Religion vs Power, Failure of Interregnum

In this essay I will be exploring the argument of whether religion was more important than politics in the failure of the interregnum regimes of 1649-1660 there are various arguments to be addressed. The first factor that I will address is the political failures that assisted in the failure of the interregnum period.

There were multiple political failures that can be provided as reasons for the failure of the interregnum, the first of which was the dissolution of the rump parliament after Cromwell expressed his disgust at their attitude towards bringing in a new parliament, the rump was not intended to be permanent however when it came to planning new elections they did everything they could to ensure those already seated would gain a seat in the new parliament this encouraged a great deal of criticism and led to the immediate dissolution and a calling of a new general election.

The reluctance to hold a free election due to fears of Presbyterians and royalists possibly gaining a place led to the nominated assembly, this ended up to be a mixture of moderates and radicals who clashed on their views and as a result rarely agreed on anything, therefore the general assembly was not effective. The moderates organised for the nominated assembly to be dissolved behind the radical’s backs leading on to the instrument of government which announced Cromwell as lord protector, the first protectorate parliament was then duly assembled on 3 September 1654.

However, the abrupt termination of Parliament in January 1655 due to the criticism of the ‘recognition’ introduced by Cromwell meant that MPs never finished revising the Instrument of Government and so it was never legally endorsed. The failure of the First Protectorate Parliament discouraged Cromwell from further attempts to co-operate with civilian politicians, and a series of Royalist conspiracies that culminated in Penruddock’s Uprising in the spring of 1655 convinced him that stringent security measures should be enforced.

Cromwell also believed that the failure of the Western Design to the West Indies was a sign of God’s displeasure at England’s progress, and that a godly reform of the nation’s morals was urgently required. During August and September 1655, Cromwell worked with John Lambert, John Disbrowe and Sir Gilbert Pickering to finalise arrangements for the new system ‘the rule of major generals’. The Major-Generals were formally commissioned on 11 October 1655 and proclaimed on 31 October.

The country was divided into 12 regions, each governed by a Major-General who was answerable only to the Lord Protector. While the Major-Generals were successful in law enforcement and in curbing security threats to the Protectorate their attempts at reforming the nation’s morals varied from region to region according to the zeal of individual officers, but had no lasting effects. Cromwell himself was aware of the unpopularity of military government and seems to have given tacit support to those who opposed its renewal.

The system was abandoned early in 1657 under a new constitution: the Humble Petition and Advice. These failures all added greatly to the eventual failure of the interregnum however there were religious factors which added to the failure as well; the Penruddock uprising was a royalist uprising which was able to knock the confidence of the protector although it was dealt with quickly and efficiently by Oliver Cromwell it made him realize some of the opposition he was facing and having confidence was one of the factors that he had been greatly successful in using while being lord protector.

The Nayler case was another event that furthered the failure of the interregnum, it was the actions of a famous Quaker radical who impersonated Jesus and suffered torture as punishment this highlighted the divisions within the regime and sparked a political crisis when trying to decide how to deal with Nayler himself as the threat of a Quaker movement as aftermath of the event would be disastrous, the crisis brought to a head political tension in relation to the instrument of government and offer of ‘kingship’. It exemplifies religion as politics in the period and how it could hinder workable government.

Fifth monarchists wanting a parliament of saints were deliberately uncooperative with parliament which also added to the opposition towards Cromwell and the protectorate. There were also foreign policy issues that assisted the interregnum in its failure; these were the division between army and parliament, the failure of the western design, oppositions from republicans and the treaty with the French and alliance with the Dutch however I would link these factors back to political evidence as the result of these events was further issues for the government to deal with.

Overall I would see the statement ‘religion was more important in the failure of the interregnum’ to be false as I believe religious reasons and foreign policy issues were only an aid in the failure as the reason they showed to be factors was because they caused the cracks to show in the political system throughout the interregnum period which I believe to have been the rounded off reason why it failed.