At the head of those who may be called the Constitutional Royalists were Falkland, Hyde, and Culpeper.  All these eminent men had, during the former year, been in very decided opposition to the Court.  In some of those very proceedings with which their admirers reproach Hampden, they had taken a more decided part than Hampden.  They had all been concerned in the impeachment of Strafford.  They had all, there is reason to believe, voted for the Bill of Attainder.  Certainly none of them voted against it.  They had all agreed to the act which made the consent of the Parliament necessary to a dissolution or prorogation.  Hyde had been among the most active of those who attacked the Council of York.  Falkland had voted for the exclusion of the bishops from the Upper House.  They were now inclined to halt in the path of reform, perhaps to retrace a few of their steps.

A direct collision soon took place between the two parties into which the House of Commons, lately at almost perfect unity with itself, was now divided.  The opponents of the government moved that celebrated address to the King which is known by the name of the Grand Remonstrance.  In this address all the oppressive acts of the preceding fifteen years were set forth with great energy of language; and, in conclusion, the King was entreated to employ no ministers in whom the Parliament could not confide.

The debate on the Remonstrance was long and stormy.  It commenced at nine in the morning of the twenty-first of November, and lasted till after midnight.  The division showed that a great change had taken place in the temper of the House.  Though many members had retired from exhaustion, three hundred voted and the Remonstrance was carried by a majority of only nine.  A violent debate followed, on the question whether the minority should be allowed to protest against this decision.  The excitement was so great that several members were on the point of proceeding to personal violence.  “We had sheathed our swords in each other’s bowels,” says an eye-witness, “had not the sagacity and great calmness of Mr. Hampden, by a short speech, prevented it.”  The House did not rise till two in the morning.

The situation of the Puritan leaders was now difficult and full of peril.  The small majority which they still had might soon become a minority.  Out of doors, their supporters in the higher and middle classes were beginning to fall off.  There was a growing opinion that the King had been hardly used.  The English are always inclined to side with a weak party which is in the wrong, rather than with a strong party which is in the right.  This may be seen in all contests, from contests of boxers to contests of faction.  Thus it was that a violent reaction took place in favour of Charles the Second against the Whigs in 1681.  Thus it was that an equally violent reaction took place in favour of George the Third against the coalition in 1784.  A similar action was beginning to take place during the second year of the Long Parliament.  Some members of the Opposition “had resumed” says Clarendon, “their old resolution of leaving the kingdom.”  Oliver Cromwell openly declared that he and many others would have emigrated if they had been left in a minority on the question of the Remonstrance.