Slide to civil war 1640-1642
From Crisis to Confrontation 1640–1641
When the Long Parliament assembled in November 1640, MPs were united in their determination to dismantle the machinery of the Personal Rule. Within months they had impeached Strafford, abolished the Court of Star Chamber and the Court of High Commission, and passed the Triennial Act. John Pym orchestrated the opposition with extraordinary skill, keeping a broad coalition together by focusing on shared grievances.
The execution of Strafford in May 1641 was a turning point. Charles had promised Strafford he would not be harmed, and when he signed the bill of attainder he never fully forgave himself. More importantly, it showed Parliament could destroy the King’s chief minister through a political process. But this unity was fragile — MPs were divided over how far reform should go, especially on religion.
The Five Members were John Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, Arthur Haselrig and William Strode. They were the MP targets of Charles I’s attempted arrest on 4 January 1642.
The Irish Rebellion and the Grand Remonstrance
In October 1641 a rebellion in Ireland broke out. Catholic Irish rose against Protestant settlers, with reports — greatly exaggerated in England — of mass massacres. The crisis forced a critical question: who would command the army sent to suppress the rebellion? Parliament feared Charles would use any royal army against them as well.
Pym responded with the Grand Remonstrance, a document listing 204 grievances against Charles’s government since 1625. It passed by 159 votes to 148 — a majority of just eleven. The narrow margin was significant: it showed Parliament was fracturing. Some MPs, including Edward Hyde, felt the Remonstrance had gone too far and began moving towards the King’s side. Charles cleverly refused to accept it formally but neither dismissed it, playing for time.
The Grand Remonstrance was addressed not to the King but to the people — an act of radical publicity. Traditional-minded MPs like Edward Hyde (later Earl of Clarendon) believed Parliament’s role was to advise the Crown privately, not to conduct a public campaign against it. Religious conservatives worried that if episcopacy (rule by bishops) was abolished, Presbyterian or more radical forms of Puritanism would fill the gap. The Remonstrance therefore marked the moment when a distinctly Royalist party began to form around defence of the Church of England and constitutional monarchy.
The Attempt on the Five Members
On 4 January 1642 Charles entered the House of Commons with several hundred armed men to arrest Pym, Hampden, Holles, Haselrig and Strode — the five MPs he regarded as his most dangerous opponents. When he arrived, the Speaker refused to reveal where the members were. Charles reportedly said: “I see the birds have flown.” The members had taken refuge in the City of London, where the population was hostile to the King. This act of attempted intimidation united parliamentary opinion against Charles more effectively than any Pym speech. Within days Charles fled London.
The attempted arrest violated parliamentary privilege — the principle that MPs could not be arrested for things said or done in Parliament. It convinced many wavering MPs that Charles could not be trusted to rule within constitutional limits.
The Militia Ordinance and Nineteen Propositions
After fleeing London, Charles went north. Parliament responded by passing the Militia Ordinance in March 1642, claiming control of the armed forces without royal assent — an unprecedented constitutional step. Charles responded by issuing Commissions of Array, calling loyal men to the royal standard under traditional feudal law.
In June 1642 Parliament presented the Nineteen Propositions, demanding parliamentary control of the Privy Council, military appointments and the education of the royal children. Charles rejected them. Both sides now prepared for war. On 22 August 1642 Charles raised his royal standard at Nottingham, formally beginning the First Civil War.
Historians disagree about responsibility. Those who stress Charles’s rigid belief in divine right argue he was unwilling to accept any genuine limitation on his power. Those who emphasise parliamentary radicalism argue that Pym’s coalition pushed demands beyond what any reasonable monarch would accept, particularly over control of the militia. Both sides contributed: Charles’s constitutional inflexibility combined with Parliament’s escalating demands created a deadlock that could not be resolved peacefully.