Viewing the English Civil War through the eyes of Hughes, Rees and Vallance: a rebuttal

Two days ago, I watched a discussion between Ann Hughes, John Rees and Edward Vallance chaired by the Labour M.P., John McDonnell. The origin, course, consequences and significance of the English Civil Wars of the 1640s (with some references to events in Scotland and Ireland) were discussed. Much of the discussion was fairly standard in nature, e.g. about the way in which economic and social explanations have gone out of fashion; about the religious and political quarrels, the disputes about the respective rights of the King and his subjects, about cultural changes and the spread of literacy, etc., before the participants moved on to analyse the crisis of 1641-1642, the role of demonstrations in forcing Charles I to leave London in January, 1642, the early military clashes at Brentford and Turnham Green, and the development of the New Model Army and its victories by 1646 and again in the second Civil War of 1648. The discussion then moved on to consider the rise of radical groups like the Levellers in the City of London, the trial and execution of the King in January, 1649 and the demands of the Diggers for the redistribution of property and communal living. Finally, the three historians and the M.P. reflected on the longer term achievement of some of the demands of radicals of the 1640s and 1650s in the subsequent centuries.

There was and is something very odd about this approach. First of all, if antecedent developments made the conflicts of the 1640s and 1650s likely, logically comparable factors ought to have made the Restoration of the monarchy, the House of Lords and the Church of England in 1660 possible. But this matter was never discussed. Secondly, it really is not possible to treat the Levellers or the New Model Army or the post-Pride's Purge House of Commons as representative of the 'people' of England. They were very small minorities. All the post-1646 regimes rested on military force: they lacked consent  and never secured it. Finally, there is the matter of the greatly improved position of the larger landowners, whether gentry or peers, in the decades running up to 1640 and the networks of tenants, allies, friends, supporters upon which they were able to call during the 1640s and 1650s - the early modern equivalent of medieval affinities. Neither the Caroline regime nor its successors were able to dispense with or do without these networks. When Oliver Cromwell died in 1658, deep-seated attachments to the monarchy, to the peerage, to the Church of England, to long-established constitutional arrangements were too much for the heirs of 1649. This discussion was fundamentally flawed and I remain unconvinced about the events of this period as a 'revolution' comparable to those of France in 1789 or Russia in 1917. 

Comments

  1. ThucydidesJuly 2, 2021 at 10:28 AM

    A lot of the interest in the Levellers and Diggers arises from a form of secular hagiography. One only has to read the works of Hill and Manning, for example, to see how enthused they were by the activities of mobs in the streets of London, of Bishops and peers being threatened with violence, by disturbances in the countryside, by the appearance of small radical groups in London whose demands were published in print, by the politicisation of the New Model Army, by the trial and excustion of Charles I. Add to this the constitutional experiments of the 1650s and the growth of the religious sects and the results have been embraced by left-wing figures from the late nineteenth-century to the present. But all the energy and violence used to pull down the old regime after 1640 vindicated the polemical predictions of the Royalists in the first Civil War. Once the army lost its cohesion in 1658-1660, the demand for an end to the anarchy created by the radicals, the republicans and religious extremists was irresistible.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Simon Healy has died

Image
  I am extremely sorry to report that Simon Healy, who worked for the History of Parliament Trust's 1604-1629 section for many years,  has died. I remember him as a very cheerful and engaging conversationalist. My condolences go to his widow and their two children.
Read more

Centre and Locality: review reflections

  Quite by chance, I was browsing on Twitter last Friday (9 th April) when I spotted on Edward Vallance’s site a reference to a video conference organised by William Clayton of the University of East Anglia at the end of last month. Further searches led me to William Clayton’s review of the book edited by Chris Kyle and Jason Peacey, Connecting Centre and Locality: Communication in early modern England, which appeared under the auspices of the Manchester University Press in 2020 and which Clayton had reviewed for The Seventeenth Century in its most recent issue. [1] This is a subject which interests me and I did give some thought to responding to William Clayton’s largely laudatory comments. However, I was also conscious that I had not read this collection of essays and was thus less well equipped than I should be for assessing either the book or William Clayton’s review. There was, however, one historiographical issue upon which I did feel qualified to comment. Right at the st...
Read more

Transcribing Walter Yonge's notes on proceedings in the House of Commons between 1642 and 1645

  In the spring of 1967, Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper, then the Regius Professor of Modern History in the University of Oxford, wrote to me to ask if I would assist Dr Pearl in her work by transcribing Walter Yonge’s diaries held (in Additional Mss.18,777-18,780) in the Manuscript Department of the British Museum at that time. I agreed and it was settled that I would be paid £150 per volume by the History Faculty of the University. I duly transcribed the first of these volumes in 1967 and the remaining three by 1973. I was not her “assistant” in this task but undertook it myself. I did not, moreover, keep copies of the first three volumes. In mid-1975, I read in The Times Higher Education Supplement that she was preparing the Yonge volumes for publication. But nothing happened. By 1984, seventeen years after I had transcribed the first volume and eleven years after finishing the last one I was puzzled by this failure to proceed and, having asked several academic friends if they th...
Read more