Fact test revision

• Rump faced issues from the army, Levellers and religious sectaries 
• 1649-53 the Rump wielded supreme authority. 
• Feb 1st 1649 - former sympathisers of Charles (80 members) were allowed back into parliament 
• May 1649 - England governed as a commonwealth 
• Council of state replaced privy council
• Burford - Fairfax and Cromwell defeated protesting Levellers
• Irish civil war 1641- 1650 - Cromwell invaded (30,000 men) 1649 
• Drogheda - Cromwell refused quarter
• War with Dutch 1652-4 - Two navigation acts taking away trade with Dutch 
• Rump: eased laws on debt and larger parishes divided 
• 3 Sep 1651 -  Battle of Worcester - ending war with scots
• Blasphemy Act 1650 - limited religious non-conformity
• 20 April 1653 - Cromwell dissolved rump (under pressure from soldiers)
• Barebones Parliament - opened by Cromwell 4 July 1653 - substitute for an elected parliament 
• Autumn 1653 - fewer members attended the House 
• Three parts of the constitution - a Protector, a council of State and an occasional single-chamber parliament 
• instrument of government - 30,000 army, a fleet and £200,000 per year for civil government                                                - guidlines established for worship + provision made for preaching
• March 1654 - 'Triers' would approve candidates for living 
• First Protectorate Parliament met in Sep 1653 - Cromwell dissolved it Jan 1655
• Major Generals - deal with troublemakers and royal activists. Popular? support of puritans + some local notables. Unpopular? closed ale-house + banned horse racing, seen as social inferiors by gentry
• Sep 1656 - Second protectorate parliament - Cromwell needed money for war against Spain 
• Elections ^ indication of unpopularity of MGs
• Quaker, James Nayler, punished for imitating Jesus
• Humble Petition of advice - requesting Cromwell to be King, ending arbitrary exclusions
• ^ Refused by Cromwell 

NOTES: Assess the success of international diplomacy in resolving dispute in the 1920s

Task One - The Impact of the Dawes Plan (1924) (Williamson p109-111, Farmer p37-38) 

1. What were the recommendations of the Dawes Plan?

• Although the plan overall didn't alter the amount of reparations to be paid (this was secured in 1921) it did recommend a loan of 800 million gold marks, which was to be raised mainly in the USA, to assist the restoration of the German economy. This was important to the plan as it opened a way for the US to make investments in Germany.
• Annual payments were supposed to start gradually eventually rising to the full amount. These payments would be guaranteed by the the revenues of the German railways and of several key industries.  
• A committee of foreign experts sitting in Berlin under the chairmanship of a US official was to ensure that the actual payments were transferred. The plan was provisional and was to be renegotiated over the next ten years. 

2. What were the reactions of the British, French and German to have the Dawes plan?  

Britain:
The Dawes plan was welcomed enthusiastically in April 1924 by the British Treasury as the 'only constructive suggestion for escape from the present position, which if left must inevitably lead to war, open or concealed, between Germany and France'. It also had the advantage of involving the USA in the whole process of extracting reparations from germany.

France:
There was much that the French disliked about the plan. For example it wasn't clear how the Germans could be made to pay reparations again if they refused to repay them as they did in 1922. However, with the defeat of poincare in June 1924 their willingness to co-operate increased considerable. If they wanted the reparations, France had no other option but to go along with the plan.

Germany:
The Germans also disliked the plan as it placed their railways and some of their industry under international control and did nothing about scaling down their debts. Stressement, after the fall of his cabinet, now foreign minister, agreed that the only way to get the French to evacuate the Ruhr was the agree to the plan.

3. What steps were taken to ensure that France would not again be able to act alone in Germany defaulted on reparation payments? 

The London Conference:
Agreement to implement the Dawes plan and to withdraw French and Belgian troops from the Ruhr was achieved by the London Conference in August 1924. The new balance of power in Europe was clearly revealed when Britain and the USA devised a formula for effectively blocking France's ability to act alone against Germany if defaulted from paying their repayments again. It was agreed that Britain would have the right to appeal to the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague and that a US representative would immediately join the Reparation Commission. Joint Anglo-American pressure would be enough to restrain France from Re-occupying the Ruhr. Deprived on much of their influence on the Reparation Commission, the French had undoubtably suffered a major diplomatic defeat at the London conference.

Task 2 - The Locarno Treaties (1925) and the 'Locarno Spirit' (Williamson 112-118, Farmer p38-39)

1. How did France seek to gain security from future German aggression? 

The Dawes plan, by bringing the Ruhr crisis to an end, had, together with the German measures to stabilise the mark (hyperinflation), made Germany an attractive prospect for US investment. To a certain extent, one of the preconditions for a European economic recovery was now in place, but investments was to come from individual banks and was now guaranteed by the US government. Nor was it accompanied by offers of military security to the French. Thus, should a new economic crisis blow up, US money could melt away and France could be left facing a strong and aggressive Germany.
Initially, the French had little choice but to insist on the literal implementation of the Treaty of Versailles. They refused, for instance, to agree to the evacuation of the the Cologne Zone which was due jan 1925 on the grounds that Germany had not yet carried out the military clauses of the treaty 'either in spirit or in the letter'.

2. What were the terms of the Locarno Treaties? 

The urgent need to reassure the French of Germany's peaceful intentions, and so secure the evacuation of Cologne, prompted Gustav Stresemann, on the unofficial advice of Britain ambassador in Berlin, to put forward a complex scheme for an international guaratee by the European great powers of the Rhineland and of the status quo in western Europe.
Austen Chamberlain the British Foreign Secretary, at first suspected the proposals of being an attempt to divide france and Britain. Then he rapidly grasped that it was potentially a marvellous opportunity to square the circle by achieving both french security and the evacuation of Cologne without committing Britain to a military pact with France, which the cabinet would never tolerate. Aristide Briand, now back in power, was aware that only within the framework by stresemann could be in any way commit to Britain to coming to the assistance of France if it were again attacked by Germany.
In the ensuing negotiations Briand successfully persuaded Chamberlain and Stresemann to widen the international guarantee to cover the Belgian-German frontier. He also attempted to extend it to Germanys eastern frontiers, but this was rejected by both Stresemann and Chamberlain. However, Stresemann did undertake to refer disputes with Poland and Czechoslovakia to arbitration, although he refused to recognise their frontiers with Germany as permanent. Chamberlain was quite specific that it was in Britain's interests only to guarantee that status quo in western Europe. He told the House of Commons on November 1925, in words that were to return to haunt the British government, that extending the guarantee to the Polish corridor would not be worth 'the bones if a British grenadier'.
The negotiations were completed at the Locarno Conference 5-16 October 1925, and resulted in a number of treaties that were signed on December 1st. The most important of these were agreements confirming he inviolability of the Franco-German and Belgian-German frontiers and the demilitarisation of the Rhineland.
The treaties were underwritten by an anglo-italian Guarantee to assist the victims of aggression. If relatively minor incident on one of the frontiers covered by the Locarno occurred, the uninjured part (for example, France) would first appeal to the council of the League of Nations and if the complaint was upheld, the guarantors would assist the injured state to secure compensation from the aggressor (for example, Germany). In the event of a serious violation of the treaty the guarantors could act immediately, although they would still eventually refer the issue to the council.

3. What did Britain, France and Germany gain from the Locarno agreements? 
Throughout western Europe and the USA the Locarno Treaties were greeted with enormous enthusiasm. It appeared as if real peace had at last come. Had France now achieved the security it had for so long been seeking? Of all the great powers the French gained least from Locarno. It is true that Frances eastern frontiers was now secure, but under Locarno it would no longer threaten to occupy the Ruhr in order to bring pressure to bear on Berlin in the event of Germany breaking the Treaty of Versailles. The british managed to give France the illusion of security but the provision of referring all but major violations of the Locarno Agreements to the League before taking action ensured that he British government would in practice be able to determine, through its own representative on the council, what action, if any, it should take. For britain there were two main advantages to LocarnoL it tied France down and prevented it from repeating the Ruhr occupation. Also, by improving relations between Germany and the Western powers and by holding out the prospect any close co-operation between Moscow and Berlin.
Locarno was deeply unpopular with the German nationalists, but for Stresemann it was the key to the gradual process of revising the treaty.
By assuring Germany of peace in the west, and by not placing its eastern frontiers with Poland under international guarantee, Locarno left open the eventual possibility of revision of the German-Polish frontier. Stresemann's aims were therefore diametrically opposed to briands, but both desired peace and therein lay the real importance of Locarno. It was a symbol of a new age of reconciliation and co-operation. Locarno, as Ramsay MacDonald, the leader of the British Labour party, observed, brought about a 'miraculous change' pf psychology on the continent.

4. To what extent did the Locarno treaties lead to a revision of the Treaty of Versailles?
The 'Locarno Spirit' was an elusive concept which was interpreted differently on London, Paris and Berlin. All three powers agreed that it involved goodwill and concessions, yet the scope and timing of these concessions were a matter of constant and often bitter debate. Both stresemann and Briand had to convince their countrymen that the Locarno policy was working. Briand had to show that the was not giving too much away, while Stresemann had to satisfy German public opinion that his policy of 'fulfilment' was resulting in real concessions from the ex allies. It can be argued that the survival not only if Stresemann's policy but of the German Republic itself depended on ever more ambitious diplomatic success. What would happen once these were unobtainable.

5. How much had Stresemann achieved by the end of 1927?
The atmosphere of Detente created by Locarno quickly led to the evacuation of the Cologne zone in January 1926, and in September 1926 Germany at last joined the League of Nations and received a permanent seat on the council.
Stresemann exploited every opportunity both inside and outside the league to accelerate the revision of revision of Versailles. In 1926 he attempted to exploit Frances financial weakness by proposing that Germany pay the French financial weakness by proposing that Germany pay the French nearly one and a half billion gold marks, most of which Germany would raise in the USA by the sale of bonds. In return France would evacuate the Rhineland and give back the Saar and its coalmines to Germany. Despite initial interest, the plan rejected in December. The French governments financee had, contrary to expectations, improved, and it also emerged that the US government was not ready to approve the sale of more German bonds to US investors.
Stresemann did, however, manage to extract further concessions from both Britain and France. In January 1927 the Allied Disarmament Commission was withdrawn from Germany, and in the following August Britain, France and Belgium withdrew a further 10,000 troops from their garrisons in the Rhineland.

6. What did Stresemann achieve in the Hague Conference of 1929?

Two years later Stresemann achieved his greatest success when he managed to negotiate a permanent reduction in reparations with an Anglo-French evacuation of the Rhineland five years before the Treaty of Versailles required it. At the Hague conference in 1929 the overall reparation sum was reduced from 132 billion gold marks to 112 billion, to be paid  over the course of 59 years and Britain and France agreed to evacuate the Rhineland in 1930.
The agreement to end the Rhineland occupation helped to make the young plan acceptable in Germany, but even so in December the government faced a referendum forced on them by the Nazi and Nationalist parties declaring that its signature would be an act of high treason on the grounds that Germany was still committed to paying reparations. This was easily defeated and the Young plan was officially implemented on 20th January 1930. 

7. Why did Briand's proposals for a European federation fail? 

With the evacuation of the Rhineland, Germanys restoration to the status of a great european power was virtually complete. Briand, like his successors in the 1950s, appears to have come to the conclusion that Germany could only be peacefully contained through some form of European federation. At the tenth assembly of the League of Nations in 1929, he outlined an ambitious, but vague scheme for creating 'some kind of federal link.. between the peoples of Europe'.
Streseman reacted favourably and urged both a European customs union and a common currency. Briand was then entrusted by the 27 European members of the league with the task of formulating his plan more precisely; but when it was circulated to the chancelleries of Europe in May 1930, the whole economic and political climate had dramatically changed.
Stresemann had died and the political crisis in Germany caused by the onset of the depression brought to power a government under Heinrich Bruning that was more interested in a customs union with Austria than in European federation. The German cabinet finally rejected the memorandum on July 8th 1930. A week later it was also rejected by Britain.
It is tempting to argue that Briands plans for european federation, which were killed off by economic crisis that was eventually to bring hitler to power, was one of the lost opportunities of history. On the other hand, it would be mistake to view them through the eyes of early twenty-first century European federalists. Essentially, Stresemann hoped that it would have the opposite effect. Perhaps under favourable circumstances it could have at least provided a framework within Franco-German differences that could have been solved.

8. What were the aims of the Russian foreign policy towards Germany in 1924-1929?
The Soviet government, which after the death of Lenin in January 1924 increasingly fell under the control of Stalin, viewed progress made in stabilising western Europe through the Dawes Plan and the Locarno Agreements with both hostility and dismay. It feared this would strengthen the anti-bolshevik forces in Europe and delay revolution in Germany, which they wanted, as this would turn them communist. The Russians initially attempted the deflect Stresemann from his Locarno policy, first with an offer if a military alliance against Poland, and then, when that failed, with a contradictory threat of joining with France to guarantee Poland's western frontiers.
Stresemann aware of Russia's attempts to stir up revolution in Germany in 1923, was not ready to abandon the Locarno policy, but he was anxious to keep open his links with Moscow and consolidate the Rapallo Agreement of 1922, if only as a possible insurance against Anglo-French pressure in the west. Thus, the Russians were able to first negotiate a commercial treaty with Germany in October 1925. Then in April 1926 at the time when the Poles and the french were trying to delay Germanys membership of the league council, they persuaded Stresemann to sign the German-soviet treaty of Friendship (the Berlin Treaty). This was essentially a neutrality pack in which both powers agreed to remain neutral if wither party was attacked by a third power.

9. Why were the relations so bad between Britain and Russia 1924-1929? (Farmer p29-34)
Relations between Russia and Britain sharply deteriorated when the incoming conservative government refused in October 1924 to ratify the Anglo-General Treaty which had been negotiated by the outgoing Labour administration. In 1927, after ordering a raid on the offices of the official soviet trading company, Arcos, in an attempt to discover evidence of the espionage, the British government served all official relations with Russia.
Only in 1929, with the return of Labour, were ambassadors agains exchanged. This outbreak of the first 'Anglo-Soviet cold war', as the American historian Jacobson has called it, strengthened Stalins determination to cut Russia off from the West. Increasingly, the main thrust of Soviet foreign policy in the late 1920s was to exploit anti-western feelings in the middle east, china and india.

10. How great a threat was Mussolini in the 1920s? 
Italy had looked to the pace settlement to give it large amounts of territory that it had been promised when it entered the war, compensating for its heavy losses and making Italy the great power that it had always yearned to be. Yet the peace settlement failed to provide, causing resentment in Italy. 
In 1922 Benito Mussolini, leader of the Fascist Party (an anti-communist movement), seized power in Rome. He demanded revision of the peace settlement and talked of making Italy an imperial power. He soon showed that he was prepared to involve himself in dramatic foreign policy escapades. His ambitions in the Mediterranean, which he regarded as the Italian lake, seemed to pose a direct threat to the British Empire as it was a vital link in it's worldwide communication chain. 
However for most of the 1920s Mussolini kept a relatively low profile. He won some modest gains in Africa, succeeded in annexing the port Fiume on the border of Yugoslavia, and strengthened Italy's hold over Albania. Neither Mussolini nor fascism posed a serious threat in the 1920s. Indeed, some British statesmen, including Churchill and Lloyd George, expressed admiration towards Mussolini's achievements in Italy. 

11. To what extent did France consolidate its influence in Eastern Europe? 
With the victory of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War, France replaced its former alliance with Tsarist Russia with a series of new alliance in eastern Europe. 

• March 1921: Alliance with Poland - hated by Russia and Germany and on bad terms with Czechoslovakia and Lithuania and therefore was the weakest of the the eastern European states. However they failed to persuade Stresemann to agree to a guarantee of Poland's frontiers or to ensure Poland gained a permanent seat on the League council. 
• August 1920: Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia signed a treaty and became known as the 'Little Entente'. They were later joined by Romania in 1921. It was primarily against Hungary, designed to stop the return of the Habsburgs and the revision of the Trianon Treaty. France was not successful in organising these states. 
• 1924: French and Czech agreement, however this was not strictly an anti-German alignment. It would only come into use in the event of a restoration of the royal families of Austria or Germany or of an Austrian Anschluss with Germany. 
• 1926: French and Romanian agreement, guaranteeing its frontiers against the threat of Italian influence in Albania. 
• 1927: Treaty of friendship with Yugoslavia

Task Three - The League Of Nations 

1. How did the League of Nations work?
The league was one of the outcomes of the Treaty of Versailles. It had its headquarters in Geneva. The Assembly of the League, composed of representatives of all the member states, met yearly and each state had one vote. Britain, France, Italy and Japan had permanent seats on the Council of the League. The Assembly could then elect 4 (later 6) further members of the Council. The Council made most of the Leagues decisions. By the Covenant of the League, member states agreed to a number of Articles. The most important being Article 16 which stated that if any member of the League resorted to war, other states should impose economic sanctions (refusing to trade with a particular country), and if necessary take military action. The initial members of the League were the 32 Allied states which had signed the peace treaties and 12 neutral states. By 1926 all ex-enemy states including Germany had joined, but soviet Russia did not do so until 1934, and the USA never did.

2. What roles did the organs of the League of Nations play? 

The Assembly: 
Essentially a deliberate chamber (appointed to debate or discuss issues) where each state, regardless of its size, was allotted three representatives. 

The Council: 
In 1920 the Council had four permanent members: Britain, France, Italy and Japan. In 1926 Germany joined. The smaller states were represented by a changing rota of four temporary members, later increased to seven, who were all selected by the Assembly. As the Council met more frequently than the Assembly and was dominated by the great powers, it gradually developed as an executive committee or cabinet of the Assembly. It worked out the details and implementations of policies which the Assembly had endorsed in principle. Decisions in both bodies were normally taken by unanimous vote. 

Permanent Secretariat:
The routine administrative work of the League was carried out by the Permanent Secretariat which was staffed by a relatively small international civil service. 

Permanent Court of International Justice:
In 1921 a fourth organ was added to the League when the Permanent Court of International Justice was set up at the Hague in the Netherlands with the task of both advising the council on legal matters and judging cases submitted to it by individual states. 

3. How effective were the League's powers for solving international disputes?  
The heart of the covenant, Articles 8-17, was primarily concerned with the overriding question of the prevention of war. The process for solving disputes between sovereign powers was defined in Articles 12-17. Initially (Article 12) disputes were to be submitted to some form of arbitration or inquiring by the League. While this was happening, there was to be a cooling off period for 3 months. By Article 13 members were committed to carrying out the judgements of the Permanent Court of International Justice or the recommendations of the Council.  The Council was empowered by Article 15 to set up an enquiry into the origin of the dispute. The assumption in these Articles was that the states would be only too willing to eliminate war by making use of the League's arbitration machinery. 
In Article 17 the League's powers were significantly extended by its right intervene in disputes between non-members of the League, while in Article 11 member states were encouraged to refer to the Assembly or Council any international problem which might threaten the peace. 
In theory the League had formidable power. The League's existence was based on the recognition of the political and territorial independence of all member states.  However there were several gaps in the League Covenant which allowed a potential aggressor to wage war without sanction. War had to be officially declared before the League could act effectively. It had no formula for dealing with acts of guerrilla warfare. Even in the event of a formal declaration of war, if the International Court or the Council could not agree on a verdict, then League members were free to continue with their war. 

4. What problems faced the league in the 1920s?
In January 1920 the governments of the Great Power viewed the League with open hostility. The French doubted its ability to outlaw war, whilst Germany saw it as a means for enforcing the much hated Treaty of Versailles. For a short time after the Republican victory in November 1920, the US disliked the League and its officials were instructed to avoid any co-operation with the organisation. 
Under the Treaty of Versailles, the League was responsible for the administration of the Saar and Danzig. This inevitably involved the danger of it becoming too closely associated with the policy of the Allies. In the Saar, it made the mistake appointing a French chairman to the governing commission which then administrated the territory in the interests of France. The league was also the guarantor of the agreements, signed by the Allies and the successor states created in 1919, which were aimed at ensuring that the various racial minorities left isolated behind the new frontiers enjoyed full civil rights.
When the Allies distributed the former German and Turkish territories among themselves, they were divided into three groups according to how developed they were. The most advanced were in the Middle East and the least were in the islands of the pacific. The League's greatest task was to avoid becoming a façade for colonialism in a new form. Thus, mandate powers were required to send in annual reports on their territories to the Leagues Permanent Mandates Commissions, which quickly gained a formidable reputation for its expertise and authority. This therefore forced the imperialist powers with moral pressure to consider the interests of the native populations. 

5. How effective was the League's welfare, medical and economic work? 
Economic work:
Although the League was excluded from dealing with reparations and war debts, in 1922 its Financial Committee was entrusted by the Allied leaders with the task of rebuilding Austria and Hungary's economy. The Committee had an even greater task of attempting to persuade the powers to abolish protection and create a worldwide free trade zone. It organised two worldwide economic conferences (1927 & 1933), which both Russia and the US attended. However it failed to make any progress towards free trade. 

The International Labour Organisation:
This was first created as an independent organisation by the Treaty of Versailles, but was financed by the League. In some ways it was a miniature League. It had its own permanent labour office at Geneva, staffed by 1000 officials. Its work was discussed annually by a conference of Labour delegates. Right up to 1939 the ILO turned out an impressive stream of reports, recommendations and statistics which provided important information for a wide range of industries all over the world. 

Health Organisation:
The League's Health Organisation Provided an invaluable forum for drawing up common policies on such matters as the treatment of diseases, the design of hospitals and health education. The League also set up committees to advise on limiting the production of opium and other addictive drugs, on the outlawing of the sale of women and children for prostitution and on the effective abolition of slavery. 

6. How effective was the League in solving international disputes 1920-25?

Successes:

• Teschen 1920: Teschen had been one of the wealthiest and most industrialised regions of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. In 1919, violence erupted between Poland and Czechoslovakia. Poland claimed the region on the grounds that 55% of the population was Polish. Czechoslovakia based it claim on historical arguments. The League split the region between the two countries in 1920, both accepted the decision and the fighting ceased. 
• The Aaland Islands 1921: There were disputes over the Aalands (situated between Sweden and Finland) in 1921. The population was exclusively Swedish speaking, yet belonged to Finland since the early 1900s. Most inhabitants wanted the land to belong to Sweden, and after Sweden raised the issue with the League the land was given to Finland. 
• Upper Silesia 1921: The people of Upper Silesia were divided on whether they wanted to be part of Poland or Germany, leading to a series of local riots between 1919 and 1921. The League decided that it would be split between the two nations, a choice that was accepted by the people. 
• Yugoslavia- Albania border dispute 1921: The League was confronted with open warfare between Yugoslavia and Albania when Yugoslav troops entered Albanian territory in November 1921. The League sent a commission, made up of representatives from Britain, France, Italy and Japan, to investigate the cause of the disagreement. They found in favour of Albania and Yugoslavia had to withdraw its troops. 
• Memel 1923: The port of Memel and the surrounding are were placed under the control of the League if Nations under the Treaty of Versailles. However Lithuania claimed the region and invaded in 1923. The League decided that the area around the port should go to Lithuania and Memel itself should remain an international zone. 
• Mosul 1924: Mosul had been part of the Turkish Empire until 1918. As a result of the Paris Peace settlement, Mosul became part of the British mandate of Iraq. Turkey demanded that it should be allowed to regain control of the region but, in 1924, the League found in favour of Iraq. 
• Greece-Bulgaria border dispute 1925: Greece invaded Bulgaria in 1925. Bulgaria referred the matter to the League on Nations and ordered its troops to offer only small resistance in order to avoid conflict, a clear indication that Bulgaria had faith in the League. The League condemned the invasion and called for Greece to withdraw and pay compensation to Bulgaria. 
• Leticia 1933-34: Leticia lay on the border between Columbia and Peru. Following a series of border disputes, in 1922 Peru agreed that the Leticia region should belong to Columbia. Peruvian businessmen, whose rubber and sugar industries had been affected, were angered by this decision. Under pressure from these powerful businessmen, the government of Peru ordered the occupation of Leticia in 1932, resulting in war with Columbia. Both countries agreed to mediation by the League of Nations and in May 1933 the League took control of the disputed region. By May 1934, an agreement had been reached and Leticia was returned to Columbia. 
• The International Labour Organisation: This was created and financed by the League, and had success in improving working conditions around the world. Governments were persuaded to fix minimum working hours, to establish minimum wage levels, to provide sickness and unemployment benefits and to introduce old age pensions. 
• Commission for Refugees: Helped to resettle over 500,000 former prisoners of war who had been stranded in Russia at the end of WW1. In 1922, the Commission was responsible for introducing the Nansen passport - the first internationally recognised identity card for stateless refugees. When violence erupted in Turkey during 1923, the Commission helped to find homes, food and jobs for 1.5 million refugees and after 1933, considerable assistance was provided to the many thousands of people fleeing Nazi Germany. 
• The Health Organisation: Achieved a great deal in investigating the causes and possible preventions of epidemics. It was successful in combating a typhus epidemic in Russia, and undertook research on diseases such as leprosy.
• The Mandates Commission: Supervised the territories of the former German and Turkish Empires. It ensured that these territories were both well-governed and adequately prepared for their own independent.  
• Financial assistance: e.g The League arranged loans for Austria and Hungary after they became bankrupt and advised them on how best to spend the money. 
• They also played a significant role in dealing with issues such as the exploitation of women and children, drug trafficking and slavery. 

Failures: 

• Vilna 1920: Polish troops occupied Vilna, capital of Lithuania. Following a request from Lithuania, the League ordered Poland to remove its troops and tried to arrange a plebiscite to determine the future of the land. Poland initially agreed, but then reinforced its troops and annexed the city. The main reason for this failure was because both Britain and France supported Polish claim to the region. 
• Treaty of Riga 1921: In 1920, Poland invaded Russian territory. By 1921 the Russians had to sign the Treaty of Riga, giving Poland 31,000 square miles of land, as neither Britain or France had any interest in defending Russia. 
• Invasion of the Ruhr 1923: France and Belgium invaded the Ruhr after Germany failed to pat reparations. Since the Council had to be unanimous (and France and Belgium were members) the League could not take action. 
• Corfu Incident 1923: In 1923 Italy blamed Greece for the death of three Italian officials monitoring the borer between Greece and Albania. Mussolini demanded compensation and occupied Corfu. Greece appealed to the League which ordered Italy to withdraw. mussolini refused and threatened to leave the League. The Council then decided that Greece should pay compensation, exposing the fact that the as a member of the council, Italy was in a position to prevent the League from taking action, and also the Leagues decision was overruled by another body - the League of Ambassadors. 
• Japanese Invasion of Manchuria 1931: Japan invaded in 1931 and China appealed to the League, which ordered Japan to withdraw. When Japan refused, a commission was sent to investigate the cause of the dispute. The commission reported fault on both sides, and that Manchuria should be governed by the League. Japan rejected this, maintained its forces and withdrew from the League. Due to the covenant, the League should have taken action against Japan but neither Britain or France were in the positions to impose economic sanctions on Japan or to participate in a conflict as there was a worldwide depression. 
• Italian Invasion of Abyssinia 1935: In 1935 Mussolini invaded Abyssinia, which the League condemned as an act of aggression and thus imposed economic sanctions on Italy, however they did not apply to key resources such as oil, steel and coal. The sanctions had little effect and were soon abandoned, with Mussolini free to continue and to withdraw Italy's membership.
• Spanish Civil War 1936-39: The Spanish government appealed to League to deal with a nationalist rising in Spain. However the League was not prepared to intervene in an 'internal Spanish matter'. 
• Japanese Invasion of China 1937: Japan lead a full scale invasion on China, and the Chinese appeals to the League were met with sympathy yet little assistance, as their own economies suffered and the majority of nations were desperate to avoid taking action that might lead to war. 

Task Four - Progress Made Towards Disarmament

1. Why did Britain reject the Geneva Protocol of 1924? 

One of the major tasks of the League was to work out an acceptable word disarmament programme. However disarmament could not be divorced from the question of security. To solve this problem the League drafted an ambitious collective security agreement in 1924, the Geneva Protocol, but this was rejected by Britain, who feared that it would commit it to policing the world. 

2. What was agreed at the Washington Four Power Treaty and Naval Conference of 1922? 
With the US outside of the League the twin problems of growing Anglo-American naval rivalry and deteriorating American-Japanese relations in the Pacific could only be tackled by negotiations between the powers concerned. By 1919 the US had become alarmed at the rise of Japanese power in the Pacific. Japan had begun a naval construction programme and in response the US formed a Pacific fleet and embarked on their own naval scheme that, if completed, would give the US the largest navy in the world. This then pushed Britain in 1921 into announcing it's own naval programme, but privately told Washington that it desired a negotiated settlement as it could not afford a naval race. 
The British and Japanese alliance was due for renewal in July 1921, the powers both agreed, under pressure from Washington, to replace it by a new four-power treaty, which committed Britain, France, Japan and the USA to respect each others positions in the Pacific and to refer an disputes to the four signatory powers. 
With the Anglo-Japanese Treaty out of the way, the first Washington Naval Convention was signed in February 1922 for a duration of 14 years. It halted the building of capital ships for 10 years, provided for the scrapping battleships and battle cruisers, and, for those capital ships which were spared the breaker's yard, established a ratio of 3 for Japan and 1.67 each for Italy and France to every 5 for Britain and the USA. in 1929 Britain, Japan and the USA in the London Naval Treaty agreed to extend the main principle of this agreement to smaller fighting ships. 

3. How Important was the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928? From 1922 onwards the USA's attitude towards the League began to alter. The US saw the value of participating in some of the League's committees on social, economic and health matters. When the League set up a Preparatory Commission in 1926 to prepare for a world disarmament conference, both the US and Russia attended. Peace movements such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, put considerable moral pressure on the US to play a greater role in the disarmament question. In March 1927, Professor Shotwell persuaded Brian to propose a Franco-American pact that would outlaw war. Frank Kellogg, US Secretary of State, replied by suggesting a general pact between as many states as possible, rejecting war as an 'instrument of national policy'. On 27 August 1928, the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact was signed by 15 states, and by 1933 another 50 states had joined. It outlawed war, while the League had the necessary machinery for setting up commissions of inquiry and implementing cooling off periods in the event of dispute. However it could be said that, as it did not commit its members, it would just give the US moral basis on which it could intervene with world affairs, should it desire to do so. 

4. Why did the World Disarmament Conference of 1932-34 fail? 
In 1930, the Preparatory Commission, after protracted discussions on different models of disarmament, produced its final draft draft for an international convention. The League council called the long-awaited World Disarmament Conference in February 1932 at Geneva. It could not have been convened at a worse time: the Manchurian Crisis had weakened the League, the rise of a nationalism in Germany was making France and Poland less likely to compromise over German demands for equality in armaments, while the impact of the depression on the USA was reviving the isolationist tendencies of the early 1920s. Long before the Germans withdrew in November 1933 it was clear that the conference would fail. 

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

NOTES: The Failure to Achieve a Settlement 1646-49

A: Lack Of A Political Settlement 1646-47

1. What were the Newcastle Propositions and why did Charles not agree to them? 
Charles had surrendered to the Scots in Newark (1646) and was then sent to Newcastle. Parliament controlled both the army and Charles's advisors so therefore felt that they had power over him. Whilst he was being held, they sent him the Newcastle Propositions in July. In basic terms, these conditions were a combination of the Nineteen propositions and the Scots agreement of 1643, requiring Charles to agree to: 

• the Solemn League and Covenant
• the abolition of bishops 
• religion to be settled by parliament 
• parliament to agree on how to raise money 
• parliament would take control of the army
• who could not be his advisors

However, Charles was aware that there were divisions within his opponents and therefore he wanted to join with the Scots and try to restart the war to ensure that their religious goals were achieved. Although Charles did not like the strict presbyterianism that the Scots stood by, they might be willing to help restore his power and in the short term he would accept Presbyterianism, but then overturn the religious settlement later. Thus Charles took the opportunity for negotiation and avoided giving an immediate answer. 

Although many people feared radicalisation and saw stability within the restoration of the King's power, there were considerable division between the groups trying to bring about a settlement. Given these divisions, Charles was not willing to play a waiting game, and therefore rejected the Newcastle Propositions. 

2. In addition to Charles, who were the four main groups seeking a settlement in 1646-47 and what did they want?  

1. The Scots: did not like the idea of parliament deciding how the question of religion and the state church would be resolved. Therefore they would later make a separate deal with Charles. 
2. The Levellers: divided among themselves, but had support from the army. They put forward plans that would have democratised England and Wales but that would also have threatened the supremacy of Parliament. 
3. The Parliament Party: divided into the 'Peace Party' and the 'War Party'. They were unpopular because they continued the County Committees and Scottish Presbyterianism. 
4. The Army: divisions among them, Fairfax was not interested in politics and Rainsborough had sympathies with the levellers. 

3. Why was there unrest in the counties and what form did the unrest take? 

Many county gentry had been shocked by the war, but by the end of it they had expected the situation to improve. Instead the New Model Army, County Committees and religious anarchy remained. They expected the army to be disbanded once the war was over, however it remained and the costs of maintaining it continued to rise. The County Committees were often staffed by men of a lower social standing than those who had traditionally ran the counties and their new powers, such as arbitrary arrest, cause discontent. As a result many traditional county rulers resented their loss of status and thus would have welcomed back monarchial rule. 

Radical religious ideas continued to be promoted, which also cause discontent among the counties. The new Presbyterian practice of examining people to see if they were fit for worship also angered many people. Some ministers were also removed, leading to the emergence of radical groups, such as the Ranters who denied the existence of sin . 

These developments soon led to petitions from counties and ultimately revolt, which would lead to the outbreak of the Second Civil War. In 1644 parliament had passed an ordinance which limited religious festivals and in late 1647, the Kent County Committee issued an order emphasising that Christmas had been abolished and that shops were to open as if it was a normal working da. This led to riots in Canterbury of Christmas day and although the rebels were put on trial, the jury would not convict them. 

4. Why did relations between Parliament and the army break down in 1647? 

The Scots handed Charles over to parliament in early 1647 and taken to Holdenby House in Northamptonshie. On May 18 he presented his answers to the Newcastle Propositions:

• the 20 year militia control by parliament reduced to 10 
• discussions about a Presbyterian church 
• his supporters not to be persecuted 
• not to give up his right to choose his ministers or military appointments. 

These demands appeared to suggest that a compromise with parliament was possible, but the political siuation had changed and the army's influence and power had increased. 

In early 1647 the leaders of the 'Peace' group in parliament had sought to increase their control and reduce the radicals by getting rid of the army, which would also help to reduce expenditure, and in 1647 they ordered its disbandment. However, the proposals meant that where regiments were maintained, the officers would be replaced and soldiers would lose sympathisers with radical religious views and that those who would replace them were more conservative. 

At first the soldiers petitioned Fairfax for settlement of pay and indemnity. These requests were dismissed by parliament who, on 30 March, published the 'Declaration of Dislike' declaring that the petitioners were 'enemies of the state and disturbers of the peace', angering the soldiers. On May 25 the Commons voted for an immediate disbandment of the New Model Army and offered on 8 weeks back pay. This changed attitudes among the army as it began to take on more of a political role. The rank and file soldiers believed that their views were being ignored and that parliament was trying to get rid of them because of the radical views that had developed and the financial burden that they had created. On 31 May 2 regiments mutinied as they believed that they were being betrayed by conservative MPs who were willing to come to an agreement with Charles which went against everything that they had fought for. 

5a. The Representation of the Army

In order to prevent the agreement the army seized the King at Holdenby on 4 June and took him to Newmarket. On 5 June the army accepted the Solemn Engagement and agreed not to disband until they achieved a settlement over arrears of pay and an agreement had been reached with Charles I. It also established a General Council of Officers to co-ordinate the campaign. Oliver Cromwell then left London to join the army, making clear his support for the cause. The army published the Representation which outlined the army's political programme: 

• a purging of corrupt MPs 
• Parliament to be dissolved 
• New parliament to be of fixed length
• The church to be reformed 
• Liberty given to 'tender consciences', which allowed those who did not believe that the state Church was the true church to continue to worship in their own voluntary congregations 

The Representation made it clear that any settlement would have to involve the army. These developments caused panic, particularly in London, as mobs came out and were difficult to control. A number of MPs fled and some support shifted from parliament to Fairfax and Cromwell, believing that they could better control the radicals of the army and prevent chaos. 

b. The Heads of Proposals

Although the army now had power, it was divided between moderates and radicals, and there was still the problem of the king exploiting divisions. The officers of the army, led by Fairfax and Ireton, drew up their version of the settlement, the 'Heads of Proposals', which was presented to Charles and published on August 1. It called for:

• biennal parliaments 
• election to the Commons to be in proportion to the taxable wealth of the counties
• the militia to be under the control of parliament for 10 years
• the main officers of the realm to be under the control of parliament for 10 years 
• the authority of bishops to be removed 
• the use of the Common Prayer book to be abolished and the Covenant not to be enforced 
• the royal family to be restored without any other limits 

However the Problem with this solution was that it represented the views of the Officers and not the ordinary soldiers as they believed that it was too accommodating to the King. Charles also felt that he did not need to come to an agreement as he saw the divisions between his enemies as something that he could benefit from. He was also reluctant to hand over control of the militia or religion to the extent that the 'Heads' required. He therefore delayed his his response. 

c. The Agreement of the People

With the 'Heads of Proposals' the divisions in the army became more apparent and radicals within the army offered an alternate solution. They produced the 'Agreement of the People' on 28 October 1647, (a less provocative version of their initial document, the 'Case of the Army Truly Stated'). It stated that:

• abolition of imprisonment for debt 
• taxation in proportion to real or personal property
• abolition of military conscription, monopolies and excise taxes  
• No-one could be punished for refusing to testify against themselves in criminal cases
• Equality of all persons before the law

This was ignored by the King. 

6. Why was it so difficult to achieve a political settlement in the period 1646-7? 

On 11 November, Charles escaped from army custody and made his way to Carisbrook Castle on the Isle of Wight. This gave him access to France and the possibility of renewing the war. 

A settlement had proved impossible for a number of reasons, but mainly due to the King and his actions: 

• He was aware of the divisions among his enemies and planned to exploit them in order to regain his power
• He knew that gentry families feared radicalism and looked to him as the upholder of stability 
• He knew that the Scots disliked the English religious proposals and therefore may be willing to reach an agreement with him that could restore at least some of his power. 
• He knew that there were divisions in parliament with the 'Peace' and 'War' parties, which he wanted to exploit

As a result Charles felt that he could avoid reaching a settlement and that as time passed, his position would be strengthened and eventually restored. This view had been encouraged by the terms of the 'Heads', which were a significant improvement on the earlier terms that parliament had offered him. 

At the same time, Charles's opponents had also miscalculated, as they believed the King would except that his military defeat was final, but he did not. Any settlement would need the Kings approval, he also had Scotland and Ireland which, given time, he might have been able to use against his enemies. Therefore he felt no rush in coming to a final agreement. 

B: The Emergence of Radicalism 

7. Why was religious radicalism important for the emergence of political radicalism? 

Religious radicals were a direct challenge to the concept of hierarchy and obedience. These groups were given encouragement in the years before the outbreak of the Civil War as the attack on bishops in the years 1640-42 led to a collapse of censorship, allowing a free press to develop and radical arguments and ideas to be expressed. Separatist Churches flourished, with the following notable developments:

• 1641: London General Baptists hold a joint conference 
• 1643: Seven Churches of the London Particular Baptists issue a joint Confession of Faith
• 1644: The first Congregational Church founded, in Hull
• 1645: Congregational Church established in Canterbury 
• 1646: Six Congregational churches established in Yorkshire

These groups were demanding that any settlement should grant them the right to worship as they wanted. Any arguments to justify religious toleration resulted in theories about rights and freedoms. Although the actual numbers were small, their ideas worried conservatives. This was given greater credence by two important developments; the emergence of the radical Leveller movement in London in 1646 and the apparent strength of the radical ideas in the New Model Army. 

8. What were the origins of the Levellers and who were their leaders? 

The Levellers emerged from the campaign for religious toleration which had started in London in 1644. The leading figures of the group were John Lilburne, William Walwyn and Richard Overton and they were all religious separatists. They argued for complete freedom of worship and belief as a right. Their activities worried conservatives, who tried to stop them. Lilburne was arrested for slandering the Speaker of the Commons, but complained about imprisonment without a proper trial, accused parliament of tyranny and argued for social and legal equality. He was arrested again for slander against the House of Lords and was imprisoned. Demonstrations and marches followed in London and a petition was presented to the Commons, 'A Remonstrance of Many Thousand Citizens'.  

9. Where did the Levellers gain support and how widespread was it?
The levellers emerged from the campaign for religious toleration which had started in London 1644. The leading figures, men such as: John Lilburne, William Walwyn and Richard Overton who were all religious separatists. The three formed a radical group arguing for complete freedom of belief and worship of as a right. These activities worried conservatives. Lilburne was arrested for slandering the speaker for the commons but complained about about imprisonment without a proper trial and accused parliament tyranny and argued for social and legal equality. He was again arrested for slander against the house of Lords and was imprisoned, but used this to demand further political reform. Demonstrations and marches followed in London and a petition was presented to the Commons 'A Remonstrance Of Many Thousand Citizens'.

Soliders:
Parliament might ignore such petitions, but they were concerned about growing radicalism in the army. Soldiers were often debating amongst themselves and protecting separatists in the areas they were stationed.

Meanwhile Cromwell himself was concerned about the threat to the social hierarchy and order posed by the Levellers as he made clear both during the Putney Debates and afterwards. Parliament had rejected the 'Remonstrance of Many Thousand Citizens' and this encouraged them to look for support elsewhere, with support from ordinary soldiers, they put forward the 'Case of The Army Truly Stated' and then the 'Agreement of the People'. Due to these documents and growing fears among the officers, Cromwell agreed to meet in Putney. This resulted in the Putney Debates which lasted between October 28th to November 8th 1647. With the arguments making no progress, Cromwell called for the entire army to be called together together for consultation. However, in order to split the agitators, there were three meeting-points. At Corkbush Field a mutiny occurred. The army leaders responded by imposing martial law and arresting leaders, shooting one, Richard Arnold. This ended short term trouble.

10. What was the Impact of Radicalism? 
The emergence of radical groups in the period of 1646-1647 made it harder to find a settlement due to the king after the first Civil War. However, the failure was also due to the attitude of the king and the demands made by the Parliament. The ideas of the Levellers and radical within the army simply added another group to the problem. But given Charles view of the monarchy it was unlikely that it would have been possible to reach an agreement even within the influence of radicalism. Radicalism had only influenced only a small number of people and spread only because of the conditions created by the Civil War. Despite these limits, radicalism did raise issues that could not be ignored. Levellers political and social ideas may have been contained, but it was much more difficult to contain religious radicalism. This growth resulted in the rise of a new force which claimed a role in shaping the government and argued that it was justified by the will of God, bringing revolutionary element to the attempts to find a settlement.

C: The Second Civil War 1647-1648:

11. Why did Charles and the Scots agree to the Engagement:

Four days before the events at Corkbush Field that Charles escaped from army control. When charles reached the Isle of Wight he received a Scottish delegation, preferring to ally with them, in hope of gaining some power back, instead of resuming talks with Parliament. The Scots recognised that their best hope of ensuring that Presbyterian worship established was through an alliance with Charles rather then an anti-presbyterian army with parliament. Therefore they signed the Engagement with Charles on 26th December 1647, Charles agreed to:

• There would be Presbyterian worship for three years followed by a free debate on how the church should be governed
• The suppression of radical groups, such as: Anabaptists and separatists.
• Armies would be disbanded, except the Scots army which would be sent to England to preserve religious and protect the monarchy. 

This was a very good deal for Charles as it would unlikely England would convert to Presbyterian in three years and a meeting after three years would overturn the changes. It also provided him with a force which would be able to deal with the new Model army. There was also support for a return to familiar force of government in England supported by Riots in placed such as Canterbury. 

However with Charles's escape, there was a strong feeling that Charles could not be trusted and this was reflected by parliament passing a vote of 'No Further Addresses' meaning there would be no further negotiation with the King in January 1648. 

12. Why is the engagement considered a turning point in relations between the king, parliament and the army? And 
13. What Was the Course of the Second Civil War?
A turning point had been reached. Previously men such as Cromwell, Fairfax and Breton had been committed to negotiations with the King but they viewed his dealing with the Scots as treachery and threw their support behind the views of the rank and file in the army. Therefore a republican solution to the constitutional problem now became a possibility.
Despite the development, it did not quell disturbances and some gentry organised petitions calling for a treaty with the King and the disbanding of the army. There was unrest in London, Norwich and Kent, Essex and South Wales, but these disturbances were put down. These were followed by royalist rising in Cornwall, Yorkshire and Wales, and although most were short lived it was an indication of the polarised views. The New Model Army under Cromwell was sent to deal with the unrest in Wales, while Fairfax besieged Colchester, which had been taken by royalists.
The situation changed further in July when the Scottish Army entered England. Unfortunately Charles their progress had been slow to raise forces. They finally entered Lancashire, which they were further hampered by John Lamprets Yorkshire troops. This delay meant that Cromwell had finished putting down the unrest in Wales and was able to go north. The Scottish army was caught on August 17th and within two days the much large the siege of Colchester continued for a few more days and there were a few pockets of resistance elsewhere. Charles had played no part in the war but had been closely guarded by Carisbrooke. The victory of the New Model Army mean that his fate now depended upon them.

D: The Execution of Charles I

14. Why did the army decide that Charles must be put on trial? 

Although the new Model Army had won the second civil war, which increased both their influence and power and the unrest that had engulfed much of the country indicated that many people did not like the attempts to reform either political or religious life. This was reflected when parliament withdrew its 'no addresses' and in September sent representatives to all to the King. But the army had no intention of allowing to agreement between the King and parliament. It argued that Charles could not be trusted and therefore was no point in trying to reach an agreement with him. More importantly it argued that he had forfeited his right to be regarded as Gods anointed. The army claimed that he had rejected God's verdict through his defeat in the First Civil War and therefore God himself and should lose his divine status and answer for his crimes. 

It is important to understand the significance of the belief in God's providence if the developments that followed in the autumn of 1648. The belief that God directed human behaviour according to his will was not confined to radicals. The task was to work out what that will was and then direct their actions in pursuit of this. Charles's opponents believed that Charles went against Gods will and therefore he should be brought to justice. The second Civil War therefore convinced people that Charles should pay for his crimes and untrustworthiness, but it convinced others that it was Gods will and it gave Cromwell the motive for drastic actions.  

15. Why did Prides Purge take place in December 1648?

Parliament refused to debate the Army Remonstrance and on 5th December voted to continue negotiations with Charles at Carisbrooke, believing his answers were for a basis for a settlement. The armies wishes were ignored and therefore they acted. The following day, at 7am 1000 members if the New Model Army blocked the entrance to parliament and as members arrived Colonel Pride produced a list of those to be prevented from entering. The most prominent supporters of the King were arrested. Cromwell returned to London on 7th December after initially being unsure whether to support the purge. 

The purge did not mean that Charles's trial and execution were guaranteed. After all it was parliament but its actions in agreeing to continue to negotiate with the King, that had precipitated the purge and it could therefore be a defensive measure by the army. It was events in december that brought Charles to trial. Cromwell attempted the persuade Charles to make some concessions but he refused and this appears to have convinced Cromwell of the need for a trial as the King as obstructing God's will. If there was going to be a trial for Charles, it would be public. However this meant that is Charles was found not guilt then a settlement would be harder to come to. As well, if he was found guilt he would be executed, this would cause public storms and unease. 

16. What happened during the trial of Charles I?

The decision to establish a High Court to try Charles was made on January 1st 1645 by the Rump. The remaining Lords objected to this, but the commons simply ignored him. Charles was the first european monarch to be put on public trial. Time was spent establishing a jury and judge for the trial. Te trial finally began on January 20th 1649, with john bradshaw as the lord president of the court., while the barrister, john cook, presented these charges. According to the charges, Charles was:

'A tyrant, traitor and murderer and a public implacable enemy to the commonwealth of England.' 

The court claimed that he had waged war on Parliament, fronted commissions to the Irish rebels and was responsible for all the damage that ensued. Charles respond by:

'Remember i am your lawful king I have trust committed to me by God' 

Disputing that the court had any right to try him, Charles refused to plea and claimed that 'The commons of England was never a court of Judicature.' and that 'I so stand more for the liberty of my people than any here that come to be my pretended judges.'
Charles was brought back for the verdict on January 27th. In a final statements to Charles, Bradshaw stated:

'There is contract between the King and his people for as you are that beige-lord, so they are liege-subjects the one bond his the bond of protection that id due from sovereign. Sir, if this is to be broken, farewell sovereignty! Whether you have been a protector of England let all England judge.'

The was followed by this sentence being read out:

'That she said Charles stuart, as tyrant, traitor and murderer and public enemy shall be put to death by the severing of his head from his body.' 

Charles was denied the right to respond and on the 30th January was taken to the scaffold where he made a speech:

'Truly I desire their liberty and freedom as much as anybody; but I must tell you that their liberty and freedom consists in having of government.. a subject and a sovereign are clean different things. I die christian according to the profession of the church of England.'

Cromwell and his allies might argue that they acred correctly in the eye os of God, but in the eyes of the law their actions had been illegal. It was this that would continue to haunt regimes until the restorations in 1660 make it possible to achieve a settlement.

Charles death was followed by the abolition of the monarchy and the House of Lords. This left a purged commons, the rump to rule alongside a Council in state. The army still remained and they would have to deal with royalists, Presbyterians, Scots, Irish and further leveller unrest. The Republic, known as the commonwealth, face by challenges.