Civil War in the Summer of 1642 Essay

There were a number of factors and subsequently a number of people who were crucial in aggravating the outbreak of the first English civil war, but most of these people were apart of two prominent parties, namely the royalists and parliamentarians. Of these two groups, two figures outstand as bitter rivals, King Charles I and John Pym; together they contributed most significantly to the disagreement and aggression between Parliament and King. However, ultimately I believe Pym to be the lesser of two evils. The relationship and status of the monarchy in parliament’s eyes had already been in a state of decline even before Charles’ reign. His predecessor had been known as the ‘wisest fool in Christendom’ and there was a lot of resentment towards the former king, James, not only because of the number of times he dissolved parliament but also from his abuse of power and alienation of them through royal prerogatives, which were justified by his own ‘divine right of kings’ belief. It could be argued that Charles was pulled into an uphill battle from the start and was not to blame for the damaged relationship between the commons and himself, however, during Charles’ reign, he made no attempt to reconcile relations even repeating the ideals of his father through the ‘divine right of kings’ and also through the arrogance of his attitude and subsequent dissolution of parliament on many occasions. History seemed to more or less be repeating itself, with 1629 marking the start of the ‘eleven years tyranny’ through which Charles ran solely without parliament. By his own accord, he then enforced a number of taxes and reforms that were heavily criticised by both parliament and public alike. Among these were the religious reforms brought on by the resented Archbishop William Laud, who was suspected of Roman Catholicism which together with the fact Charles’ wife was Catholic, alienated parliament further and fed a rumour of a Catholic conspiracy. Other reforms brought on such as the Star Chamber and prerogative courts were used to silence critics, and further deepened the divide between the two; some parliamentarians such as John Hampden even challenged the changes such as the ship money tax Hampden refused to pay. All these served to further throw away any hope of peaceful negotiations between parliament and Charles, with each new action undertaken gaining more criticism. Undeniably however, one of his biggest critics was John Pym. Pym was a long serving member of parliament who had opposed the monarchy even in the reign of James, having been active in the impeachment of Buckingham in 1625 and in the production of the petition of right in 1628. He had opposed Charles a numerous points and contributed significantly to the disagreement between Parliament and King and the subsequent dissolutions of Parliament; Clarendon had said during the Short Parliament of 1640, Pym had â€Å"had appeared to be the most leading man†. It was no surprise with such enthusiasm that by the time of the Long parliament, Pym had dodged an accusation of treason and become the leader of the opposition to the king. However, it is important to realise Pym was really just fighting for the rights of parliament and against the absolute monarchy Charles was imposing. Like many other puritans, he had good reason to fear the â€Å"Catholic conspiracy† mentioned earlier and believed the despotic government of Charles was a way of de stroying the protestant faith in England. In this light, Charles’ arrogance comes through as he was obviously unable to negotiate over his unreasonable actions. When parliament finally needed to be called again in 1640 due to the Scottish invasion, it marked a point of vulnerability for Charles, which parliament and namely Pym took advantage of. Charles needed funding, and in exchange for the money the Long parliament demanded the impeachment of both Laud and Strafford as well as the removal of the Star Chamber. In both cases, Pym was spearheading the legal proceedings, even having launched a Bill of Attainder to justify a death sentence for Strafford which was soon reluctantly signed by Charles. The Earl of Strafford had been a close advisor of the king, and his death was a huge blow to Charles and something he always regretted given the promise he made to Strafford â€Å"upon the word of a king, you shall not suffer in life, honour or fortune†. As a result, Charles resented parliament and longed for revenge. With the state of relations between King and parliament at an all-time low, the last thing needed was more criticism to an already weakened king, who had just agreed to the Triennial act of 1641 which meant parliament would be called at least every three years. Despite this, Pym and his supporters presented the Grand Remonstrance; a list of 160 grievances and misdeeds of Charles. This in itself was something proposed by Pym and was almost mocking Charles with his â€Å"divine right of kings† ideal now appearing obsolete. This may have proved a last straw for Charles, who would have been building a great sense of anger with Parliament and more specifically with Pym. Indeed soon after in 1642, Pym along with four other prominent members of the opposition was charged with treason, showing just how much of a threat Charles saw Pym as. When Charles took it upon himself to arrive at parliament with 300 soldiers to personally arrest the five members it destroyed any final shreds of trust between Parliament and Charles. Members of parliament were representatives of the people and Charles was arresting five of them for merely criticising. This event embodied to Parliament the absolute monarchy they were fighting against and all the liberties they still needed to fight for. Charles must have even realised the mistake he had made in breaking any remaining ties with parliament, and six days later headed for Oxford to prepare an army of the inevitable coming war. In conclusion, both Pym and Charles can be interpreted as being the reason relations fell apart and Civil war broke out, however, even with Pym’s involvement in many parliamentary dissolutions and explicit opposition to the king, Charles still appears as the most unreasonable. Charles gave plenty of reasons for parliament and members such has Pym to criticise him, having made no attempt to learn from his father’s mistakes, ruling for 11 years purposely without parliament intervention and from imposing taxes and religious reforms which alienated people. The final act of attempting to arrest five members of parliament with hundreds of armed guards, proved not only too aggressive but also the final reason as to why Civil war became the only solution remaining.