Echoes of Westminster

👑 Royal Fiscal Crisis and Parliamentary Recalcitrance

King Charles I's inability to finance the Bishops' Wars without parliamentary taxation led to the recall of Parliament in April 1640, after an eleven-year hiatus. However, this Short Parliament refused to grant taxes without significant concessions, prompting its dissolution after just three weeks. The subsequent humiliating terms imposed by the Scottish Covenanters after a second military defeat forced Charles to call fresh elections in November, resulting in a strong opposition majority led by John Pym.^[5]

⛪ Religious Tensions and Political Distrust

Almost immediately, Parliament was inundated with "Root and Branch petitions," advocating for the removal of bishops from the Church of England. These petitions reflected widespread anxiety regarding the perceived rise of "Catholic practices" within the church.^[6] Charles's apparent willingness to wage war against Protestant Scots while neglecting his exiled nephew, Charles Louis, fueled fears of an impending alliance with Catholic Spain, a concern shared by experienced foreign ambassadors.^[b][7] This context made ending arbitrary rule crucial not only for England but for the broader Protestant cause.

🎯 The Impeachment of "Evil Counsellors"

Direct attacks on the monarch were deemed unacceptable, so the established method to curb royal overreach was to prosecute his "evil counsellors." This strategy aimed to demonstrate that even if the king was above the law, his subordinates were not, and he could not shield them, thereby deterring future abuses of power.^[8] Parliament swiftly established various committees, including the Grand Committee for Religion on November 6, 1640.^[9] Their primary target was Thomas Wentworth, the Earl of Strafford, former Lord Deputy of Ireland. Despite Strafford's urging Charles to use military force against dissenting MPs, Pym acted first, impeaching and arresting Strafford on November 11, sending him to the Tower of London.^[11] Archbishop William Laud, also deeply unpopular, was impeached in December and joined Strafford in the Tower.^[13]

💀 The Ultimate Price: Strafford's Execution

Strafford's trial in March 1641 involved 28 charges of "arbitrary and tyrannical government," though their legal equivalence to treason was debatable.^[14] Fearing his acquittal would endanger them, Pym moved for a bill of attainder, asserting Strafford's guilt and mandating his execution.^[14] Despite Charles's initial refusal to sign, 204 MPs voted in favor, 59 against, with 250 abstentions on April 21.^[15] Rumors of a military plot to free Strafford ignited widespread demonstrations in London, and on May 7, the House of Lords voted for his execution (51 to 9).^[16] Under immense pressure and claiming fears for his family's safety, Charles signed the death warrant on May 10, and Strafford was beheaded two days later.^[17]

📜 Foundations of Constitutional Reform

The early sessions of the Long Parliament laid the groundwork for significant constitutional reforms. Parliament granted Charles an immediate sum of £400,000. Key legislative achievements included the Triennial Acts, which mandated parliamentary sessions at least every three years, and empowered members to convene independently if the King failed to issue proper summons. Furthermore, the levying of taxes without parliamentary consent, such as Ship money and forced loans, was declared unlawful, and the Star Chamber and High Commission courts were abolished.^[19] These reforms garnered support from a broad spectrum of figures, including many who would later become Royalists, such as Edward Hyde, Viscount Falkland, and Sir John Strangways.^[20]

💔 The King's Unreliability and Growing Distrust

Despite these concessions, a fundamental divergence emerged between Parliament and the King regarding trust. Pym and his supporters harbored deep skepticism about Charles's commitment to his agreements, citing his past reneging on the 1628 Petition of Right and his secret preparations for another attack on the Scots despite agreed terms. Both Charles and Queen Henrietta Maria openly assured foreign ambassadors that any concessions were temporary and would be reclaimed by force if necessary.^[21] This pervasive distrust fueled the Parliamentarians' drive for more robust checks on royal power.

✝️ Religious Factions and Political Division

The era inextricably linked "true religion" with "good government." While most believed in a divinely ordained, "well-ordered" monarchy, they fiercely disagreed on its precise definition and the ultimate authority in ecclesiastical matters. Royalists generally favored a Church of England governed by bishops appointed by and accountable to the King. In contrast, most Parliamentarians, often Puritans, believed the King was accountable to church leaders appointed by their congregations.^[22] The term "Puritan" encompassed diverse views, from those merely opposing Archbishop Laud's reforms to Presbyterians like Pym, who sought to reform the Church of England along Scottish lines, and Independents, who rejected any state church and often held radical political views like the Levellers. This fragmentation eventually led Presbyterians in England and Scotland to perceive Independents as a greater threat than Royalists, contributing to the Second English Civil War in 1648.^[23]

⚔️ The Irish Rebellion and the Militia Ordinance

The presence of bishops in the House of Lords became increasingly contentious, as they were seen as obstructing reforms.^[24] Tensions escalated dramatically with the outbreak of the Irish Rebellion in October 1641. Both Charles and Parliament agreed on the necessity of raising troops to suppress the rebellion, but neither trusted the other with control over these forces.^[25] On November 22, the Commons passed the Grand Remonstrance by a narrow margin (159 to 148), presenting it to Charles on December 1. This document enumerated over 150 perceived royal "misdeeds" and proposed solutions, including church reform and parliamentary control over ministerial appointments. Concurrently, Parliament asserted control over military commanders through the Militia Ordinance. Charles rejected both the Grand Remonstrance and refused to assent to the Militia Ordinance, prompting moderates like Edward Hyde to abandon Pym's cause and align with the Royalists.^[11]

stubborn Charles's Unyielding Stance

Many Parliamentarians initially believed that military defeat would compel Charles to compromise, a fundamental misjudgment of his character. When Prince Rupert suggested in August 1645 that the war was lost, Charles famously retorted that while militarily true, "God will not suffer rebels and traitors to prosper." This deeply held conviction underpinned his refusal to make any substantial concessions.^[33] Aware of the growing divisions among his opponents, Charles strategically exploited his dual position as King of both Scotland and England to deepen these rifts. While his indispensability to any government was true in 1646, by 1648, key political actors concluded that negotiating with a monarch who could not be trusted to uphold any agreement was futile.^[34]

🤝 Shifting Scottish Alliances

Unlike England, where Presbyterians were a minority, the Bishops' Wars had resulted in a Covenanter (Presbyterian) government and Kirk (Church of Scotland) in Scotland. The Scots were determined to preserve these achievements, and the 1643 Solemn League and Covenant was driven by their concern for this settlement should Charles defeat Parliament. By 1646, they viewed Charles as a lesser threat than the Independents, who opposed their demand for a unified, Presbyterian church across England and Scotland. Oliver Cromwell, a leading Independent, famously declared he would fight rather than agree to such a union.^[35] In July, the Scots and English commissioners presented Charles with the Newcastle Propositions, which he rejected. His refusal to negotiate created a dilemma for the Covenanters. Despite the potential for a Presbyterian union, there was no guarantee of parliamentary approval. Keeping him was too risky, as many Scots, whether Royalist or Covenanter, supported his retention. In February 1647, they agreed to a financial settlement, handed Charles over to Parliament, and retreated to Scotland.^[36]

💰 Army Discontent and Political Maneuvers

In England, Parliament grappled with the immense economic cost of the war, a poor harvest in 1646, and a resurgence of the plague. The Presbyterian faction enjoyed support from the London Trained Bands, the Army of the Western Association, Welsh leaders like Rowland Laugharne, and elements of the Royal Navy. By March 1647, the New Model Army was owed over £3 million in unpaid wages. Parliament ordered the army to Ireland, stipulating that only those who agreed to go would receive payment. When army representatives demanded full payment for all in advance, Parliament ordered its disbandment.^[37] The New Model Army refused to disband. In early June, Charles was removed from his parliamentary guards and taken to Thriplow, where he was presented with the Army Council's terms. Although these terms were more lenient than the Newcastle Propositions, Charles rejected them. On July 26, pro-Presbyterian rioters stormed Parliament, demanding the King be invited to London. In early August, Fairfax and the New Model Army seized control of the city, and on August 20, Cromwell, with a military escort, forced the passage of the Null and Void Ordinance, annulling all parliamentary proceedings since July 26. This led to the withdrawal of most Presbyterian MPs, foreshadowing Pride's Purge the following year. The Putney Debates attempted to address the objectives of radical elements within the army, but renewed royalist threats in November prompted Fairfax to demand a declaration of loyalty, re-establishing command authority over the rank and file, a process completed at Corkbush.^[38]

🏰 The Engagement and Renewed Conflict

In late November, the King escaped from his guards and made his way to Carisbrooke Castle. By April 1648, the Engagers had secured a majority in the Scottish Parliament. In exchange for his restoration to the English throne, Charles agreed to impose Presbyterianism in England for three years and suppress the Independents. However, his refusal to personally take the Covenant divided the Scots; the Kirk Party distrusted Charles, opposed an alliance with English and Scots Royalists, and denounced the Engagement as "sinful."^[39] After two years of persistent negotiation and Charles's unwavering refusal to compromise, the pieces were finally in place for a Royalist uprising, supported by some English Presbyterians and Scots Covenanters. However, a critical lack of coordination meant that the Second English Civil War was swiftly suppressed.

📉 The Fall of Richard Cromwell and Rump's Return

After Richard Cromwell, who had succeeded his father Oliver as Lord Protector in 1658, was effectively deposed by an officers' coup in April 1659, the officers re-summoned the Rump Parliament to sit. It reconvened on May 7, 1659, but after five months, it again clashed with the army, led by John Lambert, and was forcibly dissolved once more on October 13, 1659. Sir Henry Vane the Younger emerged as a leading voice for the republican cause, actively opposing the military's use of force.^[44] Vane's powerful speech effectively ended Richard Cromwell's political career, famously declaring, "I know not by what misfortune, we are fallen into the error of those, who poised the Emperor Titus to make room for Domitian... whereas the people of England are now renowned... for their great virtue and discipline; and yet suffer an idiot, without courage, without sense, nay, without ambition, to have dominion in a country of liberty. ... For my part, I declare, Sir, it shall never be said that I made such a man my master."^[44] This speech galvanized support, leading to the Rump Parliament's re-summoning by a declaration from the Council of Officers on May 6, 1659.^[44]

🤝 Failed Reconciliation Efforts

Edmond Ludlow made several attempts to reconcile the army and Parliament during this period, but ultimately without success. Parliament ordered regiments under Colonel Morley and Colonel Moss to Westminster for security and called for other troops near London to join them.^[45] In October 1659, Colonel Lambert, Major Grimes, and Colonel Sydenham, acting in military interests, resisted Morley's forces defending the Rump Parliament. They eventually prevailed, placing guards to prevent MPs from accessing the House. Lambert later justified his actions to Henry Vane the Younger, Edmond Ludlow, and the "Committee on Safety," which was influenced by the Wallingford House party.^[46] Parliament was once again closed by military force, pending a resolution between the army and parliamentary leaders. Rule then temporarily passed to an unelected Committee of Safety, including Lambert and Vane.

⚠️ Warnings and Shifting Loyalties

During these disorders, the Council of State continued to meet. Lord President Bradshaw, despite severe illness, animated by his "ardent zeal and constant affection to the common cause," interrupted Colonel Sydenham's justifications of the army's actions, declaring his "abhorrence of that detestable action" and stating he could not "sit there to hear his great name so openly blasphemed." He then withdrew from public employment.^[47] The Council of Officers initially sought agreement with parliamentary leaders, appointing ten persons on October 15, 1659, to "consider of fit ways and means to carry on the affairs and government of the Commonwealth." On October 26, a new Committee of Safety of twenty-three members was appointed,^[49] which then nominated a committee on November 1 to "consider of and prepare a form of government to be settled over the three nations in the way of a free state and Commonwealth."^[50] Suspicions grew that General Fleetwood and the Wallingford House party were aligning with Charles II.^[51] Ludlow observed the obstinate opposition of the Wallingford House party to Parliament and the Parliament's equally rigid insistence on the army's absolute submission, warning that failure to compromise would "render all the blood and treasure that had been spent in asserting our liberties of no use to us, but also force us under such a yoke of servitude, that neither we nor our posterity should be able to bear."^[53]

🎭 Monck's Deception and the Rump's Restoration

Negotiations between Henry Vane (representing Parliament), Major Saloway, Colonel Salmon (from the army), and Vice-Admiral Lawson (navy) began on December 17, 1659. The navy strongly insisted on the army's absolute submission to Parliament before any terms could be discussed.^[54] A plan was devised to join forces with Generals at Portsmouth, Colonel Monck, and Vice-Admiral Lawson, though the republican party remained unaware of Monck's secret alliance with King Charles II.^[55] Ludlow, in early January 1660, expressed his conviction to army officers that the Council of Officers' true design, despite pretenses, was to "destroy both them and their friends, and to bring in the son of the late King."^[56] This statement was later verified by the numerous executions of key parliamentary members and generals after the Restoration. General George Monck, Cromwell's viceroy in Scotland, fearing the military's loss of power, secretly shifted his loyalty to the Crown. As he marched south, Lambert, who rode to confront him, lost support in London. The Navy, however, declared for Parliament, leading to the Rump's restoration on December 26, 1659.

👑 Royalist Interpretation of Dissolution

According to contemporary royalist legal theory, the Long Parliament was considered to have been automatically dissolved the moment Charles I was executed on January 30, 1649. This perspective was later affirmed by a court ruling during the treason trial of Henry Vane the Younger, a ruling that Vane himself had previously concurred with in his opposition to Oliver Cromwell years earlier.

⚖️ The Trials of the Regicides and Republicans

General Monck, despite his earlier protestations of loyalty to the Commonwealth, facilitated the return of the Lords who had sat with Parliament until 1648, promising that no others would be permitted. He subsequently broke this promise, allowing in those who had deserted to Oxford and newly created lords. Informed of these developments, Charles Stuart, the eldest son of the late King, left his Spanish residence and, on Monck's advice, went to Breda. From there, he sent letters and a declaration to the two Houses. The nominal House of Commons, though initially called by a Commonwealth writ, then voted that "the government of the nation should be by a King, Lords and Commons, and that Charles Stuart should be proclaimed King of England."^[64] The City of London's Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, and Aldermen celebrated the King's return, with citizens in black velvet coats and chains attending the triumph. The display of soldiers riding with drawn swords through London to Whitehall, led by the Duke of York and Monck, was interpreted as a resolution to maintain by force what had been gained by deception.^[65] Ultimately, seven, and later twenty, individuals were executed for their roles, including Chief Justice Coke, Major-General Harrison, Colonel John Jones, Thomas Scot, Sir Henry Vane, and others.^[66] John Finch, who had been accused of high treason two decades prior, was appointed to judge some of those who should have been his judges. Sir Orlando Bridgman, who had served as a spy and agent for Cromwell, managed this "tragic scene," asserting in his charge to the Grand Jury that "no authority, no single person, or community of men; not the people collectively or representatively, had any coercive power over the King of England."^[68]

💔 Vane's Sacrifice and Republican Ideals

During the framing of the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion, the House of Commons was initially reluctant to except Sir Henry Vane, Sir Arthur Haslerig, and Major-General Lambert, as they had no direct hand in the King's death. However, the House of Lords specifically desired Vane's exception, aiming to leave him at the mercy of the government and prevent him from promoting his republican principles. A compromise was reached: the Commons consented to except Vane from the act, with the Lords agreeing to petition the King not to execute the sentence if Vane were condemned.^[44] General Edmond Ludlow, still loyal to the Rump Parliament, was also excepted and fled to Switzerland, where he penned his memoirs of these events. The Long Parliament, which began with the execution of Lord Strafford, effectively concluded with the execution of Henry Vane the Younger.

🇺🇸 A Precursor to American Revolution

The republican theory posits that the fundamental goal of the Long Parliament was to establish a constitutional, balanced, and equally representative form of government, akin to what was later achieved in America through the American Revolution. Writings by Ludlow, Vane, and early American historians like Upham clearly indicate this aspiration, explaining why they were excluded from the acts of indemnity. This theory suggests that the Long Parliament would have succeeded in these crucial reforms had it not been for the forceful interventions of Oliver Cromwell (and others) in removing the loyalist party, the unlawful execution of King Charles I, the subsequent dissolution of the Rump Parliament, and finally, Monck's forceful dissolution of the reconvened Rump Parliament when a legitimate quorum was absent. In many respects, this struggle is viewed as a significant precursor to the American Revolution.^[70]

🕰️ Key Events and Legislation

The Long Parliament's two-decade span was marked by a series of critical events and legislative acts that fundamentally altered the relationship between the Crown and Parliament, leading to civil war, regicide, and ultimately, the Restoration.

📜 References