Following Oliver Cromwell’s death in 1658, the fragile foundations of the English Republic crumbled, ultimately paving the way for the Restoration of Charles II in 1660.
The Political Vacuum after Cromwell’s Death
The Death of Oliver Cromwell (1658)
On 3 September 1658, Oliver Cromwell died from illness, leaving behind a deeply divided Protectorate.
Although Cromwell had exercised near-monarchical authority, he failed to establish a stable constitutional structure or designate a successor with legitimate authority.
His chosen successor, Richard Cromwell, lacked the military background, charisma, and political connections needed to assert control.
The Rule of Richard Cromwell (1658–1659)
Richard Cromwell became Lord Protector in September 1658, relying on civilian support rather than the military, unlike his father.
He quickly convened a Third Protectorate Parliament in January 1659, hoping to gain legitimacy. However, it was plagued by conflict between civilian republicans and army officers.
The army—already discontented by unpaid wages and suspicious of civilian dominance—distrusted Richard’s leadership.
By April 1659, under mounting pressure from military officers led by John Lambert and Charles Fleetwood, Richard dissolved Parliament and resigned shortly thereafter, earning the nickname “Tumbledown Dick”.
Failure to Establish a Post-Cromwellian Order
Richard’s resignation created a power vacuum that nobody was equipped to fill.
The army reinstated the Rump Parliament, originally dissolved by Cromwell in 1653, believing it could restore order.
However, the Rump’s limited public support and internal factionalism rendered it ineffective.
England experienced a leadership crisis, as various republican factions—including army officers, radical sectarians, and civilian MPs—jostled for dominance, with no central authority emerging.
Steps Leading to the Restoration
Military Instability and the Breakdown of Republican Rule
John Lambert, a key general, attempted to maintain a military-led government, but his efforts alienated both Parliament and the public.
The Rump was once again dissolved by the army in October 1659, an act which sparked public alarm and revealed the fragility of military rule.
Civil unrest spread across the country; royalist uprisings and Presbyterian mobilisation increased in response to the perceived chaos.
Meanwhile, General George Monck, commander of the army in Scotland, watched events unfold with increasing concern.
The Role of General George Monck
George Monck emerged as a crucial figure in restoring stability. A pragmatic soldier, he had stayed clear of factional disputes during Cromwell’s rule.
In January 1660, Monck led his army across the Scottish border into England. His goals were ambiguous, but he was publicly calling for a free Parliament.
Monck entered London in February 1660 and demanded that the Rump Parliament be reinstated, positioning himself as a mediator above party politics.
However, Monck quickly recognised the lack of legitimacy of the Rump and began negotiating for broader reforms.
The Return of the Long Parliament and Elections
Under Monck’s pressure, the remaining members of the Long Parliament reconvened in February and voted to dissolve themselves—a moment of critical importance.
This action cleared the way for the Convention Parliament, a new body elected in April 1660 with royalist and Presbyterian support, reflecting a desire for stability and reconciliation.
The Declaration of Breda and Restoration of the Monarchy
The Declaration of Breda (4 April 1660)
While Monck manoeuvred politically, Charles II, who had been in exile in the Dutch Republic, issued the Declaration of Breda.
The Declaration, prepared with the advice of Edward Hyde, offered a conciliatory tone and key promises to secure broad support:
Amnesty for past political actions, except for those involved in the regicide.
Freedom of conscience in matters of religion (though vaguely defined).
Settlement of property disputes through Parliament.
Payment of army arrears and support for the military.
The tone was designed to appeal to moderates and secure a peaceful restoration, rather than a return through force.
Charles II’s Return and Restoration (May 1660)
The Convention Parliament welcomed the Declaration, and on 8 May 1660, Charles II was officially proclaimed King of England, Scotland, and Ireland.
On 25 May, Charles landed at Dover, and on 29 May—his 30th birthday—he entered London to widespread celebration.
The Stuart monarchy was restored, but the events of the Interregnum had left a profound impact on the political and religious structure of England.
The Legacy of the English Revolution
Constitutional Change and the Role of Parliament
The Restoration did not represent a simple return to 1642; the English political landscape had been fundamentally altered:
The monarchy was restored without divine right absolutism.
Parliament had demonstrated its capacity to remove and restore kings, laying the groundwork for future constitutional monarchy.
Although Charles II initially ruled without calling a new Parliament, it became increasingly clear that monarchs could not govern without Parliament.
Religious Settlement and Confessional Division
The Declaration of Breda’s promise of religious toleration clashed with the desire of the Anglican elite to restore orthodoxy.
In 1662, the Act of Uniformity enforced Anglican conformity, leading to the Great Ejection of non-conforming ministers.
Religious pluralism had grown during the Interregnum, and although toleration remained limited, dissenting religious groups continued to thrive underground.
The Restoration did not resolve the tensions between Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Independents, setting the stage for future religious conflict.
Social and Political Impact
The collapse of the Republic revealed the weakness of military-led governance and the lack of a clear constitutional alternative to monarchy.
Although some radical movements—like the Levellers and Fifth Monarchists—had dwindled, the ideas of popular sovereignty and civil liberties persisted.
The revolution had stimulated political debate, broadened the role of pamphleteering, and shaped political identities that would influence the Exclusion Crisis and Glorious Revolution later in the century.
The period 1658–1660 demonstrated that Cromwell’s personal authority had been essential to holding the Protectorate together.
Without a legitimate successor or functioning constitutional system, republicanism in England collapsed under internal division, military unrest, and public disillusionment.
The Restoration was as much a pragmatic settlement as a royalist victory—many in England accepted monarchy as the least worst option for stability.
This turbulent chapter in English history ended not in triumph for one faction, but in a compromise between monarchy, Parliament, and the army, shaped by the bitter lessons of civil war and revolution.
FAQ
The army’s loss of control in the months following Richard Cromwell’s resignation stemmed from deep internal divisions and diminishing public trust. Initially dominant, the army attempted to rule through the reinstated Rump Parliament and later through direct military oversight, but it failed to present a unified leadership or viable political programme. Factionalism between senior officers like Lambert and Fleetwood weakened the army’s cohesion, while rank-and-file soldiers grew restless due to unpaid wages and lack of clear purpose. Public resentment towards military interference in civilian politics intensified, especially as military governments increasingly seemed illegitimate and unstable. Civil unrest and fear of renewed conflict led many civilians, including former Parliamentarians, to seek a return to monarchy as the only path to stability. Meanwhile, the army’s repeated dissolutions of Parliament further alienated moderate opinion. Ultimately, the army’s own instability and inability to maintain broad political support opened the door for General Monck’s decisive intervention and Charles II’s return.
The Convention Parliament, which sat from April to December 1660, differed significantly in composition, tone, and purpose from earlier parliaments such as the Rump or the Protectorate Parliaments. Firstly, it was not summoned by a monarch or Lord Protector but was called by the surviving members of the Long Parliament with the support of General Monck. It represented a cross-section of political opinion, including many moderate Royalists, Presbyterians, and former Parliamentarians, reflecting a national desire for reconciliation and stability. Unlike previous parliaments dominated by ideological factions or military control, the Convention Parliament operated with greater political latitude and sought consensus on key national issues. Its primary aim was to restore constitutional order rather than promote radical reform. Most importantly, it facilitated the Restoration through negotiations with Charles II, culminating in its acceptance of the Declaration of Breda. It thus marked a clear break with the revolutionary politics of the Interregnum, signalling a return to monarchy under conditions shaped by recent constitutional experiments.
Public opinion was a critical, though often underappreciated, factor in the Restoration of 1660. After nearly two decades of political upheaval, civil war, and the uncertain governance of the Interregnum, many in England yearned for stability, order, and a return to traditional institutions. The general population had become increasingly disillusioned with the Republic, particularly after the ineffectiveness of the Rump Parliament, the unpopularity of military rule, and the lack of economic and social security. Royalist sentiment, though suppressed during the 1650s, began to resurface through popular demonstrations, underground pamphlets, and sermons advocating for the return of the king. The theatre, church sermons, and civic rituals subtly promoted nostalgia for monarchy and the perceived ‘natural order’. The Declaration of Breda was crafted with this public sentiment in mind, promising amnesty, religious tolerance, and political moderation. In short, without broad public acceptance—or at least acquiescence—the Restoration might have faced significant resistance. Its relative ease was due in large part to a widespread desire for peace and normality.
Charles II demonstrated considerable political acumen in securing a peaceful return to the throne. While in exile, he carefully maintained connections with various political groups, including moderate Presbyterians, disaffected Royalists, and European diplomats. His most effective strategic move was the Declaration of Breda (April 1660), which offered generous concessions to win over different factions. He promised general amnesty, respect for private property (including land redistributed during the Interregnum), liberty of conscience in religion, and payment of army arrears. These pledges addressed the anxieties of potential opponents and neutralised much resistance. Charles also refrained from making inflammatory statements or aligning too closely with radical Royalists, instead portraying himself as a unifying figure willing to govern within a parliamentary framework. He allowed General Monck to orchestrate his return, understanding that Monck’s military authority and political capital were essential for acceptance by the Convention Parliament. In all, Charles used patience, diplomacy, and moderation to secure a Restoration without further bloodshed.
By 1660, serious republican alternatives had largely collapsed due to lack of leadership, internal fragmentation, and waning public support. The collapse of Richard Cromwell’s Protectorate created a power vacuum, but no clear or widely accepted republican structure emerged to fill it. The Rump Parliament was deeply unpopular, seen as self-serving and ineffective, and its repeated dissolutions by the army undermined its authority. Radical groups such as the Fifth Monarchists and some Levellers still existed but had little influence or practical ability to govern. Attempts to establish a Council of State or military junta failed due to competing ambitions and distrust between military leaders and civilian politicians. Even army officers recognised that continued military rule risked civil war and national instability. As a result, most moderate figures—previously sympathetic to republican ideals—saw monarchy as a necessary compromise to prevent anarchy. The Restoration was not just a royalist triumph but a consequence of the republican movement’s inability to present a credible alternative.
Practice Questions
‘It was General Monck who was primarily responsible for the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660.’ Assess the validity of this view.
General Monck played a decisive role in restoring the monarchy by using his military authority to dissolve the Rump, recall the Long Parliament, and support the Convention Parliament. His actions created the conditions for a peaceful return of Charles II. However, Monck’s role must be understood within the broader context of political instability, Richard Cromwell’s weakness, and public weariness of republican rule. The Declaration of Breda also reassured many that the monarchy would not return to absolutism. Thus, while Monck was instrumental, the Restoration resulted from a combination of his leadership and wider political circumstances.
To what extent was the collapse of the Republic after 1658 due to Richard Cromwell’s leadership?
Richard Cromwell’s weak leadership significantly contributed to the Republic’s collapse. Lacking military experience and political authority, he failed to manage divisions between the army and civilian politicians. His inability to gain support from key factions and his forced resignation in 1659 triggered further instability. However, deeper issues—such as the absence of a clear constitutional framework, army interference, and unresolved ideological divisions—were already undermining the regime. General Monck’s intervention and popular royalist sentiment also played major roles in the Restoration. Therefore, Richard’s leadership accelerated collapse, but structural weaknesses were equally, if not more, important.
