The escape of Charles I from Hampton Court in the short term may have reinforced the need for unity in the army, but it radicalised Ireton's thinking with regard to the King. At Putney Ireton and Cromwell had come under increasing pressure from fellow officers and agents who did not believe that settlement with Charles could be achieved. Charles' reaction to the Heads and the debates at Putney reinforced for Ireton the need for Charles' actual role to be even more circumscribed than he had proposed in 1647. For Ireton the King still had to be used as a means of making any settlement more secure. It had become increasingly clear, however, that Charles could not be trusted. At Holdenby reports circulated that he expected troops from Europe. The King's subsequent escape from Hampton Court and the impression of his compliance in the events of 26 July 1647, when a mob had invaded the Commons in support of the Presbyterian leaders, made Cromwell and Ireton's position untenable. The nature of the King's agreement with the Scots must have hardened Ireton's sense of betrayal for, as Kennedy argues, ‘the Engagement manifests a strong animus against the Army as the King's real adversary’. More stringent measures clearly had to be taken against the monarch. Ireton and Cromwell supported the Four Bills but Charles' flight meant that there had to be a more wholesale change in their approach to the King.