This form of government was called the Commonwealth; but it had in no way been sanctioned by the voice of the people, and a free appeal to the country would at once have led to its rejection. It had been in fact created by the mere remnant of a House of Commons elected nine years before, and was really the rule of a hundred men supported by a victorious army. Such a system is most correctly termed an Oligarchy, or government by the few.

6

How the Commonwealth was received in England. -The new government was threatened, both at home and abroad, by the most overwhelming dangers. The people looked upon it with dislike. For four months, the Council shrank from proclaiming the Commonwealth' in London; and when they did so, the aldermen showed their dislike by remaining absent. "What was being done was opposed to my conscience and contrary to my oath," boldly answered one of them when questioned; "My heart was not in this work," replied another.

There appeared many other indications of the popular feeling.

When the forty-one newly appointed Councillors were required to sign a declaration approving of the execution of the King and the abolition of the royal office, twentytwo refused. They agreed to serve the Commonwealth faithfully as the only existing form of government, but firmly declined to give their sanction to the past.

The same spirit was shown when the Council thought to check the spread of the royalist feeling by bringing to trial the captive leaders whom they had in their power. The Duke of Hamilton, Lord Holland and Lord Capel were condemned and brought to the block. But the execution of these noblemen-especially of the

last named, a virtuous and able man-called forth such expressions of sorrow and sympathy, that the Council thought it wise to adopt other methods of dealing with their prisoners.

There ap

One more incident may be mentioned. peared a book called 'The Royal Image,'' giving, as it were, a portrait of the late king. It was supposed to be written by Charles himself, and presented a vivid picture of his inner life-his mingled pride and piety, and his devotion to his religion, his honour, and his divine right as king. Thousands of copies were sold, and the book caused a complete change of feeling in many who had formerly opposed the royal claims.

In a word, had it not been for the army, the Oligarchy would not have lasted a day. And now danger threatened the government from this its chief support. There were still among the soldiers a large number of the enthusiasts called 'Levellers.' 10 These men had looked for a true republic, where every man should have a voice in the government, and all should be equal; but they now found that they had merely changed a weak master for a very strong one. Their leader was an eloquent and fearless man, Colonel Lilburne or 'Free born John,' as he was familiarly called.

› 11

"I would rather," he said, "live seven years under the government of the old King Charles, although they have cut off his head as a tyrant, than one year under the present tyranny."

When this fiery agitator was committed to the Tower, insurrection broke out in several regiments; and it was not without the greatest difficulty that Fairfax and Cromwell crushed out the mutiny. The danger had been extreme; and to make matters still worse for the

government, Lilburne was acquitted amidst the joyous cheers of the people-so loud "that no voice could be heard in the Hall for more than half an hour." The Oligarchy became more and more unpopular;

and, as their star, sank that of Cromwell rose. Men had begun to look to him as the means of escape from the 'tyranny of the few,' and events soon happened which increased his fame and made his influence still greater.

THE LAST OF THE OLD CAVALIERS.

HE Great Marquis.-When the Scots had handed over Charles I. to the English Parliament, they had expressly stipulated for his personal safety. Accordingly, when the news of his execution reached Edinburgh, they denounced the act as a breach of faith and immediately proclaimed Charles II. as king.

Some of the people of Scotland were enthusiastically royalist, and would at once have welcomed Charles with open arms. Of this party, the leader was the brilliant and noble Marquis of Montrose, the most chivalrous of Charles' supporters. But the majority of the Scots were Presbyterians and Covenanters, less anxious for the success of the Stuart cause than for the triumph of the doctrines of the Covenant. The head of this party, and the rival of Montrose, was the Earl of Argyle.

The Scottish Parliament accordingly began to treat with the young king; they would not, however, receive him except on condition of his signing the Covenant, and promising to rule by the aid of Parliament and the General Assembly of the Kirk.1 All this was intensely distasteful to Charles; and he held back, while one more effort was being made for him by the daring leader

of the Scottish royalists, who had determined to take the matter into his own hands, and—

"To put it to the touch,

To gain or lose it all.” 2

3

While he was collecting troops in the northern countries of Europe he received an urgent letter from Charles, saying, "I entreat you to go on vigorously with your wonted courage and care. I assure you, I am upon the same principles as I was, and depend as much as ever upon your undertakings and endeavours for my service."

4

Misfortune from the outset attended the enterprise. The first division of the expedition was wrecked; and when the leader landed in the Orkneys, he found only 500 foreign troops-chiefly Germans. His march southwards -with a banner bearing the head of Charles I. and the motto, "Judge and revenge my cause, O Lord "—was full of bitter disappointment. None of the chiefs who had promised to join him did so. The memory of their former hardships and defeat was too recent for the Highlanders to court a repetition of them. At last his small force was surprised by the cavalry of Leslie 5 on the borders of Ross-shire, and most of them taken prisoners. Montrose himself, after wandering for some time in the guise of a peasant, was betrayed to the Covenanters, sentenced to death, and, after enduring the vilest contumely and insult, was executed as a public enemy at the Cross of Edinburgh.

He bore his fate with heroic dignity and calmness; it is said that the hostile crowd was awed into silence by his lofty sadness, and that the very executioner wept as he placed the rope round his neck. The following