No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
This essay examines the role of Parliament in the formation and conduct of foreign policy after the Restoration. My principal interest has been to see how the Members of the House of Commons viewed that role. I have, therefore, focussed on the parliamentary debates rather than the diplomatic correspondence in order to observe the changes and limits of the parliamentary position.
These limits can be observed initially in a view of the prerogatives of the Crown. Charles II was a francophile king. He loved the country of his mother; he openly admired the absolutism of his cousin, the Sun King; he secretly cherished the Roman Catholic faith which he associated with successful Kingship. Like his model, the King of France, Charles interested himself actively in foreign affairs. Although not remarkable for diligence and industry in many aspects of government, he was a regular attender at the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The membership of this group fluctuated at the royal will, but always included the two Secretaries of State. Sir Henry Bennet, later earl of Arlington, as Secretary of State for Southern Europe, was virtually Minister for Foreign Affairs for about a dozen years. The King, acting with the Secretaries in Committee, instructed diplomats, who negotiated treaties independently of Parliament. The Triple Alliance of 1668, for example, although publicly known, was concluded while Parliament was not in session. Occasionally, Charles II acted without even these intimate advisors. The classic example is the secret Treaty of Dover of 1670 whose real provisions were kept even from some members of the Foreign Committee.
1 Grey, Anchitell, Debates of the House of Commons from the Year 1667 to the Year 1684, (10 Vols.; London, 1763), IV: 308, 386.Google Scholar
2 Hyde, Edward, Earl of Clarendon, The Continuation of the Life of Edward Earl of Clarendon (3 Vols., Oxford, 1759), II: 373–433Google Scholar, Pepys, Samuel, Diary, ed. Latham, Robert, Matthews, William, et. al. (Berkeley, 1971). V: 1215Google Scholar; Davies, Kenneth G., The Royal Africa Company (New York, 1957), pp. 42, 60–63Google Scholar; Feiling, Keith, British Foreign Policy 1660-1672 (New York, 1966), pp. 56–57Google Scholar; Rogers, P. G., The Dutch in the Medway (New York, 1970), pp. 19–24Google Scholar; Wilson, Charles, Profit and Power: A Study of England and the Dutch Wars (London, 1957), pp. 92–120.Google Scholar
3 Milward, John, The Diary Of John Milward, Esq. Member of Parliament for Derbyshire September, 1666 to May, 1668, ed. Robbins, Caroline (Cambridge, 1938), pp. 99, 115–6.Google Scholar
4 Commons Journal IX: 7Google Scholar (hereafter eiled as C.J.): Milward. pp. 95-6, 98.
5 Milward, pp. 97, 109.
6 Ibid., pp. 191-2.
7 SirDering, Edward, The Parliamentary Diary of Sir Edward Dering 1670-1673, ed. Henning, Basil Duke (New Haven, 1940), pp. 76–7Google Scholar; Grey, I: 394.
8 Dering, III; Grey, II; 8.
9 A letter of Colbert to France in June 1673 is cited by Haley, K.H.D., William of Orange and the English Opposition (Oxford, 1953), p. 115Google Scholar. Reports that Holland and Spain were aware of the intention to change the alliances and make peace with the United Provinces were also reported by Williamson and Jenkins from Cologne (Ibid., p. 125).
10 Christie, W. D., ed. Letters Addressed from London to Sir Joseph Williamson while Plenipotentiary at the Congress of Cologne in the Years 1673 and 1674, (2 Vols.; London, 1874), II: 46, 48.Google Scholar
11 Haley, pp. 48-9, 127.
12 Dering, pp. 157-58.
13 Haley, pp. 134-35; 139.
14 Grey, II: 200.
15 Ibid., 204.
16 Ibid., 210-11.
17 Ibid., 206-7.
18 Ibid., 208-9.
19 Ibid., 220, 239; Dering, p. 160.
20 Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, XXXVIII; 187, 196.Google Scholar
21 Grey, II: 224.
22 Ibid., 263, 279.
23 Christie, , Leders to Williamson, II: 130.Google Scholar
24 Grey, II: 338-39; Christie, , Letters to Williamson, II: 134.Google Scholar
25 Grey, II: 339.
26 Ibid., 346-47: Christie, , Letters to Williamson, II: 134.Google Scholar
27 Grey, II: 348.
28 Ibid., 385.
29 Ogg, David, England in the Reign of Charles II, 2nd ed. (2 Vols.; Oxford, 1956), II: 535.Google Scholar
30 C.J. IX: 359.
31 Grey, III: 5.
32 Ibid., 121.
33 Browning, Andrew, Thomus Osborne Earl of Danby and Duke of Leeds 1632-1712, (3 Vols.; Glasgow, 1951), I; 221 ff.Google Scholar
34 Grey, IV; 111.
35 A Letter to Sir John Finch Giving Account of the Proceedings of the House of Commons; at the Session held the latter end of the year 1676 and the beginning of the year 1677, being the session after the long Prerogation of 15 months (Yale University Library). The letter is from Sir John's nephew Daniel Finch.
36 Grey, IV: 113-5.
37 Ibid., 153-55; British Museum, Add. MSS. 28091, f. 35, (27 February 1676/7). Harbcrt's speech is omitted in Grey.
38 Grey, IV: 193-94.
39 Ibid., 194.
40 Ibid., 195-200.
41 For example. B.M., Add. MSS. 28091, f. 39. includes “too much French Councell at Whitehall” and “But for addresses we have had soe ill fruite of them I shall move for none.” These remarks are either omitted or softened in Grey.
42 The first address was voted by the House of Commons March 6, sent to the Lords on March 10, and presented on March 16. Subsequent addresses were on March 29, April 13, April 16, and May 25.
43 Grey, IV: 134 ff. Letter of Sir John Cotton (Folgor Library V a. 343). The dobates on the messages are analyzed hy Caroline Robbins. “Parliamenlary Pamphlets.” unpuhlishcd manuscript. pp. 15-18.
44 Grey, IV: 305.
45 Ibid., 355-56.
46 Ibid. 356-57.
47 Ibid., 202, 311, 360.
48 Letter of Daniel Finch (Yale University Library).
49 Grey, IV: 377.
50 Ibid., 380. Turner, E. R. quotes the two Secretaries of State in “Parliament and Foreign Affairs, 1603-1760,” English Historical Review, XXXIV (April, 1919): 179CrossRefGoogle Scholar, but he does not show how late they came in the series of debates on this point nor docs he, I think, give a balanced view of how strong the opposition was.
51 C.J. IX: 426.
52 The unusually explosive conclusion is described in the letters of Temple and Finch.
53 Lords Journal XIII: 206–7.Google Scholar
54 Ogg, David, England in the Reigns of James II and William III (Oxford, 1957), pp. 447–49, 452–3, 465Google Scholar; Clark, G. N., The Later Stuarts (Oxford, 1934), p. 187Google Scholar; Turner, , English Historical Review XXXIV (1919): 182–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thomson, M. A., “Parliament and Foreign Policy 1689-1714,” History, n.s., XXXVIII (1953): 234–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55 McLachlan, Jean O., Trade and Peace with Old Spain 1667-1750 (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 109–10Google Scholar; Taylor, G. R. Stirling, Robert Walpole and His Age (London, 1931). pp. 299–305Google Scholar; Temperley, H. W. V, “The Causes of the War of Jenkins' Ear,” Transactions of the Royal Society, 3rd ser., Vol. III (1909): 197–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vaucher, Paul, Robert Walpole et la Politique de Fleury 1731-1742 (Paris, 1924), pp. 279–88.Google Scholar
56 The Queen's letter to Lord John Russell of 12 August 1850 is printed in Hanham, H. J., The Nineteenth Century Constitution (Cambridge, 1969), p. 55.Google Scholar