e first the question was whether the
Protectorship should be hereditary, and it had been carried by 200
votes to 60 that it should _not_. This was not strictly an
Anti-Oliverian demonstration; for, though Lambert was the mover for a
hereditary Protectorship in Cromwell's family, many of the undoubted
Oliverians voted in the majority, nor does there seem to be any proof
that Lambert had acted by direct authority from Cromwell. More
distinctly an Anti-Oliverian vote had been that of Nov. 10, which was
on a question of deep interest to Cromwell: viz. the amount of his
prerogative in the form of a negative on Bills trenching on
fundamentals. In his last speech he had himself indicated these
"fundamentals," which ought to be safe against attack even by
Parliament--one of them being Liberty of Conscience, another the
Control of the Militia as belonging to the Protector _in
conjunction with_ the Parliament, and a third the provision, that
every Parliament should sit but for a fixed period. In all other
matters he was content with a negative for twenty days only; but on
bills trenching on these fundamentals he required a negative
absolutely. The question had come to the vote in a very subtle form.
The motion of the Opposition was that Bills should become Law without
the Protector's consent after twenty days, "provided that such Bills
contain nothing in them contrary to such matters wherein the
Parliament shall think fit to give a negative to the Lord Protector,"
while the amendment of the Oliverians or Court-party altered the
wording into "wherein the Single Person and the Parliament shall
declare a negative to be in the Single Person," thus giving Cromwell
himself, and not the Parliament only, a right of deciding where a
negative should lie. On this question the Oliverians were beaten by
109 votes to 85, and the decision would probably have caused a
rupture had not the Opposition conceded a good deal when they went on
to settle the matters wherein Parliament _would_ grant the
Protector a negative.[1]

[Footnote 1: Journals of dates and Godwin, IV. 134-139.]

As we have said, almost the sole occupation of the Parliament was
this revision of the flooring on which itself and the Protectorate
stood. They did, however, some little pieces of work besides. They
undertook a revision of the Ordinances that had been passed by the
Protector and his Council, and also of the Acts of the Barebones
Parliament; and they proposed Bills of t