sympathy to lead his judgment astray, or to prevent him from doing equal and exact justice to the motives of the royalists, as well as the men of the Long Parliament. This work, we believe, on account of its republican tendencies, was never very popular in England; it is less known in America than it deserves to be. We have heard it regretted that Mr. Macauley, whose History of England is finding its way into every American Library, did not date that history back to the reign of Charles I., so as to embrace the Revolution and the period of the Commonwealth. This desideratum is already supplied by Godwin's Commonwealth. It deserves to be placed by the side of Macauley's History, upon the shelf of every library, and to be read thoroughly and carefully in connection with, and as an introduction to, that history. It is just the work that the American student needs, in his effort to get a true insight into the struggle for liberty, attempted by his republican ancestors two centuries ago. We do not know that any edition of Mr. Godwin's History has ever been reprinted in America, and we therefore take this occasion to commend it to the attention of some one of our enterprising publishers.

The quasi liberal history of M. Guizot was written before he became a distinguished actor in the politics of Europe-it was written before the revolution of 1830, which placed Louis Philippe on the throne, although it has been published but recently in this country. This history is not complete. It is brought down only to the death of Charles I., being the first part of the period of which the author proposed to treat. Since the late revolution in February, 1848, Guizot has had an abundance of time to turn his mind to the completion of this projected work, instead of which he has amused himself with the less creditable employment of writing such pamphlets as "Democracy in France." With the exception of M. Villemain, we do not know of any other French author who has undertaken a narrative of the Revolution and Cromwell. M. Mazure's book, mentioned in his introduction by Guizot, is a history of the Revolution of 1688. So, too, is the "Counter Revolution," by the lamented Armand Carrel, a work evincing considerable ability and research. Villemain's "Histoire de Cromwell," we have not seen. He represents Cromwell, we are told, as utterly false and insincere in his religious professions, and, therefore, doubtless fully justifies Carlyle's running criticism, that his book is" unfortunately rather an ignorant and shallow one." This opinion as to the merits of Villemain, however, is not shared by M. Guizot, who expresses for his fidelity and truthfulness the highest admiration. Guizot has apparently adopted Villemain's theory of Cromwell's religious insincerity. Although he does not directly charge this upon him, yet the inference is plainly to be drawn from the whole tenor of his work. Cromwell is no favorite character with Guizot. The learned historian, it is true, has a clear appreciation of the general scope and tendency of the grand movement in which Cromwell was engaged. He understands fully the merits of the struggle of the parliament for independence, and the deep importance of the battle that was there fought between the people and royalty. Nor does he fail to sympathize with the people and the parliament. The author of the "History of Civilization" saw too clearly the favorable influence that the success of the parliament exerted in the advance of society in the search of civilization, and in the promotion of what he understands by well-regulated liberty, to have been otherwise

than a warm advocate of the popular cause during the period of which he has written. But Guizot does not seem to have fully appreciated the character of Cromwell. Indeed, he does not apparently comprehend the deep, earnest and passionate religious enthusiasm of the man during this portion of his career-the type and individual manifestation of that religious fervor pervading masses of men, which is one of the most remarkable characteristics of the age. It is this which stamped an individuality of character upon the puritan struggle for liberty, and made Cromwell its true leader. The theory of Cromwell's religious hypocrisy we could never understand. We believe there was a truth and reality in this man— a stern sincerity of religious faith, or what he took to be such-which, however lamentably perverted in later years, and however clouded and obscured by selfish ambition, was never wholly obliterated. His religious faith was doubtless at one time the controlling guide of his conduct. A subtle casuistry enabled him to accommodate this faith to circumstances, to reconcile it with the attainment of his cherished and unworthy ends. With many a man of less firmness or weaker mind, either the faith or the object would have been abandoned. Cromwell sacrificed neither, but held fast to both. If this faith was not a real emotion, then Cromwell must have habitually practiced the most remarkable self-delusion; he must have deceived himself as much as he deceived the world. However this may be, we cannot for a moment entertain the idea that he habitually feigned these religious emotions for politic ends. M. Guizot, in this part of his history, has not undertaken to give us a very distinctive picture of Cromwell. He is one of the chief characters of the epoch, it is true, but by no means stands out upon the canvass with the prominence of a biographical portrait. It is the great event-the English Revolution-not the great man, Oliver Cromwell, he undertakes to sketch, and we shall not, therefore, farther pursue the criticism upon Guizot's character of the Lord-General. As for his history itself, we are not afraid of speaking in too high terms of its literary merits. It is a work worthy of the reputation of the author of the "History of Civilization"distinguished by great learning, a philosophical arrangement, and bearing upon it the indubitable marks of honest investigation and patient labor. Occasionally he falls into an erroneous statement-as where he relates, on the authority of Neal, that Cromwell, Pym, Hampden and Hazelrig had actually embarked on board of a vessel for America, and were restrained from sailing by an order in council-but these are rare, and as a general rule, his facts will be found sustained by the best authorities. It is to be hoped that Guizot may find time to complete his history, or at all events to bring down the narrative through what he calls the second period, from 1649 to 1660, embracing the period of the Long Parliament and the Protectorate, to the Restoration. In the absence of “ Godwin's Commonwealth," such a work, completed by Guizot, would be the best and most reliable history of the Revolution yet written.

66

Another continental writer, Mr. D'Aubigné-an author of reputation in the religious world, a Protestant clergyman, President of the Theological School at Geneva, the resolute enemy of popery in all its forms, and we suspect of prelacy, too-has recently given us a biography of

*See Bancroft's "History of the Colonization of America," for a complete refutation of this statement

Cromwell. D'Aubigné had already written the history of the Reformation and of Luther. In that great man he found a character congenial to his taste and his religious sentiments, and a character which excited at once his reverence and his admiration. From the great Reformer, the Christian hero who had preached a crusade against popery, he turned to Cromwell. Studying his religious character, and pondering upon his speeches and writings, he tried to fancy he had found another Luther. There are, perhaps, certain points of resemblance between these two men which might not fail to strike a more careless observer than Mr. D'Aubigné. The clear, powerful, though somewhat coarse intellect-the stern self-reliance and utter insensibility to fear--undaunted physical as well as moral courage-the rugged manhood, the indomitable will-are shared by both in common. Luther was the Cromwell of the Reformation-Cromwell the Luther of the civil wars. The one engaged in religious polemics as the other fought battles. Luther would have put down papacy as Cromwell turned out the Long Parliament, and would have torn the Pope from the chair of St. Peter, as the victorious commonwealth soldier pulled Charles I. from the throne of his ancestors. We can readily fancy that a change of external circumstances might have made Luther the victorious captain of Worcester and Naseby fights; Cromwell the dauntless reformer, pushing on to Worms, though forced to make his way there through as many devils as there were tiles on the houses." But the parallel soon ceases-to us, indeed, much sooner than to Mr. D'Aubigné. Some of Luther's noblest traits have no existence in Cromwell, some reappear as rough caricatures. We cannot find in the Englishman the frank and open manhood of the German reformer— the undisguised singleness of heart-the directness of purpose-the unswerving constancy to the cause in which he engaged. Luther's cheerful, joyous buoyancy of spirit in Cromwell degenerates into unbecoming buffoonery. Luther's elevated faith and trust in the Providence of God, is with Cromwell a kind of spiritual fatalism. Luther walks in the light, carrying his heart in his hand-while Cromwell's purposes are wrapped in mysterious clouds and darkness. Luther we know to be a true man; rectitude and conscience are above suspicion; his biographer finds no occasion to attempt a "vindication" of him; but even at the present day, the question has not ceased to be mooted, not merely whether Cromwell was a true patriot, but whether his religious profession was anything more than a hollow and heartless mockery?

66

his

The object of D'Aubigné's work is to solve this problem of Cromwell's religious character. In its title it clearly expresses its object. It is a "Vindication of the Protector"-a vindication of Cromwell in his character as a sincere Christian man. His theory is precisely such as we would have expected from the author of the History of the Reformation. His strong Protestant tendencies have led him to adopt the most favorable construction of the Protector's actions, and to reconcile them all with a perfect sincerity of heart and singleness of purpose. He looks upon him as the great captain of the protestant faith, the champion of religious liberty. He hears his pious exhortations and prayers amid his troopers he witnesses his impetuous charge upon the enemy " in the name of the Lord of Hosts," with the sword in one hand and the Bible in the other he reads his fervent Christian admonitions to his friends and his kindred-he listens to his humble ascriptions of every triumph

to the mercy and special interposition of the Divine Providence, and he doubts no longer. This man is, in truth, the sincere and humble disciple. Fame, power, ambition, the gilded trappings of royalty, all have failed to make him swerve one hair's breadth from principle. He erred, but his error was the humanum est errare—the error of an imperfect judgment, not of the heart. One cannot, however, read D'Aubigné, and doubt the sincerity of the author's convictions. However erroneous his conclusions may be, they are honestly entertained; and we are perfectly satisfied of the truth of his earnest language, I BELIEVED, AND THEREFORE I HAVE SPOKEN."

66

Had Mr. D'Aubigné simply attempted an exposition of Cromwell's religious character, we might have had no farther comment to make on this book. But he found it impossible to separate Cromwell the saint, from Cromwell the soldier-the character of the Christian from that of the statesman and politician, and, in vindicating Cromwell's religion, he unfortunately finds it necessary, also, to vindicate his usurpation of the government. This part of his theory is to us, far from satisfactory, and we think this friendly biographer has failed in establishing it. Mr. D'Aubigné does not seem fully to comprehend the nature of the contest in which these stern English sectaries were engaged; or, if he does, he deliberately shuts his eyes to the merits of the great political issue involved. He seems to regard the struggle as one exclusively of a religious nature, and not as involving political consequences of the highest moment to England and the world. In his zeal to "vindicate" Cromwell, the author has fallen into great errors, and has done gross injustice to some of the noblest and best of the Protector's puritan contemporaries, especially the republicans in the Long Parliament. In illustration of this, it is only necessary to allude to the author's account of the dissolution of the Long Parliament, and the strange manner in which he justifies Cromwell's proceedings therein.

"He and his officers thought, that since the Rump could not come to the determination of resigning their powers, they ought of themselves to take measures for its dissolution."

Then, after a brief description of the outrage perpetrated by Oliver, in the dissolution of this Parliament, and a repetition of his intemperate language, the author adds:

"What he said to the Parliament was indeed the truth. It was well that this Assembly was dissolved, and the General, by desiring another, looked really to the welfare of the people."

D'Aubigné admits that, on this occasion, he "violated the principles by which states are governed;" but justifies, or at least extenuates the act, on the ground that Cromwell was misled by "inward illumination," or "impulses," which he mistook for "the Spirit of God," and this, too, solely upon Cromwell's own account of them! "Nevertheless," adds the author, as though conscious of the insufficiency of this "inward illumination" reason, to justify a high-handed outrage which paved the way to a throne" Nevertheless, whatever might have been the motive which influenced Cromwell's conviction, what he did was truly for the good of the Commonwealth."

This very unsatisfactory account is full of strange errors and perversions. If the Protector's sincerity in other things rested upon no better foundation, we should be forced to differ with D'Aubigné throughout, and to estimate him altogether as a dissembler, and a hypocrite. In the first place, it is not true, that " he and his officers thought, that since the Rump could not come to the determination of resigning their powers," &c. Cromwell thought no such thing, and knew better. He knew that Vane's bill, dissolving the Parliament, and calling a new one by popular election, was then under discussion, and about to pass. This measure, which would have transferred the sovereign power from the army, and Parliament, to the PEOPLE of England, was hateful and odious to him, for he knew that the pikes of his Ironsides were a better guaranty of his power, than the ballot-box. Cromwell had repaired to the house in consequence of the hasty intelligence brought him, that Vane's bill was about to pass. When he went there, he did not "think to have done this," according to his own account, which more sceptical minds than D'Aubigné's have doubted, inasmuch as his grenadiers were already posted within call; but, "perceiving the Spirit of God strong upon" him, he ordered the speaker to be "helped down" from his seat, seized the reform bill of Vane, which he afterwards destroyed, and turned the Long Parliament out of doors at the point of the bayonet. At that moment, civil liberty fell in the Commonwealth. D'Aubigné thinks it was well that this Assembly was dissolved in this manner, and that the "General, by desiring another, looked really to the welfare of the people." We shall not quarrel with Mr. D'Aubigné's conclusion, sustained, as it is, solely by his a priori argument, predicated upon Cromwell's Christian virtue, but shall simply say, that we entirely dissent from it. Cromwell, in turning out the Long Parliament, may have acted without doing violence to his conscience as a Christian; but we do not see how he could reconcile it with his republican professions, or his pretended zeal for the popular liberties. He, the soldier of the Parliament, acting under it, with its commission in his pocket, suddenly assumed to be its master, and usurped, in his own person, all that was left of legal government in England.

Let us see, however, what kind of a Parliament Cromwell desired to call together to aid him in establishing the Commonwealth. D'Aubigné himself, making use of the same logic as before, will answer:

Desirous of seeing the best men called together to provide for the good of their country, he thought that their choice should be entrusted to no one but himself. Besides, England was tired of parliaments and anarchy!"

This explanation, though involving a contradiction, really furnishes the clue to the whole matter. Cromwell's idea that the selection of the best men should be "entrusted to no one but himself," is precisely the idea of a military despot, and such a stretch of power as even the late king had never ventured to assert. It was for this, then, that Parliament had been turned out of doors, and Vane's popular reform-bill strangled. The dictator could not entrust to the people the selection of the "best men," because perchance the people might have the folly to return such members as Bradshaw, and Scot, and Marten, and Vane, and Algernon Sidney, to the prejudice of the public good, the popular liberties, and