June 2014 Flashcards
(3 cards)
‘The divisions between Parliament and the New Model Army were more important than the actions of Charles I in bringing about the regicide.’ Assess the validity of this view with reference to the years 1647 to 1649. [45 marks]
Students will need to assess and evaluate the impact of the division between Parliament and New Model Army and balance this against role of Charles I in causing the regicide. They may also consider other factors such as the role of religion, politics or groups like the Levellers or Scots in bringing about regicide.
Students may refer to some of the following material in support of division between Parliament and New Model Army:
• division over the implementation of Newcastle Propositions
• politicisation of the New Model Army
• division over the Newport Treaty and subsequent Pride’s Purge.
Students may refer to some of the following material in support of the impact of the actions of Charles I:
• his refusal to negotiate seriously, with reference to the Heads of the Proposals
• his Engagement with the Scots and causing of the Second Civil War
• his approach to the trial.
Nevertheless, there are a number of other factors that candidates may consider:
• aims of the New Model Army itself, for example the Heads of Proposals
• the pressure on both Army and Parliament by the emergence of the Levellers. Furthermore, students may:
• consider religion and specifically providence as an impulse for key officers like Harrison, Ireton and Cromwell in contemplating regicide
• the politics of ‘necessity’ in forcing the Army to act against Parliament and Charles in the post-Second Civil War period.
In conclusion, students may:
• consider how the division between Parliament and Army undermined attempts for settlement
• set the division between Parliament and Army in the context of the actions of Charles I that further hampered the attempts at settlement and exacerbated the division between Parliament and Army
• that in the context of the Second Civil War the Army, driven by ‘providence’ and ‘necessity’ felt they had to act against both Parliament and Charles to bring about settlement and this led to regicide.
‘A military dictator.’ Assess the validity of this description of Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector. [45 Marks]
Students will need to assess and evaluate how Cromwell as Lord Protector could be seen as a military dictator and balance this against ways in which his power was limited. They may also consider his rule in terms of his aims and change of approach through the period and set his rule in the broader context of the failure of the Interregnum regimes to achieve settlement.
Students may refer to some of the following material in support of seeing Cromwell as a military dictator:
• reliance on the New Model Army
• the negative elements of his relationship with Parliaments
• the establishment of the Protectorate by Lambert’s military coup and the Instrument of
Government
• the implementation of the Major Generals.
Nevertheless, there are a number of other factors to consider:
• Cromwell’s attempts to rule with Parliaments
• how the Instrument of Government limited Cromwell’s powers as Protector
• Cromwell’s refusal of the offer of the Crown
• opposition in the army to Cromwell. Furthermore, students may consider:
• how Cromwell considered his role
• examples of the limits of his power
• changes in his approach and the nature of the Protectorate over the period.
In conclusion, students may consider:
• that Cromwell could be viewed as reliant on the military for his regime to survive
• in practice how his power was limited
• Cromwell’s continued attempts to rule with a Parliament indicate that, despite the power he
held based on the army, he wanted a more traditional settlement
• how religion shaped Cromwell’s approach more than a desire for power.
• that if a dictatorship it was a limited one that failed to achieve settlement.
• that the failure of settlement could be seen as due to the perception of Cromwell’s rule as a
military dictator.
• that it was only because Cromwell was able to be a military ruler and in some ways
conservative that his regime survived as long as it did
‘Real power in the years 1660 to 1689 was held by Parliament rather than the monarchs.’
Assess the validity of this view. [45 marks]
Students will need to assess and evaluate how far Charles and James II could be considered as not being able to control their Parliaments and balance this against how they could be seen as controlling them. They may also consider this in the context of how some issues caused more tension in the Crown-Parliament relationship than others.
Students may refer to some of the following material in support of a consideration of how the monarchs failed to control their Parliaments and therefore had limits on their power in their relationship with the institution of Parliament:
• Clarendon Code and the Restoration Religious settlement
• the financial hold Parliament maintained over the Crown throughout the period
• examples of Parliamentary opposition, e.g. Against Declarations of Indulgence, foreign
policy or Whigs use of Parliament during the Exclusion Crisis
• November 1685 Parliament protest against James’ appointment of 90 Catholic officers,
citing the Test Act and forcing James to prorogue Parliament
• James’ failure to manipulate membership of his second Parliament during autumn of 1687
• Convention Parliament of 1689 passes Mutiny Act: a standing army declared illegal in
peacetime except with Parliament’s consent.
Nevertheless, there are a number of other factors to consider in illustrating the powers of the monarch in their relationship with Parliament:
• the limited constitutional controls imposed on Charles in the Restoration Settlement
• Danby’s management of Parliament
• Charles’ management of Parliament during the Exclusion Crisis
• May 1685 Parliament voting James a subsidy of £2 million and extend his army to 20 000. Furthermore, students may consider other factors that shaped the power relationship between
Crown and Parliament:
• how religion and finance were always problematic issues
• how Charles’ prerogative always allowed him to manipulate Parliament
• politics outside Parliament as part of the Crown-Parliament relationship, for example, court,
faction, patronage
• Parliament’s changing relationship with Crown through acceptance of William.
In conclusion, students may:
• illustrate clear examples of Parliament shaping policy more than Charles would have wanted
• the limits of Parliament’s infringement on the prerogative
• 1681–1685 as the height of Stuart absolutism indicating Charles’ triumph after the
parliamentary problems of the Exclusion Crisis
• James’ religious policies forcing the intervention of Parliament and the ‘political nation’ and the subsequent changed relationship between Crown and Parliament.
