NOTES: The Commonwealth and Protectorate 1649-58

A: The Failure of the Rump Parliament

1. What problems did the Rump face in 1649? 
A revolution had been brought about by an alliance between the the army and the Rump, but the majority of the nation did not want the execution of Charles or an end to the monarchy. However, although the majority did not want the removal of the King, there appeared to be little choice. This was the basis on which the Commonwealth was established and was a major factor in it's ultimate failure.
The Commonwealth was also weak because the army and the Rump wanted different things from it. The soldiers believed that the Rump would start the process of reform and then give power to a new parliament. The Levellers wanted the power of parliament reduced and made more accountable, while religious sectaries wanted a 'new Jerusalem' to be built, with restraints on preaching removed and all institutions brought into line with the word of God.
There were active plotters against the regime and threats of attack on behalf of Charles Stuart from Scotland, Ireland and the Continent. In order to del with these issues, the size of the army had to increase, therefore increasing taxation and adding to the unpopularity of the Rump.
From 1649-53 the Rump wielded supreme authority. I would have remained a small body if only those who approved Charles's execution continued to sit, however on February 1st 1649, former sympathisers to Charles were allowed back in, bringing back 80 members. However, despite it's reputation the Rump was not particularly radical, as can be seen in the discussion after Charles's death on whether to abolish the House of Lords. In May they formally enacted that England should be 'governed as a Commonwealth and a free state without any King or House of Lords'.
The Rump also established a Council of State in February which was a replacement for the Privy Council. Ireton and Thomas Harrison, who were partially responsible for the Prides Purge, were nominated but rejected by the House. The Council was also under the control of Parliament. The reluctance of the Rump to pass more radical measures has led historians to believe that they were 'no more than corrupt profiteers', yet they could also been seen as realists who resisted the idealistic demands of radicals.
At the time of the Prides Purge, the Levellers thought that a new 'Agreement of the People' would form the basis of a constitution for the Commonwealth. The officers in the army presented it to the Rump and it was ignored. Levellers erupted in protest and the leaders were arrested. Those who were not arrested led a mutiny in the army and in May 1649 issued a new 'Agreement of the People', however did not have enough support for it to be successful. Fairfax and Cromwell led troops against them and they were later defeated at Burford. Their defeat ensured that there would not be a social revolution as the Levellers did not have a clear strategy or a wide enough base of support. They were also easy for authorities to deal with as they were not fully united.
The Rump also faced other challenges and became increasingly more unpopular. Much of this was due to heavy taxation in order to pay for the army. It could not disband the army however, as Charles Stuart was preparing an army in Ireland and Scotland had proclaimed him as King Charles II. In order to lessen its unpopularity, the Rump declared that it would dissolve itself and call new elections in March 1649, however it was slow to actually carry this out.

2. Why was the New Model Arm sent to Ireland in 1649? 
There had been a civil war in Ireland since 1641, which was still yet to be resolved. After the English Civil war had ended, parliament wished to re-establish control its control in Ireland. At first the number of troops that they sent over was too small as both Catholics and Protestants had united under one army in the belief that they would get a better deal with Charles Stuart over parliament.
In 1649 Cromwell was appointed to command a force of 30,000 men to crush the revolt. By the time he arrived in August, the alliance between the Catholics and Protestants was already beginning to break. Cromwell thus dealt quickly and harshly with any resistance. Towns such as Drogheda and Wexford, which refused to capitulate, saw their citizens massacred. These were seen as warnings to other towns: surrender or face the same fate. When Cromwell departed in May 1650, Henry Ireton took over. The provinces of Leinster, Ulster and Munster were under English control by the end of 1650.

3. What happened at Drogheda and why was it controversial?
Drogheda raised the controversial question as to the denial of 'quarter' (showing mercy or sparing the lives of the garrison within the town). The 'laws or war' made it clear that if surrender was refused and a garrison was taken by assault then its defenders could be lawfully killed. Cromwell specifically refused quarter. When the parliamentarian forces had broken into the town they pursued the defenders and destroyed defensible positions. The men who surrendered were taken to a nearby windmill and killed under Cromwell's instructions.

4. How did Cromwell justify his actions at Drogheda?
Two of the main motives for Cromwell's actions were:

• The garrisons that were attacked contained English royalists as well as Irish and therefore were seen as part of the alliance that Charles I had created, and thus were responsible for the Second Civil War and deserved to be punished. 
• The Catholics had carried out massacres in 1641 and Cromwell's army had a God-given responsibility to avenge the deaths of Protestants. 

Limited resistance continued until 1652, but within 9 months Cromwell had been able to establish English authority, even if it was never totally secure. He returned to England in spring 1650 due the threat of Charles Stuart being crowned Charles II in Scotland. Charles took his forces north and defeated the Scots at Dunbar on the 3rd of September. However Charles re-entered England the following year with 12,000 Scots, but was defeated by Cromwell and fled into exile. 

5. Why did the Rump Parliament go to war with the Dutch? 
There had been growing trade rivalry between the English and the Dutch, especially after 1648, when the Dutch gained official independence from Spain at the end of the Thirty Years War. The Rump later passed two Navigation Acts in 1650 and 1651, which aimed to take away some of the role of the Dutch as carriers of trade.This caused economic aggression, leading to a naval war with the Dutch (1652-3). It was not a popular war as it disrupted trade and was costly. Moreover the navy was managed poorly and opponents of the Rump that concentration on war prevented reforms. The war was fought entirely at sea and resulted in England gaining control of the seas around their shores and the Dutch having to accept English control of trade with England and their colonies.

6. What did the Rump manage to achieve in 1649-53? 
One of the biggest problems facing the Rump was finding a way to win backing for the regime, as it wanted to win the support of men of influence, who would determine future elections. Therefore it blocked reforms which would undermine potential supporter's conservative views or would necessitate and increase in taxation. They abolished the hated County Committees but were unable to restore JPs to their traditional roles. 

In the early years of the Rump they achieved:

• Laws on debtor were eased
• Legal proceedings had to be written in normal hand and not script only the trained could read
• The Elizabethan law acquiring weekly attendance at church was repealed
• Enquiries were started to make better use of church endowments 
• Large parishes were to be divided and smaller ones united
• There were Acts to improve preaching in the north, west and Wales

The Rump had originally gained money from selling land confiscated from royalists, bishops and cathedrals. However much of this money was soon spent on the army and an increase in the amount of land for sale caused a fall in price hitting the income that they were receiving. This was made worse by the increase in taxation for the wars with Ireland, Scotland and the Dutch. 

7. How did the lack of reform in both religion and law cause tensions between the Rump and the army? 

On 3 September 1651 the army won the Battle of Worcester (ending the war with Scotland),  freeing Cromwell to resume his seat in parliament and take up his role as the army's main spokesman there. The army believed that the victories it had achieved were due to God and therefore the Rump should bring about a godly reform. The Rump had carried out some of these reforms, but as time passed became concerned with simply surviving. It diverted it attention therefore towards promoting trade, national concerns and power by passing the Navigation Act.

Religion:
The Rump was keen to restrict religious liberty and in 1650 had legislated against some of the more extreme sects that had developed and passed a Blasphemy Act which limited religious non-conformity. Some also wanted to preserve a national church that would be financed through tithe, which angered the army. The Rump had passed legislation for spreading the preaching of the gospel, but in April 1653 allowed the commissions, which were due for renewal, to lapse. This angered men like Cromwell, who believed that the commissions' spiritual achievements had been far-reaching, but also angered those who had served as commissioners.

Law:
In December 1651 the Rump had appointed a commission to review the legal system. It drew up a series of recommendations but the lawyer MPs blocked the proposals, adding to the view that the Rump was self-interested. There were proposals to simplify legal procedures, which were considered too complicated, and repeal laws that were out of date, but these were rejected amid accusations that MPs who were lawyers wanted to keep their monopoly and fees.

8. What explanations have been suggested for why Cromwell dissolved the Rump? 

The Rump was slow to draw up the preparation of a new constitution as it wanted to preserve its privileges and refused to be dictated to. However, under pressure from army officers, it drew up a bill which was given its first reading in February 1653. 

Cromwell called a meeting on 19 April. He suggested that in the short term the Rump should hand supreme authority over to 40 nominated men and then dissolve itself. This body would hold the fort, introduce necessary reforms and then, once the nation was peaceful, it could elect its own representatives once again. The Rump continued to debate their bill, forcing Cromwell to return, denounce the members and order a group of musketeers to eject them. There are two main motives for Cromwell's actions: 

1. He was under pressure from the soldiers, which he could no longer ignore as the Rump was about to vote to perpetuate itself (continue indefinitely), and then adjourn (break off and resume later)
2. The Rump, although it was going to pass power to a new body, had not ensured that the new body would consist of men who supported the revolution and the army. 

There was certainly growing dissatisfaction with the Rump as it had failed to pass the wide-ranging measures that were expected on legal and religious reforms, whilst appearing to keen to prosecute war. Some have suggested that Cromwell had ceased to want an elected parliament at all as he had become converted to the idea of government by a body of hand-picked saints who would bring in the the kingdom of christ. However this can be disproved as it is clear that he didn't know what to do next.

9. How did the Nominated Assembly (Barebones Parliament) function?    

After the dissolution of the Rump, authority went to a council of army officers who task it was to devise a new form of government. The new body would have to be nominated, not elected as Cromwell did not have the right to summon a new parliament. If election had been called it would be likely that they would have produced an assembly that was hostile towards the army and its aims, although a larger army might have been able to clim that it was more representative of regional nd national interests. As a result, each county was given a number of members that corresponded to its size and wealth. The bigger problem was identifying reliable men who who should be sent as representatives, and the Council of Officers simply chose whom they pleased. The nominated members have been described as 'no better than attorneys, tanners, wheelwrights and the meanest sort of mechanics' and some historians have used the example of the radical London tradesman, 'Praise-God' Barebone, as the typical member, resulting in the name of the parliament. However in actuality many of those selected were gentlemen from lower ranks of the gentry, 100 were JPs, 40 had been to university and even Barebone was a merchant. 

Cromwell saw the assembly as a temporary substitute for an elected parliament, however others, such as Harrison, thought that it was the start of a new era. The parliament was opened by Cromwell on 4 July 1653 and asked that it sit no longer than until 4 November 1654, and then hand over power to another body, which it would nominate. 

8. Why was tension between moderates and radicals over religion? 

Divisions between moderates and radicals were what led to the eventual downfall of Barebone's parliament. One of the first controversial issues was tithes. The problem was that tithes were legal property and therefore any tampering with them was seen as an attack on property and worried more moderate members that other attacks on property would follow. This was similar to the right of lay patrons, often members of the gentry, to appoint ministers to some livings, which even some moderates wanted to end, but, like tithes, this was seen as property by by many moderates and saw many of the same problems. Some radicals also wanted to get rid of a maintained ministry, where ministers were paid by public money, whereas moderates did not want to abolish it, even if they supported some degree of reform.

9. Why was tension between radicals and moderates over law and property?
The moderates wanted to remove elements of the common law that were not necessary, whereas radicals wanted to get rid of it all and replace it with a simple written code. Once again the problem was centred round property. Much of the law concerned property and were were worries that changes in one area would raise doubts in others.
During the autumn of 1653 fewer members attended the House, possibly because they had lost faith in its reforming potential. Those who did attend caused cromwell difficulties in his attempts to negotiate peace with the dutch. Instead of peace, the radicals had a vision of wars and conquest, first against what they saw as the corrupt merchants in the Netherlands, and culminating in victory against Rome and the papacy. Despite this, the moderates were able to secure a crushing victory in elections for the new council of state on November 1st, returning 31 moderates as opposed to 4 radicals. However, they did not build on this victory, as the moderates were unable to agree on a form of government.
The opportunity for a new form of government came when the council summoned lambert to discuss the possibility of commanding forces in Scotland to crush a developing royalist rising. Lambert declined the job, but he arrived in London having drafted a new constitution, which he discussed with other army officers and then Cromwell. Although Cromwell was interested in the proposal, he was not prepared to support another military coup or to become king, as the constitution suggested. The first concern was removed on 11th December, when, following a debate the previous day on the state church and tithes, the moderates went early the previous day and resigned their authority, giving their powers back to Cromwell, having dissolved their own assembly.

C: Cromwell as Lord Protector 1953-1958

10. What were the major points of the instrument of government?

The instrument brought together many of the earlier proposals there had been or a settlement, even using of the terms that Pym had offered Charles I in 1641 and 1642. It established three unequal parts to the constitutions: a Protector, a council of state and an occasional single-chamber parliament. It separated legislative, and it restored balance to the constitution. In many ways it also appeared similar to the old division of the king, privy council and parliament, but the differences in each element was regards to the powers each had show that this view would be too simplistic. 

The execution power resided with the protector and council, and the protector was much more limited than any king had been as he had to govern according to the advice f the council and could not dismiss or appoint councillors as he wanted. The legislative power was the protector and parliament, but it is worth noting that the power of the parliament were certainly less than it had been under the rump and no better than under kings. Parliament certainly did not have power of the executive army, finances or church. However, the legislative power of the protector was also limited as any bill passed could be stopped only for 21 days, after which time parliament could insist it was approved, unless it could be shown to be contrary to the instrument. 

There was one area in which the protector was in a  stronger position than the monarchy had ever been, and that was in terms of revenue for the armed forces. The instrument required that the protector should have enough revenue for the army of 30,000 (just over half the size in 1653) and a fleet, as well as £200,000 per year for civil government. Parliament would control taxation only after these needs had been met.

Until parliament met in september 1654, Cromwell and the council had the authority to issue ordinances, although these would be subject to the later approval to issue ordinances, although these would be subject to the later approval of parliament. One area in which substantial reform was made was in religion. The instruments had set down that:

• There should be a public profession of the christian faith
• There should be provision made for preaching
• There should be guidelines established for belief and worship
• Those who dissented from the profession should be free to worship as they wished. 

However, the instrument did not establish procedures for deciding whether a person was fit for a living as a minister of religion and how those who were not fit shock be removed. The problem was tackled by Cromwell through two ordinances. The first, in march 1654, established a 'commission for approbation of ministers', usually known as 'Triers', who would approve candidates for livings. The commission was drawn from a range of religious beliefs and did not impose rigid doctrinal tests on candidates but simply determined whether they had a sufficient education and led a good life. This was followed in august by another commission to remove those unsuitable, known as 'ejectors'. The result was a broad church, which probably included more than at any other time since the reformation. Cromwell also attempted to patronise the universities, believing that they would produce godly graduates who would go on to staff the church.

There were also successes in foreign policy as the war with the dutch was ended in April 1654 and trade treaties were concluded in Sweden and Portugal. 

11. What did Cromwell do before the first Protectorate parliament met in september 1653?

12. Why were relations between the first protectorate parliament and cromwell so difficult?

The elections that took place in July 1654 were the first full ones since 1640 and it was perhaps inevitable that they allowed pent-up grievances to be expressed. This was clearly seen in the results, which returned crypto-royalists, political Presbyterians and former members of the Rump, which made the parliament difficult to manage. The largest group was the unaligned country gentry who disliked the army and central power and therefore questioned the authority of the instrument itself. As a result they began by questioning the restraints in power imposed on parliament. Cromwell soon reminded them that in their election return they had agreed to the new constitution. Despite this, parliament sort much of its time rewriting the constitution, altering the balance between the council and parliament. Moreover, the changes would have limited religious liberty and reduced the size of the army at the very moment of a royalist rising in scotland. When parliament voted that 'the militia ought not to be raised, but by the common consent of the people assembled in parliament', Cromwell had had enough. Unable to compromise, Cromwell dissolved parliament on January 22nd 1655 before it had passed a bill or voted taxation. As a result, Cromwell returned to ruling by ordinance. 

13. What were the aims of the major-generals?

• The first concern for Cromwell was to reduce disorder and create a nation that was loyal to the regime. Therefore the first task of the Major-Generals was to deal with troublemakers and royalist activities. This would be achieved by using something similar to the local volunteer militias. 
• The local militias would also have the advantage of reducing the escalating cost of the present military establishment, but also involve local communities. The scheme would be financed by by tax of one tenth on the estates of known royalists, regardless of whether they had plotted against this protectorate. Cromwell had already reduced the main direct tax from £120,000 to £90,000 and this scheme would enable it to be regarded it to be reduced to £60,000. 
• The major-generals would co-ordinate the command of the militia and check the movements of known royalists.
• Encourage JPs to enforce the 'laws against drunkenness blasphemy and taking the name of God in vain by swearing, cursing, plays and interludes, profaning the Lords day.
• Improve the work of Triers and Ejectors

14. Were the major generals popular, if no why?

It is generally assumed that such policies made by the major generals unpopular, but the historian Toby Barnard has argued that they were obeyed and even helped by some of the substantial gentry. They were disliked because they represented central government; however, Barnard argues that, because they had power and could favour individuals, they were supported by some local notables. They also had the support of some of the godly in the communities as they were seen as instruments to carry out godly reformation and improve morality in the countries. 

Those who have argued that the major generals were unpopular have focused on the dislike from the local communities of another scheme imposed by central government which closed down numerous ale-houses, abolished horse racing and cock-fights, creating the image that they were no more than spoilsports. They were often seen as social inferiors to the respected country gentry; promoting Lucy Hutchinson to describe them as 'silly mean fellows'. 

These two different views perhaps give greater weight to the view of the historian Barry Coward who concluded that 'the striking fact that emerges about the major generals when some of the myths about them have been stripped away, is different amongst them'. A comparison between major generals Worsley in Northamptonshire, who was able to close down 200 ale-houses, and Desborough in the West Country, where he was unable to prevent rebels and local fairs, support in the view that their impact varied. 

15. What did the second protectorate parliament achieve?

Cromwell called a second parliament in september 1956, a year before he had to according to the term of the instrument. He was forced into this because he was short of money to fight the war against Spain, having launched an attack against Spanish colonies. The elections to the new parliament were a clear indication of the limits of the influence of the major generals. They claimed that they would be able to influence the voting so that a compliant bear over 100 members from taking their seats.

The elections resulted in the return of an increased number of moderates and, although they supported Cromwell, they wanted constitutional government and a shift from a military to more civilian style rule. They also wanted to restore power in the local communities and counties to those who had traditionally held power in the past: the wealth gentry. Their opposition to the existing structure became apparent in January 1657 when Desborough attempted to regularise the decimation tax, which funded the major generals, The bill was heavily defeated and Cromwell withdrew his support from the scheme; thus the rule of the major generals was allowed to wither away. 

Although Cromwell was an orthodontist Calvinist, who believed that God had predestined some men and women to be saved - the elect - he thought that they were divided amongst different churches, unlike most other Puritans. Cromwell also believed that religious toleration was essential in order to achieve unity although only for those who he saw as Godly and certainly not those who supported the old Church of England or those who were Catholic. 

16. What evidence is there of Cromwell's religious toleration?

Cromwell believed that inner piety was more important than outward patterns of worship. However, this toleration did not conflict with his duty as head of the state to preserve the law and order. This had been highlighted five months earlier when a Quaker, James Nayler, had re-encated Christs entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday by riding into Bristol on a donkey, with women throwing palms at his feet. A large number of MPs had wanted him punished for blasphemy and anarchy, and although the final sentence of flogging, branding and tongue boring was severe, it was more lenient than might have been the case.

Cromwell attitude to religious toleration had also been seen in this unusual view of the time of extending toleration to Jews. The 1650s saw the first serious attempts to readmit Jews to England since the Middle ages. 

The other majors concern parliament was the first constitution. In this area they had two particular concerns. the first was who was to be Cromwells successor, which was becoming an increasing issue given his decline health. They were concerned that another army man would become protector. the second concerned the composition of parliament. Once again, it had been possible to secure a complaint parliament only excluding large numbers of the elected members. As a result, they drew up the written constitution which they introduced into Parliament in january and presented to Cromwell in march. This was the 'humble petition of Advice'. 

17. What was the humble petition of advice?
The petition attempted to tackle the two problems that concerned parliament. It tackled problems by:

• Requesting Cromwell to become king; this would give the regime more respectability and ensure the succession of his son rather than a member of the army.
• Ending arbitrary exclusions, as members would only be able to be barred by the House itself.

The petition also reduced the power of the council, created another Chamber for parliament (the other house) reduced the size of the armed forces and limited religious toleration. 

Although Cromwell like much of the package, the big problem was that he had to either accept it all or none of it; he could not accept some parts and reject others. In particular, he was attracted by the constitution that had been drawn up by parliament, even if it was a purged parliament, rather than the army. However, he was concerned about becoming king and there is no doubt that the army was unhappy from the start. As a result, there were many weeks of negotiations before Cromwell finally declined the offer.

18. Why did Cromwell refuse the humble petition?

There were a number of reasons for his refusal. Most historians have emphasised the attitude of the army and the unrest the scheme generated with Lambert, Fleetwood and Desborough refusing to continue to serve any longer is he accepted. Cromwell may also have thought that he was betraying the cause for which he and many had fought by becoming King and that was putting personal and family gain first. He may also have thought, given his belief is providence, that God had already condemned the title with the military defeats of Charles and would therefore not go against that. 

https://quizlet.com/12543755/the-rump-parliament-and-barebones-flash-cards/
http://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/history/why-did-the-rump-parliament-fail-to-provide-lasting-and-stable-government-in-england-between-1649-1653.html