gratification of their own desires' was ever granted to the 'reformers' in
question? On the contrary, it is well known (and no book illustrates that
particular fact so well as Sir William Waller's) that as early as 1647 the
army had too effectually subverted the just relations between itself and
parliament--not to have suggested fearful anticipations to all discerning
patriots of that unhappy issue which did in reality blight their
prospects. And, when I speak of an 'unhappy issue,' I would be understood
only of the immediate issue: for the remote issue was--the revolution of
1688, as I have already asserted. Neither is it true that even the
immediate issue was 'unhappy' to any extent which can justify the ordinary
language in which it is described. Here again is a world of delusions. We
hear of 'anarchy,' of 'confusions,' of 'proscriptions,' of 'bloody and
ferocious tyranny.' All is romance; there was no anarchy; no confusions;
no proscriptions; no tyranny in the sense designed. The sequestrations,
forfeitures, and punishments of all sorts which were inflicted by the
conquering party on their antagonists--went on by due course of law; and
the summary justice of courts martial was not resorted to in England:
except for the short term of the two wars, and the brief intermediate
campaign of 1648, the country was in a very tranquil state. Nobody was
punished without an open trial; and all trials proceeded in the regular
course, according to the ancient forms, and in the regular courts of
justice. And as to 'tyranny,' which is meant chiefly of the acts of
Cromwell's government, it should be remembered that the Protectorate
lasted not a quarter of the period in question (1640-1660); a fact which
is constantly forgotten even by very eminent writers, who speak as though
Cromwell had drawn his sword in January 1649--cut off the king's head--
instantly mounted his throne--and continued to play the tyrant for the
whole remaining period of his life (nearly ten years). Secondly, as to the
_kind_ of tyranny which Cromwell exercised, the misconception is
ludicrous: continental writers have a notion, well justified by the