[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1657.  Feb. 22.]

king, and, though uncrowned, had treated on a footing of equality with the proudest of the crowned heads in Europe.  It is more probable that he was led by considerations of interest.  He knew that the nation was weary of change; he saw with what partiality men continued to cling to the old institutions; and he, perhaps, trusted that the establishment of an hereditary monarchy, with a house of peers, though under a new dynasty, and with various modifications, might secure the possession of the crown, not only to himself, but also to his posterity.  However that may be, he now made the acquisition of the kingly dignity the object of his policy.  For this purpose he consulted first with Thurloe, and afterwards[a] with St. John and Pierpoint;[1] and the manner in which he laboured to gratify his ambition strikingly displays that deep dissimulation and habitual hypocrisy, which form the distinguishing traits of his character.

The first opportunity of preparing the public mind for this important alteration was furnished by the recent proceedings against Naylor, which had provoked considerable discontent, not on account of the severity of the punishment (for rigid notions of religion had subdued the common feelings of humanity), but on account of the judicial authority exercised by the house—­an authority which appeared subversive of the national liberties.  For of what use was the right of trial, if the parliament could set aside the ordinary courts of law at its pleasure, and inflict arbitrary punishment for any supposed offence without the usual forms of inquiry?  As long as the question was before the house, Cromwell remained silent; but when the first part of the judgment had been executed

[Footnote 1:  Thurloe, v. 694; vi. 20, 37.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1656.  Dec. 9.]

on the unfortunate sufferer, he came forward in quality of guardian of the public rights, and concluded a letter to the speaker[a] with these words:  “We, being intrusted in the present government on behalf of the people of these nations, and not knowing how far such proceedings (wholly without us) may extend in the consequences of it, do desire that the house will let us know the ground and reason whereupon they have proceeded.”  This message struck the members[b] with amazement.  Few among them were willing to acknowledge] that they had exceeded their real authority; all dreaded to enter into a contest with the protector.  The discussion lasted three days; every expedient that had been suggested was ultimately rejected; and the debate was adjourned to a future day,[c] when, with the secret connivance of Cromwell, no motion was made to resume it.[1] He had already obtained his object.  The thoughts of men had been directed to the defects of the existing constitution, and to the necessity of establishing checks on the authority of the house, similar to those which existed under the ancient government.