The candidate’s response to the second part of the essay question could include:
-
Historians such as J.E. Neale and A.L. Rowse see the reign of Elizabeth as an age of greatness, when England began to establish itself as a leading power in Western Europe. To them the England that Elizabeth inherited was on the verge of bankruptcy and had little international standing, but by 1603, it was a comparatively stable country, with an expanding economy, power on the international stage and on the verge of acquiring an empire.
-
Elizabeth’s government had established both its authority at home and its title to respect in Europe. "She is only a woman, only mistress of half an island," marvelled Pope Sixtus V, "and yet she makes herself feared by Spain, by France, by the Empire, by all" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire.
-
By the time of Elizabeth’s death, the Northern Netherlands had become sovereign state of the United Provinces. The Edict of Nantes (1598) had granted Huguenots the right to worship in France, and France was no longer seen as major threat to English national security. The defeat of the Spanish Armada, the establishment of the first English colonies in North America and the extension of English influence over Scotland and Ireland, all laid the foundations for the rise of Britain as a major power in Europe.
-
Parliamentarians looked back on the last 15 years of Elizabeth’s reign as a period in which people and ruler united against all odds, and with divine providence had survived a period of extreme peril from the malevolence of Roman Catholics. They may have been years of severe financial strain, but Elizabethan foreign policy had generally met with approval from the governing class.
-
Given its limited military and financial resources, England was very restricted in what it could do in foreign affairs. National policy had been shaped as much by circumstances as by the will of the Queen or the persuasions of her privy councillors or the interests of commerce or the pressures of religion. But if the main aim of foreign policy is to protect national security and to prevent invasion, then Elizabethan foreign policy was a success. England had avoided invasion – although perhaps more by luck than judgment. In organizing national defense, major improvements had taken place in the English army and navy. Creation of trained bands and work of lord lieutenant had improved military defense. Improvement in ship design and administration of the Admiralty created a fleet, which could operate across the Atlantic as well as around England.
-
Recent historians, however, have taken a more complicated view of Elizabethan foreign policy. Although her reign is famous for the defeat of the Armada, some historians point to military failures on land and at sea. The policy of gaining control through colonisation in Ireland had limited success, caused deep resentment among the Anglo-Irish, and resulted in intermittent rebellion. Conquest after Tyrone’s Rebellion was achieved only through major military involvement at considerable financial expense.
-
Rather than as Heroine of the Protestant cause, she is more often regarded as cautious in her foreign policies. She offered very limited aid to foreign Protestants and failed to provide her commanders with the funds to make a difference abroad.
-
Throughout her reign – until 1587 – the issue of Elizabeth’s possible marriage and the line of succession to the English throne had an important influence on foreign policy. The problem of Catholic Mary Stuart’s claim to the throne, and the use of marriage as a diplomatic weapon, were factors that complicated and drove policy at times.
-
Inflation in the last decade of Elizabeth’s rule was the direct result of the expense of war with Spain and rebellion in Ireland. It increased demand for goods, forcing up prices and leading to widespread poverty.
Topic One: Essay (d)
Describe the traditional structure, function, and privileges of the early Stuart Parliament.
Evaluate the impact of James I’s conflict with his parliaments between 1603 and 1625 on the traditional relationship between the monarch and Parliament.
The candidate’s response to the first part of the essay question could include:
-
The early Stuart Parliament was composed of the monarch, about 80 peers, bishops and judges with the right to sit in the House of Lords and about 460 gentry, lawyers, and merchants who sat as elected representatives in the House of Commons.
-
Parliaments meetings were irregular, because the monarch alone could summon, adjourn, prorogue and dissolve it.
-
When the Crown summoned Parliament, an election to the House of Commons was held. In the counties, all males who were freeholders of land worth 40 shillings' annual rent were entitled to vote for two MP’s and the elections were organised by the local sheriff. Borough elections were according to a royal charter and often a formality – the nominees of a powerful patron or the crown was usually elected. Throughout early Stuart parliaments there was a rise in the social status and education of MPs.
-
The functions of Parliament:
-
Financial. The House of Commons provided the Crown with extraordinary revenue when needed in the form of direct taxes — subsidies and fifteenths and tenths. Parliament did not, however, audit expenditure, and had no access to the Crown's financial accounts.
-
Legislative. Subject to royal veto, Parliament could pass statute law (the highest form of law), which was applicable to the whole kingdom.
-
Judicial. Parliament could act as a court and impeach individuals. The Commons charged and prosecuted and the Lords sat in judgement.
-
A sounding board. Less formally, Parliament acted as a point of contact between the monarch and representatives of the governing class. Both Houses were bound together by loyalty to the monarch. While it was the duty of the Crown to heed grievances raised in Parliament and remedy them with appropriate laws, MPs had a duty to pass laws and vote taxes to ensure security of the realm.
-
Privileges: At the opening of each Parliament the Speaker of the House of Commons requested:
-
Freedom of speech in Parliament. But the Monarch was able to limit what the Commons might legitimately debate. Elizabeth I for example had been careful to distinguish those subjects, which touched on her prerogative rights (such as religion and foreign policy) and could not be freely discussed. Parliament was not meant to be a place of conflict, but one of co-operation.
-
Freedom from arrest from civil suits while Parliament was sitting.
-
Freedom to propose new laws, especially those requested by the locality they represented.
The candidate’s response to the second part of the essay question could include:
-
Despite the general good will which surrounded James’s accession there was some apprehension about the intentions of this new and ‘foreign’ king. His reputation as author of The Trew Law of Free Monarchies with its emphasis on the divine right of kings had preceded him. Consequently Parliament was very sensitive to any perceived attack upon its traditional privileges and any absolutist tendencies on his part -this is evidenced by The Form of Apology and Satisfaction in 1604. In his early parliaments he faced concern over issues such as immunity from arrest by MP’s, adjudicating disputed elections, crown plans for a full union with Scotland, crown use of monopolies, purveyance and wardship, and introduction of impositions without parliamentary consent.
-
Despite their differences and James’s notorious extravagance, Parliament still provided him an unprecedented 3 subsidies in peacetime in 1606 after the Gunpowder Plot. It could be argued that these early clashes between James and his parliaments were more apparent than real. The disagreements were over specific issues, rather than a concerted and organised opposition to the crown. Through inadequate Council representation in the Commons, James had failed to explain crown policies clearly. He lacked the presence and skills to manage a contentious Commons and too frequently resorted to hectoring them with lengthy speeches. When the Commons refused to agree to him styling himself ‘King of Great Britain’ he took the title by proclamation instead. He used judges to interpret the law in his favour with regard to impositions (eg Bates Case), which though acknowledged as legal, was resented. Finally, rather than face questioning about his spending in parliament, he curtailed negotiation of the Great Contract.
-
Conflict with James in his early Parliaments threatened the harmonious relationship and understanding between the governing class and monarch – conflict had become the norm rather than the exception. James was a foreign King determined from the outset not to surrender his divine right and absolute authority. Equally, he was challenged by an English governing class in Parliament anxious to preserve their traditional birthrights and privileges under common law as well as the superior standing of statute law. While accepting that Kings should act within the bounds of the law, James insisted that Parliaments met by royal grace and favour and that dissent with royal policy was both sinful and treasonous. He felt that Parliament should concern itself with providing subsidies and voicing the grievances of the communities they represented rather than discussing royal policy and trying to hold his ministers accountable. The Commons in response became sensitive to any supposed expansion of the royal prerogative.
-
Moreover, James did allow Parliament to sit for much longer sessions to facilitate the passage of communal and private bills. Even though he had little interest in promotion of an official programme of legislation, he was concerned to deal with grievances from the localities brought to Parliament. James may have found the English parliament less benign than the Scottish parliament – ‘a body without a head’, but he still recognised it was important for effective government as well as gaining additional finance.
-
Nonetheless, in James’s last parliaments conflict with serious consequences was to arise. In the 1614 Addled Parliament factional divisions at court and in council began to spill over into parliament. One favourite, the Duke of Buckingham was to completely dominate royal policy and the distribution of patronage. There was criticism of royal policy, extravagant spending on favourites and new impositions. Moreover from 1618 the Thirty Years War between Catholic and Protestant began in Europe and was to reawaken anti-Catholic sensibilities in England. So when the 1621 parliament met it duly voted two subsidies to finance expeditions to retrieve the Palatinate for James’s Protestant son-in-law. However, the Commons were also anxious to curtail the impact of the large number of monopolies James had granted as patronage. Some councillors and favourites like Buckingham were implicated and to deflect attention from their own involvement, encouraged Parliament to revive an ancient impeachment process and use it against the Lord Chancellor, Francis Bacon, who had approved the new monopolies. James chose to let them do so. He was preoccupied with a more personal conflict with parliament over the direction of foreign policy and especially his intention to arrange a Spanish marriage for his son Charles. So when the Commons entered a ‘Protestation’ that they ought to be able to discuss such matters, James angrily tore it from the House journal and dissolved parliament, imprisoning Sir Edward Coke and others who had drafted it.
-
A lack of clear definition of nature of parliamentary privilege (freedom from arrest, free speech) compounded the conflict between James and his governing class. The distinction between important matters of state as opposed to what was restricted to the royal prerogative was another major issue. Parliament believed they should be able to discuss foreign policy and religion. Revival of the ancient process of impeachment by Coke further complicated the subject of how far Parliament’s role extended.
-
However when negotiations for the Spanish match collapsed, under pressure from an aggrieved Prince Charles and Buckingham, James, in an apparent turn around, invited the 1624 Parliament to advise him on foreign policy. He expected Parliament to thereby take responsibility for funding that policy and agreed they could set up a committee to supervise the spending of any subsidies raised for it. James made a further concession to the Commons by signing the Monopolies Act restricting for the first time by legislation the royal prerogative to grant further monopolies. Buckingham and Charles promoted a war against Spain and urged Parliament to impeach Lord Treasurer Cranfield who had warned war would be expensive.
-
Factional court politics in which Buckingham and Charles had played a leading role, had allowed Parliament to make unexpected gains that would severely alter the harmonious relationship between the monarch and his governing class in parliament. Dangerous precedents had been created. Parliament had been invited to freely discuss foreign policy, could now dispense with ‘evil ministers’, have a committee supervise subsidy expenditure and (by the Monopolies Act) restrict royal power to acting within the law. It remained only to see how much further they would be driven to go to define the relationship between the Crown and Parliament.
Topic One: Essay (e)
Describe the situation in Britain between 1637 and 1642 that led to the outbreak of civil war between Charles I and Parliament.
Evaluate the influence of the civil war on people’s lives in England during the 1640s.
The candidate’s response to the first part of the essay question could include:
-
The crisis that led to the outbreak of civil war between Charles I and Parliament in 1640 began with his attempts to impose royal authority on the Presbyterian Church in Scotland.
-
In 1637, Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, required the Kirk to accept a prayer book and order of service closely modeled on the 1633 Anglican one. This brought Scottish fears to a head. The elite saw this as the action of an alien king, who now sought to dictate how they worshipped and what they believed. Worse, to Scottish Presbyterian eyes, the Laudian reforms smacked of Catholicism. Nobility, gentry, and the Kirk were united in opposition. Riots greeted the new prayer book; a large portion of the nobility petitioned against its introduction. An alliance of the landed elite and the Presbyterian clergy was formed and a provisional opposition government set up in Edinburgh. A National Covenant was signed in 1638 by nobility, gentry, clergy, and merchants united against “ungodly rule and popery”. They protested their loyalty to the King but refused to accept the “innovations” of the liturgy. Without the support of Scottish nobility or the Kirk, royal authority throughout Scotland ceased to exist.
-
In Nov 1638 the Scottish National Assembly abolished the High Commission and removed bishops. They also started to collect an army.
-
The English felt sympathy for the Scottish cause against Charles’s imposition of the new Prayer Book and he had difficulty raising a willing and effective militia to suppress the Covenanters.
-
This led to the recall from Ireland of Thomas Wentworth (Earl of Strafford), who advised the King to call the English parliament to vote subsidies for an army against the Scots. The ensuing Short Parliament was disappointing. Led by Pym and Hampden, the House of Commons wanted redress of grievances before they would vote subsidies.
-
In the Second Bishops war the Scots captured Newcastle cutting off London’s vital coal supply and occupying the north of England. Charles signed the Treaty of Ripon. He was forced to pay 850 pounds a day to provision the Scots army and prevent them moving further south. Defeated and unable to pay these costs Charles looked to London financiers, but they would not provide loans unless Parliament was recalled.
-
The Long Parliament was called in 1640 with Charles I desperate for Parliament’s aid to contain an armed rebellion by the Scots that had escalated to an invasion of the north of England. It was an opportunity therefore for Parliament to put to right their past grievances with the King and ensure they would not be repeated once the Scottish crisis had been resolved.
-
These grievances involved:
-
Charles’ association with despotism through his mismanagement of parliament 1625-29, his claim to rule by divine right alone, the years of personal rule 1629 to 1640 resulting in the alienation of his governing class and dismissal of the Short Parliament 1640. They centered around the issues of:
-
arbitrary taxation; Tunnage and Poundage, impositions, forced loans, ship money, forest fines, distraint of knighthood.
-
arbitrary imprisonment; Five Knights case, Sir John Eliot, use of Star Chamber, John Hampden’s case.
-
arbitrary government; Thorough policy under Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, in the northern counties and Ireland.
-
Charles’ association with Catholicism through his marriage to Henrietta Maria and tolerance of Catholicism at court, his promotion of Arminianism through Archbishop William Laud in the Church of England and the use of harsh enforcement through bishops and the Court of High Commission.
-
Throughout the Long Parliament the aims of John Pym and other leaders were therefore to challenge and change specific royal prerogatives:
-
To do away with evil counselors (eg Strafford and Laud), so that the ‘natural advisors’ from the governing class could be listened to. This defied Charles right to appoint ministers.
-
To attack the instruments of Charles’ personal rule and make him more economically dependent on Parliament, This subverted his prerogative right to raise revenue.
-
Ensuring a permanent place for Parliament in the machinery of government. This changed the authority kings normally exercised over Parliament.
-
Pym and his group considered they were restoring the traditional balance between King, Lords and Commons under the constitution that Charles by arbitrary acts had damaged.
-
The passage of the Triennial Act placed a three year limit on any period of personal rule, forcing the King to summon Parliament after that time.
-
The Act against the dissolution of Parliament meant the king could not dissolve Parliament without its own consent.
-
By the Tunnage and Poundage Act the King was forced to give up the right to impose any customs duties without Parliament’s assent
-
Revenue gathering innovations (such as ship money, forest fines and distraint of knighthood) used during the personal rule were abolished conflicting with the monarch’s prerogative rights of extra-ordinary taxation.
-
Prerogative courts used to enforce royal policy during the personal rule, eg Star Chamber, High Commission, and regional councils were abolished attacking the King’s rights as the fount of justice.
-
The “Root and Branch Petition” calling for the abolition of the episcopacy infringed on the King’s rights as Head of the Church.
-
Further challenges to the royal prerogative in the second session of the Long Parliament such as the “Grand Remonstrance”, arose from the need to have an army in Ireland to put down the Catholic rebellion there. It split the Commons over whether the Parliament should have the right to veto the King’s appointment of ministers and control of the militia simply because they suspected he might use those powers to reverse the gains they had already made.
-
However, the fiasco of the attempted arrest of the Five Members by Charles confirmed those suspicions and caused the Long Parliament to further attack the royal prerogative by the excluding bishops from the House of Lords and passing the Militia Ordinance granting control of the militia to Parliament itself.
-
Charles left London and called the Commission of Array attempting to secure the support of the county militias. Parliament offered him the Nineteen Propositions (claiming control of Ministers, the militia and Church matters as well as guardianship of his children). As a basis for negotiation it left little room for compromise. Charles formally declared war on Parliament 22nd August, 1642.
The candidate’s response to the second part of the essay question could include:
-
The war was a huge shock to English society. The taking-up of arms against the King represented to many ‘a world tipped upside down’, a society where things would never be quite the same again.
-
The war split the nation, forcing people to side with the monarchy or Parliament. For some this was a very difficult choice, as they found themselves torn between loyalties to the King on the one hand and concern for the status of the governing class on the other. It has been estimated that 10% of the adult male population fought in the war.
-
The gentry in twenty counties pleaded with Parliament to allow them to be neutral, but all areas were dragged into the fighting in some way. Both sides recruited as many men as possible, often from the same areas. Initially they relied on volunteers, later they had to forcibly conscript.
-
Desertion was common. Loyalty was to their county rather than King or Parliament. Most were chiefly concerned with the fortunes of their local community than national politics or the possible outcome of the war. In some counties, armed groups, called Clubmen, organised to try and persuade the Royalists and Parliamentarians to take their war somewhere else, usually without success.
-
Lost lives – bodies were stripped of valuables and buried quickly to avoid disease. Some prisoners of war were ransomed back to their families. Some of the wounded and sick were shot. If the effects of disease and the fighting are taken into account among both soldiers and civilians as much as 100,000 people may have lost their lives.
-
Accounts tell of soldiers occupying and looting farms and farmhouses and molesting and abusing the occupants. Soldiers on both sides committed atrocities, acting as if they were beyond the law, murdering and raping vulnerable civilians. Those living in towns under attack especially, faced the prospect of losing their lives as well as their possessions.
-
Homes and churches were vandalised, eg cutting open feather mattresses, destroying books and manuscripts, breaking down fencing, killing animals, spoiling crops and cutting down fruit trees.
-
Taxes, forced loans, sequestration by both sides meant no one’s property was safe.
-
Forced billeting. Both sides expected the local population to accommodate their armies.
-
Normal life virtually stopped in many areas. Travel and trade was extremely hazardous. Goods were often confiscated by soldiers before they got to their destination. Passes were needed for travel.
-
Women were left on their own to survive. Gender roles were distorted by the war, as women took on extra responsibilities eg Brilliana Harley supervised the defence of a town against Royalist forces.
-
In 1643 a crowd of women with white ribbons marched for an end to the fighting. They fought barehanded against cavalry before being dispersed.
-
Nonetheless, some historians believe we may have an exaggerated view of the impact of the war on the daily lives of ordinary people. Life was not continuously disrupted by the fighting, and for many the struggle for subsistence took their full attention.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
