In 1646, Charles secretly left Oxford, not sure whether to appeal to the English in London, or the Scots at Newark. It was the start of a long process of three years, which would see torturous negotiations – and the rise of extraordinary ideas about the rights of the people and religious toleration, and how to make all the blood worthwhile in a new world. It was a journey that would lead to the scaffold on a cold morning in January 1649.

Download Podcast - AAG 1646-1649 To Kill a King (Right Click and select Save Link As)

Transcript

Hello everyone and welcome back to the History of England at a Gallop, which covers the period from the end of the first civil war in 1646 to the end of January 1646 when a certain significant even happens. This period was dealt with in 11 episodes in the main podcast series, between 400 and 410

On March 1646 the last pitched battle took place at Stow on the Wold in Oxfordshire. It was the last royalist attempt to relieve the royal HQ at Oxford under close siege by Fairfax. As a result of the defeat of the last royalist marching army, by June 1646 Charles would have fled Oxford in disguise, probably not yet sure where he was going. Now at Stow, the Parliamentary soldiers had caught up with the royalist commander, the veteran Jacob Astley, sitting in the market square. Jacob gave himself up happily, winked at his captors and said cheerfully

Well, boys, you have done your work, now you may go and play—if you don’t fall out among yourselves.

This episode is all about how Jacob’s implied prediction turned out to be accurate. How the victors struggle to visualise and build a new world, while the King plays on the faultlines between the Presbyterian majority and their Independent challengers, and watches them come to blows, in the certain knowledge that no solution was possible without a king. It is the story of how Charles pays the ultimate price for his miscalculation, it’s about the rise of radicalism in the political mix, and how a winner emerges from the infighting. With a radical solution no one had envisaged either at the start or the end of the civil war.

Now then, shall we have a quick state of the nation – maybe let’s imagine the options in Charles’ mind as he leaves Oxford with Jack Asburnham at his side in June 1646. Ireland had been the King’s great hope through the war, and had supplied a stream of soldiers since the Cessation of September 1643. But Ireland would be closed to Charles now; the hardline Clerical party under Cardinal Rinuccini was in control, ably supported by his general Roe O’Neil, who defeated the New Scots at Benburb in 1646. The clerical party now controlled the Confederate Association, and they pursued a new policy. Rather than negotiate with Charles, they now sought to win control over all Ireland, and then from that position of strength, impose terms on the king – or even choose a foreign ruler.

The Scots might offer Charles a more positive option. I mean you’d think not The Presbyterian Covenanters had represented a solid military option against the king throughout the wars, and their political and religious influence in London was strong, and they had a League and Covenant with the English – and not just a common or garden league and covenant, a solemn League and Covenant. And yet Charles was most optimistic that he could talk them round, because he knew the Scots revered their unbroken Stuart monarchy. and he’d had feelers through the French ambassador. Said ambassador, to be honest was not an honest broker, more the diplomatic kind – i.e. a dishonest broker. But as far as Charles knew they were hot to trot – and the Scots were indeed ready to trot – but at a price of which Charles was not aware.

So the Scots seemed an option but then there was London. Buit you know – -enemy HQ & all. So the idea seems what my Grandfather would have described as daft as a brush. But d’you know the thought wasn’t so silly. The religious and political Independents had turned London into a ferment of political and religious radicalism and ideas, the world gone mad, turned upside down, and downside up too. So there were was a big powerful party, the Presbyterians who feared this chaos and freedom, and were seeking to impose order – social rules re-imposed, a national church on the lines of the Scottish kirk established, crush all this radicalism and religious toleration. Alliance with the king might be the way to achieve that – and Charles was confident that the hearts of the people lay with him still, and he was not wrong, incredible as it may sound. So – if he could just get to London maybe he could ride a wave of popularity and desire for peace, exploit the fears of the Presbyterians, and turn the clock back.

In the end, Charles chose the Scots. Probably decisive was that they were the only alternative military option, and that they also hated the Independents. So he turned north and the Scots collective flabber was ghasted when he walked into their camp at Newark. Straightway, lie a dog given a fresh bone, they whisked him north to their HQ at Newcastle. And presented Charles with the price – his signature on the Covenant, and a national Presbyterian church, no bishops thank you. Charles was horrified. Not on your Nellie, or an anyone else’s Nellie for that matter. A bit confused, Johnston of Waristoun, architect of the Covenant, started to work on him. Mysteriously, the French Ambassador was nowhere to be seen.

The news that the King had fled to the Scots hit the parliamentary Committee of Both Kingdoms in London like a train – or it would have done if trains had been invented. Let us take a moment to consider some of the factions and ideas floating around in the London Soup, in this world of John Milton’ s famous please for free speech – Areopagitica.

Much of the radicalism we might attached to a group loosely known as the Independents. They preached that congregations should be free to follow their own ministers and not be tied to the new Presbyterian Director of Worship, and the Solemn League and Covenant. Writers like Katherine Chidley taught that women were equal in conscience if not in politics, and that anyone of any station in life could start a church or become a minister. Attitudes that made any of the old elite retire to a darkened room with a wet towel. Before their head exploded.

The independents were much smaller in number than the Presbyterians in society and parliament. But they had a trump card – the Army. The New Model was a Godly army, stuffed with independents; in their  demand for religious freedom and toleration they counted Cromwell among their number, and in Fairfax and Cromwell had commanders they loved and who loved them. As a commentator at the time wrote, Cromwell

Loved his soldiers as his children, and his greatest care was to see them provided for, with all necessities

The esprit de corps between the men of the new Model, and the men who had led them through the wars and shared their faith, Fairfax and Cromwell, will remain strong throughout our story.

The egalitarian implications of the religious Independents encouraged political radicalism too. Within parliament this led to the rise of a small group of radicals around Henry Marten, Thomas Rainsborough and Henry Ireton; Ireton being incidentally Oliver Cromwell’s son in law now. But from the religious ideas of Independency and the equality of all people in the eyes of God came a new political movement that would shake the old ideas of hierarchy. Principal among them was John Lilburne, he who had been whipped through the streets of London at the arse of a cart by Laud’s Star Chamber. Now Honest John, as he was called, was outspoken in his demand for religious toleration, reform of law and political rights and representation for ordinary people. Freeborn John he was also called for his love of Magna Carta as a charter of rights.

By nature we are all sons of Adam and from him we have derived a natural propriety, right and freedom

Declared Lilburne and his followers. Their horrified opponents, royalist and Presbyterian alike, threw insults at them –  the levellers called them. But the Levellers became expert at mobilising the London people, with pamphlets, and marches – and united one great petition, the Remonstrance of many Thousand Citizens

The poorest that lives, hath as true a right to give a vote, as well as the richest and the greatest

It declared, and that all monarchs were

the continuall Oppressours of the Nation’

Good Golly miss molly, A dangerous lot. Too radical even for most independents it has to be said. At this point in 1646 the Levellers were small and without political power. The story of these years is how they looked for that power amongst the Godly independents of the Army, the soldiers who had bled and died for this new world. And began to gather support.

Against this then, conservative forces now gathered, in the form of the Presbyterian majority, who controlled both parliament and the money bags of the London Common Council. They found a leader in Denzil Holles, who had been scarred by his experience of the war and now built a party round him – let us call them Holles and Co. Now was the time to collect the prize of victory – they drew up a Presbyterian settlement in alliance with the Scots. It was called the Newcastle Propositions. Because it would be in Newcastle where the defeated king would surely have no choice but to bow to the inevitable

Given they had, you know, won, the spirit of reconciliation and healing was entirely absent from the Newcastle Propositions. He had to swear to the Solemn League and Covenant; his kingdoms would all become Presbyterian, there would be no bishops, no book of Common prayer, the comfortable old Elizabethan church was gone. Parliament was to control all military forces for 20 years, so probably until after Charles had died.

Oh dear oh dear who badly they misjudged their man. Charles wasn’t beaten! He suffered nothing but a scratch. Charles would give these proposals neither the time of day, he was quite clear from which end of a pineapple they were drawn.

Now, this might come as a surprise to you also, given the hundreds of thousands who had died, the blood soaked earth of the three kingdoms. So let us spend a moment on Charles here, and his mental state.

Whatever you think about Charles Stuart, this man was no pushover; alone in a sea of hostile enemies and tough negotiators, his mental resilience was superb. But he also lacked any desire to see his kingdom healed, differences resolved, compromises reached and warfare brought to an end unless it restored him to his own. He had to win. He had to win by any means necessary. He considered his political opponents nothing but malignant, power hungry rebels without any principles or sincerely held objections, they worthy of no respect. He felt no compunction about abandoning promises made to such people during negotiation. Already by this time he had probably resolved that he would never sacrifice his principles, his grounds as he called them, whatever the needs of his people; he would rather die a martyr, to maintain what he saw as his God -given rights, so as not to mortgage the rule of his successors

If I cannot live as a king I will die as a martyr

He wrote.

So, it is not surprising the Newcastle Propositions failed, and honestly it wasn’t very yes-able anyway. By now the Scots were sick of the whole thing – the king had turned out not to be their trump card, but the joker. In a move that absolutely outraged the Scottish people, deeply attached to their Stuart monarchy as they were, Argyll and the Kirk Party agreed to give Charles to the English parliament in return for a massive payment of £400,000 for costs incurred in the war. By February 1647 the last Scottish solider had left England, and Charles had been taken to Holdenby House in Northamptonshire, about 80 miles north of London. But the horror among the Scots at what was looked suspiciously like the sale of their king, undermined Argyll and his kirk party. And breathed life into the royalist cause; they were Covenanters, sure, but royalist too. They resolved to Engage with Charles to bring him to power. By 1648, these Engagers would hold political power in Scotland. And seek accommodation and return of the King.

But that lies in the future. In buying the king, Holles had produced a political master stroke. The departure of the Scots removed the need for an Army in England surely. The New Model was the rock of the Independents. If Holles can now dismiss the Army, he would break the power of the independents; and most of the English would love him for it. Because the horrendous weight of taxes would be reduced, at last.

Holles & Co now therefore moved to lay off as many soldiers as possible. And at this stage most soldiers were perfectly happy to agree, to go back, to their valleys and their farms. There was s small condition of course – they were owed over a year of back pay, so they’d need that to support their families. And they obviously needed an indemnity about anything they’d done in the war so that the landowners didn’t come for them when they were defenceless – you know like commissioning some horses or some such. But that was surely reasonable, nothing but justice for the men who had shed their blood for parliament. And no one would be silly enough to outrage 50,000 armed, hardened veteran soldiers would they?

Well you might say that, I could possibly comment. Sadly the spirit of reason and reconciliation was not strong among Holles & Co. ‘We will destroy them all’ wrote the Presbyterian  William Strode.

Holles advanced a plan to lay off most of the army leaving just 7,000. He would split the army and reduce their ability to resist by sending a big contingent to Ireland to suppress the rebellion. They would go without their old commanders, Fairfax and Cromwell. They would be given back pay. Only six weeks, because obviously they couldn’t afford more than that. ASnd I mean surely no one could object to fighting for free for most of a year? I mean it’s only blood.

All happy with their nifty little plan, Parliament sent William Waller to the army camps in East Anglia to announce it – job done, surely, should be a doddle, after all we are parliament!  Waller walked into a storm. The army as yet had no thought of exercising political power, but this was an insult to their honour and pride in the sacrifice they had made for English liberty. Plus they hated the idea of fighting in Ireland – people died like flies in the Irish wars. Fairfax and Cromwell totally agreed, and backed the demands of their men. Waller was sent back with a Petition in his pocket, listing the demands of the New Model.

Holles & parliament received the petition in the spirit of compromise. Not. Actually they could see nothing of the justice, nothing but affrontery at being subject to demands by ordinary, rank and file soldiers. In parliament the debate between Holles and MPs who supported the army was a conflagration;  Army commander and MP Henry Ireton challenged Holles to a duel and they left the house heading for the bike sheds before they were dragged back. What came out of parliament in April 1647 was one of the most absurdly self-destructive actions of any parliament; the Declaration of Dislike. The text of this suicide note was scribbled in haste and anger by Holles on his knee in the session. It declared any soldiers who did not comply with parliaments’ orders would be declared enemies of the State. While the message went back to the Army, Holles and the London Common Council prepared, mobilising the London Trained bands, and recruit unemployed soldiers in the capital, the Reformardoes, to build their own army should they need to force the New Model to submit.

Light had been duly applied to the blue touch paper. It is from here that the New Model starts its journey towards becoming a political revolutionary army. They were of course furious at this contempt. Regiments began to elect Agitators – agents in modern parlance to represent their views. Levellers saw an opportunity, and began to recruit among their ranks, spreading the talk of political reform, religious liberty and representation for the people. Fairfax and Cromwell were torn; they remained committed to the parliament for whose rights they had fought. But these soldiers were their men, their own. They saw the justice of their cause. As some point, maybe they would have to choose – for the moment they pleaded to Holles that they could still save this situation respond positively to the army, offer proper pay and assurances, and this would all end.

Buit there was to be no burst of common sense. In May 1647 Holles & Co kept up the pressure. They sent recruiting officers to the army, to divide and rule, to split away some by offering pay for an Irish army. He started negotiations with the king, offering a more generous settlement, that would bypass the army, their demands, and their desire for religious liberty. And declared disbandment would go ahead, as was. But maybe the straw was the news from the House of Lords. They declared they had a draft agreement, with the King and he would be brought back to London. Whoosh! The political wildfire. Like a flashflood through the ranks, to mix my metaphors, the news washed through the ranks. They were to be betrayed. King Charles had won. The sacrifice of the New Model was as nought. They were to be discarded, unpaid and defenceless against legal revenge from returning royalists. There was fury; and there was fear.

 

Right then here we go, Now, this podcast is at a gallop, but no history of England worth its salt can exclude this, one of those classic and immortal set pieces moments of the English Revolution. So It’s the night of June 2^nd 1647, Charles was woken by a young soldier of the lowest officer rank, Cornet Joyce a London tailor before the war. He told the king in no uncertain terms he was taking over his guard. But the following morning when Charles emerged from his toilet, there was Joyce – with his troopers. And he told the king they were not just taking over his guard, they taking him away from Holdenby completely. Charles, not unreasonably asked on whose authority Joyce was removing him. Which gave Jouyce a probably, because without putting too fine a point on it, he didn’t have any. And the following is evidence that Charles the Martyr has a nice line in dry, English wit and understatement

I pray you Mr Joyce, deal ingenuously with me, and tell me what commission you have

Here is my commission

Where?

Behind me,

said Joyce. Behind Joyce stood 500 fully armed troopers. Maybe some were thoughtfully feeling the edge of their swords. Or checking the sights of their Carbines.

It is as fair a commission and as well written as I have seen a commission written in my life: a company of as handsome proper gentlemen as I have seen in a great while

Nice line Charlie lad, that’s a cracker. I forgive you all.

The debate in English history has always been – who was behind Cornet Joyce’s intervention? Fairfax does not appear to have known anything about it. But we know Joyce had been at Drury lane three days before, and he was not being entertained by the Muffin Man, oh no, he was being served beer, bread and butter by Elizabeth Cromwell. And he was chewing over the growing crisis between parliament and army with Oliver and a group of Army officers. Joyce then left and went straight from there to pick up his troop, then over the Holdenby. The view of most historians is that Cromwell approved the plan to take control of the king to stop a separate deal by parliament; but not that he should be abducted., That seems to have been Joyce, panicking that a group of soldiers sympathetic to parliament were on their way that very morning to seize back control of the king. But the story of Cromwell the devious schemer planning for power starts here. Red Flag for royalists.

Joyce took Charles to the army camp at Newmarket. And now it’s Fairfax and Henry Ireton whop come to the fore of our story. The army was now seething with fury at the way they had been treated and the agitators met and shared their fears and hopes, and Levellers were active in their midst; steadily, the army was becoming political. Henry Ireton would be the thinker and wordsmith of the revolution. Although he was a senior officer, he didn’t try to do any crushing of mutineers or putting on a charge or handing out 100 press ups that kind of thing – he knew his fellow soldiers. So instead he met with the agitators heard their ideas and those of the levellers even, and wrote up a petition for them. It was called The Solemn Engagement of the Army. It was more than a petition – it was a covenant, a bond, an oath; to never disband unless all soldiers had been catered for. It proudly declared, and this will be the army’s credo, that they ‘were no mere mercenary army’, but men who had fought freely for the liberties of their nation. It demanded not only their pay and indemnity – but demanded legal equality and reform, and liberty of conscience – the influence of the levellers appearing. The New Model was become an agent of revolution.

Nor did not Fairfax cry mutiny; instead he and Cromwell talked and listened to each regiment. Fairfax accepted the petition – and remarkably set up a General Army Council. Which would include both officers – and the Agitators of the rank and file, who would be given a real say in decision making. Fairfax steadfastly played the honest broker between army and parliament, calling a muster of the army and giving the chance for parliamentary representatives to speak to them.

And now, with the king snatched from their control and the army in open defiance, at last Holles realised just what a howler he had made. It was too late – the MPs left with cries of Justice! Justice! Ringing in their ears. In response in London, Holles called out the trained bands, and parliament issued a proclamation demanding the Return of the King and the army stand down.

Fairfax, Cromwell and the Army Council now turned to the king to help break the deadlock without yet more violence. After a general council at Reading, Henry Ireton produced the most remarkable document of the entire negotiation with the king – it was called the Heads of Proposal. Ireton had worked with representatives of the independents in parliament – Harry Vane, Lord Saye and Sele – to ensure it had the best chance of success with all parties. The aim of this proposal was ambitious; at last, a document of reconciliation that aimed at no less than the healing of the nation after 6 years of war, to reconcile the needs of all – the king and his royalist supporters, the Presbyterians and the Independents. And not just healing – it aimed to build a better world from the blood that had been spilled.

Agreed by the Army Council, A delegation went from Reading to see the King at the magnificent house of Woburn Abbey, led by Henry Ireton and Thomas Rainsborough. They laid the Heads of Proposal before Charles. The king would be returned in all his majesty at the head of the nation. It accepted Charles’ determination to retain Bishops; but made that acceptable to all by removing their legal coercive power – they would be spiritual leaders, not repressing enforcers of royal policy. Liberty of Conscience for all protestants was assured – and tacit acceptance of Catholics; lovers of the old church would be allowed to keep their beloved BCP. The electorate would be expanded, the constituencies redrawn on equal lines, elections would be held every two years, the king would have control of the army back after just 10 years, royalists excluded from voting for only 5 more years.

When the delegation met with the king, they had hope in their hearts. Here was the reconciliation they had all been hoping for. No one at this point had any thought of a world without a king, he was the lynchpin of England’s ancient constitution. Cromwell himself had just said to the King’s adviser, Lord Berkeley

They thought no men could enjoy their lives and estates quietly without the king had his rights

And a personal comment that Charles was

The uprightest and most conscientious man of these three kingdoms

As they sat down to talk, these ordinary men of the middling sort, for the very first time in English history negotiating with their king on the future of their nation, Berkely was astounded at the generosity of the terms on offer. And he marveled

never was a Crown so near lost, so cheaply recover’d, as his Majesty’s would be, if they agreed upon such terms

If this was agreed, the end of the Civil war was in sight. If Fairfax, Charles and the New Model marched on London together, the people of London would have welcomed then, Holles & Pals in parliament would have had no choice but to accept this new world. With perseverance and goodwill, a new England could be forged.

Charles of course had his own agenda and was unmoved. He was hearing positive moves from Scotland, of the royalist revival of the Engagers. He hated dealing with these ordinary men and did not trust them as far as he could throw them. So – he refused to accept the Heads of Proposals and the hope of reconciliation. He could do better than this. No, he’d follow the tactic that had served so well – he would delay, procrastinate until something came up – maybe with Scottish help he could restart the war and defeat these rebels. After all, no one could do without his agreement; because, as he put it to the delegation

You cannot be without me; You will fall to ruin if I do not sustain you.

The shipwreck of the Heads of Proposals on the rock of Charles wildly optimistic intransigence was a tragedy.

In the end, the Speaker and Independent oriented MPs and Lords fled London and parliament, and joined the army. Fairfax then led the New Model into London without the king, 15,000 veterans, in perfect order and control, ‘not an apple stolen’ as one person wrote. And faced by them, the London Trained bands evaporated, the Reformadoes found something more important to do, Holles and 11 leading members of the Presbyterian faction fled. Parliament was now controlled by the Independents, at behest of an army coup.

Parliament and the Army Grandees now set down to try again to work things out with the king at Hampton court just outside London. Charles was loving this; he was treated once more like a king, and all came to pay him court, even Ireton, Fairfax and Mr & Mrs Cromwell came to dine at his table. But within their Godly army and in London, the Levellers were at work, raising petitions, printing and circulating pamphlets. So much so, that several of them, including Mary Overton and Elizabeth Lilburne were hauled in front of parliament and jailed for sedition. Lilburne and his radical colleagues were now stirring up suspicion that the Army Grandees would sell them short, were not to be trusted – the Jugglers, Honest John Lilburne called them.

The levellers and the agitators in the Army sympathetic to them produced a thoroughly radical petition for reform – the Case of the Army Restated. It called for votes for all men whatever their station in life, legal reform, fresh elections, liberty of conscience, abolition of tithes – and roundly accused the Army leadership of betrayal. But it that last, they challenged a relationship that had been forged in war, and through a shared evangelical religion. Despite the levellers charges against them, once again Fairfax and Cromwell offered talks, invited the officers, agitators and even some levellers to a debate at Putney, to thrash things out.

The Putney Debates of November 1647 were one of the most remarkable events in English history, and should be an essential part of every English school curriculum. By an incredible twist, all the debates were transcribed by one William Clarke, lost, and the re-discovered in the late 19^th century by Charles Firth. You can read, online, the voices of ordinary people earnestly and in good faith sharing ideas and debating the best ways to forge a new constitution. It went on for days, chaired by Cromwell usually and punctuated by regular sessions of shared prayer to help promote concord. There is no space here to listen to those voices, but probably the most famous speech came from Thomas Rainsborough’s plea for social justice when he said

the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he; and therefore…every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government

Extraordinary stuff for the 17^th century. Nothing like this had happened before in England, or elsewhere in Europe. Nothing about women yet I regret to say, but hey, it’s a start. At the end of it, The Council of Officers sent the men back to their regiments and issued a Declaration, the Agreement of the People, a moderate declaration based on the debates. For Lilburne and the Levellers it was not enough; furious at what they thought it lacked, they produced their own version and tried to incite the army to rebellion at the first muster at Corkbrush field near Ware north of London. John Lilburne travelled to Ware to wait for his moment to stand at the head of a new revolution.

And some regiments did agree that the official declaration was not radical enough. So they appeared with green symbols and copies of the Leveller agreement of the people in the hats, some of them turned up despite not being invited. In a highly charged atmosphere a combination of Fairfax’s personal charm, charisma and respect, and Cromwell’s decisiveness won the day. Fairfax presenting his declaration to each regiment and they cheered. When a few regiments brandished the Leveller Agreement, Cromwell and several officers cowed the mutineers by riding among them and snatching the papers from them. Thus was unity was restored.

But constitutional change would have to wait. For news arrived on 11^th November that Charles had legged it from Hampton court. Charles’ flight has something of farce about it. It’s not clear why he fled; maybe believed rumours he was about to be murdered, maybe he believed his clueless advisers like Jack Ashburnham when he said that the people were ready to rise in his cause. But either way he never appears to have been clear where he was going. He ended up, going to the Isle of Wight, where he hoped the Governor was sympathetic – the Governor was not sympathetic, and Charles found himself locked in grim confinement in Carisbroke castle, far from the luxury of Hampton Court.

Parliament lost its patience, sick of the king’s duplicity and refusal to negotiate in good faith. Even Cromwell no longer believed his king was upright and honest. He now declared him

So great a dissembler and so false a man that he was not to be trusted

Parliament presented four bills to Charles, basic commitments they demanded from the king before they would negotiate a wider agreement. Charles prevaricated once more and kept them waiting. Because behind parliament’s back he had negotiated a secret deal with the Scots – known to history as the Engagement. Thereby Charles committed himself to a national Presbyterian church imposed on England, in return for a Scottish army to re-instate him as king there. Charles was preparing to make war on his people once more. He firmly believed that when the Scottish army appeared, hopefully with him at its front if he could escape Carisbroke, the English people would rise up enthusiastically and sweep him back onto his throne where he belonged. So on 28th December, he turned parliament’s four bills down.

Now it happens that Charles had some basis for hoping the English would rise in his support. People were exhausted by the years of war which had wrought massive economic dislocation, taxes were higher than ever before, and they were suffering great hardship. And social change was deeply disruptive and unwelcome for many – this was not the society they believed in. County Committees people by ordinary folk ruled the land; all this agitation for equality by levelers and Army seemed to threaten chaos – or as the popular ballad had it, to turn the world upside down. Meanwhile royalists landowning soldiers had seen heavy fines and sequestration of their estates, forced to buy them back from parliament if they wanted to stay in England with their slate wiped clean. And then all the religious changes were enough to give anyone a nose bleed  – and possibly worst of all, back in 1644 parliament had tried to cancel Christmas.

Parliament did what they could; 20,000 soldiers were de-mobbed, 45% of the total to try and reduce the monthly assessments for tax. But it was not enough. As news of the King’s engagement with the Scots spread, local rebellions flared up in Kent and Essex, and in South Wales. Although they were put down without much difficulty by Fairfax and Cromwell, yet Fairfax was still occupied in Essex when the Marquis of Hamilton appeared with an army of 14,000 in the north and started to march south.

The invasion of the Scottish Engagers was in trouble from the start. In Scotland Argyll, the Kirk party and their best general, David Leslie held aloof, horrified at this turn of events in support of a king who could not even bring himself to sign the Covenant which had united their nation. Very few English had any intention of joining the king’s rebellion and so stayed at home. Cromwell finished his work in South Wales as his fellow general John Lambert shadowed the Scots, until at Preston in August 1648 Cromwell annihilated the Scottish army.

Charles was a helpless spectator to all of this; maybe if he had been able to escape and set himself at the head of the army more English would have joined. And he tried, aided by  loyal friends such as Jane Whorwood. At one stage he seemed to have a workable plan but got his head stuck in the bars of his room, which was embarrassing. Though Jane Whorwood did manage to spirit his son James away from St James Palace over to France. But in Carisbroke Charles remained, impotent, helpless to participate in this fresh wave of bloodshed – for which he was responsible.

Because that was the view of the New Model Army now. The king had betrayed his people by making war on them while pretending to negotiate. The Second Civil war was fought with a level of bitterness no seen before in England and Wales. While for many people, soldiers included, the person of the king was sacrosanct, and they longed for his return, and the return to normality, for the New Model he had now been revealed as a warmonger. Petitions flooded into Fairfax demanding justice be visited on the king. Ireton produced another Army remonstrance, an agenda for reform based on the Agreement of the People which demanded that there be no more negotiations with this faithless king, that a constitution be imposed by parliament that ignored the defeated King’s views and that

King Charles, as the Capital Grand Author of the late troubles, may be speedily brought to Justice

Wow. Hold a king to account? There’s a new idea. And a phrase was now commonplace in the army to describe Charles – that man of Blood.

Well, it’s turmoil ladies and Gentlemen turmoil. But once more the Presbyterians and moderates in parliament tried to swim again the tide. Holles and his allies had been allowed to return in the spirit of reconciliation and unity. Against the express demands of the army, radicals and the Independent MPs, they now sent a delegation to negotiate with Charles on the Isle of Wight – again. They did  debate the Army Remonstrance – but rejected it. And then from Carisbroke produced a new agreement with Charles – the Treaty of Newport. It would ignore the army’s demand for liberty of conscience and impose a national Presbyterian church. When it came to the vote, the Speaker William Lenthall stood, starred at the MPs in front of him, and warned them in a ringing voice that they were voting for their own death. The voice of reason did no good. In the dead of night on the 4^th December 1648 Parliament approved the treaty of Newport. And went home to bed, and had a day off a fair days rest for a fair day’s work.

On the morning of 6^th December, MPs started to trickle back to parliament for their morning sessions. But at the top of the steps leading into St Stephen’s chapel, they met one Colonel Thomas Pride, with a metaphorical clipboard. The radical Lord Grey of Groby was whispering in his ear. As each MP approached they were either admitted, turned away or in the worst case seized and taken to Hell – the popular name for a tavern in Westminster Palace Yard. Parliament was being purged. Purged of the recalcitrant Presbyterians, in another set piece of the Revolution that has become known as Pride’s Purge.

It was in fact probably Henry Ireton’s purge. Cromwell had been absent since the Scottish invasion – and seems to have purposefully stayed away besieging Pontefract in one of his dithers of indecision; it will not be the last time, politics is so complicated, so unlike the glorious simplicity of war. Fairfax was also probably unaware until the last moment, but it is inconceivable Ireton did not tell his commanding officer. There’s no way to avoid it – although it left a Rump parliament in place, Pride’s Purge was a military coup.

The remaining Rump as it became known was probably about 70 Rumpers. Through 1649 it would grow again to 200 and become progressively more conservative, for the moment it was a radical assembly in which Henry Marten’s voice was loud. It had two tasks; to define England’s new constitution and decide what to do about the king.

First things first – the Constitution. This was an open process, usually presided over by Thomas Fairfax. It was open to a wide range of people, from the army, MPs, London Council and the levellers. Including John Lilburne actually. Though it must be said, compromise was not Honest John’s strong suit, and he would leave before the end, infuriated by Ireton’s precision, stubbornness and the need for compromise. Anyway there they sat in Whitehall day after day, for the Whitehall debates. To the modern eye it is a fantastic sight – the first time when people from a relatively ordinary background argued back and forth for a constitution to be submitted to Parliament for a new, fairer society. To others though it was an horrendous sight – hoi polloi daring to intrude on the work of the natural rulers, the aristocracy. The Royalist poet, diarist and horticulturalist John Evelyn poked his head round the door and saw nothing but

horrid villanies.

The Agreement of the People was submitted to parliament on 20^th January 1649. It is another extraordinarily innovative document which includes principles which will become commonplace the world over. Because it included the principle of natural rights – fundamental freedoms which could not be taken away from people whatever their status in life, not even by parliament.

It guaranteed a great degree of Religious toleration – though it must be said Catholics were excluded. The legal profession would be independent of parliament and equality before the law guaranteed; there would be fresh elections by 1649 on the basis of an extended franchise – though not universal suffrage. Constituencies were redrawn, on the basis of equal numbers of people. Sadly the agreement of the people would never be implemented by the Rump; but its thinking was a century or more ahead of its time.

One reason why the Agreement of the People never became a formal constitution was that focus now turned to the other big question – what to do with the king. It is worth noting that it is a myth that Cromwell was the architect of the king’s death or that anyone could not speak their view freely; as Lucy Hutchinson wrote

It is certain that all men herein were left to their free liberty of acting, neither persuaded nor compelled

There were agonies of indecision, and God was consulted. Frequently and at length actually, as was the idiom of the day. And a prophetess who had received visions called Eleanor Poole was brought and closely and respectfully questioned – she said trying the king was right, executing him wrong. So what were their options? They could give in, maybe, alright king you are right; or a military tribunal; to The had the age old Edward II and Richard II option of course – just make him disappear and put a son on the throne. But their ambitions were higher than that; no, they would do the right thing; they would hold a king to account. Publicly. And thereby demonstrate that Kings were not subject only to God, as they believed, but to the people.

Trouble is – no one had done that before, and the existing principles of English Common law did not allow it. There two things in particular; he couldn’t be tried by 12 men of his equal rank because he had no peers. And treason was defined as an offence against the king – but he was the king.

The solution they came up with has been described  by some as a kangaroo court, or something faintly disreputable. It was nothing of the sort, in my humble thingy, but the proudest moment of the Revolution. Whether you agree with that or not – and I suspect most do not – the great and thoroughly engaging historian C V Wedgewood got the point, when she wrote

Those who brought King Charles to trial defended their actions on principles of religion and patriotism and were proud of what they did

They were determined that this thing, as Thomas Harrison would later throw in the faces of his restoration judges,

was not a thing done in a corner. I believe the sound of it hath been in most nations

This be a no military court, no convenient short cut. They tried to get as close to traditional and accepted process as they could. The king would be tried in the name of the people of England, rather than in the name of the king. The charge pf treason was treason against the people. Instead of a jury of twelve there would be a court of commissioners, John Bradshaw would be president of the court, John Cooke the prosecutor. Evidence would be presented, the king would plead and be able to answer the charges – though in common with the procedures of treason trial, he would have no counsel with him in court – though he had plenty of advice before that.

All over London people were struck by a shower of toys being thrown out of prams, and the sound of carts rumbling as architects of the revolution fled the capital to be away from this. Oliver St John, Harry Vane, Bulstrode Whitlock all fled. The house of Lords would have no truck with any of it; Warwick and Saye and Sele now finally parted company from the revolution they had led. None of these were prepared to genuinely re think the future, and one famous exchange maybe symbolises the difference between the sides. Algernon Sydney refused to approved the plans because

First, the King could be tried by no court; secondly, that no man could be tried by that court

So what next then would seem to be the best response. Cromwell had come to accept what must be done, and would have agreed with later American Jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes when he said ‘the Constitution Is Not a Suicide Pact’. When the common good demands it, rules are there to be broken. Cromwell understood this. So He turned to Sydney and stared him down

I tell you, we will cut off his head with the crown upon it

Anne Fairfax will make herself famous for her intervention in the trial that this thing was not done by the people, was done in the name of not half of the people of England and it is difficult to argue with her; most of the people in England and Wales stared on with horrified wonder at this unthinkable prospect of a monarch, revered back into the midst of time as appointed by God, being judged by ordinary people. Royalists did nothing. Were paralysed. Snake and rabbit time.

The situation meanwhile played to all of Charles’ strengths. His utter conviction of his rightness, his resilience in the face of adversity. And a steely clarity of understanding about what was at stake here; and courage, an acceptance even welcoming of martyrdom. Charles had good legal advice before the trial and knew that if he entered a plea, he would be effectively recognising the authority of the court of the people. He would not commit Mary Stuart’s error, and thereby mortgage the future of his successors on the throne, which would then, horror of horrors, be subject to the judgement of their people. He never intended to plead. But he did have a plan to avoid death.

As the court assembled in Westminster Hall, the Scots were appalled, pointing out not unreasonably that Charles was their king also, of an unbroken and historic Scottish line and that no, they did not agree to this, thanks for asking, can we have him back please? The French, the Dutch both protested. All were politely listened to – and ignored.

Charles was sat before the court and the whole of Westminster hall was rammed with people to see this unthinkable thing. The Newsbooks went into overdrive. They heard the charges against Charles read out by Prosecutor John Cooke, with the conclusion that

The said Charles Stuart is a tyrant, Traitor and murderer

They heard Charles laugh contemptuously in the face of the court. And then instead of pleading calmly demand of the court

I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful authority

And so proceeded a battle of wills between President of the court John Bradshaw and the king. Charles played an absolute blinder, and compellingly argued that the court was illegal, and that

It is the liberty of the people of England that I stand for

Bradshaw gave not an inch and saw Charles momentarily crack when Bradshaw rejoined

Sir…how great a friend you have been to the laws and liberties of the people may all England and the world judge

In treason trials the defendants had been given one chance and one chance only to plead by monarchs through the centuries. Charles was pressed on three separate days on 11 occasions. In despair, the court heard the evidence anyway so they could publish it, and then the time for judgement came, and Bradshaw started to intone that Charles was to face the judgement of the people of England. And this is when Anne Fairfax shouted from the galleries

Not half the people of England!

Charles then played his last card. He would try the tactic that had worked for 9 long years – he asked for leave to make a presentation to the full parliament assembled. Or, in other words – to start yet another round of political negotiations. To give them their due, the court retired, thought about it, decided nah, we’re done with that. The court reconvened and we get the final exchange. Bradshaw first

The court does adjudge that the said Charles Stuart, as tyrant, traitor, murderer and public enemy to the good people of this nation, shall be put to death by the severing of his head from his body

Will you not hear me a word sir?

This was Charles, realization growing

Sir you are not to be heard after sentence

I may speak after the sentence – by your favour, Sir. I may speak after the sentence is over. By your favour – hold- the sentence, sir – I say sir, I do

Guard take away the prisoner

I am not suffered to speak. Expect what justice other people will have

But Charles was now nothing more than a condemned man.

In the two following days, attempts were redoubled by Scots and Dutch and various English to stop this thing. But parliament would not be stopped. Charles once again behaved with extraordinary courage, dignity and steeliness of purpose as he said goodbye to his small children and prepared, as the 29^th January 1649 dawned.

This is my second marriage day…for before night I hope to be espoused to my blessed Jesus

He walked through the Banqueting house with its Rubens ceiling celebrating his father’s ascension into heaven, and famously wore two shirts so that he would not shiver, because he was not afraid. The area around the scaffold was rammed with people, kept carefully at a distance by a phalanx of soldiers. So most probably did not hear his last very revealing speech from which I will lift two snippets. He told his people that

It is not for them, having a share in government – that is nothing pertaining to them. A Subject and a sovereign are clear different things

This is of course was why the war had been fought. And finally he declared

that I am a martyr of the people

The axe fell, the head rolled and squelched. Apparently the people gave a universal groan – but only one person ever said that, and they wrote it years later so the people probably did no such thing, and soldiers quickly cleared the yard to avoid people soaking hankies with sacred royal blood and all that. Which was probably wasted effort really for Charles had collaborated in the writing of a book of his martyrdom, Eikon Basilike, which would be a runaway best seller for those who grieved for the loss of the old England they loved, it was a propaganda masterstroke.

So there it is. Over the years as Conrad Russell remarked, more than all the issues and philosophies, the reason for the wars was that Charles himself had become the problem. Charles had ensured there could be no peace while he lived. So he had to die. It remained to be seen whether or not he had been right when he said at Woburn

You cannot be without me; You will fall to ruin if I do not sustain you.

That is for the future though. Can I just remind you that all the exciting detail is available on the main podcast; can I recommend in particular episode 403 and the moment where the Heads of Proposal are developed and rejected, surely the lowest point to which Charles sinks; episode 405 where the Crowther players and guests come together to reenact some parts of the Putney debate; 410 and the forging of the Agreement of the people and of course 411, and the high drama that is the trial of the king.

Next up on At A Gallop, though we turn to the history of the English Commonwealth, and see how well they build this new world for which soi much blood and ink had been spilled.