Many scholars have been associating the phenomenon of the English Civil War to a variety of causes and motives. Among Parliament’s supporters, the Whigs, as they were named because of their hair, were chiefly interested in the growth of constitutional liberty and the decline of despotism (Taylor vii). Consequently, the “Whig interpretation” is a philosophy arguing to defend individual constitutional rights and liberty from a tyrannical figure such as Charles I, who was obsessed with the notion of absolutism (Taylor viii). It supports a revocable government and promotes constitutional liberty for the people, both of which were advocated by John Locke. Along with John Locke, Thomas Babington Macaulay also committed himself to the Whig position. Their arguments will be examined in detail later in this paper.
Economists such as Christopher Hill take on a different point of view. They try to pinpoint the motive for the English Civil War to a theory of class struggles for economic domination. Hill rejects any interpretation of the origins of the English Civil War which ascribes an independent role to individuals. For Hill and many of his supporters, the war was a revolution of the rising gentry class in Parliament to overthrow English feudal society in order to ensure for themselves favorable conditions for development and expansion (Taylor vii). Thus, a question arises: Was the Whig interpretation responsible for the eruption of the English Civil War or did class struggles play a more important role? After thorough research, I have come to the conclusion that the Whig interpretation was the more, if not most, important factor in causing the English Civil War of 1642-1651.
Before any arguments could be made to answer the above question in favor of the thesis, it is necessary to look into the personality of Charles I and his rule as the English monarch during the 17th century to justify the Whig interpretation. Born in 1620, Lucy Hutchinson lived through the reign of Charles I and the English Civil War. In a biography of her husband, who was a prominent Parliamentarian (Taylor viii), she wrote of the reign of Charles I and described his personality as a ruler. To her, Charles I and his advisers were envious of the growth of absolutism in Europe (Taylor viii); he thought to himself that no monarch should be confined to the bounds of any law. Consequently, he plotted to make himself an absolute monarch by subduing the people of England. She wrote that Charles I was a “prince that had nothing of faith or truth, justice or generosity, in him” (Firth 25). Rather, Charles “was the most obstinate person in his self-will that ever was, and [he was] so bent upon being an absolute, uncontrollable sovereign” (Firth 25). The above quotation is further supported by scholar Joyce Lee Malcolm who reported the arrogance of Charles I when he proclaimed that “the king can do no wrong” and that “no earthly power can justly call me” (Malcolm 161). It should be noted to the reader that the preceding evidence signifies a level of tyranny in Charles I. It is also important that the reader sees Charles as a despot because that notion would explain the tyrannical actions that Charles took without the consent of Parliament. In an attempt to control Charles and to protect their constitutional liberty, which was at risk of the rising notion of absolutism, Parliament deemed it beneficial to depose the king by engaging in the civil war. Hence, the Whig interpretation led to the onset of the war; the philosophy protects liberty over despotism, and is the most important factor leading to the English Civil War.
Among other scholars such as John Locke, Thomas Babington Macaulay was committed to the Whig position. According to Macaulay, “James I and [his son] Charles I were far more extreme and outspoken in their claims than Elizabeth had been” (Taylor vii). Furthermore, Charles I had attempted to make himself the first despot by reducing Parliament to a nullity (Macaulay 64). It should be noted that during the time of Charles I, the king had no standing army, and that the king could not legally raise money without the consent of Parliament (Taylor 3, 4). However, because Charles had always been in favor of the notion of absolute monarchy (Taylor viii), he had dared to make extraparliamentary actions without the consent of Parliament. These included the trespass onto the constitutional rights of the English people, levying taxes without the consent of Parliament, imprisoning civilians and court nobles alike without due cause, and quartering troops in private homes during times of war (Macaulay 63-64). All these actions challenged local control of nobles and landowners (Craig et al. 560).
