C. V. Wedgwood on the Short Parliament of 1640

 

C.V.Wedgwood on the Short Parliament of 1640

C.V.Wedgwood’s works on the seventeenth century in general and, in particular, her comments on the Short Parliament held in the spring of 1640 are rarely cited by more recent historians.[1] This is a pity because she was an elegant and lucid writer. It is true that her account of the Short Parliament was based entirely on printed sources but that did not prevent her from making some important observations. She argued that Sir Thomas Wentworth, by then Earl of Strafford, was confident on the basis of his own experience in the English Parliaments of the 1620s and with the Irish Parliament of 1634, which he had summoned as Lord Deputy, that he could manage such an assembly. Intelligent co-operation on the part of King Charles I with the Court ‘party’ in the House of Commons should enable him to outmanoeuvre an opposition which he, like the king, believed to be a minority.[2] This optimism was at odds with widespread religious discontent and almost nation-wide resistance to the collection of Ship Money.[3] There were important mercantile grievances too. But there was no party organisation in existence yet although the Privy Council and their critics in the Providence Island Company foreshadowed later developments. Even so, there were no programmes or definite political principles held by either Court or Country at that time. 

When, however, the English Parliament met on 13th April, 1640, the opening speech by Lord Keeper Finch on behalf of the king was patronising and arrogant: no attempt was made to conciliate the Crown’s critics.[4] The alleged treason of the Scots in writing to the French king, Louis XIII, was not an issue taken up by the House of Commons. Furthermore, the penetrating attack by Pym and his allies on royal policies was never effectively answered.[5] The king’s critics moved on to demand the redress of their grievances – secular and religious, legal and parliamentary – before they would contemplate supply. An effort by Charles I to secure funds by promising before the House of Lords to stop levying Ship Money failed. When the House of Lords voted to request priority for the matter of supply, the reaction of the House of Commons was to claim that the upper House had breached its privileges. Strafford was still convinced that the Commons could be won over if Secretary of State, Sir Henry Vane, reduced royal demands from twelve subsidies to eight and, once this had been voted, to give up levying Ship Money. But Vane and the Speaker, John Glanville, failed. This was the final straw. On 5th May, the Privy Council decided that Parliament should be dissolved.

C. V. Wedgwood’s observations on royal and conciliar failures were broadly correct and mirrored earlier comments. She was probably wider of the mark in supposing that the  Caroline regime’s critics lacked organisation or that they had no consistent programme. On the contrary, they knew that they wanted to overturn the policies of the 1630s in Church and State, to remove those they blamed for pursuing such policies and to ensure that Parliament would meet regularly to keep the king and his advisers under much closer supervision. 

 

 


[1] C. V. Wedgwood, The King’s Peace. The Great Rebellion (Collins. The Fontana Library. Manchester. 1966), Pp.278-296.

[2] Ibid., p.285.

[3] Ibid., Pp.285-287.

[4] Ibid., p.292.

[5] Ibid., p.293.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lawrence Stone and the historiography of the 'gentry controversy'

  LAWRENCE STONE AND THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE GENTRY CONTROVERSY The controversy over the economic and social origins of the English Revolution was a topic that excited ferocious debate over sixty years ago. Historians of the calibre of R.H.Tawney and Hugh Trevor-Roper, J.P.Cooper, Christopher Hill and Lawrence Stone advanced radically different interpretations to explain the violent events of the 1640s and 1650s in the British Isles. American scholars, most famously of all, J.H.Hexter, like Willson Coates, Harold Hulme, Judith Shklar and Perez Zagorin also commented with varying degrees of sharpness on the issues at stake. But only one of the major participants, Lawrence Stone, offered an account of the historiography of the dispute, first of all in his introduction to the anthology of academic articles and documentary sources entitled Social Change and Revolution in England 1540-1640 which he edited in 1965 and then, in slightly revised form, in Chapter 2 of his work...
Read more

Simon Healy has died

Image
  I am extremely sorry to report that Simon Healy, who worked for the History of Parliament Trust's 1604-1629 section for many years,  has died. I remember him as a very cheerful and engaging conversationalist. My condolences go to his widow and their two children.
Read more

Transcribing Walter Yonge's notes on proceedings in the House of Commons between 1642 and 1645

  In the spring of 1967, Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper, then the Regius Professor of Modern History in the University of Oxford, wrote to me to ask if I would assist Dr Pearl in her work by transcribing Walter Yonge’s diaries held (in Additional Mss.18,777-18,780) in the Manuscript Department of the British Museum at that time. I agreed and it was settled that I would be paid £150 per volume by the History Faculty of the University. I duly transcribed the first of these volumes in 1967 and the remaining three by 1973. I was not her “assistant” in this task but undertook it myself. I did not, moreover, keep copies of the first three volumes. In mid-1975, I read in The Times Higher Education Supplement that she was preparing the Yonge volumes for publication. But nothing happened. By 1984, seventeen years after I had transcribed the first volume and eleven years after finishing the last one I was puzzled by this failure to proceed and, having asked several academic friends if they th...
Read more