Question 1
Using these four sources in their historical context, assess how far they support the view that religious division was the most important reason for the failure to achieve a political settlement in
the period from 1646 to 1649.
Source A: Charles I explains his response to the Newcastle Propositions in a letter to his wife.
I still believe that unless rule by bishops is preserved, the militia will not be much use to me. It is true that the absolute grant of control of the militia to Parliament dethrones the king, yet the keeping of it is not so important without the support of other things. Certainly if the clergy do not teach obedience to the Crown (which will never happen if a Presbyterian government is established) the control of the militia will not help me very much; nevertheless I am determined not to surrender any control over the militia.
Charles I, letter to Henrietta Maria, 21 November 1646
Source B: Charles I responds for the third time to the Newcastle Propositions of 1646.
In answer to all the Propositions concerning religion, His Majesty proposed that he will confirm the Presbyterian government, the Westminster Assembly, and the Directory of Public Worship for three years. But His Majesty wishes to worship as he has always done and wishes that he and Parliament may determine how the Church shall be governed after the said three years. As for taking the Covenant, His Majesty is still undecided since it is a matter of conscience and reserves his answer until he comes to London.
As touching the militia, His Majesty cannot consent to losing control of the militia for twenty years.
Charles I, Third answer to the Newcastle Propositions, May 1647
Source C: Cromwell responds to the Leveller proposals which were soon published as Agreement of the People.
Truly this paper contains very great alterations of the government of the kingdom. What the consequences of such an alteration would be, wise and godly men ought to consider. How do we know if, while we are debating this proposal, another group of men might submit another proposal as acceptable as this? And if so, what do you think the consequence of that would be? Would it not be utter confusion? There will be very great mountains in the way of this proposal, if it were the thing to be adopted.
Oliver Cromwell, speech at Putney, 28 October 1647
Source D: A republican MP who signed the death warrant of Charles I explains why the King was executed.
It was agreed to kill the King if he would not preserve religion and liberty. It is impossible that anyone should support a man of so much blood as the King was. He was seven or eight times sent Propositions, and would not yield. So long as he was obstinate, there were daily revolts in the Army, and risings in all places. He caused trouble for us all, and it was impossible to allow him to live. Execution was the last resort.
Thomas Scot, speech, 7 February 1659
[30]
Answer
