The Failure To Reach A Settlement From 1646 To 1649 Was Primarily The Result Of Each Of The Party's Religious Convictions. Do You Agree?

Religious differences within Parliament also hindered the ability of them to reach a settlement with Charles. As I have highlighted the main conflict within Parliament was between the two religious parties. The Presbyterians Coward argues were ‘strongly in favour of establishing a national Presbyterian Church as a means of imposing social order’ showing that the Presbyterians were likely to push their beliefs fervently in any settlement however it also highlights how much they wanted order.  One could easily argue then that with the Presbyterians in power a settlement was most likely to occur as they craved the social order and peace that Independence would almost certainly not provide and the King would. The problem with this is that they faced opposition from the Independents and Army that they did not address properly. Stroud argues that if Parliament had managed to pay off the army then a settlement could well have been reached with Charles without their interference. However Holles addressed the legitimate threat of Army radicalism by pushing them away further instead of appeasement, an action that was to have serious repercussions on the Army’s later actions. Another major reason that Parliament failed to reach a settlement with the king was self-preservation. In the back of many MPs minds they knew that were the king to return to power a simple pardon was unlikely, to reach a settlement with him would be essentially putting their necks on the block. The Independents within Parliament were also very important they hindered the Presbyterians attempts to reach a settlement and increasingly aligned themselves with the Army, encouraging their radicalism. To conclude Parliament’s religious convictions did get in the way of settlement negotiations as there was discourse within Parliament but also there was a creeping knowledge of hypocrisy in their negotiations with Charles as they questioned their King’s trustworthiness. Parliament’s religious convictions also created barriers with the Army, barriers that were only to be exacerbated by Parliaments actions.

The falling out of Parliament and the Army was a major factor for the failure to reach a settlement and an issue that had very little religious influence in it. Although the army was angered by Holles’ attempt to quell radicalism within the army by endeavoring to install Presbyterian leaders the tensions between the two parties were agitated by other factors. The main and primary reason that Parliament and the Army fell out was over arrears however this did combine with an increasing fear and mistrust of the army by Parliament. As Durston argues the army were outraged by Parliaments attempts to disband them without any security or gratitude and therefore to assert their authority and show their outrage they seized the King and offered their own negotiations. These negotiations would bear no fruit as they wanted to limit not only the power of the King but of Parliament also. The army also began to move towards the idea of regicide due to their falling out with Parliament. They saw that Parliament had no respect for them with Holles’ ‘Declaration of Dislike’ and this feeling was exacerbated as they saw Parliament negotiate with Charles offering agreeable terms even after a second civil war. To many it seemed that they had been forced to act in preventing Charles from ascending to power as they realised that any settlement would almost certainly lead to their discharge and loss of influence. Their objections first presented themselves in documents such as The Case of the Army Truly Stated and The Agreement of the People however as the army grew increasingly despondent with Parliament they moved towards action, manifesting itself in Prides Purge; so much had the Army lost belief in Parliament that it eliminated any who stood against its

One main argument for why there was a failure to reach a settlement was the radical religious independence of the army. What is very religiously evident in the army was the prevalence of radical teachings. In the army there were not only regimental chaplains but also many other religious teachers who joined and influenced the army. This religious radicalism served as a nest for millenarian and Old Testament views to grow. Cromwell himself believed that he was a tool of God and the fact that Charles had started a second Civil War challenging Gods decision angered him. This was an anger felt through the army and evidenced at the Windsor Prayer Meeting as Charles was denounced as that ‘man of blood’ however one can clearly see that this radicalism was much more evident amongst the rank and file. Kishlansky argues that this radicalism and movement towards regicide was initiated by Ireton however I disagree with this as I believe that in fact the power began to come from the bottom up as the army’s commanders were powerless to stop their men’s radical views from influencing their actions. These radical views did not come from religious conviction alone however as in the next paragraph I will show that they were a byproduct of wider social change and influence from other political groups.  However once commanders such as Cromwell were onboard t was inevitable that the army would move away from any sort of successful settlement.

Another factor for the failure to reach a settlement was the rapid social change that the Civil War had instigated. The Civil War was one of the most devastating events in British history; it destroyed a larger proportion of the English population than WWI. It is hardly surprising then that such devastation caused many to think in millenarian ways and see the Civil War as a huge indicator of further world change. This social change is evidenced by many things such as the rise of groups such as the Levelers, Diggers and Fifth Monarchists and the rise in pamphleteering especially amongst those in the army. This devastation meant that as Diane Purkiss argues that after the unprecedented levels of bloodshed that occurred in the two Civil Wars, people were determined to find a responsible party for all that had gone on (in a similar manner to the response of the German public after the First World War).  Although this argument is relatively strong I believe that the main social change happened amongst those in the army and it was this section of society that saw the negotiations as an opportunity. My point is demonstrated by the fact that the general population was happy to accept the monarchy back during the restoration. Social change was an important factor in motivating the army to make the decisions it did and move away from a negotiated settlement with the king.

In conclusion I would argue that it was not religious conviction that caused the failure to reach a settlement with the King but each party’s conviction to their principles, of which religion played a large role. When we examine the fine details we can find that out of the three parties involved only two groups found a common belief in each other’s principles, it was that amongst the Independents in the Army and the Independents in Parliament. These were both groups who began to vilify Charles and see regicide as a legitimate action, and so came the trial and execution of Charles.