Causes of Civil War

Introduction

• The period of the Long Parliament from its opening in 1640 marked the beginning of a monumental shift in the power dynamic of England, culminating in the Civil War of 1642.

• This was pushed by a series of factors, including Charles I's personality, the parliamentary rise of power and religious tensions.

• While the rise of parliamentary power and religious tensions did have a major role in the breakout of the First English Civil War, it was ultimately Charles I's personality which had the largest impact in causing the Civil War.

Charles YES: Tyranny of PR

Tyranny of PR

• Under PR, Charles was able to rule how he wished without calling parliament for 11 years, meaning that a lot of the policies that he led caused serious opposition

• Charles' economic policy was deeply unpopular

  • Ship money which led to Hampden Case 1638 where Charles narrowly won the case

  • Very rare and shows how unpopular his policies were

• Meant that when Short Parliament was summoned, there was an explosion of contempt towards Charles after 11 years of resentment

  • Meant that Charles' actions led directly to the Civil War as he created a divide between him and his people that would only widen with time

Charles YES: 5 Members incident

5 members incident 1642

• Charles attempted to arrest five MPs including Pym without the cooperation of the Lords

• Showed that he was not a trustworthy ruler and could not be trusted with an army - always intended to restore power with force

  • Led to serious deterioration with Parliament and Charles' relationship making the divide into a political chasm making the Civil War inerrable

Charles I NO: End of Ship Money

End of Ship Money and distraint of Knighthood 1641

• Charles agreed to a series of remedial measures

• Shows that he was willing to work with Parliament at that it must have been another trigger in fact that caused the CW

Charles Judgement

Main factor  - Therefore, while Charles was willing to work with Parliament for some things such as his fiscal policies, he was compliant with very few of the Parliamentary complaints

• Damage done by PR was irrevocable and was only exacerbated by events such as 5 members incident

Parliament YES: Militia Ordenance

• Was passed in 1642 and meant that parliament had control over the king's military authority

• This was done without Charles' consent therefore making this move illegal!!!

  • This presented parliament as unjust and therefore initiated the idea of the tyranny of parliament

  • Finally the opposition to the king was worse than the king himself

  • Caused serious divisions as the Royalist party was beginning to form to combat this force (Junto led by Pym)

Parliament Yes: 19 Propositions 1642

• Effectively made parliament the sovereign power

  • Had the ability to control the army, foreign policy, king's advisors

• Exacerbated tensions between Charles and Parliament making them seem tyrannical as they had just taken all of Charles' power

• After Grand Remonstrance of 1641

  • This completely broke precedent and caused serious tension between the two

  • Attack on prerogative powers and a threat to stability that must be stopped

Parliament no: Tonnage and poundage

• Were willing to compromise and work with Charles

• Wanted to share in executive power with the king and therefore would not have wanted to cause a Civil War unless they felt that they had no other choice

Parliament judgement

Contributing factor - Therefore, while parliament were willing to compromise and work with Charles, they ultimately were only willing to do this on their own terms as the financial aid they gave Charles ensured that he was dependent on them.

• They also veered towards tyranny making the path to civil war inevitable in nature and therefore pushing the declaration of war in 1642

Religion yes: Root and Branch Petition 1640

• Demanded the removal of episcopacy with 15000 people signing it

  • Suggests that Laudian reforms under PR were so unpopular that thousands of people were unhappy with Charles' religious policy

• Led to Grand Remonstrance 1641

  • Caused the Commons to pass a bill demanding that bishops be excluded from House of Lords

  • Meant that religious motives pushed parliament to be able to have the right to have a say over who is allowed to vote on state matters

    • Pushed the fears of tyranny of parliament due to religious fears of Catholicism

Religion yes: Irish Rebellion

Irish Rebellion 1641

• There were rumours of thousands of Protestants being killed by Catholics in Ireland

• Led to serious backlash in England as Pym mobilised this to fear monger people into supporting the Junto

  • Fear of Catholic invasion vastly propelled the progression of the CW as led to creation of polarity within the sides

• However it was Pym's manipulation of the event that made it such a potent cause of fear in the build up to CW

Religion no: Abolition of star court chamber

• Charles yet again was willing to compromise and end the chamber which used Draconian punitive measures to enforce religious uniformity

• Shows how the religious scenario was being defused

Judgement of religion

Contributing factor - while religious tensions were  being heightened by the manipulation of the Junto, without them, there would have been nothing for Pym to craft to get people to support the parliamentarian forces.

Conclusion

• In conclusion, while the religious tensions and parliament's rise to power were important in causing the Civil War, they were solely contributing factors and it was instead Charles' personality that drove the country into conflict.

• While the religious tensions were strong and employed by the parliamentary forces to promote support, they ultimately were caused by Charles' religious policies from his Personal Rule.

• Furthermore, the rise of parliamentary power was solely done as a result of Charles' personality in attempts to prevent him from ascending into tyranny.

• Therefore, while religious tensions and parliament's rise to power did play a large role, they were largely caused by Charles himself meaning that the Civil War would not have broken out without him.