245. THE ABSOLUTISM OF THE STUARTS, 1603-1642 A.D.
TUDOR ABSOLUTISM
During the same century which saw the triumph of absolutism and divine right in France, a successful struggle took place in England against the unlimited power of kings. Absolutism in England dated from the time of the Tudors. Henry VII humbled the nobles, while Henry VIII and Elizabeth brought the Church into dependence on the crown. [17] These three sovereigns were strong and forceful, but they were also excellent rulers and popular with the influential middle class in town and country. The Tudors gave England order and prosperity, if not political liberty.
PARLIAMENT UNDER THE TUDORS
The English Parliament in the thirteenth century had become a body representative of all classes of the people, and in the fourteenth century it had separated into the two houses of Lords and Commons. [18] Parliament enjoyed considerable authority at this time. The kings, who were in continual need of money, summoned it frequently, sought its advice upon important questions, and readily listened to its requests. The despotic Tudors, on the other hand, made Parliament their servant. Henry VII called it together on only five occasions during his reign; Henry VIII persuaded or frightened it into doing anything he pleased; and Elizabeth seldom consulted it. Parliament under the Tudors did not abandon its old claims to a share in the government, but it had little chance to exercise them.
JAMES I, KING, 1603-1625 A.D.
The death of Elizabeth in 1603 A.D. ended the Tudor dynasty and placed the Stuarts on the English throne in the person of James I. [19] England and Scotland were now joined in a personal union, though each country retained its own Parliament, laws, and state Church. The new king was well described by a contemporary as the "wisest fool in Christendom." He had a good mind and abundant learning, but throughout his reign he showed an utter inability to win either the esteem or the affection of his subjects. This was a misfortune, for the English had now grown weary of despotism and wanted more freedom. They were not prepared to tolerate in James, an alien, many things which they had overlooked in "Good Queen Bess."
JAMES I ON DIVINE RIGHT
One of the most fruitful sources of discord between James and the English people was his exalted conception of monarchy. The Tudors, indeed, claimed to rule by divine right, but James went further than they in arguing for divine hereditary right. Providence, James declared, had chosen the principle of heredity in order to fix the succession to the throne. This principle, being divine, lay beyond the power of man to alter. Whether the king was fit or unfit to rule, Parliament might not change the succession, depose a sovereign, or limit his authority in any way. James rather neatly summarized his views in a Latin epigram, a deo rex, a rege lex—"the king is from God and law is from the king."
[Illustration: GOLD COIN OF JAMES I.
The first coin to bear the legend "Great Britain".]
JAMES I AND PARLIAMENT
Naturally enough, the extreme pretensions of James encountered much opposition from Parliament. That body felt little sympathy for a ruler who proclaimed himself the source of all law. When James, always extravagant and a poor financier, came before it for money, Parliament insisted on its right to withhold supplies until grievances were redressed. James would not yield, and got along as best he could by levying customs duties, selling titles of nobility, and imposing excessive fines, in spite of the protests of Parliament. This situation continued to the end of the king's reign.
JAMES I AND PURITANISM
A religious controversy helped to embitter the dispute between James and Parliament. The king, who was Puritanism a devout Anglican, made himself very unpopular with the Puritans, as the reformers within the Church of England were called. The Puritans had no intention of separating from the national or established Church, but they wished to "purify" it of certain customs which they described as "Romish" or "papist." Among these were the use of the surplice, of the ring in the marriage service, and of the sign of the cross in baptism. Some Puritans wanted to get rid of the Book of Common Prayer altogether. The Puritans were distinguished by their austere lives. They looked with disfavor on May Day and Christmas festivities, observed the Jewish Sabbath in all its rigor, and condemned the Anglicans who played games and danced upon the village green on Sundays. As the Puritans had a large majority in the House of Commons, it was inevitable that the parliamentary struggle against Stuart absolutism would assume in part a religious character.
[Illustration: A PURITAN FAMILY
Illustration in an edition of the Psalms published in 1563 A.D.]
CHARLES I, KING, 1625-1649 A.D.
The political and religious difficulties which marked the reign of James I did not disappear when his son, Charles I, came to the throne. Charles was a true Stuart in his devotion to absolutism and divine right. Almost immediately he began to quarrel with Parliament. When that body withheld supplies, Charles resorted to forced loans from the wealthy and even imprisoned a number of persons who refused to contribute. Such arbitrary acts showed plainly that Charles would play the tyrant if he could.
PETITION OF RIGHT, 1628 A.D.
The king's attitude at last led Parliament to a bold assertion of its authority. It now presented to Charles the celebrated Petition of Right. One of the most important clauses provided that forced loans without parliamentary sanction should be considered illegal. Another clause declared that no one should be arrested or imprisoned except according to the law of the land. The Petition thus repeated and reinforced two of the leading principles of Magna Carta. [20] The people of England, speaking this time through their elected representatives, asserted once more their right to limit the power of kings.
PERSONAL RULE OF CHARLES I, 1629-1640 A.D.
Charles signed the Petition, as the only means of securing parliamentary consent to taxation; but he had no intention of observing it. For the next eleven years he managed to govern without calling Parliament in session. The conduct of affairs during this period lay largely in the hands of Sir Thomas Wentworth, afterwards earl of Strafford, and William Laud, who later became archbishop of Canterbury. The king made these two men his principal advisers and through them carried on his despotic rule. Arbitrary courts, which tried cases without a jury, punished those who resisted the royal will. A rigid censorship of the press prevented any expression of popular discontent. Public meetings were suppressed as seditious riots. Even private gatherings were dangerous, for the king had swarms of spies to report any disloyal acts or utterances.
JOHN HAMPDEN AND "SHIP-MONEY"
Since Charles ruled without a Parliament, he had to adopt all sorts of devices to fill his treasury. One of these was the levying of "ship- money." According to an old custom, seaboard towns and counties had been required to provide ships or money for the royal navy. Charles revived this custom and extended it to towns and counties lying inland. It seemed clear that the king meant to impose a permanent tax on all England without the assent of Parliament. The demand for "ship-money" aroused much opposition, and John Hampden, a wealthy squire of Buckinghamshire, refused to pay the twenty shillings levied on his estate. Hampden was tried before a court of the royal judges and was convicted by a bare majority. He became, however, the hero of the hour. The England people recognized in him one who had dared, for the sake of principle, to protest against the king's despotic rule.
[Illustration: CHARLES I
A painting by Daniel Mytens in the National Portrait Gallery. London]
LAUD'S ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY
Archbishop Laud, the king's chief agent in ecclesiastical matters, detested Puritanism and aimed to root it out from the Church of England. He put no Puritans to death, but he sanctioned cruel punishments of those who would not conform to the established Church. All that the dungeon and the pillory, mutilation and loss of position, could do to break their will was done. While the restrictions on Puritans were increased, those affecting Roman Catholics were relaxed. Many people thought that Charles, through Laud and the bishops, was preparing to lead the Church of England back to Rome. They therefore opposed the king on religious grounds, as well as for political reasons.
[Illustration: EXECUTION OF THE EARL OF STRAFFORD After a contemporary print. The Tower of London is seen in the background.]
THE LONG PARLIAMENT, 1640 A.D.
But the personal rule of Charles was now drawing to an end. In 1637 A.D. the king, supported by Archbishop Laud, tried The Long to introduce a modified form of the English prayer book into Scotland. The Scotch, Presbyterian [21] to the core, drew up a national oath, or Covenant, by which they bound themselves to resist any attempt to change their religion. Rebellion quickly passed into open war, and the Covenanters invaded northern England. Charles, helpless, with a seditious army and an empty treasury, had to summon Parliament in session. It met in 1640 A.D. and did not formally dissolve till twenty years later. Hence it has received the name of the Long Parliament.
[Illustration: Map, ENGLAND AND WALES—THE CIVIL WARS OF THE 17TH CENTURY]
REFORMS OF THE LONG PARLIAMENT
The Long Parliament no sooner assembled than it assumed the conduct of government. The leaders, including John Hampden, John Pym, and Oliver Cromwell, openly declared that the House of Commons, and not the king, possessed supreme authority in the state. Parliament began by executing Strafford and subsequently Laud, thus emphasizing the responsibility of ministers to Parliament. Next, it abolished Star Chamber and other special courts, which had become engines of royal oppression. It forbade the levying of "ship-money" and other irregular taxes. It took away the king's right of dissolving Parliament at his pleasure and ordered that at least one parliamentary session should be held every three years. These measures stripped the crown of the despotic powers acquired by the Tudors and the Stuarts.