en convicted of
fraud and dissimulation, would be nothing less than to betray the
trust reposed in the two houses by the country. But the framers of the
vindication marred their own object. They had introduced much questionable
matter, and made numerous statements open to refutation: the advantage
was eagerly seized by the royalists; and, notwithstanding the penalties
recently enacted on account of unlicensed publications, several answers,
eloquently and convincingly written, were circulated in many parts of
the country. Of these the most celebrated came from the pens of Hyde the
chancellor, and of Dr. Bates, the king's physician.[3]

But, whilst the royal cause made rapid progress among the people, in the
army itself the principles of the Levellers had been embraced by the
majority of

[Footnote 1: King's Works, 130. Parl. Hist. iii. 863.]

[Footnote 2: Journals, v. Feb. 10, 11. Parl. Hist. iii. 847. Perrinchiefe,
44.]

[Footnote 3: Ibid. Parl. Hist. iii. 866. King's Works, 132.]

the privates, and had made several converts among the officers. These
fanatics had discovered in the Bible, that the government of kings was
odious in the sight of God,[1] and contended that in fact Charles had now
no claim to the sceptre. Protection and allegiance were reciprocal. At his
accession he had bound himself by oath to protect the liberties of his
subjects, and by the violation of that oath he had released the people from
the obligation of allegiance to him. For the decision of the question he
had appealed to the God of battles, who, by the result, had decided against
his pretensions. He therefore was answerable for the blood which had been
shed; and it was the duty of the representatives of the nation to call
him to justice for the crimes and, in order to prevent the recurrence of
similar mischiefs, to provide for the liberties of all, by founding an
equal commonwealth on the general consent. Cromwell invited the patrons of
this doctrine to meet at his house the grandees (so they were called) of
the parliament and army. The question was argued; but both he and his
colleagues were careful to conceal their real sentiments. They did not
openly contradict the principles laid down by the Levellers, but they
affected to doubt the possibility of reducing them to practice. The truth
was, that they wished not to commit themselves by too explicit an avowal
before they could see their way plainly before them.[2]

In this feverish state