The stability of Parliament was a key issue throughout the reign of Oliver Cromwell as Protector. From the opening of the first Procterate in 1654 Cromwell faced continual struggles in parliament. Cromwell faced strong opposition, which can be most clearly seen by attacks upon the whole Procterate edifice hoping to destroy the system and the head of state by Republicans and other opponents of the state. Historian Gaunt attributes this dissatisfaction to ‘a failure of Parliament to act as Cromwell had hoped’ much needed reforms had been lost and other ill-thought-out measures were pushed through. He attributed this failure to both the ‘strength of the opposition to the existing system within the house itself’ and also claims that Cromwell also might share the responsibility as the Protector had failed to ‘guide and to control the session’. The latter of these points seems to be the most significant; as there is evidence that Cromwell had misjudged the mood of parliament and overall there was a theme of bad planning. Cromwell sought to deal with this trouble initially by using troops to temporarily close the house after the Republicans attacked. He then tried to quell the opposition within parliament by trying to prove his legitimacy as leader, firstly by seeking to show that his elevation had not come through personal ambition. Secondly, he attempted to demonstrate that a large number of individuals and institutions had already given ‘explicit’ or ‘implicit’ consent to the regime in general and his office in particular. In order to do this he took the drastic action of dissolving parliament and made all the MP’s wishing to return to the house sign a ‘Recognition’ of his constitution. Only eighty of the four hundred and sixty Mp’s refused to sign this, a clear majority signed, so in effect Cromwell had proved his legitimacy.
There was hostility by most members of the