Oliver Cromwell: The Lord Protector of 1653-1658

Abstract

    Oliver Cromwell’s vision of the English republic; this paper argue that Cromwell’s vision was defined not so much by ideology, belief or philosophy as by an opinion that compromise and moderation were central to the government of England during the particular disruptive 17th century. This paper contends that only through an understanding of Oliver Cromwell’s vision of moderation as a key to the resolution of civil strife, we can begin to understand his achievement in navigating the chief of state during his highly descriptive period.

Chapter I

1.1 Background of the study

    Cromwell’s boldness towards Charles I and towards to  the monarchy, A hero who was neglected by the puritans and defamed by royalists from the time of restoration of Charles II down to the present age. After the second English civil war, Oliver Cromwell took control of Parliament and dissolved the House of Lords, leaving the House of Commons, or Rump Parliament, to indict Charles the first for tyranny. Charles was executed January 1649. Cromwell then went to reform the British Government, changing it from a monarchy to a republic. However, due to a power struggle between the Rump Parliament and Cromwell over who was actually going to control this new Republic, Cromwell dismissed the Rump Parliament on April 20th 1653. Having no other political opponents, Cromwell became Lord Protector, shaping England to be a Puritan Republic with his ideals alone. Cromwell’s dreams and aspirations relating to an ideal English society would be impossible to establish.

1.2 Statement of the problem

1. How Oliver Cromwell did come to power?
2. What characterized Cromwell’s rule in England?
3. What were Cromwell’s views on the monarchy and why did he reject the throne?
4. What happened to England after his decline and death?

1.3 Significance of the study

    This study illustrates about Cromwell’s ideal society and the conflicts inherent in the 17th century still provoke strong reactions today, religion, and the monarchy, and war, political and social control. The aim of this study should not be to encourage students to take any one view of him, or the past, but to reach an understanding of why he is regarded as significant, whether sympathetic or not.

1.4 Conceptual framework

1.5 Scope and Limitation

This paper is a study on Cromwell’s ideal English society, his behavior during the long parliament which gives us critical insights in the early stage of his political career, long before he rose to near absolute power. However, the period of 1637-1658 as a time frame for this discussion.

1.6 Research Methodology

    I have conducted my research from online sources such as eBooks which were published by profound authors and publication companies (such as Routledge and Cambridge University Press), online articles, documentaries which I downloaded from youtube.

Chapter II

1. The arrival of a revolutionary

Central to Cromwell’s identity was the development of his religious beliefs. In his adult life he became closely associated with the puritan movement within the English Protestantism. Puritans rejected what they regarded as surviving ‘popish’ elements in the practice of the Church of England. Their faith was based not upon attachment to outward ceremony and ritual but upon a personal faith in God, whose word was to be found in the Bible. Puritanism promoted a desire for the moral reform of society and at a deeper level, gave a conviction of God’s direct intervention in the life of the individual (cited in Durtson, C. and Jacqueline Eales, 1996).

It is not clear when Cromwell became seriously influenced by these ideas. It is used to be believed that the Huntingdon schoolmaster, Thomas Beard, played an important part, early in Cromwell’s life, in influencing him in this direction. John Morrill’s work has however cast serious doubt on this notion. He has uncovered evidence that Beard was ‘a greedy pluralist’, motivated primarily by his own self-interest, who remained within the Church of England establishment. (cited in Morill, pp. 8-27)It seems more likely that Cromwell experienced a kind of religious conversion in the late 1620’2 or early 1630’s, and that this was associated with a deep personal crisis, amounting to a nervous breakdown. It is known that Sir Theodore Mayerne, a noted London physician, treated him for depression during his term as a Member of Parliament in 1628-1629. The exact date of Cromwell’s conversion is not clear but it seems to have been complete by 1638. It is important to understand its significance for his career. Cromwell described himself in a letter to a relative as having ‘lived in love and loved darkness’ before his spiritual experience, and as having been ‘the chief of sinners’ (cited in W.C. Abbott, 1937, p.97).

This exaggerated characterization of an individual’s unworthiness was typical of puritans of Cromwell’s time. It was the language of those who had come to believe that God was directing their lives in a personal way, leading them out of a spiritual desert and making them members of his elect. From now on he would see the hand of God in all the major events of his life and times, and he would explain his own actions to himself and others in terms of divine grace working in the world.

Cromwell’s religious convictions were the decisive factor in driving him towards active involvement in politics. Most historians now argue that in the 1630’s he showed a little sign of acting as an embryonic revolutionary. Instead, to all intents and purposes he was an obedient subject of the King outwardly accepting the policies of the ‘personal rule’, the eleven year period when Charles I governed without parliament. Charles’ resort to means of taxation for which he lacked parliamentary authority was particularly controversial. This in included the extension to inland counties of the tax known as ship money, which had traditionally been levied up to pay for the upkeep of the navy. Cromwell dutifully paid up, in sharp contrast to his cousin, John Hampden, whose defiance of the king became the occasion of a celebrated law case. Similarly, in spite of the claim made by some older historians, there is a little evidence that Cromwell championed the rights of the rural poor against fenland drainage projects of Dutch engineers, who were supported by self-interested members of the aristocracy. He may have shown concern over the level of compensation offered to commoners whose livelihood was threatened, but it cannot be demonstrated that he opposed fen drainage principle. Christopher Hill’s depiction of Cromwell as the spokesman of humbler and less articulate persons’ is almost certainly an unjustified dramatization of his role (cited in Hill, p. 48). The main issue that drew Cromwell into conflict with royal government was Charles’ religious policies. During the 1630s the king tried, in partnership with his Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, to promote the ceremonial and priestly aspects of Anglicanism and to enhance the authority and prestige of the Church of England. To godly puritans like Cromwell this seemed close to a reversion to the practices of the pre-Reformation Church. Coupled with Laud’s opposition to puritan lecturers and preachers, it appeared to herald an assault on the essence of Protestantism. Cromwell and others came to believe that there was a popish conspiracy, centered on the royal court and propagated by Laud and his fellow bishops. That is why, when Charles was compelled to recall Parliament in 1640 and Cromwell was elected MP for Cambridge, he associated himself with a number of proposals to protect the protestant religion. These include a bill to promote sermons and another to abolish the episcopal government of the Church. At this stage he appears to have been operating as a junior member of a group of radical critics of royal government, including John Pym in the Commons and Warwick in the Lords. It seems likely, as opposition began to take shape, that the leaders of this network were encouraging him to take initiatives designed to test the reactions of others.

Cromwell was confirmed in his fears of a Catholic revival, linked to the arbitrary use of royal power, by news of a rebellion in Ireland, which reached London in November 1641. Lurid reports of atrocities committed by Irish Catholics against protestant settlers were widely believed, and Cromwell was one of many parliamentarians who feared that these events presaged an attack on religious liberties in England. It was a measure of his alarm that he contributed a considerable sum towards funding an army to suppress the rebellion. Yet he was still not one of the most prominent critics of the royal government. When Charles descended on the Commons in January 1642, Cromwell was not one of the five MPs whose arrest he sought to effect. Within months, however, he was in the forefront of attempts to put the Parliament in a state of readiness for conflict. With the impetuosity that characterized a number of his later actions. The following month, even before the civil war had formally broken out, he seized the college’s plate to prevent it from being sent to finance the king’s military preparations. By this point Cromwell was ready to commit himself wholeheartedly to the task of checking royal power by force of arms.

2. Rebellion for the Lord’s cause

Cromwell spent the first year and a half of the war fighting mainly in eastern England, the region from which he originated. He raised a troop of horse in Huntingdon soon after the outbreak of hostilities and this was placed under the authority of the main parliamentary army, headed by the Earl of Essex. In January 1643, Cromwell received his first major appointment when he was assigned to the eastern association, one of the regional bodies set up by a parliament, initially for purposes of local defense. The Eastern Association covered the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Hetfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire and later Lincolnshire. After its commander, Lord Grey of Warke, was sent southwards in region and for defending it against royalist forces to the north. He demonstrated great energy in raising support from local magnates and took part in several minor actions, including victories at Gainsborough (July) and Winceby (October) in Lincolnshire.

By this stage, however, serious differences were beginning to open up on the parliamentary side. One of the key issues was the emerging divide between men like Cromwell, who favored a fight to the finish, who wanted to seek negotiated settlement with the King. Such men feared that outright victory would unleash uncontrollable social forces, placing members of the most radical Protestant sects in the driving seat. As a result of this uncertainty at the heart of their command, the parliamentarians were unable to exploit their first major victory of the war, the battle of Marston Moor near York (July 1644). Essex undertook an unsuccessful campaign in southwest England. At the end of October royalist forces were allowed to escape at the second Battle of Newbury and the nearby strategically important fortress of Donnington Castle was not taken.

These disappointments set the stage for a serious conflict between Cromwell and Manchester in late 1644. Their quarrel marked Cromwell’s emergence as a significant political figure in his own right, as well as the important field commander that he had already become. Several interrelated questions were at stake. Cromwell accused the Earl of a defeatist approach to the civil war. This was summed up in an exchange between the two men during the Newbury campaign. Manchester betrayed his unease at his colleague’s uncompromising stance with the observation that ‘if we beat the King 99 times he would be King still, and his posterity, and we subjects still; but if he beats us but once we should be hanged, and our posterity undone.’ Cromwell replied, ‘my lord, if this be so, why did we take up arms at first? This is against fighting ever hereafter’ (cited in Abbot, p. 310).

    June 1646, Charles I surrendered to the scots at Newark, Cromwell was almost continuously on campaign. His recorded comments on the events of this period suggest an increased sense of confidence in God’s support for the parliamentarian cause. For him military success served to underline the righteousness of the godly party, irrespective of particular denominational allegiances.

The first Civil War came to an end, powerful forces at Westminster were moving towards an attempt to impose religious order and uniformity through the medium of a Presbyterian Church settlement. This went in hand with a desire to reduce the burden of taxation, which had increased in order to finance the war effort. The war had seen Cromwell emerge as a genuinely national figure, but its ending also presented him with significant challenges to overcome.

3. The Lord Protector

After the end of the first Civil War, the Presbyterian by religion have correctly been labeled ‘political Presbyterians’ because of their support for the objectives of Parliament’s Scottish allies. The desire for religious uniformity and social order went a willingness to see the King return to power with minimal conditions. As part of the post-war settlement the political Presbyterians sought to demobilize the New Mobile Army, leaving a smaller military force that would be easier to control. They aimed to place the remaining soldiers under Presbyterian officers and to dispatch it to Ireland to deal with surviving royalist resistance there.

At this point a further complication was provided by the action of a relatively junior officer, Cornet Joyce, who took the King from his parliamentary guards at Holdenby (or Holmby) House in Northamptonshire, early in June 1647. Cromwell’s own role in this episode is far from clear. He had met Joyce a few days before but there is no evidence that he gave orders to seize Charles. The Army now moved south from its base at Newmarket in order to put pressure on Parliament and Cromwell went to join it. It occupied London in early August after a mob, inspired by the political Presbyterian faction, invaded the Commons. Throughout this period, however, Cromwell’s aim was to contain the extreme elements in the army and to include both King and Parliament in a political settlement. His views were embodied in a document known as The Heads of the Proposals, drawn up by his son-in-law, Henry Ireton and others, which was notable for its moderation. It offered a restoration of the monarchy, on condition that Parliament was called at least every two years, and that the armed forces should be placed under parliamentary control. There was to be a broad national Church, without coercive powers, and with freedom for Protestants to worship as they wished (cited in Kenyon, J.P., 1966, pp. 302).

Although initially he seemed favorable, it became apparent that the King had no intention of treating these proposals as a serious basis for negotiation. Charles aimed to recover his power by exploiting the divisions in the parliamentarian ranks. He began to move towards an agreement with the Scots, who could not accept the Heads because they did not enshrine the notion of a Presbyterian national church. More immediately the Heads faced opposition from a new grouping on the left, who sought more radical reconstruction of the political order. These were the levelers, a civilian political movement, which also began to gain ground in the army. The Levellers held that the popular will was the basis os sovereignty and feared that the gains of the war threatened by the willingness of senior military figures to engineer a royal restoration. Their desire for democratic change was outlined in The Case of Army Truly Stated and developed into a detailed programme of reform in a longer document, The Agreement of the People. In October/November 1647 they were given an opportunity to put their case in a series of meetings at the army headquarters at Putney (cited in ‘The Agreement and the Putney debates, The Stuart Constitution’, pp. 308-317)

Cromwell, Ireton and the representatives of the radical movement within the army developed into a sustained series of debates on the theoretical basis of political power. Cromwell pursued to facilitate army unity and was frequently more moderate in his contributions than the uncompromising Ireton. The meetings failed, however, to restore harmony and when discussion turned to the issue of the electoral franchise, Cromwell was clearly aligned with the socially conservative position of his son-in-law. Whereas the leveler representatives held that participation in politics was a birthright, Cromwell maintained that it was linked to the possession of property, and that any departure from this principle would lead to anarchy. With army discipline restored attention now focused on the question of relations with the King.

4. From monarchy to republic

Charles decisively alienated Cromwell and the army leadership by negotiating with the Scots. By the so-called Engagement, concluded in December 1647, Charles signaled a willingness to establish Presbyterianism in England, in return for the Scottish military assistance to restore him to power. At the beginning of 1648 the Commons voted not to continue negotiations with the King. In spite of his public support for this step, there have been suggestions that Cromwell held secret talks with the King on the Isle of Wight in April, in a vain attempt to detach him from the Scots. This is one of the several periods in Cromwell’s life where his movements remain tantalizingly unclear (cited in Adamson, 1991, p. 59).

From the end of April, Cromwell was taken out of Westminster, first by outbreak of rebellion in South Wales and then by a Scottish invasion of northern England. The decisive encounter of this second civil war took place at Preston in August, where Cromwell smashed the Scottish army. He interpreted the victory as confirmation of God’s blessing on his cause, and shared in the widespread anger felt by parliamentarians against those who had brought about renewed conflict. To Cromwell and other army leaders, the second civil war had been treacherous endeavor to overturn the result of the first, which had led to bloodshed. It played a central role of events which led to the trial and death of the King. Cromwell was then appointed and accepted as chairman of the Council of State, which took on executive responsibility. He showed some regard for traditional authority of Parliament by persuading some of the members excluded the Pride’s purge to return and by speaking against the proposal to abolish the House of Lords. Nevertheless the upper house was abolished, together with the monarchy, and in May a Commonwealth was proclaimed. Notwithstanding his hesitation regarding some aspects of it, Cromwell had played a key role in a truly revolutionary sequence of events.

Chapter III

    Oliver Cromwell was a great military leader, were he captured the imagination of the English people. He was a member of the parliament as well as an army leader, he was also established the commonwealth after the execution of Charles I. As a General, he was generally successful but as a politician he experienced more frustration than achievement. He refused to rule as a constitutional officer.

Cromwell’s religious beliefs were the most striking characteristic of the man as he is revealed in his writings and speeches. The outbreak of the English civil war in 1642 was identified with the emerging party of independents. The self-conscious religious movement was of later origin than the political breakup from the Presbyterian Church parliamentary party. The idea of the church government which the independents formulated prescribed that each individual worshiper should be independent gathered fellowship of the saints.  

References

Durtson, C. & Eales, J. (1996). The Culture of English Puritanism, 1560-1700, New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Morill, J. (1991). Oliver Cromwell the English Revolution, pp. 8-27.

Abbott, W.C. (1937). The Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, Volume 1, Harvard University Press, p. 97 / p. 310.

Hill, C. (1990). God’s Englishman, p. 48.

Kenyon, J.P. (1966). The Stuart Constitution, 1603-1688. Cambridge University Press, pp. 302/308-317.

Adamson, J.S.A. (1991). Oliver Cromwell and the long Parliament, p. 59.

Critical Annotated Bibliography

Herbert, H.(1856). Oliver Cromwell: England’s Great Protector. Stereotypes and Printers.

This book has been written by an English novelist and writer. He also wrote a series of historical studies. A picture of England’s Great protector, a man misguided by his own passion, rather than a misleader of other men; A sovereign, patriotic, energetic, moderate as he sat on England’s throne.

Godwin, W. (1828). History of the Commonwealth of England: From its commencement to the restoration of Charles the second. Elibron Classics. Volume 4.

This book has been written by William Godwin, as an extensively-published policy analyst, and a close study of Cromwell’s virtues, his sincerity to his religion, fervent in patriotism, and earnestly devoted to the best interests of mankind.

Clark, G. (1893). Oliver Cromwell. D. Lothrop Company.

Clark had objectively written this book through Cromwell’s letters and speeches, from this, the materials from which the histories of the Commonwealth and the protectorate have been made. Author states that it has to be remarked that only documents throwing light on Cromwell were published, or in manuscript, prior to the year 1700. It should also be remembered that outside of the newspapers and pamphlets published during the lifetime of Cromwell. Oliver is the most interesting man who has ever had a connection with the English government; more competent judges pronounced him the ablest ruler who has governed England.

Briggs, Harrison, McInnes, and Vincent (1996). Crime and Punishment in England. UCL Press.

A book written by these four authors about the history of Crime, they reflect it to the history of England of how they will face and solve the causes of crime in the present. A society obsessed with crime. The problem of crime is one of the political issues of our day. We spend an enormous amount of public money through the police and prison services and in the criminal courts attempting to control or at least to contain the “problem”. To that massive figure one must add the private and corporate money spent on insurance and preventive measures.

Walsh, J. (2004).  Cromwell, Oliver: Tyranny of 1649. Irish Cultural Society of the Garden City area. Retrieved from: http://www.irish-society.org/home/hedgemaster-archives-2/people/cromwell-oliver-tyranny-of-1649

An article written by Walsh; A discussion of Oliver Cromwell’s life and his role in English Society, his implications to the government after he abolished the King, a man full of pride and honor of himself as he stand upon his dignity. A great impact in the English society which we can also reflect their struggle for future endeavors.

MacIntyre, W. (1990). John Bunyan's “Celestial City” and Oliver Cromwell's “Ideal Society”. University of Prince Edward Island.

The object of this essay is to draw a parallel between John Bunyan's dreams and ideas for a new English society as they allegorically appear in The Pilgrim's Progress, part I, and Oliver Cromwell's application of the traditional tenets of the Puritan religion, election, predestination to the organization of the state. Even though Cromwell had died long before Bunyan's work was published in 1678, it can be established that such dreams and ideas for a new English society had been very much in evidence for a long time.

Morril and Baker. (2001). Oliver Cromwell, the Regicide and the Sons of Zeruiah. Palgrave, Basingstoke.

Morrill and Baker engage with this debate by arguing that it is essential to distinguish between Cromwell’s attitudes towards Charles I and his attitudes towards monarchy. They suggest that the evidence of Cromwell’s contributions to the Putney Debates reveals that by 1 November 1647 at the latest he had come to acknowledge the severe problems posed by Charles I personally, but that he believed God’s views on the future of monarchy were not yet apparent. Furthermore, his reference to the ‘sons of Zeruiah’ (11 November 1647) indicates that he felt that the army could not get away with killing the king at that stage. Morrill and Baker argue that the key to Cromwell’s behavior from November 1647 to January 1649 lay in the combination of a growing conviction that Charles should be brought to trial and possibly even executed with a continuing uncertainty over when, how and by whom this was to be accomplished.