rations the sorrow and disappointment which closed their last efforts in behalf of evangelical truth. Unfortunately few of the Spanish Protestants thought of recording the facts connected with the religious movement which issued in their expulsion from the place of their birth. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic writers appear to have agreed from the very outset, to pass over a subject at once unpleasant and dangerous; or if they did touch it, to represent any agitation which took place as exceedingly slight and transient, and as produced by a few individuals of no note or consideration, who had suffered themselves to be led astray by fondness for novelty. But, notwithstanding these arts, the Church historian will henceforward find himself supplied with many facts unknown to his predecessors, illustrative of that glorious struggle for mental freedom, which, although it was not successful in the dominions of Philip II., was crowned with a complete triumph in still more important parts of the European commonwealth, and will, at no distant period, carry captivity cap. tive even in the strong holds of papal superstition and tyranny.

ART. V.-Life of Oliver Cromwell. By the Rev. M. Russell, LL.D. Author of "A Connection of Sacred and Profane History," &c. Edinburgh. Constable and Co. 2 vols. 1829. HOWEVER copious may be the materials whence our knowledge of the Great Rebellion, and the Usurpation consequent on it, may be derived, still the far larger number of the countless Works relating to that disastrous period, may be considered more as Mémoires pour servir, than as absolute History; and though little, perhaps, that is wholly new can now be stated of Cromwell, we think there is much which may be stated in a more attractive form than it has heretofore assumed. We rejoice, therefore, that the Biography of that remarkable man, (the epithet has been wellweighed before we employ it,) has fallen into the hands of a writer who brings to his task so much diligence, research, moderation, good feeling and good sense, as Dr. Russell has manifested in the pages before us. Without dissembling that we more than once disagree from him, and with no small conviction that his agreeable volumes have been somewhat hastily put together, we still think them calculated to increase the deserved reputation which their author has already established; and above all, (a praise which we are convinced that he will value more than any other which we could offer,) that they are likely to do much good.

We by no means propose to follow the well-known and beaten track of the Protector's History. We shall content ourselves with a few extracts, illustrative of the manner in which it has been treated

by Dr. Russell, and a few remarks upon some incidental matters. arising from it. Of his more recent strictly biographical predecessors it may be enough to premise, that it is not easy to exhibit greater labour and accuracy than have been shown by Noble; that it is very easy in both these qualifications, and in many others which contribute to the formation of a trustworthy writer, such as modesty, consistency, impartiality, x. T. λ. to exceed Mr. Thomas Cromwell; and that with all our respect for the honourable motives which prompted that other excellent old gentleman, in whose veins flowed similar blood, and whose pen, whenever he signed his name, dropped similar letters to that of the Protector, in his attempt to whitewash his notorious ancestor; still, after a perusal of his Work, we are only confirmed in the very natural suspicion which was awakened before we opened it. Of the three modern Biographers of the Usurper, therefore, Noble may always be believed, but we much doubt whether he will ever be read; Thomas Cromwell ought never to be read, because he can seldom be believed; and Oliver Cromwell may be read equally without harm and without profit, because every body will perceive in the outset that it is not at all requisite to believe him.

The mildest terms which can be applied to Cromwell's early years are, that he was an unlucky boy and a dissipated youth. The unsavoury practical joke which brought upon him the displeasure of his paternal uncle, rests on too good authority to be disbelieved; or else, from its very grossness, it would be incredible. No other proof can be wanting that, from the very dawn of life, Cromwell in his tastes did not aspire to the character of emunctæ naris homo. His quarrel with his uncle on the other side, involves a charge of much more heinous offence of moral filthiness-which, after every extension of charity, it is not easy to purge away. Noble admits the imputation that Cromwell attempted to obtain a commission of lunacy against Sir Thomas Steward, well knowing that he was sane, in the hope of supplying his own necessities from the estate. Mr. Oliver Cromwell peremptorily denies the fact; but it is established beyond doubt by contemporary evidence; and it is in no wise contradicted by any subsequent act of the life of him against whom it is imputed. Can his advocates produce a single instance in which he hesitated to compass that which he thought most accorded with his own interests, because the path to its attainment was crooked? Is there any point of his eventful history at which he turned aside from personal gain, because it was only to be approached through fraud, duplicity, and falsehood?

66

In the second chapter, containing a short account of the Political and Religious Principles which led to the Civil War in

the Reign of Charles I." we meet with one or two paragraphs which we wish had been more completely evolved. We are convinced that the meaning which they may be supposed to bear is by no means that which Dr. Russell intended; for he belongs to a widely different school from that which charges the calamities of Charles and his adherents upon themselves. When we are told that

"The great body of the Commons, too, were desirous to revive the original principles of the Constitution, and thereby to place personal liberty and property on a more secure foundation than they had enjoyed from the death of Richard the Third."-vol. i. pp. 84, 85.

Dr. Russell surely cannot mean to speak of the existence of any original principles" of the Constitution previous to the great struggle of which he is treating, sufficiently defined to ensure our liberties. To that struggle, notwithstanding all its enormities and its blood-guiltiness, through the benevolent dispensation by which Good is always produced out of Evil, there can be no doubt that we mainly owe our present Freedom; for in its course not the original principles (Heaven forbid! where would they then be found?) of our Constitution were revived, but by the discussions which it created, and the attention which it excited both to abstract and practical principles, the ground was prepared, the piles were driven, and the foundations were laid, whereon the goodly and well-compacted structure arose, which was to receive its crowning-stone at the Revolution. Charles violated no Constitutional principles, for he found none to oppose him. He exercised the prerogative as it passed into his hands, and as it had been asserted by his predecessors. Happy was it for us, though most unhappy for himself and his contemporaries, that this prerogative was disputed and restrained. But if Charles had succeeded to his utmost hope, in governing without Parliaments, his rule, however justly it might be accounted arbitrary, ought never to be stigmatized as unconstitutional.

Again, we are told of Laud, (and Warburton has said much the same thing before,) that

"It was next to impossible that he should at once restore the Church and obtain popularity. But his conduct was so injudicious or so unfortunate, that he sacrificed both: he hastened the downfall of the establishment, increased the embarrassments of the Monarch, and finally paid the penalty of his unseasonable ardour on a bloody scaffold."vol. i. p. 91.

Respecting Laud, one of the sincerest Confessors and Martyrs of the Church of England, we have written too much of late to make it necessary that we should repeat our fixed opinions. So

widely do we differ from the above judgment, that we are convinced any other course than that which the Archbishop adopted would have been infinitely more destructive to the Establishment. If Abbot had been Metropolitan, concession after concession would have been accorded, till not a shadow remained to be defended: the Independent would have snapped the Crozier, the Presbyterian would have trampled on the Mitre, the FifthMonarchy-man would have torn away the vestments, and insisted on primitive nakedness; and, in the end, not only reviled and injured, but dishonoured and debased, the victim equally of his own weakness as of the malice of his persecutors, would have been dragged to the block, and there requested to deliver the axe to the executioner. Laud resisted and perished. The fortress which he defended was taken by storm, and not surrendered by treachery; and though the garrison was put to the sword in the heat and fury of the assault, yet when the enemy had passed away and tranquillity was again restored, it was far easier to repair the towers and bulwarks in which a single breach only had been effected, than it would have been if they had been generally undermined, by the want of courage and lack of fidelity of those who should have maintained them with their lives.

Every part of the Scottish transactions, during this period of our History, is so replete with disgrace to those concerned in them, that we cannot but feel a little misgiving whether Edinburgh is the precise climate and latitude under which we may look for a fair representation. Dr. Russell has acted with sound discretion on this point, and has introduced his neighbours as

little as possible upon the scene. On their very first appearance

he seems to imply, with much honesty, that he is quite aware of his difficulty.

"There is no doubt that the Scots, however inconsistent with their principles their actual conduct may be deemed, were sincere in their professions of supporting the Monarchy, and even of preserving the person of Charles."-vol. i. p. 167.

If such indeed were their intentions, well might Charles, in resolving to place himself in their hands, aver that he was about "to resolve the riddle of their loyalty."* Alas! that riddle, when expounded, too clearly proved that they had not profited by the opportunity which he afforded them, "to let the world see they mean not what they do, but what they say."* Of the national infamy which they brought upon themselves by the peddling bargain wherewith they trafficked in innocent blood, we should cer

K. Charles's Works.

tainly be inclined to speak in words less courteous, than that they were not disposed, from any chivalrous sentiments in behalf of their native Prince, to incur the hazard of a war with the rising Commonwealth." But Dr. Russell soon after very wisely drops the curtain.

"It belongs not to the biographer of Cromwell to state the terms of that unfortunate stipulation which provided for the delivery of Charles into the hands of the English commissioners. It is enough to mention, that the rejection of their propositions, and the firmness which he displayed in refusing to give his sanction to their religious model, had so much incensed the majority of the Presbyterians against the Monarch, that the Independents had no immediate cause to apprehend a union of their interests."-vol. i. pp. 232, 233.

We notice these passages not, most assuredly, with any wish to detract from a Work of great merit, but with a sincere desire to call Dr. Russell's attention to a cautious review before his next impression. We will permit him to say as little as he pleases about the Scots; but in that little he must frankly express the feeling which we doubt not he deeply entertains-a generous detestation of their baseness. He must not appear to lend his very valuable sanction to the clamours which ignorance or design have raised against the memory of Laud. Nor must he run the hazard of being mistaken for a member of any other band than that of such who consider what has been called the Civil War, to be flat Rebellion; and the execution of Charles, a foul, wicked, and most atrocious murder.

That such are in truth, Dr. Russell's own opinions, we do not for a moment admit the slightest shadow of doubt; and it is on this account that we are most anxious that his readers should not feel more hesitation concerning them than we do ourselves. His second volume is more likely to produce this effect than his first. Of the career of blood upon which Cromwell entered in Ireland, he speaks with just abhorrence; and in reply to the untenable palliation which has sometimes been offered, namely that his object in the massacres at Wexford, Drogheda and elsewhere, was to set such an example of severity, as would terrify other garrisons from resistance, he promptly answers that, such a policy is one " of the most barbarous nature, which cannot be defended upon any principle of humanity or international law." The mind, indeed, revolts even from that species of military execution, which has too often been deemed necessary in cases of open rebellion; where some of the unhappy and misguided persons taken with arms in their hands, survive the battle, only that they may perish more ignominiously on the scaffold. Not all the princely qualities which, on many other occasions were evinced by the victor of Culloden,