OCR Specification focus:
‘divisions over Church reform, the impact of the Irish Rebellion, the Grand Remonstrance and the Five Members.’
The years 1640–1642 marked a period of acute crisis in Stuart England, defined by bitter political and religious divisions, violent rebellion, and constitutional confrontation that destabilised Charles I’s monarchy.
Background to the Crises
The Personal Rule (1629–1640) had seen Charles govern without Parliament, raising money through prerogative methods such as ship money. When the Bishops’ Wars with Scotland drained his resources, he was forced to recall Parliament, initiating a confrontation over long-standing grievances. Between 1640 and 1642, three intertwined crises – the Irish Rebellion, the Grand Remonstrance, and the attempted arrest of the Five Members – pushed relations between Crown and Parliament to breaking point.
Divisions over Church Reform
Religious tensions
The appointment of Archbishop Laud had already created unrest through his Laudian reforms, which emphasised ceremonial worship, stained glass, and hierarchy in the Church of England.
Many MPs and ordinary believers interpreted these changes as a drift towards Catholicism, fuelling suspicion of Charles’ religious intentions.
Radical Puritans demanded sweeping reforms, advocating for the removal of bishops and the simplification of worship.
Parliamentary divisions
While there was broad hostility to Laudianism, Parliament was divided:
Moderates wished only to curb Laudian excesses and restore the Elizabethan settlement.
Radicals demanded the abolition of episcopacy, aligning with Puritan ideals.
These divisions were sharpened by outside events, particularly the Irish Rebellion.
Episcopacy: A system of church government overseen by bishops.
The Irish Rebellion, 1641
Causes
Ireland had been subject to the Plantation policy, with Protestant settlers taking land from native Irish Catholics.
Resentment at English rule and the influence of Laudian religious policy created instability.
In October 1641, Catholic gentry launched a rebellion, claiming to act in defence of Charles’ authority.
Events
The rebellion escalated rapidly, with reports of massacres of Protestants (some exaggerated) circulating in England.
Estimates of tens of thousands killed fuelled panic and hardened anti-Catholic sentiment.
Engraving by Wenceslaus Hollar depicting alleged atrocities during the Irish Rebellion of 1641. It illustrates how printed images amplified sensational claims, shaping English opinion and parliamentary resolve. The scene contains graphic detail beyond the syllabus’ core facts, but it clarifies the political impact of atrocity narratives. Source
Political impact
Parliament insisted it should control any army raised to suppress the rebellion, fearing Charles might use troops against his own subjects.
Disputes over military command deepened mistrust between King and Commons.
The rebellion therefore intensified both anti-Catholic hysteria and suspicion of royal intentions.
Anti-Catholic hysteria: Heightened fear of Catholic influence or plots, often exaggerated, which shaped English political culture in the seventeenth century.
The Grand Remonstrance, 1641
Nature and content
Drafted by John Pym and his allies in November 1641.
A lengthy petition cataloguing grievances against Charles since 1625.
Demands included:
Removal of bishops from political power.
Parliamentary approval of royal ministers.
Greater safeguards against Catholic influence.
Significance
Passed the Commons only narrowly (159 to 148), revealing deep splits within Parliament.
Supporters saw it as essential to curbing royal tyranny.
Opponents believed it undermined the monarchy and was dangerously radical.
Reactions
The presentation of the Remonstrance to Charles was controversial:
To its supporters, it was a defence of liberties.
To moderates, it seemed inflammatory and a challenge to the natural order.
It marked a polarisation of political opinion into proto-Royalist and proto-Parliamentarian factions.
The Five Members, January 1642
The attempted arrest
In January 1642, Charles entered the House of Commons with armed guards to arrest five leading MPs:
Charles West Cope, Attempted Arrest of Five MPs (House of Commons, January 1642). The composition shows Speaker Lenthall at the chair as Charles confronts the chamber, illustrating the breach of parliamentary privilege that destroyed trust. It is a nineteenth-century historical painting, used here to visualise the event described in contemporary sources. Source
John Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, Sir Arthur Haselrig, William Strode.
They had been accused of treason, largely due to their leading role in opposing royal policy.
Warned in advance, the Five Members escaped before Charles arrived.
Consequences
The Commons interpreted the act as a breach of privilege and a direct assault on parliamentary liberty.
Public outrage in London forced Charles to flee the capital shortly afterwards.
Trust between King and Parliament was irreparably broken, making armed conflict increasingly likely.
Parliamentary privilege: The rights and immunities enjoyed by Parliament, particularly freedom from royal interference in debate or arrest of members.
Interconnected Nature of the Crises
The Irish Rebellion intensified fears of Catholicism and raised the question of who should control military power.
The Grand Remonstrance formalised long-term grievances and sharpened divisions within Parliament itself.
The Five Members episode destroyed the last vestiges of trust, demonstrating Charles’ willingness to use force against his political opponents.
Together, these crises made the outbreak of the First Civil War (1642–1646) almost inevitable.
FAQ
The rebellion played into long-standing fears of Catholic conspiracies against Protestant England. Pamphlets and engravings exaggerated the scale of Protestant deaths, with rumours claiming over 100,000 were massacred.
These reports were particularly shocking because they coincided with anxieties about Charles’ perceived sympathy for Catholicism, intensifying the belief that the monarchy could not be trusted to defend Protestantism.
Although not formal parties, the narrow vote on the Grand Remonstrance (159 to 148) marked the beginning of clearer divisions.
Supporters of the Remonstrance coalesced around Pym and became associated with Parliamentarian positions.
Opponents saw themselves defending royal authority, foreshadowing Royalist support.
Thus, the Remonstrance created two identifiable camps that would soon clash in the Civil War.
Parliamentary privilege meant MPs could debate freely and not be arrested for their views without Parliament’s consent.
By entering the Commons with soldiers to seize his opponents, Charles ignored this principle. The act was seen as an unprecedented royal intrusion into parliamentary independence, confirming fears of absolutism.
Public reaction in London was overwhelmingly hostile. Crowds gathered to defend Parliament, and rumours spread that the King intended to use force against the city.
Charles’ decision to leave London soon afterwards was crucial. Without control of the capital, he lost access to London’s wealth, printing presses, and political influence, which strengthened Parliament’s hand.
John Pym acted as a key organiser of parliamentary opposition. He drove forward measures such as the Grand Remonstrance and consistently highlighted Catholic threats and fears of royal tyranny.
Pym’s ability to mobilise public opinion, particularly in London, meant that divisions became sharper. His leadership ensured that grievances against the King were articulated forcefully and could not be easily ignored.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
In which year did Charles I attempt to arrest the Five Members of Parliament?
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for correct identification of the year 1642.
No marks for incorrect or approximate answers.
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain how the Irish Rebellion of 1641 increased tensions between Charles I and Parliament.
Mark Scheme:
Up to 2 marks for identifying key features of the rebellion (e.g., Catholic gentry uprising, reports of massacres, tens of thousands allegedly killed).
Up to 2 marks for explaining Parliament’s response (e.g., insistence on controlling any army raised, fear of Charles using troops against his subjects).
Up to 2 marks for analysis of the political impact (e.g., intensified anti-Catholic hysteria, increased mistrust of Charles’ intentions, deepened divisions within Parliament).
Maximum of 6 marks available: candidates must show both knowledge and explanation, not just descriptive detail.
