Therefore, Cromwell’s departure from parliament is explained by his desire to achieve religious toleration and a settlement which will bring stability to the country. This weakens the view of Cromwell’s exit from parliament as an inconsistency since it is consistent with his objectives in a settlement with Charles.
The Heads of Proposals, co-wrote by Cromwell, is another example of inconsistency is Cromwell’s search for a settlement. Whilst during and after the war, Cromwell had pursued for harsh terms been imposed upon Charles, the Heads of Proposals were relatively lenient and allowed for the presence of bishops in the church government; they were more moderate than the Newcastle Propositions. This action appears to contradict Cromwell’s wish of harsh of terms on the king. However, Cromwell’s wanted to achieve religious toleration at all costs. The Heads of Proposals granted Cromwell an opportunity to gain religious toleration. So, Cromwell was prepared to compromise on other aspects of the proposal in order to outmanoeuvre the Presbyterians in parliament. In addition, the leniency of the terms in the proposal would have ensured a settlement that could have brought stability to the country. This suggests that Cromwell’s proposals were in fact consistent with his aim of achieving religious toleration and stability. Although it should be noted that the authors of the Heads of Proposals had conservative views, many of them still placed religious toleration as their top priority.
It would appear that both Cromwell’s conversion from parliament to army and the terms of the Heads of Proposals were consistent because they were aimed at accomplishing religious toleration and guaranteeing stability after four years of civil war, though the methods he used to pursue those objectives were inconsistent and contradictory.
Another inconsistency during Cromwell’s time in the army is seen at the Putney debates. Cromwell offered the Leveller a chance to express and discuss their demands and appeared to endorse the army’s political radicalism by saying that the Grandees were not “wedded and glued to forms of government”, i.e. he was considering a democratic republic even though he had made it clear earlier that he intended to reach a monarchical settlement. But, given Cromwell’s actions and words at the end of the Putney debates, one might consider his words at Putney were merely to appease the Levellers and maintain army unity. The Levellers’ demands and manifesto, the Agreement of the People, had hampered Cromwell’s attempts to negotiate a settlement with Charles. Cromwell felt that the Agreement of the People threatened the likelihood of attaining religious toleration via the Heads of Proposals. Therefore, one sees Cromwell attempting to delay the Leveller’s demands at Putney because it endangered religious toleration: an aim he had hoped to achieve since the civil war.
This indicates Cromwell was again adamant on obtaining religious toleration, and took necessary steps to protect its formation. It should be noted that when negotiating with the Levellers Cromwell appeared to be prepared to compromise on the form of government (monarchical or democratic republic) and thus prioritize religious toleration over a monarchical settlement, implying that even at Putney Cromwell thought religious toleration and a monarchical settlement were exclusive. However, this argument is weakened by the fact that the Levellers wanted religious toleration as well and their complaint was of a political nature, regarding male suffrage and the type of government. Moreover, it is very much possible that Cromwell was appeasing the Levellers at Putney in order to preserve army unity and hence enhance the probability of acquiring religious toleration; he hadn’t given up on either of the two aims.
After the First Civil War, Cromwell vigorously attempted to negotiate a monarchical settlement with Charles through various methods. Despite this, he supported the trial and execution of Charles towards the end of 1648. This appears to be hypocritical of Cromwell. Cromwell had wanted a monarchical settlement because he thought it would bring to the country together after four years of warfare. Cromwell’s attempts to reach such an agreement can be seen in both his work with parliament and his work with the army. At Saffron Walden Cromwell asked the army to be obedient to parliament and underlined his support for a parliamentary settlement. When he joined the army, he co-wrote the Heads of Proposals in attempting to reach a settlement with the king. This implies that Cromwell had intended to reach a monarchical settlement: Cromwell still hoped to reach a settlement with Charles after the later escaped to the Isle of Wight. Hence, his support for the execution in late 1648 seems to be inconsistent with his actions during negotiations.
What changed Cromwell’s mind was the Second Civil War. Cromwell deemed it as Charles deliberately starting war against his own people with the use of a foreign army and so going against god. As a result, Cromwell thought Charles had to be brought to justice. Considering Charles’ unwillingness and lack of faith in negotiations, Cromwell realised that a monarchical settlement could not be reached and therefore prioritized attaining religious toleration. This suggests that Cromwell had tried to reach a monarchical settlement but was unsuccessful because of Charles’ reluctance in negotiating a settlement.
Presbyterians in parliament repealed the Vote of No Addresses, which made it possible for a parliamentary settlement with the King. This threatened the Heads of Proposals and hence religious toleration. Cromwell understood that if religious toleration was to be achieved, parliamentary negotiations with the king had to be terminated and therefore Pride’s Purge had to happen. With parliament purged Cromwell and his allies were able to bring Charles to justice for the Second Civil War.
In conclusion, one can see that Cromwell was consistently seeking religious toleration and also trying to achieve a monarchical settlement which would bring stability, although his methods of achieving those two aims were inconsistent and contradictory. However, as negotiations went on, he recognized that a monarchical settlement was impossible and so he strived for religious toleration and the execution of the king because of necessity and providence.
