Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T23:18:42.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Low Road to Extinction? Supply and Redress of Grievances in the Parliaments of the 1620s*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Thomas Cogswell
Thomas Cogswell
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When his colleagues at the beginning of the 1621 session were puzzling over whether supply should precede redress of grievances or vice versa, Sir George More rose to give them the benefit of his considerable experience. The question could best be resolved, he suggested, if redress and supply were thought of ‘as twins, asJacob and Esau’ which ‘should go hand in hand, for though grievances go first, yet the blessing may be upon subsidies’. The biblical analogy was quite clear. Although grievances like Esau had precedence as the elder of the twins, the two should in fact ‘go hand in hand’ through the House; at the closing, the order would be reversed and the subsidy would first receive the blessing just as the younger of Isaac's twins eventually did.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 283 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 5 Feb., Commons debates 1621, ed. Notestein, W. et al. (7 vols., New Haven, 1935), II, 21Google Scholar; Genesis, chap. 27. I am grateful to Bruce Eastwood and William McKane for discussions of this imagery.

2 SirElton, Geoffrey, Studies in Tudor and Stuart politics and government (Cambridge, 1981), III, 232Google Scholar; Sharpe, Kevin, ‘Crown, parliament and government in early Stuart England’, English Historical Review, CI (1986), 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Parliamentary history 1603–1629: in or out of perspective?’, Faction and parliament, ed. Sharpe, K. (Oxford, 1978), p. 19Google Scholar.

3 13 March 1626, Whitelocke diary, Dd 12–20, fo. 39; ‘Consultation…for a parliament’, The Life and letters of Francis Bacon, ed. Spedding, J. (7 vols., London, 1869), V, 203, 205Google Scholar.

4 Lambert, Sheila, ‘Procedure in the house of commons in the earlyStuart period’, EHR, XCV (1980), 763CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Koenigsberger, H. G., ‘Dominium regale and dominium politicum etregale’, Politicians and virtuosi (London, 1986), p. 24Google Scholar.

6 Russell, Conrad, ‘Parliamentary history in perspective, 1604–1629’, History, XLI (1976), 2–3Google Scholar. See also Russell, , Parliaments and English politics, 1621–1629 (Oxford, 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Rabb, Theodore, ‘The role of the commons’, Past and Present, XCII (1981), 62Google Scholar. On the furore over revisionism, see Tominson's, Howard recapitulation in Before the Civil War (London, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and since that time the most significant contribution to the debate is Thompson's, ChristopherParliamentary history in the 1620s: in or out of perspective? (Wivenhoe, 1986)Google Scholar.

8 Russell, Conrad, ‘The prisoner of his documents?’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 9 01. 1987, p. 45Google Scholar. For examples of textbooks, see Smith, A. G. R., The emergence of a nation state (London, 1984), pp. 256, 273Google Scholar; Graves, Michael A. R. and Silcock, Robin H., Revolution, reaction and the triumph of conservatism (Auckland, 1984), p. 373Google Scholar.

9 By a rough calculation parliament was in session in 1621 for 154 days; in 1624 for 107 days; in 1625 for 35 days; in 1626 for 129 days; and in 1628 for 101 days. Thus out of a total of 2,922 days in 1621–8, parliament was in session for 526 of those, or 18 per cent of the time.

10 See, for example, Harriss, G. L., ‘War and the emergence of the English parliaments, 1297–1360’, Journal of Medieval History, II (1976), 35–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Fryde, E. R., ‘Parliament and the French war, 1336–40’, Essays in medieval history (Toronto, 1969), pp. 250–69Google Scholar.

11 Lockyer, Roger, Buckingham (London, 1981), p. 472Google Scholar; Russell, , Parliaments, pp. 89–91, 119–21, 126, 129–34, 141, 158, 161–4, 180–2, 189–90, 226, 259, 278Google Scholar.

12 See in particular, Cogswell, Thomas, The blessed revolution: English politics and the coming of war, 1621–1624 (Cambridge, 1989)Google Scholar. On the early phase of English involvement in the Thirty Years War, see also Adams, Simon, ‘Foreign policy and the parliaments of 1621 and 1624’, Faction and parliament, pp. 139–172Google Scholar.

13 Report of the Council of War, 13 Feb. 1621, S.P. 14/119/93; Russell, , Parliaments, p. 121Google Scholar.

14 CD 1621, II, 88. It is difficult to know what figure Calvert presented. Edward Nicholas recorded 500,000 and Pym 300,000; Proceedings and debates … in 1620 and 1621 (Oxford, 1766), I, 48; and CD 1621, IV, 56. See alsoGoogle ScholarZaller, Robert, The parliament of 1621 (Berkeley, 1971), p. 38Google Scholar.

15 First reading (5 March), second (7 March), and third (19 March), Commons Journals, I, 537, 544, 561; and Russell, , Parliaments, p. 91Google Scholar.

16 16 Feb.; 7, 22 March, CJ, I, 523, 544, 569; CD 1621, IV, 132–3.

17 Russell, , Parliaments, p. 121Google Scholar; 15 Feb., CD 1621, II, 84–5.

18 12 March, CJ, I, 549; 16 Feb., CD 1621, II, 92; IV, 60.

19 For an excellent discussion of this incident, see Thompson, Christopher, The Debate on freedom of speech in the house of commons in February 1621 (Orsett, 1987)Google Scholar.

20 “An act…for two entire subsidies,” sig. aa and ee; a copy of this rare document can be found in SP (Supplemental) 46/65/123–40. I owe this reference to the kindness of Professor Russell.

21 30 May, CD 1621, III, 353. On James's vow to be ‘carefull to give you all satisfaction in all your iust demaundes’, see Edmondes's speech, 16 Feb., S.P. 14/119.98.

22 Quoted in Zaller, , Parl. of 1621, p. 191Google Scholar. Russell's, interpretation of this declaration (Parliaments, pp. 119–20)Google Scholar as mere rhetorical theatrics is arguably overdrawn; I plan to offer a more balanced view elsewhere.

23 CD 1621, II, 432–8; and Zaller, , Parl. of 1621, pp. 144–5Google Scholar.

24 26 Nov., CD 1621, V, 212; CJ, I, 658.

25 26 Nov., CD 1621, IV, 438. Russell's, analytic difficulties with this session(Parliaments, pp. 126–41) are perhaps illustrated in his statement that ‘it was Solicitor General Heath, not any private member, who introduced the idea of seizing the King of Spain's West Indian treasure’ (p. 131); unfortunately he, like many contemporaries, confused Mr Solicitor with Mr Shilleto, who was in fact a private member. See CD 1621, II, 455, n. 5Google Scholar.

26 27 Nov., CD 1621, V, 220; Zaller, , Parl. of 1621, pp. 152–3Google Scholar; Russell, , ‘The Foreign policy debate in the house of commons in 1621’, HJ XIX (1976), 302–3Google Scholar.

27 Nicholas diary, S.P. 14/166/24–5; Pym diary, Northamptonshire R.O., Finch-Hatton MS, 50, fo. 8; CJ, I, 679, 682, 721, 731; Russell, , Parliaments, pp. 161, 189Google Scholar. I am grateful to J. H. Hexter, Robert Ruigh and especially Mark Kennedy for loaning me various typescripts of 1624 diaries.

28 Russell, , Parliaments, pp. 182Google Scholar. Set Sandy's motion of 5 March against that of 11 March; Ruigh, Robert, The parliament 0f 1624 (Cambridge, Mass, 1970), pp. 193, 207Google Scholar.

29 20 and 21 Jac I, c. 33; and The Holles account of proceedings in the house of commons in 1624 (Orsett, Essex, 1985), p. 41Google Scholar. For a fuller account of this and other episodes in the 1624 Parliament, see Cogswell, Blessed revolution, chapters 5, 6. See also Ruigh, , Parl. of 1624, pp. 149–256Google Scholar.

30 20 March, Spring diary, Houghton Library, Harvard University, MS English 980, p. 149; Holles account, p. 49; Russell, , ‘Parliament history’, p. 7Google Scholar.

31 Stuart royal proclamations, ed. Larkin, J. F. and Hughes, P. L. (2 vols., Oxford, 1973), I, 591–3Google Scholar; Ruigh, , Parl. of 1624, pp. 232–51Google Scholar; and Cogswell, Blessed revolution, chapter 7.

32 Conway to Carleton, 16 April 1624, S.P. [Holland], 84/117/58; the Treaty of London, Corps universel diplomatique (Amsterdam, 1728), V, 458–63Google Scholar; [Draft agreement with Mansfelt], 26 April 1624, S.P. [German States], 81/30/161.

33 For the public bills, see The statutes of the realm (London, 1819), IV, 1209–75Google Scholar.

34 Russell, , Parliaments, p. 198Google Scholar; Ruigh, , Parl. of 1624, PP. 339–40Google Scholar.

35 It is perhaps fair to note that Russell's decided preference for the month before James's speech on 23 March 1624 rather than the later two months leaves him poorly placed to handle the extensive bartering of the 1624 session. See first Parliaments, pp. 145–90, then pp. 191–203.

36 Russell, , ‘Parliamentary history’, pp. 7–8Google Scholar; Parliaments, p. 178.

37 Phelip's speech of 27 November, CD 1621, V, 519; Southampton's examination [June 1621], Inner Temple Library, Petyt MSS, vol. 19, fo. iv; Carleton the younger to Carleton, 1 March 1624, S.P. [Holland], 84/116/186.

38 On the government's preoccupation, see Conway to Carlisle and Holland, 12, 13, 14 April, 20 May 1625, S.P. [France], 78/74/175, 182, 184 and 75/33.

39 Debates in the house of commons in 1625 ed. Gardiner, S. R. (London, 1873), (opening, 18 June), p. 1Google Scholar; (supply debate. 30 June), pp. 30–3; (Charles's acknowledgement, 8 July), p. 56. For a penetrating analysis of the entire parliament, see Thompson's, Christopher essay in Conflict in early Stuart England, ed. Cust, R. P. and Hughes, A. (London, 1989)Google Scholar.

40 9, 10 Aug., Debates in 1625, pp. 94, 100, 109–10; Russell, , Parliaments, pp. 250, 259Google Scholar.

41 10, 11 Aug., Debates in 1625, pp. 114, 125, 146.

42 1, 11, 12 Aug., ibid. pp. 68–9, 118, 146.

43 5, 10 Aug., ibid. pp. 78, 81, 113.

44 11 Aug., ibid. p. 118.

45 12 June 1626, Whitelocke diary, Dd 12–22, fo. 232. On the confused period between the 1625 and 1626 sessions, see Cogswell, , ‘Foreign policy and parliament: the case of La Rochelle, 1625–1626’, EHR, XCIX (1984), 241–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I am indebted to Maija Jansson and William Bidwell of the Yale Center for Parliamentary History for allowing me to consult their typescript of the 1626 diaries.

46 11 Aug. 1625, Dyott diary, Staffordshire R.O., D.661/11/1/2, fo. 65; 28 February 1626, Whitelocke diary, Dd 12–20, fo. 56V.

47 10 March 1626, Whitelocke diary, fos. 30V–29.

48 Space does not permit a full discussion of this important point; I will do so elsewhere. But almost all of the £240,000 earmarked for Mansfelt and much of the £360,000 for the Danes was not actually necessary. On the former, see S.P. [German States], 81/31/226; 81/33/263; 81/34/34– 35V; and on the latter, see S.P. [Denmark], 75/6/32; 75/6/19.

49 Carleton the younger to Ann Carleton, 21 March 1626, S.P. [Holland], 84/131/90. For threats of extraparliamentary levies, see Weston and Sandys on 12 June as well as Carleton on 12May; Whitelocke Diary, Dd 12–21, fos. 191, 232V.

50 Conway to Aston, 30 Dec. 1623, S.P. [Spain], 94/29/19IV; Palmer to Scudamore, 28 Dec. 1625, P.R.O. C115, N5/8629.

51 23 March, 13 June 1626, Whitelocke Diary, Dd 12–20, fo. 82; Dd 12–22, fo. 237.

52 Russell, , ‘Parliamentary history’, pp. 10–11Google Scholar. On the outbreak of the French war, see Adams, Simon, ‘The road to La Rochelle: English foreign policy and the Huguenots, 1610–1629’, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society, XXII (1975), 410–29Google Scholar; and Cogswell, , ‘Prelude to Ré: the Anglo-French struggle over La Rochelle, 1624–1627’, History, LXXI (1986), 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Cust, Richard. The forced loan and English politics, 1626–1628 (Oxford, 1987), pp. 92, 91–149Google Scholar.

54 22 March, 2 April, Proceedings in parliament 1628, ed. Johnson, R. C. et al. (6 vols., New Haven, 1977–1983). II, 251Google Scholar.

55 Guy, J. A., ‘The origins of the petition of right reconsidered’, HJ, XXV (1982), 289–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reeve, L. J., ‘The legal status of the petition of right’, H.J., XXIX (1986), 257–77Google Scholar.

56 22, 24 March, PP 1628, II, 56, 85.

57 4 April, ibid. II, 301, 307.

58 11 April, ibid. II, 418–19.

59 12, 14 April, ibid. II, 430–1, 452.

60 28 April, ibid. II, 125, 130.

61 1, 2 May, ibid., III, 195, 212–13.

62 13, 23 May, ibid. III, 397, 571.

63 3, 4, 11 June, ibid. IV, 60–2, 115, 249.

64 7, 9 June, ibid., IV, 182, 206.

65 10, 14 June, ibid. IV, 331–7.

66 17 June, ibid. IV, 349, 352; V, 649, 653–4.

67 On Charles's efforts to evade the Petition, see Reeve, , ‘The petition of right’, pp. 262–77Google Scholar; and Foster, Elizabethan Read, ‘Printing the petition of right’, Huntington Library Quarterly, XXXVIII (1974), 81–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 24 March, PP 1628, II, 84.

69 I plan to handle these points more extensively in a book, Counsel and monies: Parliament at war in early Stuart England.

70 Russell, , ‘Parliamentary history’, pp. 10–11Google Scholar; and Parliaments, pp. 226, 237, 347.

71 Spencer to Isham, 20 Nov. 1621, Northamptonshire R.O., Isham of Langport MSS, IC 155.

72 [Francis Kynaston], ‘True representation of fore-past Parliaments’, Folger Shakespeare Library, V.b. 189, pp. 55, 68, 84. I am indebted to Johann Sommerville for this citation and for many discussions of this document.

73 13 April 1640 Proceedings of the Short Parliament of 1640, ed. Cope, Esther (London, 1977), pp. 116, 120–1Google Scholar.

74 23 April 1640, ibid. pp. 170–1.