by craft, diffimulation, hypocrify, and the ufual arts of men bent on defeating the defigns of their foes, and advancing their own."

In the notes on this paffage, he very ingenuoufly gives the general opinion of Cromwell's Cotemporaries, with respect to his hypocrify, which is farther corroborated by particular facts, cited from good authority. The general accufations are as follow: "If craft be wifdom, fays Mr. Cowley, and diffimulation wit, (affifted both and improved with hypocrifies and perjuries) I must not deny him to have been fingular in both; but fo grofs was the manner in which he made use of them, that as wife men ought not to have believed him at first, fo no man was fool enough to believe him at laft: neither did any man feem to do it, but thofe who thought they gained as much by that diffembling, as he did by his. His very actings of godlinefs grew at laft as ridiculous, as if a player by putting on a gown, fhould think he reprefented excellently a woman, though his beard at the fame time were feen by all the fpectators. If you ask me why they did not hifs, and explode him off the ftage, I can only answer that they durft not do so, because the actors and door-keepers were too ftrong for the company. I must confefs that by thefe arts (how grofly foever managed, as by hypocritical praying, and filly preaching, by unmanly tears and whinings, by falfhoods and perjuries, even diabolical) he had at firft the good fortune (as men call it, that is the ill fortune) to attain his ends; but it was because his ends were fo unreasonable, that no human wifdom could forefee them, which made them whohad to do with him believe that he wasrather a well-meaning and deluded bigot, than a crafty and malicious impoftor. Another writer, who alfo lived in Cromwell's time, and wrote when he was in the height of his power, expreffes himself in the following manner: Had not his Highness had a faculty to be fluent in his tears, and eloquent in his execrations; had he not had spongy eyes, and a fupple confcience; and befides to do with people of great faith, but little wit; his courage, and the reft of his moral virtues, with the help of his janiffaries, had never been able fo far to advance him out of the reach of justice, that we fhould have need to call for any other hand to remove him, but that of the hangman. And again: He hath found, indeed, that in godlinefs there is great gain; and that preaching and praying, well managed, will obtain other kingdoms, as well as that of heaven. His, indeed, have been pious arms; for he hath conquered moft by those of the church, by prayers and tears. But the truth is, were it not for our honour

2

honour to be governed by one that can manage both the fpiritual and temporal fword, and, Roman like, to have our emperor our high priest, we might have had preaching at a much cheaper rate, and it would have coft us but our tythes, which now cofts us all."

But these being general declamations, Mr. Harris candidly cites facts, of which we have only room to extract the following, taken from Burnet. "When the Houfe of Commons and the Army were a quarelling, at a meeting of the officers, it was propofed to purge the army better, that they might know whom to depend on. Cromwell, upon that, faid, he was fure of the army; but there was another body that had more need of purging, naming the houfe of commons, and he thought the army only could do that. Two officers that were prefent brought an account of this to Grimfton, who carried them with him to the lobby of the house of commons, they being refolved to juftify it to the houfe. There was another debate then on foot, but Grimfton diverted it, and faid he had a matter of privilege of the higheft fort to lay before them it was about the being and freedom of the house. So he charged Cromwell with the defign of putting a force on the house. He had his witneffes at the door, and defired they might be examined. They were brought to the bar, and juftified all that they had faid to him, and gave a full relation of all that had paffed at their meetings. When they withdrew, Cromwell fell down on his knees, and made a folemn prayer to God, attefting his innocence, and his zeal for the fervice of the houfe. He fubmitted himself to the providence of God, who it feems thought fit to exercife him with calumny and flander, but he fubmitted his caufe to him. This he did with great vehemence, and with many tears. this ftrange and bold preamble, he made fo long a speech, juftifying both himself and the reft of the officers, except a few that feemed inclined to return back to Egypt, that he wearied out the house, and wrought fo much on his party, that what the witnesses had faid was fo little believed, that had it been moved, Grimfton thought that both he and they would have been fent to the Tower. But whether their guilt made them modeft, or that they had no mind to have the matter much talked of, they let it fall; and there was no ftrength in the other fide to carry it further. To complete the scene, as foon as ever Croinwell got out of the house, he refolved to trust himself no more amongst them, but went to the army, and in a few days he brought them up, and forced a

H 2

After

great

great many from the houfe." He likewife takes notice of the circumstances of Cromwell's indignation against Joyce, who, by his own orders, feized the King, though Cromwell "lifted up his hands in the Parliament, and called God, Angels, and Men to witnefs, that he knew nothing of Joyce's going for the King." He next quotes fome inftances of his hypocrify, practifed on Ludlow; and then exclaims, with a kind of exulting approbation of his hero's craft, that "he must have had a peculiar knack at diffimulation who was capable of impofing on Ludlow, who had many times before found himfelf deceived by him." But our Author's manner of reconciling thefe flagrant inftances of hypocrify, with a real sense of religion, common honesty, and fair dealing, is the most extraordinary that ever was attempted. "That enthufiafm, (fays he) to which Cromwell was fubject, is a very variable thing; it admits of much devotion, and many crimes. Men who think themfelves under the fpecial and extraordinary influence of the Deity, attribute to him their feelings, fentiments, and defires, and whatever proceeds from him must be wife, juft, and good." What! could Cromwell then fuppofe himself under the special influence of the Deity, when he fell on his knees, and made a folemn prayer to God, attesting his innocence of a fact, wherein his own conscience bore witness of his guilt? Could he think himself under a divine influence, when he called God, angels, and men, to witness a notorious falfhood, in faying that he knew nothing of Joyce's going for the King? It is poffible that he might have thought himfelf exempted from the common rules of morality, and that the end would fanctify the means, had that end been juft and virtuous. But can we fuppofe him weak enough to have imagined that God directed his feelings, and prompted him not only to ufurp the fovereignty, but to violate every moral and political duty, to fupport himfelf in his ill-gotten authority? Such a fuppofition would be abfurd befides, real enthufiafm acts by fits, is irregular and inconftant in its motions and appearances. But Cromwell's enthufiafm was uniform and fyftematic: in fhort, Cromwell was not an enthufiaft in religion, but an hypocrite, which is the most profligate of all characters; for there can be no hypocrify in religion without flagrant impiety.

Mr. Harris nevertheless thinks, that fome allowances should be made for Cromwell's hypocrify; and he adds, that James I. and Charles I. acted the fame part, but with less art, and worfe grace."--What then? As he has very justly repre

hended

hended it as a deteftable quality in them, why fhould he endeavour to apologize for it in Cromwell, who, as being more artful, was the more noxious enemy to fociety? In the name of reason and virtue let us conclude, that if it was odious in a lawful King, who practifed it to extend prerogative beyond its juft limits, it was doubly odious in Cromwell, who used it as a means to acquire a lawless power, which he exercised with fuch arbitrary violations of juftice and public liberty, as were never attempted by the fovereign whofe blood he fpilt, as he pretended, on account of a tyranny, which at worst was mild in comparison with his own.

Our Author is, indeed, obliged to confefs that Cromwell, who had opposed and punifhed Charles for his illegal acts, became an imitator of them, and in fome inftances even went beyond him. Among other oppreffions, he inftituted MajorGenerals, who in a variety of refpects lorded it over and oppreffed the country.-He made ufe of packed juries on fome occafions, and difplaced judges for refufing to follow his directions. He committed men illegally to prifon, and fuffered them not to enjoy the benefit of the laws.-He caused men to be tried before new-created tribunals, and adjudged to death without the verdict of a jury. Thefe courts were filed High Courts of Juftice, the terror of Royalists, as their enemies were their judges.Add to these, that he openly violated the privileges of parliament.

After fuch a catalogue of tyrannical, and some of them unprecedented oppreffions, it is matter of amazement that any friend to liberty fhould attempt to apologize for a character fo obnoxious and injurious to civil fociety. Had Cromwell used his ufurped authority, in order to inlarge and confirm the bafis of public freedom, his name might justly be adored; but all his virtues, and all his vices, were made fubfervient to the mean ambition of aggrandizing himself, and of supporting by force and oppreffion, what he had acquired by violence and craft. Even his war with Spain was directed to this end, and his fucceffes therein were more owing to the courage and vigour of those intrusted with the execution of the projected enterprizes, than to any fkill or fagacity in forming the plans. In truth, Cromwell's capacity for government feems rather to have been of that narrow nature, adapted for the management of domeftic parties, than of that comprehenfive kind, which judges of the true intereft of a kingdom, from a knowlege of its foreign relations.

Yet he fometimes erred even in his own fphere of limited policy; witness his injudicious treatment of his Major-Ge

H3

nerals

nerals, who had been the inftruments of his tyranny, and whom he afterwards wantonly difgufted, which was the occafion of their oppofition to his affuming the title of King. We wonder that our Author has omitted thefe circumftances, fo fully related in the Parliamentary History.

Cromwell, however, was not only an enemy to civil, but religious freedom. Mr. Harris, indeed, affirms, that "he conftantly was a friend to religious liberty." Nevertheless he acknowleges, how confiftently let the Reader determine, that

his edict against the epifcopal clergy was very cruel, as it deprived them in a good meafure of their maintenance, and of their liberty of worshipping God, according as appeared best to their own understandings.'

In few words, Cromwell was, as the Author of the Memoirs of Brandenburgh well characterizes him," a bold, cunning, and ambitious man; but unjuft, violent, and void of virtue; a man, in fine, who had great qualities, but never a good one who therefore did not deferve the furname of Great, which is due only to virtue. And it would (the Memoir Writer concludes) be degrading Lewis XIV. to compare him to fuch a rival."

--

At this Mr. Harris fires with indignation. "What (he afks) were the faults imputed to Cromwell? Diffimulation, hypocrify, bringing Charles to the block, and ingratitude towards the long parliament. Let thefe crimes (he adds) be weighed in the nicest balance, they must be light as air when oppofed to thofe of Lewis, who was an adulterer, who was not afhamed to confefs that he waged war merely for his glory, who broke through all oaths and treaties." He concludes,

that the painting out fuch enemies of liberty and mankind, in the finest colours and by the finest pens, is the greatest reproach of letters, and most dangerous to the interests of common humanity.'

What then

In these last sentiments we readily concur. fhall we think of a Writer, who has endeavoured to paint Cromwell, the moft inveterate enemy to liberty, in the finest colours, though we cannot say with the fineft pen? If Lewis waged war for glory, fo did Cromwell: and we believe it will be paying him a compliment to affign no worse reason for his war with Spain. If Lewis broke through his oaths, neither did Cromwell, we find, pay any regard to oaths, or even scruple to make the most folemn invocations on God, to witness the most notorious falfhoods. But then the crime of