Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T15:33:17.998Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Manipulation of Committees in the Long Parliament, 1641-1642

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Lotte Glow
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Historians of politics of the English Civil War have until recently studied the behaviour of members of Parliament through their speeches on the floor of the Houses. This practice led to the view that parliamentary policy was determined by the ascendancy of one of two opposing factions, composed of the most outspoken and influential members. J. H. Hexter's analysis of the tellers in divisions during the critical period of peace negotiation with the King in 1642 and 1643 expanded this rigid dichotomy and showed that political opinion in the House of Commons was divided into three “Parties,” the less committed centre being most susceptible to the winds of political change. He also showed that policy decisions did not depend solely upon the persuasiveness and stature of the leading politicians, but were shaped according to the temporary allegiances of a body of enthusiastic, though inconsistent, followers. The work of M. Frear Keeler, and of D. Brunton and D. H. Pennington shifted the emphasis further from the leadership to the rank and file by their interest in the background and grass roots of the most insignificant member alongside his more illustrious colleagues.

The aim of this article is to examine another aspect of the dynamics of parliamentary politics. It seeks to show how the leadership of the Commons gained control over the members by skilfully delegating vital functions to carefully chosen committees, for the committee system, as it evolved during the early months of the Long Parliament and as it developed during the years of war, met the challenge of the absent Privy Council in providing Parliament with a new and responsible executive.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , November 1965 , pp. 31 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Hexter, J. H., The Reign of King Pym (Oxford, 1941)Google Scholar.

2. Keeler, M. Frear, The Long Parliament (Philadelphia, 1954)Google Scholar.

3. Brunton, D. and Pennington, D. H., Members of the Long Parliament (London, 1954)Google Scholar.

4. Mitchell, Williams M., The Rise of the Revolutionary Party in the English House of Commons 1603-1629 (New York, 1957)Google Scholar.

5. Notestein, Wallace, “The Winning of the Initiative by the House of Commons,” Proceedings of the British Academy, II (1924–1925), 140 ff.Google Scholar; Willson, D. H., The Privy Councillors in the House of Commons, 1604-1621 (Minneapolis, 1940)Google Scholar.

6. Mitchell, , Rise of the Revolutionary Party, p. 71Google Scholar.

7. Cited in Notestein, Wallace (ed.), The Journal of Sir Simonds D'Ewes (New Haven, 1923), p. 22Google Scholar, note.

8. Pym's method and purpose in using the committees is nowhere clearer than right at the beginning of the Long Parliament when Mountnorris's petition was read. Notestein, , D'Ewes, p. 12, Nov. 7, 1640Google Scholar. “Mr. Pymme saied if wee consider divers points of this petition and papers a man might thinke wee lived rather in Turkie than in Christendome and moved for a private committee.” Clearly what Pym meant was that the matter in hand would never be cleared up by the babble of the House and was far better suited to treatment in committee where it might get to-the-point argument.

9. Journals of the House of Commons, II, 24Google Scholar.

10. Ibid., II, 25.

11. D'Ewes wrote: “I was named of [the committee to prepare charges against Laud] by two or three but omitted by the Clerk's negligence.” Coates, Willson H. (ed.), The Journal of Sir Simonds D'Ewes (New Haven, 1942), p. 163Google Scholar.

12. Sanford, S. L., Studies and Illustrations of the Great Rebellion (London 1858), p. 295Google Scholar.

13. BM, Nicholas MSS, Add. MSS, 31954, fol. 182.

14. Elsyng, Henry, The Method of Passing Bills in Parliament [Harleian Miscellany] (London, 1685), V, 288Google Scholar.

15. Notestein, , D'Ewes, p. 12Google Scholar.

16. Gardiner, S. R., History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War (London 1894), IX, 231Google Scholar.

17. Notestein, , D'Ewes, p. 30Google Scholar.

18. Edward, , Earl of Clarendon, History of the Great Rebellion, ed. Macray, W. D. (Oxford, 1888), IIIGoogle Scholar, chs. ccxl-ccxlii.

19. Coates, , D'Ewes, p. 16Google Scholar.

20. Cited in Notestein, , D'Ewes, p. 27, note, Nov. 11, 1640Google Scholar.

21. SirWarwick, Philip, Memoirs of the Reign of King Charles I (Edinburgh, 1813), p. 165Google Scholar.

22. Ibid., p. 204: “and committees, which in former times were named with great gravity, and confined to select members, to the end that no man might have voices in the reports that were made back from the committee, but those who were named of the committee (though then any member of the House, though not of the committee might attend there, and, asking leave to speak, give his reason, though not his vote, for or against the business) are now enlarged, that everyone that comes in but in the last hour of the day, when the heat of the service was over … and his vote was as significant as anyone's who had steadily attended at the service. This facilitated designs very much, for some might vote in one afternoon at many committees, when others necessarily must be fixed at one.”

23. Notestein, , D'Ewes, p. 370, Feb. 18, 1641Google Scholar.

24. Ibid., p. 158.

25. Ibid., p. 164. D'Ewes gives an example of the usefulness of “a stander by.”

26. Hampden, Digby, St. John, Erie, Clotworthy Barrington, Vane Jr., Holles, . Commons Journals, II, 25, Nov. 10, 1640Google Scholar. Hexter's terminology and evidence has been used here. The Reign of King Pym, passim.

27. Culpepper, Widdrington, Kirton, Bagshaw, Capell, Belasyse, Dering, Digby. Commons Journals, II, 25Google Scholar.

28. Keeler, M. Frear, “Some Opposition Committees, 1640,” Conflict in Stuart England, ed. Aiken, W. A. and Henning, B. D. (London, 1960), p. 136Google Scholar, discusses the leading committees set up in 1640 including the one for the Remonstrance. She indicates the number of ex-court officials and royalists on these committees but also the absence of any clear-cut supporters of the King in the early months.

29. Harley, Crew, Perd, Hungerford, and Pierrepont were not important political figures, but they remained loyal to Pym in later years, while Selden, Grimston, and Rudyerd stayed on the parliamentary side although not very happily opposed to the King.

30. Coates, W. H., “Some Observations on the Grand Remonstrance,” J.M.H., IV (1932), 6–7Google Scholar, discusses the efforts of the later royalists to tone down the Remonstrance and the compromises made by both parties.

31. Coates, , D'Ewes, pp. 183, 184, note, Nov. 22, 1641Google Scholar. Falkland had been added to the original twenty four as a member to consider the additional Ministers' Remonstrance, in which he was interested as a proponent of an Erastian detente in the Church of England.

32. Coates, , “Grand Remonstrance,” J.M.H., IV (1932), 6Google Scholar, note.

33. Rushworth, John, Historical Collections of Private Passages of State (London, 1721), IV, 32, Nov. 10, 1640Google Scholar.

34. At the opening of the Long Parliament Digby had been a close associate of Pym's through his father, the Earl of Bristol, and the Earl of Bedford, the nucleus of the anticourt party in the Lords. But Strafford's trial broke this alliance. Bedford's plan to infuse the Council with opposition leaders failed on the King's side because it did not save Strafford and on Pym's side because the Army Plot convinced him of Charles's untrustworthiness. Bedford's moderating influence was lost at his death. Digby became a supporter of the moderate royalist line which was initiated by the Lords to counter the growing power of the Commons. Digby now spoke out to condemn the flimsy, unreliable evidence of Vane, which alone was to indict Strafford. He refused to trust the belated evidence and held that a single witness could not condemn a man. A month later he supported Wilmot against Pym's accusation that he had been a central figure in the Army Plot. Gardiner, , History of England, IX, 311–24Google Scholar; Wedgwood, C.V., The King's Peace, 1637-1641 (London, 1956), pp. 407-16, 438–39Google Scholar.

35. He may have been unwilling, nevertheless, to see it published. Coates, , D'Ewes, p. 117Google Scholar.

36. Notestein, , D'Ewes, pp. 20, 22–23Google Scholar. His speech immediately preceded the inauguration of the committee on Nov. 10, 1640.

37. H.M.C., Coke MSS, Pt. 2, p. 275, Mar. 15, 1641Google Scholar.

38. Notestein, , D'Ewes, pp. 342–43, Feb. 9, 1641Google Scholar.

39. Commons Journals, II, 81, Feb. 10, 1641.Google Scholar

40. Baillie was in London with the commissioners from Scotland negotiating the treaty of Ripon in order to keep an eye on the possibility of promoting Presbyterianism among the reformers.

41. Baillie, Robert, Letters and Journals, ed. Laing, David (Edinburgh, 1841), I, 302, Feb. 28, 1641Google Scholar.

42. Clotworthy was a Presbyterian, Dering an Erastian.

43. The division figures were 180 in favour, 145 against. Commons Journals, II, 81Google Scholar.

44. Baillie, , Letters and Journals, I, 244Google Scholar. He surely means the Committee of Twenty four.

45. Gardiner, , History of England, IX, 287Google Scholar; Shaw, W. A., History of the English Church 1640-1660 (London, 1900), I, 24 ff.Google Scholar

46. Marten did interest himself in religious matters at a later date when he acted on committees relating to religion, but only when the matter of Episcopacy had been disposed of. His interest, as a theist, was probably not in doctrine or church government, except in so far as they reflected on his political radicalism. His role in the politics of this period is discussed in an unpublished D. Phil. Thesis by Williams, C. M., “The Political Career of Henry Marten with Particular Reference to the Origins of Republicanism” (Oxford, 1954)Google Scholar. On the issue under discussion he may have belonged to the group which wanted the Ministers' Remonstrance committed, but not to this particular committee, an alternative which had been discussed in the House at length as a quicker and more drastic method of achieving the group's aims. As, in the discussion on Feb. 8, 1641, he moved that the question of committing be put off, the latter alternative seems more likely. Notestein, , D'Ewes, pp. 336 ff.Google Scholar

47. Ibid., pp. 336-37, note, Feb. 8, 1641.

48. Hopton, who was against the petition, was for committing it just the same.

49. Shaw, , History of the English Church, I, 38.Google Scholar

50. Pym's role in the later debates over the abolition of Episcopacy was unusually quiet, and it is only indirectly that we know of his differences with Hampden and others among his enthusiastic supporters on this ticklish issue. But as a leader of stature between the extremists of both sides, he tried to lessen the friction on the religious issue wherever possible.

51. Notestein, , D'Ewes, p. 340, Feb. 9, 1641Google Scholar.

52. Ibid., p. 342.

53. Further additions were made to the committee dealing with the Ministers' Remonstrance, mainly for specific business. Commons Journals, II, 94, 126Google Scholar. These increased the numbers of active Puritans.

54. Clarendon, , History, III, 90–92.Google Scholar

55. Commons Journals, II, 91, Feb. 23, 1641.Google Scholar

56. All but Hales, Pye, and Hungerford.

57. Lyttleton and Herbert were on the Privy Council, and Culpepper became a Councillor in 1642.

58. Only the men who later stayed with Parliament had any merchant connections—Pye, Hales, and Hungerford; but even they were not closely associated with the political leadership.

59. Commons Journals, II, 94Google Scholar. Notestein, , D'Ewes, p. 421, Mar. 1, 1641Google Scholar. Although none of these men had direct connections with the City, their political prominence and Puritan interests explain their nomination.

60. Ibid., p. 433, Mar. 3, 1641.

61. Clarendon, , History, III, 91.Google Scholar

62. Pearl, Valerie, London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution (Oxford, 1961), p. 198Google Scholar; Baillie, , Letters and Journals, I, 288.Google Scholar

63. Commons Journals, II, 137, May 6, 1641.Google Scholar

64. Ibid., II, 184, June 24, 1641.

65. Ibid., II, 302.

66. Coates, , D'Ewes, p. 90, Nov. 15, 1641Google Scholar.

67. Ibid., pp. 91-94.

68. Ibid., p. 94, note.

69. The membership included Sir William Brereton, Sir John Clotworthy, Sir Richard Parkhurst, John Crew, William Spurstow, Lord Falkland, Lord Dungarvan, Robert Goodwyn, John Pym, Isaac Pennington, John Potts, and William Strode, all of whom had some interest in Ireland. D.N.B.; Keeler, The Long Parliament, passim.

70. A noticeable proportion of the Commoners on this committee had interests in other colonizing adventures: in America, the East Indies, and even the West Indies. They included Sir William Brereton, Sir Arthur Hesilrig, Sir Robert Harley, Sir Walter Erie, Richard Cave, Sir Thomas Barrington, Sir Simonds D'Ewes, Sir Anthony Irby, Sir William Lytton, John Pym, Isaac Pennington, Sir Henry Vane the elder, and Samuel Vassall. Ibid. It is conceivable that they saw Ireland in the same commercial vein and that this was an added incentive to keep out the Scots from the plantations.

71. There were at least eleven royalists and fifteen supporters of Pym.

72. Coates, , D'Ewes, p. 202Google Scholar.

73. Ibid., p. xxvi, note 25.

74. Ibid., p. 228, Dec. 3, 1641.

75. Although the motion was only to present the matter to the King, it was done with the intention of getting his consent and thus passing as a bill.

76. A counter-proposal was made by Sidney Godolphin that the majority of the Lords should combine with the minority in the Commons. Coates, , D'Ewes, p. 228Google Scholar.

77. PRO 543/1, Weckherlin Papers, Trumbull MSS, Miscellaneous Correspondence, 1613-46, Historical Manuscripts Commission Deposit, Oct. 18, 1641.

78. Coates, , D'Ewes, pp. 366Google Scholar, note 9, 386.

79. Ibid., pp. 366, 386.

80. Ibid., p. 386. Arthur Goodwyn and Carew were tellers for the ayes (170) and Kirton and Price for the noes (86).