The New Rumps

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: tikabuzz
  • Created on: 02-06-13 15:44
Preview of The New Rumps

First 609 words of the document:

Why did the Rumps of 1659 fail?
They hadn't learnt anything from their failures in 1653
They were still reliant on the Army but refused to recognise this.
They were more interested in getting at other people including the Army than making true
reforms.
They mistreated Monck after he had helped them get into power - they told him to police
London.
They were abandoned by the Navy and garrison towns.
Where these new Rumps always doomed to fail?
Not necessarily, they would have more political legitimacy which would help them develop
a power base but the problem of the Army still dogged them. They still refused to
acknowledge their need for the army and instead they tried to carry on regardless. They
were now a fig leaf to cover the naked military rule that effectively existed in England at
this time. If they were going to pretend they were in the same situation as in 1653 then
they were sadly mistaken and perhaps more likely to fail. In addition they failed to reform
religion or politics which would ultimately lead to their dissolution by the army in October
1659. Even on their second return they only succeeded in causing more public anger both
across the country and with Monck.
What reforms did the Rump actually make?
The Rump in its limited time of rule did very little it was not interested in reform but rather
settling old scores. It was exactly this that Monck criticised when he told them to call
back the purged members in February 1660.
Did these new Rumps have any real power?
It could be argued that the restored Rumps didn't have as much as they had enjoyed in
1653 because they were now more than ever controlled by the army. They were brought
back when it became clear that the public would not accept Army rule or the continuation
of the Protectorate. The Army was clearly in a good position but also struggled because
their idea of Republicanism and the Rump's was very different. Men like Holles disagreed
continuously with Lambert because of their differences. This only served to weaken the
position of Republicanism not only in the Rump but also in the eyes of the public who had
less and less faith in it; as seen in the declaration made by the Navy and garrison towns
against it and the numerous petitions received by Monck on his way down through
England. In the end its lack of power was clear to see as it was easily swept away the
first time by the army and then by being ordered to reform the Long Parliament by Monck.
What role did Monck play in the downfall of the Rump?
Monck tried his best when it came to the Rump; he believed strongly that it was the
legitimate power in the country. Fighting for its cause until he realised that it could not be
trusted with it's power. He was the one who insisted upon its return after rule by the
Committee of Safety in late 1659 but ultimately was the one who insisted on its end by
calling back the members of the Long Parliament. Monck didn't want to get rid of the
Rump ; like many others he wanted reform and stability something that he quickly realised
the Rump were not going to honour. More strung up with their own problems and desires

Other pages in this set

Page 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

Monck had no other choice if he
wanted to uphold the position of the army, stability and reform other than to bring down
the Rump. Still in talks with Charles II Monck would finally be able to solve the issues that
the Rump had not.…read more

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar History resources:

See all History resources »See all resources »