Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wtssw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-21T08:26:31.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘The Single Person's Confidants and Dependants’? Oliver Cromwell and his Protectoral Councillors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Peter Gaunt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Little has happened in the century since Masson wrote those words fundamentally to alter his assessment and both the operation of Protectoral central government 1653–8 and the role of the Council within it remain sadly under-studied. Although recent historians would doubtless deny that they have simply forgotten the Protectoral Councillors, in practice most surveys either ignore the Council or allude to it in a few passing and usually dismissive sentences. For example, the Councillors are mentioned only once in Kenyon's Stuart England, a reference to their ‘clumsy decision’ to exclude M.P.s in 1656. And the assessment of the Council as a politically powerless vehicle for the Protector's will still generally prevails, albeit expressed in more cautious tones. Thus in his recent study of interregnum Britain, Barnard asserts that ‘in practice the Council seldom deflected him [Cromwell] from his chosen courses’ and that it is ‘likely that the councillors would usually defer to him’. Barnard himself laments the dearth of surviving evidence about the Council's work, a dearth which has all but stifled serious examination of the operation of Protectoral central government and which may have led contemporaries and later historians alike to under-rate the role of the Council and correspondingly to inflate that of Cromwell. For despite the paucity of evidence, there are clear indications that the Council was not the impotent cypher nor Cromwell the boundless autocrat of so many histories and biographies.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , September 1989 , pp. 537 - 560
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Masson, D., The life of John Milton (7 vols., London, 1859–1894), IV, 545Google Scholar .

2 Kenyon, J. P., Stuart England (London, 1978), p. 176Google Scholar .

3 Barnard, T. C., The English republic 1640–1660 (London, 1982), p. 36Google Scholar . Although sceptical of the Council's political power, Barnard does suggest that it may have had an important administrative role .

4 A declaration of the freeborn people of England ([16 Mar.] 1655; B[ritish] L[ibrary, London], Thomason 669 f.19 (70)).

5 Arbitrary government displayed to the life…of the tyrant and usurper Oliver Cromwell (London, 1682), pp. 3, 89, 142–3Google Scholar .

6 The English devil ([27 July] 1660; B.L., Thomason E1035 (3)), p. 2.

7 Bodl[eian] Lib[rary, Oxford], Tanner MS 51, fo. 25.

8 The Protector (so-called) in part unvailed ([24 Oct.] 1655; B.L., Thomason E857 (1)), pp. 5–6; cf.A looking-glass for, or an awakening word to, the officers ([22 Oct.] 1656; B.L., Thomason E891 (1)).

9 The perfect politician ([Feb.] 1660; B.L., Thomason E1869 (1)), p. 348.

10 Bodl. Lib., Tanner MS 52, fo. 159V. It is, perhaps, a reflexion of contemporary knowledge of the Council that two of the seven members named by Hobart – Whitelock and Glynn – were never, in fact, Protectoral Councillors.

Other published attacks on the constitution and unofficial and semi-official replies tend to concentrate on Cromwell alone or on parliament and devote little attention to the role of the Councillors or to the relative powers of, and relationship between, Protector and Council. See, for example, The humble petition of several colonels of the army ([18 Oct.] 1654; B.L., Thomason 669 f. 19 (21)); Some mementos for the officers and souldiers of the army ([19 Oct.] 1654; B.L., Thomason E813 (20)); A representation concerning the late parliament ([9 Apr.] 1655; B.L., Thomason E831 (13)); and two editions of Nedham's shortlived newspaper The observator, 24–31 Oct. and 31 Oct.–7 Nov. 1654.

11 The quotations are from Killing is murder ([21 Sep.] 1657; B.L., Thomason E925 (12)), pp. 7–8, one of several tracts to follow this line.

12 A true state of the case of the commonwealth ([8 Feb.] 1654; B.L., Thomason E728 (5)), pp. 21–46.

13 See, for example, R. Flecknoe, The idea of his highness, Oliver, and Carrington, S., The history of the life and death of his most serene highness Oliver, late Lord Protector, both of which appeared in 04 1659Google Scholar , shortly before the collapse of the Protectorate.

14 Historie and policie re-viewed in the heroick transactions of his most serene highness, Oliver, late Lord Protector ([Apr.] 1659; B.L., Thomason E1799 (2)), pp. 130–2.

15 Gardiner, S. R., Oliver Cromwell (London, 1899), p. 151Google Scholar ; Cromwell's place in history (London, 1897), p. 86Google Scholar ; History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate (4 vols., London, 1893 edn ), II, 333–9Google Scholar .

16 For example, Harrison noted that ‘the Instrument of Government was a constitution of a strictly limited type’ under which the Protector was ‘bound by the Council’, but the author made no attempt to assess the practical effects of these restraints and instead contradicted himself by asserting that, as Protector, Cromwell ‘was, and felt himself to be, a dictator,…a ruler invested with absolute power’ , Harrison, F., Oliver Cromwell (London, 1929), pp. 191–5Google Scholar . Kenyon's The Stuart constitution dismissed the Protectoral Council in a single sentence loaded with questionable innuendo – ‘the Council of State was designed as a brake on executive authority, but 15 of its members were named in the Instrument, and subsequent vacancies were to be filled by a cumbersome method obviously open to manipulation’ – and ascribed to a ‘Council of Officers’ key political decisions, such as the establishment of the major generals and the exclusion of M.P.s in 1656, which were, in fact, clearly taken by the executive Council and the Protector , Kenyon, J. P., The Stuart constitution (Cambridge, 1986 edn), pp. 300–5Google Scholar . Hill saw the Instrument founding a ‘veiled dictatorship of the generals…by nominating to the Council the generals, their friends and relations’; the Humble Petition not only established parliamentary control over the new Council but also ‘liberated’ Cromwell from the old military-dominated body ‘imposed’ upon him in December 1653 , Hill, C., God's Englishman (London, 1970), pp. 148, 175Google Scholar , and Oliver Cromwell, 1658–1358 (London, 1958), pp. 20–1Google Scholar . Coward rightly pointed out that, from the beginning, the membership included civilians and ‘aristocrats’ as well as generals, but he largely ignored the Council's operation and described it misleadingly as merely ‘an advisory body akin to the old privy council’ , Coward, B., The Stuart age (London, 1980), p. 226Google Scholar .

17 C[alendar of] S[tate] P[apers] D[omestic series], 1649–1660, ed. Green, M. A. E. (12 vols., London, 1875–1886)Google Scholar . The introduction to each volume carries a table showing the attendance of Councillors at every recorded meeting. Although the dates of meetings and indications of attendance are frequently at fault, these tables do provide accurate lists of the members of Oliver Cromwell's Protectoral Council. The only error concerns Rous, for the editor seemed unclear whether Anthony or Francis sat during the Protectorate. It was, in fact, the aged Francis Rous who served from December 1653 to September 1658; his kinsman, Anthony, was never a member of the Protectoral Council.

18 Turner, E. R., The Privy Council of England in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, 1603–1784 (2 vols., Baltimore, 1927), 1, chapters XII–XIII, particularly p. 325Google Scholar.

19 Roots, I. A., The great rebellion (London, 1966), pp. 171, 179Google Scholar.

20 Woolrych, A. H., England without a king (London, 1983), p. 31Google Scholar. The comment quoted contrasts with Woolrych's rather dismissive view of the Council's effectiveness – that although ‘at first sight’ the constitution appeared to give the Council wide powers with and over the Protector, ‘appearances were to prove deceptive’ – in Commonwealth to Protectorate (Oxford, 1982), pp. 369–70Google Scholar.

21 Hirst, D., Authority and conflict. England, 1603–1658 (London, 1986), p. 318Google Scholar.

22 Roots, , The great rebellion, p. 171Google Scholar.

23 Calendar of Slate Papers and manuscripts relating to English affairs in the archives and collections of Venice and other libraries of north Italy [hereafter C.S.P.Ven.], XXIX–XXXI, ed. Hinds, A. B. (London, 1929–1931), XXIX, 251Google Scholar.

24 C.S.P.Ven., XXX, 142–3.

25 Ibid.

26 Nineteenth-century transcripts of Bordeaux's letters are at P[ublic] R[ecord] O[ffice, London], P.R.O., 31/3/92–102.

27 Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow, ed. Firth, C. H. (2 vols., Oxford, 1894)Google Scholar; Whitelock, B., Memorials of the English affairs (London, 1682)Google Scholar; the Clarke manuscripts at Worcester College, Oxford, particularly the newsletters in vols. XXV–XXX, available on microfilm (Harvester Press, 1979); many are printed in The Clarke papers, ed. Firth, C. H. (4 vols., London, 1891–1901)Google Scholar.

28 P.R.O., SP25/47–60, 73–8.

29 For example, the order books claim that Cromwell and ten Councillors met on the afternoon of 12 June 1655 merely to warrant the payment of £100 to a private individual, P.R.O., SP25/76, fo. 120.

30 P.R.O., SP18/72/10, 30; SP18/94/95, 97; SP18/98/18; SP18/100/119; SP18/101/59a.

31 P.R.O., SP25/76, fo. 54. No such volume is known to survive,

32 Bodl. Lib., Rawlinson MS A15, fo. 105.

33 P.R.O., SP18/94/97.

34 The money warrants are at P.R.O., SP25/105–6.

35 The paper is in Montagu's, nautical journal at Mapperton, Dorset, vol. 1, fos. 55–7, printed with minor errors in The Clarke papers, III, 207–8Google Scholar. Although it is in Montagu's hand, he was in fact absent from the meeting of 20 July 1654 which he purports to describe. A second paper, in vol. I, fos. 49–55 of the journal and printed in The Clarke papers, III, 203–6, is a review of the causes of the western design and is dated 20 Apr. 1654; there is no record in the order books of a meeting on that day and, despite the title added by Firth, the original document nowhere claims to be an account or summary of a Council debate.

36 P.R.O., SP25/124.

37 P.R.O., SP25/121–2.

38 P.R.O., SP25/92–3.

39 P.R.O., SP25/73–8.

40 The miscellaneous papers have been arranged in chronological order and bound in a series of large volumes at P.R.O., SP18/42, 65–77, 94–102, 123–31, 153–57a, 179–82. These papers complement but are completely different in origin or nature from the order books and other official Council records at P.R.O., SP25. The C.S.P.D. not only calendars this material in a partial and sometimes faulty manner but also runs these two essentially different sources together in an often indiscriminate and potentially misleading way.

41 C.S.P.Ven., XXIX, 197.

42 The tables of Council meetings and attendances printed in C.S.P.D. are often at fault; the figures quoted here are drawn from the fair and draft order books.

43 Perfect proceedings of state affairs, 31 May–7 June 1655.

44 Ibid. 2–9 Aug. 1655.

45 See, for example, the report of the meeting of 4 May 1654 in ibid. 4–11 May 1654.

46 For Cromwell's, unease after the expulsion of the Rump see Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow, I, 358Google Scholar. The relief with which he handed over power to the Nominated Assembly in July and welcomed the advent of a firm constitutional framework in Dec. 1653 come over in his speeches to parliament in Sep. 1654, Abbott, W. C., The writings and speeches of Oliver Cromwell (4 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1937–1947), III, 434–43, 451–63Google Scholar.

47 Abbott, , Writings and speeches, III, 455, 460Google Scholar.

48 Ibid. IV, 269.

49 Ibid. IV, 488.

50 Parr, R., The life of the most reverend father in God, James Ussher, late Lord archbishop of Armagh (London, 1686), p. 75Google Scholar.

51 The Clarke papers, II, xxxiv–xxxvii.

52 Text and notes in Abbott, , Writings and speeches, IV, 498–500Google Scholar; certain phrases have been underlined in the original manuscript.

53 Ibid. IV, 492.

54 Gardiner, S. R., Constitutional documents of the Puritan revolution, 1625–1660 (Oxford, 1906 edn), pp. 427–47Google Scholar.

55 The original or very early draft of the remonstrance is at Worcester College, Clarke MS XXIX and Bodl. Lib., Clarendon MS 54. The debate and amendments can be followed in C[ommons] J[ournal] (London, n.d.), VII, 496–535Google Scholar.

56 Diary of Thomas Burton, esquire, ed. Rutt, J. T. (4 vols., London, 1828)Google Scholar; vols. I and II contain Goddard's diary of the 1654 parliament and Burton's of the session of 1656–7.

57 For full details of the 1654 exclusions and the sources upon which these statements are based see my ‘Cromwell's purge? Exclusions and the first Protectorate parliament’, Parliamentary History, 6, part 1 (1987), 1–22Google Scholar.

58 C.S.P.D., X, 1656–1657, 90, 109–10; P.R.O., SP25/75, fos. 350–400; A collection of the state papers of John Thurloe, esquire [hereafter T.S.P.], ed. Birch, T. (7 vols., London, 1742), V, passimGoogle Scholar.

59 T.S.P., V, 424. See also an undated note, drawn up by Thurloe, confirming that the Councillors had completed the task and fulfilled their constitutional obligations by examining and excluding M.P.s and that they stood ‘ready to give an account of their proceedings thereupon, when they shall be required thereunto by his Highness or the parliament’, T.S.P., V, 426.

60 C.J., VII, 424–6. For the speedy reversal of Salisbury's and Lucy's exclusions see Worcester College, Clarke MS XXVIII, fo. 76V.

61 T.S.P., V, 398. Thurloe later confirmed in the house that the M.P. in question, John Davies, had been excluded and denounced him as unfit: ‘I hope I shall never see him sit within these walls’, Diary of Thomas Burton, II, 269.

62 Abbott, , Writings and speeches, IV, 417–19Google Scholar. The speech as reported ascribes almost all the important political developments of 1653–7 to the army officers, including many which were undoubtedly discussed and decided by the Protectoral Council. It is not clear whether our reports are at fault or whether Cromwell lost control in what was clearly an angry and impassioned outburst and sought to blame everything on the officers. It was presumably this speech which led Kenyon in The Stuart constitution to ascribe Protectoral policy-making to a ‘Council of Officers’.

63 Cromwell directed Courthope to President Lawrence, who gave him a very frosty reception. ‘The Memoirs of Sir George Courthop’, ed. Lomas, S. C., Camden Miscellany, XI (London, 1907), p. 141Google Scholar.

64 P.R.O., SP25/77, fos. 360–400.

65 Firth, C. H., Last years of the Protectorate (2 vols., London, 1909), I, 1Google Scholar.

66 C.S.P.D. 1655–6, passim; P.R.O., SP25/75; Worcester College, Clarke MS XXVIII, fos. 29, 32V; The Clarke papers, III, 67; Bodl. Lib., Carte MS 73, fo. 20; Bodl. Lib., Clarendon MS 51, fo. 309; T.S.P., IV, 764–5; T.S.P., V, 9, 19, 33, 45, 54, 63, 122, 176; C.S.P.Ven., XXX, 221–41; B.L., Lansdowne MS 821, fos. 184–5; Historical manuscript commission: fifth report appendix (London, 1876), pp. 152, 180Google Scholar; see also Gardiner, , History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, IV, 253–5Google Scholar.

67 P.R.O., SP25/77, fos. 92–212. Although Cromwell attended some of the major generals' meetings from late May onwards, it seems unlikely that this alone can fully explain such a dramatic fall in his attendances at Council.

68 Abbott, , Writings and speeches, IV, 417–19Google Scholar.

69 Ibid. IV, 736.

70 Letter quoted in Underdown, D., ‘Cromwell and the officers, February 1658’, English Historical Review, LXXXIII (1968), 107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 T.S.P., VI, 779, 786, 817, 820, 839–40, 871–2; T.S.P., VII, 21–2, 38, 99–100, 144. The whole matter is discussed by Firth, Last years, II, 257–80, and by Catterall, R. C. H., ‘The failure of the Humble Petition and Advice’, American Historical Review, IX, (1903–1904), 58–65Google Scholar. Catterall argues that by spring 1658 Cromwell had decided to accept any renewed offer of the crown.

72 T.S.P., VII, 21–2, 38, 56, 84–5, 99–100, 113, 144, 153, 158–9, 176–7, 192–4, 218, 269–70, 282, 294–5, 309, 354–6; The Clarke papers, III, 145. Cromwell attended just 19 of the 72 Council meetings recorded during 1658.

73 With the possible exception of his use of soldiers briefly to close the house on 12 Sep. 1654.