I'm going to bundle these last two parts together so that I can actually get back to writing things I enjoy. I mean, this has all been written since May but shut up I have a system Ok?
Returning to the issues
that plagued the downfall of the office of Lord Protector, it is important to
understand that Cromwell was never legitimately recognised as leader. 1653's
Instrument of Government, which named Cromwell as Lord Protector, never gained
(or attempted to gain) political or civilian support; following the forced
dismissal of the Rump Parliament in April 1653, Cromwell's power was based
entirely on the force of the army. When the First Protectorate Parliament was
called in September 1654, the wide political spectrum it encompassed, from
Republicans to Royalist sympathisers, united in condemning the Instrument of
Government; opposite to Cromwell's desire to have them register his numerous
drafted ordinances composed in the nine months between the acceptance of the
Instrument and the Parliamentary. Many felt that the office of Lord Protector
that had been created for him, and that 'Lord Protector' was essentially
another word for 'King', despite his compromise in rejecting the title of 'King
Oliver' -offered as part of the later Humble
Petition. A letter to Richard Mayor was signed 'Your loving brother, Oliver P',
or 'Oliver, Protector', in a similar manner to how a monarch would sign off his
letters. It is easy to understand why Oliver's position as head of government
worried the political nation, signing
his letters off in a similar manner to a King.
Following the failure of the Instrument of Government, Cromwell sought a more constitutionally
viable alternative, offered to him in the Humble
Petition and Advice of 1657. A limit to the Protector's powers, a restored
Upper House in Parliament, and a Privy Council were all proposed. Unlike the
Instrument of Government, the Humble Petition and Advice would be regarded as
legitimate, having been composed with the backing of the New Cromwellians in Parliament,
rather than the army's Instrument.
The issue came with the length of time between the presentation of the Petition
to Cromwell, and his acceptance. By the time he accepted a modified version of
the Petition in May, Cromwell had little more than a year to secure its position
as being a legitimate direction for Government before his death.
This meant that when Richard Cromwell inherited the
office of Lord Protector, an office designed purely around his father's
steadfast personality, it soon collapsed. Their personalities were
excruciatingly different as noted by the Prince de Conti in 1660: 'Well that Oliver, tho' he was a traitor and
a villain, was a brave man, had great parts, great courage, and was worthy to
command; but that Richard, that coxcomb and poltroon, was surely the basest
fellow alive; what is become of that fool?',
further proof that his contemporaries viewed him as being unable to rule. After
the army turned on him in 1659 the concept of the Humble Petition and the
office of Lord Protector was abandoned, being declared unsuccessful, Parliament
struggled to find a more apt solution to the lack of leadership than inviting
back the exiled Charles Stuart on tantalising terms, restoring the monarchy to
its position in 1649, bar the looming threat of Civil War.
Yet again, the development of the office of Prime
Minister completely contrasts the development of the role of Lord Protector, in
that it's development was sanctioned, however unwillingly, by the monarchs
following the Interregnum, giving it legitimacy. For William of Orange to usurp
the throne of his father-in-law, James II,
he had to compromise with the Parliaments in 1688's Glorious Revolution,
removing the concept of having a King being placed on the throne by Divine
Right, but through constitutional allowance. The Parliaments were fairly lenient
with the terms of the Bill of Rights,
placing relatively few restrictions on the monarch; where William wanted the
English throne to antagonise the French, the Whigs of Parliament wanted to be
rid of the Catholic ruler, fearing that he may begin to antagonise the
Protestant population. Parliament could, however, disapprove of actions and
limit powers (such as the power of the veto after William's death in 1702) as
they consensually saw fit. The New Chartists described the Bill of Rights role
aptly, saying that it 'shifted the
absolute power of the monarch into the hands of the parliamentary oligarchy’,
and of course William and Mary accepted this shift as a necessary sacrifice
to take the English throne from the Catholic James.
The only point of Wilkinson's argument I agree with is
his acknowledgment of the important role that Anne had to play in the
development of the modern monarchy, saying that 'she formed the link between Stuart personal rule and the Whig monopoly
of power under Walpole which ushered in the age of constitutional monarchy.'.
She happily took a backseat approach to politics, allowing her ministers to
take a key role in the direction of Government policy. With the nature of her
successor having already been organised by Parliament before her ascension to
the English throne, there was little for her to be concerned over. The issues
of her personal life, such as her friendship with the Duchess of Marlborough
and the death of her husband in 1708 were far more important to her, and
therefore her ministers and Parliament were forced to take control of the
affairs of the country. Her rare input was never ignored, admittedly, but it
was so rare that the two party system that would give rise to Walpole was allowed
to flourish and debate over legislation and lines of policy, with key
ministerial figures being chosen not necessarily by the ruler, but by the party
they represented.
Where Anne had taken a backseat approach to British
politics, George I practically encouraged his ministers to take control,
granting them-and more importantly Walpole, the powers that essentially equated
to the office of Prime Minister: First Lord of the Treasury, Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and Leader of the House of Commons, the first appointment being
gained in 1721. Walpole didn't need to commit regicide or use army force to
gain power, he had the backing of a Whig majority Parliament and the ability to
manoeuvre domestic affairs without causing too much discontent.
Before and after Cromwell, the monarch was able to remove
ministers as they saw fit. However, the numerous sacrifices of power in the
years between Cromwell and Walpole is evidenced most clearly by George II's
reign. Despite his disdain for Walpole he was left with little choice but to
retain him. Walpole had a huge backing in Parliament, and whilst it was
technically in his power to remove Walpole, it meant that nothing would pass in
Parliament, as the powers granted to Parliament through the Glorious Revolution
ensured that the monarch couldn't force acts through Parliament, and the loss
of the right to veto meant that he could do little to stop those that he
disagreed with. This opinion is validated by Jeremy Black, who states that 'it was expedient to keep the minister [Walpole] if he wanted to enjoy parliamentary
support'.
This is a far cry from Cromwell, who only kept himself in office not through
willing compromises by the power holders, but through fear of the army that
backed him. Parliament, not the army, and not the monarch, was in charge of who
remained in the office of Prime Minister.
If one final point is to be made concerning the
differences between the office of Prime Minister and Lord Protector, you need
only look to the manner in which their holders lost office. Cromwell died, and
his hereditary office was passed on to his previously discussed son. Walpole,
however resigned in 1742 with the rise of the Tories in Parliament and the
widespread belief that the aging Walpole was unable to sustain a military
campaign following pressure to enter the War of Jenkin's Ear against the
Spanish. Therefore, he resigned from office before he was forced. Because he
resigned with no formal way to replace him, the Parliament chose a candidate
for George II's next Prime Minister, filling the power vacuum that had been
left behind. Walpole's successor was the Whig, Spencer Compton, whose poor
health led to a weak and short time in office. His successor, Pelham, cemented
the vital nature of the newly created office, by orchestrating the British side
of the War of Austrian Succession, and then the later peace talks.
To summarise, Cromwell's moves in creating the office of
Lord Protector were too many, and too quickly implemented. His policies
highlighted his contradictory nature which meant that no political group could
securely support his position. That, and the fact that his office lacked any
real legitimacy, ensured that when his weak successor Richard took the office
of Lord Protector that it wouldn't be long until further alternatives were
sought, eventually leading to the restoration of the wily Charles II. In
contrast, the development of the office of Prime Minister was a long process,
brought about by the increase in the role of ministers and the sanctioned
decrease in monarchical power, allowing the rise of the two party system to the
point where the monarch had little control over who their ministers-
traditionally favourites- would be. Therefore, when Walpole lost office due to
Parliamentary pressure in 1742, the two party system could choose someone to
take his place in the King's cabinet.
Bibliography
Cabal Ministry-Wikipedia [online]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal_Ministry
[Accessed 19th January 2013]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_England
[Accessed 19th January 2013]
Charles II- BBC History [online]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/charles_ii_king.shtml
[Accessed 13th December 2012]
Black, J. Georges I & II: Limited
Monarchs. Published in History Today Volume 5, Issue 2 2011 [online]
http://www.historytoday.com/jeremy-black/georges-i-ii-limited-monarchs
[Accessed 26th February 2013]
D'Aubigne, J.H.M. The Protector: A
Vindication (1848) Kindle Version
Falkus, C. The Life and Times of Charles
II (1984)
Fraser, A. (2008) Cromwell, Our Chief of
Men, Kindle Version
George I-Wikipedia [online]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_I_of_Great_Britain
[Accessed 29th December 2012]
George II-Wikipedia [online]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_II_of_Great_Britain
[Accessed 29th December 2012]
Goldie, M. The Bill of Rights, 1688 and 1998.
Published in History Today Volume 48, issue: 9[online] http://www.historytoday.com/mark-goldie/bill-rights-1689-and-1998
[Accessed 27 February 2013]
Goodlad, G. Charles II and the Politics
of Survival. Published in History Review 2010 [online]
http://www.historytoday.com/graham-goodlad/charles-ii-and-politics-survival
[Accessed 27 February 2013]
Lynch, M. In the
Interregnum (2008)
O'Gorman, F. The
Long Eighteenth Century British Political& Social History 1688-1832 (2009)
Oliver
Cromwell-Wikipedia [online]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell
[Accessed 19th
November 2012]
[Accessed 17th January 2013]
Smith, D.L. A History of the Modern
British Isles 1603-1707 The Double Crown (2002)
Tumath, A. Today in History from A New History
Podcast, 26th August: Robert Walpole
[Accessed 2nd February 2013 via iTunes
podcasts]
Wilkinson, R. Queen Anne. Published in
History Review 1998 [online]
http://www.historytoday.com/richard-wilkinson/queen-anne
[Accessed 26 February 2013]
William III- Wikipedia [online]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_III_of_England
[Accessed 29th December 2012]
Goldie, M.
The
Bill of Rights, 1688 and 1998. Published in History Today Volume 48, issue:
9[online] http://www.historytoday.com/mark-goldie/bill-rights-1689-and-1998
[Accessed 27 February 2013]
The New Chartists were a political group
in 1998, who called for a new Bill of Rights as the 1688 edition did little to
establish the rights of the populace
Wilkinson, R.
Queen Anne. Published in History Review 1998 [online]
http://www.historytoday.com/richard-wilkinson/queen-anne
[Accessed 26 February 2013]
Black,
J. Georges
I & II: Limited Monarchs. Published in History Today Volume 5, Issue 2 2011
[online]
http://www.historytoday.com/jeremy-black/georges-i-ii-limited-monarchs
[Accessed 26th February 2013]
