The conclusion of the First Civil War (1642–1646) was marked by deepening political divisions and failed negotiations that set the stage for further conflict.
Political Divisions within Parliament
Presbyterians vs Independents
As Parliament emerged victorious in the First Civil War, ideological rifts widened between two dominant factions: the Presbyterians and the Independents. These divisions were rooted in differing visions for the post-war political and religious settlement.
Presbyterians
Favoured a national Presbyterian church modelled on the Scottish Kirk.
Sought to restore the monarchy, with limitations, and reach a negotiated peace with Charles I.
Supported a more conservative social order, fearing that radical groups and sects could cause instability.
Key figures included Denzil Holles and Philip Stapleton, who held considerable influence in the House of Commons.
Independents
Advocated religious toleration for independent congregations and sects.
Opposed any rigid national church structure, fearing it would infringe upon individual liberties.
Often aligned with the New Model Army, which shared their radical religious and political views.
Leaders such as Oliver Cromwell and Henry Vane believed the war's outcome should bring about broader reform, including limits on royal authority.
Consequences of Division
Political decisions became increasingly fractured and delayed, undermining coherent post-war planning.
Presbyterians controlled Parliament early in the settlement process, but their dominance was increasingly challenged by the military and the Independents.
The ideological clash became central to the failure of peace attempts and the breakdown of unity among the victors.
Attempted Settlements with Charles I
Following the Royalist defeat, Parliament sought to negotiate a settlement with Charles I, hoping to avoid further bloodshed. However, Charles proved unyielding and politically manipulative, exploiting divisions to his advantage.
Newcastle Propositions (1646)
In July 1646, the Newcastle Propositions were presented to Charles by Parliament. Drafted predominantly by the Presbyterian faction, they sought to restrain royal authority and secure a Presbyterian settlement.
Key Demands
Charles must accept the establishment of Presbyterianism in England for three years.
The Parliament would control the militia for twenty years, effectively neutralising royal military power.
Royalists involved in the war were to be punished and denied public office.
The Triennial Act was to be maintained, ensuring that Parliament met regularly.
Parliament would continue to control key state appointments.
Charles’s Response
Charles delayed responding, hoping that factionalism would weaken Parliament’s position.
He aimed to negotiate separately with different groups (including the Scots and the Army) to regain influence.
He rejected the Newcastle Propositions, viewing them as too restrictive and an affront to his royal prerogative.
Despite imprisonment, Charles remained active in political intrigue, believing he could divide and outmanoeuvre his opponents.
Impact of the Failed Settlement
Charles’s refusal to compromise alienated many potential supporters.
His continued plotting undermined trust, especially among the New Model Army.
Parliament’s inability to secure peace led to growing disillusionment, particularly within the military ranks.
Capture and Imprisonment of Charles I
Surrender to the Scots
In May 1646, Charles surrendered to the Scottish army rather than the English Parliament, hoping for more favourable terms.
The Scots, aligned with the Presbyterians under the Solemn League and Covenant, demanded a national Presbyterian church as part of any settlement.
Charles’s Refusal and the Scots’ Response
Charles refused the Scots’ demand for Presbyterianism in England.
After months of stalled negotiations, the Scots, frustrated by Charles’s obstinacy, agreed to hand him over to the English Parliament.
In January 1647, they transferred Charles to English custody in exchange for £400,000 in back pay for their troops.
Imprisonment and Political Intrigue
Initially held under relatively lenient conditions at Holdenby House, Charles continued to correspond with multiple factions.
He sought to play the Scots, Parliament, and the Army against one another.
His refusal to make any binding concessions led many to view him as deceitful and dangerous to national stability.
Tensions with the New Model Army
The New Model Army, increasingly radicalised and politically aware, began to see Charles as a barrier to peace.
Soldiers resented Parliament’s decision to disband the Army without addressing their grievances or providing arrears in pay.
Charles attempted to exploit this tension by aligning himself with Presbyterians, aiming to marginalise the Army.
In response, Cornet George Joyce seized Charles from Holdenby House in June 1647, moving him to Army custody at Newmarket.
Army’s New Political Role
The capture of the king by the Army marked a shift in political power away from Parliament.
The Army issued the “Heads of the Proposals” in August 1647—an alternative settlement plan that was more lenient than the Newcastle Propositions.
It proposed religious toleration, a biennial Parliament, and limited royal powers.
Charles again delayed, seeing the Army’s internal divisions as an opportunity to regain control.
Charles’s Continued Manipulation of Factions
Deliberate Duplicity
Charles maintained correspondence with multiple parties—Presbyterians, Independents, Scots, and even foreign powers.
His strategy was based on a belief in the divine right of kings and a refusal to cede real power permanently.
The Engagement with the Scots
In December 1647, Charles signed a secret agreement with Scottish Engagers (moderate Presbyterians).
In exchange for military support to restore him to the throne, he promised to establish Presbyterianism for three years in England.
This agreement directly contravened previous negotiations and led to widespread outrage.
Reaction from the New Model Army
The Army viewed Charles’s duplicity as proof he could not be trusted.
Radical elements began to demand justice and accountability for the King’s actions during and after the war.
The Putney Debates in late 1647 revealed growing revolutionary sentiment among the rank and file.
The Army came to see itself as the guardian of the revolution, now in direct opposition to both King and conservative MPs.
Breakdown of Parliamentary Authority
Parliament was increasingly incapable of uniting around a clear post-war plan.
The attempted Presbyterian coup in July 1647, which sought to reassert control over the Army and exclude radicals, led to riots in London.
The Army responded by marching on London and purging Parliament of hostile members—this was the beginning of direct military intervention in politics.
Settlement of the First Civil War
Although military hostilities ceased in 1646, the war did not truly end with victory on the battlefield.
The failure to reach a political settlement, exacerbated by factionalism, Charles’s intransigence, and the rise of the Army as a political actor, created a volatile environment.
These unresolved tensions ultimately triggered the Second Civil War in 1648, setting England on a path towards regicide and radical revolution.
FAQ
The Presbyterians lost influence primarily due to their failure to secure a lasting settlement with Charles I and their mishandling of the New Model Army. Initially dominant in Parliament, the Presbyterians sought to disband the Army without fully addressing its grievances over pay, indemnity, and political participation. This decision alienated the Army, which became a powerful political force in its own right. Furthermore, their commitment to imposing a rigid Presbyterian church system and their opposition to religious toleration put them at odds with a growing number of Independents and radicals who had gained influence in the Army ranks. The attempted Presbyterian coup in July 1647, which included riots in London and the forced return of the King to Parliamentary custody, backfired. In response, the Army marched into London and purged Parliament of leading Presbyterians, leading to their decline in political authority. This shift allowed Independents to steer the post-war settlement more assertively.
The “Heads of the Proposals” were a political settlement draft presented by the New Model Army in August 1647, aimed at securing a constitutional monarchy with broader liberties than the Newcastle Propositions. Drafted under the influence of army leaders such as Henry Ireton and Oliver Cromwell, the “Heads” proposed more moderate and pragmatic terms. Key features included biennial Parliaments, limited royal veto, control of the militia for ten years (not twenty as in the Newcastle terms), and religious toleration—particularly for Protestant sects. In contrast, the Newcastle Propositions were more rigid and punitive. They demanded that Charles accept Presbyterianism in England for at least three years, Parliament’s control of the militia for twenty years, and harsh restrictions on Royalist supporters. The “Heads” represented the Army’s increasing involvement in political negotiations and its break from the more conservative Presbyterian faction in Parliament. Charles’s dismissal of both sets of terms reflected his unwillingness to compromise.
The New Model Army transformed from a military organisation into a political force due to a combination of ideological motivation, organisational coherence, and grievances over neglect by Parliament. Initially formed in 1645 to fight effectively in the Civil War, the Army developed a strong internal culture, driven by Puritan beliefs and a sense of divine mission. Soldiers were exposed to radical religious ideas and participated in debates about governance and liberty. After the war, Parliament attempted to disband the Army without settling arrears of pay or offering indemnity for wartime actions. This provoked a strong reaction, leading to the creation of the Army Council and formal petitions expressing political demands. The seizure of Charles I in June 1647, followed by the publication of the “Heads of the Proposals,” demonstrated the Army’s willingness to intervene in political affairs. Its leaders saw themselves as protectors of the revolution and sought to shape England’s constitutional future.
Pamphlets and print culture played a critical role in influencing political discourse and shaping public opinion during this period. As censorship weakened during the war, a flood of printed material circulated among literate populations in London and beyond. These pamphlets conveyed a wide spectrum of viewpoints—from moderate Presbyterian tracts to radical Independent arguments advocating liberty of conscience and constitutional reform. During the breakdown of negotiations with Charles I, the press became a battleground for ideas. Royalist publications sought to portray Charles as a martyr and restorer of order, while Parliamentarian and Army-aligned writers attacked his duplicity and promoted visions of a new political order. The Army’s own declarations were printed and widely distributed to gain popular support and justify its political actions. This explosion of political print culture empowered citizens, contributed to the politicisation of the public sphere, and made it harder for elites to control narratives. It was integral to the radicalisation of the conflict’s aftermath.
Charles I chose to negotiate with the Scots in late 1647 because he believed he could exploit their dissatisfaction with the English Parliament and use them to regain political leverage. The Scots had originally allied with Parliament in 1643 under the terms of the Solemn League and Covenant, which promised to establish Presbyterianism in England in exchange for military support. However, by 1647, the Scots were disillusioned with the English Parliament's lack of commitment to fully implementing a Presbyterian church. Charles saw this as an opportunity. In the Engagement signed in December 1647, he promised to enforce Presbyterianism in England for three years in return for military aid from the Scottish Engagers (a moderate Presbyterian faction). This cynical move was part of Charles’s broader strategy of divide and rule. However, it ultimately backfired. The agreement outraged both the New Model Army and more radical elements in England, who viewed it as a betrayal and justification for renewed hostilities in the form of the Second Civil War.
Practice Questions
Explain why political divisions within Parliament were significant in preventing a settlement with Charles I between 1646 and 1647.
The political divisions between Presbyterians and Independents were central in obstructing a unified response to Charles I. Presbyterians sought a quick settlement and the establishment of Presbyterianism, while Independents, aligned with the New Model Army, demanded broader religious toleration and deeper reform. Charles exploited these divisions, delaying agreements and playing one faction against the other. The lack of cohesion meant that proposed settlements, such as the Newcastle Propositions, lacked enforcement or credibility. This fragmentation not only stalled negotiations but also alienated the Army, further complicating the post-war landscape and fuelling the eventual resumption of conflict.
Explain the significance of Charles I’s actions following his capture in 1646 in the failure to achieve peace.
Charles I’s conduct after his capture was pivotal in undermining efforts at peace. Rather than sincerely negotiating, he sought to exploit divisions among his opponents, delaying responses and corresponding secretly with various factions. His rejection of the Newcastle Propositions and subsequent agreement with the Scottish Engagers demonstrated his unwillingness to compromise or relinquish authority. These actions destroyed trust, especially within the New Model Army, which began to see Charles as irredeemable. His duplicity confirmed suspicions that he intended to regain power by any means, ultimately leading to further conflict and radicalisation of Parliament and the Army.
