Part 4: Interregnum, and the Restoration of Monarchy

Two questions to consider:

Why did the republican government fail and lead to the restoration of monarchy in 1660?

In what ways did the legacy of a republican government shape the development of monarchy and society from 1660 to 1702

What happens in Feb 1649, after Charles is dead?

5/2/1649, Scotland immediately declares Charles II as their king= worried that their religion will die out

Irish armed rebels also immediately claim allegiance to Stuart monarchs= some unity between Irish Anglicans and Catholics. Irish readying for a war with Parl

Cromwell’s religious conviction very threatening

What did the Rump Parl pass after Charles’ immediate execution?

Feb 1649, Rump voted to abolish monarch and thus England was a Republic.

Jan 1650, Rump passed an engagement act: all adult males had to swear loyalty to Commonwealth

Detail the Dunbar incident.

1650, Cromwell was ambushed by a Scottish army double their size. However, due to Scots’ poor strategy, English Sea providing Cromwell with resupplies, and the better funded English Army, Cromwell won!De

What are Cromwell’s aims for Ireland?

He wanted to punish Ireland for their 1641 rebellion and exploit them financially- CRIPPLE IRELAND

What was Charles II doing in the aftermath ?

He wanted to take over England ASAP, but in his invasion backed by Scots, only 13k troops crossed the border + Leslie, the general seemed uncommitted?

Worcester, 1651, secret plots failed/revealed, so unsuccessful. Charles II fled to France

End of the royalist movement for now

Detail the legal establishment of the republic

• Rump Parl declared themselves the sole legislative authority and elected a Council of State

• Supporters had mixed goals for Commonwealth- not unified

• Relied on army, who were politically volatile and alienated potential supporters

• Parl need to GENERATE +ve support, not just stability through military!

Detail the Leveller’s actions during the interregnum

• Due to being shoved aside, levellers damage Cromwell and Ireton’s reputations, and encouraged mutiny

• Baptists disassociated themselves from Levellers (allies), and 300+ mutiners arrested. By the team the 3rd Agreement of the People came out, all the supports had gone

• Lead Leveller figures i.e Lilburne arrested.

• Levellers had no real support outside London, unsustained

• Revival of censorship did curve their progress, since their main thing was pamphlets.

Detail Ireland in the interregnum

Irish Anglicans and Catholics allied→ help Charles II invade ENgland. Cromwell was BRUTAL i.e Drogheda

Detail Scotland in the interregnum

Presbyterian support failed, hostile. English end up stuck in Dunbar

Cromwell does win, as Charles II struggled to get supported.

Hutton’s interpretation of Cromwell

• Cromwell is very opportunistic and adaptable- relentlessly efficient

• He is so brutal it could be tyrannical…egotistical?

• First Anglo-Dutch War painted Cromwell as a tyrant

• Very principled and ambitious, but also a malicious side?

Detail the case study: Drogheda

• Is it fair to say Drogheda wasn’t out of normal just from the sheer fact violence was rampant?

• A large massacre killing 220 troopers, 2.5k infantry

• For someone who claimed they had nothing personal against Irish apart from religious agenda, seems EXCEPTIONALLY brutal

• Soldiers also acted out against orders

Why did Cromwell dissolve the Rump?

• FIVE MAIN REASONS: 

  • Fear over what the Rump’s bill for a new representative would mean 

  • *Rump cutting off army budget

  • Parliamentary control of army commands

  • Preventing ungodly returning of political power

  • Cromwell’s own vision of a godly nation and political settlement.

What was the sign. of Fifth Monarchists?

They criticised the Rump for not having achieved hagiocracy/total holy rule 

Sign. of Dutch War and Navigation Act?

War: 1652-54. Rump struggled to maintain authority during the Interregnum. Army saw the Dutch as allies due to Protestant, but the Rump’s Navigation Act of 1651 (which stated only English ships should bring goods and fish into England (+colonies for goods)-> naval tensions until a war broke out 1652 May.

Army upset that Rump put money into navy instead of army, and the fact they have to fight other Protestants

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS: Rump was too self interested

The Rump being ‘too conservative’ was an issue. Why were they seen as conservative?

• Only around 15% of Rump could be called revolutionaries. Conservative because: 

  • 22/41 refused to swear an oath approving the regicide. Many voted to invite the kicked MPs from Pride’s P back. 

  • Rump came in power during economic crisis- no funds to initiate reform 

  • Establishing regime more important than reform, esp due to Ireland and Scot

  • MPs scared of religious reform bc of the radical religious groups 

  • Dutch war became main centre of attention → This all made army upset at the lack of reform

Why did Rump fail?

• The Political Nation’s conservative demands were set against the radical minority (army and sects) 

• Relationship between Parliament and NMA was fragile. Parl could only function under the protection of the army. 

• None of the reforms suggested in the Hale Commission (1652) were put into action. The Presbyterian system set up in 1644-48 were still in place, and tithes were not abolished. 

• Blasphemy Act and other attempts against religious unconformity (so Parl want everyone to be united in one religion) was too conservative for army.  

Main issue: failed to introduce constitutionalised reform, but army couldn’t crush Rump until after crushing Ireland and Scot

Rump achievements

• Ended compulsory attendance of the Church 

• All legal proceedings would be in English not Latin (1650)

• Established acts for the propagation of the gospel in Wales, Ireland and North (wanted to convert ‘less godly’ areas to their views

But ultimately, Cromwell prioritised army unity over parliamentary authority.

Detail the dissolution of the Rump

Cromwell let them dissolve, but discovered the Rump wanted to set up its own committee to judge the elected (basically keeping power) so forcibly dissolved them in April 1653.

Plan: call new elections more representative and reformed Parliament. Redistribute seats to better reflect the population and economic importance of various areas; Set up a "Commonwealth of England" free from monarchy and the House of Lords. BUT Parl was delaying this. 

But, is it fair to judge Parl for lack of reform so harshly? After all, they had been struggling during an economic crisis.

Barebones Parl WAS too radical to succeed

Army officers selected 139 MPs- already will be more radical by nature (choosing the ‘godly’ men)

Had no mercy for Charles at all, unlike the Parl who had some moderates- Harrison calls him “that man of blood”

Cromwell’s own millenarianism wanted the chance for the ‘godly’ to be represented in an assembly- had his backing to an extent, no balance of other opinions -> Nominated Assembly 1653

Members were nominated not elected- not representative of the majority of the population, basically fuelling the very narrow thought process of a selective few again and again. Also very little people there (only 144 vs 507 in Parl)

Religious radicals (like PROPER) radical were few, only around 12, but well organised. Abolished Chancery (leading central royal court) and lay patronage. Also removed more JPs who had supported the Rump…limiting other opinions even more

Alienated so many people, including Cromwell-> even suggested cutting army pay, despite the fact that army was backing them

They think that they are elected by God and therefore can do what they want basically…reminds us of Charles

LIKE PYM. Small radicals push large agenda

The Barebones Parl WASN’T too radical to succeed

Did succeed in some ways, so clearly they weren’t completely incompetent.  Reform of the law on debt, more humane treatment of the insane, civil registration of births, deaths and marriages, tougher measures against thieves

If they hadn’t been given as much free reign as they had i.e Cromwell’s backing, and instead had had a few more limitations, they may have been able to succeed in implementing their more radical practices but in a way that wasn’t as prominently OFF?

Who was George Coney?

1654

He refuses to pay duties because it’s from Cromwell, not Parliament. Imprisoned

Chief of Justice resigns, disgusted that Coney got imprisoned.

What was the Instrument of Gov?

Lambert’s book: hoped to clear up relationships and roles between Lord Protector, Council of State, and Parliament. 

• Protector, head of state. Parl elected every 3 years, council of state central role in finance especially, and militia controlled by Protector and Parl. 

• Parl and Protector balanced by Council fo State 

• Lambert established that the army needed protection from Parliament, and basically become part of gov and legislature  

Describe what occurred PRE first protectorate

• Cromwell got given lots of power in this new Protectorate, and with this, he aimed for ‘healing and settling’ the nation, stable gov, and religious and social reformation, establishing godly rule and a society dominated by Puritan ideas. 

• Cromwell, Lambert and a small group of councillors ran the state until the first Protectorate Parliament. 

• 24 Dec 1653, to 2 September 1654, Cromwell and the Councillor brought in 83 ordinances, mostly financial ones.

Conflict of First Protectorate

1654- Jan 1655

• Republicans attacked Cromwell’s position, seeing him as an alt monarch and believing Parl should be sole authority. They were concerned w Cromwell’s authority to enact ordinances when Parl not in session, the need to reduce armed forces- worried it will be another Charles

• Cromwell opposes and says that the gov will be run by a single person AND parl, regular elections, liberty of conscience (religious tolerance and freedom), militia jointly controlled by Protector, CoS and Parl 

What legislature passed during first protectorate?

• Recognition: an oath that all MPs had to take to recognise the first of the principles: one person + parl rule. 100 MPs refused, and withdrew from Parl. 

• Cromwell wanted Parl agreement, but a lot of them didn’t agree w his other aims i.e godly reformations. 

What was Biddle’s case?

1654

• Biddle studied Bible. Denied Trinity and divinity of Christ. He was interrogated by a parliamentary committee- Parliament attempted to enforce its right (to them) to control religion over the Protector and Council, and accused of blasphemy

• This case + MP’s further attacks on the Instrument, and the Parl’s failure to fund army led to dissolution 

• Cromwell enforces HIS power over Parl (Charles comparison?) 

What was the Major Generals’ Rule and why did it start

1655-57

• (arguably) Cromwell and Lambert’s overreaction to the fail of the First Protectorate, the Western Design (Spanish colony attack), and renewed Royalist threat. 

• 1. Religious reformation. Enforce godly reform. 2. Failure of Western Design-> decided reform was needed. 3. Finance, financially exposed. 4. Royalism. Pendruddock’s rising in March; continued threat from Royalists. 

• Split country up into 11 areas w 11 major generals (sounds familiar?) 

• Lambert instructed on how to hold strong as a Major General e.g suppressing gaming houses, taverns, brothels etc…they were SELF PRESERVING against Royalists.

What was the Decimation Tax?

Decimation tax (10% annual tax on wealthy Royalists) introduced to shift tax burden- conflict with Royalists, not making him very popular

Almost like a ship money situation- question of whether he has the authority to impose something like this

Political Nation reaction to the MGR

• Government. PN concerned abt the role of military in the state; the role of Major Generals imposed on this system of local authority; not violent, but gentry still felt threatened, ESPECIALLY when some Major Generals removed conservative local gov men for better rule. 

• Finance. Concerns over the high taxes (used to fund army) would be permanent. Taxes now even higher than 1649-1660 (FREAKING WAR! Right after Charles dies). The decimation tax hindered the acceptance of the regime by the Royalists (and the tax itself also failed in raising enough money)

• Religion. Army prevented the persecution of radicals (since they were obv also radicals). PN grew fearful of the increasing radicalism, who threatened social, econ, political hierarchy (apparent explosion of Quaker numbers)

Overall consensus of the MGR

Cromwell and many councillors wanted godly reform, so neglected finance, but to impose godly rule, would need army, which would need money…loop

It was a very weary time and acceptance hindered due to fear of each stakeholders’ position- people just wanted to conserve what they had

Also a religious issue. If all decisions are pre determined by God, then failure means God disapproves…throwing the Godliness of the country into disarray?

Second Protectorate

• 1656- June 1657

• Cromwell shifted position to look for ‘healing and settling’ the nation when faced with Major Generals rule. He still wanted to secure parliamentary settlement, so called another Parl in 1656. 

• Militia bill was briefly introduced to try legally enforce decimation tax, but many MPs reacted negatively. 

• Cromwell himself also disagreed, as he thought the bill was never lead to a stable parl- WILLING TO BETRAY LAMBERT AND MAJOR GENERALS FOR PARLIAMENTARY BASED SETTLEMENT. 

The case of Cromwell being offered the Crown

• Would lead to a more recognised form of gov, succession, peace w Parl? 

• Would provoke vigorous opposition from Royalists, republicans, some of the NMA, and leading military Cromwellians 

• NMA especially. Against idea of Kingship for political and religious reasons,

• Cromwell “I would not build Jericho again”- sign of a warning of defying God’s commands

Humble Petition and Advice

• Cromwell did not accept kingship, but by contemplating, alienated Lambert, and he resigned

• IN the end, people want to try find the closest thing they can find to the King (which would be Cromwell as principal leader)

• Cromwell rejected it: army were very against it, and the army was God’s instrument populated by the saints. 

• Cromwell accepts Humble Petition after kingship removed from it. Cromwell would choose the next Protector. 

-> Was Cromwell King, all in name through this act ?

Third Protectorate

• 1659- April 1659

• OLIVER CROMWELL DEAD!!

• Richard called a 3rd Prot because England had over £500k in debt and needed revenue desperately. The accession well accepted. More in tune with traditional gentry? At first, army favorable, but soon, it was clear Richard was more defensive of the CIVILLIANS 

• Republicans and Lambert more against this…distrustful of civilians. Army against because of religious toleration restrictions.

What was the Nayler Case?

1656

Nayler re enacts the Bible where he’s Jesus and travels around

Parl want him imprisoned but Cromwell says it’s allowed- Parl does still brand him and punish him in other ways since death isn’t allowed…conflict of interests between Parl and O.Cromwell.

What was Penruddock’s Rising?

1655

Royalist uprising

No real +ve support for Cromwell’s support- the public don’t actively like or dislike- latent toleration

Richard’s dissolution of the Protectorate

Richard was forced to dissolve Parliament bc of the triggered army (but actually, the army leaders were not even ideologically opposed to the concept of a Protectorate, and supported Richy. BUT, republican propaganda exploited junior officers’ concerns over pay) 

They called the Rump on 7/5/59

Parl wanted to move militia to an army under Parl control 

What issue arised from the re-instation of the Rump?

They were extremely radical, claiming everything from their former dissolution is illegal…13.10, Rump dissolved. 

Who was General Monck?

In the army, stationed in Scotland, who brings about restoration of Charles II

Following the Rump’s dissolution, he demanded that it be returned, BUT civilians call for a ‘free Parliament’- taxpayer strikes lead to no gov for a week 

How does Monck react to the strikes of tax payers?

Monck’s army enters England 1/1/1660 to be met with desires for the Long Parl to be restored. Monck removes all gates, portcullises, posts and chains, symbolising the city’s strength. BETRAYAL 

Monck shows how he would go to extremes to protect parl authority, but ends up actually dissolving Rump. 

Public ecstatic: roasting beef, ‘kiss my parliament’

Readmits all members of the Long Parl who had been excluded. 

→ PEOPLE DONT WANT CHARLES II, THEY’RE JUST SICK OF THE CHAOS WITHIN THIS PERIOD

What was Lambert working on, while Monck had taken over?

NMA and Lambert started working with new radical groups. 50k in 1650 wanted religious freedom. A Lambertian Protectorate was made- Quaker support speeds up processes

Monck negotiated w Charles

Declaration of Breda, 1660, April. Restoration of constitutional monarchy that would respect Parl and rule of law.

25/5/1660, Charles II lands. “most potent and undoubted king”

OFFICIALLY, the interregnum never existed, and Charles was on his 12th year of reign!

What are some problems faced by Charles II?

• Charles II hesitant to take a strong stance i.e he let Cavalier Parl try to push for their strong religious stance, but he himself remained more neutral

• Radicals from prev reign still present

• Still struggling w finance anf the King’s reliance on parl for funds will cause tensions

• Property and finance (Hearth tax). Loyalists who refused to give up their land, thus got it confiscated, weren’t rewarded or compensated for loyalty

1640s Acts

i.e ship money, forest fines, distraint of knighthood etc… still remained relevant for Charles II reign, which limited his powers to begin with

Cavalier Parl

The Cavalier Parl were made up of a majority of Royalists, and were much more assertive to begin with.

• huge resistance to the Declaration of Indulgence

• made themselves relevant by manoeuvring financial superiority.

Book of Common Prayer

Restored the C of E

As a result, 1/5 (2000) clergy resigned

HOWEVER, C of E not as powerful as previously

Clarendon Codes

A collective for many different acts that aimed to limit the power of radicals and limit mass spreading of Presbyterianism

• Corporation Act 1661. No holding office unless you accept restored CoE

• Act of Uniformity 1662 (detailed what forms of public prayers you’re allowed to follow, and rites that had to be followed from CoE) 

• Conventicle Act 1664 (no religious meetings over 5)

• Five Miles Act 1665

• BUT CoE still more broader than Charles I’s, and Cavalier & Tories used Parl control over CoE in order to persecute dissent

Triennial Act

Ensured that the Parl would be called at least every 3 years and had to be able to remain present for a minimum of 50 days

Evidence that Charles II did want more religious tolerance

• Charles II didn’t renew Conventicle Act. In response, Parl refused subsidy of 300k to Charles, so he let it renew. 

• March, 1672, Charles issued Declaration of Indulgence and stated suspending powers, to at once stop all anti-Catholic policies. But, he had to withdraw this (‘unconstitutional’) and issue Test Act, 1673. 

Impact of Charles II on Quakers

1662, Quaker Act outlined punishments for Quakers, and at least 450 Quakers died. 

Result, Protestant dissenters became more passive. Following their remaining leader, George Fox, the Quakers issued (1661) first declaration of ‘absolute pacifism’; disillusioned from their political defeat. 

Latitudinarianism

Dissent (refusal to follow CoE) became more appealing when prayers were way longer, more demanding, excluded the illiterate etc. Growth of Latitudinarianism: many Anglicans start believing that reason and personal judgement are more useful than Church doctrine.

Impact of Charles II on Millenarianism

The response was either ‘perplexity or fatalism’.

Either felt defeated and hopeless, or confused why they didn’t win…were they not supposed to rule?

• Execution of Thomas Harrison

Clarendon

One of Charles II’s most trusted advisors, and was an extremely capable advisor

But his personality clashed w/ Charles, and didn’t have full support of Privy Council…he got scapegoated for the 2nd Dutch War’s terrible turn; to save himself, Charles would sacrifice ANYONE. He is unlike Charles I who protected Buckingham; he dgaf

CABAL

Thomas Clifford (crypto Catholic, helped w Secret Treaty of Dover)

Ashley, Baron, Shaftesbury (turncoat, would end up having lead role in Exclusion Crisis)

Buckingham II (closest to Charles II. Him and Arlington ops, him and Ashley friend)

Arlington, Henry Bennet (opposed Clarendon, lost influence)

Lauderdale (Scottish Presbyterian, who lived in Scotland- diff to communicate.

CABAL was too messy with very different opinions- Charles used them to make himself stronger.

Danby, Thomas Osborne

• Wanted strict C of E, no toleration (supported Test Act 1673)

• anti-French, pro-Dutch (supposedly)

• Initially strengthened the position of the Crown in Parliament 

• Used Crown patronage in order to develop ‘court’ grouping within the Commons. 

  • Selected MPs would get letters directing them to support Crown 

  • 1675, Danby had 30 MPs receiving substantial Crown pensions

Test Bill

Test Bill incident: a test bill was introduced in 1675, where all office holders and MPs had to swear not to take up arms, and shouldn’t aim to alter the Church or state.

This bill was defeated by Shaftesbury and Arlington (threat of absolute gov) -> attempt to impeach Danby (he seemed to be pushing away from broadening of Church) 

Attack on Danby

1678, clear that Danby was Charles’ pre-eminent (surpassing all others) minister. 

• Worked with Charles’ mistresses to achieve direct access to King, used king’s patronage through Lord Treasurer role to construct a ‘court’ party → revitalised fears of ‘arbitrary government’. Parl feared Danby would reduce them to be nothing but the king’s tool. 

1678, MP Montagu (not the original one) presented evidence of Danby knowing about Charles’ relations with France, despite Danby having been pro-Dutch; he acted under Charles’ order to ask Louis for money

• Guilty of acting against his own policy. Duplicity in foreign affairs! Charles protected Danby because of his pro-French foreign policy. Self preservation. Charles suppressed a trial by pardoning Danby. He was sent to the Tower for 5 years. 

Court

‘Court’: often opposite opinions. Not party nor opposition: raised awkward questions and prevented gov from confusing ITS interests with the nation’s. 

• Key figures: Charles II, Danby, James Butler, Ormonde, Bridgeman, Belling, Murray..

• Tolerate dissenters and Catholics. Strengthen ties w Catholic France. Manipulated parl via Crown patronage system 

• Generally, Court supported political and religious direction of monarch.

• Court: not defined grouping. Clients of the monarch in Parliament; brought up proposals they knew King wanted (i.e CABAL)

• 1678, after Dutch and French signed Peace of Nijmegen, Charles prorogued Parl but kept army -> Country’s fears of absolutism through army. 

Country

‘Country’: defend parliamentary rights against the Crown’s prerogative powers + defend Protestantism. 

Attitude of devotion to the king, to the established Church, and suspicion for everything else. Opposed Catholics + absolutism + aggressive to France. Disliked ministers, distrusted courtiers, detested bankers. Felt gov was corrupt

• Started when CABAL was in power. Was clear that the ‘Country’ grouping had some co ordination in 1673-4 (i.e founding of Green Ribbon Club= more formal ‘opposition grouping’.

Treaty of Dover,1670

Louis XIV’s success with Dutch concerns Charles, so he signs a triple alliance w Dutch and Sweden vs France

Some parts spilt over Louis secret negotiations, but Charles’ agreement to declare himself as Catholic for an annual salary is secret

Popish Plot, 1678

Demonstrative of the high anti-Catholicism and fear arising in society.

Titus Oates falsely claims that Catholics are plotting to kill Charles and put his Catholic brother, James, on the throne instead.

Mass hysteria, leads to exclusion crisis, and huge divisions between whig and tories.