[311] ‘The violating the privileges of parliament is the overthrow of parliament.’ Heads of the conference with the Lords.
[312] Aerssen: ‘LL Majestés me disants, qu’elles étoient assurées, que mardy ou mercredy ils viendroyent pour separer la royne du roi.’ Guistiniano: ‘Dubitando per avventura di quei mostruosi successi, che senza riguardo tengono di presenti in esercitio le lingue delli piu appassationati.’
BOOK IX.
THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR. 1642-1646.
In the states of Western Europe constitutional rights from a very early date had contended for the mastery against the supreme executive authority: but this strife assumed a new character, as to the principles involved and the system on which it was waged, from the date when the spiritual questions raised by religious controversy came to be mixed up with those purely political. In this respect creed made no difference. Starting from the demand for ecclesiastical uniformity, the French earliest of all sought, under the impulse of Catholic fanaticism, to confine their government within the narrowest limits in the sphere of politics also. In the year 1576 the Estates at Blois asked the assent of the crown to the resolutions passed by them: they wanted to exclude from the Privy Council all members hostile to them. In 1585 the Guises at the head of the Catholic League proposed assemblies of the Estates, recurring regularly every three years, which should keep a reckoning between prince and people. The chief among several grievances which roused the population of Paris to insurrection against Henry III was the tolerance accorded to the Huguenots in contravention of the old laws of the land. In the assembly of 1588 the Estates formulated the demand that the King not only should administer the finances with their co-operation, but also should in future neither declare war nor conclude peace without them. In the assembly of 1593 they proceeded to dispose of the crown itself: the doctrine was, that if the King disregarded the fundamental laws of his kingdom, namely the spiritual laws, his authority reverted to those by whom it had been conferred, that is to say, the Estates. It was only the departure of Henry III from the capital, and the military exploits of Henry IV, that preserved the personal authority of the French kings.
We may perceive at a glance the manifold analogies between the English events of which we are now treating, and those which had taken place in France half a century earlier. Both began through a desire to make the recognition of the exclusive dominance of one religion effectively binding on a government not decidedly inclined to that party: in both the one-sided tolerance displayed by the princes formed one of the chief grounds of complaint against them: the demand was not only for the full execution of the ecclesiastical laws, but also for the unconditional validity of the resolutions passed by the assembly of the Estates wherein these opinions prevailed, for periodic meetings of the Estates, and the dependence on them of the highest officials and of the entire administration—with this difference, that what in the one kingdom was desired for the benefit of Catholicism, in the other was meant to aid the Protestant cause. The religious principles were opposed to one another, the political were to a large extent identical.
In England however all was more deeply rooted and more firmly established than in France. The preponderance of Parliament was far more a matter of historical usage than the power of the Three Estates in France: it had grown up in far more intimate union with the feelings and habits of men. Further, while in France the motives derived from foreign connexions occupied the whole foreground, and were as clear as daylight, in England such motives were weaker and more obscure: the movement assumed a prevailing national colour. When at last after long disputes every chance of a peaceful result had vanished, it was obvious that in England the war must involve far greater danger to the crown. From the different development of the contending principles in the two countries arose the divergence in their later history. At that time the English crown was not yet without military resources, and the example of France might serve as an encouragement to challenge the fortunes of war on the King’s behalf. The English capital had taken as active a part in favour of the Puritan Parliament as the French capital for the exclusively Catholic Estates. Charles I had been obliged to quit Westminster and London as Henry III had quitted Paris: since the successor of the latter had within a few years made himself master of Paris, and had brought about a reaction at least in politics, might not the same future be possible for Charles I also?
CHAPTER I.
ORIGIN OF THE CIVIL WAR.
There is an important point of connexion between English and French history in the fact that the Queen of England was a daughter of Henry IV, and had her father ever in view as the ideal man and prince. She had grown up under the influence of those prevailing Catholic sentiments which her Florentine mother favoured, and in ideas of the unconditional supremacy of royalty and of the claims of birth, such as had come into favour under her brother: almost more than he she showed that the blood of Henry IV flowed in her veins.
We know how long it was before she could obtain any certain influence over her husband. He put an end, with a decision which no one would have expected in him, to the religious demonstrations of her household, of which she approved: he allowed no scope to her personal sympathies, which were directed across the Channel; he supported his ministers against her. For Charles I was fully conscious of his royal calling: he would not let his position be interfered with by foreign influences: only in cases of mercy was the Queen’s intercession ever attended to. Hostility to Cardinal Richelieu, who had deeply offended both the Queen through her mother and the King by his connexion with the Scots gave the first occasion for an understanding between Charles and his consort which was of importance in public affairs; it formed as it were a common interest between them.
The Queen reconciled herself to the dominion of Anglicanism, while it supported the prerogative, on which again toleration of the Catholics was based. Hence also attacks on the A.D. 1642. prerogative, the unconditional validity of which had been assumed in her marriage treaty, appeared to her like an assault on her personal rights. She had that fiery conviction of the truth of her creed which is frequently characteristic of clever women: they see in every deviation from it either error, or a wicked design, or actual crime: the feeling of being in the true faith fills them with pride and utter contempt for its enemies. How much more must this have been the case where religious hostility was in league with political attacks on the rights of royalty. In the efforts of the Puritan party in Parliament Henrietta Maria saw so many blows aimed at all human and divine rights. She had not yet fully converted her husband to these views, but she impressed him by her quick, spirited, and lively intelligence: events aroused in her a far more active spirit of resistance than in him: she divined the purport of the intentions of her opponents, and the inevitable results of the steps taken by the King. The fact that her views and predictions were justified by the event, gave her a double influence over him, so that he formed a very high opinion of her talents. Long as they had been married, she had never lost the traces of passionate affection: once, though half jestingly, she showed signs of a nascent jealousy: but the King wished to please her and go hand in hand with her; as her penetration convinced him, so too he loved to win her approval. Her judgment was especially decisive in personal matters: she boasted once that as soon as she had gained credit with the King, she had restored to his favour persons whom before he had hated[313]. Now however the bitterest hatred of Parliament was directed against all whom she favoured or listened to. Persons, at least as much as principles, were the great exciting cause of the movement[314]. The Queen herself was directly attacked and threatened by this hostility. To arm against the Parliament was for her a matter at once of self-defence and of ambition; she aroused for this end all the energy which the King possessed. A.D. 1642. Charles I desired to defend not merely himself but also his wife and family. In this community of interests, of opinions, and of dangers, the Queen obtained, if not absolute dominion, at any rate the greatest influence over the King.