Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page74.asp
"The Tudor period reconstructed English civilization" wrote one historian. The same Dynasty not only accomplished a social revolution but also achieved an ecclesiastical revolution. The Church and Baronage were great powers on which the medieval civilization in England had revolved. Both these were overthrown by the Tudor dynasty.
After the death of Elizabeth I, James I became the King of England. It was the beginning of Stuart Dynasty in England.
The Line of the Stuarts stretched from 1603 to 1714 AD. The following are the English rulers of this period.
1) James I (1603-1625 A.D)
2) Charles I (1625-1649 AD)
3) Commonwealth Interlude (1649-1660 AD)
4) Charles II (1660-1685 AD)
5) James II (1685-1688 AD)
6) William and Mary (1689-1702 AD)
7) Queen Anne (1702-1714 AD)
According to the historian Southgate, "The history of England in Stuart times is the story of a struggle between the Kings and the Parliaments of the period. In the middle of the century this struggle developed into open warfare, and a King was beheaded, but the contest had begun many years before the actual outbreak of war, and it did not end even when Charles I was executed. There were many issues upon which the King and the Parliament quarreled, but the real cause of the struggle is not to be found merely by considering these points. It was a struggle for supremacy." Before the advent of the Stuarts, the Tudors who were despotic rulers had ruled for England more than a century. They tactfully manipulated popular support. This is why during the Tudor period not a single instance of any serious conflict was reported between the Parliament and the Monarchy. On the contrary, the Stuart Kings, who were themselves Scots, could not understand the temper of the English people. They were frank and straightforward in their opinions and possessed no political skill or tact like the Tudors to humor the Parliament or the people. Therefore, several crises occurred during the whole period of Stuart rule from 1603 to 1688. Ultimately, the Parliament achieved its final victory in 1688 with the Glorious Revolution.
James I was the first ruler of the Stuart period. He was a Scot and was considered as the ’wisest fool’ in Europe. He had the notion that the King derived his authority from god and was answerable only to him.
Certain historians have formulated the theory of the Divine Rights of the King on the basis of the beliefs of various despotic rulers. According to them the Theory maintained:
That the Supreme Being regarded hereditary monarchy as opposed to other forms of Government with peculiar favor;
That no human power could deprive a legitimate prince of his rights;
That the authority of such a prince was necessarily always despotic;
That the laws, in England and other countries, were to be regarded merely as concessions which the sovereign had freely made and might, at his pleasure, resume;
That any treaty which a King might concede to his people was merely a declaration of his present intentions and not a contract of which the performance could be demanded.
Some of the essential factors that were responsible for the frequent clashes between the King and their Parliament are:
Money matters have always been the most important factor in any revolution or conflict. Finance was another matter of dispute between the Stuart Kings and their Parliaments. The Stuart monarchs could not establish their despotism without making themselves financially sound. There is no doubt that Elizabeth was a very popular monarch; still she could not get substantial grants from the Parliament. The reason was that Parliament was growing conscious of its rights. It was not willing to place heavy finances at the disposal of the ruler lest these be misused. In order to govern the nation absolutely the Stuarts needed an army. They were also on the look out for allies. As a result of this economic difficulties went on multiplying. To meet the situation, the early Stuarts took recourse to arbitrary taxation. The Parliament resented this. Ultimately, this resulted in a quarrel between the two.
The people of England were politically aware regarding their rights and they took up the cause of freedom. These Englishmen clashed with the Kings, when they were denied their rights. Their recent learning had influenced the middle class. They were conscious of their rights. This could well be one of the results of Renaissance humanism.
The personalities of James I and Charles I to a very great extent was reason enough for the conflict between Parliament and King. Assuming themselves to be the representatives of God they did not like the Parliament’s interference in the affairs of the State. The first two kings showed future kings the way to raise money to meet personal expenditure. They employed several illegal methods to raise money. Their successors followed these methods. Due to over-expenditure however, they had to look to the Parliament for economic grants quite often. But when the Parliament questioned their expenditure they dissolved it.
Another point of discord between the kings and the Parliament was the question of the control over the Ministers. The Parliament, basing its arguments on the practices of the Augevin and Lancastrian kings claimed that it had the right to exercise control over the King’s ministers. The Parliament impeached several ministers of the Stuarts. In such duels it was invariably the King who lost against the Parliament. The kings were obstinate and did not give up their practice. The result was that the Stuarts earned disrepute and fell low in popular estimation.
The Stuart monarchs issued prerogatives from time to time. The power of making laws rested with the Parliament. The King used his special powers to counteract Parliamentary laws. This broadened the gulf between the two. The conflict was regarding who should be considered sovereign in the land, answerable only to god.
The King’s means of tax collection were very unfair. The Stuarts made every attempt to collect money from the people by using all sorts of means, fair or foul. These included selling out monopolies, raising forced loans and selling Knighthood. The Parliament resented this.
Religion was another factor contributing to this rift. When the first Stuart came to the throne, there were several religious parties striving to gain some concessions from the ruler of the new dynasty. The most powerful party was that of the Puritans. They had gained a majority in the House of Commons. They had organized themselves to see the Ecclesiastical settlement of Elizabeth revised. There were Catholics too, who with the change in dynasty, had begun to think of restoring England’s connection with the Roman Pope. But James had made up his mind. He had decided to uphold the same Church system, which Queen Elizabeth had instated. Immediately after his accession, Charles I married Henrietta Maria of France.
Since France was Catholic, Charles was bound to have Catholic leanings. Ultimately, he became a Catholic. The people of England turned against him. The Puritans had a majority in the Parliament and as such they could not tolerate undue favors made to Catholics. The religious policies of Charles I led to the famous Civil War.
The foreign policy of James I and Charles I also contributed to this struggle. Under them England’s foreign policy came to be colored by religious sentiments. James’ engagement with Spain and the alliance of Charles with France appeared to the Parliament to imperil Protestantism.
Fair and free elections are considered the foundation of democracy. The Stuart monarchs did not believe in this principle. They had developed the habit of interfering in the elections of members of Parliament. Their main object was to have such members in the Parliament who would carry out their wishes. This way they could do whatever they liked under the guise of Parliament.
Time was not in favor of the Stuarts. Before the Stuarts, England was subject to constant foreign threats. In 1603, the situation completely changed. There was peace and order in the country. The people could now pay attention to the attainments of their rights and under these circumstances, suppression of the Parliament was not an easy task. Ironically, the absence of external dangers became another reason why the Parliament and Monarch came to quarrel.
The Stuart monarchs considered themselves to be above the law of the land and wanted the various discussions to be proclaimed according to their wishes. In order to punish their political opponents and critics they had established courts like the Court of Ecclesiastical Commission etc. These Courts were engines of tyranny and excesses. The Parliament and the King picked up a quarrel on this account also. The Parliament was successful in getting the Habeas Corpus Act passed in 1679. After the Act, the courts were extricated from the clutches of the King.
The Thirty Years’ War began in 1618 as a German Civil War, partly religious, partly political and soon involved nearly all of Europe. The peace of Augsburg (1555) allowed the German Princes to remain Catholic or opt for Lutheranism. This made Germany a Checkerboard of states adhering to one or the other faith. The spread of Calvinism and the success of the Catholic Counter Reformation upset the unstable balance.
The Catholic Princes were opposed to the Emperor. The Protestant rulers were divided among themselves between Lutheranism and Calvinism, and many of them were at odds for purely political reasons. Any quarrel among any of the Princes, or between one of them and the emperor, was bound to feed upon heated antagonism and involved them all.
A dispute in Bohemia precipitated the conflict. The Catholic King Ferdinand violated the "Letter of Majesty." This resulted in the revolt of the Czechs in Bohemia. Thus began a war that lasted 30 years. The ensuing conflict came to be known as "The Bohemian Period" (1618-1625) or the Thirty Years’ War. The Protestants elected Frederic as King of Bohemia. Later with the help of the Emperor, the Protestant forces were defeated. Their properties were snatched and distributed among the Catholics. So Protestantism largely disappeared in Bohemia.
The Danish period of the War (1625-1629) started when King Christian V of Denmark launched his forces against those of the Emperor and rallied other Protestant princes to this banner. England and Holland helped him financially. It was chiefly a struggle of Protestantism against Catholicism though also of lesser powers against the Emperor. They were defeated and badly beaten. In 1629, the Emperor imposed a peace on Denmark.
The Swedish period of the War was from 1630 to 1635. France helped Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden. The Dutch likewise lent him financial and moral support. In the ensuing Swedish attack on Germany, the troops of Gustavus proved a worthy match of the imperial army. However, he was killed in battle and in 1635, peace was declared.
The period from 1635 to 1648 is the French period of the Thirty Years’ War. Richelieu formed an alliance with the Swedish and a few German princes in 1635 against the Hapsburg dynasty. At first the French only employed defensive strategies. When the Hapsburg invasion at Corbie was controlled, it enabled the French to take the offensive into Germany and prolong the war for another decade. The religious loyalists disappeared and both the Catholics and the Protestants took sides or remained neutral according to political considerations. Denmark Protestants even attacked the Swedish Protestants. In 1640, the Portuguese Catholics threw off the Spanish yoke when Spain was involved in a major war with Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. In the last year of the war, abortive revolutionary movements broke out in Catholic Sicily against the Spanish King and in France against Jules Mazarin, the French politician who had succeeded Richelieu.
As the war dragged on diplomats from all over Europe assembled in Duchy of Westphalia and engaged in the first general peace conference in European History. The treaty of Westphalia was signed in 1648. Territories were given to Sweden, France and Bavaria. Switzerland was formally declared separated from the Empire.
The treaty not only brought an end to the Thirty Years’ War but also destroyed Germany. Germany was rendered economically bankrupt and politically dismembered, divided into about 350 big and small states. German princes were made free in internal and external affairs. They arranged and looked after their own army, judiciary and law. The emperor was simply to be an acting officer for distributing ordinary posts. He was confined to Austria only and had nothing to do with Germany in the future.
This treaty is an epoch-making treaty in European History. It is the dividing date between two great epochs, the age of Religious wars and the new epoch of political uprisings. It gave birth to a number of international problems, which decided the future course of the history of Europe. The downfall of the Holy Roman Empire made Germany and France compete in gaining control over the Province of Rhine. Prussia came into prominence. Austria decided to capture Danube and clashed with Russia, while Sweden controlled the Baltic. Holland became powerful and rivaled the English in trade and commerce. Thus the Thirty Years’ War helped in giving a democratic set-up to Europe.
Cardinal Richelieu emerged as an advisor to the Queen of France. After Henry IV died his Queen became the regent. She desired to unite the royal families of France and Spain. The treaties of Marriage were signed (1612). Louis XIII (2 years) was betrothed to Anne of Austria, daughter of King of Spain, Philip III. The Prince of Spain, Philip IV was betrothed to Elizabeth of France. It was at this juncture that Richelieu appeared on the political stage.
The year 1624 was an eventful year for France and, by extension, Europe. Right from 1624 till his death in 1642, Richelieu was the most influential person in France during his time. Richelieu, although a bishop and a staunch Catholic, was intensely detested in Rome. He was a man of poor physique and health. Richelieu worked with two main objectives: The desire to make France supreme in Europe and to establish the absolute supremacy of the French King within the French borders. For this he had to overcome rival authorities, nobles, Protestants, as well as the provincial assemblies of France. He had a thorough understanding of the French political situation and also knew adequately well the importance of France in European politics. He was a great statesman and probably the greatest diplomat that France had known.
Richelieu had a proper understanding of European politics. He efficiently handled the affairs at home and abroad. The policies that he applied within the nation were as under:
Richelieu had a deep understanding of the French psyche. He brought the nobles under his control. The nobles were annoyed, and reacted strongly against this. They plotted to kill Richelieu and overthrow the King but the plot failed. The nobles who were responsible for this were executed. This was a lesson for other erring nobles.
The Protestant Huguenots were creating trouble and disturbance. The political privileges given to them were against the absolute power of the crown. Richelieu crushed them and formulated a treaty by which they were allowed to enjoy only religious liberty. All powers relating to political independence were denied to them.
Richelieu intended to centralize the government. With this in mind he appointed Intendants in each province. These royal officials inspected the country on behalf of the king. The Intendants were given the financial, police, judicial etc. charges. In other words, they were royal spies. This assured the absolutism of the King. All opposing nobles were totally destroyed.
Richelieu reduced the State-General’s importance in the national issues. He made it defunct. He also forced the French Parliaments to confine themselves to their judicial duties only and did his best to suppress the representative assemblies in the Province.
The aim of Richelieu was to make France a very important and powerful country in Europe. For this he concentrated more on European politics. According to the historian Grant, "It was upon foreign, not upon domestic policy that Richelieu’s eyes were more constantly fixed, and his influence upon the great contract of the Thirty Years’ War and the international relations of Europe generally was decisive. It may be questioned that any other diplomat, until the time of Bismarck, has ever exercised so far-reaching a power."
The aim of Richelieu was the joint defeat of the Hapsburg powers of Spain and Austria. He did all that was in his power to make the contact between Spain and Austria more difficult. Besides watching the struggle in Germany with the most anxious care, he also influenced it at the moment of crisis. This apart, when Gustavus Adolphus invaded Germany, he relied largely on the French support. Richelieu made a treaty with him in 1630. According to this, the Swiss army led by Bernard of Weimar was practically taken into French pay. After the death of Bernard, this army was then taken into the direct service of France.
Richelieu paved the way for monarchical absolutism in France under Louis XIV as also the dictatorship of Napoleon in the future. Richelieu was unscrupulous and lacked political principle. He sacrificed the happiness of the people of France for the glory of the King.
King Philip was blind to the new forces of religion and politics. He had certain fixed ideas and principles by which he wrongly estimated the inherent strength of Protestantism and democratic nationalism, which were strong throughout Europe. These policies of his proved him a reactionary for he failed to mold his thoughts, beliefs and ideas with the then emerging modern forces. For Philip, religious bigotry was most important. He could never subordinate religion and give value to politics. Philip could not concentrate on many things together at the same time though he was involved in several projects. Due to this many of his projects failed.
The policies adopted by Philip hastened the decline of Spain. Both his domestic and foreign policies largely resulted in diminishing Spanish prestige. The machinery of the inquisition set up by Philip to arrest the growth of liberal ideas made Spain one of the most backward countries of the continent. The Moors were highly skilled in agriculture and industrial knowledge. But Philip made a serious blunder when he exterminated a large number of Moors. This resulted in the industrial and agricultural backwardness of the country. Philip’s constant exploitation of the already limited resources of the country due to his foreign wars drove the people to the verge of extreme poverty. The absolutism of Philip also made the people idle for they felt no responsibility for the nation. The poor became poorer whereas the wealthy nobles lived happily without being concerned about the state affairs.
A rude blow was dealt to the commercial prosperity of Spain when Netherlands became free from Spanish domination. This domination had provided Spain with a rich source of income. Now it was deprived of this.
Philip’s policy towards England not only brought Spain national humiliation but also disaster. The defeat of the Spanish Armada dealt a severe blow to the Spanish naval power. The glamour that was attached to Spain in the 17th century not only in Europe but also elsewhere was now lost. Her international prestige was lowered.
While the Spanish King paid much attention to foreign conquests and territorial aggrandizement, he cared little for the well being of the Spaniards. The people lost interest in life and slowly became dullard and inactive. It was a tragedy that the people who constituted the foundation of the country had demoralized the people by their imperial schemes.
The most important factor that was responsible for the decline of Spain was the imperial policy of Philip and that of the previous rulers. The problem of maintaining the vast and scattered territories of Spain involved the country in a number of external wars. Spain earned the hostility of France by taking Italy into its possession. This not only led to wars with the French Kings but also compelled it to defend its rights as a Mediterranean power in constant conflict with the Turks and the Algerians. The Thirty Years’ War also engaged the attention of Spain as it had done that of Austria. Spain was already preoccupied with internal conflicts, yet it undertook the conquest and occupation of the two American continents. All these sapped the vitality of the Spanish nation and depleted its strength and treasury.
Philip’s fanatical Catholicism caused a lot of harm to Spain. In his zeal to re-establish Catholicism, he subordinated politics to religion. This policy of Philip landed him in trouble abroad. He went to war with some countries to impose on them the supremacy of Catholicism. But he met with defeat and disgrace. At home, Philip’s tyrannies alienated him from the goodwill of the Jews and the Moors who were respectively the bankers and the manufacturers of great repute. Under Philip, Spain suffered great industrial and commercial losses.
The Civil War of England (1642-1649) is one of the most remarkable and important events in the history of England. The monarchy and the popular will were in open conflict for the first time. During this war the King was defeated and then executed. The parties that contended were the Royalists and the Puritans. The former was on the side of the King. They were also called the Cavaliers. They consisted of the nobility and the gentry. The Catholics also sided with the Royalists in large numbers.
The nature of this war was dual. This was a religious and a political war. The Puritans and the Parliament united against the King and condemned his interference in the religious affairs. Both the Parliament and the Puritans were dissatisfied, as the King did not care for the existence of either. The Parliament along with the Puritans combined to dispute the King’s authority to lay down the law in Church and State. The main issue at stake was whether sovereignty resided in the King alone, or whether both the King and Parliament should share power. This discontentment broke out into an open struggle between the King, on the one hand, and the Parliament, on the other. This came to be known as the English Civil War or the Puritan Revolution.
The Main Reasons for this war were as stated under
The King desired to extract money by unreasonable means and the Parliament wanted to have full control over the State Exchequer. The Parliament passed the Triennial Act, which made it obligatory for the King to call the Parliament for a session thrice a year. Another clause in the Act stated that the parliament could be dissolved only with its own consent, not as per the whims of the King.
The Tonnage and Poundage Act was passed in June 1614. Tonnage meant the tax levied upon each ton of wine coming in or going out of the Kingdom. Poundage was the tax levied upon every pound of dry goods. Although the tax was granted to the King (Charles I) for a year only, he continued to levy these custom duties well after the permitted duration.
ii. Religious Issues
The English King followed the Anglican Church. Catholicism and Puritanism were the other faiths that existed in England at that time. Charles desired to convert his subjects to his own faith. At the same time the Puritans, who were in majority in the Parliament, desired to convert the nation to their faith. The King tried to give some concessions and amenities to the Catholics by appointing them in high positions. He appointed William Laud as the Archbishop of Canterbury and wanted the people to be guided by him. Due to this there was war with the Parliament. The Puritans were badly suppressed. This added to the growing unpopularity of Charles.
iii. Political Issues
When the King visited Scotland to settle the Scottish issue, he had to accept the full Restoration of the Presbyterian system. The King also met some Scottish nobles, who did not want the struggle to continue longer. A plot was also framed by some of the King’s friends to seize some of the Presbyterian leaders. These issues aroused anti-Regal feelings, and the confidence in the King was also lost.
An incident occurred in Ireland that once again created a rift between the King and the Parliament. A revolt broke out in which many Protestants were killed. The Irish rebels claimed that they were acting for the King. Crushing this rebellion became very difficult, The Parliament, meanwhile, debated the issue of no confidence in the King.
The impeachment and execution of Strafford and the impeachment of Archbishop Laud caused by the Act of Attainder was responsible for the widening of the gap between the King and the Parliament. For this Act allowed the declaration of guilt and the imposition of punishment on an individual without a proper trial. The Royal Counselors, the Secretary of State and Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal fled to save their lives.
Charles I charged five parliament members with high treason, and sent armed forces to arrest them. The Parliament refused to hand them over. Charles planned to go personally to arrest the five Knights. But they received information of this in advance and fled.
In 1642 AD the Parliament placed before the King a proposal known as "Nineteen Propositions." This ultimatum was delivered to the King on June 1, 1642. He refused to accept the terms of the proposal.
iv. The Immediate Cause of the War
The parliament wanted the sole command of the military forces. This was contrary to English law and Charles I refused to agree to this enactment. As Charles would not surrender his control over the army, the rupture was complete. Charles raised his troops and set up his standard at Nottingham as a signal that the Civil War had began.
The English Civil War had two phases: Phase I from 1642 - 1646; Phase II from 1646 - 1649
At the foot of Edge Hill a heated battle was fought. In this battle, the Royalists gained a victory but they could not gain London. Again at Chalgrove Field, the parliamentary army was beaten and John Hampden, one of main rebels against the king was killed. The Royalist forces won on behalf of the Parliament at other places too. Oliver Cromwell, the leader of the parliamentary forces set up an association of eastern counties. They formed a new army "Ironsides."
At the battle of Marston Moor the royal army suffered heavily. A self-denying ordinance was passed. By this members of Parliament resigned their commands in the army and were replaced by experienced soldiers. Cromwell retained command over this army. This army was the "New Model."
King Charles I took the advantage of the confusion between the Parliament and the army. He refused the demands of both. Attempting to take advantage of the political turmoil, the Scots invaded England. They were routed at the battle of Preston (August 1648). The second Civil War made Cromwell an undisputed leader of the masses. Nobody dared to oppose Cromwell. Now the nation was at the mercy of Cromwell and his army. Charles I was punished for his incurable duplicity.
After a formal trial in 1649 Charles I was accused of treason and was executed, on January 30, 1649. He was beheaded before the White Hall. Cromwell called the execution of Charles I as a ’Cruel necessity.’ However, the last words of Charles were:
"For the people truly I desire their liberty and freedom as much as anybody whatsoever, but I must tell you their liberty and freedom consists in having that government, those laws by which their lives and their goods may be most their own. It is nothing appertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clearly different things."
The people were stirred deeply due to the King’s execution. Sympathy was aroused for this monarch and the entire monarchy. Besides this some even viewed Charles I as ’martyr.’ There was a total breakdown of the constitution. The Commonwealth was established. Oliver Cromwell now established army rule. This Commonwealth was to be administered by a Council consisting of 41 members, who were Puritan supporters of Oliver Cromwell.
The age of ’Reason’ and ’Enlightenment’ was ushered with the people believing that the reasoning of men could free them of their ills and lead them to peace, security, a good government and ideal society. Reason would ensure the progress of humanity and entire society. These men of letters were various philosophers. These philosophers were rational in their thought, and strongly advocated human thinking on the basis of scientific principles. They also thought that mathematics and logic exemplified reason.
The ideas of Rene Descartes were a landmark in the history of ideas, especially those enunciated in his "Discourse of Methods." He declared that one should reason out every thing for oneself and accept nothing that was previously believed. For philosophers like Bacon, Cartesian reason worked by clear logic based on facts learned through sense experiences. They also insisted on closing the churches (1793-94). The important philosophers of that time were Voltaire and Hume.
The religious philosophers held that god installed the universe but did not interfere with its working. John Locke (1632-1704) and Voltaire established the basis of natural religion. They also believed that Church was a barrier in the path of Enlightenment.
These philosophers opined that only through right reasoning could they see nature in its true form. One should not be misled in any way by one’s senses. To these philosophers nature was the physical world experienced by the human senses. They applied their tool of human reason to the beliefs and institutions of the 18th century, i.e. the Church and State. Their idea was to change the corrupt environment by the application of reason. On the one hand, poverty and ignorance had stunted the reasoning power among the poorer masses; on the other hand, riches and irresponsibility had perverted the reasoning of the higher classes (the clergy and the nobles).
The ideas of Nature and Reason had replaced older concepts of pessimistic ideas of original sin by some kind of utilitarian ethics. In France, Claude Adrien Helvetius (1715-1771) with his principle of artificial identity of interests and in England, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) were exponents of this brand of philosophy. In Italy, Beccaria Cesare, Marese di Beccaria coined the utilitarian phrase, "the greatest good of greatest number." Besides this, in his book, Crimes and Punishment, he pronounced the idea that criminals should be punished not as an act of vengeance by society and certainly not because god wanted them to be punished but solely to prevent further crimes harmful to society. He opposed capital punishment and torture and advocated education as a crime preventive.
In the 18th century, philosophic changes took place where natural and social sciences challenged the superiority of logic and theology. Philosophers were more concerned about actual problems in the areas of experience. When they criticized religion it was with the aim to break the monopolistic power of Church and to advance a new point of view. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and David Hume (1711-1776) declared that his religious convictions were orthodox, and condemned some religious practices.
According to Hume, human morals have a natural origin. The criterion is that the conduct of man be one that increases the happiness and well being of the human race. Ironically, this development increased materialistic philosophy. He further held that it was not possible to deduce evaluative conclusions from factual premises. Now this thesis of his has come to be known as the "is/ought problem."
Contrary to the popular belief there were still some philosophers who supported faith, intuition and emotion. They found that reason was insufficient for all human purposes and that the intellect was not the only base for human action. This different understanding emerged as Romanticism or Idealism. For writers of idealism, emotions were more important than reason. Romantic philosophers and thinkers were J. F. Schiller (1759-1805), J. W. Goethe (1749-1832), Friedrich Schlegel (1772-1801), and Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804). The latter’s Critique of Pure Reason (1781) and Critique of Practical Reason (1788) were great contributions in this field. Those who had earlier worshipped the cynicism of Voltaire were now drawn to the sentimentalism of Rousseau. Middle class people began to prefer romantic poetry to classics. Romanticism re-instated personal values and emphasized the dignity of man.
In England, poets like Wordsworth and Coleridge ushered in this new movement in Literature. Later English poets like Keats, Shelley, and Byron. These poets exalted nature and stressed sincerity and passion. They romanticized the experiences of the common people. They aimed to appeal to the emotions rather than the intellect. Romantic painters sketched "the mysteries of night, the magic of dawn, and sunset or the crepescular shadows of an approaching storm" to obtain better effects. Musical tastes turned more emotional while architecture saw the revival of the Gothic tradition.
Reason played a major role in exposing the inadequacies of the existing regime. However, there was a difference in opinion as far as the question of modern institutions was concerned. Some advocated the authoritarian form of governing, while others opposed the State. The supporters of an authoritarian state and society did not realize that men are naturally reasonable and good enough to be trusted to achieve spontaneous collaboration. They also believed that men need law, authority and compulsion in order to function in a society. These laws had to be organized and executed by the right people with the correct motives.
William Godwin’s work Political Justice (1793) was a much-talked-about piece of writing. Political reformers found that it made compelling reading. Godwin’s doctrine stated that men were reasonable and impelled by reason to live justly and that they became bad only on account of the corrupting forces of institutions. The anarchist solution was doing away with all institutions. However, the libertarians believed all men have the minimum ability to reason. They had the potential to work according to the will of nature, but it was also not possible in the place where the Church and the State were unnecessarily dominant. They also advocated that the elimination of kings, nobles and also priests would help to transform the existing political scene. These philosophers attacked most of the evils in the existing political institutions and recommended reforms in some or the other forms in politics. Their political writings influenced the political developments of the time.
Adam Smith entered the realm of economics by studying the implications of human greed, and how self-interest could work for the common good. His book, The Wealth of Nations (1776) shattered the protectionist philosophy of mercantilism, which had reigned supreme in economic thought for about 200 years. Smith’s speculations led him to formulate the laws of the market. He outlined the workings of production, of competition, of demand and supply, and of the price index. He also stressed the self-regulating nature of the market, which, if unhindered, would foster social harmony. He identified two basic market laws - the Law of Accumulation and the Law of Population.
Philosophers in this period made efforts to explain the strange phenomena in their relation to human endeavor and to social life. They tried interpreting the nature of god and the duties of man in the light of development of the then modern sciences.
Both England and the Netherlands had commercial rivalry in Africa, East Indies and North America. Holland was a formidable rival of England in trade and commerce. According to the Navigation Act passed by the British parliament in 1660, the Dutch could not live in English colonies and goods brought to England in Dutch ships would be taxed heavily. Prince William of Orange, a close relation of Charles II was not allowed to become the ruler of Holland by the Dutch. Finally a war broke out between both the countries. England won the war. After the war there was peace for a very short time between the two nations.
The same commercial differences continued between the two countries. The Dutch once again invaded England. A few Dutch ships headed by Admiral Ruyler attacked the English port of Chatham. At this hour France invaded Holland. This made the Dutch sign the Breda Treaty (1667) according to which each country was allowed to keep with them their territorial gains.
The Foreign policy of Charles II of England was not impressive. It dealt a huge blow to the prestige and dignity of England. The French King Louis XIV took stock of the political developments in Holland. The balance of power would have altered if Holland had to be influenced by France. This was an eye sore for England as regards its international prestige. Thus England and Holland along with Sweden united against the France. A treaty was concluded between them known as the Triple Alliance (1668 A.D). But in 1670, England once again entered into another treaty (a secret one) with France. This was the Treaty of Dover.
According to this treaty, Charles II promised France that when a suitable opportunity arose he would make a declaration of his being a Catholic. Louis XIV in turn promised to give financial and other assistance to Charles II in case he faced any revolt against him in England. Charles II also assured help to France against Holland in case of war. As per the Treaty of Dover, Louis XIV promised to give a sum of 300,000 Sterling Pounds to Charles II along with 6,000 French soldiers if there was any revolt in England. This treaty was a secret one, known only to two persons - Charles II and Princess Henrietta (Charles’s sister and sister-in-law of Louis). Charles also issued the Declaration of Indulgence (1672 A.D) in favor of the Catholics. The Commons were against this and they refused him supplies unless Charles withdrew English support from the Franco-Dutch war (1672-74). The Commons then passed the Test Act that compelled government officials to receive Communion according to the Anglican rites. Charles II however was compelled to renounce the friendship and alliance with the France in 1674.
When France invaded Holland, England had to join war as per the treaty of Dover. The English were not happy with this, as they believed that Charles II was behaving according to the wishes of Louis XIV. However, Charles required money for the war, which only the parliament could give. He had to yield. He concluded a treaty in 1674 with the Dutch and England withdrew from the war. When the daughter of James was married to William of Orange, the Dutch Prince, these two countries improved their relations.
Most of the members in the Parliament wanted the Dutch alliance to be respected. When Louis was alerted about this, he concluded another secret treaty in 1678 with Charles. Further he agreed to pay England a large amount of money if no help was sent to Holland. However, France concluded a treaty with Holland in 1678 and put an end to this period of hostility.
Peter, the Great of Russia may be conveniently called a bundle of contradictions. He had so many inconsistencies in his character that it is very difficult to make a proper estimate of his personality. He often burst into violent passions and committed orgies of dissipation and acts of savage cruelty. He inflicted cruel treatment even on those who were very close to him. Peter was also capable of indomitable energy and singleness of purpose. He possessed an insatiable curiosity. He had the quality of sharp observation and his mind was open to new ideas and thoughts. His acts often bordered on barbarity, yet he was a genius in the mechanical and technical matters, and for method and organization.
Peter also possessed some sterling qualities. Under ordinary and normal circumstances, he was frank, jovial and openhearted. While he was severe and cruel with his enemies he was a loyal and sincere friend. He was also free from the vices of deceit and double-dealing, though his behavior was often barbarous.
When he ascended to the throne, Russia was no more than a backward Asiatic nation. It had no access to the sea and was practically an inland State that was surrounded by several great powers, Sweden, Poland, Turkey and Prussia. The main bond of unity that the Russians had with Europe was that of the Christian religion. Peter was able to widen his vision and mental horizon further by visiting Germany, England and Holland. He undertook all these journeys incognito and even took up the job of a carpenter in the shipyards of Holland and England. He assimilated the whole of western civilization and returned to Russia to begin a great movement of social, political and moral regeneration.
Peter knew fully well that Russia lagged far behind other European countries. He had good contacts with some foreign residents in Moscow. His talk with those people aroused in him an ambition to make his country a great power in Europe.
In his domestic policy, Peter was guided by two motives: (i) to bring both the State and the Church under his strict control and (ii) to civilize his people by introducing western arts and sciences. He changed his country from a backward and neglected one into a modern and complete westernized one.
Peter refused to nominate the successor of the Patriarchy before he died in 1700. He placed the powers and functions of the Patriarch in the hands of a commission, which was known as the Holy Synod. It was presided over by a direct representative of the Czar. Thus he succeeded in bringing the Church under his control. During his visit to foreign countries in disguise, the Strelsi, the King’s bodyguards, had launched a revolution. On his return, Peter suppressed the revolt, disbanded them, and replaced them with a regular army, trained after the European fashion and directly under his control.
Peter also took steps to industrialize the economy. He built up factories, roads and canals, and created favorable circumstances to boost commerce and industry. Peter invited foreigners to settle down in Russia believing that these foreigners would indirectly make his task of Europeanizing his country easy and that his countrymen would also easily learn Western ideas, arts, and science. Peter promoted the learning of science and mathematics and set up common schools for imparting training in these subjects. A number of technical schools in several provinces and an academy of sciences in St. Petersburg were also opened by him.
Peter also curbed the power of the nobility. He made the nobility dependent on service and not on birth. He undertook the reorganization of the whole system of administration according to the western model. He created special boards and directors to supervise different departments of the government. He pressed the nobles either to work as civil officers or to join the military service. An advisory council or senates with members appointed by him were set up. He also improved the currency value and checked corruption in government offices.
Peter also carried out a number of social and economic reforms and turned almost everything into a western object. Peter introduced the western dress, manners and customs in the social and family life of each Russian. He even brought into use the western modes of shaving and dancing. These steps were taken at the cost of the national features and characteristics. He went to the extent of imposing taxes on those who insisted on wearing the beard but did not give up the tradition of keeping women secluded.
Peter’s most important policy was westernizing Russia. During 1697-99, Peter traveled extensively in Western Europe and gained personal knowledge of the wonders of its civilization. He worked as a ship carpenter in Holland and studied the naval system of England. He attended surgical lectures, visited paper mills and printing presses, and studied the arts and also the employment procedures of the industrial community. This famous journey was specially meant to be a voyage of instruction and knowledge.
Peter was soon eager to put the results of his trip into practice. He borrowed military organization from Austria, manners from France, clothes from England and methods of administration from Germany. He brought many skilled artisans, engineers and army officers for teaching the Russians in those subjects. With the aid of these experts he brought into existence a number of roads and bridges, ships and planes, and hospitals. The navy was under his personal supervision and special patronage.
Throughout his life, Peter labored to Europeanize Russia. Everything foreign was promoted at the expense of everything national. Those who opposed the change were treated as enemies of civilization. Russian customs were prohibited in the court and among nobles
During the reign of Queen Anne of Spain, the most important event was the War of the Spanish Succession. This dominated the whole of her reign.
Spain was a great country in the 16th century. In the 17th century she began to decline rapidly. Charles II was the last male representative of the Hapsburg family. He was the King of Spain. He was a weakling. Hence he could do nothing to check the downfall of his country. He had no child. Everyone knew that after his death "the Great Powers would wrangle over his dominions like a pack of wolves round the carcass of ox." Even before his death, plans were made by the Great Powers to control his dominions‘ which consisted of Spain, Milan, Naples and Spanish Netherlands. Practically all the powers had an interest in the Spanish problem. After the death of the present ruling Spanish monarch the problem of Spanish succession was bound to become very important.
i. The issue of succession
The European powers that were directly connected with Spain included France, the House of the Hapsburg and the House of Bavaria. There were several Kings who laid their claims for the succession to the throne of Spain. France had a claim to the Spanish throne. The elder daughter of Charles II (the King of Spain), Maria herself was married to Louis XIV of France. Maria declared at the time of marriage that neither she nor her issue (offspring) would succeed the throne of France. But the French people were of the opinion that the Queen had no right to forego the claim to the throne.
The younger daughter of Charles II was married to Leopold I, the Emperor of Austria. Her name was Margaret Theresa. Leopold I was willing to give the rights to Spain to his son, Archduke Charles. The daughter of Leopold I, Maria Antonia was married to Electoral Prince of Bavaria. The Prince had one son (Joseph Ferdinand) who had a claim for the Spanish throne. The King of Spain Charles II had great affection for Joseph and hence, he passed on the whole property to his father, the Electoral Prince of Bavaria.
ii. The partition treaties
Louis XIV of France was determined to see that Spain with all her possessions did not go to the Emperor of Austria. It was partly due to this anxiety on his part that he hurriedly ended the War of the League of Augsburg in 1697. Negotiations started between Louis XIV and William III. In 1698 AD the First Partition Treaty was made by which most of the Spanish possessions were to be given to the son of the Elector of Bavaria. Unfortunately, the son of the Elector died soon after the treaty and consequently, the whole matter had to be reopened.
The Second Partition Treaty was concluded in 1700 AD by which it was agreed that the Archduke Charles of Austria was to be the King of Spain with the Netherlands and Spanish America as his possessions. Philip of Anjou, the second son of the Dauphin, and the grandson of Louis XIV, was to get Naples, Sicily and Milan.
iii. Failure of these Treaties
The Spaniards were very angry as they were not consulted when these treaties (the first Partition Treaty and the Second Partition Treaty) were secretly concluded. So the dying Charles II made a will leaving the whole of his dominion to Philip of Anjou, the grandson of Louis XIV. Louis accepted the bequest on behalf of his grandson.
iv. Issue of Balance of Power
It was not only that the countries mentioned above were interested in Spain. It was a question of interest for all Europe. The question of the Spanish succession was inextricably connected with the balance of power in France. If either France or Austria had succeeded in capturing the Kingdom of Spain, it would have badly disturbed the balance of power in Europe.
On one side was Louis XIV of France, who was ably supported by the powerful prince of Bavaria, the Electorals of Bavaria and Spain. On the other side was Marlborough, the greatest stalwart of Britain during the War of the Spanish succession. The diplomatic genius of Marlborough had brought about the Grand Alliance in which England, Austria and numerous small states of the Empire along with Holland had joined hands. Later on, Savoy and Portugal also joined the Grand Alliance. Immediately after the accession of Queen Anne to the English throne the English Parliament declared that too much could not be done to reduce the exorbitant power of France. The parliament voted 80,000 soldiers for the army and navy on a half-and-half basis. Now, the Allied Powers were ready to make a plunge for war. They pledged themselves (a) to secure the Spanish throne for the Archduke Charles and (b) to prevent the Union of the Spanish and the French crowns. The places commonly known as the centers of war were Spain, Netherlands, Germany and Italy.
William III appointed Rooke as the head of the naval force. Rooke was helped equally by the efficient leader Scholwell. The English army knew no bounds and captured Gibraltar. The Gateway of Rome too came under the control of the English army.
In the Netherlands and Germany, the first two years of the war (1702-04) were spent in securing Holland from the risk of a French invasion. In 1704 AD Marlborough and Prince Eugene completely defeated the Franco-Bavarian army under Marshal Tallard at the battle of Blenheim. This battle had dual results.
After the defeat of the French army at Blenheim, both the enemies met again at a place called Ramilles. The French army faced serious defeat; Marlborough captured Brusail and Antwerp. The French army was driven from the greater part of the Spanish Netherlands. In 1707, the English army entered Madrid. But it was defeated at Almariza. This defeat encouraged Philip to regain his lost strength. But the French were also defeated in the battle of Oudenarde in 1708.
In 1709 was fought the bloodiest battle of the war at Malplaquet and the English were again victorious. The result was that the French were driven out of Flanders.
Tory Ministry in England: There was no doubt that Marlborough won major victories but there came a dramatic change in the internal politics of England. The ministry of Godolphin came to an end. The new Tory ministry removed Marlborough from his office. In Italy, the French army was defeated at Turin by Prince Eugene, and was forced to leave Italy.
The newly formed Tory Ministry was in favor of peace. They wanted the war to come to an end. Oxford and Bolingbroke opened peace negotiations with France secretly. The Tory politicians deserted their allies. A general peace was arranged at Utrecht (1713 AD).
The greatest landmark in the history of England is the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This revolution is called ’Glorious’ because it achieved its objective without any bloodshed. James II came to the throne of England in 1685, after Charles II his brother died. He desired to rule despotically and to re-establish the Roman Catholic religion in England. The common people did not like this. They rose in revolt. This struggle between the King and the Parliament ended in victory for the people (i.e. the representative of the people - the parliament). A constitutional monarchy was now established in England. All the power rested in the hands of people and they availed long cherished freedom. Modern rules were framed according to which the King ruled only as per the wishes and will of the people.
Socio-political factors combined with religious issues to produce a chain of events that led to this revolution.
i. Religious Issues
The efforts of James II to restore Catholicism in England bothered the English people. Re-instating -Catholicism in England was his dream and he was prepared to sacrifice even his throne for the sake of his religion. James II was a Roman Catholic and openly so. No one would have minded that. But the trouble with him was that he was not contented with himself being a Catholic. James II issued a statement on his accession to the throne in which he had promised to uphold the Church of England and to regard his own religion as a personal affair. The people at large felt gratified over it. But after the suppression of Argyll and Monmouth’s rebellions he felt himself so strong that he foolishly thought of Catholicizing the whole nation. The Tory and the church party had espoused his cause in the beginning because they had trusted him and taken his early statement as true. But crafty as James II was, he did not prove true to his promise. He could not hope to count on the help of the Tories and the Church, if his religious designs were to be prejudiced and aggressive. He was thus playing into the hands of the Whigs.
The Test Act was passed during the reign of Charles II. It required that every person who wanted to get civil or military posts must accept the Anglican Church and its principles. The Catholics were thus deprived of these privileges. The new King, James wanted to attach more importance to the Catholics and therefore he made fervent efforts to reject his act. He dissolved it. He dismissed his High Court Tory ministers, and surrounded himself with sycophants, chief among whom was the very clever but utterly corrupt Earl of Sutherland. He did not hesitate to announce his conversion to Catholicism in order to please the King. In place of the Earl of Clarendon, James gave the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland to the Catholic Earl of Tyrconnell. Tyrconnell’s instructions were to attack the Protestant ascendancy.
ii. First Declaration of Indulgence
James II was a Roman Catholic and he treated his fellow religious believers’ most sympathetically by appointing them to high positions in the state and the army. Not only that James II invited the Pope of Rome to England and restored his old position officially on him. James II issued his first "Declaration of Indulgence" in 1687 which he suspended wholesale the penal laws against the Roman Catholics. The result was that the Roman Catholics and other Dissenters began to worship openly. The Tories, who stood for the Church of England, were exasperated. The Whigs were unreconciliatory. They were scared that James II was supporting Catholicism under the religious toleration.
iii. Second Declaration of Indulgence
In 1688, James II issued the Second Declaration of Indulgence. It was ordered that this declaration should be spread in every Church on two consecutive Sundays. Almost all priests opposed the reading of the Declaration. He condemned the seven bishops to be imprisoned in the London Tower who refused to obey King’s orders and opposed James but they were set free by court amidst public rejoicing. This act made James II unpopular.
James wanted to spread Catholicism in the universities also. For pushing the Catholics to high positions, James used many unfair means. For instance, the post of Head of Megdallan College of Oxford University was vacated and one James Parker, a Catholic was appointed. He even dismissed the vice-chancellor of Cambridge University because he had refused to accommodate a Catholic in the University. The Parliament could not tolerate this high-handedness of the monarch. Moreover the university people also disliked it.
iv. Army and Defense
After the rebellion of the Duke of Monmouth, James II did not agree to the disbanding of the army regiments. He failed to realize the feeling of the English people against the maintenance of the standing army. The Englishmen could not tolerate the standing army. This was against the interest and feeling of common Englishmen. The people developed negative sentiments for the King.
James II made a mistake when he got the Duke of Monmouth executed after his defeat in the battle of Sedgmoor. It was a blunder on his part. It would have been better if the Duke had been kept in the Tower or allowed to escape overseas. The death of the Duke cleared the Whigs of any possible ill will of the people. The result was that the Whigs began to gain in strength and popularity and ultimately they were responsible for the overthrow of James in 1688. But for this unpolitical act of James II, the Whigs might not have got an opportunity to come into prominence and lead the opposition against James II.
With a view to overawe the Londoners, he posted soldiers in the neighborhood of London. The King was actually trying to play the part of a bully. He should have known that Englishmen would not tolerate such an attitude.
After the suppression of Monmouth’s rebellion all his supporters were arrested and jailed. A special court was established to try them. Jeffrey was the Chief Justice. He was a notorious tyrant and barbarian who hanged about three hundred of them and transported some 800 to various countries, especially to West Indies, to work as slaves. Due to Jeffrey’s cruel deeds, this court came to be known as ’Bloody Assizes.’ It was considered a crime against humanity and a great political blunder. A fierce wave of anger swept over the country and executions and imprisonment fanned to flame the smoldering fire of widespread unrest and discontent.
v. Policy for Ireland and Scotland
The appointment of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland turned all the Irish Protestants against the Stuart monarchy. In the same manner his policy towards Scotland of Presbyterian persecution turned most of the Scottish people against James II.
vi. The Birth of a Son - An Important Factor
At that critical time, news came from the court announcing that James’ wife, Queen Mary of Modena, had given birth to a son. This was a bolt from the blue. The people thought that with a successor in James’ line of descent, there was no possibility of relief from the Catholic regime. The people hoped that James II would die without a son and after his death, his daughter Mary, wife of William of Orange, Protestant King of Holland, would ascend the throne. They were prepared to put up with James II because they knew that he was not going to live long on account of his old age.
They submitted to the tyranny of James II because they knew that it was bound to end sooner or later. Thereupon the nation tried to take a revolutionary step. The Whig and Tory leaders all united and they decided to invite William of Holland, the husband of Mary, the Protestant daughter of James II to come and ascend the throne of England.
An incredibly smooth development of events led to the Glorious Revolution. The people of England decided to dethrone James and invited his son-in-law, William of Orange to occupy the throne of England. Though William was busy in a battle with France, he gladly accepted the invitation extended to him. He felt that it provided him an opportunity to combine the strength of England and Holland against France, the latter having an eye on Holland.
The people of England sent an invitation to William and Mary to come over with an army "to save the Protestant religion and the constitutional liberties of England." They landed in England after some difficulty. James II might have been permitted to retain his throne even then if he had repented for whatever illegal things he had done in the past and if he had promised to rule according to the law of the land. However, his stubbornness lost him all his friends. His army went over to the other side and he fled to France in December 1688, after throwing into the Thames the Great Seal of the Realm.
William’s professional Army consisted of the English, the Dutch, the Swedes and the Germans. For some weeks, William did not get much encouragement. Gradually the nobility deserted James. The Council of Peers was busy making preparations to call a free Parliament. At this time news came that James had been captured at Faversham in Kent. He was brought back to London. But he managed to escape. He took off for his final fight to France. His enemies were too glad to get rid of him. The members of the attending parliament discussed the question of Kingship. Finally the attending parties decided that the Royal power should be vested in William and Mary, who thus became the rulers of England. In this way with the fleeing of James II without putting up a fight, the bloodless Glorious Revolution took place. The Revolution of 1688 was a unique Revolution, not only in the history of England but probably in the history of Europe. In this connection Macaulay observes: "The highest eulogy which can be pronounced on the Revolution of 1688 is this that this was our last Revolution.
"It finally decided the great question whether the popular element which had, ever since the age of Fitz Walter and de Montfort, been found in the English policy should be suffered to develop itself freely and to become dominant. The strife between the two principles had been long, fierce and doubtful. It had lasted through four reigns. It had produced seditions, impeachments, rebellions, battles, sieges, proscription, and judicial massacres. Sometimes liberty, sometimes royalty, had seemed to be on the point of perishing."
Although the reasons of this revolution were socio-political and religious, its nature was political. It was accomplished without bloodshed. Before the revolution of 1688, all-important political changes were brought in the wake of great bloodshed and excesses. England was compelled to pass through a great Civil War with it. Even the French Revolution of 1785 had the sacrifice of thousands of innocent people. However, in the case of Glorious Revolution in England nothing of the kind happened. In this regard Professor Trevelyan writes, "For many generations to come, the Revolution of 1688 was spoken of by our ancestors as the Glorious Revolution. Its glory did not consist in any deed of arms, in facts of heroism on the part of Englishmen nor in the fact that a whole nation proved itself stronger than their official King did. There was indeed a certain ignominy in the fact that a foreign King and army, however, friendly and welcome, had been required to enable Englishmen to recover the liberties they had muddled away in their frantic faction feuds. The true glory of the revolution lay in the fact that it was bloodless, that there was no Civil War, no massacre, no proscription, and above all, that a settlement by consent was reached on the religious and political differences that had so long and so fiercely divided men and parties." Some other historians also support the views of Professor Trevelyan. For instance, according to well-known historian Burkey, the events of 1688-89 were, "a happy and Glorious Revolution. It was the good fortune of England that the transition from despotism to constitutional monarchy, was brought about without any bloodshed. But some historians do not give much importance to the revolution of 1688. For instance, according to Marriot, "It was essentially conservative in nature. It conserved most things of the past and was not a radical departure from the old order. It only made explicit, what was previously only implicit and thus did not introduced any radical changes." The historian further says, "It was not a democratic movement in any sense and the wisest among them benefited by it."
The Stuart Dynasty
From: http://www.pinkmonkey.com/studyguides/subjects/euro_his/chap2/e0202b01.htm