protector as great and as formidable
as that of

[Footnote 1: Journals, Dec. 5-17; 1659, Sept. 8. Sewel, 260-273, 283, 393.
State Trials, v. 810-842. Merc. Polit. No. 34.]

[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 th