Last modified on 22 September 2014, at 01:34

Long Parliament

The Long Parliament of England, after the fiasco of the Short Parliament followed its 12 year abeyance, was established on 3 November 1640[a] to pass financial bills, following the Bishops' Wars. It received its name from the fact that through an Act of Parliament, it could be dissolved only with the agreement of the members,[1] and those members did not agree to its dissolution until after the English Civil War and close to the end of Interregnum on 16 March 1660.[2] It sat from 1640 until 1648, when it was purged by the New Model Army. In the chaos following the death of Oliver Cromwell in 1658, General George Monck allowed the members barred in 1648 to retake their seats, so that they could pass the necessary legislation to allow the Restoration and dissolve the Long Parliament. This cleared the way for a new Parliament to be elected, which was known as the Convention Parliament. But many of these original members of Long Parliament, such as were barred from the final acts of the Long Parliament, claimed that the Long Parliament was never legally dissolved.

The Long Parliament comprised "a set of the greatest geniuses for government that the world ever saw embarked together in one common cause" and whose actions produced an effect, which, at the time, made their country the wonder and admiration of the world, and is still felt and exhibited far beyond the borders of that country, in the progress of reform, and the advancement of popular liberty.[3] The Long Parliament and the republican views of many of the members of the Long Parliament are believed by some Whig historians, such as Charles Upham, as a precursor to the American Revolutionary War, based on the same republican principles.

Establishment, Trial of Strafford, Implicating the King, ReconciliationEdit

Charles signed a bill agreeing that the present Parliament should not be dissolved without its own consent.

The sole reason Charles I assembled Parliament in 1640 was to ask it to pass finance bills, since the controverted taxation of ship money was unpopular, and since the Bishops' Wars had bankrupted him. Instead, the Parliament quickly proceeded to impeach William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury, of high treason, on 18 December.[4] John Finch was impeached the following day, and he consequently fled to The Hague with Charles's permission on 21 December.

The Parliament was initially influenced by John Pym (1584–1643) and his supporters. Pym rose in his place and entered into a particular enumeration of the troubles of the kingdom. Early in the Long Parliament's proceedings, the house unanimously accused the Earl of Strafford of high treason, and other crimes and misdemeanors. The incident provided a new departure for Irish politics, whereby Old English, Gaelic Irish and New English settlers joined together in a legal body to present evidence against Strafford. However, the evidence supplied indirectly by Henry Vane the Elder through his son in relation to Strafford's alleged improper use and threat to England via the Irish army was not corroborated by Vane. Vane the Elder was on the King's Privy council and completely loyal to the King. On 10 April, Pym's case collapsed, but Pym made a direct appeal to the Younger Vane to produce a copy of the notes from the King's Privy council, discovered by the younger Vane and secretly turned over to Pym, to the great anguish of the Elder Vane.[5] These notes obtained by Henry Vane the Younger, written in the King's Privy Council by the elder Vane, were confirmed by independent testimony. Lord Stafford had told the King,

"Sir, you have done your duty, and your subjects have failed in theirs; and therefore you are absolved from the rules of government, and may supply yourself by extraordinary ways; you have an army in Ireland, with which you may reduce the kingdom".[5][6][7]

Parliament, as representatives of the people, felt betrayed.

Strafford was considered guilty of raising an Irish army to reduce England for the purpose of generating revenues and abolishing English freedoms. Pym immediately launched a Bill of Attainder, asserting Strafford's guilt and that the Earl be put to death.[8] Charles, however, guaranteed Strafford that he would not sign the attainder, without which the bill could not be passed.[9] The Lords were opposed to the severity of the sentence of death imposed upon Strafford. But increased tensions and an attempted coup by the army in support of Strafford began to sway the issue.[9] On 21 April, in the Commons the Bill went virtually unopposed (204 in favour, 59 opposed, and 250 abstained),[10] the Lords acquiesced, and Charles, fearing for the safety of his family, signed on 10 May.[10] The Earl of Strafford was beheaded two days later.[11]

With the King having been implicated, the Long Parliament passed the Triennial Act, also known as the Dissolution Act, in May 1641, to which the Royal Assent was readily granted.[12][13] In the meantime both Parliament and the King agreed to an independent investigation of the king's involvement in Strafford's plot. This Triennial Act required Parliament to be summoned at least once every three years, and stipulated that when the King failed to issue proper summons, the members could assemble on their own. This act also forbade ship money without Parliament's consent, fines in destraint of knighthood and forced loans were declared unlawful, monopolies were cut back severely, and the Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission were abolished by the Habeas Corpus Act 1640 and the Triennial Act 1641.[14]

The very doctrine of modern freedoms have, to some degree, their origins in these acts. All remaining forms of taxation were legalised and regulated by the Tonnage and Poundage Act,[15] the billetting of soldiers was funded, whereas it had not been under Charles;[16] and the contentious ship money issue was vacated by the Ship Money Act 1640.[17][18] On 3 May, Parliament decreed The Protestation, attacking the 'wicked counsels' of Charles's government, whereby those who signed the petition undertook to defend 'the true reformed religion', parliament, and the king's person, honour and estate. Throughout May, the House of Commons launched several bills attacking bishops and episcopalianism in general, each time defeated in the Lords.[19]

Although he made several important concessions, Charles improved his own military position by securing the favour of the Scots that summer by promising the official establishment of Presbyterianism. In return, he was able to enlist considerable anti-parliamentary support.[20] But, following the attempted coup of 'The Incident' in Scotland, Charles's credibility was significantly undermined.[21]

The Irish Rebellion, which started in October 1641, brought the control of the army back into the discussions between King and Parliament. Led by John Pym, Parliament presented the King with the Grand Remonstrance, which was passed in the House of Commons by 11 votes (159–148) on 22 November 1641. It listed over 150 perceived "misdeeds" of Charles' reign, including the Church (under the influence of foreign papists) and royal advisers (also "have[ing] engaged themselves to further the interests of some foreign powers"); the second half of the Remonstrance proposed solutions to the "misdeeds," including church reform and Parliamentary influence over the appointment of royal ministers. December 1641 Parliament asserted that it wanted control over the appointment of the commanders of the Army and Navy in the Militia Ordinance. The king rejected the Grand Remonstrance and refused to give royal assent to the militia bill.

The King believed that Puritans (or Dissenters) encouraged by five vociferous Members of the House of Commons, known thenceforth in history as the Five Members, namely John Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, Arthur Haselrig and William Strode along with the peer Viscount Mandeville (the future Earl of Manchester) who sat in the House of Lords, had encouraged the Scots to invade England in the recent Bishops' Wars; and that they were intent on turning the London mob against him. When rumours reached the court that they were also planning to impeach the Queen for alleged involvement in Catholic plots, Charles decided to arrest them for treason. The counterclaim was that the King had an Irish army set to reduce the kingdom.

Lenthall kneels to Charles during the attempted arrest of the Five Members (painting by Charles West Cope in the Houses of Parliament)

The Speaker of the House during the Long Parliament was William Lenthall. On Tuesday, 4 January 1642,[a] the King entered the House of Commons to seize the Five Members and took the speaker's chair. Having looked around in vain for the Five Members and commenting, "I see the birds have flown", Charles turned to Lenthall, who stood below and demanded of him whether any of those persons were in the House, whether he saw any of them and where they were. Lenthall fell on his knees and replied: "May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here".[b]

After his failure to capture the Five Members and fearing for his family's lives, Charles left London for Oxford. Most of the royalist members of Parliament joined him there, where they formed the Oxford Parliament. The Long Parliament continued to sit during and beyond the Civil War without its royalist members, because of the Dissolution Act.

In March 1642, with the King absent from London and war clouds gathering, Parliament decreed that its own Parliamentary Ordinances were valid laws, even without royal assent. The Militia Ordinance was passed on 5 March by Parliament and gave Parliament control of the local militia called Trained Bands. Control of the London trained bands was the most strategically critical, because they could protect the radical members of Parliament from armed intervention against them by any soldiers which Charles had near the capital. In response to the Militia Ordinance, Charles revived the Commissions of Array as a means of summoning an army instead.

For events between 1642 and 1648, See First English Civil War

In 1645 Parliament reaffirmed its determination to fight the war to a finish. It passed the Self-denying Ordinance, by which all members of either House of Parliament laid down their commands, and re-organized its main forces into the New Model Army ("Army"), under the command of Thomas Fairfax, with Cromwell as his second-in-command and Lieutenant-General of Horse.[22] In two decisive engagements—the Battle of Naseby on 14 June and the Battle of Langport on 10 July—the Parliamentarians effectively destroyed Charles' armies.[23]

In the remains of his English realm, Charles tried to recover a stable base of support by consolidating the Midlands. He began to form an axis between Oxford and Newark on Trent in Nottinghamshire. Those towns had become fortresses and showed more reliable loyalty to him than to others. He took Leicester, which lies between them, but found his resources exhausted. Having little opportunity to replenish them, in May 1646 he sought shelter with a Presbyterian Scottish army at Southwell in Nottinghamshire.[24] Charles was eventually handed over to the English Parliament by the Scots and was imprisoned.[25] This marked the end of the First English Civil War.

Eventually King Charles I did cooperate with the independent investigation made by the house on the policies of his administration and a political stalemate was essentially determined. In 1648, Parliament determined that it was not to abjure the King's person. "During the negotiations with the King, he manifested a fixed resolution to do all that could be done to make the best of the opportunity the country then enjoyed, of securing to itself the blessings of liberty". Eventually King Charles I's terms of reforming the government as proposed by the Long Parliament were accepted by the House at a vote of 129 to 83 on 1 December 1648, allowing for the King's restoration and the end of the stalemate between Parliament and the King. Legally, this should have ended the Civil War and restored the King with limited powers.[26]

Rump Parliament (6 December 1648 – 20 April 1653)Edit

Oliver Cromwell dissolving the Long Parliament.
Main article: Rump Parliament

Divisions emerged between various factions, culminating in Pride's Purge on 7 December 1648, when, under the orders of Oliver Cromwell's son-in-law Henry Ireton, Colonel Pride physically barred and arrested 41 of the members of Parliament. Many of the excluded members were Presbyterians. Henry Vane the younger removed himself from Parliament in protest of this unlawful action by Ireton. He was not party to the execution of Charles I, although Cromwell was. In the wake of the ejections, the remnant, the Rump Parliament, arranged for the trial and execution of Charles I on 30 January 1649. It was also responsible for the setting up of the Commonwealth of England in 1649.

Henry Vane the Younger, was persuaded to rejoin Parliament on 17 February 1649 and a Council of state was installed, into whose hands the executive government of the nation was committed. Sir Henry Vane was appointed a member of the Council. Cromwell used great pains to induce Vane to accept the appointment, and after many consultations, he so far prevailed in satisfying Vane of the purity of his principles in reference to the Commonwealth, as to overcome his reluctance again to enter the public service. Sir Henry Vane was for some time President of the Council, and, as Treasurer and Commissioner for the Navy, he had almost the exclusive direction of that branch of public service.[27]

Cromwell "well knew that while the Long Parliament, that noble company, who had fought the great battle of liberty from the beginning, remained in session, and such men as Vane were enabled to mingle in its deliberations, it would be utterly useless for him to think of executing his purposes (to set up a Protectorate or Dictatorship). Henry Vane was working on a Reform Bill. Cromwell knew "that if the Reform Bill should be suffered to pass, and a House of Commons be convened, freely elected on popular principles, and constituting a full and fair and equal representation, it would be impossible ever after to overthrow the liberties of the people, or break down the government of the country". According to General Edmund Ludlow (an unapologetic supporter of the Good Old Cause who lived in exile after the Restoration), this reform bill provided for an equal representation of the people, disfranchised several boroughs which had ceased to have a population in proportion to representation, fixed the number of the House at four hundred".[28] It would have "secured to England and to the rest of the world the blessings of republican institutions, two centuries earlier than can now be expected".[28]

"Harrison, who was in Cromwell's confidence on this occasion, rose to debate the motion, merely in order to gain time. Word was carried to Cromwell, that the House were on the point of putting the final motion; and Colonel Ingoldby hastened to Whitehall to tell him, that, if he intended to do anything decisive, he had no time to lose". Once the troops were in place Cromwell entered the assembly. He was dressed in a suit of plain black; with grey worsted stockings. He took his seat; and appeared to be listening to the debate. As the Speaker was about to rise to put the question, Cromwell whispered to Harrison, "Now is the time; I must do it". As he rose, his countenance became flushed and blacked by the terrific passions, which the crisis awakened. With the most reckless violence of manner and language, he abused the character of the House; and, after the first burst of his denunciations had passed, suddenly changing his tone, he exclaimed, "You think, perhaps, this is not parliamentary language; I know it; nor are you to expect such from me". He then advanced out into the middle of the hall, and walked to and fro, like a man beside himself. In a few moments he stamped upon the floor, the doors flew open and a file of musketeers entered. As they advance, Cromwell exclaimed, looking over the House, "You are no Parliament; I say you are no Parliament; begone, and give place to honester men".[29]

"While this extraordinary scene was transacting, the members, hardly believing their own ears and eyes, sat in mute amazement, horror, and pity of the maniac traitor who was storming and raving before them. At length Vane rose to remonstrate, and call him to his senses; but Cromwell, instead of listening to him, drowned his voice, repeating with great vehemence, and as though with the desperate excitement of the moment, "Sir Harry Vane! Sir Harry Vane! Good Lord deliver me from Sir Harry Vane!" He then seized the records, snatched the bill from the hands of the clerk, drove the members out at the point of the bayonet, locked the doors, put the key in his pocket, and returned to Whitehall.[30]

Oliver Cromwell forcibly disbanded the Rump in 1653 when it seemed to be planning to perpetuate itself rather than call new elections as had been agreed. It was followed by Barebone's Parliament and then the First, Second and Third Protectorate Parliament

Recall of the Rump (21 April 1653 – 30 September 1659)Edit

After Richard Cromwell, who had succeeded his father Oliver as Lord Protector in 1658, was effectively deposed by an officers' coup in April 1659, the officers re-summoned the Rump Parliament to sit. It convened on 7 May 1659, but after five months in power it again clashed with the army (led by John Lambert) and was again forcibly dissolved on 13 October 1659. Once again, Sir Henry Vane was the leading catalyst for the republican cause in opposition to force by the military.[31]

The persons connected with the administration as it existed at the death of Oliver, were of course interested in keeping things as they were; and, as it was necessary for some one to assume the reins of government until the public will could be ascertained and brought into exercise. Henry Vane was elected to Parliament at Kingston upon Hull, but the certificate was given to another. Vane proceeded to Bristol, entered the canvass, and received the majority. Again the certificate was given to another. Finally Vane proceeded to Whitechurch in Hampshire and was elected a third time and was this time seated in Parliament. Vane managed the debates on behalf of the House of Commons. One of Vane's speeches effectively ended Richard Cromwell's career:[31]

Mr. Speaker, among all the people of the universe, I know none who have shown so much zeal for the liberty of their country, as the English, at this time, have done. They have, by the help of Divine Providence, overcome all obstacles, and have made themselves free...I know not by what misfortune, we are fallen into the error of those, who poised the Emperor Titus to make room for Domitian, who made away Augustus that they might have Tiberius, and changed Claudius for Nero...whereas the people of England are now renowned, all over the world, for their great virtue and discipline; and yet suffer an idiot, without courage, without sense, nay, without ambition, to have dominion in a country of liberty. One could bear a little with Oliver Cromwell, though, contrary to his oath of fidelity to Parliament, contrary to his duty to the public,...But as for Richard Cromwell, his son, who is he? Where are his titles...For my part, I declare, Sir, it shall never be said that I made such a man my master.[31]

This speech swept everything before it. The Rump Parliament which Oliver Cromwell had dispersed in 1653 was once more summoned to assemble, by a declaration from the Council of Officers dated on 6 May 1659.[31]

Disruption (1 October 1659 – 1 January 1660)Edit

Edmond Ludlow made several attempts to reconcile the army and parliament in this time period but was ultimately unsuccessful. Parliament ordered the regiments of Colonel Morley and Colonel Moss to march to Westminster for their security, and sent for the rest of the troops that were about the London to draw down to them also with all speed.[32]

In October 1659, Colonel Lambert and various subordinate members of the army, and acting in the military interest, resisted Colonel Morley and others who were defending rump Parliament. Colonel Lambert, Major Grimes, and Colonel Sydenham eventually gained their points, and placed guards both by land and water, to hinder the members of Parliament from approaching the House. Though Colonel Lambert subsequently acquitted himself to Henry Vane the Younger and Edmond Ludlow and the "Committee on Safety" an instrument of the Wallingford House party acting under their miss-direction.[33]

Nevertheless, Parliament was closed once again by military force until such time that the army and leaders of Parliament could effect a resolution. Rule then passed to an unelected Committee of Safety, including Lambert and Vane; pending a resolution or compromise with the Army.

During these disorders, the Council of State still assembled at the usual place and

the Lord President Bradshaw, who was present, though by long sickness very weak and much extenuated, yet animated by his ardent zeal and constant affection to the common cause, upon hearing Col Syndenham's justifications of the proceedings of the army in again disrupting parliament, stood up and interrupted him, declaring his abhorrence of that detestable action, and telling the council, that being now going to his God, he had not patience to sit there to hear his great name so openly blasphemed; and thereupon departed to his lodgings, and withdrew himself from public employment.[34]

The Council of Officers at first attempted to come to some agreement with the leaders of Parliament.[35] On 15 October 1659, the Council of Officers appointed ten persons to "consider of fit ways and means to carry on the affairs and government of the Commonwealth". On 26 October 1659 the Council of Officers appointed a new Committee of Safety of twenty-three members.[36]

On 1 November 1659, the Committee of Safety nominated a committee "to consider of and prepare a form of government to be settled over the three nations in the way of a free state and Commonwealth, and afterwards to present it to the Committee of Safety for their further considerations".[37]

The designs of General Fleetwood of the army and the Wallingford House party were now suspected as being in a possible alliance with Charles II.[38] According to Edmond Ludlow:

The Wallingford House party, as if infatuated by a superior power to procure their own destruction, continued obstinately to oppose the Parliament, and fixed in their resolution to call another (that is a reformed Parliament more agreeable to their interests). On the other side, I was sorry to find most of the Parliament men as stiff, in requiring an absolute submission to their authority as if no differences had happened among us, nor the privileges of Parliament ever been violated, peremptorily insisting upon the entire subjection of the army, and refusing to hearken to any terms of accommodation, though the necessity of affairs seemed to demand it, if we would preserve our cause from ruin.[39]

Edmond Ludlow warned both the Army and key members of Parliament that unless a compromise could be made it would "render all the blood and treasure that had been spent in asserting our liberties of no use to us, but also force us under such a yoke of servitude, that neither we nor our posterity should be able to bear".[40]

Starting on 17 December 1659, Henry Vane representing the Parliament, Major Saloway and Colonel Salmon with powers from the officers of the army to treat with the fleet, and Vice-Admiral Lawson met in negotiating a compromise. The navy was very adverse to any proposal of terms to be made with the Parliament before Parliament's readmission, insisting upon the absolute submission of the army to the authority of Parliament.[41] A plan was then put in place declaring a resolution to join with the Generals at Portsmouth, Colonel Monck, and Vice-Admiral Lawson, but it was still unknown to the republican party that Colonel Monck was in league with King Charles II.[42]

Colonel Monck, though a hero to the restoration of King Charles II, was also treacherously disloyal to the Long Parliament, to his oath to the present Parliament, and to the Good Old Cause. Ludlow stated in early January 1660 when in conversation with several key officers of the army:

"Then", said Capt. Lucas, "you do not think us to be for the Parliament?" "No indeed", said I; "and it is most manifest to me, that the design of those who now govern the Council of Officers, though at present it be covered with pretences for the Parliament, is to destroy both them and their friends, and to bring in the son of the late King".[43]

This statement may be verified by the many executions of key Parliament members and Generals after the restoration of King Charles II. Therefore the restoration of King Charles II could not be an act of the Long Parliament acting freely under its own authority, but only under the influence of the sword by Colonel Monck, who traded his loyalties for the present Long Parliament, in preference to a reformed Long Parliament and to the restoration of King Charles II.[citation needed]

Finally, on 22 April 1660, "Major-General Lambert's party was dispersed" and General Lambert taken prisoner by Colonel Ingoldsby.[44]

Restoration and dissolution of the Long Parliament (21 February 1660 – 16 March 1660)Edit

General George Monck, who had been Cromwell's viceroy in Scotland, feared that the military stood to lose power and secretly shifted his loyalty to the Crown. As he began to march south, Lambert, who had ridden out to face him, lost support in London. However, the Navy declared for Parliament, and on 26 December 1659 the Rump was restored to power.

On 9 January 1660, Monk arrived in London and his plans were communicated. Whereupon Henry Vane the Younger was discharged from being a member of the Long Parliament; and Major Saloway was reproved for his role and committed to the Tower during the pleasure of the house. Lieutenant-General Fleetwood, Col. Sydenham, Lord Commissioner Whitlock, Cornelius Holland, and Mr. Strickland were required to clear themselves touching their deportment in that affair. High treason was also declared against Miles Corbet, Cor. John Jones, Col. Thomlinson, and Edmond Ludlow on 19 January 1660. 1,500 other Officers were removed from their command and "scarce one of ten of the old officers of the army were continued". Any known Anabaptists in the army were specifically discharged. So tame was the Parliament grown, that though it was most visible that Monk's letters and Arthur Haslerig's instructions were designed for the dissolution of the Long Parliament, they were obeyed by the remainder of the members and all these designs were to be put into execution. Though named by Parliament for treason, Miles Corbet and Edmond Ludlow were for a while were permitted to continue to sit with Parliament, and for a time the charges against these men were dropped.[45][46]

After this initial show of deference to the Rump, Monck quickly found them unwilling to continue in cooperation with his plan for an election of a new parliament (the Rump Parliament believed Monck was accountable to them and had its own plan for free elections); so on 21 February 1660 he forcibly reinstated the members 'secluded' by Pride's purge in 1648, so that they could prepare legislation for the Convention Parliament. Some of the Rump Parliament were opposed and refused to sit with the Secluded Members.

On 27 February 1660, "the new Council of State being informed of some designs against the usurped power, issued out warrants for apprehending divers officers of the army; and having some jealousy of others that were members of Parliament, they procured an order of their House to authorize them to seize any member who had not sat since the coming in of the Secluded Members, if there should be occasion.[47]

When the house was ready to pass the Act for dissolution, Mr. Crew who had been as forward as any man in beginning and carrying on the war against the last King, moved, that before they dissolved themselves, they would bear their witness against the horrid murder, as he called it, of the King.[48] "Mr. Thomas Scott, who had been so much deluded by the hypocrisy of Monk...said: 'That though he knew not where to hide his head at that time, yet he durst not refuse to own, that not only his hand, but his heart also was in it' and after he had produced divers reasons to prove the justice of it, he concluded, 'that he should desire no greater honor in this world, than that the following inscription might be engraved on his tomb; "Here lies one who had a hand and a heart in the execution of Charles Stuart late King of England.' Having said this, he and most of the members who had a right to sit in Parliament, withdrew from the House; so that there was not the fourth part of a quorum of lawful members present in the House when the Secluded Members, who had been voted out of the Parliament by those that had an undisputed authority over their own members, undertook to dissolve the Parliament, which was not to be done, unless by their own consent; and whether that consent was ever given, is submitted to the judgment of all impartial men".[49]

Having called for elections for a new Parliament to meet on 25 April, the Long Parliament was dissolved on 16 March 1660.

After effects, Royalist and Republican TheoriesEdit

"Hitherto Monk had continued to make solemn protestations of his affection and fidelity to the Commonwealth interest, against a King and House of Lords; but the new militia being settled, and a Convention, calling themselves a Parliament and fit for his purpose, being met at Westminster, he sent to such lords as had sat with the Parliament till 1648, to return to the place where they used to sit, which they did, upon assurance from him, that no others should be permitted to sit with them; which promise he also broke, and let in not only such as had deserted to Oxford, but the late created lords. And Charles Stuart, eldest son of the late King, being informed of these transactions, left the Spanish territories where he then resided, and by the advice of Monk went to Breda, a town belonging to the States of Holland: from when he sent his letters and a declaration to the two House by Sir John Greenvil; whereupon the nominal House of Commons, though called by a Commonwealth writ in the name of the Keepers of the Liberties of England, passed a vote [on about April 25, 1660], 'That the government of the nation should be by a King, Lords and Commons, and that Charles Stuart should be proclamed King of England'".[50]

"The Lord Mayor, Sheriffs and Aldermen of the City, treated their King with a collation under a tent, placed in St. George's Fields; and five or six hundred citizens cloathed in coats of black velvet, and (not improperly) wearing chains about their necks, by an order of the Common Council, attended on the triumph of that day;...and those who had been so often defeated in the field, and had contributed nothing either of bravery or policy to this change, in ordering the souldiery to ride with swords drawn through the city of London to White Hall, the Duke of York and Monk leading the way; and intimating (as was supposed) a resolution to maintain that by force which had been obtained by fraud".[51]

Initially seven individual, and later 'twenty persons were put to death for life and estate.' These included: Chief Justice Coke, who had been Solicitor to the High Court of Justice, Major-General Harrison, Col. John Jones (also a member of the High Court of Justice), Mr. Thomas Scot, Sir. Henry Vane, Sir. Arthur Haslerig, Sir. Henry Mildmay, Mr. Robert Wallop, the Lord Mounson, Sir. James Harrington, Mr. James Challoner, Mr. John Phelps, Mr. John Carew, Mr. Hugh Peters, Mr. Gregory Clement, Colonel Adrian Scroop, Col. Francis Hacker, Col. Daniel Axtel. Among those who appeared the most basely subservient to these 'exorbitancies' of the Court, 'Mr. William Prynn was singularly remarkable' and attempted to add to these all who 'abjured the family of the Stuarts' previously, though this motion failed.[52][53]

"John Finch who had been accused of high treason twenty years before, by a full Parliament, and who by flying from their justice had saved his life, was appointed to judge some of those who should have been his judges; and Sir. Orlando Bridgman, who upon his submission to Cromwell had been permitted to practice the law in a private manner, and under that colour had served both as spy and agent for his master, was entrusted with the principal management of this tragic scene; and in his charge to the Grand Jury, had the assurance to tell them 'That no authority, no single person, or community of men; not the people collectively or representatively, had any coercive power over the King of England'".[54]

In framing the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion, the House of Commons were unwilling to except Sir Henry Vane, Sir. Arthur Haslerig, and Major-General Lambert as they had no immediate hand in the death of the King, and there was as much reason to except them as most of the members of Parliament from its benefits. In Henry Vane's case the House of Lords were desirous of having him specifically excepted, so as to leave him at the mercy of the government and thus restrain him from the exercise of his great talents in promoting his favourite republican principles at any time during the remainder of his life. At a conference between the two Houses, it was concluded that the Commons should consent to except him from the act of indemnity, the Lords agreeing, on their part, to concur with the other House in petitioning the King, in case of the condemnation of Vane, not to carry the sentence into execution. General Edmond Ludlow, still loyal to the Rump Parliament was also excepted.[31][55]

According to contemporary royalist legal theory, the Long Parliament was regarded as having been automatically dissolved from the moment of Charles I's execution on 30 January 1649. This view was confirmed by a court ruling during the treason trial of Henry Vane the Younger. A ruling that Henry Vane himself had concurred with in opposition to Oliver Cromwell years earlier.

However it is a well known fact that the trial given to Henry Vane as to his own person, and defence of his own part played for the Long Parliament was a forgone conclusion. It was not a fair trial as both his defence, and deportment at the time of defence bears out. He was not given legal council (other than the judges that sat at his trial); and was left to conduct his own defence after years in prison. Sir Henry Vane maintained the following at his trial:

  1. Whether the collective body of the Parliament can be impeached of high treason?
  2. Whether any person, acting by authority of Parliament, can (so long as he acting by that authority) commit treason?
  3. Whether matters, acted by that authority, can be called in question in an inferior court?
  4. Whether a king de jure, and out of possession, can have treason committed against him?

King Charles II did not keep the promise made to the house but executed the sentence of death on Sir Henry Vane the Younger. The solicitor, openly declared in his speech afterwards "that he (Henry Vane) must be made a public sacrifice". One of his judges stated: "We knew not how to answer him, but we know what to do with him".

Edmond Ludlow one of the members of Parliament excepted by the act of indemnity, fled to Switzerland after the restoration of King Charles II, where he wrote his memoirs of these events.

The Long Parliament began with the execution of Lord Stafford, and effectively ended with the execution of Henry Vane the Younger.

The republican theory is that the goal and aim of the Long Parliament was to institute a constitutional, balanced, and equally representative form of government along similar lines as were later accomplished in America by the American Revolution. It is clear from the writings of both Ludlow, Vane, and historians of the early American period such as Upham, that this is what they were striving for and why they were excepted from the acts of indemnity. The republican theory also suggests that the Long Parliament would have been successful in these necessary reforms except through the forceful intervention of Oliver Cromwell (and others) in removing the loyalists party, the unlawful execution of King Charles I, later dissolving the Rump Parliament; and finally the forceful dissolution of the reconvened Rump Parliament by Monck when less than a fourth of the required members were present. It is believed that in many ways this struggle was but a precursor to the American Revolution.[56]

Notable members of the Long ParliamentEdit

Time lineEdit

  • Triennial Act, passed 15 February 1641
  • Archbishop William Laud imprisoned 26 February 1641
  • Act against Dissolving the Long Parliament without its own Consent 11 May 1641
  • Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford executed 12 May 1641
  • Abolition of the Star Chamber 5 July 1641
  • Ship Money declared illegal 7 August 1641
  • Grand Remonstrance 22 November 1641
  • Militia Bill December 1641
  • The King’s answer to the petition accompanying the Grand Remonstrance 23 December 1641
  • The King's attempt to seize the Five Members 4 January 1642
  • The King and Royal Family leave Whitehall for Hampton Court. January 1642
  • The King leaves Hampton Court for the North 2 March 1642
  • Militia Ordinance agreed by Lords and Commons 5 March 1642
  • Parliament decreed that Parliamentary Ordinances were valid without royal assent following the King's refusal to assent to the Militia Ordinance 15 March 1642
  • Adventurers Act to raise money to suppress the Irish Rebellion of 1641 19 March 1642
  • The Solemn League and Covenant 25 September 1643
  • Ordinance appointing the First Committee of both Kingdoms 16 February 1644
  • The Self-denying Ordinance 4 April 1645
  • Parliament accepts the King's terms 1 December 1648
  • Pride's Purge (Start of the Rump Parliament) 7 December 1648
  • Excluded members of the Long Parliament reinstated by George Monck 21 February 1660
  • Having called for elections for a Parliament to meet on 25 April, the Long Parliament dissolved itself on 16 March 1660

See alsoEdit

NotesEdit

  1. ^ a b This article uses the Julian calendar with the start of year adjusted to 1 January – for a more detailed explanation, see Old Style and New Style dates#Differences between the start of the year old style and new style dates: differences between the start of the year.
  2. ^ By the time he consented to appear as a witness against the regicide Thomas Scot, Lenthall seems to have forgotten the resolve he possessed whilst Speaker.
  1. ^ Upham 1842, p. 180.
  2. ^ House of Commons 1802, p. 880.
  3. ^ Upham 1842, p. 173.
  4. ^ Gregg 1981, p. 325.
  5. ^ a b Upham 1842, p. 187.
  6. ^ Hibbert 1968, p. 151.
  7. ^ Gillespie 2006, p. 130.
  8. ^ Carlton 1995, p. 224.
  9. ^ a b Carlton 1995, p. 225.
  10. ^ a b Smith 1999, p. 123.
  11. ^ Coward 1994, p. 191.
  12. ^ Carlton 1995, p. 222.
  13. ^ Kenyon 1978, p. 127.
  14. ^ Gregg 1981, p. 335.
  15. ^ British History Online: "Charles I, 1640: A Subsidy granted to the King of Tonnage and Poundage and other sums of money paiable uppon Merchandizes exported & imported."
  16. ^ British History Online: "Charles I, 1640: An Act for the securing of such moneys as are or shall be due to the Inhabitants of the Countie of Yorke and the other adjoyning Counties wherein his Majesties Army is or hath beene billetted for the billet of the Souldiers of the said Army as also to certein Officers of the said Army who do forbear part of theire pay according to an Order in that behalfe made in the Commons House of Parliament this present Session for such part of theire pay as they shall so forbeare."
  17. ^ British History Online: "Charles I, 1640: An Act for the declaring unlawfull and void the late proceedings touching Ship money and for the vacating of all Records and Processe concerning the same."
  18. ^ Kenyon 1978, p. 129.
  19. ^ Kenyon 1978, p. 130.
  20. ^ Starky 2006, p. 112.
  21. ^ Kenyon 1978, p. 133.
  22. ^ Wedgwood 1970, p. 373.
  23. ^ Wedgwood 1970, p. 428.
  24. ^ Wedgwood 1970, pp. 519–520.
  25. ^ Wedgwood 1970, p. 570.
  26. ^ Upham 1842, pp. 223, 227.
  27. ^ Upham 1842, pp. 230–231.
  28. ^ a b Upham 1842, p. 240.
  29. ^ Upham 1842, pp. 241–242.
  30. ^ Upham 1842, pp. 242–243.
  31. ^ a b c d e Upham 1842, pp. 291–294.
  32. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 137 cites Weekly Intelligencer, 11–18 October 1659; Declaration of the officers of the army 27 October 1659; Crate, Original Letters, ii.247
  33. ^ Ludlow 1894, pp. 137–140.
  34. ^ Ludlow 1894, pp. 140–141.
  35. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 141 cites: Guizot, Richard Cromwell, ii. 267, and the proceedings of the Council of officers on 15 October
  36. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 141 cites: A True Narrative, pp. 21, 41; Guizot [Richard Cromwell], ii. 272.
  37. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 149 cites: Guizot, Richard Cromwell, ii. 284
  38. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 164.
  39. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 170.
  40. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 178.
  41. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 181 cites Narrative of the Proceedings of the Fleet, published in 1659, and reprinted in Penn's Memorials of Sir William Penn, ii. 186
  42. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 185.
  43. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 192.
  44. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 259.
  45. ^ Ludlow 1894, pp. 201–211.
  46. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 228 cites: Price, [Mystery and Method of his Majesty's happy restoration, reprinted by Maseres], p.751; cf. Guizot, Richard Cromwell, ii. 371; Carte Ormonde, iv. 51
  47. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 246.
  48. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 249.
  49. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 250.
  50. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 261.
  51. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 274.
  52. ^ Ludlow 1894, pp. 267–278, 301–302.
  53. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 267 cites: Mercurius Publicus, 31 May – 7 June 1660
  54. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 303.
  55. ^ Ludlow 1894, p. 288 cites Old Parliamentary History, xxii. 419
  56. ^ Upham 1842, pp. 371–393.

ReferencesEdit

Further readingEdit