On the return of the lord-general, the council of officers had been re-established at Whitehall;[a] and their discontent was artfully employed by Cromwell in furtherance of his own elevation.  When he resumed his seat in the house, he reminded the members of their indifference to two measures earnestly desired by the country, the act of amnesty and the termination of the present parliament.  Bills for each of these objects had been introduced as far back as 1649; but, after some progress, both were suffered to sleep in the several committees; and this backwardness of the “statesmen” was attributed to their wish to enrich themselves by forfeitures, and to perpetuate their power by perpetuating the parliament.  The influence of Cromwell revived both questions.  An act of oblivion was obtained,[b] which, with some exceptions, pardoned all offences committed before the battle of Worcester, and relieved the minds of the royalists from the apprehension

[Footnote 1:  Whitelock, 549.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1651.  Sept. 16.] [Sidenote b:  A.D. 1652.  Feb. 24.]

of additional forfeitures.  On the question of the expiration of parliament, after several warm debates, the period had been fixed[a] for the 3rd of November, 1654; a distance of three years, which, perhaps, was not the less pleasing to Cromwell, as it served to show how unwilling his adversaries were to resign their power.  The interval was to be employed in determining the qualifications of the succeeding parliament.[1]

In the winter, the lord-general called a meeting of officers and members at the house of the speaker; and it must have excited their surprise, when he proposed to them to deliberate, whether it were better to establish a republic, or a mixed form of monarchical government.  The officers in general pronounced in favour of a republic, as the best security for the liberties of the people; the lawyers pleaded unanimously for a limited monarchy, as better adapted to the laws, the habits, and the feelings of Englishmen.  With the latter Cromwell agreed, and inquired whom in that case they would choose for king.  It was replied, either Charles Stuart or the duke of York, provided they would comply with the demands of the parliament; if they would not, the young duke of Gloucester, who could not have imbibed the despotic notions of his elder brothers.  This was not the answer which Cromwell sought:  he heard it with uneasiness; and, as often as the subject was resumed, diverted the conversation to some other question.  In conclusion, he gave his opinion, that, “somewhat of a monarchical government would be most effectual, if it could be established with safety to the liberties of the people,

[Footnote 1:  Journals, 1651, Nov. 4, 14, 15, 18, 27; 1652, Feb. 24.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1652.  Nov. 18.]

as Englishmen and Christians."[1] That the result of the meeting disappointed his expectations, is evident; but he derived from it this advantage, that he had ascertained the sentiments of many, whose aid he might subsequently require.  None of the leaders from the opposite party appear to have been present.[1]