATE C

There is a good direct start with focus on specific question and shaped to an argument. The candidate then sets the context by explaining the strength of James’ position in 1685 and then developing this in relation to different interpretations of James’ intentions. The candidate has a good range of evidence with regard to James’ policies that alienated the elite at the heart of the essay. Yet this essay does need a development of comment and evidence and needs to be much clearer on the role of William in relation to the development of opposition in England to move higher within Level 4.

81

General summary of all responsesThese essays secured Level 4 (26-37). They range from the weakest, at 28 marks, to 34 marks. One secured a Level 5 mark of 42. The Level 4 essays all showed very good understanding of the demands of the question, predominantly by focusing on the key themes/factors for the specific question which is supported by a range of precise evidence. The essays are well-organised and, in general, relatively clearly written. They have clear judgement through the essays. Yet all of these elements could have been more developed to move beyond 34 marks to the top of the level at 37 or in to Level 5 (38-45 marks). The one essay that did secure Level 5, 42 obviously had all of the features of the other essays but showed a fuller understanding of the question, was more precise with its evidence and shaped the comment more consistently through the whole essay as part of an overall argument that was very clear, helped by a very good structure and fluency of expression.

82

ASSESSMENT TRACKING SHEET

? STRENGTH GRADE HOW TO PROGRESS

X

A1

A2

A3

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

C1

C2

C3

D1

D2

E1

E2

E3

E4

TARGET GRADE AS RESULTSUNIT 1 UNIT 2