Sir, to Cromwell's enlightened and firm rule, we owe in some measure almost all the political blessings we possess. He was the patron of our arts and literature the protector of our commerce- and the zealous purifier of our laws. He first demanded and maintained British supremacy upon the seas: he humbled our enemies: he extended our sway: he restored our finances and he signally improved our social and moral character. To him we owe that unconquerable spirit of liberty which has since always animated the British mind and to him we owe also that religious freedom that right to worship as we will — which we now so happily possess. The very meanest subject was sure of justice during his administration; all vice was steadfastly put down by him.

The last speaker has denied that Cromwell was ambitious but one ambition he did exhibit - the ambition of making England the mistress of the world. As to personal aggrandisement, no such thought was ever his: he sacrificed property, labour, and we almost say life, for the commonwealth but to extend the renown and secure the happiness of his country, was an aim that he not only encouraged, but achieved.

Cromwell has been called a usurper: by what argument he can be proved one, I should like to know. To usurp is to seize without claim or right: Cromwell did nothing of the sort. His

↓

offices were forced upon him: not one of them did he ever solicit.

He became the chief magistrate solely by the voice of the people. Cromwell was too wise a man to desire the empty dignities of power and place he accepted the chief office in the nation because, conscious of his own mental power, he knew that he could guide the state through its difficulties. Where was the hand in England that could have done as his did? The best proof of his right is his power. A man more fit to govern men never existed, and I feel that if ever there were to come a time when the statues of our rulers were to be erected in testimony of a nation's gratitude, I should give to Cromwell's the very highest place of honour.

I believe, Sir, that Cromwell was a man of giant powers and energies: that he acted honestly and greatly according to his heart's convictions: that he was pure in his morality, and sincere in his religion: and with this conviction, I feel an admiration for him which I can accord to but two or three great names in history, besides.

ELEVENTH SPEAKER. Sir, When the defenders of Cromwell speak of his great intellect and energies, they assert a truth in which all must agree; but when they maintain that his morality was pure, and that his religion was sincere, they

make an assertion which I certainly hesitate to admit.

That Cromwell's moral character (at least in early life) was questionable there is every reason to suppose. He was a member of one of the Inns of Court: but appears to have neglected his studies for licentious pursuits: a supposition supported by the fact that when writing in after life of his early years, he asserts his "exceeding sinfulness," and his "wicked courses."

And as to his religion, I believe him to have been a hypocrite. When in conjunction with his awful slaughters I find him speaking the name and quoting the words of the most High-bringing the Gospel of peace to justify the horrors of war, I can come to no other conclusion than that

his religion was one of word, and not of deed. Whatever he did, he had a text of Scripture to justify it by. His whole life seems to me a life of pretence and cant. Had his religion been purer, he would have been more peaceable; but his violent, contentious, and self-willed career seems sufficient to prove that although he had the name of religion ever on his tongue, he never had the spirit of it in his heart.

The charges I bring against him, are, then, that he was immoral and hypocritical, and unless these can be dispelled, his character is stained beyond redemption.

TWELFTH SPEAKER. — I am very glad, Sir, that the gentleman who has last addressed you has so specifically charged the character of Cromwell with immorality and hypocrisy; for of all the charges ever made against him these are the most easily disproved.

First as to the immorality. Where is the proof of it? 66 He was a member of one of the Inns of Court" says our friend, -"and neglected his studies for dissipation." This is the common story and belief, I know; but, Sir, it is absolutely without foundation. Recent researches have proved that Cromwell's name is not to be found in any of the Inn-books at all. He never belonged to the law in his life.

But, says our friend, he himself admits his immorality he speaks expressly of his own "wickedness" and "depravity." Doubtless Cromwell does say this; and yet he may have lived a perfectly moral life for all that. St. Paul calls himself "the chief of sinners," and yet says he "kept the law blameless." Sir, both the apostle and the illustrious subject of our criticism speak of that inner depravity of nature which pertains to all men, and which is quite consistent with a life outwardly correct. They both knew that in heart and thought they were (as all men are)

* See Cromwell's Letters and Speeches: by Carlyle.

great sinners before God, and they were humble enough to confess it. So much for this magnificent charge of immorality.

And now for the other matter: Cromwell's hypocrisy. I should like to know, Sir, by what right men assert this charge? A man's religion is a thing between him and his Maker, and no other man can see and determine its truth or falsehood. Who elevated our friend into the judgment-seat? Who gave him the right and capacity to judge? And what was the ground upon which he accused Cromwell of hypocrisy? Listen, gentlemen, listen: because he was always referring to Scripture! Did you ever hear a charge so unwisely made? or so miserably supported?

man,

Cromwell a hypocrite, Sir!-no, I will believe most things sooner than that. Look at his life. For sixty years he lived devoutly before God and no man ever accused him of injustice impiety or irreligion and yet we are told that he was a hypocrite! Does his daily household prayer look like hypocrisy? Does his devout preaching to his troops look like hypocrisy? Does the selection and formation of that pious regiment of Ironsides look like hypocrisy? Does his thorough reformation of the manners of his army, and of the nation, look like hypocrisy? Does his tearful praying before battle look like hypocrisy ?