All this is cold, unvarnished history.  We cannot get over or around these facts; they blaze out to the eyes of all readers, and will blaze to the most distant ages.  Cromwell began as a reformer, but ended as a usurper.  Whatever name he goes by, whatever title he may have assumed, he became, by force of his victories and of his army, the absolute ruler of England,—­as Caesar did of Rome, and Napoleon of Paris.  We may palliate or extenuate this fact; we may even excuse it on the ground that the State had drifted into anarchy; that only he, as the stronger man, could save England; that there was no other course open to him as a patriot; and that it was a most fortunate thing for England that he seized the reins, and became a tyrant to put down anarchies.  But whatever were the excuses by which Cromwell justified himself, or his admirers justify him, let us not deny the facts.  It may have been necessary, under his circumstances, to reign alone, by the aid of his standing army.  But do not attempt to gloss over the veritable fact that he did reign without the support of Parliament, and in defiance of all constitutional authorities.  It was not the nation which elevated him to supreme power, but his soldiers.  At no time would any legitimate Parliament, or any popular voice, have made him an absolute ruler.  He could not even have got a plebiscitum, as Louis Napoleon did.  He was not liked by the nation at large,—­not even by the more enlightened and conservative of the Puritans, such as the Presbyterians; and as for the Episcopalians, they looked upon him not only as a usurper but as a hypocrite.

It is difficult to justify such an act as usurpation and military tyranny by the standard of an immutable morality.  If the overturning of all constitutional authority by a man who professed to be a reformer, yet who reigned illegally as a despot, can be defended, it is only on the principle of expediency, that the end justifies the means,—­the plea of the Jesuits, and of all the despots who have overturned constitutions and national liberties.  But this is rank and undisguised Caesarism.  The question then arises, Was it necessary that a Caesar should reign at Hampton Court?  Some people think it was; and all admit that after the execution of the King there was no settled government, nothing but bitter, intolerant factions, each of which wished its own ascendency, and all were alike unscrupulous.  Revolution ever creates factions and angry parties, more or less violent.  It is claimed by many that a good government was impossible with these various and contending parties, and that nothing but anarchy would have existed had not Cromwell seized the reins, and sustained himself by a standing army, and ruled despotically.  Again, others think that he was urged by a pressure which even he could not resist,—­that of the army; that he was controlled by circumstances; that he could do no otherwise unless he resigned England to her fate,—­to the anarchy of quarrelling