NOTES: The Commonwealth and Protectorate 1649-58

A: The Failure of the Rump Parliament

1. What problems did the Rump face in 1649? 
A revolution had been brought about by an alliance between the the army and the Rump, but the majority of the nation did not want the execution of Charles or an end to the monarchy. However, although the majority did not want the removal of the King, there appeared to be little choice. This was the basis on which the Commonwealth was established and was a major factor in it's ultimate failure.
The Commonwealth was also weak because the army and the Rump wanted different things from it. The soldiers believed that the Rump would start the process of reform and then give power to a new parliament. The Levellers wanted the power of parliament reduced and made more accountable, while religious sectaries wanted a 'new Jerusalem' to be built, with restraints on preaching removed and all institutions brought into line with the word of God.
There were active plotters against the regime and threats of attack on behalf of Charles Stuart from Scotland, Ireland and the Continent. In order to del with these issues, the size of the army had to increase, therefore increasing taxation and adding to the unpopularity of the Rump.
From 1649-53 the Rump wielded supreme authority. I would have remained a small body if only those who approved Charles's execution continued to sit, however on February 1st 1649, former sympathisers to Charles were allowed back in, bringing back 80 members. However, despite it's reputation the Rump was not particularly radical, as can be seen in the discussion after Charles's death on whether to abolish the House of Lords. In May they formally enacted that England should be 'governed as a Commonwealth and a free state without any King or House of Lords'.
The Rump also established a Council of State in February which was a replacement for the Privy Council. Ireton and Thomas Harrison, who were partially responsible for the Prides Purge, were nominated but rejected by the House. The Council was also under the control of Parliament. The reluctance of the Rump to pass more radical measures has led historians to believe that they were 'no more than corrupt profiteers', yet they could also been seen as realists who resisted the idealistic demands of radicals.
At the time of the Prides Purge, the Levellers thought that a new 'Agreement of the People' would form the basis of a constitution for the Commonwealth. The officers in the army presented it to the Rump and it was ignored. Levellers erupted in protest and the leaders were arrested. Those who were not arrested led a mutiny in the army and in May 1649 issued a new 'Agreement of the People', however did not have enough support for it to be successful. Fairfax and Cromwell led troops against them and they were later defeated at Burford. Their defeat ensured that there would not be a social revolution as the Levellers did not have a clear strategy or a wide enough base of support. They were also easy for authorities to deal with as they were not fully united.
The Rump also faced other challenges and became increasingly more unpopular. Much of this was due to heavy taxation in order to pay for the army. It could not disband the army however, as Charles Stuart was preparing an army in Ireland and Scotland had proclaimed him as King Charles II. In order to lessen its unpopularity, the Rump declared that it would dissolve itself and call new elections in March 1649, however it was slow to actually carry this out.

2. Why was the New Model Arm sent to Ireland in 1649? 
There had been a civil war in Ireland since 1641, which was still yet to be resolved. After the English Civil war had ended, parliament wished to re-establish control its control in Ireland. At first the number of troops that they sent over was too small as both Catholics and Protestants had united under one army in the belief that they would get a better deal with Charles Stuart over parliament.
In 1649 Cromwell was appointed to command a force of 30,000 men to crush the revolt. By the time he arrived in August, the alliance between the Catholics and Protestants was already beginning to break. Cromwell thus dealt quickly and harshly with any resistance. Towns such as Drogheda and Wexford, which refused to capitulate, saw their citizens massacred. These were seen as warnings to other towns: surrender or face the same fate. When Cromwell departed in May 1650, Henry Ireton took over. The provinces of Leinster, Ulster and Munster were under English control by the end of 1650.

3. What happened at Drogheda and why was it controversial?
Drogheda raised the controversial question as to the denial of 'quarter' (showing mercy or sparing the lives of the garrison within the town). The 'laws or war' made it clear that if surrender was refused and a garrison was taken by assault then its defenders could be lawfully killed. Cromwell specifically refused quarter. When the parliamentarian forces had broken into the town they pursued the defenders and destroyed defensible positions. The men who surrendered were taken to a nearby windmill and killed under Cromwell's instructions.

4. How did Cromwell justify his actions at Drogheda?
Two of the main motives for Cromwell's actions were:

• The garrisons that were attacked contained English royalists as well as Irish and therefore were seen as part of the alliance that Charles I had created, and thus were responsible for the Second Civil War and deserved to be punished. 
• The Catholics had carried out massacres in 1641 and Cromwell's army had a God-given responsibility to avenge the deaths of Protestants. 

Limited resistance continued until 1652, but within 9 months Cromwell had been able to establish English authority, even if it was never totally secure. He returned to England in spring 1650 due the threat of Charles Stuart being crowned Charles II in Scotland. Charles took his forces north and defeated the Scots at Dunbar on the 3rd of September. However Charles re-entered England the following year with 12,000 Scots, but was defeated by Cromwell and fled into exile. 

5. Why did the Rump Parliament go to war with the Dutch? 
There had been growing trade rivalry between the English and the Dutch, especially after 1648, when the Dutch gained official independence from Spain at the end of the Thirty Years War. The Rump later passed two Navigation Acts in 1650 and 1651, which aimed to take away some of the role of the Dutch as carriers of trade.This caused economic aggression, leading to a naval war with the Dutch (1652-3). It was not a popular war as it disrupted trade and was costly. Moreover the navy was managed poorly and opponents of the Rump that concentration on war prevented reforms. The war was fought entirely at sea and resulted in England gaining control of the seas around their shores and the Dutch having to accept English control of trade with England and their colonies.

6. What did the Rump manage to achieve in 1649-53? 
One of the biggest problems facing the Rump was finding a way to win backing for the regime, as it wanted to win the support of men of influence, who would determine future elections. Therefore it blocked reforms which would undermine potential supporter's conservative views or would necessitate and increase in taxation. They abolished the hated County Committees but were unable to restore JPs to their traditional roles. 

In the early years of the Rump they achieved:

• Laws on debtor were eased
• Legal proceedings had to be written in normal hand and not script only the trained could read
• The Elizabethan law acquiring weekly attendance at church was repealed
• Enquiries were started to make better use of church endowments 
• Large parishes were to be divided and smaller ones united
• There were Acts to improve preaching in the north, west and Wales

The Rump had originally gained money from selling land confiscated from royalists, bishops and cathedrals. However much of this money was soon spent on the army and an increase in the amount of land for sale caused a fall in price hitting the income that they were receiving. This was made worse by the increase in taxation for the wars with Ireland, Scotland and the Dutch. 

7. How did the lack of reform in both religion and law cause tensions between the Rump and the army? 

On 3 September 1651 the army won the Battle of Worcester (ending the war with Scotland),  freeing Cromwell to resume his seat in parliament and take up his role as the army's main spokesman there. The army believed that the victories it had achieved were due to God and therefore the Rump should bring about a godly reform. The Rump had carried out some of these reforms, but as time passed became concerned with simply surviving. It diverted it attention therefore towards promoting trade, national concerns and power by passing the Navigation Act.

Religion:
The Rump was keen to restrict religious liberty and in 1650 had legislated against some of the more extreme sects that had developed and passed a Blasphemy Act which limited religious non-conformity. Some also wanted to preserve a national church that would be financed through tithe, which angered the army. The Rump had passed legislation for spreading the preaching of the gospel, but in April 1653 allowed the commissions, which were due for renewal, to lapse. This angered men like Cromwell, who believed that the commissions' spiritual achievements had been far-reaching, but also angered those who had served as commissioners.

Law:
In December 1651 the Rump had appointed a commission to review the legal system. It drew up a series of recommendations but the lawyer MPs blocked the proposals, adding to the view that the Rump was self-interested. There were proposals to simplify legal procedures, which were considered too complicated, and repeal laws that were out of date, but these were rejected amid accusations that MPs who were lawyers wanted to keep their monopoly and fees.

8. What explanations have been suggested for why Cromwell dissolved the Rump? 

The Rump was slow to draw up the preparation of a new constitution as it wanted to preserve its privileges and refused to be dictated to. However, under pressure from army officers, it drew up a bill which was given its first reading in February 1653. 

Cromwell called a meeting on 19 April. He suggested that in the short term the Rump should hand supreme authority over to 40 nominated men and then dissolve itself. This body would hold the fort, introduce necessary reforms and then, once the nation was peaceful, it could elect its own representatives once again. The Rump continued to debate their bill, forcing Cromwell to return, denounce the members and order a group of musketeers to eject them. There are two main motives for Cromwell's actions: 

1. He was under pressure from the soldiers, which he could no longer ignore as the Rump was about to vote to perpetuate itself (continue indefinitely), and then adjourn (break off and resume later)
2. The Rump, although it was going to pass power to a new body, had not ensured that the new body would consist of men who supported the revolution and the army. 

There was certainly growing dissatisfaction with the Rump as it had failed to pass the wide-ranging measures that were expected on legal and religious reforms, whilst appearing to keen to prosecute war. Some have suggested that Cromwell had ceased to want an elected parliament at all as he had become converted to the idea of government by a body of hand-picked saints who would bring in the the kingdom of christ. However this can be disproved as it is clear that he didn't know what to do next.

9. How did the Nominated Assembly (Barebones Parliament) function?    

After the dissolution of the Rump, authority went to a council of army officers who task it was to devise a new form of government. The new body would have to be nominated, not elected as Cromwell did not have the right to summon a new parliament. If election had been called it would be likely that they would have produced an assembly that was hostile towards the army and its aims, although a larger army might have been able to clim that it was more representative of regional nd national interests. As a result, each county was given a number of members that corresponded to its size and wealth. The bigger problem was identifying reliable men who who should be sent as representatives, and the Council of Officers simply chose whom they pleased. The nominated members have been described as 'no better than attorneys, tanners, wheelwrights and the meanest sort of mechanics' and some historians have used the example of the radical London tradesman, 'Praise-God' Barebone, as the typical member, resulting in the name of the parliament. However in actuality many of those selected were gentlemen from lower ranks of the gentry, 100 were JPs, 40 had been to university and even Barebone was a merchant. 

Cromwell saw the assembly as a temporary substitute for an elected parliament, however others, such as Harrison, thought that it was the start of a new era. The parliament was opened by Cromwell on 4 July 1653 and asked that it sit no longer than until 4 November 1654, and then hand over power to another body, which it would nominate. 

8. Why was tension between moderates and radicals over religion? 

Divisions between moderates and radicals were what led to the eventual downfall of Barebone's parliament. One of the first controversial issues was tithes. The problem was that tithes were legal property and therefore any tampering with them was seen as an attack on property and worried more moderate members that other attacks on property would follow. This was similar to the right of lay patrons, often members of the gentry, to appoint ministers to some livings, which even some moderates wanted to end, but, like tithes, this was seen as property by by many moderates and saw many of the same problems. Some radicals also wanted to get rid of a maintained ministry, where ministers were paid by public money, whereas moderates did not want to abolish it, even if they supported some degree of reform.

9. Why was tension between radicals and moderates over law and property?
The moderates wanted to remove elements of the common law that were not necessary, whereas radicals wanted to get rid of it all and replace it with a simple written code. Once again the problem was centred round property. Much of the law concerned property and were were worries that changes in one area would raise doubts in others.
During the autumn of 1653 fewer members attended the House, possibly because they had lost faith in its reforming potential. Those who did attend caused cromwell difficulties in his attempts to negotiate peace with the dutch. Instead of peace, the radicals had a vision of wars and conquest, first against what they saw as the corrupt merchants in the Netherlands, and culminating in victory against Rome and the papacy. Despite this, the moderates were able to secure a crushing victory in elections for the new council of state on November 1st, returning 31 moderates as opposed to 4 radicals. However, they did not build on this victory, as the moderates were unable to agree on a form of government.
The opportunity for a new form of government came when the council summoned lambert to discuss the possibility of commanding forces in Scotland to crush a developing royalist rising. Lambert declined the job, but he arrived in London having drafted a new constitution, which he discussed with other army officers and then Cromwell. Although Cromwell was interested in the proposal, he was not prepared to support another military coup or to become king, as the constitution suggested. The first concern was removed on 11th December, when, following a debate the previous day on the state church and tithes, the moderates went early the previous day and resigned their authority, giving their powers back to Cromwell, having dissolved their own assembly.

C: Cromwell as Lord Protector 1953-1958

10. What were the major points of the instrument of government?

The instrument brought together many of the earlier proposals there had been or a settlement, even using of the terms that Pym had offered Charles I in 1641 and 1642. It established three unequal parts to the constitutions: a Protector, a council of state and an occasional single-chamber parliament. It separated legislative, and it restored balance to the constitution. In many ways it also appeared similar to the old division of the king, privy council and parliament, but the differences in each element was regards to the powers each had show that this view would be too simplistic. 

The execution power resided with the protector and council, and the protector was much more limited than any king had been as he had to govern according to the advice f the council and could not dismiss or appoint councillors as he wanted. The legislative power was the protector and parliament, but it is worth noting that the power of the parliament were certainly less than it had been under the rump and no better than under kings. Parliament certainly did not have power of the executive army, finances or church. However, the legislative power of the protector was also limited as any bill passed could be stopped only for 21 days, after which time parliament could insist it was approved, unless it could be shown to be contrary to the instrument. 

There was one area in which the protector was in a  stronger position than the monarchy had ever been, and that was in terms of revenue for the armed forces. The instrument required that the protector should have enough revenue for the army of 30,000 (just over half the size in 1653) and a fleet, as well as £200,000 per year for civil government. Parliament would control taxation only after these needs had been met.

Until parliament met in september 1654, Cromwell and the council had the authority to issue ordinances, although these would be subject to the later approval to issue ordinances, although these would be subject to the later approval of parliament. One area in which substantial reform was made was in religion. The instruments had set down that:

• There should be a public profession of the christian faith
• There should be provision made for preaching
• There should be guidelines established for belief and worship
• Those who dissented from the profession should be free to worship as they wished. 

However, the instrument did not establish procedures for deciding whether a person was fit for a living as a minister of religion and how those who were not fit shock be removed. The problem was tackled by Cromwell through two ordinances. The first, in march 1654, established a 'commission for approbation of ministers', usually known as 'Triers', who would approve candidates for livings. The commission was drawn from a range of religious beliefs and did not impose rigid doctrinal tests on candidates but simply determined whether they had a sufficient education and led a good life. This was followed in august by another commission to remove those unsuitable, known as 'ejectors'. The result was a broad church, which probably included more than at any other time since the reformation. Cromwell also attempted to patronise the universities, believing that they would produce godly graduates who would go on to staff the church.

There were also successes in foreign policy as the war with the dutch was ended in April 1654 and trade treaties were concluded in Sweden and Portugal. 

11. What did Cromwell do before the first Protectorate parliament met in september 1653?

12. Why were relations between the first protectorate parliament and cromwell so difficult?

The elections that took place in July 1654 were the first full ones since 1640 and it was perhaps inevitable that they allowed pent-up grievances to be expressed. This was clearly seen in the results, which returned crypto-royalists, political Presbyterians and former members of the Rump, which made the parliament difficult to manage. The largest group was the unaligned country gentry who disliked the army and central power and therefore questioned the authority of the instrument itself. As a result they began by questioning the restraints in power imposed on parliament. Cromwell soon reminded them that in their election return they had agreed to the new constitution. Despite this, parliament sort much of its time rewriting the constitution, altering the balance between the council and parliament. Moreover, the changes would have limited religious liberty and reduced the size of the army at the very moment of a royalist rising in scotland. When parliament voted that 'the militia ought not to be raised, but by the common consent of the people assembled in parliament', Cromwell had had enough. Unable to compromise, Cromwell dissolved parliament on January 22nd 1655 before it had passed a bill or voted taxation. As a result, Cromwell returned to ruling by ordinance. 

13. What were the aims of the major-generals?

• The first concern for Cromwell was to reduce disorder and create a nation that was loyal to the regime. Therefore the first task of the Major-Generals was to deal with troublemakers and royalist activities. This would be achieved by using something similar to the local volunteer militias. 
• The local militias would also have the advantage of reducing the escalating cost of the present military establishment, but also involve local communities. The scheme would be financed by by tax of one tenth on the estates of known royalists, regardless of whether they had plotted against this protectorate. Cromwell had already reduced the main direct tax from £120,000 to £90,000 and this scheme would enable it to be regarded it to be reduced to £60,000. 
• The major-generals would co-ordinate the command of the militia and check the movements of known royalists.
• Encourage JPs to enforce the 'laws against drunkenness blasphemy and taking the name of God in vain by swearing, cursing, plays and interludes, profaning the Lords day.
• Improve the work of Triers and Ejectors

14. Were the major generals popular, if no why?

It is generally assumed that such policies made by the major generals unpopular, but the historian Toby Barnard has argued that they were obeyed and even helped by some of the substantial gentry. They were disliked because they represented central government; however, Barnard argues that, because they had power and could favour individuals, they were supported by some local notables. They also had the support of some of the godly in the communities as they were seen as instruments to carry out godly reformation and improve morality in the countries. 

Those who have argued that the major generals were unpopular have focused on the dislike from the local communities of another scheme imposed by central government which closed down numerous ale-houses, abolished horse racing and cock-fights, creating the image that they were no more than spoilsports. They were often seen as social inferiors to the respected country gentry; promoting Lucy Hutchinson to describe them as 'silly mean fellows'. 

These two different views perhaps give greater weight to the view of the historian Barry Coward who concluded that 'the striking fact that emerges about the major generals when some of the myths about them have been stripped away, is different amongst them'. A comparison between major generals Worsley in Northamptonshire, who was able to close down 200 ale-houses, and Desborough in the West Country, where he was unable to prevent rebels and local fairs, support in the view that their impact varied. 

15. What did the second protectorate parliament achieve?

Cromwell called a second parliament in september 1956, a year before he had to according to the term of the instrument. He was forced into this because he was short of money to fight the war against Spain, having launched an attack against Spanish colonies. The elections to the new parliament were a clear indication of the limits of the influence of the major generals. They claimed that they would be able to influence the voting so that a compliant bear over 100 members from taking their seats.

The elections resulted in the return of an increased number of moderates and, although they supported Cromwell, they wanted constitutional government and a shift from a military to more civilian style rule. They also wanted to restore power in the local communities and counties to those who had traditionally held power in the past: the wealth gentry. Their opposition to the existing structure became apparent in January 1657 when Desborough attempted to regularise the decimation tax, which funded the major generals, The bill was heavily defeated and Cromwell withdrew his support from the scheme; thus the rule of the major generals was allowed to wither away. 

Although Cromwell was an orthodontist Calvinist, who believed that God had predestined some men and women to be saved - the elect - he thought that they were divided amongst different churches, unlike most other Puritans. Cromwell also believed that religious toleration was essential in order to achieve unity although only for those who he saw as Godly and certainly not those who supported the old Church of England or those who were Catholic. 

16. What evidence is there of Cromwell's religious toleration?

Cromwell believed that inner piety was more important than outward patterns of worship. However, this toleration did not conflict with his duty as head of the state to preserve the law and order. This had been highlighted five months earlier when a Quaker, James Nayler, had re-encated Christs entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday by riding into Bristol on a donkey, with women throwing palms at his feet. A large number of MPs had wanted him punished for blasphemy and anarchy, and although the final sentence of flogging, branding and tongue boring was severe, it was more lenient than might have been the case.

Cromwell attitude to religious toleration had also been seen in this unusual view of the time of extending toleration to Jews. The 1650s saw the first serious attempts to readmit Jews to England since the Middle ages. 

The other majors concern parliament was the first constitution. In this area they had two particular concerns. the first was who was to be Cromwells successor, which was becoming an increasing issue given his decline health. They were concerned that another army man would become protector. the second concerned the composition of parliament. Once again, it had been possible to secure a complaint parliament only excluding large numbers of the elected members. As a result, they drew up the written constitution which they introduced into Parliament in january and presented to Cromwell in march. This was the 'humble petition of Advice'. 

17. What was the humble petition of advice?
The petition attempted to tackle the two problems that concerned parliament. It tackled problems by:

• Requesting Cromwell to become king; this would give the regime more respectability and ensure the succession of his son rather than a member of the army.
• Ending arbitrary exclusions, as members would only be able to be barred by the House itself.

The petition also reduced the power of the council, created another Chamber for parliament (the other house) reduced the size of the armed forces and limited religious toleration. 

Although Cromwell like much of the package, the big problem was that he had to either accept it all or none of it; he could not accept some parts and reject others. In particular, he was attracted by the constitution that had been drawn up by parliament, even if it was a purged parliament, rather than the army. However, he was concerned about becoming king and there is no doubt that the army was unhappy from the start. As a result, there were many weeks of negotiations before Cromwell finally declined the offer.

18. Why did Cromwell refuse the humble petition?

There were a number of reasons for his refusal. Most historians have emphasised the attitude of the army and the unrest the scheme generated with Lambert, Fleetwood and Desborough refusing to continue to serve any longer is he accepted. Cromwell may also have thought that he was betraying the cause for which he and many had fought by becoming King and that was putting personal and family gain first. He may also have thought, given his belief is providence, that God had already condemned the title with the military defeats of Charles and would therefore not go against that. 

https://quizlet.com/12543755/the-rump-parliament-and-barebones-flash-cards/
http://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/history/why-did-the-rump-parliament-fail-to-provide-lasting-and-stable-government-in-england-between-1649-1653.html

NOTES: The Failure to Achieve a Settlement 1646-49

A: Lack Of A Political Settlement 1646-47

1. What were the Newcastle Propositions and why did Charles not agree to them? 
Charles had surrendered to the Scots in Newark (1646) and was then sent to Newcastle. Parliament controlled both the army and Charles's advisors so therefore felt that they had power over him. Whilst he was being held, they sent him the Newcastle Propositions in July. In basic terms, these conditions were a combination of the Nineteen propositions and the Scots agreement of 1643, requiring Charles to agree to: 

• the Solemn League and Covenant
• the abolition of bishops 
• religion to be settled by parliament 
• parliament to agree on how to raise money 
• parliament would take control of the army
• who could not be his advisors

However, Charles was aware that there were divisions within his opponents and therefore he wanted to join with the Scots and try to restart the war to ensure that their religious goals were achieved. Although Charles did not like the strict presbyterianism that the Scots stood by, they might be willing to help restore his power and in the short term he would accept Presbyterianism, but then overturn the religious settlement later. Thus Charles took the opportunity for negotiation and avoided giving an immediate answer. 

Although many people feared radicalisation and saw stability within the restoration of the King's power, there were considerable division between the groups trying to bring about a settlement. Given these divisions, Charles was not willing to play a waiting game, and therefore rejected the Newcastle Propositions. 

2. In addition to Charles, who were the four main groups seeking a settlement in 1646-47 and what did they want?  

1. The Scots: did not like the idea of parliament deciding how the question of religion and the state church would be resolved. Therefore they would later make a separate deal with Charles. 
2. The Levellers: divided among themselves, but had support from the army. They put forward plans that would have democratised England and Wales but that would also have threatened the supremacy of Parliament. 
3. The Parliament Party: divided into the 'Peace Party' and the 'War Party'. They were unpopular because they continued the County Committees and Scottish Presbyterianism. 
4. The Army: divisions among them, Fairfax was not interested in politics and Rainsborough had sympathies with the levellers. 

3. Why was there unrest in the counties and what form did the unrest take? 

Many county gentry had been shocked by the war, but by the end of it they had expected the situation to improve. Instead the New Model Army, County Committees and religious anarchy remained. They expected the army to be disbanded once the war was over, however it remained and the costs of maintaining it continued to rise. The County Committees were often staffed by men of a lower social standing than those who had traditionally ran the counties and their new powers, such as arbitrary arrest, cause discontent. As a result many traditional county rulers resented their loss of status and thus would have welcomed back monarchial rule. 

Radical religious ideas continued to be promoted, which also cause discontent among the counties. The new Presbyterian practice of examining people to see if they were fit for worship also angered many people. Some ministers were also removed, leading to the emergence of radical groups, such as the Ranters who denied the existence of sin . 

These developments soon led to petitions from counties and ultimately revolt, which would lead to the outbreak of the Second Civil War. In 1644 parliament had passed an ordinance which limited religious festivals and in late 1647, the Kent County Committee issued an order emphasising that Christmas had been abolished and that shops were to open as if it was a normal working da. This led to riots in Canterbury of Christmas day and although the rebels were put on trial, the jury would not convict them. 

4. Why did relations between Parliament and the army break down in 1647? 

The Scots handed Charles over to parliament in early 1647 and taken to Holdenby House in Northamptonshie. On May 18 he presented his answers to the Newcastle Propositions:

• the 20 year militia control by parliament reduced to 10 
• discussions about a Presbyterian church 
• his supporters not to be persecuted 
• not to give up his right to choose his ministers or military appointments. 

These demands appeared to suggest that a compromise with parliament was possible, but the political siuation had changed and the army's influence and power had increased. 

In early 1647 the leaders of the 'Peace' group in parliament had sought to increase their control and reduce the radicals by getting rid of the army, which would also help to reduce expenditure, and in 1647 they ordered its disbandment. However, the proposals meant that where regiments were maintained, the officers would be replaced and soldiers would lose sympathisers with radical religious views and that those who would replace them were more conservative. 

At first the soldiers petitioned Fairfax for settlement of pay and indemnity. These requests were dismissed by parliament who, on 30 March, published the 'Declaration of Dislike' declaring that the petitioners were 'enemies of the state and disturbers of the peace', angering the soldiers. On May 25 the Commons voted for an immediate disbandment of the New Model Army and offered on 8 weeks back pay. This changed attitudes among the army as it began to take on more of a political role. The rank and file soldiers believed that their views were being ignored and that parliament was trying to get rid of them because of the radical views that had developed and the financial burden that they had created. On 31 May 2 regiments mutinied as they believed that they were being betrayed by conservative MPs who were willing to come to an agreement with Charles which went against everything that they had fought for. 

5a. The Representation of the Army

In order to prevent the agreement the army seized the King at Holdenby on 4 June and took him to Newmarket. On 5 June the army accepted the Solemn Engagement and agreed not to disband until they achieved a settlement over arrears of pay and an agreement had been reached with Charles I. It also established a General Council of Officers to co-ordinate the campaign. Oliver Cromwell then left London to join the army, making clear his support for the cause. The army published the Representation which outlined the army's political programme: 

• a purging of corrupt MPs 
• Parliament to be dissolved 
• New parliament to be of fixed length
• The church to be reformed 
• Liberty given to 'tender consciences', which allowed those who did not believe that the state Church was the true church to continue to worship in their own voluntary congregations 

The Representation made it clear that any settlement would have to involve the army. These developments caused panic, particularly in London, as mobs came out and were difficult to control. A number of MPs fled and some support shifted from parliament to Fairfax and Cromwell, believing that they could better control the radicals of the army and prevent chaos. 

b. The Heads of Proposals

Although the army now had power, it was divided between moderates and radicals, and there was still the problem of the king exploiting divisions. The officers of the army, led by Fairfax and Ireton, drew up their version of the settlement, the 'Heads of Proposals', which was presented to Charles and published on August 1. It called for:

• biennal parliaments 
• election to the Commons to be in proportion to the taxable wealth of the counties
• the militia to be under the control of parliament for 10 years
• the main officers of the realm to be under the control of parliament for 10 years 
• the authority of bishops to be removed 
• the use of the Common Prayer book to be abolished and the Covenant not to be enforced 
• the royal family to be restored without any other limits 

However the Problem with this solution was that it represented the views of the Officers and not the ordinary soldiers as they believed that it was too accommodating to the King. Charles also felt that he did not need to come to an agreement as he saw the divisions between his enemies as something that he could benefit from. He was also reluctant to hand over control of the militia or religion to the extent that the 'Heads' required. He therefore delayed his his response. 

c. The Agreement of the People

With the 'Heads of Proposals' the divisions in the army became more apparent and radicals within the army offered an alternate solution. They produced the 'Agreement of the People' on 28 October 1647, (a less provocative version of their initial document, the 'Case of the Army Truly Stated'). It stated that:

• abolition of imprisonment for debt 
• taxation in proportion to real or personal property
• abolition of military conscription, monopolies and excise taxes  
• No-one could be punished for refusing to testify against themselves in criminal cases
• Equality of all persons before the law

This was ignored by the King. 

6. Why was it so difficult to achieve a political settlement in the period 1646-7? 

On 11 November, Charles escaped from army custody and made his way to Carisbrook Castle on the Isle of Wight. This gave him access to France and the possibility of renewing the war. 

A settlement had proved impossible for a number of reasons, but mainly due to the King and his actions: 

• He was aware of the divisions among his enemies and planned to exploit them in order to regain his power
• He knew that gentry families feared radicalism and looked to him as the upholder of stability 
• He knew that the Scots disliked the English religious proposals and therefore may be willing to reach an agreement with him that could restore at least some of his power. 
• He knew that there were divisions in parliament with the 'Peace' and 'War' parties, which he wanted to exploit

As a result Charles felt that he could avoid reaching a settlement and that as time passed, his position would be strengthened and eventually restored. This view had been encouraged by the terms of the 'Heads', which were a significant improvement on the earlier terms that parliament had offered him. 

At the same time, Charles's opponents had also miscalculated, as they believed the King would except that his military defeat was final, but he did not. Any settlement would need the Kings approval, he also had Scotland and Ireland which, given time, he might have been able to use against his enemies. Therefore he felt no rush in coming to a final agreement. 

B: The Emergence of Radicalism 

7. Why was religious radicalism important for the emergence of political radicalism? 

Religious radicals were a direct challenge to the concept of hierarchy and obedience. These groups were given encouragement in the years before the outbreak of the Civil War as the attack on bishops in the years 1640-42 led to a collapse of censorship, allowing a free press to develop and radical arguments and ideas to be expressed. Separatist Churches flourished, with the following notable developments:

• 1641: London General Baptists hold a joint conference 
• 1643: Seven Churches of the London Particular Baptists issue a joint Confession of Faith
• 1644: The first Congregational Church founded, in Hull
• 1645: Congregational Church established in Canterbury 
• 1646: Six Congregational churches established in Yorkshire

These groups were demanding that any settlement should grant them the right to worship as they wanted. Any arguments to justify religious toleration resulted in theories about rights and freedoms. Although the actual numbers were small, their ideas worried conservatives. This was given greater credence by two important developments; the emergence of the radical Leveller movement in London in 1646 and the apparent strength of the radical ideas in the New Model Army. 

8. What were the origins of the Levellers and who were their leaders? 

The Levellers emerged from the campaign for religious toleration which had started in London in 1644. The leading figures of the group were John Lilburne, William Walwyn and Richard Overton and they were all religious separatists. They argued for complete freedom of worship and belief as a right. Their activities worried conservatives, who tried to stop them. Lilburne was arrested for slandering the Speaker of the Commons, but complained about imprisonment without a proper trial, accused parliament of tyranny and argued for social and legal equality. He was arrested again for slander against the House of Lords and was imprisoned. Demonstrations and marches followed in London and a petition was presented to the Commons, 'A Remonstrance of Many Thousand Citizens'.  

9. Where did the Levellers gain support and how widespread was it?
The levellers emerged from the campaign for religious toleration which had started in London 1644. The leading figures, men such as: John Lilburne, William Walwyn and Richard Overton who were all religious separatists. The three formed a radical group arguing for complete freedom of belief and worship of as a right. These activities worried conservatives. Lilburne was arrested for slandering the speaker for the commons but complained about about imprisonment without a proper trial and accused parliament tyranny and argued for social and legal equality. He was again arrested for slander against the house of Lords and was imprisoned, but used this to demand further political reform. Demonstrations and marches followed in London and a petition was presented to the Commons 'A Remonstrance Of Many Thousand Citizens'.

Soliders:
Parliament might ignore such petitions, but they were concerned about growing radicalism in the army. Soldiers were often debating amongst themselves and protecting separatists in the areas they were stationed.

Meanwhile Cromwell himself was concerned about the threat to the social hierarchy and order posed by the Levellers as he made clear both during the Putney Debates and afterwards. Parliament had rejected the 'Remonstrance of Many Thousand Citizens' and this encouraged them to look for support elsewhere, with support from ordinary soldiers, they put forward the 'Case of The Army Truly Stated' and then the 'Agreement of the People'. Due to these documents and growing fears among the officers, Cromwell agreed to meet in Putney. This resulted in the Putney Debates which lasted between October 28th to November 8th 1647. With the arguments making no progress, Cromwell called for the entire army to be called together together for consultation. However, in order to split the agitators, there were three meeting-points. At Corkbush Field a mutiny occurred. The army leaders responded by imposing martial law and arresting leaders, shooting one, Richard Arnold. This ended short term trouble.

10. What was the Impact of Radicalism? 
The emergence of radical groups in the period of 1646-1647 made it harder to find a settlement due to the king after the first Civil War. However, the failure was also due to the attitude of the king and the demands made by the Parliament. The ideas of the Levellers and radical within the army simply added another group to the problem. But given Charles view of the monarchy it was unlikely that it would have been possible to reach an agreement even within the influence of radicalism. Radicalism had only influenced only a small number of people and spread only because of the conditions created by the Civil War. Despite these limits, radicalism did raise issues that could not be ignored. Levellers political and social ideas may have been contained, but it was much more difficult to contain religious radicalism. This growth resulted in the rise of a new force which claimed a role in shaping the government and argued that it was justified by the will of God, bringing revolutionary element to the attempts to find a settlement.

C: The Second Civil War 1647-1648:

11. Why did Charles and the Scots agree to the Engagement:

Four days before the events at Corkbush Field that Charles escaped from army control. When charles reached the Isle of Wight he received a Scottish delegation, preferring to ally with them, in hope of gaining some power back, instead of resuming talks with Parliament. The Scots recognised that their best hope of ensuring that Presbyterian worship established was through an alliance with Charles rather then an anti-presbyterian army with parliament. Therefore they signed the Engagement with Charles on 26th December 1647, Charles agreed to:

• There would be Presbyterian worship for three years followed by a free debate on how the church should be governed
• The suppression of radical groups, such as: Anabaptists and separatists.
• Armies would be disbanded, except the Scots army which would be sent to England to preserve religious and protect the monarchy. 

This was a very good deal for Charles as it would unlikely England would convert to Presbyterian in three years and a meeting after three years would overturn the changes. It also provided him with a force which would be able to deal with the new Model army. There was also support for a return to familiar force of government in England supported by Riots in placed such as Canterbury. 

However with Charles's escape, there was a strong feeling that Charles could not be trusted and this was reflected by parliament passing a vote of 'No Further Addresses' meaning there would be no further negotiation with the King in January 1648. 

12. Why is the engagement considered a turning point in relations between the king, parliament and the army? And 
13. What Was the Course of the Second Civil War?
A turning point had been reached. Previously men such as Cromwell, Fairfax and Breton had been committed to negotiations with the King but they viewed his dealing with the Scots as treachery and threw their support behind the views of the rank and file in the army. Therefore a republican solution to the constitutional problem now became a possibility.
Despite the development, it did not quell disturbances and some gentry organised petitions calling for a treaty with the King and the disbanding of the army. There was unrest in London, Norwich and Kent, Essex and South Wales, but these disturbances were put down. These were followed by royalist rising in Cornwall, Yorkshire and Wales, and although most were short lived it was an indication of the polarised views. The New Model Army under Cromwell was sent to deal with the unrest in Wales, while Fairfax besieged Colchester, which had been taken by royalists.
The situation changed further in July when the Scottish Army entered England. Unfortunately Charles their progress had been slow to raise forces. They finally entered Lancashire, which they were further hampered by John Lamprets Yorkshire troops. This delay meant that Cromwell had finished putting down the unrest in Wales and was able to go north. The Scottish army was caught on August 17th and within two days the much large the siege of Colchester continued for a few more days and there were a few pockets of resistance elsewhere. Charles had played no part in the war but had been closely guarded by Carisbrooke. The victory of the New Model Army mean that his fate now depended upon them.

D: The Execution of Charles I

14. Why did the army decide that Charles must be put on trial? 

Although the new Model Army had won the second civil war, which increased both their influence and power and the unrest that had engulfed much of the country indicated that many people did not like the attempts to reform either political or religious life. This was reflected when parliament withdrew its 'no addresses' and in September sent representatives to all to the King. But the army had no intention of allowing to agreement between the King and parliament. It argued that Charles could not be trusted and therefore was no point in trying to reach an agreement with him. More importantly it argued that he had forfeited his right to be regarded as Gods anointed. The army claimed that he had rejected God's verdict through his defeat in the First Civil War and therefore God himself and should lose his divine status and answer for his crimes. 

It is important to understand the significance of the belief in God's providence if the developments that followed in the autumn of 1648. The belief that God directed human behaviour according to his will was not confined to radicals. The task was to work out what that will was and then direct their actions in pursuit of this. Charles's opponents believed that Charles went against Gods will and therefore he should be brought to justice. The second Civil War therefore convinced people that Charles should pay for his crimes and untrustworthiness, but it convinced others that it was Gods will and it gave Cromwell the motive for drastic actions.  

15. Why did Prides Purge take place in December 1648?

Parliament refused to debate the Army Remonstrance and on 5th December voted to continue negotiations with Charles at Carisbrooke, believing his answers were for a basis for a settlement. The armies wishes were ignored and therefore they acted. The following day, at 7am 1000 members if the New Model Army blocked the entrance to parliament and as members arrived Colonel Pride produced a list of those to be prevented from entering. The most prominent supporters of the King were arrested. Cromwell returned to London on 7th December after initially being unsure whether to support the purge. 

The purge did not mean that Charles's trial and execution were guaranteed. After all it was parliament but its actions in agreeing to continue to negotiate with the King, that had precipitated the purge and it could therefore be a defensive measure by the army. It was events in december that brought Charles to trial. Cromwell attempted the persuade Charles to make some concessions but he refused and this appears to have convinced Cromwell of the need for a trial as the King as obstructing God's will. If there was going to be a trial for Charles, it would be public. However this meant that is Charles was found not guilt then a settlement would be harder to come to. As well, if he was found guilt he would be executed, this would cause public storms and unease. 

16. What happened during the trial of Charles I?

The decision to establish a High Court to try Charles was made on January 1st 1645 by the Rump. The remaining Lords objected to this, but the commons simply ignored him. Charles was the first european monarch to be put on public trial. Time was spent establishing a jury and judge for the trial. Te trial finally began on January 20th 1649, with john bradshaw as the lord president of the court., while the barrister, john cook, presented these charges. According to the charges, Charles was:

'A tyrant, traitor and murderer and a public implacable enemy to the commonwealth of England.' 

The court claimed that he had waged war on Parliament, fronted commissions to the Irish rebels and was responsible for all the damage that ensued. Charles respond by:

'Remember i am your lawful king I have trust committed to me by God' 

Disputing that the court had any right to try him, Charles refused to plea and claimed that 'The commons of England was never a court of Judicature.' and that 'I so stand more for the liberty of my people than any here that come to be my pretended judges.'
Charles was brought back for the verdict on January 27th. In a final statements to Charles, Bradshaw stated:

'There is contract between the King and his people for as you are that beige-lord, so they are liege-subjects the one bond his the bond of protection that id due from sovereign. Sir, if this is to be broken, farewell sovereignty! Whether you have been a protector of England let all England judge.'

The was followed by this sentence being read out:

'That she said Charles stuart, as tyrant, traitor and murderer and public enemy shall be put to death by the severing of his head from his body.' 

Charles was denied the right to respond and on the 30th January was taken to the scaffold where he made a speech:

'Truly I desire their liberty and freedom as much as anybody; but I must tell you that their liberty and freedom consists in having of government.. a subject and a sovereign are clean different things. I die christian according to the profession of the church of England.'

Cromwell and his allies might argue that they acred correctly in the eye os of God, but in the eyes of the law their actions had been illegal. It was this that would continue to haunt regimes until the restorations in 1660 make it possible to achieve a settlement.

Charles death was followed by the abolition of the monarchy and the House of Lords. This left a purged commons, the rump to rule alongside a Council in state. The army still remained and they would have to deal with royalists, Presbyterians, Scots, Irish and further leveller unrest. The Republic, known as the commonwealth, face by challenges.

NOTES: Assess the aims, the terms and the immediate impact of the Paris peace settlement

TASK 1 - Problems faced by the Peacemakers

1. Why did the economic, political and social conditions of the time make it so much more difficult to negotiate a just and balanced pace settlement? 

The sudden defeat of the central powers had made Europe vulnerable to the spread of communism by Russia. This put the statesmen of the Allies in a difficult position in January 1919. For much of the winter of 1918-19 Germany was on the brink of revolution. With the break down of the Austrian, Turkish and Russian empires, anywhere east of the Rhine had no stable government. In March, when communists temporarily seized power in Hungary, it seemed to the Allied leaders that the door to the heart of Europe was now open to communism. 

The fear of revolution was intensified by the influenza pandemic and near famine in eastern Europe, which by the spring of 1919, had killed millions of people. Therefore the statesmen of Paris also faced a need to avert economic chaos and famine. 

The task of rebuilding a peaceful and prosperous Europe made more difficult by the continued strength of nationalist feeling among the populations of the Allied powers. They believed that their leaders should crush the enemy in order to make up for the suffering that had been inflicted upon them during the war. 

At the Congressional elections in the US in November 1918, republicans (opposite of Woodrow Wilson) gained the majority,  putting a much larger strain on the prospect for real peace in Europe. The Republicans were determined to campaign for hard peace with Germany and insisting that the US should not have to finance any expensive schemes for European reconstruction. 

2. What problems did the peacemakers face in 1919?

In January 1919 the leaders of 32 countries assembled in Paris to make peace with the Central Powers. However criticisms of the way the conference was conducted, including:\

• The decision of the Allied leaders to participate in the work of detailed negotiations personally
• the 'secret diplomacy' - where negotiations were taking place behind closed doors
• Representatives from Russia, Germany and other defeated powers were excluded from the peace making process
• No agreement had been reached on the programme to be followed or how the conference was to be organised

The peacemakers also faced problems, including:

• Had to deal with treaty commitments, promises and pronouncements which had been made during the war
• The breakdown of the German (Hohenzollern), Russian (Romanov), Austro-Hungarian (Habsburg) and Turkish (Ottoman) empires had resulted in economic chaos, famine and outbursts of nationalism 
• There was fear that Bolshevism (communism) would spread from Russia through Europe
• Peacemakers had to make sure that the peace settlement reflected the intense feelings within their own countries
• Decisions would have to be made quickly

The Big Three (Lloyd George, Clemenceau and Woodrow Wilson), each had large supporting teams of experts, who were concerned with one main question: how to provide security for the future and all had different views on the issue. Once the Treaty of Versailles had been signed in June 1919, the Big Three returned home. 

TASK 2 - Aims of the Peacemakers

1. What were the aims of Wilson and the USA?

Wilson had stated that the eventual peace should contain 'no annexations, no contributions, no punitive damages'. He was determined to ensure that his 14 Points served as the basis for the coming peace negotiations, however they were regarded by many European Statesman as idealistic pipe dreams. Clemenceau and Lloyd George also expressed reservations about the Points as the people back home wanted harsh punishment for the Germans. However, they could not be rejected fully as if Britain and France wanted to defeat Germany they would have to retain the support of the USA; the strongest economical power in the world. 

Wilson was not particularly interested in punishing Germany. The US had no territorial or economic aims, Wilson was primarily concerned in creating a a fair and lasting system of international relations. 

There was a general agreement among the victors to set up independent nation-states in eastern Europe and the Balkans and confine Turkey to it's ethnic frontiers, all of which was anticipated by points 10-13. Points 7 and 8, covering the liberation of Belgium and the return of Alsace-Lorraine to France, had already been fulfilled at the start of the armistice. On other issues, Wilson was willing to compromise. For example, Britain was assured that Point 2, which demanded the 'freedom of the seas' didn't mean the immediate uplifting of the blockade on Germany. 

2. What were the aims of Clemenceau and France? 

France had lost Alsace-Lorraine in 1871 and had been forced to pay massive reparations, it also had the highest casualties, in proportional terms, out of all of the Allies. Therefore with France weakened and Germany potentially stronger than it was in 1914, Clemenceau was less impressed with Wilson's 14 Points. He wanted to enforce maximum disarmament and reparation payments on Germany. He also wanted to set up independent Polish, Czechoslovak and Yugoslav states and an additional independent Rhineland state. Furthermore he wanted an alliance with Britain and the US that would result in financial and economic co-operation into the post-war years. Clemenceau felt that he was asking no more than what every citizen expected. 

3. What were the aims of Lloyd George and Great Britain?

Britain's territorial ambitions lay in the Middle East not in Europe so there were no claims to make. Lloyd George was anxious to preserve the British naval supremacy and was willing to enlarge the Empire. He was also anxious to destroy German militarism (German generals had great political influence), and even supported demands that the Kaiser should be hanged. However he believed that it seemed unwise to punish the German people for the sins of the Kaiser; he feared that if Germany was excessively humiliated it might be driven to Bolshevism. Thus British policy pointed towards peace and reconciliation rather than revenge. However Britain adopted a much harsher approach in two key areas: reparations and war guilt. In December 1918 Clemenceau and Lloyd George agreed that the Kaiser should be by an international tribunal for war crimes.

4. What were the aims of Japan? 
Japan wanted recognition of the territorial gains made in the war. The also pushed to have a racial equality clause included in the covenant of the League of Nations. They hoped that this would protect Japanese immigrants in the USA.

5. What were the aims of Italy? 
The Italian Prime Minister, Orlando, was anxious to convince voters that Italy had done well out of the war, and concentrated on holding the Entente to the promises they made in the Treaty of London, as well as demanding the port of Fiume in Adriatic.

TASK 3 - Organisation of the Paris Peace Conference. 

1. How effective was the organisation of the Paris Peace Conference?
Compared to the Vienna Conference of 1814-15, the conference was a showpiece of sophisticated organisation. However it got off to a slow start and little progress was made in the first 2 months towards a German settlement. This was partly due to the organisation and partly due to the Allied statesmen forming a 'Cabinet of Nations', which could ignore the pressing problems of immediate post-war Europe. They had to consider the emergency consignments of food to central and eastern Europe, set up the Supreme Economic Council to deal with the financial and economic problems affecting both occupied and unoccupied Germany, and negotiate the easing of the food blockade of Germany in exchange for the surrender of the German Merchant fleet.

2. What problems faced the Council of Ten? 

When the peace conference opened on 18 January 1919, the delegates of 27 states attended. However, in reality, the power lay within the 'big five': Britain, France, USA, Italy and Japan. With the exception of Japan, each country was represented by its wartime leaders in the Council of Ten (two representatives per country). Neither Russia nor the defeated powers attended. 

Right up to April, Allied powers were not sure whether to follow the pattern of previous peace conferences and plan for a preliminary peace with Germany and other central powers. This would only contain the disarmament terms and outlines of the territorial settlement. Then, at a later date, when tensions had cooled, an international congress would be called to which the ex-enemy states would be invited.
Thus the Council of Ten, unsure whether they were working on a preliminary or final treaty, began to tackle the intricate problems of peace making. 58 committees were set up to draft the clauses of not only the German treaty but also the treaties with Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary and Turkey. Their work was made more difficult by the absence of any central co-ordinating body, thus the different committees worked in isolation and sometimes came up with contradictory solutions.

3. Why did the organisation of the Paris Peace Conference have to be streamlined?
It wasn't until March 24th that the organisation of the Paris Peace Conference was streamlined as a result of Lloyd George's controversial Fontainebleau memorandum. Inspired by the fear that the Allies might drive Germany into the arms of the Bolsheviks, this urged major concessions in Berlin, and so raised important issues which could only be resolved by secret discussions among Clemenceau, Lloyd George, Orland and wilson. This 'council of four' proved so effective that it became the key decision-making committee of the conference. This briefly became the 'council of three' when Orlando left it in protest against its refusal to agree to Italian claims in Fiume and Dalmatia. 

TASK 4 - The Settlement with Germany - Treaty of Versailles 

1. Explain the main terms of the treaty:

A) War Guilt 
There was universal agreement among the victorious that Germany was responsible for starting the war. Therefore Germany was forced to accept blame and sign the the War Guilt clause (Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles), taking responsibility for all losses and damages. This provided a moral basis for the Allied demands for Germany to pay reparations. As stated in in Article 231, 'Germany accepts responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all of the loss and damage to which the Allied and associated governments and their nationals have been subjected'.

B) Reparations 

There was considerable debate on how much money should be payed. Wilson wanted a reparations settlement based on Germany's ability to pay. However the French and British publics wanted to 'squeeze the German lemon till the pips squeaked'. They also needed to give high reparations in order to meet the costs of the war and to also keep Germany's economy weak for years to come. At a time of extreme social unrest, no Allied country could easily face the prospect of financing debt repayments by increasing taxation and introducing cuts on expenditure. Lloyd George was determined to get Britain's fair share of reparations and insisted that 'damage' should include merchant shipping losses and the costs of pensions to those disabled, widowed or orphaned by the war. However, like Wilson, he thought that Germany should only pay what it could afford as he did not want to lose previous trade. Yet, he could not ignore the fact that he had been elected based on the promises to screw Germany 'to the uttermost farthing'. It was also initially hoped that the USA would continue war time inter-allied economic cooperation, but by the end of 1918 Wilson had dissolved all of the agencies in favour of this in Washington, so it became obvious that this would not happen.
In 1921 the commission recommended a sum of £6.6 billion. Although this was far less than originally envisioned, it was far more than Germany could afford. 

C) Disarmament
All nations agreed on the necessity for German disarmament, but there some differences in emphasis. Britain and the US wished to destroy the German tradition of conscription and to replace it with a small professional army, similar to the British and American peacetime armies. However General Foch feared this army would become a tightly organised group of trained men that would be capable of quick expansion if the opportunity arose.
Foch was overruled and in March the Council of Ten came to the agreement that inter-allied commissions would be set up to monitor the pace of the German disarmament, the abolition of the general staff, the creation of a new regular army with a maximum of 100,000 men, the dissolution of the air force and the reduction of the navy to a handful of ships.
In simple terms they agreed that:

• Germany was to have no heavy artillery, tanks of aeroplanes 
• the German army would have a maximum of 100,000 men
• Germany was to have no capital ships and no submarines

D) Territorial Settlement 

• Clemenceau wanted Germany's western frontier to be fixed to the river Rhine: the left bank would go to France or become an independent buffer state - Wilson and Lloyd George both apposed this idea believing it would be a cause for resentment in Germany, and instead promised France Anglo-American military support. 
• Germany would return Alsace-Lorraine to France
• Northern Schleswig went back to Denmark 
• Eupen and Malmedy went back to Germany
• The Rhineland would be occupied by Allied troops for 15 years and was to remain permanently demilitarised  
• The Saar region was placed under the control of the League of Nations for 15 years, during which time the French would work its mines, a plebiscite would then be held to decide the areas future. 
• The 14 Points promised an independent Poland, Clemenceau wanted a strong Poland, Lloyd George was worried about the millions of bitter Germans within the new state and his pressures ensured that:

                          > The port of Danzig would be made a Free City under the LoN

                          > a plebiscite was held in 1921 in Upper Silesia - 1/3 of the area went to Poland 

• Germany lost the Polish Corridor and also Memel to Lithuania 
• It was forbidden to unite with Austria

E) Colonies 
Germany lost all of it's colonies, an Wilson insisted that the league should have ultimate control over the former colonies.

• Britain gained German East Africa and the Cameroons 
• Australia took New Guinea 
• South Africa took South-West Africa 
• New Zealand got Samoa 
• Japan took all German possessions in China and in the Pacific North of the equator 

On Wilson's insistence, these areas were to be ruled as mandates and ruling powers had to bear in mind the wishes of the colonies inhabitants, who would eventually self govern under the supervision of the league. 

F) The League of Nations 

Wilson believed that Britain and France would oppose the League, however they were both willing to accept the LoN in return for US friendship. Britain prepared a scheme that became the framework for the League. Germany was not allowed to join until it had proved it's intention to carry out the peace terms. 

2. Why did the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Versailles cause resentment in Germany? 

•  The treaty was imposed on Germany without consultation and was not based on the 14 Points
• They were forced to reduce their army when no other country was disarming, making it vulnerable to attack and causing further instability within German
• They lost European territory which was important economically and militarily 
• The Polish corridor split Germany in two 
• It's European rivals could now exploit it's overseas possessions in Africa
• Reparations were set at an extremely high and unachievable levels

3. How justified was German criticism of the Treaty of Versailles?  

Germany had been led to believe that Wilson's 14 points would be the basis of the treaty, however they were not. On the 7th of May the peace terms were presented to the Germans and they were given a mere 15 days to draw up their reply. The German government bitterly criticised the treaty for not sticking to the 14 Points and demanded significant concessions, including immediate membership of the LoN. These demands would have would have strengthened Germany's position in central Europe and were rejected outright by the Allied and associated powers. Lloyd George pushed for Article 431, which meant that 'once Germany had given concrete evidence of her willingness to fulfil her obligations' the Allied and associated powers would consider 'an earlier terminations of occupation' in the Rhineland.
Overall there were many issues with the treaty such as the arguably unfair reparations and exclusion of Germany from the LoN. However it could be argued that the problem was not with the terms of the treaty but with what the treaty represented; a defeat the most German people were not willing to accept. Even if the treaty had been based on the 14 Points it may not have been enough for the German people as it still would have involved a loss of land to Poland. On 16 June, the Germans were handed the final version of the treaty. The extreme opposition among the German people led to a political crisis, splitting the cabinet into two sides.

4. Why did the Americans not ratify the treaty? 
By January 1920 the treaty had been ratified (gave consent to make valid) by all of the signatory powers, except the USA. In Washington, isolationists feared that if the USA joined the League, it would have to protect other League members, even if it meant going to war, and therefore it would have to abandon its traditional policy of isolationism. They therefore proposed that congress should be empowered to veto US participation in any League initiative that clashed with their policy of isolationism. Wilson thought that these movements would paralyse the league and refused to accept them, however he failed to convince his government.
 Without US ratification, the Anglo-American military guarantee of France lapsed and the burden of carrying out the treaty fell on Britain and France.

TASK 5 - The Other Treaties

1. AUSTRIA: What were the main terms of the Treaty of St Germain, September 1919? 
This treaty split up the Austrian Empire. It was given independence but Rump Austria was now reduced to a small, weak,  German-speaking state of some 6 million people.

• Italy got South Tyrol (home to 230,000 ethnic Germans)
• Czechoslovakia got Bohemia and Moravia (home to 3 million Germans) - France pushed for this to happen as they wanted this potential ally to be strengthened. 
• Yugoslavia got Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Dalmatia 
• Poland and Romania gained Galicia and Bukovina
• A plebiscite was held in Carinthia for the Germans who did not want to be part of Yugoslavia, in 1920

2. HUNGARY: What were the main terms of the Treaty of Trianon, June 1920? 

Of all of the defeated powers, Hungary suffered the most in 1919. By the Treaty of Trianon, Hungary lost over 2/3 of it's territory and 41.6% of its population. Its fate was sealed when, in November 1918, Serb, Czech and Romanian troops all occupied the regions they claimed. The Treaty was delayed in 1919 when there was a communist uprising. When this died down the treaty was signed in 1920:

• Austria was given the the most German speaking area in the former west Hungarian state
• Czechoslovakia was given the Slovakian and Ruthenian  regions in the north
• Romania got the east
• Yugoslavia got the south

Hungary was made an independent state but was left weak and small. 

3. BULGARIA: What were the main terms of the Treaty of Neuilly, November 1919? 

The treaty was signed on November 1919. France and Britain regarded Bulgaria as the 'Balkan Prussia', which needed to be restrained. Despite reservations from Italy and America, they pushed to reward their allies, Romania, Greece and Serbia at the Bulgarians expense. 

• Southern Dobruja, with only 7000 Romanian residents, was given to Romania
• Greece got western Thrace 

4. ITALY: Why could Orlando and Wilson not agree on the future of Fiume, Istria and Dalmatia? 

The most serious clash of opinions in the conference took place within Italy and the USA over Italian claims to Fiume, Istria and Dalmatia. Orlando wanted to prove to the Italian electorate that Italy was not a 'proletarian nation' (lacked an empire and materials) which could be dictated by the Great Powers. It also insisted on its right to annex both Albania and the port of Fiume. The annexation of Fiume would have denied Yugoslavia its only effective port in the Adriatic, thereby strengthening Italy's economic grip on the region. In April 1919, Orlando was prepared to accept Fiume as a compromise for giving up Italian claims on Dalmatia. However Wilson was determined to make a stand on the 14 Points in the Adriatic. Orlando walked out of the Peace Conference in protest and did not return until May. His resignation allowed for secret negotiations to begin in Paris.
However the lynching of 9 French troops in Fiume by a Italian mob in July, and the seizure of the city by an Italian nationalist in September, prolonged the crisis. In November 1920 Italy and Yugoslavia agreed on a compromise and signed the treaty of Rapallo:

• Istria was partitioned between the two powers
• Fiume was to become a self-governing free city
• The rest of Dalmatia went to Yugoslavia 

5. TURKEY

A) To what extent was the Treaty of Sevres 1920, so harsh that it was bound to have a backlash?
Lloyd George hoped to drastically weaken Turkey by depriving it of Constantinople and control of the Straits. He also wanted it to force it to surrender all territories where there was no ethnic Turkish majority. He wanted Greece to fill the vacuum left by the fall of Turkish power, thus becoming the agent of the British empire in the Eastern Mediterranean. France however wanted to preserve a viable Turkish state. Above all he wanted the Turkish government to remain in Constantinople, where it would be vulnerable to French pressure.
Overall it was a harsh and humiliating treaty. Constantinople remained Turkish, however Thrace and most of the European coastline of the Sea of the Marmara and the Dardanelles were to go to Greece. Large parts of the Arab areas of the Ottoman Empire were given as mandates to Britain and France. The Straits were to be demilitarised and placed under international supervision.

B) Why was Britain able to revise the Sykes-Picot Agreement to suit its own interests? 
In May 1916 Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement. In this they would divide up Mesopotamia, Syria and the Lebanon into Anglo-French spheres of interest once the war against Turkey had been won. However, as Britain had the largest army in the Middle East, it was able to revise the agreement without consultation to the French. In 1917, Britain insisted on claiming the whole of the Palestine, which was quite contrary to the agreement. By supporting the Zionists' ambition to establish a national home for the Jews in Palestine through the Balfour Declaration, Britain cleverly managed to secure US backing.

C) What was the Chanak crisis and how did this result in the Treaty of Lausanne, 1923? 
In 1919-20 Mustafa Kemal led a national uprising. His aim was to liberate his country from continuing Allied military control and Greek occupation in the west. By 1920 he controlled Turkey. In March, with the support of Lloyd Georgie, Greece fought back, but failed to make much headway.
Meanwhile Kemal had come to terms with Italy, France and the USSR. In 1922 Turkish forces launched a major offensive. Greek resistance collapsed and the Turks threatened the British forces occupying the international zone of the straits.
Lloyd George seemed to be prepared to go to war to defend the Straits, even though Britain would not be receiving support from France. At the end of September 1922 Turkish forces reached Chanak, the British base. Military confrontation was only avoided because of the cool judgement of the commanders on the spot. The Turks, who had no wish to go to war with Britain, agreed to respect the international zone. The whole affair was seen as unnecessary war-mongering on Lloyd George's part , contributing to his downfall in October 1922.
Negotiations took place between Kemal and Lord Curzon, the foreign secretary. The Treaty of Lausanne was signed in 1923.

• Turkey retained Eastern Thrace, Smyrna and the Aegean islands it had won back from Greece.
• Turkey accepted the loss of its Arab territories and agreed that the straits should remain demilitarised and open to the ships of all nations in time of peace. 

TASK 6 - Enforcing the Treaty of Versailles 1920-23

1. What was the machinery for carrying out the Treaty of Versailles?
Once the treaty was ratified, the powers set up a series of inter-Allied commissions to organise the plebiscites, monitor German disarmament and examine Germany's financial positions with a view to payments of its reparations. These then reported to the Conference of Ambassadors in Paris. However the real decisions were taken by the Allied prime ministers, who between January 1920 and January 1924 met 24 times to review progress made in carrying out the Treaty of Versailles.

2. Why did Britain and France's views on how to implement the Treaty of Versailles conflict? 
Britain wanted:

• A balance of power in Europe that would prevent German of French domination
• Leave Europe free to deal to deal with the growing challenges to its power from nationalist movements in India, Egypt and Ireland. 
• Believed only a prosperous and peaceful Germany could pay reparations and play it's pat in the European economy

France wanted:

• swung between economic cooperation with Germany and applying forceful measures to weaken Germany and force it to fulfil the treaty. 

3. Why did it take so long to regulate Poland's eastern border with Russia? 

The Poles used the chaos that followed the Bolshevik revolution to extend their eastern frontier deep in the Ukraine and Belorussia. In December 1919 they rejected the proposed eastern frontier based on recommendations put forward by Lord Curzon, and in early 1920 embarked on a full scale invasion of Ukraine. 

By August, Bolshevik forces had pushed the poles back to Warsaw. However, with help from the French, the Poles rallied and defeated the red army just outside Warsaw. Soviet troops were pushed back, and in March 1921 Poland's frontiers were fixed by the Treaty of Riga.  Poland annexed a considerable area of Belorussia and the western Ukraine, all of which lay to the east of the proposed Curzon line. 

4. Why did the British and French disagree about the Upper Silesian frontier? 

By the end of 1920, the Marienwerder and Allenstein plebiscites had been held. The population voted to stay in Germany and Danzig became a free city under the administration of the League of Nations in November 1920.
However fixing the Upper Silesian frontiers was a much greater issue. Upper Silesia had a population of over 2 million Germans and Poles, who were divided through ethnic lines, and a concentration of coal mines and industries that were second only in size to the Ruhr.
A plebiscite was held on 17 March and gave an ambiguous result, which did not solve the Anglo-French disputes over Poland. Britain argued that the result justified keeping the key industrial regions of the province German, while the French insisted that they should be awarded to Poland. However the Poles seized control of the industrial area and an uprising broke out in May 1921. Order was eventually restored by French and British troops in July and the whole question was handed over to the LoN in August. In 1922 the league handed over the most of the industrial areas to Poland.

5. Why did all efforts to solve the reparation questions fail by the end of 1922? 

Both the British and the French hoped to solve the reparation problems by fixing a global total as soon as possible on the assumption that once Germany knew the full sum of its debts it would be able to raise money in the USA from the sale of government bonds and begin payments.
In April 1921 the Reparation Commission fixed a global total for reparations of 132 billion gold marks to be paid over 42 years. When this was rejected by Germany, on the grounds that the sum was too high, an ultimatum was dispatched to Berlin giving the Germans only a week to accept the new payment schedule, after which the Ruhr would be occupied.
To carry out the London Ultimatum a new government was created by Joseph Wirth on 10 May, who was determined to pursue a policy of negotiation rather than confrontation. However by the end of the year the German government said that, due to inflation, they could not meet their next instalment of reparation payments.

6. Why did the Geneva Conference of 1922 fail? 
Lloyd George was sure that Germany needed a temporary moratorium (suspension from payments), to put its economy in order, whilst in the long term the solution for reparation payments and a European revival lay in creating a European group of industrial nations, including Germany, to rebuild Russia. He hoped that this would create an international trade boom, enabling Germany to pay its reparations.
The new French Prime Minister, Raymond Poincaré consented to holding a conference at Geneva, in which Germany and the USSR would be invited to discuss these plans. However he vetoed any concession on reparations. During the conference they were able to secretly negotiate the Rapallo Agreement with Germany, in which both countries agreed to write off any financial claims on each other dating from the war. Germany also pledged to consult with Moscow before participating in any international plans for exploiting the soviet economy.
Rapallo killed Lloyd George's plan. And, whilst the plan helped Germany to escape from isolation, it increased French suspicions of its motives. However these suspicions appeared to be justified as Germany signed a secret annex in July, allowing them to train soldiers in Soviet territory, thereby violating the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

7. Why did the Ruhr crisis mark a turning point in the post war European history?  
A confrontation between France and Germany seemed inevitable when in July 1922 Germany requested a 3 year moratorium. At the same time, due to pressure from the US to repay their war-time loans, Britain announced that it needed the repayment of money it loaned to former allies, particularly France. France believed that this demand contrasted with the concessions Lloyd George was willing to offer the Germans.
On 27 November the Poincaré cabinet decided that occupation of the Ruhr was the only way to force Germany into paying reparations. On 11 January French and Belgian troops invaded the Ruhr. Britain took on a policy of 'benevolent neutrality' and did not join France.
For 9 months the French occupation of the Ruhr was met by passive resistance and and strikes that were financed by the German government. This increased the cost to the French, but also caused hyperinflation in Germany. In September, Germany was on the brink of collapse and the new chancellor, Gustav Streseman, called off passive resistance.
France had weakened itself and prolonged the crisis in the Ruhr. Their attempts to back Rhineland Separatism and to create an independent Rhineland currency were not yet successful. Separatist leaders were assassinated by German nationalist agents or lynched by angry crowds. Thus Poincaré had to cooperate with an Anglo-American initiative for setting up a commission chaired by US financier Charles Dawes. It would study Germany's capacity for payment and advise how to balance the budget and restore its currency. The Ruhr crisis showed how the Treaty should now be revised instead of being carried out with force.