King' Oliver? (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
'King' Oliver?
Why was the offer of the crown to Cromwell made and rejected?
Parliamentary motivations for offering kingship
This was not the first occasion that kingship for Oliver had been suggested, but it marked the first time Parliament itself made the proposal. The offer responded logically to desires amongst the ruling class for a return to monarchy and civilian governance. As king, Cromwell would maintain control of armed forces whilst operating within a recognised legal framework acceptable to the nation.
Why not restore the Stuarts?
Kingship did not necessitate Stuart restoration. Suspicions remained about Charles and his sons' character and Catholic associations, whilst others feared a second Charles might seek vengeance against those who had opposed his father. These concerns made Cromwell appear as a safer alternative who could provide monarchical stability without the risks associated with Stuart restoration.
The Major-Generals' rule had intensified fears of military dictatorship, whilst the James Nayler incident emphasised the dangers posed by radical religious beliefs. Constitutional legitimacy for Cromwell's position might offer genuine prospects for stable government and lasting reconciliation.
Several contingencies in 1656-57 made monarchy appear necessary:
Underlying beliefs in 1649 included monarchy as the guarantee of stability, law and liberty, alongside:
- Dislike of army interference in politics and desire for civilian government
- Fear of radical religious groups threatening social hierarchy and order
- Failure of Rump and Barebones parliaments, demonstrating lack of stable government
Contingent factors 1656-57 comprised:
- The Major-Generals' rule increasing resentment of army influence
- The James Nayler incident highlighting the spread of Quakers and increased fear of radicals
- The Sindercombe Plot raising questions about who would follow Cromwell, as the Instrument of Government provided no clear succession mechanism
These factors combined to generate assumptions and underlying beliefs favouring monarchy, leading to awareness of the need for a new constitution and identifying Cromwell as a suitable candidate.
Cromwell's actions and the question of acceptance
Cromwell's own conduct during autumn and winter 1656-57 raised possibilities that he might accept the Crown. He was conscious of how arbitrary some governmental actions had been, recognising that if these could not be justified as furthering divine purpose, they could not continue.
Cromwell's Loss of Faith in the Major-Generals
In December, when Desborough proposed Parliament approve the Decimation Tax and confirm the Major-Generals' position, Cromwell failed to support him and the tax was rejected.
This refusal to defend the Major-Generals indicated Cromwell had lost faith in the army as God's instrument – a significant shift for someone who had previously viewed military rule as divinely ordained.
Cromwell also appeared disturbed by the arbitrary treatment of James Nayler and his own inability to restrain Parliament. Kingship, with the return of a second chamber in the House of Lords and clearer definition of his powers of intervention, might prevent such incidents in future.
The Humble Petition and Advice, 1657
Action was triggered in January 1657 when discovery of an assassination plot led by the Leveller Miles Sindercombe emphasised the lack of any accepted successor. By emphasising Cromwell's mortality, the plot raised questions about what would happen when he died. The Instrument of Government made no effective provision and the possibility of conflict between different army factions or renewed civil war between army and Royalist forces was genuine. A monarchy would solve the problem, since Cromwell had two healthy sons.
On 23 February 1657, London Alderman Sir Christopher Packe introduced a motion in Parliament proposing that Cromwell be offered the Crown, with a restored House of Lords consisting of his nominees to sit alongside the Commons. The proposal appealed to republicans and army officers seeking some constraints, and was debated for several weeks before being offered to the Protector in March 1657 as the Humble Petition and Advice – a constitutional proposal establishing effective constitutional monarchy with a two-chamber Parliament, clear limits on royal power, great officers of state approved by Parliament, army reduction, and new restrictions on religious toleration.
Royalist reactions divided. Some were enthusiastic, believing this represented a first step towards Stuart restoration. Others were dismayed. Clarendon, in exile with Charles Stuart, observed:
'The more sober persons of the King's party ... believed that ... much of that affection that appeared under the notion of allegiance to the King was more directed to the monarchy than to the person, and if Cromwell were once made King, and so the government ran again in the old channel ... he would receive abundant reparation of strength by the access of those who preferred monarchy, and which probably would reconcile most men of estates to an absolute acquiescence.'
This observation reveals a crucial insight: loyalty to monarchy as an institution might outweigh loyalty to the Stuart dynasty specifically, making Cromwell's acceptance of the crown a genuine threat to Stuart restoration hopes.
Cromwell's agonised response and eventual rejection
Cromwell was required to accept. Instead, he agonised. On 7 March he received a petition signed by 100 army officers opposing the notion of restoring monarchy. He pointed out to them that a settlement was needed, that arbitrary proceedings must end. Privately, he consulted his closest associates and sought to persuade them that the plan offered the best solution to their problems, but was disturbed by their continued opposition.
Finally, in April 1657, he rejected the title of 'King', but accepted a revised Petition in May, in which the title was changed to that of 'Lord Protector for life', with the right to nominate his successor. He was crowned with many of the trappings of royalty in June 1657.
This compromise satisfied neither monarchists who wanted a true king nor republicans who opposed any form of hereditary rule.
The Second Protectorate and its outcomes
The new proposals established effective constitutional monarchy with a two-chamber Parliament, clear limits on royal power, great officers of state approved by Parliament, army reduction, and new restrictions on religious toleration.
Like most compromises, the second Protectorate satisfied few involved. Many of the older republicans remained suspicious of the new regime and John Lambert resigned from the Council of State. The new House of Lords was established, with many of Cromwell's supporters transferred to it, and the excluded republicans were allowed to take their seats in the Commons.
Since they had lost neither their hostility to the regime nor their skill in using parliamentary procedures to delay business, the second session of Parliament ended in chaos and frustration for the Protector. In February 1658, he finally dissolved it, though financial pressures would likely have forced him to call another had he lived.
Ironically, summer 1658 saw numerous loyal addresses sent from the counties to the Protector. It was widely rumoured that a new Parliament would repeat the offer and that this time Cromwell might accept. The opportunity never arose. By September 1658, Cromwell was dead, worn out by time (he was 59 years old) and effort. He died on 3 September, the anniversary of his victories at Dunbar and Worcester.
Richard Cromwell's Brief Succession
In the last week of his life he nominated his elder son, Richard, to succeed him. Although Richard, a country squire of moderate Presbyterian views, was greeted with some enthusiasm by the ruling elite, his lack of political experience and inability to control the army led to his resignation in May 1659.
With his demise, the regime turned full circle as the Rump of 1649 returned to power and proclaimed the restoration of the Commonwealth.
Interpretations: assessing Cromwell's effectiveness as a ruler
Historians have offered varied assessments of Cromwell's effectiveness during the Protectorate years 1653-58.
Barry Coward's Interpretation: Success Through Acceptance
Barry Coward argues in The Stuart Age: England 1603-1714 (Longman, 1997) that hindsight can be both blessing and curse for historians. Knowledge that the Protectorate ended shortly after 1660 with monarchical restoration has caused some historians to overemphasise opposition to the republic, leading to assumptions that Cromwell's rule was a failure.
This represents a misleading interpretation of the Protectorate between 1653 and 1658. England in the 1650s was not a country seething with grievability against Cromwell. Was Cromwell's rule a success? If success is measured by full realisation of Cromwell's own ambitions and enthusiastic support throughout the country, then the answer is definitely 'no'.
However, the Protectorate's success should be judged by the extent to which it was accepted by England's traditional ruling elites. A different answer can be given. When Oliver Cromwell died in September 1658, not only was there no sign of any demand for restoration of the Stuarts, the Protectorate had succeeded in becoming accepted by many as a regime that promised stability and security.
John Morrill's Interpretation: Religious Zeal vs. Political Pragmatism
John Morrill writes in 'The Stuarts' in The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain (K.O. Morgan ed., Oxford University Press, 1993) that if Cromwell had settled for acquiescence and a minimum level of political acceptance, he could have established a secure and lasting regime. But he yearned for commitment and zeal, for a nation more responsive to the things of God, more willing to obey His commands.
This religious radicalism went along with social conservatism. By executing Charles I, Cromwell cut himself off from justifications of political authority rooted in the past; by acknowledging that a free vote of those who held the franchise would restore the king (that is, by refusing to base his authority on consent), Cromwell cut himself off from arguments of the present.
His self-justification lay in the future, in the belief that he was fulfilling God's Will. A unique blend of country gentleman and professional soldier, of religious radical and social conservative, of charismatic personal presence and insufferable self-righteousness, he was at once the only source of stability and the ultimate source of instability in the regimes that he ran. If he could have settled for settlement he could have established a prudent republic; if he had not had a fire in his belly to change the world, he would never have risen from sheep farmer to be head of state.
Robert Ellis's Interpretation: Pragmatic Achievement Amid Enormous Challenges
Robert Ellis argues in People, Power and Politics: Was there a Mid-Seventeenth century Revolution? (Stanley Thornes, 1992) that although Cromwell's rule was not an unqualified success, the problems he faced were enormous, and it is doubtful if anyone else could have coped with them as well as he did.
By any standards except his own, Cromwell's achievements were remarkable. Although he did not succeed in attracting wide support for the Protectorate, few opposed it openly, mainly because it provided peace, prosperity and a higher level of prestige in Europe than England had enjoyed for many centuries.
He failed to provide the country with a system of government stable enough to survive without him, but during his life he was able to prevent the conflicting aims of parliament, the army and the religious sects from tearing the Protectorate apart. He was not a deep political thinker, and major constitutional changes were the work of Ireton, Lambert and Broghill among others, rather than Cromwell.
However, it was his pragmatic political skills and his unique ability to command support from both military and civilian quarters that made these changes work. In religion his demands for liberty of conscience were ahead of their time, and whilst the religious, social and legal reforms he sought to achieve ultimately came to nothing, they display a deep concern for the spiritual and physical well-being of others.
Comparing the Interpretations
These interpretations reveal different emphases:
- Coward stresses that success should be measured by acceptance rather than enthusiasm
- Morrill emphasises Cromwell's inability to settle for pragmatic acquiescence because of his religious zeal
- Ellis highlights Cromwell's pragmatic political skills and achievements in maintaining stability despite enormous challenges
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
The 1656 elections demonstrated widespread resentment of military rule under the Major-Generals, prompting Parliament to seek a return to more traditional constitutional forms.
-
Parliament offered Cromwell the crown through the Humble Petition and Advice in March 1657, motivated by desires for stability, clear succession, and constraints on army and radical influence.
-
Cromwell agonised over the offer but ultimately rejected the title 'King' in April 1657, accepting instead 'Lord Protector for life' with the right to nominate his successor.
-
The Second Protectorate (1657-58) satisfied few, with republicans regaining seats and using parliamentary procedures to frustrate government, leading to dissolution in February 1658.
-
Historians debate Cromwell's effectiveness: some emphasise his success in achieving acceptance and stability; others stress his failure to create lasting institutions or achieve his religious goals; most acknowledge his remarkable political skills in managing competing factions.