edly implicated in those events. Above all, it will redeem the character of Cromwell from all those charges of inconsistency and hypocrisy which it was once the fashion of almost all historians to bring against him, and which are still credited, notwithstanding their palpable grossness, by the hereditary bigots of party. Having already explained what we believe to have been the predominant impulses of Cromwell's soul in their positive aspect, it is necessary to a proper view of the entire man that we pay attention to those sentiments of reserve which constituted what may be termed his negative character.

On reviewing the public career of this great man and ruler, in all its remarkable and often obscure passages from his first appearance in parliament to his death, it seems impossible to doubt his sincerity. No hypocrite ever succeeded with honest, religious, brave men, as he succeeded. No dissembler, that had gained his ends, ever kept up his character as he did, to the very last. Looking at the whole case, we are warranted in affirming that for such a man to have been an impostor is a moral impossibility. Seldom did the vitality of real godliness display itself more unequivocally or habitually than in his daily conduct, and never, perhaps, in combination with rarer qualities of mind. The want of this combination in his defamers has led them to misinterpret his character. They have judged him after their own standard. Cromwell, throughout his public life, was one of those who were indifferent to the forms of government, provided that real liberty, civil and religious, was secured. He never was a republican on principle. He certainly never did believe in the divine right either of kings or parliaments; as little did he believe in the divine

right of mobs and knaves. While, therefore, he ever kept in view the end of all government, he was open to make terms with any political party or parties that could guarantee that end in perpetuity. Neither was he the man to insist on the pre-eminence, much less the predominance, of his own religious sect. An Independent himself, he never established Independency when he might have done so; and he would have allowed either episcopalians or presbyterians to have the honour of national and state precedence, could that have been admitted without any infringement on the rights of conscience. In this, perhaps, he was in error; but if so, his fault was a generous one, and characteristic of the man. He despised "baubles," both political and religious, but would allow other men to play with them, so long as they kept out of mischief.

This view of Cromwell's character, taken in connexion with that already given of the army, will throw light on the proceedings of both, after supreme power fell into their hands, in 1647. Cromwell would have restored Charles to his throne, and have retired to his former occupations, if the king could have given securities for civil and religious liberty. He even attempted, in several negociations, to bring about a consummation so desirable. The attempt was vain. The duplicity of the king would alone have prevented it, had no other obstacles intervened. While the magnanimous Cromwell was doing his best to restore and establish the throne of the Stuarts on the basis of the public liberties, the infatuated and ungrateful monarch was brooding over the prospect of revenge, and promising his queen to reward him with a halter. But other obstructions arose. The

presbyterians were plotting for themselves. In their vocabulary, freedom was only another name for the establishment of their religious worship and polity, to the exclusion of all others. While there was any hope of Charles's favouring their designs, they patronized him; when they found him obstinate in his episcopalian heresy, they denounced him; and when they found the Independents gaining the ascendancy, they carried on a series of intrigues with him and his partizans both of England and France, not so much for the purpose of reinstating him, as of ruining the advocates of toleration. Another obstacle yet more formidable than these was to be found in the army itself. Republican principles were spreading through the ranks with rapid progress. Every day's events served to give them fresh impulse, and to make new converts, to whom it became more and more evident, that the monarchy could never be restored under so faithless a head as Charles. It was also evident that if the nation were not speedily settled, all would run into confusion. Despairing of all other methods in that unhappy state of affairs, Cromwell, without any dereliction of principle, joined his own soldiers in seeking to establish a republic. Insurrections in various parts of England and Wales, and the invasion of the Scotch at the instigation of Charles, with threatening dangers on all sides arising from the intrigues of the royalists and presbyterians, led on to the great catastrophe. On the 30th January, 1649, the self-doomed monarch was beheaded, in front of Whitehall, and shortly after, England was declared to be a free commonwealth.

The execution of the king was an act respecting which opinion is still greatly divided. Some applaud

it as a deed of justice on a great delinquent.* Others consider it both as a crime and an error.† Perhaps a century hence the world may come to an impartial verdict. At present, we are neither sufficiently near to the scene itself, to appreciate the motives and difficulties of those who brought it about; nor sufficiently remote from the influence of those monarchical superstitions which revived with the restoration. If the commonwealth had perpetuated itself to the present day, how would it be thought of and commemorated ? As events have turned out, it does not require much ingenuity to show what consequences might be expected to result from the memorable deed. No vocation is easier than that of the prophet after the fact.

But whatever opinion may be formed respecting the moral character of the deed, there can be no hesitation in pronouncing it a purely political one.‡ Indepen

* Carlyle, I. 442-445. Headley's Cromwell, 252-260. + Mackintosh's Hist. of England, VI. 131. Macaulay's Hist. of England, from the Accession of James the Second, I. 128.

Bishop Short, in his "Sketch of the History of the Church of England," 1838, p. 407, affirms that "the real question, throughout, was a political one." For a variety of opinions respecting the state of parties, and the causes which led to the execution of the king, see Hanbury, vol. III. chapter lxxv. Note especially the king's vow, in 1646, to restore the Church of England to more than its former wealth and grandeur, in case he should win back his "kingly rights,"-page 355; and the jesuitical advice of the Bishops of London and Sarum, respecting the manner in which he might promise compliance with the wishes of parliament by oath, without keeping it,-pages 356, 357. These documents show what kind of a man the victorious party had to deal with; to say nothing of the famous letter which Cromwell found in the saddle of the king's messenger. Macaulay's statement about the "impression"

dency had nothing to do with it. Its principles have no preferences, where liberty is secured; and, as history abundantly proves, are capable of flourishing equally well under a monarchy, a republic, or a protectorate. The sentiments of the Independents, at this period, respecting the execution of the king and the organic change of the government, are decisive on this point. If Independency were republicanism, there would have been unanimity. But the fact is the reverse of this. Not only was the kingdom at large divided respecting the propriety of such proceedings, it is also capable of proof that the Independents — whether we include in this term the religious Independents only, or those also who advocated their opinions on political grounds-were quite as much divided amongst themselves. While John Goodwin, Milton, Cromwell, Ireton, Colonel Hutchinson, Hugh Peters, and many eminent ministers and members of the Congregational body, were prepared to justify the execution of the king; some congregations in various parts of the kingdom, with their ministers at their

produced on the public mind," by the captive king, is surely mere painting. Even his own party gave him up at last.-Saunderson's Complete History, 1658, p. 1140; Clarendon's History of the Rebellion, p. 743. Hanbury's view appears to us the correct one : "What plight soever the presbyterians were in, it is clear that 'the sects' were on an equal footing, as regards the awful extremity. It is true, they did not overrule it: neither do we read of any wide, extended concert of the episcopal body, making an effort to avert the catastrophe, on its immediate approach. The clear truth of all is, that the king had made himself generally unpopular, but that the nation was awe-struck at the novelty and greatness, not to say sublimity, of the final result!" In this last sentiment, Carlyle agrees with Hanbury. Carlyle's Cromwell, I. 444.