The years 1649–1653 saw bold efforts to construct a republican regime in England following the regicide, marked by political trial, radical ideas, and eventual failure.
The Rump Parliament: Ambitions and Limitations
Origins and Composition
Following the execution of Charles I in January 1649, the remaining members of the Long Parliament—purged in Pride’s Purge of December 1648—continued to sit as the Rump Parliament. This group was largely composed of moderate Parliamentarians, with many radicals excluded. It comprised about 200 MPs, though attendance was often much lower.
It was dominated by Independents who were sympathetic to Puritan values but wary of extreme radicalism.
Many members were legally trained or held property, favouring order and reform over revolution.
The absence of royalist and Presbyterian MPs created a narrow political spectrum, limiting representativeness.
Achievements
The Rump Parliament did make notable strides in reforming governance and society:
Abolished monarchy and House of Lords (March 1649): Symbolic acts marking the establishment of a Commonwealth of England.
Declared England a republic (May 1649): Known as the “Commonwealth and Free State”, with government to be conducted without a king.
Reformed legal systems:
Introduced measures to simplify the law, though many were limited in scope.
Efforts were made to promote religious toleration, particularly for Independents, though Anglicans faced restrictions.
Economic policy:
Sold off former Crown and Church lands to fund the government and reward supporters.
Passed the Navigation Act (1651) to strengthen English maritime commerce and weaken Dutch influence.
Limitations and Challenges
Despite its aspirations, the Rump Parliament struggled to maintain legitimacy and effect radical change:
Unrepresentative: The limited membership alienated large sections of the political nation, particularly royalists, moderate Presbyterians, and radicals.
Lack of reform: Many anticipated sweeping legal and social change, but the Rump focused on maintaining existing institutions.
Military dominance: The New Model Army remained the real power behind the government, leading to tension and accusations of military rule.
Financial burdens:
Wars in Ireland (from 1649), Scotland (1650–1651), and increasing defence costs drained resources.
Heavy taxation was unpopular among both merchants and the gentry.
Failure to call new elections: Despite earlier promises, no general elections were held, fuelling discontent and charges of self-interest.
Dissolution
On 20 April 1653, Oliver Cromwell forcibly dissolved the Rump Parliament:
Frustrated by the Rump’s reluctance to pass reforms and its failure to prepare for a new constitutional settlement.
Cromwell’s speech denouncing the Rump accused it of corruption, injustice, and betrayal of the Revolution.
Soldiers under Major-General Thomas Harrison escorted MPs out of the chamber; Cromwell reportedly called them a “pack of mercenary wretches”.
Radical Movements: Beliefs, Goals, and Decline
The Levellers
The Levellers emerged as one of the most influential radical political groups during and after the Civil War.
Leaders: John Lilburne, Richard Overton, William Walwyn.
Beliefs:
Popular sovereignty, equality before the law, universal male suffrage (for householders), and religious freedom.
Produced influential pamphlets like An Agreement of the People.
Grievances:
Opposed the unaccountable rule of the Rump and military dominance.
Called for the dismantling of privilege and the establishment of a written constitution.
Failures:
Suppressed by the New Model Army (e.g., mutinies at Burford, 1649).
Lacked wide support from the gentry and merchant classes.
Leadership imprisoned or marginalised by 1650.
The Diggers
Also known as True Levellers, the Diggers proposed a more communistic vision of society.
Leader: Gerrard Winstanley.
Beliefs:
Land should be held in common; private property was seen as the root of social inequality.
Advocated a return to primitive Christianity and collective farming.
Actions:
Established communes on common land, notably at St George’s Hill in Surrey (1649).
Opposition and Decline:
Faced hostility from local landowners and the state.
Communes were disbanded by force within a year.
Ideas had limited appeal beyond a small base of supporters.
Baptists
The Particular Baptists and General Baptists were part of the broader wave of sectarian Protestantism.
Beliefs:
Adult baptism only, congregational church governance, and freedom of conscience.
Often pacifist and separationist in political approach.
Impact:
Grew significantly in numbers, especially in urban areas.
Tolerated to a degree by the Rump and Cromwell due to shared Puritanical leanings.
Limitations:
Distrusted by mainstream society for their religious separatism.
Politically less radical than Levellers or Diggers, and did not push for structural reform.
Quakers
The Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers, emerged in the early 1650s with a distinctive theological stance.
Founder: George Fox.
Beliefs:
Emphasised the ‘inner light’ and personal revelation over scripture and clergy.
Rejected formal sacraments, church hierarchies, and oaths.
Practices:
Refused to doff hats, use honorific titles, or serve in the military.
Gathered in silent meetings, awaiting divine inspiration.
Challenges:
Seen as subversive due to refusal to show deference to authority.
Subjected to persecution and imprisonment, but survived through grassroots support and commitment.
Despite this, Quakers would eventually become one of the most enduring radical sects, with growing numbers by the 1660s.
The Parliament of Saints (Barebone’s Parliament)
Origins
After the Rump’s dissolution, Cromwell and the Army sought a new political arrangement. In July 1653, they convened the Nominated Assembly, more commonly called Barebone’s Parliament:
Named after Praise-God Barebone, a radical London leather-seller and member of the Assembly.
Consisted of 140 members chosen by Cromwell and the Army Council, mostly godly men deemed virtuous and reliable.
Intended as a temporary experiment in godly republicanism while a more permanent constitution was devised.
Composition and Goals
Included radicals, moderates, and conservative gentry, reflecting an attempt to balance views.
Key aims:
Legal and social reform, including marriage law, debtor relief, and reform of the court system.
Greater moral governance, with Puritanical oversight of behaviour and Sabbath observance.
Considered abolishing tithes and reforming church financing.
Internal Divisions and Failures
The Assembly quickly fell into factionalism:
Radicals pushed for sweeping religious and social reforms.
Conservatives feared disruption of property rights and social order.
Opposition grew to reforms like:
Abolition of tithes, which alarmed rural elites.
Limitations on legal professionals and judges.
Moderate members increasingly alarmed by fanatical rhetoric and pace of change.
Dissolution
On 12 December 1653, moderate members of the Parliament voted to dissolve themselves and handed power back to Cromwell.
The experiment was deemed a failure, highlighting the difficulty of creating a stable and inclusive republican regime.
By late 1653, Cromwell accepted the Instrument of Government, inaugurating the Protectorate and bringing the republican experiments to an end. The period from 1649–1653 remains notable for:
Ambitious attempts to build a godly republic.
The proliferation of radical sects and political ideas.
The inability of civilian institutions to match the power and stability of military authority.
This era set the stage for the Protectorate under Cromwell, marking a turn from hopeful experimentation to more pragmatic authoritarian rule.
FAQ
Cromwell’s trust in the Army Council stemmed from shared ideological and religious values, as well as practical loyalty. The Army Council, composed of senior officers and representatives from the New Model Army, had been instrumental in securing Parliament’s victory in the Civil Wars and were aligned with Cromwell’s vision of a “godly reformation.” The Rump Parliament, on the other hand, was increasingly viewed by Cromwell as self-serving, corrupt, and slow to enact the radical reforms he believed necessary. Many in the Rump were conservative landowners more interested in preserving the social order than transforming it. The Army Council, by contrast, was more dynamic and open to religious toleration and social improvement, making it a more reliable vehicle for Cromwell’s goals. Furthermore, the Army’s discipline and hierarchical structure made it easier for Cromwell to exert control and ensure decisive action, unlike the fractious and deliberative nature of the Rump. This pragmatic and ideological alignment made the Army his preferred partner.
The economic policies of the Commonwealth were largely driven by the need to fund military campaigns and secure the regime’s survival, but they often alienated key sections of society. To raise revenue, the government imposed high taxes, especially the monthly assessment tax, which was deeply unpopular among landowners and merchants. The confiscation and sale of Royalist and Church lands provided additional funds but also caused disquiet among traditional elites and religious conservatives. Commercially, policies like the Navigation Act of 1651 aimed to bolster English trade by restricting foreign ships—particularly Dutch—from transporting goods to English ports. While this benefited English merchants and shipowners, it led to the First Anglo-Dutch War (1652–54), further straining the economy. Overall, though some economic sectors thrived, the burden of war financing and heavy taxation led to growing discontent, weakening the social foundations of support for the republican regime. Economic dissatisfaction became one of the underlying factors that eroded the regime’s stability.
Religious toleration was a contentious but central issue in shaping the nature of republican governance. The Rump Parliament supported limited toleration, primarily for Independent Protestant sects, while maintaining restrictions on Catholics and more radical sectarians. This reflected both ideological commitment to religious freedom and practical political calculation. However, radical sects such as Quakers, Baptists, and Fifth Monarchists pushed the boundaries of what was considered acceptable, leading to internal divisions within Parliament and the Army. The Rump’s failure to establish a comprehensive national church settlement or address growing religious pluralism fuelled discontent on both sides—moderates feared chaos, while radicals demanded more inclusion. The inability to mediate this tension undermined public confidence. In contrast, Cromwell and the Army were more sympathetic to a broader range of Protestant expression, supporting a ‘godly’ but diverse religious landscape. Ultimately, religious toleration was both a strength and a vulnerability of republican governance, fostering ideological vibrancy while fuelling political instability.
Barebone’s Parliament provoked fear among conservative elites due to its perceived radicalism and potential threat to the existing social order. Though the Assembly was hand-picked by Cromwell and the Army Council, many of its members—particularly from lower social ranks or religious minorities—advocated for reforms that alarmed traditional landowners and gentry. Proposals such as the abolition of tithes, reform of the legal system, and measures for social justice suggested an intention to upend established hierarchies. Additionally, the presence of lesser-known, often zealous figures like Praise-God Barebone gave the impression that the Assembly was driven by religious fanaticism rather than political pragmatism. Conservative members worried that such reforms would undermine property rights, social stability, and clerical authority, potentially inciting unrest among the lower classes. These fears led moderates to abandon the project and voluntarily dissolve the Assembly, preferring the more predictable and structured rule under Cromwell’s Protectorate. The episode exposed the deep mistrust between radicals and the political elite.
International relations placed considerable strain on the republican regime and influenced its eventual failure. The English Commonwealth faced hostility from foreign monarchies that viewed the regicide and republicanism as dangerous precedents. Spain and France, although rivals, both maintained cautious diplomatic relations while keeping a distance from the new regime. The First Anglo-Dutch War (1652–54) was a direct consequence of the Navigation Act and significantly diverted resources from domestic reform to naval conflict. This war disrupted trade, increased taxation, and created resentment among merchants and shipowners. Additionally, Scotland and Ireland remained active centres of Royalist resistance, requiring expensive and brutal military campaigns, particularly Cromwell’s Irish campaign (1649–50). These external conflicts drained the treasury, heightened domestic discontent, and necessitated a powerful standing army, reinforcing the dominance of military over civilian governance. The constant pressure of foreign hostility and wartime expenditure undermined the viability of republican experiments by making reform secondary to survival.
Practice Questions
‘The Rump Parliament failed because of its own limitations.’ Assess the validity of this view.
The Rump Parliament’s failure was largely due to its own internal weaknesses. It lacked broad legitimacy, being unrepresentative and reluctant to implement reform. Many MPs prioritised property and order over radical change, alienating key revolutionary supporters like the army and radical groups. Though external pressures such as war expenses and religious division played a role, it was the Rump’s unwillingness to call elections or deliver substantial reform that eroded trust. Ultimately, its self-preservation and slow progress prompted Cromwell’s intervention. Thus, internal failings, more than external forces, were central to its downfall.
To what extent were the radical groups of 1649–1653 successful in influencing political developments?
Radical groups like the Levellers, Diggers, and Quakers articulated powerful critiques of existing structures, but they had limited political success. Their ideas influenced public debate and frightened moderates, yet they lacked widespread support and were quickly suppressed by the army. The Levellers’ mutinies were crushed, the Diggers’ communes dismantled, and Quakers persecuted. Although they failed to shape legislation or policy directly, they helped expose the limits of republican tolerance and inspired future radical traditions. Their impact lay more in ideology than in immediate political outcomes, marking them as marginal but symbolically potent figures of the period.
