You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The years between Charles I's surrender in May 1646 and the establishment of the Commonwealth as a functioning republic produced the most radical constitutional rupture in English history. A king was tried by a court erected by his own subjects, condemned, and beheaded in public in January 1649; the monarchy itself, and the House of Lords, were abolished by statute; and England was declared a Commonwealth — a republic, for the first and only time in its history. This lesson is the heart of the revolution theme of the breadth study. It traces how a war fought, on Parliament's side, expressly to preserve the king's person and authority ended in his execution, and how the new republic then struggled, from the outset, with a legitimacy deficit it could never quite overcome.
The lesson runs from the failed search for a settlement (1646–1648), through the second Civil War and Pride's Purge, to the trial and execution of the king, and on into the early years of the Commonwealth governed by the purged Rump Parliament (1649–1653). The central interpretative problem is the regicide itself. Was the execution of Charles I the product of deep ideological conviction — a revolutionary belief that sovereignty lay with the people and that a tyrant could be brought to account — or of hard political necessity, the reluctant conclusion of practical men who decided, late and against their instincts, that no settlement was possible while Charles lived? And once the deed was done, why did the republic it created prove so hard to legitimise? For the breadth study, the deeper question is how revolutionary 1649 really was — a question that requires weighing the audacity of the central act against the narrowness of its base and the conservatism of most of those who carried it out.
Key enquiry: Was the execution of Charles I driven primarily by political necessity (the impossibility of a settlement with an untrustworthy king after the second Civil War) or by ideological and providential conviction — and how far did the manner of the republic's birth doom it to a permanent crisis of legitimacy?
Charles surrendered to the Scots in May 1646 not because he had exhausted every army but because he hoped to exploit the divisions among his enemies. The victorious coalition was anything but united. Parliament was split between Presbyterians, who wanted a negotiated settlement and a national Presbyterian Church, and Independents, allied with the army and favouring liberty of conscience for the sects. The New Model Army, owed huge arrears of pay and threatened with disbandment, was becoming a political force in its own right. And the Scots wanted the Presbyterianism they had been promised in the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643. Charles's fatal calculation was that he could play these factions against one another and recover his full authority simply by waiting.
The competing settlement proposals reveal how wide the gap had become:
| Proposal | From | Key terms |
|---|---|---|
| Newcastle Propositions | Parliament (July 1646) | Parliamentary control of the militia for twenty years; abolition of episcopacy and a Presbyterian Church; severe punishment of leading Royalists. |
| Heads of the Proposals | The Army (Ireton, summer 1647) | More generous to the king: biennial Parliaments, broad religious toleration for Protestants (no compulsory Presbyterianism), and parliamentary control of the militia for ten years, then its return. |
| Agreement of the People | The Levellers (1647) | A radical written constitution: a near-manhood franchise, equal and redistributed constituencies, biennial Parliaments, sovereignty vested in the people, and fundamental rights reserved beyond Parliament's reach. |
Charles negotiated with all and committed to none. Frustrated by Parliament's attempts to disband it without arrears or indemnity, the army seized the king from Parliamentary custody in June 1647 (the cornet George Joyce removing him from Holdenby House) — a decisive assertion that the army would not be a mere instrument of the Presbyterian majority.
The Putney Debates were among the most extraordinary political discussions ever recorded: senior officers (the "Grandees") and elected representatives of the regiments (the Agitators), together with civilian Levellers, debating the very foundations of legitimate government in the church at Putney, their words taken down in shorthand by William Clarke. The central question was: who should have the vote?
The clash between Rainsborough's appeal to consent and Ireton's defence of a property-based franchise is one of the foundational arguments of English political thought — and it is essential to grasp that it was not resolved at Putney. The debates were overtaken by events: news of the king's escape, the threat of a second war, and Cromwell's determination to restore discipline closed them down. The quotations are drawn from the well-attested Clarke Papers, the contemporary record.
Charles's secret Engagement with the Scots (December 1647), promising to establish Presbyterianism in England for three years in exchange for a Scottish army, ignited a second Civil War — and transformed how the army viewed him.
| Event | Date | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Royalist risings | Spring–summer 1648 | Scattered but serious revolts in South Wales, Kent and Essex (the siege of Colchester), and parts of the north. |
| Scottish invasion | July 1648 | An "Engager" army crossed into England under the Duke of Hamilton. |
| Battle of Preston | 17–19 August 1648 | Cromwell routed the strung-out Scottish and Royalist forces — the decisive engagement of the second war. |
| Political consequence | The second war was, in the army's eyes, unnecessary bloodshed deliberately provoked by a faithless king. At the prayer meeting at Windsor (April 1648), officers resolved to call "Charles Stuart, that man of blood, to an account". Negotiation now looked not merely difficult but sinful. |
The phrase "man of blood" carried biblical force, echoing the Old Testament prohibition on leaving blood-guilt unpunished. The second Civil War did not merely harden attitudes; it reframed Charles, in the army's providential reading, as a man under divine condemnation whose continued life endangered the nation. This is the crucial link between necessity and conviction: the second war supplied simultaneously the practical argument (no settlement can hold with this king) and the religious argument (God has already judged him).
Even after the second war, the Presbyterian majority in the Commons voted to continue negotiating with Charles. For the army, this was intolerable. On 6 December 1648, Colonel Thomas Pride, backed by troops, stationed himself at the door of the Commons and arrested or excluded around 140 members who favoured a treaty with the king. The remnant — the Rump — comprised perhaps 200 nominal members, of whom only a fraction attended regularly; it was this purged body that erected the court to try the king.
Pride's Purge was, in plain terms, a military coup — soldiers physically excluding elected representatives — and it poses the central problem of the regicide's legitimacy. The Rump claimed to act in the name of the people, yet it had been created by force and represented only a minority faction. Everything that followed — the trial, the execution, the abolition of monarchy — rested on this extremely narrow and coercively secured base, which is precisely why the republic struggled ever afterwards to claim legitimate authority. Note, too, the deep irony: this was the army acting against Parliament. The supposed champions of parliamentary right had purged Parliament itself — an unresolved contradiction that runs through the whole Interregnum.
The trial was wholly unprecedented. The Rump alone passed the ordinance establishing a High Court of Justice; the Lords refused to concur and were bypassed. Of around 135 named commissioners, many stayed away; the court was managed by determined men such as John Bradshaw (president) and John Cooke (prosecutor). The charge was that, as "tyrant, traitor, murderer and public enemy", Charles had levied war against the Parliament and people of England and was responsible for all the bloodshed of the wars.
Charles repeatedly refused to plead, denying the court any lawful authority: "I would know by what power I am called hither... I would know by what authority, I mean lawful." By challenging the court's jurisdiction rather than answering the charge, he turned the trial into a debate about the legitimacy of the court itself — and scored a real rhetorical victory. He was found guilty and sentenced to death; only 59 of the commissioners ultimately signed the death warrant.
Charles was beheaded on a scaffold before the Banqueting House in Whitehall — beneath the very ceiling, painted by Rubens, that glorified the divine-right kingship of his father. The symbolism could hardly have been sharper. Wearing two shirts so that no shiver in the cold would be mistaken for fear, Charles conducted himself with a composure that turned a political execution into a martyrdom. The cult of the royal martyr, propelled by the runaway best-seller Eikon Basilike (purporting to be the king's own meditations and published within days of his death), did more for the Stuart cause than Charles had managed in life, and shaped Royalist memory for generations. This is a point of real significance for the breadth study: the losers of 1649 won the battle for memory, and the martyr cult helps explain the reverence for monarchy that made the Restoration possible eleven years later.
| Question | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Was it legal? | By any conventional standard, no: there was no precedent, the court was erected by a purged single chamber, the Lords were excluded, and only a minority of commissioners signed. |
| Was it legitimate? | The regime asserted a revolutionary principle — that sovereignty lay with the people, that the king was an officer accountable to them, and that one who waged war on his people forfeited his trust. This inverted the entire theory of divine-right monarchy. |
| Was it necessary? | The army leadership concluded that no durable settlement was possible while Charles lived: he would sign anything and honour nothing, and the second war proved he would always fight again. On this reading, regicide was the grim logic of self-preservation. |
| Was it inevitable? | No. As late as December 1648 most of the political nation still sought a treaty; the decision for death was forced through by a small, determined minority sustained by providential conviction and military power. |
The scaffold was followed swiftly by statute. In the spring of 1649 the Rump completed in law what the execution had begun in fact.
| Act | Date | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Act abolishing the Office of King | 17 March 1649 | Declared the kingly office "unnecessary, burdensome, and dangerous to the liberty, safety, and public interest of the people". |
| Act abolishing the House of Lords | 19 March 1649 | Pronounced the upper House "useless and dangerous" and abolished it. |
| Act declaring England a Commonwealth | 19 May 1649 | Declared England "a Commonwealth and Free State", governed by the representatives of the people in Parliament without king or Lords. |
These Acts made England, for the first and only time, a republic. But the manner of its birth — coup, regicide, the exclusion of the Lords and most of the Commons — meant it was born with a legitimacy deficit it could never quite overcome. This is the paradox that defines the whole republican experiment: a regime founded on the claim to represent the people had in fact been created against the wishes of most of them.
The Rump — the purged remnant of the Long Parliament — governed the new Commonwealth from 1649 to 1653. Born of Pride's Purge, it was a narrow body without popular mandate, surviving on the army's sufferance even as it resented the army's demands. Its record is genuinely mixed, and a strong answer weighs its achievements against its failures.
| Achievement | Failure |
|---|---|
| Established and defended a functioning republic against formidable threats at home and abroad | Lacked any democratic legitimacy — it represented only a faction, secured by force |
| Passed significant measures, including the Navigation Act of 1651, and made some moves on law reform | Failed to deliver the thorough religious and legal reform the army and the godly demanded |
| Maintained domestic order through years of acute danger | Clung to power, repeatedly delaying the new elections it had promised |
| Won the wars: Ireland subdued (1649–50), Scotland defeated at Dunbar (1650) and Worcester (1651), the Dutch challenged at sea | The reconquest of Ireland was carried out with a brutality whose memory poisoned Anglo-Irish relations for centuries |
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.