‘Neither Cromwell, as Lord Protector in the years 1653 to 1658, nor Charles II, as King in the years 1660 to 1678, provided stability in England.’ Assess the validity of this view.
Level
A Level
Year Examined
2022
Topic
Stuart Britain
👑Complete Model Essay
‘Neither Cromwell, as Lord Protector in the years 1653 to 1658, nor Charles II, as King in the years 1660 to 1678, provided stability in England.’ Assess the validity of this view.
Neither Cromwell nor Charles II Provided Stability in England: An Analysis
The assertion that neither Oliver Cromwell, as Lord Protector (1653-1658), nor Charles II, as King (1660-1678), provided stability in England holds both truth and fallacy. While both leaders faced considerable challenges in navigating the tumultuous post-Civil War landscape, their approaches and achievements in maintaining stability varied significantly. This essay will analyze the validity of this view by examining the key arguments presented.
Cromwell's Protectorate: A Period of Unrest?
Cromwell's reign, though marked by relative peace compared to the preceding civil wars, was undeniably fraught with political and religious tensions. His inability to secure a lasting parliamentary settlement is a prime example. The dissolution of the First Protectorate Parliament in 1655 and the divisions within the Second highlight his struggles in establishing a stable political order. Furthermore, the reliance on Major-Generals (1655-1656) to quell royalist unrest, while effective in the short term, demonstrated the underlying fragility of his regime and fueled further political discontent.
Religiously, Cromwell's pursuit of a "godly reformation" proved equally divisive. While his Protectorate church aimed for inclusivity, encompassing most moderate Protestants, it failed to quell the rise of more radical sects like the Quakers, who challenged the established order. This lack of a clear religious settlement contributed to an atmosphere of unease and potential instability.
Charles II: Pragmatism and Persistent Issues
Charles II, inheriting a nation scarred by revolution and instability, adopted a more pragmatic approach to governance. However, his reign, often romanticized as the 'Restoration', was far from stable. While Charles sought to heal the wounds of the past, fundamental issues like finance and religion, left unaddressed by the Restoration Settlement, continued to plague his rule. The financial strain of the Dutch Wars, coupled with the persistent divide between Anglicans and Dissenters, exemplified these simmering tensions.
Furthermore, Charles' relationship with Parliament was often strained. Clashes over religion in 1662 and 1673, coupled with parliamentary anxieties regarding his foreign policy and distrust of his ministers, particularly the Cabal and Danby, demonstrate the inherent instability of his position.
Challenges to the View: Seeking Stability Amidst Turmoil
Conversely, arguing that neither ruler provided stability ignores the broader context. Cromwell inherited a nation shattered by civil war. His Protectorate, though imperfect, offered a semblance of order and unity compared to the chaos of the Rump Parliament. The Instrument of Government, though short-lived, attempted to establish a constitutional framework for governance. Similarly, Cromwell's acceptance of the Humble Petition and Advice, albeit reluctantly, signified his willingness to compromise and move towards a more traditional system, potentially placating some of his critics.
Charles II, despite facing significant challenges, displayed a pragmatic approach to maintain his authority and, by extension, a degree of stability. His acceptance of the Clarendon Code and the Test Act, though showcasing his preference for Anglicanism, were strategic concessions to appease Parliament and solidify his position. By sacrificing individuals like Clarendon and utilizing advisors like the Cabal, Charles prioritized the stability of his rule above all else.
Conclusion: A Legacy of Compromise and Unresolved Tensions
Ultimately, the view that neither Cromwell nor Charles II provided stability requires nuance. Both inherited a nation grappling with deep-seated religious and political divisions. While both leaders experienced periods of unrest and struggled to establish lasting solutions to these fundamental problems, they also enacted measures to maintain a degree of order and prevent a return to the chaos of the Civil War.
Cromwell's Protectorate, though marked by its own brand of instability, offered a period of relative peace and attempted to forge a new political settlement. Charles II's reign, though characterized by ongoing religious and financial tensions and a complex relationship with Parliament, saw a return to a more traditional form of monarchy. Neither ruler achieved absolute stability, but their reigns, within the turbulent context of the 17th century, represent a period of fragile equilibrium. The legacy of this era is not one of complete instability but rather of compromise, adaptation, and the deferral of fundamental issues that would continue to shape English politics for decades to come.
Note: History Study Pack Required
Score Big with Perfectly Structured History Essays!
Prepare effortlessly for your A/AS/O-Level exams with our comprehensive...
History Study Pack.
✅ 1200+ Model Essays: Master your essay writing with expertly crafted answers to past paper questions.
✅ Exam Boards Covered: Tailored materials for AQA, Cambridge, and OCR exams.
🍃 Free Essay Plan
Essay Outline: Neither Cromwell nor Charles II Provided Stability in England
This essay will assess the validity of the claim that neither Cromwell, as Lord Protector from 1653 to 1658, nor Charles II, as King from 1660 to 1678, provided stability in England. It will analyze arguments supporting and challenging this view, exploring the complexities of their respective reigns and the extent to which they managed to achieve a stable political, religious, and financial environment.
Arguments Supporting Instability
Cromwell’s Protectorate:
⭐Lack of Parliamentary Settlement: Cromwell’s frequent dissolutions of Parliament, culminating in the establishment of the Second Protectorate, highlight the deep-seated political divisions that prevented a lasting settlement. This instability further intensified when Cromwell attempted to establish a new republican constitution, further alienating those who favored a monarchy.
⭐Major-Generals: The use of Major-Generals in 1655-56 demonstrates Cromwell’s attempts to suppress royalist unrest, but ultimately exacerbated political tensions and led to further instability. The election of September 1656, which saw a rise in opposition, illustrates the consequences of this approach.
⭐Religious Tensions: Cromwell’s quest for a godly reformation led to a lack of clear religious settlement, creating ongoing tension between Parliament, the localities, and the Political Nation. This religious instability contributed to the broader political instability of his reign.
Charles II’s Restoration:
⭐Unresolved Structural Issues: Charles II failed to address fundamental issues of finance and religion through the Restoration Settlement. These issues persisted throughout his reign, as manifested in the Dutch Wars and the ongoing division between Anglicans and Dissenters.
⭐Tensions with Parliament: Charles II’s inability to establish a consistent working relationship with Parliament, marked by clashes over religion in 1662 and 1673, demonstrates the continuing instability of his reign. Parliament’s concerns about foreign policy and distrust of ministers like the Cabal and Danby further exacerbated these tensions.
Arguments Challenging Instability
Cromwell’s Protectorate:
⭐Relative Stability: Compared to the chaotic period of the regicide and the Rump Parliament, Cromwell’s Protectorate established a more stable political regime underpinned by the Instrument of Government.
⭐Religious Toleration: Cromwell’s Protectorate church was broad enough to encompass most moderate Protestants, suggesting religious stability. Only the emergence of extreme groups, such as the Quakers, posed a real threat to this stability.
⭐Conservative Shift: Cromwell’s acceptance of the Humble Petition and Advice aligned the regime more closely with the conservative Political Nation, potentially increasing political stability.
Charles II’s Restoration:
⭐Pragmatic Approach: Charles II’s pragmatic approach to ruling involved managing divisions with Parliament, leading to short-term, limited instability. This can be seen in his acceptance of the Clarendon Code and the Test Act.
⭐Maintaining Authority: Charles II’s use of ministers, such as his sacrifice of Clarendon or the use of the Cabal, aimed to strengthen his authority and maintain stability, even if it came at the cost of political discord.
Conclusion
In the context of the tumultuous Civil War and revolution, both Cromwell and Charles II brought a measure of stability to England through their strong and pragmatic approaches to ruling. Nevertheless, fundamental issues like finance, religion, and relations with the Political Nation remained unresolved, creating ongoing tensions throughout their reigns. While some may argue that their success was limited, viewing their achievements within the broader context of the Stuart century underscores their importance in stabilizing the nation after the upheaval of the 1640s. While both rulers faced challenges and experienced periods of instability, their reigns ultimately provided a degree of order and continuity that allowed England to move forward.
Note:This outline provides a framework for your essay. You should expand on these points with specific historical evidence, analysis, and connections to relevant debates. Remember to reach a clear and well-supported conclusion.
Extracts from Mark Schemes
Arguments Supporting the View of Instability
Arguments supporting the view that neither Cromwell, as Lord Protector in the years 1653 to 1658, nor Charles II, as King in the years 1660 to 1678, provided stability in England might include:
⭐Cromwell’s inability to secure a Parliamentary settlement, as illustrated by the dissolution of 22 January 1655 of the First Protectorate Parliament and the political divisions in the Second Protectorate Parliament, are illustrative of the lack of political stability.
⭐The use of the Major-Generals by Cromwell in 1655–56 was in reaction to royalist unrest and provoked further political problems reflected in the election of September 1656.
⭐Cromwell’s search for a godly reformation led to a lack of clear religious settlement and tensions in Parliament and in the localities with the Political Nation.
⭐Charles II failed to deal with the structural issues of finance and religion through the Restoration Settlement and they remained sources of instability through his reign, as shown by the impact of the Dutch Wars or division between Anglicans and Dissenters.
⭐Charles II failed to establish a consistent working relationship with Parliament, as shown by the 1662 and 1673 clashes over religion, concern by Parliament at foreign policy or distrust of his ministers, especially the Cabal and Danby.
Arguments Challenging the View of Instability
Arguments challenging the view that neither Cromwell, as Lord Protector in the years 1653 to 1658, nor Charles II, as King in the years 1660 to 1678, provided stability in England might include:
⭐In the context of the regicide and the Rump Parliament, Cromwell’s Protectorate brought a more stable political regime underpinned by the Instrument of Government.
⭐Cromwell’s Protectorate church was broad and loose enough to encompass most moderate Protestants and only the development of extremists, notably the Quakers, were a real source of religious instability.
⭐Cromwell’s acceptance of the Humble Petition and Advice moved the regime more in line with more of the conservative Political Nation.
⭐Charles II’s pragmatic approach to ruling meant that division with Parliament was managed so that instability was short term and limited and this can be seen by his acceptance of the Clarendon Code or the Test Act.
⭐Charles’ use of ministers allowed him to maintain the stability of his own authority which was his primary aim. This can be seen in his sacrificing of Clarendon or policy of using the Cabal to strengthen his authority.
Conclusion
In the context of the Civil War and revolution both rulers can be seen as bringing more stability to England through their strong and pragmatic approach to ruling. While some fundamental issues remained with regard to finance, religion and relations with the Political Nation, the approach of both meant that they managed the tensions these brought during their reign without solving them. Some may question the success of either ruler by referencing the political instability of 1658 to 1660 or 1678 to 1681. Others could set their success with regard to the structural issues of religion, finance and Parliament in the context of the Stuart century and lack of real resolution until after 1688. Students are not expected to make a direct comparison between the two rulers but any valid comment made can be rewarded appropriately.