286Chapter 15sarily a disadvantage. The Danish monarch held more
than 40 percent of the arable land in Denmark and de-
rived vast revenues from the Sound Tolls levied on
every ship passing from the North Sea into the Baltic.
The Swedish royal estate derived great wealth from ex-
port duties on copper and iron, the country’s major ex-
ports. Both countries were therefore able to exert a
political and military influence wholly disproportionate
to their size.
England had no comparable sources of revenue.
The failure of Henry VIII to retain monastic lands
taken at the time of the Reformation left the crown
without sufficient property to “live of its own.” Even im-
port and export duties, though technically part of the
domain, had to be authorized by Parliament. The re-
sulting poverty, already evident under Elizabeth, re-
stricted the crown’s ability to reward its supporters.
Worse, it forced her Stuart successors to seek wealth in
ways that profoundly offended their subjects (see docu-
ment 15.4). Knights’ fines, ship money, quo warrantopro-
ceedings, and the abuse of wardships struck directly at
property rights and aroused a firestorm of opposition.
Much of this opposition was at first centered in the
legal profession where such jurists as Sir Edward Coke
(1552–1634) revived the common law as a protection
against royal prerogatives, but in the end Parliament
proved to be the crown’s most formidable adversary.
Between 1540 and 1640 the wealth and numbers of the
landholding gentry, the professions, and the merchant
community had increased enormously. These elements
of the English elite dominated the House of Commons,
which took the lead in opposing royal policies. The
Stuarts feared their disaffection and would have pre-
ferred to rule without calling Parliament. Except for rel-
atively short periods, this was impossible. Even the
smallest of crises forced the crown to seek relief
through parliamentary taxation.
The growing resentment in Parliament might have
been better managed had it not been for the personali-
ties of the Stuart kings. Neither James nor Charles was
capable of inspiring great loyalty. James was awkward,
personally dirty, and a homosexual at a time when ho-
mosexuality was universally condemned. His son was
arrogant and generally distrusted, while the court as a
whole was thought to be morally and financially cor-
rupt. Though James, who annoyed his subjects with
treatises on everything from the evils of tobacco to
witchcraft, wrote eloquently in support of the divine
right of kings, the legitimacy of his family’s rule was
continually undermined by his own behavior and by
the devious policies of his son.
The religious question was more serious. Elizabeth,
not wishing “to make windows into men’s souls,” had
established a church that was Protestant but relatively
tolerant. Some of her subjects had retained a fondness
for the ideas and liturgical practices of the old church,
while others, known as Puritans, followed Calvin with
varying degrees of rigor. James was a Calvinist who
commissioned the King James Bible in 1611 and estab-
lished Protestant colonists in northern Ireland in theDOCUMENT 15.4
The English Petition of Right, 1628
The 1628 Petition of Right summarized Parliament’s griev-
ances against Charles I, who was trying to solve his financial
problems through illegal and arbitrary means. The objections
are based largely upon perceived violations of the Magna
Carta, also known as the Great Charter. The following are
excerpts from a much longer document.And where also, by the statute called the Great
Charter of the Liberties of England, it is declared
and enacted that no freeman may be taken or im-
prisoned, or be disseised of his freehold or liberties
or his free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or in
any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment
of his peers or by the law of the land....
They do therefore humbly pray your most
excellent majesty that no man hereafter be com-
pelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevo-
lence, tax, or such like charge without common
consent by act of parliament; and that none be
called to make answer, or take such oath, or to
give attendance, or be confined, or otherwise mo-
lested or disquieted concerning the same, or for re-
fusal thereof; and that no freeman, in any such
manner as is before mentioned, be imprisoned or
detained; and that your majesty would be pleased
to remove the said soldiers and mariners [who had
been quartered in the counties to enforce the
king’s measures]; and that the foresaid commis-
sions for proceeding by martial law may be re-
voked and annulled; and that hereafter no
commissions of like nature may issue forth... lest
by colour of them any of your majesty’s subjects be
destroyed or put to death, contrary to the laws and
franchise of the land.
Journals of the House of Lords,vol. 3.