The
execution of a King, Civil War and invasion were just a few of the seismic
events that gripped England during the 17th century. There is no
doubt that this period was fraught with change, power struggles and violence
but the first question that arises in one’s mind is one of definition: what is
a revolution?
A revolution is the forcible removal
of the existing establishment creating a new system to replace it. One of the
most well known examples in the 20th century is in Russia with the
removal of the Tsar in favour of a new communist regime. Therefore, this is the
yardstick against which we shall measure events in England during this era to
discover whether there was any sort of revolution.
On
the face of it, the execution of Charles I on the 30th January 1649
alongside the declaration of a Republic less than two months later could mean
nothing else but an ‘English Revolution’. The Imperial Crown had been destroyed
after a vicious Civil War lasting over 7 years that had left Oliver Cromwell as
Lord Protector. However, had much actually changed?
Cromwell summoned the Rump
Parliament, in accordance with the Constitution, only to dissolve it on the 20th
April 1653 following attacks on his control of the army and income. This was very
reminiscent of actions of Charles I in May 1640 where he dissolved the Short
Parliament after less than a month. Like Cromwell, it was a response to a
scathing attack on the governing regime, in this case from John Pym, listing a
series of grievances, both religious and political[1].
He was making up for lost time since Charles had not recalled Parliament for 11
years (Personal Rule).
Moreover, Cromwell levied taxes
without Parliament’s consent putting the ‘decimation tax’ into force where all
ex-royalists paid a 10% income tax to the governors of their region (major
generals) of which there were 11 in total appointed in 1655. The manner in
which Cromwell put this tax into being was very similar to implementation of
ship money[2]
under Charles I. Ship money was usually a levy for port towns to strengthen the
navy during war. However Charles I extended it inland and during peacetime in
1634 earning him over £200,000[3].
Both the ‘decimation’ and ship money were levied directly by the head of state
without the need for Parliament and their constitutional legality was also
dubious.
Overall, therefore, Charles I and
Oliver Cromwell acted very similarly during their respective stints in power.
They both dissolved Parliament in irritation and levied different forms of
taxes without Parliamentary consent. Their only difference was their title:
Charles was King and Oliver Cromwell was named Lord Protector. In fact,
Cromwell had slightly more power and dominance in England than Charles himself,
since the powers of the Lord Protector were not really known, as it was a new
office. The Protectorate title was even hereditary as Cromwell’s son, Richard,
was proclaimed Lord Protector[4]
after the death of his father on the 3rd September 1658,
highlighting the lack of change that had occurred.
Parliament had sought to limit the Royal Supremacy in an
attempt to shift the balance of power towards Parliament and away from the
monarch. However, it had achieved the opposite effect, losing power and
influence to Cromwell who still had the loyalty of the army. Even though,
Cromwell did turn down the Crown in 1657 under the Humble Petition[5],
his instillation ceremony as Lord Protector was strikingly similar to that of a
monarch because he wore grand clothes whilst carrying a golden spectre amid
cries of “God save the Lord Protector”[6].
He was addressed “your Highness” and had the right to even reward supporters
with knighthoods. Oliver Cromwell was very much King in all but name. Therefore,
it is fair to say that nothing had changed in England at all since the
established form of Government had been replaced by effectively the same regime
just in a different guise. The English Civil War did not culminate in any kind
of revolution and the restoration of the Stuart succession just returned
England to its natural state. The country still felt a monarch should rule them
especially as it seemed the most effective way of restoring order and authority
in England after the death of Cromwell. By May 1660, both Houses proclaimed
Charles II as King who was crowned on 23rd April 1661 amid scenes of
popular joy.
In addition, there was no revolution in the ideals and
principles of the vast majority of the population as there was still a strong
belief in the Divine Right of Kings with over 90,000[7]
people going to be touched by Charles II as they were convinced the King’s
touch could cure disease. Politically, the electorate remained overwhelmingly
in favour of the monarchy demonstrated by the results of Charles’s first Parliamentary
elections. Ex-Royalists were returned in very large numbers to the ‘Cavalier
Parliament’ with its first session on 8th May 1661. Moreover, the
conservative tone of the nation is shown by the hostility and enormous distrust
towards Republicanism. Lord Chancellor Clarendon in 1662[8]
warned ‘There is an enemy amongst us…towards we cannot be too
vigilant…Republicans and Commonwealth’s Men’. The series of events that left
Oliver Cromwell in power cannot possibly be seen as an’ English Revolution’
since little changed in terms of the governing of the nation but also the
English population remained passionate supporters of the monarchy rejecting a
Republic.
The
turmoil in England did not stop after the restoration of the monarchy and
Charles II’s position in the line of succession. James II, Charles’s brother,
came to the throne in 1685 but his chaotic reign lasted only three years, ended
by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 with the invasion of William of Orange, his
brother-in-law. However, is a Revolution an accurate description for the events
that unfolded in late 17th century?
The combination of James’s disregard
of the Test Acts[9]
and the Declaration of Indulgence[10]
of 1687 infuriated both the King’s enemies but also alienated his most fervent
supporters, the Tories. The Tories had supported the James during the Exclusion
Crisis[11];
however, this relationship was weakened since the Tories believed in the
complete protection and preservation of the Protestant Church, which was at
odds with what James was trying to achieve.
Moreover, many recalled the problems caused by Charles I’s
attempts to re-catholicize the Church, especially in Scotland where the
Covenanters wrestled power out of Charles’s hands. The vast majority of the
population didn’t want a repeat of the events that had culminated in the Civil
War to preserve stability and the Protestant Church. The birth of James II’s
first son, James Francis[12],
on 10th June 1688, was the last straw for opponents of the King. Now
they were convinced that drastic action was needed. On the 30th June
1688, a group of 4 Whigs and 3 Tories[13]
sent an invitation to William of Orange, husband of Mary (James’s daughter), to
invade. William did so, as he supposedly believed James Francis was not a
legitimate heir to the throne, landing on the 5th November 1688 and
six weeks later he had control of London since James fled[14]
late in December. Already one could argue that it fails to fit the label of a
revolution since James had not been forcibly removed, as there had not been one
shot fired over the course of this invasion. However, even though there had
been no overt violence, James fled because of his fear of open conflict and
possibly eventually his life therefore he was effectively forced out by
William’s mere presence.
William and Mary were declared joint King and Queen as to
maintain the line of Stuart succession to appease the Tories and to please
William who clearly wanted the throne when he had invested a lot of men and
resources into this campaign even though they had never been fully utilised. The
monarchy was kept therefore surely it is very hard to argue that this was a
revolution at all?
The Glorious Revolution was a coup d’état in the form of an invasion, since Mary had effectively
deposed her father, James II, and overtaken her brother, James Francis, in the
line of succession using her husband, William, and his Dutch army. This
highlights that not only it wasn’t a revolution but also it was most definitely
not an English one since the people that forced through this change of the Head
of State were foreign and one of the main beneficiaries was in fact Dutch.
However, there were some changes to the constitution and
therefore the way the country was run. These came in the form of The Bill of
Rights passed by Parliament on 16th December 1689 but are these
modifications enough to regard 1688 to 1689 as a revolutionary period in
England?
The Bill of Rights took power away from the monarch and
increased the power of Parliament. There could no longer be taxation by Royal
Prerogative (seen during the reign of Charles I and Protectorship of Cromwell)
and there could be no more royal interference with the law (passing laws via
the judiciary and without Parliament’s consent), which Charles I and James II
had used to circumvent Parliament’s will. Parliament even barred any Catholic
from coming to the throne and forced the monarch to take a coronation oath,
swearing to protect inviolably the Protestant Church of England. This meant
that Parliament was now involved in the succession as it had set out the
conditions that must be met in order to become King or Queen. The principle of
Royal Supremacy, where England should have the same religion as its monarch,
had also been completely reversed. Moreover, Parliament had curbed the powers
of the monarchy elevating both the Commons and Lords to almost the same level
as the King, in terms of power, especially since the monarch could not
interfere in Parliamentary elections. These three separate bodies would rule
together thus establishing a new system: the Constitutional Monarchy[15].
Even though, the monarchy was maintained, it now had a very different tone and
role within Government. The combination of William’s invasion and the Bill of
Rights was certainly an ‘English Revolution’ since the former forcibly removed
the previous regime and the latter created a new English system of rule.
Although, William’s Dutch invasion of England on its own wasn’t enough to
warrant the title of an ‘English Revolution’, when considered alongside the
Declaration of Rights, it most certainly does seem to be a Revolution because
William gave Parliament the opportunity to reform the Constitution since he
removed its largest obstacle, King James II.
Unlike the Civil War, it was also a revolution in the minds
of the English since this version of the Constitution was seen as the
incontestable solution to the great Constitutional question and was preserved
intact until the Great Reform Act of 1832[16].
In
conclusion, the English Civil War culminating in a Republic under Oliver
Cromwell, in theory, was clearly an ‘English Revolution’. However, in practice
nothing had changed as Cromwell ruled in an absolute fashion, which was almost
identical to Charles I’s reign. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was coup in the
form of an invasion but it created the conditions for Parliament to be able to
change the balance of power between itself and the monarchy. It transformed an
absolutist regime into a constitutional monarchy where an English Parliament
limited the powers of the English monarchy; therefore there was an ‘English
Revolution’ in the seventeenth century.
Bibliography
·
David Starkey, Crown & Country: The Kings & Queens of England (2010)
·
Christopher Durston, Cromwell’s Major-Generals (2001)
·
British Civil Wars, Commonwealth &
Protectorate 1638-1660 (bcw-project.org)
·
Roy Sherwood, Oliver Cromwell: King in all but name, 1653-1658 (1997)
·
J. R. Jones, The Revolution of 1688 in England
·
Geoffrey Holmes, The Making Of A Great Power
·
John Cannon, Parliamentary Reform 1640-1832
[1] Pym stated the
Commons would grant no subsidies unless national grievances addressed and
created special committees to investigate complaints against King during the
Personal Rule.
[2] Charles was helped by a dedicated team of brilliant
lawyers led by the Attorney-General William Noy so he used the judiciary to
pass the laws he wanted without the need of Parliament.
[4] Oliver Cromwell only named a successor on his
deathbed, as he was fearful the army would be angered since they would have
fought just for a change in the line of succession.
[9] James wanted Test Acts removed as he felt it was
unfair that loyal officers (141 Catholic officers in December 1685) would lose
their jobs after important service during a time of crisis (The Making Of A Great Power).
[10] Granted religious freedom and tolerance but opposed
greatly as it weakened the position of the Church of England and James had
effectively suspended laws passed by Parliament.
[11] James had refused to take the oaths under the new
Test Acts of 1673 to remain as Lord Admiral showing he was Catholic causing a
debate over whether he should be King creating the Whigs (pro-exclusion), led
by the Earl of Shaftesbury, and the Tories.
[12] James had married the Catholic Mary of Modena after
the death of his first wife Anne Hyde in 1671.
[13] Known as the
Immortal Seven: The Revolution of 1688
in England By J. R. Jones
[14] Richard Hampden
put forward an innovation which stated that James II had in a way abdicated by
fleeing since he had broken his contract with his citizens to protect and rule
them. The Tory dominated Lords finally accepted this constitutional change (Crown & Country)
[16] Even after 1832, some people, in particular
Ultra-Tories, still believed that the Settlement, which occurred as a result
of the Glorious Revolution, was the only legitimate Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment