way neutralised one another, and as it were handsomely did nothing, and left Oliver to do. A Record of their proceedings has been jotted down by one of their Members there present, who is guessed rather vaguely by Editorial sagacity to have been 'one Mr. Burton.' It was saved from the fire in late years, that Record; has been printed under the title of Burton's Diary; and this Editor has faithfully read it, not without wonder, once more, at the inadequacy of the human pen to convey almost any glimmering of insight to the distant human mind! Alas, the human pen, oppressed by incubus of Parliamentary or other Pedantry, is a most poor matter. At bottom, if we will consider it, this poor Burton,-let us continue to call him Burton,' though that was not his name,-cared nothing about these matters himself; merely jotted them down pedantically, by impulse from without, that he might seem, in his own eyes and those of others, a knowing person, enviable for insight into facts of an high nature.' And now, by what possibility of chance, can he interest thee or me about them; now when they have turned out to be facts of no nature at all,-mere wearisome ephemera, and cast-clothes of facts, gone all to dust and ashes now; which the healthy human mind resolutely, not without impatience, tramples under its feet! A Book filled, as so many are, with mere dim inanity, and moaning wind. Will nobody condense it into sixteen pages; instead of four thick octavo volumes? For there are, if you look long, some streaks of dull light shining even through it; perhaps, in judicious hands, one readable sheet of sixteen pages might be made of it ;—and even the rubbish of the rest, with a proper Index, might be useful; might at least be left to rot quietly, once it was known to be rubbish. But enough now of poor Mr. Burton and his Diary,— who, as we say, is not 'Mr. Burton' at all, if anybody cared to know who or what he was! Undoubtedly some very dull man.

1 Compare the Diary, vol. ii. p. 404, line 2, and vol. ii. p. 347, line 7, with Commons Journals, vii. 588; and again Diary, vol. ii. p. 346, line 13, with Commons Journals, vii. 450, 580: Two Parliament-Committees, on both of which "I" the writer of the Diary sat; in neither of which is there such a name as Burton. Guess rather, if it were worth while to guess, one of the two Suffolk Bacons; most probably Nathaniel Bacon, Master of the Court of Requests,'-a dim old Law-Court fallen obsolete now.

[The editor of Burton's Diary, Mr. Rutt, has much more than vague guessing" as a foundation for his theory as to the authorship, and there can be little doubt that it was written, as he supposes, by Thomas Burton, M.P. for Westmorland. Carlyle's argument as to the committees turns against himself, for in three other committees upon which the writer of the Diary sat, Burton's name VOL. III.-2

LIBRAR

OF THE

UNIVERSITY

OF

CALIFORNIA

Under chimerical circumstances he gives us, being fated to do it, an inane History of a Parliament now itself grown very inane and chimerical !—

or

This Parliament, as we transiently saw, suppressed the MajorGenerals; refused to authorise their continued 'Decimation Ten per-centing of the Royalists; whereupon they were suppressed. Its next grand feat was that of James Nayler and his Procession which we saw at Bristol lately. Interminable Debates about James Nayler,-excelling in stupor all the Human Speech, even in English Parliaments, this Editor has ever been exposed to. Nayler, in fact, is almost all that survives with one, from Burton, as the sum of what this Parliament did. If they did aught else, the human mind, eager enough to carry off news of them, has mostly dropped it on the way hither. To Posterity they sit there as the James-Nayler Parliament. Four-hundred Gentle

occurs and Bacon's does not. There are other points which put Bacon entirely out of the question, and many things which prove that the author was a North country man. See the note on the Authorship of Burton's Diary in the Athenæum for October 20, 1900.]

1 Commons Journals, 7th to 29th Jan. 1656-7.

2[But another and very serious matter was also engaging the attention of Parliament, although, as no resolutions were taken upon it, it has left no traces in the Journals, i.e., the question of the settlement of the Protectorate as a hereditary office, which was by no means sprung upon the Assembly as a new proposal by Packe in the following February. Only ten days after Parliament met, in September, Giavarina, the Venetian ambassador, wrote that Cromwell's elevation to the position of King was being seriously discussed in political circles, and on October 28 an Irish member, whom we can identify from Ludlow and Burton as Colonel William Jephson, moved to take into consideration "the thirty-first article of the government" (Thurloe v., 525) or as Ludlow bluntly puts it "that Cromwell might be made King" (Memoirs, ed. Firth ii., 20). Ludlow adds a tale that the Protector reproved Jephson for it, who answered that he must follow his conscience, "whereupon Cromwell, clapping him on the shoulder, said, 'Get thee gone for a mad fellow'-and shortly afterwards gave him a troop of horse and sent him as agent to Sweden." The inference here is absurd. Jephson had been a well-known man for many years, was one of the most active members of the great Irish Committee of Lords and Commons during the Civil Wars, and colonel of a regiment of horse sent over to help Inchiquin in Munster in 1646. He was a man of position and ability, an old adherent of Cromwell, and just the sort of person likely to be chosen for employment.

All through November, the despatches of Bordeaux and Giavarina are full of references to the scheme of making the Protectorate hereditary. In December the matter dropped for awhile, but evidently with the intention of its speedy revival, for on Dec. 25 (old style) Bordeaux wrote that the Protector had sent his eldest son into the country that he might not be in London when the subject of the succession was proposed in Parliament. For a full discussion of these early proceedings concerning the Protectorate and Kingship see Mr. Firth's article in the English Historical Review for July, 1902.

The Parliament also gave a considerable amount of time to the questions of the treatment of the Roman Catholics and the reformation of manners.]

men of England, and I think a sprinkling of Lords among them, assembled from all Counties and Boroughs of the Three Nations, to sit in solemn debate on this terrific Phenomenon ; a Mad Quaker fancying or seeming to fancy himself, what is not uncommon since, a new Incarnation of Christ. Shall we hang him, shall we whip him, bore the tongue of him with hot iron; shall we imprison him, set him to oakum; shall we roast, or boil, or stew him ;-shall we put the question whether this question shall be put; debate whether this shall be debated;-in Heaven's name, what shall we do with him, the terrific Phenomenon of Nayler? This is the history of Oliver's Second Parliament for three long months and odd. Nowhere does the unfathomable Deep of Dulness which our English character has in it, more stupendously disclose itself. Something almost grand in it; nay, something really grand, though in our impatience we call it "dull." They hold by Use and Wont, these honourable Gentlemen, almost as by Laws of Nature,-by Second Nature almost as by First Nature. Pious too; and would fain know rightly the way to new objects by the old roads, without trespass. Not insignificant this English character, which can placidly debate such matters, and even feel a certain smack of delight in them! A massiveness of eupeptic vigour speaks itself there, which perhaps the liveliest wit might envy. Who is there that has the strength of ten oxen, that is able to support these things? Couldst thou debate on Nayler, day after day, for a whole Winter? Thou, if the sky were threatening to fall on account of it, wouldst sink under such labour, appointed only for the oxen of the gods!— The honourable Gentlemen set Nayler to ride with his face to the tail, through various streets and cities; to be whipt (poor Nayler), to be branded, to be bored through the tongue, and then to do oakum ad libitum upon bread-and-water; after which he repented, confessed himself mad, and this world-great Phenomenon, visible to Posterity and the West of England, was got winded up.1

1 Sentence pronounced, Commons Journals, vii. 486,7 (16th Dec. 1656); executed in part, Thursday 18th Dec. (ib. 470);-petitions, negotiations on it do not end till May 26th, 1657. James Nayler's Recantation is in Somers Tracts, vi.

22-29.

LETTER CCXVII

CONCERNING which, however, and by what power of jurisdiction the honourable Gentlemen did it, his Highness has still some inquiry to make;-for the limits of jurisdiction between Parliament and Law-Courts, Parliament and Single Person, are never yet very clear; and Parliaments uncontrolled by a Single Person have been known to be very tyrannous before now! On Friday 26th December, Speaker Widdrington intimates that he is honoured with a Letter from his Highness; and reads the same in these words:

To our Right Trusty and Right Well-beloved Sir Thomas Widdrington, knight, Speaker of the Parliament: To be communicated to the Parliament'

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 under the guilt of such crimes as are commonly imputed to the said person: yet We, being entrusted in the present government, on behalf of the people of these nations; and not knowing how far such proceedings (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.

Given at Whitehall, the 25th of December 1656.*

* Burton, 1. 370. [Add. MSS. 6125, p. 284]; see Commons Journals, vii. 475. [Thurloe writes of this to H. Cromwell: "The letter his Highness writ was not on the behalf of Nayler, and those who so represent it, do it not ingenuously. It's true it was upon that occasion, but it was so far from being in favour of him, that his Highness in his very letter professed he detested both his opinions and practices, but yet was unsatisfied with their proceedings, as having been wholly without him; and what the consequences of such proceedings might be to all the people of these nations, on whose behalf he was entrusted, he knew not; and therefore desired that he might be acquainted with the grounds of their proceedings." (Thurloe, vi. 8.)]

A pertinent inquiry; which will lead us into new wildernesses of Debate, into ever deeper wildernesses ;—and in fact into our far notablest achievement, what may be called our little oasis, or island of refuge: That of reconstructing the Instrument of Government upon a more liberal footing, explaining better the boundaries of Parliament's and Single Person's jurisdiction; and offering his Highness the Title of King.-1

Readers know what choking dust-whirlwind in certain portions of 'the Page of History' this last business has given rise to! DustHistory, true to its nature, has treated this as one of the most important businesses in Oliver's Protectorate; though intrinsically it was to Oliver, and is to us, a mere 'feather in a man's cap,' throwing no new light on Oliver; and ought to be treated with great brevity indeed, had it not to many thrown much new darkness on him. It is now our painful duty to deal with this matter also; to extricate Oliver's real words and procedure on it from the detestable confusions and lumber-mountains of Human Stupidity, old and recent, under which, as usual, they lie buried. Some Seven, or even Eight, Speeches of Oliver, and innumerable Speeches of other persons on this subject have unluckily come down to us; and cannot yet be consumed by fire;—not yet, till one has painfully extricated the real speakings and proceedings of Oliver, instead of the supposititious jargonings and imaginary dark pettifoggings of Oliver; and asked candid mankind, Whether there is anything particular in them? Mankind answering No, fire can be applied; and mountains of rubbish, yielding or not some fractions of Corinthian brass, may once more be burnt out of men's way.

The Speeches and Colloquies, reported by one knows not whom, upon this matter of the Kingship, which extend from March to May of the year 1657, and were very private at the time, came out two years afterwards as a printed Pamphlet, when Kingship was once more the question, Charles Stuart's Kingship, and men needed incitements thereto. Of course it is with the learned Law-arguments in favour of Kingship that the Pamphleteer is chiefly con

1[This question, as has been shown above, had been in the air for many weeks, and in fact appears to have been somewhat retarded by the Protector's action. The members were angry, and Bordeaux wrote that "Česte mauvoise disposition a empesché qu'il ne s'en soit parlé davantage; et il semble que l'on ne songe plus qu'a tirer de l'argent du Parlement pour la congedier." But, early in February the matter was again to the fore, and it is at this date that Bordeaux told the story of Lambert saying that the question was not whether Richard or John (himself) should succeed, but whether they should retrace their steps or go forward. Bordeaux to Mazarin, Feb. 5-15.]