[Footnote 1:  Commons Journals of dates; Neal, IV. 224-225.]

In the matter of a political settlement the proceedings were equally rapid and simple.  Celerity here was made possible by the fact that the House considered itself quite precluded from discussing the whole question of the future Constitution.  Had they entered on that question, the probability is that they would have decided for a negotiation with Charles II., with a view to his return to England and assumption of the Kingship on terms borrowed from the old Newport Treaty with his father, or at all events on strictly expressed terms of some kind, limiting his authority and securing the Presbyterian Church-Establishment.  Even this, however, was problematical.  There were still Republicans and Cromwellians in the Parliament, and not a few of the Presbyterians members had been Commonwealth’s men so long that it might well appear doubtful to them whether a return to Royalty now was worth the risks, or whether, if there must be a return to Royalty, it was in the least necessary to fix it again in the unlucky House of Stuart.  Then the difficulties out of doors!  No one knew what might be the effect upon Monk’s own army, or upon the numerous Republican sectaries, of a sudden proposal in the present Parliament to restore Charles.  On the other hand, the Old Royalists throughout the country had no wish to hear of such a proposal. They dreaded nothing so much, short of loss of all chance of the King’s return, as seeing him return tied by such terms as the present Presbyterian House would impose.  It was a relief to all parties, therefore, and a satisfactory mode of self-delusion to some, that the present House should abstain from the constitutional question altogether, and should confine itself to the one duty of providing another Parliament to which that question, with all its difficulties, might be handed over.—­On the 22nd of February, the second day of the restored House, it was resolved that a new Parliament should be summoned for the 25th of April, and a Committee was appointed to consider qualifications.  The Parliament was to be a “full and free” one, by the old electoral system of English and Welsh constituencies only, without any representation of Scotland or Ireland.  But what was meant by “full and free”?  On this question there was some light on the 13th of March, when the House passed a resolution annulling the obligation of members of Parliament to take the famous engagement to be faithful to “the Commonwealth as established, without King or House of Lords,” and directing all orders enjoining that engagement to be expunged from the Journals.  This was certainly a stroke in favour of Royalty, in so far as it left Royalty and Peerage open questions for the constituencies and the representatives they might choose; but, taken in connexion with the order, eight days before, for the revival of the Solemn League and Covenant—­in which document “to preserve and defend the King’s Majesty’s