The Sun.
London, England, 1845-09-06 00:00:00

~J l ~~y ~~ ~ ~~1

LONDON, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 6

The question whether or not among the statues of
our Sovereigns to be erected within the walls of the
new Parliament Mouses at Westminster, that nf
OLIVER CROMWELL should have a place, is, we per-
ceive, again mooted by the correspondents of more
than one of our Contemporaries. They take
up the matter on one side with so much heat,
that, palpable as the merits of the case are, they
seem determined to provoke the controversy which
they would authoritatively decide beforehand. Many
months have elapsed since, in The Sun, we endea-
voured to show why the claim of the stern PROTEC
TOR to fall into the sculptured ranks of these English
historic worthies, was one of irresistible cogency—
provided, always, that it be intended to determine
the point on a dispassionate appreciation of admitted
facts. The truth is, however, that we know of no
theme on which more prejudice has of late years been
exhibited.

A letter in the columns of a morning paper, which
we have just seen, is a remarkable evidence of the
extent to which this sort of personal prepossession is
sometimes pushed in the face of all authenticated
history and tradition. The writer in question, we
observe, remarks that what OLIVER CRONIW ELL ever
did to deserve a statue he does not plainly see ;
but that he has seen much to show why
CROMWELL does not deserve one ever since he (The
writer) read penny histories at his mother's knee
Judging by what follows, his historical reading has
ever since been limited to the same veracious sources of
information. He asks, for example, why statues should
not be erected, if to OLIVER CRONI WELL, to PERKIN
WARBECK and JACK CADE ? He is of opinion,
on the other hand, that any individual should he en-
titled to this honour who was a King (or a Queen
Regnant, we presume), the son of a King, or the next
heir to the vacant throne. He infers that all the title
that can be made out on behalf of CROMWELL
is that he cut off the head of a King. In attempting
to vindicate the character of CHARLES the FIRST, we
observe that all these anti-Cromwellians are
compelled to drag their royal hero through. the dust;
to admit his enormously unconstitutional acts in the
levying of ship-money, the revival of the old forest laws,
the imposition of arbitrary fines, the setting in motion
all the engines of his detestable Star Chamber tyranny,
the despotic extension of the powers of his Coun-
cil, and his proclamations contrary alike to the laws,
to reason, and humanity. They denounce and exe-
crate CROMWELL for the leading share he took in
procuring the capital execution of CHARLES, and
they do their utmost to establish a justification for
that terrible and guilty measure of State necessity.
But it is amusing to find CRcMWELL reproached,
after this recital of royal delinquencies, with the
fact of his not having had sufficient credulity to trust
the same delinquent in a matter of such vast moment
res the recommendation of a successor in the govern-
ment of that nation in all his paramount duties to
which CHARLES had shown himself so signally and
criminally wanting. if CROAT 'ELL it is asked was dis •
contented with UIIARLES individually, and thought him
incapable of governing the kingdom, why (lid he not
accede to CHARLES'S proposal in the latter part of his
career to abdicate in favour of his eldest son ? A
profitable bargain certainly the nation would have
made that should voluntarily have covenanted
upon any terms to be governed by that
heartless
and most dissolute and faithless
profligate, under whose sceptre, in the fulnes s
of time, it was destined to endure the infamy
of passing and of passively remaining. It was this
CHARLES who abandoned to the dominion of courtiers,
to whom was wanting not one vice, not one crime,
that can disgrace human nature, and of mistressel,
the polution of whose memory has never been
equalled since the worst days of the Roman