"First, as to the army.An army, as you have well set forth, is always a weapon dangerous to those who use it; yet he who falls among thieves spares not to fire his musquetoon, because he may be slain if it burst in his hand.Nor must states refrain from defending themselves, lest their defenders should at last turn against them.Nevertheless, against this danger statesmen should carefully provide; and, that they may do so, they should take especial care that neither the officers nor the soldiers do forget that they are also citizens.I do believe that the English army would have continued to obey the parliament with all duty, but for one act, which, as it was in intention, in seeming, and in immediate effect, worthy to be compared with the most famous in history, so was it, in its final consequence, most injurious.I speak of that ordinance called the "self-denying", and of the new model of the army.By those measures the Commons gave up the command of their forces into the hands of men who were not of themselves.Hence, doubtless, derived no small honour to that noble assembly, which sacrificed to the hope of public good the assurance of private advantage.And, as to the conduct of the war, the scheme prospered.Witness the battle of Naseby, and the memorable exploits of Fairfax in the west.But thereby the Parliament lost that hold on the soldiers and that power to control them, which they retained while every regiment was commanded by their own members.Politicians there be, who would wholly divide the legislative from the executive power.In the golden age this may have succeeded; in the millennium it may succeed again.But, where great armies and great taxes are required, there the executive government must always hold a great authority, which authority, that it may not oppress and destroy the legislature, must be in some manner blended with it.The leaders of foreign mercenaries have always been most dangerous to a country.The officers of native armies, deprived of the civil privileges of other men, are as much to be feared.This was the great error of that Parliament: and, though an error it were, it was an error generous, virtuous, and more to be deplored than censured.
"Hence came the power of the army and its leaders, and especially of that most famous leader, whom both in our conversation to-day, and in that discourse whereon I before touched, you have, in my poor opinion, far too roughly handled.Wherefore you speak contemptibly of his parts I know not; but I suspect that you are not free from the error common to studious and speculative men.
Because Oliver was an ungraceful orator, and never said, either in public or private, anything memorable, you will have it that he was of a mean capacity.Sure this is unjust.Many men have there been ignorant of letters, without wit, without eloquence, who yet had the wisdom to devise, and the courage to perform, that which they lacked language to explain.Such men often, in troubled times, have worked out the deliverance of nations and their own greatness, not by logic, not by rhetoric, but by wariness in success, by calmness in danger, by fierce and stubborn resolution in all adversity.The hearts of men are their books; events are their tutors; great actions are their eloquence: and such an one, in my judgment, was his late Highness, who, if none were to treat his name scornfully now shook not at the sound of it while he lived, would, by very few, be mentioned otherwise than with reverence.His own deeds shall avouch him for a great statesman, a great soldier, a true lover of his country, a merciful and generous conqueror.
"For his faults, let us reflect that they who seem to lead are oftentimes most constrained to follow.They who will mix with men, and especially they who will govern them, must in many things obey them.They who will yield to no such conditions may be hermits, but cannot be generals and statesmen.If a man will walk straight forward without turning to the right or the left, he must walk in a desert, and not in Cheapside.Thus was he enforced to do many things which jumped not with his inclination nor made for his honour; because the army, on which alone he could depend for power and life, might not otherwise be contented.And I, for mine own part, marvel less that he sometimes was fain to indulge their violence than that he could so often restrain it.
"In that he dissolved the Parliament, I praise him.It then was so diminished in numbers, as well by the death as by the exclusion of members, that it was no longer the same assembly;and, if at that time it had made itself perpetual, we should have been governed, not by an English House of Commons, but by a Venetian Council.
"If in his following rule he overstepped the laws, I pity rather than condemn him.He may be compared to that Maeandrius of Samos, of whom Herodotus saith, in his Thalia, that, wishing to be of all men the most just, he was not able; for after the death of Polycrates he offered ******* to the people; and not till certain of them threatened to call him to a reckoning for what he had formerly done, did he change his purpose, and make himself a tyrant, lest he should be treated as a criminal.
"Such was the case of Oliver.He gave to his country a form of government so free and admirable that, in near six thousand years, human wisdom hath never devised any more excellent contrivance for human happiness.To himself he reserved so little power that it would scarcely have sufficed for his safety, and it is a marvel that it could suffice for his ambition.When, after that, he found that the members of his Parliament disputed his right even to that small authority which he had kept, when he might have kept all, then indeed I own that he began to govern by the sword those who would not suffer him to govern by the law.
