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.
Comments
Post a Comment