Latest / Sleepy Facts About History / Why Did the Army Purge Parliament in 1648? - The Constitutional Crisis of the English Regicide | Sleepy Facts About History

Transcript

Why Did the Army Purge Parliament in 1648? - The Constitutional Crisis of the English Regicide | Sleepy Facts About History · Sleepy Facts About History

0:00
Welcome to Sleepy Facts About History. In late
0:13
1648, England had defeated its king in two civil
0:16
wars, yet Charles I remained alive and actively
0:20
negotiating his restoration. This episode examines
0:24
the extraordinary constitutional crisis that
0:27
unfolded when the victorious parliamentary army
0:29
concluded that no lasting peace was possible
0:32
while the king lived. It explores the deep ideological
0:35
divide between Charles' belief in the divine
0:38
right of kings and the army's radical new claim
0:42
that sovereignty resided in the people, transforming
0:45
kingship from a sacred status into a public office
0:48
answerable to the community. The narrative follows
0:52
the specific sequence of events that made the
0:56
trial possible, including the king's duplicity,
1:00
the Army's radicalization over unpaid wages and
1:03
broken treaties, and Colonel Thomas Pride's physical
1:06
exclusion of opposing members from the House
1:09
of Commons. It details the creation of the Rump
1:13
Parliament, the formation of the High Court of
1:16
Justice, and the deeply contested proceedings
1:19
at Westminster Hall, where Charles refused to
1:22
recognize the Court's lawful authority. Some
1:26
questions sound simple until you try to answer
1:29
them. I wanted to understand how a group of subjects
1:33
could claim the legal authority to judge and
1:35
execute their anointed monarch, and why that
1:38
radical assertion of popular sovereignty ultimately
1:41
failed to establish a lasting republic. The result
1:45
is a look at a moment when military victory was
1:48
transformed into a constitutional claim of remarkable
1:51
audacity, revealing that radical political ideas
1:55
require far more than force to become a stable
1:58
reality. In late 1648, England had defeated its
2:06
king twice in war, yet Charles I remained alive,
2:11
negotiating terms of restoration as if the outcome
2:15
was still in doubt. The army that had actually
2:18
won concluded that it was not. In late 1648,
2:23
England had just fought two civil wars over the
2:26
authority of its king. The second of these wars
2:29
had ended with complete military victory for
2:32
Parliament's forces. Yet the man who had lost
2:35
both wars, Charles I, remained alive. He was
2:39
under guard at Hearst Castle on the Hampshire
2:42
coast. His political fate was being negotiated
2:45
at Newport on the Isle of Wight. This is the
2:49
situation that needs to be understood before
2:51
anything else. A defeated king, still negotiating,
2:56
still treated as a king. The army that had defeated
3:00
him grew increasingly convinced that he could
3:03
never be trusted. Any settlement restoring him
3:06
would simply lead to more war. The question before
3:10
England was not whether Charles had lost. It
3:13
was whether losing entitled his subjects to put
3:16
him on trial. And it was whether they had any
3:19
authority to do so. The conflicts that produced
3:23
this moment had been building for decades. Charles
3:27
I believed. as his father james the first had
3:30
taught him that kings ruled by divine right his
3:34
authority came from god not from parliament or
3:37
the people he was accountable only to god this
3:42
was not mere personal conviction it was the established
3:46
constitutional theory of the english monarchy
3:49
it was supported by the church of england and
3:52
by centuries of legal and political practice
3:55
Against this, Parliament had developed competing
3:58
claims about its own authority. This was particularly
4:02
true in matters of taxation and religion. The
4:06
specific disputes that led to armed conflict
4:08
in 1642 were symptoms of this deeper disagreement
4:12
about where sovereignty lay. These disputes included
4:16
ship money, forced loans, the attempted imposition
4:20
of a new prayer book on Scotland, and the militia
4:23
ordinance. The First Civil War from 1642 to 1646
4:29
ended with Charles' defeat but not with his deposition.
4:33
He surrendered to the Scottish Army in 1646.
4:38
He was handed over to Parliamentary Commissioners
4:41
in 1647. He immediately resumed what he had always
4:46
done best. He negotiated with multiple parties
4:50
simultaneously. He played them against each other.
4:54
He promised different things to different people,
4:57
and he waited for his enemies to fall out among
5:01
themselves. He negotiated with Parliament's Presbyterian
5:05
majority. They wanted to restore him with conditions.
5:10
These included a Presbyterian church settlement,
5:13
parliamentary control of the militia for a period,
5:16
and some limits on his prerogative. He negotiated
5:20
with the army. Its soldiers were owed enormous
5:23
sums in back pay. Its officers, many of them
5:28
religious independents, wanted toleration for
5:31
their congregations, and in December 1647 he
5:35
made a secret agreement with the Scots. This
5:39
was known as the Engagement. He promised to establish
5:42
Presbyterianism in England for three years in
5:47
exchange a Scottish army would restore him to
5:49
power. This duplicity was not, from Charles'
5:53
perspective, dishonourable. He believed he was
5:56
defending his God -given authority by any means
5:59
necessary. But to the army, it was the final
6:03
proof that Charles was what they called a man
6:06
of blood. The army had discovered the engagement.
6:10
It had then had to fight a second civil war in
6:14
1648 against Scottish invaders and English royalist
6:17
risings. Charles was someone whose word could
6:21
not be trusted. His agreements were tactical
6:24
delays. His restoration would mean renewed civil
6:28
war. The army's radicalization was not simply
6:32
a matter of political theory. These were men
6:35
who had fought. They had not been paid. They
6:40
faced the prospect of disbandment without their
6:43
arrears being settled. They understood that a
6:46
political settlement restoring Charles would
6:49
likely mean the end of any hope of payment. The
6:52
fear was economic and immediate. The army that
6:56
had won the war would be dissolved by politicians
6:59
who had not shared its costs. The Second Civil
7:03
War of 1648 was shorter than the first, but in
7:06
some ways more shocking. Royalist risings in
7:10
England, a Scottish invasion, and continuing
7:13
rebellion in Ireland threatened to overturn everything
7:17
the army had won. The army defeated these forces.
7:21
At Preston in August 1648, It crushed the Scottish
7:25
invasion. After this, its patience with negotiation
7:29
was exhausted. Yet Parliament, or at least a
7:33
majority in Parliament, continued to negotiate
7:36
with Charles at Newport. The Presbyterian majority
7:40
in the House of Commons was led by men who had
7:43
fought against Charles in the First War. But
7:46
they feared religious independence and social
7:48
radicals more than they feared a chastened king.
7:52
They were prepared to restore him on terms that
7:54
the army found unacceptable. This is where the
7:58
central mechanism of our episode enters. The
8:01
army was led by its senior officers. These were
8:05
the Grandees, as they were called. They included
8:09
men like Oliver Cromwell and Henry Ayrton. They
8:13
concluded that Parliament itself was the obstacle
8:15
to a secure settlement. This was not because
8:19
Parliament was inherently illegitimate. It was
8:22
because this parliament, with this majority,
8:25
would restore a king who had already proved he
8:28
could not be bound by agreement. On December
8:31
6, 1648, Colonel Thomas Pride stood at the narrow
8:36
entrance to the House of Commons chamber with
8:38
a list of members in his hand. Soldiers were
8:42
positioned at the door. As members approached,
8:46
Pride checked their names. Those known to support
8:49
continued negotiations with Charles were turned
8:52
away. Some were arrested. Approximately 180 members
8:57
were excluded. What remained became known as
9:01
the Rump Parliament. It consisted of about 70
9:05
to 80 members who were willing to accept the
9:08
army's position. This event, Pride's Purge, is
9:12
essential to understanding everything that followed.
9:15
It was not a violent battle. but a controlled
9:18
exclusion. It was a bureaucratic military operation
9:22
that changed the composition of Parliament through
9:24
presence and lists rather than through open force.
9:29
The army did not abolish Parliament. It purged
9:33
Parliament. It created a body that would do what
9:37
the army considered necessary. The Rump was not
9:41
a revolutionary convention elected for a new
9:44
purpose. It was the remnant of an existing Parliament.
9:49
reduced by military force to those members who
9:51
would cooperate with the army's program. A legitimate
9:55
constitutional convention would have required
9:58
new elections, a defined mandate, and some mechanism
10:02
for popular consent. The Rump had none of these.
10:06
It was the Old Parliament, reduced by force.
10:10
It claimed the authority of the Old Parliament,
10:14
while acting for a purpose its electorate had
10:17
never endorsed. This matters because it shaped
10:21
the legitimacy problem that would haunt every
10:23
subsequent step. The men who tried Charles I
10:27
did not claim to be acting on behalf of a newly
10:30
constituted popular authority. They claimed to
10:34
be acting through Parliament. Everyone knew that
10:37
Parliament had been forcibly reduced to a fraction
10:40
of its elected membership. The decision to try
10:44
Charles for treason emerged from this situation
10:46
in early January 1649. The Rump Parliament passed
10:51
an act on January 6 establishing a high court
10:54
of justice. The court had 135 commissioners.
10:58
They included judges, army officers, members
11:02
of parliament and others. Their purpose was to
11:06
try the king. The charge was read at Westminster
11:09
Hall on January 20. It accused Charles of a wicked
11:13
design to erect and uphold in himself. an unlimited
11:17
and tyrannical power to rule according to his
11:20
will and to overthrow the rights and liberties
11:23
of the people of england the specific language
11:27
matters charles was not accused of losing a war
11:31
he was not accused of bad policy he was not even
11:35
accused of causing the deaths of his subjects
11:38
in war he was accused of treason against the
11:42
people of england The implication was that there
11:45
existed a sovereign entity called the people,
11:48
to whom the king owed obligations. Breach of
11:52
those obligations was a crime punishable by law.
11:56
This was the radical constitutional claim at
11:59
the heart of the episode. Kingship was not a
12:02
sacred status conferred by God and immune from
12:05
human judgment. It was an office, like any other
12:10
office, with defined responsibilities to the
12:12
community. The holder of that office could be
12:16
held accountable for malfeasance. This claim
12:20
had precedence in medieval and early modern political
12:23
thought, but it had never been applied to a reigning
12:27
English monarch in this way. The court was asserting
12:30
a power that no English institution had previously
12:33
exercised. Yet the claim was immediately and
12:37
fundamentally contested. The contest began with
12:41
the defendant himself. When Charles was brought
12:45
into Westminster Hall on January 20, he entered
12:47
a vast medieval space. Its scale dwarfed the
12:51
human drama about to unfold. The commissioners
12:55
sat on a raised platform at one end. The king
12:59
stood before them, solitary, facing the assembled
13:02
court. Spectators crowded behind barriers. The
13:08
visual arrangement spoke its own language. It
13:11
showed the solitary defendant against the collective
13:14
authority of the state. John Bradshaw, president
13:18
of the court, wore a bulletproof hat throughout
13:21
the proceedings. This was a physical admission
13:24
that the commissioners feared royalist assassination.
13:28
They understood that many would see their work
13:31
as criminal. Charles looked at the assembled
13:34
commissioners and asked the question that would
13:37
define the trial. I would know by what power
13:39
I am called hither. I mean lawful authority.
13:43
He refused to recognize the court. He refused
13:47
to plead. He would not remove his hat. He treated
13:52
the proceedings with the contempt he believed
13:54
they deserved. His argument was simple and, from
13:58
his perspective, unanswerable. A court required
14:02
authority derived from some legitimate source.
14:05
This court derived its authority from a purged
14:09
parliament. that Parliament derived its authority
14:12
from the army. The army had no constitutional
14:16
authority to alter the composition of Parliament.
14:19
Therefore, the court had no lawful authority
14:22
over the person of the king. The king was accountable
14:25
only to God. Charles' refusal to plead was not
14:30
merely a legal tactic. It was the consistent
14:34
expression of his entire political life. He had
14:37
believed in divine right from his accession in
14:40
1625. He had governed according to that belief.
14:44
The consequences had led to civil war. Now facing
14:49
death, he would not abandon it. The court, for
14:53
its part, could not afford to accept his challenge.
14:57
If they acknowledged that their authority was
14:59
questionable, the entire proceeding collapsed.
15:02
If they proceeded without his participation...
15:06
They demonstrated that they were indeed, as Charles
15:09
claimed, using legal forms to cover a political
15:12
execution. The trial that followed was therefore
15:15
structurally bizarre. The prosecution presented
15:19
evidence of Charles' conduct during the wars.
15:23
It presented evidence of his negotiations with
15:26
foreign powers. It presented evidence of his
15:29
agreements with the Scots. But there was no cross
15:33
-examination. There was no defence. There was
15:37
no genuine adversarial process. The defendant
15:41
refused to acknowledge the court's existence.
15:45
The commissioners, led by Bradshaw in his armored
15:48
hat, proceeded to sentence Charles to death in
15:51
his absence. The sentence was read on January
15:55
27. The execution was set for January 30. Between
16:01
the trial and the execution, Charles was moved
16:04
from Westminster Hall to St. James's Palace.
16:08
He was then moved to Whitehall. A scaffold had
16:12
been erected outside the banqueting house. The
16:15
building itself was part of his own architectural
16:18
legacy. Its ceiling he had commissioned from
16:22
Peter Paul Rubens. The panels depicted his father
16:26
James I ascending to divine authority. James
16:30
was shown anointed by justice and wisdom, received
16:33
into heaven. Images argued for the very principle
16:37
that the court below now denied. They argued
16:40
that kingship was sacred, eternal, above human
16:44
judgment. The scaffold stood directly beneath
16:48
this argument. The physical details of the execution
16:52
have been preserved in multiple contemporary
16:54
accounts. They disagree on particulars. Charles
17:00
wore two shirts, he told his attendant. He did
17:04
this so that he would not shiver in the cold
17:06
and be mistaken for afraid. The small human calculation
17:10
reveals something about the performance he intended
17:13
to give. It was to be calm, dignified, unafraid.
17:19
He said goodbye to his children. He spoke to
17:23
the crowd. His words were partly drowned out
17:26
by the drummers who had been ordered to play.
17:29
According to some accounts, his last word was
17:32
remember. According to others, he said, The executioner,
17:41
whose identity was concealed behind a mask and
17:44
false beard, struck the blow. The axe was held
17:47
up with the traditional words, The crowd reportedly
17:53
groaned. Some dipped handkerchiefs in the blood
17:57
as relics. The immediate aftermath revealed how
18:01
contested the execution remained. Within weeks,
18:05
a book purporting to be Charles' spiritual autobiography
18:08
appeared. It was called Acon Basilike, the image
18:13
of the king in his solitudes and sufferings.
18:17
It was probably written by John Godin, a clergyman
18:21
based on Charles' papers, but it was presented
18:25
as the king's own voice. It became an enormous
18:29
popular success. Charles was depicted as a Christian
18:33
martyr. suffering patiently for his faith and
18:36
his people. He was shown as betrayed by rebels
18:40
who had violated the sacred order of monarchy.
18:43
The book went through dozens of editions. It
18:46
established the image of Charles as royal martyr
18:49
that would persist for centuries. The government's
18:53
attempt to suppress it failed. The attempt to
18:57
produce a counter -narrative, Milton's iconoclasties,
19:00
had limited popular impact. The political transformation
19:05
that followed was rapid. In March 1649, the Rump
19:10
abolished the monarchy. In the same month, it
19:14
abolished the House of Lords. England became
19:17
a Commonwealth. It was a republic in form, though
19:21
not in any democratic sense. The Rump continued
19:25
to govern without new elections. It was backed
19:28
by the army that had created it. The constitutional
19:32
claim that kingship was an office answerable
19:35
to the community had been implemented, but the
19:38
community had never been asked. This is the central
19:42
tension that the episode must hold in view. The
19:46
trial of Charles I represented a genuinely radical
19:49
intellectual departure. The claim that a king
19:53
could be tried by his subjects was radical. The
19:57
claim that sovereignty resided in the people
19:59
rather than the monarch was radical. The claim
20:02
that political authority was contractual and
20:05
conditional rather than divine and absolute was
20:07
radical. These were specific 17th century claims
20:11
with their own context and meaning. They would
20:14
later resonate through centuries of constitutional
20:17
development. But that later resonance should
20:21
not obscure what they were in 1649. They were
20:25
assertions made by a narrow faction. They were
20:28
implemented through military force. They were
20:32
imposed on a population that had never voted
20:34
for them. Scotland proclaimed Charles II as king
20:38
immediately upon hearing of his father's death.
20:41
Ireland was in rebellion against parliamentary
20:44
authority. Large parts of England were horrified
20:48
or hostile. The army itself was divided. Many
20:53
soldiers and officers had opposed the trial or
20:56
accepted it only with reluctance. The Levellers
21:00
were the radical movement within the army that
21:03
had demanded manhood suffrage, religious toleration,
21:06
and constitutional reform. They were not the
21:10
architects of the regicide. They were suppressed
21:13
by the sane grandees who organized the trial.
21:17
The Commonwealth that emerged was not the democratic
21:20
republic that later mythologies sometimes suggest.
21:24
It was a military -backed regime that ruled without
21:27
popular mandate. It suppressed internal opposition.
21:32
It conquered Ireland with great brutality. It
21:36
eventually collapsed into the protectorate of
21:38
Oliver Cromwell in 1653. The restoration of the
21:42
monarchy in 1660 came after Cromwell's death
21:46
and the collapse of his son's rule. It was not
21:50
simply a reaction against republicanism. It was
21:54
in part an acknowledgement that the execution
21:56
of Charles I had never established a stable alternative.
22:01
The historiographical debates about this episode
22:04
reflect its complexity. Whig historians saw the
22:08
regicide as a necessary step toward constitutional
22:11
government and the rule of law. They saw it as
22:15
a violent but ultimately progressive break with
22:17
arbitrary monarchy. Revisionist historians have
22:21
emphasized the contingent. pragmatic nature of
22:24
the army's decision. They argue that Cromwell
22:27
and Ayrton were driven less by constitutional
22:30
theory than by the fear that Charles would continue
22:33
to plot and make war if left alive. Marxist interpretations
22:38
have seen the episode as the victory of a rising
22:42
bourgeoisie over feudal monarchy. This reading
22:45
struggles with the fact that the army's leaders
22:47
were gentry and landowners, not merchants or
22:50
manufacturers. Royalist interpretations, sustained
22:55
by icon basil -like and subsequent Anglican tradition,
22:59
have maintained that the trial was simply illegal
23:02
and the execution murder. What can be said with
23:06
confidence is that the trial and execution of
23:09
Charles I were not inevitable outcomes of the
23:12
English Civil War. In 1646, after the First Civil
23:17
War, most parliamentarians expected to negotiate
23:20
a settlement with a restored king. Even in 1648,
23:24
after the Second Civil War, a majority of Parliament
23:27
sought exactly that. The army's intervention
23:31
represented a specific faction's decision. Pride's
23:35
purge, the creation of the High Court, and the
23:38
execution all reflected the judgment that negotiation
23:41
was impossible. They reflected the judgment that
23:45
Charles' continued existence was a threat to
23:48
peace. This was a political judgment. It was
23:52
not the fulfillment of a historical law. It was
23:56
not the expression of a national will. The trial
24:00
itself was not a modern legal proceeding. Charles
24:04
was not permitted to challenge the court's jurisdiction
24:06
in any forum that might have been independent
24:08
of the court itself. It was not permitted counsel.
24:13
The evidence against him was not tested by cross
24:16
-examination. The sentence was predetermined
24:20
by the political logic of the situation. A court
24:23
created to try the king could not acquit the
24:26
king without destroying its own reason for existence.
24:29
Yet the commissioners were not simply cynics
24:32
using legal forms to cover a predetermined outcome.
24:36
Many of them, including Cromwell, struggled with
24:40
the decision. They sought to believe that they
24:43
were acting from necessity and from a higher
24:45
conception of political authority. The bulletproof
24:49
hat that John Bradshaw wore suggests not confidence,
24:53
but fear. It suggests fear that the proceeding
24:56
they had embarked upon would be seen by many
24:59
as criminal. It suggests fear that its organizers
25:02
would be targets for the rest of their lives.
25:06
The claim that emerged from this contested process
25:09
was that kingship was an office answerable to
25:12
the community. This claim remained unstable because
25:16
the community had never authorized it. There
25:19
was no referendum. There was no broadly elected
25:23
convention. There was no mechanism by which the
25:27
people of England could express their assent
25:29
or dissent. The Rump Parliament claimed to represent
25:33
the people. Everyone understood that it represented
25:36
the army that had purged it. This is why the
25:40
execution, despite its radical constitutional
25:43
implications, did not establish a stable republican
25:46
order. The authority to abolish monarchy had
25:49
been asserted but not legitimated. The new regime
25:53
governed as a continuation of revolutionary emergency.
25:57
It did not govern as the expression of a new
25:59
constitutional consensus. When we look back at
26:03
January 1649, we are looking at a moment when
26:07
military victory was transformed into a constitutional
26:10
claim of remarkable audacity. The men who organized
26:14
the trial were claiming that they could judge
26:16
their king. They were claiming that political
26:19
authority derived from the people and could be
26:21
withdrawn. They were claiming that no person
26:25
was above the law of the community. These were
26:28
claims that would eventually become central to
26:30
modern constitutional thought. But in their immediate
26:34
context, they were claims made by a narrow faction.
26:38
They were implemented by force. They were contested
26:42
by most of the inhabitants of the British Isles.
26:46
The execution of Charles I was not the will of
26:50
England. It was the will of the army. acting
26:53
through a purged parliament. It acted against
26:56
the opposition of Scotland, Ireland, most English
26:59
royalists, and many English Presbyterians. It
27:04
probably acted against the views of a majority
27:06
of the English population who had no opportunity
27:10
to express a view. The episode ends where it
27:14
began. It ends with a defeated king a victorious
27:18
army and an unresolved question about the nature
27:21
of political authority. The army answered that
27:25
question in January 1649 by putting Charles on
27:29
trial and executing him. But the answer remained
27:33
contested. The authority remained narrow. The
27:38
settlement remained unstable. The restoration
27:41
of the monarchy 11 years later was not simply
27:44
a reversal. It was an acknowledgement. that the
27:48
radical constitutional claim of 1649 had never
27:53
succeeded in becoming the general consent of
27:55
the community it claimed to represent. The trial
27:59
of Charles I stands as a demonstration that constitutional
28:03
claims, however radical, require more than military
28:06
victory to become established political reality.
28:09
They require legitimation, acceptance and time.
28:14
In 1649, the time had not yet come.