Author: Nicholas Holmes, His Highness Prince Rupert, hys Regiment of Foot

Orders of the Day, Volume 35, Issue 2, Apr/May 2003

Click here for Part 1

Could Charles be Trusted?

It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of the Irish Rebellion in raising distrust of Charles, and in explaining this what many believed was happening in Ireland is more relevant than what actually did happen. Many also interpreted the Rebellion as a ‘Popish plot' presenting a direct security threat to England. It posed a stark and totally unprecedented question: Could Charles be trusted to lead an army against the rebels? This is why many MPs, in the immediate aftermath of the news of the Rebellion, voted for the Grand Remonstrance. The Remonstrance catalogued instances of alleged misgovernment since Charles became King and described Parliament's earlier attempts to remedy these. However it also contained two quite new demands directly conditioned by the crises in religion and in Britain. The first was for a synod on church affairs and the second was for Parliament to choose the King's councillors and ministers of state. Whilst Charles undertook to consider the first proposal he instantly dismissed the second. This demonstrated that Parliament could no longer hope to secure the King’s consent to its demands. If it sought further security, further controls on the King’s behaviour, it would have to act alone.

The 'Birds Have Flown'

As often before during his reign, Charles’ own actions served to lessen his credibility in the eyes of his subjects. In the light of what had happened in Scotland, his attempt to arrest leading Members of Parliament on 4th January 1642 was ill advised. The result was that by early 1642 'the Parliamentary cause' had come to embrace far more radical demands than it had a year earlier. They demanded that Parliament control the Army, bishops should be excluded from Parliament and that Parliament had the right to legislate without the King. Moreover, over the coming months under the pressure of events more and more MPs shared the view that only military defeat would force the King to concede to Parliament’s demands.

Unsurprisingly these demands and others were unacceptable to the King. But now a good many of his subjects were prepared to agree with him, whereas a year before they condemned his actions. Many, horrified by the Earl of Strafford's execution, feared Parliamentary absolutism and the subversion of the monarchy. Social revolution seemed inevitable. Parliament was widely criticised in 1641-42 for stirring up the mob through petitions and demonstrations and there was unrest too in the countryside due to poor harvests and unemployment. In matters of religion, many felt increasing unease. Seemingly, the growth in the early 1640's of religious groups not only threatened the national church but the role played by bishops in enforcing social control. Anarchy was sure to follow and with it the end of gentry privilege and domination.

Finally, what also drove some people to support the King was hatred of the Scots. In a country in which national rivalry was intense, not everyone relished the prospect of associating with a nation that had just defeated them in war. In addition, a consequence of a Scottish alliance would be a move towards Presbyterianism and the abolition of bishops, which would further undermine national identity and the national church.

Charles summed up these fears:

It is not the change in church government which is chiefly aimed at by Parliament (though that were too much). But it is by that pretext to take away the reliance on the church by the crown which I hold to be of equal consequence to that of the militia. People are governed by the pulpit more than by the sword in time of peace.

Believe it. Religion is the only firm foundation of all power. That cast loose, no government can be stable.¹

The constitutional revolution of 1640-41 met with near universal rejoicing in Parliament, yet only a year later Civil War broke out. This prompts the question as to whether the various reforms contained a formula for workable government and stability. After all, they were never repealed and in 1660-62 formed the basis of the Restoration Parliament. Yet in the context of mid-1641 they failed. They failed because in a sense Charles's critics were too successful. They had destroyed the personnel and machinery of the Personal Rule, they had ensured Parliament’s survival and they had achieved all this with the King’s consent. If 'evil counsellors' really were responsible for royal policies, that should have been sufficient. Yet for all their apparent success, Charles's critics lacked an ideological fall back position. If the King continued to pursue unpopular policies, if his actions still threatened the rule of law, Parliament had little choice but to devise yet more drastic solutions - solutions that ultimately would lead it to armed conflict.

In Part 3, Why did Charles I Fight the Civil War?

SOURCES

• P Newman, Companion to the English Civil Wars (Oxford, 1990)
• B Coward, Stuart England 1603-1714 (London, 2000)
• The Times, 350th Anniversary of the English Civil War (London, 1992)

¹ Quoted in The Good Old Cause by C Hill and G Dell, reprinted and published in 1969 by Frank Cass and Co Ltd, 11 Gainsborough Road, London, E11 1RS.