I. THE FIRST TWO STUARTS.
1. Reign of James the First (1603-1625).
THE "DIVINE RIGHT" OF KINGS AND THE "ROYAL TOUCH."—With the end of the Tudor line (see p. 561), James VI. of Scotland, son of Mary Stuart, came to the English throne, as James I. of England. The accession of the House of Stuart brought England and Scotland under the same sovereign, though each country still retained its own Parliament.
The Stuarts were firm believers in the doctrine of the "Divine Right" of kings. They held that hereditary princes are the Lord's anointed, and that their authority can in no way be questioned or limited by people, priest, or Parliament. James I.'s own words were, "As it is atheism and blasphemy to dispute what God can do, so it is high contempt in a subject to dispute what a king can do, or to say that the king cannot do this or that."
This doctrine found much support in the popular superstition of the "Royal Touch." The king was believed to possess the power—a gift transmitted through the royal line of England from Edward the Confessor—of healing scrofulous persons by the laying on of hands. [Footnote: Consult Lecky, A History of England in the Eighteenth Century, Vol. I. p. 73. The French kings were also supposed to possess the same miraculous power, inherited, as most believed, from Louis the Saint.] It is simply the bearing of this strange superstition upon the doctrine of the divine right of kings that concerns us now. "The political importance of this superstition," observes Lecky, "is very manifest. Educated laymen might deride it, but in the eyes of the English poor it was a visible, palpable attestation of the indefeasible sanctity of the royal line. It placed the sovereignty entirely apart from the categories of mere human institutions."
By bearing this superstition in mind, it will be easier for us to understand how so large a proportion of the people of England could support the Stuarts in their extravagant claims, and could sincerely maintain the doctrine of the sinfulness of resistance to the king.
THE GUNPOWDER PLOT (1605).—In the third year of James's reign was unearthed a plot to blow up with gunpowder the Parliament Building, upon the opening day of the Session, when king, lords, and commons would all be present, and thus to destroy at a single blow every branch of the English Government. This conspiracy, known as the Gunpowder Plot, was entered into by a few Roman Catholics, because they were disappointed in the course which the king had taken as regards their religion. [Footnote: Though son of the Catholic Mary Stuart, James had been educated as a Protestant.] The leader of the conspiracy, Guy Fawkes, was arrested, and after being put to the rack, was executed. His chief accomplices were also seized and punished. The alarm created by the terrible plot led Parliament to enact some very severe laws against all the Roman Catholics of the realm.
COLONIES AND TRADE SETTLEMENTS.—The reign of James I. is signalized by the commencement of that system of colonization which has resulted in the establishment of the English race in almost every quarter of the globe.
In the year 1607 Jamestown, so named in honor of the king, was founded in Virginia. This was the first permanent English settlement within the limits of the United States. In 1620 some Separatists, or Pilgrims, who had found in Holland a temporary refuge from persecution, pushed across the Atlantic, and amidst heroic sufferings and hardships established the first settlement in New England, and laid the foundations of civil liberty in the New World.
Besides planting these settlements in the New World, the English during this same reign established themselves in the ancient country of India. In 1612 the East India Company, which had been chartered by Elizabeth in 1600, established their first trading-post at Surat. This was the humble beginning of the gigantic English empire in the East.
CONTEST BETWEEN JAMES AND THE COMMONS.—We have made mention of James's idea of the divine right of kingship. Such a view of royal authority and privileges was sure to bring him into conflict with Parliament, especially with the House of Commons. He was constantly dissolving Parliament and sending the members home, because they insisted upon considering subjects which he had told them they should let alone.
The chief matters of dispute between the king and the Commons were the limits of the authority of the former in matters touching legislation and taxation, and the nature and extent of the privileges and jurisdictions of the latter.
As to the limits of the royal power, James talked and acted as though his prerogatives were practically unbounded. He issued proclamations which in their scope were really laws, and then enforced these royal edicts by fines and imprisonment, as though they were regular statutes of Parliament. Moreover, taking advantage of some uncertainty in the law as regards the power of the king to collect customs at the ports of the realm, he laid new and unusual duties upon imports and exports. James's judges were servile enough to sustain him in this course, some of them going so far as to say that "the sea-ports are the king's gates, which he may open and shut to whom he pleases."
As to the privileges of the Commons, that body insisted, among other things, upon their right to determine all cases of contested election of their members, and to debate freely all questions concerning the common weal, without being liable to prosecution or imprisonment for words spoken in the House. James denied that these privileges were matters of right pertaining to the Commons, and repeatedly intimated to them that it was only through his own gracious permission and the favor of his ancestors that they were allowed to exercise these liberties at all, and that if their conduct was not more circumspect and reverential, he should take away their privileges entirely.
On one occasion, the Commons having ventured to debate certain matters of state which the king had forbidden them to meddle with, he, in reproving them, made a more express denial than ever of their rights and privileges, which caused them, in a burst of noble indignation, to enter upon their journal a brave protest, known as "The Great Protestation," which declared that "the liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of Parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England, and that the arduous and urgent affairs concerning the king, state, and defence of the realm … are proper subjects and matter of council and debate in Parliament" (1621).
When intelligence of this action was carried to the king, he instantly sent for the journal of the House, and with his own hands tore out the leaf containing the obnoxious resolution. Then he angrily prorogued Parliament, and even went so far as to imprison several of the members of the Commons. In these high handed measures we get a glimpse of the Stuart theory of government, and see the way paved for the final break between king and people in the following reign.
King James died in the year 1625, after a reign as sovereign of England and Scotland of twenty-two years.
LITERATURE.—One of the most noteworthy literary labors of the reign under review was a new translation of the Bible, known as King James's Version. This royal version is the one in general use at the present day.
The most noted writers of James's reign were a bequest to it from the brilliant era of Elizabeth (see p. 560). Sir Walter Raleigh, the petted courtier of Elizabeth, fell on evil days after her death. On the charge of taking part in a conspiracy against the crown, he was sent to the Tower, where he was kept a prisoner for thirteen years. From the tedium of his long confinement, he found relief in the composition of a History of the World. He was at last beheaded.
[Illustration: THE TOWER OF LONDON.]
The close of the life of the great philosopher Francis Bacon, was scarcely less sad than that of Sir Walter Raleigh. He held the office of Lord Chancellor, and yielding to the temptations of the corrupt times upon which he had fallen, accepted bribes from the suitors who brought cases before him. He was impeached and brought to the bar of the House of Lords, where he confessed his guilt, pathetically appealing to his judges "to be merciful to a broken reed." He lived only five years after his fall and disgrace, dying in 1626.
Bacon must be given the first place among the philosophers of the English- speaking race. His system is known as the Inductive Method of Philosophy. It insists upon experiment and a careful observation of facts as the only true means of arriving at a knowledge of the laws of nature.
2. Reign of Charles the First (1625-1649).
THE PETITION OF RIGHT (1628).—Charles I. came to the throne with all his father's lofty notions about the divine right of kings. Consequently the old contest between king and Parliament was straightway renewed. The first two Parliaments of his reign Charles dissolved speedily, because instead of voting supplies they persisted in investigating public grievances. After the dissolution of his second Parliament Charles endeavored to raise the money he needed to carry on the government, by means of "benevolences" and forced loans. But all his expedients failed to meet his needs, and he was compelled to fall back upon Parliament. The Houses met, and promised to grant him generous subsidies, provided he would sign a certain Petition of Right which they had drawn up. Next after Magna Charta, this document up to this date is the most noted in the constitutional history of England. It simply reaffirmed the ancient rights and privileges of the English people as defined in the Great Charter and by the good laws of Edward I. and Edward III. Four abuses were provided against: (i) the raising of money by loans, "benevolences," taxes, etc., without the consent of Parliament; (2) arbitrary imprisonment; (3) the quartering of soldiers in private houses—a very vexatious thing; and (4) trial without jury.
[Illustration: CHARLES I. (After a painting by A. Vandyke.)]
Charles was as reluctant to assent to the Petition as King John was to affix his seal to the Magna Charta; but he was at length forced to give sanction to it by the use of the usual formula, "Let it be law as desired" (1628).
CHARLES RULES WITHOUT PARLIAMENT (1629-1640).—It soon became evident that Charles was utterly insincere when he put his name to the Petition of Right. He immediately violated its provisions in attempting to raise money by forbidden taxes and loans. For eleven years he ruled without Parliament, thus changing the government of England from a government by king, lords, and commons, to what was in effect an absolute and irresponsible monarchy, like that of France or Spain.
As is always the case under such circumstances, there were enough persons ready to aid the king in his schemes of usurpation. Prominent among his unscrupulous agents were his ministers Thomas Wentworth (Earl of Stafford) and William Laud. Wentworth devoted himself to establishing the royal despotism in civil matters; while Laud, who was made Archbishop of Canterbury, busied himself chiefly with exalting above all human interference the king's prerogatives in religious affairs as the supreme head of the English Church.
All these high-handed and tyrannical proceedings of Charles and his agents were enforced by certain courts that had been wrested from their original purpose and moulded into instruments of despotism. These were known as the Council of the North, the Star Chamber, and the High Commission Court. [Footnote: The first was a tribunal established by Henry VIII., and was now employed by Wentworth as an instrument for enforcing the king's despotic authority in the turbulent northern counties of England. The Star Chamber was a court of somewhat obscure origin, which at this time dealt chiefly with criminal cases affecting the government, such as riot, libel, and conspiracy. The High Commission Court was a tribunal of forty-four commissioners, created in Elizabeth's reign to enforce the acts of Supremacy and Uniformity.] All of these courts sat without jury, and being composed of the creatures of the king, were of course his subservient instruments. Their decisions were unjust and arbitrary; their punishments, harsh and cruel.
JOHN HAMPDEN AND SHIP-MONEY.—Among the illegal taxes levied during this period of tyranny was a species known as ship-money, so called from the fact that in early times the kings, when the realm was in danger, called upon the sea-ports and maritime counties to contribute ships and ship- material for the public service. Charles and his agents, in looking this matter over, conceived the idea of extending this tax over the inland as well as the sea-board counties.
Among those who refused to pay the tax was a country gentleman, named John Hampden. The case was tried in the Exchequer Chamber, before all the twelve judges. All England watched the progress of the suit with the utmost solicitude. The question was argued by able counsel both on the side of Hampden and of the crown. Judgment was finally rendered in favor of the king, although five of the twelve judges stood for Hampden. The case was lost; but the people, who had been following the arguments, were fully persuaded that it went against Hampden simply for the reason that the judges stood in fear of the royal displeasure, and that they did not dare to decide the case adversely to the crown.
The arbitrary and despotic character which the government had now assumed in both civil and religious matters, and the hopelessness of relief or protection from the courts, caused thousands to seek in the New World that freedom and security which was denied them in their own land.
THE COVENANTERS.—England was almost ready to rise in open revolt against the unbearable tyranny. Events in Scotland hastened the crisis. The king was attempting to impose the English liturgy (slightly modified) upon the Scotch Presbyterians. At Edinburgh this led to a riot, one of the women worshippers throwing a stool at the bishop who attempted to read the service. The spirit of resistance spread. All classes, nobles and peasants alike, bound themselves by a solemn covenant to resist to the very last every attempt to make innovations in their religion. From this act they became known as Covenanters (1638).
The king resolved to crush the movement by force, but he soon found that war could not be carried on without money, and was constrained to summon Parliament in hopes of obtaining a vote of supplies. But instead of making the king a grant of money, the Commons first gave their attention to the matter of grievances, whereupon Charles dissolved the Parliament. The Scottish forces crossed the border, and the king, helpless, with an empty treasury and a seditious army, was forced again to summon the two Houses.
THE LONG PARLIAMENT.—Under this call met on November 3, 1640, that Parliament which, from the circumstance of its lasting over twelve years, became known as the Long Parliament. The members of the Commons of this Parliament were stern and determined men, who were resolved to put a check to the despotic course of the king.
Almost the first act of the Commons was the impeachment and trial of Strafford and Laud, as the most prominent instruments of the king's tyranny and usurpation. Both were finally brought to the block. The three iniquitous and illegal courts of which we have spoken (see p. 607) were abolished. And the Commons, to secure themselves against dissolution before their work was done, enacted a law which provided that they should not be adjourned or dissolved without their own consent.
CHARLES'S ATTEMPT TO SEIZE THE FIVE MEMBERS.—An act of violence on the part of Charles now precipitated the nation into the gulf of civil war, towards which events had been so rapidly drifting. With the design of overawing the Commons, the king made a charge of treason against five of the leading members, among whom were Hampden and Pym, and sent officers to effect their arrest; but the accused were not to be found. The next day Charles himself, accompanied to the door of the chamber by armed attendants, went to the House, for the purpose of seizing the five members; but, having been forewarned of the king's intention, they had withdrawn from the hall. The king was not long in realizing the state of affairs, and with the observation, "I see the birds have flown," withdrew from the chamber.
Charles had taken a fatal step. The nation could not forgive the insult offered to its representatives. All London rose in arms. The king, frightened by the storm which he had raised, fled from the city to York. From this flight of Charles from London, may be dated the beginning of the Civil War (Jan. 10, 1642).
Having now traced the events which led up to this open strife between the king and his people, we shall pass very lightly over the incidents of the struggle itself, and hasten to speak of the Commonwealth, to the establishment of which the struggle led.
3. The Civil War (1642-1649).
THE BEGINNING.—After the flight of the king, negotiations were entered into between him and Parliament with a view to a reconciliation. The demands of Parliament were that the militia, the services of the Church, the education and marriage of the king's children, and many other matters should be subject to the control of the two Houses. In making all these demands Parliament had manifestly gone to unreasonable and unconstitutional lengths; but their distrust of Charles was so profound, that they were unwilling to leave in his hands any power or prerogative that might be perverted or abused. Charles refused, as might have been and was expected, to accede to the propositions of Parliament, and unfurling the royal standard at Nottingham, called upon all loyal subjects to rally to the support of their king (Aug. 22, 1642).
THE TWO PARTIES.—The country was now divided into two great parties. Those that enlisted under the king's standard—on whose side rallied, for the most part, the nobility, the gentry, and the clergy—were known as Royalists, or Cavaliers; while those that gathered about the Parliamentary banner were called Parliamentarians, or Roundheads, the latter term being applied to them because many of their number cropped their hair close to the head, simply for the reason that the Cavaliers affected long and flowing locks. The Cavaliers, in the main, favored the Established Church, while the Roundheads were, in general, Puritans. During the progress of the struggle the Puritans split into two parties, or sects, known as Presbyterians and Independents.
For six years England now suffered even greater evils than those that marked that earlier civil strife known as the Wars of the Roses.
OLIVER CROMWELL AND HIS "IRONSIDES."—The war had continued about three years when there came into prominence among the officers of the Parliamentary forces a man of destiny, one of the great characters of history,—Oliver Cromwell. During the early campaigns of the war, as colonel of a regiment of cavalry, he had exhibited his rare genius as an organizer and disciplinarian. His regiment became famous under the name of "Cromwell's Ironsides." It was composed entirely of "men of religion." Swearing, drinking, and the usual vices of the camp were unknown among them. They advanced to the charge singing psalms. During all the war the regiment was never once beaten.
THE SELF-DENYING ORDINANCE (1645).—In the course of the war the Puritans, as has been said, became divided into two parties, the Presbyterians and the Independents. The former desired to reestablish a limited monarchy; the latter wished to sweep aside the old constitution and form a republic.
In the third year of the war there arose a struggle as to which party should have control of the army. By means of what was called the "Self- denying Ordinance," which declared that no member of either House should hold a position in the army, the Independents effected the removal from their command of several conservative noblemen. Cromwell, as he was a member of the House of Commons, should also have given up his command; but the ordinance was suspended in his case, so that he might retain his place as lieutenant-general. Sir Thomas Fairfax was made commander-in-chief. Though Cromwell was nominally second in command, he was now really at the head of the army.
THE "NEW MODEL."—Cromwell at once set about to effect the entire remodelling of the army on the plan of his favorite Ironsides. His idea was that "the chivalry of the Cavalier must be met by the religious enthusiasm of the Puritan." The army was reduced to 20,000 men—all honest, fervent, God-fearing, psalm-singing Puritans. When not fighting, they studied the Bible, prayed and sung hymns. Since Godfrey led his crusaders to the rescue of the Holy Sepulchre, the world had not beheld another such army of religious enthusiasts. From Cromwell down to the lowest soldier of the "New Model," every man felt called of the Lord to strike down all forms of tyranny in Church and State.
THE BATTLE OF NASEBY (1645).—The temper of the "New Model" was soon tried in the battle of Naseby, the decisive engagement of the war. The Royalists were scattered to the winds, and their cause was irretrievably lost. Charles escaped from the field, and ultimately fled into Scotland, thinking that he might rely upon the loyalty of the Scots to the House of Stuart; but on his refusing to sign the Covenant and certain other articles, they gave him up to the English Parliament.
"PRIDE'S PURGE" (1648).—Now, there were many in the Parliament who were in favor of restoring the king unconditionally to his throne, that is, without requiring from him any guaranties that he would in the future rule in accordance with the constitution and the laws of the land. The Independents, which means Cromwell and the army, saw in this possibility the threatened ruin of all their hopes, and the loss of all the fruits of victory. A high-handed measure was resolved upon,—the exclusion from the House of Commons of all those members who favored the restoration of Charles.
Accordingly, an officer by the name of Pride was stationed at the door of the hall, to arrest the members obnoxious to the army. One hundred and forty members were thus kept from their seats, and the Commons thereby reduced to about fifty representatives, all of whom of course were Independents. This performance was appropriately called "Pride's Purge." It was simply an act of military usurpation.
TRIAL AND EXECUTION OF THE KING.—The Commons thus "purged" of the king's friends now passed a resolution for the immediate trial of Charles for treason. A High Court of Justice, comprising 150 members, was organized, before which Charles was summoned. Before the close of a week he was condemned to be executed "as a tyrant, traitor, murderer, and enemy of his country."