The Search for Peace, 1646–48 (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
The Search for Peace, 1646–48
The period from 1646 to 1648 witnessed growing complexity in efforts to achieve a lasting settlement following Parliament's victory in the First Civil War. Charles I's surrender to the Scots rather than to parliamentary forces in 1646 indicated his reluctance to negotiate with those he regarded as rebels. This hesitancy proved symptomatic of the deeper problems that would frustrate peace negotiations. Although both Parliament and the army emerged as potential partners in settlement discussions, neither group proved unified in aims or priorities, rendering the search for peace increasingly difficult.
The aims of Parliament
By early 1647, the Presbyterians had gained a dominant position within Parliament and appeared close to achieving their objectives. Following the Scottish army's withdrawal to Scotland, Charles remained in custody at Holdenby House in Northamptonshire. Scottish commissioners had initially hoped to collaborate with the King to establish a conservative settlement that would restore most of his powers while reforming the Church. However, Charles proved unwilling to compromise on ecclesiastical matters.
At Newcastle in 1646, Parliament had presented him with revised peace terms. These Newcastle Propositions contained three central demands:
- Parliament must control the militia
- Parliament must approve the King's choice of advisers
- England must adopt a reformed Church
The Westminster Assembly had developed a scheme for Church reform known as the Directory of Worship. This represented a broadly Presbyterian model, though the Scots found its discipline insufficiently rigorous. The Directory aimed to replace the Anglican Book of Common Prayer with a more reformed approach to worship, reflecting the Puritan desire for simpler, scripture-based services.
Parliamentary elections held in 1646 to recruit additional MPs to achieve more nationally representative membership had strengthened conservative support. A clear majority now existed in Parliament, led by political Presbyterians such as Denzil Holles and Sir Philip Stapleton, who anticipated reaching a settlement with Charles that would restore much of his former authority.
Attention then turned to addressing the legacy of war. Widespread complaints about high taxation and economic dislocation made disbanding Parliament's forces appear logical now that military action was no longer required. Accordingly, MPs voted in February 1647 to disband the New Model Army while retaining only a volunteer force for service in Ireland, where rebellion continued under new leadership. The decision appeared perfectly rational, though underlying motives included plans to remove old, radically-minded officers and replace them with reliable Presbyterians.
The plan would probably have gained acceptance if MPs had not, in their haste to eliminate the radical threat, neglected to arrange either arrears of pay or indemnity for the disbanded troops. This critical oversight would transform the army from a military force into a political movement.
Indemnity provided legal protection for ex-soldiers against prosecution for actions undertaken during wartime. For example, troopers who had requisitioned horses as part of their military duties might face lawsuits or theft accusations if they lacked the protection of legal indemnity. Given the range and type of actions soldiers might reasonably have carried out under orders, this represented a serious concern for servicemen of all ranks.
The politicisation of the army
Faced with provision for neither arrears nor indemnity, several regiments petitioned their general, Sir Thomas Fairfax, to intercede on their behalf. Cromwell and his son-in-law, Henry Ireton, both officers and MPs, presented the army's case in Parliament. The refusal of conservative MPs to reconsider probably resulted from their fear of radical influence spreading within the army. In reality, this refusal opened the way for radical influence to increase substantially.
During March and April 1647, the soldiers elected representatives called Agents or Agitators to speak on their behalf. Many of those elected held radical views and connections.
Experience of sectarian worship, with its emphasis on godly debate and lay preaching, encouraged ordinary troopers to become articulate and confident. Sectarians or sectaries described Puritan separatist congregations. The forms of organisation and worship used in sectarian meetings tended to encourage open discussion and blur the distinction between the minister and other members of the congregation. Within the army, the frequent absence of ordained clergy encouraged talented speakers among the soldiers to lead worship and preach. The whole experiment in radical religion helped produce men of the 'middling sort' who were both willing and able to challenge the assumptions of their social superiors.
Under the leadership of the Agitators, complaints about disbandment without arrears and indemnity began to widen into concern about the nature of the settlement that MPs would establish. Radicals both within and beyond the army itself encouraged such thinking. By early 1647, the Levellers in London were despairing of persuading Parliament to reform and saw the army as a potential power base. Infiltrating the military was not difficult for men who, like John Lilburne, had been soldiers and shared contacts among the sectarian churches.
There is little doubt that by May 1647, when the army threatened open mutiny, the Agitators were in touch with and influenced by civilian Levellers. There is also little doubt that the existence of religious radicals within the army was a link between the civilian radicals and the majority of soldiers who were concerned first and foremost about their indemnity and arrears. What finally shaped the army into a political force was the decision by certain leading officers to join with their men in a campaign to influence the outcome of any settlement.
The Solemn Engagement
The Critical Days of May 1647: A Timeline
The transformation of the army into a political force occurred over just five dramatic days:
27 May 1647: Parliament ordered the army to disband without arrears.
28 May: The Agitators informed Fairfax that the regiments would not obey.
29 May: A council of officers agreed to support them.
Following these events, on the orders of the Agitators, and possibly with Cromwell's knowledge, Cornet (Second Lieutenant) George Joyce left for Holdenby House with an armed escort. Joyce visited Cromwell in London, but whether this was to gain his support or merely to inform him of the plan remains unclear. Whatever the purpose, the visit may have been decisive, since a few days later both Cromwell and Ireton left London to join the army while Joyce brought the King from Holdenby to the army at Newmarket.
On 5 June, the army met in a general rendezvous led by Fairfax and Cromwell and agreed on a Solemn Engagement to hold together until a fair settlement was assured. It was agreed to establish a General Council of the Army, composed of the leading officers and the Agitators, to co-ordinate strategy. On 14 June, an Army Representation (Declaration), written by Ireton, set out the army's case and its determination to oppose Parliament until its rights were secured in a fair and just settlement. The army had become a third political force in the English search for settlement, alongside the existing elements of Parliament and King.
The Army General Council
The Army General Council was unusual in that it contained representatives of the rank and file as well as officers. It symbolised army unity, but was used by the Levellers to try to pressurise Fairfax and his leading officers into adopting Leveller policies. This represented a radical departure from traditional military hierarchy, where common soldiers had no voice in decision-making.
They came closest to success in the Putney debates of October/November 1647, but were defeated by the determination of Cromwell and Ireton and the King's escape from custody. With a second war imminent, Fairfax was able to disband the Council in January 1648. After the Second Civil War, the army reverted to a council of officers, although some of these kept radical influence from disappearing completely.
In June 1647, Cromwell and Ireton developed peace proposals that became known as the Heads of the Proposals. These represented the most flexible plans for settlement ever offered to Charles. Although he would have lost control of the militia and his choice of advisers for ten years, there was considerable emphasis on reconciliation. Only seven Royalists would have been excluded from a pardon (compared to 58 in Parliament's Newcastle Propositions) and the Proposals included the restoration of bishops in the Church, although with advisory powers only.
There is also evidence of Leveller influence in the Proposals, for example, in plans to reform Parliament by redistributing seats according to taxation and holding elections every two years. Legal and economic reforms were proposed, as well as a measure of religious toleration. This undoubtedly reflected Leveller views, though there is no reason to believe that the army leadership (known as the Grandees) objected to them.
Division, 1647–48
The politicisation of the army greatly complicated the search for a settlement. With Parliament and army divided, the King was encouraged in his belief that he could play for time, widen the conflicts among his enemies and win the peace despite losing the war.
Believing that no settlement could be reached without him, Charles was determined to hold out for a settlement of his choosing, which would involve the restoration of his powers as well as the Anglican establishment in the Church. He therefore listened to proposals from both army and Parliament without any intention of accepting either. In the meantime, he maintained contact with the Scots and looked around for other opportunities, such as the Queen's continued efforts to raise forces abroad.
Given Charles's stubborn nature, sincere convictions and refusal to accept the reality of his position, the search for settlement would always have been difficult. The divisions in Parliament that developed in 1646–47 and the emergence of the army as a third political force rendered it well-nigh impossible.
To complicate matters still further, the summer of 1647 saw an internal struggle for control of the army between the leading officers who sought moderation and compromise and the Levellers who sought to use the army for revolutionary purposes. In July 1647, the conservative MPs who dominated the Committee of Both Kingdoms encouraged a series of demonstrations in London that led to the expulsion of the Independents from Parliament. When some of them took refuge with the army at Newmarket, Fairfax was persuaded of the necessity to march the army to the City and restore order.
While the army was camped at Putney during the summer, a group of officers and civilian Levellers sought to persuade the Army General Council to adopt their ideas. A London Leveller, John Wildman, had drafted a political declaration, The Case of the Army Truly Stated, which called for a democratically elected Parliament as the centre of political power and guaranteed popular rights to religious toleration and freedom of speech. Although it did not demand the removal of the King, the source of power was unequivocally located in the people. For the purposes of debate, it was summarised as The Agreement of the People and presented to the Army Council at Putney Church in October.
The Putney Debates
Under the chairmanship of a rather bemused Fairfax, the Council debated the Leveller proposals with Wildman, the agitator Edward Sexby, and one of the officers, Colonel Rainsborough, offering impassioned pleas for freedom and justice to extend to all men. The opposing arguments, that while freedoms should be as universal as possible the needs of stability required political power to be restricted to the educated and propertied elite, were presented mainly by Henry Ireton. Cromwell attempted to moderate the arguments in order to maintain unity in the face of threats from parliamentary conservatives and the supporters of the King.
What the final outcome might have been is uncertain, because in November 1647 the debates were brought to an abrupt end when the King escaped from his imprisonment at Hampton Court and fled to the Isle of Wight, claiming that he feared for his safety. The effects of this, and the complex events of the summer and autumn, demonstrated the difficulties facing all parties in the search for peace.
It is clear that the army leaders were determined to limit Leveller influence and maintain the social and political hierarchy. Their plans were a compromise and they consistently refused to agree to Leveller demands for a dissolution of Parliament. When the army did march to London in July, it was to restore the Independent MPs who had been chased out by conservative supporters, and only 11 conservative MPs were named as responsible for the divisions among Parliament's supporters. It was Leveller fears that they were about to be outflanked that led them to propose the Agreement of the People in October.
Surviving records of the debates suggest that the Levellers may have had the best of the argument. However, in the rapid ending of discussion after the King's escape, the General Council accepted three rendezvous, rather than a single rendezvous of the army as the Levellers wanted. This, and the ease with which Cromwell dealt with the mutiny at Corkbush Field, suggests that Leveller support among the rank and file was never as great as it appeared. The impression of widespread support owed much to the soldiers' grievances over arrears and indemnity and to the outspoken and articulate views of the Agitators. It should also be remembered that the leading officers could call on a loyalty based on shared religious views as well as shared victories and dangers.
Above all, what is revealed by the events of 1647 is the bad faith with which Charles approached the search for a settlement. On one level, this is understandable. He was a King forced to negotiate with rebels, and few monarchs of this age would have felt any obligation to be honest with them. He was also being asked to compromise his most deeply held convictions. For the most part, he did not lie as such – he merely stalled and played for time in the hope that his situation would improve. Such hopes were greatly encouraged by the obvious divisions among his enemies. Only in secretly negotiating with the Scots and inviting them to invade England can he be accused of serious betrayal.
The renewal of war, 1647–48
The army was immediately forced to resume its readiness for further action by calling a general rendezvous (assembly) of the troops. Although a group of London Levellers attempted to stir up a mutiny among those gathered at Ware in Hertfordshire, swift action by Cromwell ensured that it had little effect. Riding into the ranks of the regiment, he quickly brought them to order, and the outcome was the execution of only one trooper.
There has been considerable debate among historians about some of the relationships and issues involved, although the main developments are clear. Historians of the Levellers have followed the Leveller leaders themselves in claiming widespread support within the army and a major influence on the army's proposals for peace. Others have challenged the extent of radical influence within the army and emphasised the role of the leading officers (known as the Grandees) in exploiting the army for their own political purposes.
What is clear is that the efforts of the four parties to find an acceptable settlement in 1647 were ended by the King's Engagement (treaty with) the Scots in December and the ensuing outbreak of the Second Civil War. The army leaders had no intention of removing the King at this stage. The Heads of the Proposals, drawn up by Cromwell and Ireton, were the most flexible plans for settlement ever offered to Charles. Although he would have lost control of the militia and his choice of advisers for ten years, there was considerable emphasis on reconciliation. Only seven Royalists would have been excluded from a pardon (as compared to 58 in Parliament's Newcastle Propositions) and the Proposals included the restoration of bishops in the Church, although with advisory powers only.
Key dates
1646: Parliament presented terms for peace to the King at Newcastle; Charles delayed a reply, and later rejected the terms.
1647
- February: Parliament voted to disband the New Model Army without providing arrears of pay or legal indemnity.
- March/April: Election of Agitators to represent the soldiers and obtain better terms.
- May: With Leveller influence growing in the ranks, the Agitators organised the seizure of the King by Cornet Joyce.
- 5 June: Army rendezvous, leading to the Solemn Engagement and establishment of the Army General Council.
- July: Army entered London to restore Independent MPs after city riots.
- August: Army peace terms – The Heads of the Proposals – presented to the King.
- October/November: Putney Debates, ended by the King's escape to the Isle of Wight.
- December: King Charles signs an Engagement with the Scots, initiating the Second Civil War.
Key Points to Remember:
-
By 1647, Parliament's Presbyterian majority wanted a conservative settlement with Charles but failed to provide for army arrears or indemnity, triggering military politicisation.
-
The army transformed into a political force through the election of Agitators, the Solemn Engagement (June 1647), and the establishment of the Army General Council, becoming a third party in settlement negotiations.
-
Internal divisions split both Parliament and the army; conservative MPs opposed religious toleration while army Grandees clashed with Levellers over the extent of political reform, debates culminating at Putney in October/November 1647.
-
The Heads of the Proposals offered Charles the most flexible settlement terms ever proposed, including limited loss of power, few Royalist exclusions from pardon, and restoration of bishops with advisory roles only.
-
Charles's refusal to compromise in good faith, his secret negotiations with the Scots, and his escape to the Isle of Wight in November 1647 demonstrated his determination to restore his full powers and Anglican Church, ultimately leading to the Engagement with Scotland and the Second Civil War in December 1647.