June 2013 Flashcards
(3 cards)
‘Cromwell’s foreign policy failed because it was too ambitious.’ Assess the validity of this view with reference to Cromwell’s foreign policy in the years 1653 to 1658. (45 marks)
Students will need to assess/identify and evaluate/explain how ambition was a reason for the failure of Cromwell’s foreign policy and balance this against other reasons for the failure. They may also comment on Cromwell’s successes. In doing so they then may come to an overall judgement on the success, or not, of Cromwell’s foreign policy.
Students may refer to some of the following material in support of ambition as a reason for failure:
• the Western Design: triggered by the ambition of Cromwell’s anti-Catholicism. Some may also consider this ambition because of Cromwell being influenced by concepts of the Elizabethan anti-Spanish era.
Nevertheless, there are a number of other factors to consider:
• practical limits of Cromwell’s influence within Europe, e.g. Vaudois Massacre, indicates failure to impose his will
• need to make peace with the Dutch, partly due to economic concerns
• limits to Cromwell’s foreign policy ambitions, most policies pragmatic
• longer term establishment of Jamaica from the Western Design as a success
• practical reasons for the failure of the Western Design. Poor planning on Cromwell’s
part, particularly in terms of the commanders and men selected. Furthermore, students may refer to:
• success of French policy. France’s desire for an alliance
• success of Baltic policy, particularly seen in the context of the 1658 Treaty of Roskilde
• use of naval power, could be seen as a forerunner of Britain’s later world role. Naval
power was clearly used in the Baltic, although some may judge it as a failure in the context of the Western Design. Some may also argue that it was the Rump that set up ‘Cromwell’s navy’.
In conclusion, students may refer to:
• when Cromwell allowed his religious impulses and generational attitude to shape policy towards Spain it led to failure
• the Western Design was however the only serious failure for Cromwell – his relations with France and the Dutch were successful in general
• Cromwell’s policy could be judged a real success in comparison with that of Charles II. Some students may include examples of Charles’s failures against the Dutch and reliance on Louis XIV’s money to provide broader context by which to judge Cromwell’s foreign policy.
Credit may also be given for students who comment on Cromwell’s position in Ireland and Scotland although this should not be extensive.
Credit may also be given for students who comment on the domestic, political and economic problems created by Cromwell’s foreign policy, in particular how the failure of the Western Design was part of the move to the Major-Generals. Again this should not be extensive.
To what extent was the weakening of royal authority in the years 1667 to 1678 due to
the king’s own ministers? (45 marks)
Students will need to assess/identify and evaluate/explain how Charles’s position was undermined by his ministers and balance this against other factors that were problematic for Charles’s authority. They may also identify the strengths of Charles’s position.
Students may refer to some of the following material in support of the role of ministers in undermining Charles’s authority:
• the Cabal – the lack of coherent administration from a diverse group of ministers
• the role of Danby, who became a symbol of the fear of absolutism for some MPs.
Nevertheless, there are a number of other factors to consider:
• Charles’s own actions in not providing coherence to any administration
• the role of Parliament, their manipulation of finance for political ends, e.g. Test Act
• foreign policy failure, especially against the Dutch, and Charles could also be seen as a
puppet of Louis XIV
• Charles’s financial problems, made worse by his unwillingness to retrench.
Furthermore, students may consider:
• how Charles used the Cabal to strengthen his own authority through ‘divide and rule’
• the role of Danby in strengthening Charles’s position through manipulation of Parlement. In conclusion, students may argue that:
• no ascendency for an individual after Clarendon – own policies
• ministers did on occasion undermine Charles’s position
• in general Charles used his ministers effectively and his primary aim was to remain in
power, even if this meant sacrificing his ministers, e.g. Danby
• other factors were more problematic for Charles, especially the limits of his financial
position
• saw off Exclusion and ruled without Parliament from 1681
• changed situation for the Crown after 1660 given settlement and the continuation of
remedial legislation, 1640–1641.
How successfully did the rulers of England deal with religious divisions in the years 1649
to 1688? (45 marks)
Students may refer to some of the following material in support of England’s rulers dealing with religious division in the years 1649 to 1688:
1649–1653: the Rump Parliament managed to maintain control despite the explosion of religious radical groups. One example students may refer to is the Ranter threat which, whether scurrilous newspaper fiction or an imagined fear of the gentry, did lead to the Blasphemy Act of 1650. Others may refer to the 1650 Toleration Act as a successful broadening of the legal religious position.
1653–1658: the establishment under the Protectorate of what in essence was a national church through the Triers and Ejectors may be seen as successfully bringing some stability to religious affairs after the turmoil of the revolution. The Instrument of Government formalised a broad toleration that many radicals had called for. Others may refer to the more conservative stance taken in the 1657 Humble Petition and Advice as welcomed by more of the political nation. Some may even refer the position of Catholic attempts, such as the Blackloists, to come to terms with the Protectorate and even Cromwell’s own allowing of individual Catholics liberty of conscience, if not toleration.
1660–1673: the general acceptance, indeed desire, of the political nation for the establishment of a retreat to a more narrow Anglican church saw religious stability successfully, in general, imposed by the Cavalier Parliament through the Clarendon Code which included measures such as the Corporation Act of 1661, the Act of Uniformity of 1662, the Conventicle Act of 1664 or the 1665 Five Mile Act. Furthermore the 1670 Conventicle Act consolidated the religious position of the traditional gentry and can be portrayed as a politically successful compromise by Charles with the key holders of power across the localities. This could be reinforced by the Test Act.
1673–1685: could be seen as successful in the sense of Charles’s ability to defeat Exclusion and the increasing dominance of the Tory Anglican gentry enabling Charles to emerge as a stronger monarch. The monarch and the Tory gentry could be seen to have overcome the Whigs and Dissenters.
1685–1688: James initially could be seen as successful for despite being a Catholic the initial attempts by him to broaden the church and give more freedom to Catholics could be seen as successful and thus managing key divisions.
Some students may point out that 1660 was a turning point in terms of the attitudes of Dissenters, particularly the Quakers and Puritans. Their experience of defeat saw them adopt a more pacifist internalised faith that caused less overt threat for rulers. Added to this the development of latitudinarianism meant divisions were less heated.
Students should, however, balance their examples of success with illustration of how religious division still proved problematic throughout the period for the rulers of England:
1649–1660: this could be seen as the key period of religious division due to the explosion of religious radicalism. Students may refer to such groups as the Muggletonians or, in particular, the Quaker threat. James Nayler may be used as a specific example or other notable cause celebre such as Thomas Tany or John Biddle.
1660–1678: the imposition of a more restricted church can also be assessed as exacerbated religious division by alienating relative moderates such as Presbyterians. Tension between Anglicans and Dissenters remained a source of political problems for rulers.
1678–1688: Exclusion can be seen as a result of religious divisions, notably the rabid anti- Catholicism of much of the nation and in turn the Glorious Revolution can be explained as the natural outcome of the continuity of concerns about Catholicism across the century.
