The Collapse of the Republic and the Restoration of 1660

Why Cromwell’s death reopened the question of government

When Oliver Cromwell died in September 1658, his son Richard succeeded him as Lord Protector. The immediate question was not simply who should lead the country, but what kind of government could command lasting support. Parliament, senior army officers and republicans disagreed over where authority should lie.

The army was more than a fighting force. Its officers could use soldiers to remove governments, while the soldiers themselves had concerns about unpaid wages and freedom of worship. A settlement that ignored the army was therefore difficult to enforce. Yet a government dependent on military pressure could struggle to gain acceptance as lawful civilian government.

Richard Cromwell and the end of the Protectorate

Richard’s government broke down when army officers forced him to dissolve the Third Protectorate Parliament in April 1659. Charles Fleetwood, the army’s commander-in-chief, and other senior officers initially wanted to keep Richard in office, but make him dependent on them.

Republicans wanted something different: the end of the Protectorate, which they regarded as too similar to monarchy. They appealed to the army’s junior officers and ordinary soldiers through pamphlets praising the ‘Good Old Cause’ of the Commonwealth. Promises of religious liberty and payment of wage arrears helped win support. Fleetwood and the senior officers could not resist these demands.

On 5 May, the Council of Officers agreed to recall the surviving members of the Rump Parliament. Around fifty MPs assembled on 7 May 1659. Richard did not appeal for support, and his formal abdication was read to Parliament on 25 May. The Protectorate was over, but there was still no agreed replacement that could satisfy both Parliament and the army.

The recalled Rump: another failed settlement

The army’s proposed settlement included a Senate containing army officers, freedom of worship and legal reform. Richard’s safety was to be guaranteed, and the Rump was expected to arrange new elections before dissolving itself.

Instead, MPs concentrated on bringing the army under parliamentary control. The Speaker gained the power to grant military commissions and promotions, while a parliamentary committee supervised nominations. Officers considered disloyal could be dismissed without a court-martial. To MPs, this asserted civilian authority; to officers, it threatened their positions and independence.

John Lambert, a leading army commander, became central to the dispute. After suppressing Booth’s Uprising in August 1659, officers stationed at Derby petitioned Parliament in September. They demanded the reforms promised in May, protection against dismissal without a court-martial and Lambert’s restoration to the rank of major-general.

Parliament tried to stop further petitions and then revoked the commissions of nine senior officers, including Lambert. It also appointed a commission to replace Fleetwood as commander-in-chief. The officers answered with force. On 13 October 1659, Lambert’s troops surrounded Westminster and prevented MPs from entering Parliament.

A Committee of Safety became the interim government. This military junta repeated the central problem of the period: officers could remove a Parliament, but that did not mean they could establish an accepted and stable government.

Monck restores Parliament, then opens the way to elections

General George Monck commanded the army in Scotland. Responding to an appeal from the republican MP Sir Arthur Hesilrige, he demanded the Rump’s recall as the only legally constituted government. At this stage, his public position was support for Parliament, not an announced restoration of monarchy.

Lambert marched north in November 1659 to confront Monck, but his soldiers were reluctant to fight fellow soldiers. Other armed forces also turned against the junta. The Portsmouth garrison supported Parliament, and Vice-Admiral John Lawson brought the Channel fleet towards London, threatening a blockade. These pressures undermined the military government, and the Rump resumed sitting on 26 December 1659.

Monck marched south in January 1660 and reached London in February. He encountered riots and widespread demands for the return of MPs excluded in Pride’s Purge in December 1648. Their exclusion had left the smaller body known as the Rump; readmitting them would change Parliament’s political balance.

Monck eventually supported their return on conditions: he would remain army commander, a national Presbyterian church would be established with toleration for separatist groups, and Parliament would dissolve itself and hold new elections. These were proposed terms for another settlement, not simply the final religious arrangements of the Restoration.

The excluded MPs returned on 21 February. The restored Long Parliament dissolved itself on 16 March and called elections. The new Convention Parliament, which assembled on 25 April 1660, was strongly royalist in sympathy. A route to monarchy had emerged through elections and parliamentary agreement rather than a successful royalist military invasion.

The Declaration of Breda makes Charles’s return acceptable

In March 1660, Monck entered secret negotiations with Charles II’s representative, Sir John Grenville. Charles was living in exile. Monck sought assurances that would reassure the army and others who feared losing their security under a restored king: a pardon, payment of army arrears, protection for land purchasers and toleration for moderate religious groups.

Charles signed the Declaration of Breda on 4 April 1660. Its conciliatory approach offered opponents reasons to accept his return rather than resist it:

• Pardon: a broad pardon for those who swore loyalty within forty days of his return, although Parliament would determine exceptions.
• Religion: reassurance about toleration for moderate non-Anglican Protestants, with the detailed settlement left to Parliament.
• Property: disputed land purchases would be addressed through a parliamentary settlement rather than an immediate blanket confiscation.
• The army: soldiers’ concerns about arrears of pay would be met.

Leaving contentious details to Parliament helped Charles bring different groups together without settling every dispute in advance. It also meant these assurances were not unconditional guarantees of what each group would eventually receive.

Grenville delivered the declaration to the Convention on 1 May. Both Houses voted unanimously for Restoration. Parliament declared that lawful government consisted of King, Lords and Commons, and recognised Charles as rightful king since his father’s execution in January 1649. Charles landed in England on 25 May 1660 at Parliament’s invitation.

What the Restoration settlement actually restored

The initial settlement broadly restored the constitution as it had stood in 1641, after reforms limiting Charles I’s arbitrary powers. This was important: restoring a king did not mean restoring every feature of his father’s Personal Rule.

Acts given royal assent before the Civil War were confirmed, including the abolition of the prerogative courts and the Triennial Act requiring a Parliament at least once every three years. The prerogative courts were not revived. Commonwealth and Protectorate legislation was removed from the statute books, although the Convention passed a new Navigation Act which repeated and extended the trade regulation introduced in 1651. There was therefore some practical continuity despite the rejection of republican government.

The Convention also granted Charles an annual income of £1.2 million in September 1660. Financial provision mattered because the restored monarchy needed resources to govern, while Parliament remained important in supplying them.

Pardon, property, soldiers and religion

The Act of Indemnity and Oblivion, approved in August 1660, pardoned most supporters of the Commonwealth and Protectorate. However, regicides were excluded. Regicides faced prosecution, with some death sentences reduced to life imprisonment. Broad reconciliation therefore existed alongside punishment for the king’s execution.

The land settlement also involved compromises. Confiscated Crown and Church lands were restored to their original owners. Purchasers required compensation, sometimes arranged through leases at low rents. However, private sales made by royalists to meet parliamentary fines and taxes remained valid. Restoration did not automatically return every royalist’s former property.

Parliament raised taxes to pay off the New Model Army before disbanding it. A poll tax proved insufficient and was supplemented by a tax on property owners. Disbandment was completed peacefully by January 1661. Paying soldiers helped remove a powerful source of resistance and reduced the army’s ability to dictate political settlements.

The Church of England and government by bishops returned, but the promise of toleration remained unresolved. An attempted Anglican–Presbyterian compromise in October 1660 was not passed into law by the Convention. The return of monarchy therefore settled the immediate question of political leadership more clearly than it settled religious divisions.

Why the monarchy returned — and how complete was the settlement?

Restoration followed repeated failures to establish an accepted republican government. Richard could not withstand army pressure; the recalled Rump and the officers clashed over military control; and the junta failed to secure sufficient support. Monck’s intervention created a path from military confrontation to parliamentary elections, while Breda reduced fears about revenge, property, religion and unpaid wages.

By the end of 1660, monarchy and parliamentary government had returned, most former opponents had been pardoned, and the army was being disbanded. Yet Restoration was neither an unconditional royal victory nor a complete reconciliation. Earlier limits on arbitrary government survived, property settlements created losers, regicides faced punishment, and religious toleration remained unsettled.