2E - The intensification of radicalism: popular radicalism in London
Explain why war widened political and religious debate in London and the New Model Army, how print helped ideas circulate, and why defending Parliament did not mean accepting all its policies. Contemporary arguments reveal how participation and sacrifice could lead people to challenge the authority of their own leaders.
London's war effort and popular demands
War increased the importance of Londoners' support while giving them new reasons to question the people who claimed to represent them.
The capital supplied loans, taxes, recruits, charitable contributions and trained bands. People excluded from formal voting still contributed to the cause and could argue that their sacrifices entitled them to be heard. Petitions, sermons, meetings and street demonstrations made politics a public activity. Apprentices and tradespeople were important participants, but there was no single London programme. Religion, livelihood, security and the desire to end suffering could produce different demands.
Some activists wanted the war prosecuted vigorously so that Charles could not reverse Protestant reform. Others wanted immediate peace to protect families and commerce. Women's peace petitioning in 1643 illustrates that popular intervention did not always mean demanding a more radical parliamentary victory. Women had no parliamentary vote, yet claimed a voice through their responsibility for households and the consequences of fighting. Authorities could welcome popular contributions and still resist popular control over policy.
John Lilburne moved from suffering under royal repression and serving Parliament's forces to criticising parliamentary coercion. By 1645 his pamphlets attacked unequal treatment and defended liberties against the new authorities. William Walwyn and Richard Overton also contributed arguments about religious conscience and people's rights. Their later association with the Levellers developed from these networks; it should not be assumed that a complete Leveller organisation or constitutional programme existed throughout 1642–46.
The mechanism of radicalisation was not simply poverty producing rebellion. War weakened old controls, brought people into common action and exposed contradictions between the language of liberty and taxes, censorship or imprisonment. Criticism could therefore shift from bad royal ministers to the limits of Parliament's own authority.
Religious radicalism in the New Model Army
The New Model Army brought men with different religious experiences together and gave their beliefs unusual protection and influence.
Many officers and soldiers interpreted events through providence, the belief that God's purposes could be seen in human affairs. Victories encouraged confidence that their cause was righteous and that further reform might be a duty. Prayer, preaching and discussion connected religious conviction with the risks and sacrifices of campaigning. Because military ability and commitment were valuable, officers such as Cromwell were willing to work with men whose Protestant beliefs differed from the prescribed national pattern.
Independents favoured greater autonomy for individual congregations. Baptists rejected infant baptism in favour of baptism on profession of faith; other separatist groups questioned the right of civil authorities to prescribe worship. These beliefs differed from Presbyterian ambitions for a disciplined national Church. Soldiers who had defended Protestant liberty could fear that a compulsory Presbyterian settlement would exchange one form of religious coercion for another.
Tolerance within the army was relative, not unlimited or shared equally by every member. Catholicism remained widely regarded as a threat, and officers could disagree with more extreme religious claims. Nor was every soldier a radical volunteer: impressment, local circumstances and the need for pay also brought men into service. Religious radicalism describes an influential tendency within the force, not a uniform identity.
Military service made such beliefs politically significant. Congregations and discussion created networks; commanders had to consider the convictions of armed men on whom victory depended. By 1646 the army had the cohesion and reputation to become an actor in settlement debates. Its later organised political interventions should not be read back as a fully developed programme at its formation in 1645.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account