The Stuarts

113 Pages·1966·11.341 MB·English

by  J.P. Kenyon

BY THE SAME AUTHOR J.P.KENYON
'-
Robert Spencer, P.ar/ of Sunderland (19s 8) 'The Stuarts'
The Stuart Con1titt1tion (1966)
A Study in
E.nglish Kingship
FONTANA/COLLINS
CONTENTS
First published by B. T. Batsford Ltd. 1958
First issued in Fontana 1966
Fourteenth Impression November 1976
Preface to New 'Edition pae 7
© J. P. Kenyon 1958, 1970
Notes to New 'Edition 7
Made and printed in fueat Britain by
William Collins Sons & Co Ltd Glasgow Acknowledgments IO
I THE TUDOR SUNSE'l' II
n JAMES I, 1603-16z.5 32
m CHARLES I, 1615-1649 63
IV CHARLES II, 1649-1685 100
FOR DANTE AND SELINA v JAME'S II, 1685-1688 144
VI WILLIAM III, 1689-1701 and MARY II,
166
1689-1694
186
VII ANNE, 1702-1714
Suggestions for further reading 208
Genealogical· tabi6 2.I S
2.16
Index
ILLUSTRATIONS
The Whitehall of Charles I. from the River, from mgra11ing1 by PREFACE TO NEW EDITION
Wenmlaus Hollar
James I, Peace with Spain, l6o4,from a contemporary medal This book was published in 1958 (and written the year before), and
William and Mary, from a medal by George Bower I have seriously considered whether it ought not to be re-written
from beginning to end. However, the results of such revisions are
Anne, from a medal by John Croker
rarely very happy, and after scrutinising the book as objectively as
James I, from a portrait attributed to fan di Critz.
possible I can only find two or three minor instances in which
Charles I, from a portrait by Van Dycl: my conclusions need to be amended in the light of subsequent
Henrietta Maria, from a portrait by Van Dyck research. So, I have added some notes at the end of this Preface
Charles I, at his trial, l 649, from a portrait by Edward Bower commenting on these points, and on one or two others which
seem in need of elucidation. Their presence is indicated by an
Charles II, as Prince of Wales, from a painting by Willaim Dobson
asterisk (*) in the text. I have also taken the opportunity to correct
Charles II in exil.e,from a portrait attributed to Philippe de Champaigf18
one or two minor typographical errors and bring the 'Suggestions
Charles II, from a pa.rte/ drawing by Edward Lutterel for Further Reading' up to date.
Queen Catherine of Braganza,from a miniature by Samuel Cooper I have now suppressed the prefaces to the previous editions,
The Countess of Castelmaine, from a sketch by Samuel Cooper but I would not like my debt to Christopher Morris and Jack
Mary Davis, from a painting by an unknown artist Plumb to be forgotten. J.P.K.
Nell Gwynn,jrom a painting after Sir Peter Lely I Jan. 1970
Lucy Walter, from a miniature(?) Nkhola1 Dixon
Notes to New Edition
The Duchess of Portsmouth, from a painting by Paolo Carandini p. zo, line IZ. I regret to say that this is quite wrong. In fact, the
James II, 1685,from a portrait by Sir Godfrey Kneller net increase in the English peerage between 1603 and 1641 was
66, more than 100%. See Lawrence Stone, Cri.ri.r of the Aristocracy,
Mary II as Princess of Orange, c. 1677,from a contemporary miniature
p. 75 8, App. vi.
Queen Anne, c. 1703,from a miniature by Charles Boil
William lli,from a portrait by Gottfried Schalcken p. 23, line IS. Our whole picture of the Hampton Court Confer
Princess Anne, 1687,jrom a portrait by John Riley ence must be revised in the light of Professor Mark Curtis's
article in History, xlvi (1961). The most important point he makes
is that James was much less prejudiced in favour of the bishops
than has been supposed.
p. 27, line 34. This chronic litigation, which died away in the
18th century, seems to have arisen in part from the difficulty of
establishing title to land under Common Law, and in this con
nexion a useful book is A. W. B. Simpson's Introduction to the
History of Land Law (1961). But Professor Thomas Barnes argues
that it was also a recreation and a means of asserting social
prestige (American journal of Legal ffi.rtory, vi (1962), 33 7-9).
NOTES TO NEW EDITION NOTES TO NEW EDITION
p. 30, li111 a3. It has been pointed out to me that this speech only p. 88, line z9. In fact, the dispute over the king's right to appoint
survives in draft amongst Eliot's papers, and he may never have ministers of state and officers of the armed forces was probably
delivered it. This would invalidate the next sentence in the text, as important as the dispute over the futute of the Church.
though my main point stands.
p. III, liM I4- Here I am guilty of perpetuating an error con
p. 37, liM 9. I am now more convinced than ever that opposition tained in many standard histories, which refer to Charles's 'First
in James's first parliament, as in Elizabeth's last, hinged on fiscal Declaration of Indulgence'. All Charles did in December 1662
or financial grievances. Professor Elton has recently pointed out was to issue a general declaration dealing with a variety of
that even the 'Form of Apology' evolved out of a petition topics, in which he expressed his regret at the failure to imple
against wardship (G. R. Elton, 'A High Road to Civil War?' ment the promise of 'a liberty for tender consciences' contained
in From the &naiuance lo the Co111tl6r-&formalion, ed. Charles H. in the Declaration of Breda, and remarked that he would gladly
Carter (1966), p. 325). give his assent to a bill authorising his use of the dispensing
power in individual cases. (See Kenyon, Stt1art Constitution, pp.
p. 37, last liM. This mistake arose from a hasty reading of Gar 404-5). Parliament could have ignored this overture, but it chose
diner (History of England, i, 191); see Kenyon, Stuart Constitution, to reject it formally. There is no comparison between this and
pp. 39-42. It is significant that James did not mention the Form the Declaration of 1672, which suspended the penal statutes
of Apology, even obliquely; it suggests that he had not received outright.
it, or perhaps even seen it.
p. II8, line aa. It has been pointed out to me that this is wrong.
sa,
p. line 8. It has now been shown that Cranfield's origins were Charles merely undertook to announce his own personal con
petty bourgeois at the worst, though this made little difference version; if this provoked a rebellion, then military assistance
in a status-conscious society. Since The Stuarts was written two would be forthcoming from France.
very good books have appeared on Cranfield: Business and Politics
under James I (1958) by R. H. Tawney, and Cranfield (1966) by p. IZI, line 34. There is a tradition to the effect that Clifford
Menna Prestwich. betrayed the secret clauses of the Treaty of Dover to Shaftes
bury, but I cannot find any reliable proof. It is difficult to see
p. 6o, line 30. As Vice--Admiral of Devon Eliot could also expect why Clifford should have done so, and Shaftesbury's subsequent
to make a large personal profit out of such a war. conduct would surely have been very different if he had.
p. 75, liM a. This statement needs to be modified slightly in the p. I79, lint J6, Some reviewers expressed pious horror at the use
light of Robert Ashton's The Crown and the Money Market I603- of the word 'homosexual' in this context. It is surely possible
I640 (1960). Charles's credit was particularly bad in 1640, but to have a non-physical homosexual relationship, and this, I
there was a community of interest between the established believe, was the case with William and Bentinck. I may, of course,
government and the London financial interests which obliged be wrong.
them to rally to him in 1641. J.P.K.
p. Ba, line 3z. Sec Hugh F. Kearney, Strafford in Ireland I633-4I
(1959). Most of the articles of impeachment exhibited against
Strafford in 1641 related to his rule in Ireland.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CHAPTBR I
THE TUDOR SUNSET
The sketch of the Countess of Castlemaine and the portrait of
Queen Catherine of Braganza from a miniature by Samuel Cooper
are reproduced by gracious permission of Her Majesty the Queen, Elizabeth I was a great woman and a great queen, but in
and the portrait of Charles I, at his trial, by gracious permission the decade straddling her death her popularity was at its
of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. The portrait
nadir. The reign dosed in an atmosphere of depression,
Mary II as Princess of Orange from a contemporary miniature is
with war abroad, pestilence and rising prices at home, the
reproduced by gracious permission of Her Majesty Queen Juliana
government wracked by faction and bitterly unpopular, and
of the Netherlands.
parliament sunk in discontented apathy. The Tudor polity
The Author and the Publishers wish to thank the following for
permission to reproduce the illustrations appearing in this book: was running down, and men awaited the first king to sit on
The Trustees of the British Museum, for the engravings of the English throne for half a century in expectation of
The Whitehall of Charles I, for the medals of William and Mary, some decisive change.
Anne and James I; His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch and Queens The first two Tudors had created a state as absolute as
berry, for the portraits of Mary Davis, Lucy Walter, The Duchess any in Europe. The ruler appointed, and dismissed at will,
of Portsmouth and Queen Anne by Charles Boit; the Fitzwilliam the judges of common law, whose efforts were supplemented
Museum, Cambridge, for the pastel drawing of Charles II by by the prerogative courts of Star Chamber and High Com
Edward Lutterel; His Grace the Duke of Grafton, for the portrait
mission under his direct command. A highly efficient Council
of Charles II in exile; the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich,
not only superintended every branch of administration but
for the portrait of James I attributed to Jan de Critz; the National
also controlled the local justices of the peace, who were also
Portrait Gallery, for the portraits of Nell Gwyn after Sir Peter
appointed by the king, through his Lord Chancellor. The
Lely and James II by Sir Godfrey Kneller; the National Galleries
of Scotland, for the portrait of Charles II as Prince of Wales; Royal will of the King in Parliament, expressed through statute,
Academy of Arts, for the portraits of Charles I and Henrietta knew no limitations or boundaries whatsoever, except the
Maria by Van Dyck and Princess Anne by John Riley; the Right vague prescription of " natural ", " moral " or "higher "
Hon. the Earl Spencer, for the portrait of Princess Anne by John law. But the King in Council, or the king acting alone,
Riley; Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool, and the National Trust, for also possessed wide and ill-defined powers. When the
the portrait of William ill by Gottfried Schalcken. , Stuarts formally tested these powers the results were alarm
ing; in 1627, for instance, the judges discovered, some
what to their uneasiness, that no precedent limited the king's
powers of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. The formidable
oath of supremacy, taken by all officials, declared that
Elizabeth was " the only Supreme Governor of this realm
and of all other her highness's dominions and countries,
as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as
temporal".
But the appearance of power was not the reality. Govern
ment was still the monarch's personal concern, and the
II
12 THE STUARTS THE TUDOR SUNSET
administration of justice, diplomacy and the secret services, and gentry; the Privy Council maintained an appearance
as well as the upkeep of the royal household, palaces and of authority by agreeing with or anticipating their decisions.
guards, were all supported on the revenue from his private The conciliar courts set up in these semi-civilised regions-the
estate (the Crown Lands), the profits of justice, in fines and Council of the North, and the Council of the Marches and
forfeitures, such perquisites as came his way in his capacity W ales--were a leasing-out of central power in return for
as feudal overlord, and tonnage and poundage, the great minimum good order. Except in cases of lower-class insur
mediaeval customs duties on wine and wool, granted by rection the Star Chamber was only called in when one
Tudor parliaments for life. This budget left. little ro?m side or another in a local feud was at its last gasp. Even
for expansion, and since there was no regular direct taxation then, public order was only sketchily maintained. Cornish
there could be no standing army or navy of any size. In piracy, organised by the local magnates, flourished in despite
war the monarch used the shire levies, or militia, and of the central government throughout Elizabeth's reign; and
called upon parliament for extra taxation to support more even in the 1630s the miners of the Forest of Dean
seasoned forces; naval warfare was conducted on an amateur, remained to all intents and purposes outside the law.11
piratic basis. Similarly, the cro~n . could .n~er . finance In fact, the Tudor system was a voluntary alliance between
a paid local bureaucracy; the provmcial ~dmm'.stratton "'.as a central monarchy and a provincial landowning class. It
handled mainly by justices of the peace m their alternative was at its strongest in the reign of Henry VIII, when each
capacity as fiscal and administrative officials. Even t?e cent.ral partner had most to expect from the other. In carrying out
government was not based on a salary system ; officials relied his revolutionary break-away from Rome, the king had
mainly on fees, or perquisites in kind-though these could leaned heavily on his faithful Commons, and they were
be considerable. rewarded, whether intentionally or not, by the redistribution
Not surprisingly, then, the Tudor state was only approxi of monastic land. But this honeymoon did not last a
mately efficient, and never even approximately honest. . Graft generation, for the steep rise in prices soon overtook rents
and corruption were inherent in the system, even m the and forced land values down. Moreover, a new genera
provinces, and at times reached stupefying proRortions. The tion rose to question the assumptions on which the Henrican
discovery that the Ordnance Office was runnmg guns to Reformation was based, and the gentry's anxious search
Vigo at the height of the war against Spain caused a for a New Interpretation bedevilled their relations with
petulant stir, but not the comprehensive upheaval ~at Elizabeth. The long war with Spain produced a relentless
might have been expected.1 Similarly, the much-lauded. JU economic pressure that distorted a semi-molten social system
tices of the peace administered what laws or regulations as it set.
were convenient to them; the rest they ignored. Their The economic condition of the Elizabethan and Stuart gentry
formidable powers of obstruction and inertia are evident in has roused more controversy amongst English historians
the almost total failure of the many Tudor Enclosure Acts, than any other question in recent years. The main diffi-·
but even the administration of the recusancy laws and the culty lies in distinguishing between various types of gentry,
acts against Puritan preachers varied in its efficiency accord or even defining the term " gentleman " at all. The tech
ing to the sympathies or prejudices of the local bench. The nical qualifications of a gentleman were merely the possession
outparts--Wales and the Marches, Yorkshire, Lancas?~re of freehold land to the value of forty shillings a year,
and parts north-were virtually ruled by the local nobility
2 W. B. Willcox, Gloui:e1ter1hire 1590-1640 (Yale 1940), ch. vii,
1 David Mathew, The Ce/Iii: PeopleI and Renaiuani:e Europe, ch. and D. G. C. Allan, "The Rising in the West, 1628-16!1,"
xvii. Economic Hiit(}f'y Re11iew, 2nd ser., v. 76.
14 THE STUARTS THE TUDOR SUNSET 15
and the right to bear arms (literally, as well as beraldicallr). Juries and open quarrels at Quarter Sessions, which culminated
Neither presented mU:ch of a stumbling-block to a man w1th in public insults or even fighting, especially amongst servants
and retainers. It would peter out in a flicker of petty
money. d'd littl
These technical qualifications, however, 1 e more animosities, a rumble of Star Chamber suits over the horizon.
than create a large county electorate of forty-shilling free But in many counties, where there was a large " establish
holders. Within each county was a much smaller class, wh?se ment " of aspirant gentry and never enough spoils to go
supremacy is undeniable but not easily definable; restmg round, such warfare was endemic. Buckinghamshire was
partly on greater wealth (at le_ast £500 a year), partly on so overcrowded, with the Godwins, the Fleetwoods, the
tradition, but principally on action. In other words, a man V erneys, the Dentons, the Bulstrodes and the Hampdens, that
who could sustain the role of a gentleman, was one. From between 1003 and 1641 it secured six extra parliamentary
this class exclusively were drawn the just.ices of the p~ce, seats-at Wendover, Amersbam and Marlow-bringing its
the sheriffs, the deputy-lieutenants, the knights of the shires total representation up to fourteen. Even then, the recurrent
and most of the borough M.P.s. These were the county disputes were not smothered until the Whartons from the
elite what is most usually meant by " the gentry " at North intermarried with the Godwins and seized a. majority
a n~onal level, and what is known sometimes as " the of the borough seats at the end of the century.
parliamentary gentry ". All this sounds anarchic, and was; but in this anarchy
In support of this status they were expectec! to set stan lay the gentry's peculiar strength. They were a class in
dards in dress, patronage, hospitality and building far abo~e perpetual motion, and the rise or fall of individual families
the means of most small landowners, and if only for this scarcely affected their general stability. The ceaseless struggle
reason they could never form a large class. In the period for prestige, wealth and power, its achievement or retention,
1603-40 there were probably ~ot more th~~ fo~ hundred generation on generation, hardened and toughened those
families which attained a considerable position m the pro families that survived. They were proud, independent, acqui
vinces and established a lien on a Commons seat in two sitive and able, breeding large families and marrying off
successive parliaments. To achieve such a position required their children with Hapsburg foresight. The social prestige
not merely wealth and estate-though that was, of course, attaching to ownership of land, and the rule of primogeniture,
essential-but also ability, personality and luck. For each made county society an ideal organisation for the conservation
county was uneasily divided between two or three, perhaps of wealth, and whatever the vicissitudes of individuals or
four or five leading families (depending on its area, . wealth families in any given area the power complex within that
and parliamentary representation), and any ne"". family bad area remained virtually unchanged. As one family fell, two
to crash this exclusive circle. Sometimes the mtruder was others rose to take its place. So each county appeared to
repulsed in disorder; sometimes one .of the ~eigning families the outside world as a concentrated nexus of power, spinning,
fell undermined in its court connexions, rwned by mercan changing, but ever constant, and it is this that gave the
tile' speculation or the excesses of a spendthrift heir, or gentry their tremendous impact and driving force. It en
eliminated by the failure of the male _line (no un:~mmon abled them to dominate the parliamentary representation
thing in an age of high infant mortality): Bu~, failing an of England in the period 156o to 1690; even if they could
immediate solution the issue bad to be deoded m a struggle not turn that domination to constructive ends.
that could last ~erations; punctuated by sudden sallies
on unguarded boroughs, thunderous attempts to swing county The hard economic conditions of the late sixteenth century
dectioos, acrimonious disputes over precedence on Grand -particularly the price rise-were felt most keenly by the
16 THE STUARTS THE TUDOR SUNSET 17
gentry just below the highest class : competing for the estates were still doled out in small lots, with funber rights
highest positions but not yet enjoying their fruits. But and mining concessions. &clesiastical preferment, the income
by the I 59os the depression in agriculture and trade, and from vacant sees, the forfeited estates of papists, were the
the slow collapse of crown finances, had also begun _to contributions of God to Mammon. For the rest, there were
wittle away the marginal income that enabled the parlia· grants of customs duties and industrial monopolies, there were
mentary gentleman to sustain the " port " a~propriate to pensions and ceremonial offices, and all that profusion of
his station. Plague abounded; commerce was disrupted ; wet sinecures left over from centuries of mediaeval experimenta
summers brought poor harvests. The government, always the tion in law and household government.
biggest customer of industry in wartime, was often a default· The institution of wardship was particularly valuable,
ing creditor, and already the decline of the staple English because it worked both ways. By the foundation of the
wool trade had begun to set in. Depression conditions forced Court of Wards in r540 Henry VIII consolidated bis feudal
the merchants into tighter rings, or cartels ; government rights over English landowners; widows, idiots, and heirs
interference led them to take parliament more seriously, or heiresses who were minors fell in to the Court of Wards
to seek self-expression as a class. They were less willing than which administered their estates and arranged their marriag~
before to distribute their wealth amongst the landed gentry by or remarriage. By this means the crown always held part
intermarriage. Similarly, the great self-made le~l officers, of the landowning classes in terrorem and at the same time
their status rising with their fees, were now founding landed provided another part with occasional gratuities, for the
families of their own. grant of a ward was a much-sought-after part of the king's
One of the principal sources of income remaining was the bounty.
court. Court attendance was loyal as well as gentlemanly, The Tudors have sometimes been criticised for their
fashionable as well as profitable. Sometimes decisively so, generosity to courtiers-particularly for the issue of monopo
to families like the Cecils, Sydneys, Seymours and Russells; lies and the alienation of Crown Lands. In fact, much of
but many men who never aspired to an earldom materially this generosity was calculated policy; they knew the danger
improved their finances, and their status in the localities, in the dissipation of crown revenue at source, but they
by virtue of their connexions at court. The Tudors ?ad knew also that it was vital to have around them a strong,
encouraged this practice; the close-fisted Henry VII real15':d contented courtier class, recruited from among a satisfied
that the king must always outshine his greatest subjects 10 gentry.
hospitality and display, and his son outshone most of the The system began to break down in the r59os, when the
European monarchs of his time. From the cir~mstances of steep rise in European prices, coupled with the Spanish war
their youth Mary and Elizabeth both had particularly close and revolt in Ireland, put the crown finances to an intolerable
relations with their gentry courtiers. All of them regarded strain. The ineffectiveness and inequity of sixteenth-cen
Whitehall or Greenwich rather as the Bourbons regarded tury taxation, the resistance of the gentry, who were them
Versailles: properly used, it could attract a represent:ttive selves feeling the pinch, Elizabeth's reluctance to go against
selection of the landowning classes and hold them m a her father and grandfather's conventions of government ; all
position of dependence on, or obligation to, the crown. this made it impossible to distribute the cost of the war
Almost to the last the Tudors maintained the stream o equitably between crown and parliament. Instead the queen
pickings for their courtiers, high and low. The great Ho chose to squeeze the existing system dry, and in her last
of monastic lands soon died away to a trickle, but crow years she adopted financial devices as arbitrary as ·any em-
THE TUDOR SUNSET
18 THE S TU ART S
against her personal favourite, Essex. Essex's revolt destroyed
ployed by the Stuarts, and which provided thet?, in . ~ad, him, leaving the Cecilians triumphant.•
with several excellent precedents. She clapped ~positions Essex's putJCh was mainly supported by indigent lower
on currants, she imposed a rudimentary form of ship money gentry who had turned to war as a profession, by papists,
on the maritime towns, she issued patents of monopoly on and by Welshmen-an interesting combination. Its near
a lavish scale, and she levied forced loans on the gentry success, and the sympathy it evoked, emphasised the weak
in 1599 1600 and 16o1. ness of Tudor rule, and the queen's current unpopularity.
Mean~hile, the whole structure was being undermined by The gallant earl was the popular champion against faction
the sale of Crown Lands, resumed on a large scale after the rule and petticoat government. It also emphasised the failure
Armada. As a result it became increasingly difficult for the of the Tudors to solve the problem of the nobility. The
queen to alienate further estates to courtiers, ~owever small failure of the English nobility to survive as a military caste
the amount while the loss in regular crown mcome meant had left them with no inherited function, while strict
that the p;oceeds from the remaining Crown La~ds n:iust application of the rule of primogeniture had prevented their
be increased, or at all costs maintained, in face of _inflation. extension through land-owning society. (On the Continent
So from 1600 to 1640 crown tenants were. subiected to a patent of nobility embraced the whole family, in England
exactions and extortions that mounted as prices rose and only its head and to a certain extent his eldest son.) The
the total area of Crown Lands dwindled. Even .t hen, the natural suspicions of the Tudors made them reluctant to
corruption of administrative officials and the resistance of increase their numbers, or use them for any distinctive
tenants made it impossible to maintain inco?1e from land purpose; the strong, confident Henry VIII probably employed
at its previous level; ecclesiastical first-fruits and tenths them more than any other member of the dynasty, but Mary
dropped off, too, and e~en the income. from recusancy fines was soured by Northumberland's attempt to keep her from
declined with the relaxation of persecution. . the throne, Elizabeth by the Northern Rebellion and the
1?
The effects on the court were disastrous. The slump Duke of Norfolk's treason. Great seigneurs like Essex and
crown income the dwindling of crown patronage, made it Leicester were given command of military expeditions abroad,
increasingly difficult for a new generation of gentry to. make but in peacetime their political influence bore no relation
their way at court and even for those already at Whitehall to their great wealth. Most of their energies were channelled
' h d As the queen
there was scarcely enoug to go roun · . into palace intrigue, and Essex's revolt was as much a protest
entered upon her old age her personal gr~p . relaxed, ~d against this general state of frustration as against any specific
so did Burleigh's. The court began to split mto exclusive injuries.
factions of a type fatal to the continuance of the Tudor At the tum of the century, in fact, the nobility were in
system, which bad always flourished on the free . fl.owC o: the middle of a transition period that was to last until
new men and new ideas. With the growth of_ ~action 1660. Poised uneasily between the status of feudal barons
the attempt to monopolise offices and perqu1S1tes as :r and eighteenth-century " men of influence ", they were only
fell leading to clientage and pluralism. The process. intermittently effective in war or politics. The careers of
acc~lerated by the fall in value of individual pe;qw: Essex and the Duke of Buckingham savour strongly of late
and by the increased corruption attendant. on . faction a mediaeval or "bastard " feudalism; the Earls of Bedford and
Elizabeth was slow to move against a situation that h Pembroke, with their gifts of negotiation and debate, their
already threatened her once in the r,erso~ . of .~clef e 1 See the gloomy picture painted by Sir John Neale in his Ralegh
Earl of Leicester; she allowed the Cecilians. • .t i Lecture for 1948, The Elizabethan Political Sane.
Burleigh's son Robert Cecil, to consolidate their post o
20 TH E S TU ART S
THE TUDOR SUNSET 21
nucleus of Commons support, look forward to the great
with the crown, the other, domination of the crown; both
Earl of Shaftesbury, and beyond him to the Duke of New
seeking social stabilisation.
castle. But for the moment the influence of the House of
L~rds, as distinct from the crown, was negligible, and indi
Religion was the other great cause of dissension and dis
vidual . ~oble_s were uncertain in their handling of social
union in seventeenth-century England. But this does not
or poli:1ca1 influence, and largely ineffective in guiding or
excuse the extraordinary abuse of the term " Puritanism "
controlling their social inferiors, the gentry.
which has been used to cover every type of opposition to th;
The Stuarts were more generous than the Tudors in their
Stuarts, for whatever cause.
creation of peers (they even made it a source of income),
The greatest single difficulty in discussing Puritanism is
but James I and Charles I did little more than make good the
the fact that nine-tenths of those who supported it at various
losses occasioned by failures in the male line over the
times were virtually dumb, and the vocal one-tenth were by
last century-nor were their creations always well chosen.*
no means the most important, and were probably not even
In . other respects. their reigns merely accentuated existing
rep:esent~tive. The literary output of the Puritan clergy,
social and economic tendencies. The domination of the Cecil
their hagiographers and pamphleteers, has been subjected to
~ans was confirmed, and set a pattern for the future. The
the most ruthless analysis, but it is misleading to infer,
mcome of the crown continued to fall, and what fiscal
as some do, that such analyses give us a clear picture of the
reform there was tended to concentrate that income in a
" Puritan movement ", as a politico-religious phenomenon.
narrowing circle. By the 1620s the shortage of patronage
The hard truth is that Puritanism would never have advanced
was acut~. There were eight contenders for the Provostship
an i_nch without the support of the gentry, particularly in
of Eton m 1623, all of them courtiers and crown servants
parliament; yet these gentry preached no sermons, they
of the first rank; and the post went to Sir Henry Wotton the
wrote. very fe:" books and even their parliamentary speeches
Venice am~assador, largely because the government c~uld
are eithe~ b_nef and elusive, or turgid and confused. (The
not pay his arrears of salary.~ Moreover, after a brief
great maionty never opened their mouths within the walls
~ecovery in the early l6oos, trade and industry slid off
of Westminster.) So the motives of these men can rarely
mto a st~p economic decline lasting throughout the thirties
be reconstructed from their utterances, only deduced from
and forties. These economic conditions did not ruin the
their actions.
parliamentary gentry; they were a capable, well-organised
And their actions were erratic; there was no broad sweep
class, and with some inevitable casualties they weathered the
?f develop?Ient ~ am?ngst the reformist clergy. The open
storm. But ~ey w7re made to realise that they had as yet
ing of Elizabeth s reign found the nation disunited and
no stable position m the state. They were poised uneasily
drifting. The mediaeval concept of society had been based
between the. ~rown above and the ravening, pullulating mass
on the two great pillars of Throne and Altar. Henry VIII
of the aspirmg gentry below. The economic decline of
the crown restricted the careers open to them at court and h~d knocked one of these essential props away, and only
his extrovert dynamism, coupled with a unique capacity for
made _it almost impossible for them to escape from the
focusing authority, had convinced the nation that no funda
neurotic rat-race in which their class was constantly engaged.
mental change had in fact taken place. The reign of Edward
It wa~ th: social tension thus created that provoked an
VI exposed this conjuring trick, and Elizabeth made no
~xplos10n m 1640 and 1641 and divided the Long Parliament
att_empt to emulate her father. Those who accepted the
mto two competing groups: one advocating co-operation
Elizabethan church accepted it as part of the system of
'David Mathew, The Jacobean Age, pp. 213-15. government, a quasi-spiritual projection of the secular state.