in the preceding vote.  But the subserviency of the Commons was not imitated by the Lords.  They saw the approaching ruin of their own order in the fall of the sovereign; and when the vote and ordinance were transmitted to their house, they rejected both without a dissentient voice, and then adjourned for a week.[b] This unexpected effort surprised, but did not disconcert, the Independents.[c] They prevailed on the Commons to vote that the people are the origin of all just power, and from this theoretical truth proceeded to deduce two practical falsehoods.  As if no portion of that power had been delegated to the king and the lords, they determined that “the Commons of England assembled in parliament, being chosen by and representing the people, have the supreme authority:”  and thence inferred

[Footnote 1:  Journals, Dec. 23.  Whitelock, 363.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1649.  Jan. 1.] [Sidenote b:  A.D. 1649.  Jan. 2.] [Sidenote c:  A.D. 1649.  Jan. 4.]

that “whatsoever is enacted and declared for law by the Commons in parliament hath force of law, and concludes all the people of the nation, although the consent and concurrence of the king and the House of Peers be not had thereunto.”  But even in that hypothesis, how could the house, constituted as it then was, claim to be the representative of the people?  It was in fact the representative of the army only, and not a free but an enslaved representative, bound to speak with the voice, and to enregister the decrees of its masters.[1] Two days later an act for the trial of the king was passed by the authority of the Commons only.

In the mean while Cromwell continued to act his accustomed part.  Whenever he rose in the house, it was to recommend moderation, to express the doubts which agitated his mind, to protest that, if he assented to harsh and ungracious measures, he did it with reluctance, and solely in obedience to the will of the Almighty.  Of his conduct during the debate on the king’s trial we have no account; but when it was suggested to dissolve the upper house, and transfer its members to that of the Commons, he characterized the proposal as originating in revolutionary phrensy; and, on the introduction of a bill to alter the form of the great seal, adopted a language which strongly marks the hypocrisy of the man, though it was calculated to make impression on the fanatical minds of his hearers.[a] “Sir,” said he, addressing the speaker, “if any man whatsoever have carried on this design of deposing the king, and disinheriting his posterity, or if any man have still such a design, he must be the greatest

[Footnote 1:  Journals, x. 641.  Commons, Jan. 1, 2, 4, 6.  Hitherto the Lords had seldom exceeded seven in number; but on this occasion they amounted to fourteen—­Leicester’s Journal, 47.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1649.  Jan. 9.]

traitor and rebel in the world; but since the providence of God has cast this upon us, I cannot but submit to Providence, though I am not yet prepared to give you my advice."[1]