which they had engaged, and from that Providence by which they had been so marvellously supported.  It was true, that the Scripture sanctioned the dignity of king; but to the testimony of Scripture might be opposed “the visible hand of God,” who, in the late contest, “had eradicated kingship.”  It was gravely replied, that Protector was a new, King an ancient, title; the first had no definite meaning, the latter was interwoven with all our laws and institutions; the powers of one were unknown and liable to alteration, those of the other ascertained and limited by the law of custom and the statute law.  The abolition of royalty did not originally enter into the contemplation of parliament—­the objection was to the person, not to the office—­it was afterwards effected by a portion only of the representative body; whereas, its restoration was now sought by a greater authority—­the whole parliament of the three kingdoms.  The restoration was, indeed, necessary, both for his security and theirs; as by law all the acts of a king in possession, but only of a king, are good and valid.  Some there were who pretended that king and chief magistrate were synonymous; but no one had yet ventured to substitute one word for the other in the Scriptures, where so many covenants, promises, and precepts are annexed to the title of king.  Neither could the “visible hand of God” be alleged in the present case; for the visible hand of God had eradicated the government by a single person as clearly as that by a king.  Cromwell promised to give due attention to these arguments; to his confidential friends he owned that his objections were removed; and, at the same time, to enlighten the ignorance of the public, he ordered[a] a report of the conferences to be published.[1]

[Footnote 1:  See Monarchy asserted to be the most Ancient and Legal Form of Government, &c. 1660; Walker, Researches, Historical and Antiquarian, i. 1-27; Burton’s Diary, App. ii. 493; Thurloe, vi. 819; Whitelock, 565; Journals, April 9-21.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1657.  April 20.]

The protector’s, however, was not one of those minds that resolve quickly and execute promptly.  He seldom went straight forwards to his object, but preferred a winding circuitous route.  He was accustomed to view and review the question, in all its bearings and possible consequences, and to invent fresh causes of delay, till he occasionally incurred the suspicion of irresolution and timidity.[1] Instead of returning a plain and decisive answer, he sought to protract the time by requesting[a] the sense of the house on different passages in the petition, on the intended amount of the annual income, and on the ratification of the ordinances issued by himself, and of the acts passed by the little parliament.  By this contrivance the respite of a fortnight was obtained, during which he frequently consulted with Broghill, Pierpoint, Whitelock, Wolseley, and Thurloe.[2] At length it was whispered at court that the protector had resolved