 |
| The Long Parliament in session, Speaker Lenthall in the chair |
The Long Parliament meets
This Parliament, the longest in English history, met under tense circumstances on 3 November 1640. To put it mildly, it was unusual to have an English Parliament’s existence secured by 18,000 troops occupying north-eastern England! Most of the members had already served in the Short Parliament and were ready for conflict if necessary. The MP Thomas Knyvett wrote,‘Now reformation goes on again as hot as toast.’ Quoted in Barry Coward, The Stuart Age (1994), pp. 189-90.
The strongest ideological drive behind the opposition to the king in the 1640s was religious zeal, and demands for a constitutional parliamentarianism went hand in hand with a craving for 'godly reformation’. The targets of the opposition were Laud (who had oppressed the Puritans and made the Scots revolt) and Strafford (who had acted tyrannically and thrust the second war upon them). The aim - to rescue the king from his ‘evil counsellors’ - was highly traditional, going back to the days of King John.
Pym leads the opposition
 |
| John Pym, Charles's most tenacious opponent |
The new leaders had emerged quickly, with John Pym soon becoming the voice of the parliamentary opposition. He also had contacts with the radical groups in the City, who organized marches of apprentices and others to Westminster. The historian, C. V. Wedgwood has described him in her book, The King's Peace (Collins, 1955, p. 364) as
‘a child of the Elizabethan age, reared in hatred of Spain, in strong Protestant beliefs, and in the faith that God intended the English to establish his Gospel by sea-power and settlement over the face of the earth’.He was a revolutionary who nevertheless saw himself as a conservative, harking back to the days of Good Queen Bess.
The Personal Rule attacked
The main business of Parliament was to attack Strafford. By 25 November he was in the Tower while a committee prepared articles of impeachment accusing him of ‘endeavouring to subvert the ancient and fundamental laws and government of England and Ireland’, of erecting an ‘arbitrary and tyrannical government’ in Ireland, and of provoking war against the Scots.On 7 December the Commons proclaimed Ship-money an illegal tax.
On 11 December the Root and Branch Petition for the complete abolition of episcopacy (bishops) was presented to parliament. It claimed to be signed by 15,000 citizens of London, now highly radicalized and potentially dangerous. This was embarrassingly radical, and Pym managed to have the Petition referred to the committee for religion.
On 18 December Laud was impeached as ‘an actor in the great design of the subversion of the laws ... and of religion’. In March 1641 he was imprisoned in the Tower. But Parliament was happy to allow him to languish there until he was executed in 1645.
On 22 March Strafford’s trial began at Westminster Hall, a great and well-attended spectator sport. It was clearly not going to be straightforward to get rid of him – how could a man who had the king’s confidence be accused of treason? Furthermore, the case against him was weak. Sixteen of the twenty-eight articles of the impeachment were directed at his Irish policy. He was accused of intending to bring an Irish army over to ‘reduce’ ‘this kingdom’ but it could not be proved that he had meant England rather than Scotland.
As a result of the lack of evidence, the Commons voted on 10 April, and against Pym’s advice, to proceed by a parliamentary bill of attainder, which avoided the inconvenience of a trial in the Lords. On 21 April 204 MPs voted in favour of the attainder and only 59 ‘Straffordians’ against. Many stayed away, either because they felt intimidated, or because they did not approve of the process.
On 23 April (Good Friday) Charles wrote to Strafford promising that ‘upon the word of a king, you shall not suffer in life, honour or fortune’, but his plot to use army officers to save him came to nothing. Meanwhile crowds of Londoners, many of them affluent and respectable, screamed for his blood. On 7 May the attainder bill passed a thinly attended Upper House.
On Monday 10 May, Charles assented to Strafford’s death. He was advised by many bishops that if he refused his signature the nation would descend into civil war; and he was also in deep fear for his wife’s safety. His decision caused a bitter Laud to confide to his diary that he ‘knew not how to be or be made great’.
On 12 May Strafford was executed on Tower Hill. In his history of the Civil War, the earl of Clarendon, an eye-witness to these great events, was to write:
In July the prerogative courts of Star Chamber and High Commission that operated outside the common law, were abolished. In August Ship Money was abolished, knighthood fines were prohibited, and the boundaries of the royal forests were clearly defined. These bills passed both Houses with enormous majorities.
By the late summer the policy of the Personal Rule had been dismantled. Strafford was dead, and Laud had been impeached and was now in the Tower. Charles’s opponents had apparently achieved what they wanted. Why then did the Civil War break out?
A central problem remained unresolved. Charles had given his assent to measures that fundamentally undermined his prerogative, but there was no guarantee that he would not repudiate his assent. Few believed that the king could be trusted. Divisions were also opening up over religion, with some wishing for bishops to be abolished and others simply wanting the episcopacy reformed.
The Triennial Act
On 15 February 1641 Parliament passed the Triennial Act requiring the king to summon a parliament at least every third year, and setting up an elaborate machinery to ensure that Parliament would meet even if he failed to issue the necessary writs. In signing it, Charles declared that he was yielding ‘one of the fairest flowers in my garland’. He was abandoning what had been an unquestioned part of the royal prerogative.The trial of Strafford
_cropped.jpg) |
| The trial of Strafford, depicted by Wenceslas Hollar. It was abandoned for lack of evidence in favour of attainder. |
On 22 March Strafford’s trial began at Westminster Hall, a great and well-attended spectator sport. It was clearly not going to be straightforward to get rid of him – how could a man who had the king’s confidence be accused of treason? Furthermore, the case against him was weak. Sixteen of the twenty-eight articles of the impeachment were directed at his Irish policy. He was accused of intending to bring an Irish army over to ‘reduce’ ‘this kingdom’ but it could not be proved that he had meant England rather than Scotland.
As a result of the lack of evidence, the Commons voted on 10 April, and against Pym’s advice, to proceed by a parliamentary bill of attainder, which avoided the inconvenience of a trial in the Lords. On 21 April 204 MPs voted in favour of the attainder and only 59 ‘Straffordians’ against. Many stayed away, either because they felt intimidated, or because they did not approve of the process.
On 23 April (Good Friday) Charles wrote to Strafford promising that ‘upon the word of a king, you shall not suffer in life, honour or fortune’, but his plot to use army officers to save him came to nothing. Meanwhile crowds of Londoners, many of them affluent and respectable, screamed for his blood. On 7 May the attainder bill passed a thinly attended Upper House.
On Monday 10 May, Charles assented to Strafford’s death. He was advised by many bishops that if he refused his signature the nation would descend into civil war; and he was also in deep fear for his wife’s safety. His decision caused a bitter Laud to confide to his diary that he ‘knew not how to be or be made great’.
.jpg) |
| Strafford's execution depicted by Hollar |
On 12 May Strafford was executed on Tower Hill. In his history of the Civil War, the earl of Clarendon, an eye-witness to these great events, was to write:
‘Thus fell the greatest subject in power and little inferior to any in fortune, that was at that time in any of the three kingdoms.’
The Root and Branch Bill
The 'Root and Branch' Bill was introduced in May 1641. This called for the removal of the bishops from the Church of England and for the Church's reform along Scottish-style Presbyterian lines. This was extremely radical and went far beyond the intentions of those MPs who had simply wanted Charles to abandon what they saw as his unconstitutional innovations. Events were slipping out of the control of the moderate parliamentarians.The Personal Rule dismantled
In June the Lords voted to exclude bishops from the House.In July the prerogative courts of Star Chamber and High Commission that operated outside the common law, were abolished. In August Ship Money was abolished, knighthood fines were prohibited, and the boundaries of the royal forests were clearly defined. These bills passed both Houses with enormous majorities.
By the late summer the policy of the Personal Rule had been dismantled. Strafford was dead, and Laud had been impeached and was now in the Tower. Charles’s opponents had apparently achieved what they wanted. Why then did the Civil War break out?
A central problem remained unresolved. Charles had given his assent to measures that fundamentally undermined his prerogative, but there was no guarantee that he would not repudiate his assent. Few believed that the king could be trusted. Divisions were also opening up over religion, with some wishing for bishops to be abolished and others simply wanting the episcopacy reformed.
Charles was now adopting the tactic that he would continue to use until the end of his life: playing off his enemies against each other. In the summer he travelled to Scotland and agreed a settlement with the Scots, who withdrew their troops from England. This journey was a sign that he intended to take the initiative, and it increased Parliament's fear that they were going to be outmanoeuvred. Already, opposition to the Covenanters was building up in Scotland. But then Charles over-reached himself by becoming involved in a bungled and premature conspiracy, known as 'the Incident', a plot to seize and possibly murder the Covenanter leaders. When lurid reports reached England, this proved a godsend to Pym, who wanted to ratchet up the pressure on the king.
The Irish revolt
The situation was dramatically and suddenly changed when on 1 November, alarming news from Ireland reached England. The Ulster rising, which began on 22 October, was a rising of the native Ulster gentry, led by Sir Phelim O’Neill, who rose up against the colonists and planters. Modern estimates calculate that about 3,000 or 4,000 Protestants were killed, with many Catholics killed in revenge. |
| One of the many gruesome images circulated in England and Scotland during the revolt. |
In this panic-stricken and rumour-laden atmosphere, Charles’s credibility was destroyed for many, and it is not surprising that when he proposed to raise an army against the Irish, may feared that he would use it against Parliament.
The Grand Remonstrance
On 8 November, Pym brought the Grand Remonstrance before the Commons. This was an extraordinary text, debated against the background of dreadful news from Ireland and rumours of a popish plot, with the queen at its heart. It provocatively opened up old wounds - complaining about the grievances of the Personal Rule (when they had been abolished) and of the king’s evil counsellors (when they were dead, in prison, or exiled).On 22 November the Commons debated the document. After chaotic scenes it was approved at 2 am by the narrow majority of 159/148. The House then debated a motion from Hampden whether it should be printed. For the Kentish MP, Edward Dering, this was the last straw.
I did not dream that we should remonstrate downward, tell stories to the people and talk of the king as of a third person.Other members agreed with him that Parliament had gone too far. Reaction to the Grand Remonstrance therefore saw the beginning of a ‘King’s party': men who believed that it was Parliament not the king who was upsetting the balance of the constitution. With Parliament now divided, civil war became more likely.
 |
| Sir Edward Dering, by William Dobson One of the MPs who had come to believe that Parliament was going too far. |
The Five Members
On 3 January 1642 Charles issued articles of high treason against John Pym, Denzil Holles, Sir Arthur Haselrig, John Hampden, William Strode, and also Lord Mandeville (soon to be earl of Manchester, and the attorney general laid articles of impeachment against them in the Lords. On 4 January he collected a guard of about four hundred armed men and went to the chamber of the Commons - the first time a king had ever interrupted a session of the Commons. The five members had already escaped by barge into the City.
Looking round the Chamber, Charles said, ‘I see all my birds have flown’. When he asked the speaker, William Lenthall, where they were, he fell on his knees and replied:
May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here.
On 5 January, the king entered the City of London and demanded that the Common Council hand over the five members. The Council refused and a hostile mob gathered round the king’s coach. This was a second humiliation within two days.
On 10 January Charles and his family retreated to Hampton Court, from where they moved to Windsor. This was another critical error.
On 11 January the MPs, including the five members, returned to Westminster in triumph escorted by a flotilla of beribboned boats loaded with cheering and waving Londoners, while citizen soldiers marched along the Strand with drums and flags to meet them as they came ashore.
The Militia Ordinance
If the Irish rebellion was to be put down a force would have to be raised - but there was now no question of trusting the king with an army. On 5 March the Lords passed the Militia Ordinance over the protests of 16 peers and both Houses claimed for it the force of law, despite the withholding of the royal assent. It was an unprecedented usurpation of the royal prerogative and a revolutionary step.The Militia Ordinance could no longer be confined to the realms of debate. First Parliament and then the king sent out commissions directing the local gentry to raise a militia. This placed enormous strain on the many local gentry who wanted to remain neutral.
On 22 August the king raised his standard at Nottingham. The war had begun.
Conclusion
- For a precedent for Parliament’s defiance of the king one has to go back to Simon de Montfort’s coup of 1258.
- This was new territory. Medieval rebels had deposed (and murdered) kings. The civil war broke out because there were genuine divisions between those who believed the king was a tyrant and those who believed Parliament had gone too far.
No comments:
Post a Comment