2E - Oliver Cromwell and the Protectorate: Cromwell’s personality and approach to government and his refusal of the Crown
The Protectorate attempted to combine a strong executive, representative government and godly reform. Explore how Cromwell balanced these aims, why he refused the Crown, and how disputes over religion, military government and succession exposed the limits of his settlement.
Cromwell's beliefs and political choices
Cromwell's approach to government combined intense religious conviction with a willingness to adapt institutions. He believed that God's providence, or direction of events, could be discerned through victory and opportunity. The army's successes helped persuade him that the cause deserved protection and that rulers should undertake godly reform. This did not give him a complete constitution in advance: he moved between negotiations with Charles, republican government, the Nominated Assembly and the Protectorate.
He wanted to protect sincere Protestant believers whose worship differed, while preserving order and a competent national ministry. He also defended property and feared political schemes that could disrupt society. These commitments explain why he could encourage reform yet resist both Leveller constitutional demands and some of the Saints' proposed changes. Toleration and social conservatism could coexist.
His experience as a commander encouraged practical action when institutions seemed unable to secure peace. The same habit created a contradiction. If armed intervention repeatedly removed institutions that resisted reform, civilians had reason to doubt the government's promise of lawful restraint. Cromwell's personal authority could mediate between officers, MPs and religious groups, but mediation depended heavily on his own judgement. The Cromwell Museum's account of his Protectorate outlines these changing attempts to find a settlement.
The written constitution and Parliament
The Instrument of Government established Cromwell as Lord Protector on 16 December 1653. It provided for a Protector, a Council and regular Parliaments, with representation from England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland. The arrangement sought to restrain arbitrary government by distributing authority. It was also founded on the army's intervention and guaranteed resources for a substantial standing force, making military security part of the constitution.
The Protector held executive authority with the Council rather than an unrestricted right to govern alone. Parliament would legislate and control additional taxation, while the constitution protected its basic framework from ordinary alteration. The county franchise depended on a substantial property qualification; Royalists and Catholics were excluded under specified provisions. Representative government therefore remained restricted and secured against groups considered hostile to the regime. The contemporary Instrument defines the intended structure.
The First Protectorate Parliament, meeting in September 1654, challenged the constitutional settlement instead of simply approving the government's proposals. Cromwell required members to recognise the fundamentals and dissolved the assembly in January 1655. He treated its protected five-month term as complete by counting lunar months, a contested reckoning that ended it earlier than five calendar months. He believed MPs were endangering stability; critics saw another failure to tolerate representative disagreement and questioned the dissolution's legality.
The Second Protectorate Parliament met in September 1656 after opponents were excluded from sitting. It challenged military government and offered a different constitutional route through the Humble Petition and Advice. The dispute was not whether Parliament should exist, but whether it could genuinely determine government while the Protector and army protected rules they regarded as essential. Parliament's history of the Protectorate assemblies explains the repeated conflict.
The Major Generals and local government
The Penruddock Royalist rising of March 1655 increased fears that opponents were preparing renewed disorder. Cromwell and the Council established regional supervision by Major Generals later that year. These officers organised militia, monitored suspects and sought cooperation from local magistrates. The aim was security at a lower cost than maintaining the same number of regular troops everywhere.
The decimation tax imposed a ten per cent levy on specified Royalists' incomes to finance mounted militia. Its logic was that former supporters of the king should pay for protection against a threat associated with their cause. Opponents objected that it punished people whose earlier political conduct had already been settled and imposed a new burden without normal parliamentary authorisation.
Major Generals also encouraged moral reformation, including action against drunkenness and other conduct they associated with ungodliness. Their effectiveness depended on local officials, resources and willingness to cooperate. They did not replace every civil institution or govern every district identically. Nevertheless, they made the regime's military presence visible in everyday local affairs and linked godly reform to intrusive supervision.
In early 1657 Parliament rejected the militia bill intended to continue the financial arrangements supporting the system. This undermined the experiment and encouraged a return towards civilian constitutional government. The failure illustrates a difference between suppressing a rising and securing consent for permanent administration. Military officers could improve surveillance without persuading property holders and MPs to accept their authority. The Cromwell Association's study of the Major Generals develops their limited resources and contested authority.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account