The Shaping of the Conflict (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
The Shaping of the Conflict
The stalemate of late summer 1641
By late summer 1641, relations between Charles I and his parliamentary critics had reached deadlock. The King's approach of offering minimal concessions to regain control had demonstrably failed. His attempt to construct an alternative power base in Scotland had yielded little benefit. Although he had ended the rebellion there, Charles had neither diminished the authority of the Covenanters nor established support among the Scottish nobility.
During this period, the opposition in England had surrendered much of the impetus it possessed in 1640. Parliament could preserve unity when addressing historical grievances, but when the prerogative courts received their final abolition in July 1641, MPs found themselves unable to identify a mutually acceptable path forward for reforming the Church. Neither side held a definite strategy for progress, yet both understood that without additional compromises of some description, any resolution would prove impossible had Parliament sustained its unity.
The prospect of civil war remained remote in 1640 because both the King and Parliament retained faith in reaching a compromise settlement. Throughout the year that followed, this possibility diminished, substantially because of the King's conduct. The increasing extremism within the opposition in response undermined the confidence necessary for any agreement to succeed.
Military confrontation would have remained impossible had Parliament preserved its cohesion. The breakdown of parliamentary unity would prove to be the critical factor that made civil war possible.
The Irish rebellion
The outbreak of rebellion in Ireland during October 1641 transformed this deadlocked situation. When MPs reconvened at Westminster following the summer recess, they encountered widespread rumours describing a surge in Catholic violence and Protestant casualties. Exaggerated accounts circulated, asserting that as many as 200,000 people had been killed, many subjected to torture before death. Reports emerged claiming an Irish army had disembarked in England and that English Catholics intended to join the uprising.
The actual circumstances were considerably less dramatic, but the rebellion was authentic and atrocities had unquestionably occurred. Most alarming of all, the rebellion's leaders maintained they possessed the King's endorsement and backing.
No development could have proven more effective in generating alarm among MPs and the broader population than this combination of Irish influence, Catholicism, and a King who had already forfeited trust.
The Puritan minister Richard Baxter observed that "there was nothing that with the people wrought so much [had such an effect] as the Irish massacre and rebellion. This filled all England with a fear both of the Irish and of the Papists [Catholics] at home... And when they saw the English Papists join with the King against the Parliament, it was the greatest thing that ever alienated them from the King".
Charles appeared to have responded with remarkable lethargy. He stayed in Scotland until late November, eventually returning to a ceremonial reception from the corporation of the City of London on 25 November. By that date, measures had already been enacted in Parliament that demonstrated both divisive and hazardous characteristics.
The rebellion presented the opposition leadership with a troublesome predicament. They wished to respond decisively to address the rebellion and protect their fellow Protestants. They stood prepared to provide the King with the financial resources required to raise an army for deployment to Ireland. Conversely, they proved unwilling to place such an army under the command of a King whom they suspected might be collaborating with the rebels and who might deploy it against Parliament instead.
The proposition that Parliament should retain control of the army itself constituted an infringement of the King's authority and a substantial affront to him, provoking anger among an expanding number of MPs who considered the opposition had advanced excessively. Following the Ten Propositions and the religious debates of June, several moderate MPs led by Edward Hyde and Sir John Culpepper, supported by Lord Falkland, had been constructing arguments favouring the King. Any effort to make additional intrusions into the royal prerogative would undoubtedly generate the type of divisions in Parliament that the opposition most dreaded.
Reaction and remonstrance
Facing pressure and lacking time to devise alternative solutions, John Pym formulated a strategy he anticipated would reunite the Commons. On 22 November 1641 he presented a Grand Remonstrance to be submitted to the King. This document reviewed developments of the preceding year and reminded the House of achievements their combined efforts had secured, before detailing the obstacles that persisted. The measure was delivered to the King on 1 December.
Six days subsequently a Militia Bill was presented, incorporating an amendment from Sir Arthur Haselrig that recommended Parliament should receive the authority to approve the King's selection of commander. The outcome was disorder and numerous uncommitted MPs rallied to the King.
The division within Parliament had been exposed by the Grand Remonstrance, which secured passage through the Commons by merely 11 votes, and the Militia Bill constituted an additional provocation. For the first occasion in a year, Charles found himself able to observe opinion in Parliament shifting in his direction.
The opposition's response involved adopting an even more extreme measure and appealing to public sentiment. On 15 December the decision was reached to publish the Grand Remonstrance, to the indignation of Royalist MPs. In the assessment of Sir Edward Dering: "When I first heard of a Remonstrance... I did not dream that we should remonstrate downward, tell stories to the people and talk of the King as of a third person".
The decision to publish the Grand Remonstrance represented a significant shift in parliamentary politics - it was an appeal directly to public opinion, bypassing traditional parliamentary channels. This unprecedented move alienated moderate MPs who viewed it as improper and dangerous.
In London, nevertheless, the strategy achieved its intended effect. The elections to the City's corporation on 20 December generated a substantial majority for the friends of the opposition, accompanied by fresh demonstrations against the bishops. Charles responded by appointing a new Warden to the Tower of London, represented by a ruthless and belligerent soldier, Colonel Thomas Lunsford. When this action stimulated additional demonstrations, Lunsford ordered the demonstrators subjected to violence and placed under arrest.
Confrontation and conflict
By late December, consequently, the Irish rebellion and the opposition leadership's reaction had demolished the parliamentary unity upon which the opposition depended. Two opposing factions now existed distinctly, and a military resolution to the King's difficulties was becoming an increasingly plausible option.
Had Charles exercised patience and permitted the tide of opinion to flow more powerfully in his direction, he might have secured the advantage through exclusively lawful methods. At this juncture, however, several factors compelled him into hasty action. In late December a dispute erupted between the bishops and the lay nobility regarding the legitimacy of business conducted in the Lords when demonstrations in London had obstructed the bishops from attending. Such a reminder of the Laudian bishops' presumption was liable to antagonize MPs and the Lords.
Simultaneously, rumours reached the King that Pym was devising plans to impeach the Queen – the rumours had conceivably been initiated by Pym himself to provoke the King. If this constituted the strategy, the approach succeeded.
On 3 January 1642 the King commanded the House of Lords to commence impeachment proceedings against Viscount Mandeville (subsequently Earl of Manchester) and five MPs, among them Pym and Hampden. Still incensed at the bishops' conduct, the Lords declined to comply.
The Attempted Arrest of the Five Members: 4 January 1642
On 4 January Charles entered the House of Commons, transporting a warrant for the MPs' arrest and accompanied by 300 armed guards. The presence of this armed contingent constituted a direct menace to the members present and a serious violation of parliamentary privileges.
To compound the King's humiliation, the members were not present, having received advance warning and secured refuge in London. Charles famously remarked that "the birds have flown" when he discovered their absence.
Charles's Catastrophic Miscalculation
Charles's action negated much of the productive work accomplished by Hyde and Culpepper, and converted moderate sentiment against him. He had achieved success in detaining the opposition leadership; his calculated risk might have produced results, but to have appeared to employ force and suffered failure was catastrophic.
Outrage erupted within and beyond Parliament, and on 10 January the King departed London for Hampton Court, asserting that he harboured concerns for his family's security. Despite expedient concessions regarding the militia and the removal of bishops from the Lords, Charles found himself unable to restore support. In February he relocated to his northern stronghold of York.
By this point, productive communication with Parliament had terminated, and as expanding numbers of those loyal to Charles assembled with him in York, control of the Commons transferred increasingly securely to the opposition. The presence of two distinct sides, both conscious of the menace and prospect of employing force, could no longer be questioned.
Timeline of events 1640-42:
Redress of grievances (1640-41)
- December 1640: Root and Branch debates exposed religious divisions
- January 1641: Bishops removed from Privy Council
- February 1641: King's response to Triennial Act demonstrated reluctance to make genuine concessions
- April-May 1641: Trial and execution of Strafford revealed opposition's use of intimidation and popular backing; first Army Plot raised anxieties that the King would employ force; Act against dissolution of Long Parliament raised concerns about Catholic conspiracies and diminished Charles's non-military alternatives
- May 1641: Bill to exclude bishops from House of Lords passed Commons but was defeated in Lords by combination of bishops' votes and pressure from King
- June 1641: King's visit to Scotland raised apprehensions he planned a new agreement with the Scots and an assault on Parliament; Ten Propositions raised concerns that opposition sought additional power; introduction of Root and Branch Bill to abolish the office of bishops generated divisions in Commons and anxieties for stability among moderates, alongside concerns of failure and punishment within the opposition group
Shaping of the conflict (1641-42)
- October 1641: Outbreak of rebellion in Ireland; Pym disclosed a second army plot in England
- November 1641: King slow to return to London, generating concerns; triumphal reception in city of London; Pym presented Grand Remonstrance; rejected by Charles
- December 1641: Decision reached to publish Grand Remonstrance; Militia Bill presented giving Parliament choice of commander; London council elections favoured opposition; public demonstrations for Parliament and attacks on bishops; King appointed Lunsford to Tower of London
- January 1642: Attempt to arrest MPs; riots and demonstrations; King departed London
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
The late summer 1641 stalemate resulted from Charles's failed strategy of limited concessions and the opposition's loss of momentum after initially redressing past grievances, with neither side holding a clear path forward for Church reform.
-
The Irish rebellion of October 1641 proved transformative by combining Catholic threat, rumours of mass atrocities, and claims of royal approval, generating widespread panic that destroyed any remaining trust in Charles and forced Parliament to confront the problem of raising an army they feared the King might use against them.
-
Pym's Grand Remonstrance (November 1641) and Militia Bill exposed deep divisions within Parliament, passing by only 11 votes, while the decision to publish the Grand Remonstrance represented an appeal to public opinion that succeeded in London but alienated moderate MPs who viewed it as improper.
-
Charles's attempted arrest of the Five Members in January 1642, accompanied by 300 armed guards, constituted a catastrophic miscalculation that violated parliamentary privilege, undid the work of his moderate supporters, and demonstrated his willingness to use force while simultaneously revealing his weakness when the attempt failed.
-
By early 1642, parliamentary unity had collapsed entirely, two opposing sides had crystallized, Charles had withdrawn to York with effective communication ceased, and both sides recognized that military conflict had become a genuine possibility where previously compromise had seemed achievable.