The Short and Long Parliaments marked a critical turning point in Charles I’s reign, as parliamentary opposition directly challenged the monarchy’s prerogative powers and financial independence.

Background: Breakdown of Trust

Charles I had dissolved Parliament in 1629 and embarked on his Personal Rule (1629–1640). During this period, he governed without calling Parliament, relying on prerogative powers—the king’s traditional rights that allowed him to act without parliamentary consent. His methods of finance, particularly ship money, and his promotion of Laudian religious reforms, provoked widespread discontent.

By 1637, opposition intensified due to the imposition of the new Scottish Prayer Book, sparking rebellion in Scotland and the Bishops’ Wars (1639–1640). Defeated and financially strained, Charles was forced to summon Parliament, ending his period of rule without it.

The Short Parliament (April–May 1640)

Context and Aims

• Charles recalled Parliament primarily to secure funding for war against the Scots.

• MPs, however, prioritised addressing grievances over granting subsidies.

• Prominent critics included John Pym, who pressed for redress of abuses during the Personal Rule before agreeing to taxation.

John Pym, the leading organiser of opposition in the Short and Long Parliaments, coordinated the agenda to curb royal prerogative. This c.1640 portrait captures the sober, godly image cultivated by Parliamentarian leaders. It visually situates Pym as the figurehead behind early constitutional reforms. Source

Events

• The Commons focused on:

  • Attacks on ship money as illegal taxation.

  • Criticism of religious innovations under Archbishop William Laud.

  • Wider resentment of arbitrary government practices.

• Charles, frustrated by their refusal to prioritise his financial needs, dissolved Parliament after only three weeks.

Outcome

The Short Parliament highlighted the gulf between king and Parliament. Charles’s failure to secure funds forced him into a second defeat against the Scots, resulting in the Treaty of Ripon (1640), which required him to pay the Scots a large daily indemnity. Financial desperation meant he had no choice but to call another Parliament.

The Long Parliament (November 1640–1660)

Early Sessions and Reforms

When the Long Parliament assembled in November 1640, MPs were emboldened by the king’s weakness. Their initial actions aimed at dismantling the structures of prerogative rule:

• Triennial Act (1641): Parliament must be called at least every three years.

• Act against Dissolution: Parliament could not be dissolved without its own consent.

• Abolition of prerogative courts: The Star Chamber and High Commission—symbols of royal tyranny—were dismantled.

Engraving of the Star Chamber interior, noted for its starred ceiling, the emblematic venue of prerogative justice curtailed by the Long Parliament. The image aids recognition of the institutions targeted in 1640–41. It reproduces a nineteenth-century book plate and therefore includes decorative typographic elements not required by the syllabus. Source

• Impeachment and execution of Strafford (1641): Charles’s chief minister, accused of attempting to establish arbitrary rule, was executed under parliamentary pressure.

These measures struck at the heart of the king’s independent authority.

Pym’s Role and Strategy

Pym orchestrated much of Parliament’s agenda, framing opposition as a necessary defence against both absolutism and perceived Catholic influence. He sought to bind Parliament together by linking constitutional grievances with widespread religious fears.

Escalation of Conflict

Parliament went further than institutional reforms, pressing for limitations on royal control over the church and military:

• The Root and Branch Petition (1640): called for the abolition of episcopacy, reflecting Puritan pressure.

• The Grand Remonstrance (1641): a sweeping list of grievances presented to the king, publicly justifying Parliament’s stance.

These measures deepened divisions not only between king and Parliament but also within Parliament itself, as moderates feared radical change.

Dismantling of Prerogative Rule

The dismantling of prerogative rule was systematic:

• Financial prerogatives removed: Ship money declared illegal; tonnage and poundage now required parliamentary consent.

• Religious prerogatives curbed: Laud was impeached and imprisoned, and reforms curtailed royal influence in the church.

• Political prerogatives constrained: Charles’s ability to dissolve Parliament, rule through prerogative courts, and impose taxation independently was effectively ended.

This process represented not only reform but a profound constitutional shift, redefining the balance of power between monarch and Parliament.

Wider Implications

The dismantling of prerogative rule raised fundamental questions about sovereignty:

• For Parliament, it was about ensuring accountability of the monarchy.

• For Charles, it represented a humiliation and loss of authority, deepening his sense of betrayal.

The conflict laid the foundations for the broader crises of 1640–1642, including disputes over the Grand Remonstrance, the Irish Rebellion, and Charles’s failed arrest of the Five Members, which escalated directly into civil war.

Key Features

• Short Parliament (1640): Lasted three weeks; dissolved after refusing subsidies without redress of grievances.

• Long Parliament (1640–1660): Instituted major constitutional reforms, removing prerogative courts, securing regular parliaments, and impeaching royal ministers.

• John Pym: Central figure driving parliamentary opposition and reforms.

• Dismantling prerogative rule: Targeted royal independence in finance, religion, and governance, permanently altering the constitutional framework of England.