1.
To what extent did the British Civil War constitute a historical turning point?
The British Civil War diminished absolutist rule as monarchical power was limited in favour of improved
settlement between monarchy and parliament. As Britain entered the early 18th century, a turning point
materialised as a consequence of the beheading of Charles I, as the ‘king moved away from centre stage,
and gave way to party politicians’1, and political labels such as the Whigs and Tories. This was a drastic
change from Charles’ rule, where the ‘divine rule’ of monarchy was the central power. Indeed, after the
Glorious Revolution of 1688, the constitutional framework of Britain was fundamentally altered.
Royalist, prerogative powers such as raising money without parliament’s consent, and the creation of
ecclesiastical commissions were abolished. Instead, libertarian values that promoted freedom of speech
whilst sustaining the affiliation of monarchy at the same time, created a transformed Britain which was
genuinely democratic. My essay looks to explore how this process was achieved by 1688 after the
execution of Charles I in 1649, despite the fact that settlement was not immediately evident.
Historiography has proven that the Civil War is a contentious argument in terms of its legacy. Some
modern historians argue that the legacy of the Civil War did not improve the constitutional settlement
within England greatly. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 is claimed to merely be a successful invasion of
Britain by a Dutch, foreign power, an idea emphasised by the revolution being the last occasion that
England was invaded so successfully.2 Yet this can only be argued on face value, since William III had a
hereditary right to the crown, being third in line to the crown through his mother, Mary Stuart. Moreover,
1
2
S. Jenkins, A short history of England, (London, 2011) pg. 209
T. Harris, Restoration-Charles II and his Kingdoms (London, 2006) pg. 9
2.
rather than being an unexpected invasion for purely dominant and brutal reasons, William’s invasion had
been planned after an ‘immortal seven’3 invited him to invade in order to restore traditional values and to
liberate England from James II’s catholic regime. An alternative perspective from Whig historians such as
Thomas Macaulay, view the revolution conservatively, as a ‘revolution strictly defensive’4 in reaction to the
rule of absolutist monarchs such as Charles I and James II. Thus the revolution is seen as being merely
reactive rather than proactive, as if Britain was simply resorting to old values. I believe that the
Glorious Revolution was a long term benefit of the Civil War, proactively achieving new forms of
compromise. Indeed, a wide range of measures clearly limited the monarch’s power, consequently
creating a necessary, co-operative relationship between parliament and the monarch. The Bill of Rights of
1689 ‘tacitly implied that William III and his successors were constitutional monarchs’ 5 in a way that
Charles I, Charles II and James II had not been. Monarchy was transformed.
Prerogative rule and absolutism were abolished as a long term result of civil war. William III’s arrival to
the British throne signified a democratic settlement that protected traditional parliamentary liberties and
Protestantism. Tony Claydon uses the phrase ‘monarchical republicanism’6 in which a monarch exists but
ambiguously has less power than the early 17th century due to the emergence of a government within the
constitution. Claydon and John Spurr suggest that ‘monarchical republicanism’ succeeded during the reign
3
M. Kishlansky,, A Monarchy Transformed-Britain 1603-1714 (London, 1996) pg. 278
Harris Restoration, pg. 10
5
Kishlansky, A Monarchy Transformed, pg. 295
6
J. Spurr, William III by Tony Claydon, in the The English Historical Review , 119 (2004) pp. 1061-62
4
3.
of Elizabeth I before unravelling under the Stuarts. However, Elizabeth’s rule cannot be compared to the
Glorious Revolution where legislation firmly promoted parliamentarian interests such as the Triennial Act
and the Bill of Rights which stated, ‘that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant
kingdom to be governed by a popish prince.’7 Such legislation can be directly traced back to the civil war
where radicals attempted to limit Charles since ‘the early Stuart monarchs believed that they derived their
authority from God, not the people…’8, and consequently ruled in an authoritarian manner. Charles I ruled
with parliament at his disposal, as displayed by his eleven years of Personal Rule after he had dissolved the
Commons. The King’s advisor, the Earl of Strafford, exclaimed to his monarch that Charles was now ‘loose
and absolved from all rules of government’9, after freeing himself from parliament. Such tyrannical and
absolutist tones are completely inconsistent with the image of the monarchy at the Glorious Revolution,
where William was dependent on Parliamentary finance and bound to the constitutional settlement. Thus,
by executing Charles I, radicals during the Civil War had helped facilitate the process of transforming the
monarchy from a dictator into a diplomatic and subservient role.
By comparing Charles I’s intransience to the Glorious Revolution of 1688, it is clear that the regimes of
the Interregnum, Charles II and James II could not oversee the process of settlement. Signs of progress
towards constitutional settlement were sporadic before 1688, due to the fact that settlement was difficult
so soon after the magnitude of Charles I’s execution. Even though Britain never resorted to Civil War again
7
Jenkins, A Short History pg.200
I. Gentles, The English Revolution and the Wars in the Three Kingdoms 1638-1652, (Harlow, 2007) pg. 67
9
Woolrych, A., The English Revolution: an introduction, in The English Revolution 1600-1660 (London, 1968) pg. 15
8
4.
to achieve settlement, great divides inevitably plagued the country as a result of the war. It is only after the
Glorious Revolution that the political framework becomes much more settled. Oliver Cromwell sought to
create a regime that focused on appeasing God’s wishes; however he was to be frustrated by ‘two harsh
facts’10. Cromwell was dependent on the army, and the parliamentary cause had become fragmented by
divisions including Political Independents and Political Presbyterians. Such divide is inevitable due to the
unease of having no traditional monarchy in rule. At the Glorious Revolution, a monarch is a necessary part
of a constitution in order to balance parliamentary power as well as representing traditional sovereignty and
stability. Indeed, 35 editions of Eikon Basilike, ‘The image of King’, were published within a year of
Charles I’s execution11, reiterating that the monarchy could not be completely abolished from Britain’s
constitution. Monarchism was seen as central to many people, and if ruled appropriately, they would
welcome its return. In the words of Harris, ‘republicanism had shallow roots in England’12, and it was only
Cromwell’s ambition that helped sustain the Interregnum. It was just a case of finding a monarch to rule in
consent with parliament, so that settlement could be finalised after the Civil War.
Charles II and James II were to prove unsuitable in finalising the settlement of the war, with the
latter enforcing his subjects to oversee William’s invasion as a viable alternative. Charles exemplified that
settlement was not possible since Stuart kings were still inclined to Authoritarian tendencies. Such a theory
of government would not suffice since the citizens of Britain would overwhelmingly not trust such abuse of
10
Ibid. pg.31
Kishlansky, A Monarchy Transformed, pg. 197
12
Harris, Restoration, pg. 43
11
5.
governmental power. Indeed, John Locke argued that the people will align themselves to a theory of
government that benefits their interests. The rules of Charles II and James II were too inclined to ‘grow
exorbitant in the use of their power, and employ[ed] for the destruction, and not the preservation, of the
properties of their people’13. By looking to Louis XIV of France for financial support, Charles II was not
only
rejecting parliament, but also appearing as tyrannical to the public eye. By associating with an external,
absolutist state, Charles was not fulfilling his role as a stable sovereign, working in the best interest of his
subjects. In contrast, William III’s revolution specifically accepted a working relationship with parliament,
more in line with Hobbes’ theory of social contract. Libertarian rights were outlined through the
revolution, although necessary stages had to be passed in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion. The issue
of primogeniture meant that Britain could not dispose of more monarchs as it would break the hereditary
chain. However, Britain did not descend into political chaos, waiting for the right moment to achieve
settlement under William III instead.
Despite the fact that the period between the Civil War and Glorious Revolution was not fully settled,
Civil War had been prevented from taking place again. As Hugo Grotius suggested, ‘any Civil War is worse
than the necessity of submitting to an unlawful government…Any peace prefable to Civil War’14, so the fact
that Britain negotiated a peaceful invasion of William III to replace the Catholic James II delineates that a
13
14
J. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, (London, 1689), Chapter XIX
R. Tuck, (ed.) The Rights of War and Peace (Indianapolis, 2005) pg. 240
6.
solution was eventually resolved in a negotiable manner. Instead of War, Britain sought settlement. Pocock
states that ‘there was indeed no Civil War in 1688; no battle, that is to say, very little bloodshed, and no
general relapse into a condition of epidemic armed violence’15 as was used to obtain ends in the disposal of
Charles I. A turning point was evident, since James II’s rule could easily have descended into Civil War
again. Indeed, by ‘abrogating’ Penal Laws and Test Acts which prevented heretical worship and excluded
Catholics from positions of power, James portrayed ‘that he was prepared to act without Parliamentary
consent.’16 By abusing his position of power, and acting against conventional British values of
Protestantism, and liberty, James II ensured that change was necessary. A negotiable transition ensued with,
William’s
Declaration of invasion outlining his duty to ‘preserve and maintain the established laws, liberties and
customs’.17 This would be achieved through a secure election of a free parliament. Indeed, William did not
invade England with the intention of becoming king. No tyrannical rule was to be enforced upon the
people of England. Unlike the regimes before him, William was intent on a system of monarchy that would
be coordinated with parliament. The Civil War was instrumental in leading to this process, as Britain learnt
that negotiated settlement was prefable to bloodshed. William III’s arrival represented the end of
revolution and struggles to replace or remove absolutist monarchs.
15
L.G. Schwoerer, The Revolution of 1688-89-Changing Perspectives, (Cambridge, 1992) pg. 3
K. Loveman , Samuel Pepys and ‘Discourses touching Religion’ under James II, in English Historical Review, 127 (524), (2012)
pp. 46-82
17
Kishlansky, A Monarchy Transformed pg. 279
16
7.
This essay looks to outline how the Civil War ensured the decline of absolutism, which was diminished by
the Glorious Revolution. Developments had been made to improve the constitutional settlement, although
my essay does not highlight missed opportunities for Charles I to have achieved this earlier. For example
1641 could have seen Scotland and England united towards a constitutional, parliamentary monarchy since
the example of the Covenanters proved that all levels of society could be appeased. My essay thus portrays
that because of missed opportunities, the process of constitutional settlement was not immediate.
Struggles to achieve compromise through Republicanism merely highlighted that the monarch was to be a
necessary part of the constitution. However the execution of Charles I symbolised a new age in which
authoritarian rule, that was uncorrelated to liberty and parliamentary values, would be dismissed. It is the
Glorious Revolution, where the benefits of Civil War are finally noticeable as William was prepared to
accept traditional values of liberation, and to ‘make good his Title in the consent of the people’.18 Unlike
the monarchs before him William focused on a stable relationship between sovereign and state, as a
beneficial legacy of Civil War.
18
Locke, J., Two Treatises of Government, Chapter II
Bibliography
Printed Primary sources
8.
Hobbes, T., Leviathan, (London, 1651)
Locke, J., Two Treatises of Government, (London, 1689)
Secondary sources: books
Gentles, I., The English Revolution and the Wars in the Three Kingdoms, 1638-1652, (Harlow, 2007) pp. 63462
Harris, T., Restoration, Charles II and his Kingdoms, (London, 2006) pp. 1-85
Hill, C., The Century of Revolution, 1603-1714, (1st edn., London, 1961)
Ives, E.W., The English Revolution, (London, 1968) pp. 1-86
Jenkins, S., A Short History of England, (London, 2011) pp. 200-213
Kishlansky, M., A Monarchy Transformed, Britain 1603-1714, (London, 1996) pp. 34-312
Schwoerer, L.G., The Revolution of 1688-89-Changing Perspectives, (Cambridge, 1992) pp. 1-24
Tuck, R., The Rights of War and Peace (Indianapolis, 2005)
Secondary sources: articles
Loveman, K., Samuel Pepys and ‘Discourses touching Religion’ under James II, in The English Historical
Review, 127 (524), (2012), pp. 46-82
Spurr, J., William III, in The English Historical Review, 119 (London, 2004) pp. 1061-62