The apparent failure of the Protectorate Parliaments is usually seen as contributing to, and being symptomatic of, the deep-seated problems that afflicted the Cromwellian regime. There is an element of truth in this. All three Parliaments were at times crippled by factionalism; two of the three were ‘addled’, producing no legislation; and of the four sittings all but one ended with a premature dissolution by the Protector. But the traditional account goes beyond these obvious shortcomings to damn the Parliaments and the regime entirely. The failure of most of these Parliaments to fulfil the expectations of the Protectors appears to underline not only the weakness of the regime as a whole, but also the shortcomings of the Protectors as politicians. Thus, Oliver Cromwell is sometimes characterised as a distant, rather other-worldly figure, unwilling to interfere in parliamentary business, and passive in the face of mounting difficulties at Westminster; and Richard comes across as an inept ruler, whose inexperience and weak character meant that his Parliament, like his Protectorate, was bound to fail. Such assumptions are not supported by this present study. Instead of portraying the Parliaments as an unremittingly negative feature of the Protectorate, the picture that emerges from this book is more mixed, and often surprisingly positive. While deadlock and division certainly existed, and fundamental disagreements over religion and reform were indeed major obstacles to the Protectorate government, the attitude of members of Parliament was often very constructive, and there was a considerable appetite for Westminster solutions to local and regional problems.