I think the statement which sums up who was responsible for the King’s execution the best is one by Barry Coward in his concluding sentence. ‘Godly zealots like Ireton and Cromwell had been keen to conclude a monarchical settlement...that godly zeal and godly zealots were turned against the King was due almost entirely to what Charles I did. His behaviour...drove men who were social and political conservatives to embark on an act of extreme political revolution’.
Part B – Objective A01 – Did Oliver Cromwell achieve his objectives, c. 1649 – 1658?:
Oliver Cromwell had two aims, the first of which was conservative in the political, social and economic respects, and the second of which was radical in respect to religion. Cromwell’s conservative aim was to heal the rift created in 1648-9 by the execution of the King and the civil war etc. by restoring as much of the traditional political structure as possible. By reconciling the top classes of people with the new regime, a stable civilian government of the people and old alliances between the now enemies could be restored. This was consistent with Cromwell’s conservative, social and also economic views. This was Cromwell’s aim of ‘healing and settling’ as he described it. Cromwell’s radical aim was to continue with godly reformation. This involved a degree of toleration of all Protestant religious groups and basically anyone except Catholics, on the basis that they all contained some degree of truth in Cromwell’s eyes and the hope they would eventually all merge together into one. When in the winter of 1656 a Quaker entered Bristol on a donkey in complete imitation of Christ’s entry into Jerusalem, Cromwell tried, although unsuccessful, to save him from the fury of Parliament, which voted heavy punishments on any blasphemer. Also the year before, Cromwell interviewed two of the leaders of the Fifth Monarchy, an extreme sect: he pointed out to them that they had been imprisoned for sedition but emphasised strongly that nobody would hinder them from preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. This was consistent with attempts at a forced notion of morality through legislation passed by Parliament; religious freedom was rather a means than an end. Cromwell, as always turned to the army for support in this more radical aim of his.
However these two aims were more often than not far from compatible with one another. A freely-elected Parliament would not always, as can be expected, push forwards with godly reform, and it would also be difficult, as also can be expected, to successfully maintain an army within a civilian regime. Religious toleration would simply provide a cover for a radical ideas that Cromwell thought were not acceptable. Cromwell, being the intelligent man that he was, recognised this and focused his energies on different aims at different times. This, of course, did not always work. A radical in some directions, such as in seeking the reform of the religious laws, Cromwell had to adopt a conservative attitude because he feareed that the overthrow of the monarchy might lead the country in to political collapse. Before the execution of Charles I he had even toyed with the idea of placing one of Charles’sons on the throne. He also resisted the abolition of the House of Lords. In 1647 he said that he was not ‘wedded and glued’ to any particular form of government. In the Spring of 1657 he was even tempted by an offer of the crown himself on the ground that it fitted better with the existing English institutions. But he refused to become king because he knew that it would offend his old republican officers. We can see that he had many different loyalities in many places so it was incredibly hard for him to persue his aims without offending people. However he wanted to please everyone so often he could not fulfil personal aims.
All he really wanted for the country to be godly, without corruption in the government. But as we shall see he did not seem to achieve this aim in the many experimental forms of government he tried and tested.
The first was the Rump Parliament, a parliament made up of all the men who were not in support of the King. However the Rump made little progress with reform of religion or the legal system. It was divided on religion and was full of corrupt lawyers with a vested interest against legal reform. The Rump debated matters extensively but rarely made much progress with anything. The only real reforms they did make were to abolish the House of Lords, set up a Council of State to run the country, passed a blasphemy and adultery act in 1650 and a few minor navigation rulings to improve trade routes. But the Rump was really not at all radical enough for those wanting massive reforms and not conservative enough for the genrty and this had large opposition from both sides of the political spectrum. This was not what Cromwell wanted and as he saw more of the corrupt MPs that were thrown out in Pride’s Purge slipping back he saw it becoming exactly the Parliament it had been before. However, while most of the army called for the Rump’s dissolution, Cromwell initially restrained them and gave the Rump a chance to become what he had hoped for. But their plans for new elections set him in favour of dissolution. This was partly because fresh elections would threaten the power of the army, the main tool of godly reform, and Cromwell always stuck by his army in times of indisicisiveness.
After this came the ‘Barebones Parliament’ or the Nominated Assembly. Although it was only intended to be a temporary body which could decide on a settlement it was divided over the issue of religion. When the Fifth Monarchists succeeded in pushing through a vote against tithes the moderates decided to act before social order was seriously undermined. On the 12th of December they met early without the radicals and dissolved themselves, handing power back to Cromwell. This was another one of his aims that he had not managed to achieve.
An alternative constitution, the Instrument of Government, had already been drawn up by John Lambert, an army officer. Under this Cromwell would become head of state with the title of Lord Protector. The title of King would have been acceptable to both Cromwell and Lambert as it offered an apperance oif greater legitimacy and continuity. However Cromwells loyalites were confused yet again as this title would not have been acceptable to the army, since it would appear to be a reversal of everything they had fought for. Cromwell ruled with a Council and a Parliament. Without a Council or Parliament, he could do very little, but equally the two were subservient to the Protector: Cromwell had the power to veto any legislation and dissolve Parliament after a set time, and the Council could not act without Cromwell’s approvaal. Cromwell was chosen because he held the highest position in the Army. The choice was not, as most people would expect, a foregone conclusion; it is possible that Lambert had a politician in mind for the position. There is also some evidence that Lambert would have liked the job himself. However he was of lower rank than Cromwell so Cromwell accepted the position with the hope that it might help him to achieve his aims for the country.
Cromwell accepted the position of Lord Protector in 1653 in an attempt to restore stable government with a traditional structure to England. In this particular move, his conservative aim took priority. However his other, more radical aim, was to continue with godly reform. The Nominated Assembly had failed to this successfully, while the Rump had also been seen as dangerously unprecedented form of government. The failure of these was what led to the establishment of the Protectorate and I think this is the guise that Cromwell was most able to achieve the objectives he wanted to most in.
So although in the late 17th century Cromwell was execerated as a ‘brave bad man’, it was admitted that he did achieve what he set out to do and ‘make his country great’. In the 18th century though he was considered a nauseating hypocrite, while the 19th century, under the influence of writer Thomas Carlyle, regarded him as a constitutional reformer who had destroyed the absolutism of Charles I. Modern critics are more discriminating. His beleif in God’s providence is analysed in psychological terms. Marxists blame him for betraying the cause of revolution by suppressing the radical movement in the amry and resisting the policy of the Levellers. On the whole he is regarded only in a very limited sense as a dictator, but rather as a patriotic ruler who restored political stability after the civil wars and contributed to the evolution of constitutional government and religious toleration.
