England's Long Parliament passes the "Vote of No Addresses", breaking off negotiations with King Charles I and thereby setting the scene for the second phase of the English Civil War.

The Long Parliament stands as a pivotal institution in English history, active from 1640 until its formal dissolution in 1660. Its convocation marked the end of an 11-year period known as the Personal Rule, during which King Charles I governed without Parliament, relying on controversial financial measures like Ship Money. This preceding era of monarchical governance without parliamentary consultation had severely strained relations between the Crown and its subjects.

The immediate catalyst for summoning the Long Parliament was the King's urgent need for funds to finance the ongoing Bishops' Wars against Scotland. These conflicts arose from Charles I's attempts to impose Anglican liturgical practices on the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, leading to military confrontations that proved financially draining and militarily disastrous for the English Crown.

King Charles I issued writs in September 1640, mandating a new Parliament to convene on November 3, 1640. This assembly swiftly distinguished itself from its ill-fated predecessor, the Short Parliament, which had met for only three weeks in the spring of 1640 before being dissolved due to its refusal to grant the King his desired subsidies without addressing grievances. The Long Parliament earned its enduring name from a groundbreaking piece of legislation, the Act against Dissolution (formally titled 'An Act for the preventing of inconveniences happening by the long intermission of Parliaments'), passed in 1641. This Act stipulated that the Parliament could only be dissolved with the explicit agreement of its own members. Consequently, these members did not consent to its dissolution until March 16, 1660, effectively spanning the entire English Civil War and much of the Interregnum, the period of republican government and military rule that followed the execution of Charles I.

Key Phases of the Long Parliament

The Long Parliament's extensive lifespan can be broadly divided into several distinct phases, each reflecting the dramatic shifts in English political power:

In December 1648, Colonel Thomas Pride, acting under the orders of the New Model Army, forcibly prevented approximately 180 Members of Parliament from entering the House of Commons. These excluded members were largely those who wished to continue negotiations with Charles I or who favored a more moderate settlement. The remaining approximately 50 to 60 members who were permitted to sit became infamously known as the Rump Parliament. This purged body was instrumental in establishing the High Court of Justice which tried and condemned King Charles I to death in January 1649.

The Rump Parliament continued to govern England as a Commonwealth until April 1653, when Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector, grew frustrated with its slow progress on constitutional reform and its perceived self-perpetuation. Cromwell forcibly disbanded the Rump, famously stating, "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately." This act ushered in a succession of new parliamentary experiments during the Interregnum, including the nominated Barebones Parliament (1653) and two elected Protectorate Parliaments (1654-1655 and 1656-1658) under Cromwell's rule as Lord Protector.

The Restoration and the Long Parliament's End

Following Oliver Cromwell's death in September 1658, England descended into a period of acute political instability and military infighting. His son, Richard Cromwell, briefly succeeded him as Lord Protector but lacked his father's authority and was unable to maintain control. In May 1659, amidst this chaos, the Rump Parliament was unexpectedly reinstalled by the military, struggling to re-establish a stable government.

The ultimate resolution came through the decisive actions of General George Monck, commander of the army in Scotland. In February 1660, Monck marched his forces into London and, crucially, allowed the members of the Long Parliament who had been barred in 1648 (the 'secluded members') to retake their seats. This re-enlarged Long Parliament, now representing a broader political spectrum, quickly passed the necessary legislation, including critical measures that facilitated the return of the monarchy. Most notably, it organized the election of a new representative body, the Convention Parliament, and formally dissolved itself on March 16, 1660. The Convention Parliament subsequently invited Charles II, son of the executed King, to return from exile, thereby initiating the Restoration of the monarchy in May 1660, an event greatly influenced by the Declaration of Breda issued by Charles II promising a general pardon and religious toleration.

Not all members of the Long Parliament welcomed this outcome. Prominent republican figures, such as Sir Henry Vane the Younger and General Edmond Ludlow, were staunchly opposed to the Restoration. They were barred from participating in the Long Parliament's final acts and vociferously maintained that its dissolution was illegal. They characterized the process as a "device" and a "conspiracy" orchestrated by General Monck to ensure the return of King Charles II of England. Indeed, for his pivotal role in restoring the monarchy, General Monck was richly rewarded with a dukedom, becoming the Duke of Albemarle. Both Vane and Ludlow, as regicides or prominent republicans, faced severe consequences after the Restoration; Vane was executed for treason, while Ludlow fled into exile.

Historical Interpretation and Legacy

The Long Parliament later became a central focus in Whig histories of the seventeenth century. Whig historians, writing from a perspective that emphasized progress, liberty, and the evolution of parliamentary government, often viewed the Long Parliament as a precursor to modern democratic ideals. The American Whig historian Charles Wentworth Upham, for example, held a particularly high regard for this assembly. He famously believed the Long Parliament comprised "a set of the greatest geniuses for government that the world ever saw embarked together in one common cause." Upham contended that their actions had a profound impact, making their country "the wonder and admiration of the world" at the time, and that its influence continued to be felt globally "in the progress of reform, and the advancement of popular liberty." He specifically saw the republican principles and parliamentary assertion of power demonstrated by the Long Parliament as a crucial historical antecedent and intellectual inspiration for the American Revolutionary War and the establishment of the United States of America.

FAQs About the Long Parliament

What was the primary reason King Charles I summoned the Long Parliament?
King Charles I summoned the Long Parliament primarily to secure financial support to fund the costly Bishops' Wars against Scotland, as he had exhausted other means of revenue during his 11 years of ruling without Parliament (the Personal Rule).
How did the Long Parliament get its name?
The Long Parliament was named for its extraordinary longevity, which was guaranteed by an Act of Parliament (the Act against Dissolution, 1641) stating that it could not be dissolved without its own consent. This measure ensured its existence through the Civil War and the Interregnum, lasting until 1660.
What was the "Rump Parliament"?
The Rump Parliament was the remaining faction of the Long Parliament's House of Commons after Pride's Purge in December 1648. This purged body, dominated by Independents, was responsible for the trial and execution of King Charles I and governed England during the early years of the Commonwealth.

The Vote of No Addresses: A Turning Point

The Vote of No Addresses was a radical and profoundly significant measure passed by the English Long Parliament on January 17, 1648. This decision effectively marked a complete breakdown in negotiations between Parliament and King Charles I, signaling a definitive shift away from any prospect of a peaceful, monarchical settlement and setting the stage for more extreme actions.

The vote was a direct response to unsettling news that King Charles I had entered into a secret treaty, known as "The Engagement," with a faction of Scottish Covenanters in December 1647. Under this clandestine agreement, Charles promised to establish Presbyterianism in England for three years in exchange for Scottish military support to restore him to power. This betrayal, perceived as a willingness by the King to launch another civil war against his own subjects with foreign aid, deeply angered and solidified resolve within Parliament and, particularly, among the leadership of the New Model Army.

Oliver Cromwell, a leading figure within the Army and Parliament, was a strong advocate for breaking off all communication with the King. He vigorously urged that no new negotiations be opened with Charles I, believing the King could not be trusted. The motion passed by a substantial margin of 141 votes to 91 in the House of Commons. This decision gained swift support from the General Council of the Army on January 8, and even the hitherto reluctant House of Lords convened a committee on January 13 to approve the measure, highlighting the widespread frustration and fear of the King's duplicity.

However, the political landscape remained fluid. By September 1648, the Second English Civil War had largely concluded. The Royalists, along with their English Presbyterian and Scottish Covenanter (Engager) allies, had been decisively defeated by the New Model Army at battles such as Preston. With the Army now in an even more dominant position, and fearing that such a rigid stance might prevent a stable post-war settlement, the Army leadership began to favor a resumption of negotiations with the King to explore alternative paths. Consequently, Parliament, under increased military pressure, repealed the Vote of No Addresses in September 1648, only months after its initial passage.

The Declaration of the Vote of No Addresses (January 17, 1648)

The official declaration outlining the Vote of No Addresses eloquently articulated Parliament's exasperation and justification for its unprecedented action. The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament declared that, after numerous prior appeals to His Majesty to prevent and end the "unnatural war" he had waged against his Parliament and kingdom, they had recently sent him Four Bills. These bills, presented as a final attempt at a negotiated settlement, contained "only matter of safety and security to the Parliament and kingdom," with all other differences proposed to be resolved through a personal treaty with the King. However, having received an "absolute negative" from King Charles I, Parliament now felt obligated to take decisive action.

The declaration asserted that Parliament must use its utmost endeavors to "speedily settle the present government in such a way as may bring the greatest security to this kingdom in the enjoyment of the laws and liberties thereof." To achieve this crucial and necessary work without further delays or interruptions, they adopted the following stringent resolutions:

These resolutions were exceptionally radical, effectively isolating the King and criminalizing any communication with him not sanctioned by Parliament. They reflected Parliament's belief that Charles I could not be trusted to negotiate in good faith and that his continued reign, under the prevailing circumstances, posed an existential threat to the kingdom's security and liberties. The Vote of No Addresses thus represented a significant step on the path that would ultimately lead to the King's trial and execution a year later.

FAQs About the Vote of No Addresses

Why was the Vote of No Addresses passed?
The Vote of No Addresses was passed in response to King Charles I's secret treaty with the Scots (The Engagement), which Parliament viewed as a treacherous act aimed at reigniting the Civil War and undermining parliamentary authority. It signaled Parliament's complete distrust in the King's willingness to negotiate in good faith.
What were the immediate consequences of the Vote of No Addresses?
The vote formally broke off all communication between Parliament and King Charles I, effectively declaring him an enemy of the state. It shifted power significantly towards the radical elements within Parliament and the Army, paving the way for the King's subsequent trial and execution.