Ch 9 Political Divisions the Long Parliament, Pym + the outbreak of civil war Flashcards
(89 cards)
1
Q
-Key Info on the Long Parliament?
A
- first sat 3 November 1640
- name derived from argument of some MPs that only they (by an Act of Parliament) could agree to its dissolution
- that they did not do so until 1660 meant that, despite the various parliaments of 1649-60, MPs could technically argue that this Parliament lasted 12 years, hence its name
2
Q
-What did MPs agree on & differ on from the start of the Long Parliament?
A
- agreed on: wanting grievances addressed asap + few actually wanted civil war
- disagreed on: religion + politics
3
Q
-In 1640 how were most MPs united?
A
-loosely united against the abuses of the Personal Rule + wanted to reform Charles’ rule from within (as seen in them passing various laws during the early days of this parliament)
4
Q
-How did the Earl of Bedford’s scheme aim to reform Crown finances?
A
-by trying to bridge the gap between Crown + Parliament (Bedford + allies including Pym in the Commons, proposed some compromises without any fundamental change to the political system
5
Q
-What did Pym + Bedford’s compromises in the Earl of Beford’s scheme to reform Crown finances involve? Hos was Bedford going to carry this out?
A
- the abolition of the most confrontational financial + political aspects of the Personal Rule
- a return to the Elizabethan-based broad Protestant church
- a separate financial settlement (as agreed by Parliament) for Charles I
- to carry this out Bedford proposed taking the position of Lord Treasurer w/ Pym as Chancellor of the Exchequer; Charles was reluctant to settle w/ this + Bedford’s death in May 1641 (of smallpox) made further progress difficult
6
Q
-What were the issues w/ Thomas Wentworth?
A
- he had been recalled from Ireland in 1639 to aid Charles in facing the Scots; though he was regarded by many in Parliament as the man w/ the potential to make Charles absolutist
- MPs focused on Wentworth because of the danger he appeared to represent, but they also used him as a scapegoat
7
Q
-What was the King’s relationship w/ Wentworth like?
A
- Wentworth was loyal to Charles + had shown to be capable of dealing w/ conflict in Ireland
- he was to become Charles’ main adviser, to sort out growing problems w/ bankruptcy + war w/ the Scottish Convenanters
- Wentworth supported Charles’ desire to renew the war against the Scots, whereas Parliament wanted to make peace
8
Q
-What were Parliament’s criticisms of Wentworth?
A
- Wentworth took a heavy-handed approach in handling the Irish situation + he wanted to raise parliamentary funds to wage war against the Scots
- there was a real risk of punishment for openly criticising the king, so it was safer to blame ‘evil councillors’ like Wentworth + Laud for the Scottish crisis
- a direct attack on Charles risked undermining the divine right of kings + the whole system of government/society + might also prompt an unwanted revolution led buy those outside the Political Nation
- MPs were split on their views of Wentworth: some moderates (like Beford) wanted him to simply be imprisoned; while others like Lord Warwick wanted him to be executed
- the Scots were also demanding Wentworth’s death
9
Q
-What was one of the firs acts of the Long Parliament in November 1640?
A
- the impeachment of Wentworth for attempting to bring the Irish army to England to help Charles control his country
- the impeachment was proposed for 2 reasons:
- Parliament hoped that without his ‘evil councillors’ like Wentworth, Charles would see the need to accept reform + rule w/ Parliament
- rather than changing the whole system, the removal of ‘evil councillors’ would allow their replacement w/ men like Bedford + Pym who would ensure what Parliament saw as a good government
10
Q
-When was Wentworth’s trial before Parliament?
A
-March 1641
11
Q
-Why did the impeachment of Wentworth not go ahead?
A
-Wentworth skillfully defended himself + therefore decided to proceeded against Wentworth w/ MPs Bill of Attainder
12
Q
-What was the Bill of Attainder?
A
-medieval method allowed anyone who was seen as a threat to the state to be removed by Parliament without the need for a formal trial
13
Q
-What did Parliament think of the Bill of Attainder?
A
- some Parliamentarians like Warwick fully supported the bill, but others such as Bedford were more cautious
- Bedford (when alive) was still trying to negotiate ‘bridge appointments’ to Charles’ government + in return was trying to ensure Wentworth’s punishment did not extend to execution
- the limits to Bedford’s influence became clear, however when in February 1641 the Scots declared that they would not make peace unless there was an end to bishops in Scotland + Wentworth was dead
14
Q
-How did Charles I heighten political tensions in April 1641 + undermine Wentworth’s position?
A
- he ordered all officers to return to their commands w/ the English army in the north
- this was seen as a plan to use the army against Parliament; there was also rumours that Charles was intending to dissolve Parliament
15
Q
-What was the Army Plot + Protestation Oath?
A
- 3 May 1641 Pym revealed rumours of a royalist ‘Army Plot’ to Parliament
- centred on an attempt by officers to seize the Tower of London + release Wentworth, as well as dissolve Parliament
- the evidence for Charles’ involvement was circumstantial, but many MPs believed he played a part
- Parliament passed a bill stating that they could not be dissolved without their own consent, which Charles agreed to on 10 May 1641
- Parliament also drew up the Protestation Oath, reflecting the contemporary belief that Catholicism + absolutism were linked, + that there was a plot to establish them
16
Q
-What spurred the Commons to pass the Bill of Attainder against Wentworth?
A
- the Army Plot revelation
- thus the Bill of Attainder was passed 204 votes to 59
- indicated this vote was a substantial majority in favour of executing Wentworth
- though the total votes cast represented only half of the total MPs as many decided not to vote or absented themselves from both the House of Commons + the House of Lords
- increasingly when it came to making real decisions, only the more committed were prepared to act
17
Q
-To become an act, what did the Bill of Attainder need?
A
- Charles’ royal assent
- it was in the heightened atmosphere of the Army Plot, Protestation Oath + the increasing presence of the London Crowd that Charles (fearing for his family, + Catholic wife) gave the assent + thus condoned Wentworth to death
18
Q
-When was Wentworth executed?
A
-12 May 1641
19
Q
-How did Charles react to Wentworth’s execution?
A
-having condoned it, he became less inclined to negotiate w/ Parliament
20
Q
-What did Wentworth’s execution + Bedford’s death from illness in May mean for the ‘bridge appointment scheme’?
A
-they were quite literally the death knell for the scheme that otherwise may have yielded a settlement to the 1641 political crisis through Charles potentially accepting some of his opponents in government
21
Q
-What was the ‘London Crowd’ or ‘London Mob’?
A
- negative term given to Londoners who participated in politics + supported parliamentary causes
- derogatory term based on fear of popular revolution; as many prosperous London society members turned out to support Parliament + not the King
22
Q
-How were MPs aware of the potential of mobilising Londoners’ support for their campaigns?
A
- e.g. 15,000 Londoners signed the ‘Root + Branch Petition’
- the London crowd also came to defend the Tower of London in early May 1641 amid rumours of the royalist Army Plot to seize it + release Wentworth
- over Dec 1641, radical MPs like Pym used the London crowd to put pressure on the Lords to exclude bishops
- the impact of the London Crowd clearly made Charles reconsider his + his family’s safety
23
Q
-What was the Common Council in London?
A
- London had its own multi-layered system of government + representation
- this council held elections for the body Dec 1641 producing a more radical body that was more willing to organise popular support for Pym
24
Q
-Pym’s main aims as a chief opponent of Charles? What did John Morrill say linked these goals for Pym?
A
- leading figure in Commons in 1640
- the removal + punishment of Charles I’s ‘evil councillors’
- a political settlement without the threat of being overturned by Charles I
- removal of the threat of Catholic popery + the establishment of a strong Protestantism
- what linked these was Pym’s obsession w/ ‘true religion’; in establishing such ‘true religion’ the threat of popery + other threats to Parliament would be removed
25
-What would removing the abuses of the Personal Rule + restoring a Protestant Church do for England?
- removing the abuses + restoring a truly Protestant Church would strengthen England politically + lessen the chances of popery + absolutism
- thus politics could not be isolated from religious concerns
26
-What was Pym's agenda initially? And how did this change?
- initially was not radical; in 1620s he sought to achieve from 'within' the adequate funding of royal government + also wanted the Political Nation unified
- though he became more radical during the Long Parliament as Charles continued to threaten to use force + as a result of the heightened religious/political tension created the Irish Rebellion (Oct1641)
27
-What were Pym's chief methods to achieve his aims during the Long Parliament?
- the impeachment of Wentworth + Laud
- the formation of a working alliance w/ the Scottish Convenanters that occupied northern England as military protection for the Long Parliament
- supporting Bedford's 'bridge appointments' scheme
- using parliamentary financial pressures to control Charles' income from tonnage + poundage only on a 2-monthly basis
- getting Parliament to transfer itself some of the key prerogative powers of the Crown
- using parliamentary committees to steer Parliament towards a settlement
28
-What was Pym the visble + focal face of?
- an increasingly far too radical attack on Charles' prerogative, coupled w/ a dangerous appeal to the people outside of Parliament
- thus he was seen as a symbol of how Parliament become more of a threat to moderates than Charles in 1641
29
-What did moderates reacting to Pym's stance in Parliament lead to?
-led to the development of constitutional royalism, the formation of a royalist party + most importantly the two divisions leading to the English Civil War
30
-Key details on the career of John Pym?
- 1624=became MP (highly visible in Parliament in 1620s)
- 1625=attacked Montague regarding Arminians as papists
- 1626=involved in the impeachment of Buckingham (alongside Bedford + Warwick)
- 1628=key role in passing Petition of Rights; foremost critic of Charles in the Commons of 1640-42 to the point he was referred to as 'King Pym'
- 1641=involved in Bedford's 'bridge appointments' scheme as potential Chancellor of the Exchequer; he opposed the shift from impeachment for Wentworth to Bill of Attainder; also became radicalised after the Army Plot revelation
- June 1641=organised the Ten Propositions (some saw this as going too far)
- Nov 1641=strengthened his political influence by making use of the London Crowd; key figure behind the Grand Remonstrance
- Dec 1641=started to push through the Militia Ordinance (finally passed March 1642)
- Jan 1642= Pym was selected for arrest by Charles, but the newly radical London Common Council essentially gave Pym control of London (which the king fled in fear of safety for his family)
31
-What was the Root + Branch Petition + who was it signed by?
- it demanded the end of bishops + episcopacy (bishops governing the Church); Puritanism was the force behind it
- signed by the 15,000 Londoners in Dec 1640
32
-How did the Root + Branch Petition cause division in Parliament through debate in Feb 1641?
- Pym was chief supporter of the Petition but he did not aim to destroy the Church; he sought the removal of Charles' influence by establishing a system of patronage in the place of bishops, to allow locals more control of their Church; as the Arminians/Laudians were a minority only supported by the king, this enabled the Church to revert, in most cases, to a moderate Protestant Church of England
- there was clear disagreement as to what to replace Laudianism with (Laud was impeached 1640-41 but not executed till 1645)
- many saw the dismantling of the Church structure (especially the bishops' removal) as undermining the whole order of society; men like Hyde (moderate Protestant) became a supporter of Charles I as the symbol of the Church
- Smith argues the Petition debate was significant because it 'accurately prefigured subsequent political allegiance at so early a date'
33
-What was the only thing the Commons could agree on in 1641?
- agreed the secular power of bishops should be curtailed
- an exclusion bill was written stating that bishops should no longer sit + vote in the House of Lords
- this was sent to the Lords in March 1641 but was rejected on 8 June 1641
34
-What was the Triennial Act passed on 15 Feb 1641?
- abolished ship money without parliamentary consent
- also stated Charles had to call a parliament every 3 years + that it should last a minimum of 50 days
- if the king failed to do this, the written legal order for calling Parliament would be done automatically by the Lord Chancellor; this act therefore ensured that there would not be another period of prolonged Personal Rule
35
-What was significant about the Triennial Act (Feb 1641)?
-it ensured there would not be another period of Personal Rule as Parliament had to be called
36
-What happened in Parliament that led to the English Civil War?
- divisions in Parliament, leading to the formation of the royalist party + hence the 2 sides of the Civil War
- because of debate of how to solve problems between Crown & Parliament after Bedford's death May 1641
37
-What were the 3 main reasons divisions came about in Parliament?
- preventing personal rule: MPs could generally agree they did not want personal rule to happen again, but how to prevent its repetition or what to put into its place brought divisions out
- Bill of Attainder: breakdown of unity began when some saw this bill to remove Wentworth as constitutionally dangerous
- religion: religious issues such as role of bishops caused further divisions
38
-What did Moderates become scared of?
-that actions/beliefs of radicals such as Pym posed more of a threat to the political order than Charles I did
39
-What did the Moderates reaction across 1640-42 get labelled as?
-constitutional royalism
40
-What was the significance of the Ten Propositions (June 1641)?
-it confirmed the radicalism of Parliament; the document made clear that the king would need to make some concessions
41
-What concessions did the king need to make as stated by the Ten Propositions? Why was there a problem with this?
- parliamentary input into who was in his Privy Council
- parliamentary control of those around the queen
- parliamentary control over religious education for the royal children
- THERE WAS LITTLE CHANCE CHARLES WOULD AGREE TO SUCH RESTRICTIONS
42
-Why was there a reaction in Scotland (1641)?
-as many felt that radicals in the Covenanting alliance had gone too far too fast
43
-What signalled a significant division in Scotland (Aug 1640)?
-1640 the Earl of Montrose + 17 other Scottish nobles signed the Cumbernauld Bank, stating a desire to defend the king; signalling division in Scotland
44
Why was an agreement w/ the Scots good for Charles? And how did he play on the division in Scotland to his advantage?
- Charles appreciated an agreement w/ some leading Scots would remove the occupying Scottish army, which was the main prop for his Long Parliament opponents
- to play on the division, Charles chose to accept the abolition of episcopacy in Scotland + the Scottish reforms to date
45
-When did Charles leave for Scotland? And what were the issues/debates over this?
- Charles left for Scotland Aug1641
- some in English House of Commons distrusted Charles + organised a Committee of Defence to send commissioners (like Hampden) to keep an eye on Charles in Scotland
- others questioned whether Charles should be watched at all; fuelling the growing divisions in Parliament
46
-What was The 'Incident' of Oct 1641?
- while Charles in Scotland, there was a royalist plot to kidnap radical Scottish Convenanters
- instigators of this plot included more extreme royalists (like Earl of Crawford) + moderate Covenanters (like Montrose)
- they wanted to be rid of leading radical Covenanter leaders such as Archibald Campbell
47
-What was the result of The 'Incident' (Oct 1641) for Charles?
- it destroyed Charles' hopes of gaining further support in Scotland as he was linked to this plot because he attended the Parliament in Edinburgh on 12 Oct, accompanied by an armed force
- when Charles left Scotland on 17 Nov 1641, he no longer had Scottish support + was forced to appoint his opponents to key points in the English Parliament
- at the same time, news had broken of the Irish Rebellion
48
```
Long Parliament Key Chronology of 1641:
-Feb
-Mar
-May
-10May
Jun
-Jul
-Aug
-Oct
-22Nov
-Nov
-Dec
```
-Feb=Triennial Act
-Mar=Charles' 'evil councillors' Wentworth + Laud imprisoned
-May=Protestation Oath written; first Army Plot; death of Bedford
-10May=Bill of Attainder leading to execution of Wentworth
Jun=Ten Propositions; abolition of tonnage + poundage without parliamentary consent; second Army Plot
-Jul=abolition of Courts of Star Chamber + High Commission
-Aug=Charles leaves for Scotland
-Oct-The 'Incident'; Irish Rebellion begins
-22Nov=Grand Remonstrance passed by 159 votes to 148
-Nov=Charles returns to London
-Dec=Militia Bill
49
-When did the Irish Rebellion happen?
-October 1641 - winter of 1642
50
-How was the Irish Rebellion perceived in England?
- fear of Catholicism + of imminent invasion were heightened by the distorted accounts of massacres presented by the press; numbers killed ranged widely from 3,000-12,000
- because of fear of Catholicism, some Protestant English politicians became radicalised; they were determined to avenge the Protestant massacres; this fear was also fed by the second Army Plot of 1641 (supposed plan where Wentworth would bring English army currently in Ireland to England for Charles' use against Parliament
- the radicalisation in turn affected the development of support for the monarchy from moderate MPs
51
-How does Conrad Russel describe the impact of the Irish Rebellion (Oct1641-winter1642)?
-a 'billard-ball effect' in that rebellion was prompted by events in Scotland + Ireland, but in turn it radicalised the situation in England
52
-How was Parliament divided on Charles during the Irish Rebellion (Oct1641-winter1642)?
-Parliament was divided about whether Charles could be trusted to lead an English army to put down the Irish Rebellion
53
-When was the Grand Remonstrance introduced to the Commons and by who?
-Nov1641 by Pym
54
-What was the Grand Remonstrance of 1641?
-list of criticisms of Charles' government since 1625 which, for Pym, clearly showed why the King could not be trusted w/ the control of the army needed to be raised to crush the Irish Rebellion
55
What was significance about the timing of the Grand Remonstrance of 1641?
-it was timed to come immediately before the king's belated return from Scotland; this was done to appeal to the London crowd by illustrating why Charles could not be trusted w/ an army
56
Why were Moderates alarmed by the Grand Remonstrance of 1641?
-alarmed by the language of it as it was strongly Catholic
57
Why was parliamentary religion division sidelined by Pym + allies important, when proposing the Grand Remonstrance of 1641?
- although the document addressed religious concerns (as seen in its anti-Catholic language), it also stated than an Assembly of Divines (essentially a parliament of clergy) was to be held separately at Westminster to discuss religious settlement
- Pym + allies made sure the parliamentary divisions relating to religion were sidelined, as it proved to be a difficult issue to resolve even within the group of radical MPs
- with the religious issue set aside, the focus could be on gaining political settlement
- the Westminster Assembly of Divines did not meet until July 1643
58
-What made the Grand Remonstrance of 1641 significant?
- although the document was careful not to accuse the king directly, it was nevertheless seen as a direct attack on Charles
- political issues were being deliberately + openly directed away from Westminster in order to involve the people themselves as a means of putting pressure on MPs
- the debate as to whether to publish the Grand Remonstrance shows real division in Parliament, resulting in the formation of the 2 sides that would fight the English Civil War
59
-How could Parliament be seen as split on the issue of the Grand Remonstrance of 1641? And how did this strongly indicate the reality of the royalist party?
- the debate lasted 12 hours
- it was passed by 159 votes to 148 = this result, along w/ the many MPs who had already left Parliament because of the development of parliamentary radicalism + Pym's growing influence, strongly indicated the reality of the royalist party
60
-What were royalists' views of the Grand Remonstrance of 1641?
- they were in support of Charles
- Moderates reacted to the radicalism of it
- Moderates believed Charles was the rightful commander of the army which was to be sent to Ireland
61
-What were radicals' views of the Grand Remonstrance of 1641?
- they were against Charles
- radical MPs supported it; believing that Charles could not be trusted to lead the army against Catholic Ireland
- Irish leader, Sir Phelim O'Neill claimed to be killing English Protestants in Charles' name + produced a forged royal warrant; this gave fuel to the idea that Charles could not be trusted
62
-What did Pym introduce as an 'additional instruction' in November to the Grand Remonstrance of 1641?
-stated if Parliament was going to help raise an army to subdue Ireland, Charles should appoint only councillors approved by Parliament; Pym only won this vote by 151 votes to 110
63
-When was the Militia Bill?
-7th December 1641
64
-What did the introduction of the Militia Bill force MPs to do?
-forced MPs to take sides on who should command the army
65
-Why was the Militia Bill introduced (Dec1641)?
- to remove the King's power over the trained bands completely
- to give Parliament the power to appoint army commanders
66
-What did the Militia Bill (Dec1641) essentially propose? Why was this revolutionary?
- proposed that Parliament would be in control of the army raised to crush the Irish rebels
- revolutionary because it directly questioned Charles' royal prerogative & attempted to transfer prerogative powers to Parliament
67
-How did MPs like Pym hope to pass the Militia Bill (Dec1641)?
-hoped to use the anger of the London Crowd to put pressure on MPs to pass the Militia Bill
68
-How did Charles respond to the Militia Bill (Dec1641)?
- Charles positioned himself as defender of the 'fundamental law' against revolutionaries in his public statements in December (including 'The King's Answer to the Petition accompanying the Grand Remonstrance of 23 Dec1641')
- acting as 'defender of the constitution' won over constitutional royalists such as Edward Hyde & other
69
-Key Info on Edward Hyde?
- MP in Short Parliament & Long Parliament, involved in criticising the perceived abuses of the Personal Rule such as ship money & Star Chamber
- role in preparing charges for Wentworth's impeachment but did not like the threat to episcopacy in the Root & Branch Petition
- essentially a conservative, he moved over to support the King, or rather monarchy, as the best defence of order in 1641
- became leading figure in the constitutional royalist party that sought to prevent the king taking aggressive measures in the continuing search for settlement
- in 1642 he opposed Charles' Five Members Coup but continued to support the monarchy
- June 1642 he produced the Answer to the Nineteen Propositions, outlining the constitutional royalists position that monarchy was the best protector of the Church, constitution & order
70
- Key Chronology of the Long Parliament?
- 4Jan
- Feb
- Mar
- Apr
- Jun
- 18Jun
- 22Aug
- 4Jan=Five Members Coup
- Feb=Henrietta Maria leaves England
- Mar=Militia Ordinance
- Apr=Charles attempts to seize the arsenal at Hull
- Jun=Nineteen Propositions; Charles issues Commissions of Array
- 18Jun=Charles rejects the Nineteen Propositions
- 22Aug=Charles raises his standard @ Nottingham & Civil War begins
71
-How did the Five Members Coup (Jan1642) come about?
- intense division in Parliament over the Grand Remonstrance & Militia Bill
- 3rd Jan1642 Charles announced the impeachment of his key opponents:
- Pym, Hampden, Haselrig, Holles, William Strode & Edward Montagu
72
-What were the events of the Five Members Coup (Jan1642)?
- the Lords accepted a Commons vote of impeachment against the bishops on 29Dec1641, potentially leading to their removal & the loss of significant royalist support in the Lords
- Charles still regarded Parliament as being subverted by a small radical group chiefly motivated by their Puritanism
- Charles' attempted coup was a complete failure; on 4Jan1642 he entered the Commons w/ a force to arrest them but found that they had been forewarned & had left
73
-What were the consequences of the Five Members Coup (Jan1642)?
- Pym could easily use this coup as further proof of the danger Charles posed & that the king could not be negotiated with
- most seriously, it led to popular demonstrations against Charles, which compelled him to take his family from London to Hampton Court for their safety (the physical division of king & Parliament made negotiation more difficult & was illustrative of the drift to conflict)
- the next time Charles was in London was for his public execution 7 years later in 1649
- Charles' attempted coup thus strengthened the position of parliamentary radicals; they pushed the Exclusion Bill (Feb1642) which would forcefully prevent bishops from sitting in the House of Lords
74
-Had the the Exclusion Bill (Feb1641) come about & what did it involve?
- encouraged by a petitioning campaign; by end of Dec1641 the petition for the removal of bishops from Parliament had 30,000 signatures
- 5Feb1642 the Lords accepted the Exclusion Bill due to the pressure from the London Crowd, thus lessening the influence of the king on Parliament
75
-What was the significance of the Militia Bill(Dec 1641) in 1642?
- it was finally issued as an ordinance in 1642 & was passed by Parliament without Charles' approval
- to support the Militia Ordinance (named now an ordinance rather than an act - & by this Parliament assumed control of the armed forces), Parliament ironically proposed the raising of £400,000 by ship money
76
-What did Charles attempt at Hull (April 1642)?
-attempted to seize military supplies at Hull without parliamentary knowledge, acting against constitutional royalist propaganda
77
-What was the central issue for England after Charles left London?
-was whether to accept Parliament's Militia Ordinance or Charles' equally legally dubious Commissions of Array
78
-What was Charles' Commissions of Array?
- in response to Militia Ordinance, Charles invoked a prerogative means of raising armed forces last used in the early 1500s
- commissions of array were sent to leading figures in the counties to authorise them to raise forces for the Crown
79
-What was the majority view across the country in 1642?
- majority of both sides still wished to avoid war
- across the country the gentry in 22 counties, most notably Yorkshire, attempted to prevent war by using kinship ties that bound them to construct neutrality pacts
- these attempts at preventing war could not counter the actions of more driven men though; armed conflict ensued as radicals on both sides tried to get control of local stores of ammunition in preparation of war; these radicals were chiefly motivated by religion
80
-What was the Nineteen Propositions (June1642)?
-Parliament issued, stating their demands for a negotiated settlement
81
-What were some examples of the Nineteen Propositions (June 1642)?
- all Privy Councillors were to be approved by Parliament
- the 5 impeached MPs were to be pardoned
- Charles had to accept the Triennial Act & Militia Ordinance
- Parliament would direct a reformation of the Church
82
-What was the constitutional royalists response to the Nineteen Propositions (June 1642)?
- they made their own 'The Answer to the Nineteen Propositions' for the King
- it portrayed the king as the force that would prevent anarchy
- it stated that Parliament's proposals would lead to 'a dark equal chaos of confusion' in which the threat of popular rebellion was imminent
83
-What made an impact on moderates like Edward Hyde?
- national events made an impact, concerned by the Presbyterianism of the Scots + Pym's link w/ them as well as the growing popular radicalism across the country
- to moderates, economic riots, social breakdown + iconoclasm confirmed that both the Church + monarchy should be maintained in order to establish order
84
-What was iconoclasm?
- the destruction or damaging of icons in churches; particularly on the stained glass or statute's associated w/ Laud's 'beauty of holiness' + therefore Catholicism
- for Puritans, icons were seen as superstitious + typical of Catholicism; they instead believed the Bible + the Word of God should be central to religion
85
-What was iconoclasm linked with?
- iconoclasm linked w/ fear of the increasing influence of Pym & the radical MPs
- it was Pym who brought a resolution through the Commons in Sept1641 encouraging iconoclasm against popish images + altar rails
86
-What was essential to the emerging royalist "party" in 1641-42?
-the commitment to the 'established' Church became central to the emerging royalist party in 1641-42
87
-When was Civil War declared + how?
- 22August1642
| - Charles declared war on Parliament by raising his standard at Nottingham
88
-How did the Scottish Rebellion of 1637 + the Irish Rebellion of 1641 lead to the English Civil War?
-they both had a radicalising effect on English politics that eventually led to Civil War
89
-How did Charles contribute to the start of the English Civil War (Aug1642)?
- he sparked the Scottish Rebellion (1637)
- his policies in Ireland largely contributed to the outbreak of rebellion there (1641)
- his imposition of Laudianism radicalised English Puritans
- without Charles I, Civil War would have been much less likely
