Ch 9 Political Divisions the Long Parliament, Pym + the outbreak of civil war Flashcards
-Key Info on the Long Parliament?
- first sat 3 November 1640
- name derived from argument of some MPs that only they (by an Act of Parliament) could agree to its dissolution
- that they did not do so until 1660 meant that, despite the various parliaments of 1649-60, MPs could technically argue that this Parliament lasted 12 years, hence its name
-What did MPs agree on & differ on from the start of the Long Parliament?
- agreed on: wanting grievances addressed asap + few actually wanted civil war
- disagreed on: religion + politics
-In 1640 how were most MPs united?
-loosely united against the abuses of the Personal Rule + wanted to reform Charles’ rule from within (as seen in them passing various laws during the early days of this parliament)
-How did the Earl of Bedford’s scheme aim to reform Crown finances?
-by trying to bridge the gap between Crown + Parliament (Bedford + allies including Pym in the Commons, proposed some compromises without any fundamental change to the political system
-What did Pym + Bedford’s compromises in the Earl of Beford’s scheme to reform Crown finances involve? Hos was Bedford going to carry this out?
- the abolition of the most confrontational financial + political aspects of the Personal Rule
- a return to the Elizabethan-based broad Protestant church
- a separate financial settlement (as agreed by Parliament) for Charles I
- to carry this out Bedford proposed taking the position of Lord Treasurer w/ Pym as Chancellor of the Exchequer; Charles was reluctant to settle w/ this + Bedford’s death in May 1641 (of smallpox) made further progress difficult
-What were the issues w/ Thomas Wentworth?
- he had been recalled from Ireland in 1639 to aid Charles in facing the Scots; though he was regarded by many in Parliament as the man w/ the potential to make Charles absolutist
- MPs focused on Wentworth because of the danger he appeared to represent, but they also used him as a scapegoat
-What was the King’s relationship w/ Wentworth like?
- Wentworth was loyal to Charles + had shown to be capable of dealing w/ conflict in Ireland
- he was to become Charles’ main adviser, to sort out growing problems w/ bankruptcy + war w/ the Scottish Convenanters
- Wentworth supported Charles’ desire to renew the war against the Scots, whereas Parliament wanted to make peace
-What were Parliament’s criticisms of Wentworth?
- Wentworth took a heavy-handed approach in handling the Irish situation + he wanted to raise parliamentary funds to wage war against the Scots
- there was a real risk of punishment for openly criticising the king, so it was safer to blame ‘evil councillors’ like Wentworth + Laud for the Scottish crisis
- a direct attack on Charles risked undermining the divine right of kings + the whole system of government/society + might also prompt an unwanted revolution led buy those outside the Political Nation
- MPs were split on their views of Wentworth: some moderates (like Beford) wanted him to simply be imprisoned; while others like Lord Warwick wanted him to be executed
- the Scots were also demanding Wentworth’s death
-What was one of the firs acts of the Long Parliament in November 1640?
- the impeachment of Wentworth for attempting to bring the Irish army to England to help Charles control his country
- the impeachment was proposed for 2 reasons:
- Parliament hoped that without his ‘evil councillors’ like Wentworth, Charles would see the need to accept reform + rule w/ Parliament
- rather than changing the whole system, the removal of ‘evil councillors’ would allow their replacement w/ men like Bedford + Pym who would ensure what Parliament saw as a good government
-When was Wentworth’s trial before Parliament?
-March 1641
-Why did the impeachment of Wentworth not go ahead?
-Wentworth skillfully defended himself + therefore decided to proceeded against Wentworth w/ MPs Bill of Attainder
-What was the Bill of Attainder?
-medieval method allowed anyone who was seen as a threat to the state to be removed by Parliament without the need for a formal trial
-What did Parliament think of the Bill of Attainder?
- some Parliamentarians like Warwick fully supported the bill, but others such as Bedford were more cautious
- Bedford (when alive) was still trying to negotiate ‘bridge appointments’ to Charles’ government + in return was trying to ensure Wentworth’s punishment did not extend to execution
- the limits to Bedford’s influence became clear, however when in February 1641 the Scots declared that they would not make peace unless there was an end to bishops in Scotland + Wentworth was dead
-How did Charles I heighten political tensions in April 1641 + undermine Wentworth’s position?
- he ordered all officers to return to their commands w/ the English army in the north
- this was seen as a plan to use the army against Parliament; there was also rumours that Charles was intending to dissolve Parliament
-What was the Army Plot + Protestation Oath?
- 3 May 1641 Pym revealed rumours of a royalist ‘Army Plot’ to Parliament
- centred on an attempt by officers to seize the Tower of London + release Wentworth, as well as dissolve Parliament
- the evidence for Charles’ involvement was circumstantial, but many MPs believed he played a part
- Parliament passed a bill stating that they could not be dissolved without their own consent, which Charles agreed to on 10 May 1641
- Parliament also drew up the Protestation Oath, reflecting the contemporary belief that Catholicism + absolutism were linked, + that there was a plot to establish them
-What spurred the Commons to pass the Bill of Attainder against Wentworth?
- the Army Plot revelation
- thus the Bill of Attainder was passed 204 votes to 59
- indicated this vote was a substantial majority in favour of executing Wentworth
- though the total votes cast represented only half of the total MPs as many decided not to vote or absented themselves from both the House of Commons + the House of Lords
- increasingly when it came to making real decisions, only the more committed were prepared to act
-To become an act, what did the Bill of Attainder need?
- Charles’ royal assent
- it was in the heightened atmosphere of the Army Plot, Protestation Oath + the increasing presence of the London Crowd that Charles (fearing for his family, + Catholic wife) gave the assent + thus condoned Wentworth to death
-When was Wentworth executed?
-12 May 1641
-How did Charles react to Wentworth’s execution?
-having condoned it, he became less inclined to negotiate w/ Parliament
-What did Wentworth’s execution + Bedford’s death from illness in May mean for the ‘bridge appointment scheme’?
-they were quite literally the death knell for the scheme that otherwise may have yielded a settlement to the 1641 political crisis through Charles potentially accepting some of his opponents in government
-What was the ‘London Crowd’ or ‘London Mob’?
- negative term given to Londoners who participated in politics + supported parliamentary causes
- derogatory term based on fear of popular revolution; as many prosperous London society members turned out to support Parliament + not the King
-How were MPs aware of the potential of mobilising Londoners’ support for their campaigns?
- e.g. 15,000 Londoners signed the ‘Root + Branch Petition’
- the London crowd also came to defend the Tower of London in early May 1641 amid rumours of the royalist Army Plot to seize it + release Wentworth
- over Dec 1641, radical MPs like Pym used the London crowd to put pressure on the Lords to exclude bishops
- the impact of the London Crowd clearly made Charles reconsider his + his family’s safety
-What was the Common Council in London?
- London had its own multi-layered system of government + representation
- this council held elections for the body Dec 1641 producing a more radical body that was more willing to organise popular support for Pym
-Pym’s main aims as a chief opponent of Charles? What did John Morrill say linked these goals for Pym?
- leading figure in Commons in 1640
- the removal + punishment of Charles I’s ‘evil councillors’
- a political settlement without the threat of being overturned by Charles I
- removal of the threat of Catholic popery + the establishment of a strong Protestantism
- what linked these was Pym’s obsession w/ ‘true religion’; in establishing such ‘true religion’ the threat of popery + other threats to Parliament would be removed
-What would removing the abuses of the Personal Rule + restoring a Protestant Church do for England?
- removing the abuses + restoring a truly Protestant Church would strengthen England politically + lessen the chances of popery + absolutism
- thus politics could not be isolated from religious concerns
-What was Pym’s agenda initially? And how did this change?
- initially was not radical; in 1620s he sought to achieve from ‘within’ the adequate funding of royal government + also wanted the Political Nation unified
- though he became more radical during the Long Parliament as Charles continued to threaten to use force + as a result of the heightened religious/political tension created the Irish Rebellion (Oct1641)
-What were Pym’s chief methods to achieve his aims during the Long Parliament?
- the impeachment of Wentworth + Laud
- the formation of a working alliance w/ the Scottish Convenanters that occupied northern England as military protection for the Long Parliament
- supporting Bedford’s ‘bridge appointments’ scheme
- using parliamentary financial pressures to control Charles’ income from tonnage + poundage only on a 2-monthly basis
- getting Parliament to transfer itself some of the key prerogative powers of the Crown
- using parliamentary committees to steer Parliament towards a settlement
-What was Pym the visble + focal face of?
- an increasingly far too radical attack on Charles’ prerogative, coupled w/ a dangerous appeal to the people outside of Parliament
- thus he was seen as a symbol of how Parliament become more of a threat to moderates than Charles in 1641
-What did moderates reacting to Pym’s stance in Parliament lead to?
-led to the development of constitutional royalism, the formation of a royalist party + most importantly the two divisions leading to the English Civil War
-Key details on the career of John Pym?
- 1624=became MP (highly visible in Parliament in 1620s)
- 1625=attacked Montague regarding Arminians as papists
- 1626=involved in the impeachment of Buckingham (alongside Bedford + Warwick)
- 1628=key role in passing Petition of Rights; foremost critic of Charles in the Commons of 1640-42 to the point he was referred to as ‘King Pym’
- 1641=involved in Bedford’s ‘bridge appointments’ scheme as potential Chancellor of the Exchequer; he opposed the shift from impeachment for Wentworth to Bill of Attainder; also became radicalised after the Army Plot revelation
- June 1641=organised the Ten Propositions (some saw this as going too far)
- Nov 1641=strengthened his political influence by making use of the London Crowd; key figure behind the Grand Remonstrance
- Dec 1641=started to push through the Militia Ordinance (finally passed March 1642)
- Jan 1642= Pym was selected for arrest by Charles, but the newly radical London Common Council essentially gave Pym control of London (which the king fled in fear of safety for his family)
-What was the Root + Branch Petition + who was it signed by?
- it demanded the end of bishops + episcopacy (bishops governing the Church); Puritanism was the force behind it
- signed by the 15,000 Londoners in Dec 1640
-How did the Root + Branch Petition cause division in Parliament through debate in Feb 1641?
- Pym was chief supporter of the Petition but he did not aim to destroy the Church; he sought the removal of Charles’ influence by establishing a system of patronage in the place of bishops, to allow locals more control of their Church; as the Arminians/Laudians were a minority only supported by the king, this enabled the Church to revert, in most cases, to a moderate Protestant Church of England
- there was clear disagreement as to what to replace Laudianism with (Laud was impeached 1640-41 but not executed till 1645)
- many saw the dismantling of the Church structure (especially the bishops’ removal) as undermining the whole order of society; men like Hyde (moderate Protestant) became a supporter of Charles I as the symbol of the Church
- Smith argues the Petition debate was significant because it ‘accurately prefigured subsequent political allegiance at so early a date’
-What was the only thing the Commons could agree on in 1641?
- agreed the secular power of bishops should be curtailed
- an exclusion bill was written stating that bishops should no longer sit + vote in the House of Lords
- this was sent to the Lords in March 1641 but was rejected on 8 June 1641
-What was the Triennial Act passed on 15 Feb 1641?
- abolished ship money without parliamentary consent
- also stated Charles had to call a parliament every 3 years + that it should last a minimum of 50 days
- if the king failed to do this, the written legal order for calling Parliament would be done automatically by the Lord Chancellor; this act therefore ensured that there would not be another period of prolonged Personal Rule
-What was significant about the Triennial Act (Feb 1641)?
-it ensured there would not be another period of Personal Rule as Parliament had to be called
