Conflictbetween The Crown And Parliament Flashcards
(17 cards)
1941for Charles
-1641 marked a year of mounting pressure for Charles from England, Scotland, and Ireland.
-Charles was under fire over religion, politics, finances, and even the education of his children.
-Despite previous resilience, Charles’s actions increasingly undermined his authority.
-Parliament, led by Pym, began pushing for greater control despite Charles not having refused any specific demands.
Bedfords bridge appointments
-Bedford proposed a compromise settlement with Charles in 1640–41: Involved appointing moderates to the king’s government. Designed as a ‘bridge’ between Crown and Parliament. Appealed to Charles as it didn’t demand systemic governmental change.
-Charles disliked losing loyal advisors (Laud, Strafford) but precedent existed for removing unpopular ministers.
-shows: moderates in parliament BUT the increasing diminution of these
Impact of bridge appointments
-Scheme failed after Bedford died of smallpox:
-No mismanagement by Charles directly.
-metaphorically showed the end of moderates halting the junto, but proves their existence
-His death meant no one to moderate calls for Strafford’s execution (e.g. Warwick), worsening the situation.
Impact of the army plot on Charles
-revealed: indecisiveness and lack of confidence.
His inability to commit to negotiation or confrontation.
-illustrates his untrustworthy strategy of playing multiple sides eg taking money from Spain and Rome and SP during the short parliament and trying to court multiple women
-Reinforced perception of Charles as untrustworthy and duplicitous.
The Cumbernauld band
-Signed by 18 Scottish nobles led by Earl of Montrose.
-Expressed loyalty to Charles and concern over radicalisation of Covenanters.
-Feared rebellion against monarchy was going too far.
Scottishpoltiics influence on England
-Scottish Commissioners sent to Westminster post-Bishops’ Wars.
-Long Parliament was influenced by Scotland’s dismantling of royal power, especially Church governance.
-Robert Bailee after arriving noted growing support in England for:
Presbyterianism.
Rejection of episcopacy and liturgy.
Charles initial plan/ actions in ‘the incident’
-Charles travelled to Scotland in August 1641 (agreed in Truce of Ripon) to:
Gain support.
Negotiate troop withdrawal.
-Made initial progress: concessions to Covenanters, appointed Montrose and Rothes to key roles.
Why did ‘the incident’ fail
-charles had Plotted with Montrose and Crawford to arrest/remove radical Covenanters (Argyll and Hamilton).
-Incident culminated on 12 Oct: Charles appeared in Parliament with armed men.
-plot leaked — targets escaped.
Significance of ‘the incidence’
-Destroyed Charles’s credibility in Scotland.
-Ended Scottish rapprochement.
-Solidified divisions (Montrose vs. Argyll) which became Civil War fault lines.
Treatment of Stratford and laud in early 1641
-Both impeached Dec 1640 and imprisoned in the Tower.
-Seen as architects of absolutism via Thorough.
-Laud left in Tower until 1645; Strafford became a symbol of all frustrations .
Why was Stratford such a fear
-Effective as: President of Council of the North. Lord Deputy of Ireland — crushed opposition, revived Irish Army
-Parliament feared he could: Bring Irish Army to England. Reform English Army. Rally royalist support, defeat Scots, and march on London. Crush the English parliament
-Essex noted that ‘stone death hath no fellow’- his influence would only be quashed with his death
Prosecution against Stratford- march 1641
-Accused of attempting arbitrary government = treason.
-Key charge: Irish Army plot (May 1640):Vane Jr’s notes implied Strafford said Irish Army could ‘reduce this kingdom’.Ambiguity: did ‘this kingdom’ mean England (treason) or Scotland (not)?
-Poor witnesses, e.g. Sir Pierce Crosby:Strafford accused him of personal grudge.
Past evidence showed Crosby fabricated charges, backed by Fitzharris (who was punished for perjury).
Straffords defense
Obeying royal commands, not acting independently.
Argued prosecutors were the real traitors.
No solid evidence against him
A lot of his work in thorough was for the good eg putting JPs in line
Pyms change to act of attainder
-Trial likely to collapse, which could allow a vengeful Strafford to retaliate as there was NO proof of minor crimes that could amount in treason
-Pym changed strategy: Bypassed legal trial.
-Used Bill of Attainder:Only needed political will, not legal proof. Forced king to act — direct test of his goodwill.
Process of the attainder passing
-Commons passed Attainder: 204 in favour, 59 against — nearly half abstained.
-Lords hesitated (e.g. Bedford ill, Holles reluctant).
-Edward Hyde: trial became an obsession beyond legal boundaries
-Army Plot panic pushed Lords to pass Bill.
-Charles, under pressure, signed death warrant, despite promise to protect Strafford.
Death of Stratford
Strafford’s last words: “Put not your trust in princes.”
Executed: 12 May 1641, before 100,000 people.
Impact of straffords excecution
-Charles deeply regretted signing — viewed it as a betrayal and turning point.
-Destroyed trust: no further chance of compromise.
-In Ireland, Strafford’s execution signalled instability — rebellion erupted in autumn 1641.
-Among moderates, doubts over legitimacy of the process sowed seeds of the Royalist party.
