and angry parties, who would not listen to reason, and who were too inexperienced to govern in such stormy times.  The Episcopalians certainly, and the Presbyterians probably, would have restored Charles II.,—­and this Cromwell regarded as a great possible calamity.  If the King had been restored, all the fruit of the revolution would have been lost; there would have been a renewed reign of frivolities, insincerities, court scandals, venalities, favorites, and disguised Romanism,—­yea, an alliance would have been formed with the old tyrants of Europe.

Cromwell was no fool, and he had a great insight into the principles on which the stability and prosperity of a nation rested.  He doubtless felt that the nation required a strong arm at the helm, and that no one could save England in such a storm but himself.  I believe he was sincere in this conviction,—­a conviction based on profound knowledge of men and the circumstances of the age.  I believe he was willing to be aspersed, even by his old friends, and heartily cursed by his enemies, if he could guide the ship of state into a safe harbor.  I am inclined to believe that he was patriotic in his intentions; that he wished to save the country even, if necessary, by illegal means; that he believed there was a higher law for him, and that an enlightened posterity would vindicate his name and memory.  He was not deceived as to his abilities, even if he were as to his call.  He knew he was the strongest man in England, and that only the strongest could rule.  He was willing to assume the responsibility, whatever violence he should do to his early principles, or to the opinions of those with whom he was at first associated.  If there was anything that marked the character of Cromwell, it was the abiding sense, from first to last, of his personal responsibility to God Almighty, whose servant and instrument he felt himself to be.  I believe he was loyal to his conscience, if not to his cause.  He may have committed grave errors, for he was not infallible.  It may have been an error that he ruled virtually without a Parliament, since it was better that a good measure should be defeated than that the cause of liberty should be trodden under foot.  It was better that parliaments should wrangle and quarrel than that there should be no representation of the nation at all.  And it was an undoubted error to transmit his absolute authority to his son, for this was establishing a new dynasty of kings.  One of the worst things which Napoleon ever did was to seat his brothers on the old thrones of Europe.  Doubtless, Cromwell wished to perpetuate the policy of his government, but he had no right to perpetuate a despotism in his own family:  that was an insult to the nation and to the cause of constitutional liberty.  Here he was selfish and ambitious, for, great as he was, he was not greater than the nation or his cause.