June 2012 Flashcards
(3 cards)
‘Religion was more important than politics in the failure of the Interregnum regimes of 1649 to 1660.’ Assess the validity of this view. (45 marks)
Students will need to assess/identify and evaluate/explain religion as a cause of failure and balance this against other factors, particularly politics. They may also argue that the regime, in the context of 1649, achieved a lot. To balance against ‘failure’ they may point out other reasons that may be linked to religion and politics, like the role of Cromwell or economics.
Students may refer to some of the following material in support of religion:
• breakdown of national church led to religious and political instability
• development of radical religious groups, such as the Quakers, Baptists, Fifth Monarchists, Ranters and Muggletonians. As well as having their own conflicting religious and political agendas they provoked a conservative reaction against the
Interregnum regimes that increasingly developed over the period
• the Nayler Crisis
This crisis can be seen to personify the internal divisions within the regime and reinforce the distrust of the regime by the gentry. As well as highlighting the potential threat of the radical Quaker movement the debates on what to do with Nayler sparked a political crisis that brought to a head the political tensions between the military and civilian Cromwellians in relation to the Instrument of the Government and offer of ‘kingship’. It exemplifies religion as politics in the period.
• the Quaker fear post–1658. This may be linked to the tension between Lambert and Monck.
The apparent increasing threat of the Quakers sparked a conservative reaction that was willing to countenance a return of the monarchy in the wider context of the death of Cromwell, economic collapse and the internal political divisions of the regime. Monck’s paranoid fear of the Quakers could be seen as part of this.
Nevertheless, there are a number of other factors to consider:
• political instability within the regimes
The continuing division between Parliament and army, as well as between civilian and military Cromwellians. It can also be seen in the role of Republicans or changes of regimes in the period.
• economic problems
With war and occupation of Ireland and Scotland throughout the period the regime struggled to finance its needs. The tax needed to support the New Model Army further alienated the gentry and thus economic problems were a real political issue, made worse by harvest failures 1658–60.
• lack of acceptance by the gentry
the regime was always equated with the regicide, the army, religious radicalism and, post–1658, instability. The shift to more conservative regimes like the Protectorate or through ‘kingship’ never won over the ‘political nation’.
Furthermore, students may:
• consider the role of Cromwell
They may address his role as someone who could keep the different branches of the regimes together but also a source of tension as an ‘ideological schizophrenic’, torn between religious radicalism and political conservatism.
• consider the role of Charles Stuart
Charles was portrayed as constitutional royalist, especially post–1658, and was therefore able to take advantage of a conservative reaction against the regime.
His link with Monck in 1659–60 was crucial in bringing the ultimate failure of the Interregnum regimes.
In conclusion, students may:
• show the link between the factors, i.e. religion was politics in the seventeenth century, this was most vividly illustrated by the Nayler Crisis of 1656–7 which some may see as a turning point for the regimes in that it brought the political and religious divisions very much to a head
• illustrate how the sources of instability led to a growing conservative reaction. Some students may put this in the context of the ongoing development of constitutional royalism or attitudes of the younger generation, especially in London, to the regime. Many will stress how this became worse after Cromwell’s ability to act as a ‘coalition manager’ between radicals and conservatives was removed by his death in 1658
• some may comment on the tension between Lambert and Monck in 1658–60 as illustrative of the linked religious and political divisions within the regime that ultimately allowed Charles Stuart to come back to restore order for a grateful gentry.
‘Clarendon was dismissed in 1667 because his policies had failed.’ (45 marks)
Students will need to assess/identify and evaluate/explain failure and balance this against success. They may also do this in the context of how Charles secured the throne and his principal aim of retaining it.
Students may refer to some of the following material in assessing the failings of Clarendon:
• failure of religious settlement. Called the Clarendon Code and alienated many.
The failure to broaden the church and incorporate groups like moderate Presbyterians
• financial problems can be linked to Clarendon’s failure to secure the kind of settlement he and Charles wanted.
The limits of the financial settlement with parliament, £1.2 million a year too limited
• failure of foreign policy,
humiliation by the Dutch, selling of Dunkirk for £300 000.
All the above can be considered in the context of Clarendon’s responsibility as Chief Minister.
Nevertheless, there are a number of other factors to consider in relation to Clarendon’s successes:
• resolution of immediate Restoration issues
Students may, in particular, consider dealing with the complex issues of the New Model Army and the land settlement, as well as the constitutional arrangements of the Restoration. Charles was restored with very few limits, due to the work of Clarendon
• support of the Cavalier Parliament from 1662
Parliamentary support for finance and the religious settlement among Anglican conservative gentry
• failure of republicanism
The practical failure of opposition to the Restoration, for example Venner’s Rising, the defeatist providential attitude of many republicans, like Milton. Failure of Lambert’s Rising. Example made of Harrison in October 1660
• Clarendon had actually tried to prevent a war with the Dutch. He, pragmatically, raised £300 000 by selling Dunkirk which cost so much to maintain
• he was unaware of his daughter’s marriage and would have opposed it
• he had negotiated Charles’ marriage with the support of the Privy Council and it was
only subsequently deemed a failure because of the lack of an heir
• Clarendon worked tirelessly to secure the restoration settlement for Charles
• although labelled the Clarendon Code Clarendon had wanted a broader settlement.
All the above can again be considered in the context of Clarendon’s role, while successful in the short-term it was easier for Charles to blame Clarendon for failures he was linked to than face down his courtiers or parliament.
Furthermore, students may:
• comment on Charles’ successful use of Clarendon as a scapegoat in 1667
• personality clash between Charles and Clarendon. This was a key weakness in Clarendon’s position as ultimately, he was dependent on Charles’ favour. While Charles recognised Clarendon’s skills he disliked him and by 1667 Clarendon had served his
purpose. The failures of 1665–67 (Dutch war, plague and fire) needed a scapegoat
• the marriage of Clarendon’s daughter to James, Duke of York, being turned against
Clarendon in the context of a lack of children from Charles’ marriage
• Clarendon’s lack of support at court, in the Privy Council and in parliament. Due to his
passive management approach Clarendon allowed his rivals to outmanoeuvre him. In conclusion, students may state:
• how Clarendon’s policies can be seen as a failure
• how Clarendon’s policies can be seen as successful
• Charles’ reasons for removing Clarendon, with the failures of the years 1665–1667
bringing the pressure on Charles to a head and therefore a scapegoat needed
• the general limits and failings of the restoration settlement were more long-term issues. In the short-term Charles’ position was secured by Clarendon but the disasters of 1665–
1666 saw Charles need a scapegoat, i.e. Clarendon
• Clarendon was dismissed, not so much because his policies had failed but that Charles
needed a victim for the growing sense of gloom over his own kingship by 1667. The ability to link Clarendon to so many problems and the breakdown of his relationship with Charles II made the Chief Minister the perfect scapegoat.
To what extent did relations between Crown and Parliament improve during the years
1660 to 1689? (45 marks)
Students will need to assess/identify and evaluate/explain improvement and balance this against weaknesses in the relationship. They may also set this in the context of change and continuity in the relationship over the period.
Students may refer to some of the following material in support of strength:
• agreement 1660–67: settlement of the issues from the Restoration, for example of finance, land, religion and the New Model Army
• agreement 1667–78: Danby’s attempted construction of parliamentary patronage
• agreement 1681–85: Tory reaction. The position of the Crown became stronger than at
any point since 1660 because Charles worked with the Tories to defeat Exclusion
• agreement 1685–89: generous financial grants 1685, agreement with William.
Nevertheless, there are a number of other factors to consider:
• opposition to Declarations of Indulgence
• parliament’s use of finance to manipulate Crown policy
• opposition to Clarendon
• concern at the policies and approach of Danby
• Exclusion Crisis
• opposition to James II.
Furthermore, students may:
• consider the complexity of religious questions
• the difficulties of the financial relationship between Crown and Parliament. Some
students may consider this in the broader context of the limits of the English state across the seventeenth century and how 1688–89 changed the financial relationship between Crown and Parliament
• the development of political parties, Tories and Whigs, and their relationship with the Crown.
In conclusion, students may:
• make a direct comparison between 1660 and 1689
• stress that the relationship was shaped by short-term agreements and disagreements
focused on practical issues
• deal with the more fundamental sources of tension, particularly religion and finance
which could provoke debate on the nature of the prerogative and parliamentary privilege
• different positions of James II and William really changed the relationship between Crown and Parliament. Some may conclude that the Glorious Revolution brought a
fundamental change in the relationship.
