The years 1646 to 1649 saw England’s political nation fragment under radical ideologies, military politicisation, and Charles I’s divisive manoeuvres.
Levellers, Fifth Monarchists, and Ranters
Levellers
The Levellers were a significant radical political movement that emerged from within and outside the New Model Army.
Beliefs:
Advocated political equality for all adult men, including universal male suffrage.
Demanded freedom of speech, freedom of worship, and equality before the law.
Opposed the monarchical system and House of Lords, promoting a republican vision of government.
Key Figures:
John Lilburne – charismatic leader and writer, often imprisoned for his views.
Richard Overton – influential pamphleteer who shaped much of the Leveller ideology.
William Walwyn – advocate of religious tolerance.
Goals:
Enshrine civil liberties in a written constitution.
Dismantle structures of inherited privilege.
Encourage democratic reform through documents such as “The Agreement of the People” (1647, revised versions in 1648 and 1649).
Levellers gained substantial support within the New Model Army, especially among ordinary soldiers, and their ideas were aired during the Putney Debates.
Fifth Monarchists
The Fifth Monarchists were a millenarian sect with a deeply religious and apocalyptic outlook, believing the end times were imminent.
Beliefs:
The world had seen four monarchies (Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman), and the fifth would be Christ’s kingdom on earth.
Saw the execution of Charles I and collapse of monarchy as divine signs.
Believed in strict moral law, biblical justice, and theocratic governance.
Key Figures:
Thomas Harrison – senior army officer and devoted adherent.
John Rogers and Christopher Feake – fiery preachers of the ideology.
Goals:
Establish a godly government led by the elect.
Prepare England for the imminent Second Coming of Christ.
Oppose both monarchy and moderate republicanism.
Although their numbers were small, they had influence within some army factions and continued to play a role into the 1650s, including participation in Barebone’s Parliament.
Ranters
The Ranters were a loosely organised group, more cultural and spiritual than politically cohesive, challenging moral and religious conventions.
Beliefs:
Rejected traditional religious authority and organised churches.
Believed in antinomianism – that the truly “saved” were not bound by traditional laws or morality.
Some interpreted their doctrine as allowing extreme personal freedom, including libertine behaviour.
Key Figures:
Laurence Clarkson (or Claxton) – infamous for promoting radical individualism.
Abiezer Coppe – known for his apocalyptic and ecstatic writings in “A Fiery Flying Roll.”
Goals:
Challenge religious hypocrisy and formalism.
Emphasise inner light and direct experience of the divine.
Liberate people from fear and guilt imposed by institutional religion.
The Ranters attracted harsh criticism, especially from Puritans, and were largely suppressed by 1650, but their ideas contributed to later debates about religious liberty and social conformity.
Politicisation of the New Model Army
Formation of Political Identity
After 1646, the New Model Army evolved from a military force into a politically conscious actor, due in part to grievances and radicalisation.
Soldiers had not received full pay and faced disbandment without arrears, prompting a political awakening.
Many soldiers felt betrayed by Parliament’s Presbyterian faction, whom they saw as indifferent to their sacrifices.
Soldiers formed ‘Agitators’, elected representatives who voiced rank-and-file concerns and organised resistance to disbandment.
The Putney Debates (October–November 1647)
Held between Army Grandees (senior officers) and Leveller-influenced soldiers, the Putney Debates were a crucial moment in shaping England’s political future.
Key participants included:
Colonel Thomas Rainsborough – voiced Leveller ideas, advocating for universal male suffrage.
Henry Ireton – Cromwell’s son-in-law, defended property-based voting rights.
Oliver Cromwell – tried to mediate and maintain order.
Central questions debated:
Who should have the right to vote?
Should England become a republic?
What should the role of monarchy be in a post-war settlement?
Famous quotation from Rainsborough:
"The poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he."Result:
No agreement was reached; Grandees were alarmed by Leveller demands.
Debates were abruptly ended by news of Charles I’s secret Engagement with the Scots.
Role in Post-War Politics
The Army, now politically active, directly influenced government policy:
In The Heads of the Proposals (1647), the Army Grandees offered a more moderate settlement with the King.
In 1648, the Army purged Parliament (Pride’s Purge) to remove Presbyterian MPs opposed to putting Charles on trial.
The Army emerged as the dominant force in English politics, undermining civilian authority.
The politicisation of the New Model Army ultimately laid the groundwork for regicide and the creation of a commonwealth.
Charles I’s Actions and the Engagement with the Scots
Charles I’s Negotiation Strategy
Following his surrender to the Scots in 1646 and subsequent handover to Parliament in 1647, Charles I adopted a duplicitous strategy of playing different factions against each other.
Publicly negotiated with Parliament (Presbyterians and Independents).
Simultaneously held secret talks with the Scots, hoping to restore his authority by exploiting political divisions.
The Engagement with the Scots (December 1647)
Charles entered into a clandestine agreement with Scottish Covenanters, known as the Engagement.
In return for Scottish military aid, Charles agreed to:
Introduce Presbyterianism in England for three years.
Suppress religious sects like Independents.
Charles believed this would enable him to restore monarchical power with Scottish support.
Consequences of the Engagement
The Engagement had seismic effects on the already fragile political landscape:
Betrayal felt by Independents in Parliament and Army:
They saw Charles as untrustworthy and scheming.
Led to the Second Civil War (1648), which radicalised opinion against Charles.
Army’s resolve hardened:
Shifted from seeking a negotiated settlement to viewing Charles as an obstacle to peace.
Promoted the view that “Charles Stuart” must be held accountable for the bloodshed.
Contributed to the ideological justification for regicide.
Army leadership, particularly Cromwell, argued that only removing the King could secure lasting peace.
Charles’s unwavering belief in the divine right of kings and manipulation of factions ultimately destroyed any remaining trust, paving the way for trial and execution.
This period marked the complete breakdown of England’s traditional political order, as radical ideas, military power, and monarchical obstinacy converged in a revolutionary moment.
FAQ
The press and pamphleteering were instrumental in shaping and spreading radical political and religious ideas during the late 1640s. With the collapse of pre-war censorship structures, there was a dramatic increase in printed material, including pamphlets, tracts, and newsletters. This explosion of print culture allowed groups like the Levellers, Ranters, and Fifth Monarchists to articulate their ideologies and challenge established authorities. Figures such as John Lilburne and Richard Overton used pamphlets to denounce tyranny, call for constitutional reforms, and advocate civil liberties. The New Model Army soldiers consumed and circulated these texts widely, helping to politicise the rank-and-file. Pamphlets such as The Case of the Army Truly Stated and The Agreement of the People became rallying points for discontent. Additionally, religious radicals used print to promote millenarianism and spiritual liberty. The proliferation of unlicensed printing democratised political discourse and destabilised traditional hierarchies, making radical ideas accessible to a broader audience and accelerating the political nation’s fragmentation.
Social and economic grievances within the New Model Army played a central role in pushing it towards political radicalism. After the First Civil War, Parliament sought to disband parts of the Army without paying full arrears, causing widespread resentment. Many soldiers, particularly common troopers, had not been paid for months and feared being cast aside after their service. This financial insecurity was compounded by concerns over indemnity – the fear of being prosecuted for wartime actions. Moreover, lower-ranking soldiers felt alienated from the political decisions being made by elite Parliamentarians, especially Presbyterians who sought to restrict popular political participation. These frustrations led to the election of ‘Agitators’, who represented the grievances of ordinary soldiers. Their influence peaked during the Putney Debates, where they advocated Leveller principles such as manhood suffrage and equality before the law. Thus, economic hardship, combined with a lack of political voice, transformed the New Model Army into a radical political force.
The Fifth Monarchists were unique among radical groups in that their political aims were explicitly tied to a prophetic and millenarian vision rooted in biblical interpretation. Unlike the Levellers, who advocated for a written constitution, democratic reform, and legal equality grounded in Enlightenment ideals, the Fifth Monarchists sought to establish a theocratic government. Their central belief was that history was divided into four past monarchies—Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman—and that Christ’s return would usher in the Fifth Monarchy. They aimed to prepare England for this divine kingdom by purging ungodly elements from society and replacing the existing political system with rule by the godly elect. Their political programme included moral regulation, strict Sabbatarianism, and the imposition of Old Testament law. In contrast to the Ranters, who rejected moral codes, and the Levellers, who sought inclusion and liberty, the Fifth Monarchists were authoritarian, focused on religious purity, and considered political action as a means to enact divine prophecy.
The Case of the Army Truly Stated was a crucial pamphlet published in October 1647, written by Leveller-influenced soldiers and Agitators. It outlined the political and financial grievances of the New Model Army and proposed significant reforms. The pamphlet demanded fair representation, the abolition of corruption, and a new constitutional framework that respected individual liberties. It sharply criticised Parliament’s leadership for failing to honour soldiers' pay and for ignoring their service in favour of political expediency. More importantly, it introduced the idea that sovereignty lay not in a monarch or a select few in Parliament, but in the people. This argument underpinned later Leveller proposals such as The Agreement of the People. The pamphlet sparked intense debate within the Army Council and directly led to the convening of the Putney Debates, where the principles it outlined were fiercely contested. It marked a turning point by formally injecting radical democratic demands into the centre of military and political discussion.
Though the political Grandees—figures like Oliver Cromwell and Henry Ireton—shared certain grievances with the Levellers, such as frustration with Parliamentary inaction and mistrust of Charles I, they ultimately suppressed the movement to preserve stability and hierarchical control. The Levellers’ demands for universal male suffrage, religious toleration, and egalitarian reforms were viewed by the Grandees as a threat to the social order and property rights. During the Putney Debates, Ireton argued that political power should be tied to property ownership, fearing that granting power to the propertyless would lead to anarchy. Furthermore, the Grandees were committed to a negotiated settlement with the King until late 1648, whereas the Levellers considered monarchy inherently oppressive. After the Second Civil War and the failure of negotiations, the Army Grandees moved to consolidate power. When Leveller influence continued to grow, especially among the lower ranks of the Army, the leadership responded with arrests and suppression in 1649, including the mutiny at Burford, to eliminate dissent and maintain discipline.
Practice Questions
‘It was the actions of Charles I that most caused the collapse of the political nation by 1649.’ Assess the validity of this view.
While Charles I’s actions, especially the Engagement with the Scots, were pivotal in deepening political divisions, other factors were equally significant. The rise of radical groups such as the Levellers and the politicisation of the New Model Army, exemplified by the Putney Debates, also destabilised England’s political unity. Charles’s duplicity undoubtedly eroded trust, but the growing ideological rifts within Parliament and the army's assertion of political authority also undermined consensus. Therefore, while Charles’s conduct was critical, the collapse of the political nation resulted from a combination of royalist intransigence and emergent radicalism within the Parliamentarian coalition.
To what extent did radical religious groups undermine political stability in the years 1646–1649?
Radical religious groups like the Levellers, Fifth Monarchists, and Ranters significantly challenged political stability by promoting revolutionary ideas that alarmed both Parliament and army leaders. Their calls for universal suffrage, theocracy, and social equality clashed with existing hierarchies. However, their influence was limited in scope and impact compared to the New Model Army’s political interventions and Charles I’s divisive negotiations. While radical groups contributed to unrest and distrust, particularly within the army, the political nation’s collapse was driven more by institutional fractures and failed negotiations than by the actions of relatively fringe religious movements. Their role was important, but not decisive.
