Synoptic view of Absolutism

Absolutism over the Period

1640's

• Charles I's letters and reactions to them - 1643 &1645 - agreemen with Catholics in Ireland 
• 1/6 of officers in Royalist army were Catholic 
• Charles' intransigence and unwillingness to negotiate
• Influence of Henrietta Maria 

This led to:

• Executing Charles - Man of blood
• Rise in religious radicalism
• Parliamentary victory 
• Aboliton of monarchy, Church and House of Lords
• Politicised religious radicalism 

1650's

• Major Generals - military rule
• Decimation tax to fund MG and Army 
• Drogheda and Wexford 
• Instrument of Government and Humble Petition and Advice - Cromwell allowed to pick successor after refusing crown 
• Death of Cromwell - Charles II not recalled 

This led to:

• Intensified radicalism - "Ideological schizophrenia" (Davis)
• Justifications of the killings in Ireland 
• Martydom of Charles I 

1660's

• Cabal and Montrose - crypto Catholic advisors to the King 
• Exile in Catholic countries - conspiracy theories - French relations 
• Dutch War
• Fall of Clarendon 
• Baroque style of Court 

This led to:

• Charles II dominated by Parliament 
• Succession - the "elephant in the room" 
• Lack of effective financial support.

1670's & 1680's

• Popish Plot
• Test Acts
• Clientalism with Louis XIV
• Increasing use of prerogative power
• Fall of Danby
• Prorogation of Parliament 
• Whigs and Tories 

This led to:

• Exclusion Bill
• Court V. Country/Tory V. Whigs
• Fall of Danby and Charles II's true colour shown 
• Glorious rev
• James II's suspending powers 
• Credibility of dates
• Nature of anti-Catholicism in Engand 
• Modern day Church and Constitution 

Synoptic view of Multiple Kingdoms

Synoptic view of Multiple Kingdoms 

1642-1646

• Irish Rebellion created controversy over the Militia Bill of 1641 that was one of the triggers of the Civil War
• Sharpe - breakdown of Charles I's authority clearly limited the imposition of the prayer book in Scotland 
• Charles I's alliance with the Irish Catholics and Montrose in Scotland made it hard for settlement in Scotland 
• Charles I surrenders to Argyll and the Scots in the English Parliament 

1646-1649

• Significant Catholic and religious strongholds means that the situation in Ireland remains instable and unresolved. Threat by Montrose in Scotland. Can explain his stubborness during peace negoitations
• Split between Presbyterian and Independent threatened Solemn League and Covenant 
• Charles I exploits this - the Engagement = Scottish invasion of England supported by Charles I. This hardens the army's perception of Charles I - Prides Purge December 1648, Charles' trial and execution (Jan 1649)

1649-1660

• Rebellion continues in Ireland - examples of Drogheda and Wexford 
• Battles of Dunbar and Worcester
• 1654 - first British Parliament (30 Irish and Scottish MPs with 300 representatives)

1660-1678

• Restoration settlement was clearly "Anglo-centric"
• Declaration of Indulgence raises concerns in Scotland 
• Charles II's "Anglo-centric" focus alientated support in Scotland
• Test Acts prohibited Presbyterians 
• 1669 Act proclaimed royal supremacy over Church in Scotland 

1678-1685

• Under pressure from Scots during the Exclusion Crisis to remove James II, influenced decision to disolve Parliament 
• James II took control of Scotland between 1679-82 - gained support 
• Archbishop of Armagh executed because of rumours of Irish Catholic invaion with French assistance 
• Whigs backed down during the Exclusion Crisis - fear of Scottish uprisings.
• Harris - the multiple kingdoms played a key part in the failure of the Whigs during the E.C

1685-1689

• Promotion of Catholics in Ireland - Richard Talbot appointed as Lord Deputy of Ireland. In '86 67% of troops and 40% of officers were Catholics - cost support to the Tories 
• Catholic judges appointed. 
• Argyll's uprising owing to Catholic appointments
• Freedom of worship except from Presbyterians. Alienated the elite and clergy
• Jacobite rebellion in Scotland after the Glorious Rev - led to Presbyterian Independence. 
• Protestant control imposed in Ireland. 

Themes: The Rump Parliament and how it Dealt with Religion, the Law and Finance

The Rump and Religion 

• The Rump was generally conservative. Most MP's wanted to promote Puritan "godliness," and to curb the excesses of the various millenarian sects
• Acts were passed imposing penalties on adultery and fornication - the Blasphemy Act of 1650 was aimed at curbing religious extremism
• Censorship was imposed in order to limit the propagation of millenarian pamphlets and a government journal giving the official version of events was published
• An Act was passed in 1650 repealing the statute that required compulsory Sunday worship. This statute dated back to the reign of Elizabeth I and had been a mainstay of the power of the Anglican Church 
• In 1652, a "Committee of the Propagation of the Gospel" was formed as a means of controlling the appointment of clergy

In general, the Rum was cautious in implementing Church reform, making a few concessions to the religious extremists.

Dec 1648 - The Rump Parliament

The Establishment of the Rump Parliament 

• It was the name given to Parliament after Pride's Purge, December 1648. It was also known as the "Purged Parliament" as it consisted of a small group of Independent MPs
• With the support of the Army, the Rump declared itself "the supreme power in this nation" on 4th of Jan 1649, with powers to pass Acts of Parliament without the consent of the King or the House of Lords
• One of the first actions was to set up the High Court of Justice, especially convened for the trial of the King 
• Following the King's execution, the Rump abolished the H.o.L and the monarchy itself
• The Rum was in an unprecedented constitutional position. For the first time, Parliament was solely responsible for governing the nation 
• There were no clear administrative guidelines for this new combination of executive and legislative powers. Much of its work was done through committees
• This frequently led to problems of co-ordination and communication, made worse because the boundaries between the Rump and the Council of State were not clearly defined. 

1646-1649: The Trial and the Execution of Charles I

To Kill a King - an Act of Regicide

The trial of Charles I began on January 20th 1649 in Westminster Hall. The public were allowed access to the trial. 135 commissioners were appointed as judges and John Bradshaw, an inexperienced judge, was President of the Court. 

After Pride's Purge, it was difficult to assemble a Court to judge Charles as many stayed away from Westminster and many did not want to be associated with the trial of the Kind. Fairfax, although a leader of the NMA, only attended one meeting on the trial of Charles. When his name was called to register attendance at the trial, there was silence - his wife, who was in one of the public galleries, shouted "he hath more wit then to be here."

Only 68 out of the 135 commissioners attended the trial - with only 59 signing the death warrant. 

• This suggests how radical the commissioners must have thought the event was. Also, there was also the possibility of one of Charles' sons or a member of the royal family becoming monarch again and the people who had allowed the execution of Charles would be hunted down, tried and executed themselves for treason. 

Charles was tried for crimes against his people and the laws of England. It was claimed that Charles had attacked the fundamental constitution of the Kingdom and also banned the people from their traditional right to government. 

Charles complained about these charges, due to the fact that the legality of the trial was in question. The Rump Parliament was different as it was biased and did not support the King, plus the fact that it had not been elected. Charles questioned their right to judge him as they were not a legitimate authority and they had no right to put the King to trial. 

January 30th - Charles' public execution 

Before his death, Charles' last speech declared that he had fought for the liberties of the people and declared himself a "martyr of the people."

After Charles' execution, some reports suggest that there was a stunned silence at the moment of execution. One 17 year old boy in the crowd at Whitehall recorded that the execution was met with "such a groan as I have never heard before, and desire I may never hear again." Similar views were repeated as one man claimed no king "ever left the world with more sorrow: women miscarried; men fell into melancholy."

Was the Trial of Charles I always meant to end in Execution?

Yes 

• Many believe that Charles was responsible for two wars and this was his justice. He needed to be removed so there would be no more Royalists uprisings.
• The NMA's success during the Civil Wars was seen as "God's providence" (God's doing) he was meant to be punished. Coward states that religious zeal pushed Cromwell to execute Charles.
• The intransigent settlement negotiations had gone on for too long. Coward saw Charles as "blocking future peace" and "had to executed"
• Pride's Purge appears to be calculated - Charles was going to suffer a punishment 
• Kishlanksy states that in the weeks before the trial began "there was no turning back."

No

• Settlement period was hugely unsuccessful due to Charles. Some saw the impending trial as a way to force Charles into settlement, not to remove him. Many MPs felt pressured into appearing as commissioners - execution was not the only option 
• Starkey - the death warrant of Charles suggests there was indecision over the event. Starkey refers to the corrections made to the document - the date had been changed twice and the original executioner refused to be involved, so names were altered. 

1646-1649: What led to Pride's Purge and what were the Consequences?

So far...

• The Engagement, December 1647 - Threat of the Scottish invasion - Charles made an agreement with the Scots for Presbyterianism to be in England for 3 years - Solemn League and Covenant. Charles' intransigence blamed as he could no longer be trusted.
• Vote of No Addresses, January 1648 - An Act by Parliament where negotiations with Charles was banned 
• Second Civil War, April 1648-1649 - In 1648, Cromwell squashed the invading Scots and people saw the New Model Army as "God's Instrument"
• Remonstrance of the Army, November 1648 - Ireton made this, where it stated that Parliament should put Charles on trial. If parliament refused there would be a purge on Parliament and then the King's trial
• Politicalisation - the nation had become more "politicalised" mainly due to the NMA, getting more involved in politics and having their say in how Charles' and the nation should be treated. 
• Newport Treaty, December 5th 1648 - Parliament revoked the Vote of No Addresses and negotiated with Charles. A vote was held in Parliament where 129 MPs voted to continue with the Newport Treaty with Charles, with the 83 against reacting with the Remonstrance of the Army. Here, Parliament had become a barrier of settlement.

Pride's Purge

The vote in the House of Commons on December 5th, 1648, confirmed the Newport Treaty and Parliament's willingness to negotiate with the King. This made the Army act. 

• December 5th, 1648 - a vote in Parliament with 129 for/83 against - confirmed the Newport Treaty and Parliament's willingness to negotiate with the King, This was a trigger point for the Army - Ireton and Independents held a meeting where they persuaded the army to use military action to force a purge on Parliament on all of the King's supporters
• December 6th, 1648 - Troops led by Colonel Thomas Pride headed to purge Parliament. Pride had a list of MPs that were regarded as enemies of the Army and stood at the entrance of Parliament, deciding who should enter. Around 180 out of 470 MPs were prevented from entering. A small number were regarded as extremists (Holles) and were forced to fled London, but others were arrested. Around 100 MPs stayed away from London during the Purge. 

Who was involved?

• Henry Ireton - organised the Purge
• Fairfax - apparently had no knowledge of the event, and was said to be furious when he heard what had happened. 
• Cromwell - opinions divided and no direct evidence of his involvmenent with the event, which stood in his favour. However, many do comment that he did approve the event, 

What were the Consequences?

All of the MPs who were leading, involved in or supported negotiations with Charles were excluded from Parliament during the Purge or had been warned to stay away. Only 80 MPs sat in the "Rump Parliament," leaving Cromwell and the Independent MP's. Consequentially, this left the NMA, mainly the Grandees, in an exciting situation - they could finally do as they pleased as they had eliminated all barriers to their aims. 

1646-1649: The Levellers

The Levellers - Who were they and why did they have such influence?

"Wee still find the Nation oppressed with grievances of the same destructive nature as formerly though under other notions." (Leveller Large Petition, March 1647)

The Levellers were a group of people who called for economic, political and religious reform due to the result of economic distress caused by civil war. They were influenced by the ideas of natural law and built an intellectual tradition of dissent. 

• Natural Law - a law that is set by nature and therefore has validity everywhere above human laws. Associated with natural rights that limited the power of the monarchy. 

The Levellers were led by John Lilburne, Richard Overton and William Walwyn. John Lilburne had suffered persecution in the 1630's by publishing literature against the Armenian reforms of William Laud. 

The Diggers - the "True Levellers"

The Diggers were another response to the political, economic and social effects of the Civil War. They established a commune as a solution to the social inequalities. They were led by Gerrard Winstanely who said "freedom is the man that will turn the world upside down." They believed in total political and social equality. 

Kishlansky argued that the "Digger movement appeared more ominous that it actually was" because the ideas and actions of the movement offered a fundamental challenge to the nature of politics and society at the time, but their influence was limited.

Why did the Levellers deny connections with the Diggers?

Their agenda of "leveling of all debates" - the amendment of private property rights - was too much of a radical step for the Levellers, who were attempting to negotiate a political settlement within the existing social order. 

What were the main aims of the Diggers?

1. Communal cultivation of the land and end to property rights 
2. People to support themselves by cultivating the waste and common land of England 
3. Utopian communistic society

The Putney Debates

The Putney Debates, held in November 1647, were a series of discussions between factions of the New Model Army and the Levellers concerning a new constitution for England. They were held at the Church of St Mart the Virgin, Surrey. 

• The Grandees failed attempt to negotiate a settlement with Charles had lost the support of the military and civilian radicals. The Levellers criticised Ireton in particular for being too lenient in his negotiations with the King and Parliament, and accused the Grandees of betraying the interests of the common soldiers and people of England. 
• In October 1647, the 5 of the most radical cavalry regiments elected new Agitators - known as the "New Agents" - to represent their views. The New Agents issued a political manifesto: "The Case of the Armie Truly Stated" and endorsed the constitutional proposals drafted by civilian Levellers in the "Agreement of the People."
• The radicals wanted a constitution based upon manhood suffrage ("one man, one vote"), biennial parliaments and a re-organisation of parliamentary constituencies. Authority was to be vested in the House of Commons rather than the King and Lords. Certain "native rights" were declared for all Englishmen - freedom of conscience, freedom from imprisonment into the armed forced and equality before the law.
• Cromwell and Ireton regarded the Levellers' demands for manhood suffrage as "tantamount to anarchy"

The Agreement of the People, 1647

• MP's should be elected in proportion to the amount of people in their constituencies
• Parliament should be dissolved on the 30th September 1648
• Parliaments should be held biennially and sit every other year from April to September
• A biennial parliament should be the supreme authority in the land, with the powers to make/repeal laws, appoint officials and conduct domestic and foreign policy. 

The Whitehall Debates

• After the King's defeat in the 2nd Civil War, an extended version of the Agreement of the People was promoted by Lilburne who hoped to find a middle way between royal despotism (or tyrannical absolutism) and military dictatorship. 
• The new Agreement was discussed by Levellers, London Independents and the Army Council at Whitehall in December 1648 in the aftermath of Pride's Purge. 
• Lilburne wanted to secure Parliament's acceptance of the Agreement before the King was brought to trial so that the trial would  have a basis in a legitimate and legal constitution. 
• However, Lilburne and his colleague Richard Overton walked out of the discussions when Army officers, led by Ireton, insisted upon making further modifications to the Agreement before it was presented to Parliament. 

Why was this significant?

Here, both Cromwell and Ireton were trying to curb the extremism of the Levellers, particularly over a proposal that wanted to extend the vote to all adult males. Attempts to get support for the Agreement at a meeting of the Army at Cochbush field were forcibly opposed by the Grandees. Lilburne tried making a midway point between tyrannical anarchy and military dictatorship, but this still was not enough for Cromwell and Ireton. 

In the end, discussions continued without Lilburne's input. The revised Agreement was finally presented to the House of Commons as a basis of a new constitution on 20 January 1648, the very days that the public sessions of the High Court of Justice began. As Ireton had calculated, MP's postponed discussion of the Agreement until after the King's trial, and it was never taken up again by Parliament.