322 
given,” continues he, “as averred, and 
ready to be deposed, if occasion required, 
by Mr. Berkstead, son to Berkstead the 
regicide, who was about fifteen years old 
at the time of Cromwell’s death. That the 
said Berkstead, his father being Lieutenant 
of the ‘Tower, and a great confidant of 
Cromwell’s, did, among such confidants, in 
the time of his illness, desire. to, know 
where he would be buried. (To which the 
Protector answered, ‘ Where he had ob- 
tained the greatest victory and glory,—and 
as nigh the spot as could be guessed, where 
the heat of the action was, viz. in the field 
of Naseby-common, Northampton :’ which 
was, accordingly, thus performed at mid- 
night, soon after his death. The body, 
being first embalmed, and wrapt in a leaden 
coffin, was, in a hearse, conveyed to the 
said field,—Mr. Berkstead himself attend- 
ing, by order of his father, close to the 
hearse. Being come to the field, they 
found, about the midst of it, a grave dug, 
about nine foot deep, with the green-sod 
carefully laid on one side, and the mould 
on the other: in which the coffin being put, 
the grave was instantly filled up, and the 
green-sod laid exactly flat upon it,—care 
being taken, that the surplus mould should 
be clean removed. Soon after, the like 
care was taken that the field should be 
entirely ploughed up, and it was sown, 
three, or four years successively, with corn. 
Several other circumstances,’ says the 
forenamed author, “ the said Mr. Berk- 
stead, who now frequents Richard’s Coffee- 
house, within Temple-bar, relates, too long 
to be here inserted.” 
I think, this account is conclusive. — 
As to the story of his body being sunk 
in the Thames, it was related by a gen- 
tlewoman who attended Oliver in his 
last sickness,—as we are told by the 
author of “ The History of England 
during the Reign of the Stuarts,” She 
told him, 
“ That, the day after the Protector’s 
death, it was consulted how to dispose of 
his corps; when it was concluded, that, 
considering the malice of the Cavaliers, it 
was most certain they would insult the 
body of their most dreadful enemy, if ever 
it should be in their power :—to prevent 
which, it was resolved to wrap it up in lead, 
to put it on board a barge, and sink it in 
the deepest part of the Thames; which 
was undertaken, and performed, by two of 
his near relations, and some treaty soldiers, 
the following night.” 
Upon the whole, it is quite evident, 
that Cickthae Cromwell, Bradshaw, nor 
Treton, were buried ip London ;—and 
the absurd story quoted by the very re- 
spectable Reviewer of Southey’ s “ Book 
of the Church,” must cease to be any 
longer believed. {gpl 
Pimlico, 2\st March 1825. 
Remarks on Dr. Styles. 
[May I, 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
Sir: 
WAS glad to see, in the recent 
numbers of the Philosophy of Con- 
temporary Criticism, that you have ex- 
tended the province of your censorship 
beyond the customary sphere of mere 
periodical dogmatism; and that wherever 
your proper game is to be found, you 
are determined to pursue the quarry. 
I. was particularly gratified in finding 
that you had not overlooked the prag- 
matical interlopement of a certain dis- 
senting divine into the regions of literary 
criticism,— or, more properly speaking, 
into those of personal vituperation. 
How far the admixture of the critical 
with the sacerdotal function can, under 
any restrictions, be quite decorous, is a 
question that demands‘some pause. But 
personal arraignment from the pulpit 
can surely be little consistent with the 
temper and principles’ of Christianity— 
at least, if the example of the founder 
can be regarded as of any authority in 
directing the conduct of the ministers 
of 'that religion. In the discourses of 
Christ, vicious doctrines are indeed de- 
nounced—the hypocritical pretensions 
and perverted learning of Pharisees and 
Sadducees are exposed and reprobated ;: 
but in what instance is any individual, 
living or dead, singled out by name, to 
be held up to personal odium? And 
what abuses of the holy office may not 
be anticipated, if every pretended ser- 
vant of the altar shall take upon himself 
a license from which his master ‘inva- 
riably forbore ? 
Censors for gain, who make criticism 
their daily bread, may indeed have found 
their account in deviating from their 
text into the regions of personality, and 
ministering to the base appetite of the 
multitude for the detraction of the con- 
spicuous and the eminent, The knot 
of young men: (for they, then, were: 
young) who started “ the Edinburgh 
Review,”’ set the example, I believe, of 
making ‘the title’ of a»book the mere 
pretence’ for excursions of spleen and, 
personality; and the system is said “to 
have worked well.”*~ But though, per- 
haps, in no instance did these pretended 
critics digress more widely from their 
teat, 
* One of the principal publishers, it is 
said, was not ashamed to acknowledge that 
it was to its spleen and personality, much, 
more than to the association of literary 
talent by which it was supported, .that 
“ The Edinburgh Review” was indebted for. 
its sudden popularity and extensive circu- 
lation. 
