11A
Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy, 1603-1702
________________________________________________________________
SECTION TWO Revolution, 1629-1649
Topic 11 The Second Civil War
Key Question A: Why was there a Second Civil War between the Crown and Parliament?
Parliamentary Factionalism by the end of the First Civil War
Although the King had been defeated on the battlefield, he was still in a relatively strong political position in 1646. As the notion of abolishing the monarchy had still yet to be considered by all but the most radical Parliamentarians at this point, it was widely assumed that Charles would have to be at the centre of any negotiated settlement.
Strengthening the King’s position further was the fact that a serious division had opened up between the Parliamentarians by the end of the First Civil War:
The Political Presbyterians, or ‘Peace Party’: Led by civilian MP Denzil Holles, this more moderate faction had aimed to fight the war only until the King had been forced into negotiations. They wanted to establish a Presbyterian Church in England, which would prevent the social disorder that might ensue if religious toleration was permitted. They were willing to make concessions to Charles where necessary, and were determined to disband the New Model Army, which was perceived as an increasingly expensive and dangerous threat to the future stability of the country.
The Independents, or ‘War Party’: Led by Oliver Cromwell and Henry Ireton, this more radical faction had fought for a complete victory over the Royalists before entering into negotiations. They disliked the authoritarianism of a Presbyterianism religious system, and so instead campaigned for relative freedom of worship for the many Protestant sectarian groups which had sprung up during the war. They were equally determined to exact significant limitations on the power of the Crown and, as the numerically inferior group, they maintained close links with the New Model Army to safeguard their position.
To further complicate this situation was Parliament’s alliance with the Scottish Covenanters, who were expecting MPs to deliver on their promise of a Presbyterian Church in England and Scotland. Moreover, as the negotiations dragged on through the years 1646-47, the New Model Army would gradually transform into a powerful faction with a political agenda of its own.
Then there was the attitude of the King himself, which can best be described as intransigent. This was a policy guided by the following principles:
despite having been defeated in the war, Charles had no intention of giving up any of his powers or prerogatives to those he regarded as traitors to the Crown;
he believed he was central to any agreement, and could not conceive that any post-war settlement could be made without his consent;
he had never recovered from agreeing to sign Strafford’s death warrant and thus resolved to refuse any terms that didn’t guarantee a full pardon for all the Royalists who had been loyal to him;
as King, Charles felt it was his responsibility to protect the royal prerogative for his future successors, therefore he saw it as his sacred duty to regain his rightful God-given status as divine monarch.
Charles correctly predicted that the longer he held out on agreeing to a settlement with Parliament, the more divided his enemies would become – eventually the fear of long-term chaos and instability would force the Political Nation to turn back to the institution of monarchy (and to him) to save the nation from disaster. As such, the King’s policy of intransigence (i.e., making vague promises, procrastinating and frequently reneging upon previous agreements) in the negotiations, was a clever ploy to play for time and sow seeds of division among the Parliamentarians.
Charles had tactically surrendered to the Scottish Covenanters (not the English Parliament) at the end of the First Civil War. The Scots took him to their base in Newcastle, and it was here that he was presented with the first plan for a post-war settlement.
The Newcastle Propositions, July 1646: By the summer of 1646, the country was tired of anarchy and desperately wanted peace. In The Newcastle Propositions, the Political Presbyterian faction offered Charles his first peace settlement. Its main terms were:
the King would establish of a Presbyterian Church in England;
Parliament would nominate the key officers of state;
Parliament would control the militia for 20 years (seen as the remainder of the King’s lifetime);
the King’s peace treaty with Ireland (the Cessation) would be annulled and Parliament would resume hostilities against the Catholic Confederates;
the 1641 Triennial Act would remain in place;
the King’s leading ministers would be dismissed;
58 Royalists would receive punishment for their part in the Civil War, the remainder would be pardoned.
Had Charles agreed to these reasonable terms, the Political Independents and New Model Army would have had little choice but to acquiesce. However, the King immediate put his policy of intransigence into action. He took a full month to issue his first reply to the proposals, firstly suggesting he was willing to surrender control of the militia for ten years (not twenty), and establish Presbyterianism for a three-year ‘trial period’. He subsequently indicated that he would implement Presbyterian Church permanently, but only if he could personally select its leading ministers. When the Scots realised Charles was unlikely to agree to Presbyterianism on terms acceptable to themselves, they accepted a sum of money from MPs in London and handed him over to Parliament at the end of 1646.
The Politicisation of the New Model Army(NMA)
Over the course of 1647, a series of events led to the creation of a powerful new force in English politics: the New Model Army.
Parliament’s scheme to disband the Army, Feb 1647: The King’s strategy in the negotiations seemed to have had the desired effect when the Political Presbyterians launched a remarkable pre-emptive attack on the New Model Army.
the soldiers were offered eight weeks’ arrears of pay (a derisory amount compared to what they were actually owed after nearly four years, which exceeded £3 million in total);
the Army was to be purged of all officers who identified as religious independents;
Presbyterian officers would subsequently lead a smaller force to Ireland to crush the Catholic rebellion that was continuing there;
any NMA regiment that refused to go to Ireland would be disbanded without payment of arrears;
a new ‘safer’ militia would be formed from members of the London Trained Bands, primarily to defend the capital from any former NMA soldiers who intended to protest against their disbandment.
The Political Presbyterians were hoping that disbanding the New Model Army as quickly and as cheaply as possible would convince Charles to finally agree to The Newcastle Propositions.
The New Model Army Petition, Mar 1647: Unsurprisingly, the NMA soldiers were furious with the proposals. They responded with a petition, whereby signatories refused to volunteer for service in Ireland without assurances from Parliament regarding: the settlement of their financial arrears; indemnity from prosecution for their actions in the Civil War, full details of the regiments that were to remain in England and who was to command in Ireland.
The Declaration of Dislike, Mar 1647: The Army’s apparent refusal to follow orders to put down the rebellion in Ireland was interpreted as treason in a document published by the leader of the Presbyterians, Denzil Holles. He condemned any soldier who had signed the petition as an ‘enemy of the state and disturber of the public peace’. When Ireton was summoned to London to hear The Declaration of Dislike in person, he and Holles had to be forcibly prevented from fighting a duel.
The Solemn Engagement of the Army, May 1647: The NMA, now thoroughly disillusioned with Holles and the Presbyterian majority in Parliament, met at Newmarket and signed their own agreement. First, it arranged for the creation of an Army Council, composed of the leading officers, as well as two commissioned officers and two rank-and file soldiers (known as ‘adjutators’, or more popularly, ‘agitators’) from each regiment. Second, it was declared that no NMA soldier would disband until a settlement had been agreed with the Crown that had been approved by the Army Council. The creation of the Army Council turned the NMA from a military force into a genuine political organisation. It had entered politics for two vital reasons:
the soldiers’ most immediate concern was that they faced being disbanded before they had either been paid or received indemnity (i.e., legal protection) for their actions during the Civil War;
the Army’s political allies, the Independents, had been offended by The Newcastle Propositions and The Declaration of Dislike. The terms of the former were too lenient towards the King and undermined much of what the Parliamentarians had been fighting for. The latter not only accused the NMA of treason, but it also implied that the Political Presbyterians were attempting to raise a rival army composed of the remaining regional militias, led by officers who were unsympathetic to their cause and who would challenge their military power.
As a consequence of these developments, the New Model Army by necessity transformed itself into a radical movement that was capable of taking the nation’s political matters into its own hands.
With three different centres of authority – the King, Parliament and the New Model Army – now claiming the right to decide upon a settlement, the country gradually slid back into anarchy during the summer and autumn of 1647.
The NMA seize the King, June 1647: Charles was being held by Parliament at Holdenby House in Northampton, where negotiations for The Newcastle Propositions were continuing. On the night of 02-03 June, the King was seized out of parliamentary house arrest by George Joyce on behalf of the Army. Joyce’s position as Cornet, the lowest rank for an army officer, was significant because it showed how some of the more ‘ordinary’ citizens had lost respect for the figure of the King. The Army’s capture of Charles now made them the leading protagonist in the post-war negotiations.
The Humble Remonstrance of the Army, June 1647: At a meeting at Newmarket, the NMA declared that they would not disband until the grievances raised in the Solemn Engagement were met. They also demanded the removal of Holles’ Presbyterian faction from Parliament. In order to put pressure on their opponents in London, the Army began to march slowly towards the capital.
The Representation of the Army, June 1647: Alongside The Humble Remonstrance, another document was published at the same time. Written by Ireton and Cromwell, The Representation declared that the NMA was ‘not a mere mercenary army’ and outlined the fundamental objectives of their political agenda, which were:
a purge of the Political Presbyterians from Parliament;
ensuring that future parliaments sat for a fixed duration;
guaranteed rights for the people to petition Parliament;
an extension of religious toleration;
a demand that MPs who abuse their power should be called to account (to this end, 11 MPs, including Holles, were named in impeachment charges).
The Heads of the Proposals, July 1647: Drafted by Ireton and formally presented to the King (who was now under house arrest at Hampton Court Palace) by the Army Council, this was the NMA’s plan for a post-war settlement. The main terms reflected the wish to move beyond simply dealing with the relationship between Parliament and the Crown and instead consider more long-lasting constitutional arrangements. In return for restoring the royal family’s ‘honour and freedom’, the Army Council required the King’s acceptance of the following:
election of parliaments every two years, with guarantees against early dissolution;
reform of parliamentary constituencies to reflect changes in population and wealth;
Parliament assuming the right to appoint the great officers of state for ten years;
former Royalists being barred from taking office for five years;
Parliament controlling the militia for ten years;
the formation of a national church, with bishops stripped of their secular powers;
freedom of worship for all Protestants;
indemnity afforded to all soldiers to absolve them of any supposed misdemeanours committed during the war;
a general amnesty for anyone who participated in the Civil War, with only seven Royalist exceptions.
Although some of the lower ranks of the Army accused Ireton and Cromwell of being too lenient to the King, these terms had been agreed upon by representatives of each branch of the NMA, including the rank-and-file ‘agitators’. It was also the case that, unlike Political Presbyterians, the Army actually had the power to enforce its plan for a post-war settlement. Nevertheless, the King’s response was the same: he failed to give a clear answer and played for time. It soon became evident that he would adopt neither The Newcastle Propositions nor The Heads of the Proposals. Both would have involved him giving up his control over the military, and the power of appointing leading ministers, two key parts of the royal prerogative that he was not prepared to countenance. It had been his refusal to accept these same points that had led to the final breakdown between Crown and Parliament and the descent to Civil War in 1642.
Presbyterian attacks on Parliament, July 1647: Seeking to undermine the Army’s position, Holles invited a ‘Presbyterian mob’ to storm the House of Commons. Those MPs who had shown favour to the idea of reaching an agreement with the Army were attacked, and the Commons was forced to pass a resolution inviting the King to Westminster to conduct negotiations personally. The leading Independent MPs (numbering around 60) fled to the protection of the Army, now camped on the outskirts of the capital.
The NMA seize London, Aug 1647: In response to the Presbyterian attacks, the Army marched into London and occupied key strategic points in the city, establishing its new headquarters in Putney. From here, they intended to pressurise MPs into accepting the basic principles of the Heads of the Proposals.
The Case of the Army, Truly Stated, Oct 1647: With little progress having been made, the Army’s sense of frustration with Parliament and the King boiled over. The Council now demanded not only biennial parliaments, but that ‘all free-born Englishmen over the age of 21 should vote’ and declared that ‘all power is originally in the whole body of the people’. It seemed that the longer the post-war negotiations dragged on, the more powerful radical political thought within the Army was becoming. The leading group in this sense was the Levellers, who were committed to popular sovereignty, extended suffrage, equality before the law and religious tolerance. Their radical agenda was viewed sympathetically by some of the Army leaders.
The Putney Debates, Oct-Nov 1647: As negotiations with the King continued, a remarkable series of discussions were simultaneously held in Putney. This landmark debate saw senior officers of the New Model Army defend The Heads of the Proposals against lower-ranking members of the Army who supported the Levellers’ alternative constitution, An Agreement of the People.
The escape of the King, Nov 1647: The Putney Debates came to an abrupt and premature end when startling news broke: Charles had escaped from Hampton Court Palace and had travelled in disguise to the Isle of Wight (just off the south coast). Just as it seemed that the unity of the New Model Army was at breaking point, senior officers and the lower-ranking soldiers were forced to put aside their differences to face the renewed Royalist threat.