Cromwell’s second military campaign during this period was against the Scots, from July 1650 to August 1651. The Scots also threatened the new Republic because they, with Charles Stuart, had planned an invasion of England. Had the invasion been successful, there would have been Presbyterian settlement and so religious toleration and godly reformation would have been threatened. This suggests that Cromwell was fighting for religious toleration and strengthens the view that he was honourable.
During the war with the Scots, Cromwell attempted to negotiate a settlement with the Scottish Presbyterians because he thought that they shared a “unity of spirit” of godly Protestantism and they were “men of honour”. This implies that Cromwell realizes that the Scots can be a friend to the new Republic and form an alliance with England, which will be beneficial to the future security of England.
However, Cromwell’s military leadership was not as great as his previous military engagements. He was constantly outmanoeuvred by the Scottish commander, David Leslie, and had to be saved on numerous occasions by his subordinate John Lambert. Despite these defeats, Cromwell was still able to engineer the pivotal victory at Worcester. This suggests that just like during the first civil war Cromwell was again instrumental in the victory and strengthens the claim that he was honourable to the Commonwealth.
Therefore, it would appear that Cromwell’s actions against the Irish and Scots indicate he was honourable because he fought successfully against enemies who threatened the security of the Commonwealth.
Another enemy of the Commonwealth was the Rump MPs who governed the country after the regicide of King Charles. They consisted mainly of merchants and lawyers and were thus unwilling to proceed with some aspects of the godly reformation such as legal reform. As a result, they became associated with repressive measures rather than liberating people; for example, in terms of religious toleration they only passed the Toleration Act. This clashed with Cromwell’s attempts at godly reformation; Cromwell felt the Rump was pursuing their own self-interest (for example, Navigation Acts) and did not make enough progress with pursuing the godly reformation, “that makes many poor, to make a few rich, that suits not a Commonwealth”. This suggests that in dissolving the Rump Cromwell was helping the Republic, which supports the view that Cromwell was honourable in dealing with the enemies of the Commonwealth.
However, in dissolving the Rump, Cromwell can be seen as pursuing his own self-interest (i.e. godly reformation). Indeed after dissolution, power went to the Council of Officers which Cromwell chaired. This argument is, however, weakened if one views Cromwell actions as providential, and so whereas the Rump MPs were pursuing their own self-interest, Cromwell was promoting God’s interest. Again, this strengthens the view that Cromwell was an honourable statesman for the Commonwealth.
Finally, the Levellers also posed a threat to the future of the Republic. They made extremely radical political demands, most notably universal male suffrage, which they used the New Model Army to promote. Their demands threatened political stability and thus Cromwell’s attempts at introducing godly reformation are endangered.
The claim of dishonourable behaviour comes from the fact that he actively encouraged the Levellers to discuss their ideas at Putney (for example, by saying “there are a very considerable part of copyholders by inheritance that ought to have a voice”) before crushing them. The Levellers’ frustration and resentment at Cromwell is epitomised by Lilburne’s pamphlet “England’s New Chains”; they felt that Cromwell had used them, indicating dishonourable conduct.
However, the Levellers had been using the New Model Army to advance their radical political demands. Therefore, the claim of Cromwell using the Levellers appears to be hypocritical. Furthermore, in getting rid of the Levellers, Cromwell can be viewed as protecting God’s instrument and thus is once more acting in God’s interest rather than his own.
Therefore, Cromwell’s actions against the Levellers are yet another demonstration of him being an honourable statesman and soldier for the Commonwealth. When viewed alongside Cromwell’s dealings with other enemies of the Commonwealth, it appears that Cromwell has consistently showed honourable behaviour.
In conclusion, “an honourable soldier and statesman” is a valid and rightful interpretation of Cromwell in his dealings with the Irish, Scots, Rump MPs and Levellers. His actions reveal that he was consistently honourable in defending the integrity of the new Republic and trying to introduce godly reformation.