defence of the public good, of durable tranquillity, of temperate
freedom, were buried in the grave of Hampden.

The self-denying ordinance was passed, and the army was
remodelled. These measures were undoubtedly full of danger. But
all that was left to the Parliament was to take the less of two
dangers. And we think that, even if they could have accurately
foreseen all that followed, their decision ought to have been the
same. Under any circumstances, we should have preferred Cromwell
to Charles. But there could be no comparison between Cromwell and
Charles victorious, Charles restored, Charles enabled to feed fat
all the hungry grudges of his smiling rancour and his cringing
pride. The next visit of his Majesty to his faithful Commons
would have been more serious than that with which he last
honoured them; more serious than that which their own General
paid them some years after. The King would scarce have been
content with praying that the Lord would deliver him from Vane,
or with pulling Marten by the cloak. If, by fatal mismanagement,
nothing was left to England but a choice of tyrants, the last
tyrant whom she should have chosen was Charles.

From the apprehension of this worst evil the Houses were soon
delivered by their new leaders. The armies of Charles were
everywhere routed, his fastnesses stormed, his party humbled and
subjugated. The King himself fell into the hands of the
Parliament; and both the King and the Parliament soon fell into
the hands of the army. The fate of both the captives was the
same. Both were treated alternately with respect and with insult.
At length the natural life of one, and the political life of the
other, were terminated by violence; and the power for which both