OCR A Level History A Unit Group 1 British period study and enquiry: The Early Stuarts and the Origins of the Civil War 1603-1660 June 2017 question paper (Y108)

Using these four sources in their historical context, assess how far they support the view that the attitude of Charles I was the main reason for the failure to achieve a settlement in the period

1646–1649.

Source A: The King, in the custody of the Scottish army at Newcastle, writes to his wife.

I July: Today I received a copy of the propositions from London. I cannot consent to them without loss of conscience, crown and honour, but I must delay my answer, as a flat denial will put me in a difficult position.

31 August: It is now rumoured that Parliament means to do their work without taking any more notice of me. If we can use this time to persuade France and my other friends to support my restoration to power, then all is not lost.

Charles I, letters, 1646

Source B: A Scottish Presbyterian comments on the army’s march to London.

Matters in London are now extremely desperate. The cowardice of the city of London and Parliament has allowed fourteen thousand soldiers to make themselves masters of the king, parliament and city, and thus of all England; so that now the disgraced Parliament is just a committee to act at the army’s pleasure. No hope remains for us but in the king’s unmatched folly and the army’s great pride. I know the people of England are weary of the parliament, and hate the religious sects; on the other side, the king is much pitied and supported, so if the army do not give him satisfaction, he will overthrow them.

Robert Baillie, letter to a friend, 13 July 1647

Source C: The Scottish army writes to Londoners.

Fellow subjects, consider how the case stands between his Majesty and you. Is not his case your case too? Have not you and he both been deceived and oppressed? Is he not deprived of his crown, and are you not deprived of your liberties and lands? Is it not obvious that his prerogative and your freedom must fall together? And is not a speedy political settlement the only way to preserve them? And is there any probability of a political settlement until his Majesty is restored to his throne?

An Allarme to the City of London by the Scotch Army, 29 August 1648

Source D: An envoy recalls Charles I’s attitude to negotiations.

I informed his Majesty that many agitators feared Cromwell was untrustworthy, while Cromwell saw himself as falsely accused of sinister intentions and protested that his heart was sincere. Cromwell considered the King had saved the Independents from ruin by not consenting to the Scots’ propositions at Newcastle. The Presbyterian party and the City of London opposed the army to death. Hearing all this, the King responded to the Army’s proposals very bitterly. The King was convinced that they could do nothing without his consent.

Sir John Berkeley, Memoirs, written during the reign of Charles II 1660–1685