Monday, May 26, 2008

In the Time of the Rump Parliament

BOOK REVIEW

The Rump Parliament, Blair Worden, Cambridge University Press, 1974


Most historians, especially Marxist historians, have recognized the great English Revolution of the mid-17ht century, a revolution associated with the name of Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans as the first great modern revolution. Moreover, this writer would argue that as with all great revolutions the fate of the English Revolution had many lessons to impart to later generations of revolutionaries. Professor Worden’s little book on a specific part of that revolution is filled with such lessons concerning the period that has become known as the rule of the Rump Parliament (1648-53). That is the period from Pride’s Purge (the exclusion by the Army of those parliamentarians who wanted to continue to treat with King Charles I despite his various acts of treachery) until the time of the Barebones Parliament and the personal rule of the Army General-in-Chief Cromwell.

The Rump Parliament, as the derogatory designation implies, has not been treated kindly, at least not before Professor Worden’s book, at the hands of historians. This nevertheless was a period where dear King Charles I lost his head and scared the crowned heads of Europe out of their wits, leaving them ready for armed intervention against the English revolution. Furthermore, this period, despite confusion about what form of executive power to establish, firmly confirmed the rule of parliament supremacy. However, in retrospect it has also been seen as a sluggish period in the revolutionary saga where no serious reforms were implemented; to the relief of many conservatives and the dismay of the radicals- civilian ones like the Levelers and the various religious sects as well as Army ones, especially in the ranks.

Worden does a fine job of analyzing those conflicts and the basis for those claims of sluggishness. In his hands that reputation for sluggishness is exposed to be false as the work done by this body at that time was as good (if that is the correct word in this context) as any 17th English Parliament as far as dealing with the serious questions of religious toleration, land reform, tax reform, political exclusions, army grievances, extension of the political franchise, law reform and finances. Moreover, in the context of that above-mentioned threat of foreign intervention early in this period it held its own against the internal forces that wanted to make a truce with the European powers.

I have argued elsewhere in this space, in reviewing the books of Professors Hill, Underdown and others who have written about this period, that the shadow of the New Model Army hovers over this whole period. Its periodic interventions into the political events of the time are key to understanding how the revolution unfolded, as well as its limitations and its retreats. There is almost no period where this is truer than the rule of the Rump. Pride’s Purge, an army intervention, set the stage for who would govern (and who would not) for the period.

The early period of Rump rule, beset by constant military needs in order to defend the Commonwealth is basically an armed truce between civilian and military forces. In the later period of the Rump’s rule when there are more dramatic clashes between the Army’s needs and attempts to maintain civilian control the balance shifts in the Army’s favor. From that point Army rule is decisive. Some argue that the defeat of the civilian Leveller forces and their army supporters in 1649 was the watershed. I am not so sure now, although certainly the democratic, secular forces represented there were those modern revolutionaries would support.

I believe that there was no question that Army intervention was definitely necessary at the later time (1653). Moreover the New Model Army represented the best of the plebeian classes that fought for and then defended the revolution. It therefore represented the sole force that could consolidate the gains of the revolution. That it could not retain power over the long haul in the face of a conservative counter-revolution is a separate question for another day. For more insights about this period read this little gem of a book.

5 comments:

  1. Other topic: Utah Phillips died. I found out at The Porcupine Blog.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting post, I'm currently reading some of trotsky's writings of britain which discuss the period you're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ren- I found out about Utah Phillips on Monday through the local folk station here in Boston- WUMB. I have reposted some material today Tuesday May 27th about him that I have written previously, especially a review of what turns out to be his last CD (as far as I know) Starlight on the Rails- Farewell to an old class warrior. Farewell to an old Wobblie. Markin

    ReplyDelete
  4. Left Wing- It is very good that you are reading Trotsky's writings on Britain. Some of his assumptions were off- way off- about the abilities of the leaders of the British trade union opposition, their desire for revolution and the objective possibilities of a new English Revolution in the period from about 1926 (with the Anglo- Soviet Trade Union Alliance as a backdrop and bone of contention with Stalin and in the Communist International) to about 1930 (the time of the MacDonald government of national unity.

    However, Trotsky is hardly the first revolutionary Marxist to break his teeth over the question of optimistic prospects for the British labor movement. The pre-history part of his writings on Britain though, explaining some of the reasons for the backward political consciousness of the British labor movement (as opposed to its advanced social class consciousness0 still make for worthwhile reading. As does his sketch of the period discussed in this blog. We still face those 1920's tasks today. Damn.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I want to begin to develop a sketch here- meaning I want to think out loud- without having to absolutely stand by my proposition concerning this five year period of parliamentary rule (basically 1648 to 1653).

    Marxist are prone to, in a good way, analyze phenomena by comparison with previous or future periods. I want to argue here that this period is politcally essentially the same kind of period as the Menshevik/Socialist Soviet period between the February and October revolutions in Russia in 1917. The social and economic half-measures, the politcal manuverings, the readiness to capitulate to the royalists of those days at the drop of a hat in order to bring the revolution to a halt are all present. That places Cromwell's military coup in dispersing the Parliament as something similiar to the Bolshevik takeover in 1917. Any takers on the argument? Or opponents?

    ReplyDelete