suggestion of a PERPETUAL NATIONAL COUNCIL in the centre and CITY COUNCILS in all the counties which he developes more at large in his pamphlet.  Perhaps he is thinking also of the more recent remonstrance, called Plain English, addressed by some London Republicans, of whom he may have been one, to Monk and his Officers.  He has now done with Monk; he knows that the suggestions have taken no effect in that quarter, perhaps have been rebuffed; he will therefore dedicate them afresh to the people at large, for whom they were first written.  The translation, accordingly, may run definitely thus:—­

      “This advice we have given
  Sulla himself:  ’tis for the People now.”

In one or two of the added passages, or modifications of phraseology, we note reference to the course of events since the publication of the former edition.  Compare, for example, the following portion of the prefatory paragraph with the corresponding portion of the same paragraph as it first stood (p. 645):—­

...  “I thought best not to suppress what I had written, hoping that it may now be of much more use and concernment to be freely published in the midst of our elections to a Free Parliament, or their sitting to consider freely of the Government; whom it behoves to have all things represented to them that may direct their judgment therein:  and I never read of any state, scarce of any tyrant, grown so incurable as to refuse counsel from any in a time of public deliberation, much less to be offended.  If their absolute determination be to enthral us, before so long a Lent of servitude they may permit us a little Shroving-time first, wherein to speak freely and take our leaves of Liberty, And, because in the former edition, through haste, many faults escaped, and many books were suddenly dispersed ere the note to mend them could be sent, I took the opportunity from this occasion to revise and somewhat to enlarge the whole discourse, especially that part which argues for a Perpetual Senate.  The treatise, thus revised and enlarged, is as follows.”

Again, the renewal of the Solemn League and Covenant by the late Parliament of the Secluded Members furnishes Milton with a fresh text.  He does not, as might have been expected, and as he certainly would have done on another occasion, upbraid the Parliament with the fact, or denounce the return to Presbyterian strictness of which it was a signal:  on the contrary, he presses the fact into his service as a new argument against the recall of Charles.  The first of the following sentences had appeared in the former edition; but the rest is suggested by the revival of the Covenant in the interim:—­