way; and if England could not yet be trusted with its own freedom, he would himself, with a council of officers, "play the constable" and see that order was preserved until the better time should arrive. So Dissolution of came April 20, 1653, when Cromwell, the Rump. having turned out the members of the Rump and locked behind them the door of St. Stephen's, entered upon his constable's work which was to last through five famous years. The autocracy "The day never came when Cromwell felt he could cease to be a despot. With almost miraculous ability he sustained himself, — ability no more conof Cromwell. spicuous in dealing with foreign and open enemies, than against the constant plots of secret foes. His old mother at Whitehall shivered whenever she heard the report of a gun, or an unusual crash, through fear that some assassin had at length found the heart of her son; and it was no foolish fear! He tried repeatedly to surrender the nation into the hands of its own representatives sitting in Parliament: each time, however, there had been a questioning of matters which he thought should not be touched, and so each time, at the autocratic word, St. Stephen's had emptied itself, leaving all to the Protector's sword. He put aside the title of King, but a rule more absolute than that of any English King prevailed. Dividing England into military districts over each of which he set a major-general, a grim Ironside, whose sword was absolute, he ruled with an unconstitutional tyranny compared with which that of the Stuarts was mere child's play, no more arbitrary, however, than it was beneficent, as potent to beckon into life all things great and good, as it was to dash into ruin all things that made for ill. Who that follows that wonderful career, that reads those letters1 and speeches, stammering, incoherent, will abate a word from Milton's great panegyric? "He was a soldier disciplined to perfection in a knowledge of himself. He had either extinguished or by habit had learned to subdue the Milton's panewhole host of vain hopes, fears, and pas- gyric. sions which invest the soul. He first acquired the government of himself. . . so that on the first day he took the field against the external enemy, he was a veteran in arms. The whole surface of the British empire has been the theatre of his triumphs. The good and the brave were from all quarters attracted to his camp, not only as to the best school of military talents, but of piety and virtue. His soldiers were a stay to the good, a terror to the evil, and the warmest advocates for every exertion of piety and virtue. While you, O Cromwell, are left among us, he hardly shows a proper confidence in the Supreme, who distrusts the security of England. We all willingly yield the palm of sovereignty to your unrivalled ability and virtue, except the few among us who do not know that nothing in the world is more pleasing to God than that the supreme power should be vested in the best and the wisest of men. Such, O Cromwell, all acknowledge you to be; such are the services which you have rendered as the leader of our councils, the general of our armies, and the father of your country. Continue your course with the same unrivalled magnanimity: it sits well upon you. To you our country owes its liberties, nor can you sus 1 See Carlyle's Cromwell. tain a character at once more momentous and more august than that of the author, the guardian, and the preserver of our liberties. Hence you have not only eclipsed the achievements of all our Kings, but even those which have been fabled of our heroes.'"1 When at last his mighty hand relaxed, nothing was possible but the Restoration. The world was in truth not yet ready.2 Benefits se cured by the lution. "Thus ended, apparently in simple catastrophe, the enterprise of projecting into sudden reality the impulse of spiritual freedom. Its only result, English Revo- as it might seem, had been to prevent the transition of the feudal into an absolute monarchy, and thus to prepare the way for the plutocracy under feudal forms which has governed England since the death of William III. This, however, is but a superficial view. Two palpable benefits the short triumph of Puritanism did win for England. It saved it from the Catholic reaction, and it created the dissenting bodies. The fifteen years of vigorous growth which Cromwell's sword secured for the church of the sectaries, gave it a permanent force which no reaction could suppress, and which has since been the great spring of political life in England." "3 1 Defensio Secunda pro Populo Anglicano (translation). See Life of Young Sir Henry Vane, pp. 414, 454, 455. 2 Gneist: Geschichte und heutige Gestalt der Aemter in England, p. 226, etc. 3 Thomas Hill Green: Lectures on the English Commonwealth. Works, III, pp. 363, 364. CHAPTER XI. THE REVOLUTION OF 1688. Charles II, 1660. James II, 1685. William and Mary, 1689. THE Commonwealth went down after its brave struggle to establish sovereignty of the people, and a reaction began which went to great ex- The Restoratremes. Charles II returned in the midst tion. of enthusiasm so excessive that the stern Republicans who for some glorious years had had all things in their hands, were completely silenced. The new King, like his father and grandfather, was ready to claim high prerogatives, but his subjects showed a subserviency that surprised him. Foremost in loyal zeal stood the clergy of the Anglican Church, which came back over the temporary wreck of Presbyterianism and Independency, into a power greater than ever before. What were the claims of James I and the Royalists at the beginning of the century, we have already noted.1 These doctrines of absolutism, during the time of the Commonwealth so thoroughly repudiated, came at the Restoration again to the surface in forms more marked than ever. Every Anglican pulpit, and no other pulpits were now tolerated, with the strongest emphasis the divine right of kings. Writers arose who undertook to show that Magna 1 pp. 104, 105. Reaction from the ideas of wealth. the Common taught Charta itself and every constitutional law were rebellious encroachments on the ancient, imprescriptible prerogatives of the monarchy.1 The theories of a certain Sir Robert Filmer were especially in vogue, according to which the King stood above all law. He taught that the Supreme Being regarded hereditary monarchy with peculiar favor. No human power, no length of adverse possession, could deprive a legitimate prince of his right: his authority must of necessity be despotic; the laws by which his prerogatives were limited were merely concessions of the King which he might at any time revoke: any treaty which he might make with his subjects was simply a declaration of his present intentions, and not at all a contract the performance of which might be required.2 The theme which the clergy insisted on beyond every other was "non-resistance," that nothing whatever in the way of crime or folly committed by a legitimate prince, could justify subjects in rebelling. He might be imbecile or as cruel as Nero, but his will must be done. Charles was ready to claim much, but the Church accorded to him even more than he would have claimed. Extravagant, however, though the Church was in its loyalty, the temper of the majority, as reflected in Parliament, bore it fully out. The student of history is disposed to think sometimes that the true benefactors of mankind have been the knaves and fools, rather than men good and wise. What brought to pass Magna Charta was the villany of John. The work of Simon de Montfort was pre Benefits flow ing from the bad characters of Charles II and James II. 1 Hallam: Constitutional History, II, p. 439. |