1640-60: republicans (really 1654-60)

Question 1

line of arg

Answer 1

• Republicans, including key invds like Haselrig and Bradshaw, fought in the CW on Parl side to protect the privileges of parliament. Thus, deep resentment formed with the illegitimacy of OC which made political harmony impossible, and actions of Republicans contributed to political failure as a result.

Question 2

conflict in FPP

Answer 2

when parl met to pass the constitution (IoG) in set 1654, MPs demanded alteration of constitution straight away

Question 3

conflict in SPP

Answer 3

Jan ‘58 : as soon as allowed into Parl, led by Haselrig, the republicans immediately attacked the HP+A blaming it for high tax and too much power to the Protector, maintaining army’s illegitimate influence in politics etc.. → shows clear opposition and led to political failure → OC ended session early in Feb ‘58

Question 4

increasing power of republicans and contribution to political failure

Answer 4

 Increasing power of republicans: 3PP: clear opposition to power of RC and sought to control army led to RC’s self-imposed exile:
→ (although republicans were the minority, against 549 MPs) led by Haselrig, the republicans denounced the amount of power that the protector had- bc of RC insistence on continuing as Commander-in-Chief, republicans sought to decrease the power of the army + argued that local militias should be under Parl control and that Council of Army Officers should sit only with the permission of Parl → made RC fearful of another CW and so he went into exile. SO shows that republican opposition = political failure

Question 5

conflict over power in return of rump

Answer 5

return of the Rump (May-Oct ‘59)
→ rump led by opposing powers- Haselrig vs Lambert: lambert introduced HP+Address of the Officers which attempted to increase army power- Haselrig did NOT accept any decrease in power of the commons = conflict