Historians have disagreed about what caused the English Civil War. What is your view about the most
influential factor that caused the English Civil War?
The English Civil War was a revolutionary event that occurred between King Charles I and Parliament
from 1642 until 1649, which led to the trial of King Charles I for treason and his subsequent execution.
There are differing views about the cause of the English Civil War, with the breakdown in relationship
between Charles and Parliament being an often cited factor, split broadly into long-term and short-term
causes. Long-term causes pre-date the events of 1640 onwards, while short-term causes occurred
closer to the initial revolutionary outbreak between 1640 and 1642. Christopher Hill takes a Marxist
approach, which suggests that it was due less to the specific actions of individuals, such as Charles and
Parliament, and more due to long-term changes in the structure of society, which was caused by
developments that led to the old social and economic system becoming redundant. Hill states that “the
causes of the Civil War must be sought in society, not in individuals”1 and “new economic developments
of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries made the old economic and social and political system
hopelessly out of date.”2 Alternatively, C. V. Wedgwood cites Parliament and Charles not being able to
come to an agreement over the control of the armed forces as a short-term cause of the Civil War, but
she also discusses the long-term cause of this disagreement as being fuelled by suspicions over the
King’s foreign policies, “thus the immediate cause of the Civil War was a clash over the control of the
armed forces. This clash was the logical outcome of the suspicion engendered by the King's foreign
policy.”3 Finally, John Morrill argues that “the English Civil War was not the first European revolution: it
was the last of the Wars of Religion,”1 which shows his belief that religious tension was a long-term
issue and main factor in the outbreak of the Civil War, with religion behind every political decision in
1642. This essay will use the criteria of the number of people affected by the issue and the length of
time it occurred to show how religion was the primary cause of the English Civil War. The number of
people affected is deemed more significant than the duration of time the issue was around in
determining the validity of the factor.
As indicated in the introduction of this essay, Morill believes that religion as a long-term cause directly
led to the beginning of the Civil War in 1642. One aspect of this is his view that the Laudian reforms of
the 1630s led to massive backlash and division between the people, “I believe that it is almost
1
C. Hill, ‘The English Revolution 1640’, [website], 1940,
https://www.marxists.org/archive/hill-christopher/english-revolution/, (accessed 22 September 2022)
2
C. Hill, ‘The English Revolution 1640’, [website], 1940,
https://www.marxists.org/archive/hill-christopher/english-revolution/, (accessed 22 September 2022)
3
C. V. Wedgwood, ‘The Causes of the English Civil War: A New Analysis’, Vol. 5, issue 10 October 1955,
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/feature/causes-english-civil-war-new-analysis, (accessed 27 September
2022)
, impossible to overestimate the damage caused by the Laudians”4 and “Laud was the most detested.”5
The Laudian reforms were a list of religious changes from William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, in
conjunction with Charles I, and included changes such as: the introduction of stained-glass windows,
the Book of Common Prayer, the Book of Canons and the moving of the altar from the centre of the
church to the East. These changes made the Anglican Church more Arminian, which caused a lot of
division and anger from the general population and the clergy themselves, “the programme of Charles
and Laud was profoundly offensive to most lay and much clerical opinion”6. There was so much anger
and backlash within England, as since Elizabeth’s reign England had been a protestant country so any
change that could be seen to deviate from this established religion would be met with opposition as
well as the fact that Arminianism was seen as a shift towards Catholicism. Milton shows this as in
Lincoln “such ceremonial innovations naturally aroused opposition, and that opposition increasingly
found a useful store of polemical ammunition in a letter composed to the vicar of Grantham by John
Williams as Bishop of Lincoln back in 1627”7. This demonstrates the extent to which Laud and his
reforms caused anger and public discontent within England which was a contributory factor to the
outbreak of war.
Additionally, Morrill believes there was an even further and arguably stronger backlash in Scotland, “in
all of his kingdoms, Charles and Laud set out to restore the autonomy of the church… by 1640 their
programme had aroused disenchantment amongst its committed and its critical members, a
disenchantment which gave rise to a debate more passionate than the debate on the constitution.”8
This can be seen with the National Covenant on February 28th, 16389 which rejected the Laudian
reforms and asserted the Presbyterian Churches within Scotland. The extent of the opposition is
described by Hazlett, who says, “once the Covenant was drawn up, the opposition leadership presented
it for subscription… on 28 February 1638, the nobles and lairds signed, followed the next day by almost
300 ministers, then the Burgh Commissioners and the wider population of Edinburgh over the next two
4
J. Morrill, ‘The Religious context of the English Civil War’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, vol. 34,
1984, pp.162, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3679130, (accessed 16 September 2022)
5
J. Morrill, ‘The Religious context of the English Civil War’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, vol. 34,
1984, pp.164, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3679130, (accessed 16 September 2022)
6
J. Morrill, ‘The Religious context of the English Civil War’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, vol. 34,
1984, pp.163, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3679130, (accessed 16 September 2022)
7
A. Milton, ‘Laudian and Royalist Polemic in Seventeenth-century England’, 2012, pp.56, Available from: Google
books, (accessed 18 October 2022)
8
J. Morrill, ‘The Religious context of the English Civil War’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, vol. 34,
1984, pp.163-64, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3679130, (accessed 16 September 2022)
9
National Covenant Scottish History, (website), 2022, https://www.britannica.com/event/National-Covenant,
(accessed 19 October 2022)
influential factor that caused the English Civil War?
The English Civil War was a revolutionary event that occurred between King Charles I and Parliament
from 1642 until 1649, which led to the trial of King Charles I for treason and his subsequent execution.
There are differing views about the cause of the English Civil War, with the breakdown in relationship
between Charles and Parliament being an often cited factor, split broadly into long-term and short-term
causes. Long-term causes pre-date the events of 1640 onwards, while short-term causes occurred
closer to the initial revolutionary outbreak between 1640 and 1642. Christopher Hill takes a Marxist
approach, which suggests that it was due less to the specific actions of individuals, such as Charles and
Parliament, and more due to long-term changes in the structure of society, which was caused by
developments that led to the old social and economic system becoming redundant. Hill states that “the
causes of the Civil War must be sought in society, not in individuals”1 and “new economic developments
of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries made the old economic and social and political system
hopelessly out of date.”2 Alternatively, C. V. Wedgwood cites Parliament and Charles not being able to
come to an agreement over the control of the armed forces as a short-term cause of the Civil War, but
she also discusses the long-term cause of this disagreement as being fuelled by suspicions over the
King’s foreign policies, “thus the immediate cause of the Civil War was a clash over the control of the
armed forces. This clash was the logical outcome of the suspicion engendered by the King's foreign
policy.”3 Finally, John Morrill argues that “the English Civil War was not the first European revolution: it
was the last of the Wars of Religion,”1 which shows his belief that religious tension was a long-term
issue and main factor in the outbreak of the Civil War, with religion behind every political decision in
1642. This essay will use the criteria of the number of people affected by the issue and the length of
time it occurred to show how religion was the primary cause of the English Civil War. The number of
people affected is deemed more significant than the duration of time the issue was around in
determining the validity of the factor.
As indicated in the introduction of this essay, Morill believes that religion as a long-term cause directly
led to the beginning of the Civil War in 1642. One aspect of this is his view that the Laudian reforms of
the 1630s led to massive backlash and division between the people, “I believe that it is almost
1
C. Hill, ‘The English Revolution 1640’, [website], 1940,
https://www.marxists.org/archive/hill-christopher/english-revolution/, (accessed 22 September 2022)
2
C. Hill, ‘The English Revolution 1640’, [website], 1940,
https://www.marxists.org/archive/hill-christopher/english-revolution/, (accessed 22 September 2022)
3
C. V. Wedgwood, ‘The Causes of the English Civil War: A New Analysis’, Vol. 5, issue 10 October 1955,
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/feature/causes-english-civil-war-new-analysis, (accessed 27 September
2022)
, impossible to overestimate the damage caused by the Laudians”4 and “Laud was the most detested.”5
The Laudian reforms were a list of religious changes from William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, in
conjunction with Charles I, and included changes such as: the introduction of stained-glass windows,
the Book of Common Prayer, the Book of Canons and the moving of the altar from the centre of the
church to the East. These changes made the Anglican Church more Arminian, which caused a lot of
division and anger from the general population and the clergy themselves, “the programme of Charles
and Laud was profoundly offensive to most lay and much clerical opinion”6. There was so much anger
and backlash within England, as since Elizabeth’s reign England had been a protestant country so any
change that could be seen to deviate from this established religion would be met with opposition as
well as the fact that Arminianism was seen as a shift towards Catholicism. Milton shows this as in
Lincoln “such ceremonial innovations naturally aroused opposition, and that opposition increasingly
found a useful store of polemical ammunition in a letter composed to the vicar of Grantham by John
Williams as Bishop of Lincoln back in 1627”7. This demonstrates the extent to which Laud and his
reforms caused anger and public discontent within England which was a contributory factor to the
outbreak of war.
Additionally, Morrill believes there was an even further and arguably stronger backlash in Scotland, “in
all of his kingdoms, Charles and Laud set out to restore the autonomy of the church… by 1640 their
programme had aroused disenchantment amongst its committed and its critical members, a
disenchantment which gave rise to a debate more passionate than the debate on the constitution.”8
This can be seen with the National Covenant on February 28th, 16389 which rejected the Laudian
reforms and asserted the Presbyterian Churches within Scotland. The extent of the opposition is
described by Hazlett, who says, “once the Covenant was drawn up, the opposition leadership presented
it for subscription… on 28 February 1638, the nobles and lairds signed, followed the next day by almost
300 ministers, then the Burgh Commissioners and the wider population of Edinburgh over the next two
4
J. Morrill, ‘The Religious context of the English Civil War’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, vol. 34,
1984, pp.162, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3679130, (accessed 16 September 2022)
5
J. Morrill, ‘The Religious context of the English Civil War’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, vol. 34,
1984, pp.164, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3679130, (accessed 16 September 2022)
6
J. Morrill, ‘The Religious context of the English Civil War’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, vol. 34,
1984, pp.163, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3679130, (accessed 16 September 2022)
7
A. Milton, ‘Laudian and Royalist Polemic in Seventeenth-century England’, 2012, pp.56, Available from: Google
books, (accessed 18 October 2022)
8
J. Morrill, ‘The Religious context of the English Civil War’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, vol. 34,
1984, pp.163-64, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3679130, (accessed 16 September 2022)
9
National Covenant Scottish History, (website), 2022, https://www.britannica.com/event/National-Covenant,
(accessed 19 October 2022)
