“The war was begun in our streets before
the King or Parliament had any armies.” Richard Baxter.
The execution of Charles I |
The British bourgeoisie and its apologists
have always tried to bury their revolutionary past. They continually promote
the false idea that “gradualism” has always been the true British tradition.
Revolutions were always affairs of the continent, but have no relevance here. Next
year, on the 450th anniversary of the death of the great
revolutionary Oliver Cromwell, will be no exception. Histories and
documentaries will no doubt be produced in an attempt to hide the real
significance of the English Civil War of 1642-49 as the bourgeois revolution
that destroyed the old feudal order in England and laid the basis for the
development of modern capitalism. The Civil War was in fact a class war which
destroyed the despotism of Charles I and the feudal classes that stood behind
him. It was a great social revolution on the lines of the French Revolution of
1789-93.
While bourgeois historians describe the
deep-seated social revolution of the 1640s as an unfortunate incident, namely the
“Great Rebellion”, they christen the shuffling of crowns in 1688 as the
“Glorious Revolution”, which was hardly glorious or a revolution. The present
“men of property” attempt to erase from memory the revolutionary role of their
ancestors, a revolutionary class, which by means of civil war beheaded a
monarch, abolished the House of Lords, and declare a revolutionary Republic –
so out of character with the British “tradition” as presented in our school
books.
As Leon Trotsky explained, while the French
bourgeoisie, having falsified their revolution, adopted it and, changing it
into small coinage, put it into daily circulation. “The British bourgeoisie has
erased the very memory of the seventeenth-century revolution by dissolving its
past in ‘gradualness’.” Nevertheless, Trotsky explained that it was important
for advanced workers and youth to re-discover the English revolution. In this epic
drama the British working class can find great precedents for future revolutionary
deeds. “This is equally a national tradition”, notes Trotsky, “and a thoroughly
legitimate one that is wholly in place in the arsenal of the working class.”
England in 1640 was on the verge of a
social revolution. The old feudal order had exhausted its historic role, but,
as Marxism explains, no ruling class voluntarily gives up its privileged position
without a struggle. This was no exception. For some time the capitalist mode of
production was encroaching steadily on the old feudal relationships and its
static “natural” economy. The new forces of capitalism were steadily breaking
through. The new economic forces over the previous century had served to put
the last nails in the old order. The widespread inflation, largely brought
about by currency debasement and the robbery of gold and silver from the
Americas, served to undermine feudal society. In England between 1510 and 1558
food prices had trebled. Textile prices rose by 150%. Money relations replaced
duties in kind as land was turned by enterprising gentry into profitable
investments, producing food and wool for an expanding market. Merchants became very
rich while the wealth of the old aristocracy, dependent on fixed incomes, declined
in real terms. The old static order, based on feudal tradition, custom and social
rank, was on its last legs, holding on like grim death.
The Reformation, began by Henry VIII’s
break with Rome to solve his matrimonial problems, not only turned England into
an independent protestant country free from Papal interference, but lead to the
widespread sale of expropriated church lands. This had the whole-hearted support
of the rising bourgeoisie, which benefited greatly from this protestant
reformation. At this time, the bourgeoisie and townspeople were loyal supporters
of the Crown and strong central government. The ever-feuding aristocracy, as
witnessed by the Wars of the Roses, was a menace to trade and money-making. The
first Tudor monarch, Henry VII tried to solve this by systematically murdering
all those who had any claim to the throne! The Tudor monarch, especially Henry
VIII and Elisabeth I, made England safe for trade, both internally and externally.
The Catholic Mary Stuart was beheaded in 1587, removing the figure-head of
plots and Catholic restoration. Finally, the defeat of the Spanish Armada in
1588 allowed English goods to be traded freely and commerce to develop. The
defeat of Spain, the strongest power in Europe, leader of the Papacy’s counter-reformation, provided a colossal
boost to England’s national standing. The new task was to break the colonial
monopoly that Spain had established in the West.
The development of wealthy merchants, grown
rich on trade, piracy, plunder and the slave trade, went hand in hand with the
rise of capitalist farmers keen to enclose common land and rack up rents. Stable
relations were breaking down as copyholders, which had a degree of security,
were turned into leaseholders. A sharp differentiation took place in the
peasantry. The new well-to-do gentry began to take over local government as
Justices of the Peace and a number made their way into Parliament, a body made up
overwhelmingly of landowners elected by landowners. These capitalist gentry were
concentrated largely in the South and the South East, near the market of London
and in the ports. For the rising bourgeoisie, Protestantism and English patriotism
were closely bound together.
By the time of Elizabeth’s death and the
coming of James I and Charles I, the situation had fundamentally changed. The
old ruling classes had become increasingly parasitic, desperate to hang on to their
declining wealth, privileges and social position. These parasites (“Drones” as
they were called) looked to the Crown and Court for support and wealth, which
in turn defended the old order. The rising bourgeoisie, on the other hand, was
chaffing under the impediments imposed by the ancien regime, which led to a whole series of clashes in the House
of Commons. While the threats from internal and external enemies had been
resolved, the bourgeoisie now demanded policies that were to their liking. The social
relations and legal framework on which the old order was based would have to be
removed if capitalism was to develop.
At this time religion played a very
important role, interwoven with politics, economics and social issues. In fact,
everything was seen in religious terms. On an international level,
Protestantism accompanied the rise of capitalism and suited the ideological
outlook of the rising bourgeoisie. The international Catholic Church was a
bulwark of Feudalism and the Old Order. The teachings of Luther and Calvin
broke down the old ideology. Its stress on individual conscience, individual
success, thrift, hard work, as explained by Tawney in Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, contributed to the development
of a capitalist outlook. The Reformation in England had far reaching
consequences, especially the spread of Protestantism, but with the sale of
Church lands and monasteries, it also created a vested interest in the new
religion. Protestantism was the philosophy of the prosperous God-fearing
Englishman, the backbone of the rising bourgeoisie. He was one of the Lord’s
chosen people, the elect. Not unimportantly, Protestantism was also a cheaper religion than Catholicism, with
its numerous wasteful Saints’ days and religious ceremonies and artifices. The
Reformation even called into question the whole hierarchical principle with
Puritans wanting it to be carried further with the abolition of bishops, the
mainstay of Royal power.
Every man, woman and child was a member of
the protestant Church of England, which played a decisive role in peoples’
lives. They had to attend parish church services every Sunday or face
punishment by Church courts, which also ruled over morality, failure to pay
tithes to the clergy, as well as working on saint days. The parish was the real
social unit. As there were no newspapers, radio or TV, the pulpit was a most
powerful instrument used for government announcements. Books were all censored
by Bishops and education was an ecclesiastical monopoly. “People are governed
by the pulpit more than the sword in time of peace”, said Charles I. “Religion
it is that keeps the subject in obedience,” agreed Sir John Eliot. Thus a
struggle for power would also assume a struggle for control of the church. “No
Bishop, no King, no nobility”, stated James I. The three stood or fell
together. “The dependency of the Church upon the Crown”, explained Charles, “is
the chiefest support of regal authority”. Religion played a vital rallying cry
for the contending classes.
Throughout this period, the income of the
Crown, as with the aristocracy as a whole, was declining in face of
inflationary pressures. Debts were building up. Meanwhile, the “country” and
those classes represented in Parliament were getting richer. The only way out
for James I and Charles I was to raise further taxation on trade and by
reviving and levying greater feudal impositions. This included increasing
fines, selling monopolies, peerages and ranks, but none of which provided
adequate income. A series of conflicts blew up between King and Commons over
these issues. When Charles I demanded money for new wars, Parliament refused
and was dissolved. He resorted to forced loans and imprisoned those who refused
to pay. In 1628 martial law was imposed.
All these grievances and more were brought
together in the Petition of Right in 1628, but this led to further clashes.
Finally, the Speaker of the Commons was held down in his chair while the House
passed three resolutions, ending with anyone laying taxes without parliamentary
consent would be regarded as “a capital enemy to the kingdom and commonwealth”.
Parliament was dismissed and the King embarked on eleven years of personal
government. In these years, Charles managed to alienate all those propertied classes
that had previously supported him.
The King had to rely more and more on the
church in this period, the nearest thing to an independent bureaucracy.
Archbishop Laud, in essence Charles’ Prime Minister, attempted to boost the
declining authority of the church by attempting to turn back the clock, which
simply alienated large sections of the propertied classes. Bishops as royal
nominees were seen as yes-men of the court, sympathetic to royal absolutism and
the enemies of Parliament. They were regarded as appeasers to Catholicism and
the Papacy, which reinforced the passionate popular hatred of bishops.
All kinds of expedients were tried to raise
finance independent of parliament from fines for enclosures to fines for
refusing knighthoods. However, the most important was of levying Ship Money, a
tax on ports for defence, which was unilaterally extended throughout the
country. Those who refused to pay were jailed. “What shall freemen differ from
the ancient bondsmen and villeins of England if their estates be subject to arbitrary
taxes?” stated Sir Simonds D’Ewes.
This led to widespread resistance. By 1638,
sixty-one per cent of the tax was unpaid. The government could not balance its
books and the City of London refused a loan. The situation was brought to ahead
when the Calvinist Scottish Army invaded England and Charles had little money
to pay the troops levied to oppose them, while the army proved unwilling to
fight.
Charles’ personal government was collapsing
around his ears. Even a section of the old ruling class – the aristocracy and
gentry – came out against him. Men like Hyde and Falkland, who were no Puritans
and fought for King in the Civil War, sided with the majority in denouncing
royal absolutism. In other words there was a deep split in the ruling class. Such
a split is the first premise of all revolutions. The old order had lost the
support of its social reserves. As with the beginning of the French Revolution,
there was a “revolt of the nobility”, which served to open the floodgates and attracted
to it all those who felt the regime was a threat to “religion, liberty and
property”.
For financial reasons, Charles was forced
to recall Parliament. After three weeks, Parliament was again dissolved. But
within six months Charles was again forced to summon Parliament. When the Long
Parliament finally met no compromise could be reached. In an unprecedented
fashion, the Commons immediately impeached the King’s ministers, the Earl of Strafford
and Archbishop Laud, accusing them of treason and sending them for trial before
the Lords. Other ministers fled the country. Stafford was beheaded for treason on
Tower Hill in May 1641. A crowd of some 200,000 attended the popular execution.
Laud was imprisoned in the Tower and executed in 1645. The prerogative courts
of Star Chamber, Council of the North and Wales as well as the High Commission
were abolished. Taxation without parliamentary consent was declared illegal and
the Long Parliament declared indissoluble except by its own consent.
Nevertheless, few members of the Long Parliament at this time were republicans
or dreamed of doing more than limiting the powers of the King. Both parties
attempted to manoeuvre one another into a false position. They could see no
further than the next step. Yet what was achieved was the destruction of the
main pillars of the old state apparatus. The English Revolution had begun.
There was no turning back.
While in the French Revolution, the
nobility quickly rallied to the Crown after the Third Estate put forward
revolutionary demands, in England the House of Commons split and carried their
opposition to the point of civil war.
Religion was used as a rallying cry. But
“Religion was not the thing at first contested for”, noted Cromwell. There was
a real popular hostility to the old regime. The economic and political turmoil
of the previous twenty years had taken its toll. In an unprecedented fashion, huge
London crowds marched on the Commons to demonstrate their support, often with
menaces, further widening the divisions. The government’s whole repressive
machinery and its censorship collapsed like a tower of cards. Religious
sectaries emerged from underground; an outpouring of pamphleteering began;
there were riots over enclosures and against papists. Rumors of a Catholic plot
in the Army at York to march on the capital produced panic in London, which had
become the centre of revolutionary ferment and discussion. All those who had a
grievance now flocked to Parliament to seek redress.
At this time there was no Royalist Party,
but events would serve to crystalise one. Every gesture to gain the support of
the lower orders outside Parliament led to the loss of some support from the
gentry alarmed at the “many-headed monster”. As a sign of things to come, in
August 1641, the Commons were divided for the first time over the Root and
Branch Bill to abolish bishops and reorganize the Church under the control of
Parliament.
This was at a time of heighten public
excitement. Matters came to a head with the outbreak of rebellion in Ireland in
October, eager to break free from the grip imposed by Stafford. Who was to
command the army? The parliamentary leaders knew he would as soon as use the
army against them as the rebellious Irish.
The bourgeois leaders around John Pym who
used the opportunity to bring before the Commons the Grand Remonstrance, a
comprehensive list of claims against Charles’ autocratic government. Having got
it passed, they pushed through another vote for it to be printed. This
unprecedented step constituted a direct appeal to the people outside
parliament. Such a reckless and dangerous move by the ruling political elite served
to split parliament and the country into two camps. Such a move resulted from a
desperate situation. Everything was on a knife edge. Lives were at stake.
Swords were drawn in the Commons. The Remonstrance only carried by eleven
votes. Charles I had made it clear that he would seek revenge at the earliest
opportunity.
Within a space of weeks, on 4th
January 1642, Charles staged a botched coup and attempted to arrest the key parliamentary
leaders. But they had fled to the safety of the City of London. On 10th
January, Charles fled to York to drum up support in his defence and the defence
of the Old Order. After several months of propaganda by both sides, war finally
broke out in August 1642.
