Finding out about what is going on in early modern history beyond this country

 

Bishop John Williams and John Hampden in April, 1640

 

The failure of King Charles I to secure supply from Parliament in the spring of 1640  for his military plans to defeat his rebellious Scottish subjects and of his critics, principally in the House of Commons, to secure redress for their grievances has long been regarded as a missed opportunity that might have averted the disasters of the civil wars in the Stuarts’ three kingdoms that followed shortly thereafter. There have been a number of studies of the Short Parliament in recent years by scholars like John Adamson, Mark Kishlansky, Conrad Russell and Kevin Sharpe covering the proceedings in the two Houses and their interactions with the deliberations of Charles I and his Privy Councillors.[1] They have built upon the editorial work of Willson H.Coates, Esther S.Cope and Judith D.Maltby in publishing the relevant sources for the Camden Society.[2] Admittedly, there is nothing new in this interest in these proceedings: nineteenth and early-twentieth century scholars like Lord Nugent, S.R. Gardiner, Hugh Ross Williamson and Hugh Trevor-Roper were just as intrigued by these events.[3]

 

Modern scholars, however, have overlooked one small but highly interesting source noted by their predecessors. It can be found in the reply made by John Hampden on 29^th April, 1640 to an apparent overture two days earlier from the Bishop of Lincoln, John Williams who was being held a prisoner in the Tower of London and who was thus unable to attend the House of Lords. Williams seems to have asked John Hampden to raise the matter of his detention as an issue in the House of Commons. Hampden, however, was not willing to do so. More interestingly still, Hampden explained in his reply to Williams that he anticipated that Parliament might shortly be dissolved, partly because the lower House was not the appropriate place to raise such an issue, partly because  there had been a quarrel between the two Houses over an attempt by the Lords to induce the Commons to give priority to supply for the King and partly because he, Hampden, was, perhaps, the wrong person to raise this matter, presumably because of his role in bringing the Ship Money case. But Hampden’s letter does offer a degree of insight into the thinking of the inner circle of Charles I’s critics towards the end of April, 1640 and of their apparent anticipation that the Short Parliament would prove fruitless. It is worth noting for that reason.        

 My Lord,- I should be very ready to serve you in

anything I conceived good for you and fit for me ; but in

your Lordship's present commands I doubt that to make

overture of your intentions,and be prevented by a sudden conclusion of the Parliament, which many fear, may render your

condition worse than now it is.

  To begin with, our house is not the right place ; the

most important businesses of the King and kingdom are pressed on with such expedition that any of a more

particular nature will be but unwelcome, and hardly

prosecuted with effect. Besides that, there is at this

instant a tenderness between the Lords and us about

privilege. And for my own unfitness , I need mention

no more but my disability to carry through a business of

this nature, though your Lordship may easily conceive

another incompetency in my person.

   In these regards I humbly desire your Lordship to

excuse me and thereby to lay a newe obligation upon me

of being

            Your Lordship’s most humble servant,

 

                                     John Hampden

Westminster

April 29, 1640.

 

It was probably to this episode concerning his dealings with John Hampden that Bishop Williams was referring when he wrote from the Tower of London on 2^nd October, 1640 to Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, seeking Arundel’s help in mitigating the displeasure of the King and his Privy Council. This was, admittedly, in the very different context of the defeat of the King’s expedition against the Scots’ Covenanters and the imminent assembly of a new Parliament in which Charles I’s critics would have the upper hand. 

 

“For his Majesty’s last offence conceived against me, about a proposition made unto and recalled from Mr.Hampden in twenty -four hours, I have to his Majesty taken the fault wholly upon myself, because others will participate of no burdens of this kind . It was in Hilary Term that the motion was made unto me, as from his Majesty, to petition for the putting off of that hearing, with full assurance I should be presently restored to my poor fortunes ; and when I had so petitioned , I was

notwithstanding kept from all means and liberty, my Parliament writ stopt, and never had any particular (though I earnestly called for it ) brought unto me in his Majesty's name, but at the very night before the last Parliament was broken up ,—and then , God he knoweth in what matter and manner that proposition , or rather question , was put upon me. Now my business with my kinsman , Mr. Hampden, was begun and ended ten or twelve days before that time, which his Majesty perad

venture is not informed of ; and further, I do not go about to excuse this accident otherwise than in humbly craving pardon of his Majesty if I have offended.”[4]

 

Williams may not have succeeded in gaining his release in the spring of 1640: by the autumn, it could no longer be denied.

 

 

---

[1] John Adamson, The Noble Revolt. The Overthrow of Charles I (Weidenfeld and Nicholson. London, 2007), Pp.11-20. Mark A.Kishlansky, A lesson in loyalty; Charles I and the Short Parliament, in Royalists and Royalism in the English Civil Wars, edited by Jason McElligott and David L.Smith (Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 2007), Pp.16-42. Conrad Russell, The Fall of the British Monarchies 1637-1642 (Oxford University Press. Oxford, 1991), Pp.102-123. Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles I (Yale University Press. New Haven and London, 1992), Pp.861-877.

 

[2] Esther S.Cope and Willson H.Coates, ed., Proceedings of the Short Parliament of 1640. (Camden Society 4^th Series. Volume 19. London, 1977). Judith D.Maltby, The Short Parliament (1640) Diary of Sir Thomas Aston (Camden Society. 4^th Series. Volume 35. London 1988).

[3] Hampden’s letter of 29^th April, 1640 appears to have been held at Lambeth (Palace) Library in Lambeth MS.1030, Pp.105-108. See Hugh Trevor-Roper, Archbishop Laud 1573-1645 (2^nd Edition. Macmillan. St Martin’s Press, New York, 1965, P.386 and n.1. Transcripts of this letter had appeared in Lord Nugent, Memorials of John Hampden, His Party and His Times (4^th edition. Henry G.Bohen. London, 1860), Pp.135-137 and in Hugh Ross Williamson, John Hampden. A Life (Hodder and Stoughton. London, 1933), Pp.236-237. I have reproduced the modernised text of this letter below.

[4] The Fairfax Correspondence. Memoirs of the Reign of Charles the First. Edited by George W.Johnson. 2 Volumes (Richard Bentley. London, 1848), Volume I, Pages 340-341. I owe this reference to the generosity of John Adamson.