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

Popular posts from this blog

Simon Healy has died

Centre and Locality: review reflections

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