only in some of those institutions which lodge the supreme power with the representatives of the people.  That they spoke their real sentiments is not improbable, though we are assured, by one who was present at their meetings, that personal interest had no small influence in their final determination.  They had sinned too deeply against royalty to trust themselves to the mercy, or the moderation, of a king.  A republic was their choice, because it promised to shelter them from the vengeance of their enemies, and offered to them the additional advantage of sharing among themselves all the power, the patronage, and the emoluments of office.[1]

In accordance with this decision, the moment the head of the royal victim fell[a] on the scaffold at Whitehall, a proclamation was read in Cheapside, declaring it treason to give to any person the title of king without the authority of parliament; and at the same time was published the vote of the 4th of January, that the supreme authority in the nation resided in the representatives of the people.  The peers, though aware of their approaching fate, continued to sit; but, after a pause of a few days, the Commons resolved:  first,[b] that the House of Lords, and, next,[c] that the office of king, ought to be abolished.  These votes, though the acts

[Footnote 1:  Whitelock, 391.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1649.  Jan. 30.] [Sidenote b:  A.D. 1649.  Feb. 6.] [Sidenote c:  A.D. 1649.  Feb. 7.]

to be ingrafted on them were postponed, proved sufficient; from that hour the kingship (the word by which the royal dignity was now designated), with the legislative and judicial authority of the peers, was considered extinct, and the lower house, under the name of the parliament of England, concentrated within itself all the powers of government.[1]

The next measure was the appointment, by the Commons, of a council of state, to consist of forty-one members, with powers limited in duration to twelve months.  They were charged[a] with the preservation of domestic tranquillity, the care and disposal of the military and naval force, the superintendence of internal and external trade, and the negotiation of treaties with foreign powers.  Of the persons selected[b] for this office, three-fourths possessed seats in the house; and they reckoned among them the heads of the law, the chief officers in the army, and five peers, the earls of Denbigh, Mulgrave, Pembroke, and Salisbury, with the Lord Grey of Werke, who condescended to accept the appointment, either through attachment to the cause, or as a compensation for the loss of their hereditary rights.[2] But at the very outset a schism appeared among the new counsellors.  The oath required of them by the parliament contained an approval of the king’s trial, of the vote against the Scots and their English associates, and of the abolition of monarchy and of the House of Lords.  By Cromwell and

[Footnote 1:  Journals, 1649, Jan. 30, Feb. 6, 7.  Cromwell voted in favour of the House of Lords.—­Ludlow, i. 246.  Could he be sincere?  I think not.]