The period from 1640 to 1642 witnessed a decisive breakdown in trust between Charles I and Parliament, as deep-rooted grievances erupted into overt political confrontation.
Recall of Parliament (1640): Charles’s Weak Position
Charles I’s decision to recall Parliament in 1640 was born not of choice but of necessity. His authority had been severely undermined by the defeat in the Second Bishops’ War (1640) and the occupation of northern English counties by the Scottish army.
Financial Crisis: Charles urgently needed money to pay the Scots, who demanded £850 a day while occupying Northumberland and Durham. He lacked funds due to widespread refusal to pay Ship Money and the failure of other financial expedients.
Diminished Royal Authority: The failure of Personal Rule (1629–1640) had eroded trust in the King. His reliance on unpopular taxes and his imposition of Laudian religious reforms alienated many within the Political Nation.
The Short Parliament (April–May 1640): This Parliament lasted only three weeks. MPs, led by John Pym, refused to grant subsidies without redress of grievances, particularly over religion and taxation. Charles dissolved it, hoping for a better outcome through war — which backfired when he was again defeated.
The Long Parliament (November 1640): The King was forced to summon another Parliament. This time, MPs were better prepared and more unified in their demands. The political climate had shifted towards confrontation.
Composition and Aims of the Political Nation
The Political Nation in 1640 was a broad coalition of gentry, merchants, Puritans, and lawyers who had grown increasingly resentful of Charles’s policies during the Personal Rule.
Shared Grievances:
Illegitimate taxation: anger over Ship Money, monopolies, and distraint of knighthood.
Religious fear: widespread suspicion of Arminianism and perceived crypto-Catholicism in Laudian reforms.
Abuse of prerogative courts: especially the Star Chamber, which was seen as unjust and arbitrary.
Emergence of Parliamentary Leadership: Figures like John Pym, Denzil Holles, and Sir John Eliot (before his death in 1632) became focal points for opposition.
Unified Opposition: Initially, the majority in Parliament sought reform, not revolution. Their early demands included:
The abolition of prerogative courts.
A guarantee that Parliament would meet regularly.
Reversal of Laudian religious reforms.
Redress of constitutional abuses.
Parliament’s Leverage: With the King weak and in desperate need of funds, MPs pushed for constitutional changes, setting the stage for prolonged conflict.
Execution of Strafford (1641)
One of the most significant acts of the Long Parliament was the trial and execution of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, Charles’s chief advisor.
Strafford’s Role and Perceived Threat
As Lord Deputy of Ireland, Strafford had ruled with authoritarian efficiency under his policy of ‘Thorough’, seen as a blueprint for absolutist rule.
His return to England in 1639 was met with fear that he would use Irish troops to enforce royal policy.
Parliament viewed him as a symbol of tyranny and a key architect of Personal Rule.
Trial and the Act of Attainder
Strafford was impeached in November 1640, but the legal trial failed due to insufficient evidence of treason.
John Pym turned to an Act of Attainder, allowing Strafford to be condemned by Parliament rather than by court.
The Act required Charles’s royal assent. Initially hesitant, Charles wavered. Under intense pressure, especially after threats from the London Mob and a promise from bishops that Strafford’s execution would save the Church, Charles reluctantly signed the Act.
Significance
Strafford was executed in May 1641, a key turning point.
It marked the collapse of royal authority: the King had sacrificed his most loyal and competent minister under political pressure.
It increased mistrust between Charles and Parliament, especially when it became known that Charles had promised Strafford he would not sign the Act.
The Grand Remonstrance (1641)
The Grand Remonstrance, presented to the House of Commons in November 1641, was a lengthy document listing over 200 grievances against the King’s government since 1625.
Content and Demands
Highlighted abuses during the Personal Rule, particularly:
Unlawful taxation
Religious innovations
Arbitrary rule
Demanded:
Greater parliamentary control over ministers
A purge of bishops from political life
Church reforms to eliminate ‘popish’ elements
Impact and Divisions
Though it passed by only 11 votes (159 to 148), it deeply divided Parliament.
Moderates feared it undermined monarchy and order.
Radicals, led by Pym, insisted on further reforms.
The narrow margin showed that unity in the Commons was fracturing.
The document was published for the public, widening political debate and stimulating more popular involvement.
Charles’s Reaction
Charles saw the Remonstrance as an insult and provocation.
His refusal to compromise further increased suspicions about his intentions, particularly in regard to the military and religion.
The Role of the London Mob and Popular Activism
By 1641, popular politics had become a force unto itself. The London Mob, a loose coalition of radical Protestants, apprentices, and artisans, exerted immense pressure on the political process.
Characteristics and Influence
Frequently gathered outside Parliament to demonstrate and intimidate.
Protested against bishops, Laud’s reforms, and royal ministers.
Supported key parliamentary measures such as the Root and Branch Petition (1640), which called for the abolition of episcopacy.
Their militant presence made moderate MPs feel unsafe, pushing some to support the King out of fear of disorder.
Effect on Politics
Many MPs began to see the mob as a threat to social order, especially after riots and the storming of Lambeth Palace.
Some conservatives in Parliament drifted away from the Pym-led radical faction.
Charles used fear of the mob to justify the need for greater royal authority and military control.
The Militia Bill and Struggle for Control of Armed Forces
The growing fear of disorder, especially following the Irish Rebellion of October 1641, turned the issue of military control into a constitutional crisis.
Context of the Militia Bill
The rebellion in Ireland, involving massacres of Protestants, created panic in England.
Parliament feared Charles would use the army to suppress opposition at home rather than fight in Ireland.
Provisions and Purpose
Introduced in December 1641 by Arthur Haselrig, the Militia Bill sought to:
Transfer control of the militia from the King to Parliament.
Ensure that any army raised to respond to the Irish Rebellion would be under parliamentary, not royal, command.
Repercussions
The Bill was radical: it challenged the traditional royal prerogative to control the military.
Charles refused to accept it, viewing it as an attempt to strip him of his kingship.
The Parliamentary Ordinance of 1642, passed without royal assent, effectively implemented the Militia Bill, leading Charles to issue his own Commission of Array — England now had two rival commands for the military.
Overall Breakdown of Trust (1640–1642)
Between the recall of Parliament in 1640 and the outbreak of civil war in 1642, political trust collapsed entirely.
Charles’s reluctant concessions, such as the execution of Strafford, appeared insincere.
His repeated refusals to cede meaningful power to Parliament over religion and the military led many to see him as an imminent threat to liberty.
Parliament’s increasingly radical demands alienated conservative members of the gentry and upper classes.
The mobilisation of the London Mob and the publication of divisive documents like the Grand Remonstrance heightened tensions.
By 1642, irreconcilable divisions had emerged. When Charles attempted to arrest five MPs in January 1642 (discussed in the next subsubtopic), the final collapse of trust was all but sealed.
FAQ
John Pym was instrumental in directing the parliamentary agenda between 1640 and 1642. As an experienced MP and vocal critic of Personal Rule, he emerged as the de facto leader of the opposition to Charles I. Pym chaired several key committees and played a leading role in drafting the Grand Remonstrance, using his position to highlight the dangers of absolutism and Catholic influence. He was a masterful political tactician, often balancing moderate and radical factions to secure support for critical votes. Pym was also pivotal in the campaign against Strafford, spearheading the use of the Act of Attainder when traditional impeachment proceedings faltered. Moreover, he worked closely with the London Mob and Puritan networks to generate public pressure on MPs, ensuring momentum for reform. His emphasis on controlling the armed forces, particularly through the Militia Bill, shows his awareness of the military dimension of the crisis. Pym's leadership shaped Parliament’s increasingly assertive and confrontational posture.
The Long Parliament launched a comprehensive legislative assault on the key instruments of Charles I’s Personal Rule. Central to this was the abolition of prerogative courts like the Star Chamber and the Court of High Commission, which had been used to enforce royal policy without recourse to common law. In 1641, Parliament passed the Triennial Act, mandating that Parliament be summoned at least once every three years, thus preventing another lengthy Personal Rule. The Act of Attainder against Strafford set a precedent for bypassing legal safeguards when dealing with perceived threats to the constitution. Additionally, Parliament targeted financial mechanisms like Ship Money, ruling it illegal without parliamentary consent. These legislative efforts were not just about limiting Charles’s power but reasserting the role of Parliament as a central constitutional authority. By 1642, the Long Parliament had significantly eroded the institutional foundations of Charles’s previous governance, fuelling further confrontation over remaining prerogatives—especially the control of the army.
Religious concerns were a core driver of parliamentary opposition between 1640 and 1642, rooted in fears that Charles I was steering England towards Catholicism. Many MPs and their constituents were staunch Protestants, particularly Puritans, who viewed Archbishop Laud’s Laudian reforms as dangerously Arminian and too closely aligned with Catholic ritual and hierarchy. The imposition of uniformity, the beautification of churches, and emphasis on clerical authority provoked deep resentment. The fear intensified due to the influence of Queen Henrietta Maria, a Catholic, and Charles’s support for Catholic figures at court. Parliament responded with a determination to purge the Church of ‘popish’ elements. The Root and Branch Petition of 1640, supported by over 15,000 Londoners, demanded the complete abolition of episcopacy. This religious radicalism was mirrored in the Grand Remonstrance and contributed to fierce debates over the future of the Church. Religion, for many MPs, was not just about doctrine—it was tied to liberty, identity, and national security.
The Grand Remonstrance, although a critique of Charles I’s rule, was divisive within Parliament because it reflected growing ideological splits. Presented in November 1641, it catalogued abuses since 1625 and proposed sweeping changes, including greater parliamentary control over ministers and Church reform. While its content resonated with many, its tone, timing, and publication were contentious. Moderates in Parliament feared that it undermined the monarchy and stirred public unrest. The fact that the Remonstrance was passed by only 11 votes revealed deep fractures in the Commons. More controversially, its immediate publication to the public—a tactic supported by Pym—was viewed by some MPs as an attempt to incite popular pressure and sidestep parliamentary procedure. Additionally, its implications for future governance, particularly the exclusion of royal influence in ministerial appointments, suggested a potential constitutional revolution. This polarisation hastened the breakdown of parliamentary unity and pushed some members closer to the King, preparing the ground for civil war.
Charles I consistently resisted or delayed accepting parliamentary reforms, which significantly escalated tensions between Crown and Parliament. His reaction to the execution of Strafford was hesitant and perceived as insincere. Though he assented to the Act of Attainder under pressure, his subsequent statements—such as calling it a ‘damnable sin’—undermined trust. Charles also refused to accept the Militia Bill, seeing it as a direct assault on royal prerogative, and instead issued his own Commission of Array, leading to competing military commands. His response to the Grand Remonstrance was one of open hostility; he saw it as a slanderous attack and refused to engage with its demands. Furthermore, his failure to acknowledge the Triennial Act and abolition of prerogative courts as permanent shifts in power bred suspicion that he might reverse reforms once secure. Ultimately, Charles’s inflexible stance, refusal to compromise, and tone-deaf political instincts transformed distrust into confrontation and made armed conflict increasingly likely by 1642.
Practice Questions
‘The execution of Strafford in 1641 was the key moment in the breakdown of trust between Charles I and Parliament.’ Assess the validity of this view.
The execution of Strafford was indeed pivotal as it exposed Charles’s reluctance to genuinely cooperate with Parliament. His eventual consent to Strafford’s death, despite personal reservations, highlighted political manipulation and deepened mutual suspicion. However, trust had already eroded due to Charles’s Personal Rule and financial abuses. Events such as the Grand Remonstrance and the Militia Bill arguably had greater long-term consequences, especially in polarising Parliament. Thus, while Strafford’s execution was symbolically significant, it was one of several key moments contributing to the cumulative collapse of trust by 1642.
To what extent did popular political activism influence parliamentary developments between 1640 and 1642?
Popular activism, particularly through the London Mob, significantly influenced Parliament’s course between 1640 and 1642. Their demonstrations created a climate of fear and urgency, pressuring MPs into radical reforms, such as Strafford’s attainder and the Grand Remonstrance. The visibility of mass support empowered figures like Pym, while also alienating moderates. However, Parliament’s internal dynamics, especially constitutional concerns and control over the militia, were driven by elite political strategy. While popular mobilisation intensified divisions and urgency, it was ultimately parliamentary leaders who dictated the reform agenda. Therefore, activism shaped but did not wholly determine the developments of the period.
