In the mean while the new form of government had received the sanction of the house.  Cromwell, when it was laid before him, had recourse to his usual arts, openly refusing that for which he ardently longed, and secretly encouraging his friends to persist, that his subsequent acquiescence might appear to proceed from a sense of duty, and not from the lust of power.  At first,[b] in reply to a long and tedious harangue from the speaker, he told them of “the consternation of his mind” at the very thought of the burden; requested time “to ask counsel of God and his own heart;” and, after a pause of three days,[c] replied that, inasmuch as the new constitution provided the best securities for

[Footnote 1:  Whitelock, 655.  Thurloe, vi. 163, 184-188.]

[Sidenote c:  A.D. 1657.  April 3.] [Sidenote a:  A.D. 1657.  April 9.] [Sidenote b:  A.D. 1657.  March 31.]

the civil and religious liberties of the people, it had his unqualified approbation; but, as far as regarded himself, “he did not find it in his duty to God and the country to undertake the charge under the new title which was given him."[1] His friends refused to be satisfied with this answer:  the former vote was renewed,[a] and the house, waiting on him in a body, begged to remind him, that it was his duty to listen to the advice of the great council of the three nations.  He meekly replied, that he still had his doubts on one point; and that, till such doubts were removed, his conscience forbade him to assent; but that he was willing to explain his reasons, and to hear theirs, and to hope that in a friendly conference the means might be discovered of reconciling their opposite opinions, and of determining on that which might be most beneficial to the country.[2]

In obedience to this intimation, a committee of the house was appointed to receive and solve the scruples of the protector.  To their surprise, they found him in no haste to enter on the discussion.  Sometimes he was indisposed, and could not admit them; often he was occupied with important business; on three occasions they obtained an interview.  He wished to argue the question on the ground of expedience.  If the power were the same under a protector, where, he asked, could be the use of a king?  The title would offend men, who, by their former services, had earned the right to have even their prejudices respected.  Neither was he sure that the re-establishment of royalty might not be a falling off from that cause in

[Footnote 1:  Merc.  Pol.  No. 355.  Mr. Rutt has discovered and inserted both speeches at length in Burton’s Diary, i. 397-416.]

[Footnote 2:  Thurloe, i. 751, 756.  Parl.  Hist. iii. 1493-1495.  Burton’s Diary, i. 417.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1657.  April 8.]