A History of Modern Europe - From the Renaissance to the Present

216 Ch. 6 • England and the Dutch Republic

John Pym.

numerous among the lesser gentry

in eastern England, areas that took

the side of Parliament during the

Civil War.

As the political crisis grew in the

1630s, the authority of Anglican

bishops, their appointment as state

officials, and their right to nominate

ministers also smacked of “popery.”

Charles I echoed the famous state­

ment of his father, James I, “No

bishops, no king!”—an assertion

that would come back to haunt him.

Laud expanded the power of

ecclesiastical courts, which tried

people accused of offenses against

the Church of England. This

reminded some people of the Span­

ish Inquisition.

Moving toward Conflict

Having dissolved the “Short Parliament” in May 1640, Charles again con­

voked a newly elected Parliament the following October. The crown’s

strengthening of the army with Catholic Irish regiments, commanded by

Wentworth, who was now a supporter and adviser of the king and had been

named the earl of Strafford, confirmed to credulous ears that a “popish plot”

was in the works. Ordinary people smashed altar rails and shattered stained­

glass windows. The English army suffered defeat in Scotland; the war

required yet more funds. Led by Pym, Parliament turned its wrath upon

Charles’s advisers. It indicted Strafford, who was tried and executed in Lon­

don before a rejoicing throng. Parliament denounced as illegal the most

unpopular royal acts during the previous eleven years and abolished some of

the courts controlled by the monarchy. Parliament proclaimed that it could

only dissolve itself, and that in the future the king would have to summon it

every three years. In the meantime, Irish peasants rose up against the Eng­

lish in 1641 and killed many Protestant landlords. The Irish rebellion high­

lighted the rights of Parliament by making urgent the issue of who

controlled the militia.

In November 1641, Parliament passed the Grand Remonstrance. Present­

ing what Parliament considered a history of royal misdeeds, the document

denounced “a malignant and pernicious design of subverting the fundamen­

tal laws and principles” of English government. It called for religious and

administrative reforms. Its passage by a narrow margin indicated that Parlia­

ment remained divided over how far to carry its opposition to royal policies.