ment of secular ends. His ideas on the subject of law were not less enlightened than those which he entertained on the subject of religion. Had it not been that his unfortunate situation forced him so frequently to interfere with the regular administration of justice, we believe that he would have been as much renowned for improvements effected in the legal department, as for any other reformation with which his name is connected. But whatever merit belongs to his government, is all hidden under the tyrannical character by which it was so decidedly marked. With that tyranny there was no party which sympathized. It was therefore supported solely by the personal influence of the man who exercised it. There was a monarchical party, attached to the Stuart dynasty; there was a revolutionary party, anxious for a wide constitutional reform; and there was a republican party, who would have reconstructed the foundations of government. Each of these parties was hostile to Cromwell's rule; and his reign was a continued fight with them all in turn. Instead of choosing a position in which he might have had at least one of these parties in his favour, the position he did choose was one in which he stood alone, and which obliged him to undertake the work of subduing the whole nation to his authority. Mr. Godwin well described the nature of Cromwell's administration when he said that it was "a government of experiments." Senates of Notables, Councils of State, representative Parliaments, Majorgenerals, Parliaments partly representative, Houses of Lords and Commons, all were tried, and all miserably failed. Each change only proved that there was, and could be, under the circumstances of the case, but one real government-that of the master mind of the usurper himself. That remained through all; but its omnipotence shewed itself rather in the manner in which every opposition was promptly and effectually quelled, than in the conservation of the national welfare. A pure despotism was established which employed every form of oppression to accomplish its ends. It even for a time parcelled out the land into districts under officers whose main duty it was to detect and punish the disaffected, and who were responsible only to the Protector in council. Mr. Carlyle complacently observes, that "the country submitted very quietly to this arrangement.' To be sure it did. It was compelled by military force to submit. We do not deny that, in the midst of all this, Cromwell steadfastly adhered to his original purpose of effecting the good of the people he had conquered. His government was, in this respect, very different indeed from the merely selfish government of the Stuarts. But no considerations of this kind can justify the improper means he employed in order to accomplish the end he had in view.

And what was the result of the matter? It terminated in the almost total disappointment of the bright hopes which the friends of human progress had entertained. No sooner was the hand which wielded the supreme authority paralyzed by death, than the nation quietly resigned itself to the restoration of the family which it had spent so much blood and treasure in banishing from the throne. It seemed to throw away all desire for the liberty in favour of which it had so bravely fought; and, as by a violent revulsion, it adopted the very opposite manners and habits to those which Cromwell's administration had endeavoured to cultivate. Never was change more complete or disastrous. The pendulum swung back to the utmost possible limit. Compare the fact,

that just previous to the battle of Worcester the Scotch army was suffered to march through England without gaining any support from the people, with the constant resistance from the same people with which the Protectorate had to contend! Compare the feeling of comparative apathy with which the fearful tragedy of the execution of Charles I. was received, with the insane exultation with which his degenerate son was welcomed back to the palace of his ancestors! Is it possible, in the face of such comparisons, to regard Cromwell's administration with other feelings than those of indignant censure? He destroyed the cause which was entrusted to his charge. He sacrificed the interests which had been delivered into his hands. His mighty efforts ended in the re-edification of that which it had been his great purpose to pull down. We have to thank Divine Providence that all was not lost. But the loss was as great as entire want of success on his part could make it. The living germ which still continued to grow, owed no portion of its vitality to his tyranny. That tyranny did all that was possible to be done in tearing from the very hearts of men the principles of spiritual truth which had supplied unconquerable vigour to the contest of the Commonwealth with the Crown. The people lost their faith in liberty and virtue. Religion became a by-word of scorn. Patriotism was regarded as a hypocritical pretence. National good, as distinct from party spoliation, sank into an Utopian dream. This was the most melancholy result of the Protectorate. It shook and ruined confidence in all pure and generous and noble action as between man and man. Mr. Carlyle talks much and well about the cant which has distinguished the period from the Restoration until now. If there be any thing which is pre-eminently responsible for the existence of that cant, it is the government of Cromwell. It taught men to put a mere counterfeit sentimentality in the place of high and holy principle, by persuading them that the profession of such principle, in connection with itself, was no better than a base forgery. Unjustly as the character of the Protector himself has been dealt with-false as have been the imputations cast upon his personal sincerity-it is yet true that his undisguised and unlimited despotism gave but natural occasion for the scorn which has been heaped upon his memory, and the contempt with which his cause has been visited. History is at length remedying the wrongs which she has done to him; but while she does so, she will fix a broader seal of disapprobation upon the sad violation of the foundation principles of right government which his arbitrary sovereignty embraced.

It will be anticipated by every one who knows any thing about Mr. Carlyle's writings, that he turns the whole of Cromwell's story to the advantage of what he calls Hero-worship. We are ourselves much inclined to Hero-worship; and we think Mr. Carlyle generally manifests a sound judgment in the choice of the Heroes whom he proposes to adoration, We do not dispute Cromwell's title to a very prominent place on his list. We have, however, serious objections to the heroic theory upon which, here and elsewhere, in season and out of season, he so pertinaciously and enthusiastically insists. Heroes, according to him, are the persons to whom the conduct of the affairs of the world are to be entirely entrusted, and reverential submission to their direction should be the principle which influences the mass of society. This mode of government he continually opposes to what we commonly

understand by constitutional government; and popular representation he laughs to scorn. He is eminently successful in exposing the exaggerated importance which is frequently attributed to the mere machinery of such representation; but as to the principle of the case, we are persuaded he is entirely wrong. To set up Hero-worship, as he does, against a system of legitimate administration, is just to make that worship ridiculous, by forcing it out of its proper department. If this were all, the matter might be safely left without discussion; but the opinion advocated by Mr. Carlyle is calculated to have a most dangerous effect upon the interests to which it may be applied, and will therefore demand a word or two from us in reprobation of it.

We believe, then, that the kind of Heroes whom Mr. Carlyle paints, does not exist. His are, to a great extent, imaginary pictures. They do not correspond to the reality. The greatest of men have not been so entirely worthy of human dependence as his theory requires and his descriptions indicate. If a Hero, after Mr. Carlyle's own heart, should now arise, and men were to give him the unlimited confidence recommended, they would be assuredly deceived in him. The portrait of Cromwell which these volumes contain, though necessary to the conclusions they advance, is a very flattering likeness indeed. It is the more beautiful on that account. The mere truth would not have justified Mr. Carlyle's Hero-worship at the time of the Commonwealth, and such worship will never be justified by the truth.

Heroes, moreover, are beings fitted for extraordinary times. In ordinary circumstances they do not appear, because they are not wanted. They are created by uncommon conjunctures of events. The demand that they should always exist to rule mankind, is an impossible demand. It is as improper as it is impossible. It is equivalent to a demand that times of confusion should always exist. Cromwell's merit must be regarded in connection with the age in which he lived. Allowing that his government was pre-eminently suited to his time, it would not follow that the same kind of government is suited to our time. The contrary would follow. That theory of government is the wisest and best which is adapted, not to special necessities, but to the usual current of affairs.

One of the main characteristics of a good government is the national confidence which it inspires. It is the object of government to secure the welfare of the people, and the preservation of peace and satisfaction is not only itself a considerable part of that welfare, but it works toward the production of every other advantage. The order of a country is most intimately connected with its happiness. It is here that the great benefit of wise and equally-administered laws is to be found. There is no scheme comparable to that of popular representation in its bearing upon general confidence. Reliance upon a despot's will can never become a valid ground of confidence. This is clearly seen in Cromwell's case. His government was never trusted. It had not the settled character which could originate trust. The people were always ready to rebel against it; and it continued to exist, only by the severe restraints under which they were placed.

There is far more probability that a representative government will promote the substantial interests of a nation, than there is that an irresponsible ruler will promote them. The former is not so likely to be turned aside by sinister intentions as the latter. The collective

wisdom of the former will, in the majority of cases, be superior to the judgment of the latter, however sincere and enlightened he may be. Mr. Carlyle thinks otherwise. We are willing to appeal to facts on the question, and to take our facts from the history of the Commonwealth. He ridicules the attempts of the Long Parliament at legal reformation; and we have already conceded that Cromwell's views of such reformation were highly to be commended. Now, did the Long Parliament, or did he, actually effect most in this department? The answer to that inquiry will be altogether in favour of Parliamentary, as distinguished from Monarchical legislation.

No security can be given for a succession of good governors, on this principle of Hero-worship. The wise man may be followed by the fool; the benevolent king by the cruel tyrant. The chances are altogether against the beneficial schemes of a despot being carried out by the despot who may take his place. Despotism is a thing which lies more naturally to the hands of the scourges than the benefactors of the race. Cromwell could not perpetuate his heroism. But lamentable as was the change from him to his son Richard, the seizure of his authority, by one equally strong with himself, would, in all probability, have been still more lamentable. There is no machinery for the creation of Heroes; but there is a machinery for bringing into power a regular succession of those whom the people to be governed think most fitted for the work of government. It is by the operation of that machinery that the greatest amount of advantage will, in the long run, be produced.

Once more: This is not the age for the application of such schemes of government as Mr. Carlyle offers to our admiration. That, he may say, is only an evidence of modern degeneracy. There, again, we differ from him. The age which permitted Cromwell to grasp the reigns of power, licked the dust beneath the feet of the licentious and unprincipled Charles II. We rejoice that blind and slavish homage is not now possible either in the one case or the other. The value of man as man is daily gaining more and more hold upon the heart of society. That principle is destined to work out nobler and more extensive reformations than have as yet been beheld. Nothing can stay its operation; and as we anticipate its progress, we confidently affirm that the former days were not better than these. The time in which the equal rights of humanity shall be fully secured, will be emphatically the Heroic age; and we desire nothing so much as the free application of the provisions which bear most directly upon that universal Heroism. We shall have our desire. Every attempt to substitute arbitrary rule in the place of human brotherhood will be vain.

We wish not to detract from the merit of the really illustrious. All honour, now and for ever, be to the true, the pure, the good, the noble, the great! Let their names be celebrated with our highest praise, and their deeds be enshrined in our heart of hearts. Let us cherish their memory with reverential gratitude, and tread in their footsteps with glad obedience. If God should raise them up in our sight, let us never hesitate to acknowledge their superiority, and yield to them generous sympathy and thankful submission. But let us take heed, while we do all this, that we turn their glory, not to any exclusive purposes, but to the advancement, in ourselves and others, of that dignity and welfare of the whole family of man, of which such glory is but the type.

г.

As you have inserted in the last No. of the Christian Reformer, (pp. 820, 821), a letter which, at the request of my publisher, I drew up to be addressed to the heads of schools and other establishments of education in which my Translation of Zumpt is in use, may I request a place for the following reply from Dr. Schmitz, inserted as an advertisement in the Athenæum.

York, Dec. 4, 1845.

JOHN KENRICK.

"I have just received a printed circular, signed by the Rev. John Kenrick, which I understand has also appeared in the Athenæum of July 19. What Mr. K. says in reference to the notice of my translation of Zumpt's Grammar, which some time ago appeared in the Examiner, is perfectly correct; for the reviewer in the Examiner was not justified in calling Mr. Kenrick's translation inaccurate. Such a statement is neither supported by Zumpt's own Preface nor by any thing I have said in mine." Dr. Schmitz goes on to disclaim all share in drawing up the advertisement in the Classical Museum, which he never saw till it was in print.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE LATE REV. HENRY ACTON.

SIR,

IT is now nearly twelve months since the Rev. J. Reynell Wreford and Rev. W. James announced to the Unitarian public that a selection of the Sermons of the late Mr. Acton was ready for the press, whenever a sufficient number of subscribers should send in their names to secure the publisher from loss. Entertaining a high opinion of the sterling sense, the manly eloquence, and, above all, the true evangelical spirit of Mr. Acton's pulpit compositions, and thinking that the Unitarians of England at present greatly need publications possessing these characteristics, I would through your pages respectfully request the above-named gentlemen to issue definite proposals for a volume of their late friend's works, stating size and price, and to fix in different parts of the country persons who will receive the names of subscribers. If this be done, I cannot but entertain the hope that there is still remaining in the Unitarian body sufficient regard for rational and scriptural religious views, to insure the publication desired.

B.

JACOBINISM FROM OPPRESSION.

THAT Jacobinism which is speculative in its origin, and which arises from wantonness and fulness of bread, may possibly be kept under by firmness and prudence. The very levity of character which produces it may extinguish it. But Jacobinism which arises from penury and irritation, from scorned loyalty and rejected allegiance, has much deeper roots. They take their nourishment from the bottom of human nature and the unalterable constitution of things, and not from humour and caprice, or the opinions of the day about privileges and liberties. These roots will be shot into the deeps of hell, and will at last raise up their proud tops to heaven itself. This radical evil may baffle the attempts of heads much wiser than those are, who, in the petulance and riot of their drunken power, are neither ashamed nor afraid to insult and provoke those whom it is their duty, and ought to be their glory, to cherish and protect.-Burke, Correspondence, 1796.