To What Extent Did The First English Civil War Provide A Stable Government

I disagree to an extent that the civil war was the intended outcome of an effort to reform the monarchy and secure a stable government. Parliament wanted political reform in England but did not seek to abolish the monarchy or start a war, they just wanted a balance of power between the monarchy and parliament, however King Charles I refused to compromise.
The first English civil war was caused by a political and religious divide across England, Scotland and Ireland and in parliament. Although England was a puritan country, King Charles I married a Catholic, Henrietta Maria; this caused distrust between parliament and the crown as some MPs were worried that the king wanted to convert England to Catholicism. This fear was strengthened by the
fact that William Laud, whom many thought was too sympathetic towards Catholicism, was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633 and served as a senior advisor to Charles during the king’s personal rule. The events that ultimately lead to the personal rule of King Charles also created a great deal of discord between parliament and the monarchy, an example being the Petition of Right in 1628, which limited the king’s power and following that, on August 23rd 1628, The Duke of Buckingham, who was one of the king’s closest friends and advisors was assassinated. Parliament continued to oppose King Charles and in 1629, the king was confronted about the continued collection of tonnage and poundage without parliamentary consent which lead to Charles dissolving parliament for a second time and his eleven year personal rule began. Parliament only met again in 1640 when Scotland occupied Newcastle and Charles was forced to pay £850 per day for the Scots to maintain their armies. Having no way to pay this money himself, he had no choice but to recall parliament and request money from them.
In 1642, Charles attempted to arrest 5 MPs, including John Pym, creating an unfixable divide that kicked off Charles’ decision to start the first civil war; the king absconded to Oxford, leaving London in the control of Parliament and in August 1642, Charles raised his standard in Nottingham and officially started the civil war. In my opinion, it is very unlikely that the war would have broken out if Charles had been more willing to compromise with parliament and wasn’t so certain that it was his divine right to rule. The outcome parliament wanted was ‘reconciliation and settlement’ (Morrill, 1984) and it did not have an explicit intention of starting a civil war. The war was unexpected by the public as during the personal rule of King Charles I the ‘economic and social outlook was rosier’ (Fletcher, 1981) meaning that England was better off economically and socially, largely at peace and very unlike a country that was on the verge of a civil war.
During the time of the Long Parliament, Charles was forced to agree that parliament could not be dissolved without its own consent.
If not for this Charles would have simply chosen to dissolve parliament again when things stopped going his way, rather than starting the first civil war. The Members of Parliament knew this and so ensured in advance that parliament would be able to go through with its policies without the threat of Charles being able to stop it. It can therefore be assumed that parliament was willing to take measures to guarantee the political situation in England was amended. However Parliament was very much divided over how harshly they should oppose the king and his methods of ruling England, some individuals, such as Oliver Cromwell thought that since the parliamentary side was winning the vast majority of battles it must be the will of God that the King is fully defeated; another Member of parliament who strongly opposed the king John Pym, who was a leader on the Committee of Safety and organised parliament’s military strategy and negotiated the allegiance with Scotland, which he realised was a fundamental factor to remove King Charles I from power. These particular individuals were willing to go to any lengths to gain parliamentary control of England, including going to war however other MPs were more inclined to make peace with the
monarchy.
The civil war was, for the most part, caused by Charles’ inability to be an effective ruler and come to any agreement with parliament as he held an attitude that it was his right to rule without supervision from a parliament. The war was ultimately not the intention of parliament, despite a few MPs having less patience and acceptance of King Charles I.