Episode 458: Charles Alone

He retained the same minister as as before, but of course he didn't trust them as much as he had trusted Buckingham. There would be no more royal favorites for the remainder of his reign, except for maybe his Queen, Henrianta Maria, who, after the death of Buckingham, entered into a much more intimate relationship with her husband. Now, there were still a lot of problems that were besetting the kingdom.

Law Rochelle still needed to be relieved, and so in the early autumn of the year, a third expedition was sent to the besieged town, but it was no more successful than any of its predecessors, and the Protestants there continued to languish, and so as a result, in October of sixteen twenty eight, the authorities of law Rochelle signed a treaty of surrendered to the French King. The walls of the city were demolished, the Protestants dispersed, and now

Charles had no purpose to intervene. Now, in the absence of Buckingham, the King became more uncertain and prevaricated than ever. He couldn't decide who should he make a treaty with. Should he make a treaty with France against Spain or Spain against France. Now there was no question of waging outright war against either nation. Frankly, the king did not have the resources to do so, or any realistic prospect of raising money by other means. In any case, the

zeal for war was rapidly ebbing in the country. There might have been some delay in signing all the relative treaties, but after the Duke of Buckingham, the reality was a period of peace had become inevitable. Parliament did finally open in January of sixteen twenty nine, and almost immediately became clear that its opening did not bode well for the country.

The biggest issue remained that of religion. A royal declaration had been issued in the parliamentary recess that the quote Church has the right to decrease ceremonies and authority to decide controversies of religion end quote. But what did they mean by church? The English Episcopal Church had a series of bishops, but it didn't have hope. Technically, the king was in charge of the church. Does that mean that

he would be issuing religious decrees? William Laude, now the Bishop of London, had helped to draw up the proclamation, and in the same period a number of his supporters had been promoted to vacant positions. These were the Armenians, or high churchmen, who clearly rejected the practices of Calvinism. For parliament, this was a direct challenge to the old

creed of the church. Sir John Ellman MP told his parliamentary colleagues that the prelates with the King's authority might quote order it which way they please, and so for aught I know, to bring in popery and Armenianism, to which we are told we must submit. Quote. Another member named Christopher Sheerland said of the Armenians that they creep into the ears of the King Majesty and suggest that

those that oppose them also oppose his majesty. It became a confrontation therefore, between the Calvinists of the old Church that have been much more successful over the previous administrations, and the Armenian bishops of the new. Now there's a lot of division here, and there was a lot of name saying and a lot of claiming that people did different things that maybe they didn't necessarily do or necessarily

believe in. It was claimed, for example, that the Calvinists were ready to take up the cause of individual concepts against the precepts of established faith and prerogative of the sovereign. That is, you could choose for your own moral reasons to ignore the king. Clearly, that wasn't going to go well with Charles. The Armenian bishops were, on their own turn, accused by their opponents of preaching passive obedience and the divine right of kings, which is a little bit more

close to accurate, but not exactly. Certainly, the Calvinists believed in predestination, grace, and the Gospel. The Armenians put their faith in free will, the sacraments, and deference the ceremonial order. It was not conceived by any contemporary that these were controversies that could stir a civil war. But this was the moment when members of Parliament and members of the

Court first decided to take sides. Now the Commons, animated by various speeches, continued to affirm that it alone had the right to determine the will and the religion of the country, and as a consequence, Charles adjourned Parliament on the twenty fifth of February for a week as both sides continued this talk of war, so by early March

things were headed towards a final confrontation. On March, the second Speaker, Sir John Finch, announced to the comments that it was the King's wish that they should adjourn for a further eight days. Such a request in the past had always just been summarily accepted, but now the members stood up and began to shout no, no, over and over again. Finch moved to rise from his chair, thus abruptly ending the session, but some members barred his way

and thrust him back into his seat. Denzil Hall's, another MP, told him quote God's wounds, you shall sit till we please to rise end quote. Elliott then announced that the members would have the privilege of adjourning themselves after he had read out a declaration of their intentions. Of course, Finch didn't know what to do in this situation, then pointedly asked everyone, what would you do if you were in my place? Let not my desire to serve you

faithfully lead to my ruin end quote. He of course, was now in an impossible situation with incompatible loyalties. Were going into an era and people didn't necessarily recognize it yet, but an era where you couldn't be loyal to Parliament and the king. It was, as I mentioned before, a time for choosing sides. Some members, realizing the gravity of the approaching confrontation, tried to get up to leave, but the sergeant at arms was ordered to close the doors.

When he hesitated, another member locked the doors and put away the key. Elliott then spoke out in a ferocious attack upon the evil counselors that had surrounded the king. He also assaulted Armenianism as quite frankly, nothing more than an open door to Rome. Suddenly, as all this was going going on, knocks were heard at the door. The king had now taken an own step and ordered the Sergeant at Arms to bring away the royal mace, which

technically deprived the proceedings of any royal authority. So ends this is going on. Member of Parliament that I mentioned earlier at denzil Halls swiftly proposed three resolutions. Number one, anyone who tried to introduce popery or Armeniumism into the Kingdom would be considered a capital enemy. Number two, anyone who should advise the King of levying customs duties without the authority of the Parliament would similarly be considered an enemy.

And lastly, if any merchant should voluntarily agree to pay the duties of tonnage and poundage, he would be reputed to be a betrayer of the liberties of England and an enemy all the same. Again, you can see the

lines being drawn. Thelllutions were quickly adopted. Having delivered his message to the nation he felt, Collins asked that the House now adjourn itself, to which there were immediate cries of I. The doors were thrown open, and the triumphant parliamentarians streamed out to announce the news to a happy nation. They would not meet again for another eleven years. Two days after the members of Parliament streamed triumphantly out the doors.

The King announced the dissolution of Parliament. At the same time he ordered nine of its members arrested. John Elliot, of course, was the principal object of the King's wrath. Not only was he furious about some of the actions that he had taken within those closed doors, but Charles blamed Elliot for the death of Buckingham because of his angry Philippics against his favorite. The immediate aftermath of the disillusion was one of dismay and bewilderment throughout the country.

The majority of merchants refused to pay the customs duties demanded of them on the grounds that a future parliament might condemn them as betrayers of the kingdom, and so they simply declined to trade. There were caalcil trans lasted for two months until the prospect of financial ruin ended their resolve. The Venetian ambassador wrote at the time that quote affairs grow more bitter every day, and by these disputes, the King has made his people see that he can

do much more than they may have imagined. I guess in theory this had all been a victory for Charles, but it had gravely impaired his legitimacy, his authority, and his reputation. Charles had revealed himself to be arbitrary and perhaps even illegal in his measures. It was a moment I'm sure he would come to regret now. After the disillusion of Parliament in March of sixteen twenty nine, the King entered upon a period of personal government that was

to last for eleven years. To all in pents and purposes, Charles had now become truly the first English experiment in absolute monarchy. The people of England were simply asked to trust in his benevolent intentions and to be fair. In many ways, he was a gentle monarch, and there weren't really any political purges or executions that took place. An unparliamentary government was not, in and of itself a fruitless endeavor. It was a time of a lot of improvements, and

especially in transport. Roads were repaired, new canals were dug, The national post as service was improved. There were now regular posts on the principal roads taking place of the irregular system of carriers, and the absence of any national emergency, the administration of local government was strengthened and extended. Now. Of course, the only way that all this domestic tranquility worked, though,

was if there were external peace treaties. The king could not afford war, and as long as he could raise money for his own government by fines and taxation, there was no need to call for a parliament. Therefore, the foreign policy of England now made itself. Peace was concluded with France in the spring of sixteen twenty nine, and

nineteen months later a truce was arranged with Spain. By treaty with France, Charles was obliged to abandon his cause of the Protestant Huguenots on the understanding that the principles of his marriage treaty with Louis the thirteenth need not be strictly applied. This would dub vice versa. By the way, worked both ways. He didn't have to, for example, grant freedom of worship to Roman Catholics, because Louis the thirteenth, as we know, had no intention of granting the same

rights to Protestants within his country. He also concluded a peace with Spain, which made now no mention of the restoration of the Palatinate to Charles's sister and brother in law. The fate of Germany was now up to itself. In another clause of the treaty, it was agreed that Spanish silver could be minted in England, being shipped to Antwerp, where the Spanish were still engaged in fighting the Dutch.

Of course, it was an open question for these alliances with the Catholic powers of Europe, France and Spain would become a cause of discontent, But for the moment Charles didn't care about any of that. He needed peace to avoid calling parliament, and so he secured it. In fact, the public reaction to both peace treaties was rather subdued.

Nobody really cared about the matter, and in fact, in foreign affairs on the continent, Charles was quickly usurped because in sixteen twenty nine, as we know, the King of Sweden, Gustavus Adolphus, marched into Germany and embarked upon a military conquest, as unexpected as it was at the time unprecedented. Now, how was the English king to treat with the man who had become known as the Lion of the North. Gustavus Adolphus demanded men in materials from the fellow Protestant monarch.

But if Charles entered into an alliance with the Swedish King, his friendship with Spain would come to an end, and of course trade with Spain was very important, as was peace with it. If he refused an alliance with Gustavus Adolphus, he would lose honor and of course influence on the continent. If Adolphus emerged ultimately successful and victorious. So Charles, as he's wont to do, just prevaricated and couldn't decide, and he tried half measures to try to maintain friendship with

both sides. He agreed that a private force of six thousand Scottish soldiers under the command of the Marquis of Hamilton could join the Swedish army, but like most expeditions in this era, it was a disaster, made worse by epidemic disease and chronic in subordination. The king then sent a delegation to the Swedish king quote to enter into

a league upon emergent occasions end quote. This is one of those agreements that could mean a lot of things, or, as was the case here, it could mean absolutely nothing at all. In practice, it did mean nothing At one point Charles band news gazettes from reporting on Swedish victories because they cast such a sad light on his own woeful ineptitude. That being said, Charles, as we know, didn't

have to deal with Gustavus Adolphus for long. The fortunes of the Swedish king came to a rather abrupt end in a battle outside Leipzig, where his bottle was eventually found among a heap of naked corpses. The King of England truly had done nothing to help the line of the North. English in action had created what was called, in one anonymous pamphleteer quote the practice of princes described as quote hispanolized, Frenchified, Romanized or neutralized policy end quote.

That being said, if you were a lover of peace, there was nothing wrong with any of that. After all, remember how devastating the Thirty Years War was on Central Europe, how costly it was for both Spain and France. Maybe it was better for England to sit this one out, but funds still had to be raised in England by one means or another. The fines against the illegal enclosure of common Land were now more strenuously enacted. The King also raised a lot of money from a great scheme

to drain the fens of eastern England. Many articles of ordinary consumption were granted for a fee to monopolists, who could then set their own prices. The articles included iron and salt, hans and playing cards, starch and tobacco, seaweed, hand spectacles, combs and gunpowder, hats and hops, literally pattens and monopolies could be purchased now for everything. In other words, it wasn't a particularly great time in England if you were a consumer. One of the most infamous cases of

selling monopolies is the case of soap. The Company of Soap Makers was granted a monopoly in sixteen thirty one to manufacture soap out of domestically made ingredients like vegetable oil, rather than out of imported whale oil or fish oil. The company agreed in turn to pay the King an annual tax of twenty thousand pounds, but the previous soap makers kept trying to make soap, and they were prosecuted

in the Star Chamber. It was actually agreed at the time and thought that the Company of Soap Makers was in fact controlled by the Catholic Friends of Queen Henrietta Maria. Some of the new monopolies were actually rumored to be financed by the Jesuits. In other words, that this was all had nothing to do with income and was entirely about religion. Many Protestant households therefore objected to buying the new soap, so much so that it became known as

Popish soap. Other expedients were practiced, of course, Royal rights over forest lands were resurrected. Those who had encroached upon forest boundaries were now charged large sums, even if they had done so one hundred years prior, and those who had built in London upon new foundations without a permit were also fined. What, then, the question was, was the king's general attitude towards the personal property of his people.

That was what was on the tongue of everyone. Could he simply take property and sell it to make up the difference if he had to? After all, if he could invent new taxes without recourse to parliament, what was to stop the king from simply seizing the money of good Englishmen and using it for his own purposes. Many suggested that the king could indeed tax without consent, that

the public good took precedence over private rights. Now, others, of course, argued that the Englishman's right to property on his goods in the state was absolute and sacrisanct. It couldn't be removed by any court or sovereign. Now these questions were starting to unravel domestic peace, making matters worse. Of course, the harvest of sixteen thirty was absolutely disastrous. This pushed up the price of grain from four shillings to fourteen shillings a bushel. The prospect of starvation alarmed

many communities. Food riots were rampant in Kent, Hampshire and elsewhere. Now, of course, all this was going on, the question of religion continued to be unanswered. At the end of sixteen twenty nine, William Laude had, with the assent of the King, composed a quote Declaration on the Articles of Religion. It was designed to impose order and uniformity upon the English Church by prescribing forms of worship, the words of prayers,

and even the gestures of the clergy. It was ordained that all clerics must accept the letter of thirty nine articles attached to it, a demand which would in effect prohibit any discussion by Calvinists on such matters as predestination and any other issues which had been condemned by Laud and the other bishops. The declaration was conceived thoroughly in the spirit of the monarch, who believed in order above

all things and uniformity. Now Laud in the Capitol was considered to be little more and a papist in other clothing, and in due time those chickens as well would come home to roost. The king, however, expressed appreciation of Laud and his efforts. He appointed him chancellor of Oxford University in the spring of sixteen thirty, and that wasn't the only celebration. In sixteen thirty, The glory of Charles the First himself was celebrated. Richard Weston, the Treasurer, commissioned a

statue of the king on horseback. It is perhaps the most memorable image of his entire reign. The authority of the king's image was amplified by the evidence of his fertility. In the spring of sixteen thirty, Queen Henrietta Maria presented him with a son, an heir, also to be named Charles. In fact, the infant Charles was also the first in English history to be born as heir to all three kingdoms. Charles had been born before his father James ascended to

the English throne. The birth of Suns seemed to indicate that the Stuart dynasty might continue forever, and in fact, if we go back and we look at other histories of the realm, Edward Hyde, the first Earl of Clarendon, claimed in his History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England that during the personal rule of Chiles, quote, the like peace and plenty and universal tranquility for ten

years was never enjoyed by any nation end quote. Another historian, Sir Philip Warwick, in his Memoirs of the Reign of Charles the First wrote that quote from the year sixteen twenty eight onto the year sixteen thirty eight. I believe England was never master of a profounder peace, nor enjoyed more wealth, or had the power and form of Godliness

more visible in it end quote. But even though some contemporary historians believed that this was a perfect period of peace, as we will find out in our next episode, there were many many people in England who did not agree. In fact, the Cracks and Fishers were already appearing across English society that would lead inexorably to Civil war