The roles of Charles Stuart and John Pym in Parliaments victory of the English Civil War
The roles of Charles Stuart and John Pym in Parliaments victory of the English Civil War.
On August the 2nd 1642 King Charles the 1st raised his standard at Nottingham. The English Civil War had begun and it lasted from 1642 until the King's execution at the beginning of 1649. One could argue that it was actually two separate Civil wars, fought between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists. The first war beginning in 1642 and ending in 1646 when the King was captured, and then the second from 1647 after the Kings escape, to 1648 when he was again defeated and captured. However we will simply be looking at the years up until his surrender to the Scotts, April 1646, as by the end of June that same year, the surrender of Oxford was to mark the virtual end to the war. So who were John Pym and Charles Stuart, and what role did they play in the events that led to Parliament's victory? I will look at their actions during the Cival war that may have helped the Parliamentarians gain victory.
By 1640, John Pym had become the head of a political group who later became known at the Parliamentarians. Pym was a skilled political tactician who first entered parliament in 1620. He had participated in the Commons' Protestation against James in 1621 for which he was placed under house arrest for five days as a result. He also took part in the attack on the Duke of Buckingham due to his belief that the man was incompetent in the way of foreign policy.
The Parliamentarians (although not named that) originated back in the 1620's with a group of Lords and MP's -Lord Saye and Sele, the Earl of Warwick and Sir John Eliot. They organised the Petition of Right in 1628 and a year later John Pym had joined them during the crisis that produced the Three Resolutions of 1629. So the 1620's saw a number of events that brought together a group of men who had the same political views and the belief that the law of the land was binding on the king and his subjects.
Others that took up support of the Parliamentarians were yeomen and craftsmen and later on once the war had begun, many of the common people turned to the Parliamentarians also.
Pym played a major role leading up until his death in 1643. His role as leader of the Moderate group amongst the parliamentarians was important in keeping the war and peace groups together. His idea of introducing weekly taxes in London created a strong financial system for the parliamentarians which set them up for a long term war against the Royalists. He set up the Midland and Eastern Association that created good relationships between local county communities and the parliamentarians. His alliance with the Scots, proved crucial in the end although it caused a stir amongst the peace and war groups, but Pym's powers of persuasion and the firing of Henry Marten, a powerful war group leader, helped to reassure the peace group.
The Royalists were of course led by King Charles the 1st, who was the second son of the former King, James the 1st. Therefore Charles must have been brought up always believing that his brother would become the King after his father's reign. According to Angela Anderson, who wrote a book on Charles the 1st in the Longman History in depth series, Charles was rather shy and not very good at speaking in public. She also states that Charles was overshadowed by the presence and then death of his brother, Prince Henry. So how did Charles act, believing ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The Royalists were of course led by King Charles the 1st, who was the second son of the former King, James the 1st. Therefore Charles must have been brought up always believing that his brother would become the King after his father's reign. According to Angela Anderson, who wrote a book on Charles the 1st in the Longman History in depth series, Charles was rather shy and not very good at speaking in public. She also states that Charles was overshadowed by the presence and then death of his brother, Prince Henry. So how did Charles act, believing he was not to become King? According to the book, Three British Revolutions by Charles Carlton, Charles early years produced 'an overdeveloped superego that bottled up his inner tensions.' Charles tried to protect himself by being submissive, something which is very rare in an heir, he became withdrawn and always seeking affection. So this was the attitude that Charles felt was appropriate, as it is the attitude he displayed to the King and his brother no doubt above all others. So when it was Charles that eventually became King, he expected his subjects to adopt that same attitude he had demonstrated to his brother and father. With this authoritarian attitude Charles would not make concessions for England when it was needed of him. His mixture of outward self-certainty and inner self-doubt made a lethal combination that created many difficulties with a many number of groups of people.
His followers, the Royalists, were made up of many of the gentry and Charles also had the support of foreign rulers that he was related to who lent their aid by supplying his army with cavalry. Among the King's followers there were moderates and extremists. The Moderates sought a compromise that would prevent the king from anymore unconstitutional acts, guarantee the rule of law and the rights of parliament, and leave intact the valid powers of the king in both Church and State. Edward Hyde (Lord Clarendon) and Lucius Carey (Lord Falkland) were the leaders of this group. The Extremists were a group who felt that the king needed to settle the dispute by force. Lord Digby was one extremist, and the King himself seemed to favour this option as well as the Queen, Henrietta Maria.
It is also important to note that many of the key players in the Royalist party used to be Parliamentarians before there was a split. Those that became Royalists were all anti-Scottish with very few exceptions. This proved to be important later on when they were fighting in the Civil War.
Others who joined the Royalists were simply those too afraid to commit the sin of rebellion. This in fact deterred many supporters of the Long Parliament who began to feel that their demands had already been met and that the Long Parliament was beginning to push the limits.
The king's role in the English Civil war was of course possibly the most important individual role of all. His decision to move north to establish his court in York meant that he had left Parliament with a free hand at Westminster. His inability to make concessions made any chance of peace unlikely. His lack of restraint on his commanders and his failure to create good relations with the local county villagers and farmers meant that many of them turned away from him.
So the first, most vital roles that both Charles and Pym played was their leadership among their parties. It is important to note though that their leadership was different from the others and played a key role in parliaments victory for almost opposite reasons.
The King had many advantages in the beginning of the Civil War, such as his position as monarch. According to Angela Anderson's The Civil Wars 1640-9 he had far more loyal subjects at his disposal who helped fund the war and lend men and cavalry. For example, the Earl of Worcester donated three hundred thousand pounds before the war was over. No other sources I found backed up that the king had more followers, but according to The English Civil War and After edited by R H Parry, the King had the
majority of the house of Lords on his side while the majority of house of Commons supported Parliament. Which leads me to believe that both sources hold truth in them and that simply, the Lords were far more able to provide arms and cavalry for the King as they were rich land owners who owned small armies of their own, than the men in the House of Commons were able to for Parliament. So the Lords and their own followers outnumbered the men of the House of Commons. Angela Anderson pointed out in her other book Charles I that "It is difficult to draw clear conclusions regarding the distribution of support and the motives behind it". Another advantage identified by Angela Anderson was that, as King, he had sole command and everyone followed him alone, whereas with parliament they were not as unified and certainly didn't have as clear a strategy as the Royalists. Yet in her book The Civil Wars 1640-9 she states that there were divisions among the royalists as well, with Edward Hyde trying to negotiate with Parliament while Prince Rupert and Lord Digby fought over war strategy. Yet in the beginning of the Civil War, nothing suggests that the King was unable to control his subjects. So with all these advantages, the king was able to mobilise an army far quicker than the parliamentarians. Proof of his earlier success is shown in his victory at Edgehill in 1643.
Parliament's political divisions were far, far more complicated than those of the Royalists. There were over two hundred Mps and many of them had little appreciation of what war was like. Yet of the men that did step forward and contribute, three groups formed out of them. There was the 'Peace group' which had limited and defensive war aims. Then there was the 'War group', led by Sir Henry Vane, Sir Arthur Haselrig and the republican Henry Marten. This group openly sought a total victory against the Royalists and wanted to severely reduce the kings powers. Then, the middle group between these two extremes was led by John Pym who was helped by many other Mps, one of whom was Oliver Cromwell. This middle group wanted to negotiate a settlement which would give them control over the armed forces of the king and his advisors. However, this middle group's biggest problem was trying to hold the two extreme sides, War and Peace, together while they developed the measures needed to fight a war. This of course was one of Pym's roles as leader of the Moderate group. His success at this, although it didn't unify Parliament (there were still war and peace groups), helped hold Parliament together and lead them in the direction to victory.
So parliament had a much tougher start to the war, despite being in London. Although Parliament may have had no less support than the King, the ability to control it and unify it into one strong force was a challenge that they were faced with which the King didn't have.
So, as far as sides go, it would appear that the King had a far more organised, larger and unified force against Pym's various committees that were divided into three main groups that all had very different views. As Pym said himself about the Kings and his forces: "the king and his people are obliged to one another in the nearest relations....he is the head, they are the body." Yet using hindsight, we know that Parliament won, despite Charles' initial advantage. So what went wrong for Charles? Did his role or Pym's have any effect in the turn around?
Although Charles was the unified leader of a loyal force, he did not keep as tight a control on his commanders as Parliament did on theirs. Angela Anderson wrote that in 1643 his commanders began to plunder local counties regardless of whether or not they were loyal or neutral and this severely damaged the local's relations with the royalists. R.H.Parry explained that "farmers refused to follow their landlords into the royalist camp and offered to pay their rents to parliament instead. The Yeomen and clothiers, and the whole 'middle rank' of people in Somerset, as well as the 'poorer sort', turned to parliament to defend them against the royalist nobility and gentry." Angela Anderson believes that this was not so much a fault of the King but simply the need to supply the King's armies with food and other necessities due the high demands of the army. Yet Charles was the only man who could have prevented this, being the sole leader of his forces and his failure to do so led to villages in the west supporting Parliament instead.