Just to prove I'm not dead, here is some coursework for you, presented to you in a glorious four part post. Yes, it's History, not English Literature, shoot me. However, if you have an interest in the development of the office of Prime Minister in comparison to the office of Lord Protector, then one, I must wonder why you have such a specific historical interest, and two, enjoy this poorly expressed, mark hunting argument!
P.S.- I know Walpole wasn't officially recognised as Prime Minister. Shush. I had a word count.
P.P.S- Prepare for a buttload of footnotes in the name of sources.
P.P.P.S- Horrible Histories is a legitimate source.
P.P.P.P.S- This is just getting ridiculous. Feel free to add your own opinions in the arguments, if I can reply, I will, and we shall have a considered, well reasoned debate (JK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
‘The
office of Lord Protector failed to survive Oliver Cromwell, whereas the office
of Prime Minister has long outlived Robert Walpole’
Why did the death of Cromwell in 1658 lead to institutional change, whereas the fall of Walpole led to institutional continuity?
Consider this problem in light of the constitutional developments between 1649 and 1750
Why did the death of Cromwell in 1658 lead to institutional change, whereas the fall of Walpole led to institutional continuity?
Consider this problem in light of the constitutional developments between 1649 and 1750
In 1660, following the
death of Oliver Cromwell and the army revolution that drove his successor,
Richard Cromwell, to resign, Charles Stuart was called from exile to be crowned
King of England. Years of internal conflict and numerous attempts to reform the
system of government had all been in vain, the monarchy had been restored. So
why did the office of Lord Protector fail? A combination of Cromwell attempting
too much, too fast, and questionable legitimacy of the office. In contrast,
after Robert Walpole resigned from his multiple offices, the position of Prime
Minister remained intact. The increase of ministerial power and constitutional
change was steady, and sanctioned by the Monarch, giving it legitimacy and a stability
that the office of Lord Protector lacked.
Part 1: Too much. Too young (eh, not really), Too fast.
Over the course of the Interregnum, Cromwell attempted too
many changes, too quickly, to the system of government that dictated the power
balance of conservative England. The first of these came after the end of the
English Civil War; On the 29th January 1649, Cromwell and his 58 contemporaries
signed the disgraced Charles I's death warrant, advocating regicide. The
Parliamentarians may not have been the first to commit regicide, but Tumath argues
that 'The execution of Charles I was
different from those of Edward II, Richard II, and Henry VI. While those three
monarchs were done away with in the darkest depths of this or that castle, the
execution of Charles was a public event'[1]- Indeed, Charles was executed in a very
public beheading. This execution signalled the end of seven years of warfare
and uncertainty, the country was exhausted- but that didn't mean that the
people of England were willing to see their divinely appointed monarch executed
as a criminal. The country was still heavily religious, religion being one of
the driving forces behind the English Civil War and would eventually plague the
Interregnum. Executing the monarch completely undermined the concept of divine
right that the system of government was based on. To execute him was not only a
radical course of action, but also an unpopular one amongst the divided
country.
Cromwell's radicalism didn't end with the execution of
the monarch. One of his main aims throughout the period of the Interregnum was
to establish freedom of religion. This radicalism faced huge opposition within
the Parliaments, as it contrasted with the desires of many leading
Parliamentary groups throughout the various sessions. In the 1653 Nominated
Assembly the moves towards religious toleration were blocked by the Conservatives,
despite the idea of religious toleration appeasing the other leading group in
the session, the radical Fifth Monarchists, who discussed reform over the
treatment of the ill and the law, but came into conflict with the religious
conservatives over religious reform. Opposition to the idea of religious
toleration was so great that the Conservative members of Parliament met secretly
in December 1653 and opted to dissolve themselves. Cromwell displayed one of
his many instances of political uncertainty by sanctioning the dissolution,
believing that the Fifth Monarchists, who he had previously supported, were too
radical. Similarly the Presbyterians of the First Protectorate Parliament
(1654-1655) opposed religious toleration, preferring the idea of one unified
church, eliminating the threat of extremist religious sects. J.H. Merle D'Aubigne argued that Cromwell's 'enemies were entirely blind to the spirit
of that love which possessed him' [2],
implying that Cromwell's radicalism was stemmed in his strong religious
beliefs. However, what D'Aubigne
neglects to mention is that his 'enemies' were simply gentlemen with different-
and often far more stable- political ideologies, and, more importantly, mostly different
religious views to him. It was difficult to support Cromwell wholeheartedly
because he would move between radicalism and conservatism almost
instantaneously, for where he came to loggerheads with Parliament concerning
religion, he made no attempt to allow the common man to represent his views in
elections, with the vote only being offered to gentlemen with an an annual
income of £200.
Another set of changes that proved to be unpopular was
the transfer of an intimidating amount of power to Cromwell through John
Lambert's 1653 Instrument of Government.
Despite the ancient title, Lord Protector, being steeped in tradition, the
powers that this new form of office granted him led to it being rightly
described as 'kingship in all but name'[3]. One of the major causes of discontentment in the First Protectorate
Parliament in September 1654 was the controversial nature of the powers
Cromwell now wielded, but also the fact that no elected members of Parliament
had been consulted about the creation of the office, leading them to refuse to
pass any of Cromwell's ordinances when called to session.
Linked directly to the failure of the First Protectorate
Parliament was the conception of the rule of Major Generals between 1655 and
1657. As a whole, the public greatly disliked military influence, associating
the profession with violent, drunken ruffians, having been 'reared on the seventeenth century notion of brutal soldiery' [4].
However, it is important to note that whilst this may have been the general
opinion, not all of the individual Major Generals were viewed so negatively;
being a heterogeneous group, the Major Generals imposed their authority as they
saw fit. For example Worsley, who had control over Lancashire, Staffordshire,
and Cheshire was renowned for his unwavering attempts to impose central
morality on the citizens under his jurisdiction, and was rumoured to have
closed over 200 ale houses. On the other hand, Gough, who was assigned
Berkshire, Hampshire, and Sussex acknowledged that he was unable to carry out
Cromwell's instructions. The idea of a standing army was resented, being
expensive to maintain, an expense that would be felt by the royalist citizens
of the localities through the new, 10% Decimation tax. Localities were used to
running their own areas, consistently rejecting influence from Central Government
even before Cromwell. Attempting to impose central authority through figures
that the locals would naturally dislike and believing that it would be
successful was nothing short of foolishly optimistic. The public outcry to the
rule of the Major Generals perfectly highlights the societal reaction to
Cromwell's changes. It upset the conservative nature of their local government,
it played on the resentment of the army that had only grown over the course of
the English Civil War, and the laws imposed of them banning inns and alcohol disrupted
the day-to-day life of these insular communities. They didn't want their
day-to-day lives disrupted by someone with an ideology that didn't match their
rural sensibilities, especially when it was imposed on a politically unaware
public without warning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 2: Lessons from Aesop (Not posted)
[1] Tumath, A. Today in History from A New
History Podcast, 30th January: The Execution of Charles I
[Accessed
1st February 2013 via iTunes podcasts]
Bibliography
Cabal Ministry-Wikipedia [online]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal_Ministry
[Accessed 19th January 2013]
Charles
II of England-Wikipedia [online]
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]
Richard
Cromwell-Wikipedia [online]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cromwell
[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, 16th June: John Churchill, The
Duke of Marlborough
[Accessed
1st February 2013 via iTunes podcasts]
Tumath, A. Today in History from A New History
Podcast, 26th August: Robert Walpole
[Accessed 2nd February 2013 via iTunes
podcasts]
Tumath,
A. Today in History from A New History Podcast, 30th January: The Execution of
Charles I
[Accessed
1st 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]
