The Return of Parliament 1640

The Short Parliament (13th April to 5 May 1640)

  • Called by Charles as a result of the Scottish Revolution.
  • Charles needed money to finance a war against the Scots.
  • Within parliament there was a sense of unity about the abuses of the Personal Rule, however there was limited organisation and no real idea of an opposition in modern party political terms.
  • The king could rely on a majority in the Lords,
  • Charles’ announcement of the illegality of Ship Money won him support in the Commons.
  • MPs would not, however, grant the 12 subsidies that Charles wanted.
  • Key figures in parliament eg John Pym and Viscount Saye and Sele were in league with the Scots covenanters (rebels). This is important as it shows how Charles had isolated the political elite. They were more prepared to join with the Scots – their traditional enemy who the English regarded as backward and barbaric – than support their king!
  • Charles dissolved parliament
  • Charles then arrested the three Lords he regarded as his main critics – Warwick, Brooke, and Saye and Sele. From the Commons he had Pym and Hampden arrested.

Events of the summer of 1640

  • Charles resolved to fight the Scots with what he had.
  • 20 August – the Scots crossed the border at the River Tweed. There was a minor skirmish near Newburn. This was a key defeat for Charles and meant that the Scots would be able to invade the north of England.
  • August – Petition of 12 Peers issued by Lords, including Bedford and Warwick. It protested against:

-Innovations in religion

-Increase in popery

-The bringing in of Irish and foreign forces

-The attempts to collect Ship Money

-The length of time without a parliament

  • September – Council of Peers (Lords) assembled at York. The Lords would not co-operate with Charles unless he called another parliament
  • 12 October – Treaty of Ripon – Charles had to agree to pay the Scots £850 per day during their time in England. This meant Charles needed to try parliament again to raise subsidies.

The Long Parliament (3rd November 1640)

  • Leading opposition figures:

House of Lords / House of Commons
Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex
William Fiennes, Viscount Saye and Sele
Robert Greville, 2nd Lord Brooke
Edward Montague, Viscount Mandeville
Francis Russell, 4th earl of Bedford
Robert Rich, 2nd Earl of Warwick
Philip, 4th Lord Wharton / Nathaniel Fiennes
John Hampden
Denzil Holles
John Pym
Oliver St John
William Strode
Sir Henry Vane
  • Members of parliament were not always united. Warwick was more aggressive in his opposition. Bedford, however, wanted to keep negotiations with Charles open.
  • The key issues in the long parliament were as follows:

The Bridge Appointments

  • Bedford put forward settlement plans to try to bridge the gulf between MPs and the King.
  • 19 February 1641 – Bedford, Saye and Sele, Mandeville and Essex were appointed to the Privy Council as advisers to Charles
  • Bedford and Pym wanted a return to an Elizabethan-based Protestant church. They proposed a government where Bedford was appointed as Lord Treasurer and Pym as the Chancellor.
  • Conrad Russell has argued that Bedford’s settlement plans “were not an opposition programme, but an attempt, with backing from inside the heart of government, to drag the king kicking and screaming into the real world, and thereby to reunite the country”.
  • The settlement made some progress, but the death of Bedford in May 1641 (of smallpox) made further progress difficult.

‘Evil Counsellors’ (Wentworth and Laud)

  • November 1640 – Wentworth was impeached
  • 24 February 1641 – Scots demanded the abolition of bishops and Wentworth’s death
  • Wentworth and Laud were both imprisoned as ‘evil counsellors’.
  • Bedford, and maybe Pym, favoured a more moderate approach. They wanted punishment for Wentworth, but not execution. Warwick, however, wanted execution.
  • Wentworth had been recalled to England in 1639 to help Charles against the Scots who had rebelled. Parliament saw him as a danger and a way to make Charles absolutist.
  • Wentworth became a scapegoat. MPs did not want to blame Charles for all the problems because this would undermine the Divine Right of Kings and the whole system of government and society. It was easier to blame ‘evil counsellors’ such as Wentworth and Laud.

The Trial of Wentworth

  • John Pym was the leading prosecutor. This is what he said about Wentworth during the trial:

“The Earl of Strafford has endeavoured by his words, actions and counsels to subvert the fundamental law of England and Ireland and to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government”

  • The charge against Wentworth was that he attempted to bring the Irish army over to England for Charles to control England.
  • The trial did not look like it would secure a conviction. There was only circumstantial evidence against Wentworth and his defence was strong.
  • A Bill of Attainder was proposed, which would mean a threat to the state such as Wentworth, could be removed without a formal trial. Again parliament was divided over this. Warwick was in favour, however, Bedford wanted to be more cautious.
  • The supposed ‘Army Plot’ enabled the Bill of Attainder to be passed by 204 votes to 59. (It was said that Charles ordered army officers to return to their posts in the North. This created fears that he would use them against parliament and the country). Pym revealed details of the army plot to parliament on 3 May 1641.
  • Parliament also passed a bill that they could not be dissolved without their consent.
  • The Protestation Oath was also issued, which was meant to bind MPs together in times of crisis. The oath defended the rights of parliament and declared against popish innovations
  • Charles agreed to Wentworth’s death.
  • Later Charles asked for Wentworth to be imprisoned for life, however Wentworth was executed on 12 May 1641.