[Footnote 2:  The earl of Pembroke had the meanness to solicit and accept the place of representative for Berkshire; and his example was imitated by two other peers, the earl of Salisbury and Lord Howard of Escrick, who sat for Lynn and Carlisle.—­Journals, April 16, May 5 Sept. 18.  Leicester’s Journal, 72.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1649.  Feb. 13.] [Sidenote b:  A.D. 1649.  Feb. 14.]

eighteen others, it was taken cheerfully, and without comment; by the remaining twenty-two, with Fairfax at their head, it was firmly but respectfully refused.[a] The peers alleged that it stood not with their honour to approve upon oath of that which had been done in opposition to their vote; the commoners, that it was not for them to pronounce an opinion on judicial proceedings of which they had no official information.  But their doubts respecting transactions that were past formed no objection to the authority of the existing government.  The House of Commons was in actual possession of the supreme power.  From that house they derived protection, to it they owed obedience, and with it they were ready to live and die.  Cromwell and his friends had the wisdom to yield; the retrospective clauses were expunged,[b] and in their place was substituted a general promise of adhesion to the parliament, both with respect to the existing form of public liberty, and the future government of the nation, “by way of a republic without king or house of peers."[1]

This important revolution drew with it several other alterations.  A representation of the House of Commons superseded the royal effigy on the great seal, which was intrusted to three lords-commissioners, Lysle, Keble, and Whitelock; the writs no longer ran in the name of the king, but of “the keepers of the liberty of England by authority of parliament;” new commissions were issued to the judges, sheriffs, and magistrates; and in lieu of the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, was required an engagement to be true to the commonwealth of England.  Of the

[Footnote 1:  Journals, Feb. 7, 13, 14, 15, 19, 22.  Whitelock, 378, 382, 383.  The amended oath is in Walker, part ii. 130.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1649.  Feb. 17.] [Sidenote b:  A.D. 1649.  Feb. 22.]

judges, six resigned; the other six consented to retain their situations, if parliament would issue a proclamation declaratory of its intention to maintain the fundamental laws of the kingdom.  The condition was accepted and fulfilled;[1] the courts proceeded to hear and determine causes after the ancient manner; and the great body of the people scarcely felt the important change which had been made in the government of the country.  For several years past the supreme authority had been administered in the name of the king by the two houses at Westminster, with the aid of the committee at Derby House; now the same authority was equally administered in the name of the people by one house only, and with the advice of a council of state.