having directed preparations for that purpose (Feb. 17), and having added instructions that members of the Council who desired it should have lodgings in the Palace. Two seals, a larger and a smaller, had been made for the Council's use, each with the impression, "The Seal of the Council of State "appointed by the Parliament of England." Most of the members of Council being also members of Parliament, care was taken that the meetings of the two bodies should be at different times. The Council sat generally once a day, from about eight or nine o'clock in the morning; but sometimes there was an afternoon sitting as well. The attendance varied a good deal-generally from ten to eighteen, seldom as high as twenty-five, and very seldom indeed higher; and often, after the meeting had begun with a small sederunt, members would drop in later to increase it. Till the 10th of March, 1648–9, there was, as Parliament had thought best, no fixed President, each meeting appointing its own chairman; but on that day the Council resolved to appoint a President for the rest of the year, and chose Serjeant Bradshaw. This was not to prejudice the power of the Council to proceed in Bradshaw's absence if the quorum of nine were present. Bradshaw presided for the first time on Monday, March 12, not having been present at any previous meeting; and he continued for a good while to be styled simply "Mr. Serjeant Bradshaw," though "Lord "President Bradshaw" became afterwards his designation. Mr. Gualter Frost, Junior, had been chosen by the Council, at its fifth meeting, on Feb. 22, as assistant to his father in the Secretaryship; and on the 15th of March, in pursuance of a resolution of the 13th (the second day of Bradshaw's Presidency) to appoint a special "Secretary for the Foreign "Tongues," and to offer the post to Mr. John Milton, that gentleman also became an official of the Council and began to attend its meetings. Four clerks, under Frost and his son, completed the Secretarial staff; Mr. Edward Dendy was Serjeant-at-arms, with eight constables or warrant-officers under him; and there were porters, messengers, etc., besides. Chaplains seem to have been in attendance from the first for prayers at the openings of the meetings; and in course of time

regular chaplains were to be appointed. The utmost vigilance was used to secure privacy at the Council meetings. The two Frosts and Milton could be present in the Council-room along with the members; but they were present under the same solemn promise of secrecy that bound the Councillors themselves. The four clerks had their desks in a room apart. There were precautions even as to access to the vicinity of the Councilroom. Gradually, as the Council took measure of its work, it resorted, as all such bodies do, to the machinery of standing Committees for different departments of affairs. Variations in the names and number of the Committees occurred from time to time; but at first we hear most of these five-Committee for Army and Ordnance, Committee for Admiralty and Navy, Committee for Ireland, Committee for Private Examinations (Police Inquiries and Arrests), Committee for Negotiations with Foreign Powers. The members were distributed among these Committees, each of which had a chairman, who was the ruling spirit in his department,-Vane, for example, in the Admiralty and Navy Committee, which had also a separate secretary. The whole Council, however, discussed all matters of general import, referring this or that business to its proper Committee, and deciding on reports from the Committees. Nor, all the while, was the proper connexion between the Council and the Parliament forgotten. It was but a walk of a minute or two from Whitehall to St. Stephen's; the members of Council passed daily from the Council-room to the House and from the House to the Council-room; and discussions of the same subjects were almost simultaneous in the two places, the Council either reporting some matter to the House, or the House referring some matter to the Council. On the whole, though the Council, as the more compact body, and as also containing the persons who formed the ruling nucleus of the House, drew most of the real power to itself, the relations were sufficiently harmonious.1

1 Notes from Order Books of Council; Commons Journals for Feb. 17, 1648-9; Godwin's Commonwealth, III. 180; Bisset's Omitted Chapters of the History of England (1864), p. 37 et seq. See also Mrs. Everett Green's instructive Preface to her Calendar of Domestic State Papers for 1649-50. That Ca

lendar, and its successor for 1650, not having appeared till the present volume was wholly written, my references to them need be only at points where they have added anything to the information I had obtained previously from the documents themselves.

Was there any likelihood that Parliament would act farther on the suggestions of Ireton's Draft Agreement of the People? Having set up a solid Council of State, might they not proceed to pass Ireton's great Reform Bill, with or without that preliminary of a Plebiscite which Ireton had recommended? It is symptomatic of the state of mind of Parliament on this question that they had themselves given effect to that proposal of Ireton's paper which Ireton meant to come into force only after their dissolution and the election of their successors. They had themselves set up a Council of State, and they had made it annual instead of biennial. This did not indicate any haste to dissolve, or to pass Ireton's Reform Bill. To understand why this should have been the case, we must take a survey of the circumstances in which the infant Republic was placed.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INFANT COMMONWEALTH :-DANGER FROM SCOTLAND: PROCLAMATION OF CHARLES II. THERE BY THE ARGYLE-WARRISTON GOVERNMENT: HATRED OF THE SCOTS TO THE COMMONWEALTH.-DANGER FROM IRELAND: PROCLAMATION OF CHARLES II. THERE BY ORMOND: SMALL HOLD OF THE COMMONWEALTH UPON IRELAND.— -COURT OF CHARLES II. AT THE HAGUE : SCOTTISH NEGOTIATIONS AND INTRIGUES THERE: THE MARQUIS OF MONTROSE AGAIN.-SENTIMENTS OF THE VARIOUS FOREIGN POWERS.

On the 5th of February, immediately after the news of the execution of Charles had reached Scotland, the Scots, disdaining the opportunity of converting their own little country also into a Republic, had proclaimed, at the Cross of Edinburgh, the exiled Prince Charles. They had proclaimed him not by the title of King of Scotland only, but by the full style and title of "Charles II., King of Great "Britain, France, and Ireland." An envoy from the Scottish Parliament had at once been despatched to announce the fact to his young Majesty at the Hague, and to convey also a letter from the Commission of the Scottish Kirk. This letter

signified the abhorrence with which all Scotland regarded the murder of his father by the English Sectaries, and the hopes entertained that in himself they might soon welcome back one who would be a true friend to Presbyterial Government. A special embassy, consisting of the Earl of Cassilis and two eminent lawyers on the part of Parliament, and the Rev. Mr. Baillie and another minister on the part of the Kirk, was appointed to follow the first envoy, negotiate with Charles, and invite him into Scotland on certain terms.

Here was one danger for the infant English Republic. Was England never to be free from the embarrassment of her contiguity with the Scots? Three times already in the course of ten years they had invaded England. The first invasion (1640) had been just, for it had been in self-defence against the late King's attempts to force them back to Episcopacy; and the effect upon England herself had been one which she might always remember with gratitude. Against their second invasion (1644) nothing could very well be said either, for it had been on invitation, and to assist the English Parliament in the great Civil War; but they had accompanied the benefit with such an importation of their peculiar tempers and crotchets, in the shape of the Covenant, Anti-Toleration, and Presbyterian bigotry, that it was now questioned whether England might not have fared much better without them. The third time (1648) they had entered England positively as enemies of the Parliament, and promoters of a new Civil War, which would have undone all the gain of the first, had not Cromwell crushed them at Preston. And now, not content with making Charles II. their own King-which theoretically they had a right to do, though practically England would have had to take account even of that experiment-what were they threatening but a fourth invasion, with this Charles II. at their head, to impose him also on the English? With any other people the thing would have been inexplicable. Had not Cromwell, after Preston, gone into Scotland and reinstated for them that Argyle or Whig Government which was now in power? Had he not received their thanks, and parted from Argyle,

Loudoun, Warriston, and the rest, on a good understanding? Had not this very Argyle Government, in conjunction with the Kirk, been employed ever since in punishing, persecuting, and excommunicating all the real and proved Royalists within the bounds of Scotland, whether the older adherents of Montrose, or the more recent supporters of Hamilton's Engagement? Had not Scottish society been expressly reconstituted by a famous Act, called "The Act of Classes," passed by the Scottish Parliament as lately as January 23, 1648-9, or but a week before the King's death, excluding from Parliament and from all places of political trust, for longer or shorter periods, four defined parts of the population, precisely on account of their complicity or sympathy with Hamilton's enterprise on the King's behalf? Was not this Act, which Argyle and Warriston had prepared and pushed through, the very charter of their Government of Scotland, according to their pact with Cromwell? Yet this same Government was itself plotting a new Royalist enterprise, more desperate even than Hamilton's. How had it all happened?-Easily enough! The execution of Charles had driven Scotland mad. When Cromwell had parted from Argyle, the understanding between them can have involved no less than the incapacitation and perpetual imprisonment of Charles by his English subjects; or, if the astute Argyle had guessed more, it had been in silence. But, when the tremendous fact had occurred four months afterwards, and the vision of the beheaded Charles had sent a shudder through Scotland, the revulsion of even the strictest Scottish Presbyterians into the mood of Royalism was immediate and universal. A tendency had recently been observable in some of them, especially after Cromwell's visit to Edinburgh, to more favourable thoughts of the English Independents and Sectaries, and of their policy so far as it concerned only England. All beginnings of such a spirit, however, were now quenched, and the Scottish horror of Independency and Sectarianism of every sort had returned in full force. It was the Army of Sectaries in England that had done the deed of blood, and woe to Scotland if she had dealings now with