although the consent and concurrence of the king and the House of Peers
be not had thereunto." But even in that hypothesis, how could the house,
constituted as it then was, claim to be the representative of the people?
It was in fact the representative of the army only, and not a free but an
enslaved representative, bound to speak with the voice, and to enregister
the decrees of its masters.[1] Two days later an act for the trial of the
king was passed by the authority of the Commons only.

In the mean while Cromwell continued to act his accustomed part. Whenever
he rose in the house, it was to recommend moderation, to express the doubts
which agitated his mind, to protest that, if he assented to harsh and
ungracious measures, he did it with reluctance, and solely in obedience to
the will of the Almighty. Of his conduct during the debate on the king's
trial we have no account; but when it was suggested to dissolve the upper
house, and transfer its members to that of the Commons, he characterized
the proposal as originating in revolutionary phrensy; and, on the
introduction of a bill to alter the form of the great seal, adopted a
language which strongly marks the hypocrisy of the man, though it was
calculated to make impression on the fanatical minds of his hearers.[a]
"Sir," said he, addressing the speaker, "if any man whatsoever have carried
on this design of deposing the king, and disinheriting his posterity, or if
any man have still such a design, he must be the greatest

[Footnote 1: Journals, x. 641. Commons, Jan. 1, 2, 4, 6. Hitherto the Lords
had seldom exceeded seven in number; but on this occasion they amounted to
fourteen--Leicester's Journal, 47.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. Jan. 9.]

traitor and rebel in the world; but since the providence of God has cast