he be committed to prison in Bridewell, London, and there restrained from the society of all people, and kept to hard labour, till he be released by Parliament, and during that time be debarred from the use of pen, ink, and paper, and have no relief but what he earns by his daily labour.”  Though petitions for clemency had already been presented to Parliament by some very orthodox people, the first part of this atrocious sentence was duly executed Dec. 18.  Then came more earnest petitions both to Parliament and the Protector, with the effect of a respite of the next part from the 20th to the 27th; between which dates this letter from the Protector was read in the House:  “O.P.  Right Trusty and Well-beloved, We greet you well.  Having taken notice of a judgment lately given by yourselves against one James Nayler, Although we detest and abhor the giving or occasioning the least countenance to persons of such opinions and practices, or who are guilty of the crimes commonly imputed to the said person:  Yet, We, being intrusted in the present Government on behalf of the People of these Nations, and not knowing how far such Proceeding, entered into wholly without Us, may extend in the consequence of it, Do desire that the House will let Us know the grounds and reasons whereupon they have proceeded.”  Two things are here to be perceived.  One is that Cromwell did not approve of the course taken with Nayler.  The other, and more important, is that he regarded this action of the House, without his consent, as an intrenchment on that part of his prerogative which concerned Toleration.  He thought himself, by the constitution of his Protectorate, entrusted with a certain guardianship of this principle, even against Parliament; and he did not know how far Nayler’s case might be made a precedent for religious persecutions.  What may have been the exact reply to Cromwell from the House we do not know; but the House was not in a mood to spare Nayler.  He had not satisfied the clergymen sent to confer with him.  Accordingly, on the 27th, a motion to respite him for another week having been lost by 113 to 59, the second part of his punishment was inflicted to the letter; after which he was removed to Bristol to receive the rest.  All that one can say is that, though Cromwell was far from pleased with the business, and even thought it a horrible one, he did not feel that he could at that time make it the occasion of an actual quarrel with the Parliament.[1]

[Footnote 1:  Commons Journals of dates; Carlyle III, 213-215; Sewel’s History of the People called Quakers (ed. 1834) I. 179-207.]