To What Extent Was Parliament More to Blame Than Charles L for the Failure of Settlement in the Years 1646 – 1649?

900 Words4 Pages
To What Extent Was Parliament More To Blame Than Charles l For The Failure Of Settlement In The Years 1646 – 1649? The failure to reach a constitutional settlement in the English civil war is something that holds many debates on who really was at fault. Both the parliament and King Charles l contributed toward the failure of settlement, but who was really to blame? King Charles l was a very stubborn character and I feel that his unwillingness to change heavily played a role in no settlement being secured. Oliver Cromwell held many negotiation sessions with King Charles l who characteristically quibbled whilst opening new negotiations with the Scots. King Charles l continually refused to come to any sort of agreement with the opposition and therefore made it virtually impossible for any peace settlement to work. Parliament sent out a delegation to negotiate peace, but Charles was feeling stronger and refused to talk. But there was a peace party within Parliament that was willing to compromise with the king in order to bring the civil war to an end. Both sides were seizing the estates of their enemies to finance the war effort, creating even more political chaos. The King gained several victories, which all the more inclined him not to negotiate or compromise with the rebels. Having said this, the parliament had their own internal divisions which had a direct effect on that of a settlement. The division of parliament into Presbyterians and Independents made it much more difficult to reach a settlement after 1646. Parliament couldn’t agree on anything such as taxes. The Earl Of Essex was in favour of lowering taxes so that the nation could get back to normal as quickly as possible whilst Sir Arthur Haselrig on the side of the Independents was all for raising taxes and believed that failure to reach a settlement was not the Army’s fault. They also disagreed on
Open Document