2E The English Revolution, 1625–1660 – The crisis of Parliament and the outbreak of the First Civil War, 1640–1642 — AQA A-Level History
Test yourself on 2E The English Revolution, 1625–1660 – The crisis of Parliament and the outbreak of the First Civil War, 1640–1642 with AQA A-Level practice questions.
7 days Premium · Then free forever · No card, no charge
2E The English Revolution, 1625–1660 – The crisis of Parliament and the outbreak of the First Civil War, 1640–1642 explained
In 1640, the Political Nation faced a crisis forcing the recall of Parliament.
Read the full explanation
Charles I’s main weakness was his financial bankruptcy following the Bishops' Wars and a defeated, mutinous army, compelling him to summon the Short and Long Parliaments. His strengths included his legally inherent royal prerogative, the ingrained loyalty of the nobility, and theoretical command of the armed forces, though in reality, his military position was severely compromised. The parliamentary opposition possessed the strength of financial leverage, refusing subsidies until Charles addressed demands. Yet, divisions rapidly emerged within Parliament over religion, specifically the Root and Branch Petition, fracturing their unity.
Pym and the development of parliamentary radicalism: Pym’s personality and aims; the Grand Remonstrance; the London mob; popular radicalism
John Pym’s pragmatic yet uncompromising personality drove the development of parliamentary radicalism. His primary aims were to dismantle the apparatus of Personal Rule, remove 'evil councillors' like Strafford, and secure a Protestant church. To achieve this, Pym masterminded the Grand Remonstrance in 1641, a comprehensive list of grievances designed to appeal to the public and justify limiting royal power. Crucially, Pym harnessed popular radicalism by mobilising the London mob to intimidate moderate MPs and the House of Lords. This strategic use of extra-parliamentary pressure, combined with growing popular radicalism in print and street protests, fundamentally shifted the political balance and accelerated the path to civil war.
Conflicts between Crown and Parliament: failure of negotiations between the King and the Long Parliament; the execution of Strafford and its political consequences
The Long Parliament convened in 1640 amidst deep mistrust. Negotiations to address grievances like Ship Money failed because Charles I viewed parliamentary demands as attacks on his prerogative, while MPs led by Pym feared royal absolutism. A pivotal conflict was the execution of the Earl of Strafford in May 1641. Parliament used an Act of Attainder to bypass a treason trial, forcing Charles to sign his loyal minister's death warrant. This execution had profound political consequences: it radicalised the King, who felt immense personal guilt, and demonstrated Parliament's willingness to use extreme measures. This destroyed any remaining trust, deepening the Crown-Parliament divide and making a negotiated settlement impossible.
The slide into war: the impact of events in Ireland; the failed arrest of the Five Members; local grievances; attempts to impose royal authority and the development of a Royalist Party; military preparations for war
The slide into war accelerated in 1641 following the Irish Rebellion. Reports of Catholic atrocities in Ireland sparked a crisis over whether the King or Parliament should command the army. Charles's attempt to impose royal authority by entering the Commons to arrest the Five Members in January 1642 confirmed fears of tyranny, forcing him to flee London. Concurrently, local grievances over religion and taxation polarised communities. A Royalist Party developed as moderate MPs, alienated by radical demands like the Grand Remonstrance, rallied to the King as the defender of order. Both sides then began military preparations, issuing rival commissions of array and militia ordinances to secure county magazines and raise troops.
Your focus
- Explain the financial and military weaknesses that compelled Charles I to recall Parliament in 1640.
- Compare the inherent strengths of the monarchy with Charles I's specific political, financial, and military vulnerabilities.
- Analyse the causes of division within the parliamentary opposition during the early sessions of the Long Parliament.
Show all 12 objectives
- Describe John Pym's political aims and how his personality influenced his leadership of the parliamentary opposition.
- Explain the purpose and political impact of the Grand Remonstrance on both Parliament and the wider public.
- Evaluate the extent to which the London mob and popular radicalism influenced parliamentary decision-making in 1641.
- Explain the reasons why negotiations between Charles I and the Long Parliament broke down.
- Describe the mechanism of the Act of Attainder used to execute the Earl of Strafford.
- Analyse the political consequences of Strafford's death on the relationship between Crown and Parliament.
- Evaluate the impact of the Irish Rebellion on the political balance of power in England.
- Analyse the reasons for the emergence of a distinct Royalist Party in Parliament by 1642.
- Compare the legal and practical methods used by Crown and Parliament to make military preparations for war.
2E The English Revolution, 1625–1660 – The crisis of Parliament and the outbreak of the First Civil War, 1640–1642 exam tips
Marking Points
- Evaluate the financial and military pressures, including a defeated and mutinous army, that forced Charles I to recall Parliament in 1640.
- Assess Charles I's strengths, such as his legally inherent royal prerogative and the traditional deference of the Political Nation, while noting his theoretical rather than practical military command.
- Analyse Charles I's weaknesses, particularly his lack of funds, untrustworthy reputation, and the ineffectiveness of his armed forces.
- Examine the strengths of the parliamentary opposition, notably their control over taxation and initial unity against the abuses of Personal Rule.
- Identify the emerging divisions within the parliamentary opposition, especially concerning religious reforms like the Root and Branch Petition.
- Analyse John Pym's aims, focusing on his desire to restrict royal prerogative, protect Parliament's privileges, and defend Protestantism.
- Evaluate Pym's personality and political skill, particularly his ability to manage parliamentary factions and utilise extra-parliamentary forces.
- Assess the significance of the Grand Remonstrance (1641) as both a catalogue of Charles I's failures and a tool to radicalise public opinion.
- Examine the role of the London mob in applying physical and psychological pressure on Parliament and the King, notably during Strafford's trial.
- Discuss the broader emergence of popular radicalism, including the explosion of unlicensed pamphlets and petitions that politicised the wider populace.
- Explain the reasons for the failure of early negotiations, focusing on Pym's Junto and Charles I's reluctance to compromise on his prerogative.
- Analyse the use of the Act of Attainder against Strafford as a turning point in parliamentary tactics.
- Evaluate the political consequences of Strafford's execution, specifically the permanent breakdown of trust between Charles and Parliament.
- Assess how the removal of Strafford emboldened parliamentary radicals to push for further constitutional changes, such as the Ten Propositions and the Grand Remonstrance.
- Assess how the Irish Rebellion of 1641 created a military crisis that forced Parliament to challenge the King's prerogative over the armed forces.
- Explain the significance of the failed arrest of the Five Members in destroying the possibility of a peaceful settlement and forcing Charles to leave London.
- Analyse how local grievances, such as opposition to enclosure or religious radicalism, influenced allegiance in the localities.
- Evaluate the formation of the Royalist Party, focusing on the reaction of constitutional royalists to Pym's radicalism and the Grand Remonstrance.
- Compare the methods used for military preparations, specifically Parliament's Militia Ordinance versus the King's Commissions of Array.
Examiner Tips
- 💡When evaluating Charles I's position in 1640, contrast his theoretical prerogative powers with the practical reality of his financial ruin and military defeat.
- 💡Use the Root and Branch Petition as a concrete example to demonstrate the religious divisions fracturing the parliamentary opposition.
- 💡Avoid treating the 'Political Nation' as a single entity; highlight how differing regional and religious loyalties influenced their response to the 1640 crisis.
- 💡Use the narrow voting margin of the Grand Remonstrance to illustrate the growing royalist party and the polarisation of Parliament.
- 💡Connect Pym's parliamentary tactics directly to his willingness to use the London mob, showing how he bridged elite and popular radicalism.
- 💡When discussing popular radicalism, reference the collapse of censorship in 1640, which allowed radical religious and political ideas to spread rapidly.
- 💡When discussing the failure of negotiations, explicitly link the breakdown to the fundamental clash over the definition of the royal prerogative.
- 💡Use the Act of Attainder as a specific example of how parliamentary opposition escalated from constitutional reform to revolutionary action.
- 💡Analyse the role of the London crowd in pressuring the House of Lords and the King during Strafford's trial to demonstrate the influence of extra-parliamentary forces.
- 💡Link the events in Ireland directly to the Militia Bill to show how external events drove constitutional radicalism in England.
- 💡When discussing the development of the Royalist Party, use the Grand Remonstrance as the key turning point that alienated moderates like Edward Hyde.
- 💡Contrast the national political crisis with local grievances to demonstrate a nuanced understanding of why individuals chose sides in 1642.
Common Mistakes
- Error: Listing practical army control as a strength of Charles I in 1640. Correction: Clarify that while he had theoretical prerogative command, his actual army was defeated, unpaid, and mutinous, constituting a major weakness.
- Error: Assuming Parliament was completely united against Charles I in 1640. Correction: Acknowledge that while initially united against Personal Rule, deep divisions quickly surfaced over religious reform and constitutional limits.
- Error: Confusing the Short and Long Parliaments. Correction: Distinguish between the Short Parliament (April-May 1640), dissolved quickly over subsidy disputes, and the Long Parliament (convened November 1640).
- Error: Stating that Pym aimed to overthrow the monarchy and establish a republic from the outset. Correction: Clarify that Pym initially aimed to reform the monarchy and remove 'evil councillors', not abolish the crown.
- Error: Viewing the Grand Remonstrance as a universally supported parliamentary document. Correction: Highlight that the Grand Remonstrance only passed by a narrow margin (159 to 148), demonstrating the deep divisions it caused.
- Error: Treating the London mob as an unorganised, spontaneous riot. Correction: Recognise that the London mob was often deliberately mobilised and directed by radical leaders like Pym to achieve specific political goals.
- Error: Stating Strafford was found guilty of treason in a standard trial. Correction: Clarify that the impeachment trial was failing, so Parliament used an Act of Attainder which only required a majority vote and royal assent.
- Error: Claiming Charles I willingly sacrificed Strafford to appease Parliament. Correction: Emphasise that Charles was coerced by mob pressure from the London crowd and feared for his family's safety, later deeply regretting the decision.
- Error: Treating the failure of negotiations as solely the King's fault. Correction: Acknowledge that parliamentary radicals also adopted uncompromising stances that made a settlement difficult.
- Error: Citing the Triennial Act as a consequence of Strafford's execution. Correction: Ensure accurate chronology; the Triennial Act was passed in February 1641, before Strafford was executed in May 1641.
- Error: Assuming the Irish Rebellion was a direct attack on England. Correction: Clarify that it was an uprising by Irish Catholics against Protestant settlers in Ireland, but it triggered a political crisis in England over control of the army.
- Error: Stating that the country was neatly divided into two distinct sides from the start. Correction: Emphasise that many localities were neutral or driven by local grievances, and the formation of a Royalist Party was a gradual reaction to parliamentary radicalism.
- Error: Confusing the Militia Ordinance with the Commissions of Array. Correction: Specify that Parliament issued the Militia Ordinance without royal assent, while the King issued traditional Commissions of Array to raise troops.