the place he held, and surrounded as he was by secret and open enemies,
would have deserved the name of negligence. As to his political
sincerity, which many think had nothing to do with his religious
opinions, he was, to the full, as honest as the first or second Charles.
Of a truth, that same sincerity, it would appear, is no kingly virtue!
Cromwell loved justice as he loved his own life, and wherever he was
compelled to be arbitrary, it was only where his authority was
controverted, which, as things then were, it was not only right to
establish for his own sake, but for the peace and security of the
country over whose proud destinies he had been called to govern. "The
dignity of the crown," to quote his own words, "was upon the account of
the nation, of which the king was only the representative head, and
therefore, the nation being still the same, he would have the same
respect paid to his ministers as if he had been a king." England ought
to write the name of Cromwell in letters of gold, when she remembers
that, within a space of four or five years, he avenged all the insults
that had been lavishly flung upon her by every country in Europe
throughout a long, disastrous, and most perplexing civil war.
Gloriously did he retrieve the credit that had been mouldering and
decaying during two weak and discreditable reigns of nearly fifty years'
continuance--gloriously did he establish and extend his country's
authority and influence in remote nations--gloriously acquire the real
mastery of the British Channel--gloriously send forth fleets that went
and conquered, and never sullied the union flag by an act of dishonour
or dissimulation. Not a single Briton, during the protectorate, but
could demand and receive either reparation or revenge for injury,
whether it came from France, from Spain, from any open foe or
treacherous ally; not an oppressed foreigner claimed his protection but
it was immediately and effectually granted. Were things to be compared
to this in the reign of either Charles? England may blush at the