the exiled royalists, and gave Scot an important influence both in foreign and domestic policy. His papers have mostly perished, but in 1660 he drew up an account of his proceedings as an intelligencer which throws some light on the history of the Commonwealth (printed in the English Historical Review, January 1897). Scot was a vehement supporter of the republic, opposed Cromwell's dissolution of the Long parliament in 1653, and remained hostile to him throughout the protectorate. In the Protector's first parliament he represented Wycombe (though his election was disputed), and was, according to Ludlow, ‘very instrumental in opening the eyes of many young members’ on the question of the legality of the new constitution (Mercurius Politicus, 6–13 July 1654; Ludlow, Memoirs, ii. 391). In consequence he was one of those members excluded from the house for refusing to sign the engagement of 12 Sept. 1654, accepting the government as settled in a single person and parliament. In 1656 Scot was returned to Cromwell's second parliament as member for Aylesbury, but failed in the attempt to be also chosen at Wycombe (Thurloe Papers, v. 316). The council of state, however, kept out Scot and about ninety more republicans whose protestation is printed in Whitelocke's ‘Memorials’ (ed. 1853, iv. 274). All those thus excluded were admitted in January 1658 at the opening of the second session. Scot at once proceeded to attack the House of Lords, which had been established in accordance with the ‘Humble Petition and Advice.’ On 29 Jan. he made a long oration, reviewing the whole history of the civil war, justifying the execution of the king and the abolition of the lords, and denouncing the attempt to put fetters upon the people of England by reviving a second chamber. ‘Shall I,’ he said, ‘that sat in a parliament that brought a king to the bar, and to the block, not speak my mind freely here?’ (Burton, Parliamentary Diary, ii. 382).
In Richard Cromwell's parliament, Scot, who again sat for Wycombe, was equally prominent among the opposition. He pronounced a panegyric on the Long parliament, attacked Cromwell's foreign policy, opposed the admission of the members for Scotland, and spoke against the recognition of Richard Cromwell and the powers given the Protector by the constitution (ib. iii. 28, 107, 219, 275, 473, iv. 34, 92, 228, 316, 453, 478; Ludlow, ii. 50). On the fall of Richard Cromwell and the restoration of the Long parliament, Scot became a person of great influence in the new government. He was appointed a member of the council of state on 14 May 1659, and again on 31 Dec. of the same year (Commons' Journals, vii. 654, 800). He was also one of the six members of the intelligence committee (24 May 1659), and was finally given the sole charge of the intelligence department (10 Jan. 1660) (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, pp. 355, 374). When Lambert interrupted the sittings of the Long parliament (October 1659), Scot entered into correspondence with Monck, and took an active part in opposing the army (Ludlow, ii. 145, 159, 176, 209). In conjunction with Ashley Cooper, he made an unsuccessful attempt to seize the Tower (Christie, Life of Shaftesbury, vol. i. p. lxxiv). When the parliament was once more restored he was made secretary of state (17 Jan. 1660), and sent to meet Monck on his march from Scotland and congratulate him on his success (Commons' Journals, vii. 813, 816). Monck found Scot's company very irksome, regarding him as a spy sent by parliament, but treated him with great civility and professed to be guided by his advice (Gumble, Life of Monck, pp. 224, 226; Price, Mystery of His Majesty's Happy Restoration, ed. Maseres, pp. 754–61). After Monck's march into the city and his threatening letter to the parliament (11 Feb. 1660), Scot was again sent as parliamentary commissioner to him, and his reception opened his eyes to the fact that he had been deluded (ib. pp. 248, 252; Price, p. 768; Ludlow, ii. 222). The readmission of the members of the commons excluded in 1648 put an end to his secretaryship and his power, but before the dissolution of the Long parliament he took opportunity to affirm the justice of the king's execution, saying that he desired no better epitaph than ‘Here lies one who had a hand and a heart in the execution of Charles Stuart’ (ib. ii. 250; Trial of the Regicides, p. 87). Ludlow and some of the late council of state hoped to raise money and troops for a last effort to prevent the restoration of Charles II, but Scot, who had promised his assistance, finding the scheme had no prospect of success, and that his arrest was imminent, resolved to retire to the country (Ludlow, ii. 252). In April 1660, finding himself, as he said, in danger of assassination, he took ship for Flanders. In spite of his disguise he was recognised at Brussels in June 1660, and attempts were made to seize him. In the end he was persuaded to surrender himself to Sir Henry de Vic, the king's resident at Brussels, in the hope of saving his life by thus obeying the royal proclamation for the surrender of the regicides. The credit of capturing him or persuading him to surrender was much disputed (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1670, p.
