2025/12/29 by Christopher Thompson · 1 voice
Social Sciences · Economics, Econometrics and Finance · Arts and Humanities · #Legal and cultural studies analysis #Financial Crisis of the 21st Century #Historical Studies of British Isles
paper · doi:10.1111/1468-229x.70078
openalex created_date 2025/12/29 · openalex publication_date 2025/12/29 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/14
John Rees's book begins with a study of the constitutional, fiscal, military and religious crisis faced by Charles I's regime in the late 1620s before moving on to analyse the even more serious and violent conflicts in England in the 1640s. Its focus is on a small group of radical MPs – Henry Marten, Alexander Rigby, William Strode and Peter Wentworth – committed to the military victory of the Long Parliament over the King and a political settlement depriving him of power. The importance of mass protests in London in promoting the war effort and eventually securing the trial and execution of Charles I early in 1649 is stressed. Rees's argument is copiously supported from contemporary documents and secondary scholarly sources. The economic and social context for these struggles is only touched upon briefly. Rees concentrates rather more on a narrative account of Charles I's policies in Church and State and on the persecution and punishment of his critics. Men like William Strode, who had been imprisoned throughout the 1630s, were in no mood for conciliation after 1640. This separated them from John Pym and his ‘middle group’ allies and made these radicals tolerant of the violent demonstrations in London against supporters of the King before the outbreak of the Civil War in mid-1642. Marten and his ‘war party’ allies became increasingly critical of aristocratic generals like the Earls of Essex and Manchester who failed to win outright military victory. Their removal in 1645 and the formation of the New Model Army began the move to full radicalism and effective popular pressure on Parliament as the search for a peace settlement began. It is here in the emergence of powerful grassroots organizations such as the Levellers and the politicization of the soldiery that the main thrust of Rees's arguments can be found. Radical petitioning and printing became even more vital. The army's officers had to negotiate with the latter's leaders and representatives of their subordinates to frustrate potential settlements with the King either by the political Presbyterians or the Royal Independents. Eventually, the outbreak of the second Civil War in 1648 and a torrent of petitions persuaded figures like Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton and others that Charles I had to be put on trial by a purged House of Commons and then executed for his crimes and duplicity. Unsurprisingly, given the earlier tensions between the army and the radicals, including the Levellers, this alliance proved temporary and unstable. The ‘revolution’ was the work of minorities and failed to win the wider support necessary for its consolidation. This book is a work in the Marxist tradition of Christopher Hill, Brian Manning and others on the historiographical and political left, hence its emphasis on the critical importance of radical groups in overthrowing the old regime. But it does face difficulties. The adoption of the term ‘fiery spirits’ used by a peace party figure like D'Ewes and the use of the now largely abandoned term ‘the middle group’ up until 1643 creates analytical problems. Pym's declared war aim was to dictate a constitutional settlement rather than to negotiate a compromise. Popular mobilization was, in any case, not the sole preserve of radical Parliamentarians or of the Levellers as the political Presbyterians showed in 1647. Out in the counties, other networks of influence between landlords and tenants, merchants and traders existed largely beyond the reach of radical propaganda. The burden of the Long Parliament's rule, of its administrative apparatus and taxes and its reliance, ultimately, on military force, let alone the proliferation of religious sects and minuscule political groups, were widely resented by 1649. These tensions made the survival of the English republic doubtful even then. But that entails another debate. John Rees has laid down a fascinating challenge which will, no doubt, be taken up in the years ahead.