Government and society

Seventeenth-century government was inextricably bound to­gether with the social hierarchy that dominated local communi­ties. Rank, status, and reputation were the criteria that enabled members of the local elite to serve the crown either in the coun­ties or at court. The king’s rule was based upon divine right. Most of the aristocracy and gentry were the king’s own tenants, whose obligations to him included military service, taxes, and local office holding. The monarch’s claim to be God’s vice-regent on earth was relatively uncontroversial, especially since his obligations to God included good governance. Except in dire emergency, the monarch could not abridge the laws and customs of England nor seize the persons or property of his subjects.

The monarch ruled personally, and the permanent institutions of government were constantly being reshaped. Around the king was the court, a floating body of royal servants, officeholders, and place seekers. There was no essential preparation for royal service, no necessary skills or experiences. Commonly, members of the elite were educated at universities and the law courts, and most made a grand tour of Europe where they studied languages and culture. But their entry into royal service was normally through the patronage of family members and connections rather than through ability.

From among his court the monarch chose a privy council.Its ’ size and composition remained fluid, but it was largely composed of the chief officers of state: the lord treasurer, who oversaw rev­enue; the lord chancellor, who was the crown’s chief legal officer; and the lord chamberlain, who was in charge of the king’s house­hold. The archbishop of Canterbury was the leading churchman of the realm, and he advised the king, who was the head of the estab­lished church. The privy council advised the king on foreign and domestic policy and was charged with the administration of gov­ernment. It communicated with the host of unpaid local officials who governed in the communities, ordering the justices to enforce statutes or the deputy lieutenants to raise forces. In these tasks the privy councillors relied not only upon the king’s warrant but upon their own local power and prestige as well. Thus, while the king was free to choose his own councillors, he was constrained to pick those who were capable of commanding respect. The advice that he received at the council table was from men who kept one eye on their localities and the other on the needs of central policy.

This interconnection between the centre and the localities was also seen in the composition of Parliament.Parliament was an­other of the king’s councils, though its role in government was less well defined than the privy council’s and its summoning was inter­mittent. In the early 17^th century Parliament was less an institution than an event; it was convened when the king sought the aid of his subjects in the process of creating new laws or to provide extraor­dinary revenue. Like everything else in English society, Parliament was constituted in a hierarchy, composed of king, lords, and com­mons. Every peer of the realm was personally summoned to sit in the House of Lords, which was dominated by the greatest of the king’s officers. The lower house was composed of representatives selected from the counties and boroughs of the nation. The House of Commons was growing as local communities petitioned for the right to be represented in Parliament and local gentry scrambled for the prestige of being chosen. It had 464 members in 1604 and 507 forty years later. Selection to the House of Commons was a mark of distinction, and many communities rotated the honour among their most important citizens and neighbours. Although there were elaborate regulations governing who could choose and who could be chosen, in fact very few members of the House of Commons were selected competitively. Contests for places were uncommon, and elections in which individual votes were cast were extremely rare.

Members of Parliament served the dual function of representing the views of the localities to the king and of representing the views of the king to the localities. Most were members of royal government, either at court or in their local communities, and nearly all had re­sponsibility for enforcing the laws that were created at Westminster. Most parliaments were summoned to provide revenue in times of emergency, usually for defense, and most members were willing to provide it within appropriate limits. They came to Parliament to do the king’s business, the business of their communities, and their own personal business in London. During the 17^th century king and Parliament clashed over specific issues, but until the middle of the century they were part of one system of royal government.

Charles I (1625-1649)

At the beginning of his reign there was a growing feeling among Members of Parliament that they should have a larger voice in national affairs, including foreign policy, since they represent the taxpayers who are paying for foreign entanglements. Charles I dis­agreed and dissolved Parliament. He tried to obtain forced loans without Parliament’s approval. In protest at these high-handed actions, some knights refused to loan the king money. As a result, Charles had them imprisoned «by his special command». Five of the king’s prisoners, the “Five Knights,” brought a writ of habeas corpus arguing that they were being held without cause. In a hor­rifying setback, the Court of the King’s Bench ruled that they could not be bailed because they had not been accused of specific offenses. When one of the knights died as a result of his imprison­ment people across the country rose in protest, and demand the Petition of Right.

Desperate for cash, Charles I had to bring Parliament back into session in 1628. Parliament agreed to give him what he need­ed, but only if he agreed to the Petition of Right (1628).The Petition is one of the great charters of liberty. It reaffirmed the freedoms established by the Magna Carta, and added several new freedoms:

No imprisonment of freemen without cause shown. The king's command alone was insufficient to hold a man.

No person was compelled to make loans to the king, and there was no tax without the approval of Parliament.

Habeas corpus was not to be denied. Prisoners either were to be charged or released after a habeas hearing.

• Soldiers and sailors were not to be billeted on civilians. Their housing and feeding were the responsibility of the government.

• The government could not impose martial law during peacetime.

6 The government could not imprison any man because he disagreed with the government’s policies.

Charles, however, did not feel himself bound by this docu­ment, merely because he had signed it when nothing else would do. By 1629, it was clear to Charles that he could not govern with parliament. For eleven years, he ruled without it.

Date: 2016-01-14; view: 722