Barebone's Parliament - Debate Over Form of Assembly

Debate Over Form of Assembly

The dissolution of the Rump Parliament on 20 April 1653 left a gap in the legislature, with no blueprint to fill it. Cromwell and the Council of Officers announced that they would be guided by God's providence in doing so: "as we have been led by necessity and Providence to act as we have done, even beyond and above our own thoughts and desires, so we shall... put ourselves wholly upon the Lord for a blessing". On 29 April Cromwell set up a small Council of State of 13 members, responsible for foreign policy and administration of the country. Its establishment was announced the next day. The Council of Officers remained responsible for decisions about the new form of government. John Lambert argued in favour of lodging power in the hands of ten or twelve men. Thomas Harrison, drawing on his Fifth Monarchist beliefs, argued that their duty was to accelerate the coming of the kingdom of Christ by putting power into the hands of godly men. He put forward the idea of a larger assembly, preferably numbering seventy based on the Jewish Sanhedrin. The Council of Officers agreed on Harrison's model, raising the number of representatives to 140 to allow members from across England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

The Council of Officers then settled the question of how to select the group's representatives, agreeing that members should be chosen by the Council, all of whom were free to put forward nominations. Power would be vested in each member by Cromwell in his role as commander-in-chief of the army. Although there was negative reaction from some churches, with a member of a congregation in London declaring "the question is not so much now who is Independent Anabaptist etc as who is for Christ and who is for Cromwell", most of the sects welcomed the decision. S.R. Gardiner conjectured that the Council of Officers consulted congregational churches in each county, asking them to send names of suitable candidates for the new assembly. However, no copy of any letter of consultation survives, and although some churches did send in nominations, there is no evidence that a mass consultation took place. By 3 May the Council of Officers had had over a hundred names submitted by its members. By 23 May an initial list of nominations was ready, which was then added to and refined over the next few weeks.