The Army Revolution, 1648–49 (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
The Army Revolution, 1648–49
The resumption of armed conflict in 1648 signified the start of genuinely revolutionary action by the New Model Army and its commanders. Though radical political ideas had been debated at Putney and elsewhere, and both Parliament and army had previously sought reform rather than revolution, the events of 1648–49 transformed the political landscape entirely. The dispute between Parliament and army centred not on destroying the monarchy, but on determining the terms of any settlement. Charles I's decision to renew the war, however, unleashed further devastation and convinced many that no accommodation was possible while he remained alive. More than this, the King appeared to prioritise his personal authority above his divine duty as monarch and the welfare of his subjects.
The Second Civil War, 1648
Causes of renewed conflict
The Second Civil War erupted primarily because Charles I rejected the settlement proposed after the First Civil War. His unwillingness to engage seriously with peace proposals demonstrated his absolute conviction in his royal prerogative – his belief that, as monarch, he possessed the right to employ any methods necessary to suppress rebellion. Many of Charles's supporters had remained loyal throughout the first conflict, and the King exploited the increasing disillusionment amongst the Scots regarding their English allies' treatment of them. He suggested that the most reliable guarantee for the Kirk's future lay in a Royalist alliance. Charles thus actively encouraged a Scottish invasion to generate conditions favourable for Royalist uprisings.
By January 1648, renewed warfare appeared inevitable, and the army made preparations. That same month, the Agitators apparently stopped attending Army Council meetings, and military discipline was restored alongside army unity. Parliament passed the Vote of No Addresses – a resolution on 3 January 1648 prohibiting any further negotiations with Charles Stuart – and held an emotional prayer-meeting at the Council of Officers in April, where the King was condemned as a 'man of blood'. Scattered Royalist uprisings then erupted across England and Wales, whilst the Scots prepared their invasion in accordance with their commitment to Charles.
Vote of No Addresses was a critical parliamentary resolution passed on 3 January 1648 that declared no further offers to negotiate should be made to the King. This represented Parliament's initial attempt to prevent any settlement with Charles I, though it would later be repealed in December 1648 when parliamentary opinion shifted.
Military campaign and outcome
Fairfax besieged Colchester, the centre of Royalist activity in Essex, while Cromwell advanced into Wales. The Scots' invasion was delayed, allowing Cromwell to suppress the Welsh uprisings before intercepting the Scottish army at Preston. He then advanced into Yorkshire to confront any remaining Royalist resistance. The siege of Colchester proved lengthy and brutal, continuing until September, though the military outcome was never uncertain. By autumn 1648, the military crisis had ended.
Political significance of the Second Civil War
Though militarily insignificant, the Second Civil War produced enormous political consequences. The majority of Parliament's supporters regarded the initial conflict as unintended, and more importantly as a trial through which God delivered His judgement for Parliament. Neither side could legitimately claim that God was judging them when a man deliberately provoked war against his own people, employing a foreign army to achieve this. Furthermore, by taking this action, Charles rejected God's judgement and God's will. In the army's perspective, not only was Charles a man openly defying Providence, but given his deceitful conduct towards many Protestants, he had also rejected God – and must therefore face accountability for his offences.
Providence and Providential Beliefs
Providential beliefs were widespread among seventeenth-century Protestants, although they tended to appear in their most extreme forms among radicals. They were based on the belief that God intervened directly in the affairs of men to ensure that the outcome of events conformed with His will.
Issues such as the outcomes of battles or the New Model Army's victories were consequently interpreted as evidence of divine judgement and intent. Figures like Cromwell attempted to interpret these providential signs to understand God's purpose before determining their course of action.
By November 1648, the army had achieved virtual unity in demanding that the King face trial. The leading strategist in this matter was not Cromwell, who remained in Yorkshire completing military operations, but his son-in-law, Henry Ireton. On 20 November, Ireton published an Army Remonstrance, insisting that the King be brought to justice. Simultaneously, he reopened negotiations with the Levellers to secure their acquiescence, if not active support. The army now found itself represented by a Council of Officers rather than the old General Council, thereby reducing Leveller influence and support substantially. Concurrently, the army's allies in Parliament – the Independent MPs – advocated for dealing with the King according to Parliament's Vote of No Addresses.
Pride's Purge and the execution of the King
Parliamentary attitudes shift
Parliamentary opinion, however, had transformed since January. The sporadic uprisings supporting the King had not represented the activities of committed Royalists so much as expressions of popular desire for peace and restoration of normal government. Recognising that opinion was shifting towards a conservative settlement, the majority of MPs supported renewed attempts at negotiation. For most MPs, the prospect of settlement without the King remained inconceivable, and many feared their radical allies considerably more than their Royalist opponents.
In September 1648, parliamentary commissioners travelled to the Isle of Wight to resume negotiations with the King. In early December, they returned with the King's responses to four major bills forming the initial stage of a treaty. Though one commissioner, Sir Henry Vane, made clear to the House that the King remained unwilling to make genuine concessions, most MPs had grown so desperate for negotiations that his objections were disregarded. On 3 December, a bill passed giving Parliament direct control of the militia (a first step towards disbanding the army), and on 5 December the Vote of No Addresses was repealed.
The army acts
Under these circumstances, the army felt compelled to intervene. If negotiations proceeded, the King would return to London, and a wave of Royalist enthusiasm would eliminate any opportunity for extracting the concessions he so plainly refused to make. At minimum, the conservatives were abandoning the advantages of victory; at worst, they were deliberately cooperating with the King to destroy the army and its parliamentary allies.
The Army's Revolutionary Position
The army faced a critical threat to its interests and principles. Substantial doubt existed that any emerging settlement would restore most of the King's powers and, above all, impose a compulsory national Church. The army's interests faced genuine threat, but so too did the religious rights and freedoms that civilian and military radicals valued. For many, this also constituted a betrayal of God's cause. The fruits of victory and the interests of the godly minority both in and outside Parliament were about to be discarded.
Ironically, the conservative MPs' conduct substantially vindicated the King's assumption that peace could not be secured without his agreement. Charles had failed to recognise that the army's emergence as a political force had introduced a new and ultimately revolutionary element into the situation.
Pride's Purge (6 December 1648)
On 6 December, the regiment of Colonel Pride surrounded the Houses of Parliament and denied entry to those MPs known to favour negotiations with the King. A small number of conservative leaders were arrested and imprisoned, but most (approximately 186 MPs) were simply excluded from the chamber. Another hundred or so MPs who learned what was occurring chose to remain absent, leaving a minority of around 70 MPs who stayed in Parliament to implement the procedures required for bringing the King to trial.
Though Ireton had originally intended to dissolve Parliament entirely, Sir Arthur Haselrig persuaded him that this 'rump' of MPs would provide legal authority and maintain stability during this crisis period. On 7 December, Cromwell returned to London and assumed his seat in Parliament after expressing his approval of what had been accomplished. Having spent time in agonised prayer, 'waiting on the Lord' for guidance on how to proceed, he interpreted conservative provocation and the army's actions as the sign he required, and thereafter pursued the matter with his characteristic energy and determination.
The term Rump Parliament referred to the remnant of MPs left after Pride's Purge. This small group of approximately 70 MPs would provide the legal framework for the King's trial and the subsequent constitutional revolution, though they represented only a fraction of the original Parliament.
The trial and execution of Charles I
Establishing legal proceedings
On 1 January 1649, an ordinance establishing a High Court to try the King passed through the Rump of the Commons but was rejected by the House of Lords. On 4 January, the Rump passed Three Resolutions, asserting sole authority to create law. This represented a constitutional revolution in itself, as it eliminated the monarch and Lords from the legislative process.
The King's trial
The King's trial commenced on 20 January 1649. Charles denied the court's right to try him and refused to enter a plea. From the charge of treason formulated by Parliament on 28 December 1648, the accusations were clear:
The Charges Against Charles I
The parliamentary charge of treason stated:
"That Charles Stuart hath acted contrary to his trust in departing from the Parliament ... making a war against them, and thereby hath been the occasion of much bloodshed and misery to the people whom he was set over for good ... and since was the occasion of a second war, besides what he has done ... tending to the destruction of the fundamental laws and liberties of this Kingdom."
Charles's Response to the Charges
Charles's response demonstrated his unwavering belief in royal authority:
"I do stand more for the liberty of my people than any here that come to be my pretended judges. And therefore let me know by what lawful authority I am seated here."
This exchange highlighted the fundamental conflict: Parliament claimed authority derived from the people, while Charles maintained his authority came from God through divine right monarchy.
Having refused to plead, Charles remained silent until the sentence was announced. He was then denied permission to speak. His final words revealed his perspective:
"I am not suffered to speak – expect what justice others will have."
On 27 January, Charles was found guilty and sentenced to death.
Execution and its significance
The execution took place on 30 January 1649. This act represented the culmination of the army's revolutionary intervention. By executing the King, the army and Rump Parliament had crossed a line from which there could be no retreat. They had not merely defeated the King in battle; they had judged him, convicted him, and killed him as a common criminal.
The Unprecedented Nature of Regicide
This was unprecedented in English history and sent shockwaves throughout Europe. No English monarch had ever been legally tried and executed by their own subjects. The execution represented not just the death of a king, but the rejection of the entire principle of divine right monarchy and the traditional constitutional order.
Constitutional transformation
New structures of government
On 13 February 1649, a Council of State was appointed to govern in place of the monarchy. This body consisted of 41 members and assumed executive authority for the new regime. The Council included both MPs and army officers, reflecting the alliance between parliamentary and military radicals that had made the revolution possible.
The Council of State represented a new form of executive government, replacing the traditional role of the monarch and Privy Council. Its mixed composition of MPs and army officers demonstrated the continued importance of military power in maintaining the revolutionary settlement.
Abolishing the old constitution
On 17 March 1649, the monarchy was formally abolished. The act declared that the office of King was "unnecessary, burdensome, and dangerous to the liberty, safety, and public interest of the people". This represented a complete rejection of centuries of monarchical tradition.
On 19 March, the House of Lords was also abolished. The Lords had consistently opposed the trial and execution of the King, and their removal eliminated the final obstacle to the Rump's claimed sovereignty.
Declaring the Commonwealth
On 19 May 1649, England was declared a Commonwealth – a republic governed without a monarch. The Commonwealth was to be "a Commonwealth and Free State ... governed as a Commonwealth and Free State by the supreme authority of this nation, the representatives of the people in Parliament".
This constitutional transformation represented the fulfilment of the army revolution. What had begun as a demand for the King's trial had resulted in the complete overthrow of the traditional English constitution and the establishment of a republic. The army had not merely won a civil war; it had fundamentally altered the nature of English government and society.
Key Points to Remember:
-
The Second Civil War (1648) convinced army leaders that Charles I could never be trusted to negotiate in good faith, leading them to demand he face trial for waging war against his own people.
-
Pride's Purge (6 December 1648) saw the army forcibly exclude approximately 186 MPs from Parliament who favoured renewed negotiations with the King, leaving only about 70 MPs (the Rump) to proceed with the trial.
-
Charles I refused to recognise the authority of the High Court established to try him, maintaining his belief in divine right monarchy until his execution on 30 January 1649.
-
The army justified their revolutionary actions through providential beliefs – interpreting their military victories and the King's continued obstinacy as signs of God's will that Charles must be brought to justice.
-
The execution of Charles I led to the abolition of both the monarchy (17 March 1649) and House of Lords (19 March 1649), culminating in the declaration of England as a Commonwealth on 19 May 1649.