To what extent was military involvement in politics
responsible for unstable government in England in
the years 1646-53?
The end of the first English Civil War in 1646 marked a period of an
unstable government in England and it was carried through to December
1653 with the installation of Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector. During this
period, there were multiple factors that contributed to the frequent
changes in government, such as Charles’ ineptness to build a working
relationship with the parliament and the religious tension within the
parliament. Although military involvement in politics can be considered as
one of the primary reasons, it is inaccurate to apportion all the blame to
the NMA since the parliament itself and the new radical religious ideas
could also be ultimately responsible for unstable government in England
in the years 1646-1653.
The New Model Army’s (NMA) involvement in politics is one of the main
reasons for political instability in the years 1646-1653. However, the
extent of its responsibility can be defined into its involvement in the Long
Parliament and the Rump Parliament. The army’s intervention in the
matters of the Long Parliament was apparent and it had repeatedly
undermined the authority and the privileges of the parliament, but it could
be seen as an attempt by Oliver Cromwell and the NMA to achieve their
religious and political aspirations. The relationship between the NMA and
the parliament had been deteriorating since the end of the first civil war.
The NMA had to involve themselves in politics in the hope of preventing
the Presbyterian policy of disbandment and a moderate agreement with
the King, such as the Propositions of Newcastle that would undermine
their success in the First Civil War. However, the infiltration of the radical
religious group - the Levellers - into the ranks of the NMA divided the
army’s views on reaching a settlement with the parliament, a solution that
Cromwell firmly believed in. The seizure of the King by Cornet Joyce was
an example of direct intervention in politics by the army. Although many
historians believe Cromwell had no part in capturing Charles, some
historians argue that Joyce was acting under the order of Cromwell, who
believed he had to settle with the King before the parliament did, as they
were plotting to seize Charles and move him to London anyway. By then,
it would have been impossible to reach an agreement with the King, and
possibly would have resulted in an agreement that favoured the
Presbyterians. Despite various attempts to settle with the King, such as
the Heads of Proposals, Charles refused to settle and no agreement was
made. Cromwell’s forlorn attempt to appease the agitators, the King and
the parliament resulted in him appeasing neither side, while further
dividing the parliament, Charles and the NMA. Therefore, there is enough