Tag Archives: What caused the English Civil War?

Archbishop Laud, religious conformity, and the English Civil Wars

Posted on by
18

For the last couple of weeks, we–or more accurately, I along with as many of you as I could hijack–have been looking at the ingredients that went into England’s Civil Wars, but so far I’ve left out religion, which is sort of like making chicken soup without the chicken. 

And this at a time when people took their religion (which is to say, their chicken) seriously, when ideas that today might find a different form were poured into the molds religion offered.

Sorry. Metaphor overdose alert. Molds. Chicken. Let’s move on before this gets any worse.

Irrelevant photo: The north Cornish coast, although by now I can’t remember which part exactly.

Archbishop Laud

Nah, let’s not. I’ve got one more metaphor that I just have to throw into the soup. It’ll keep us from noticing the absence of chicken: If this period was a boxing match, in one corner we’d have William Laud, the Archbishop of Canturbury–it doesn’t get any higher than that in the Church of England unless you get to be god himself–and a powerful advisor the Charles I. 

In the other corner we’d have the Puritans, and we’ll get to them in a minute or three. So that’s the structure of the conflict. It’s useful.

Before we get to the Puritans, let’s talk about Laud, since he got the subhead here. And Charles. Remember him? For Pete’s sake, he was in the last paragraph. Pay attention. Charles was the king who got beheaded in the Civil Wars. I was tempted to say he got himself beheaded, but it sounded like blaming the victim. So I settled for “got beheaded,” making it sound like something that just kind of happened to him, the way it could happen to anyone.

We should pick up the story a bit earlier, though, when William Laud was a mere bishop and Charles became king. He spotted Laud, liked what he saw, and made him archbishop. Laud was bright and he was ambitious, but for Charles his appeal, at least in part, was that he argued for the Divine Right of Kings. 

Why does “Divine Right of Kings” get all those capital letters? 

Dunno. They used so many back then that it’s a wonder we haven’t run out, but we haven’t and there they sit, still clinging to the phrase. I was going to go with a lower case format  but the caps turned snappish and I lost my nerve.

Laud’s theory is pretty much self-explanatory, but let’s explain it anyway: He argued that the people who got to be kings got to be kings because god had chosen them to be kings. Ergo (which is Latin for don’t bother me with questions) Charles had been chosen by god and everybody should do what he said because that was the next best thing to god speaking. The corollary of that was that Parliament, which was being pesky, should vote Charles the money he needed–or at least wanted–and not ask for anything in return. 

No, the argument didn’t convince Parliament either, so Charles folded Parliament up, put it back in its box, and returned it, claiming it was defective, the wrong size, and not at all what he’d ordered. Amazon accepted it (Divine Right and all that) and he ruled without a Parliament for the next eleven years. That should’ve made him happy but he–have I said this before?–needed money, and raising money without a Parliament was problematic.

But that particular aspect of the conflict isn’t on today’s menu. (At last: We’re back in the vicinity of that soup metaphor. Sorry, it’s been a rough week.) We’re supposed to be talking about Laud, who having become the Archbishop of Canterbury set out to reform the Church of England, restoring it to what he held to be the most perfect form of Christianity.

 

Puritanism and the C. of E.

None of this makes sense unless you notice the growing number of Puritans scattered across the country. 

The Puritans had been around since the 16th century and their goal was to cleanse the Church of England of even the faintest remaining traces of Catholicism. They were intense, they were earnest, and they were certain god had chosen them to set a pattern for the world and its people. They have a reputation for being a pretty grim lot.

That said, the various strands of Puritans disagreed with each other and I can’t find a neat definition to steal. What they did agree on was that the Church of England’s hierarchy and ritual were wrong, ungodly, and in immediate need of replacement. Some wanted to do that from inside the church and some from outside. 

One of their arguments with the Church of England was over the question of whether people were saved by good works or by predestination, but that’s best explained by someone who takes it all seriously. I can manage that for minutes at a time, but then my real self takes over and I’m overwhelmed by a need to clean the kitchen, sort out my filing system, or repair the stone wall I built so badly 15 years ago, and before you know it there goes the day. What I will say about predestination is that I’ve never understood how the Puritans could tell people that living a good life wouldn’t help them get into heaven and then expect them to live a good life anyway. Especially if the good life was no fun. If you won the game by getting into heaven and good works didn’t help–

You see my problem here. But then, see above. I’m not your best guide through this. 

Whatever problems their publicity department had with all that, the Puritans were a powerful and growing political force, possibly because the alternative–Charles and Archbishop Laud–were so unappealing. I doubt it’ll take you long to come up with a contemporary political parallel. Or an easy half dozen.

At any rate, either the Puritans or someone else–if it’s clear to historians, it’s not to me–pulled off an amazing organizational feat by presenting Parliament with what’s called the Root and Branch petition, which was against the bishops’ involvement in government (and a great deal more). That was an incredibly radical step. An MP who spoke against it summed it up neatly: “I do not think a King can put down Bishops totally with Safety to the Monarchy.” Church and state, bishops and king, were all hitched together. They all floated together or they all sank.

The petition was originally circulated in London and gathered 15,000 signatures (give or take; the counts vary). Then it spread to other cities. Given that you couldn’t sign online with a single click and that circulating it meant carrying copies from person to person, it was a hefty number of signatures. And it speaks to an impressive organization driving it. So no, Laud wasn’t hallucinating enemies. The forces that worried him were real.

Just as the Puritans believed the Church was riddled with the woodworms of Catholicism, Laud was convinced the Church was infested with Puritanism, so when he became archbishop he rolled up his voluminous sleeves and set about fixing it. Kind of like me with that stone wall, only my sleeves are less impressive and more practical. 

What Laud wanted were ritual, hierarchy, aesthetics not far removed from Catholic ones, and he wanted everyone to do them all the same way. He was against the wooden communion table and in favor of a high altar made of stone, thank you, which had to be set at the east end of the church and surrounded by railing to keep the riffraff at arm’s length. 

Yeah, kind of a micro-manager. We’ll let that stand in for everything else he wanted done. He visited parish churches to make sure they’d implemented his changes. He must’ve been as welcome as the king’s tax collectors.

In 1637, he had two Puritan writers branded and imprisoned and for good measure had their ears cut off because they’d published works that criticized him. He succeeded in turning them into earless martyrs.

He redrafted the Book of Common Prayer, and since he and Charles agreed that religious conformity was a necessity, they imposed the new draft on the whole kingdom. And on Scotland, which had the same king but was a separate kingdom.

Sorry, make that “tried to impose” his new draft. It led to war with Scotland, which led to Charles calling Parliament back into session so he could demand money, which led to Parliament dumping a heap of complaints in his lap, which led to him dissolving it, which led to a good part of northern England being occupied by Scotland, which led to Charles recalling Parliament, which led to Laud being tried for treason. 

Did you follow that? It’s a slight oversimplification.

It also led–or helped lead–to the Civil Wars.

Laud was beheaded in 1645. 

Didn’t manage to memorize that? Don’t worry. If you’re reading about the Civil Wars and Laud’s name comes up, you can now nod gravely and almost understand what they’re talking about.

*

Isn’t it interesting that I’m drawn to write about the overthrow of a king just at a time when the US is flirting with monarchy? I will say in defense of Charles I that unlike Donald Trump he didn’t demand to have New York’s Penn Station and Virginia’s Dulles Airport named after himself. Of course they hadn’t been built yet, but still–

A friend with a practical turn of  mind suggests that everything should be named after Trump. Penn Station, Dulles Airport, every other airport and train station, New York’s Fifth Avenue, Sixth Avenue, and Seventh Avenues. Denver; International Falls, Minnesota. Everything. Then people can call ICE to report a sighting of illegal immigrants at the corner of Trump Street and Trump Avenue in Trumpistan and wait while they go looking.

A bit more prelude to the English Civil Wars

Posted on by
19

We’re picking up on last week’s post about the years–and the rebellions–that led up to the English Civil Wars. By way of reminder, we’re in the 17th century, complete with inflation and displaced and hungry peasants. Riots are breaking out around the country.

Now it’s time to add dissatisfied soldiers, sailors, merchants, and townspeople to the picture. 

 

The care and feeding of a military

Between 1627 and 1629, England was at war with France, in part because that was what England and France did–think of them as two kids kicking each other in the back seat of the car–and in part because England was supporting the Huguenots, French Protestants who weren’t have a good time in Catholic France. That’s an oversimplification, but it’s a side issue so don’t lose sleep over it. What matters for us is that England felt the need to build up its armed forces. And if there’s one thing we know about any military it’s that they need to eat.

Irrelevant photo: Daffodils in bloom as I type. In February. I can’t believe what I’m getting away with living here.

Ah, but Charles (and probably many a monarch before and after him) had a nifty way to feed his soldiers on the cheap: billet them on the local populace. In other words, house them with locals, who then have to feed and put up with them.

Did the locals get paid for this? The hell they did. That would’ve cost money. 

Wars are like monarchs: they always cost money, but better it should be local people paying than the treasury, right?

As a justice of the peace outlined the situation, “Will His Majesty make war without provision of treasure or must our country bear the charge of all England? It is not enough that we undergo the trouble of insolent soldiers in our houses, their robbery and other misdemeanours but that we must maintain them at our own cost.” (I’m quoting here and elsewhere from Fiery Spirits, by John Rees.)

For all its problems, billeting works well enough when you’re talking about soldiers, but sailors are more useful on ships than on shore, so the government had no choice but to feed them itself, and when supplies that were meant for Plymouth’s sailors were diverted to another purpose, the sailors’ complaints broke into the open. 

As Sir Fernando Gorges, commander of the fort at Plymouth, wrote, “They . . . say they are not suffered to come ashore. They have no means to put clothes on their backs much less to relieve their wives and children. When sick, they have no allowance of fresh victuals. The sick when put ashore are suffered to perish for want of  being looked to. Some of their provisions are neither fit nor wholesome.” 

So far, we have two unhappy groups of people. Let’s add some more.

 

Pressing and mutiny

Before you have to feed a military, you need to create one. And what’s the cheapest way to do that? You press them.

No, not press as in get rid of wrinkles but as in force young men into the military. It’s like a draft but more random, and it didn’t make the impressed men (or their families) happy. When somewhere between 80 and 100 impressed men were marched to Plymouth, headed for the naval ships that were gathered there, they were locked in the Guildhall–think of it as a city hall–overnight. In a room that also held 40 pikes and some swords. On account of that, their officers didn’t get that year’s Nobel Prize for Foresight. Eventually someone opened the door and the men broke out, armed with those pikes and swords, and got into a battle with the town watch. Three died; sixty escaped. 

The group was eventually disarmed and the leader, Robert Kerby, condemned to be hanged, but sailors broke down the gallows that had been erected for him and threw it into the sea.  Then they tried to release him and two sailors were killed in the fighting.

Kerby was reprieved until after the fleet sailed, then discharged. 

It wasn’t happening just in Plymouth. Mutiny was having a moment. An Irish regiment marched to Bristol and sailed home. After a mutiny in Harwich, the leaders were imprisoned and the soldiers tore down the prison. Some of them reached Gravesend and were rescued by “divers women” who “come down to the ships and will not suffer them to be taken from them.”

I’m not sure who Rees is quoting there but never mind: they make their point.

In Exeter the mayor closed the city gates to keep a couple of hundred rioting soldiers out. One hacked his way through, threatening to behead the mayor. 

Companies of sailors rampaged through London in gangs and one gang attacked the Duke of Buckingham’s coach, demanding their pay. They were given a bit of money, which settled things down for the time being but didn’t solve the underlying problem.

Will you forgive me if I offer a life lesson here? It’s free, if that helps. In case you’re ever in a position where you’ve built up a fighting force (it could happen to anyone), complete with arms and all that, for fuck’s sake, keep them paid. And fed. Failing to do that is right up there with locking your prisoners in a room full of pikes and swords, then opening the door and expecting to find them singing hymns. 

I know. It’s always easier to see these things in retrospect.

 

Parliament

All this mattered to Parliament in a way that the uprisings by a bunch of peasants (that’s last week’s post) didn’t. 

For one thing, not just individual households but towns began complaining against the billeting system. Respectable people were complaining; people with money and power and voices that could be heard all the way to the halls of Parliament. 

For another, the country couldn’t do without its army and navy. Parliament and the king might be (and were) in conflict over who held what power, but this much they agreed on. So in 1628, four sailors were allowed to address the House of Lords, and they told their delicate lordships that they’d asked for their pay before and were now more than 15 months in arrears. 

Buckingham–the king’s favorite; you’ll find him center stage throughout this mess, at least until he gets killed, at which point he ceases to matter–promised they’d be paid within the week, which of course they weren’t. But it wasn’t his fault, he told them and the world at large once the week had passed:

“I have done more for you than ever my predecessors did. . . . I procured an increase of your pay.” 

He detailed the amount but it’s in old money–shillings and dingbats and who knows what–so we’ll skip it. The sailors might’ve been more impressed if the theoretical money had found its way into their pockets.

 

Merchants

One more thread of rebellion was weaving itself into the pre-war tapestry: wealthy merchants were refusing to pay import and export taxes. Charles had raised them and Parliament (and the merchants) argued that it and only it had the right to do that. The conflict escalated to involve confiscated cargoes; merchants breaking into the warehouse to reclaim their cargoes; basic smuggling techniques to avoid customs officers; and imprisoned merchants. 

The question of who had the right to fiddle with which taxes sat at the heart of Parliament’s conflict with the king. The king needed money–kings always do, somehow–and Parliament’s goal was to make him come to them for it so he’d have to meet their demands. Charles, of course, was always on the lookout for work-arounds so he wouldn’t have to.

I suppose I should mention here that the East India company and the Levant Company had turned down his request for a loan. You’d almost think we were following the formula for writing a thriller, building the tension with every new scene.

It all led to the overthrow of the king.

*

Speaking of kings, as of February 12 the US government said it would be ending the ICE occupation in Minnesota. In response, the people I follow there said, “I’ll believe it when I see it.” It may happen, though, because the announcement dropped just as funding for ICE was coming up for a vote. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.  

The question is, if the occupation does end, what does that mean? My best guess is that ICE won’t do anything quite as visible again, at least until its funding’s secure, and that the lesson it learned is not to shoot white people in public and not to piss off entire communities. There’s been no change to the plan to build a network of mega-detention centers across the country. (Yes, that’s real.) Illegal detention and harassment of Black and brown people and of observers and demonstrators may be more discreet, though.

Local officials in Minnesota are quoted as saying the damage the surge has done to families, local businesses, and schools will be difficult to repair, and costly. People still need help and if you want to donate, a source I trust shared a link to a set of organizations helping people in hiding with everything from diapers to pet care, from food to rent. “These funds are administered by neighbors helping their neighbors,” the site writes, “not large organizations. This is one of the most direct ways to help and to get cash and resources into people’s hands quickly.”

Apologies for printing appeals for donations, but they’re needed. I trust that if you can’t or don’t want to donate, you won’t but will understand why I ask.