May: Execution of Strafford

Charles had promised to protect his chief adviser but sacrificed him to save his own skin

The trial of Strafford lasted for 7 weeks and gripped the nation. It was followed with the same kind of rapt attention we now give to libel and murder trials. It was the Jeffery Archer or Jonathan Aitken trial of the day. But it did not all go Pym's way.

Charles sat with Strafford throughout the trial. And despite suffering from terrible gout and dysentery, Strafford easily rebutted the allegations of treachery as well as the main charge of using Irish troops to quell English opposition to the monarch. Pym was dumbfounded and so dropped the idea of a trial. Instead, in a master-stroke, he moved an Act of Attainder - a Bill which simply decreed treason on the basis of a general presumption of guilt. It was a ruthless form of attack which paid no heed to natural justice or the rule of law. It was just a quick way to get rid of someone.

The Commons were now on far shakier constitutional ground than Charles had ever been during the 1630s. It was a show-trial; a stitch-up by the King's enemies to get rid of the hated minister. As Strafford remarked at the end of his trial, 'These gentlemen tell me they speak in defence of the commonweal against my arbitrary laws; give me leave to say that I speak in defence of the commonweal against their arbitrary treason.' It made no difference. Pym forged more evidence against Strafford and then suddenly declared Parliament was in mortal danger from a Catholic plot. Fears of a Popish plot swept the capital and the Commons, followed by the Lords, voted against the unpopular Strafford.

The ball was now in Charles's court. At the beginning of the trial, he had assured his most loyal servant that 'you shall not suffer in life, honour, or fortune.' But the mobs of London, fed on fears of a Popish plot led by 'Black Tom Tyrant', screamed for blood. On May 10th 1641, with angry crowds egged on by Puritan MPs in Parliament, Charles I caved in and signed Strafford's execution warrant. When the news was carried to Strafford in the Tower, he wailed: 'Put not your trust in princes nor in the sons of men for in them there is no salvation.' On May 12th 1641 Strafford left the Tower for his execution. As he passed the cell of his old ally Archibishop Laud, he kneeled down to receive benediction from the broken cleric. Then in front of 100,000 spectators at Tower Hill, the Earl of Strafford was executed as a traitor.

Letting go of a loyal and able supporter was one of Charles's weakest and most calamitous decisions-and one he would regret all his life. It had been a 'sinful frailtie.' He had allowed his opponents, the mob and the press, to dictate his appointments. The Commons had effectively placed itself in charge of his Court. He looked pathetic after promising to look after Strafford and then throwing him to the wolves under public pressure. Yet with the passing of Strafford, a degree of calm entered into the relationship between king and Parliament. The Kingdom was at peace again.

Charles had sacrificed his most aggressive minister and now agreed to many of the constitutional changes Parliament demanded - such as the abolition of Star Chamber, the Court of High Commission and Ship Money. Charles also signed a Bill that allowed Parliament to dissolve itself - a source of much future trouble. But the old nobility were happy at this return to traditional government as their power increased at court. In August, 1641 Charles began his long delayed trip to Edinburgh to smooth out his differences with the Scottish Covenanters. Civil war, let alone a Republic, was not on the radar. All that had occurred was a slight readjustment in the long-running relationship between King and Parliament, England and Scotland.

But just as a solution to the troubles seemed possible, disaster struck. In November, 1641 hysterical reports swamped London of a fully-fledged Irish rebellion. News filtered through of a Protestant holocaust, of settlers butchered, of infants ripped from the womb, of rape and sectarian violence. The Catholic conspiracy, so long imagined and so exquisitely dreaded, had finally occurred and it had a decisive impact on mainland politics.

October: Irish Rebellion breaks out

Just when Charles seemed to have reached an understanding with Parliament and the Scots, Ireland erupts in rebellion.

Just as peace was descending over Scotland and England, Ireland erupted into war. Across Ulster and down into southern Ireland, English and Scottish planters, their wives and children, were put to the sword. Over 15,000 Protestants and then Catholics were murdered or left to die of exposure in the harsh Irish winter. Revenge attacks engulfed the entire region as Protestant and Catholic fought it out for land and religion. Communities collapsed into anarchy and previously content neighbours carried out brutal executions. Ireland became the Balkans of the seventeenth century.

The Irish rebellion added a terrible momentum to the War of the Three Kingdoms. The intervention of Ireland into the English Civil War proved fatal to Charles I. The frail peace between King and Parliament was blown wide apart. In the words of the King's supporter, Earl Clarendon, 'though Scotland blew the first trumpet, it was Ireland that drew the first blood; and if they had not at that time rebelled, and in that manner, it is very probable all the miseries which afterwards befell the king and his dominions had been prevented'. England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales were facing total war.

The Irish Rebellion of 1641 unleashed a wave of sectarian killing that still disfigures Anglo-Irish politics to the present day. The massacre of Protestant settlers by Irish Catholics set in train many of the myths, legends and blood feuds which still bedevil contemporary Ulster.

Why did Ireland suddenly erupt into bloodshed? Most landowners and politicians were surprised by the bloody violence that gripped the island. To understand what unleashed this carnage, we need to understand Ireland's bitter history.

Gaelic Ireland had been colonised since the Middle Ages by English settlers known as the 'Old English' who were, for the most part, Roman Catholics. The 17th Century saw a new wave of settlers from England and Scotland who were Protestant. Since the time of Elizabeth, English monarchs needed an expensive standing army to govern Ireland. James I abandoned that policy and instead planted Protestant settlers on land taken from the indigenous Irish as a means of exerting English power. The massive 1609 Plantation provided a form of Irish self-governance. It was a brutal policy of forced migration which set in train the entire tragedy of the Irish troubles. It bitterly alienated the dispossessed Irish chieftains and drove the 'Old' English closer to the Irish.

The policy caught up with the Crown in 1625 when Charles I declared war against Spain. He urgently needed to raise money and increase the military presence in Ireland to guard against possible Spanish invasion. To ensure the support of the 'Old' English and the Irish, he agreed to a series of concessions on religion known as 'The Graces'. The militant Protestant settlers denounced these favours - calling them 'religion for sale.' The language of betrayal was already endemic in Irish politics. Amidst this chaos, Charles sent in his trusted aide and bully-boy, the Earl of Strafford, to control the situation.

Strafford only managed to make matters worse - antagonising the 'Old' English by promoting more plantation and disturbing the settlers by enforcing the Crown's interests against any encroachments on its land. He called his strategy 'Thorough' - it was a means of 'civilising...this people, or securing this kingdom under the dominion of your imperial Crown.' Marginalised on barren land, the native Irish fell ever more heavily into debt, saw their Catholic religion threatened, and their future prosperity undermined. By the late 1630s, relations between the Irish and the settler communities were at breaking point.

The spark for the rebellion lay in the billiard ball effect of the multiple kingdom. One policy in one kingdom could produce terrible results in another. Charles was once asked, 'how can you affect your end without the haserding of your three crownes?' The answer was that he couldn't.

The closer Charles I came to conciliating Pym and the Scottish Covenanters, the greater the threat he created to the stability of his Irish kingdom. As the King looked on the verge of agreeing to a more radical Protestant policy, the Catholic Irish felt ever more afraid. A Presbyterian settlement could only mean further religious discrimination and loss of land for the old Catholic families. The Gaelic chieftains had seen the success enjoyed by the Covenanters in Scotland and decided that rebellion was the only language Charles understood. But what began, like the National Covenant, as a controlled uprising against the English administration in Dublin was quickly over taken by long-term resentment. In October 1641, the Gaelic clans of Dungannon, Charlemont and Newry rose against the Protestant settlers who occupied their ancient estates. The rebellion fanned out across the island in an uncontrolled and savage fashion.

November: Parliament issues Grand Remonstrance

Instead of giving Charles an army to crush the rebels, Parliament responds with a document detailing eleven years of personal misrule.

On hearing of the rebellion, Charles hurried back to London to co-ordinate the fight-back against the Irish. A nation deeply shocked by news of the events cheered him on his way. The King, the father of the nation, seemed back in control at this time of crisis.

But in the gloomy corridors and alcoves of Westminster, John Pym, the Puritan leader and scourge of King Charles, had other plans. While the rest of the nation was rallying round, supporting Charles, and demanding an army to crush the Catholic rebels, Pym was afraid such a move would only empower the King. With an army under his control, he would renege on his deal with Parliament and use force to crush Pym and the Parliamentary opposition. In short, the King could not be trusted with an army.

There was also the sneaking suspicion that the Irish rebels had the support of the quasi-Catholic Charles himself, such was the level of distrust. Pym's suspicion appeared confirmed when the rebel leaders forged a document showing an alliance with Charles and declared they had risen, 'only for the preservation of his majesty, and his rightful government over them...the defence of their religion, laws, and liberties.' It was a hoax, but one that cemented many peoples' inner prejudices.

Rather than help prepare a force to retake Ireland, Pym proposed that Parliament should instead issue a 'Grand Remonstrance' detailing all of Charles's religious and political abuses. When the Catholic menace was on the doorstep, Pym was more interested in attacking Charles than defending the nation. He actually stopped a motion supplying arms to royal forces in Ireland fighting to suppress the rebellion. Extraordinary behaviour.

The debate over the Remonstrance split the Commons with many seeing it as an unnecessary provocation to a monarch who had already agreed to most of their demands. After a night of violent debate, the Commons passed the Remonstrance by nine votes. It was a totally unprecedented attack on the royal prerogative. The Grand Remonstrance was a highly significant development because it took the dispute beyond King and Parliament.

The text was printed and circulated through London. A dispute that had previously been kept behind doors was now being aired in public. Pym was astute in appealing to extra-Parliamentary forces. But that dangerous radicalisation also helped forge the beginnings of a Royalist party.

Content last updated: 07/01/2001

Comments