You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The Interregnum — the eleven years between the execution of Charles I and the Restoration of his son — was the only period in English history without a monarch, and the only sustained experiment with republican government. It was an age of paradox. A regime born of revolution spent most of its energy seeking stability; a movement that had fought for parliamentary liberty repeatedly dissolved Parliaments by force; a man who genuinely believed in government by consent found himself ruling as Lord Protector, offered and refusing a crown. And it failed: within two years of Oliver Cromwell's death the monarchy was back, restored not by foreign conquest but by the broad longing of the political nation for the settled order the republic had never managed to provide.
The figure of Oliver Cromwell dominates the period and divides historians as sharply as any individual in English history. To Royalists he was a regicide and usurper; to the Victorians, often a Puritan hero of liberty; to Christopher Hill, a conservative who rode and then betrayed a genuine popular revolution; to John Morrill, a "reluctant revolutionary" driven by providential religion rather than personal ambition; to Blair Worden, a more calculating politician than his own self-presentation allowed. Was Cromwell a sincere seeker after godly, consensual government tragically forced into authoritarian expedients — or a military strongman whose piety cloaked the reality of a dictatorship resting on the sword? That question, and the larger one of why the republic failed, structures this lesson.
Key Question: Why did England's republican experiment fail to achieve lasting stability — and how far is the answer to be found in Oliver Cromwell himself: in his indispensability, his reliance on the army, and the gap between his consensual ideals and his authoritarian practice?
The Rump — the purged remnant of the Long Parliament — governed the new Commonwealth from 1649 to 1653. Born of Pride's Purge, it was a narrow body without popular mandate, surviving on the army's sufferance even as it resented the army's demands.
| Achievement | Failure |
|---|---|
| Established and defended a functioning republic against formidable threats | Lacked any democratic legitimacy — it represented only a faction, secured by force |
| Passed significant measures (the Navigation Act of 1651; some moves on law reform) | Failed to deliver the thorough religious and legal reform the army and the godly demanded |
| Maintained domestic order through years of acute danger | Clung to power, repeatedly delaying the new elections it had promised |
| Won the war: Ireland subdued (1649–50), Scotland defeated (Dunbar 1650, Worcester 1651), the Dutch challenged at sea | The reconquest of Ireland was carried out with notorious brutality whose memory poisoned Anglo-Irish relations for centuries |
The Rump's fatal flaw was its refusal to renew itself. Having justified the regicide in the name of the people, it would not face the people at the polls — and its self-perpetuation gave Cromwell, increasingly impatient at its failure to reform, the pretext for the coup of April 1653.
| Event | Detail |
|---|---|
| Drogheda (September 1649) | After the storming of the town, perhaps 3,500 were killed, including the garrison and many others. Cromwell justified the slaughter by the laws of war — a stormed garrison that had refused quarter forfeited mercy — and as a "righteous judgement" on those he blamed for the 1641 massacres |
| Wexford (October 1649) | Around 2,000 died when Cromwell's troops broke into the town during negotiations, the storming apparently occurring before terms were concluded |
| Land settlement | The subsequent Cromwellian land settlement (the Act for the Settlement of Ireland, 1652) confiscated vast tracts of Catholic-owned land, driving proprietors "to Hell or to Connaught" and permanently transforming Irish landholding in favour of Protestant settlers |
Historiographical Debate: Cromwell's Irish campaign is among the most contested topics in the field. Tom Reilly has controversially argued that the killing at Drogheda has been exaggerated and that Cromwell observed the contemporary laws of war, targeting soldiers rather than civilians. Micheál Ó Siochrú (God's Executioner, 2008) offers a far more critical reading, situating the campaign within a pattern of English colonial violence and emphasising civilian suffering. John Morrill stresses that Cromwell's motivation was primarily religious — anti-Catholic providentialism, vengeance for 1641 — rather than proto-nationalist or ethnic. The disagreement turns partly on evidence (how many died, and who) and partly on the moral and political framework within which the violence is judged.
By April 1653 Cromwell had lost patience with the Rump's self-perpetuation and its handling of a bill for new elections. He entered the Commons with musketeers and forcibly dissolved it, reportedly upbraiding the members: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... In the name of God, go!" — and ordering the mace, "this bauble," to be taken away. The army had now dispersed the very Parliament in whose name the king had been killed; the search for a legitimate constitutional form began again from scratch.
The Instrument of Government, drafted by Major-General John Lambert, was England's first and only codified written constitution. It established Cromwell as Lord Protector.
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Lord Protector | Executive authority vested in Cromwell for life, advised by a Council of State that constrained as well as supported him |
| Parliament | A single-chamber Parliament of around 400 English members (plus Scottish and Irish), to sit for at least five months every three years, with a reformed franchise |
| Religious toleration | Liberty of worship for Trinitarian Protestants — a remarkably broad toleration by the standards of the age — though not extended to Catholics or to public Anglican (Prayer Book) worship |
| The militia | Control of the armed forces shared between Protector and Parliament — the very point on which the constitution would founder |
Cromwell's tragedy was a genuine paradox: he believed sincerely in rule by consent through Parliament, yet no Parliament he summoned would accept the constitutional settlement (and the army's privileged place within it) that he regarded as non-negotiable. Each attempt to "heal and settle" foundered on this contradiction.
| Body | Date | Problem |
|---|---|---|
| Barebones (Nominated) Parliament | July–December 1653 | An assembly of "godly men" nominated rather than elected; its radical wing pressed to abolish tithes and the Court of Chancery, alarming the propertied. The moderates engineered its surrender of power back to Cromwell |
| First Protectorate Parliament | 1654–55 | Promptly challenged the Instrument itself — the single-person executive, the army's role — instead of governing. Cromwell dissolved it at the earliest moment the Instrument allowed |
| The Rule of the Major-Generals | 1655–57 | After Penruddock's Rising (1655), Cromwell divided England into (eventually) eleven or twelve districts under major-generals charged with security and "godly reformation of manners," funded by the Decimation Tax on Royalists. Bitterly resented, it fused military rule with Puritan moral policing and became a byword for everything the nation feared about the regime |
| Second Protectorate Parliament | 1656–58 | Offered Cromwell the crown in the Humble Petition and Advice (1657), seeking to anchor the regime in the familiar, law-bound form of kingship. After agonised hesitation Cromwell refused the title — the army's senior officers would not stomach a King Oliver — but accepted a revised constitution with a second chamber and the right to name his successor |
The refusal of the crown is the supreme test-case for interpreting Cromwell. To some it proves his principled republicanism and deference to the army's conscience; to others it reveals the regime's fatal weakness — unable to clothe itself in the legitimacy of kingship that might have secured its survival.
To understand Cromwell at all, one must grasp that religion was the centre of his being, not a veneer over politics. He believed himself an instrument of divine providence, reading the army's victories — Marston Moor, Naseby, Dunbar, Worcester — as God's own verdicts, and he interpreted political choices as attempts to discern God's will. This providentialism explains much that otherwise looks merely contradictory: his willingness to dissolve Parliaments that thwarted what he took to be God's purposes; his anguish when events (such as the failure of the Western Design) seemed to signal divine displeasure; and his life's deepest commitment — liberty of conscience for the godly.
| Aspect of the religious settlement | Detail |
|---|---|
| Toleration | Cromwell extended a remarkably broad liberty of worship to Trinitarian Protestants — Independents, Baptists, even (controversially) the readmission of the Jews to England from 1656, after expulsion in 1290. This tolerance, by the standards of the age, was extraordinary |
| A loose national Church | Rather than impose uniformity, Cromwell maintained a broad, decentralised state Church staffed through the Triers and Ejectors (1654), commissions that vetted ministers for godliness and competence rather than doctrinal precision |
| Limits of toleration | Liberty did not extend to Catholics or to public Anglican (Prayer Book) worship, nor to those whose beliefs threatened public order (the Quaker James Nayler, who re-enacted Christ's entry into Jerusalem, was savagely punished by Parliament in 1656 — against Cromwell's own inclination) |
| The "reformation of manners" | The godly sought to reform the nation's morals — restricting alehouses, suppressing "ungodly" recreations, enforcing the Sabbath — a programme the Major-Generals embodied and which provoked deep popular resentment |
The "reformation of manners" matters analytically because it crystallises the regime's central failure: the attempt to make a nation godly by compulsion. The Major-Generals proved, decisively, that the broad mass of the population would not accept Puritan moral discipline imposed from above; their failure was not merely administrative but a verdict on the whole project of the godly commonwealth. Here lies a recurring theme of the Interregnum — the gulf between the convictions of the godly minority who had made the revolution and the instincts of the conformist majority who had to live under it.
The collapse of censorship and Church discipline in the 1640s unleashed an astonishing ferment of radical religious and political movements.
| Movement | Key Ideas |
|---|---|
| Levellers | Political democracy: a wide franchise, equal constituencies, a written constitution, popular sovereignty. Led by John Lilburne, Richard Overton, William Walwyn; their threat to the army was broken at the Burford mutiny (1649) |
| Diggers (True Levellers) | Agrarian communism: the earth as a "common treasury," common ownership of land. Gerrard Winstanley established a short-lived commune on St George's Hill, Surrey (1649) |
| Ranters | Antinomianism: the saved are above moral law and cannot sin. Probably smaller and far less organised than alarmed contemporaries claimed — the centre of a key historiographical dispute |
| Quakers (Society of Friends) | The "inner light": direct, unmediated experience of God; rejection of a professional clergy, tithes, oaths, and outward social deference. George Fox was the leading figure; by the late 1650s the movement was large and, to the authorities, alarming |
| Fifth Monarchists | Millenarianism: the imminent Second Coming and the rule of "King Jesus"; the saints should prepare by establishing godly government, by force if need be |
Historiographical Debate: Christopher Hill's The World Turned Upside Down (1972) read these movements as a genuine revolutionary tradition — the authentic voice of ordinary people challenging the whole social order, a revolution that might have been. J.C. Davis's Fear, Myth and History (1986) mounted a frontal challenge, arguing that Hill (and the contemporary sources he relied on) exaggerated the coherence and even the existence of the "Ranters," who were more a projection of orthodox anxiety than an organised sect. The exchange is really about method: how far can we reconstruct popular belief from hostile sources, and how far did the Revolution involve genuine bottom-up agency rather than elite politics?
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.