The Instrument of Government and the Major-Generals

A constitution for government without a king

After the monarchy had been abolished in 1649, finding a lasting alternative remained difficult. The Instrument of Government was an attempt to provide clear rules for government rather than depend on a succession of temporary arrangements. Drafted by the army officer John Lambert in autumn 1653, it was adopted by the Council of Officers on 15 December, after the Nominated Assembly surrendered its powers. Cromwell became Lord Protector the following day.

This was England’s first written constitution. It created the Protectorate: government headed by a Lord Protector rather than a king. Lambert had originally envisaged retaining a royal title, but Cromwell removed it because it was likely to be unacceptable to the army. The settlement therefore changed the form of national government while leaving the army closely involved in its creation.

How the Instrument distributed power

Executive power—the authority to carry out laws and direct government—belonged to the Lord Protector, acting in consultation with a Council of State of between thirteen and twenty-one members. Cromwell held the office for life, but it was not hereditary: his children had no automatic right to inherit it.

The Instrument also required Parliament to be called every three years. Each Parliament was to remain in session for at least five months. There was a single chamber, rather than separate Houses of Commons and Lords, with 400 members from England and thirty each from Scotland and Ireland.

These arrangements offered both continuity and change. A powerful individual still headed government, but a written constitution required regular parliamentary meetings and consultation with a council. Parliament was responsible for raising revenue to maintain a standing army of 10,000 cavalry and dragoons and 20,000 infantry for the defence of England, Scotland and Ireland. Financing this permanent military force was therefore an important part of the political settlement.

Representation and religious freedom had limits

The Instrument rearranged parliamentary representation. It reduced the number of MPs from towns and boroughs, limited university representation and increased county representation. Its designers hoped to weaken the influence of the gentry and gain support from the emerging middle class.

However, this was not democracy in the modern sense. In county elections, voting was restricted to people with land or personal property worth at least £200. In boroughs, the vote remained with aldermen, councillors and burgesses. Known Royalists and Roman Catholics could neither vote nor stand for election. The constitution therefore offered representation while excluding opponents and restricting participation by wealth and status.

Liberty of worship also had boundaries. It was granted to many religious groups, but not to Roman Catholics or those regarded as guilty of ‘licentiousness’, including extreme sectarians. This widened religious freedom without establishing equal freedom for everyone.

Why the constitutional settlement remained fragile

The Instrument’s authority was disputed because it had been adopted by army officers rather than legally endorsed by Parliament. The First Protectorate Parliament met in September 1654, but Cromwell ended it in January 1655 before MPs completed their revision of the constitution. Doubts about its legal authority contributed to the resignation of Lord Chief Justice Henry Rolle in June 1655.

The Instrument provided a working structure for government, but it did not resolve the tension between civilian parliamentary authority and the power of Cromwell and the army. Its promises of regular parliamentary government were therefore less secure than they appeared on paper.

Why Cromwell turned to the Major-Generals

Three pressures encouraged a more military approach in 1655. The failure of the First Protectorate Parliament discouraged Cromwell from further cooperation with civilian politicians. Royalist conspiracies, culminating in Penruddock’s Uprising in spring 1655, made the regime fear for its security. Finally, Cromwell interpreted the failure of the Western Design expedition to the West Indies as a sign of God’s displeasure and believed that national moral reform was urgently needed.

The Major-Generals were formally commissioned in October 1655. The country was divided into twelve regions, each supervised by a Major-General answerable directly to Cromwell. Their rule combined two aims: protecting the regime and creating a more godly society.

Security, taxation and moral reform

To maintain security, the Major-Generals could suppress unlawful assemblies, disarm Royalists and pursue thieves and highwaymen. They raised regional cavalry militias of volunteers loyal to the Protectorate. A new decimation tax, taking 10% of Royalists’ income, paid for these forces. The government argued that Royalist plotting had made the militia necessary, so Royalists should bear its cost.

Royalists could also be required to provide financial guarantees of good behaviour, risking imprisonment if they broke the conditions. They needed permission to travel away from home, and their movements were monitored. This marked a shift away from earlier hopes of reconciliation towards surveillance and coercion.

Moral reform involved enforcing laws against drunkenness, swearing, blasphemy and sexual misconduct, closing unruly alehouses and suppressing entertainments such as horse-racing, stage plays, cock-fighting and bear-baiting. Security and religion overlapped: restricting public gatherings could discourage both disorder and political conspiracy, while also promoting behaviour Cromwell considered godly.

How successful was military government?

The Major-Generals were relatively successful at enforcing the law and curbing security threats. They did not simply sweep away existing local government: they worked alongside magistrates, sheriffs, constables and town corporations, and local officials often cooperated.

Nevertheless, unelected soldiers supervising local affairs caused resentment among the gentry, while the legality of the system was questioned. Moral reform varied with the enthusiasm of individual officers and had no lasting effects. Its reputation for repression should therefore be weighed against the unevenness of its operation and its reliance on existing officials.

Funding became a decisive weakness. In 1656 the Major-Generals tried to influence elections to the Second Protectorate Parliament. MPs then rejected a bill that would have made the decimation tax permanent and renewed their rule. Cromwell recognised the unpopularity of military government and appears to have accepted opposition to its continuation. The system ended early in 1657; the Instrument itself was replaced later that year by the Humble Petition and Advice.

Overall, the Instrument attempted to stabilise government through constitutional rules, whereas the Major-Generals sought stability through military supervision. Both achieved some practical results, but neither secured sufficiently broad acceptance to become a lasting settlement.

Instrument of Government, 1653

• England’s first written constitution; drafted by John Lambert and adopted by the Council of Officers.
• Cromwell: Lord Protector for life, but the office was not hereditary; executive power exercised with a Council of State.
• Single-chamber Parliament every three years, sitting for at least five months: 400 English, thirty Scottish and thirty Irish MPs.
• Restricted franchise; known Royalists and Roman Catholics excluded from voting and election.
• Religious liberty had exceptions, including Roman Catholics and extreme sectarians.
• Assessment: a clearer structure for government, but disputed legal authority and no parliamentary endorsement. Replaced in 1657.

Major-Generals, 1655–1657

• Causes: parliamentary failure, Royalist plotting and Cromwell’s desire for godly reform after the Western Design failed.
• Twelve regions supervised by officers answerable to Cromwell; existing local officials remained.
• Security measures: militia, disarming and monitoring Royalists, suppressing unlawful gatherings.
• Royalists’ 10% decimation tax funded the militia.
• Moral reform: action against drunkenness and other offences; suppression of selected entertainments.
• Assessment: security and law-enforcement successes, but uneven moral reform with no lasting effects; resentment of military rule and disputed legality.
• MPs rejected permanent funding and renewal; the system ended early in 1657.

Overall judgement

Constitutional rules and military supervision both sought stability, but neither overcame the problem of securing broad civilian acceptance.