English Revolution
Return to the Western Civilization H Page
1. In spite of her popularity, what problems did Elizabeth I leave for her successors--
Over finance
Over questions of political power
Over
religion
2.
Explain the clash between divine right monarchy and constitutional
monarchy. What difference of
opinion exists between James I and the House of Commons on this issue?
3.
Why can English kings such as Charles I literally not afford to ignore
Parliament? What is the Petition of Right and why is it important?
4.
What are the key events between 1637 and 1642 that led up to the outbreak
of theEnglish Civil War
5.
Be able to explain the significance of the following as it relates to the
Civil War: Cavaliers, Roundheads, Oliver Cromwell, the New Model Army.
6. Note and evaluate the following about Cromwell’s rule:
political changes he made to the English government
ironies about his relationship with Parliament
attempts
to implement Puritanism
7.
What is the Restoration of 1660?
8.
What basic protections did the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 guarantee?
9.
What actions of James II irritated Parliament?
What actual event triggers the “Glorious
Revolution?”
10.
What fundamental alteration in English government is finally established under
William and Mary?. What fundamental
principles are enshrined in the Bill of Right of 1689?
11. What is a cabinet and what is the role of a prime minister?
Return to the Western Civilization H Page
Background
to the Religious Tension of the 1600s
Until the 1530s, England was a Catholic country. Henry VIII broke away and established a Protestant church that is sometimes called by historians the English Catholic Church. Henry made few changes beyond making himself, not the Pope, the head of the Church in England. Some English people became followers of the French Protestant reformer John Calvin. Calvinists favored much more dramatic changes to the Church than either Martin Luther or Henry VIII. Key features of Calvinism include…
·
Belief in Predestination--the
idea that God chooses the saved in advance
·
Absolute authority of the Bible in
all matters.
·
Church structure with no hierarchy;
ministers were elected; no bishops, etc.
·
Worship service/place of worship
that is simple and unadorned; no elaborate prayers, no church decorations; no
vestments, statue, symbols
· Lifestyle of simplicity and hard work. (Calvinists believed that hard work and success are signs of God's favor--the "Protestant work ethnic" becomes an important value).
The
English followers of John Calvin were called Puritans (they wanted to
"purify" the Church in England of all corrupting Catholic elements.)
Elizabeth
I and her advisors sought to fashion a religious compromise during her reign.
The Anglican Church under Elizabeth retained many Catholic elements of
ceremony and structure while adopting some significant Protestant changes to
Church doctrine. While Elizabeth is
alive, this compromise or "via media" (middle way) works well enough.
Her personal popularity and her unwillingness to meddle in people's
private religious practices keep relative religious peace in England.
Religious
tensions erupt in the 1600s, however, when Elizabeth dies without an heir and
the Stuart monarchs come to the throne. King
James (Stuart) of Scotland is the nearest male, Protestant relative, so he
becomes King James I of England when Elizabeth dies in 1603. Both James I and
his son Charles I will attempt to impose Anglican ways on the Calvinist
Puritans. The Puritans had become a
significant force within the House of Commons, so religious and political
battles merge as king and Parliament fight over power, money, and religion.
Return to the Western Civilization H Page
Niccolo
Machiavelli and Sir Thomas More
Assignment. Read the except from Utopia by Thomas More ( below, also in your English text book p. 239), then read the except below from Machiavelli’s The Prince.
Excerpt
from Utopia by Thomas More
Suppose I should maintain that men choose a king not for his sake, but
for theirs, that by his care and efforts they may live comfortably and safely.
And that therefore a prince ought to take more care of his people's happiness
than of his own, as a shepherd ought to take more care of his flock than of
himself.
Certainly it is wrong to think that the poverty of the people is a
safeguard of public peace. Who quarrel more than beggars do? Who long for a
change more earnestly than the dissatisfied? Or who rushes in to create
disorders which such desperate boldness as the man who has nothing to lose and
everything to gain?
If
a king is so hated and scorned by his subjects that he can rule them only by
insults, ill-usage, confiscation, and impoverishment, it would certainly be
better for him to quit his kingdom than to keep the name of authority when he
has lost the majesty of kingship through his misrule. It is less befitting the
dignity of a king to reign over beggars than over rich and happy subjects…When
a ruler enjoys wealth and pleasure while all about him are grieving and
groaning, he acts as a jailor rather than as a king. He is a poor physician who
cannot cure a disease except by throwing his patient into another. A king who
can only rule his people by taking from them the pleasures of life shows that he
does not know how to govern free men. He ought to shake off either his sloth or
his pride, for the people's hatred and scorn arise from these faults in him. Let
him live on his own income without wronging others, and limit his expenses to
his revenue. Let him curb crime, and by his wise conduct prevent it rather than
allow it to increase, only to punish it subsequently. Let him not rashly revive
laws already abrogated by disuse, especially if they have been long forgotten
and never wanted. And let him never seize any property on the ground that it is forfeited
as a fine, when a judge
would regard a subject as wicked and fraudulent for claiming it.
The Prince
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1517), a diplomat in the pay of the Republic of
Florence, wrote The Prince in 1513 after the overthrow of the Republic
forced him into exile. It is widely regarded as one of the basic texts of
Western political science, and represents a basic change in the attitude and
image of government.
A great many men have imagined states and princedoms such as nobody ever saw or knew in the real world, and there is such a difference between the way we really live and the way we ought to live that the man who neglects the real to study the ideal will learn how to accomplish his ruin, not his salvation.
I shall now explore the methods and rules that a prince should follow in
regard to the treatment of his subjects and his friends… I intend to write
something useful. I shall look at the facts of politics rather than take my
evidence from imaginary governments that have never really existed…In politics
a man should be guided by what is, rather than by what ought to be. A man who
did only what was right, would soon fail among so many who are untrustworthy.
Therefore, a prince who wishes to remain in power must learn how not to be good
and must also learn to use this knowledge, or not use it,
depending upon the circumstances.
Is it better to be
loved more than feared or feared more than loved? Ideally, one ought to be both
feared and loved, but it is difficult for the two sentiments to go together. If
one of the two must be sacrificed, it is much safer to be feared than loved. In
general men are ungrateful, dishonest, cowardly, and covetous. As long as you
help them, they will do your bidding. They will offer you their blood, their
goods, their lives, and their children when it appears that you will not need to
take them up on the offer. But when you try to collect, they often go back on
their word. If a prince has relied solely on the good faith of others, he will
he ruined. Men are less afraid to offend a prince they love than one they fear.
They feel free to break the obligation that they owe for love whenever it suits
them to do so. But they will do their duty if they fear, for the threat of
punishment never fails to bring them to heel.
Still, a prince
should be careful to make himself feared in such a way that if men do not love
him, they at least do not hate him. Fear and the absence of hatred can go
together. Both can be won by a prince, as long as he does not interfere with the
property of his
subjects or with
their women. When he has to take anyone's life, let him be sure to make the
reasons for doing it plain. Above all he must not seize their property, for men
will more easily forget the death of their father than the loss of their worldly
goods…
A successful prince must imitate both the fox and the lion, for the lion
cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from
wolves. He must, therefore, be at the same time a fox to recognize traps, and a
lion to frighten off wolves. Those who wish to be only lions do not understand
this important fact.
A prince ought not to keep his word when doing so would go against his
best interest, and when the reasons that originally motivated him no longer
exist. If men were all good, this rule would not be a sound one. But because
they are bad and would not honor their word to the prince, he is not bound to
keep faith with them. In addition a prince can always find an excuse for
breaking his word…Those who have been able to imitate the fox have been most
successful. But a prince should be careful to disguise these characteristics
well. Men are so simple-minded that anyone who wants to be deceitful can always
find those who will allow themselves to be deceived.
It is not at all
necessary for a prince to have all the good qualities… but it is necessary to
seem to have them. I will even go so far as to say that to actually have these
qualities and to be guided by them always is dangerous, but to appear to possess
them is useful.
Return to the Western Civilization H Page
Speeches
of Elizabeth I and James I
The “Golden Speech”of Elizabeth I (1601)
Directions. Highlight
contrasts in this speech with the speeches of James I in 1610 (next readings).
What do these speeches tell us about a significant cause of the growing tension
between Parliament and monarch in England?
On the afternoon of 30 November,
141Members of the House of Commons crowded into the Presence Chamber and fell on
their knees as their sovereign entered the room. She was sixty-eight and in
excellent health, but perhaps some guessed that this would be her last
Parliament. She delivered an address that would be reprinted time and time
again, whenever England was in danger, as the Golden Speech of Queen Elizabeth.
Mr. Speaker,
We have heard your declaration and perceive your care of our estate. I do assure you there is no prince that loves his subjects better, or whose love can countervail our love. There is no jewel, be it of never so rich a price, which I set before this jewel: I mean your love. For I do esteem it more than any treasure or riches… And, though God hath raised me high, yet this I count the glory of my Crown, that I have reigned with your loves. This makes me that I do not so much rejoice that God hath made me to be a Queen, as to be a Queen over so thankful a people. Therefore I have cause to wish nothing more than to content the subject and that is a duty which I owe. I trust by the almighty power of God that I shall be his instrument to preserve you from every peril, dishonour, shame, tyranny and oppression, partly by means of your intended helps which we take very acceptably because it [demonstrates] the largeness of your good loves and loyalties unto your sovereign.
My heart was never set on any worldly goods. What you bestow on me, I will not hoard it up, but receive it to bestow on you again. Therefore render unto them I beseech you Mr Speaker, such thanks as you imagine my heart yieldeth, but my tongue cannot express. Mr Speaker, I would wish you and the rest to stand up for I shall yet trouble you with longer speech…
There will never Queen sit in my seat with more zeal to my country, care to my subjects and that will sooner with willingness venture her life for your good and safety than myself. For it is my desire to live nor reign no longer than my life and reign shall be for your good. And though you have had, and may have, many princes more mighty and wise sitting in this seat, yet you never had nor shall have, any that will be more careful and loving…And I pray to you Mr. Speaker, Mr Comptroller, Mr Secretary and you of my Council, that before these gentlemen go, you bring them all to kiss my hand.
Return to the Western Civilization H Page
James I of England (1603-1625) reigned as James VI of Scotland (1567-1625)
before assuming the English throne. James was one of the most important
defenders of the rights of monarchs and of the divine origin of kingship.
Directions: Highlight key
ideas as you read. Focus on
statements made by James that members of the House of Commons would find
objectionable.
We daily see that in the parliament (which is nothing else but the head court of the king and his vassals) the laws are but craved [desired] by His [members of Parliament], and only made by Him at their proposal and with their advice: for the King make daily statutes and ordinances, [imposing] such pains thereto as He thinks fit, without any advice of parliament or estates, yet it lies in the power of no parliament to make any kind of law or statute, without His scepture [that is, authority] …giving it the force of a law.... And as ye see it manifest that the King is over-lord of the whole land, so is he master over every person that inhabits the same, having power over the life and death of every one of them…
... The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth: for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods. There be three principal [comparisons] that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God, and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the Divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families: for a king is truly parens patriae [parent of the country], the politic father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man....
I conclude then this point touching the power of kings with this axiom of divinity, That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy... so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power…
First, that you do not meddle with the main points of government: that is my craft: to meddle with that, were to lessen me. I am now an old king ... I must not be taught my office. Secondly, I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received from my predecessors... All novelties are dangerous as well in a politic [government] as in a natural body…
Return to the Western Civilization H Page