71-7566

SHIMP, Robert.Everett, 1942- THE PARLIAMENT OF 1625.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1970 History, modern

University Microfilms. A XEROX Company , Ann Arbor, Michigan

0 Copyright by

Robert Everett Shimp

1971

I

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED THE PARLIAMENT OF 1625

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

|

i

3y

Robert Everett Shimp, B*A.t M.A*

| I ******

The Ohio State University 1970

Approved Ljr

CSfUjicrri fij&'&JVitZ- Q Adviser Department of History PREFACE

This study of the first Parliament of Charles X, the

1625 Parliament, is an attempt to cast additional light on the relationship of Parliament and the early Stuarts, and therefore, to provide a better understanding of the causes of the Civil War. Dae modern study of he early Stuart

Parliaments began with Professor Gardiner's monumental ten volume History of England from the Accession of James I. to the

Outbreak of the Civil War. Writing in the late 19th century,

Professor Gardiner viewed the political and religious events of this period as leading inevitably to the Puritan Revolution.

However, he saw little value in examining the effects of the broader social and economic aspects of the period on England's political life* It was these social and economic aspects

that Professor Neale, working on Elizabethan Parliaments, and

Professor Namier, working on 18th century Parliaments, brought into sharp focus. They demonstrated the necessity of analyzing

the parliamentary elections and the composition of the House of

Commons if one was to understand the actions of any one

Parliament. New kinds of evidence now came under the scrutiny

of the historian and the old kinds were sought out more eagerly.

ii The writing of parliamentary history began anew* It was with this new approach in mind that I began this study of the

Parliament of 1625* All spelling in the quotations have been modernized*

In the preparation of this study I incurred many obligations which I would like to acknowledge here* Ity researches in England were facilitated by generous assistance from The Ohio State University* I am also grateful to the staffs of the Public Record Office, the British Museum, the

Institute of Historical Research, John fylands Library, the

House of Lords Record Office, and The Ohio State University

Library who have furnished me with much needed aid and innumerable courtesies. I should also like to thank the

Earl of St. Germans for permission to use the papers of Sir

John ELiot in his possession* Special gratitude I owe to

Professor Clayton Roberts whose guidance and insights has furnished me with invaluable guideposts* Finally, I wish to thank my friend Valdimir Steffel for commenting on the first five chapters, and iqy wife Lyn and son Gregoxy for their endless patience and encouragement* Special thanks also to lyn for typing the dissertation*

iii VITA.

March 1, 19^2 Born - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

196** . B.A., Thiel College, Greenville, Pennsylvania

1 9 6 5. M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1965-1968 . . • Teaching Associate, Department of History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1968-1970 . . • Instructor, Department of History, Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware, Ohio

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: History

Tudor-Stuart England, Professor Clayton R* Roberts

Medieval Europe, Professor Franklin J. Pegues

Modern Ehgland, Professor Philip P. Poirier

Early National Period, United States, Professor Harry L» Coles

Colonial America, Professor Paul C. Bowers

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page PREFACE...... ii

VITA ...... iv

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE FOOTNOTES ...... vi

Chapter

I. THE NEW R E I G N ...... 1

II. THE ELECTIONS...... 44

III. THE COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS...... 82

IV. THE HOUSE OF L O R D S ...... 97

V. THE WESTMINSTER MEETING...... 113

VI. THE OXFORD MEETING ...... 162

VII. CONCLUSIONS...... 202

APPENDIX

A. THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN 1 6 2 3 ...... 217

B. GRIEVANCES PRESENTED TO JAMES I BY THE 1624 PARLIAMENT AND ANSWERED BY CHARLES I ON JULY 4, 1625 ...... 219

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 223

v ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE FOOTNOTES

Add. MSS: Additional Manuscripts

Alumni Cant.: John Venn and J. A. Venn, eds., Alumni Cantabrigienses. . .to 1751

Alumni Qxon.: Joseph Foster, ed., Alumni Qxonienses: the Members of the University of Oxford. 1500-1714

A. P. C.: Acts of the Privy Council

B. I. H. R. s Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research

B. M.: British Museum

C. J.: Journals of the House of Commons

C. S. P. Dorn.: Calendar of State Papers. Domestic

C. S. P. Ven.t Calendar of State Papers. Venetian

Commons Debates. 1625: Samuel R. Gardiner, ed., Debates of the House of Commons in 1625

D. N. B.: Dictionary of National Biography

E. H. R.: English Historical Review

Gardiner, History: Samuel R. Gardiner, History of England from the Accession of Jame3 I to the Outbreak of the Civil War

H. M, C.: Historical Manuscript Commission

H. of L. MSS: House of Lords Manuscripts

J. M. H.: Journal of Modern History

L. J.1: Journals of the House of Lords

P. R. 0.: Public Record Office

S. P. D.: State Papers Domestic

V. C. H.:. The Victoria History of the Counties of England

vi CHAPTER I

THE HEM REIGN

June 22, 1625 Sir Benjamin Rudyard

To say this is the first Parliament of the King is no great matter, but that the first Parliament of the King should have temperate proceedings and prosperous success is a matter of extraordinary consideration and consequence; for it is commonly seen that the same influence which governs in the beginning of an action influences itself throughout and continues to the end* •

No one in England could have more accurately prophesied the future course of King Charles I's relations with his

Parliaments than Sir Benjamin Rudyard did in his speech made so early in the opening Parliament of the reign* That this opening Parliament, the Parliament of 1625, was turbulent and defiant is well known, but the crucial question to be answered is why it proved so turbulent, so defiant*

Charles I had been on the throne only eleven weeks when he met Parliament* The future of England appeared very bright;

Is* R. Gardiner (ed.). Debates in the House of Commons in 1625 (Camden Society, 1873), VI, 9*

1 his accession had been greeted on all sides with exclamations of joy. "All fears and sorrowes are swallowed up in joy of so hopeful a successor", remarked one contemporary.2 Even Sir

John ELiot, the prominent parliamentarian, rejoiced; "a new spirit of life and comfort possessed all men as if the old

Genius of the Kingdom, having with Endymion slept an age, were now awakened again. . Most Englishmen who expressed such feelings probably based them upon sheer speculation, for little was known of the new King who, unlike his father, was withdrawn, had few friends, and preferred silence to talk.

One thing was certain, he would be a welcome change from

James. Possessing a dignified carriage, he cut a more regal figure than James I; and popular rumor portrayed him as diligent in the conduct of his private and public affairs, frugal in his expenditures, and zealous in the profession of his religion. But the principal reason for the joy expressed at his accession lay in the fact that since 1623 he had been a leading proponent of a war with Spain. Charles's actions in the first weeks of his reign only seemed to confirm these

2Sir Henry Ellis (ed.), Original Letters Illustratiye__of English History. 2d series (London, 1827), III, 244.

3sir John ELiot, Negotium Posterorum (1881), I, ^1. rumors. It assuredly appeared that "God hath sent him over this ii Kingdom as a blessing."

King James "of Blessed and Glorious memory" had died at his favorite hunting lodge, Theobalds, on March 27, and his son wasted no time in taking up the reins of government. Arriving at St. Jame3 Palace on the following day, Charles ordered the

Lord Keeper, Bishop John Williams, to continue using the old

Great Seal until a new one could be designed, and called for the Privy Councillors of his father to be sworn in as his own. Sir Humphrey May, the talented Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was the only addition to the old council, while two Catholic lords, Wotton and Baltimore were dismissed.

The Council met this same day to authorize the issuance of new commissions and patents to all Crown officials, and to make preparations for informing the world of James't death, for burying the old King, and for the Coronation.-^

There was widespread hope, at least in Court circles and possibly in all political circles, that Charles would rule

^H. M. C., R. R. Hastings Esq. MSS (London, 1930), II, 6?; A. C. Edwards (ed.). English History from Essex Sources. 1550-1750 (Chelmsford, 1952). p. 69; C. S. P. Ven.. i6z5-ZZz6 (London, 1913)* XIX* 4; Thomas Birch (ed.J. The Court and Times of Charles the First (London, 1848), II, 8-10. Henry Hallam presents the opposite view of Charles's reception to the throne. Hallam, Constitutional History. I, 367*

5p. R. 0., S. P. D., 16/1«5; B. M., Add. MSS 17,994, f. 40; B. M., King's MSS 1 3, 6 ff. 69-69v; C. S. P. Yen.. XIX, 12; John Hacket, Sorinia Reserata (1693), part II, 4. See Appendix A for the Privy Council in 1625. through the Privy Council and be his own chief minister,

consequently not relying on any one favorite as his father had done. But, if this were so, what did the future hold for

James's favorite, Qeorge Villiers, Duke of Buckingham? Many men did ponder Buckingham's fate, fondly recalling the early disagreements he had had with Charles, but the King's actions immediately made it apparent that the Duke's position and power were not to be curtailed. On the contrary, Buckingham

stood "mighty high in the substantial part of the King's favour"; his stock had steadily risen since the journey into

Spain, for there the Duke had accurately assessed the Spanish plans while Charles had been completely misled. Buckingham

rode with Charles in his carriage when he was proclaimed King; he slept in the royal bedchamber the first four nights of the

reign; he had all of his titles and offices confirmed; he

gained a new office, that of first Gentleman of the Bedchamber; and he henceforth resided in specially prepared quarters,

immediately adjoining those of the King, in St. James Palace.

Charles "received him into an admired intimacy and dearness, making him partaker of all his Counsels and Cares, and Chief Conductor of his affairs. . .*6 Fortunately for Charles, his close relationship with Buckingham was in no way detrimental to his public image, for the Duke, because of his actions in the 162^ Parliament, was still held in high esteem. An ardent advocate of war with Spain, he had helped to win King

James over to this point of view and in June 1625 few Englishmen knew that he had embarked on a foreign policy that ran counter to the desires of most Englishmen.?

The full impact of Buckingham's influence with the King became apparent on April 9, with the appointment of a select committee of the Privy Council to advise him on foreign affairs*

In addition to Buckingham, the committee was composed of James

Lord Ley, the Lord Treasurer; Edward Lord Conway, a Secretary of State; William, Earl of Pembroke, the Lord Chamberlain; and Fulke, Lord Brooke, a Gentleman of the Bedchamber* Each one of these men, with the exception of Lord Brooke, held a high government office, and all had considerable experience in foreign affairs and diplomatic relations* Experience and

^Edwards, English History from Essex Sources, p* 69; H* M* C., MSS of the Earl of Mar and Kellie TLondon. 1930), II,, 227; W* Dunn Macray (led.). Clarendon's History of the Rebellion (Oxford, 1888), I, 30; C. S* P. Ven., XIX, 203; C* S. P. Dorn* 1625-1626 (London, 1858), p. 10; H* M. C*, H* D. Skrine MSS (London, 1887)* P* 3» Birch, Court and Times of Charles I. I, John Rushworth, Historical Collections CLondon. 1659J. I. 171)*

7s* R. Gardiner, History of England (London, I8 8 3), V., 320* position together justified the creation of this committee,. to say nothing of the efficiency of a small group compared to the inefficiency of an inflated Privy Council. Unfortunately,, it soon appeared that this important committee was created merely to rubber stamp the Duke's designs. Of its members, only the Earl of Pembroke was not a creature of Buckingham, and his selection may be attributed to the fact that he was one of the wealthiest men in England, was the head of an old aristocratic family, and was a man with widespread political influence. It is difficult to appraise Pembroke's affiliation with Buckingham during this first month of the new reign.

Certainly he showed signs of cooperation in l62/f, but by the summer of 1625, he seems to have been working in opposition to Buckingham. Nonetheless, the appointment of this committee revealed to all Englishmen that the foremost concern of their young King was to be, not domestic affairs, but England's future role in European affairs. Yet for several months only the barest outline of this role was known to the members of this committee.® Hen outside the committee knew nothing at all.

Hie commission received by these five lords charged them to counsel the King concerning present alliances,

®H. M. C., Skrine MSS, p. 10; Birch, Court and Times of Charles I. I, 21; P. R. 0., S. P. D. l6/l:80. particularly that with Spain; concerning a possible offensive and defensive alliance with France; concerning the best way to recover the Palatinate; concerning the conduct of His Majesty's

Ambassadors at a forthcoming meeting with representatives of the King of Denmark, of the King of Sweden, and of several

German princes; and concerning the best schemes for employing the Royal Navy and militia in the defense of England. Taken together the various charges in the commission represented the components of a grand design which Charles and Buckingham had been trying to formulate since January 1624. It was essentially centered around the deep desire of King James to regain the Palatinate for his son-in-law, Frederick the Elector, but it was heavily influenced by the treatment Charles and

Buckingham received in Spain in 1623. The return of these two angry young men from Spain had spelled the end of James I's great hope of peacefully gaining, through the help of Spain, the restoration of the Palatinate. Spanish troops had occupied the Palatinate in the opening months of the Ihirty Years War, and showed no signs of leaving. It was now evident that the

Palatinate could only be recovered by military force. Charles and Buckingham clamored for the necessary war, a war with

Spain. Unable to hold out against such pressure James surrendered; in January 1624, ambassadors were sent to the friendly courts of Europe to secure military alliances. Sir

Robert Anstruther consulted with the King of Denmark and the Princes of Northern Germany; Sir James Spens felt out the King

of Sweden; while Sir Issac Wake traveled to Savoy and Venice.

A close alliance was sought with the United Provinces and

special attention was given to the Court of Louis XIII of

France. If successfully negotiated, these alliances would

surely bring victory to England and the restoration of the

Palatinate to Frederick.9

In early Stuart England, a proposal for war with Spain

always stirred popular enthusiasm, and James I was impelled to

move in this direction in 1624. But he did so halfheartedly

and until his death he resisted an open declaration of war

against his old ally. In order to delay an open declaration,

James first presented to his commission on Spanish affairs the

information gained by his son and his favorite while in Spain.

This commission had been appointed in 1617 to advise James on

the Spanish marriage. Despite Buckingham's pressure, shis

conservative group resisted war with Spain, but it did recommend

that James abandon any plans for a Spanish marriage. The King's

next delaying tactic came in the form of a Parliament, which he

called at the behest of Quarles and Buckingham. In his opening

speech to this Parliament, King James amazed all by asking that

the two Houses advise him on foreign policy, particularly on

9p. R, 0., S. P. D. 16/1:39; Gardiner, History. V, 172-174; H. M. C., Skrine MSS, p. 4. Spanish relations. Just three years before he had angrily dissolved Parliament for daring to discuss foreign policy.

Nothing was more welcome to Parliament than this change of affairs; Englishmen immediately envisaged their ships raiding the Spanish Main and capturing Spanish treasure fleets. Hie

Lords joined with the Commons in petitioning the King to break off the two proposed treaties with Spain. They then proceeded to supply James with the money that would be needed for the impending war against Spain. True, the King's request for the unprecedented sum of six subsidies and twelve-fifteenths was denied, for even the government officials in the House of

Commons were alarmed at this figure. But Parliament was willing to grant money; it felt that three subsidies and three-fifteenths (6300,000) was sufficient to pay for the war.

However, the Subsidy Act of 2.62k was unique in the controls it imposed on the expenditure of the tax money. Long ingrained distrust of James had led Parliament to appoint eight Treasurers to whom the Subsidy was to be paid. They were to dispense the money upon warrants from a Council of War appointed by the

King, but only for specified purposes, all of which were connected with the war against Spain: "the defense of this your realm of England, the securing of your kingdom of Ireland, the assistance of your neighbors the States of the United 1°

Provinces and other your Majesty's friends and allies, and for the setting forth of your royal navy*"^

With the blessing and support of Parliament James was clearly committed to war* Everyone agreed to the necessity of war, but what were to be the objectives of the war and what was to be the scope of the war? The different answers given to these questions revealed fundamental differences of opinion among Parliament, King, and Council, differences which were real, even if not yet apparent to all* Parliament sympathized with

James's desire to regain the Palatinate for Frederick and

ELizabeth, but its members knew little about German affairs*

They believed that a blow against Spain by sea, or perhaps limited warfare in the Low Countries, would have major repercussions in Germany, and would lead to the restoration of the Palatinate. They refused to listen to any plans for a

Protestant confederacy to restore the Palatinate by a

Continental war. Primarily, this was to be a war to enrich

England at the expense of Spain; only secondarily should it liberate the Palatinate* In holding this view, Parliament placed itself completely at odds with the King, for James I was totally committed to regaining the Palatinate for Frederick,

•*Aj* p. Kenyon (ed.), The Stuart Constitution (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 48-50; Gardiner, History. V. 176-179: J. R. Tanner (ed*), Constitutional Documents of the Reign of James I (Cambridge, 1952). pp. 374-379: William Cobbett. Parliamentary History of England (1806-1820), I, 1487-1488* And though he accepted a break in relations with Spain, he rejected independent belligerency with Spain, He still had enough control of his faculties to realize that only a great

Continental alliance could gain this objective and he spoke of sending 10,000 to 20,000 troops to the Continent, There must be a land war in Germany and his ambassadors were scouring

Europe for allies, James I's plan was far more grandiose than

Parliament's, which explains why he asked for six subsidies and

Parliament voted three. But even six subsidies was not enough for the King's Council or Buckingham. The Duke of Buckingham agreed in principle with both King and Parliament: he favored a war at sea and on land. As Lord High Admiral, the Boyal

Navy would have to play a key role; it would punish Spain and bring military glory to its commander. A vast Continental alliance system, which would include France, was necessary to wage war in the Germanies for the restoration of the Palatinate.

Thus there were three different views on the expected war, and only Parliament's was open for all to see.^1

Nonetheless, preparations for war continued. On

April 6, l62*f, James complied with Parliament's wish to end negotiations with Spain. Nine days later the Commissioners prepared to sail to the United Provinces to offer troop

^■Gardiner, History. V, 191-192, 197-198; C. J.. I, 7^0; L. J.. Ill, 205, 280. 12 assistance against Spainr and on April 18, twelve ships of the

Royal Navy were ordered to be made ready for war. Finally, the appointment of a Council of War on April 21 seemed to assure the success of the forthcoming Spanish conflict, for the King named to it the most knowledgeable military and naval leaders in England*-*-2

Only a significant alteration in Anglo-Spanish relations could have prevented war between the two countries; however, the Duke of Buckingham kept a constant vigil to prevent this, for King James was excessively eager to accept ai>y news that might lead to a rapproachement. The most serious threat to the. war plans came from the recall of John Digby, the Earl of

Bristol, from Spain, Digby had been Ambassador to Madrid since 1611 and was an old friend of the King's. Buckingham recognized that a single meeting of the King with Bristol would probably bring an end to James's new anti-Spanish policy, for the Earl knew that Buckingham's presumptuous conduct in Spain had been a main cause for the rupture of the marriage negotiations. Unable to convince the Earl that his interpre­ tation of events was wrong, Buckingham prevented any meeting between James and Digby by persuading the King to confine the

Earl of Bristol to his home in Devon* He was to remain there

3-2C. S. P. Yen*. XVIII, 266; C. S. P* Pom. 1623-1625. p* 217; Tanner, Constitutional Documents of the Reign of James I. pp. 330-381. 13 condemned, but untried, until 16Z6. Fortunately for Buckingham,

Bristol refused to speak without permission from James

King James X died on March 27, 1625 and to the end he was torn between actively supporting his favorite's preparations for war and refusal to declare war on Spain* He wanted the

Palatinate restored, but hoped it could be accomplished by negotiations with Spain* His death, however, brought no improvement in Anglo-Spanish relations. Quite the contrary, preparations for war were quickened, for Charles was one with

Buckingham in his aspiration for war with Spain* Hie first

Privy Council meeting of the reign concerned itself with sending directives to Vice Admirals and Mayors of port cities to hold all ships for the King's service* Hie Council of War was recommissioned on April 14, with the charge of putting the

Royal Navy in readiness and of advising the King on a general policy for the conduct of the war.*^

By the beginning of May, twelve ships of His Majesty's

Navy were fitted out at Plymouth and the 20 armed merchant ships which were to accompany them were nearing readiness*

13c. S* P. Dorn. 162V1625. pp. 224-225 , 231, 237; S. R. Gardiner, Hie Earl of Bristol's Defense of his Negotiations in Spain (Camden Society Miscellany, 1871;, VI, I-XXVII; S. R. Gardiner, Narrative of the Spanish Marriage Treaty (Camden Society, 1868;, Cl, 232-233. 250-251.

^ *A. P. C*. 1625-1626 (London, 193*0, XL, 7! Hiomas Itymer (ed.).. Foedera. Conventiones. Literae. et cuius cumcme generis Acta Publica inter Reees Aneliae (London. 1730). XVIII*, 25-26. The expected arrival of 47 small transport vessels and 20 war ships, sent by the Dutch as reinforcements, would enable the fleet to sail by the end of June* To accompany the fleet, the

Privy Council Issued warrants for the levy of 10,000 soldiers.

Itao thousand of these troops were ordered to rendezvous at Hull where they were to be transported to the United Provinces, in exchange for 2,000 experienced Englishmen employed by Prince

Maurice in the maintenance of Dutch independence* Well disciplined and experienced troops were needed to give some semblence of military discipline to the 8,000 raw recruits who were ordered to Plymouth on May 25* In the hope of gaining other experienced troops, Charles issued a proclamation demanding the return of all Englishmen employed in the forces of the Holy

Roman EinperOr,, Philip of Spain, and the Archduchess of the

Spanish Netherlands* Ihese men were to be in England by mid-

June to sail with the fleet.*'-’

The crucial question on everyone's lips in the spring of 1625 was not when was the fleet to sail, but what was its destination* To Sir Edward Cecil, a member of the Council of

War and commander of the ill-fated fleet, Buckingham mentioned

"hats full of gold and ship loads of spoil", yet he gave no hint of its course and destination* Only Charles, Buckingham,

15h * M* C., Earl of Cowper MSS (London, 1888), I, 192; Rushworth, Historical Collections. I, 172; H. M* C., Skrine MSS, p. 20; C. S. P. Ven*. XIX, 32, 133, 139. and Lord Conway could answer this question and none were obliged to. Since it was to be an extended voyage, of six to eight months, by a large fleet supported by the Dutch, the Venetian

Ambassador in Holland correctly assumed that the destination was the coast of Spain or Portugal and that its purpose was to stop the treasure-fleet from America. Most men believed that

Charles intended to send the fleet to the West Indies; others believed he intended to send it to the Mediterranean in order to attack Naples and Sicily.^

The King was certainly justified in refusing to disclose the destination of the fleet, for disclosure could lead to military disaster, but why was the fleet sailing under the

commission of his brother-in-law, Frederick, the King of Bohemia, and why didn't Charles openly declare war upon Spain? His failure to declare war at this time must be considered one of

Charles's greatest blunders, for had he taken this popular

stand. Parliament, indeed all England, would have been at his feet. 5. R. Gardiner suggests that Charles's inaction was due

to his fear of subjecting England to reprisals from Spain.

Buckingham made this same claim when addressing Parliament in

August 1625. Plausible as Gardiner's suggestion may seem, it

l6P. R. 0., S. P. Denmark, 7 5 / 6 H. M. C., Skrine MSS, pp. 15, 18, 20; C. S. P. Ven.. XIX, 8 5, 120-121; Norman McClure (ed.), The Letters of John Chamberlain (Philadelphia, 1939)* II, 619. is more likely that Charles's failure to declare war arose from his inability to act decisively at crucial moments. He kept hoping that further developments would help him reach a decision, with the result that he usually acted too late. Charles could hardly have delayed a declaration of war from fear of reprisals, for he ordered the retention of all Spanish ships in the Cinque

Ports in June; certainly this would spark retaliation, though possibly not on the same scale. Charles's delay in issuing letters of marque against Spain offers a further illustration of his inability to act decisively. Although he ordered blank, letters drawn up in April, he failed to issue the letters and thus again failed to capitalize on a vast amount of potential support from the merchant community.^ Charles and Buckingham, with widespread public support, had been calling for war against Spain since January 162^* The preparation of a fleet in the Spring of 1625, in conjunction with the ruptured relations between the two countries at this time, made it seem that war was inevitable. At a time when Englishmen were clamoring for war with Spain, and expected one imminently, a failure to declare war could only lead to suspicion, especially on the part of members of Parliament.

l?Gardiner, History. V, 325; P. R. 0., S. P. D. l6/l:12 and 16/3*61; L. J.. III. If82; P. R. 0., S. P. Docquets, 38/13*2. Charles may also have been reluctant to declare war because he was waiting for the conclusion of an offensive and defensive alliance with France* Negotiations for an effective military alliance between the two countries had begun in

February 162*1- when James sent Henry Rich, Viscount Kensington

(later Earl of Holland), to Paris to secure the hand of

Princess Henrietta Maria for Prince Charles* The Earl of

Carlisle joined Kensington in May as Senior Ambassador Extra­ ordinary and assumed responsibility for the political aspects of the marriage* Both James and Buckingham anticipated that the marriage to the King's sister would be the capstone to the desired alliance*

The political state of Europe gave the English leaders every reason to feel confident of success in their negotiations*

By 162*1- France found herself almost completely encircled by

Spanish held territories, while the victories of the Marquis of Spinola in Brabant and of General Tilly in Bohemia and

Germany augured the establishment of a strong Holy Roman Enpire*

The two branches of the house of Hapsburg were united in policy and their enemies were isolated, defeated, and discouraged; France was beginning to fear for her own independence*

With France in this position how could she possibly reject a military alliance with England, especially if its aim was to drive the Spanish out of the Palatinate and to restore the area to James's son-in-law? Louis XIII was most anxious to strike a 18 blow at Spain and the restoration of the Palatinate would represent such a blow, but in 162k he felt that the restoration

F the Val Telline would deliver a heavier blow. The Val

Telline which had been occupied by the Spanish since 1620 was a key pass between Austria and Italy. It was the artery through which Spanish troops and gold passed into the Gernanies op Netherlands. Since Spanish money kept the Austrian Etopire solvent and Spanish troops defended it, a blockade of the Val

Telline would cause the collapse of the Empire and the end of

Spanish advances along the Rhine. Religion also led Louis to concentrate on the Val Telline. As a devout Roman Catholic, he preferred restoring the Val Telline to the Papacy to restoring the Palatinate to a Protestant Prince.^®

Divergent as were their views over the Palatinate, the first problem that divided England and France concerned the marriage treaty. Carlisle and Kensington presented the

French deputation with a treaty which allowed religious toleration only for the bride and her household. Louis's commissioners would have none of this; there had to be complete

oleration for all Catholics in England and the agreement had to be in writing. Originally demanding that James publicly

^®A. W. Ward, G. W. Prothero, and Stanley Leathes (eds.), 'the Cambridge Modern History (New lork, 1906), IV, 128-129; C. V. Wedgwood, The Thirty Years War (London, 1938), p. 33* proclaim toleration for Catholics, Louis condescended to allow this principle to remain secret* However, two months previously,

Charles had sworn in the House of Lords "whensoever it should please Qod to bestow upon him any lady that were Popish she should have no further liberty but for her own family, and no advantage to the recusants at home."^9 a little later in the session James had announced his intent to enforce the penal laws against Catholics and to banish all Catholic priests*

Furthermore, having learned his lesson in the Spanish negotia- tions, James promised that no privileges would be granted to

English Catholics by a French treaty. To betray Parliament after these statements would have been political suicide; the subsidies necessary for the impending war would not be forth­ coming* Both King and Prince apparently meant to keep their promises; James ordered the judges to enforce the penal laws and the French ambassador heard rumors that Charles was moving towards Puritanism* The negotiations seemed to be at an end*20

But the French government had no desire to see the negotiations terminate; therefore, they skillfully altered their tactics. Lord Kensington was sent back to England

19B. M., Egerton MSS 2026, f. 47; C. S. P. Yen*. XVIII, 340-341; Gardiner, History. V, 250; C. J*. I. 756.

20L. J*. Ill, 317; C. s. P. Yen.. XVIII, 351-352; Godfrey Goodman, The Court and Times of King James the First (London, 1839)» II, 348-356. bearing promises of concessions on many points, while the Earl of Carlisle was informed by the Marquis de la Vieuville,

Louis XIII's chief minister, that only the need to procure a papal dispensation for the marriage caused France to seek guarantees for Catholic liberties. If James, his son, and a

Secretary of State would merely sign a letter granting these liberties, the dispensation would be forthcoming and then James

could do as he pleased. However, though the English did not know it, these words were la Vieuville1s own and were spoken 21 without the knowledge of Louis.

The French move which most advanced the faltering

negotiations was the recall of the Count of Tilliers as

Ambassador to England and the appointment of the Marquis of

Effiat in his place. Vieuville could no longer permit TLlliers

to remain in England; his antagonistic view toward the marriage

had prevented the promotion of French interests. Marshal of

France since 1581 and a skilled diplomat, the Marquis of Effiat

literally took England by storm. He not only won the confidence

of James I, but also of Buckingham, who had become convinced of

the absolute necessity of French assistance for the imminent

war with Spain and the recovery of the Palatinate. While

feasting the ambassador at New Hall, Buckingham informed him of

21C. S. P. Pom. 1623-1625. p. 283; Birch, Court and Times - of King James the First. II. C. S. P. Yen.. XVIII, 419• 21 his own political objectives and pledged his unqualified support for the procurement of the marriage treaty. This victory was greater than France had hoped for and transferred the real negotiations to London. Unfortunately for England, France was

convinced that no further concessions were necessary to gain

90 her objectives.

To James and Charles, it must have appeared that the

French were not only unwilling to make concessions, but that

they were bent on increasing their demands, for when they

finally decided to accept Vieuville*s request for a letter

granting Catholic toleration, they were informed that this was

not acceptable to the French King and his new minister Cardinal

Richelieu. Vieuville's indiscretion had led to his dismissal

and in the name of Louis XIII Richelieu demanded a written

article, an escrlt particular: it did not, however, have to be

part of the marriage contract. Buckingham prevented the

collapse of the negotiations by persuading the King and the

Prince that the French would not adhere to the demand for the

article. Moreover, news arrived from Paris that Louis was

ready to support Count Mansfeld's expedition for the reconquest

of the Palatinate. This predatory adventurer had attained a

22C. S. P. Dorn. 1623-162*5. 283-284; Gordon Albion, Charles I and the Court of Rome (London, 1935)» PP* 57-58# H. R. Williamson, George Villiers (London, 1940), p. 159# 22

European reputation in the first phase of the Ihirty Years War and with a lull in the fighting in 1624 had strayed into the

English court seeking employment. An excellant diplomat when he wished to be, Mansfeld captivated James with a scheme for the restoration of Frederick to the Palatinate. Ten thousand infantry, 3,000 horse, six guns, and £20,000 a month would be enough to Induce France and many others to join this crusade for the liberty of Germany* James agreed to supply these necessities if the King of France would make an equal commitment.

On August 29 Louis XIII responded, he would match James's contribution, but James had to accept the Catholic article in the marriage treaty,23

For two months James, Charles, and Buckingham hesitated, lhen word arrived that Louis was beginning to lose interest in the negotiations. Carlisle and Holland had been informed that there could be no offensive treaty until after the marriage treaty was signed. Furthermore, the King of France would promise to support Mansfeld for only the next six months; thereafter England could only hope that Louis would choose to continue his support. By promising nothing more concrete than limited support for the restoration of the Palatinate and yet leaving the door open for a possible offensive alliance in the

23c. S. P. Yen.. XVIII, 293-296, 429; Philip Yorke, 2nd Earl of Hardwicke, Miscellaneous State Papers (London, 1778), I, 523. 533* Wedgwood, Ihe Thirty Years War, p. 183; C. S. P. Pom.. 1623-1625. p. 223; Gardiner, History. V, 260. future, the French maneuvered James into a difficult position.

That Louis even considered an offensive alliance arose from his need for a diversionary force in the Germanies, that would act synchronously with his planned Invasion of the Val Telline.

Mansfeld's force would prevent the Spanish from sending reinforcements to the Val Telline from the Netherlands. Fearful that France might thoroughly reconsider the virtues of the marriage treaty and her support of Mansfeld, James ordered his ambassadors to accept the French conditions, and on

November 8 the marriage treaty was signed in Paris. On

December 12, the treaty was ratified in England and in signing the escrit particular Charles and James consented to grant "to all the Roman Catholic subjects of the Crown of Great Britain the utmost liberty and franchise in everything regarding their

q Il religion. • • " What exasperation they must have experienced at this moment, for the French had exacted a great price for this marriage treaty while England had gained little more than a bride. To make matters worse, at this very moment the French were attempting to abrogate the part permitting Mansfeld1s army to travel to the Rhine by way of France.^

^Hardwicks, State Papers. I, 538-539; P* R* 0., S. P. France, 31fktk,

^Hardwicke, State Papers. I, 5*+8* Why the sudden change in the French position? Ihe answer is evident i Mansfeld1 s army had ceased to be of any importance to France. While this soldier of fortune was leisurely gathering his array, France had successfully invaded the Val

Telline, thereby terminating the need for any diversionary force in the Germanies. Moreover, without an English declaration of war on Spain, it would be foolhardy to permit Mansfeld to cross

French territory to attack Spanish forces in the Palatinate.

Consequently, when the French Ambassador Extraordinary, M.

Ville-aux-CLercs, arrived in England, ostensibly to secure ratification of the marriage treaty, his primary objective was to cajole James into open war with Spain. If this proved to be impossible, he was to encourage the use of Mansfeld1 s a n y for raising the seige of Breda, which had been under attack since the previous August. Ihe King was furious when Ville- aux-GLercs suggested this to him, and told him that Mansfeld would not be allowed to cross France. Again it was Buckingham who came to the aid of the French; he convinced himself, and finally Charles and James, that a march through the United

Provinces would be a direct route to the Palatinate. Actually he merely wanted to prevent any further delay of Mansfeld's departure. He had his way, for on January 31* 1625, Mansfeld*b 26 arxry finally cast off from Dover heading for Flushing.

26C. S. P. Yen.. XVIII, 529-530? Gardiner, History. V, 280, 286-287. With the army's departure for the United Provinces,

Cardinal Richelieu had just one more favor to ask of England: would she loan France a single warship of the Royal Navy and six or seven armed merchant ships? The ships were needed to enable Richelieu to crush his Protestant countrymen, the

Huguenots, With their own armies and with numerous fortified towns, the Huguenots presented an awkward impediment to the centralization of the French nation under the monarchy. An excuse was needed to eliminate the power of the Huguenots and it presented itself on January 7, 1625 when a Protestant leader, the Duke of Soubise, sailed into the harbor of Blavet in Brittany and carried off four French warships to Rochelle, a Huguenot stronghold, Louis XIII's rage was unrestrained and he immediately wrote to the Duke of Buckingham to solicit

English aid. Apparently without even taking a moment to consider the religious implications involved, the Lord High

Admiral complied with the request* When James was told of

Soubise*s escapade, he zealously declared, "If those roguish

Huguenots of France, . .mean to make a rebellion, I will go in person to exterminate them. , .',2^ James was not to have the opportunity to demonstrate his military talents against the Huguenots or for that matter even time to complete the

2?S. R, Gardiner, Documents Illustrating the Impeachment of the Duke of Buckingham in 1626 (Camden Society. 1889) XLV. 139-140, 14-3, 150-151. 26 negotiations for this injudicious loan because within five weeks of his receipt of this news he was dead.

The owners of seven merchant ships did sign contracts with France on March 25. but it wasn't until March 28, on the second day of the new reign, that the British government consented to the loan of the H. M* 5. Vanguard. Like the merchant ships, the Vanguard was leased to France for a period of six to eighteen months for use "against whomsoever except the King of Great Britain." Sir John Pennington, the accomplished captain of the Vanguard, was appointed Admiral of the little fleet and ordered to deliver his ships into the hands of

Louis XIII by the last day of April. The Admiral did not fulfill his duty until August 5* Apparently preparations were progressing rapidly during the month of April when news of the fleet's purpose leaked out to the owners and captains. Mo one wished to fight against their fellow Protestants at Rochelle, and the naval commissioners were overwhelmed with excuses for delay. It took a letter from King Charles, on May 8, to get the fleet finally under sail. However, within the next ten days, the King and the Duke of Buckingham must have begun to realize the imprudence of their loan and the repercussions it would have in England for on the 18th of May, Sir John Coke, the leading naval commissioner and a creature of Buckingham's, ordered Pennington not "to engage or embroil (yourself) and the ships and companies under your command in the civil wars of the French. • .or against them of our religion in that 27 OR kingdom or elsewhere," Pennington was to delay and prepare to convey the new Queen of England home.2^

The marriage of Princess Henrietta Maria and Charles ±. finally took place on May 1, in front of the great west door of

Notre Dame, with the Duke of Chevreus, a distant relative of

Charles, acting as the King's proxy. James and Charles had signed the marriage treaty in December 162^, but the Pope's refusal to grant the necessary dispensation pending alterations, and then James'S death had delayed the marriage. Now with the ceremony concluded and the Queen preparing to travel to England,

Charles acted in accordance to the treaty and sent a directive to Lord Keeper Williams to notify all lay and clerical officials of the suspension of the penal laws against Catholics, This order was followed by the pardon of 20 Catholic priests on

May 10; the future looked bright for English Catholics, However, the Lord Keeper did not notify the officials and at the same time, English Catholics were informed that they would have to wait for toleration until after the coming session of

Parliament, Again, as in the case of the eight ships, an awareness of the effect that an imprudent act (like Catholic

Gardiner, Documents Illustrating the Impeachment of the Duke of Buckingham in 1^26.. pp. 158-166. 17^-175; P. R, 0,, S. P. D. 16/2t74; C. S. P. Ven,. XIX, 3^*

^Gardiner, Documents Illustrating the Impeachment of the Duke of Buckingham in 1626. p. 178. toleration) would have on Parliament caused Charles and

Buckingham to go against the spirit and letter of the French treaty. Both of these decisions must have been made on

May 11 or 12. Nonetheless, the King and his favorite finally realized the potential dangers that lay in their past commitments to France. A suspicious atmosphere in England would destroy their plans for Parliament, and consequently had to be prevented. On the other hand, France would not be pleased with this turn of affairs.2°

To prevent any breach in Anglo-French relations, the

Duke of Buckingham prepared to go to France under the guise of bringing home Queen Henrietta Maria. To justify the temporary continuation of the Catholic penal laws to the French would be relatively easy, but Buckingham knew it would be extremely difficult to maneuver them into concluding a peaceful settlement with the Huguenots and into entering into an offensive and defensive alliance with England. Despite these difficulties, the Duke planned to make a last ditch effort to gain French assistance for the recovery of the Palatinate, The Earl of

3°Gardiner, History. V, 3°7; T* Frankland, The Annals of King James and King Charles the First (London, l68l), p. 108; ; P. R. 0.flS. P. D. l6/2tl; B. M., Harleian MSS ^597, f. l^Ov; Roger Coke, A Detection of the Court and State of England (London, 1697). p. 165; H. M. C.. Skrine MSS, p. 12. These decisions could have been made any time between May 10 and 13, but Buckingham sailed for France around the 13th, and it is doubtful Charles made decisions of this magnitude without Buckingham's consent. Carlisle had recently advised against the renewal of the negotiations for this coveted alliance* but Buckingham now believed that French assistance was needed if the British fleet was to set sail and if a large Continental alliance were to be formed. Moreover* he had much to offer Louis XIII in return; the whole British fleet and the Dutch arny were prepared to aot in cooperation with the French army for the conquest of the Spanish Netherlands. Buckingham had convinced himself that only his personal diplomatic skill was needed to secure french agreement.-^

Much to Buckingham's surprise or rather disgust* he did not find a warm reception for his plan. Meeting with Louis XIII and other officials from May 15 to May 30# he was not able to secure any agreement for an alliance. France refused to join

Bigland in a declaration of war on Spain or to openly engage in a war for the Palatinate. Louis would only commit himself to seven months contribution for a German league under the

King of Denmark and seven months wages and 2*000 additional horse for Mansfeld. Fortunately there was no need to discuss the delay of the eight English ships on loan to France. Louis agreed to send an agent to Rochelle to ask the Huguenots to treat for peace* therefore the ships were given orders to sail

^ P . R. 0., S. P. D. 14/214*215; C. S. P. Ven.. XIX, 80; Gardiner, History. V, 327-328; H. M. C., Skrine MSS, p. 18. to Dieppe where the French Admiral was waiting. However,. France paradoxically resented English interference in her internal affairs* Though Buckingham failed to see it, the negotiations had little chance of success* The two parties were too far apart, particularly on the questions of the restoration of dissolved Huguenot churches and the razing of Fort Louis, which overlooked the harbor of Rochelle. Louis wanted the British ships and Buckingham was taken in by his gesture for peace.

The ships were not in French hands yet, but how frustrated

Buckingham must have been. His trip was a complete fiasco,

Leaving Louis XIII at Amiens, Buckingham prepared to escort Henrietta Maria to England, and on June 12 she landed at

Dover* After their first meeting here, the Royal couple set out for London where they arrived on the 16th amidst the cheering of crowds that had braved both a heavy rain and the plague for a glimpse of the young Queen. Great bonfires were set in the City and everyone seemed genuinely pleased with their new Queen.

32c. S. P. Yen*. XIX, 82, 86; State Papers Collected by the Earl of GLarendon (Oxford, 1767-1786)), II, App. XXV; P. R. 0*, S. P. France 78/75*124.

■^Rushworth, Historical Collections. I, 174-175; J. 0. Halliwell (ed.), The Autobiography and Correspondence of Sir Simonds D1Ewes (London, 1845)* I. 271-272; H. M. C*. Skrine MSS, p. 22; Sir Henry Ellis (ed*). Original Letters Illustrative of English History. 1st Series (2d ed., London, 1825;, III, 197* Even the Puritans were not disturbed by this Catholic marriage* The Puritan party, headed by Dr* John Preston, the brilliant and ambitious lecturer of Lincoln1s Inn and Trinity

College, appears to have been quiet about the marriage, strangely quiet when one remembers its great attacks, in sermon and pamphlet, on the Spanish marriage* It seems that the Duke of Buckingham, early in 162**, had convinced Dr* Preston that the French match was the only one open to Charles after the failure of the Spanish negotiations. He persuaded Preston that this was true because there were no Protestant prospects*

He further urged that the French were not particular about the question of Catholic toleration* Dr* Preston had been chaplain for both Buckingham and Charles, and was held in high regard at Court* He had been present at the time of James's death and had ridden with the two men from Theobalds to London in a closed coach* Qis close relationship with King Charles and the Duke of Buckingham, coupled with their actions in the

162** Parliament, gave him no reason to show anything but enthusiasm for the new monarch* The Puritan party was ready to stand behind King Charles in the Spring of 1625; the disclosure of his religious views and of the escrit particular were not to be made until the opening session of Parliament in

June. 3^

After a year and a half of negotiations with France all

Charles and the Duke of Buckingham had to show for their efforts

were a marriage treaty and limited troop and monetary support

for the Count of Mansfeld. Diey had been too easily maneuvered

into granting privileges to Catholics and supplying ships which were to be used against their fellow Protestants at

Rochelle. Furthermore, any disclosure of their concessions

would have immediately destroyed the public support they did

enjoy. Their only recourse was to publicly repudiate the

escrit particular and to recall the eight ships. This action

would not have brought punitive measures from France, nor

would it have endangered the negotiations for the much solicited

offensive and defensive alliance, by which France would be

drawn into a war against Spain for the restoration of the

Palatinate. France had closed the door on these negotiations

nine months before. A recognition of this fact would have

enabled England to place more emphasis on the Danish treaty.

But Charles and Buckingham still hesitated to act openly.

English negotiations with Denmark were being conducted

by Sir Robert Anstruther, an experienced diplomat. Upon the

3^Irvonwy Morgan, Prince Charles* Puritan Chaplain (London, 1957)* PP« 7 7 • 82-83; James Maclear, “Puritan Relations with Buckingham", The Huntingdon Library Quarterly XXI, 125. 33 accession of Charles he received a warrant to continue his efforts along the lines established by James. He had been sent in June 1624, to the court of Christian IV of Denmark and to those of the Northern German Princes, with a commission to seek alliances for the reconquest of the Palatinate. It was not until April 12, 1625 that Anstruther was able to report any progress, but on this date he presented Charles with assurances that the King of Denmark would have 25,000 foot and 7,000 horse in the field by May 26„ to be used for the recovery of the

Palatinate. Charles was asked to provide for the maintenance of 6,000 foot and 2,000 horse or £30,000 a month. On May 26,

Anstruther sailed for Denmark with bills of exchange for

£46,000 to cover the cost of levying the troops and their first month's pay.33

Christian IV was not fighting alone; he had the support of the Princes of the Lower Saxon Circle, where he had been elected the Director in April. The Lower Saxon Circle was located in the northwest region of the Holy Roman Bnpire and was composed of twenty-four Protestant principalities, free cities and episcopal sees. Like the other Princes of the

Circle, Christian IV feared the growth of Imperial power, he was especially concerned for the secularized diocese of

33P. R. 0., S. P. Holland, 84/126:142; P. R. 0., S. P. France, 78/74*175; P. R. 0., S. P. D., 14/214:208 and 16/3*52; C. S. P. Ven.. XIX, 50; P. R. 0., S. P. Denmark, 75/6*58. Bremen, Verden and Halberstadt which were held by his son,

Frederick. However, the King of Denmark did not wish to set forth on a road to war without certain precautions. He needed an alliance with the Protestant States in northern Germany and financial support from England. Anstruther was able to assure him of England's support in the summer of 1624-, but it took a trip by the English ambassador to each of the courts of northern Germany to gain the necessary princely support. With his demands met, Christian IV was ready to move by June 1625.^

James I, in his last days, had leaned towards the alliance with the King of Denmark because its costs were estimated at £170,000 to £130,000 a year; this sum was less than half that requested by the King of Sweden, Gustavus

Adolphus, who offered a similar alliance. Sir James Spens had been in Sweden nearly nine months trying to arrange an alliance.

Ihe Swedish King was a devout Protestant faced with a Catholic claimant to the throne; he had made several proposals to

Frederick of the Palatinate for a Protestant League before

Spens ever arrived in Stockholm. His elaborate and expensive plan was well conceived; it was possibly the only scheme which would have brought success. It included an alliance of all

Protestant states and the assistance of the Catholic states

3^Ward, Prothero and Leathes, Ihe Cambridge Modern History. IV, 91; Gardiner, History. V, 291, 298. 35

of France, Venice, and Savoy, These countries were to wage war in the name of Protestantism and of states' rights in

Germany. But before Gustavus would undertake the leadership of this design, he demanded assurances of protection from Denmark and Poland, control of .the ports of Wismar and Bremen, and adequate troop support. The old rivalry between Denmark and

Sweden was not dead and the King of Sweden had good reason to fear an attack by Christian IV on Sweden in his absence. The

King of Poland presented a similar threat; consequently,

Gustavus required a fleet of 25 ships in the Baltic to prevent such an attack. The two Baltic ports were necessary to give him a firm basis of operations. Finally 50<000 troops were needed to recover the Palatinate; Sweden would provide half of this number. Her allies were to provide the remainder, with

England meeting one-third of the cost or £^00,000 a year,

ftiis grand army would be ready to move when it possessed four months supplies and four months pay in advance. A scheme of this proportion was probably necessary if the Protestants were to be successful in Germany, but James could not afford it.

He turned towards the less expensive plan of Christian IV, which Charles accepted in the Spring of 1625,^

James and Charles had been forced to reject the Swedish alliance because of the enormous commitments they had already

^Gardiner, History. V, 29^, 299* 36 made to the Dutch and Mansfeld, One hundred thousand pounds a year was committed to the support of troops in Holland and

£240,000 to the support of Mansfeld's army. The expense in

Holland arose from a treaty signed by James on June 4, 1624; he pledged to support 6,000 English volunteers fighting in defense of Dutch independence for a period of two years. By signing this treaty James not only linked the two Protestant powers together, but also provided the basis for common agreement between himself and Parliament on foreign poliqy.

A portion of the 1624 Subsidy had been earmarked for aid to the United Provinces.

The United Provinces were sorely in need of assistance in 1624 for in August of that year, just a month after the signing of the treaty with England, the famed Spanish General, the Marquis of Spinola, laid seige to Breda. This city was the ancestral home of the Princes of Orange and its complex fortifications provided a model fortress for Europe. English aid was neither sufficient nor was the Prince of Orange's a n y strong enough to attempt the relief of Breda without endangering the independence of all the provinces; therefore, a plan emerged calling for the use of Mansfeld's army to raise the seige. The Count himself suggested this to Prince Maurice

^ C. S. P« Pom. 162V1625. p. 267; C. S. P. Yen.. XVIII, 324, 353. 162- 363: Gardiner. History. V, 295-298. 37 and France encouraged the adoption of this plan# It provided a diversion from the Val Telline and could possibly embroil

James in a war with Spain. However, King James absolutely refused to listen to this scheme from the time it was first suggested to him by the French Ambassador in December l62k until his death. James was not anxious for war with Spain; moreover, he had backed Mansfeld for one reason only, the recovery of the Palatinate. Nonetheless, the French Ambassador Effiat and his associate Ville-aux-Clercs continued their endeavors to secure English support for the plan. They had no success with James, but when Louis XIII refused to permit Mansfeld's army to land in France and when the Estates General of the

United Provinces adopted the plan, they were able to convince

the Duke of Buckingham that Mansfeld must land in Holland#

Buckingham was equally anxious to get the expedition under way and saw no harm in letting Mansfeld pass through Holland

on his way to the Palatinate# The favorite’s will prevailed, and the army sailed on January 31* 1625. ^

Ihe dead of winter is hardly the best time to launch a military campaign and when Mansfeld's army landed at

Elushing, it was half frozen. Had it not been for the assistance granted by the Dutch government, the whole army

■^Petrus Blok, History of the People of the Netherlands, trans. Oscar Blerstadt (New York. 1907). IV. l6: C. S. P. Dorn. 1623-1625. pp. ^52, ^56, 458-^62; Gardiner, History. V. 276. would have perished; as it was, the soldiers were dying at a rate of 40 to 50 per night. Within a short tine only 5*000 men out of the original 12,000 levied in England were still capable of bearing arms. Ihe cause for much of this misery was Mansfeld himself; he was notorious for neglecting his men.

However, it must be pointed out that the Dutch government was not motivated entirely by sympathy for the men; they hoped that the £2,000 would encourage the Count to go to the relief of Breda. As long as James lived, Mansfeld was not permitted to do so, but with the death of James, Mansfeld was ordered to pursue what he believed to be the best possible route for the recovery of the Palatinate. The arrival of this good news in the United Provinces enabled Sir Dudley Carleton, the

English Ambassador, to obtain credit from the Estates General for a loan of £40,000; with the money he obtained he saved the

"handful of poor English snakes not exceeding 1500" that 40 remained under Mansfeld.

Possibly Charles lifted the restraint on Mansfeld in hopes that the United Provinces would reciprocate with a similar amicable gesture^ for almost immediately the Dutch were asked to join in the expedition against Spain by supplying

20 ships and 2,000 Englishmen now serving as volunteers in their

^°P. R. 0., S. P. Holland, 84/126*196 and 84/126:2^*4 and 84/126:219. anny. Ihe Dutch agreed to contribute the ships and the troops,. but the English government would have to accept whole companies and not carefully handpicked troops. There was a reluctance in the Netherlands to allow any troops at all to depart, for

Prince Maurice had just died and his brother, Frederick Henry, who succeeded him, was yet untried as a leader of this 41 threatened land.

Since the Dutch were willing to cooperate in a war against Spain, Charles approached them with a proposal for an offensive and defensive alliance. It was to be part of a general European alliance which would put an army in the field for the recovery of the Palatinate, under the leadership of the King of Denmark. Preparations were made for a meeting at the Hague in April of the ambassadors of Sweden, Denmark,

England, the United Provinces, and various German states, but progress was slow. Finally on June 14, Charles sent Sir

Albertus Morton, a Secretary of State, to the Netherlands.

As an inducement for the alliance he was to offer the use of the English fleet (with its force of 10,000 men) and promise continued support for Mansfeld. With summer approaching an alliance would have to be reached quickly if a campaign were to be launched in 1625 *^2

^•Gardiner, History. V, 324.

^2P. H. 0., S. P. Holland, 84/127*219; B. M., Add. MSS 17,993. Hv-12; C. S. P. Ven.. XIX, 19, 73; P. R. 0., S. P. Holland, 84/127*50 and 84/126:219. The name of Mansfeld was not likely to persuade the Dutch, or for that matter ary other state, to join an alliance that summer, for on May 26, Breda had surrendered and the United

Provinces only wanted to get rid of this Soldier of Fortune and his wretched army. He had made only a feeble attempt to relieve

Breda, while he demanded £20,000 a month to keep his army together, or rather to fill his own pockets. It is a puzzle why Charles and Buckingham did not drop Mansfeld at this time.

His army was no longer English; he was nothing but a drain on the already depleted treasury; and his continued employment could only spoil relations with Parliament, for in no way could his employment be justified by the Subsidy of 162^•

Moreover, his dismissal would certainly not hinder the prospect of a European alliance, for no one was interested in working with him. Fortunately for Charles, very little news of the fall of Breda and the condition of Mansfeld's army had reached

England by the end of the third week in June.^

Despite this sorry tale of failure, Charles and the Duke of Buckingham did not discharge the Count, to whom they were committed to send £20,000 a month. This sum must have seemed minimal, when compared to the £30,000 a month sent to

Christian IV, to the support of 6,000 troops in the United

Provinces, to the preparation of a fleet estimated at £300,000,. and to the £300,000 required to meet the expenses of James's funeral and Charles's marriage. Ihe total sum of the King's extraordinary expenses were £1,560,000 in 1625* Furthermore,

James left a debt of £1,000,000, with two thirds of the current year's revenue expended.^

It is little wonder that the condition of His Majesty's

Treasury was the main topic of the second Council meeting of the reign. Ihe situation was crucial enough to force Charles to accept the proposal to stop the payment of pensions for a year. One third of the Crown's income was wasted in pensions.

Ihe Earl of Arundel was even so bold as to propose the limitation of honors until the financial situation looked brighter, but

Il k Buckingham quickly quashed this idea.

It immediately became evident that the cost of this foreign policy could not be met by the regular income of the

Crown. Nor could the King fall back on the 1624- Subsidy, for only a few pounds remained in the hands of the Parliamentary

Treasurers. However, there were other sources to which Charles had access, but they were limited. Henrietta Maria brought a dowry of £120,000. The City of London provided a loan of

£60,000, for which Charles was forced to pay the maximum interest of 8$, in addition to turning over £216,310 worth of

^ C. S. P. Ven.. XIX, 50 , 78; H. M. C., Skrine MSS, p. ?.

^ A . P. C.. XL; 14; C. S. P. Ven.. XIX, 11. Crown lands for security. Individual merchants were willing to

loan the King £141,000 in 1625, most of which came from Philip

Burlamachi, an Italian merchant. Finally Charles fell back on

the good will of courtiers. Buckingham made a timely loan of

£30t000 in April; it was placed immediately in the hands of the

navy commissioners to be used for the fleet. Each of these

contributions brought momentary relief to the exhausted

Exchequer; they were not really expected to do anything more.

It was the Parliament which was scheduled to meet on June IS

that was expected to provide for the King's extraordinary

expenses. This Parliament was to offer congratulations to the

King on his accession, to grant the necessary subsidies, and to adjourn until winter, when it would be recalled to discuss grievances and domestic legislation.

It remained to be seen how this Parliament would react to a request for money. Charles and Buckingham were optimistic.

They had reason to be. The accession of a young King, the arrival of his Queen, the preparation of a fleet to sail against Spain, all this enhanced the popularity of the government.

^Frederick Dietz, English Public Finance. 1558-1641 (New lork, 1932), II, 223; Robert Ashton, The Crown and the Money Market. l603-l640 (Oxford, i960), pp. 41, 94, 165, 169, 171; C. S. P. Dorn. 1625-1626. pp. 10, 23-27, 34; H. M. C., Skrlne MSS, p. 11; ELlis, OriMrmi Letters. 1st series, I H t 192-193! C. S. P. Ven.. XIX, 35. 43

And almost no one knew of the costly and ineffectual foreign commitments into which the government had entered.

j CHAPTER II

THE ELECTIONS

Though Charles intended to meet Parliament upon his accession* the thought of elections never crossed his mind*

Rather he planned to meet the old Parliament immediately.

There was no time for elections; moreover, there was no need*

The Parliament of 1624, which had so vigorously supported a declaration of war against Spain, should be recalled* But a word from Lord Keeper Williams convinced Charles that the old Parliament ceased to be legal with the death of his father*

A new Parliament being necessary, Williams urged

Charles to adopt the strategy of past elections, whereby careful consideration had been taken before the writs went out to secure seats for the King's servants and trusted friends* But Charles did not heed Williams's advice* No time was to be lost* There must be an immediate meeting of

Parliament to provide the subsidies needed for the war against Spain* Charles did not even resort to the old method

44 of sending recommendatory letters along with the messengers

*1 who delivered the writs.

Possibly Charles calculated that there was no real need to adopt an elaborate electoral strategy. Normally many courtiers and friends of the King were returned, and with a new popular monarch on the throne Charles could count on the return of an additional number of members friendly to the Court.

Furthermore, a quick announcement would encourage the re-election of the 1624 Parliament; new hopefuls would not have time to cast about for constituencies.

Whatever the King’s thoughts, on the 28th of March, without having made any plans for the management of elections, he announced his decision to meet a new Parliament. As sudden as was the announcement, many an ambitious candidate had anticipated it. George Gawdy, a Norfolk squire, had alreadly been approached by his kinsman. Sir Robert Gawdy, who was seeking election as a knight of the shire. Other candidates leaped into action upon the announcement. On the 1st of

April the Earl of Dorset appealed to the corporation of Itye for a seat for his kinsman, Sir John Sackville. Riere followed a traditional parliamentary election. Hie Earl of

Pembroke made his usual efforts in Wales and southwest

■^•Rushworth, Historical Collections. I, 170; B. M., Egerton MSS 27151 £• 285* M. C., Corporation of Rye MSS (London, 1892), App. Ft IV," 173* kS

England; courtiers such as the Duke of Buckingham sought to bring in their friends; countxy families sought to bring in theirs*2

The result was a House of Commons essentially like that which Charles desired. The 1625 Commons contained an unusually large number of members who had sat in the l62tf Parliament*

Consequently an analysis of the elections in 1625 must focus on answering two questions* did the Crown compromise it3 potentially advantageous position by holding elections before it had prepared for them, and how successful was the Crown, despite its lack of preparations, in securing seats for its friends and for officials?

In order to portray the elections as an extraordinary victory for the Crown, one must demonstrate that the Crown was

successful in securing county seats for its officials (especially

Privy Councillors) and its friends* In l?th century England,

the Knight of the Shire possessed immense prestige because he

represented the wealthy and influential landed interests*

This added prestige was exceptionally helpful to Privy

Councillors who were responsible for guiding royal policy

through the House of Commons* However, the Crown possessed

little electoral influence in the shires; rather the influence

2Hacket, Scrinia Reserata. part II, R. N* Kershaw, "'Die Elections for the Long Parliament", English Historical Review. XXXVIII (1923). W * 47 of family, the power of the sheriff, and the wishes of the

Lord Lieutenant most often determined the outcome of an election. The Crown contended with a wide franchise in the counties; the Statute of 14-30 gave every 40s freeholder the right to vote, and by the 17th century, Inflation had substantially increased the number of 40s freeholders. Nonethe­ less, a significant number of royal officials and friends were returned by the counties, while only three officials were rejected.^

Hie election of two Knights of the Shire from Kent was the government's greatest electioneering success in the counties. Sir Albertus Morton, a Privy Councillor, was returned, along with Mildmay Fane, son of the Earl of Westmore­ land. The Earl of Westmoreland was a man of considerable local influence, who had represented the county in 1601 and Maidstone in l604-l6ll, l6l4, and 1621. He had been raised to the peerage the preceding December; his son was to be created a

Knight of Bath at the Coronation of Charles I in February 1626.

Being men of royalist leanings, it seems probably that the

Fanes made an election compact with the Court, for we find

Westmoreland writing to a country gentleman asking for support for his son and Sir Albertus Morton. Several men must have

3b. M., Add. MSS 36,856, f. 6v; Mary Frear Keeler, Hie Long Parliament 1640-1641: A Biographical Study of Its Members (Philadelphia, 1954)• p. 9* Brunton and D. H. Pennington, Members of the Long Parliament (London, 1954), p. 17* stood aside to permit the election of Morton as he owned no land in the county. However, Morton possessed immense influence. The Duke of Buckingham was Morton's patron!< and as

Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports the Duke's word was important in the county. On April 10, Buckingham.wrote to four gentlemen in the Rochester and Chatham area encouraging them to engage themselves and their tenants in Morton's cause.

Additional support came from the Earl of Montgomery, a courtier and Lord Lieutenant of Kent, who wrote the Mayor of

Rochester on behalf of Morton and Fane. Despite this support, the two royal favorites were not elected without a challenge.

Sir Edwin Sandys and a Mr. Scott chose to stand against them.

Sandys had been a leader of the opposition in James's first

Parliament, but had changed his views. In 1625 he was regarded as a favorite of Buckingham's. This was Sir Edwin's third attempt to win one of the county seats; only in l62*J had he victorious. In 1625 he possessed the support of the Earl of

Dorset (who also supported Morton), yet there is no evidence that Buckingham encouraged his election. Buckingham may have secured him a seat in the Penryn after his defeat in Kent for it was controlled by the royalist Sir Robert Kelligrew, a gentleman of the Privy Chamber and Captain of Pendennis

Castle. Morton and Fane carried the election by a 3 to 1 margin, despite a harangue on election day by Mr. Scjott who accused th'e sheriff of being partial. An effective campaign which made use of influential peers gained this victory for the Court. Kent had returned a friend of the Court and a Privy

Councillor. As it turned out, Morton was the only Privy L Councillor to sit for a county.

The government attempted to achieve a similar success in Middlesex. However, Sir John Suckling, a Privy Councillor and Controller of the Household lost to Sir Gilbert Gerrard and Sir John Franklin. Franklin, who had failed to win the county seat in 162**, was probably the second Court candidate, for Buckingham wrote in his behalf to the Mayor of Rye just

10 days before the Middlesex election. The Duke obviously wanted to ensure Franklin's election to Parliament. Gerrard may be considered a popular candidate for he had often supported the opposition in the 1621 and 1624 Parliaments, in which he had sat for the county. Nonetheless, it would be misleading to view Suckling's defeat as a sign of opposition to the government, for his failure can be attributed to other factors.

He was not a man of great ability, in fact, one authority has characterized him as "completely colorless". The practice of electing two nominees of the government might, in the future.

II G. E. C., The Complete Peerage, ed. V. Gibbs, H. A. Doubleday, G. H. White, new rev. ed. (London, 1910-1959)• XT[» Pt 2, 565; D. N. B .(London. 1921-1922), VI, 1042, XIII, 1045; B. M., Stowe MSS 743, ff. 60, 64; B. M.,Add. MSS 37.819, ff. 11-llv; Gentleman's Magazine. LXVIII, Pt 1.(1798), 116-117; Thomas Moir, The Addled Parliament of 1614 (Oxford, 1958), p. 31; P. R. 0., S. P. D. 16/2:27; P. R. 0., Lord Chamberlain's Accounts, LC 2/6i37v. 50 deprive the county of any local representative* Finally,

Suckling was a Privy Councillor, and in 1620, the freeholders

of Middlesex had rejected two Councillors because "they could not have access to such great persons as Privy Councillors."-*

Only a by-election in the Crown controlled constituency of

Yarmouth (on the Isle of Wight) enabled Suckling to sit in

the 1625 Parliament.

Edward Montagu and Sir Oliver Cromwell did not need

Crown support to secure their election as Knights for

Huntingdonshire* Ihe Cromwells of Hinchingbrooke and the

Montagus of Klmbolton were territorial magnates in this small

county. Early in Elizabeth's reign, each of these two families

had gained the right to nominate one of the county members.

3his right went unchallenged until 1640. Sir Oliver's

parliamentary career stretched from 1588 to 1625i from 1604

he continuously represented the county, except for the year

1621.. He was an ardent royalist in a county in which ardent

royalism was rare* He had been a great friend of King James, whom he entertained lavishly on several occasions at

Hinchingbrooke, but his extravagance impoverished the family

and in 1627 he was forced to sell Hinchingbrooke to the

Montagus. Edward Montagu was the eldest son of Henry,,

-*John glands Library, W. D. Pink MSS 302, f. 77 and 304, f. 342; H. M. C., Corporation of Rye MSS, p* 173i 0., S. P. D. 16/2:27 and 14/118:30; Keeler. Lone Parliament, p. 186. Viscount MandeviUe, Lord President of the Council and Lord

Leiutenant of the shire. Montagu was a kinsman of Buckingham

and had accompanied the favorite and Prince Charles to Spain in 1623. 6

Surrey was another county which could be counted on to

return Knights favorable to the Court. One seat was usually

held by the Mores of Loseley, while the other was held by a

Howard or some other courtier. Surrey's close proximity to

Whitehall made it susceptible to the influence of the Privy

Council; however, the Howards were the leading noble family

in the county and often served as Lord Lieutenants. Ihroughout

James's reign Surrey enjoyed the favor of the Court. In

1625, Charles Howard, second Earl of Nottingham was joint

Lord Lieutenant with the Earl of Holderness. Although he

was not a member of the government, he enjoyed Court favor,

for in December 1624 he was granted a royal annuity of £1000,,

in addition to £1400 enjoyed by his recently deceased father,.

the great Lord Admiral. The Earl probably used his influence

as Lord Lieutenant to gain the election of Sir Francis

Leigh, the Court candidate. A native of Addington, Leigh

had served as High Sheriff for the county in 1622. He had

V. C. H.. Huntingdon (London, 1932), II, 14, 25-27; Keeler, Long Parliament, p. 51; J. E. Neale, The Elizabethan House of Commons (London. 1949). p. 50? Brunton and Bennington,, Long Parliament, p. 113; D. N. B .. XIII. 6?4-675; P* R. 0.,, S. P. D. Id /19:7f E. C., Complete Peerage. VIH, 366. begun his Court career in l6l4 as a Master of Requests, an office he possibly gained through the influence of his father- in-law, Lord Chancellor Ellesmere. In 1628 he was created

Baron of Innsmore. There is no known personal connections between Sir Francis Leigh and Nottingham* The Howards and the

Mores had formed election partnerships in 1593 and 1597» but it is doubtful if such a partnership was necessary to secure the election of Sir George More to the 1625 Parliament. This was Sir George's eleventh consecutive Parliament, and either he or his son Robert had represented Surrey (with but one exception) since 1597* He was Chancellor of the Order of the

Garter and had always been an active Supporter in Parliament of the royal cause.^

Courtiers and friends of the Court met with similar success in other counties. Sir Bichard Molyneux, Receiver

General of the Duchy of Lancaster was returned in Lancastershire, where Duchy influence was strong. Sir Henry Ley, son of James

Lord Ley, the Lord Treasurer, sat for Wiltshire. Oxfordshire returned Edward Wray, a friend of Buckingham's and Groom of the Bedchamber for Jame3 I. Wray'S father-in-law, the Earl of

^Robert Kenny, "Parliamentary Influence of Charles Howard, Earl of Nottingham 1536-1624", Journal of Modern History. XXXIX (1967). 221-223; P. R. 0., The Exchequer, . E 403/2/^55*180; Thomas Fuller, The History of the Worthies of England (London, 1840), III, 232; Moir, Addled Parliament, p. 44; B. M., Harleian MSS 1500, f. 128; Neale, House of Commons, pp. 46-47, 310. M. C., W. M. Molvneaux MSS. App., 673. Berkshire, had considerable influence in county elections*

Robert Sidney, son of the Earl of Leicester, was re-elected for Monmouthshire through the influence of the Earl of

Pembroke* Pembroke also secured the election of his cousin,

Sir William Herbert in Montgomeryshire* This was virtually a pocket-seat for the Earl. Another Welsh county, Glamorgan, returned Sir Robert Mansell, a Vice Admiral of England*

A native of Glamorgan, he was also an associate of the Earl of

Pembroke, who may have helped to secure his election. All told, five Welsh counties returned royalists in 1625. Anglesea returned Sackville Trevor, a naval officer of great repute;

Flintshire returned Sir John Trevor, the former's nephew, who was an Auditor of the Duchy of Lancaster; and Carmartham returned Richard Vaughan, whose father was Controller of the

Household to Charles as Prince of Wales. Sir William Cavendish, a courtier and the oldest son of the Earl of Devonshire, was elected to serve in his fourth consecutive parliament for

Derby. The freeholders of Cornwall returned Sir Robert

Kolligrew, Captain of Pendennis Castle and a gentleman of the

Privy Chamber* Two other Knights with Court connections were

Sir John Butler and John Butler, Esq., the representatives for

Hertfordshire. Sir John was a kinsman of Buckingham* A supporter of Buckingham's, Sir Patrick Curwen was returned for county Cumberland. Sir Richard Newport, a member of the

Council of Wales, found little opposition to his re-election for Shropshire while Herefordshire returned Sir Giles Bridges, a p gentleman of the Privy Chamber. With very little effort on the Crown's part seats for government officials and friends were secured in 26 counties.

Seme counties returned men with a parliamentary record of consistent opposition to the Crown. Somerset returned

Sir Robert Phelips, one of the fiercest opponents of the Court, throughout the l620's he led— along with Pym, Eliot, and others- the malcontents in the Commons. Phelips was a member of a distinguished local family and had served the county in 1624.

The effects of Sir Robert's election, however, were partially offset by the return of Sir John Stawell of Cothelstone, one of the wealthiest men in the southwest and a friend of the

Court. He was created a Knight of Bath at Charles's coronation and was an active collector of the forced loan in 1626. The

Earl of Huntington used his influence as Lord Lieutenant to help secure the re-election of Sir Guy Palmes and Sir William

8P. N. B .. XIII, 582, XVIII, 237-238, and XX, 171-172; Keeler, Long Parliament, pp. 53* 56, 148, 365* ^ohn and J. A. Venn, (eds.j Alumni Cantabrigienses. . .to 1751 (Cambridge, 1922-1927), Pt 1, IV, 449; Violet Rowe, "Influence of the Earls of Pembroke on Parliamentary Elections, 1625-1642", Ehglish Historical Review. L (1935). 245» 247; Neale. House of Commons, pp. 99-100; W. R. Williams, The Parliamentary History of the Principality of Wales (Brecknock, 1895). PP* 2, 142-143; Notes and Queries. 4th Series (Oct. 26, I8 7 2), X, 325; Pink MSS 298, ff. 692-693, 299 . 429; “oir, Addled Parliament, p. 191; C. S. P._Dom. l625-l626. p. 202; P. R.O., LC 2/6*37v; Joseph Foster (ed.)« Alumni Qxoniensest. The Members of the University of Oxford. 1500-1714 (Oxford. 1891-1892). IH. 106-3: H. M. C.. Thirteenth Report. App. IV, 270. Bul3trode in Rutland. Palmes was notorious for his opposition

to the government in the 1621 and l62*f Parliaments. His actions in 1625 convinced Charles to prick him sheriff of his county in

1626 in order to keep him out of Parliament. A similar reward

awaited Sir Edward Coke for his performance in 1625. Elected hy Coventry and Norfolk, the ageing lawyer chose to sit for

the shire. Quoting legal precedent, Coke rose again and again

to thwart the Crown's program. The other opposition leader of

the first rank was Sir Francis Seymour, Knight for Wiltshire.

An opponent of English intervention on the Continent ever since

his first Parliament in 1621, Sir Francis was now prepared to

attack openly Buckingham for his foreign policy. He too was

absent from the 1626 Parliament; he was serving as sheriff of

Wiltshire. There were four other critics of the Court returned

for the counties during the months of April and May 1625; yet

it is doubtful if any of them were returned on an opposition

platform. Furthermore, these lesser men were not to have the

influence that Phelips, Palmes, Coke, and Seymour were to have*

These four men were capable, experienced, and vocal. Their

arguments swayed even the courtiers

9p. N. B.. XIV, 1030-1031 and IV, 685-69**; Keeler, Long Parliament, pp. 26l, 29**-295. 3**9-350; P. R. 0., S. P. D. 16/20:18 and 16/8:8**; C. 5. P. Pom. 1625-1626, p. ****5; H. M. C., R. R. Hastings Esq. Mss. II. fl*; Mary A. Qreen (ed.).. The Diary of John Rous (Camden Society, 1856), LXVI, 2; Pink MSS 298,. f. M i P. R. 0., Lists and Indexes, no. IX (Lists of Sheriffs), pp. 9, 11**, 125, 15**: V. C. H.. Wiltshire. V, 131; Eliot, Negotium Posterorum. II, 9**» 56

In a few counties the political views of the candidates were less crucial in securing their elections than their religious views* Bedfordshire re-elected two zealous Puritans*

Sir Oliver Luke and Oliver Lord St* John* Both men were friends of Sir John ELiot, Luke refused to pay the forced loans in 1621 and 1627 and was imprisoned, in 1627 for his refusal. His cousin* Lord St. John* died fighting for

Parliament at Edgehill in 1642. Essex was another county where

Puritanism was strong* Here the most powerful landlord was the Puritan Robert, Earl of Warwick. His support of a candidate assured the candidate success; in 1625 he probably supported Sir Francis Barrington* as he had in the past* and was to do in the future. Sir Francis came from an old and influential Essex family; he served in every Parliament from

1601 until his death in 1628.

A Puritan* Richard Knightley of Fawsley, was re-elected to represent the western side of Northamptonshire• It was

"the ancient course" in the county "to have a knight on each side."-^ The county was divided for administrative purposes, and this division was maintained to prevent contested elections*

It is apparent that in the 1620's, Robert Lord Spencer nominated

1QV. C. H*. Bedfordshire. II. 340; D. N. B*. XVII, 640; C. S. P. Dom'.~ 1627-1628. p. 246; Venn, Alumni Cant*. Pt 1, III, ll6; Mary E. Bohannon, "Ihe Essex Election of l604", Ehelish Historical Review. XLVIII (1933). 395-396, 413; Brunton and Pennington. Long PariLiament. p. 123; Pink MSS, 297. f* 114; H. M. C., BBS of Duke of Buccleuch (London. 1926), I, 259» the member to sit for the eastern division and Edward Lord

Montagu of Boughton the member for the western* A scrupulous

Puritan, Montagu chose to back a fellow religionist, and so in

162^ and 1625 he nominated his cousin Sir Richard Knlghtley.

A leader in the parliamentary Puritan group, Knightley usually

was found among the opponents of the Court; in 1625* however,

he supported'Buckingham, as did many other Puritans* The

elevation in 1 6 2 k of John Preston, the most prominent Puritan

minister since Archbishop Whitgift, to the office of chaplain

to Charles brought about this momentary shift in Puritan

politics* For the moment Puritanism did not necessarily mean 11 opposition*

Neither religion nor opposition nor Court influence !

played a significant role in the Yorkshire election* Bitter

rivalry between two county families marked this election, which was to receive national attention* These families were the

Wentworths of Wentworth-Woodhouse and the Saviles of Howley

Park. The basis of the rivalry was a Wentworth marriage with

the legitimate branch of this ancient Savile family* Sir John

Savile, the head of the illegitimate branch, had amassed a

great estate in the West Riding and grown wealthy as a manufacturer

Neale, House of Commons, p. Jk', H* M. C*, MSS of Duke of Buccleuch. I, 257-258; Morgan, Prince Charles1 Puritan Chaplain, pp* 6 6, 70-71* of woolen cloth* Active from his early years in local politics,

Savile ultimately rose to hold the office of Custos Rotulorum

for the West Riding* On the national level, he was returned

to Parliament in 1597 and l6l4 for the county* For all his

success he never overcame the reproach of bastardy* Sir Thomas

Wentworth, the future Earl of Strafford, also came from an

ancient and eminent Yorkshire family. His heritage, his

ability, and hi3 marriages (to the eldest daughter of Francis,

Earl of Cumberland in l6ll, and to the daughter of John, Earl

of Clare in February 1625) made him the leading gentleman of

the shire*^2

Savile’s personal animosity towards Wentworth can be

traced to a dispute over the office of Custos Rotulorum for

the West Riding in 1615* The election of 1621 further increased

Savile’s animosity, for he was defeated in a contest with

Wentworth and Sir George Calvert, a Secretary of State* He

initiated an investigation by the House of Commons into the

election, which he alleged to be void on the grounds of partial practices by the sheriff and intimidation by Wentworth.

The election was upheld. However, the tide turned in 162^, when Savile and his eldest son, Thomas, successfully carried

the county in a contest against Wentworth. The fact that

1 2P. M. B ., XX, 1179 and XVII, 861; C. V. Wedgewood, Thomas Wentworth, first Earl of Strafford (London, 1935)» p. 30. Sir Thomas Savile endorsed the government's program in l62h, whereas Wentworth had then opposed the government should not lead one.to assume that the 1625 election was a defeat for the government, Yorkshire elections, as demonstrated in 1621 and

1624, were strictly local and family affairs. One's stature in the shire counted for more than one's political persuasion,^

Wentworth was preparing to travel to London when he received the news that the new King, Charles, had summoned a

Parliament, He postponed his trip and began casting around for support. Other hopefuls were his perennial enemies the

Saviles, as also Sir Thomas Fairfax of Denton and William

Mallory of Ripon. Mallory withdrew from the contest when rumors that he was a recusant began to circulate; his with­ drawal enabled Wentworth to join forces with his neighbor,

Sir Thomas Fairfax, York Castle was the scene of the election, and both parties used every means available to secure their election. Wentworth gained the support of the sheriff, who proclaimed he and Fairfax the victors after a quick visual count of the electors, Savile countered this action by demanding that a poll be taken. His men then circulated through the Wentworth supporters spreading the rumor that the

^Wedgewood, Thomas Wentworth. First Bari of Strafford, pp. 30-31. 36, 38. William Mitchell, The Rise of the Revolutionary Party in the English House of Commons 1603-1629 (New York. 1957). p, 98. Wentworth sat for Pontefract in 162^, 60 poll would take three days; this caused many of them to return to their homes. Meanwhile, many weavers, who possessed no right to vote and were dependent on the Saviles, broke into the courtyard where they began demanding "A Savile I A Savilei"

With a near riot on his hands, the sheriff stopped the poll and declared for Wentworth and Fairfax. The Wentworth-Savile feud had reached a climax. There could be no acceptance of defeat. As in 1621 Savile petitioned the House of Commons and this time he was successful. The Committee of Privileges and later the whole House engaged in lengthy debate on this election. In the end the House declared the election void and new writs were issued. Savile's victory was shortlived.

Wentworth and Fairfax vigorously plunged into a campaign for re-election. They reminded the freeholders of the unscrupulous

tactics used by Savile in the past election and on the

election day, they placed two hogheads of wine and half a

score of beer in the courtyard of York castle for the benefit

of their supporters. Their supporters did not desert this

time and they were duly elected. On August 8 , they took their

seats at the Oxford session.^

l 4 w n n a m Knowler (ed.), The Earl of Strafford's Letters and Dispatches (London, 1739)* I, 25; George Johnson (ed.), The Fairfax Correspondence (London, 1848), I, 6-9; M., Add. MSS JW3091, ff. 12v-13v; ELiot, Neeotium Posterorum. I, 97* dose behind the county seats in prestige were those of

Oxford and Cambridge universities. Enfranchised by James I in l60*t and managed by Chancellors who were courtiers, the universities were subject to considerable royal pressure.

They could usually be relied on to provide safe seats for

Privy Councillors and this election saw the high tide of court success with the election of four royal nominees, Sir Thomas

Edmondes, Sir Robert Naunton, Sir Albertus Morton, and Sir John

Danvers, the first three of whom were Privy Councillors,

As one would expect, Oxford University bowed to the

Crown's wishes without even a sign of dissatisfaction. It'S members were to be Sir Ihomas Edmondes, Treasurer of the

Household, and Sir John Danvers, member of a prominent

Oxfordshire family. Edmondes*s election was secured through letters of recommendation from William, Earl of Pembroke, the

Chancellor of Oxford, and from George Abbot, Archbishop of

Canterbury. Sir John relied on the prestige of his family and the university's good will toward his brother, Henry, Lord

Danvers, to procure his seat. The future Earl of Dariby had donated land to Oxford in 1622 for botanical gardens and provided for its upkeep with an endowment. A little over a month after this election, the two brothers, along with a

Henry Osborne were granted the offices of Keepers of St. James. 62

Such favors were reserved for friends of the Court

Cambridge returned Naunton and Morton, but not without demurral. It was Morton'fe candidacy that was repugnant, and

therefore, provoked a preliminary dispute between the heads

of the colleges and a faction of the electors, lhis faction, which did not consider itself bound to accept Court nominees, proposed to nominate Sir Simon Steward, a county notable and former university scholar. Lack of support must have convinced

Steward not to stand, for the election was not contested on

April 30* Morton was also elected in Kent, but there is no record of which seat he decided to relinquish. It is evident

Buckingham desired Morton's election to Parliament. Sir Robert

Naunton, Morton's colleague, was anything but unpopular at

Cambridge. Also a supporter of Buckingham, he was a former proctor and public orator of the university, an experienced diplomat, and currently Master of the Court of Wards* He had represented the university in the two previous Parliaments.^

^Millicent Rex, University Representation in England 1604-1690 (London, 1954), pp. 100, 105-107; David Willson, Privy Councillors in the House of Commons. l604-l629 (Minneopolis. 1940 )T"p*. 75; Birch. The Court and Times of Charles I. I, 5? Biographia Britannia (London. 1747-1766), III, 1829; Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, 43rd Report (London, 1882), p. 8 .

•^David Lloyd, State Worthies or the Statesmen and Favorites of England Since the Reformation. 2d ed. (London, 1878). p. 76l; D. N. B .. XIV. 126-128; P. R. 0., Signet Office, IND 6807. Hie borough of Cambridge likewise followed the

directives of the Crown when it selected its two burgesses

on April 12* Hie outcome of this very early borough election was indicative of the success which the government experienced

in the borough elections for this Parliament, It was also a

demonstration of the popularity which the Crown enjoyed in

these first months of Charles's reign* Cambridge returned

Thomas Meautys, a clerk of the Privy Council, and Talbot

Pepys, their Recorder* Pepys had been appointed to this position in 162*4- upon the recommendations of his patron, the

Duke of Buckingham, and Viscount Mandeville, Lord President

of the Council* As late as 1614, Cambridge had returned only

those "inhabitant and resident within the town", with the

exception of their Recorder* The franchise was limited to the

eight aldermen of the borough* These electors relied upon the

High Steward of the town to guide them in their selection*

As did most boroughs, Cambridge felt it necessary to employ

such a patron and protector; from 1600 to 1640 the four

successive Lord Keepers of England held this post. In 1625»

Lord Keeper Williams maintained tradition by requesting the

election of Thomas Meautys* However, the election procedure was altered in this year; the franchise was thrown open to all

the burgesses of the corporation* A majority vote returned Meautys and Pepys.^

Few l?th century borough elections were thrown open to

all the burgesses, usually the franchise was limited to the

members of the corporation (the mayor and the aldermen), and

they were very susceptible to influence. This was certainly

the situation in the nineteen parliamentary boroughs which lay

within the lands of the Duchy of Lancaster. These boroughs

felt the hand of the Chancellor of the Duchy, who claimed the

privilege of returning one of their members. The heart of the

Chancellor's power was in Lancashire where all six parliamentary

boroughs, ditheroe, Lancaster, Liverpool, Newton, Preston, and

Wigan, were within the Duchy. The election writs for these

boroughs were issued from the Duchy office, Lancashire was a

County Palatine, and they were generally accompanied by a

letter of recommendation from the Chancellor. Outside

Lancashire electoral success depended upon the power of the local gentry and aristocracy. Decisive action and favorable

conditions secured the return of sixteen royalists from the

Duchy boroughs to this first Parliament of Charles I.1®

The man responsible for the decisive action was the

Chancellor, Sir Humphrey May. A first rate administrator and

^Walter Pepys, Genealopr of the Pepys Family 1273-1887.. 2d ed. (London, 1951)* PP. 39-40; Neale. House of Commons, pp. 158, 208; V. C. H.« Cambridgeshire. Ill, 60, 69-70* ^ ft Neale, House of Commons, pp. 224—227; C. J.. I, 478. parliamentarian, he stood out in sharp contrast to the typical early Stuart official. However, his refusal blindly to follow the dictates of the favorite prevented him from ever achieving a leading position in the government; in fact, he was even denied a seat on the Privy Council until 1625. But outside government circles his talents were appreciated; two Duchy towns, Lancaster and Leicester, vied for his services throughout the 16201s, as they continued to elect him as one of their members to Parliament. In 1625 May chose to sit for Lancaster.

His colleague was Sir Thomas Fanshaw, Clerk of the Crown and

Surveyor General of all Crown lands. Fanshaw represented

Lancaster in every Parliament from 160*1- to 1629. The return of William Fanshaw, brother of Sir Ihomas and an Auditor of the Duchy, for Clitheroe was probably secured through the offices of May. The Chancellor apparently attempted to secure both seats at Clitheroe, but was unsuccessful. On April 9* he wrote to the town on behalf of his friend Sir Thomas

Trevor, also an Auditor of the Duchy. Nonetheless, the city fathers chose Ralph Ashton, a member of the local gentry, to be their second representative. Newton was more co-operative; it returned Sir Miles Fleetwood, Receiver General of the Court of Wards, and Henry Edmondes, son of Sir Thomas Edmondes,

Clerk of the Council. Newton's 40s freehold franchise is misleading, for elections were generally controlled by the lords of the manor who from 159^ were the FLeetwoods. As

Lord, Sir Miles Fleetwood kept one seat for himself, and 66

probably advanced Edmondes at the request of Sir Humphrey May*

Wigan returned Sir Edward Bridgman, a royalist and brother of

Dr* John Bridgman, Bishop of Chester* But no Court candidates 19 were returned for Liverpool and Preston.

Outside Lancashire, the Duchy lands spread over seven

counties where the Chancellor had to contend with the power of

local gentry and nobility* Yet, government officials and

friends secured seats in all but four of the boroughs found

within the estates of the Duchy. In the corporation of

Leicester, electoral influence was shared with the Earl of

Huntingdon* This situation caused no conflict of interests

in 1625 for Henry, Earl of Huntingdon was a friend of May's

and had recommended his election in 162** along with that of his brother, Sir George Hastings, a courtier* The case was

probably the same in 1625 for the town returned May and

Hastings* When May chose to sit for Lancaster, the borough promptly returned Ihomas Jermyn at his request* Jermyn was his kinsman and had been raised at Court* In other constituencies

May was equally successful. Sir Arthur Mainwaring, a gentleman

^Willson, Privy Councillors, p* 95: P« R* °«» S, P. D. l4/4-6:*f8; John Forster, Sir John Eliot, a Biography (186^), I, 222; Venn, Alumni Cant**-Pt 1, II, 12; P. R. 0., IND,, 4-223/59; H, M. C., Lord Kenyon MSS (London, I8 9 4), p. 31* Pink MSS, 296, f. 199. 298, f. b9k and 300, f, 18; P. R. 0*,.LC 2/6*59v; Edward Porritt, The Unreformed House of Commons (Cambridge, 1903), I, 97: Keeler, Long Parliament, p. 178; W. W. Bean, Die Parliamentary Representation of the Six Northern Counties of England (Hull. 189o!). p. 460. of the Privy Chamber, probably owed his election at Huntingdon

to the Chancellor* Monmouth's singlemember was another

gentleman of the Privy Chamber, Walter Steward of Westminster*

At East Qrinstead, another Duchy town, Sir Robert Heath,

Solicitor General and a staunch royalist was elected* John

Keeling, a Crown Attorney of the King's Bench, sat for

Newcastle-under-Iyme while Stockbridge elected Sir Ihomas

Badger, Master of the Harriers* Sir Robert Crane, a follower of Buckingham, may have secured his own election at Sudbuxy, for he was a large landowner in Suffolk and his estate, Chilton, was near Sudbury* Ihe Slingsby family controlled £& of the 88 votes in Knaresborough, also a Duchy town. Here Richard Hutton, son of Sir Richard, Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, was re-elected and served with Henry Slingsby* The return of lhomas

Posthumas Hoby for Ripon raised the number of courtiers and friends elected through the influence of Sir Humphrey May in the Duchy boroughs to sixteen. 20

20 * Higham Ferrers in Northamptonshire, Boroughbridge and Aldborough in Yorkshire, and Thetford in Norfolkshire; V. C. H*, Leicestershire. IV, 60; H. M. C., R. R. Hastings MSS. II, 63, 6 8 ; Willson. Privy- Counc-m nra. pp. 7 8 , 1 9 O; Keeler, Lone Parliament, p. 236; Williams. Pari. Hist. Wales, p. 135*, D_.__N. B.. IX, 3^6-3^8; W. H. Cooke (ed*}. Students Admitted to the Inner Temple. 1^7-1660 (London, 1877), p. 186; Foster, Alumni Qxon*. II, 839; Pink MSS 297, f» 28 and 299, f* 6^5; Forster, Eliot. I, 4-25; Godfrey Park, The Parliamentary Representation of Yorkshire (Hull, 1884), p. 112; Moir, Addled Parliament, p. 46; H. M. -C.. MSS of the Marauls of Salisbury (London, I883-I9 6 5), XI, ^09• In the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, the Crown had an official whose electoral influence rivaled that of the

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It was said in 1624,

"The Lord Warden doth commonly recommend fourteen burgesses to parliament, seldom or never denied him unless it be upon some great distaste betwixt him and the ports.n2^ This official, with his headquarters in Dover Castle, acted in the capacity of sheriff and Lord Lieutenant for these seven ancient ports which because of their proximity to France had been specially organised by the government and as such were exempt from all county jurisdiction. As sheriff, the election writs were directed to him and he was the general returning officer.

From 1624 to 1628 the Duke of Buckingham was Warden. To

Charles's first Parliament he secured the return of eleven or twelve courtiers. Nevertheless, he was very slow in organizing their elections, which was done by sending letters of recommendation to the boroughs. Similar delays in 1626 cost him dearly when Dover, Hythe, and New Romney held their elections before any letters from the Warden were received. 22

fye provided the site of the most interesting of the

^Neale, House of Commons, p. 213; B. M., Egerton MSS 2026, f. 41. 22 Neale, House of Commons, pp. 213-214; James D. Thomas, "A Comparison of the Parliamentary Elections of 1625, 1626 and 1628" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of London, 1952), p. 10; P. R. 0.,.S. P. D. I6/I819?; C. S. P. Pom. 1626- 1626. p. 221. Cinque Port elections, in that five candidates presented themselves. One of the candidates, a Captain John Sackville, was recommended by his powerful kinsman the Earl of Dorset, joint Lord Lieutenant of Sussex and a patron of the port.

Probably through his Court connections Dorset learned of the election and immediately wrote the Mayor and Jurats at Hye on Sackville1 s behalf, ftro days later on April 3# Lord

Treasurer Ley wrote recommending Bnmanuel Gifford; the latter, had represented Rye in the 1621 Parliament. Ley's recommendation testifies to the Crown's lack of electoral preparation and organization; it was an encroachment on the Lord Warden's preserve. From London, John Angel wrote on his own behalf seeking re-election. The last letters to arrive were

Buckingham's; they requested the election of his servant

Thomas Fotherley and Sir John Franklin. Edward Nicholas, the

Duke's secretary, also encouraged Fotherley's return with a letter of his own. Eye had no choice but to return Fotherley and Sackville, the nominees of their two powerful patrons.

But the election of Sackville did not represent a defeat for the government, for he was a courtier, even if he was not

Buckingham's nominee. Furthermore, Franklin was on the verge of being returned as Knight of the Shire for Middlesex.^

23b . M., Add. MSS 37,819, f. 12; H. M. C., Corporation of Rye MSS., p. 173; G* E. C., Complete Peerage. IV, Ihomas, "Elections1', pp. 59-60; Willson, Privy Councillors, p. 190. The elections in the other six ports were uneventful

and uncontested, except for the election in Sandwich, where

Sir Edwin Sandys was denied a seat* The successful candidates were Sir Henry Wotton, a diplomat who had recently been appointed Provost of Eton through Buckingham's efforts, and

Sir Robert Hatton, a friend of the Court* Sir Robert's

election must have come through the Lord Warden's recommendation, as it had in the two previous elections. The freemen of Dover

chose as their representatives Sir William Beecher, a clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Council of War, and

Sir John Hlppisley, Lieutenant of Dover Castle and Buckingham's

election assistant for the Cinque Ports. Following Dover's

example, Hythe also returned two courtiers, Edward Clarke and

Sir Edward Dering* Clarke was nominated by Buckingham, while

Sir Morton Knatchbull, a local landlord, nominated his kinsman

Dering* In Winchelsea, the Lord Warden faced competition from the Finch family, a wealthy and distinguished local family*

Sir Ralph Freeman, one of the Masters of Requests, secured his seat on Buckingham's recommendation; but Sir Roger Twisden probably secured his as a son-in-law of the Finch family*

One of his kinsmen was Heneage Finch, Serjeant-at-law and M*P* for London. Twisden was also related to Sir Edward Dering, and it is possible that his connections with Finch and Dering caused him to lean towards the Court* Hastings and New

Romney were the only two ports to display even a glimmer of independence; they each returned a local representative, along with a Court nominee. Thus in New Romney, the return of

Sir Edward Varney, a gentleman of the Privy Chamber, was balanced by that of Richard Godfrey, a jurat for New Romney, and in Hastings the election of Sir Sackville Crowe, one of

Buckingham's servants, was balanced by the re-election of

Nicholas Eversfield of the Grove in Hollington, Sussex.2**

Buckingham's electoral influence was not confined to the Cinque Ports. As High Steward of Westminster he possessed the right to recommend one burgess to serve with the local nominee. His choice was his half-brother, Sir Edward Villiers, a Master of the Mint, who had served Westminster in the 1621 and 1624 Parliaments. The borough of Winchester may have likewise wished to please Buckingham, their High Steward, when they returned Sir Richard Tichborne, a courtier who had enjoyed the favor of James I. However, being of a prominent Hampshire family and having served the county in the 1614 Parliament,

Sir Richard may have secured the seat on his own. Buckingham

^Birch, The Court and Times of Charles the First. I, 22; Pearsall Smith (ed.). The Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton (Oxford, 1907), II, 294; Pink MSS, 297, f. 197* 300,, f. 124, and 303, f. 216; Keeler, Long Parliament, pp. 155. 177. 208, 215; B. M., Add. MSS 29,908, f. 69 and 37.819. £• 12; C. S. P. Pom. l623»l625. p. 352; Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, 43rd Report, p. 33. Bruce (ed.), Letters and Papers of the Veraery Family to 1639 (Camden.Society, 1853), LVI, 105; C. S. P. Pom. 1625-1626. p. 159; D. N . B .. V, 845; B. M., Stowe MSS .322, f. 52v ; Felix Hull (ed.), A Calendar of the White and Black Books of the Cinque Ports. 1432-1955 (London. 1966J. pp. 431-432. 434; H. M. C.. Thirteenth Report? App. Pt IX, 475. did not find Windsor borough so obliging* Possibly he was just too late in recommending Sir William Russell, Treasurer of the

Navy, for both seats went to minor government officials, Sir

William Hewitt and Sir Robert Bennett* The Lord Lieutenancy of

Buckinghamshire may have given the Duke sufficient influence to secure the return of Richard Oliver, a commissioner of his estates, at Buckingham Borough* His letter, presumably addressed to the Mayor of Michael Borough, Cornwall, must have secured the return of Henry Sandys, son of Sir Edwin* It has been suggested that the return of Sir Edmund Sawyer, an auditor of the Exchequer, at Harwich was through Buckingham's influence as

High Admiral* An Admiralty court was kept at this small Essex port and it returned Sir Robert Mansell, an Admiralty official,, in l6l4 and Sir Nathanial Rich, a friend of Buckingham's, in

1624, 1626, and 1628* Finally, Newport, Cornwall, a borough under Crown control, probably re-elected Sir John ELiot, a friend of Buckingham's, at the Duke's request*2^

Lord Conway, Secretary of State and a dependent of the

Duke of Buckingham, used his influence on the Isle of Wight to

25B. M*,. Cotton MSS, Julius C III, f. 402; Venn, Alumni Cant*. Pt 1, IV, 302; Thomas, "ELections", pp. 12-13, 15; Moir, Addled Parliament, p. 35; B. M., Add. MSS 22,474, f* l6lv and 37,819, ff. 11-llv; V. C, H*. Berkshire. Ill, 61-62; Pink MSS 297, f* 242; P* R. 0.,,L C 2jZi27i P, R. 0., Exchequer,, E 403/2455*45; G. E. Aylmer, The King's Servants. The Civil Service of Charles I. 1625-16^2 TNewYork. 1961). pp. 156. 187; Gardiner. History. V. 414; D. N. B». XV, 1005; Harold Hulme, The Life of Sir John Eliot. 1592-1632 (London, 1957), p. 75; P. R. 0., S. P. D. 16/450:15* procure the return of five government officials and friends.

Having been appointed Captain of the Isle of Wight in December

1624, Conway proceeded to name one of the burgesses in each of the three parliamentary boroughs on the island, Newport, Newton,. and Yarmouth# This was the customary privilege of the Captain of the Island. Newport accepted two government nominees, Sir

Nathanial Rich who was "never out of ny Lord Duke's bosom", and Philip Fleming, Steward of the Isle of Wight, Thomas

Mallett, Conway's cousin and in 1626 appointed the Queen'S

Solicitor, was the Captain'S nominee in Newton. The third borough, Yarmouth, bowed to Conway's wishes by returning Sir

John Oglander, a deputy governor of the island and Edward

Clarke, a groom of the Bedchamber. When Clarke chose to sit for Hythe, the by-election enabled Sir John Suckling, the imcompetent Privy Councillor who had been defeated in

Middlesex, to find a seat.^

The Earl of Pembroke had influence in a number of boroughs. Head of the Herbert family, Lord High Chamberlain,

Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall, and Lord Warden of the Stannaries,

Pembroke was a perfect prototype of the 18th century

Willson, Privy Councillors, pp. 93-94; P* H* 0., IND 4223/51; Keeler, Long Parliament, pp. 48-50; Jacket, Scrinia fleserata. II, 18,* Pink MSS, 301* 183; Edward Foss, The Judges of England (London, 1848-1864), VII, 144; C. S. P. Pom. 1627-1628. p. 542; Foster. Alumni Oxon.. Ill, 1086; D. N. B«. XIX, 14-1; Thomas, "Elections", p. 12. boroughmongerer. That he secured the return of three courtiers as knights in the counties of Montgomery, Glamorgan, and

Monmouth, has already been observed* To this same purpose he directed his borough influence, which was confined to the

Southwest, particularly Wiltshire and Cornwall* Wiltshire was the home county of the Herberts; Wilton was their seat. Here the burgesses returned the two nominees of their Lord, Sir

Thomas Morgan, the Earl's Steward, and Sir William Herbert, the Earl's cousin. When Sir William chose to sit for Montgomery­ shire, the borough elected Sir William Harrington, Lieutenant

General of the Ordnance and a relation of the Herberts. A second Wiltshire borough, Downton, deferred to Pembroke and returned Edward Herbert and Sir Clipsley Crew. Edward Herbert was another relative of the Earl's and a later Solicitor

General, while Crew was the son of the Chief Justice, Sir

Ranuph Crew. Old Sarum was virtually a pocket borough of the

Herberts. It was represented by Sir John Stradling, Pembroke'b neighbor and tenant in Glamorgan, and Michael Qldisworth, one of the Earl’s secretaries. Pembroke's power was not, however,, all pervasive in Wiltshire, for the City of Salisbury flatly rejected his nominee. It chose to continue its long tradition of returning its recorder and a member of the city council.2?

Pembroke was also lord of the manor at Shaftsbury and

Cardiff. In 1625, John Thoroughgood, another of the Earl's secretaries, sat for Shaftsbury*: while William Price, Pembroke's agent in Glamorganshire, was the Cardiff member. Portsmouth was open to the Earl's influence, for here he was captain of the castle. As a result one seat went to Pembroke's good friend, Sir Benjamin Rudyard, surveyor of the Court of Wards 28 and a gentleman of the Privy Chamber.

Woodstock and Queensborough were two other boroughs which fell under the influence of the Lord Chamberlain, for they were controlled by his brother and fellow councillor

Philip, Earl of Montgomery. Two courtiers, Sir Philip Cary and Sir Gerrard Fleetwood were returned from Woodstock, where

Montgomery was steward of the royal manors and keeper of the house and park. Queensborough, which had given Montgomery both

?G. E. C., Complete Peerage. X, *+12-4-13, P. R. 0., IND *+223/58; P. R. 0., s7 P. D. lo/l*+:8*+; Notes and Queries. *+th Series (Oct. 19, 1872), X, 325-326; Rowe, '^Influence of Earls of Pembroke11.. E. H. R.. L, 2*f*+-256; V. C. H.. Wiltshire. V, 113-11*+, 117, 132; Pink MSS 299, f. 6^9 and 303, f. 133; P. R. 0., E *+03/2*+56i6lv; D. N. B .. IX, 632-633 and XIV, 1007; Keeler, Long Parliament, pp. 256-257*

^Rowe, "Influence of Earls of Pembroke", E. H. R .. L, 2*+3, 2*+5; Moir, Addled Parliament, p. *+8; Williams, Pari. Hist. Wales, p. 97; P. R. 0., IND 6807 and *+223/61; Neale, House of Commons, p. 177; J» Bruce (ed.), Liber Familicus of James Whitelock (Camden Society, 1858), LXX, 6l; C. S. P. Dorn. Addenda l625-l6*+9. p. 112. places in 1624, proved to be less considerate when asked to elect Roger Palmer, a cupbearer in the King's household.

However, a threatening letter from Montgomery convinced the city fathers to reconsider their position, and Palmer was returned.2^

Fortunately this type of close attention was not needed to enable the Earl of Pembroke to secure the return of courtiers and friends of the Court from Cornwall. With its

21 parliamentary boroughs, Cornwall sent more members to

Westminster than any other county. The very limited franchises, the location of thirteen of the boroughs within the Duchy of

Cornwall, and the Crown's regulation of tin mining left all of these boroughs open to outside influences, particularly to

Crown officials. Pembroke's electoral power here was no secret, "by power of his Lordship's Wardenship of the Stanneries 30 in Cornwall he hath means of placing divers burgesses. . ."

However, most records of Cornish elections have been destroyed thereby leaving us without specific information as to the

Earl's role in this election. To make matters more difficult

^Pink MSS 299. f. 405 and 301, f. 172; Bruce, Liber Familicus. LXX, 40-41; Winefred Taffs, "Borough Franchise in Seventeenth Century" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of London, 1926), App., p. 215; R* 0*. LC 2/6t54v. 30 Mary Coate, Cornwall in the Great Civil War and Interregnum 1642-1660. 2d ed. (Truro. 1963). p. 17; P. R. 0.( S. P. D. 16/450*15; C. S. P. Dorn. Addenda l625-lfli9. p. 112. 77 there were famous royalist families like the Mohuns and the

Kelligrews whose vast lands gave them virtual control over elections even in boroughs within the Duchy. Nonetheless,

23 courtiers and friends of the Court were returned, and the

Earl of Pembroke, as the Chief Crown official in the county, must have played a signigicant part in securing their return.

Sir Richard Weston, Chancellor of the Exchequer, was returned for Callington, probably through Pembroke'h power. Originally

Pembroke was charged with the task of securing seats for two

Privy Councillors, Edmondes and Weston, but with Edmondes's election at Oxford University, he only needed to secure a seat for Weston. Weston's name alone is entered in the

Callington indenture and it appears to have been a blank which was merely handed to Pembroke for his nominee. William

Coiyton, Pembroke's vice warden, sat for Liskeard, but he possibly found his own seat. He was a Cornish landowner and had represented the county in l6Zk, The royalist Kelligrew family was influential in Cornwall, and when Sir Robert was returned as a Knight of the Shire, he probably offered four seats to the government. In Penryn, Sir Edwin Sandys was returned "by Sir Robert Kelligrew, at London, who for that purpose or to put in some other, if Sir Edwin had sped elsewhere, brought up a Blank in his pocket."-^* Helston

^ P. R. 0.,,S. P. D. 16/1*83; P. R. 0., Chancery, C 219/39*39; Pink MSS 299. f. 609; D. N. B ., XI, 110; quoted in Thomas, "ELections", p. 112. 78

was another Kelligrew family borough, and it re-elected

Thomas Cary, a groom of the Bedchamber, and Francis Carew, a

prothonotaiy of Chancery. Both of these men were strangers to

Cornwall. Numerous other government officials and friends

secured seats in East and West Looe, Camelford, Bossinney,

Newport, Michael, Grampound, Lostwithiel, Launceston, Tregory,

Bodmin, and St. Germans. Seventeen boroughs responded to

government pressure. Yet in only four cases did this represent

a re-election of 1624 members. Since only a short time was

permitted to secure these borough seats, the electoral activity

of Pembroke and the candidates must have been feverish.

Similar activity was taking place throughout England.

No doubt John Chamberlain, the Court gossip, correctly

characterized the election when he wrote: "Here hath been much convaslng for places in Parliament."33 However, the

election was not a defeat for the Crown, as Chamberlain might

lead one to believe when he wrote of the defeats suffered by

Court candidates. Pesaro, the Venetian Ambassador, reported much the same when he wrote to the Doge that "The people. • •

rejected all those who served efficiently in previous

Parliaments, but with the title of Royalists." True,

3^Bruce. Liber Familicus. LXX. 41; Pink IBS 299. ff.391. 406; P. R. 0., LC 2/*.5k\ ~

33P. R. 0., S. P. D. 16/2:27.

3^C. S. P. Ven.. XIX, 6 3. 21 potential opponents were returned, but in only one case,

In Coventry, was there an election contest where the candidate stood and was returned on the basis of his opposition to the government* Moreover, it is incorrect to view early 17th century elections as contests between two rival parties*

Borough patrons, like the Earl of Arundel, secured the return both of courtiers and opponents of the Court. Arundel supported

Algernon Lord Percy, Master of the Queen's Horse, in Chichester, but in Thetford he recommended Sir Robert Cotton, the antiquarian and ally of Coke, Eliot, and fyn* The fact of central importance is the success of the Court in returning 186 members,, or 38# of the House, who were courtiers or friends of the Court.

Twenty-six of these were returned by the counties as opposed to eight critics of the Court, and it is doubtful if the government could have been more successful there. Possibly some of the great opponents of the Court could have been defeated if suitable candidates had been sought and had they had the time to organize their followers* This is mere speculation, and not very profitable speculation, for most shire elections centered around family and local reputation.

Ihe four leading Court opponents were men of great local and even national reputation. It would be equally misleading to condemn the government for securing only one county seat for a Privy Councillor. Councillors were generally not men of great estate or eminent lineage; they were in no position successfully to compete in shire elections*. The one exception might be Kent, where a seat was secured for

Morton, Actually six Councillors were returned to this

Parliament, which compares well with the average number of

Councillors sitting in early Stuart parliaments, which was five. The government did realize the importance of having

Councillors in the Commons as can be seen by the efforts to secure a seat for Sir John Suckling. Only Sir Julius Caesar,

Master of the Rolls, seems to have been unable to find a seat. He was defeated in Malden, Essex.3-5

In the borough elections, the work of May, Buckingham,

Pembroke, and numerous others close to the Court met with success. True, the lack of an organized plan led to multiple nominations such as at Rye and even Lostwithiel where three courtiers were contesting against each other. But these were the exception, not the rule. In the constituencies where the government had influence, courtiers and friends were consistently returned. Furthermore, government nominees lost very few elections. Sir Henry Wotton failed to win a seat at Canterbury against two local candidates, but he later was returned for

Sandwich. Sir Edwin Sandys held the record for consecutive

35P. R. 0., S. P. D. 16/522i88; V. C. H. Sussex. Ill, 99; C. E. C., Complete Peerage. IX, 735-737; B. M,, Cotton MSS,. Julius C III, f. 284; D. N. B .. IV, 1236; B. M., Add. MSS 12,496, f. 106. 81 defeats; he lost in Kent, Sandwich, and Maidstone, yet a seat was finally found for him at Penryn.^

Ihe election results were those desired by the King.

His friends and officers composed a large minority of the

Commons, and what must have pleased Charles more, 308 of the members had sat in the previous Parliament, which had so readily followed the Duke of Buckingham* Would they not be inclined to do so again?

36 Great Britain, House of Commons, Parliamentary Papers. Vol. LXIX (Accounts and Papers, Session of 1878), "The Official Returns of the Members of Parliament, p. 463; Birch, The Court and Times of Charles the First. I, 22* CHAPTER III

THE COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

The opening of Parliament being set for May 17, most members of the House of Commons set out for Westminster

Immediately following their election. These men were among

England'h finest. They were men from substantial county families and prosperous' mercantile ones; most of them were educated at the universities and the Inns of Court; and they were experienced in local and national government. Some were expected to follow blindly the King's lead; others to continue their opposition to the Crown. The majority, however, were independent; their actions and votes would be influenced by sound, logical argument and by their own apprehensions of

England*& interests.

In occupation and social status the members of the

House exhibited the traditional pattern of parliaments from

Elizabethan to Victorian times. Country gentlemen made up the largest class; the income and influence they acquired from their landed estates assured them of a seat in the Commons.

They numbered 263 out of a House of 486 members. The second largest class, the royal officials, numbered 105; all of them

82 83 served the Crown in some political, legal, military, or domestic position. The lawyers, in number 57* composed a third class..

They were anxious to sit in Parliament, for it gave them an opportunity to demonstrate their oratorical abilities, to make advantageous connections, and to defend their clients in the royal law courts (which were conveniently located in Westminster

Hall). Forty-seven men of trade (piercers, grocers, goldsmiths,, and merchants) constituted another sizable class, while a medical doctor, two diplomats, and two antiquarians secured seats. What most distinguishes this Parliament from those of the late 16th and early 17th centuries was the large number of royal officials. This increase can probably be attributed to the amicable atmosphere created by the recent accession of a popular, young King; certainly the government did not have time effectively to control elections.^

The Parliament of 1625 also witnessed a significant increase in the number of members with higher education.

That the noble and gentle classes, along with the middle class,.

1 These figures were compiled from the individual biographies based upon the D. N. B .: Pink MSS; Venn, Alumni Cant.; Foster, Alumni Qxon.; G. E. C., Complete Peerage; The Victoria Histories of the Counties of England; Keeler, Long Parliament; Brunton and Pennington, Long Parliament; Cooke, Students Admitted to the Inner Temple; Foster,, Register of Admissions to Gray's Inn. 1521-1887; Records of the Honorable Society of Lincoln's Inn; and Sturgess, Register of Admissions to the Honorable Society of the Middle Temple. The number of government offj^cTals sitting in 158^ was 75 and in l6l^ was 50. Neale, House of Commons, pp. 144, 290; Moir, Addled Parliament, p. 57* eagerly sought entry into the universities and the Inns of

Court during the second half of the 16th century has been urged by Professor Hexter and demonstrated by Professor Neale, ftie number in the House of Commons with higher education climbed from 33$ in 15&3 to 54$ in 1593* ^ the figures for the Addled Parliament of l6l4 are similar to those of the

Parliaments of the first two decades of the 17th century, the percentage of parliamentarians who received a higher education remained constant after 1593* But in 1625, 3 out ^ members had been to a university or an Inn. Given that 308 members had sat in Parliament the previous year, the ration of 3 out of 4 may be true also for the 1621 and 1624 Parliaments. No figures are available for these two Parliaments. Whatever they may have been, the 1624 figure marked a plateau,, for the members of the Long Parliament were scarcely better educated* More members of the 1640 Parliament, however, attended Cambridge, the hotbed of Puritanism, than had members of the 1625

Parliament. Two hundred and sixty-six members attended a university, of whom 175 went to Oxford. Cambridge attracted only 91 members and of these only 24 attended Qnmanuel Dr

Sidney Sussex Colleges, the "nurseries of puritanism".

Because of its central geographical location Oxford, the university of royalism and Armenianism, continued to draw more future parliamentarians. To complete their education,

191 members went into the Inns of Court after a year or two at one of the universities where they joined 93 other members 85 who went to the Inns without having gone to the University.

This meant that 359 members had received a higher education.

A few additional members had been educated privately;

Sir William Cavendish, for example, had sat at the feet of the future author of The Leviathan. Thomas Hobbes. This educational background meant that the Crown faced a House composed of articulate, independent-minded men. Skillful leadership, based upon legislative experience, was necessary if the government hoped to persuade these men to accept its parliamentary program.

The spokesmen for the government in the Commons, headed by Privy Councillors, were experienced and numerous, but they lacked an intimate knowledge of the policies that the Crown desired them to support. Since Elizabethan times the Crown had relied upon Privy Councillors to guide its program through the Commons, for Councillors were able, experienced, and knowledgeable men. Like his father, Charles saw to it that

Councillors were elected for this purpose. Of the six returned in 1625» only Sir Albertus Morton lacked parliamentary experience; the other five had experience stretching back at least to 1621. Sir Albertus*s lack of experience was not as damaging as his failure to take his seat; he sailed for The

J. H. Hexter, Reappraisals in History (New York, 196 3)*: pp. 4-5-70; Neale, House of Commons, p. 290; Brunton and Pennington, Long Parliament, p. 6; Moir, Addled Parliament, p. 57» Keeler, Long Parliament, p. 27; D. N. B .. Ill, 1273* Hague immediately after election, in order to negotiate a treaty with the Princes of the Union. His absence was unfortunate, for it meant that neither Secretary would be in the Commons. Ihe other Secretary, Edward Conway, had been raised to the peerage just four days before James's death.

The early Stuarts were notorious for permitting other matters to interfere with the policy of seeing that Councillors were present in the Commons. However, the ineffectiveness of the

Privy Councillors in 1625 was not due to the absence of a

Secretary of State, for three Councillors of considerable ability were elected to Parliament, Sir Richard Weston,

Chancellor of the Exchequer; Sir Humphrey May, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; and Sir Thomas Edmondes, Treasurer of the Household. All of these men were skillful debaters, ready to present the government's parliamentary program.

But they had previously cast doubt on the wisdom of

Buckingham's foreign policy and were therefore never fully informed of the government's parliamentary program or of the strategy for seeing to its adoption. At crucial moments they were forced to remain silent, for they had no instructions from

Buckingham or the King. The initiative was then taken by critics of the Crown. The other two Councillors in the

Commons, Sir John Suckling, and Sir Robert Naunton, scarcely 87 deserve mention; they contributed nothing but their votes to the government's cause.3

The role of government spokesman fell chiefly upon

Sir John Coke, a Commissioner of the Navy. He was an honest and efficient official, but he was neither a Councillor nor an eloquent speaker. Moreover, his habit of making tactless remarks at inopportune moments damaged the government cause.

Yet Coke was the only official in whom Buckingham had complete confidence and therefore he was the only official who could h, speak on all government policies.

There were 99 other officials in the House, many of them experienced, upon whom the Crown could have called had it chosen to. Important officers of state numbered five, among whom were the Solicitor-General, an ambassador, and the

Chancellor of the Order of the Garter. Sixteen officers or attorneys connected with the law courts— Requests, Chancery,

Common Pleas, King's Bench— added legal knowledge and forensic skill to the Court group. There were more than 80 others who held offices pertaining to the Royal Household or Administration.

Almost every department of government was represented: the

Mint, the Court of Wards, the Jewel House, the Duchies of

%illson, Privy Councillors, pp. 5 8, 66 , 68; D. N. B .. VI, 391-392, IX, 346, XIX, 140, 1045, XIV, 126-127,, and XIX,, 141; Venn, Alumni Cant.. Pt 1, IV, 373*

Willson, Privy Councillors, pp. 93-97• Cornwall and Lancaster, the Exchequer, the Customs, the Navy, and the High Commission* To bolster this official element,,

81 additional members of the Commons were servants of, or closely related to,. government officials or enjoyed Court favor. Michael Oldisworth and John Ihoroughgood were secretaries for the Earl of Pembroke, while John St. Amand served Lord Keeper Williams in the same capacity, dose relatives included Sir Edward Villiers, Buckingham's brother;

Henry Edmondes, Sir Henry Ley, and Robert Caesar were sons of

Privy Councillors. The famous silk merchant and moneylender,

Sir Baptist Hickes, continued to support the government as he had in 1621 and 1624. Hesupplied the Court with the necessary luxuries, silk, and money.Another friend of the

Court, Sir John Brooke had received a patent for manufacturing hard soap in March 1624, and a patent for Saltpeter in

April l625. Thus, the talents of 186 members, or 38# of the

House, were at the disposal of the Crown. Possibly no other

Parliament in the first half of the 17th century had as large a Court group. In the last Parliament of Elizabeth, those attached in some way to Court numbered approximately 100, or

22#; it increased appreciably in l6l4, when 160 members, or

3435 of the House, belonged in this category. No figures are available for the four other Parliaments of the 1620's. If the traditional view is correct, the size of this group declined after 1625, as opposition to the Crown mounted.

Government friends were harder to find and many constituencies 89

declined to return officials who supported unpopular policies.

However, it is wrong to assume that courtiers and

officials blindly followed the government’s lead in any early l?th century Parliament, Hie government’ group in the Commons was not a disciplined political party. As the Civil War later

proved the actions of many government officials, as well as

courtiers, were determined by argument and conviction, not by blind loyalty to the Crown. The actions of several officials

in 1625 foreshadowed these things to come.

Confronting the potential power of the government was an opposition group. Twenty-one members with lengthy records

of opposition to the Crown formed the nucleus of this group.

Any effort to identify critics of the Crown beyond this

number would be fruitless, for the rubric “critic11 embraces

everyone who had opposed the Crown,, inside or outside of

Parliament, before 1625. Furthermore, to judge a man's affiliation by his future actions is to invite disaster.

Three great leaders of the parliamentary cause, John Pymt

Sir John Eliot, and John Hampden, were present in 1625, but

their actions through August of this year provide no indication

of their later roles. What is certain is that within this

^Foster, Alumni Oxon.. Ill, 1088; Rowe, “Influence of the Earls of Pembroke". E. H.~R.. L, 2^3; Venn, Alumni Cant., Pt 1, II, 365 and IV, V, D. N. B .. XI, 108Vand XX, 3 2 Pink MSS 298,. f. 560, 299. f* 337 and 300, f. 18; Moir, Addled Parliament, p. 57i Gardiner, History. VI, 229. nucleus there were a number of able -parliamentarians, well-informed

on the affairs of the day* Chief among them were Sir Robert

Fhelips, Sir Edward Coke, Sir Francis Seymour, and Sir Quy

Palmes* These four men, especially the first three, spoke

frequently and critically; no policy of the government,

whether it touched foreign affairs, religion, or finance,

escaped their scrutiny* Their arguments often determined the

course of action followed by the Commons. TWo able and

experienced lieutenants to these key men were Edward Alford and Sir John Glanville. The former was serving in hi3 sixth

consecutive Parliament; he was an expert on parliamentary procedure* The latter's legal background made him a valued source for precedents. Continuity of leadership was the opposition group1 is greatest asset. This continuity and a commonly shared feeling of apprehension at Buckingham's conduct brought these members together and justifies the use of the term opposition group, for unlike the government group, with its ties to the Crown, the opposition had no £ common bond*

By noting the offices they held, the speeches they delivered, and the direction of their activities in the counties, historians such as William Mitchell have placed most

6Pink MSS 296, f* 44; D. N. B .. VII, 1291; C* J *. I, 800, 809, 811, 814; Gardiner, Commons Debates. 162?. d o . 1 6. w-45,55,114. — 91 members of Parliament into two opposing groups. But most members of Parliament were not found in either group, and the fate of the Parliament rested with them. They desired the best for England, neither obstructing the government nor following it obsequiously. They expected a clear explanation of the new King's foreign and domestic programs. If programs proposed by the Crown were beneficial they would support them, if they were unacceptable, they would oppose them. Their vote would be determined by speeches and actions on the floor of the House.

The majority of members possessed some national, as well as local, political experience before they took their seat in

St. Stephen's Chapel on June 18. But some did not, for

Parliament was also seen as a place to gain such experience.

Sir Thomas Hesilrige, in recommending his son to the citizens of Leicester in the Spring, proclaimed a desire to see him

"become a Scholar in the best School in Christendom, for •7 knowledge, and experience (the parliament house of England)".

These scholars "in the best school in Christendom" were quite inexperienced, for their youth and lack of estates barred them from serving in local office. They gained their seat in Parliament through their fathers''influence. Lord

?Quoted in Keeler, Long Parliament, p. 20. In 1621 the Duke of Buckingham said he wished to become a scholar to Parliament. Ferdinando Hastings, for example, was only 17 at the time of his return as senior knight ofr Leicestershire, His inexper­ ience was ignored because his father, the Earl of Huntingdon, controlled the political life of the county. But the sons of the great excepted, experience was one of the primary qualifi­ cations for a seat in Parliament. Townsmen had served as i mayors, bailiffs, aldermen, or Recorders, while country gnetlemen had performed the duties of a sheriff, Justice of the Peace, Vice-Admiral, Deputy-Lieutenant, or member of a local commission. An apprenticeship in one or several of O these offices prepared a man for Westminster.

For 132 men, or 27$ of the House of Commons, this was their first Parliament. Of the newcomers, only 44- failed to sit again. The other 73$ had sat in one or more Parliaments before 1625* This is an unusually high proportion of members with previous experience. Sir John Neale estimates that 50$ of the membership in Elizabeth16 Parliaments were newcomers; while the Addled Parliament and the Long Parliament registered

6l$ and 59$ respectively. Charles's decision to call a

Parliament immediately upon his accession accounts for the unusually high percentage of experienced members. Untried parliamentary aspirants did not have time to canvass constituencies; time favored the re-election of members of the

1624 Parliament. Three hundred and eight members of the 1624

8V. C. H.. Leicestershire. IV, 1 0 7; Pink MSS 303. £• 198. Parliament were re-elected in 1625. This continuity carried on after 1625• Three hundred thirty-three members or 68# of the 1625 Parliament sat in future Parliaments (121 sat in the

Long Parliament). This marked continuity in membership is not out of line with Elizabethan and Jacobean statistics. The confidence, power, and ability of 17th century Parliaments came from this continuity in membership; this is especially true for the 1620's.^

Local residence was another characteristic of the membership of the House in 1625; the "foreigner" or carpet­ bagger found it difficult to secure a seat in the early 17th century. Constituencies wanted their representatives to be aware of their local problems and needs. They naturally turned to men who resided in or near the county, who owned property in the county, or who had family ties with the county. There were only 66 "foreigners" in the 1625 House.

Sir Albertus Morton was the sole Knight of the Shire among them; the other 65 were burgesses. This number did not vary significantly from that of the Long Parliament. Of the 65 burgesses in 1625, 58 were officials or friends of the government who had secured their elections through powerful patrons like the Duke of Buckingham or the Earl of Pembroke. Some Crown officials were habitual carpet-baggers. Sir William Beecher,

^Neale, House of Commons, pp. 296-297; Moir, Addled Parliament, p. 55; Keeler, Long Parliament, p. 16. 9 * a clerk of the Privy Council and native of London, sat for

Huntingdon in 1601, Knaresborough in 161*4-, Leominster in 1621 and l62k, Dover in 1625, IIChester in 1626, and New Windsor in 1628• Cornwall, Wiltshire, Hampshire, and the Cinque

Ports were the regions most susceptible to Hforeigners" in

1625; they returned *40 out of the 65* Crown influence was exceptionally strong in these areas, Wales and 22 English counties chose to send only natives to Parliament,*1*0

If Parliament was a local affair, it was also a family affair. Fathers and sons, uncles and nephews, brothers, sons- in-law, brothers-in-law, cousins, and blood relations of every degree sat in Parliament, Connections between the two Houses were almost as extensive as those within the Commons itself,

Hie Mores of Loseley and the St, Johns of Bletsoe are typical examples of family parliamentary groups. Sir George More first entered Parliament in 158*4; his son, Robert, started his career in 1601; and his grandson, Poyning, although barely

19 years old, was already serving in his second Parliament in 1625, Once a More entered Parliament, he continued to serve without interruption until his death, The St. John family expected its members to enroll in Queens College,

Cambridge, before sitting in Parliament, Hie patriarch of

^ Brunton and Pennington, Long Parliament.p. 7; Keeler,, Long Parliament, p. 20; Pink MSS 297, £• 197* Cornwall sent 16 carpet-baggers, Wiltshire 13, Hampshire 6, and the Cinque Ports 5. the family was Oliver, Earl of Bolingbroke, who could view the actions of his son and four brothers from his seat in the

Lords. The connections between the Lords and Commons numbered

16 other pairs of father and son, and 12 pairs of brothers.

Within the Commons, there were 17 additional pairs of father and son, and 18 pairs of brothers. Family relationships and blood relationships were endless. Family relationships could determine a member's actions in the Commons, but any attempt to evaluate the impact of blood relationships would be sheer conjecture.^

Another characteristic of the 1625 House of Commons was its maturity. The median age of the House was approxi­ mately 39. This figure is based upon the ages of 367 members or 7656 of the House. Of these, 54 were under twenty-five

(of whom 15 were less than twenty), 49 were twenty-six to thirty, 191 were thirty-one to fifty, and 73 were over fifty (of whom 7 were over seventy). This same relationship between young, middle, and old age was true of the

Elizabethan Parliaments and the Long Parliament, although the median in 1625 appears to be two to three years younger.

The high number of members under twenty-one upset mapy parliamentarians in the early Stuart period, and in 1625, - the eighteen tender years of one candidate led to a disputed

^Foster, Alumni Qxon.. Ill, 1023, 1025; Keeler, Long Parliament, p. 277; Venn, Alumni Cant., Pt 1, IV, 5* 96

election In New Iymington, Hampshire. Few’had entered

Parliament under twenty-one in the Elizabethan period. That very elderly men sat in the Commons seems to have bothered no one. Henry Banaster, a London goldsmith, was eighty-six 12 when he took his seat for Preston.

In social class and occupation, family ties, residency and age, the House of Commons which welcomed Charles I to the throne did not differ from its predecessors. What set it apart was the increased number of members who possessed higher

education, previous parliamentary experience, and royal connections. Equally significant was the presence of a group

of able parliamentarians with a record of opposition to the

Crown. To prevent this group from leading the Commons astray,

Charles and Buckingham had secured the return of six Privy

Councillors and a number of other high government officials.

But Charles and Buckingham failed to bring them completely into their confidence on essential government programs. When these programs proved to be unpopular and irrational, the road was open for the control of the House of Commons to slip away from the government into the hands of the opposition.

12 Neale, House of Commons, pp. 30^-3°5» Keeler, Long Parliament, p. 19; Porritt, The Unreformed House of Commons, I,.ZZkt P. R, 0., C 219/39:176; Pink MSS 297t £* 67* CHAPTER IV

THE HOUSE OF LORDS

Die House of Lords in 1625 did not present the Crown with a formidable challenge, as did the Lower House, for by tradition and membership this body was inclined to follow the sovereign's lead. Nevertheless, the House of Lords was not a royal pawn, as it had been in the Elizabethan period. In the early Jacobean Parliaments, the Lords had demonstrated their independence; by 1621 an influential and vocal opposition faction had appeared. But in the 1625 Parliament the opposition was in disarray, for the old leaders of the opposition were not present nor were new leaders on the horizon.

The House of Lords, still a small assembly, had under­ gone a radical transformation under the Stuart monarchy. Its membership had risen from 81 on Elizabeth's death in 1603 to

122 on the opening of Parliament in June 1625, . an Increase of

50$. Not since Henry VIII's reign had the composition of the

House changed so radically. The Henrican Reformation had ended the majority long enjoyed by the spiritual lords by reducing their number by over half, to 26. Henceforth, the

97 Church was represented in the Upper House by the two archbishops and the 24 English and Welsh bishops* Meanwhile the number of lay lords increased considerably. Henry VIII reduced his father's policy of refusing to grant peerages and by 1529 the number of lay lords had risen from 44 to approximately 55 •

This figure remained fairly stable for the duration of the l6th century, despite a significant number of-creations and restorations. Attainders and natural extinctions account for this stability. On March 2k, 1603, the English peerage, minus the 26 spiritual lords, numbered exactly 55; it included one

Marquis, 16 Earls, 2 Viscounts, and 36 Barons.*^

In April 1625, Charles summoned 96 lay peers, which included a Duke, a Marquis, 38 Earls, 10 Viscounts, and 46

Barons. In just two decades, the peerage had almost doubled and the most significant increase was in earldoms and viscountcies. The Earls had risen by 138/5, and Viscounts by

400$. James had been responsible for this increase and he was proud of it. On April 2 6, 1604, he boasted to a delegation from the House of Commons that since his accession,

"the Church was decided, the nobility increased, the burden

^Lawrence Stone, The Crisis of the Aristocracy. 1558- 1641 (Oxford, 1 9 6 5). pp. 97-99. of the people eased." Of the 96 summoned In 1625* 5? owed 2 their titles to James.

Of these 57* James had ennobled 42 and had elevated in

the peerage 15* While he had a strong predilection toward

granting titles* James could have claimed that necessity alone

dictated the numerous creations during the early years of his

■> reign. Elizabeth's frugality had frustrated the ambitions of

many who qualified for the peerage through their conspicuous

public service, ancient lineage, and landed estates. James

therefore found it easy to elevate these men to the peerage.

One of the first to be elevated was Sir Robert Cecil, the

Queen's Secretary of State and second son of William Lord

Burghley; he was made Baron Cecil of Essendon in 1603 (Viscount

Cranborne in 1604 and Earl of Salisbury in 1605). Sir Thomas

Egerton, Elizabeth'A trusted Lord Keeper and presently Lord

Chancellor, became Lord Ellesmere in 1603, while Sir Henry

Danvers, a renowned soldier, was created Lord Danvers in this

same year.3

These, and mary others who initially received James'S

favor, deserved peerages on all counts, but from the very

J .. Ill, 1*35; Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy. pp. 104-105; quoted in Kepyon, The Stuart Constitution, p. 25n. The peerage numbered 100, but three minors and Viscount St. Albans were not summoned.

3C. H. Firth, The House of Lords During the English Civil War (London. 1910), p. 2; Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, p. 100 D. N. B .. VI, 579, 0* E. C., Complete Peerage. IV. ^6-49. beginning there were some who lacked the fundamental qualifi­

cations for ennoblement. Henry Howard, for example, was

created Earl of Northampton in 1603 without any record of

government service; he did, however, possess large estates and

an eminent pedigree. On the other hand, Robert Carr and

George Villiers, the two most conspicuous examples of the

debasement of peerages, lacked service, land, and family.

Both of these men qualified for the peerage simply because

their good looks and gallant conduct appealed to James. Carr

settled for the Earldom of Somerset, but Villiers was not

satisfied until he obtained the Dukedom of Buckingham.

Villiers further insisted upon the ennoblement of his worthless yet grasping relatives; his mother became the Countess of

Buckingham; his younger brother, John, remained sane long

enough to become Viscount Purbeck; his elder brother,

Christopher, was created the Earl of Anglesey but was so

incompetent that it was almost impossible to find him a

government office; and his brother-in-law, Sir William Fielding, was created Earl of Denbigh. Not one of these creations was

justifiable.^

Even more serious than the practice of granting titles

to the unworthy was that of selling them. Rumors of such a

^Flrth, House of Lords, pp. 3-5; Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, p. 101; J. P. Kenyon, The Stuarts. A Study of English Kingship (New York,. 1959). P» 32^; 0. E. C., Complete Peerage. I, 132 and X, 68^; D. N. B .. XX, 351. 101 practice circulated at the beginning of the reign, but with the failure of the Addled Parliament in l6lh the traffic actually began* Hie Crown's need for money provided the justification; the creation of the Order of Baronets in 1611, a purchasable honor, supplied the favorable milieu; and the timely rise to favor of Buckingham furnished the corruption for the sale of peerages* Ey 1618 it was public knowledge that £10,000 placed in either Buckingham's hands or those of his relatives would secure an English barony* Sir Philip

Stanhope of Shelford, Nottinghamshire was one of the first to purchase a barony* That he had been twice indicted before the Star Chamber, recently pardoned for murder, and removed from the Commissions of Peace for irregularities did not seem to prevent his elevation to the peerage* The cost of higher honors depended upon the buyer's social or political position*

Sir Henry Montagu, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, paid

£20,000 for the treasureship and the Viscountcy of Mandeville in 1620* John Holies paid £10,000 for a barony in l6l6 and eight years later he paid an additional £5,000 for the < Earldom of CLare.

Die Irish and Scottish peerages were also available for sale* These were poormen's peerages, as prices were considerably

'’Charles Mayes, "The Sale of Peerages in Early Stuart England", Journal of Modern History. XXIX (1957)* 22, 26-27; 0* E* C., Complete Peerage. III. 247. 102 lower for them than for English peerages; Cl,500 secured an

Irish viscount cy in 1624, while an equal sum enabled Sir

Thomas Fairfax to become Baron Fairfax of Cameron, Scotland

in 1628. Englishmen scarcely objected when Irishmen or Scotsmen,

even English residents in Ireland and Scotland, purchased

these peerages, but they protested vigorously when Englishmen were ennobled* Of the 80 Irish peers created between 1603 and

1641,: 50 were English of whom 30 had never seen Ireland* It

appears there was no effort to preserve the dignity of the

nobility*^

The death of James momentarily halted the sale of

peerages* Charles granted only a few peerages before his

Coronation in February 1626, at which time he promoted eight peers to earldoms. Apparently each of these devoted royalists,

two of whom were Privy Councillors, paid for their promotion*

Charles permitted this traffic in honors to continue until

Buckingham was slain in 1628* But in 1625, when Charles

summoned his lords to Parliament, he was aware that 42 of them

owed their peerage to his father. Approximately 11 of them had purchased their title.?

^Firth, House of Lords, p. 16; Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, p. 104*

?Mayes, "Sale of Peerages"., J. M. H .. XXIX, 30; P* R. 0., S. P. D. 16/20:16. Those who purchased their titles were:: the Earls of Clare, Devonshire, and Westmoreland; Viscounts Andover and Mandeville; and Lords Grey of Werke, Montagu, Ho el, Robartes, and Stanhope of Shelford. 103

James was also responsible for the present position of

15 other members of the House* Three members, the Earl of

Arundel, the Earl of Essex, and Lord Paget, had been restored to titles lost by their fathers. Viscount Say and Sale's father in 1603 was restored to a title which had lapsed,

James had also been free with promotions within the peerage.

The Earls of Suffolk, Northampton, and Bolingbroke, and

Viscounts Colohester and Rochford had been raised from the baronage since 1603, The grandfather of the Earl of Dorset and the fathers of the Earls of Exeter and Warwick had like­ wise been promoted, The criteria James used for granting a promotion were as ambiguous as he used for elevating a man to a peerage. He sold at least one Earldom* Robert Lord Rich paid £1 0 ,0 0 0in 1618 for the Earldom of Warwick, finally,

Henry Lord Herbert (son of the Earl of Worcester), Theophilus

Lord Howard de Walden (son of the Earl of Suffolk), and John

Lord St. John de Basing (son of the Marquis of

Winchester) had been summoned by James to the House of Lords O in their father's baronies.

In sum, there were 57 members, or 60$ of the lay lords in the House, who owed their creation, elevation, or

Q James also promoted 12 of his own creations; G, E. C., Complete Peerage. I, 255-256, H I , 361, V, 142-143, 218, IX,: 677-678, X, 283, H , 52, XII, Pt.l, 462-463, 466, and XII, Pt 2, 2, 767, 857; Venn. Alumni Cant,. Pt 1, XV, 5; Stone. Crisis of the Aristocracy, p, 101; Mayes, "Sale of Peerages", J. M. H,. XXIX, 25. restoration to James I* As a result, these men were closely

bound to the throne* In deed, most of them, especially the

recently invested,, interpreted a royal request as a command

that could not be disobeyed* Although they occasionally

criticized their Sovereigns policies, they felt bound by

interest as well as tradition to uphold his prerogatives and to help him control the House of Commons* Many of them were government officials or courtiers, which reinforced their subservience* With over half of his lay lords devoted to him,

Charles had reason to fed. secure in 1625*^

However, there were outstanding exceptions to this rule, the Earls of Essex,, Southampton, and Warwick had fiercely and persistently opposed the Crown in the 1614 and 1621

Parliaments* Driven by either conviction or alienation, these earls, and their allies, could and would oppose the Crown. A hereditary right to sit in the Lords guaranteed them "the luxury of political opposition". While refusal of office, of which there were never enough, often encouraged them to join the opposition out of spite*10

The relationship between the old peers and the Crown

^KLrth, House of Lords, pp. 20, 38; J. E. Neale, Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments. 1559-1581 (Nmr York, 1966), p. 40; Moir, Addled Parliament, p . lib* 10 Vernon Snow, "Essex and Aristocratic Opposition to the Early Stuarts", Journal of Modern History. XXXII (i960), 224-225; Stbnfe. CrtfllB of the Aristocracy, pp, 122-124. 105 was embittered by the creation of new peers• The old peers

numbered 5^» but 15 of these had been either promoted or

restored by James. The Tudors had ennabled 21 of the 5^* leaving only IB peers who could claim lineage more ancient

» . 4 than the accession of the House of Tudor. Henry, 18th Earl

of Oxford was the ranking peer; his title dated from 114-2.

These older peers were enraged both at the rapid rise of the

new peers and at the ascendency of Buckingham. That obscure

country gentlemen could purchase baronies for £1 0 ,0 0 0and

that a young upstart favorite with the title Duke could

exclude them from the King's confidence caused many peers of more ancient creation to re-examine their relationship with

the monarchy# Some not only went over to the opposition in

the Lords, but they also gave encouragement to the opposition in the Commons. That the inflation of honors disaffected a

number of peers is testified to in the writings of royalists during the Interregnum* Sir Edward Walker, Qervase Holies, and the Marquis of Newcastle all argue that this policy was

responsible for Charles's subsequent misfortunes.1^

The inflation of honors affected the relationship between the two houses of Parliament in yet a more significant

HThree pre-Tudor and 12 Tudor creations had been promoted or restored by James; Firth, House of Lords, p. 19; Godfrey Davies, The Earlv Stuarts. 1603-16^0. 2d a'd., (Oxford, 1959)* p. 30; Kenyon. Stuart Constitution, p. 25* 106

way. As the Commons stated in Article XI of the articles of

impeachment against Buckingham, the inflation to honors

"extremely deflowers the flowers of the Crown; for it makes 12 them cheap to all beholders,M A House of Lords packed with

nonentities who lacked administrative, military, or diplomatic

experience lost the respect of the House of Commons, and

therefore influence in it. In 1625 the Commons refused to

accept the traditional arbitration offered by the Lords in

disputes between the Commons and the Crown

Hie presence of the spiritual lords seems to have

tarnished further the image of the House of Lords. The Crown

had a powerful source of support in the 2 archbishops and 26

bishops, for they consistently spoke in behalf of and voted

for royal policy. The bishops considered themselves natural

allies of the King, the Supreme Governor of the Church; they

had not forgotten that they were dependent upon him for their

elevation and promotion, Thomas Dove, Bishop of Peterborough,, was the only bishop not nominated by James; he was elevated in

1601, Three other Elizabethan bishops, Tobias Matthew, Francis

Godwin, and John Thornborough, had been promoted by James to

York, Hereford, and Worcester, respectively. Age or siokness prevented them from taking their seats in I625. The other 2k

12 Quoted in Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, p. 120.

^Firth, House of Lords, p* 20. 10?

spiritual lords, all of whom wore named by James, took their

seats in the House of Lords. Most of than took their

responsibilities seriously; 15 were usually present during the

Westminster session and 12 during the Oxford session. Only

Privy Councillors could boast of attendance records comparable

to these spiritual lords.

The spiritual lords traditionally presented a united

front under the nominal leadership of the Archbishop of

Canterbury. However, the disgrace of Archbishop Abbott in

1621 and the beginning of a new theological force, the

Arminian movement, temporarily destroyed the Abbot's position

and created a division within the Church. Abbot had killed a

gamekeeper in a hunting accident, for which he was ultimately

granted a pardon. But during the trial slurs were cast upon

him from which he never fully reoovered. And his Puritan

leanings made it impossible for him to lead those bishops

who were of the Arminian party. In fact, the High Church

group, led by Richard Neile, Bishop of Durham; Launcelot

Andrews, Bishop of Winchester; and William Laud, Bishop of

St. Davids; had already gained the support of a majority of

the bishops. This group sought the sanction of the Crown

for its program in the Church; in return, it Intended to

give the government's legislative program full support.

^Kenyon, Stuart Constitution, p. 25; D. M. B .. V, 1285, VIII, 56, XIII, 61-62, and XIX, 767. 108

Therefore, the split within the Church offered little danger 15 to the Crown's position in the Lords.

Attendance, which was always low in the Upper House, was exceptionally low in 1625* The plague raging in London kept attendance to an average of 44 a day; the transference of Parliament to Oxford caused attendance to drop to an average of 36 a day. In 1614 when the Lords numbered 107 the average was 65* On three different occasions in the

Westminster meeting the emptiness of the House was discussed; finally on July 11, the Lords requested the King to withdraw his dispensations for absence. There is no record that

Charles did so. The new peers held slightly better attendance records than did the old ones. Of the 42 peers created by

James, only 6 failed to appear. Forty-nine of the 57 peers created, promoted, or restored by James put in an appearance; of the older peers only 25 of 39 appeared. The single marquess, 10 earls, one viscount, and 19 barons never took their seats. Junei 18, the opening day of Parliament, brought out 63 lay lords and 20 spiritual lords, the highest attendance of the session.

^Hugh Trevor-Roper, Archbishop Laud. 1573-1645. 2d ed. (Hamden, Conn., 1962), pp. 41-42. 56-59 . 73; D . m T X T I, 1 6.

l6Moir, Addled Parliament, p. 65, L. J .. Ill, 462, 465; Frances Rolf (ed>). NoteB of the Debates in the House of Lords Officially taken by Robert Bowyer and Henry EL sing, clerks of the parliaments. A.D. 1<)21. 1&25. 1^28 (Camden Society. 1929J. XIIL. 55. Low attendance did not effect the operation of the House of Lords, nor did it hinder the passage of the Crown's legis­ lative program* On the contrary, low attendance favored the

Crown, for it guaranteed a government majority at each sitting*

Actually, the Lords were not required to play a major role in the 1625 Parliament; Parliament had been called to provide the subsidies needed to pay for foreign wars and it was the responsibility of the Lower House, not the Upper House, to initiate this legislation* Furthermore, the Lords were not eager to present Charles with a list of grievances* They wished rather to show their good will to a prince who had just ascended the throne. Thus when the Lords were expected to evaluate and approve legislation, the Crown could count on a favorable outcome* The normal attendance was 44 at Westminster and 36 at Oxford* Ihe spiritual lords normally provided 15 votes at Westminster and 12 at Oxford, while the Privy

Councillors averaged 7 votes at Westminster and 8 at Oxford*

Moreover proxies gave the government the few additional votes it needed to ensure victory* Ihe first Earl of Salisbury had initiated this practice in order to maintain a government majority in the Lords. It permitted a peer who was unable to attend Parliament to entrust his proxy to a fellow peer of similar persuasion. Buckingham held 13 proxies and Pembroke

11. There is no evidence that these were ever used, but they 110

were available if necessity dictated their use.^

The presence of Privy Councillors in the House of Lords

probably made the use of proxies unnecessary; 16 were entitled

' to seats. They were a powerful force in the Lords, for they

were not only great officers of state, they were wealthy and

influential in their own right. Three spiritual lords were

Councillors, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of

Winchester, and the Bishop of Lincoln. John Williams, Bishop

of Lincoln and Lord Keeper, was the most important of the

three in the eyes of the government. He was an astute

politician with a vast experience in parliamentary maneuvering.

His daily reports of the proceedings of the House provided

the King with an accurate account of the mood of the Lords and

of the progress of the royal program. The 13 lay Councillors

were led by the Duke of Buckingham. His attendance record

in the Westminster meeting, like that of Secretary Conway and

Pembroke, shows a lack of concern for proceedings in the Lords;

he appeared only 3 times out of a possible 19* At Oxford he

and his fellow Councillors reversed their approach and made

a concerted effort to gain approval of the government program

-tfsee Appendix A for Privy Councillors in the House of Lords; H. H. C., MSS of the Duke of Buccleuch. X, 261; Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, p. 55* Vernon Snow, "The Arundel Case. 1626". The Historian, XXVI (1964), 332-333; L. J .. Ill, 431. Some lords who originally attended Parliament became ill and gave their proxies to Buckingham and Pembroke, as well as spiritual lords; this accounts for the apparent conflict between the 24 proxies and only 22 absent lords. in the Lords. Beginning on August 5* the attendance of the

Councillors rose to 11 and on the four succeeding days this level was maintained. Possibly Buckingham wished to prepare the Lords for a major foreign policy address, which he delivered to both Houses on August 8. No one can deny the logic or the impact of this speech, but it offered too little and came too late. The Lords accepted his defense of the government's program; but the real decisions were made in lO the Commons.

The opposition group in the House of Lords was unprepared to deal with Buckingham's effective plea. Like its counterpart in the Commons, the opposition group had no common bond save grave suspicions of Buckingham. More important, it lacked leaders. The death of Henry, Earl of Southampton, on November 10

1621* and absence of Henry, Earl of Oxford, and John, Earl of

Bristol, deprived the opposition of its most experienced and outspoken leaders. Southampton had led the opposition since its inception in 1614. He had been joined in 1621 by Oxford, the defender of the old peerage against the Crown's inflation of honors. The Earl of Bristol, who received a summons but was ordered by the King not to appear in the House, could have greatly damaged the government in 1625 because of his knowledge

18 Two Privy Councillors, Viscount Wallingford and Lord Garew never took their seats; the former was near death and the latter was ill. H. M. C., R. R. Hastings Esq. MSS, II, 6 7. 112

of the Spanish negotiations. The leadership of the opposition

was therefore thrust upon Southampton's old lieutenants, the

Earl of Warwick* the Earl of Essex, and Viscount Say and Sele.

Mot one of these three was in a position to take up the

challenge. Buckingham's courtship of the Puritans prevented

Warwick and Say from moving into headlong opposition, while

Essex arrived in the Parliament chamber only seven days before

the dissolution. Thus the small, loose-knit, leaderless 1 9 opposition was not a formidable obstacle to the Crown.

The House of Lords which welcomed Charles to the throne prepared to demonstrate its loyalty by supporting his legislative program. Little else could be expected of this body. It was traditionally the King's servant; it was composed in the main of peers who owed their positions to the

King's father; it was led by a host of great officers of state; and it lacked an effective opposition group. Charles had no need to be concerned about the Lords.

19 Firth, House of Lords, pp. 36-43; Snow, "Essex and Aristocratic Opposition", J. M. H .. XXXII, 225, 230; Gardiner, History. IV, 38-39S Morgan, Prince Charles' Puritan Chaplain, pp. 138-143. CHAPTER V

THE WESTMINSTER MEETING

Members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons finally convened in the Upper House on Saturday, June 18, for the opening of Parliament. Three prorogations had delayed the opening a full month; James's burial on May 17 and the new

Queen's arrival on June 16 had caused the prorogations. Such delays normally did not create any anxiety, but the presence of the plague radically altered the situation in 1625 • This visitation of the plague hit London in April and 35*000 died from it within the year. Its death toll was surpassed in the

Stuart period only by the visitation of 1665. Westminster remained free from the plague until Parliament opened, but the nearness of the plague produced rumors as early as May 2 that Parliament would be removed to Oxford or Winchester.

By June 12 mai\y parliamentarians were disgruntled, for the rapidly mounting mortality list made it apparent that if

Parliament was to meet at a U it would be only for a short time. Men wondered if such a session were worth the personal danger and expense. It is doubtful that their presence in

113 114 the Lords Chamber on the afternoon of June 18 removed their apprehensions*^

It was the responsibility of Charles and Buckingham to demonstrate to the two Houses that their meeting amidst such dangers was justified. The outcome of the Parliament largely depended upon their ability to do this. However, Charles and

Buckingham found it difficult to make clear to the two Houses shy they had been summoned, other than to give money.

Moreover, it was summoned to grant subsidies to support indefensible policies. Charles could make a statement to

Parliament outlining his foreign policy and religious views.

But the statement on foreign policy would have to include a defense of Buckingham's elaborate program for a land and sea war in Europe; while the statement of his religious views would have to include a defense of the Church of England as now governed. The experience of the 1624 Parliament indicated that Buckingham's land war would not be favorably received; and only a total repudiation of the escrit particular and the loan of eight ships to France would satisfy the Protestantism of Parliament. Since Crown policies were unpopular, the only alternative available to the government was skillfully to manage Parliament in order to gain the subsidies for the

B.M.,, Sloane MSS 1471, f. 24; C. S. P. Pom. 1623-1625., p. 177; P. R. o., S. P. 0., 16/2*8 0, l6/3*4ft, and 16/3*60; C. S. P. Yen.. XIX, 30, 70. continental war* This required convincing Parliament it intended to fight a maritime war as evidenced by the preparation of the fleet while concealing the plans for a land war* And further* the Crown had to be prepared to make minor concessions, especially in religion, in order to gain the major victory— the subsidies* Both of these courses were dangerous; a complete disclosure by Charles of his foreign and religious policies could possibly bring about the collapse of Buckingham's policy because of the failure to gain subsidies, but no statement and skillful management could lead to the failure of foreign policy and permanent distrust of Charles and his government* The

King and his favorite chose to follow the second course*

The opening of Parliament was normally an affair of great pomp and ceremony* It was customary for the Monarch to proceed on horseback from Whitehall to Westminster Abbey at 11 a*m«, accompanied by trumpeters, heralds, royal officials,, and members of the House of Lords dressed in their stately t Parliament robes* Following the service and sermon at the

Abbey, the Monarch and his entourage usually walked across the yard to the House of Lords, where the members of the 2 House of Commons were waiting*

2 Neale, House of Commons, pp* 336-333; Moir, Addled Parliament* pp* 78-79* The plague prohibited such pagentry this June. Great crouds were not encouraged, especially in the Royal presence, lhe Abbey service was postponed until the following day,

Sunday, the 19th. On the 18th, Saturday, Charles went privately by water to the Upper House. He entered the House in his Royal robes and crown, followed by the nobility; the men of the Commons already stood below the bar. The latter had met in the morning in the chamber outside St. Stephen's

Chapel, in order to be sworn in by the Lord Steward* Before they were permitted to enter the House, they had to swear the oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance* The oath of Allegiance, aimed at eliminating papist, had been introduced in 1610 as a result of the Gunpowder Plot of I605. The Lord Steward swore in 16 to 20 members and then commissioned them to administer the oaths to their fellow members. Others present in the House of Lords on this occasion were the Duke and

Duchess of Chevreus, the two French Ambassadors, an additional number of Frenchmen, and the Venetian Ambassador.

Usually guests were seated behind a curtain, for strangers were not permitted in the House. This year the rule was apparently waved, for all contemporary memorialists of this opening described the embarrassment of the visitors when a

Bishop offered a prayer. This occurred when Charles, after entering the House, and kneeling by the throne, ordered a

Bishop to offer an opening prayer. The Frenchmen and several 117

English Catholic lord9 were caught unawares; they did not know whether to stand, sit, kneel, or cross themselves. A few tried to do all four.-^

The King addressed the two Houses from the throne.

He elected to follow the precedent established by his father, by which the monarch personally declared the purpose of the meeting of Parliament. Until 1603, the Monarch spoke through the Lord Keeper, but James, with his "infinite judgment" and oratorical eloquence, always chose to make the address himself. Despite his speech impediment, Charles decided to make the opening remarks himself and then have his Lord Keeper n buttress his remarks.

lhe basic theme of the King's speech was continued

Parliamentary support for the recovery of the Palatinate.

Ihis work had been begun under James by the advice of himself and Parliament. It was Parliament who requested Charles to bring his father to take this action. They were partners in

^Halliweil, Autobiography of Sir Simon D'Ewes. I, 272; W. Scott and J. Bliss (eds.). The WorkB of William~Laud (Oxford, 1847-1860), III, 165; B. M., Add. MSS ^8,091, f. 1; P. R. 0., C 193/32; Porritt, The Unreformed House of Commons. I, 130; H. M. C., Skrine MSS, p. 23; Birch, Court and Times of Charles I. I# 33-34. Ihis same pattern for the opening of Parliament was followed by Queen Elizabeth in 1593 because of the plague. Neale, House of Commons, pp. 330-339» II Sir W. Sanderson, A Complete History of the Life and Reign of King Charles (London. 1658). p. 6: H. M. C.. Skrine MSS, P. 2 3. this enterprise. Hie preparations had been made; allies were recruited, land forces were raised, and a great fleet was outfitted. Hie fleet was ready for action, the season was favorable, but an additional supply was needed before it could sail. Charles realized that he could not pursue an independent policy until this war was successfully concluded, for he was bound to carry out his father's plans. He adminished the members that this action was begun at their advice; if it failed because they refused to give him the necessary assistance, it would dishonor them both. The fleet had to sail immediately. Moreover, quick action on this matter was required in order to enable them to retire from the plague ridden city to the safety of their homes. Finally, he tried to dispel the malicious rumors of his infidelity to the true faith. He assured them that "no Man hath or shall be ever more desirous to maintain the Religion that I now profess, than I shall be»"^

Ihis speech was praised highly for its brevity and its purpose. It was a welcome relief from the protracted harangues of his father which, Sir John Eliot felt, "did but inherit the wind." The occasion dictated a general statement of the

King's intentions, and Charles shrewdly focused on sending forth a fleet to regain the Palatinate for Elizabeth and

5L. J .. Ill, ^35-436; B. M., Add MSS 48,091, ff. lv-2v. 119

Frederick* Moreover* he attempted to destroy any fears of renewed Catholicism. Religion was a tender subject* and

Charles* recalling the experience of his father1s Parliaments* sought to prevent any extended discussion of this topic, for such a discussion would delay the passage of subsidies. By his speech* Charles tried to win the confidence of his listeners.^

The statement by Lord Keeper Williams reinforced the

King's attempt to win Parliament's confidence. As applause for the King's speech diminished, Williams spoke a moment with

Charles and then turned to his distinguished audience. He reiterated the King's intention to restore the Palatinate.

He noted that when James had broken the two treaties with

Spain, upon Charles's and Parliament's advice, his subsequent acts had been in the direction of restoration: the negotiation of alliances* the supply of the Low Countries, the restoration of forts and forces in Ireland* and the preparation of the fleet. The subsidies were fully spent and new ones were needed to begin the action. The assistance was needed now* and to emphasize the urgency, Williams asked Parliament to advise the government on alternative methods of taxation to subsidies.

Normally it took a year to collect the subsidies. In return

^ELiot* Neeotium Poaterorum. I, 44; Hacket, Sorinia Reserata. part II* 9; B. M.* Add. MSS 48*091* f. 1. 120 for this financial supportt he promised that the King would shortly call another session of Parliament, to meet as long as it desired, and which would concentrate on grievances and 7 domestic policy*'

Williams's speech, in keeping with the traditional

Lord Keeper's exhortation, was a general statement of polity*

However, he was specific on two points: he noted that the l62b subsidies were spent exactly as Parliament had required and he officially announced plans for summoning another session of Parliament in the near future* The keynote of his speech, as of all government speeches in this Parliament, was speed; the subsidies had to be voted immediately to enable the fleet to sail. Actually, there was a second reason for speed; any hesitation by Parliament might permit it to discover the full commitments that Buckingham and Charles had entered into in pursuance of their foreign policy* Williams's request for Parliament's advice on alternate modes of taxation must have been merely a rhetorical device to demonstrate the urgency of the situation* If the government was serious about this, it never presented any plans of its own*

7H. of L*. Braye MSS 92, ff* 81-81v; L* J*. Ill, 1*36. Hacket improved on the speech in his biography of Williams by adding the stirring words, "This session is but a meeting in a Qeneral's tent, a consultation in the heat of action which will endure no long debate*" Scrinia Resarata. part II, 1 0. 121

Under command from the Lord Keeper, the House of Commons withdrew to their chamber to elect a Speaker* Sir Thomas

Edmondes, the senior Privy Councillor in the House, nominated

Sir Thomas Crew* The greater part of Edmondes's speeoh was a eulogy of Charles,. Na prince peerless for* • .rare qualifications and endowments* • • " Edmondes recited Charles's past actions in the Lords as proof that Parliament could expect him to protect the Church and preserve the prosperity of England* Moreover, just as the King was now obligated, possessing the power, to fulfill these expectations, so Parliament was obligated to

"give him such a pledge. • .as may more and more endear us to him, and him to us, and give him aomfort and encouragement to pursue those noble designs• " To do otherwise would be Q dishonorable* Edmondes's speech did not cast doubt upon

Charles's motives, as Von Ranke argues, nor did it, as Von

Ranke also argues, place responsibility for the success of his reign solely on Charles's shoulders* Rather it called for co-operation, trust, and action on both Charles's and

Parliament's part.'*

The nomination of Sir Thomas Crew for Speaker was the

Q Henzy Scobell, Memorials of the Method and Manner of Proceedings in Parliament in Passing Bills (London. 1670J. p. 3; William Hakswell, Modus Tenendi Parliamentum (London, 1671), p. 35; P.v-R* 0*,.S. P. D. 16/3*84. '

^Leopold Von Ranke, A History of Eh gland Principally in the 17th Century (Oxford, 1875)* I* 539-5^0• 122 government's final move to win Parliament's confidence* The election of the Speaker vas a formality: he was always a Crown candidate* Any Crown official could have been picked* yet

Crew was chosen* He was a staunch Puritan who had a record of opposition to the Crown* especially in the 1621 Parliament*

Since then he had mellowed and had gained favor with Buckingham*

This led to his appointment in 1624 as a King's Sergeant-at- law and Speaker of the House* ELiot viewed his nomination as

"a good omen to the work* His former carriage in that place and the success thereof after so many nullities and breaches* (made) again* • • a new marriage and conjunction between the King and people* (it) gave such satisfaction in a hope* as all men were affected with the choice*H

The House approved the nomination and the Privy

Councillors ushered Crew to the Speaker's chair* With the first day's business concluded* the House rose* Few members could have left with any serious reservations about the King's intentions* both at home and abroad* The government's initiatives on this opening day were consistent* informative* and conciliatory. It was a good beginning*

On Monday afternoon* the House of Commons presented their Speaker to His Majesty in the House of Lords* As was the custom,, Crew appealed to the King to consider his unworthiness and ill health; he asked leave to permitthe

Eliot, Kegotium Po3terorum, I, 44; D» N* B *. V, 82- 83; Morgan, Prince Charles's Puritan Chaplain, pp* 64-65* 123

House to choose another* But the Lord Keeper* to the contrary* expressed the King's pleasure with the choice and confirmed the election*^

Thereupon, Crew bowed to the royal command and spoke in glowing terms of James's last Parliament and England's future under Charles*- He exhorted the King to sustain the true religion, to cast out all Jesuits and priests, to maintain the ancient laws, and to wield the sword for the recovery of the Palatinate* The speech ended with a request for the traditional parliamentary privileges* freedom of speech, freedom from arrest, freedom of access to His Majesty, and freedom from misinterpretation* The Lord Keeper answered the

Speaker with many oratorical flourishes* He spoke to the five points raised by the Speaker; they were all granted unconditionally* Yet he asked Parliament to trust to Charles

to find the ways and means of maintaining the true religion and banishing the Jesuits and Priests* Contemporary accounts

of this Parliament generally ignore Williams's speech* Only

ELiot comments on its reception and he refers to it aB "being formal and no more*" But the statement on religion must have disturbed some members* The government had made its first tactical error. The sitting finished, the House of Commons

^ H * of L«, Braye MSS 93* ff* 81-84; Hakewell, Modus Tenendi Parliamentum. p* 33* 124 withdrew to St. Stephen’s Chapel. A bill against enclosure was 12 read and the House adjourned for the day.

Hie House was in a vigorous mood when it convened

Tuesday morning, June 21; it immediately attended to the formalities which confronted every House at its opening.

Meanwhile it awaited a specific declaration by ministers of state of the King's plans and necessities. The House selected

Sunday, June 26, for its Communion service, to be held at nearby St. Margaret's Church. Ostensibly this service was to unify the House and give it purpose; in fact, it was a second religious test imposed on all members since l6l4. However, with the plague raging through the streets of London, this single service seemed inadequate this year, and therefore

Sir Miles Fleetwood recommended petitioning Charles for a general fast throughout England. Furthermore, the preparation of a fleet, the health of the King, and the declining position of Protestantism in Europe also required such a fast. The spirited debate on this question led to a resolution to have merely a private fast among themselves on June 25 at

St. Margaret's, and then to join with the Lords in petitioning

Charles for a general fast. A committee, headed by Sir Robert

Haeket, Scrinia Reserata. part II, H-13» Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. pp. H. of L., Braye MSS 93* 81« 8**: ELiot. Meeotium Posterorum. I, 59* B. M., Add. MSS 48,091, f. 3v. Heath, the Solicitor-General, was appointed to draw up the petition* The establishment of the Committee of Privileges and Elections, on the motion of Sir George More, marked the completion of the traditional duties of the Commons on this day* More's motion and his selection as committee chairman were as traditional as the committee itself, for he had played this role since the inauguration of the committee system in

James's reign. Immediately a case concerning privilege and four election petitions were presented to the House* The first and principal election petition was filed on behalf of

Sir John Savile against the return of Sir Thomas Wentworth from Yorkshire* The committee was to open its hearings in 13 the afternoon in the Star Chamber*

The Commons had every reason to expect the Privy

Councillors to take the floor to present the King's program.

But to the surprise of almost everyone, William Mallory, the member from Ripon, Yorkshire, rose and moved that the House petition the King for adjournment until Michaelmas* Sir Thomas

Wentworth and Sir Robert Phelips leaped to their feet to support the motion* Eliot interpreted this action as a trick by the northern men to avoid the election protest in Yorkshire*

But this interpretation of Wentworth's conduct would be

^Porritt, The Unreformed House of Commons. I, 130, Pink MSS, 301, f* r?4; Eliot, Neeotium Posterorum, I, 60; C* J *. I,. 799-800* completely out of character; it fails to take into account

Wentworth's lifelong attempt to focus England's interests

on internal development and to oppose foreign expenditures*

It also fails to take into account the opposition of the

northern members in the 162^4- Parliament to any offensive war and to the supplies needed to wage it. Bie tone of Phelips's

speech is exceedingly harsh for this early in the session;

it is difficult to accept any view but that he was an

obstructionist and an opponent of most government action#

The time, argued Fhelips, was not fit for any business; fear

of the plague was everywhere# Nor was it propitious to consider

supply, especially when an account had not been rendered for

the last grant# So he moved for adjournment# Having waited

a month in plague-ridden London for the opening of Parliament, lit few parliamentarians could sympathize with such a motion#

Edward Alford, a determined Court opponent, brought

the debate back to reality by inviting the Commons to establish

a Committee of the Whole House to consider the business of the

Eliot, Neeotium Posterorum, I, 61-62; Earl of St# Germans Library, ELiot* s Notes .‘and Extracts,. IV, f# lv; Venn,, Alumni Cant.. Pt 1, III, 130; Keeler. Long Parliament, p. 265; Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625#. pp# 7-6i 600; Wallace Notestein, "The Winning of the Initiative by the House of Cflnmnnns1*. Proceedings of the British Academy (London, 1926),, XI, 1^9; Willson. Privy Councillors# p. 169; B. M#, Add. MSS 4)6,091, f. 4v; B. M., Harleian MSS l6l, f. 59; P. R- S# P. D. 16/3*88. 127

King and Kingdom. Parliamentary experience had probably convinced Alford that opposition to Crown policies could only be presented effectively in Parliament. Furthermore,.

England's grievances could only be redressed through Parliament.^

Though a motion contrary in every way to the King'h interests had been presented, no government official opposed it. Ironically, the King had to rely on one of his opponents,.

Edward Alford, to save his first Parliament. Finally govern­ ment officials spoke; Sir George More followed by Sir Francis

Nethersole and Sir Robert Heath rose to remind the Commons of the King's necessities. Anticipating the danger of the plague and of a foreign invasion, Heath probably represented the thoughts of most members when he stated that he would rather die by the hand of God than hy that of man. It was unnecessary to hold a prolonged session, but Commons should establish a committee to examine pressing affairs. Hie House resolved not to vote on the question and adjourned for the day.1**

This debate caught Charles and Buckingham unprepared and destroyed any initiative the government might have seized.

It almost destroyed Parliament. No Privy Councillor had risen, upon the completion of the formalities, to render an account

M. C., The Manuscripts of the House of Lords. Addenda 1514-1714 (London, 1962), XI, 179*

l 6 C. J .. I, 800. 128

of the l62*t subsidies, to explain the preparations of the

fleet, to solicit new subsidies, or to recommend the grant of

tonnage and poundage to the new King. A simple explanation

of each point would have done much to maintain or increase the confidence of the Commons in Charles and to secure the initiative for the government. It is difficult to believe that Charles and Buckingham expected the House to act as they desired— to vote supply— without any direction, but no instructions were given to government officials in either the

Commons or the Lords. Even the Lord Keeper, Bishop Williams,, was ignorant of any government strategy, at a time when an

elaborate foreign policy needed subsidizing and when the government’s position had been compromised by its relations with Catholics.^

The next morning as the Commons waited for the House to fill up, an Act for the Punishment of Divers Abuses Committed on Sunday received its second reading and was committed.

Having passed both Houses in 1624> this bill was denied the

King's signature, only to be the first business to cone before the Commons in the present Parliament. Uiat some hardy

Puritan souls wished to prohibit all recreation on Sunday was too much for the pleasure-loving James, but there was hope his

17 Hacket, Scrinla Reserata, part II, 17; C. J.« I, 800 129 18 austere son would feel otherwise.

Then when the House undertook to dispense with elementary procedural business it stumbled into an important debate* Sir

Thomas Hoby, an older member and a courtier from Yorkshire, moved that the House establish a Committee for Grievances*

This action probably arose from a concern for parliamentary tradition, for a number of other members expressed the same attitude in the course of the debate; any alteration from the past might establish a bad precedent* But Biward Alford gained the Speaker's eye and in keeping with his motion made the previous day, requested the establishment not of a Committee for Grievances, but one to determine the order of business for this'Parliament* Sir Benjamin Rudyard, Surveyor of the Court of Wards, agreed, and he created an amiable atmosphere for debate by a carefully prepared speech on the noble attributes of the King* The bitter experience of the previous day had shocked the government into action; some strategy was being pursued* Unfortunately, Rudyard*s speech lacked real impact,, for it contained no specific requests from the government*

Sir Edward Coke presented a more rational argument against a

Committee for Grievances when he reminded the House that

Charles had not been on the throne long enough to create grievances; he argued that it would be wiser to seek answers

18P. R. 0., S. P* D. 14/165*61 130 to the grievances presented to James by the last Parliament*

That such a request was expected can be seen by the Solicitor

General's statement at the end of the debate, that the King would remedy these grievances* This statement is yet another indication that planning on the part- of Charles and Buckingham had occurred; however, much poor timing had destroyed its 19 effect. But poor timing can destroy even the best laid plans, 7

The crucial turn in the debate came when Sir Francis

Seymour unexpectedly moved to establish a Committee of the

Whole House to consider both supply and religion* Hl, Our duty to God: 21y, King and Kingdom", said Seymour; he thrust the delicate topic of religion into the forefront with supply*

An advocate since 1621 of war with Spain, Seymour opposed any

Continental war and suspected the government's present war objectives* Hie unpreparedness of the government on the previous day convinced him that he could, by stealing the initiative, expose the Crown's foreign policy* Hie Crown needed subsidies in order to finance its foreign policy, but the question of supply was now tied to religion; and when

Seymour asked that the acts be inforced against Jesuits and

Catholic Priests, he was well aware of the growing suspicion among parliamentarians about the articles in the marriage

^Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. pp. 9-12; ELiot, Heeotium Posterorum. I. 66-69* These grievances were presented on May 28, 1624, the day before the adjournment* P* R, 0*, S. P* D, 1^/165:6l* treaty with France. Possibly he hoped, by turning the attention of the Commons to religion, to sidetrack any vote on supply.

Religion was a topic which the House always seemed to have the time and desire to discuss. He may also have hoped to force the government to reveal more of its foreign policy, in an effort to avoid having to reveal its religious concessions*

If naval war with Spain was the government policy, supplies would be forthcoming, but if, as was the case, the policy included a Continental war, there would be no parliamentary supply. Seymour knew his fellow parliamentarians well, for member after member rose to voice agreement with his motion.

The differing tactics of the opposition are evident in

Sir Robert Philips's support of Alford's motion for a

Committee to determine the order of business for this

Parliament. He wished to gain an account of the expenditures of the 1624 subsidies and to prepare the Act of Tonnage and

Poundage. The tactic was too deep for any Privy Councillor to fathom, for not one spoke to the motion. However, Alford's motion for a Committee to determine the order of business never came to a vote. Seymour's motion for a Committee of the

Whole on religion and supply was carried and it was ordered to meet the next afternoon. The passage of this motion and the 132 success of his entire plan narked Seymour out as the most 20 significant opposition leader in the Parliament*

Seymour's skepticism about the government's intentions was not as yet felt by most members of the House; on the contrary, there was a general feeling of confidence in the

Crown* This became apparent when the House named the King's

Solicitor, Sir Robert Heath, to Chair the Committee of the

Whole on June 23* Only Alford raised any objection to the choice* Few Crown officials enjoyed such a position in the 21 Parliaments of the l620's*

Sir John Eliot then delivered his maiden speech and it was one of the most eloquent of his career* An Anglican and a friend of the Court, he proposed that the House take up religion before supply, because "religion is the touchstone of all actions, • • .the glory of all power, the strength of all government* • *"22 But the unity and purity of religion was now threatened by the increase of Catholicism in England*

The cause of that increase lay in the failure to enforce the laws against recusancy, and the Commons should therefore review the recusancy laws and consider punitive action against

20C. J*. I, 800; P. R* 0., S. P. D* 16/3:91; Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. p* 12*

^ ~Ibid*. p. 16; Wotestein, "Initiative by the House of Commons", Proceedings of the British Academy* XI, 159*

^ELiot*, Megotium Posterorum. I, 70* apy government officials who failed to enforce them. The question of the King's necessities was quickly forgotten, for the problem of increasing Catholicism was more serious; it demanded immediate action. Furthermore, it did not affect anyone's pooketbook. Courtiers like Sir George More and Sir

Thomas Fanshaw joined ELiot and others in admonishing the government for its ineffectual enforcement of the recusancy laws. It is reasonable to assume that these men did not view their position as one of opposition to the Crown. Rather it was one of constructive criticism, aimed at bringing inefficiency and negligence to the attention of the government.

However, reports by members from every part of England revealed an alarming increase in Catholicism; suspicion of the Crown's religious policy now became general and as further debate was desired, the Committee adjourned until the next afternoon.

Seymour's strategy worked as he expected. A government official, like ELiot, was deeply concerned with the increase of Catholicism apparently due to the Ineffectual enforcement of the recusancy laws and he did not hesitate to take up valuable time exposing this threat to the Church of Ehgland,2^

Upon an earlier recommendation of Sir Robert Phellps, the House listened on Friday, the 24th, to the Clerk read the

^KLiot, Megotium Posterorum, I, 71*73; H. M. C.,, MSS of H. of L .. XI. 204-205: ELiot's Hotes and. Extracts, IV, ff. 20-20v. iy* religious petitions presented to James by the 1621 and 1624

Parliaments and the Protestation made by Charles in 1624 never to enter into a marriage treaty that would grant concessions to English Catholics. Phelips spoke of using them as the basis for a remonstrance to Charles for the strenghtening of Anglicanism and the weakening of Catholicism.

Sir Francis Seymour* Sir Edwin Sandys, and Sir Edward Coke all spoke with great force in favor of this motion. Only

Sir Humphrey May dared to speak in defense of Charles, and his statement merely reinforced the growing suspicion of government collusion with Catholics s.

11 times and counsels must alter as things alter, the treaties with foreign princes of contrary religion have cast a slumber upon the laws, the King's heart right towards religion as we would desire it, affairs of Christendom enforced him to do as he hath.“24

This was almost a confession of guilt on the government's part and the Commons instantly constituted a sub-committee to frame a petition of religion for presentation to the King.

Sir Edward Coke, Sir Francis Seymour, Sir Robert Phelips, and Sir Guy Palmes, the core of the opposition, were named to the committee. Sir Benjamin Rudyard and Sir George More were the only Crown officials of any stature selected. Not

24 H. M. C., MSS of H. of L .. XI, 204-206. 25 one Privy Councillor was chosen.

This sub-committee sat on June 25 and 2?( and on the

27th Sir Edwin Sandys and John Pym were asked to frame the

committee1& findings into a petition to the King. Sandys

reported back to the Committee of the Whole on the fallowing

day, at which time the various articles of the petition were

debated and ordered to be presented to the House on June 30*

The courtiers remained silent throughout the debate, and well

they might once Seymour had suggested that Charles be reminded

of his promise made in the last Parliament. This silence may be a reflection of desperation on the part of the King

and his favorite; possibly they decided to give no instructions

to their officers and to wait for the petition to clear the

House. This debate demonstrates the second factor responsible for the failure of this Parliament, an indefensible policy;

this was as destructive as any failure of parliamentary

tactics on the part of the Crown.

As religion dominated the time of the Committee of the

Whole, so it consumed the time available for the transaction

of general business before the House. Ho government legislation was presented, for Charles and Buckingham had

^ELiot*s Notes and Extracts, IV, f. 21.

^Gardiner, Commons Debates. l625.,pp. 18 , 28-29; H. M. C., MSS of H. of L .. XI, 206-207; ELiot's Notes and Extracts, IV, f. 21v. 136

envisioned supply as the only topic of debate, and this topic was now lost in the Committee of the Whole. Public bills were to have been presented at a later meeting of Parliament in the winter. Therefore, the Privy Councillors and other

Crown officials and friends sat silent; there was no program to guide through the House. Numerous private bills and questions of privilege filled the early hours of the mornings of the week extending from the 23rd to the 28th, but the principal consideration of the Commons during these five days was its petition for a general fast.

It took a division of the House on Wednesday, the

22nd, to decide that the Lords should be asked to join them in this act, and the next morning committes of both Houses met to discuss the proposition. Archbishop Abbot complimented the Commons on their initiative, but he cautioned than to discover the King's feeling about a fast before they petitioned him, for, according to Scripture, eveiy fast gained its authority from the Crown. The House of Lords then examined and approved the petition as written, while the Lord Steward and Lord Conway called upon the King. The petition was the first order of business to come before the Lords in this

Parliament. They were bored by inactivity while they waited for bills to come up from the Lower House. Some of the peers welcomed as a relief from this boredom the opportunity to join with the Commons's delegation in presenting the 137

petition to Charles In his new Banqueting House on the 24th.

The presentation was a success, for as Sir Richard Weston,

Chancellor of the Exchequer, was able to report to the Commons,

the King liked their idea of beginning with religion; he now

"hoped we would proceed the better and with more speed after 27 so good a beginning." He granted their request and turned

the fast over to the Bishops for execution. However, he made

the mistake of leaving it to the two Houses of Parliament to work out the plans for their own fasts. It took them the better part of two days to do so. July 2 was the date fixed upon, with the Lords observing the fast in Westminster Abbey and the Commons in St. Margaret's. Speed was not the watchword 28 of this Parliament.

On Wednesday, June 29, the House of Commons continued

to drift aimlessly without any government direction. Several private bills received their first and second readings, and

William Mallory apparently still smarting from his inability

to get Parliament dissolved, proposed the appointment of a

Committee for Grievances, only to receive a second setback.

The time was now propitious for government officials to

27H. M. C., MSS of H. of L ., XI, 180-189; H. of L., House of Lords Papers, 28 March-B July 1625, f. 59; L. J .. Ill, 440; H. Mi C., MSS of Duke of Buccleuch. I, 260; Gardiner, Commons Debates. l625. P. 7.

M. C., MSS of H. of L.. XI, 189-193, Hymer, Foedera. XVIII, 142; Halliwell, Autobiography of Sir Simon D'Bwes. I, 273; Bruce, Liber Eamlilmis. p p . IqH-104- magnify and glorify the preparation of the fleet and to define

His Majesty's monetary needs* The question of supply was assigned to the Committee of the Whole, but the petition concerning religion was to be presented to the Committee first; its acceptance would open the way to a debate on supply* Any statement of particular Crown policies and needs would have gone a long way towards winning the confidence of the House and towards creating an amiableatmosphere for the introduction of the subsidy. But Charles and Buckingham were blind to the usefulness and necessity of such a statement, for no government official spoke this day*2^

When the House assembled the next morning, it readily accepted the recusancy petition (with one minor amendment defining excommunication), and upon the question being put, the Commons resolved to ask the House of Lords to join them in this action* The sub-committee on religion then concluded its actions by reporting a list of articles which it felt necessitated legislation, not just a petition* At this moment, Sir Francis Seymour rose once again to deliver a crushing blow to the Crown's plans* With religious issues resolved, he argued that the House should turn to supply, and he moved that they grant Charles one subsidy and one fifteenth.

^ H . H* C., MSS of H. of L*. XX, 1 9 ^ 1 9 5 139 a mare E100,000. Charles needed ten to twelve subsidies* As

ELiot suggested, Seymour's action was "unexpected to the

Courtiers" for since ELizabeth's reign a Privy Councillor had introduced the subsidy* But, with religion settled and supply the most pressing issue, it was a logical time to introduce the bill, and the government should have been prepared, especially following the setbacks received by surprise motions earlier in the session. Ihe government did have a significant number of its faction present in the House at the time so it was not unprepared in this respect. Nonetheless, this motion smacked of ehicanexy, for not since 15$+ had Just one subsidy been voted* Moreover, this sum was inadequate for any foreign policy, much less for a suspected Continental war policy.

Also, to request the subsidy the day before the Crown was expected to account for the expenditure of the last subsidies suggests that Seymour was worried about the outcome of that account and the accompanying debate which might possibly bolster government support and pave the way for the grant of substantial supplies. This was no impetuous move, it was 30 part of a well perpetrated plan on Seymour's part.

Rudyard boldly tried to save the situation for the government by enumerating the expenditures facing the King:

3°H. M. C., MSS of H. of L .. XI, 196, 207; ELiot, Negotium Posterorum. I, 75* Neale, ELizabeth I and Her Parliaments.1559-1581. p. 123* Janes's funeral, the coronation, commitments to Denmark,

Holland, and Mansfield, and the fleet (which alone required

£300,000). The King's need was great and somewhat indefensible, but Rudyard failed, largely because he had no instructions to make a specific request for subsidies and therefore the impact of his speech was negligible. Other Crown officials and friends came to his aid. Sir Robert Kelligrew, Sir George

More, Sir Robert Crane, Sir Roger North, Sir Francis Ashley,

Sir Henry Whitehead, John Maynard, and Sir Edwin Sandys.

At no other time during the Parliament did the Crown receive such backing from its supporters, yet it is singular that no

Privy Councillor spoke. However, seeing the effect of Rudyard's speech and probably acting on his own volition, Kelligrew asked for two subsidies and four fifteenths. Unwittingly Kelligrew, also without any instructions, had committed the Crown to the minor sum of two subsidies, for the following debate centered around the number of fifteenths that should be granted and when the subsidies should be paid, not around the number of subsidies.

It is difficult to understand why Kelligrew asked for two 31 subsidies, for this sum was totally insufficient.^

^ H . M. C., MSS of H. of L .. XI, 196-197 • There is no evidence, as suggested by William Mitchell, that some parliamentarians opposed the grant of two subsidies because they wished to postpone the grant until a larger sum could be aoquired. Rise of the Revolutionary Party in the English House of Commons l

official Journal from June 23 to July- 1, shows that the Court faction dominated the first half of the debate, during which time the amount of the grant was set at two subsidies and no fifteenths. Gardiner* who was forced to rely on Negotium

Posterorum and the Commons Debates of 1625 (which have a common source), saw Rudyard*s speech as the lone government effort in the debate and showed how it was crushed by the inflamatory oration of Phelips. In his extended and powerful speech, Phelips denounced the government for violating the liberties of Englishmen, for failing to openly declare war on an enemy, for not rendering an account of the 1624 parliamentary grant, and for explaining the thwarted efforts of Mansfield in the Netherlands. He moved for a grant of two subsidies without any fifteenths. Some of the charges raised in the speech were unanswerable, but whether the speech, as Gardiner argues, poisoned the relationship of the

King and Commons, is doubtful. Confidence in the Crown was not destroyed until July 8. Gardiner viewed the speech in this manner for it fortified his interpretation that Phelips, not Seymour, was the real leader of the opposition in this

Parliament. Phelips correctly attacked the Grown for not declaring war and for not explaining Mansfield's expedition; however, most parliamentarians would have denied that their liberties were being infringed upon and were aware that the account of the 1624 subsidies was being presented the next 3A2

day* Furthermore, Gardiner was unaware that the speakers

who followed Phelips made no similar attempt to castigate the

government; men like Alford, Strode, and Coke spoke only of

the timely introduction of supply and the adequacy of the

suggested sum. And Coke's statement that the King should

meet his regular expenses out of his own income was a widely

held misconception during the early 17th century. Upon

question, the House voted unanimously to grant Charles two

subsidies. Rudyard, Heath, and Henage Finch, Recorder of

London, along with Coke, Phelips, Seymour, and other

uncommitted parliamentarians, were appointed to the committee

to draw up the preamble to the Act of the Two Subsidies,^ 2

July brought no relief from the plague or the endless

rain of the summer, and with the major business accomplished,

less than half of the members bothered to take their seats in

the Lower House. The plague, the rain, and the boredom also

convinced many peers to withdraw from the Upper House. Activity

in the Commons on July 4 centered around disputed elections

and grievances. The morning session produced a debate on the

report from the Committee on Privileges and Elections for the

^Gardiner. History. V, 3^5-3^7; ELiot, Negotlum Poster­ orum. I, 76-78; Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. pp. 31-3 3. lhe account given by the Treasurers and Council of War for the last subsidies did not reach the floor of the House until July 6 because of pressing business, at which time it was decided to examine the accounts in the next session. C. J .. I, 804. Yorkshire election* Upon testimony by the Sheriff, the

Committee remained divided, 17 in favor of permitting him time

to gather witnesses to substantiate his story and 25 against*

Wentworth, speaking in support of the Sheriff, claimed that a

poll had not been necessary for a vote by view amply demonstrated his and Fairfax's majority. Furthermore, the poll was requested after the legal election hours of 9 -1 1 a.m.; it was a mere maneuver on Saville's part to disrupt the election procedure and have an excuse to claim an invalid election*^

Wentworth's story was challenged by Sir Christopher

Hildyard, the member for Heydon, Yorkshire since 1588* He began a debate which centered upon two questions; (l) At what time was the poll demanded, and (2) was Saville responsible for the discontinuance of the poll. Unable to resolve the dispute, the House finally decided to forward the Sheriff's and Wentworth's cases to Sir John Saville for examination

The next day, Saville would answer these indictments before Ik the bar of the House.

Hie Commons reconvened after lunch on July 4, to hear

Sir Edward Coke's report of the Conference with the Lords on the recusancy petition and Charles's answers to the grievances

33C. J .. i, 801; H. M. C., MSS of H. of L .. XI. 201. See Chapter U , pp. 57-60. presented to his father at the close of the l62*f Parliament.

Sir Edward began his report by reading a message from the

King in which the King announced his willingness to end the session whenever Parliament desired, owing to the increase in the plague. Coke then presented a list of the Lords's modifications for the petition and they were discussed. A sub-committee was appointed to draw up the final form of the petition; it was presented in the two Houses two days later.

Finally, the petition was presented to the King on July 8. ^

Sir Robert Heath read the 23 grievances and Charles's answers to them. ELiot and others found fault with some of the answers, but they represented an attempt by Charles to placate the House. They were apparently timed to coincide with the introduction of the Tonnage and Poundage Bill. In his answers Charles refused to withdraw a proclamation controlling building in London, for its consequences were good, and declined to eject Dr. Arlan from his presidency of Corpus

Christi College, Oxford, until the fellows complained. He had only investigated the abuses held against JameB's purveyor,

Sir Simon Harvey; he had taken no action. However, he had withheld several patents which had drawn complaints, he did ask the House to legislate on several grievances, and he did promise to rectify others by enforcing the laws more strictly. 145

No doubt these answers left some unsatisfied, but even ELiot felt there was still hope for the future with suoh a young

King* Sir Edward Coke moved a select committee be appointed to examine the answers in order to discover which required fuller explanations, explanations which, hopefully, would be more acceptable to the Commons* let, there is no evidence his suggestion was adopted*^

The next morning, Sir Robert Heath, acting for the government, introduced the Tonnage and Poundage Bill into a

House of barely 125 members* The timing was carefully calculated*

To wait any longer was dangerous, for many members were upset at Charles for collecting the customs duties without parliamentary approval* Already one attempt had been made by the opposition to raise the question of tonnage and poundage, but they had failed to gain any recognition* How the time seemed opportune for the government to take the initiative;

Charles doubtless felt that many members would support him after his gracious answers to their grievances* Moreover, of the members remaining in the House, it is safe to assume a majority were courtiers and friends. Most members had fled from plague-ridden London once the subsidy was fixed* Few would have remained and not have attended Parliament* Charles

^ H . M. C., MSS of H* of L *. H , 202; B. M., Add* MSS 48,091, ff* 6v-llv; ELiot, Neeotium Posterorum. I, 80-84* See Appendix B for grievances and answers* 146

knew the parliamentary history of his father*s reign and

probably sought to use this friendly majority to overcome any opposition that might arise to his right to levy impositions*

The bill received its first and second readings the same morning it was introduced and was committed to the Whole House the same afternoon* However, Charles had miscalculated the tone of the House and the bill was already in trouble* After the

second reading Sir Walter Earle, member of Dorset, and Sir

Robert Phelips seriously questioned the validity of granting tonnage and poundage to the King for life* Earle complained that the customs were granted to the King to keep the seas free from pirates, yet neither in the Channel nor in English ports were ships free from the menace of Turkish pirates* He then suggested that the grant be limited to one year until the question of pretermitted customs be resolved* These customs were on wool oloth and by interpretation of the Council in

1621 were part of the parliamentary grant, although they had not been collected in James's reign until 1618* Phelips seconded Earle's remarks and reminded the House that until the reign of Henry VI tonnage and poundage was voted annually or triennially*^

H* M. C*. MSS of H* of L *. XI, 191, 202; P* R. 0*, S* P. Dm 16/4:29; B* M*, Add. MSS 48,091, f. 25; Eliot, Negotium Posterorum. I, 93; Eliot's Notes and Eictracts, IV, f* 4* 14?

Uiat afternoon the full fury of the House cane dovn upon the bill* The government's strategy failed miserably because it missed the point at issuet it was not simply a question of confidence in the King; it was a question of

Parliament's right to control all customs duties, and it had arisen from James' 6 new impositions on a variety of exports and imports* From the moment James levied these impositions,

Charles should have been prepared to make a statement on them; slight concessions here might have saved him from embarrassment and ill-will later* Charles chose to remain silent on impositions and even the best parliamentary tactics could not secure the acceptance of a bad policy* The Commons debate centered around two questions, the need for a new book of rates which would eliminate inequities in the customs, and the need for legal examination of the pretermitted customs which would confirm Parliament's belief that all customs needed parliamentary approval* With the solution of these two questions, the Parliament could then return to their 38 former policy of granting tonnage and poundage for life*

The House finally agreed to vote Charles tonnage and poundage for one year only* Hie bill was read and engrossed on July 7, and passed its third reading the same day as the

Subsidy Bill, July 8 * Both bills were taken up to the Lords

^KLiot, Meeotlum Posterorum. I* 93-95* the next day* and although they later passed quickly through the three necessary stages, the Tonnage and Poundage Bill was read just once before the session came to a close two days later. The King was thus forced to collect customs illegally if he wanted the revenue from it; he chose to do so until

1640. It is a curious fact that Charles never sent a message or addressed the Houses personally about such a crucial issue. Apparently he left the matter of securing the necessary parliamentary revenue to Buckingham, for the favorite was 39 busy plotting about this on July ?•

Meanwhile, the Yorkshire election received its final hearing before the Commons, Few disputed elections ever took up so much of the House's time. Sir John Saville answered

Wentworth's version of the election with a persuasive argument that the Sheriff had illegally broken off the poll. The

Commons then entered into a debate on the problem of the poll. At this stags, it was moved that Wentworth be heard; however, before this motion passed, someone informed Wentworth of the move, for he proceeded to enter the House, in contradiction to the privilege of the House, Sir John ELiot proclaimed the violation of privilege to the House and

Wentworth was forced to withdraw until the motion passed.

^Sliot, Negotium Posterorum. I, 95* J», III, 462^*463. However, the later years of bitter relations between these two men clouded Eliot's reporting of the event in Negotium

Posterorum; he had no reason in 1625 to speak of the violation as "a greater dishonor and contempt this house has no time suffered, than what does now affront Gardiner falls into the same trap when he pictures ELiot as already a leader of the opposition and Wentworth as an arrogant man, with no regard for parliamentary government* The case did go against

Wentworth, for the House refused to grant him time to secure witnesses to prove his story of the poll, and the House declared the election void* That no action was taken against the Sheriff demonstrates the doubt which existed in the Commons as to the actual events of the election* But all were agreed that too much time had been spent on this case* Since

Parliament was trying to wrap up its business that it might adjourn, the Commons put the case aside* It did not want to wait another two weeks in London to hear an election case*

A case that similarly consumed the time of the Commons concerned Richard Montagu, a rector from Stamford Rivers,

Essex* His offense originated in his attempt to combat

"Romish rangers" who were spreading Popezy in his parish;

Eliot's Notes and Extracts, IV, 5v; Eliot, Negotium Posterorum. I, 101-102; C* J*. I, 8O3.

^Gardiner, History. V, 350-351* he published a book in 1624, A New Pag for an Old Qoose. in answer to a Catholic treatise entitled, A Pag for the New

Qospal. A very scholarly and witty work, it defined the theological differences of Rome and Canterbury, only to show that it was not necessary to become a Catholic when all the fundamental tenets of Catholicism were embraced by

Anglicanism in a purer form. His rabid Arminianism scandalized both Catholics and Calvinists. Two Puritan preachers, John

Yates, a Fellow at Etaraanuel and Vicar of St. Andrews, Norwich, and Samuel Ward of Ipswich protested to Parliament and demanded that Archbishop Abbot investigate the work. Although rebuked by the Puritan Archbishop, who told him to re-examine his thoughts and rewrite his book, Montagu gained the sympathy of James I and permission to defend himself in a second work.

James claimed after reading this second book, Appello Caesarem.

"If this be Popery, I.am a Papist", and he directed Montagu to Dr. Francis White, Dean of Carlisle, for the necessary imprimatur. The book was published shortly after the King's death and dedicated to him. The uproar was immediate and Lo furious; Parliament could hardly be expected to ignore it.

A request for an inquiry into the action taken against

Montagu by Archbishop Abbot was made by the Puritan patriarch,

ho Trevor-Roper, Archbishop Laud, pp. 74-75; Morgan, Prince Charles' Puritan Chaplain: pp. 132-133; Rushworth, Historical Collections. I, 177-178; ELiot, Negotium Posterorum. I. 105-106; Gardiner . Commons Debates. 1625. p. 4^. Sir Thomas Hoby on June 29 • He was followed by Henry Sherfield,

the Puritan Recorder of Salisbury, who protested the publication

of Appello Caesarenu The House appointed Sir Dudley Digges,

Sir Robert Hatton, John fyn* and Hoby to attend the Archbishop*

Digges1s report, on July 1, seemed to satisfy the Commons that

Abbot had taken proper measures to deal with the recalcitrant

rector* He had asked Montagu to review his book and had not

seen him again until May 1 of this year when Montagu presented him with a copy of his second book* Abbot was prepared, if

requested, to give his judgment on Appello Caesaram. The

House turned the report over to the Committee for the drawing up of a petition concerning religion to determine what action if3 should be taken against Montagu and his two books*

On July 7, Sir Heneage Finch took almost the entire morning.to report the findings of the committee to the

Commons* It was comprised of a frontal attack on Appello

Caesarem. - leaving A New Gag for an Old Goose for examination

by a Committee of Both Houses* Appello Caesarem was

dishonorable to the memory of James, capable of disrupting

Church and State, and offensive to Parliament* James had

helped to suppress Arminianism by supporting the Synod of

Dort, which was called for this purpose, and by denouncing

43H. M* C., MSS of H. of L *. XI, 194-195, 200* B. M., Add. MSS 48,091, f. I4v; V. C. H.. Wiltshire. V, 132; Qardlner, Commons Debates. 1625. pp* 33-35• Arminius as an enesy of Qod. Yet Montagu directed the book

to him* The book's attempt to disrupt the State and Church was more serious; it strove to create disaffection between the

King and his loyal subjects by conceiving of a powerful

faction in the kingdom termed Puritan* and it encouraged

popery by regarding Rome as the true Church. Finally,

Montagu offended Parliament-by publishing a second book while a complaint was still filed in Parliament against his first;

furthermore, in his second book he reviled those who had brought the complaint against the first and who were under

the protection of the House. One cannot doubt the strength

of the feeling of the Commons against Montagu; only Sir Edwin

Sandys rose to his defense and this was on the third point.

The reotor was not guilty of contempt of Parliament, argued

Sandys, for he had been commended to the Archbishop. But

Crown officials, government opponents, Puritans, and lawyers, all attacked Montagu for contempt. The House was united in its hatred of popery or anything that smacked of it. Upon

Heath's motion, it was resolved to confer with the Lords at their next meeting about the two seditious books and to find

Montagu guilty of contempt. He was to be committed to the

Serjeant-at-Arms to ensure his appearance in the future.

Montagu was then called to the bar of the House where he was 153 informed of the judgment against him. The House also urged /|j|. Archbishop Abbot to suppress all seditious books.

Charles and Buckingham had reason to bewail Parliament's concern with religion and their failure to vote sufficient subsidies, yet the relations between King and Parliament remained friendly. If Parliament was somewhat suspicious of

Charles's foreign and religious policies, it was also hopeful.

The plague toll continued to rise, over 1,000 died in the

City during the second week of July, and no place was safe.

Londoners and parliamentarians alike fled to the safety of the countryside; even the King and Queen were forced to quit

Whitehall for Hampton Court when the plague broke out in the

King's bakery. Hie remaining members of Parliament were

eagerly awaiting adjournment so they too could depart. Barely

30 Lords and 60 Commoners were assembled on July 6 when

Sir John Eliot was confronted outside St. Stephen's Chapel by the Chancellor of the Duchy, Sir Humphrey May, with the

news of a plot that was to destroy completely the remaining

confidence of Parliament in the King and his favorite.

Buckingham planned to take advantage of the slim numbers in

the Commons to force through a second bid for supply or to

Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. pp. ^7-53; ELlot, Hwfrotium Posterorum. I. 10^-109, C. J.» I. 809; B. M., Add. MSS **8 ,091, f. 19v; William Cobbett, Parliamentary History of England from the Herman Conquest to the Year 1803 (London, 1BQ6), II, 7. 15^

gain a commitment to grant a second one in the next session.

Unable to accept any setback, even those arising from his own

incompetence, Buckingham had gained Charles's consent for

this absurd plot on July 7; he then returned to London late in

the evening and called his "privado'S" to a midnight meeting

at York House* They were to aid Sir John Coke, a commissioner

of the navy, to execute the plan the next day, Buckingham

did not call the entire leadership of the official group,

for he knew May, Weston, and others would reject his plan 2+5 as impolitic trickery*

Eliot was met the next morning Just before 8 a.m, by Sir Humphrey Hay, representing the excluded officials and

courtiers; recently informed of Buckingham's plan. These men were aghast at the thought of it* To them Eliot was the last possible deterent to the plan, for he was still on good terms with Buckingham, his patron* Hay promised to delay

Sir John Coke while ELiot was to convince the favorite to discard the plan* But Eliot was fated to fail, for no logic

could prevail against Buckingham's passions* That two

subsidies had already been granted, that the Commons was near deserted, and that this plan would poison men's minds toward

2 + 5 ELiot, Negotium Posterorum. I, 109-110; H. H. C., Skrine HSS. pp. 25-2^; P. R. 0., S. P. D. l6/2+:29; Halliwell, Autobiography of Sir Simon D 1 Ekes. I, 275* Buckingham from whom it was known to originate made no impact

on the favorite. However, Gardiner is wrong to believe that

Buckingham sought the defeat of his proposal for additional

subsidies; this places too much weight on the Duke's remark to

Eliot that the plan was proposed “merely to be denied,"

Buckingham was confident of victory in a depleted House

composed mainly of courtiers. Meanwhile, May, only with some

difficulty, successfully postponed the execution of the plan

in the Commons, His resentment toward Coke for blind adherence

to Buckingham's every instruction did not make the task easy.

His frustration must have been apparent to all when ELiot

returned with the news of his failure.

The Commons had reason to resent a minor official

being chosen to make a major government address, particularly

one who rarely, if ever, spoke otherwise in the House,

Nevertheless, Sir John Coke proceeded to convey His Majesty's

appreciation for the gift of two subsidies and then to lay

before the Commons the King's entire foreign policy, including

his monetary commitments to Mansfield, Denmark, and the fleet.

ELiot, Negotium Posterorum, I, 110; Gardiner, History, V, 368-369; Willson, Privy Councillors, pp, 177-178, Eliot's narrative is the only source of this plot and a weak attempt to discredit it on chronoligical grounds by H, P. Cooke, Charles I and His Earlier Parliaments, has failed, ELiot has proven reliable on all other matters of this parliament and he had no reason to invent such a story at this point. The cost was £773,000 a year, an underestimate from the King's point of view, but a terribly high figure from Parliament's.

More shocking than the cost, however, was the Continental war policy that was unveiled. No one was interested in Coke'b justification of this policy, and his concluding motion for a second subsidy bill, or a future commitment to pass one, fell on deaf ears. The officials and courtiers deserted Coke; eventually Sir William Beecher, a Clerk of the Privy Council,, seconded the motion. The resentment was so obvious that Sir

Robert Heath laid the motion aside and reminded everyone that the Act of the Two Subsidies and the Tonnage and Poundage

Act were sufficient expressions of affection to the King.

Buckingham* s plan had miscarried. It was a gross blunder, not only in terms of the slippery technique employed, but also in the exposition of a foreign policy which was the direct anti­ thesis to that proposed in 1624. By his trickery he alienated most of the officials and courtiers present as well as most parliamentarians. Buckingham had yet to learn that men would not blindly follow him or the Crown's lead. Meanwhile, the speech served to turn suspicion into conviction and hatred;

Buckingham came to be seen as the inept and irresponsible advisor of the King and all his policies. He had misled 157

Parliament In the area of foreign affairs; had he not done so

in the religious sphere?^

The next day. Parliament was given reason to believe

that they might have been deceived in the religious sphere*

Sir Robert Heath reported on the delivery of the petition for

the fast and the petition for the enforcement of the laws

against recusants* The former petition the King had granted

immediately; but the latter, because of its complexity, would

require further time* Nonetheless, they would find him as

forward in religion as themselves; an answer would be

forthcoming shortly* Any relief the members felt on hearing

this report was dashed by Heath's message from the King

regarding Montagu* Charles did promise to suppress Montagu's

books, and any others involved in the controversy, as

Parliament had requested when presenting the recusancy petition,

but he asked privilege for his servant. Montagu was his

Chaplain in Ordinary* This had been a surprise even to

Heath, who was privy to the King's personal affairs at the

time. Heath knew that Montagu had not been listed among

Charles's chaplains a month before* The King also asked to

be informed of Montagu's crime, for he would see that the

^P* R* 0*, S. P* D. 16/4*23, ELiot, Negotium Posterorum. . I, 114-117; Gardiner, Commons Debates..1625. p p . 56-59; P. R* 0*. S. P. Holland 84/127 *1^4; IT. S . P . V e n .. XIX. 107; W. Macray, (ed.).,Clarendon's History of the Rebellion (Oxford, 1888), I, 31-32. 158

Commons received satisfaction* The Commons informed the King

that Montagu was free on £2,000 bond for his contempt to the

Commons, Without really denying Charles his request, the House

made it clear that they intended to seek their own satisfaction*

Charles was disturbed; so was the House* The King had an

Arminian for a chaplain; the laws against papists were apparently

not being inforced; and no statement had been made on the

articles touching religion in the French marriage treaty*

Deception was all pervasive* This particular blunder concerning

Montagu must be laid at Charles's feet* It would have been far 48 more politic to have left Montagu in Parliament's hands*

Debacles in Parliament, a request from the Commons for

a recess, and a need for additional supply caused Charles to

summon a Privy Council meeting at Hampton Court for July 10*

Here, he supported Buckingham in his proposal to adjourn

Parliament to August 1, when it would be reassembled at

Oxford* A change of air he thought would cause Parliament

to reconsider his necessities* Only Lord Keeper Williams

tried to dissuade the King from this plan; only he correctly

construed the political atmosphere and the inevitable

consequences* Men forced to travel throughout a plague-ridden

48 0* J*. I, 807; P. R. O*, S. P. D. 16/4:18-19, 16/4:29; Gardiner. Commons Debates, 1625..no* 61-62; P. R* 0*, LC 2/6*70v; Coke, Court-and State of England, pp. 166-167; Rushworth, Historical Collections* I, 177* 159 country would not be in a friendly frame of mind, nor would they be inclined to grant subsidies twice in the same session

(as the Oxford meeting would be considered). Wait until

Christmas to recall Parliament, urged Williams, the plague would then have subsided and Parliament would be free to vote additional supply. Williams's logic gained only a grin from

Buckingham, as he commented, "Die public necessity must sway more than one man's jealousy." Buckingham would stop at nothing to achieve his desires. Any untoward consequences tiq he regarded as incidental.

On July 11, Parliament was adjourned. The bad feeling created on July 6 and 9 was now enormously enhanced. Die initial reaction to the notice of the recess was one of exultation, but Sir John Coke's message from the King turned it into amazement and anger. The recess would be short for the King's necessities must be met. As the Commons waited for the Black Rod, the Upper House listened to Lord Conway deliver a similar message from the King. Conway listed the

King’s necessities at £700,000 a year. Shortly afterwards

Speaker Crew and several other members went up to the Lords to hear the royal assent given to the seven acts which had passed the two Houses and to hear that they would receive

Lg Hacket, Scrinla Reserata. part II, 13-1^. 160 an answer to their petition concerning religion later; in the meantime the present laws concerning religion would be enforced.

Possibly Charles realised he had made a mistake in defending

Montagu, perhaps he was trying to appease Parliament with this promise to enforce the laws concerning religion* It could have made little effect on a Parliament which knew it must reconvene in just two weeks

The Westminster meeting of Charles's first Parliament was a fiasco, and the blame must be placed upon the King and his favorite. They had promoted bad policies and had pursued bad parliamentary tactics. They needed subsidies to implement their foreign policy and subsidies sufficient to launch a maritime war could have been acquired only by creating confidence in the government and providing excellent parliamentary leadership. Expenditures on the fleet, silence on other aspects of foreign policy, and religious concessions would have brought confidence. Proper instruction to government officials in the

Commons, especially Privy Councillors, would have gained the initiative for the government and helped secure passage of the necessary legislation. However, no instructions were forth­ coming from Charles and Buckingham, and the opposition, led by

5°C. J.. I, 808-809; B. H., Add. MSS 48,091, f. 25; ELiot, Megotium Posterorum. I, 123-124; L. J.. Ill, 464-465; Gardiner, Qmmong Debates. 1625. p. 6?« Sir Francis Seymour, gained the Initiative and diverted the

Interests of the Commons to a petition for a fast, to a petition for enforcing the laws against recusants and to Montagu*

Furthermore, Seymour raised serious questions about government policies, especially about a foreign policy which might include a Continental war* His suspicion that such a foreign policy existed and his opposition to it was shared h7 many other parliamentarians* Struggling to adhere to its parliamentary strategy, the government granted the fast and answered the grievances presented by the l62k Parliament, but it's leadership was caught uninstructed on the Subsidy and on the

Tonnage and Poundage Bills, with disastrous effects* Unable to accept defeat, Buckingham steered Charles on to a collision course with Parliament* He did so by attempting to trick the small remnant of the House of Commons to pass a second Subsidy bill* He failed, and in his failure he divulged the government's entire foreign policy. Moreover, he split and alienated the government's parliamentary leadership by his unscrupulous tactics* Charles's protection of Montagu further increased the mistrust in the government and its policies by giving succor to an Arminian* No worse mistake could have been made than to add to these errors a demand for a new meeting in two weeks*

Parliament would be in no mood to grant additional subsidies; on the contrary,, a critical examination and evaluation of the

King's policies and his advisers would be obligatory* CHAPTER VI.

THE OXFORD MEETINQ

The Oxford meeting sought to remedy the deficiencies

of the Westminster meeting, but it vas obvious from the very

beginning that this meeting would be no more successful than

its predecessor. When Parliament assembled on August 1, the

friendly atmosphere that had prevailed at the opening of the

Westminster meeting was absent; in its place was widespread

discontent. The Earl of Mar had detected this feeling as

early as July 26 when he wrote to a kinsman, "You can not believe the alteration that is in the opinion of the world 1 touching his Majesty.N Charles, his policies, and his

favorite were all open to rigorous criticism.

It was not just the actions of the final days of the

Westminster sitting that generated this discontent; events

that occurred during the two intervening weeks also

contributed to this feeling. News of Buckingham's trickery and news of the government's Continental policy had filtered

XP. R. 0., S. P. France 78/75*288; H. M. C., MSS of the Earl Of Mar* anri KalHn. II, 2JL.

162 back to the members, with a disquieting effect. The unpopu­

larity of waging war on the Continent had been obvious since

Spril l 6 2 k • Further anxiety was created by Anglo-French ties*

Rumors spread that the eight ships that were loaned to France

by the government were for use against the Huguenots of

Rochelle. Though this fact was not fully exposed before

Parliament reconvened at Oxford, concrete proof of it arrived

shortly afterwards, for the English seamen and their captains

had returned to England by August 5* They had fulfilled their

orders of July 28 to place the eight ships in the Marquis of

Effiat's hands at Dieppe. Admiral Pennington, commander of

the ill-fated fleet, even traveled to Oxford upon his return

where his presence was concealed, probably by the government,

until Parliament was dissolved. July also witnessed increasing

suspicion concerning the terms of the French marriage treaty,,

for the indulgent treatment of Catholics tended to confirm

fears that the treaty granted them a toleration, and the Crown

made no statement to the contrary. Nonetheless, Buckingham,

as the King's sole advisor, was held responsible for the

conduct of Anglo-French affairs. 2

2 Rushworth, Historical Collections. I, 180; B. M.t Add. MSS 53*726, ff. 13v-14; P. R. 0., S. P. France 78/75*210, 288; Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. p. 68; J. R. Tanner, foyi-tub Constitutional Conflicts of the 17th Century (Cambridge, 1929),. p. 55* There is no evidence to support Professor Tanner's charge that the terms of the treaty were revealed to the public. 164

The presanoe of the plague at Oxford and its general increase throughout England was a final contributory cause to the unrest and dissatisfaction that prevailed in the opening day of Parliament, August 1* The plague had forced the removal of the Exchequer to Richmond and the closing of all fairs within 50 miles of London* In London alone, 2,491 persons had died of the plague since July 21* With the plague reaching such proportions, some parliamentarians were speculating that

Buckingham, making use of the fear of the plague, planned to keep Parliament in session until it succumbed to his desires.^

Oblivious to a changed mood of his subjects, Charles summoned his Privy Council to fycote, Oxfordshire, on July 30*

He apparently hoped to prepare the broad outlines of a parliamentary strategy that would prevent any repetition of the Opposition's success at Westminster* But he refused to recognize the fact that bad policies would not receive parliamentary financial support, even if the most skillful parliamentary tactics were employed in their defense* Instead,,

Charles envisaged the passage of the necessary subsidies*

At Rycote, the Privy Councillors were ordered to regain the initiative in Parliament, to control the debates there, and to

3C. S. P* Yen*. XIX, 142; P* R* 0., S. P* D.f 16/4*136-137; The Parliamentary or Constitutional History of England from the Earliest Times to the Restoration of Charles II (London. 1751- 1762). VI. 356; Halllwell. Autobiography of Sir Simon D'Ewes. I, 2?8. 165

state and justify the Crown's foreign poliqy. Hie two Houses would follow their directives because they were committed to k the recovery of the Palatinate by war with Spain,

Regrettably, the King failed to prepare his officials adequately for their assignment. He did not issue them any detailed instructions on the fiscal needs of the Crown nor did he allow them the tactical advantage of offering concessions in Parliament, even though he contemplated making some later.

Both of these factors would be helpful if the government were to seoure its objective, the subsidies. But Charles, far from making concessions, followed an antagonistic line. In religion, for example, he adopted Lord Keeper Williams's advice to refuse to grant the recusancy petition. Insisting that it infringed upon his prerogative, Charles seems to have lost touch with reality,-*

In these circumstances, the Parliament assembled at

Oxford on August 1. So as to be nearby, the King established his residence at the royal palace in Woodstock, while the members of Parliament were lodged in the colleges which had been, at the order of the Privy Council, vacated for their use by the students and fellows. It was not until late

*0. S. P. Bern.. Addenda. 1625-1649. p. 37; C. S. P. Yen., m , 142; P. R. 0., S. P. D., 16/21:86 and 16/361:100, 210.

^Hacket, Scrlnia Reserata. part II,, 17* morning that the members assembled in their respective

chambers; the Commons met in the Divinity School, while the

Lords sat in the gallery above. There were very Tew present

in either House, for Parliament was not expected to convene formally until the third day of the meeting. The Lords confined

their business on this day to excusing three bishops from the meeting because of ill health. The Lower House casually admitted four new members, listened to the second reading of a bill against enclosure, and resolved to examine the account

of the 162*4- subsidies in a Committee of the Vlhole the next afternoon. Sir Edward Giles, the Puritan member from Totnes, then reported to the Commons that Charles had issued a royal pardon for a Jesuit and ten Catholics; it was dated July 12, the day after he had promised to enforce the recusancy laws.

"What, their hopes blasted in one nightT What the King's promise so early broken?The members''anger was unqualified.

The Treasurer of the Household, Sir Thomas Edmondes, and the Solicitor General, Sir Robert Heath, attempted to justify this pardon, but their attempt only provoked members

Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. pp. 68, 129* There are two parliamentary diaries in this edition; the second begins with August 1, the Oxford meeting, and is a copy of S. M., Add. MSS 48,091. A. P. C.. XL, 118; H. M. C., The Duke of Rutland MSS (London, 1885-1905). I. 474; L. J .. i n , 4^7; C. J ., I, 809; Hacket, Scrinia Reserata. part II, 14. 16?

of the House to criticize the King's pacifistic foreign policy and his incompetent ambassadors. Edmondes and Heath urged

that the pardon was a gesture of courtesy to the departing

French ambassadors, but few members cared if this courtesy was shown to the departing French Ambassadors. Phelips asked

how many Englishmen were released by foreign kings upon the

request of English ambassadors, while Sir Henry Marten, a

judge of the admiralty court, spoke of the abilities of

Elizabethan ambassadors to gain similar requests because they

were experienced negotiators and fighters, not just talkers.

The Commons were deeply shocked by this breach of the King's

word; seven members spoke in protest, after which the House

resolved to frame a petition to the King in an afternoon

meeting of the Committee of the Whole.'

Charles apparently had no conception of the impact

his double-dealing in religion would have on his countrymen

or, for that matter, on Frenchmen. Hie strategy to direct

Parliament's energies away from religion toward subsidies

was now doomed to failure and Marten's speech made it clear

that the Court group was beginning to split asunder. On the

H. M. C., Earl of Cowper MSS. I, 208; P. R. 0., S. P. France, 78/75*288. Martin Havran in Catholics in Caroline England (Stanford, 1962), p. 33. claims the Commons were shocked into silence, but following the trickery of July 8 it is doubtful any government maneuver would make the Commons speechless. Eliot, Megotjum Posterorum. II, 11; H. M. C», Skrine MSS, pp. 27-28. 168

other hand, the French were displeased over the condition of

Catholics in England. Despite the escrit particular, the penal laws were still in force. By trying to please everyone Charles had offended everyone. i , The next day the Commons remembered Richard Montagu*

They were skeptical at the Serjeant-at-Arms' 1 report that

Montagu was too sick to appear, but they were angered by

Heath's attempt to deny them the right to judge the deeds

of one of the King's servants. Edward Alford, a determined

court opponent, jumped to his feet:

"All Justices of Peace, all Deputy Lieutenants are King's servants, and indeed no man can commit a public offense but by color and opportunity of public employment and service to the King: so that, if we admit this, we shall take the way to destroy Parliaments. "8

Recent experience had demonstrated the uselessness of complaining

to the King and the effectiveness of direct parliamentary

action. The House therefore demanded Montagu's presence, but

his sickness, and more urgent parliamentary business, shielded 9 the poor man for another seven months from Parliament's wrath.

®ELiot, Negotium Posterorum. II, 13, H. M. C., Earl of Cowoer MSS. I, 208} Gardiner, Commons Debates,. 1625. p* 70.

9Ibid.. pp. 70-71; Trevor-Roper, Archbishop Laud, p. 76; C. J .. I, 811-812. Montagu requested the King's continued protection on July 29 and on August 2, the Bishops of Oxford, Rochester, and St. Davids solicited Buckingham's support for him. Montagu did not need it in 1625. but he did in 1626. Thomas Howell (ed.), A Complete Collection of State Trials. • . from the Earliest Period to the Present Time ILondon. 1809-1826), II. 1259-1262. 169

Parliament chose to pursue Montagu because two important parliamentary privileges were at issuet the right to examine the misdeeds of the King's servants and the right to examine and determine, in conjunction with the King and

Convocation, religious questions. Both of these issues affected the welfare of England, for which Parliament felt responsible. In 1631, Parliament had made it quite clear it possessed the right to discuss any topic that touched the nation's welfare, be it monopolies, foreign affairs, religion or the conduct of the King's servants."*'0

Both Houses adjourned on Wednesday to St, Mary's

Church for prayers and sermons. It was the day of the week set aside for a general fast throughout the Kingdom. Much controversy had developed over this weekly fast. Numerous complaints had been heard in the Commons about the nonobservance of the fast and the excessive cost of the special prayer books.

Additional protests had been raised upon the selection of

Dr. Arian of Corpus Christi College to preach the sermon on this fast day. Only an oversight or stupidity could have led to the appointment of a man currently under censure by the

Clayton Roberts, The Growth of Responsible Government in Stuart England (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 51-52; Margaret Judson, The Crisis of the Constitution: an essay on Constitutional and Political Thought in England. 1603-16^5 I Mew Brunswick. 19W , pp. 284-285. 170

Commons, but he was replaced and the fast went off without further incident

August was the third day of the Oxford meeting. As the two Houses prepared themselves for the day's business, the government, as if no previous actions had precluded its success, prepared to implement its strategy for securing a supply.

At nine o'dock Charles arrived to test his skill in personal diplomacy. He hoped that a short Address from the Throne, coupled with a detailed account of the current state of affairs by one or two officials, would create a favorable 12 milieu for the passage of a subsidy bill,

Charles began, "ifcr Lords, and you of the Commons",

Before he had progressed far the parliamentarians probably foresaw what he would say, for his words differed little from those of June 21. He reminded them that Parliament had encouraged James to break off the two treaties with Spain and to recover the Palatinate for Frederick and Protestantism,

A Council of War and three subsidies and three fifteenths had begun this work and this present Parliament had shown its commitment to the work by voting two subsidies. Here

Charles added a new twist to his argument by pleading that

M. C., MSS of Duke of Buccleuch. Ill, 248; C. J»«. I, 810,

12P. R. 0., S. P. D., 16/5*30; H. M, C,, MSS of Duke of Buccleuch. Ill, 248, 171 before he could acquaint Parliament with a revised cost estimate for the fleet he was forced to adjourn Parliament because of the plague* More money was needed to set the fleet to seat and he wished to grant Parliament the opportunity to express its opinion as to whether it was best to send only half a fleet forward or to keep the fleet in port and lose all the provisions. The only encouraging words his listeners heard were those promising an answer to their petition on religion within two days*^3

Lord Conway, Secretary of State, and Sir John Coke,

Commissioner of the Navy, were then called forth by the King to address the body* Neither man knew exactly what he was to say, for their instructions had been altered twice in the last 24 hours* Conway scanned the European scene, comparing current conditions to those of 1.62k, before James decided to take up arms* In 162k Spanish troops occupied most of Germany, including the Palatinate, but with England's entrance into

Continental affairs the German Princes, France, Venice,

Denmark, and the Low Countries gained spirit and joined in a league against Spanish aggression* Charles had continued monetary and troop support to the Low Countries, had promised

£30,000 per month to put a Danish army in the field, and had prepared at great cost to set forth his own fleet. This fleet

13L. J*. Ill, 470-471. 172

needed only £30,000 or £40,000 to set sail. HThe honor and

safety of this nation and religion are at stake", emphasized

Conway. If the fleet did not sail, England's allies would

give up hope id disperse, leaving Spain the colossus of 14 Europe*

Sir John Coke rose as the Secretary of State finished*

Receiving some final instructions from the King, he addressed

both houses from the center of the hall* He reviewed in

great detail England's Continental policy, beginning again

with the breaking off of the two Spanish treaties and the

intended war for the recovery of the Palatinate* Coke's

focus was on Mansfeld'S a n y in the Low Countries* It had

not won military distinction, but it had produced important

developments. This army had secured the postponement of an

Imperial Diet scheduled to disinherit permanently Frederick

of the Palatinate; it had given the German Princes courage;

it had influenced the Kings of Denmark and France to enter the war; and it had scattered Spanish forces in the Low Countries*

The King had called this Parliament to acquaint his subjects with his foreign policy and with the cost of England's contri­ bution to the anti-Spanish alliance* His Majesty's fleet

must go forth, not merely to defend honor and religion,

^ H . M. C., Earl of Cowner MSS. I, 208; P. R. 0., S* P. D., 16/5*14; Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. pp. 73-7^* 173

but to defend the realm. Intelligence reports confirmed

Increased enemy action In the Low Countries and a plan to invade England. England's fate rested in Parliament's hands

The government's strategy was a failure, which even some government officials realized. Not one of the three speeches had rendered any new information; in fact, Coke'S

speech was very similar to the one he gave on July 8 at

Westminster. But the critical weakness in the government's

effort on this day was its assumption that its foreign policy was acceptable to Parliament, nils was not the case at all.

Other weaknesses included its not declaring war on Spain, its asking for the paltry sum of £40,000, and its employment of

Sir John Coke to deliver the major address.

Parliament had consistently and emphatically rejected any proposal for a Continental war since 1624. It was only interested in a maritime war. Many parliamentarians wondered why war had not been declared on Spain, in light of the danger she presented. Some went so far as to suggest a secret agreement had been made with Spain and all the preparations were a fraud. Such speculations were only strengthened by

Conway's request of £40,000. No doubt this was the sum immediately needed to set forth the fleet; acting on his own

^Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. pp. 74-76; P. R. 0.,, S. P. D., 16/5:14. Conway simply requested this amount* However, it seemed ridiculous to reconvene Parliament, with the plague raging throughout the Kingdom, to ask for so little money* Was not the King's revenue great; was not his credit sufficient to secure a loan until Parliament could meet in safetyT Moreover,. this sum was negligable in comparison to the monthly commitments made to Holland, Mansfeld, and Denmark* How did Charles plan to pay his allies? Neither Conway or Coke answered this question because they did not have adequate instructions* And they lacked adequate instructions because Charles and

Buckingham were incapable of instituting a sound parliamentary strategy* The employment of Coke was yet another evidence of this* It was customary that the King ask only important ministers of state to speak before the two houses, that those ministers gain permission from the Lower House before they spoke, and that only outstanding orators be chosen to present the government's program* Not one of these considerations was taken into account in Coke's case; he was selected because l6 he was Buckingham's creature*

The government's one victory on August 4 was the resolution of the House of Commons to consider foreign affairs and supply* All members were ordered to be present on Friday,

^ELiot*. Megotium Posterorum. II, 21-22; P. R. 0*, S. P. D*, 16/5;14; H. M. C*. BarT~of Cowoer MSS. I, 209; P. R. 0., S. P. France 78/75*288* August 5f and not to depart without a license from the House*

Friday, August 5» and Saturday, August 6, were devoted entirely

to these two considerations, and they proved to be a preview

of the Long Parliament of 1640. Filled with bitterness and

hatred, the House attacked the King's counsels and policies.

They particularly objected to the government's foreign policy and to its request for a supplementary subsidy. The leaders

of the opposition now attacked the government's policies frontally, while the government finally brought forward its ablest minds and speakers to defend those policies.

The first maneuver on August 5 was made by the opposition, and it had an unexpected wrinkle. John Whistler, member and recorder for Oxford City, moved that the Commons seek advice from the Lords on the question of the subsidy.

Sir George More, a courtier, quickly opposed the motion, probably more as a natural reaction of a member of the House of Commons, eager to protect the power of the purse held by the Commons, than as a counter-maneuver by a courtier eager to serve the King. By 1625 he had become Parliament'b parliamentarian. let, at this point neither he nor any other courtier rose to seize the initiative for the Crown by urging 17 support for supply.

17H. M. C., Skrine MSS, p. 29 S H. M. C., MSS of Duke of Buccleuch. Ill, 248; B. M.( Add. MSS 53.726, f. l4; Willson, Privy Councillors, p. 173. The government had lost its opportunity, a mistake the

opposition was not to make. Sir Francis Seymour rose once

again to deliver a crippling blow to the Crown's designs*

"With much boldness and some asperity", Seymour asked four

key questions: 1. Why the request for immediate supply, when

it could not be collected before the two subsidies granted at

Westminster were paid next April? 2* Why was the small sum

of £40,000 urged, if the poverty of the Grown was so great?

3* Why had no action been taken, or enemy declared, when five

subsidies and three fifteenths had been granted to help

Frederick and Elizabeth? And, 4* Where was the wise counsel for the King? Seymour intimated that Charles relied on a

single counselor who knew "better how to flatter and to beg

of him than how to give him good counsel* The attack on

Buckingham, that Williams had predicted on July 10, had come.

Buckingham's counsel was linked with the government's inability

to answer positively the first three questions posed by

Seymour*

To counter such a devastating speech was impossible, but Sir Humphrey Hay, Chancellor of the Duchy, made a skillful effort* Kay followed Sir John Coke'b line by comparing the unfavorable Continental conditions of 1624 with the advantageous one of 1625* He also made ManBfeld'4 expedition the factor

1 8 C. J.. I, 810; Eliot, Negotium Posterorum. II, 24; Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. p* 78* 177 responsible for the change. However, he emphasized the position of France, whose great power had been allied with

Spain but who was now united with England. France already had two armies in the field, one moving into the Val Telline and the other against Genoa. Sir Humphrey reminded the House

that they had placed the King on the path of war and they were open to criticism if the war failed for want of supply.

In Elizabeth's reign, the Earl of Devonshire had been sent to war in Ireland by his enemies, but they had supplied him fully

so if he failed he alone wa3 responsible. Sir Thomas Edmondes

then rose to speak. He appealed to the Commons to lay aside

their passions and to remember their blessings. Had not

King Charles continually proven his love for the Kingdom.

The Commons were bound by duty and the pressing circumstances

to maintain the King's honor; two subsidies and two fifteenths

would satisfy their obligation to Charles.^

Unfortunately for Charles, these arguments were received

without enthusiasm. On the contrary, the demand for two

subsidies and two fifteenths must have created confusion,

for this sum far exceeded the E^VO ,000 mentioned the day before

and yet it was totally insufficient to meet all the Crown's

^Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. pp. 78-81. P. H. 0., 5. P. D., 16/5*15* ELiot. NegotlmnPosterorum, II, 28-30. Continental commitments (the request amounted to £200,000).

No real explanation came with this figure.

Before the morning was over. Sir Robert Phelips,

Sir Edward Coke, and Edward Alford had enflamed the passions of the Commons, despite the efforts of Richard Weston,

Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir Robert Heath to quell them. Phelips made a profound impression when he questioned the terms of the French marriage treaty and reflected upon the counsels of the King. Charles had promised to marry a

Protestant and to enforce the recusancy laws, but the French treaty apparently negated both* More important was the one man who "being master of the favor, was likewise master of all business"; he was responsible for the King's poverty and should be removed by Parliament. It was essential therefore that Parliament immediately reform the King's estate and his government. Coke spoke next. S. R. Gardiner is essentially correct in asserting that Sir Edward's speech was steeped in medieval precedent and was largely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Coke wasted much time enumerating the causes of the

Crown's financial embarrassment. Nonetheless he was on target when he pleaded that the prominent offices of England be returned to men "of greatest trust and experience". It was another allusion to Buckingham, to his incompetence, and to his control of all the vital offices of state. Unlike

Coke, Alford was a man of few, but well-chosen words. 179

Parliament was not engaged to restore Frederick to the

Palatinate; this point had been stricken from the preamble of

the 1624 Subsidy Bill. Alford recalled what Charles and

Buckingham had tried to forget* the entanglement of England

- in European affairs was contrary to the express wishes of the

1624 and 1625 Parliaments.^®

Weston and Heath were hard put to it for answers to the

questions raised by these speakers. Weston assured the House

that Charles and Parliament would be shamed before all of

Europe if the fleet didn't sail. What effect Weston's assurance

had is impossible to say. Probably it made very little effect.

Heath's speech probably had more effect. The Solicitor General

provided trenchant answers to each of the questions raised by

the opposition. Parliament was committed to support the King

against Spain, and Charles was committed to declare Spain the

enemy* Parliament should petition him to do so. The King's

necessity was great, but since the faults lay in his modest

estate and the debts he inherited from his father, he should

not be made to suffer failure now. Let Parliament examine the

King's financial position in the immediate future. To the

touchy question of the King's counsel, Heath answered, let

the great man be questioned, but do not let this problem place

Eliot, Negotium Posterorum. II, 30-37, 39-^; Gardiner. History. V. **11; B. M., Sloane MSS 824, ff. 23-23v; Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. pp. 88-89* 181 men", writes ELiot, "to sound and gain them, wherein the

Courtiers did exceed. No promises or persuasions were too much to make one proselyte in that faith."23 Lord Keeper

Williams approached Sir Ihomas Wentworth and even Sir Robert

Phelips for the Duke's service. No argument or favor that

Williams could offer would persuade Phelips to join the

Duke's service, but Wentworth was willing, and supported

Buckingham for the remainder of the session. In the face of 2b such lobbying, few members remained neutral after this day.

Possibly the Lord Keeper's object, and the object of

others, was not so much to win adherents for the Court and

Buckingham as to cool the tempers of opponents and courtiers

alike and to establish a common ground between the two

groups. Certainly the tone of the debates on Saturday was

more conciliatory. Neither Phelips nor Seymour nor Coke spoke

for the opposition; and on the Court side May, Edmondes,.

Weston, and Heath were silent. This interpretation helps

explain the accusations later hurled at Williams that he

opposed Buckingham at Oxford, for Buckingham regarded these

conciliatory proposals as an attack on himself. In the Privy

Council it was no secret that Williams and other Councillors

^ELiot, Negotium Poster orum. II, b8.

2^Hacket, Scrinia Reserata. part II, 17; Knowler, Earl of Strafford's Letters. I, 3^-35* disapproved of Buckingham's tactics and programs. Why should they not try to use the Commons to weaken the Duke?

The tone of the debates on August 6 was different, but the four principal speeches were not all part of a general plan, as Gardiner argues. Sir Henry Mildmay, the Master of the Jewel House, opened the debate with a speech that resembled the government line of the previous day* Parliament was engaged to assist the King in war and the necessary funds should be granted immediately. However, William Coryton,

Sir William Strode, Sir John Eliot, and Sir Nathanial Rich, while agreeing to a subsidy, wished to delay the vote and to grant the subsidy upon certain conditions. Rich made the decisive speech. In it he laid down five propositions, propositions which represented a workable basis for voting the subsidy. Hie five propositions were these* Charles should answer Parliament'b petition on religion, should declare who was the enemy in the intended war, should accept wise councillors, should allow Parliament at its next meeting to examine his estate, and should issue a statement on impositions. Only the last proposition placed Charles in an unfavorable position. Rich was a friend of the Court, as were Coryton and ELiot. Originally, even Buckingham viewed

Rich's speech as a conciliatory effort and it is possible the propositions grew out of a discussion between Rich and

Buckingham but there is no evidence of such a discussion. 183

The debate closed with Sir Robert Phelips commending Rich

for his propositions and moving that they be drafted into

heads. The next step was up to Charles and Buckingham.2^

One scene did mar the friendly mood of this day;

Edward dark, a Clerk Extraordinary of the Council, lashed

out at the speakers who had criticized Buckingham the day

before. He was ordered to withdraw while the House debated

his outburst, afterwhich he was committed to the Serjeant-

at-Arms until Monday morning, when he was readmitted to the 26 House upon acknowledgment of his error.

Proof that the Commons sincerely sought a reconciliation

with the King can be found in the meeting of Buckingham

with several of his friends from the Lower House on Saturday

afternoon. They may well have been ELiot, Rich, Coiyton, and

Strode. They wanted him to make some concessions to the

House as a demonstration of his faith and good will. By

admitting some of his errors, by blaming the naval disorders

on minor officials, by adding new men to the Privy Council, by

2^J• H. Ball, "Sir John Eliot at the Oxford Parliament, ?-625", B. I. H. R.. XXVIII (1955). 118; Gardiner, History. V, 413• Professor Gardiner states "both parties had come to a tacit agreement to allow a body of mediators to declare the terms on which an understanding might yet be effected." Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. pp. 9 0-91, 136-1^0.

26P. R. 0., S. P. 0., 16/5*30; C. J.. I, 811-812. i m

following the Commons in religion, by sending the fleet forth under another's command, and by proroguing Parliament for the

duration of the plague he could pave the way to a future

agreement between Court and Parliament. Ihe Duke apparently

led this deputation to believe he would accept these proposals,

for ELiot was convinced that "those that were about him gave

it an alteration in the cabinet."^ But Buckingham's audience

was unaware that these concessions would have destroyed all

his plans and that he was not prepared to make this sacrifice.

Nonetheless, this meeting did give Buckingham food for

thought. On Sunday, August 7, Charles summoned his Privy

Council to Woodstock to reconsider the Crown's position in

light of the recent developments in the House of Commons.. As

usual the Duke dominated the discussion and he proposed that

Charles repudiate the escrit particular and give a favorable

answer to Parliament's petition on religion. Backed by the

Earls of Holland and Carlisle, Buckingham declared that

Catholic toleration was granted only as a temporary axpediant

to acquire the papal dispensation. Only Williams dared to

oppose this change in policy, and he was quickly overwhelmed.

As it was, Buckingham was in too much of a hurry to see that

these religious concessions were too little, too late; he

27Hacket, Scrinia Reserata. part II, IB; ELiot, Neeotium Posterorum. II, 53* 185

should have proposed such a religious policy at Westminster.

The Council meeting must have also witnessed Buckingham's announcement of his intention to address both Houses the next day. He planned to deliver the King's answer to the petition

on religion and to justify the government's, or more 28 accurately his, foreign policy.

At two o'clock on Monday afternoon the two Houses assembled at Christ Church Hall to hear Buckingham deliver a message from the King. They had granted permission, upon request from the King, for Lord Treasurer Ley, Secretary of

State Conway, and Sir John Coke to speak on his behalf if

necessary. Charles was slowly learning to respect parliamentary 29 procedure. *

Buckingham was introduced by Lord Keeper Williams, who explained the King's purpose for this meeting. Charles wished to give them a gracious and specific answer to their petition on religion and to further acquaint them with his present plans and problems. He had chosen the Duke of

Buckingham to be his spokesman. Ttien with great self-assurance,

even arrogance, Buckingham began an extended, well-conceived

justification of his policies. He planned to succeed where

P. R. 0., S. P. D., 16/85:99 and 16/361:100; Hacket, Scrinia Reserata. part II, 17; C. S. P. Ven». XIX, 1^3; B. M., King's MSS 137. f. 8^.

^Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. pp. l*f£-1^3« 186 even the King had failed; he would secure a supply from

Parliament by a personal appeal* To gain Parliament's confidence, Buckingham announced,that its desires as regarded religion were fully granted. Sir Thomas Coventry, the

Attorney General, then read the entire petition and His

Majesty's answers* Essentially Charles promised to root out

Catholic schoolteachers, to eliminate pluralities and non­ residencies, to prohibit recusants at Court and in public

office, to enforce all penal laws, and to permit all silenced

Puritan ministers to preach as long as they did not endanger the state* Had Charles made these same promises in June, 3 0 an C&cford meeting might not have been necessary.

Buckingham proceeded to defend his foreign policy, chiefly by answering questions which had been raised in the debates in the Lower House* He had Coventry read Parliament'a declaration to James of March 23, 1624, which urged the King to adopt this current policy* James had provided for the defense of England, for the security of Ireland, and for the assistance of the United Provinces, exclaimed Buckingham, but he found the Exchequer empty when he sought to send forth the

•^L. J ., III, 478-484; Rushworth, Historical Collections. I, 181-186; B. M., Stowe MSS 361, f. 11. A working paper, written before August 12 by an individual member of Commons, on how to effectively implement the King's answers rests in the P. R. 0., S* P. D., 16/13:16. Royal fleet. No enemy was declared for fear of reprisal, since

Spain was prepared for war and England was not. James had called on him, said the Duke, to help prepare the fleet, afterwhich he had conferred with the Council of War and the

Privy Council on all the particulars of the expedition. HI never thought of alteration nor resolved any but in their

£the Council of War's] company",, asserted Buckingham. Sir

John Coke,, being called upon by the Duke to do so, then rendered the accounts of the expedition. Four hundred thousand pounds was already spent and £40,000 more was needed for the fleet to set sail. An additional £60,000 would be needed upon its return. Coke confided to hi3 audience that £44,000 had been laid out by Buckingham and £50,000 by one of

Buckingham's friends to help finance the expedition. But this sum was not enough, declared the Duke when Coke finished his report; more was needed and this extra cost had not been foreseen. James's funeral and Charles's wedding had stretched the Royal revenue to the limit and because of the necessity,

Charles had summoned the Parliament to Oxford on his own counsel. The time was not too late to send out the fleet, it were better to send it out and let it perish than not to send it out at all. In relation to the eight ships loaned to France, Buckingham declared they were paid for by

Louis XIII. However, as to their use, the favorite stated, "it is not always fit for Kings to give an account of their counsel, but for this you may judge by the event. 11 To the

charge that he had negotiated as bad a marriage treaty with

France as he had broken with Spain, Buckingham asked his listeners to recall the King's answers to their petition on religion, which had been given “without breaking any public faith11. He now approached the high point of his address; he spoke of the outlays for the fleet and of the subsidies for

England's allies, sums which were too great for the Kingdom to bear. However, if Parliament would make Charles master of the war it would prove of greater advantage to his allies than all this money. Charles would provide a diversionary enterprise (the implication being by the fleet) which would weaken the enemy and strengthen the allies* All Europe would unify against the Hapsburgs and a quick victory was assured.

Future subsidies for England's allies would not be necessary.

Vlho was the enemy? Set the fleet to sail, asserted Buckingham, and Parliament could name the enemy. Buckingham then humbly sought Parliament's favor by stating, "If, in this relation, through try weakness, I have injured the Affairs, the King, the Estate of Christendom, I crave your pardon; ny intentions were good.11^

After this oration few members heeded Lord Treasurer

Ley's report on the Crown's financial state, on James'b debts,,

3lB. M., Stowe MSS 361, ff. 11-16; L. J.. IV, 464 189 or Charles's present and future financial position* The two houses were impressed by Buckingham. Even Sir John ELiot admitted that the favorite's "overtures had captivated all mens judgments and leveled them to the pleasure of the Court•"

Secretary of State Conway was induced to write to a friend in Paris "ny Lord Buckingham made a speech to the house and did sofar exceed all our expectations and gave such ample satisfaction, as hath taken away all scruples that may reasonably be moved, and now we hope from a rough beginning to have a good end*"^ Buckingham's haughty behavior and the weaknesses of his speech were as yet unquestioned* That the speech was chiefly a recital "of his own approbations and applauses" was overlooked* Furthermore, no one had challenged his claim that he had relied on the Council of War and the

Privy Council in forming policy, no one had seriously questioned the use of the eight ships to France, and no one had seen through the reason offered for the religious concessions* 33 Each of these issues shortly was raised in the Commons* ^

32B. M.f Harlian MSS 6846, f. 140; L. J*. Ill, 484- 485; Frankland, The Annals of Kins James and King Charles the First, p* 113; Eliot. Regotium Posterorum. II. 75; P» R» 0*« S* P. France 78/75*288*

33giiotl Neeotium Posterorum. II, 76-78 • Article VIII of Buckingham's impeachment in 1^26 attacked his false statement on the ships to France. S. R. Gardiner (ed*)* Ihe Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, l625-loo0 (3d ed., Oxford, 1906), p. 16* 190

The proceedings of August 8 in Christ Church Hall were repeated the next day as both Houses listened to comprehensive reports on the respective speeches. The Lords dutifully accepted the reports and adjourned for the day, but the

Commons were forced to listen to Sir Thomas Edmondes as he took the occasion to remind everyone of the King's benevolent answers to their petition on religion. The morning spent, the Houses then proceeded to accept Sir Robert Phelips's motion to meet in a Committee of the Whole the next morning to take up the matters raised by Buckingham and the Lord

Treasurer. August 10 would determine the outcome of the

Parliament.^**

Buckingham's speech had not impressed everyone and opposition forces came prepared to do battle to achieve their goals on August 10. They were determined to block supply and to force Buckingham from the King's side. The government was as determined to gain a supply. As could be expected, the speeches were numerous and prolix,. thereby extending the debate into the early afternoon. The same spokesmen for opposition and government dominated the scene— -Phelips, Seymour, and

Coke against Weston, May, and Naunton*

The government's strategy became evident when Sir

Richard Weston delivered a message from the King just as the

•^Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. p. 105• 191 House was preparing to go into committee. Ihe government

presumably hoped that the King's words would create a

favorable climate for the debate on supply. The government

also hoped, by keeping the Speaker in his chair, to prevent

the opposition from dominating the debate. Ihey were

successful in both strategies.35

Hie King was pleased to hear, reported Weston, of the

Commons' intent to reform the Kingdom; however, the most

pressing necessity of the Kingdom was the sailing of the fleet,,

which was endangered by the approach of autumn weather and the:'

plague. Did they mean at this time to grant him a subsidy

or not? If they did not, he would dissolve Parliament in

order to protect the members from the plague. If they did,

he promised to summon them again in the winter, when it was

safe,, and they could meet as long as their proposed reforms

necessitated. Finally, Charles reminded them that this was

his first request for money,^

To capitalize on the impression made by his Majesty's message, Sir Robert Naunton, Master of the Court of Wards and a friend of Buckingham's, gained the Speaker’s eye* Naunton'a professorial approach, which had served him well at Cambridge,

35 ''•'Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. p. lVj. 36 P. R. 0., S. P. D., 16/5*33# C. J .. I, 813; Gardiner, Commons Debates* 1625. p. 107* 192 failed to captivate the House of Commons; they cared little for his carefully structured speech enunciating four methods of giving and six reasons for giving. After Naunton sat down, member after member rose to offer reasons for granting or refusing to grant the King a supply. Those who supported

Charles pointed to his favorable answers to the petition on religion, to his promise to call a reformation Parliament in the winter, to the recent precedent (in James's first

Parliament) for making two money grants in one session, and to this request being the King's first for money. Those opposed to the grant pointed to the government's failure to enforce the penal laws, to deal with the increasing pirate activity along England's shore, and to prevent its eight ships from being used against the Protestants at Rochelle. They also pointed to the government's failure to demonstrate a real necessity or present danger that the fleet should eliminate.

May and Weston then asked their listeners to submerge their fears and jealousies at home and to concentrate on the expedition. They cautioned the Commons against judging

Buckingham's counsel before the outcome of the action was known. But Phelips and Seymour found reason to doubt the wisdom of those counsels now. Had the Council of War and

37 ^ ELiot, Negotium Posterorum. II, 80-85, 91-93! Gardiner, Commons Debates. lo25. p p . 107-115. 193 the Privy Council considered merely the proportions of money, men, and arms to he employed, as Seymour had heard, and not how or where these men were to be employed? Phelips suggested that the Commons ask Sir Robert Mansell, a member of the House and a member of the Council of War, to declare his knowledge of the expedition and the counsels for it. If, as Phelips suspected, the counsel was bad the Commons should withhold supply, as it had done in 8 Henry III, until those who gave bad counsel were replaced.

The opposition had the stronger case, but the debate would have continued in much the same tone had not Mansell

• - • r— -nr* chosen to strike a decisive blow in the opposition's favor.

He repudiated Buckingham's claim that he, Buckingham, had never acted without the knowledge and consent of the Council of War. A Vice-Admiral of England with naval experience dating back to the Armada, Mansell had been on unfriendly terms with Buckingham since 1621. Whether out of spite or a feeling for justice, Mansell destroyed the Commons' faith in

Buckingham. Mansell claimed he had not been to a Council meeting since February, and nothing had been concluded.

Buckingham had spoken to him only once since, at Newmarket, and here Mansell had attempted unsuccessfully to get a hearing

Eliot, Negotium Posterorum. II, 80-85, 91-93# Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. p p . 107-115• 194 for his own plan. This unexpected statement brought the

debate to a close; the House voted to adjourn until eight

o'clock the next morning. The members needed time to reflect 39 and to allow their hatred for Buckingham to cod*-"

An interesting sidelight on this day's proceedings

has been the controversy over a speech supposedly given by

Sir John ELiot. It is inserted in Negotium Posterorum in

place of Seymour's address and ELiot takes credit for

inflaming the House against the Duke of Buckingham. Although

Professor Gardiner, by a careful examination of the day's

debates, proved that the speech was not given, it remained

for Professor Ball to show that the speech was actually

written by Sir Robert Cotton, the famous antiquarian who sat

in this Parliament, and was to be delivered on August 8 , not

August 10. ELiot was at this time still working in the

service of Buckingham, but having acquired a copy of the

speech, he incorporated it in Negotium Posterorum as his own.

This was in 1629, by which time he had become an opponent of 40 Buckingham.

39P. N. B .. XII, 974; H. M. C., MSS of the Earl of Mar and Kellie. II, 233; H. M. C., Skrine MSS, p. 30; Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. pp. 115-116; P. R. 0., S* P. D.# 16/5*33*

4®ELiot, Negotium Posterorum. II, 85-91* Ball, "Sir John ELiot at the Oxford Parliament, 1625", B. I. H. R .. XXVIII, 121-125; Gardiner, History. V, 425-42?• 195

On the morning of August 1 1,,before the House went into

Committee to continue its debate on supply, it dealt briefly with two matters which brought the government into disrepute:. the increase of pirates and the Jesuit petition* Turkish and

Dunkirk pirates were ravaging English coasts, carrying off men, women, and children into slavery and injurying commerce and fishing* One letter read to the Commons told how the

Turkish captured 18 ships and 800 Englishmen who were forced to endure cruel tortures until they were ransomed* John

Whitson, member for Bristol and a shipowner, complained of the capture of a vessel on the coast of France within sight of

English naval ships. The weakness and negllgance of the navy was obvious. Yet tonnage and poundage was granted to the

King to guard the seas, asserted Sir Walter Earle, a future leader of the Long Parliament* The security of England was one of the four considerations justifying the 1624 subsidy, exclaimed Sir Robert Mansell. The Council of War will undertake to redress the grievance. “Let us lay the fault where it is11,, said Seymour, "the Duke of Buckingham is trusted, and it must

41- needs be either in him or his agents." Each attack at Oxford on the King's single counsel had become more brazen, but now for the first time Buckingham's name was spoken* If the Duke

^ELiot, Meeotium Posterorum. II, 3-6, 93-94; D. N. B »t, XXI, 1*44; Qardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. pp* 116-118. 196 were to monopolize the King's counsel, he would have to take the blame for the government's failures. Seymour, Phelips, and

others, in order to drive Buckingham from the King's oouncil, now openly criticized him. A committee was appointed to draft

|l o a petition to Charles embodying these complaints.

The House then heard Sir Edward Coke's report on the

Jesuit petition. On August 1, Sir Edward Giles had revealed that the government had granted a pardon to a Jesuit and ten

Catholics on July 12. Ever since then the Committee on

Religion had been Investigating the charge, with the intention

of petitioning the King for redress. More fuel was added to the fire on August 6, when Sir Walter Earle revealed the case of Mrs. Mary Estmond, a Catholic gentlewoman in Dorsetshire.

A search of Mrs. Estmond's house by two Justices of the Peace had uncovered an altar, copes, chalices, etc. Upon refusing to take the Oath of Allegiance she was arrested. After making her escape Mrs. Estmond acquired a letter from Secretary of

State Conway, dated July 1?, ordering the Justices of the

Peace to permit her quietly to attend to her harvest. Hie

Committee's petition, embodying these two cases, was read

Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. p. 118. On August 26 the Privy Council voted to send one more naval ship to help the four ships already assigned to deal with the pirate problem. A. P. C.. XL. 139-140. 197

and approved in the Commons on August 8 .

Conferences were then held on August 9 and 10 with the

Upper House to persuade them to join in the petition. At first

the Lords objected to the whole idea of another petition,,

citing Charles's answers to their petition on religion, but

they agreed to consider the petition once Sir Edward Coke

assured them that the objective of the petition was not to

censure the King, but to halt the interference of foreign

ambassadors in English affairs. Lord Conway's confession that

Estmond's pardon was acquired by the Duke of Chevreuse convinced

the Lords to enter seriously into negotiations with the

Commons, On August U , Coke reported on the conferences with

the Lords. The Commons were not happy to hear Conway's

confession; nor were they pleased to hear of an order from

Home that all ambassadors going to England must be accompanied » by a Jesuit. Nonetheless, they agreed to accept the Lords'

amendment to their petition, an amendment thanking the King

for his answers to the petition on religion. However,

Parliament was dissolved before the petition was presented ]Ul to Charles.

^Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. pp. 90-92; C. J .. I, 811-812; P. R. 0., S. P. D., 14/21^:223. hh. W H. M. C., MSS of Duke of Buccleuch. Ill, 250; L. J.. Ill, 4-77-^79» W i c. J .. I. 814: Gardiner. Commons Debates. 1625. pp. 118-119. With the preliminary business dispensed with* the House

of Commons moved into Committee to continue the debate on supply. Sir Robert Heath was in the chair. The government was on the defensive, after the debate on piracy and Mansell1s remarks of yesterday. Yet it was prepared to make one last effort to gain supply. Sir Nathanial Rich, Buckingham's friend, moved to have the Chancellor of the Exchequer read the King's message again, and, despite some opposition, the motion carried. Sir Richard Weston read the message, and then emphasized again the King'3 promise to call them into session later and the King's desire to hear if thqy planned to give.

The attempt to re-establish a friendly atmosphere by such maneuvers proved futile; Sir Henry Marten and Sir Robert Heath were no more successful in their attempts. Many members thought

Marten was merely trying to regain his standing at Court (which had been damaged by his remarks on August 1 about the failings of Stuart ambassadors). His speech on August 11 merely repeated the government's demand that money be voted for the fleet. Sir Robert Heath stepped from the Speaker's chair in an attempt to discredit Mansell's claim that a single counsel, not the Council of War, was responsible for the present expedition. Mansell engaged in the planning for the fleet, said Heath, but he had absented himself from the Council because it refused to adopt his plan. However, in light of the recent events and disclosures, it was hardly necessary for 199

Mansell to defend himself. The courtier Sir Robert Kelligrew wisely closed the debate with the suggestion not to move the question, "for it would be a greater disgrace to be denied by a few than by all". The government had failed and was forced to admit it. Until Charles chose to rely on wise and multiple counsel, the Commons refused to vote any supply.

That afternoon the Privy Council met at Woodstock.

Charles had already decided, with Buckingham's help, to dissolve

Parliament; the question was in what manner. Archbishop Abbot and Lord Keeper Williams found it impossible to dissuade the

King from this action. Williams ultimately pleaded for an adjournment rather than a dissolution, "continue this Assembly to another session, and expect alteration for the better. If you do not do so, the next swarm will come out of the same 46 hive." It was an accurate prediction, but it was to no avail. Charles felt that his sovereignty had been challenged by the attack on Buckingham; he would listen to whatever counsels he chose. Moreover, it was apparent that Parliament did not intend to vote the supply. Government energies now

^Cornell University, Diary of Sir Nathaniel Rich for 1626, ff. 1-3; Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. pp. 120-122, 143-148. 46 C. S. P. Ven.. XIX, 14?; Hacket, Scrinia Reserata. part II, lin 200 had to be concentrated on raising the necessary revenue for the fleet*^

On August 1 2, the Commons had just time enough to adopt a request from the House of Lords to join them in taking up a collection to relieve the London poor* The Commons also adopted a protestation to the King penned by Sir John Glanville, a Plymouth lawyer. In the protestation the■Commons thanked

Charles for his answers to the petition on religion and affirmed their loyalty to him. They were willing to reform the Kingdom and to vote supply rtin convenient time”. Having appointed the Privy Councillors to present the protestation to the King, the Black Hod appeared to call the Commons to hear the A|£ dissolution proclaimed in the Upper House*

The Oxford meeting, like the Westminster meeting, was a failure because Charles and Buckingham stubbornly adhered to policies which Parliament rejected as unsound* Moreover, the King stubbornly refused to dismiss Buckingham and to listen to wise, grave, and multiple counsels* To call a

Privy Council meeting at Bycote and Woodstock for planning parliamentary strategy was of little use. Even if Privy

^ 0. S. P. Yen.. XIX, 1^7; H. M. C., MSS of the Earl of Lonsdale (London, 1893)* P» 31; Cobbett, Parliamentary History., IX. 36. hQ Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625. p. 150; Rushworth, Historical Collections. I. 19*1-195. Councillors like Hay and Weston, and other government officials like Heath and Coke, spoke frequently and profoundly on key issues, their effect was slight, for they were not given complete, concrete instructions. They were not given such instructions either because of incompetent management on the part of Charles and Buckingham or because they had expressed

opposition earlier to the government's policies and tactic3.

But the most powerful orators, possessed of the fullest instructions, would have failed to win supply in August 1625•

The government's Continental foreign policy had been revealed

on July 8, and it was unacceptable. The government's Catholic policy, which included adherence to the escrit particular and the grant of a pardon for 11 Catholics had been revealed on

August 1, and it was likewise unacceptable. Moderate members

of the House of Commons failed to persuade Buckingham to give up his Continental policy, with its prospects of military glory, and to admit others to the King's councils. He was willing only to make concessions in the realm of religion, and these were made too late. The Commons, in the interest of a maritime foreign policy and the Protestant religion, were left with no alternative but to attempt to drive

Buckingham from the King's councils and to suggest to Charles that he accept more than single counsel. Because they demanded the redress of grievances before the vote of supplies,

Charles dissolved his first Parliament. CONCLUSIONS

lhis study has attempted to explain why the Parliament of

1625, the opening Parliament of Charles I( ended in failure, a V failure which paved the way for the collapse of Charles'h foreign policy and created a permanent distrust among Englishmen for Charles and his government. At first glance,. it is difficult to believe that so short a Parliament, begun with so great an expectation of success, sitting less than five weeks, first at Westminster and then at Oxford, could have become so defiant and created the tension and ill-will it did.

Charles's accession, which had occurred three months before the opening of Parliament, had been greeted with expressions of confidence and happiness. He was young, regal in appearance, zealous in his Anglicanism, and eager to rule in the national interest. The early decision to rely on his father's favorite, the Duke of Buckingham, did nothing to tarnish his image, for the Duke's role in destroying the

Spanish marriage negotiations and in supporting popular causes in the l 6Zk Parliament made this decision acceptable to most

Englishmen. However, few Englishmen knew that Buckingham had embarked Charles and England upon a foreign policy which

202 ran counter to the wishes of moat Englishmen* It called for the restoration of Charles's brother-in-law*. Frederick, to the Palatinate by a combined sea and land war in Europe,

The nation chiefly responsible for the occupation of the Palatinate was Spain. James had hoped to gain Frederick'b restoration as part of the price for Prince Charles's marriage to the Spanish Infanta, but the collapse of the marriage negotiations ended this hope. Pressed by the 162k Parliament*

James felt compelled to prepare for war with Spain. But war was never declared* for James continued to seek a negotiated settlement and Charles refused to make a firm commitment.

Nonetheless, Count Mansfeld was hired at £20,000 a month to lead an anqy of 12,000 to drive the Spanish out of the

Palatinate; and a large fleet was gathered at Plymouth in the Spring of 1625 for an expected attack on Spain herself.

Inadequate provisions, insufficient funds, and indecisive tactics .‘ept the fleet from sailing in June. It was still in port when Parliament was dissolved on August 12.

To ensure the success of the fleet and the restoration of the Palatinate, Charles and Buckingham sought a French alliance. A marriage treaty was concluded between the two nations, but it failed to induce the French to sign the desired military alliance. Six months' support for Count

Mansfeld was all France would concede to England; whereas,

Charles in return loaned eight ships to France (which were then used against the Huguenots at Rochelle) and granted religious liberties to English Catholics (which he had promised Parliament he would never do)* No knowledge of the ships' destination or of privileges granted to Catholics was available to the public before Parliament convened.

Negotiations with Denmark and the United Provinces proved more successful. Christian IV, King of Denmark, agreed to undertake an invasion of the Snpire with a force of 25,000 foot and 7,000 horse in June 1625* England was committed to maintaining 6,000 of the foot and 2,000 of the horse, at a cost of £30,000 a month. The United Frovinces offered 20 ships and

2,000 English troops currently serving in its army for the

English expedition against Spain. Charles's loan of Count

Mansfeld's army for the relief of Breda had secured this assistance, but the Dutch could not afford to deny England this assistance at a time when they were receiving £20,000 a month from England to help them maintain their independence.

War against Spain was always popular in early 17th century England; and it was a great blunder on Charles's part not to declare war when such a war was his intention. He not only forfeited considerable public support, but he aroused suspicions as to his motives for preparing the fleet.

The 162^ Parliament had clamored for a Spanish war, but it envisaged a sea war, leading to the capture of the Spanish treasure fleet and the ravaging of Spanish trade. This war would bring glory to England, pay for itself, and incidently gain the restoration of the Palatinate. Parliament vigorously opposed any land war. Yet Charles and Buckingham planned such a war, utilizing the armies of Mansfeld, Christian IV, and possibly Louis XIII of France. They also sought to wage a war at sea. Committed to this combined land and sea strategy,.

Charles and Buckingham summoned Parliament to provide the necessary funds. They came to approximately £1,000,000 a year. Only the secrecy enshrouding the intended war on land made any subsidy vote a possibility.

Charles announced his plan to summon Parliament at a

Privy Council meeting on March 28, the day after his accession.

He had intended to recall the 1624- Parliament, for it had favored a war against Spain. Being informed by Lord Keeper

Williams that a new Parliament was necessary, Charles ordered the writs to be sent out immediately. Williams’s advice that the constituencies be canvassed to ensure the return of Crown officials and friends was rejected, but the absence of a co-ordinated election plan did not injure the government.

The popularity of a new and young King made it possible for the Crown to secure seats for its officials and friends. One hundred eighty-six members, or 38# of the House of Commons, were courtiers, friends, or officials. Six Privy Councillors were returned; one more than the average returned to early

Stuart Parliaments. Moreover, 308 members of the 1624 206

Parliament were returned; this was an unusually high number, which can be principally accounted for by the quick announcement

of the election.

In the counties, where family and local reputation

decided elections, the Court won 26 seats, including one for

Sir Albertus Morton, a Privy Councillor. In the boroughs,

the work of Sir Humphrey Hay, the Duke of Buckingham, the Earl

of Pembroke, and numerous other courtiers met with equal

success. Constituencies where the government had influence,

in the Duchy of Lancaster, in the Cinque Ports, and in Cornwall,

consistently returned officials and friends. Government

nominees lost very few elections, and, among officials, only

Sir Julius Caesar, Master of the Rolls, failed to find a seat.

On the other hand, 21 potential opponents of the Crown were

returned; eight of these were Knights of the Shire and men of

local, and even national, prominence. In only one case, in

Coventry, was the election contested by a candidate on the

basis of his opposition to the government, and he was returned.

Nonetheless, the election results were those desired by the King.

In social class and occupation, family ties, residency

and age, this House of Commons was like its predecessors.

Country gentlemen, who relied on their landed estates for

income and Influence, made up the largest class. They were local residents, who possessed property or family ties within

the county; only 66 out of 486 members were "foreigners". Parliament was not just a local affair, it was also a family affair. Fathers and sons, uncles and nephews, and blood relations of all kinds sat together in Parliament. Family connections were almost as numerous between the two Houses as they were within the Commons. Hie median age of the members was 39, two or three years younger than that of Elizabethan

Parliaments, yet the relationship of young (103), middle (191), and old age (73) was similar to Elizabethan Parliaments. The

15 members under 21 years of age did set the 1625 House off from its Elizabethan predecessors, but this number was not unusual for Jacobean Parliaments.

The 1625 House did differ from its predecessors in the number who possessed higher education, in the number who had previously served in Parliament, in the number connected to the'

Court, and in the number who had a record of parliamentary opposition to the Crown. The number educated at the universities or at Inns of Court rose to 7**#, or 20# over the

Elizabethan and early Jacobean average. Because of its central geographical location, Oxford attracted 65# of those attending the universities. One hundred and ninety-one of the 28^ members who went to the Inns of Court had also attended the universities.

Hie percentage of members with previous parliamentary experience was also unusually high: 73# had previous experience, compared with approximately 60# for other early Stuart Parliaments.

This was due to Charles's quick summons, which denied new candidates time to canvas the constituencies for a seat*

The government was pleased with the return of 105 royal officials and 81 others with Crown connections.- ’These members provided the six Privy Councillors with a phalanx of talent and skill* Unfortunately for the King, the Privy

Councillors had previously cast doubt upon the wisdom of the favorite's policies and the Crown group, for this reason, was not as effective as might have been expected* Thi3 gave the advantage to the opposition, which was ably led by Sir Francis

Seymour, Sir Robert Phelips, and Sir Edward Coke. The parliamentary experience and skill of the opposition forced the government to prepare a definite legislative program to defend it, and to guide it through the Commons* It also forced the Grown to avoid disclosure of its foreign policy, for it it were known, the Parliament was doomed to failure*

To win triumphs in the Upper House the government did not need to take such precautions. The Lords traditionally followed the royal lead and the 1625 Parliament was no exception. The Lords, spiritual and lay, were in the main

Jacobean creations or elevations. They were led by a host of great officers of state and were unencumbered by an effective opposition group. The Crown had a powerful source of support in the two archbishops and 26 bishops, for they consistently spoke on behalf of, and voted for, royal policy*

They considered themselves natural allies of the King, the Supreme Governor of the Church, and they had not forgotten that

they were dependent upon him for their elevation and promotion.

Fifty-seven members, or 60# of the lay lords, were likewise

closely bound to the throne. Ihe lay peerage had doubled in

the last two decades; of the 96 lay peers summoned by Charles,

42 had been ennobled and 15 elevated in the peerage by his

father. Although they occasionally criticized the Sovereign’s

policies, they felt bound by interest, as well as by tradition,

to uphold his prerogatives and to adopt his legislative program.

This program was presented and defended by the 16 Privy Councillors

in the House of Lords. The Councillors were a potent force in

the Lords, for they were not only great officers of state, they

were wealthy and influential in their own right. The Duke of

Buckingham, aided by Lord Keeper Williams and Archbishop Abbot,,

effectively led this official group. Their leadership proved

particularly successful because no opposition spokesman came

forward to challenge them. The Ehrl of Southampton was dead,

the Earl of Bristol was ordered not to appear in Parliament,

and Southampton's old lieutenants had temporarily been won

over by Buckingham's courtship of the Puritans. The Lords

supported the government's requests when called upon; however,

these requests usually had to be accepted first in the Lower

House.

And the House of Commons, first at Westminster and

later at Oxford, refused to support the government. They refused because Charles had promoted unpopular policies by- means of bad parliamentary tactics. The exposure of his unpopular policies was brought about through the efforts of the opposition leadership, headed by Sir Francis Seymour*

But their seizure of the parliamentary initiative was made easier by the ill-prepared and inactive government group*

When Charles, despite rebuff and defeat, continued stubbornly to adhere to these policies, even to the point of employing trickery to gain their acceptance, the Commons refused to vote the subsidies necessary to implement these policies* They even turned to criticism of the King's counsel, attacking especially the Duke of Buckingham who was known to have a monoply of his counsel* The attack on his favorite led

Charles, fearing an impeachment against Buckingham, to dissolve his first Parliament.

At the Westminster meeting the government, by promoting only the maritime element of its policy, attempted to secure sufficient subsidies to execute its foreign policy. Success seemed imminent following the government's actions on June 18, the opening day of Parliament* The King and his Lord Keeper had announced their intent to send forth a fleet, to enforce the laws against Catholics, and to summon a session of

Parliament at a safer time for the presentation of grievances and the examination of domestic policies. The nomination and election of a former Crown opponent. Sir Thomas Crew, as Speaker of the House of Commons, had concluded the government's successful efforts to win Parliament's confidence on this day.

From June 21 onwards, confidence in Charles and his government steadily declined, as a result of the government's inaction and the opposition's initiative. No Privy Councillor ever rose to present a detailed statement of the King's policies or his financial necessities. Charles and Buckingham must have convinced themselves that Parliament would vote large subsidies on its own volition. Therefore, Sir Francis Seymour, a vigorous opponent to a Continental war, was able, first to delay debate on supply by tying supply to the religious issue, and then to maneuver the House into voting the small, sum of two subsidies. The Crown's tolerant attitude toward Catholics,, by raising a furor in the Commons which led to extended debates both in the Committee of the Whole and in the regular meetings of the House, had played into Seymour's hands. The outcome of the debates was a petition for a general fast throughout

England, another petition for the strengthening of Anglicanism and the destruction of Catholicism, and an attack on Richard

Montagu, the Arrainian rector who Charles claimed to be his chaplain.

In an effort to regain the confidence lost in the debates on religion, Charles answered favorably the petition presented to his father by the 1624 Parliament. He had hoped this favorable reply would also persuade the Commons to pass a Tonnage and Poundage Bill. However, he had apparently failed to take into consideration Parliament's dispute with his father over impositions. The Commons therefore voted Charles tonnage and poundage for only one year. By refusing to recognize the

Commons1 right to control all customs duties, Charles was forced to collect tonnage and poundage illegally until 1641, when the Long Parliament voted him tonnage and poundage for two months at a time.

Relations were strained between Crown and Parliament, but Parliament's confidence in Charles and his government was not destroyed until July 8 t.when Buckingham tried to force a second supply bill through a House of Commons containing barely

60 members. Not only did the attempt fall flat, but it was defeated by a House composed mainly of Crown officials and friends. They were revolted by this scandalous tactic.. To make matters worse the government, in requesting the additional grant of supply, exposed its foreign policy. Three days later the Westminster sitting closed, and did so on the worst possible note; Charles announced, not a prorogation until winter, but a two week adjournment. Parliament was to reconvene at

Oxford on August 1.

The atmosphere in which the Oxford meeting opened was bad enough to have precluded the success of any government measure. Discontent pervaded the Commons, as the death toll from the plague rose steadily and as news of the government's trickeiy on JuTy 8 and its ambitious foreign policy reached

the members. Furthermore, rumors circulated about the use of

the eight ships loaned to France and about the terms of the marriage treaty. The atmosphere was unpropitious enough, but

three issues raised during the debates assured the total failure of this Oxford meeting. The three issues concerned

the King's religious policy, the King's foreign policy, and the King's counsel.

The attack on the King's religious policy centered upon royal pardons granted to Catholics and Richard Montagu.

On August 1, a member revealed the fact that the King had granted pardons to a Jesuit and ten Catholics at Qxeter, pardons which were in direct violation of the King's promise to enforce the penal laws. The next day the government sought to protect

Montagu, an Arminiam, from the Commons' wrath by denying that the House had the right to judge the misdeeds of the King's servants or the right to determine questions of religion in conjunction with the King and Convocation. The irrate Commons were unable to pursue Montagu because of his illness, but they did draft a petition to the King, in which the Lords joined them, asking him to enforce the penal laws and to eliminate ambassadorial interference in the internal affairs of England.

The Commons secured favorable answers to their petition on religion, but these came in an attempt to gain their support for the King's foreign policy. The King had personally tried to win Parliament's

support for his foreign policy in an address before the two

Houses in Christ Church Hall on August 4, Neither he nor Lord

Conway nor Sir John Coke were successful on this day; on the

contraryt Lord Conway had aroused suspicions by requesting an additional supply of only £40,000. Sir John Coke had done the

same by trying to,justify Mansfeld's expedition, which the members saw as the first step to involvement in a Continental land war that they opposed. In the momentous debate on

August 5t member after member attacked such an involvement.

Seymour then destroyed any government hopes for a supply by recalling the precedent against voting supply twice in the

same session* and by asking why the government had endangered

the lives of parliamentarians to request a mere £40,000 for a war that had not even been declared. By the time Fhelips

spoke, the question of the King's foreign policy had become intertwined with that of the King's counsel. This counsel was responsible, argued Phelips, for the King's poverty and the need to endanger Parliament; he should be removed.

Sir Nathanial Rich presented five propositions on

August 6 to the Lower House which would have paved the way for the vote of a subsidy. One of these demanded that the

King accept wise councillors. The tone of the debate had

changed from the previous day, because a group of moderates,

close to the government, were attempting to secure both a redress of grievances and a vote of supply for the King. After initially accepting these propositions, Buckingham rejected them, for he realized that they meant an end to his monopoly of the King's counsel and to his Continental foreign policy. He then, on August 8 , before Parliament defended with great skill his counsels and the King's foreign policy.

Despite Buckingham's address,, in which he sought to place responsibility for the King's foreign policy on the

Council of War and the Privy Council, the central issue by

August 10 was clearly the quality of the King's counsel.

Seymour and Phelips dared to question the validity of Buckingham' claim that he relied on these two councils. And their suspicions were confirmed by Sir Robert Mansell, a member of the Council of War. Buckingham had not confided in anyone; he had a monopoly of the King's counsel, and he alone had plotted the King's foreign policy. No explanation could have overcome the effect of Mansell's words. Therefore on August 11, Sir

Robert Kelligrew, a courtier, closed the debate on supply, for it was futile to expect such a bill to pass its first reading.

Parliament having attacked his religious policy, his foreign policy, and his chief counsellor, Charles chose to dissolve it on August 12, 1625. He failed to see the truth that lay hidden in Sir Benjamin Rudyard's assertion "that the 216 same influence which governs in the beginning of an action influences itself throughout and. continues to the end"* Had he seen that trutht he would not have embarked on a path that could only estrange him permanently from Parliament, and lead to his execution in 1649.^

•^Gardiner, Commons Debates, 1625. p. 9*

t APPENDIX A

THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN 1625

L George Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury

L John Williams, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal

L James Ley, Lord Ley, Lord High Treasurer

L Henry Montagu, Viscount Mandeville, Lord President of the Privy Council

L. Edward Somerset, Earl of Worcester, Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal

L George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, Lord High Admiral

L Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, Earl Marshal of England

L William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, Lord High Chamberlain

L Philip Herbert, Earl of Montgomery

L James Hay, Earl of Carlisle

L Henry Rich, Earl of Holland

L ■ George Carew, Lord Carew, Master of the Ordnance

Sir George Hay, Lord Chancellor of Scotland

John Erskine, Earl of Mar

Thomas Hamilton, Earl of Melrose

L William Knollys, Viscount Wallingford

He m y Cary, Viscount Falkland, Lord Deputy of the Realm of Ireland

2 1 ? L Lancelot Andrews, Bishop of Winchester

L Edward Conway, Lord Conway, Secretary of State

L Faulk Greville, Lord Brooke

C Sir Thomas Edmondes, Treasurer of the Household

C Sir John Suckling, Comptroller of the Household

Sir Dudley Carleton, Vice Chamberlain of the Household

C Sir Robert Haunton, Master of the Court of Wards

C Sir Richard Weston, Chancellor of the Exchequer

Sir Julius Caesar, Master of the Rolls

C Sir Humphrey May, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

Sir Thomas Coventry, Attorney General

Thomas Erskine, Earl of Kellie

C Sir Albertus Morton, Secretary of State

"L1? denotes membership in the House of Lords and 11CH denotes membership in the House of Commons* APPENDIX B

Grievances Presented to James I by the l62k Parliament and Answered by Charles I on July 1625

1. Against the Patent for the Plantation of New England.

Ans. It shall be free for all the King's subjects to perform their fishing voyages upon that coast, yielding a reasonable recompense to the planters for their wood and timber; and if anything in that patent be against law it shall be amended.

2. Against the new corporation of Goldewyer-drawers.

Ans. The Patent is in the Clerk of the Parliament's hand, and is not used, and his Majesty is well pleased that it be recalled by course of law, if they will not voluntarily surrender it.

3* Against the Patent of Concealments granted to Sir Jo.

Townsend.

Ans. The Patent delivered to the Clerk of the Commons

House; and there it is, and not used;, and if it be thought fit to be revoked by bill his Majesty will pass it.

219 220

Against licenses called briefs.

Ans. His Majesty has commanded none to [be] granted but upon certificate in open sessions; and that such certificates shall not be made but upon just cause, and the same county to be always on.

Notwithstanding this answer it was now ordered in the

House that the order of the last Parliament should stand, that no justices should make any such certificates.

5. Against the Letters Patents of the Apothecaries.

Ans. If anything in these letters patents be amiss in the manner and form, his Majesty leaves it to the Parliament to be reformed by bill, but because it concerns the life and health of his subjects, he doth not think it fit it should be left without government in the meantime.

6. Against Sir John Meldranes Patent of the light of

Winterton Ness.

Ans. This lighthouse is usual and necessaxy, but if the tax be too great, he wishes it may be moderated; which he refers to the advise of both Houses.

7. Against the abuses of Sir Simon Harvey.

Ans. The particular abuses have been examined, and the compositions which were the ground of the misdemeanor are set at large.

This was not accepted as a satisfactory answer. 221

8. Against grants of custody of jails to others than

Sheriffs*

Ans. The Sheriffs shall according to law have the custody of jails in those places which are in the King's hand, and all grants to the contrary left to the law.

9* Against the Patent of Surveyorship of Newcastle coals.

Ans. This Patent has had no countenance from his Majesty; and the validity of it is left to the law.

10. Against the multitude of popish and seditious books.

Ans. A proclamation was lately made to reform the abuses in kind, which shall be renewed.

Sir H. Martin. These books consigned to ambassadors and sold in their places.

11. Against the proclamation for buildings.

Ans. There has much good come by the reformation of building, and such points as were formerly found inconvenient are now qualified and altered; and his Majesty is resolved to go forward with the work.

12. Against Doctor Arian.

Ans. When they of the College do complain to his

Majesty he will take care of them.

13. Concerning the instructions of the Court of Wards.

Ans. His Majesty will recall the last instructions, and will establish new according to the desire. 222

14-. Against the Merchant Adventurers*

This consists of several articles concerning trade of cloth, to which there are several answers.

Ans* i. The trade of cloth is quickened, and no complaint since the last Parliament.

ii* The main causes of the decay are removed* 1* Dyed and dressed clothes may be vented by any other to all places except those limited to the Merchant Adventurers* 2* New manufactures by any other to any place* 3* If [white] clothes be not bought by the adventurers, any other shall have leave to buy*

iii* The imposition laid by the merchants is abated and limited to a shorter time, and afterward is to be laid by*

iv. His Majesty will write to his ambassadors with the

Archduchess and States concerning the burdens laid upon cloth in those parts.

V. His Majesty hath not time to examine the pretermitted customs, but leaves it to the next Session*

vi. The fees of the Custom House shall be regulated and tables appointed.

15* Concerning the complaint of the Merchants of the

Levant*

Ans* The Imposition is not new, no more than as in - r '

Queen Elizabeth's time, and the Venetians offer to bear it, so they may bring in the commodities, which they will do in English

Bottoms, which takes away the pretense of our charge* 223

16. Against the Patent of Pennie and Qennie.

Ans. This Patent is delivered into the hands of the

Clerk of the Parliament, and is left to the law*

Sir H. Martin affirmed it was never allowed in the

Admiralty.

17• Against the abuse of Alnage.

Ans. The abuses of the Deputy Alnagers are directed to

be reformed by special limitations.

18. Concerning perpetunoes and serges.

Ans, The rates upon serges and perpetunoes have been

complained of by the Western men, and are moderated to their

content.

19* Against the abuses in taking of prisage.

Ans. Prisage shall not be taken but according to the rule

of justice.

2 0. Concerning clothworkers.

Ans. His Majesty leaves it to the Parliament House to

consider what is to be done herein.

21. Concerning tobacco.

Ans. His Majesty has prohibited all foreign tobacco, and

none is to be [imported] but of the growth of his own dominions.

'r / / Concerning the Eastland merchants •

Ans. The merchants do give way that any other may bring

in necessaries for shipping and timber. 2 2 k

2 3. Concerning the impositions upon currants,

Ans, The Venetians are contented to bear that charge so they may have the■importation, and they will bring none but in

English bottoms.

Gardiner, Commons Debates. 1625, pp, 37-41, BIBLIOGRAPHY

Manuscripts

Additional MSS, British Museum, London.

Braye MSS, House of Lords Record Office, London.

Chancery Papers, Public Record Office, London.

Cottonian MSS, British Museum, London.

Egerton MSS, British Museum, London.

Eliot's Notes and Extracts, Earl of St. Germans' Library, Port ELiot, Cornwall.

Exchequer Papers, Public Record Office, London.

Harleian MSS, British Museum, London.

House of Lords MSS, House of Lords Record Office, London.

King's MSS, British Museum, London.

Lord Chamberlain’s Accounts, Public Record Office, London.

Pink MSS, John inlands Library, Manchester.

Rich Diary for 1626, Cornell University, Ithica.

Signet Office Papers, Public Record Office, London.

Sloane MSS, British Museum, London.

State Papers Denmark, Public Record Office, London.

State Papers Docquets, Public Record Office, London.

State Papers Domestic, Public Record Office, London.

State Papers France, Public Record Office, London.

State Papers Holland, Public Record Office, London.

Stowe MSS, British Museum, London. 226

II. Printed Sources

Acts of the Privy Council of England (new series). London* Stationery Office, 1921-.

Birch, Thomas (ed.). The Court and Times of Charles the first. 2 vols. London: Henry Colburn, 1848.

Birch, Thomas (ed.). The Court and Times of James the first. 2 vols. London: Henry Colburn, 1848.

Bruce, J. (ed.). Letters and Papers of the Verney Family to 1639. London: Camden Society, 1853* Vol. 56.

Bruce, J. (ed.). Liber familious of Judge Whitelocke, a .judge of the King's Bench in the Reigns of James I and Charles I. London: Camden Society, 1858. Vol. ?0.

Calendar of State Papers. Domestic. 1625-1649. 23 vols. London* Stationery Office, 1872-1897.

Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts Relating to English Affairs. Existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice and in Other Libraries in Northern Italy. 38 vols. London* Stationery Office, 1864-1947.

Cobbett, William (ed.). Parliamentary History of England from the Norman Conquest to the Year 1803. 3ti vols. London: T. C. Hanzard, 1806-1820.

Coke, Roger. A Detection of the Court and State of England during the four last reigns and the inter-regnum. 3d ed.London, I697.

Cooke, W. H. (ed.). Students admitted to the Inner Temple. 1547-1660. London, 18?8.

Deputy Keeper of the Public Records. 43rd Report. London* fyre and Spottiswoode, 1882.

Dugdale, Sir William. A Short View of the Late Troubles in England. Oxford, 1681.

Edwards, A. C. (ed.), English History from Essex Sources. 1550-1750. Chelmsford: County Council of Essex, 1952. 227

Ellis, Sir Henry (ed.)* Original Letters Illustrative of English History (first series). 3 vols* 2d ed. London: Harding and Lepard, 1825*

Ellis, Sir Henry (ed.). Original Letters Illustrative of English History (second series), k vols. London: Harding and Lepard, 1827*

Foster, Joseph (ed.). Alumni Oxonenienses: The Members of the University of Oxford. 1500-171?n 4 vols. Oxford: University Press, 1891-1892.

Foster, Joseph (ed.). The Register of Admissions to Gray's Inn. 1521-1887. London, 1889.

Frankland, T. The Annals of King James and King Charles the First. London: Thomas Braddyll, 1681.

Fuller, Thomas. The History of the Worthies of England. 3 vols. London: Ihomas Tegg, 184-0.

Gardiner, Samuel R. (ed.). The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution. 1625-1660. 38 ed. revised. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906.

Gardiner, Samuel R. (ed.). Debates in the House of Commons in 1625 (new seriesLondon: Camden Society, 1873* Vol. 6.

Gardiner, Samuel R. (ed.). Documents Illustrating the Impeachment of the Duke of Buckingham in 1^26 (new series). London: Camden Society, 1889* Vol. 4-5.

Gardiner, Samuel R. (ed.). "The Earl of Bristol's Defense of his Negotiations in Spain" in Camden Miscellany Vol. VI.(new series). London: Camden Society, 1871.

Gardiner, Samuel R. (ed.). Narrative of the Spanish Marriage Treaty. London! Camden Society, 1868. Vol. 101.

Goodman, Godfrey. The Court and Times of King James the First. 2 vols. London: Richard Bentley, 1839*

Great Britain, House of Commons, Parliamentary Papers. Vol. LXIX (Accounts and Papers, Session of 18?8),. "The Official Returns of the Members of Parliament11. 228

Green, Mary Anne (ed.). Diary of John Rous, inoumbant of Sant on Downham. Suffolk, from 162 5-1&2 ♦ London:; Camden Society, 185^* Vol.’ 66.

Grosart, Alexander B. (ed.)* An Apology for Socrates and Negotium Posterorum tor Sir John ELlot* 2 vols. Privately printed, 1881.

Hacket, John. Scrinia Reserata; A Memorial Offered to the Great Deservings of John Williams. Londons Edward Jones, 1693.

HakeweH, William. Modus Tenendi Parllamentum or the Old Manner of Holding Parliaments in England Extracted Out of Our Ancient Records.. Londons Abel Roper, l6?l.

Halliwell, James 0. (ed.). The Autobiography and Correspondence of Sir Simon D1 Bwes. bart.. during the Reigns of James I and Charles 1. 2 vols. London:; Richard Bentley, 18^5*

Hardwicke State Papers. Edited by Philip forke, Second Earl of Hardwicke. 2 vols. Londons W. Strahan and T. Cadell, 1??8.

Heylyn, Peter. Qyprianus Anglicus. London: A. Seile, 1668.

Historical Manuscripts Commission.

MSS of the Duke of Buccleuch. 3 vols. London: Stationery Office, 1899-1926.

MSS of the Earl of Cowper. 3 vols. London: Stationery Office, 1888-1889.

MSS of R. R. Hastings. vols. London: Stationery Office, 1928-194?.

MSS of the House of Lords (new series). 11 vols. London: Stationery Office, 1900-1962.

MSS of Lord Kenyon. London: Stationery Office, 189^ •

MSS of the Earl of Mar and Kellie. 2 vols. London: Stationery Office, 1904-1930•

MSS of William More Molvneaux E s q . London: Stationery Office, 1870. 229

MSS of the Duke of Rutland. 4 vols. Londons Stationery. Office* 1888-1905.

MSS of the Corporation of Rye. London: Stationery Office, 1892.

MSS of the Marauls of Salisbury. 19 vols. Londons Stationery Office, 1883-1965*

MSS of Henry Duncan Skrine. London: Stationery Office, 1887.

Thirteenth Report. Londons Stationery Office, 1891.

Howell, Thomas (ed.). A Complete Oollection of State Trials from the Earliest Period to the Present Time. 33 vols. London: T. C. Hansard, 1809-1826.

Hull, Felix (ed.). A Calendar of the White and Black Books of the Cinque Ports. 1^32-1965. London: Stationery Office, 1966.

Hyde, Edward, Earl of Clarendon. The History of the Rebellion and the Civil Wars in England. (ed.TV. D. Macray. & vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1888.

Johnson, George (ed.). The Fairfax Correspondence: Memoirs of the Reign of Charles I. 2 vols. London: Richard Bentley, 1848. ' ' '"

Journals of the House of Commons. 1? vols.

Journals of the House of Lords. 18 vols.

Kenyon, J. P. (ed.). The Stuart Constitution. Cambridge: University Press,

Knowler, William (ed.). The Earl of Strafford1s Letters and Dispatches. 2 vols. London: William Bowyer, 1739*

Lists of the Sheriffs from England and Wales. Public Record Office, Lists and Indexes IX, 1898.

Lloyd, David. State Worthies or the Statesmen and Favorites of England Since the Reformation. 2d ed. London, 1679•

McClure, Norman (ed.). The Letters of John Chamberlain. 2 vols. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1939. Parliamentary or Constitutional History of Bieland from the Earliest Times to the Restoration of Charles II. 24 vols. London, 1751-17^2.

Records of the Honorable Society of Lincoln's Inn., Admissions. 2 vols. London: Lincoln's Inn* 1896.

Relf, Frances (ed.). Motes of the debates in the House of Lords officially taken by Robert Bowver and Henry ELsine. clerks of the Parliaments. A.D. 1621. 1625. 1^28 (third series). London: Camden Society, 1929* Vol.

Roberts, George (ed.). The Diary of Walter Yonge. esq. London: Camden Society, 1848. Vol. 41.

Rushworth, John. Historical Collections.- 8 vols. London, 1659*

Hjrmer, Thomas (ed.). Foedera. Conventiones. Llterae. et cuiuscmioue generis Acta Publica inter Rege3 Aneliae. 20 vols. London, 1704-1732.

Sanderson, Sir W. A Compleat History of the Life and Relene of King Charles from his Cradle to his Grave. London, 1658.

Scobell, Henry. Memorials of the Method and Manner of Proceedings in Parliament in Passing Bills. London, 1670.

Scott, W. and Bliss, J. (eds.). The Works of William Laud. 7 vols. Oxford, 1847-1860.

Scope, R. and Monkhouse, T. (eds.). State Papers Collected by Edward. Earl of Clarendon commencing from the year 1621. 3 volsT Oxford: Clarendon Press, 17o7-1786.

Smith, Logan Pearsall (ed.). The Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton. 2 vols. Oxford: University Press, 1907.

Sturgess, H. A. C. (ed.). Register of Admissions to the Honorable Society of the Middle Temple. 3 vols. London: Butterworth and Co. Ltd., 1949.

Tanner, J.. R. (ed.). Constitutional Documents of the Reign of James I. Cambridge: University Press, 1952. 231

Venn, John and Venn, J* A. (eds.). Alumni Cantabrigienses. A biographical list of all known students, graduates and holders of office at the University of Cambridge. from the earliest times to 1751. 4 vols. Cambridge: University Press, 1922-1927.

Warwick, Sir Philip. Memoirs of the Reign of King Charles I. London: James Ballantyne and Co., 1813*

III. Secondary Sources

A. Books and Articles

Albion, Gordon. Charles I and the Court of Rome:-, a Study in 17th Century Diplomacy. London: Burns, Oates, & Washbourne, Ltd., 1935*

Ashton, Robert. The Crown and the Money Market. 1603-1640. Oxford: Clarendon Press, I960.

Aylmer, G. E. The King’s Servants, the Civil Service of Charles I. 1625-1642. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961.

Ball, John N. "Sir John Eliot at the Oxford Parliament, 1625", Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research" XXVIII (l955). 113-127.

Bean, William W. The Parliamentary Representation of the Six Northern Counties of England. Hull*: the Author, 1890.

Biographia Britannia: or the lives of the most eminent persons who have flourished in Great Britain and Ireland. 4 vols. London: W. Innys, 1747- 1744.

Blok, Petrus. History of the People of the Netherlands. 5 vols. Translated by Oscar Bierstadt. New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1907*

Bohannon,,Mary E. "The Essex Election of l604", English Historical Review. XLVIII (1933)» 395-^13*

Brunton, Douglas, and Pennington, D. H. Members of the Long Parliament. London* George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1954. 232

Coate, Mary. Cornwall in the Great Civil War and Interregnum. 1^4-2-16^0. 2d ed. Truro: D. B. Barton, 1963*

Cooke, Harold Percy. Charles I and his Earlier Parliaments: a vindication and a challange. London: the Sheldon Press, 1939-

Davies, Godfrey.. The Early Stuarts. l603-l660. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939*

Dictionary of National Biography. Edited by Lee, Sidney, and Stephen, Leslie. 22 vols. London: Oxford University Press,. 1921-1922.

Diets, Frederick 0. English Public Finance. 1558-1&KL. 2 vols. New York and London: Century Co., 1932.

Firth, Charles H. The House of Lords During the English Civil War. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1910.

Forster, John. Sir John ELiot. a Biography. 2 vols. London, 1872.

Foss, Edward. The Judges of England. 9 vols. London, 18^8-18^+.

G. E. C. The Complete Peerage of England. Scotland. Ireland. Great Britain, and the United Kingdom. extant, extinct or dormant. Edited by Vicary Gibbs. New revised ed. 12 vols. London: St. Catherine Press, 1910-.

Gardiner, Samuel R. History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War. 10 vols. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1883-188^.

Gardiner, Samuel R. Notes and Queries, (fourth series) X (Oct. z6t 1872), 325-326.

Gentleman's Magazine. LXVIII (Feb., 1798), 116-117*

Hallam, Henry. Constitutional History of England from the accession of Henry VII to the death of George II. 3 vols. New York: Widdleton, 1865•

Havran, Martin. The Catholics in Caroline England. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962. Hexter, J. H. Reappraisals in History. New York: Harper and Row, 1963*

Hulme, Harold. The Life of Sir John Eliot. 1592-1632: Struggle for Parliamentary Freedom. New York: New York University Press, 1957*

Judson, Margaret. The Crisis of the Constitution: an essav on constitutional and political thought in England 1603-1645. ' New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1949*

Keeler, Maiy. The Long Parliament: A Biographical Study of its Members. Philadelphia:; American Philosophical Society, 195^*

Kenny, Robert W. "Parliamentary Influence of Charles Howard, Earl of Nottingham 1536-1624", Journal of Modern History. XXXIX (Sept., 1967), 215-232.

Kenyon, J. P. The Stuarts: A Study of English Kingship. New York: Macmillan Co., 1959.

Kershaw, R. N. "The Elections for the Long Parliament" English Historical Review. XXXVIII (Oct., 1923 496-508.

Maclear, James F. "Puritan Relations with Buckingham", The Huntington Library Quarterly. XXI (Feb., 1958) 111-132.

Mayes, Charles R. "The Sale of Peerages in Early Stuart England", Journal of Modern History. XXIX (March, 1957). 21-3?.

Mitchell, William. The Rise of the Revolutionary Party in the English House of Commons 1603-^1p 29. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957*

Moir, Ihomas. Ihe Addled Parliament of l6l4. Oxford:; Clarendon Press, 1958.

Morgan, Irvonwy. Prince Charles’s Puritan Chaplain. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1957*

Neale, Sir John. Elizabeth I and her Parliaments 1559-1681. New York: Norton, 1966.

Neale, Sir John. Ihe Elizabethan House of Commons. London: Jonathan Cape, 1949. 231*

Notestein, Wallace. "Ihe Winning of the Initiative of the House of Commons", Proceedings of the British Academy, XI (19261.

Park, Godfrey. Ihe Parliamentary Representation of Yorkshire from the earliest authentically recorded elected elections to the present time. Hull:. Charles Barnwell, 1886.

Pepys, Walter. Genealogy of the Pepys Family 1273- 1887. 2d ed. London: Faber & Faber, 1951*

Porritt, Edward, Ihe Unreformed House of Commons. Parliamentary representation before 1832. 2 vols. Cambridge: University Press, 1903.

Ranke, Leopold Von. A History of England principally in the Seventeenth Century. 6 vols. Oxford:: Clarendon Press, 1875*

Rex, Millicent. University Representation in England l604-l690. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1954. Roberts, Clayton. Ihe Growth of Responsible Government in Stuart England. London: Cambridge University Press, 1966.

Rowe, Violet. "Influence of the Earls of Pembroke on Parliamentary Election, 1625-1642", English Historical Review. L (1935), 242-256.

Snow, Vernon. "Ihe Arundel Case, 1626". Ihe Historian. XXVI (May, 1964), 232-349.

Snow, Vernon. "Essex and Aristocratic Opposition to the Early Stuarts", Journal of Modern History. XXXII (Sept., I960), 224— 233.

Stone, Lawrence. Ihe Crisis of the Aristocracy, 1558-1641. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965*

Tanner, J. R. English Constitutional Conflicts of the 17th Century. 1603-1689. Cambridge:: University Press, 1928.

Trevor-Roper, Hugh. Archbishop Laud. 1573-1645. 2d ed. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1962. 235

Victoria History of the Counties of England. Edited by William Page et. al.

Bedford. Vol. II. London* Constable & Co., 1908.

Berkshire. Vol. III. London* St. Catherine Press, 1923.

Cambridge. Vols. II-III. London* Institute of Historical Research, .19^+8, 1959*

Huntingdon. Vol. II. London*: St. Catherine Press, 1932.

Leicester. Vol. IV. London* Institute of Historical Research, 1958.

Sussex. Vol. III. London* Institute of Historical Research,, 1935*

Wiltshire. Vol. V. London* Institute of Historical Research, 1957*

Ward, A. W., Prothero, G. W., and Leathers, Stanley (eds.). Ihe Cambridge Modern History. 1^ vols. New York*: Macmillan Co., 1903-1912.

Wedgwood, C. V. The Thirty Years War. London*■ Jonathan Cape, 1938-

Wedgwood, C. V. Thomas Wentworth. First Earl of Strafford. London* Jonathan Cape, 1935*

Williams, W. R. The Parliamentary History of the Principality of Wales, from the earliest times to the present day. 154-1-1895. Brecknock* privately printed, 1895.

Williamson, Hugh R. George Villiers. London* Duckworth, 19^0.

Willson, David. Privy Councillors in the House of Commons. 160^-1629. ‘Minneapolis* University of Minnesota, 19^0. 236

B. Unpublished

Taffst.Winefred* "Borough Franchise in the 17th Century*" Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of London, 1926*

Thomas, James D* "A Comparison of the Parliamentary Elections of 1625, 1626; and 1628." Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of London, 1952.