16A

Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy, 1603-1702

________________________________________________________________

SECTION THREE From republic to restored and limited monarchy, 1649-78

Topic 16 Cromwell, the Protectorates, the Major-Generals and relations with the Political Nation

Key Question A: What was the nature of Cromwell’s Protectorate and how did the Political Nation react to the rule of the Major-Generals?

The Instrument of Government, 1653

The Instrument was the work of John Lambert, one of the brightest of the younger Army Generals. For some time, he had been pressing for a written constitution that would give the Republic greater stability by clarifying the relationship between the Head of State, the Council of State and Parliament. In December 1653, Lambert, with Cromwell’s approval, carried off a very smooth and remarkably uncontested military coup by replacing the Nominated Assembly with a government that followed the Instrument.

The Instrument comprised 42 clauses, the main features of which were as follows:

  • a Lord Protector would assume the position of Head of State, aided by a Council;

  • there would be a single-chamber Parliament of around 400 members from England and Wales, which would meet at least once every three years;

  • Ireland and Scotland would be represented in the Commons by 30MPs apiece (thus making the House the first truly British Parliament);

  • the right to vote was restricted to ‘men of substance’, i.e., those who owned property or had an income of £200 or more per year;

  • known Royalists were debarred from voting or standing for election;

  • a National Church was established under the loosest possible definition of being of ‘sound doctrine’ – this enabled liberty of conscience to be enjoyed by everyone save for only Catholics and the most extreme sectarians;

  • there would be a standing army of 30,000 men.

Cromwell the Protector and his aims

The speed with which the Instrument was adopted indicates that Cromwell was well-prepared for it. He had been involved in the preliminary discussions with Lambert for a new constitution, and was keen for it not to involve him being made ‘King Oliver’. Instead he became ‘Lord Protector’, a title which had precedent in English History dating back to the 15th century. This was his way of maintaining links with the ancient constitution, while at the same time distancing himself from the recently-overthrown monarchy.

Cromwell set three aims for the Protectorate:

  • ‘Healing and Settling’

    • An attempt would be made to reconcile with former enemies of the Republic.

    • The pre-war institutions of everyday life were to the reconstructed.

    • The enormous backlog of practical issues, personal appeals and financial claims that had been made to various governing bodies since 1642 and never addressed should now be given priority.

    • There would be religious toleration alongside social and moral order.

    • England should be respected internationally once again.

  • Political Stability

    • The same political settlement that had been offered to Charles I in 1647 (the Heads of the Proposals) would be established.

    • Power was to be divided between a single person acting as an executive, limited by a 21-member Council of State and an elected single-chamber Parliament of 460 members.

    • Voters must own at least £200 of personal property, therefore making them ‘men of integrity’.

    • Cromwell would remain head of the New Model Army.

    • On Cromwell’s death, a new Protector would be elected by the Council.

    • Godly Reformation

    • The Church of England was reaffirmed as one of Christianity with ‘sound doctrine’, a loose enough term to guarantee toleration.

    • The Church should lead by example rather than by force, with liberty of conscience for Protestant sects.

    • There should be end to all ‘ungodly behaviour’, e.g., swearing, gambling, prostitution, drunkenness, etc.

Cromwell was actually prepared to be relatively flexible about the finer details of the new constitution, with the exception of four fundamentals. It soon became clear that over these points, there could be no negotiation:

1. Government must be exercised by a single person (alongside Parliament).

2. Parliaments must not make themselves perpetual.

3. There must be liberty of conscience in religion for everyone but Catholics and the most extreme (i.e., violent) Protestants.

4. The Lord Protector (with Parliament) should exercise control of the Army.

In the months leading up to the First Protectorate Parliament, Cromwell, Lambert and a small group of councillors governed the Republic through the issuing of 84 ordinances. Among the key measures were:

  • financial reform and the regularising of the two main types of taxation, the ‘assessment’ (on land) and the ‘excise’ (on goods);

  • an improvement of the local social infrastructure e.g., postal services were speeded up and provisions were made for the better maintenance of roads;

  • the ‘Ordinance for Appointing Commissioners for Approbation of Public Preachers’ and the ‘Ordinance for Ejecting Scandalous, Ignorant and Insufficient Ministers and Schoolmasters’: together these ordinances set up a team of commissioners known as the Triers and Ejectors, drawn from as many different Protestant denominations as possible, who would henceforth be responsible for the selection and supervision of Church ministers to ensure they were of the appropriate calibre;

  • some of the reforms that had been proposed by the 1652 Hale Commission were finally actioned in an attempt to make administration of the law fairer and more efficient.

Cromwell and the First Protectorate Parliament, Sep 1654 – Jan 1655

Under the terms of the Instrument, a Parliament was called for September 1654. In his opening address, Cromwell reminded MPs that their first duty was to provide the people of England with ‘good and wholesome laws’. However, a number of factors combined to ensure that this first parliament under the new constitutional arrangements would be a short-lived failure.

The debate over the legitimacy of the Instrument of Government.: As the Instrument from which the Protectorate derived its authority was solely the product of the Army Officers’ Council, it never received formal civilian backing and was never officially ratified by any Parliament. Therefore, as soon as Parliament met, MPs began attacking the legitimacy of the Instrument. Those known as ‘Commonwealthsmen’ claimed Cromwell’s dissolution of the Rump had been unlawful, and that they had just as much right to criticise the regime set up in its place as the Army Council had in imposing it in the first place. They also objected to Cromwell’s ability to enact ordinances when Parliament was not in session, his control of the military, the high cost of maintaining a standing army and the fact that, in their minds, religious toleration had already gone too far.

The ‘Commonwealthsmen’ immediately set out to delay business and deny the government the political and economic support it needed. Cromwell therefore introduced an Oath of Recognition in an attempt to reduce opposition. All MPs were required to accept his four fundamental principles (see above). Around 100 were subsequently excluded, but even the absence of these MPs failed to significantly diminish criticism of the Protectorate.

The George Cony Case, 1654: Cony was a merchant who had refused to pay customs duties on imported silk. He was imprisoned in November 1654 and put on trial. His lawyers argued that the duties demanded by the Protector and Council of State were illegal, because only Parliament had the jurisdiction to raise taxes. Cromwell made an example of Cony and his lawyers by imprisoning them. However, the Lord Chief Justice, Henry Rolle, resigned when he was admonished by Cromwell for having permitted Cony to challenge the legality of the tax in the first place.

The slow pace of reform: The Council of State entrusted reform to the senior lawyers and judges. Some new regulations were initially introduced, but after that change was cautious and slow. There was still little enthusiasm for any policy that would weaken the power of merchant corporations and borough associations, thereby creating greater economic opportunities for those who found themselves outside of society’s traditional vested interests.

The Western Design: Underpinning these problems were continuing financial difficulties. Although the Dutch War was brought to an end in 1654, Cromwell soon embarked on another naval conflict, this time with Spain in the Caribbean (a policy known as the ‘Western Design’).

The John Biddle Case, 1654: Cromwell had prioritised ensuring greater religious toleration, but many ministers simply continued to carry out their duties as before, taking little notice of the wishes of the various Protectant sects. Biddle, a teacher who denied the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, was brought to Westminster on charges of blasphemy. Having been interrogated by a parliamentary committee, it was decided that Biddle should be imprisoned, and his written work burned. This was an example of Parliament trying to assert its rights over religion over the wishes of the Protector and the Council. The desire of MPs to reject Cromwell’s vision of toleration and instead enforce religious uniformity contributed to his decision to dissolve Parliament in January 1655, as soon as the Instrument allowed.

The rule of the Major-Generals, 1655-57

The Republic had already been weakened by the general failure to make meaningful reforms and the continued debate among the Political Nation over the constitutional legitimacy of the Instrument. By 1655, it was also facing a number of security threats. Rumours of a Leveller-inspired plot to assassinate the Lord Protector circulated widely, however, it was the actions of the Sealed Knot, an organisation set up by six aristocratic Royalists in 1652, that proved of greater concern. In March 1655, one of its members, John Penruddock, who had served as a colonel for Charles during the First Civil War, forcibly seized the town of Salisbury, an important administrative centre in the county of Wiltshire. Somewhere between 200 and 400 royalists were involved, mistakenly believing that this would inspire other parts of the country to join them in rebelling against the Protectorate. Penruddock’s Rising (as it has become known) was easily suppressed, yet it demonstrated that there were still some Royalists intent on restoring the Stuart monarchy. For Cromwell, it also proved that greater control of the provinces was badly needed.

The regime suffered another blow in July, when news of a foreign policy setback reached England. The Western Design, a naval campaign aiming to secure bases that would challenge Spanish dominance of trade from the Caribbean, had suffered a defeat in its first major offensive at Hispaniola (modern day Haiti and the Dominican Republic). Cromwell saw this as a providential judgement on the work of the Protectorate so far, and therefore resolved to try a different strategy.

Since 1649, Cromwell had always relied on the support of the military in order to maintain his dominant position in the Commonwealth. Indeed, the Instrument had stipulated that as Lord Protector, Cromwell should also act as commander-in-chief of the New Model Army. Therefore, in light of the Protectorate’s deteriorating security sitaution, Cromwell fell back to relying upon his natural allies. With the support of leading Army Officer and Council of State member, John Lambert, Cromwell established the military-based rule of the Major-Generals throughout the kingdom in the summer of 1655.

The reaction of the Political Nation to the rule of the Major-Generals

The Political Nation, whether active supporters, opponents or simply ambivalent about Cromwell’s Protectorate, all shared the same concerns about the Major-Generals.

Military Rule: Military rule was, in general, viewed with suspicion by much of the Political Nation. As few of the Major-Generals were local to the area they actually controlled, there were strong feelings among people in regional communities that they were now subject to outside rule. In mid-17th century England, regional loyalties tended to override national ones. People’s first thoughts were for their own local concerns. Consequently, when intrusive government was imposed from outside, no matter how well-intentioned or efficient it might be, it was deemed intrusive and unnecessary.

Local government: Evidence suggests that despite the strictness of the rule of the Major-Generals, local institutions continued to function in the traditional way. Magistrates’ courts were still in operation, and Cromwell had no wish to undermine the authority of established community leaders; it would have suited him better if the Major-Generals could have established harmonious relations with local gentry. The resistance they encountered meant that on a practical level, the power of the Major-Generals was actually quite limited.

  • Social upheaval: The Major-Generals posed a threat to the control of the localities that had traditionally been the preserve of the nobility and landed gentry. Some of the Major-Generals were of lower social standing than Justices of the Peace, yet they had now usurped their power. For magistrates and officials who were used to functioning in what was very much a traditional hierarchical society, the intrusion of ‘social upstarts’ into the conduct of their affairs was particularly distasteful.

  • Finance: High levels of taxation were imposed, and many feared that this would have to be a permanent arrangement if the Army were to be a long-term fixture in the government of the Republic. In the mid-1650s, average annual taxation hit a peak of £1.75 million, nearly £1 million more than it had been during the Personal Rule of Charles I in 1629-40. A parliamentary report in 1655 revealed that the government’s annual revenue, made up from such sources as customs and excise, assessments and fines on Royalists, amounted to £2.25 million, whereas expenditure was £2.6 million. The deficit was increased by the added costs of the war with Spain in the Caribbean. At the same time, the Decimation Tax, although it only effected around 2,000 people, undermined Cromwell’s original aim of ‘healing and settling’.

  • Religion: The New Model Army still had strong ties with religious radicals (indeed, some of the Major-Generals could be described as radicals themselves). Conservatives and moderates were therefore worried that radicalism would be protected, even encouraged, which would threaten the stability of the state through the further challenging of accepted social norms. The sharp increase in the number of Quakers in this period seems to suggest that such fears had some justification.

Ultimately, the Major-Generals was another political experiment with contradictory impulses that proved to be its undoing: Cromwell wanted ‘healing and settling’, ‘Godly Reformation’, and to reduce the financial burden, but could only conceive of achieving his aims by using the Army, a scheme that required high taxes and a constant military presence to enforce security.

While the Major-Generals were successful in law enforcement and in curbing security threats to the Protectorate, their attempts at reforming the nation's morals varied from region to region according to the zeal of individual officers, and so had no lasting effects. However, the brief period of the Major-Generals has cast a long shadow on the reputation of the Republic and of Cromwell. Military government in combination with forced moral reform has come to symbolise the worst excesses of Puritan repression. The Major-Generals are traditionally represented as tyrannical despots ruling over their regions unpopularly and with an iron fist (although it is important to acknowledge that more modern historians tend to take a slightly less critical view).