Some were of opinion that it would be most conducive to the public happiness if there might be two Councils chosen by the People, the one to consist of about 300, and to have the power only of debating and proposing laws, the other to be in number about 1000, and to have the power finally to resolve and determine--every year a third part to go out and others to be chosen in their places." There were differences, Ludlow adds, as to the proper composition of the body that should consider and frame the new Constitution.

Some were for referring the deliberation to twenty Parliament men and ten representatives of the Army, and proposed that, when these had agreed on a model, it should be submitted first to the whole Army in a grand rendezvous.
Parliament, however, had settled the method of procedure so far by appointing the present Committee.[1] [Footnote 1: Commons Journals of Sept.

8, 1659; Thomason Catalogue of Pamphlets; Ludlow, 674-676.] Of the varieties of political theorists glanced at by Ludlow the most famous at this time were the Harringtonians or Rota-men.

Some account of them is here necessary.
Their chief or founder was James Harrington, quite a different person from the "Sir James Harrington" now of the Council of State.

He was the "Mr.James Harrington" who had been one of the grooms of the bedchamber to Charles I.in his captivity at Holmby and in the Isle of Wight (Vol.III.p.