To what extent was military involvement in politics responsible for unstable government in England
in the years 1646-53? (20 marks)
in the years 1646-53 we see a vast majority of instability within government due to a number of
reasons. Firstly, there was uncertainty as to who held which power in government, there were also
numerous failed settlement proposals, no constitution was in place from 1649-53, and there was a
questionable legitimacy of governments from 1646-8. Undoubtedly, military involvement in politics
played a big part in causing instability in government in England in the years 1646-53, however, only
to a certain extent because, during the years Charles was alive and potentially the implications he
had left after his execution, it is highly arguable that Charles was mainly responsible for instability in
government in the years 1646-53. Not to mention that Oliver Cromwell could also be argued as
largely responsible for the failure of the Rump parliament and the Nominated Assembly and thus the
instability that followed.
Military involvement in politics cannot be seen as responsible for instability in government in the
period of 1646-8 when Charles I was king. It is evident that Charles had real political stupidity and
quite frankly a sheer lack of reasonable foresight which left negative consequences for his country to
deal with, especially in government. Charles played a huge role in bringing on instability in
government during 1646-8 also because of his unwillingness to accept parliament’s settlement
proposals and his role in bringing a 2nd civil war on his people. When Parliament offered Charles its
own proposals at Newcastle in July 1646, which demanded that, parliament would nominate the key
officers of state, that parliament would control the militia for 20 years, that bishops would be
abolished and a presbyterian church would be created for an experimental 3 years, Charles delayed
his answer, and even after this, ending up refusing. From the memoirs of John Berkeley, who was a
‘middle-man’ between king and parliament in these negotiations, he wrote that Charles never
intended to come to a settlement and he never even seriously considered these proposals. This
noncompliance from the king greatly contributed to instability in government because it allowed
radical groups such as the Levellers to develop a political programme such as the 'Agreement of the
People'. It is arguable that if Charles had cooperated with parliament and made concessions, much
of the consequential instability that followed may have been avoided.
In addition, Charles deliberately waging war on his own people using the Scottish army also
massively contributed to the instability in government. The scots entered England in April 1648,
triggering the brief 2nd civil war. This unsurprisingly caused a period of instability in government due
to the social, economic and political implications the war had. The social consequences worsened
political instability as new social groups emerged as a result of the war, people were beginning to
question the social order like never before which was fuelled by the breakdown of censorship during
the war, with newspapers and pamphlets being spread to a wide audience, meaning more and more
people were becoming politicised. This contributed to the growing instability because groups like the
diggers and levellers emerged, indicating that people are beginning to think differently.
Furthermore, it caused the politicisation of the army. The puritan culture within the army it meant
they were a highly potent group. They were now starting to question parliament and were
dissatisfied with common law, leveller influence within the army was also heightened, all worsening
instability in government, and all a result of Charles siding with the Scots.
It could be argued that it was the clear divisions that emerged in parliament because of the new
model army, the independents and the political Presbyterians, that were the reason for a second
civil war, and not Charles, because they provided the two distinct sides necessary for conflict.
However, the New Model’s “public face,” as demonstrated in the popular press, changed from its
originally limited ends of securing satisfaction of their material grievances to justifications for their
intrusion into Parliamentary politics. Therefore, this politicisation of the army was also incredibly
significant in bringing instability in government in 1646-8 because they caused the political dynamic
, to change and evolve. They added another layer of complexity to English politics. There was now a
highly dangerous political and fighting force, who also were armed which made them even more
threatening. They became additional players in the political game that also needed to be satisfied
and brought new issues to the table that made it harder to reach a settlement. In addition, the army
prevented parliament from reaching a moderate settlement with the king by intervening in politics,
therefore contributing to the instability that followed the failed settlements.
Despite this, Charles must be blamed for the period of instability the war caused, and not the
military as he was the driving force behind it, the ‘ultimate plotter’. In the short term, the nation
faced chaos and instability under Charles’s rule. His unwillingness to spin out negotiations, holding
out the prospect of a settlement without ever accepting one, greatly contributed to instability in
government because it gave radical groups the time they needed to emerge into the political sphere,
meaning he was responsible for this during 1646-48, and the military played no role in it. It was a
result of his signing a secret engagement with the scots that brought all these political implications
of the war on, where he promised to establish a Presbyterian church in England for three years in
return for their military assistance. Furthermore, Charles is still mainly responsible for the instability
in the period of 1646-48 because he was the one delaying any form of settlement anyway allowing
the Levellers to emerge, who wanted greater democracy, not to mention the growing army
politicisation, which were both threatening to the stability of the conservatives, who were worried
about their status, income and power. In addition, the army actually wanted stability during the
second civil war, symbolised by their support for parliament during the civil war, showing that they
initially desired a stable government, even if it was for their own security. If Charles had worked
together with parliament to form a settlement, rather than looking elsewhere for help like he did
with the Scots, much of the consequential instability within government could have been dodged.
It is arguable that Charles, by trying to take advantage of divisions among his former enemies and
thus bringing on the 2nd civil war, provided the army with the platform to become more competent,
authoritative and politicised. And although many people didn’t particularly like the king, they saw
him as a source of stability (mostly the nobility as his rule maintained their livelihoods and status)
and especially as at the time the New Model Army were becoming so politicised. The country and
government was becoming increasingly unstable, and many people were fearful of the NMA and the
introduction of new radial ideas it proposed. In effect, the military can be seen as responsible for the
instability in government in 1649-53, with them becoming even more powerful and politicised. This
was due to the fact that their defeats gave them the sign that they needed to justify their victories as
a message from God that he had ‘owned’ the army and its cause. In fact, the second civil war
angered the army so much that they were prepared to demolish the long parliament in order to kill
the king. This was accomplished through prides purge, in which the army decisively leant into politics
and seized control.
In December 1648, the army surrounded Parliament and refused entry to those MPs known to
support re-opening of negotiations with the King. 47 MPs were arrested, about 110 MPs were
excluded, about 160 MPs stayed away in protest, and most prominent supporters of a treaty with
Charles were imprisoned. Therefore, the military were responsible for the instability in government
that followed, because through excluding MPs who supported negotiation with Charles, they were
preventing any further negotiations that could revert England’s government back to stability.
Furthermore, it was only until after Charles’s execution that some of these MPs were able to return
to take their seats, also showing that the army were eager for the king’s death.
Prides purge was the barrier the army needed to cross to kill the king. This left a ‘rump’ house of
240, of whom 71 would become actively involved in the trial and execution of Charles. A high court
of justice was created to try the king. He was found guilty on 27 Jan 1649 and beheaded on 30 Jan.
Without the NMA entering the scene it is arguable Charles wouldn’t have been executed, they are
in the years 1646-53? (20 marks)
in the years 1646-53 we see a vast majority of instability within government due to a number of
reasons. Firstly, there was uncertainty as to who held which power in government, there were also
numerous failed settlement proposals, no constitution was in place from 1649-53, and there was a
questionable legitimacy of governments from 1646-8. Undoubtedly, military involvement in politics
played a big part in causing instability in government in England in the years 1646-53, however, only
to a certain extent because, during the years Charles was alive and potentially the implications he
had left after his execution, it is highly arguable that Charles was mainly responsible for instability in
government in the years 1646-53. Not to mention that Oliver Cromwell could also be argued as
largely responsible for the failure of the Rump parliament and the Nominated Assembly and thus the
instability that followed.
Military involvement in politics cannot be seen as responsible for instability in government in the
period of 1646-8 when Charles I was king. It is evident that Charles had real political stupidity and
quite frankly a sheer lack of reasonable foresight which left negative consequences for his country to
deal with, especially in government. Charles played a huge role in bringing on instability in
government during 1646-8 also because of his unwillingness to accept parliament’s settlement
proposals and his role in bringing a 2nd civil war on his people. When Parliament offered Charles its
own proposals at Newcastle in July 1646, which demanded that, parliament would nominate the key
officers of state, that parliament would control the militia for 20 years, that bishops would be
abolished and a presbyterian church would be created for an experimental 3 years, Charles delayed
his answer, and even after this, ending up refusing. From the memoirs of John Berkeley, who was a
‘middle-man’ between king and parliament in these negotiations, he wrote that Charles never
intended to come to a settlement and he never even seriously considered these proposals. This
noncompliance from the king greatly contributed to instability in government because it allowed
radical groups such as the Levellers to develop a political programme such as the 'Agreement of the
People'. It is arguable that if Charles had cooperated with parliament and made concessions, much
of the consequential instability that followed may have been avoided.
In addition, Charles deliberately waging war on his own people using the Scottish army also
massively contributed to the instability in government. The scots entered England in April 1648,
triggering the brief 2nd civil war. This unsurprisingly caused a period of instability in government due
to the social, economic and political implications the war had. The social consequences worsened
political instability as new social groups emerged as a result of the war, people were beginning to
question the social order like never before which was fuelled by the breakdown of censorship during
the war, with newspapers and pamphlets being spread to a wide audience, meaning more and more
people were becoming politicised. This contributed to the growing instability because groups like the
diggers and levellers emerged, indicating that people are beginning to think differently.
Furthermore, it caused the politicisation of the army. The puritan culture within the army it meant
they were a highly potent group. They were now starting to question parliament and were
dissatisfied with common law, leveller influence within the army was also heightened, all worsening
instability in government, and all a result of Charles siding with the Scots.
It could be argued that it was the clear divisions that emerged in parliament because of the new
model army, the independents and the political Presbyterians, that were the reason for a second
civil war, and not Charles, because they provided the two distinct sides necessary for conflict.
However, the New Model’s “public face,” as demonstrated in the popular press, changed from its
originally limited ends of securing satisfaction of their material grievances to justifications for their
intrusion into Parliamentary politics. Therefore, this politicisation of the army was also incredibly
significant in bringing instability in government in 1646-8 because they caused the political dynamic
, to change and evolve. They added another layer of complexity to English politics. There was now a
highly dangerous political and fighting force, who also were armed which made them even more
threatening. They became additional players in the political game that also needed to be satisfied
and brought new issues to the table that made it harder to reach a settlement. In addition, the army
prevented parliament from reaching a moderate settlement with the king by intervening in politics,
therefore contributing to the instability that followed the failed settlements.
Despite this, Charles must be blamed for the period of instability the war caused, and not the
military as he was the driving force behind it, the ‘ultimate plotter’. In the short term, the nation
faced chaos and instability under Charles’s rule. His unwillingness to spin out negotiations, holding
out the prospect of a settlement without ever accepting one, greatly contributed to instability in
government because it gave radical groups the time they needed to emerge into the political sphere,
meaning he was responsible for this during 1646-48, and the military played no role in it. It was a
result of his signing a secret engagement with the scots that brought all these political implications
of the war on, where he promised to establish a Presbyterian church in England for three years in
return for their military assistance. Furthermore, Charles is still mainly responsible for the instability
in the period of 1646-48 because he was the one delaying any form of settlement anyway allowing
the Levellers to emerge, who wanted greater democracy, not to mention the growing army
politicisation, which were both threatening to the stability of the conservatives, who were worried
about their status, income and power. In addition, the army actually wanted stability during the
second civil war, symbolised by their support for parliament during the civil war, showing that they
initially desired a stable government, even if it was for their own security. If Charles had worked
together with parliament to form a settlement, rather than looking elsewhere for help like he did
with the Scots, much of the consequential instability within government could have been dodged.
It is arguable that Charles, by trying to take advantage of divisions among his former enemies and
thus bringing on the 2nd civil war, provided the army with the platform to become more competent,
authoritative and politicised. And although many people didn’t particularly like the king, they saw
him as a source of stability (mostly the nobility as his rule maintained their livelihoods and status)
and especially as at the time the New Model Army were becoming so politicised. The country and
government was becoming increasingly unstable, and many people were fearful of the NMA and the
introduction of new radial ideas it proposed. In effect, the military can be seen as responsible for the
instability in government in 1649-53, with them becoming even more powerful and politicised. This
was due to the fact that their defeats gave them the sign that they needed to justify their victories as
a message from God that he had ‘owned’ the army and its cause. In fact, the second civil war
angered the army so much that they were prepared to demolish the long parliament in order to kill
the king. This was accomplished through prides purge, in which the army decisively leant into politics
and seized control.
In December 1648, the army surrounded Parliament and refused entry to those MPs known to
support re-opening of negotiations with the King. 47 MPs were arrested, about 110 MPs were
excluded, about 160 MPs stayed away in protest, and most prominent supporters of a treaty with
Charles were imprisoned. Therefore, the military were responsible for the instability in government
that followed, because through excluding MPs who supported negotiation with Charles, they were
preventing any further negotiations that could revert England’s government back to stability.
Furthermore, it was only until after Charles’s execution that some of these MPs were able to return
to take their seats, also showing that the army were eager for the king’s death.
Prides purge was the barrier the army needed to cross to kill the king. This left a ‘rump’ house of
240, of whom 71 would become actively involved in the trial and execution of Charles. A high court
of justice was created to try the king. He was found guilty on 27 Jan 1649 and beheaded on 30 Jan.
Without the NMA entering the scene it is arguable Charles wouldn’t have been executed, they are
