ted, the last word, for our time,
will not be spoken.

Those to whom the great Noncomformist is an object of admiration, have
certain conspicuous flaws to contemplate. Cromwell, by his approval
of Pride's Purge, was an accomplice after the fact. Colonel Pride
expelled the majority, in order that the minority might be able to
take the life of the king. It was an act of illegality and violence,
a flagrant breach of the law, committed with homicidal intent. In
ordinary circumstances such a thing would have to bear a very ugly
name. Nor was it an act of far-sighted policy, for the outraged
Presbyterians restored Charles II without making terms. Then, the
Protector professed to see the hand of God, a special intervention,
when he succeeded, and things went well. It was not the arm of the
flesh that had done these things. They were remarkable Providences,
and the like. There is not a more perilous or immoral habit of mind
than the sanctifying of success. Thirdly, he was the constant enemy
of free institutions. Scarcely any Englishman has so bad a record in
modern history. Having allowed all this, we cannot easily say too much
of his capacity in all things where practical success is concerned,
and not foresight or institutions. In that respect, and within those
limits, he was never surpassed by any man of our race, here or in
America.

As political thinkers both Vane and Harrington are more profound.
Harrington is the author of what Americans have called the greatest
discovery since the printing-press. For he has given the reason why
the great Rebellion failed, and was followed by the reaction under
Charles II. He says that it failed because it omitted to redistribute
the property of the kingdom. The large estates constituted an
aristocratic society, on which it was impossible to construct a
democratic state. If the great estates had been broken up into small
ones, on a definite plan, the nation would have been committed to the
new order of things, and would have accepted the law of equality.
Poverty would have been diminished on one side, and nobles would have
been abolished on the other. A timorous conservatism and legal
scruples made this impossible, and government, by a law of nature,
took its shape from the forms and forces of society. It is needless
to go quite so deep as this to see that the Cromwellian system, which
was the work of a minority, led by a man of pre-eminent services and
talents, crum