DOCSLIB.ORG

How Did the War Start? Start? War War the the Did Did How How

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How Did the War Start? Start? War War the the Did Did How How How Did the War Start? In order to understand how the war began, we have to look back to the beginning of the reign of Charles I in the 1620s… Parliament’s (Not So) Secret Weapon The King couldn’t just do what he liked The King believed that God had put him on the throne and made him supreme ruler of the country. But that didn’t mean that he could do whatever he liked. The king had a lot of power BUT Parliament had one very important power. They could say NO to him if he asked them for money. But why would the King ask Parliament for money? The king was very rich, but there were things that even the King couldn’t afford. War was expensive and the King wanted to send soldiers to fight in a war in Europe called The Thirty Years War. Parliament agreed to give the King money but the war went badly for England. The King’s soldiers caused a lot of problems in the towns they were staying in before they left the country to fight. And when they did fight, lots of English soldiers were killed. Parliament refused to give the King more money UNLESS he agreed to listen to their complaints about him. The complaints were put in a document called The Petition of Right. What were the Complaints? There were lots of them but the four big ones were: 1. The King must not make people pay any taxes that were not agreed by Parliament. 2. The King should not arrest anybody without a good reason. 3. The King could not force people to obey his soldiers when there wasn’t a war on. 4. The King’s soldiers could not force people to feed them and let them live in their houses (this was called billeting). The King’s (Not So) Secret Weapon Parliament couldn’t do what they liked The King had the right to open and close Parliament. When Parliament made him cross, he would shut Parliament and order all the Members of Parliament to go home. But he still needed money, so he was eventually forced to re-open Parliament and invite them back. During his arguments with Parliament, the King closed Parliament four times in three years. Finally, the King had had enough In 1629 the king closed Parliament and ruled the country without Parliament for 11 years. This part of the reign of King Charles I was known as the period of Personal Rule. `e How Did the War Start? The King Rules Without Parliament But didn’t King Charles I still need money? King Charles needed money but he had his own plans to make money without Parliament. His money came from: 1. Forced loans: If you were rich you had to lend the King money (which he wasn’t going to pay back). If you didn’t pay the King you might end up in prison. 2. Fines: The King fined many of the people who didn’t turn up when he was crowned King (his coronation). 3. Ship Tax: The King made people pay an old tax called ship tax. The money was supposed to go toward repairing war ships in the King’s navy and defending the coast against pirates and foreign invaders. But the King didn’t spend the money on ships. He tended to spend it on expensive art and paintings of himself. And how did people feel about all of this? Some people began to disagree with some of the King’s actions. Others would follow him anywhere. The country was slowly dividing into Roundheads and Cavaliers. But what finally pushed the country into civil war? Two things. Religion and Scotland. The King picks a fight with the Puritans The King wanted everybody to worship God the way he did. He wanted to unite his kingdom with one religion. He wanted every church to use the same Book of Common Prayer in their church services. King Charles put his top Bishop William Laud in charge of making sure that everyone worshipped God like the King. And did everyone do as they were told? Some people criticised William Laud in print. William Laud had three Puritan writers John Bastwicke, Henry Burton and William Prynne arrested, put on trial and horribly punished. What Happened to the three Puritans? They were locked in prison, fined lots of money and had their ears cut off, noses slit and faces branded with hot metal. Seriously? Yes, seriously. Actually, this kind of thing happened to poor people all the time in the seventeenth century but this was not usually the way gentlemen were treated. `e How Did the War Start? The King picks a fight with Scotland The Scots were serious Puritans or Presbyterians. The king wanted the Scottish church to worship God the same way they did in the Church of England. He made the Scots use the Book of Common Prayer. How did the Scots react? There were riots! When one priest tried to read from Laud’s prayer book in a church in Edinburgh, the congregation threw rocks at him. What did the king do? The King sent an English army into Scotland to force the Scots to worship God the way he wanted. Seriously? Yes. Seriously. The king went to war with Scotland. TWICE. And the two wars that followed led to the civil wars. What were these wars called? The two wars between England and Scotland were called The Bishop’s Wars. In 1639 the English invaded Scotland. The English did very badly and were chased out of Scotland by Scottish soldiers. The defeat was extremely embarrassing for the King. How did the King respond to being beaten? He decided to invade Scotland again. But he didn’t have enough money for a second war. The only way he could afford to invade Scotland was to ask Parliament for money. And so, after eleven years the King was forced to re-open Parliament. The Short Parliament Were Parliament happy to be called back after such a long time? They were angry. They were willing to give the King money for a second war but only if he listened to their complaints against him. They were annoyed about all the things the King had done to raise money during the last eleven years. Did the King listen to them? No! He was very angry. He shut Parliament almost as soon as it had opened, which is why this Parliament was called The Short Parliament. How short was the Short Parliament? It lasted only a few weeks. The King called Parliament back on April 13th 1640 and sent them away on May 5th. But didn’t the King still need money for his second war with Scotland? He did. He invaded Scotland for the second time in 1640. He invaded Scotland with little money and a weak army. This was called The Second Bishop’s War. What happened? Did he win this time? No! The King not only lost the war but the Scots invaded England. The Scots captured the city of Newcastle and refused to go back to Scotland until the English paid them a huge amount of money to go away. How much money? £300,000. (millions of pounds in today’s money!) `e How Did the War Start? The King’s Dilemma The King was in a very difficult position. He didn’t want the Scots in England but couldn’t afford to pay them to go away. Parliament was closed and only the King could open it. The King didn’t want to listen to their complaints. He certainly didn’t want to give any of his power to Parliament. But he really needed that money to make the Scots go away. So, what did the King do? On November 3rd 1641, the King re-opened Parliament. This parliament was called The Long Parliament because he never closed it! In fact, it stayed open until the year 1660. The Grand Remonstrance Parliament made their move. They presented a very long list of complaints against the King. They wanted the King to change his behaviour and give away a lot of his power. They wanted the changes to the King’s power to become law. The list of complaints was called The Grand Remonstrance. But Parliament were clever Parliament never directly criticised the King in their complaints. They were sneaky. They blamed everything they didn’t like about the King on his advisors and ministers and bishops. And were Parliament successful? Well, Parliament managed to turn The Grand Remonstrance into law. But it is important to say that not all of Parliament agreed with the Grand Remonstrance. There were quite a few supporters of the King in Parliament. But there were more who did not support him, and many of them were Puritans. So, the King listened to Parliament? Not really. He pretended to. He needed them to think he was listening to them. But all the while he was plotting and planning. The Five Members The king believed that five Members of Parliament were to blame for turning the rest of Parliament against him. The name of the five troublemakers were John Hampden, Denzil Hollies, William Strode, Arthur Haselrigg and John Pym. The King believed that if they were arrested the rest of Parliament would obey him. The King asked Parliament to give him these men. And did parliament obey the King? No. `e How Did the War Start? The King’s Unexpected Appearance The King arrived at the House of Commons with soldiers on January 4th 1642 to arrest the five members.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UC Riverside UC Riverside Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC Riverside UC Riverside Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Mobilizing the Metropolis: Politics, Plots and Propaganda in Civil War London, 1642-1644 Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3gh4h08w Author Downs, Jordan Publication Date 2015 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE Mobilizing the Metropolis: Politics, Plots and Propaganda in Civil War London, 1642-1644 A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History by Jordan Swan Downs December 2015 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Thomas Cogswell, Chairperson Dr. Jonathan Eacott Dr. Randolph Head Dr. J. Sears McGee Copyright by Jordan Swan Downs 2015 The Dissertation of Jordan Swan Downs is approved: ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Committee Chairperson University of California, Riverside Acknowledgements I wish to express my gratitude to all of the people who have helped me to complete this dissertation. This project was made possible due to generous financial support form the History Department at UC Riverside and the College of Humanities and Social Sciences. Other financial support came from the William Andrew’s Clark Memorial Library, the Huntington Library, the Institute of Historical Research in London, and the Santa Barbara Scholarship Foundation. Original material from this dissertation was published by Cambridge University Press in volume 57 of The Historical Journal as “The Curse of Meroz and the English Civil War” (June, 2014). Many librarians have helped me to navigate archives on both sides of the Atlantic. I am especially grateful to those from London’s livery companies, the London Metropolitan Archives, the Guildhall Library, the National Archives, and the British Library, the Bodleian, the Huntington and the William Andrews Clark Memorial Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Advisory Opinions and the Problem of Legal Authority
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 74 Issue 3 April 2021 Article 5 4-2021 Advisory Opinions and the Problem of Legal Authority Christian R. Burset Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Judges Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Christian R. Burset, Advisory Opinions and the Problem of Legal Authority, 74 Vanderbilt Law Review 621 (2021) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol74/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Advisory Opinions and the Problem of Legal Authority Christian R. Burset* The prohibition against advisory opinions is fundamental to our understanding of federal judicial power, but we have misunderstood its origins. Discussions of the doctrine begin not with a constitutional text or even a court case, but a letter in which the Jay Court rejected President Washington’s request for legal advice. Courts and scholars have offered a variety of explanations for the Jay Court’s behavior. But they all depict the earliest Justices as responding to uniquely American concerns about advisory opinions. This Article offers a different explanation. Drawing on previously untapped archival sources, it shows that judges throughout the anglophone world—not only in the United States but also in England and British India— became opposed to advisory opinions in the second half of the eighteenth century. The death of advisory opinions was a global phenomenon, rooted in a period of anxiety about common-law authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Bills of Attainder
    University at Buffalo School of Law Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship Winter 2016 Bills of Attainder Matthew Steilen University at Buffalo School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles Part of the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Matthew Steilen, Bills of Attainder, 53 Hous. L. Rev. 767 (2016). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/123 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE BILLS OF ATTAINDER Matthew Steilen* ABSTRACT What are bills of attainder? The traditional view is that bills of attainder are legislation that punishes an individual without judicial process. The Bill of Attainder Clause in Article I, Section 9 prohibits the Congress from passing such bills. But what about the President? The traditional view would seem to rule out application of the Clause to the President (acting without Congress) and to executive agencies, since neither passes bills. This Article aims to bring historical evidence to bear on the question of the scope of the Bill of Attainder Clause. The argument of the Article is that bills of attainder are best understood as a summary form of legal process, rather than a legislative act. This argument is based on a detailed historical reconstruction of English and early American practices, beginning with a study of the medieval Parliament rolls, year books, and other late medieval English texts, and early modern parliamentary diaries and journals covering the attainders of Elizabeth Barton under Henry VIII and Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, under Charles I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Providence Island Company on 28Th September 1629 Letters Of
    The Providence Island Company On 28th September 1629 letters of marque were issued for an expedition to be mounted to St Catalina, an island in the Caribbean (later to be renamed Providence Island). Subscriptions were invited from Lord Saye's circle of powerful political and business friends, who were opposed to the arbitrary rule of the king, for twenty shares at £200 per head. In the summer of 1630 the first meeting of shareholders was held in Brooke House, Holborn, London (held there to avoid the plague in the country). On 4th December a patent was sealed granting the formal incorporation of the splendidly named company of 'The Governor and Company of Adventurers of the City of Westminster for the Plantation of the Islands of Providence, Henrietta and adjacent islands laying upon the coast of America'; known as 'The Providence Island Company'. The total cost of the Patent and fees was £60. The name Providence had great significance at that time; the Adventurers (men who advanced venture capital) believed they were responding to divine will in founding the settlement. They were casting themselves on God's providence. The project could only succeed with God's approval.4 St Catalina, as the Spanish called the island, was situated in the south-west corner of the Caribbean, off the coast of Nicaragua; it is six miles long by four wide and was considered, in the seventeenth century, to be the choicest of the Caribbean islands. It had an equable climate, was fertile and salubrious; with plenty of water. It was easily fortified and there were no venomous creatures.
    [Show full text]
  • A-Level History, HIS1D: Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy 1603-1702 Absolutism Challenged: Britain 1603-49 Section 2: Revolution 1629-1649
    A-Level History, HIS1D: Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy 1603-1702 Absolutism Challenged: Britain 1603-49 Section 2: Revolution 1629-1649. Part 1: 1629-1642 KEY TOPIC AREAS 1629-42: KEY TOPIC AREAS 1629-42: Divisions over Religion: Arminianism and Laudianism; Puritanism, and Millenarianism Political divisions in Personal rule: Short Parliament • Arminianism and Laudianism • The Short Parliament • Puritanism • Continued Opposition in 1640 • The emergence of Millenarianism Political divisions • The Long Parliament. Political divisions in Personal rule: Finance • The leadership and importance of John Pym. • Fiscal policy used in Personal rule Causes of the English Civil War • The opposition that it caused • Events culminating in the outbreak of the Civil War. Political divisions in Personal rule: Scotland • Policies in Scotland • The Crisis of 1637-42 • The extent of Opposition Political divisions in Personal rule: Ireland • Policies in Ireland • The Crisis of 1637-42 • The extent of Opposition A-Level History, HIS1D: Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy 1603-1702 Absolutism Challenged: Britain 1603-49 Section 2: Revolution 1629-1649. Part 1: 1629-1642 KEY WORDS KEY INDIVIDUALS Articles of Perth: had been forced through the Scottish Kirk in 1618. They were a set of Charles Stuart: ruled as Charles I 1625-1649 commands outlining religious practices. To Presbyterians, the commands seemed like William Laud: a key Arminian cleric who became the Archbishop of Canterbury in Catholicism 1633 and made changes to the Anglican Church Bill of Attainder: medieval method which allowed anyone who was seen as a threat to the Henrietta Maria: Catholic wife of Charles I, she aroused suspicion of a Catholic state t be removed by Parliament without formal trial conversion of the King and the court Book of Sports: originally produced by James in 1618.
    [Show full text]
  • I the Committee of Safety
    .· (~. ll II Ii ) ' THE COMMITTEE OF SAFETY. 11 "A thesis submitted to the ,, faculty of the Graduate School of the University of • Minnesota by Etheleen Frances ;emp in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ii degree of Master of Arts, May 5, 1911. 1;1 I Ii II Ii 11 ' :S I:BLI OGRAPHY. l. Source Material 1. Journals of the House of Lords, vol. V and VI. Journals of the House of Commons, vol. II and III. These contain the greater portion of the material on the Committee of Safety. 2. Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. London, 1874 etc. These volumes contain here and there a com­ munication to or from the Committee of Safety but have much less material that might be expected. References found:- 4th Report p 262. 5th Report pp. 48, 54, 56, 63, 65, 69, 80, 107, 114. 7th Report pp. 550-588. 10th Report App. 6 pp. 87-88. 13th Report App. 1 p. 104. 3. Calendar of State Papers. Domestic 1641-1644 London, 1887-8 lla.ny order for military supplies are given in the State Papers but not in full. 4. Rushworth,John, Historical collections, 8 vol. London, 1682-1701. Compilation of declarations and proclamations. Vol. 3 and 7 contain material on the Committee. They contain valuable proclamations of the King which cannot be found elsewhere. 5. Somers, Lord. Tracts, 13 vol. London, 1809-1815. Has several remonstrances of value. ){) 1 ~ ( ' ,.... 6. Whitacre. Diary Add. M S S 31, 116, fol. Had notes from first six months of the Committee period especially.
    [Show full text]
  • Lives of Eminent Serjeants
    00024288 i ' 1 I the I I A siatic Society of Bombay | Towf-n MaM, Bombay, ® Digitized with financial assistance from the Government of Maharashtra on 19 September, 2016 LIVES OF EMINENT SERJEANTS-AT-LAW / r ' ‘ A t, ■*< (■; 1' ■ ■ > 1 \\ \ ' '-'’1'- l ;r L -*y ’i« v_ *■ ' y LIVES EMINENT 8ERJEANT8-AT-LAW OP THE ENGLISH BAB. BY HUMPHRY WILLIAM WOOLRYCH. Serjeant-at-Lavt. 24288 — IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. II. ■ ■■] LONDON: W m . h . ALLEN & CO., 13, WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL. S.W. 1869. t’j'-o // ,v 00024288 00024288 L0KD0N!_L swx8 & s, Alo(orgate Street. LIVES OF EMINENT SERJEANTS. THE DARNALS. W hether Darnal, Darnel, or DameU, or even Darnall, according to various readings, these lawyers were of high promise. The elder was spoken of in 1700, amongst other gossip, by Luttrell, as the new Baron of the Exchequer, and actually, though incorrectly, named by him as such.* A classical pim is extant upon the name. Kett, or Horse Kett, as he was called at Oxford, from the resemblance which his head bore to that animal, was a master of the schools at Oxfoi’d, and with him was Mr. Dai’nell. The following line was immediately applied to these gentlemen:— “ Infclix Lolium, et steriles dominantur avenffi.” “ Oats and Davnol choke the rising corn.”’ Or rather, according to Covington, nascimtur. “ Nas- 1 “ Diary,’* voL iv. pp. 652, 653. Sir Salathiol Lovol, Recorclor of London, got the vacant place, '' Dryden*3 “ Pastorals," vol. v. p. 56.—“ Virg. Eclog.,*’ v. 37- yoL . II. 1 Limes OF EMPBNT SBHJEAKTS. «uiii'tur,” he observes, is fouaad:^ ¿¡H th e M SS.” A nd ’ he dhsthigudshes the ^vord “dornikiantur'' iaa th e “ dreorgÌGS,.” -where exactly the sa®ae passage appears, ■ b y i^eferriag th e ikist to“ Weeds giiow higdmongst th e Gora,” whereas, here the “ weeds are ^?owipgvmtmà of baadey.” * tS© ia Job: Goekle or darabl iastead o i barley.
    [Show full text]
  • Topic Key Foci Suggested Tasks/ Homework Information the Political
    Topic Key Foci Suggested Tasks/ Homework Information The Political Nation and the social What was the Political Nation? Mind map THE POLITICAL NATION: The Pages 1-8 basis of power Social basis of power Monarch, Basis of Power, Political Importance of land ownership and rival forms of Nation Revision Guide Page 6 wealth James I and Charles I: character, Characters of James and Charles Produce a table showing the Pages 9-16 court and favourites Shape and style of monarchies- each monarchs views differences in James and Charles’ view Favourites especially Buckingham on monarchy Revision Guide Pages 7-9 19. Crown and Political Nation, 1604-1640 The finances of the Crown and Financial weaknesses of the Crown- causes Construct a timeline from 1603-1629 Pages 17-26 attempts at reform Attempts to reform and strengthen royal finances that shows all attempts by both kings during James’ reign to reform and improve crown finances- Revision Guide Pages 10-13 Great Contract colour code successes in green and Attempts to reform and strengthen royal finances failures in red during Charles reign Forced Loan Religion and religious divisions Challenges to James’ church from Catholics Mind map JAMES I AND RELIGION: Pages 27-36 Challenges to James’ church from Puritans Puritans, Scottish Kirk, Catholics Hampton Court Conference Revision Guide Pages 14-17 Bancroft’s Canons Mind map RELIGIOUS ISSUES UNDER Development of Arminianism CHARLES: Charles’ religious views, 18. Street Wars of Religion: Puritans and Charles’ favouring of Arminianism
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the NAVY in the ENGLISH CIVIL WAR Submitted by Michael James
    1 THE NAVY IN THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR Submitted by Michael James Lea-O’Mahoney, to the University of Exeter, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in September 2011. This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. 2 ABSTRACT This thesis is concerned chiefly with the military role of sea power during the English Civil War. Parliament’s seizure of the Royal Navy in 1642 is examined in detail, with a discussion of the factors which led to the King’s loss of the fleet and the consequences thereafter. It is concluded that Charles I was outmanoeuvred politically, whilst Parliament’s choice to command the fleet, the Earl of Warwick, far surpassed him in popularity with the common seamen. The thesis then considers the advantages which control of the Navy provided for Parliament throughout the war, determining that the fleet’s protection of London, its ability to supply besieged outposts and its logistical support to Parliamentarian land forces was instrumental in preventing a Royalist victory. Furthermore, it is concluded that Warwick’s astute leadership went some way towards offsetting Parliament’s sporadic neglect of the Navy. The thesis demonstrates, however, that Parliament failed to establish the unchallenged command of the seas around the British Isles.
    [Show full text]
  • Huguenot Merchants Settled in England 1644 Who Purchased Lincolnshire Estates in the 18Th Century, and Acquired Ayscough Estates by Marriage
    List of Parliamentary Families 51 Boucherett Origins: Huguenot merchants settled in England 1644 who purchased Lincolnshire estates in the 18th century, and acquired Ayscough estates by marriage. 1. Ayscough Boucherett – Great Grimsby 1796-1803 Seats: Stallingborough Hall, Lincolnshire (acq. by mar. c. 1700, sales from 1789, demolished first half 19th c.); Willingham Hall (House), Lincolnshire (acq. 18th c., built 1790, demolished c. 1962) Estates: Bateman 5834 (E) 7823; wealth in 1905 £38,500. Notes: Family extinct 1905 upon the death of Jessie Boucherett (in ODNB). BABINGTON Origins: Landowners at Bavington, Northumberland by 1274. William Babington had a spectacular legal career, Chief Justice of Common Pleas 1423-36. (Payling, Political Society in Lancastrian England, 36-39) Five MPs between 1399 and 1536, several kts of the shire. 1. Matthew Babington – Leicestershire 1660 2. Thomas Babington – Leicester 1685-87 1689-90 3. Philip Babington – Berwick-on-Tweed 1689-90 4. Thomas Babington – Leicester 1800-18 Seat: Rothley Temple (Temple Hall), Leicestershire (medieval, purch. c. 1550 and add. 1565, sold 1845, remod. later 19th c., hotel) Estates: Worth £2,000 pa in 1776. Notes: Four members of the family in ODNB. BACON [Frank] Bacon Origins: The first Bacon of note was son of a sheepreeve, although ancestors were recorded as early as 1286. He was a lawyer, MP 1542, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal 1558. Estates were purchased at the Dissolution. His brother was a London merchant. Eldest son created the first baronet 1611. Younger son Lord Chancellor 1618, created a viscount 1621. Eight further MPs in the 16th and 17th centuries, including kts of the shire for Norfolk and Suffolk.
    [Show full text]
  • Revealing Dissent Under Charles I's 'Personal Rule'
    ‘An Engine Which the World Sees Nothing Of ’: Revealing Dissent Under Charles I’s ‘Personal Rule’ Jared van Duinen In 2000, Jonathan Scott characterized the years of Charles’s personal rule by the term the ‘peace of silence’. By this he meant that the seeming peace and quiescence of the 1630s was chiefly due to the silencing of dissent. For much of the twentieth century, this ‘peace of silence’ could be found reflected in the historiography of early Stuart England. Even when the personal rule received its first full-length study – Kevin Sharpe’s 1992 The Personal Rule of Charles I – the story of dissent in the 1630s remained largely underexplored. In order to uncover the covert and diffused nature of dissident thought under Charles’s personal rule, it is necessary for research to adopt a commensurately localized or decentred frame of reference. Work which has done this has often revealed previously obscured veins of dissent. A future direction for studies of dissident thought and action in the 1630s could lie in network analysis and, in particular, the examination of puritan networks of association. ‘Not only all mouths are stopped, but the parliament doors sealed for many years.’ ‘When we ... have any great things to be accomplished, the best policy is to work by an engine which the world sees nothing of.’1 Both these contemporary quotes, from quite different perspectives, refer to the Caroline 1630s, the years of Charles I’s ‘personal rule’. The first is from, if not an ‘insider’ figure then at least a servant of the establishment, the diplomat Sir Thomas Roe.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Chronology of the House of Commons House of Commons Information Office Factsheet G3
    Factsheet G3 House of Commons Information Office General Series A Brief Chronology of the August 2010 House of Commons Contents Origins of Parliament at Westminster: Before 1400 2 15th and 16th centuries 3 Treason, revolution and the Bill of Rights: This factsheet has been archived so the content The 17th Century 4 The Act of Settlement to the Great Reform and web links may be out of date. Please visit Bill: 1700-1832 7 our About Parliament pages for current Developments to 1945 9 information. The post-war years: 11 The House of Commons in the 21st Century 13 Contact information 16 Feedback form 17 The following is a selective list of some of the important dates in the history of the development of the House of Commons. Entries marked with a “B” refer to the building only. This Factsheet is also available on the Internet from: http://www.parliament.uk/factsheets August 2010 FS No.G3 Ed 3.3 ISSN 0144-4689 © Parliamentary Copyright (House of Commons) 2010 May be reproduced for purposes of private study or research without permission. Reproduction for sale or other commercial purposes not permitted. 2 A Brief Chronology of the House of Commons House of Commons Information Office Factsheet G3 Origins of Parliament at Westminster: Before 1400 1097-99 B Westminster Hall built (William Rufus). 1215 Magna Carta sealed by King John at Runnymede. 1254 Sheriffs of counties instructed to send Knights of the Shire to advise the King on finance. 1265 Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, summoned a Parliament in the King’s name to meet at Westminster (20 January to 20 March); it is composed of Bishops, Abbots, Peers, Knights of the Shire and Town Burgesses.
    [Show full text]