Were the MPs of the Rump primarily responsible for their expulsion in 1653?
The historical debate asks whether the Rump were revolutionaries who became corrupt – thus justifying their expulsion in 1653 – or whether it was a premeditated act by Cromwell and the army that overthrew an otherwise well-running Parliament. Roger Lockyer supports the former argument; he suggests that Cromwell gave the Rump every opportunity to hold new elections, and it was only after recurrent provocations that he retaliated. Blair Worden, on the other hand, argues that the Rump was expelled because they were going to hold new elections; the army would be threatened by the votes of a conservative population, and Cromwell stepped in to defend them.
It could be argued that the Rump was corrupt through self-perpetuation; following his return to London after the Battle of Worcester, Cromwell immediately began to put pressure on the Rump to call new elections. Their response was to appoint a committee to supervise the drafting of plans for new elections, but this action was considered by most as a play for time. When a date was finally set for Parliament’s dissolution, MPs were suitably distracted from further preparations for the new representative – particularly after the outbreak of the Anglo-Dutch War in May 1652. This war in itself can stand as evidence for their corruption: Cromwell called it ‘disgraceful’ and ‘against God’ as its sole purpose was to make money. It also required new expenditure, and the Rump put out contacts to ‘Rumpers’ and their friends to help with the navy, through which they again made a lot of money.