Cromwell versus Walpole Part 2: Lessons from Aesop

So, last time we left off with a brief look at why Cromwell's office of Lord Protector didn't survive his death; his changes were far too sweeping, and made in far too short an amount of time. So, now it's time to look at Walpole.

Also shut up I knew this was meant to be a quick series but University happened.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In contrast to Cromwell's lightning strike approach to constitutional change, Walpole's position of Prime Minister (in all but name) began to develop before he was even born. Under Charles II, who was restored with little limitations to his power to return the country to a somewhat constitutionally stable state,  Lord Councillor Clarendon became a prominent, but was deposed of in 1667 and replaced by a collection of Charles' influential favourites, known as the Cabal. Graham Goodlad writes that 'the name suggests a misleading sense of unity'[1] which I feel was precisely the restored monarch's aim; he was still very much in control of his ministry, never allowing more than one or two key ministers to know of a new or different line of policy, so there was little opportunity for them to oppose it. Despite this, the group, who appeared worryingly Catholic, proved to be far more unpopular than Clarendon, with Parliament fearing that they were too corrupt and powerful to be trusted with representing their views on policy. Discontent for the Cabal grew organised, as the Parliament created a country opposition who would represent their opinions. The fall of the Cabal in 1673 (mainly due to the internal conflict between Buckingham and Arlington) seemed to prove to the Parliament that organised opposition could be successful and wouldn't lead to impeachment, which in turn led to many members of parliament allying themselves with the pro-monarchy Tories or the more radical Whigs, where they would find a power base through which any opposition or lines of policy could be channelled in an organised manner.

            The theme of two party politics and influential favoured ministers continued under the rule of William and Mary. William initially attempted to balance the influence of both the newly formed parties, and their importance in running the country, ensuring that he was still a key component in the running of government in a similar manner to Charles II. However by 1690 he fully supported the Whigs and appointed a group of young Whigs- the Junto- to be his leading ministers. They compensated for the his lack of knowledge concerning the English political system and his vendetta against the French Louis XIV which left England with the more passive Mary to rule in his absence, and, following her death in 1694, his ministers. An example of his reliance on ministers during his absence came shortly after the quelling of the Irish Jacobite rebellion in October 1691; it was his ministers who managed Irelands return to peace, instead of overseeing it himself or delegating the duty to his wife.

            But the increase in ministerial influence grew most quickly under Queen Anne, whose rule was dominated by political parties and divided by most historians not by her life, but by the rule of her ministers; 1702-1710 was the period of the Marlborough-Godolphin ministry, and 1710-1714 was the time of Harley's Tory ministry. Marlborough was a military genius, negotiating expensive battles in the War of Spanish Succession that disrupted (as of 1707's Act of Union) Britain's European trade. Godolphin was promoted from his position in William's ministry to Lord High Treasurer. Evidence of the two party system's influence can be found in the fact that neither Marlborough or Godolphin were favourites of Queen Anne, but rather had their party behind them. Anne may have removed their influence eventually, but it could be argued that this was down to Godolphin moving towards the Whigs and away from the Tories, who eventually orchestrated his downfall through the manipulation of clergyman Secheverell's impeachment. The Tories appealed not to the Queen to dismiss the Whig dominated ministry, but instead for the politically astute public to rally for him against the Whigs in February 1710. However, Richard Wilkinson dismisses this argument in his History Review Article 'Queen Anne'[2], stating that Anne didn't bow to ministerial power and instead was far more in control than most historians have given her credit for. I personally largely disagree with Wilkinson's argument. If Anne was in complete control then why did it take so long for Anne to dismiss Marlborough, whose position depended not just on Parliamentary support but also his wife Sarah's influence; the Queen's relationship with the couple deteriorated due to political differences as early as 1704.

            It was under George I that Walpole gained what was, in effect, the office of Prime Minister. Described as having an 'admirable degree of dedication, perseverance, and ambition to become known, in an age of corrupt and venal politicians, as a particularly corrupt and venal politician' [3]-An accurate description considering that politics at this point was based on personal gain, without consideration for contemporaries- it is suggested that Walpole used the now solidly established two-party system and manipulated George I's lack of knowledge of both English, and British politics, to become leading minister. George was only interested in what aid Britain could provide for the Electorate of Hanover to make it the dominant Protestant power in mainland Europe. Therefore, when it came to domestic issues that would affect the nation, but not the King's interests, Walpole was only too willing to step in and save Britain from ruin. One example of this follows the South Sea Bubble crisis in 1721, which led to the ruination of thousands of investors in the company; Walpole directed Parliament to restore public confidence so that it would retain investment and avoid the problems of the investors trickling down to affect the everyday man of England through inflation and redundancies. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Part 3& 4: Cromwell, you are not the father. Also, Government, Wooo

---

[1] 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]

[2] Wilkinson, R. Queen Anne. Published in History Review 1998 [online]

http://www.historytoday.com/richard-wilkinson/queen-anne

[Accessed 26 February 2013]

[3] Tumath, A. Today in History from A New History Podcast, 26th August: Robert Walpole

[Accessed 2nd 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]

Cromwell versus Walpole Part One: Too much. Too Young, Too fast.

A2 History Coursework: 

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

            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]

[2] D'Aubigne, J.H.M. The Protector: A Vindication (1848) Kindle Version- 52%

[3] Lynch, M. In the Interregnum (2008)- Pg 60

[4] Fraser, A. (2008) Cromwell, Our Chief of Men, Kindle Version- 3%

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]