The Restoration Settlement 1660-64
- Created by: Clodagh
- Created on: 27-05-14 14:06
View mindmap
- The Restoration Settlement 1660-64
- The Indemnity
- The most pressing problem facing the Convention Parliament was the question of rebellion and pardon
- The General Pardon was given the force of law by the Act of Pardon, Indemnity and Oblivion which was passed in August 1660
- Charles had agreed to the general pardon in the Declaration of Breda but left it to parliament to decide who would be excluded
- Many of those who had brought about the Restoration had fought against Charles I and were therefore open to the charge of treason
- Only the regicides and 29 others were excepted from the Act
- Only 13 were executed although parliament barred a number of supporters from holding office
- Only the regicides and 29 others were excepted from the Act
- The General Pardon was given the force of law by the Act of Pardon, Indemnity and Oblivion which was passed in August 1660
- This was a lenient piece of legislation
- It was essential in starting to heal the divisions left over from the Civil War
- The most pressing problem facing the Convention Parliament was the question of rebellion and pardon
- The Land Settlement
- The land question was expected to provide the major stumbling block in achieving a lasting solution to the problem of stability
- Like indemnity, it was resolved quite easily and succesfully
- During the interregnum the church and many royalist supporters lost large amounts of land
- Diocesan land had been sold off when the system of the bishops ended
- Crown estates were disposed of
- Catholics suffered similar losses
- These groups expected their land to be returned to them and those in exile expected further compensation
- They suffered from heavy taxation and felt that they should be rewarded for their loyalty
- Their demands had to be weighed against the rights of the purchasers of confiscated land
- They suffered from heavy taxation and felt that they should be rewarded for their loyalty
- Charles recognised the dangers inherent in the situation. In the Declaration of Breda he left the situation in the hands of parliament
- It seemed likely that the land question would destroy harmony and stability achieved by the Indemnity Act
- Only on the issues of crown and church lands lost was any legislative action required
- It deprived the possessors of former crown and church lands of their legal title
- It was assumed that others who had lost land in the Civil War had given it up voluntarily
- They had to seek redress from the courts
- If land had been confiscated on the basis of political beliefs, then they stood a chance of recovery
- If land had been confiscated to pay fines then they stood little chance of hope
- They had to seek redress from the courts
- It was assumed that others who had lost land in the Civil War had given it up voluntarily
- It deprived the possessors of former crown and church lands of their legal title
- Crown estates that had been confiscated were simply returned
- Church lands had opposition from those who did not like the wealth of the bishops
- The Commission of Sales decided the level of compensation for quietening the opposition
- Church lands had opposition from those who did not like the wealth of the bishops
- During the Protectorate many royalists were using paid agents to act for them and to buy up their lands as it was sold
- This was often successful because there were few potential buyers as they were worried about the legal status of the land being sold
- Estates were often sold off very cheaply
- This was often successful because there were few potential buyers as they were worried about the legal status of the land being sold
- The land question was expected to provide the major stumbling block in achieving a lasting solution to the problem of stability
- The Army
- The 40,000 strong army was still a threat to stability
- It contained radical elements which could be a danger to the monarchy and it was expensive to maintain
- Monck took on responsibility for the demobilisation of the army and guaranteed that all arrears in pay would be settled in monthly instalments
- Soldiers had already been assured of indemnity from prosecution for any crimes they had committed under arms
- They were allowed to practise trades withut serving an apprenticeship in order to help reabsorb them into civilian life
- By the time the Convention ended only two regiments remained
- The king was once more reliant on the local militia
- The 40,000 strong army was still a threat to stability
- Royal Power
- Convention Parliament
- They considered how much of the legislation from he 1640s should remain
- Committees were established to determine which ordinances passed since 1641 should begin in force
- The question of royal powers had not been resolved
- Those who wanted to restrict Charles' power now turned to a bill designed to safeguard parliament's privileges
- This was blocked by the Lords
- Charles had returned without limits on his power and it would now be difficult to reverse this
- Charles could still choose his ministers, summon, delay and dissolve parliament as and when he wanted to and frame policy
- Charles had returned without limits on his power and it would now be difficult to reverse this
- This was blocked by the Lords
- Those who wanted to restrict Charles' power now turned to a bill designed to safeguard parliament's privileges
- It achieved the basis of settlement
- They considered how much of the legislation from he 1640s should remain
- Cavalier Parliament
- Royalists won a large majority in the parliamentary elections
- It was much more likely to increase Charles' authority
- The Corporation Act of June 1661 was the first major piece of legislation
- It was designed to remove persons suspected of disloyalty from town government to be replaced
- The Act appointed commissioners who could remove anyone who refused the oaths of allegiance and supremacy
- It was designed to remove persons suspected of disloyalty from town government to be replaced
- In July parliament agreed that the king alone should control the militia
- This shows how willing parliament was willing to negotiate with Charles
- The Act for the Safety and Preservation of His Majesty's Person and Government went a long way in increasing the king's royal authority
- It declared it unlawful for parliament to legislate without the king
- It also invalidated any acts that had not received royal assent
- It declared it unlawful for parliament to legislate without the king
- Some acts such as the Triennial Act remained in place
- Royalists won a large majority in the parliamentary elections
- Convention Parliament
- Financial Settlement
- In order to grant Charles a revenue of £1.2million, parliament aimed to do this in two ways
- 1. The income of crown lands and customs was to bring in two-thirds
- 2. The remainder was to be raised from a new right to collect excise duties on certain commodities
- Charles would have to surrender the crown's old feudal rights such as wardship
- In practice the king's income was only 2/3 of the intended amount
- In the short term the Convention had failed to one of the most important problems of the 1640s
- Charles would have to ask parliament for additional revenue
- In order to grant Charles a revenue of £1.2million, parliament aimed to do this in two ways
- Religion
- The financial shortfall allowed parliament to exert influence over Charles over the religious settlement
- The king had promised the 'liberty to tender consciences' in the Declaration of Breda
- By the end of 1661 the policy of reconciliation had been replaced and parliament was moving towards the policy enshrined the Clarendon Code
- The members of the Cavalier Parliament were determined to restore the old Anglican Church without the concessions promised to the Presbyterians in the Worcester House Declaration
- The Indemnity
Comments
No comments have yet been made