The Protector Cromwell died in September, 1658. This wonderful man raised himself, from a private station, to the supreme power, and fulfilled his high functions with an ability and energy, which few occupants of a throne have ever displayed. He has shared the usual fate of those men, whose conduct and principles have placed them apart from the mass of mankind. No other man was ever in a position, which exposed him to the hatred and misrepresentation of so many parties. The royalists heaped on him unmeasured obloquy as a usurper. The High Church party denounced him as a foe to the hierarchy. The Presbyterians disliked and opposed him, as a friend of toleration. The ultra-republicans reproached him for his ambition, because he did not think England, in her existing condition, to be capable of a free republican government, and therefore retained in his hands the power which he believed to be indispensable to the peace of the state. The irreligious, of all parties, scoffed at him as a hypocrite and a fanatic, though the charge is somewhat inconsistent with itself.[[305]]
That Cromwell had faults, may be freely acknowledged, by his warmest friends. That his course was always wise and justifiable, cannot be maintained; but it may be doubted, whether, if the circumstances of that stormy and critical period in which he lived were fairly weighed, and his character and conduct were sifted, with a candid spirit, it would not be found, that Cromwell deserves more of the applause of the friends of liberty and religion, than of their censures. It is certain, that his accusers yield to him the praise of qualities, which it is difficult to reconcile with the crimes that they impute to him.
It is surprising to hear, from American writers, reproaches against Cromwell as a “usurper.”[[306]] This language is not strange from the lips of a royalist, or a High Church partisan, in England; but from an American, it is inconsistent, and unworthy of his position as a citizen of a great and free country, where public opinion ought to be decisively and steadily in favor of republican principles, and ought thus to form an august tribunal, whose verdict should be felt and respected throughout the earth.
An American, surely, can feel no respect for hereditary titles. In his view, Cromwell would have had a clear right to the throne, if the people had chosen to give him the crown; and there is quite as much evidence, that the great body of the people of England were satisfied with the government of Cromwell, as that they were content with that of Charles II. If by usurpation is meant a violation of the Constitution, it may be replied, that the Constitution was already broken. The King had trampled on it, and the Long Parliament had governed the kingdom for years with an entire disregard of the Constitution. The country was in a state of anarchy, and it was a blessing to England that Cromwell seized the reins, and controlled the fierce parties who convulsed the nation. Napoleon, though his subsequent course was unjustifiable, did a good service to France, when he overthrew the detestable demagogues who had deluged her with blood. If our peerless Washington had found this country, in 1784, in the condition in which England was in 1653, and France in 1800, it would have been his duty, as a patriot and a philanthropist, to employ the power at his control for the preservation of order, and the restoration of public happiness.
It is certain, that the great ends of government,—peace and prosperity at home and respect abroad,—were enjoyed under Cromwell’s sway, to a far higher degree than they were under most of the British monarchs, preceding the revolution. Even Hume, who was an infidel and a tory, and of course hated Cromwell, acknowledges, that the distracted state of England, and the mutual rancor of its various factions, rendered an energetic government indispensable, and would have furnished a reasonable excuse for what he calls the “temporary usurpation” of Cromwell, if the Protector had been guilty of no other crime.[[307]] The excellent Baxter, who carried his loyalty to the preposterous length of opposing Cromwell, under whom he enjoyed perfect toleration, and striving to restore the “legitimate” King, with the almost certain prospect of being persecuted and silenced, confesses, that religion flourished, under the Protector, in a degree before unknown. “I do not believe,” he says,[[308]] “that ever England had so able and faithful a ministry since it was a nation, as it hath at this day; and I fear, that few nations on earth, if any, have the like. Sure I am, the change is so great, within these twelve years, that it is one of the greatest joys that ever I had in the world to behold it. O how many congregations are now plainly and frequently taught, that lived then in great obscurity. How many able, faithful men are there now in a county, in comparison of what were then.” And yet Baxter labored and prayed for the restoration of Charles, under whom Baxter himself and two thousand more of these faithful ministers were speedily silenced.
Cromwell has been accused of hypocrisy, but this charge, especially when made by such men as Hume, is unworthy of credit. Baxter, who was a good judge of piety, does not accuse Cromwell of hypocrisy, but acknowledges that he was a pious man, though misled by ambition. “Both piety and ambition,” he says, “concurred in countenancing all whom he thought godly, of what sect soever. Piety pleaded for them as godly, and charity as men, and ambition secretly told him what use he might make of them. He meant well in all this at the beginning, and thought he did all for the safety of the godly, and the public good, but not without an eye to himself.”[[309]] As to his ambition, he probably had a sufficient share of it; but he refused the crown when it was urged on him, with many plausible arguments, by Parliament, and when, as Hume intimates, a large part of the nation would have acquiesced. His personal and domestic habits are acknowledged, by all parties, to have been pure and amiable. His court was perhaps the most moral and decorous, that England has ever seen.
The Protector was a friend of toleration, and this single trait in his character is sufficient to entitle his memory to respect. He was not entirely consistent, it is true, but no public man, at that day, except Roger Williams, was so. Cromwell was surrounded with difficulties; and the “Instrument of Government,” under which he held the Protectorship, excluded Episcopalians and Catholics from the enjoyment of that religious liberty which it granted to all others.[[310]] But the spirit of the Protector was more tolerant than the laws, and he often connived at the meetings of the Episcopalians. A man, who, at that time, and in his post, could act, so far as he did, on the principle of an equitable toleration of all religious opinions, could not have been either a fanatic or a despot.[[311]]
Roger Williams was a friend of Cromwell. It has been supposed, that he was allied to him by birth. He was certainly drawn to him by a communion of spirit, on the subject of religious liberty. In his letters, he repeatedly alludes to familiar conversations with Cromwell. The friendship of Milton and Roger Williams may be viewed as an honorable testimony to the character of the Protector. It is difficult to believe, that these men would have yielded their confidence and esteem to a hypocrite, either in religion or in politics. It is not more easy to believe, that such a man as Cromwell has been described, would have admitted men so sagacious and upright as Milton and Williams, to a close scrutiny of his actions, or that by all the cunning which has been ascribed to him he could have deceived them.
These three men, in fact, resembled each other, in their character, in their opinions, and in the treatment which they received. Each was misunderstood; each has suffered obloquy, and each is receiving, from the calm and enlightened judgment of the present age, that just sentence, which, sooner or later, will reward him, who aims to advance the happiness of men, and who perseveres, through evil and good report, in upholding the persecuted cause of truth and freedom.[[312]]
Cromwell was quietly succeeded, as Protector, by his son Richard, a proof, that the nation were not very much dissatisfied with Cromwell’s sway. But Richard possessed neither the talents, nor the ambition of his father.[[313]] The aspiring and factious men whom Oliver held in check, soon forced his son to retire from his burthensome and difficult office. A stormy period succeeded, during which the rival parties struggled for victory. At length, General Monk, obtaining the command of a powerful army, restored the King, Charles II. who entered London in triumph, May 29, 1660. The nation received him with apparent joy, being weary of the disorders which preceded and followed the energetic government of Cromwell. The royalists, among whom were the Episcopalians, welcomed the King with delight. The Presbyterians, who had disliked Cromwell, were also zealous in restoring Charles, with the expectation that their system would be continued as the national religion. They were so eager to merit the gratitude of the King, that they exacted of him no conditions, but were satisfied with the assurance, that he would grant liberty to all tender consciences; a promise, which he afterwards found it very easy to violate, by insisting, that all consciences which did not agree with his views, were not tender, but criminally obstinate. The efforts of the Presbyterians to obtain a compromise with the Episcopalians, by which they might be comprehended in the Established Church, failed.[[314]] The bishops would not consent to any alterations of the liturgy. The Presbyterians would not listen to the King’s proposition of toleration to other denominations, by which he meant to favor the Papists, but which the Presbyterians rejected, more from a dread of Popery, we may hope, than from their general aversion to toleration. The Act of Uniformity was passed, and took effect, August 24, 1662. Two thousand of the best ministers in England were ejected from their livings, because they could not submit to the rigorous requirements of the act. Dreadful distress to them and to their families was the natural consequence. The interests of religion suffered incalculable injury, by the loss of these ministers, and by the character of many of their successors.