Conrad Russell

Parliament and the King’s Finances

‘The power of Parliament, and especially of the Commons has always depended in the last resort on control of taxation’.1 Professor Roskell’s judgement is not invalidated by the fact that Parliaments had always been concerned with many other issues, of which the most explosive were a recurring desire to influence the King’s choice of ministers, and an almost invariable desire to attack the clergy. Many members agreed with the opinion of Sir Robert Phelips in 1628 that ‘I never think that Parliament truly happy, that intends nothing but money’.2 Yet however much members’ sense of their dignity might make them want to feel that their advice was wanted as well as their cash, money remained the chief bargaining weapon with which they could induce the King to listen to their advice.

The City and the Court, 1603-1643

The fact that London was parliamentarian rather than royalist was one of the principal reasons for the defeat of Charles I in the English Civil War. This book reinterprets Londons role. It examines the relation of the municipality and of the City fathers as business magnates with both of the early Stuart kings and their parliaments, and explores the business connections of the City with the royal court, concluding that, far from being the natural allies of the king and court as is generally assumed, the City elite had mostly been seriously alienated from them by 1640. Professor Ashton offers an interpretation not only of the Citys role in the years before 1640 but also of the reasons lying behind its support for parliament in 1642. It is both a contribution to the debate on the origins of the Civil War and a study in depth of the connection between big business and politics in early Stuart England.