 |
| The Grand
Remonstrance |
|
|
A list of grievances of the people
against King Charles I prepared by a group in Parliament led by Pym...
it consisted of over 200 clauses! |
'The
root of all this mischief we find to be a malignant and pernicious design
of subverting the fundamental laws and principles of government, upon
which the religion and justice of this kingdom are firmly
established. The actors and promoters hereof have been:...the
Jesuited papists, who hate the laws...the Bishops, and the corrupt part of
the clergy who cherish formality and superstition as...supports of their
own ecclesiastical tyranny and usurpation...Such Councillors and courtiers
[who] for private ends have engaged themselves to further the interests of
some foreign powers...
The Court of Star Chamber hath abounded
in extravagant censures... whereby His Majesty's subjects have been
oppressed by grievous fines, imprisonments, stigmatisings, mutilations,
whippings, pillories, gags, confinements, banishments... |
|
It listed the King's faults and
the remedies that parliament had already taken, and made several
recommendations for reform.
It urged that the power of the Bishops should be restricted, and that
the Church be reformed by a synod of Protestants.
It demanded that parliament should have a say in the appointment of the
King's ministers. |
| 1641 |
At midnight on November 22nd, 1641
the Grand Remonstrance passed a vote in the Commons by 11 votes (159 -
148). More than anything, this vote helped to form the two opposing
factions - Parliamentarians and Royalists.
The publication of the Remonstrance was initially opposed. |
|
|
In December, Charles I made his
response ...a firm rejection but with a conciliatory tone...probably to
try to persuade moderate members of parliament to the Royalist side. |
To
the petition, we say that although there are divers things in the preamble
of it which we are so far from admitting that we profess we cannot at all
understand them, [such] as of 'a wicked and malignant party prevalent in
the government,'... all, or any of them, did we know of, we should be as
ready to remedy and punish as you to complain of, so that the prayers of
your petition are grounded upon such premises as we must in no wise admit;
yet notwithstanding, we are pleased to give this answer to you.
"To the second prayer of the petition, concerning the
removal and choice of councillors, we know not any of our Council to whom
the character set forth in the petition can belong...there is no man so
near to us in place or affection whom we will not leave to the justice of
the law, if you shall bring a particular charge and sufficient proofs
against him...but in the meantime we wish you to forebear such general
aspersions as may reflect upon all our Council, since you name none in
particular."
|
|
..but on December 23rd Charles
tactlessly removed the Constable of the Tower (Newport - a man with
parliament's confidence) and appointed Colonel Thomas Lunsford - a
swashbuckling Cavalier. A tactless move on the King's part which ruined
his assumed image of moderation and which was not really undone by his
dismissal of Lunsford on December 26th. |
|
|
|
|
|
|