2E - The end of the First Civil War: divisions amongst the Parliamentary leaders
Learn why the defeat of Charles's armies did not settle the constitution or Church, how wartime negotiations failed, and why his surrender to the Scots in 1646 left the victors divided. The outcome shows why an agreement about who could win a war was easier to achieve than agreement about how England should be governed afterwards.
Different purposes within the victorious coalition
Parliament's supporters could agree that Charles's forces must be resisted while disagreeing about the settlement which should follow.
Some leaders favoured an early negotiated peace protecting Parliament and Protestant religion. Others believed the king had to be defeated so thoroughly that he could not reverse the agreement. The divisions changed as campaigns changed the likelihood of victory. Pym worked to hold a coalition together before his death in December 1643; later arguments about Essex and Manchester's conduct showed how military policy and political aims overlapped.
The labels Presbyterian and Independent describe important religious and political tendencies, but should not be used as perfectly fixed parties. Presbyterians favoured a national Church governed by ministers and elders, and many parliamentary Presbyterians sought a controlled agreement with Charles. Independents defended greater liberty for separate Protestant congregations and often supported vigorous prosecution of the war. Individuals could differ within either grouping, and practical concerns about taxation, social order or army power could affect their choices.
The Scots were allies with their own objectives. They wanted to secure Presbyterian religion and prevent a settlement that empowered religious separatists. The New Model Army contained influential supporters of freedom of conscience and had earned a central place through victory. Westminster's authority, Scottish interests and the soldiers' expectations thus did not necessarily point towards the same peace.
Why wartime negotiations failed
Negotiations continued during the fighting because war was costly and neither side could initially be certain of victory.
Talks at Oxford in 1643 failed to bridge disputes over religious reform, military control and security for Parliament's supporters. Each side still hoped that better military fortunes would improve its bargaining position. Charles wanted to preserve meaningful royal authority; his opponents wanted guarantees that returning him to power would not restore the policies or punish those who had resisted them.
The Uxbridge negotiations in early 1645 involved Charles's representatives, English parliamentarians and Scottish commissioners. The priorities were recorded in a parliamentary reply concerning the proposed talks:
Source A — an authentic short extract, recorded 29 January 1645:
“the propositions for religion, militia and Ireland to bee first treated upon and agreed.”
This is the complete short extract used here, with original wording, from the English and Scottish parliamentary reply preserved in the Records of the Parliaments of Scotland, A1645/1/1. The edition records that the original has not been found and prints the earlier collected text; it is not presented as an autograph document. Edition and provenance.
The stated priorities make sense in context. Religion concerned bishops, Presbyterian reform and the future Church. The militia concerned the force which could enforce a settlement or overturn it. Ireland concerned rebellion, Charles's arrangements there and Protestant security. Demands for Presbyterian reform and parliamentary military control challenged powers and beliefs Charles defended. He hoped military or external developments could still produce better terms. The talks ended without agreement.
The extract is valuable for identifying the parliamentary negotiators' declared priorities, but an instruction about what to discuss does not show what Charles accepted or whether participants privately expected success. Its official purpose records an agenda, not a neutral account of every motive. More broadly, the fact that negotiations occurred challenges the idea that fighting had made peace literally unthinkable; their repeated failure shows how difficult it was to combine monarchy with guarantees each side would trust.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account