What was the short term significance of the Long Parliament 1640-1642?
The Long Parliament sat from 1640 to 1648 however it was the measures taken between 1640 and 1642 that had the most short term significance. The actions taken by parliament against the king’s ‘evil’ counsellors, the removal of the personal rule of Charles I, the increased role of parliament in conjunction with Charles, the growing support for the king, the religious divisions within parliament and the final breakdown of relations between the two branches of government were all prominent events between 1640 to 1642.
The primary short term significance of the Long Parliament was the removal of the king’s ‘evil counsellors’ Strafford and Laud. Despite the impeachment of Archbishop Laud (December 1640) being important, the Strafford crisis was a much more pivotal short term consequence of the Long Parliament. Many of those in parliament and ordinary citizens were displeased with their actions such as the tyrannical imposition of the ‘Thorough’ or absolutist rule – they were men of ‘arrogant pride...deep policy, stern resolution and ambitious zeal.’ Albeit this view belongs to devout puritans Lucy and John Hutchinson, opinions from royalists concur with this as Lord Digby proves in the trial of Strafford (April 1641)that he believed him ‘to be the most dangerous minister’; hence proving that Strafford’s actions were abhorred by a variety of people, even those who supported the king. However there was some negligible support for Strafford as the introduction of the Bill of Attainder implied ‘without question they will acquit him’. The Strafford crisis and actions taken by parliament to impeach him were what made this a short term significance; Charles was stripped of his favourite minister and felt trapped, defenceless (to a certain extent) and cautious of parliament.
A crucial short term significance of the Long Parliament was the removal of the personal rule, not only because it limited the king’s prerogative powers but because it heightened tensions between king and parliament and led to the complete breakdown of the relationship between the two branches of government. The most hated features such as ship money, monopolies and the prerogative courts (the court of the Star Chamber and High Commissions) were removed and Pym stated that ‘they now had an opportunity to make their country happy, by removing all grievances’ However because Pym was one of the most outspoken and determined opponents to the king in parliament, his views on the personal rule would be negative and although he may have exaggerated aspects to gain political support, the state of affairs when the long parliament met suggests that it was not entirely needed. The future royalists Henry Slingsby also commented on the personal rule stating that ‘the subjects may have a total redress of all his grievances’ and to question ‘all Projectors and Monopolizers’ leading to a unified and contented parliament implying that there was support throughout parliament for the removal of the tyrannical personal rule. After Strafford’s execution in May 1641 parliament made many new constitutional reforms to prevent repetition of the personal rule; The levying of Tonnage And Poundage (June 22) was pronounced illegal without parliamentary consent, the Ship Money Act (August 7) and the prohibition of knighthood fines all ended Charles’ ability to raise money without going through parliament. The abolition of the Court of the Star Chamber and High Commissions, in conjunction with the Triennial Act (February 1641) meant that Charles’ role as an absolutist monarch and attempt to exercise ‘an arbitrary and tyrannical government’ had been terminated. The short term significance of this is that a determined and unified Long Parliament was able to weaken a king who was ‘incapable of conceding at a time when compromises were desperately demanded’ and led to parliament further encroaching the powers of the king.
The increase in the roles and powers of parliament was a predominant short term significance. It further weakened and disgraced Charles who had firmly believed in the Divine Right of Kings, granted more power to parliament and indirectly allowed Charles to find support within parliament. By intensifying their role of governing the country parliament was effectively creating a constitutional monarchy and made Charles a figurehead rather than a ruler. The Commons increased its role in relation to the king through various propositions such as the Ten Propositions in June 1641 which focused heavily on religion and exposed the religious problems that many members of the House of Commons had with Charles’ accepting and flamboyant attitude towards the Catholics – ‘His Majesty be very sparing in sending for Papists to Court’ the legitimacy and reliability of this source cannot be questioned as it is a legal document however it introduces a new factor to the reasoning behind the Ten Propositions. The Ten Propositions could now control the appointment and removal of the kings ministers ‘...As we desire removal of those [ministers of state] that are evil,’ and were passed one month after the execution of Strafford; this was very important because it allowed parliament to limit the kings powers by preventing him from appointing ministers that would act as Strafford had by implementing absolutist rule. Parliament also limited the power of the king and is the Act against Dissolving Parliament without its consent (May 1641) that the present parliament ‘shall not be dissolved unless it be by the Act of Parliament.’ The Grand Remonstrance allowed Parliament (particularly the House of Commons) to further magnify its power as it wanted to ‘reduce within bounds the exorbitant power which the bishops have assumed.’ The timing of these changes was crucial because the act against dissolving parliament was passed two days before Strafford’s execution and the other acts in quick succession after it. In this sense Charles had lost a friend and a good counsellor parallel to his power and was in this sense a short term significance.
Alongside the increased role of Parliament, the support generated for the king was a paramount short term significance because it exposed the divisions within parliament and suggested the idea of a Civil War for the first time since the disintegration of relations between king and parliament as suggested by revisionist historians. In a speech made by Edward Dering on whether to publish the Grand Remonstrance he showed support for the king ‘I did not dream that we should remonstrate downward, tell stories to the people and talk of the king as of a third person’ Dering was a future royalist and protestant without being puritan therefore the idea that a protestant would side with a king who was tolerant of Catholics shows Charles’ growing support and divisions beginning to occur between MP’s. The increased power of parliament becomes a much more significant short term event because as a result of this Charles began to gain support allowing the idea of a Civil War to become more realised. In conjunction with Dering’s speech Sir Benjamin Rudyerd also showed support for the king suggesting that they should ‘take the kings business into consideration’ because ‘until that be settled, we shall never be but unsettled ourselves.’ Both sources support the king yet Rudyerd later took the side of parliament implying that Charles was finding a support group within parliament even from future parliamentarians. The Grand Remonstrance was an additional factor that displayed division within parliament as it was only passed by eleven votes and drove prominent parliamentarians (such as Hyde and Falkland) into support for the king.
The penultimate short term significance was the growing divisions between MP’s in parliament which were mainly a result of religious divisions as well as divisions between future royalists and parliamentarians. Parliament was made of two types of men, one who ‘made no great matter’ over the alterations in the church and the other who were ‘the more religious men’ It can be said that Pym was an important figure head that led the religious debate within parliament as whenever he seemed to be lacking in support he would refer to ‘some notable plot and conspiracy against themselves, to dissolve the parliament by the papists’ This speech comes from The Earl of Clarendon who associated himself with the king’s cause suggesting a lack of unity within the Houses of Commons not only because of political reasoning but also because of the religious dissimilarity. This disunity within the Commons also allowed the emergence of a Royalist party. The aim to bring about a complete protestant reformation was important to many of the MP’s as they wanted to ‘maintain and defend... the true reformed Protestant religion’ and although this source agrees with the views expressed within the Root and Branch petition that ‘the government of archbishops and lord bishops... may be abolished’ it cannot be said that the aims of a puritan reformation were successful because not only was there opposition to the root and branch petition within parliament ‘but [not] to strike at the Root, to attempt a total alteration’ but because there was also opposition to religious reforms within the Lords; this agrees with the Bishops Exclusion Bill (March 1641) which was passed by 31 votes in the Commons and ‘The next day the Lords did throw the...Bill’ suggesting that religion was a factor on which the two Houses of Parliament disagreed on therefore a lack of unity based on religious differences gave the Long Parliament another short term significance.
The final and the most paramount short term significance was the breakdown of relations between king and parliament. Although this can be traced back to the beginning of Charles I rule, the events of 1641 and 1642 further advanced the collapse. A key event was the attempt on the five members where ‘the king goeth to the House of Commons with a company of Cavaliers...to have charged five of the members’ contributed greatly not only to advancing Pym’s grievances but also in removing any chance of the king and parliament working together. The attempt on the five members was a significant short term event, it showed that Charles was willing to risk the already fragile relationship between him and his parliament to stop the traitorous endeavours of the Five Members ‘to alienate the affections of his people’ and ‘parliament to join with them.’ In this way the actions of the king hastened the breakdown of relations. Any attempts by parliament to remove the kings prerogative such as the Grand Remonstrance (November 1641) and the Nineteen Propositions (June 1642) all promoted further disagreements between King and Parliament. The Nineteen Propositions continued to erode the king’s prerogative by forcing him to ‘approve the Militia Ordinance’ and allowed parliament its own army; by doing so Charles is indirectly exercising the idea of civil war. When Parliament heard of the Irish Rebellion (1641) they ‘vigorously set themselves to the work of relieving them’ yet the king ‘obstructed all its proceedings.’ The Irish Rebellion was a significance of the Long Parliament as Charles’ actions contributed to his image - a ruler that was too accepting of Catholics. Although this source comes from a devout Puritan it nevertheless made Charles a weaker ruler and forced him to react creating more problems between him and his parliament and made the disintegration of their relationship another short term consequence of the Long Parliament.
To conclude, the most crucial short term significance of the long parliament was that it indirectly caused a civil war. The tense relationship between the king and parliament, the emergence of a royalist party and extension of parliamentary powers all made the Long Parliament significant and the idea of Civil War a possibility. ‘Their fundamental misconception of the political situation’ and the extension of parliamentary powers suggest a wide range of events which made it significant. Marxist and Whig historians tend to disagree on the reasons for civil war either class conflict (Marxist) or unavoidable conflict between king and parliament (Whig) yet the role of the Long Parliament cannot be undermined. The reduction of the king’s prerogative, breakdown of relations and the resulting civil war were the most important short term significances of the Long Parliament.