The English Revolution was a period of armed conflict and political turmoil between 1642 and 1660. This included the execution of the Charles 1st, the rise of the Commonwealth followed by the Protectorate under Cromwell and then the eventual restoration of the Monarchy. Richardson is correct to state that the events that occurred were “inherently controversial… momentous and far reaching” which are still debated today. This debate rages on whether these events can constitute a Revolution. It is dependent on what definition of the word Revolution is enacted. Historians such as Jeff Goodwin provide interpretations of what it means to have a Revolution, which shall be further explored, however what ultimately accounts is how the events and interpretations of the time fit into these interpretations. Ultimately there are two ways to look at Revolution, firstly there is the struggle or initial violent uprisings of the populous against the established state. The other way of looking at a revolution is to also examine the more long term changes or effects in the mind-set of the contemporise. In other words the changes in the way men think. Richardson pushes the idea of the initial struggle constituting a Revolution whereas others such as Hill believe that the long-term effects are more significant. Both arguments both valid against differing definitions of Revolution. Similarities between the French and English Revolutions will also provide a stark comparison of the English situation as well as a comparison with the events in the rest of Europe, why would event’s in England constitute a Revolution if similar events occurred abroad.
Ultimately what we understand to be a ‘Revolution’ today is what Jeff Goodwin states is that “Revolutions entail not only mass mobilisation and regime change, but also more or less rapid fundamental social, economic and/or cultural change, during or soon after the struggle for state power.” This view seems the extreme successful change in a social system in that it is a complete change in either the political, social or economic systems. A Revolution is what we today associate with the successful, often violent, change in a state’s structure or system of governing. The clear example of this form of Revolution is the French Revolution of 1789 which incurred the bloody events of the bastille and the setup of a Constitutional Monarchy initially. Whether the English Revolution of the mid-17th Century can incur the same classification is up for debate. However other academics, such as Goldstone interpret a Revolution as more simply, “An effort to transform the political institutions and the justifications for political authority in society, accompanied by formal or informal mass mobilisation and no institutional actions that undermine authorities.” Goldstone believes that it is more to do with the struggle, so a Revolution is the attempt to change whereas Goodwin believes a Revolution is the change. The question dictates whether a Revolution took place in mid-17th century England, however it is not did a Revolution takes place but what kind of Revolution because undeniably the establishment of the Commonwealth and the execution of Charles 1st establish what Goldstone believes was a Revolution in that the Civil War and Republic are examples of the attempted “effort to transform the political institutions.” The real question is thus how far up the spectrum of Revolution did the English ‘experiment’ go?’ Which criteria these events fit into is the key to understanding to what extend does the English Civil War and following Commonwealth constitute a Revolution.
During the mid-17th century the events that occurred can be seen as a Revolution in that there was the establishment of a new political order. Institutions of government were reconstructed as the House of Lords and feudal tenures ended with the establishment of the Republic in 1649. This political renovation is not just characteristic in that it was without a Monarch, but also that the Rump Parliament could now exercise both executive and legislative powers which passed over when powers were dictated by the Lord Protector after 1652. Worden notes how this Rump Parliament represented the “essence” of the Revolution in that it was a new political order over the previous King. Also Richardson notes that the English Revolution was revolutionary because it was the first time a King was put on trial in the name of his people and executed. The mere idea of regicide would have sickened the rest of the absolute Monarchies of Europe as it was such a new Phenomenon, most rulers still ruled by the divine right of Kings. Thirdly, in the established religious sectors, the traditional hierarchies of the monarchical state and Anglican Church were dismantled during the Revolution. Fincham notes that “by the end of the 1640s, there were only a few surviving indications of the changes introduced in the 1630s.” Fincham goes on to state that the changes made “freed the people from the authority of the church. The Rump Parliament allowed Puritans freedom of worship as they repealed the Elizabethan requirement of compulsory attendance at Anglican Church. This partial introduction of religious tolerance is revolutionary in itself because it happened during a time where religion played such large parts in the causes of war. The similarities of these occurrences to the French Revolution is very apparent in that King Louis XVI was executed too in 1793 like Charles was in 1649 and there was also the establishment of the First French Republic which is similar in retrospect to the English Republic under the Rump Parliament. The Religious establishment in France after the Revolution was ultimately what Napoleon’s Concordat which saw the dissolution of church power. Napoleon’s legislation was also enacted up until 1814 like the British’s system until 1660. The political changes fall under what both Goodwin and Goldstone believe to be revolutionary. Both authors believed that a Revolution requires, at the very least according to Goldstone, the attempt to change the political institution. The English Civil War and successful formation of the Rump Parliament and Commonwealth are examples of this change.
However according to Goodwin a successful Revolution not only requires a ‘regime change’ but also the mass mobilisation of a population against the former regime. Hill notes that “the long term consequences of the Revolution were all to the advantage of the gentry and merchants, not the lower 60% of the population. Hill’s argument suggests that although the majority of the populous were a part of the Civil War, their grievances against the King and involvement in the Commonwealth and Protectorate are not as evident when compared to the other classes. This is represented in the Rump Parliament in as Worden states that the members themselves did not “think of themselves as a corporate political entity.” The majority of the people still had little say in the actions taken by parliament, it was still the governing body for the gentry. Woolrych argues in favour of this in that he believes the period that constituted an English Revolution completely “ignores the lack of significant social change that occurred during the events of 1640-1660. The French Revolution in comparison during the First French Republic actually introduced Universal male suffrage in 1792 which shows the stark comparison in effects of the new political order as well as the involvement of the populous. This also proposes the point of how far did the English Commonwealth go to actually change the political regime? The Rump Parliament, as Worton goes onto explain further, did little to make itself “distinct in membership, aims and character from the Long Parliament,” which was the previous Parliament that took place in 1640. In essence little changed in apart from the abolishment of the House of Lords. Under the First Protectorate Parliament little changed too in the running of the governance of the executive and legislation. Although the government systematically redistributed parliamentary seats in abolishing the majority of rotten boroughs and enfranchising some more significant boroughs, little was done to further universal suffrage. So to what extent is this a change in political set up if the majority of systems of government still govern the same and the majority of the people involved in government are still the same? Cromwell’s Protectorate was even similar to the Monarchy, his subjects according to Gaunt even began referring to him as “Your Highness.” So the mid-17th century may not have brought about the political Revolution initially suggested under the terms of Goodwin however the effort to change the political structure was made In that the old order was abolished, which however was not so different according to Goldstone the events would still constitute a Revolution.
Murrough also raises the argument that the Revolution itself wasn’t intentional in that as he states the events were “not much a Revolution as it was the last of the Great Wars or Religion.” This is true to the extent that the Long Parliament of 1640 wanted the reformation of the English Church along more Calvinist lines which the King refused and led Charles into Civil war. Although this view is in a sense extreme in its analysis, it does suggest the idea that the original intentions of the English Civil War were not in effort to change the political arrangements of England, which as other historians such as Richardson support. The argument suggests that the War was the result of Parliament wanting Charles to accept their grievances over religious grievances, which included strong ‘Anti-Papist’ themes and also to make it that the King could not raise taxes or dissolve a Parliament without Parliaments own consent. The rest of Europe was also engaging in Wars of Religion. The Thirty Years War expressed, to a certain extent, the same grievances as the English did about the spread of Calvinism. Further uprisings during the period such as the Neapolitan rising in 1647 resulting in the Neapolitan Republic after Spanish Bourbon Rule show that similar events occurred across Europe which suffered a restoration similar to the English restoration of 1660. However these events are not referred to as revolutionary. The Kings death was only a result of his unwillingness to negotiate with Parliament which ultimately caused the Second Civil War. This would suggest that the original Civil War were not in effort to transform the political authority significantly as Goldstone and Goodwin suggest are the necessary criteria for a Revolution. If anything the Parliamentarians fighting the Royalties were already a part of that political authority. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannia also refers to the series of conflicts as the “Great Rebellion” and not of wars of a revolutionary nature. So overall in the short term analysis of the Revolution there is undoubtedly a change in the political spectrum in that there was the formation of a Commonwealth at the expense of a Monarch, although the way in which this system operated differs little with that of the previous regime it is still a significant one initially. These events greatly reflect the events of the French Revolution as a whole however the fact that the majority of the English population had little to do, as Hill suggested, is the main differing quality between the two Revolutions. However in the long term factors the revolution takes a very different form.
The change in the way men think is the other way of looking at whether an event can constitute a ‘Revolution.’ This is the ideological changes that take place. Thomas Hobbes stressed the importance of change in the stimulation of the human mind: “it being almost all one for a man to be always sensible of the same thing and not to be sensible of anything.” According to Hill the Revolution produced “fantastic bursts of energy both intellectually and physically” which as he goes on to explain can be seen in the formation of the revolutionary New Model Army, the concept of Regicide and in “physical and social mobility.” Previously these new ideas of having a standing army in England and also the fact that a King could be put on trial by his people is an example of the Enlightenment’s ideals that would feature so heavily during the next century. These ideals being of the logical over the traditional or the more effective and efficient over the old. In terms of the political ideologies that were unleashed as a result of the Commonwealth, these ideas would remain and still influence what would late become the Glorious Revolution culminating in a Constitutional Monarchy. Richardson notes that “though the monarchy was restored in 1660, there could be no question of putting the cloak to where it had stood before the Civil War.” It was said that Edward Burrough told the Restoration government “our principles you can never extinguish, they will live forever and enter into other bodies to live, speak and act.” The reason these ideas are lacking from historical texts after the restoration are a result of censorship which as MacGillivray shows explains “the long dominance of Royalism in the politically conscious of histories published between the Restoration and the Revolution.”The ideas of Regicide previously vacant from European politics are what helped pushed parliament to become more powerful and is what gave it momentum in its effort to reduce the power of the Monarchy. These principles are similar to that of the effects of the rise of Nationalism during and after the French Revolution, this rise is a key part of the long-term effects that the Revolution had across Europe.
However, it is important to note that, yes these principles grew in confidence however the majority of ideological growth was heavily suppressed still even during the reign of the Commonwealth and Protectorate governments. The contrast between the two periods of the late 1780s and 1650s are apparent when looking at suppression and censorship. Ideological pioneers of the period such as John Locke and Isaac Newton were still seen as irrational. They were a part of a time, according to Blake, where “poets went mad, Locke was afraid of poetry and music and Newton had secret irrational thoughts, the two were symbols of repression.” In the Words of Jeremy Collier during the period “music was as dangerous as gunpowder.” Overall in the long-term the mind-set of contemporise was definitely influenced. This resulted partially in influencing the Parliamentary changes of the Glorious Revolution. These changes are apparent and as Richardson rightly states these changes show the necessity of looking at the 17th century as a whole in order to construct a full analysis instead of just the middle period in order to examine these long-term consequences of the English Revoluion.
Overall, at the bare minimum, according to Goldstone’s definition we can refer to the events as a Revolution in that there was a successful attempt to change the political institution, this being the English Civil War and resulting Commonwealth. However Goodwin’s interpretation that a Revolution is the change cannot be said as although there was change initially, the fact that the restoration restored the majority of these changes means over the whole period there was no fundamental political, social or economic developments made as Woolrych points out. In the long-run though, the change in the mind-set of the people, which culminated in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, can be seen as a permanent revolutionary change. Although in the short term the visible effects were torn down by the restoration, the revolutionary mind-set develop as a result of these brave new ideas is ultimately what is the lasting the legacy of the English Revolution as Hill notes. It showed the rest of the world what was possible, the fact that it occurred in the time it did is revolutionary in itself in a time of absolutism. The initial power of Parliament is what enabled it to occur in England whereas abroad that sort of government didn’t exist to the same extent. Why a Revolution occurred so dramatically in England against the rest of Europe would have been further investigated had the essay’s parameters not been so constricting as well as the full religious and economic effects of Cromwell’s Protectorate. Whether the events of the mid-seventeenth century constitute a Revolution is completely dependant on whether you believe a Revolution to be an event or an action.

Bibliography
Censer,J, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution (Pennsylvania 2004)
Collier,J, Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage (1699)
Cust,R, Charles I: A Political Life (Pearson 2005)
Fincham,K, Altars Restored: The Changing Face of English Religious Worship, 1547-1700 (Oxford 2007)
Gaunt,P, Oliver Cromwell: British Library Historic Lives (British Library 2004)
Goldstone,J, Towards a Fourth Generation of Revolution Theory
Goodwin,J, No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements 1945-1991 (Cambridge 2001)
Hill,C, World Turned Upside Down (Penguin 1991)
Kenyon,J, The Stuart Constitution (Cambridge 1969)
MacGillivray,R, Restoration Historians and the English Civil War (Springer 2011
Parker,G, The Thirty Years' War (Roultledge 1997)
Purkiss,D, The English Civil War: A People’s History (Harper 2007)
Richardson,R, The Debate of the English Revolution (Routledge 1989)
Wolf,A, A History of science Technology and Philosophy in the 16th and 17th Centuries (Harper 1935)
Woolrych,A, Britain in Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford 2002)
Worden,B, The Rump Parliament (Cambridge 1977)

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. R.C.Richardson, The Debate of the English Revolution (Routledge 1989) P2
[ 2 ]. J.Goodwin, No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements 1945-1991 (Cambridge 2001) P9
[ 3 ]. J.Goldstone, Towards a Fourth Generation of Revolution Theory P139
[ 4 ]. ibid
[ 5 ]. B.Worden The Rump Parliament (Cambridge 1977) P23
[ 6 ]. R.C.Richardson, The Debate of the English Revolution (Routledge 1989) P2
[ 7 ]. K.Fincham, Altars Restored: The Changing Face of English Religious Worship, 1547-1700 (Oxford 2007) P6
[ 8 ]. Ibid P224
[ 9 ]. J.P.Kenyon The Stuart Constitution (Cambridge 1969) P330
[ 10 ]. C.Hill, World Turned Upside Down (Penguin 1991) P565
[ 11 ]. B.Worden, The Rump Parliament (Cambridge 1977) P25
[ 12 ]. A.Woolrych, Britain in Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford 2002) P794.
[ 13 ]. J.Censer, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution (Pennsylvania 2004)
[ 14 ]. B.Worden, The Rump Parliament (Cambridge 1977) P25
[ 15 ]. P.Gaunt, Oliver Cromwell: British Library Historic Lives (British Library 2004) P156
[ 16 ]. John Murrough, Quoted From J.Halcomb The English Revolution 13th Nov Lecture
[ 17 ]. D.Purkiss, The English Civil War: A People’s History (Harper 2007) P104
[ 18 ]. G.Parker, The Thirty Years' War (Roultledge 1997) P17–18.
[ 19 ]. R.Cust, Charles I: A Political Life (Pearson 2005) P442
[ 20 ]. C.Hill, World Turned Upside Down (Penguin 1991) P72
[ 21 ]. T.Hobbs Quoted in A.Wolf, A History of science Technology and Philosophy in the 16th and 17th Centuries (Harper 1935) P565
[ 22 ]. C.Hill, World Turned Upside Down (Penguin 1991) P569
[ 23 ]. R.C.Richardson, The Debate of the English Revolution (Routledge 1989) P2
[ 24 ]. Burrough Works, Quoted from: C.Hill, World Turned Upside Down (Penguin 1991) P677
[ 25 ]. R.MacGillivray Restoration Historians and the English Civil War (Springer 2011) P4
[ 26 ]. Blake, Quoted from: C.Hill, World Turned Upside Down (Penguin 1991) P278
[ 27 ]. J.Collier, Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage (1699) P278
[ 28 ]. R.C.Richardson, The Debate of the English Revolution (Routledge 1989) P2