THE SOVEREIGN OF ALL THESE ISLES: BRITISH MINGClbUT AND BRITISH CrVIL POLICIES CTNDER THE EARLY STUARTS A Thesis Presented to The Factg of Graduate Studies of The University of Guelph by ANDREW D. NICHOLLS In partial falfilment of reqoirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Jnne, 1997 O Andrew D. Nicholls, 1997 National Library Bibliothèque nationale du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services seMces bibliographiques The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Lhrary of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distnibute or sell reproduire, prêter, &strri.uer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownefship of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fkom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ABSTRACT THE SOVEREIGN OF ALL THESE ISLES: BRITISH KINGCRAFT AND BRITISH CML POLICIES UNDER THE EARLY STUARTS Andrew D. Nichoiis Advisors: University of Guelph, 1997 Dr. J.D. Alsop Dr. Donna Andrew This thesis is concemed with the challenge of multiple rule in the British Isles and extent to which the early Stuart monarchs, James VI and 1, and Charles 1, identified issues which were common to England, Scotland, and Lreland. It further seeks to determine how the early Stuarts attempted to set civil policies for their three kingdoms as a single unit, and what factors might have caused them to retreat from British endeavoun. in seeking to iden@ and analyse the existence and effectiveness of encompassing British civil policies, the expectations and efforts of the kings themselves form a central interest. I have sought to discover whether or not there were recognised issues which the monarchs and their governments viewed as cornmon to al1 three kingdoms, and whether they tried to advance civil policies which could thus be described as British in scope. The ways in which these issues were revealed, the kind of interkingdom policies which were asserted, and consideration of the subjects and advison who ûied to implement and administer common policies are each assessed. The thesis aiso examuies the Limitations which existed for the early Stuart monarchs, and the extent to which they had to minimise their British efforts, or even draw back from policies which encompassed more than one kingdom. Despite their often grandiose assertions of royal authority, James and Charles depended upon the ailegiance and support of their leading subjects. Sometimes these men had interests of their own which confiicted with the Stuarts' British objectives. Where such conflicts occurred, the monarchs often found it preferable to yield, rather than heigbten personal. sectional, or national tensions. This thesis offers a new perspective on the role of multiple monarchy in eady modem Britain by arguing that the early Stuarts maintained a consistent yet uncomplicated vision of the necessity for inter-kingdom cooperation. Finally, it asserts that failure to ernphasise the need for British unity in relation to a variety of civil policies was an important factor in the eventual fall of the Stuart rnonarchy during the British civil waa of the 1640s. Acknowledgments During the course of a five-and-a-hatf year doctoral programme one becomes dependent upon the kindness and assistance of a variety of people. Rofessionally, my greatest debt is to my primary supervisor. Dr. J.D. Alsop of McMaster University. Jim has kena tnie fnend and mentor sioce becoming involved with my thesis, and 1 extend my most sincere thanks to him. While aay errors which rnay appear in the following dissertation are mine alooe, Dr. Alsop's stewardship has made this a far stronger work thm it would othenvise have ken. 1 would also like to acknowledge the services of Dr. Donna Andrew, my CO-supervisor, and the members of my advisory committee at Guelph: Dr. Lewis Abbott, Dr. David Murray, Dr. Ronald Sunter, and Dr. Frederick Vaughn. In their own ways, each bas contnbuted in assisting me through a process which has not been without its set-backs and disappointments. but, which has nonetheless made me a better scholar. Thmh are also due to Dr. David Fmell, and DY. Erich Reiche, both of whom served as chairs of the History Department during rny time at Guelph. They were always kind, resourcefui and supportive. For hîs candour, patience, and suggestions, my extemal examiner, Dr. Paul Christianson of Queen's University, must also be acknowledged. Numerous people beyond the ranks of my official advison have given freely of their time and dvice. 1 am especially gnteful to my friends from Guelph. Scott h4cclean and Paul Dickson, for their constant support and encouragement Dr. Dickson is owed particular thanks for helping me to obtain a number of important documents from the Public Record Office in London. De~kNeal of McGill University was of sirnilar assistance in obtaining documents for me from McGill's microfilm collection. Dr. David Allan, fonnedy of the University of Lancaster, but about to becorne lecturer in Scottish History at the University of St. Andrews, has been of material help in reading drafts. making suggestions, and generaily spurring me on to completion. I would also like to thank Professor U. Cowan of the University of Glasgow for his support. Special thanks are further offered to Ted Cowan and Lizanne Henderson for their kindness and generousity when 1 stayed with them in Glasgow during the winter of 1995. Finally, my thanks to the three department chairs who offered me an oppominity to teach in their history departments while 1 was still a doctoral candidate. They are: Dr. Ench Reiche of the University of Guelph, Dr. Lamy Jones of Canisius College, and my current boss. to whom special ttianks is due, Dr. E.O. Smith of Buffalo State College. The support given by rny family and friends has always been constant and limitless. To my wife, Dr. Pamela London, and my parents, Dean and Elaine Nicholls: This thesis and whatever it may become in the future is dedicated to you. Thanks also to: Kath and Joe, Grandpa and Grandma Nicholls, and Grandma Sah. Special thanks are extended to my aunt, Kathenne Betts, whose psture of encouragement and support at a crucial time will always be remembered. Al1 of my friends and colleagues have been fantastic over the past five years. I am ,pteful to al1 of you - narned O: unnamed. Finally, through al1 of this pmess a srnall brown dog narned after the Dukes of Bedford has sat at my feet, watched me write, listened to me curse, endured it when 1 read aloud. or engapd in disputes with the lonpdead which would have driven most human beings from the room. You were part of this too, Bedford. Thanks again to you - one and all. Andrew D. Nicholls Buffalo, New York July, 1997. Contents Acknowledgments i Contents iii Abbreviations iv Introduction 1 1 James Staart and the 0-s of a British Vision 2 Kings, Courtiers, and Counciliors: The Making of British Policy 3 The Early Stnsrts and the Security of the Multiple Kingdom 4 Britain and Early Stuart Foreign Policy 5 The Early Stoarts and British Economic, Commercial, and Colonial Affairs 201 Epiiogue and Conclusion 253 Bibliography 264 Abbreviations APS Acts of the Parliment of Scotland Cal- S-P. Cale& of State Papers Cal. S.P. Dom. Calen&r of Srale Papers Domestic Series (al1 other series are cited in full, eg. Cal. SP.Ireland) HMC Histoncal Manuscripts Commission PRO Public Record Office RPCS Register of the Privy Council of Smland Notes Unless otherwise stated dl monetary references are to English pounds. Dates are given in Old Style, but the new year is taken to begin on January 1. Scotland had already adopted the Gregorian Calendar in this period. In some cases of Anglo-Scottish correspondence it is difficult to be certain which style is king used unless it is clear from the context. Introduction On 19 October 1669, Charles II sent a letter to the Parliament of Scotland on the occasion of its first meeting in over seven y-. The northem kingdom was then in a state of hiph tension resulting from years of religious divisions. anger over English reguiations which restricted Scottish trading opportunities, and residual frustration from Scotland's secondary position in the regal union that combined the English and Scottish crowns. In an effort to eliminate some of these problems, the king's commissioner, the Earl of Lauderdale. read Charles' latest proposal to the assembly. The king suggested the reconsideration of an old idea: an arnalgamating union between Scotland and England. As Charles related in his message: For the union of the hearts and hauds of Our People, not only Our Throne shall be strengthened. and they that have Peace and Love Settled amongst them forever, but we shall have the Glory of Accomplishing what Our Royal Grandfather King James ... attempted as the greatest thing he could devise. and wherein he, who was a Competent Judge, placed the Happiness of the Crown and Kingdoms, and wherein he meant to have gloried as the chiefest action of his life...'. Charles' enthusiasm for this project has been called into question in some quarters, as it is suggested that union negotiations in 1669- 1670 were really an effort to distract the rarnpantly Protestant Lauderdale from the king's duplicitous treating with Louis XIV of France.* Regardless, contemporaiy observen were mindful of the similarities which existed between the union being proposed, and the work which had been done by the An&-Scottish commissionen of James VI and 1, some sixty years earlier.3 In some ways.