The Army, Parliament and the Execution of Charles I

Victory left Parliament divided

Parliament’s victory in the First Civil War did not settle how England should be governed or what should happen to Charles I. The MPs who had opposed the King disagreed over religion, the terms of a settlement and the future role of the Army. A shared wartime enemy had held together people with very different aims.

During the war, two broad tendencies developed within Parliament. The Presbyterians generally preferred a negotiated settlement with Charles and wanted a nationally organised Church with Presbyterian government. The Independents opposed compulsory state-regulated worship and supported religious freedom for non-Catholics. Their position did not amount to religious freedom for everyone.

These were loose factions, not organised political parties in the modern sense. MPs could support one grouping on one issue and another on a different issue. Religious disagreement nevertheless mattered politically: whoever controlled the settlement could shape the Church as well as the government.

Why the Independents and the Army became allies

The factions grew out of earlier disagreements about fighting the war. Parliament’s ‘Peace Party’ preferred negotiation, while its ‘War Party’ wanted an outright military victory. By 1645, these tendencies were generally associated with the Presbyterians and Independents respectively.

The Independents had backed the reorganisation of Parliament’s forces which produced the New Model Army in 1645. They also gained influential allies among senior officers, particularly Oliver Cromwell. Although religious Independents were relatively few in number, their connections in Parliament and the Army gave them considerable influence.

Independent influence also depended on cooperation with moderate MPs. Oliver St John led a ‘Middle Group’ which helped bridge divisions within Parliament. The Independents did not gain power simply by converting every MP to radical ideas: they built alliances.

The Army becomes a political force in 1647

After the First Civil War, some conservatives and moderates became alarmed that religious and political radicals wanted too much change. With Scottish support, Presbyterians pressed for the New Model Army to be disbanded and for an agreement with Charles.

The Army, however, was becoming a political force in its own right. During 1647, it promoted constitutional reforms influenced by the Levellers. Constitutional reforms are changes to the rules governing political power. The dispute was therefore about more than whether soldiers should remain under arms: it concerned who would shape the post-war settlement and what changes that settlement would contain.

The Independents remained closely allied to the Army. St John’s moderates still favoured negotiation, but were unwilling to accept Charles’s refusal to compromise. Support for the Army did not yet necessarily mean support for abolishing the monarchy. Only a small number of Independents were committed republicans.

The struggle became especially sharp in London. In July 1647, leading Independent MPs fled to the Army when Presbyterian militants threatened to take control of the city. The Army marched into London in August, restoring the Independents to power. Military strength was now directly affecting the balance of power within Parliament.

The Second Civil War changes the argument

The Second Civil War in 1648 deepened the division over Charles’s future. Presbyterians and many moderates still sought a treaty with the King. Independents demanded that he be brought to justice for inflicting another war on the country.

For those demanding punishment, renewed war undermined the case for trusting Charles in a negotiated settlement. Yet this conclusion was not shared by all MPs. The decisive difference was that the New Model Army supported the Independent demand for justice and possessed the military power to intervene.

In December 1648, the Army removed MPs who supported further negotiations in Pride’s Purge. Rather than persuading the whole Parliament to abandon negotiation, it excluded opponents of its preferred course. The reduced body became known as the Rump Parliament: it was what remained of the Long Parliament, not a newly elected assembly.

Putting a king on trial

In January 1649, the Rump authorised proceedings against Charles. The House of Lords refused to approve his trial. On 4 January, the Rump declared itself the supreme power in the nation, claiming authority to pass laws without the consent of either the King or the Lords. This challenged the traditional arrangement in which all three shared in law-making.

A specially established High Court of Justice tried Charles. He was charged with undermining the nation’s laws and liberties and deliberately making war against Parliament and the people of England. The accusation reversed the usual understanding of treason: instead of subjects betraying their king, a king could betray his people by waging war against them.

The trial opened on 20 January 1649. Charles refused to answer the charges because he did not recognise the court’s authority to judge him. He also challenged the claim that a House of Commons from which MPs had been forcibly excluded could represent the people of England. His refusal was therefore a political and constitutional argument, not simply silence about the accusations.

Witnesses gave evidence of Charles’s personal involvement in the wars and his intention to continue them. John Bradshaw, who presided over the court, argued that even a king was subject to the law. In the court’s judgement, Charles had broken the bond between ruler and subjects by making war on his own people.

On 27 January, the court pronounced its death sentence. Charles was executed later that month. The process remained deeply divisive: many nominated commissioners refused to participate, while soldiers guarded the proceedings. Army support made the trial possible, but it did not mean the country or Parliament as a whole agreed with it.

From execution to a republic

Removing Charles did not by itself decide whether another monarch should succeed him. The Rump went further: after the execution, it resolved to abolish both the monarchy and the House of Lords. This dismantled the institutions which had shared political authority with the Commons.

On 19 May 1649, England was formally declared a ‘Commonwealth and Free State’. This was a republic: a state without a monarch. The Commons claimed supreme authority, while a Council of State, first appointed in February, carried out domestic and foreign policy under its direction.

The Commonwealth was not the inevitable outcome of Parliament’s original opposition to Charles. It emerged from religious and political divisions, renewed civil war and Army intervention. The Second Civil War strengthened demands for punishment; Pride’s Purge removed parliamentary opponents; the Rump then authorised the trial and replaced monarchy with a republic. Military power had enabled a constitutional revolution, leaving a serious question about how independently Parliament could govern.