more sound and far-sighted view of their own ultimate advantage by at least giving the above-mentioned plan a trial. They might then have said that they had, at least, attempted to establish a republic. Whitelock has expressed their view of the matter in a very few words, saying, "It was much pressed to set a time for dissolving this Parliament. Most of the House disliked to set a time, as dangerous; but agreed that when the business of the kingdom would permit, that then it should be dissolved."1

It is needless to go through the clauses and enter into the details of Ireton's draft. Some of its leading features may, however, be shortly stated. It proposed that the number of representatives should be 400, to be elected by men above twenty-one years of age, assessed to the relief of the poor, not servants to, and receiving wages from, any particular person; and according to a fair and equal proportion of numbers throughout England and Wales; that a Parliament should be chosen once every two years; that the persons to be chosen shall be men of courage, fearing God, and hating covetousness; and in case any lawyer shall be chosen into any representative or Council of State, that he shall be incapable of practice as a lawyer during that trust; and that 150 members at least be always present in each sitting of the representative at the passing of any law or doing of any act whereby the people are to be bound, but that sixty may make a house for debates or resolutions preparatory thereunto. It may, I think, be truly said of it that whatever objections this draft may be open to, it bears all the marks of having been framed with perfectly honest intentions. The clause respecting the exclusion of practising lawyers renders Whitelock's appa

1 Whitelock's Memorials, p 389, folio, London, 1732.

2 Parl. Hist. vol. iii. pp. 1267-1277.

he says,

rently candid criticism of this bill of Ireton's sufficiently intelligible. "The frame of this Agreement of the People," was thought to be, for the most part, made by Commissary-General Ireton, a man full of invention and industry, who had a little knowledge of the law, which led him into the more errors. The bill is evidently the work of an able and ingenious man, and contains, amid some of a questionable character, many provisions of the highest practical value.

2 1

There were undoubtedly at that time certain reforms wanted in the distribution of the representatives of the people in Parliament. For instance, the single county of Cornwall elected forty-four; while Essex and other counties, each having as great a share in the payment of taxes, sent no more than six or eight each. In some instances, moreover, as in carrying measures with a House of only forty members, there was a clear departure from the fundamental constitution of Parliament. In proposing to reform such abuses as these, the framers of the draft did well. And as statesmen-soldiers they occupied the same position, and had acquired the same experience, as

1 Whitelock's Memorials, p. 356. It is remarkable that Whitelock, in his speech in the House in November, 1649, in favour of lawyers being elected members of Parliament in answer to the argument of a member who called the lawyers "gownmen, who had not undergone the dangers and hardships that martial men had done," said :"The ancient Romans were soldiers though gownmen; nor doth that gown abate either a man's courage or his wisdom, or render him less capable of using a sword when the laws are silent or you command it. You all know this to be true by the great services performed by Lieut. -Gen. Jones, Commissary Ireton, and many other lawyers;

who, putting off their gowns when you required it, have served you stoutly and manfully as soldiers, and undergone almost as many and as great dangers and hardships as the gentleman who so much undervalues all of them."-Parl. Hist. vol. iii. p. 1341. But then it will be observed that the cases of Jones, Ireton, and others did not come under the clause proposed in Ireton's draft, which only objected to lawyers practising while they were members of Parliament, which Ireton and the others certainly did not do. The clause is the more remarkable as coming from an able man who had received the education of a lawyer.

that great statesman-soldier, Simon de Montfort, who did so much towards the introduction of the most important discovery ever made in the science and art of government. It may be a lesson of humility to the pride of philosophy to reflect that the principle of representative government, for want of which all the ancient experiments in government were failures, after eluding the search of the greatest philosophers and legislators of antiquity, was discovered by a comparatively unlettered but practically sagacious baron of the dark ages; and that the Petition of Right, and even Magna Charta itself, with a great number of other most important constitutional statutes, were but declaratory and in affirmation of that body of laws and customs which had sprung from the healthy mental activity and conscious responsibility of free men managing their own affairs, public and private, and surpassed, in the practical ingenuity of adapting means to ends, the most subtle devices of the greatest philosophers.

It is due to Ireton, and those who acted with him in the drawing up of that petition and agreement, to cite their own account of the ends they set before themselves and offered to their fellow-countrymen. The petition which accompanied the draft of a constitution, entitled "An Agreement of the people of England," was couched in terms guardedly respectful and courteous :-"While your time," say the armed petitioners, "hath been taken up in other matters of high and present importance, we have spent much of ours in preparing and perfecting such a Draught of Agreement, and in all things so circumstantiated, as to render it ripe for your speedier consideration, and the kingdom's acceptance and practice if approved, and so we do herewith humbly present it to you. Now, to prevent misunderstanding of our intentions therein, we have but

this to say, that we are far from such a spirit, as positively to impose our private apprehensions upon the judgments of any in the kingdom that have not forfeited their freedom, and much less upon yourselves: neither are we apt in anywise to insist upon circumstantial things, or aught that is not evidently fundamental to that public interest for which you and we have declared and engaged; but, in this tender of it, we humbly desire:-1. That, whether it shall be fully approved by you and received by the people, as it now stands or not, it may yet remain upon record before you, a perpetual witness of our real intentions and utmost endeavours for a sound and equal settlement; and as a testimony whereby all men may be assured what we are willing and ready to acquiesce in; and their jealousies satisfied or mouths stopt, who are apt to think or say, we have no bottom. 2. That, with all the expedition which the immediate and pressing great affairs will admit, it may receive your most mature consideration and resolutions upon it; not that we desire either the whole, or what you shall like in it, should be by your authority imposed as a law upon the kingdom, for so it would lose the intended nature of An Agreement of the People;' but that, so far as it concurs with your own judgments, it may receive your seal of approbation only. 3. That, according to the method propounded therein, it may be tendered to the people in all parts, to be subscribed by those that are willing, as petitions and other things of a voluntary nature are; and that, in the meanwhile, the ascertaining of those circumstances which are referred to commissioners in the several counties, may be proceeded upon in a way preparatory to the practice of it: and if, upon the account of subscriptions (to be returned by those Commissioners in April next) there appears a general or common reception of it amongst

the people, or by the well-affected of them, and such as are not obnoxious for delinquency, it may then take place and effect, according to the tenor or substance of it."1

The deputation, consisting of Lieut.-Gen. Hammond, Col. Okey, and other officers appointed by the general and his council of officers to present the petition, having withdrawn, the Commons ordered the petition but not the agreement to be read; the reason of which, according to Whitelock, was the great length of it. The Commons then ordered their Speaker to return their thanks to the petitioners; which he did accordingly.2

The persons who now called themselves the Parliament of England, and who owed not only all their present power and importance, but their very existence, not to any merit of their own, or to anything they had done, but solely to the great deeds of the men who had drawn up and presented this petition and agreement to their consideration, do not appear to have taken any further notice of the Agreement of the People," which had been prepared with so much pains, and so respectfully presented to them. Instead of putting an end to their sitting on or before the last day of April, 1649, in the " Agreement" proposed, or taking any steps towards obtaining the opinion of the nation on the subject, they continued to sit till April 20, 1653, when Cromwell turned them out by force.

I think it may be concluded from all this, that whatever they might say of the dishonesty of Cromwell's proceedings their own conduct was at least questionable: we might almost say not that of honest men, were there not other parts of their proceedings that bear strongly the marks of honest intentions. If, however, the turning them

1 Parl. Hist., vol. iii. pp. 1265, 2 Parl. Hist., vol. iii. p. 1277. 1266, 1267.