ART. IV.-Mr. Cromwell's Memoirs of the Protector, Oliver Cromwell.

[Concluded from page 112.]

As civil contention grew hotter, the republicans gained a considerable accession of strength: for in the month of October, 1644, the Commons proposed to the Lords to melt down the King's magazine of plate in the Tower; and though the proposition was much combated by the Upper House, it was carried in the affirmative. Nevertheless, a sort of delicacy was still affected whenever the King was mentioned; and Cromwell, says Mrs. Macaulay, (vol. iv. p. 159. 8vo.) though void of those talents which command the opinions of popular assemblies, yet by the busy zeal of his nature, the seeming sincerity of his character, the vehemence with which he pursued the popular cause, and the intrepidity of his conduct, became an useful instrument in the hands of the republican faction. The Generals of the army, imitating the style of their principals, the Parliament, even when they led on their men to hostile acts against majesty, talked of the sacredness of the King's power and person, and puzzled the honest soldier with the senseless contradiction: but the more ingenuous Cromwell censured the inconsistent delicacy of the Presbyterians; publicly affirmed that tenderness was so far from being due to the King's person, that, as the prime author of the calamities of the times, he ought to be one of the prime sufferers; and declared that he should have less scruple in attacking him in the field than any other man. When, also, others insinuated merely that the officers of the army had shewn remissness and negligence, Cromwell went boldly to the House; charged the military commanders with having purposely spun out the war; and asserted that, for their own honour and dignity, the Commons ought to new-model their army, and purge themselves from the reproaches under which they lay, by a self-denying ordinance which should exclude all its members from civil or military posts. The unexpected bold truths, says Mrs. Macaulay, contained in this speech, so astonished the guilty party, that it produced a more sudden and general acquiescence than the utmost powers of rhetoric.

We may thus fairly account for the popularity of Cromwell among the republicans; and his services were found so great in the army, that probably no suspicion was at first entertained of his sincerity, even when, in the short space of a few weeks, he became the first exception to the self-denying ordinance which he had himself so strenuously enforced. After many objections, and several fruitless conferences with the Lords, this ordinance, declaring the members of either House to be discharged at the end of forty days from all offices and command, civil and mili

VOL. II. NO. 3

25

tary, passed on the 3d of April, 1645. The Earls of Essex, Warwick, Manchester, Denbigh, and many others, then resigned their commands, and the new-modelled army was intrusted to Sir Thomas Fairfax. Cromwell ought to have tendered his resignation with the other members: but he was sent with a body of horse to relieve Taunton, then besieged by the royalist army. His absence from the House being noticed, orders were dispatched for his attendance, and the new General was directed to employ some other officer on that duty; but Fairfax, over whom most of the contemporary historians agree that Cromwell had the greatest influence, sent a letter to Parliament, expatiating on the services of the Lieutenant-General, and requesting that an exception should be made in his favour for the good of the service. This was immediately done; and Cromwell was the only person who kept his seat in Parliament, together with his command in the army which would have been a very honourable distinction to him, says Rapin, were there not room to suspect that it was owing to his own intrigues.*

The present author has introduced a long and very minute account of the occasion and origin of this ordinance, and has succeeded entirely to our satisfaction in refuting Lord Clarendon's misrepresentation; which was followed implicitly by Hume, and which derived its consequence only from becoming the ground of a charge of religious hypocrisy, in this instance at least not merited. We have no doubt that Cromwell was influenced by very honest and patriotic feelings, when he urged the measure in the Commons so forcibly, so heartily, and so successfully; for his ambition was not yet fully blown but it seems to our view not unlikely that the bud was burst on this very occasion. If he had not the ascendancy over Fairfax which is usually ascribed to him, but which Mr. Cromwell discredits, he must have been the more flattered by Fairfax's solicitation to Parliament for an exception in his favour; and the battle of Naseby, which was on the eve of being fought at this time, while it justified the discrimination of the Commander-in-chief, could not fail to impress on Cromwell's mind his own importance. The author reasons very fairly about this ordinance. Had no suspension of it been made in favour of any particular officers, no suspicion of sinister views in the promoters of it could have arisen; and, he observes, whether the object really was to displace the actual commanders for the purpose of introducing those of their own party, we cannot now know with certainty: but the suspension of its operation in favour of Cromwell, and a few others, certainly affords grounds for such a suspicion.'

Rapin states that he was the only person: but Whitelock says that Sir William Brereton, Sir Thomas Middleton, and Sir John Rich, members of the House of Commons, were ordered to continue in their commands forty days longer, notwithstanding the ordinance.

A long and really somewhat superfluous defence of Cromwell is undertaken, for his supposed concern in the removal of the King from Holmby House by Cornet Joyce. It is very clear that he knew nothing about this matter till it was over; and, if he had, he would have been fully justified in a measure which attaches no criminality to any of the parties concerned in it. As Cromwell, however, positively denied that he was privy to it, it might become necessary for his biographer to rebut Lord Clarendon's impeachment of his veracity. A very minute narrative is likewise given from Mr. Baron Maseres's publication of tracts, of the negociations between Charles I., Sir John Berkeley, Cromwell, Ireton, and other principal officers of the Parliament army, for the restoration of the King; of his escape from Hampton Court; and of the subsequent proceedings during the treaty of Newport. The paper was written by Sir John Berkeley; and, says the present author,

It is conceived that a doubt cannot remain in the minds of unprejudiced readers, of this memorial of Cromwell's sincerity, and honest and anxious exertions, to bring to a successful termination this negociation for the restoration of the King, and that, upon much more moderate terms than those offered by the presbyterian party, particularly in respect of the church, which he appears to have left untouched. This forbearance was agreeable to their moderate and tolerant principles as independents. The other propositions are not stated, but the King appears to have objected to only two, besides the above respecting the church, and they all probably might have been got over, or reasonably settled by temperate management. But the King appears to have ruined all by his violent and indiscreet conduct towards the presenters of these propositions, and by his tampering with the different parties, and confiding in none of them. These circumstances and the threats of the agitators were evidently the causes of Cromwell's and the other principal officers' desertion of the King, and joining the army in their subsequent proceeding to his trial.’

The following observations are made on Colonel Pride's exclusion of certain members from the House, exculpatory of Cromwell's concern in it :

The truth appears to be, that the agitators, who were the republican party in the army, had become too powerful for their general and the other principal officers; and, being determined upon a republican form of government, had intimidated Cromwell, and the other officers who were friendly to the King's return upon proper terms, from further treaty with him: this appears from the preceding extracts from the several fore-mentioned writers. This republican party were in like manner determined to prevent all renewal of treaty with the King; they were also determined upon bringing the King to a trial. To accomplish these, their designs, they adopt the measure of what they term, purging the House of Commons, meaning the exclusion of those members from sitting therein, whom they knew to be favourable to a continuance or renewal of the treaty of Newport, and unfavourable to the purposed measure of bringing the King to a trial. With these views, they probably hastened the coming of the part of the army with Fairfax, and, with its assistance, this exclusion of the obnoxious members, during the absence of Cromwell, lest he should, by his presence, prevent or impede their designs; and Overawed the general (Fairfax) and his council of officers, into the sanction of their proceedings. Thus the whole was accomplished before Cromwell's arrival, and resuming his seat in the House: and this accords with and confirms the truth

of his (Cromwell's) declaration of his ignorance of these designs, and acquits him of the foul charge of the deliberate falsehood with which his enemies wish to fix him.'

Fairfax was certainly aware of this exclusion, which happened on the 6th of December, 1648; and the way was evidently cleared for it by the remonstrance of the army, dated November 18, 1648, signed by Rusworth, as secretary, by appointment of the General himself. The object of this remonstrance was to induce Parliament to send no more addresses to the King, but to ensure his safe custody and his trial, and to institute for the future an elective monarchy. With deference to the biographer, however, we think it is not quite clear that Cromwell was absent on the 6th. He sat in the House on the 7th, when he received thanks for his great services: but he came to London on the day before: and Whitelock states that he lay in one of the King's rich beds at Whitehall on that night. Rapin says, "On the sixth and seventh of December this year, the Independents entirely expelled the Presbyterians," &c.; and "on December the se venth, the Commons, as they were repairing to their house, found the door within and without guarded by soldiers who hindered many from going in." It may be, perhaps, as Burnet says, that, while Fairfax was determined to bring the King to trial, Cromwell was in some suspense about it, and Ireton, Cromwell's son-in-law, was the man who urged the measure.

When it was decided that all negociation with the King should cease, many secret consults, according to Clarendon, were held, to determine what they should do with him. Some wished to depose him; others, to deprive him of life by poison, as making the least noise, or by assassination; and a third sort, the Republicans, proposed that he should be brought to a public trial as a malefactor. It is not without surprise that we find the present author stating that, in justice to Cromwell, it ought to be particularly noticed that he is not here (in Clarendon's account) named as having had any concern in these deliberations, or in this final resolution of bringing the King to trial.' He surely does not mean to say that Cromwell was ignorant of these "many secret consults;" or that he was indifferent to the issue of them; or that he had no preference as to which of the three measures was put in execution; or that he was hostile to all three, but had not courage to avow his hostility, and that he actually signed the death-warrant with his own hand at the time that he objected to the trial and to the tribunal under whose sentence the King was executed? We are not now to discuss the question of right or wrong, as to the execution of Charles*: but we do not see why

* Mr Fox has performed this in a manner so masterly, uniting so much candour with so much courage, that we cannot do better than refer to his observations. See his Life of James II. p. 13, &c.

1

the biographer of Cromwell deemed it a duty to exculpate his ancestor from the guilt of participation in any of the preliminary measures. Let it be granted that Cromwell was sincere in the negotiation for the King's restoration, on moderate terms, and in favouring his escape from Hampton-Court, and placing him in a state of personal freedom to quit the country; let it also be granted that with him the measure of bringing the King to trial did not originate, but that he reluctantly consented to it; still he did consent to it, he did sit as one of his judges, and he did sign the warrant of execution. He is therefore more deeply criminated on the supposition of his absence from these preliminary "consults," or of his being a silent and inefficient auditor at them, than on the supposition of his presence and advice.

In an historical work of this magnitude, embracing so long a period of time, and a rapid succession of the most interesting political events that ever occurred in England, it is not very likely that the author should be fortunate enough to secure an entire concurrence of opinion from all his readers. In addition to those points in the character and conduct of Cromwell, respecting which we have expressed our disapprobation, and our disagreement with his biographer, we could certainly fix on many others. Above all, perhaps, we could express our entire difference of opinion with him as to the character of the Long Parliament, and the violent dissolution of it by a body of musketeers. Even in the most peaceful times, we must always expect a disagreement among men respecting the wisdom of the measures pursued by the existing government: but, before the armies were disbanded who had been engaged in a civil war, and before time had elapsed for the exasperation and animosity of parties to subside, this disagreement must be more strongly felt and more sharply expressed. The Long Parliament was not without its defenders as well as its oppugners; and, to justify its forcible dissolution, Mr. Cromwell takes his station with the latter. Yet we should contend that England never stood on loftier ground, particularly with foreign countries, than under that Parliament. Even Clarendon bears testimony to its high character abroad; and Guthrie, Heath, Trenchard, Ludlow, and Macaulay, the last of whom repeats their eulogies, concur in celebrating the wisdom, justice, and magnanimity of this assembly. Cromwell dreaded the increasing influence of the republican party, and was determined to destroy the republic itself: a purpose which his intrigues with the army enabled him to accomplish. We dissent, therefore, from Mr. Cromwell's justification of the dissolution of the Long Parliament: but we must cheerfully do him the justice to say that on this, as on all controverted points, he gives the most copious testimonies of adverse as well as friendly writers. His work is a defence of the Protector's private and public life, strenuously and indefatigably laboured :