Redress of Grievances (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes

Redress of Grievances

When MPs assembled for the Long Parliament in November 1640, they carried with them accumulated grievances from eleven years of Charles I's Personal Rule. Their initial success in securing reforms appeared substantial, but this progress masked growing problems that would eventually lead to civil war. By mid-1641, the opposition had dismantled much of the machinery of Personal Rule, yet their achievements created new tensions and revealed deep divisions that would prove impossible to resolve.

Politics and the constitution

Parliamentary success, 1640–41

Long Parliament refers to the parliament that assembled in November 1640 and, with interruptions, continued until 1660. MPs arrived at Westminster with clear expectations that the King's weak financial position would enable them to obtain redress for grievances accumulated during the years 1629–40.

The opposition achieved remarkable legislative success in the first months of the Long Parliament. By summer 1641, several major constitutional changes had been secured:

The Triennial Act (February 1641) guaranteed that Parliament would meet at least once every three years, regardless of whether the King called it. This Act removed Charles's capacity to rule without Parliament for extended periods, as he had done during the Personal Rule. Although Charles gave his assent, he did so with obvious reluctance and resentment, foreshadowing future difficulties.

Prerogative courts such as Star Chamber and High Commission were abolished in July 1641. These courts had enabled Charles to deal with legal cases directly through his prerogative powers, bypassing common law courts. Their removal represented an important restriction on royal authority, though it did not prevent such courts being re-established under a different name in future.

Ship Money was declared illegal in August 1641. This tax, extended inland during the Personal Rule, had provoked widespread opposition. The Act removed one element of Charles's non-parliamentary revenue, though it did not guarantee future monarchs would not attempt similar impositions.

The removal of the King's 'evil counsellors' proceeded through impeachment. Impeachment was not a new procedure but rather an extension of methods used in the 1620s. Proceedings began in November 1640 against both Archbishop Laud and the Earl of Strafford, the two advisers whom opposition leaders held most responsible for the policies of the Personal Rule.

The Strafford crisis

Strafford's removal presented particular difficulties because evidence to support a charge of treason proved insufficient. Opposition leaders therefore introduced an Act of Attainder, a parliamentary law declaring Strafford guilty and condemning him to death. This legislative approach bypassed the need for a judicial trial and raised serious questions about justice and equity. Nevertheless, the Act passed the House of Commons by 204 votes to 59.

To secure passage through the House of Lords, opposition leader John Pym manufactured panic by revealing an alleged plot to dissolve the Commons and release Strafford by force. This plot, supposedly concocted in March–April by army officers, contained ingredients calculated to induce maximum alarm. Some participants were Catholics, and although no evidence implicated the King, his refusal to dismiss those involved raised serious doubts about his intentions.

Charles's position had become untenable. To protect Parliament from dissolution, he was forced to agree to an Act declaring that this Parliament could not be dissolved without its own consent. When the Bill of Attainder moved to the Lords, London mobs appeared in Westminster and threatened any who opposed it. Many MPs who opposed the bill chose to stay away rather than vote. Charles had earlier promised Strafford he would never agree to his execution, but faced with angry demonstrations in London and fearing for his family's safety, he gave in. Strafford was executed before a crowd of several thousand on Tower Hill on 12 May 1641.

The King's concerns

These developments, though initially successful from the opposition's perspective, disguised underlying problems. Charles's response to the Triennial Act revealed his reluctance to accept real limitations on his authority. On the day he gave his assent in February 1641, he complained that Parliament had 'hitherto done what concerns yourselves' rather than attending to the kingdom's needs. He concluded with a barely veiled threat:

Strafford's execution greatly increased tensions. The manner of his death – through legislative action rather than judicial process – disturbed some MPs who had previously supported the opposition campaign. MP Sir John Coke wrote in April 1641 that 'Without question they will acquit him', showing how unexpected the outcome appeared to contemporaries. The King felt humiliated and betrayed, having been intimidated into breaking his word and abandoning his chief adviser. This experience made him unlikely to deal gently with those who had forced him into this position.

The growth of mistrust

The measures used to destroy Strafford had contradictory effects. Having lost the capacity to dissolve Parliament, Charles was more likely than before to consider alternative strategies, including the use of force. He was angry and humiliated – a King who had been intimidated into breaking his word would not feel obliged to deal generously with those who had forced him into that position.

For the opposition leaders, the situation was equally problematic. So long as they retained the support of a united Parliament, the King could not punish them. However, if they should lose that support, they would endanger not only Parliament's rights and liberties but also their own liberty and lives.

The Ten Propositions

By summer 1641, the opposition had attained many of their initial objectives, but at the price of alienating the King and placing themselves at risk. Dismantling the machinery of Personal Rule and removing those responsible for it was no longer enough; there was now a need to ensure security for the future. These developments forced opposition leaders to formulate new demands and place further restrictions on the King.

The first example came with the Ten Propositions of June 1641. In the aftermath of Strafford's execution, Charles had announced his intention to visit Scotland and finalise the treaties that had ended the Scottish rebellion. For opposition leaders, understandably suspicious of his intentions, this posed problems.

If Charles could escape the financial burdens imposed by the Treaty of Ripon (which had ended the Bishops' Wars), he would gain much greater freedom to manoeuvre with Parliament. Worse still, if he could conclude a different agreement with the Scots and build up his support there, he might be able to use an experienced Scottish army to impose his will in England.

To prevent this, the opposition put forward a list of ten points, including parliamentary control of the King's choice of advisers, and asked the King to delay his visit until after he had considered and agreed to them.

The constitutional impasse

Such demands constituted a clear encroachment on the King's existing powers, and there was little chance Charles would agree to them. More importantly, many MPs also had reservations about such demands. The majority were not professional politicians but country gentlemen who regarded the King's authority as their guarantee of order and the main pillar of the social hierarchy upon which they themselves depended.

They had come to Westminster in November with a conviction that the King had overstepped his powers and infringed both law and parliamentary rights. They were therefore united in demanding the removal of such abuses and securing parliaments for the future. To go further and make changes that would alter the balance of the constitution was something they had not considered.

To make matters worse, many were already concerned about other changes that had been put forward to deal with religious grievances and the difficult issue of reforming the Church.

Religion and the Church

Initial unity over Laudian reforms

As with other grievances, the changes introduced by Charles and Archbishop Laud in the Church had created widespread and apparently united opposition. In December 1640 the Commons accepted a petition from London and surrounding counties calling for the reversal of Laud's reforms and the abolition of episcopacy (government of the Church by bishops).

When the petition was debated, it became clear that many MPs were reluctant to go so far. The issue was laid aside to deal with more urgent matters. By May 1641, however, those other matters had been dealt with and MPs turned their attention to the matter of the Church.

Divisions revealed

It quickly became apparent that the widespread unpopularity of the Laudian bishops disguised a variety of different ideas about the future of the Church. While the majority of MPs disliked the pretensions of the clergy, the inquisitions of the Church courts and the interference of bishops in affairs of state, these concerns fell far short of the Puritan schemes for wholesale reform of the Church.

Most were willing to see the removal of the rituals imposed by Laud and restore a distinctively Protestant identity based on a preaching ministry. However, few were committed to any Presbyterian model (a system of Church government by elected assemblies rather than bishops), and even fewer to the complete abolition of bishops.

While Laud remained in power and the threat of Catholic influence appeared immediate, Protestants of many shades of opinion could agree on the need to remove him. When it came to deciding how to replace him, such unity quickly dissolved and the underlying divisions were revealed.

Attempts at reform

These problems were illustrated by the varying success of religious measures introduced in 1640–41:

In January 1641 the King agreed to remove the bishops from his Privy Council, reducing their role in administration and government. In May the opposition introduced a bill to exclude bishops from the House of Lords, which rapidly passed the Commons only to be defeated in the Lords by a combination of the bishops' own votes and pressure from the King.

In June, the Puritan faction attempted to bring in a Root and Branch Bill to abolish the office of bishop completely and reform the Church along Presbyterian lines. Although this was now the only means of removing their political influence, it was clear the bill would fail and its supporters laid it aside.

Moderate concerns

The attitude of many moderate members was expressed by the Yorkshire MP, Sir Henry Slingsby of Scriven, as recorded in his diary:

For men like Slingsby, the issue of Church government was not simply a matter of religious belief, but also of social order. While some MPs, particularly among the opposition leaders and their supporters, were deeply committed to reform of the Church along Puritan lines, many regarded this as dangerous innovation, threatening the role of the Church in teaching the lower orders to obey and defer to those in authority.

Others, like Edward Hyde (later Lord Clarendon), had a genuine affection for the traditional Anglican services practised since the time of Elizabeth I. Others again, like Lord George Digby, disliked any clerical pretensions to power over the laity. Hence, while they opposed the activities of the Laudian Church courts and clergy, they had no intention of replacing them with a Presbyterian clergy who would claim similar powers.