( This is reprinted from Christopher Thompson’s blog by
kind permission. His blog can be found at
http://earlymodernhistory1.blogspot.com/
I first met Conrad Russell when I became a Fellow of the
Institute of Historical Research in the autumn of 1968. He was engaging company
with a dry sense of humour and a wide knowledge of arcane references. We became
friends and remained in touch in the early-1970s. The intellectual parting of
our ways came in the mid-1970s with the publication of his works on
Parliamentary history between 1604 and 1629, on the foreign policy debates in
the House of Commons in November, 1621 and the publications in 1979 of his book
on English Parliaments between 1621 and 1629. I regarded these as unsound,
highly inaccurate and misleading. I still do. To the surprise of many of my
friends, I was not and never have been a follower of Russell.
Perhaps, I may be allowed to illustrate this with one
example amongst hundreds. In July, 1974, I heard his paper on anti-Spanish
sentiment between 1621 and 1624 at the Sheffield Conference on Sir Thomas
Wentworth's career. It was subsequently published in The Political World of
Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford 1621-1641, edited by J.F.Merritt (Cambridge
University Press 1996, Pp.47-62.
Wentworth's speeches in the House of Commons on 26th,
27th and 28th November naturally attracted his attention. Russell rightly
pointed out (ibid., p.56) that, on 26th November, Wentworth argued that the
issue of supply to assist King James to support English forces in the
Palatinate and, perhaps, for a wider war should be put off until the following
Saturday and, before then, for the House to prepare for the end of the session,
presumably by passing Bills.
He went on to claim that Wentworth had not detected any
demand for war in his constituency of Yorkshire. When he turned to the debate
in the lower House on 27th November, Russell argued that the "first shadow
was again cast by Sir Thomas Wentworth, calling for a return to bills ....
Wentworth's interventions now pass the test for 'enemy action'. (ibid., p.56)
On the28th, Wentworth stated that he would not give his voice for a subsidy if
he did not believe there was going to be a session (ibid., Pp.57-58) It was on
the basis of these speeches that Russell argued Wentworth could be accounted an
opponent of war in the autumn of 1621.
Russell was certainly right to point out that Sir Thomas
Wentworth argued on 26th November for a discussion of supply to be deferred
until the following Saturday and, in the meantime, for the House of Commons to
concentrate upon the passage of Bills and preparations for the end of the
session.
What he entirely
failed to mention - other than in a passing reference to a demand on
Wentworth’s part on the following day for a return to Bills - was Sir Thomas’s
speech on 27th November. For that claim, he cited two sources, the 'X' diary
and Sir Thomas Barrington's diary (ibid., p.56 n.19) both reproduced in the
edition of the Commons' Debates for 1621 edited by Notestein, Relf and Simpson.
The ‘X’ diary began its report by recording Wentworth as arguing in favour of
“a covenant between the King and his seed and us and our seed. First, for a
present supply. Secondly to a future war of the King’s part.”
In return,
Wentworth wanted an end to the session and Bills to pass into law: he was
willing to “answer the King’s desire to give a sufficient sum before Christmas
for supply … [and advocated] that we would declare that we would be ready to
lay down our lives and estates at his feet.” Sir Thomas Barrington’s account
was equally clear on Wentworth’s desire to preserve amity with the King; James
had asked for supply to maintain an army in the Palatinate and to sustain a
future war; Wentworth, therefore, sought an end to the present session and a
new one in February whilst pledging to “answer the King’s first proposition for
the Palatinate, to give before Christmas” and to “declare our selves that we
will be ready to laye downe our lives and fortunes when the King shall make a
warr.”
These were the two sources Russell cited for his claim
that Wentworth was calling for a return to Bills and that his successive
interventions on 26th and 27th November “pass the test for ‘enemy action’.” The
Commons’ Journal reported the end of Wentworth’s speech as advising the House
“1. To give a present Supply for the Army in the Palatinate. 2ly, A Request to
the King, by some of the Privy Council, for an End of a Session before
Christmas. 3ly, The Proportion of the present Supply, and the manner, as may
add most Reputation to his Majesty’s Endeavours abroad. 4ly, Where War and
peace in the King’s Hand, to declare, that we will be ready, in a Cause
concerning Religion and the Commonwealth, we will be ready to second him.“
The other accounts - Pym, Smyth, Z and Howard - confirm
Wentworth’s willingness to vote for an interim supply to keep the forces in the
Palatinate in being and his desire for a further session in February. Edward
Nicholas, furthermore, noted Wentworth’s suggestion of a conference with the
House of Lords on the question of supply. On this basis, Wentworth was not just
willing to fund military forces in the Palatinate but also to contemplate
grants to pay for a wider war if necessary. Russell’s claims about Wentworth as
an opponent of a war by 27th November cannot be reconciled with the surviving
evidence.
The questions that inevitably arise are very serious. Did
Russell read the sources he used or did he misread them or did he ignore their
contents altogether in the service of his striking but unfounded hypothesis? I
am afraid that there are not just dozens of examples of this kind but hundreds
across his body of work. That is why I cannot agree that he was the foremost
scholar of his generation working on the history of early Stuart parliaments
and politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment