1640-60 Parl + their assertiveness

Question 1

line of arg/thesis

Answer 1

• MPs/Parl were overly assertive and exacerbated tensions with rulers, which led to parliament failure, as this led to a breakdown of relations beyond repairing.

Question 2

-ve of Parl- between 1640 to end of 1st Cw (may 1646)

Answer 2

1. Trial and execution of Strafford March-May 1641:
   → Trial fails as Strafford too clever, so Pym suggests a Bill of Attainder. Army plot rumoured involving Charles to break Strafford out of jail forces. Lords to sign the Bill (execution without a formal trial). Bc of army plot + conspiracies Charles also signs- ‘greatest sin of his life’
   →MPs can never compromise/make concessions with Charles now as if he gains more power he may enact revenge for Strafford → Civil war becomes likely?
2. Parl used finances to undermine and control Charles.
   → Parl passed new legislation: Triennial Act and Act Against Forcible Dissolution.
   → They used financial pressure to get Charles to sign these bills into law. Also, parl kept making concessions and exploited Charles who was now vulnerable after Strafford’s death= lead parl to take away most of his rights (Ship Money, abolition of Star Chamber +High Commission…) so that the king was dependent on Parl for financing.
3. Parl stretching privilege. Irish Rebellion- aftermath- question of who should control the army.
   → Pym’s motion that Parliament should, not Charles, won by 151-110 votes. Another opportunity to reduce the prerogative of Charles.
   → Consequence: Militia Ordinance in March 1642- where Parl now had the right to appoint army commanders- HUGE overstep of parl priv.
4. example of Parl going too far- Grand Remonstrance- Nov 1641
   → 204 articles that discredited Charles’ past and present conduct.
   → potentially treasonous move by Pym and the public could read this article that attacked Charles.
   → Passed by only 159-148 votes. Royalist support is increasing- shows parl is going too far.

Question 3

+ve of Parl- between 1640 to end of 1st Cw (may 1646)

Answer 3

1. Jan-May 1641: Bedford Sch:
   → Bedford scheme to settle crown-parl conflict. Charles reluctant to cooperate + Bedford died=failed scheme.. But shows parl tried.

Question 4

-ve of Parl: 1648-regicide

Answer 4

1. Vote of no addresses - Jan ‘48
   → parl no longer negotiate with charles
   CA: Parl sought compromise in the 4 bills, 24 December 1647 + newcastle props July 1646
   CA: Revoke of the vote of no addresses - Aug 1648 (PolPresby and Indeps united against charles tho)
2. Trial (20th jan) and execution (30th jan ’49) of Charles-
   → illegitimate and unlawful at the time to kill the king
   → Cromwell partook in the illegitimate trial and coerced 59/68 Rump MPs to sign the death warrant
   CA: Had to kill Charles as no other option. Couldn’t negotiate and couldn’t keep him in prison as still a threat and could start another war.
   CA: Note that Fairfax- commander-in-chief of parl forces that defeated royalists in 1st+2nd CW- he did not turn up to Charles’ trial– no intent to actually kill the king.
   CA: Charles proved he was untrustworthy, he constantly fled or was uncompromising.

Question 5

-ve of Parl: post regicide into 1650s

Answer 5

1. MPs lack of sympathy towards Cromwell’s ‘4 fundamentals’ – esp liberty of conscience- contributed to the dissolution of the FPP in Jan 1655
   → their poor attitude seen: e.g. John Biddle Case, 1654- imprisoned by MPs for blasphemy- said it was a conseq of religious toleration and physically punished him, with knowledge that this ernt against Crom’s ‘liberty of consc’.
   → this act appalled cromwell and contributed to failure of FPP because showed him these MPs were opposed to any agenda which “lift the lid off a seething mass of sectarian errors and blasphemies”. Therefore it was MPs contributing to poor relationship.

Question 6

divisions in parliament

Answer 6

1. during first CW, in the House of Commons: 1/3 of MPs supported the King and 2/3 supported Parl.
2. after 2nd CW: Independents and Political Presbyterians emerged
3. Nominated Assembly: 13 fifth M vs 18 moderate Rump MPs. oled to conflicting views… e.g. the 5M wanted complete reform, e.g. abolition of tithes, however Rump MPs only wanted moderate reform. 5M extremism led OC to dissolve NA.