1829.) 
Cromwell was @ sincere man—he had a 
conscience about him, though often passing 
the limits of his convictions of right—he 
would willingly have kept within those 
limits, under any penalty short of losing the 
sovereignty he had once seized. He was, 
besides, an enlightened man—to a degree 
far beyond the common impression—he 
wished no man to be restricted in his re- 
ligious professions, save only, prehaps, pre- 
lates and catholics. Once he was prompted 
to lend his sanction to an act against them, 
but we are left in ignorance of what imme- 
diately led to this solitary instance. Bur- 
ton’s Diary has been of infinite service in 
establishing the fact how impossible it was 
for Cromwell, even by excluding the hun- 
dred members, to get on with his parlia- 
ments. They were as resolute to abridge 
his authority, as the Long Parliament were 
to cut down Charles’s ; and Oliver as deter- 
mined to keep what he had got, as ever 
Charles had been—with more skill, temper, 
and tact. Generally historians, the least 
prejudiced, have thought he died luckily 
for himself—his resources were at an end; 
Mr. Godwin thinks differently ;. but the 
probability—the symptoms of permanence, 
are not well made out—they rest solely upon 
_ Mr. G’s conviction of the inexhaustibility of 
his mental resources. But he has undoubt- 
edly succeeded in shewing distinctly the 
bright side of Cromwell—in exhibiting his 
better and admirable points—the facility 
with which he baffled his enemies—the 
resolution with which he faced danger—the 
promptitude with which he extricated him- 
self—his attachments—his liberalities—his 
Magnanimities. Neither has he veiled the 
-Inore questionable features, though he has 
not hesitated to reject what creditable evi- 
dence warranted him in pronouncing royalist 
calumnies, 
Obscure intimations, in many quarters, 
occur relative to an attempt on the part of 
Barebone’s Parliament to suppress the 
“ universities, tithes, and leaming.’? Mr. 
G. has searched for this history of this affair 
in yain; but has collected the scattered 
hints. Among these is Cromwell’s speech 
on declining the title of king, in which, 
speaking of that parliament (Barebone’s) he 
Says, the sober part of it had returned the 
power into his hands to prevent the destruc- 
_tion of the ministers of the gospel, and the 
Setting up of the Judicial law of Moses, in 
abrogation of all our ministrations. Syden- 
in his speech to that very parliament, 
Speaks of them as the ‘ enemies of all intel- 
cultivation and learning.’ Baxter, 
in his narrative of his own life, says, it had 
been the aim of this parliament to overturn 
the established ministr (clergy). Claren- 
don, who of course raid the worst of it, 
says, they proposed to sell college lands and 
apply the proceeds to the service of the 
nation. chard talks of their proposing to 
Suppress the universities, and all schools of 
learning, as heathenish and unnecessary. 
Domestic and Foreign. 
83 
Though inclined to give little weight to 
these singly, and disposed to think Crom- 
well had an interest in misrepresenting that 
parliament, yet, when taken together, Mr. 
Godwin is forced to conclude there must 
have been some ground for the charge—es- 
pecially supported as it is by Owen’s speech, 
as vice chancellor of Oxford, in which he 
says—‘ the Supreme Arbiter of all so scatter- 
ed all their counsels and their concerts in a 
moment that the conspirators hardly and 
with difficulty provided for their own safety 
who three days before were in the act to 
devour us (the university).’ Three names 
are particularly distinguishable as enemies 
of the ecclesiastical function and of learning 
—Dell—Erberry—and Webster—all three 
of them had been chaplains in the army, 
and were eminent as men of learning them~ 
selves ; Dell was master of Caius’, and held 
the office till the restoration. Of this par- 
liament, Clarendon boldly affirms they were 
generally a pack of weak, senseless fellows, 
fit only to bring the name of a parliament 
into utter contempt; and that much the 
greater part of them consisted of inferior 
persons of no name or. quality, artificers of 
the meanest trades, known only by their 
gifts in praying and preaching. This ac- 
count Hume, as every body knows, has 
literally adopted—though it should be re- 
membered Clarendon could know nothing 
of the matter but by hearsay. It is only 
necessary to consult the list of the members 
to refute this calumny—ew pede Herculis. 
The parliament of 1656 shewed manifest 
symptoms of religious persecution—the case 
of Naylor is very memorable. Many were 
for putting him to death, and Skippon 
professed to speak the Protector’s senti- 
ments—that he had always been for 
allowance to tender consciences, but had 
never intended to indulge such things. 
Cromwell, however, shewed great anxiety, 
while the subject of death was under 
discussion, but when that was abandoned, 
left them to themselves. To Biddle, the 
Socinian, he allowed a hundred crowns a 
year, during the three years he was confined 
in St. Mary’s Castle, in the Scilly Islands ; 
and laboured hard to give some relief to the 
Jews. He named a conference, but was 
overruled by the divines, who overwhelmed 
him by piling text upon text. Firmen, 
then an apprentice, and afterwards one of 
the most distinguished advocates of Soci- 
nianism, ventured, it is said, personally to 
solicit Cromwell, to whom the Protector 
replied, “ You curl-pated boy you, do you 
think I will shew favour to a man who 
denies his Saviour, and disturbs the govern- 
ment ?”” Firmen was at this time, thirty- 
three years of age—of course the story is an 
invention. 
Godwin quotes, at great length, from the 
speech addressed by Cromwell to the Com~- 
mittee appointed to satisfy his scruples, as 
to. the royal title, and says of it, correetly 
enough, it is singularly excellont. And yet 
M 2 
