Charles I
by Jacob Abbott · English · Gutenberg #26734 · 327,969 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Charles I
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Charles I
Author: Jacob Abbott
Release date: October 1, 2008 [eBook #26734]
Most recently updated: January 4, 2021
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26734
Credits: Produced by D Alexander and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHARLES I ***
Produced by D Alexander and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)
Makers of History
Charles I.
BY JACOB ABBOTT
WITH ENGRAVINGS
NEW YORK AND LONDON
HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS
1901
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1848, by
HARPER & BROTHERS,
In the Clerk's Office of the Southern District of New York.
Copyright, 1876, by JACOB ABBOTT.
[Illustration: TOWER OF LONDON.]
[Illustration: JOHN HAMPDEN.]
PREFACE.
The history of the life of every individual who has, for any reason,
attracted extensively the attention of mankind, has been written in a
great variety of ways by a multitude of authors, and persons sometimes
wonder why we should have so many different accounts of the same
thing. The reason is, that each one of these accounts is intended for
a different set of readers, who read with ideas and purposes widely
dissimilar from each other. Among the twenty millions of people in the
United States, there are perhaps two millions, between the ages of
fifteen and twenty-five, who wish to become acquainted, in general,
with the leading events in the history of the Old World, and of
ancient times, but who, coming upon the stage in this land and at this
period, have ideas and conceptions so widely different from those of
other nations and of other times, that a mere republication of
existing accounts is not what they require. The story must be told
expressly for them. The things that are to be explained, the points
that are to be brought out, the comparative degree of prominence to be
given to the various particulars, will all be different, on account of
the difference in the situation, the ideas, and the objects of these
new readers, compared with those of the various other classes of
readers which former authors have had in view. It is for this reason,
and with this view, that the present series of historical narratives
is presented to the public. The author, having had some opportunity to
become acquainted with the position, the ideas, and the intellectual
wants of those whom he addresses, presents the result of his labors to
them, with the hope that it may be found successful in accomplishing
its design.
CONTENTS.
Chapter Page
I. HIS CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH 13
II. THE EXPEDITION INTO SPAIN 34
III. ACCESSION TO THE THRONE 58
IV. BUCKINGHAM 81
V. THE KING AND HIS PREROGATIVE 107
VI. ARCHBISHOP LAUD 131
VII. THE EARL OF STRAFFORD 155
VIII. DOWNFALL OF STRAFFORD AND LAUD 177
IX. CIVIL WAR 203
X. THE CAPTIVITY 234
XI. TRIAL AND DEATH 261
ENGRAVINGS.
Page
PORTRAIT OF HAMPDEN _Frontispiece_.
ILLUMINATED TITLE
TOWER OF LONDON 1
CHARLES I. AND ARMOR BEARER 10
QUEEN HENRIETTA MARIA 11
WINDSOR CASTLE 22
THE ESCURIAL 55
ST. STEPHEN'S 76
LAMBETH PALACE 133
WESTMINSTER HALL 187
STRAFFORD AND LAUD 199
THE KING'S ADHERENTS ENTERING YORK 221
THE LANDING OF THE QUEEN 228
NEWARK 236
CARISBROOKE CASTLE 254
RUINS OF CARISBROOKE CASTLE 265
[Illustration: CHARLES I. AND ARMOR BEARER]
[Illustration: QUEEN HENRIETTA MARIA]
KING CHARLES I.
CHAPTER I.
HIS CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH.
1600-1622
Born in Scotland.--The circumstance explained.--Princess
Anne.--Royal marriages.--Getting married by proxy.--James
thwarted.--Getting married by proxy.--James thwarted.--James
in Copenhagen.--Charles's feeble infancy.--Death of
Elizabeth.--Accession of James to the English crown.--Second
sight.--Prediction fulfilled.--An explanation.--Charles's
titles of nobility.--Charles's governess.--Windsor Castle.--Journey
to London.--A mother's love.--Rejoicings.--Charles's continued
feebleness.--His progress in learning.--Charles improves in
health.--Death of his brother.--Charles's love of athletic
sports.--Buckingham.--Buckingham's style of living.--Royalty.--True
character of royalty.--The king and Buckingham.--Indecent
correspondence.--Buckingham's pig.--James's petulance.--The story of
Gib.--The king's frankness.--Glitter of royalty.--The appearance.--The
reality.
King Charles the First was born in Scotland. It may perhaps surprise
the reader that an English king should be born in Scotland. The
explanation is this:
They who have read the history of Mary Queen of Scots, will remember
that it was the great end and aim of her life to unite the crowns of
England and Scotland in her own family. Queen Elizabeth was then Queen
of England. She lived and died unmarried. Queen Mary and a young man
named Lord Darnley were the next heirs. It was uncertain which of the
two had the strongest claim. To prevent a dispute, by uniting these
claims, Mary made Darnley her husband. They had a son, who, after the
death of his father and mother, was acknowledged to be the heir to the
British throne, whenever Elizabeth's life should end. In the mean
time he remained King of Scotland. His name was James. He married a
princess of Denmark; and his child, who afterward was King Charles the
First of England, was born before he left his native realm.
King Charles's mother was, as has been already said, a princess of
Denmark. Her name was Anne. The circumstances of her marriage to King
James were quite extraordinary, and attracted great attention at the
time. It is, in some sense, a matter of principle among kings and
queens, that they must only marry persons of royal rank, like
themselves; and as they have very little opportunity of visiting each
other, residing as they do in such distant capitals, they generally
choose their consorts by the reports which come to them of the person
and character of the different candidates. The choice, too, is very
much influenced by political considerations, and is always more or
less embarrassed by negotiations with other courts, whose ministers
make objections to this or that alliance, on account of its supposed
interference with some of their own political schemes.
As it is very inconvenient, moreover, for a king to leave his
dominions, the marriage ceremony is usually performed at the court
where the bride resides, without the presence of the bridegroom, he
sending an embassador to act as his representative. This is called
being married by proxy. The bride then comes to her royal husband's
dominions, accompanied by a great escort. He meets her usually on the
frontiers; and there she sees him for the first time, after having
been married to him some weeks by proxy. It is true, indeed, that she
has generally seen his _picture_, that being usually sent to her
before the marriage contract is made. This, however, is not a matter
of much consequence, as the personal predilections of a princess have
generally very little to do with the question of her marriage.
Now King James had concluded to propose for the oldest daughter of the
King of Denmark and he entered into negotiations for this purpose.
This plan, however, did not please the government of England, and
Elizabeth, who was then the English queen, managed so to embarrass and
interfere with the scheme, that the King of Denmark gave his daughter
to another claimant. James was a man of very mild and quiet
temperament, easily counteracted and thwarted in his plans; but this
disappointment aroused his energies, and he sent a splendid embassy
into Denmark to demand the king's second daughter, whose name was
Anne. He prosecuted this suit so vigorously that the marriage articles
were soon agreed to and signed. Anne embarked and set sail for
Scotland. The king remained there, waiting for her arrival with great
impatience. At length, instead of his bride, the news came that the
fleet in which Anne had sailed had been dispersed and driven back by a
storm, and that Anne herself had landed on the coast of Norway.
James immediately conceived the design of going himself in pursuit of
her. But knowing very well that all his ministers and the officers of
his government would make endless objections to his going out of the
country on such an errand, he kept his plan a profound secret from
them all. He ordered some ships to be got ready privately, and
provided a suitable train of attendants, and then embarked without
letting his people know where he was going. He sailed across the
German Ocean to the town in Norway where his bride had landed. He
found her there, and they were married. Her brother, who had just
succeeded to the throne, having received intelligence of this, invited
the young couple to come and spend the winter at his capital of
Copenhagen; and as the season was far advanced, and the sea stormy,
King James concluded to accept the invitation. They were received in
Copenhagen with great pomp and parade, and the winter was spent in
festivities and rejoicings. In the spring he brought his bride to
Scotland. The whole world were astonished at the performance of such
an exploit by a king, especially one of so mild, quiet, and grave a
character as that which James had the credit of possessing.
Young Charles was very weak and feeble in his infancy. It was feared
that he would not live many hours. The rite of baptism was immediately
performed, as it was, in those days, considered essential to the
salvation of a child dying in infancy that it should be baptized
before it died. Notwithstanding the fears that were at first felt,
Charles lingered along for some days, and gradually began to acquire a
little strength. His feebleness was a cause of great anxiety and
concern to those around him; but the degree of interest felt in the
little sufferer's fate was very much less than it would have been if
he had been the oldest son. He had a brother, Prince Henry, who was
older than he, and, consequently, heir to his father's crown. It was
not probable, therefore, that Charles would ever be king; and the
importance of every thing connected with his birth and his welfare was
very much diminished on that account.
It was only about two years after Charles's birth that Queen Elizabeth
died, and King James succeeded to the English throne. A messenger came
with all speed to Scotland to announce the fact. He rode night and
day. He arrived at the king's palace in the night. He gained admission
to the king's chamber, and, kneeling at his bedside, proclaimed him
King of England. James immediately prepared to bid his Scotch subjects
farewell, and to proceed to England to take possession of his new
realm. Queen Anne was to follow him in a week or two, and the other
children, Henry and Elizabeth; but Charles was too feeble to go.
In those early days there was a prevailing belief in Scotland, and, in
fact, the opinion still lingers there, that certain persons among the
old Highlanders had what they called the gift of the second
sight--that is, the power of foreseeing futurity in some mysterious
and incomprehensible way. An incident is related in the old histories
connected with Charles's infancy, which is a good illustration of
this. While King James was preparing to leave Scotland, to take
possession of the English throne, an old Highland laird came to bid
him farewell. He gave the king many parting counsels and good wishes,
and then, overlooking the older brother, Prince Henry, he went
directly to Charles, who was then about two years old, and bowed
before him, and kissed his hand with the greatest appearance of regard
and veneration. King James undertook to correct his supposed mistake,
by telling him that that was his second son, and that the other boy
was the heir to the crown. "No," said the old laird, "I am not
mistaken. I know to whom I am speaking. This child, now in his nurse's
arms, will be greater than his brother. This is the one who is to
convey his father's name and titles to succeeding generations." This
prediction was fulfilled; for the robust and healthy Henry died, and
the feeble and sickly-looking Charles lived and grew, and succeeded,
in due time, to his father's throne.
Now inasmuch as, at the time when this prediction was uttered, there
seemed to be little human probability of its fulfillment, it attracted
attention; its unexpected and startling character made every one
notice and remember it; and the old laird was at once an object of
interest and wonder. It is probable that this desire to excite the
admiration of the auditors, mingled insensibly with a sort of poetic
enthusiasm, which a rude age and mountainous scenery always inspire,
was the origin of a great many such predictions as these; and then, in
the end, those only which turned out to be true were remembered, while
the rest were forgotten; and this was the way that the reality of such
prophetic powers came to be generally believed in.
Feeble and uncertain of life as the infant Charles appeared to be,
they conferred upon him, as is customary in the case of young princes,
various titles of nobility. He was made a duke, a marquis, an earl,
and a baron, before he had strength enough to lift up his head in his
nurse's arms. His title as duke was Duke of Albany; and as this was
the highest of his nominal honors, he was generally known under that
designation while he remained in Scotland.
[Illustration: WINDSOR CASTLE.]
When his father left him, in order to go to England and take
possession of his new throne, he appointed a governess to take charge
of the health and education of the young duke. This governess was
Lady Cary. The reason why she was appointed was, not because of her
possessing any peculiar qualifications for such a charge, but because
her husband, Sir Robert Cary, had been the messenger employed by the
English government to communicate to James the death of Elizabeth, and
to announce to him his accession to the throne. The bearer of good
news to a monarch must always be rewarded, and James recompensed Sir
Robert for his service by appointing his wife to the post of governess
of his infant son. The office undoubtedly had its honors and
emoluments, with very little of responsibility or care.
One of the chief residences of the English monarchs is Windsor Castle.
It is situated above London, on the Thames, on the southern shore. It
is on an eminence overlooking the river and the delightful valley
through which the river here meanders. In the rear is a very extensive
park or forest, which is penetrated in every direction by rides and
walks almost innumerable. It has been for a long time the chief
country residence of the British kings. It is very spacious,
containing within its walls many courts and quadrangles, with various
buildings surrounding them, some ancient and some modern. Here King
James held his court after his arrival in England, and in about a year
he sent for the little Charles to join him.
The child traveled very slowly, and by very easy stages, his nurses
and attendants watching over him with great solicitude all the way.
The journey was made in the month of October. His mother watched his
arrival with great interest. Being so feeble and helpless, he was, of
course, her favorite child. By an instinct which very strongly evinces
the wisdom and goodness which implanted it, a mother always bestows a
double portion of her love upon the frail, the helpless, and the
suffering. Instead of being wearied out with protracted and incessant
calls for watchfulness and care, she feels only a deeper sympathy and
love, in proportion to the infirmities which call for them, and thus
finds her highest happiness in what we might expect would be a
weariness and a toil.
Little Charles was four years old when he reached Windsor Castle. They
celebrated his arrival with great rejoicings, and a day or two
afterward they invested him with the title of Duke of York, a still
higher distinction than he had before attained. Soon after this, when
he was perhaps five or six years of age, a gentleman was appointed to
take the charge of his education. His health gradually improved,
though he still continued helpless and feeble. It was a long time
before he could walk, on account of some malformation of his limbs. He
learned to talk, too, very late and very slowly. Besides the general
feebleness of his constitution, which kept him back in all these
things, there was an impediment in his speech, which affected him very
much in childhood, and which, in fact, never entirely disappeared.
As soon, however, as he commenced his studies under his new tutor, he
made much greater progress than had been expected. It was soon
observed that the feebleness which had attached to him pertained more
to the body than to the mind. He advanced with considerable rapidity
in his learning. His progress was, in fact, in some degree, promoted
by his bodily infirmities, which kept him from playing with the other
boys of the court, and led him to like to be still, and to retire from
scenes of sport and pleasure which he could not share.
The same cause operated to make him not agreeable as a companion, and
he was not a favorite among those around him. They called him _Baby_
Charley. His temper seemed to be in some sense soured by the feeling
of his inferiority, and by the jealousy he would naturally experience
in finding himself, the son of a king, so outstripped in athletic
sports by those whom he regarded as his inferiors in rank and station.
The lapse of a few years, however, after this time, made a total
change in Charles's position and prospects. His health improved, and
his constitution began to be confirmed and established. When he was
about twelve years of age, too, his brother Henry died. This
circumstance made an entire change in all his prospects of life. The
eyes of the whole kingdom, and, in fact, of all Europe, were now upon
him as the future sovereign of England. His sister Elizabeth, who was
a few years older than himself, was, about this time, married to a
German prince, with great pomp and ceremony, young Charles acting the
part of brideman. In consequence of his new position as heir-apparent
to the throne, he was advanced to new honors, and had new titles
conferred upon him, until at last, when he was sixteen years of age,
he was made Prince of Wales, and certain revenues were appropriated to
support a court for him, that he might be surrounded with external
circumstances and insignia of rank and power, corresponding with his
prospective greatness.
In the mean time his health and strength rapidly improved, and with
the improvement came a taste for manly and athletic sports, and the
attainment of excellence in them. He gradually acquired great skill in
all the exploits and performances of the young men of those days, such
as shooting, riding, vaulting, and tilting at tournaments. From being
a weak, sickly, and almost helpless child, he became, at twenty, an
active, athletic young man, full of life and spirit, and ready for any
romantic enterprise. In fact, when he was twenty-three years old, he
embarked in a romantic enterprise which attracted the attention of all
the world. This enterprise will presently be described.
There was at this time, in the court of King James, a man who became
very famous afterward as a favorite and follower of Charles. He is
known in history under the name of the Duke of Buckingham. His name
was originally George Villiers. He was a very handsome young man, and
he seems to have attracted King James's attention at first on this
account. James found him a convenient attendant, and made him, at
last, his principal favorite. He raised him to a high rank, and
conferred upon him, among other titles, that of Duke of Buckingham.
The other persons about the court were very envious and jealous of his
influence and power; but they were obliged to submit to it. He lived
in great state and splendor, and for many years was looked up to by
the whole kingdom as one of the greatest personages in the realm. We
shall learn hereafter how he came to his end.
If the reader imagines, from the accounts which have been given thus
far in this chapter of the pomp and parade of royalty, of the castles
and the ceremonies, the titles of nobility, and the various insignia
of rank and power, which we have alluded to so often, that the mode of
life which royalty led in those days was lofty, dignified, and truly
great, he will be very greatly deceived. All these things were merely
for show--things put on for public display, to gratify pride and
impress the people, who never looked behind the scenes, with high
ideas of the grandeur of those who, as they were taught, ruled over
them by a divine right. It would be hard to find, in any class of
society except those reputed infamous, more low, gross, and vulgar
modes of life than have been exhibited generally in the royal palaces
of Europe for the last five hundred years. King James the First has,
among English sovereigns, rather a high character for sobriety and
gravity of deportment, and purity of morals; but the glimpses we get
of the real, every-day routine of his domestic life, are such as to
show that the pomp and parade of royalty is mere glittering tinsel,
after all.
The historians of the day tell such stories as these. The king was at
one time very dejected and melancholy, when Buckingham contrived this
plan to amuse him. In the first place, however, we ought to say, in
order to illustrate the terms on which he and Buckingham lived
together, that the king always called Buckingham _Steeny_, which was a
contraction of Stephen. St. Stephen was always represented in the
Catholic pictures of the saints, as a very handsome man, and
Buckingham being handsome too, James called him Steeny by way of a
compliment. Steeny called the king _his dad_, and used to sign
himself, in his letters, "your slave and dog Steeny." There are extant
some letters which passed between the king and his favorite, written,
on the part of the king, in a style of grossness and indecency such
that the chroniclers of those days said that they were not fit to be
printed. They would not "blot their pages" with them, they said. King
Charles's letters were more properly expressed.
To return, then, to our story. The king was very much dejected and
melancholy. Steeny, in order to divert him, had a pig dressed up in
the clothes of an infant child. Buckingham's mother, who was a
countess, personated the nurse, dressed also carefully for the
occasion. Another person put on a bishop's robes, satin gown, lawn
sleeves, and the other pontifical ornaments. They also provided a
baptismal font, a prayer-book, and other things necessary for a
religious ceremony, and then invited the king to come in to attend a
baptism. The king came, and the pretended bishop began to read the
service, the assistants looking gravely on, until the squealing of the
pig brought all gravity to an end. The king was _not_ pleased; but the
historian thinks the reason was, not any objection which he had to
such a profanation, but to his not happening to be in a mood for it at
that time.
There was a negotiation going on for a long time for a marriage
between one of the king's sons, first Henry, and afterward Charles,
and a princess of Spain. At one time the king lost some of the papers,
and was storming about the palace in a great rage because he could not
find them. At last he chanced to meet a certain Scotchman, a servant
of his, named Gib, and, like a vexed and impatient child, who lays the
charge of a lost plaything upon any body who happens to be at hand to
receive it, he put the responsibility of the loss of the papers upon
Gib. "I remember," said he, "I gave them to you to take care of. What
have you done with them?" The faithful servant fell upon his knees,
and protested that he had not received them. The king was only made
the more angry by this contradiction, and kicked the Scotchman as he
kneeled upon the floor. The man rose and left the apartment, saying,
"I have always been faithful to your majesty, and have not deserved
such treatment as this. I can not remain in your service under such a
degradation. I shall never see you again." He left the palace, and
went away.
A short time after this, the person to whose custody the king had
really committed the papers came in, and, on learning that they were
wanted, produced them. The king was ashamed of his conduct. He sent
for his Scotch servant again, and was not easy until he was found and
brought into his presence. The king kneeled before him and asked his
forgiveness, and said he should not rise until he was forgiven. Gib
was disposed to evade the request, and urged the king to rise; but
James would not do so until Gib said he forgave him, in so many words.
The whole case shows how little of dignity and noble bearing there
really was in the manners and conduct of the king in his daily life,
though we are almost ready to overlook the ridiculous childishness and
folly of his fault, on account of the truly noble frankness and
honesty with which he acknowledged it.
Thus, though every thing in which royalty appeared before the public
was conducted with great pomp and parade, this external magnificence
was then, and always has been, an outside show, without any thing
corresponding to it within. The great mass of the people of England
saw only the outside. They gazed with admiration at the spectacle of
magnificence and splendor which royalty always presented to their
eyes, whenever they beheld it from the distant and humble points of
view which their position afforded them. Prince Charles, on the other
hand, was behind the curtain. His childhood and youth were exposed
fully to all the real influences of these scenes. The people of
England submitted to be governed by such men, not because they thought
them qualified to govern, or that the circumstances under which their
characters were formed were such as were calculated to form, in a
proper manner, the minds of the rulers of a Christian people. They did
not know what those circumstances were. In their conceptions they had
grand ideas of royal character and life, and imagined the splendid
palaces which some saw, but more only heard of, at Westminster, were
filled with true greatness and glory. They were really filled with
vulgarity, vice, and shame. James was to them King James the First,
monarch of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, and Charles was
Charles, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, and heir-apparent to the
throne. Whereas, within the palace, to all who saw them and knew them
there, and really, so far as their true moral position was concerned,
the father was "Old Dad," and the son, what his father always called
him till he was twenty-four years old, "Baby Charley."
CHAPTER II.
THE EXPEDITION INTO SPAIN.
1623
The Palatinate.--Wars between the Protestants and Catholics.--Frederic
dispossessed of his dominions.--Flees to Holland.--Elizabeth.--James's
plan.--Donna Maria.--Negotiations with Spain.--Obstacles
and delays.--Buckingham's proposal.--Nature of the
adventure.--Buckingham's dissimulation.--Charles persuaded.--James's
perplexity.--He reluctantly yields.--James's fears.--Royal
captives.--Buckingham's violence.--Angry disputes.--James's
distress.--Charles and Buckingham depart.--Charles and Buckingham's
boisterous conduct.--Arrested at Dover.--Arrival at Paris.--Princess
Henrietta.--Bourdeaux.--Entrance into Madrid.--Bristol's
amazement.--Charles's reception.--Grand procession.--Spanish
etiquette.--The Infanta kept secluded.--Athletic amusements.--Charles
steals an interview.--Irregularities.--Delays and
difficulties.--Letters.--The magic picture.--The pope's
dispensation.--The treaty signed.--Buckingham is hated.--He breaks
off the match.--Festivities at the Escurial.--Taking leave.--Return
to London.--The Spanish match broken off.
In order that the reader may understand fully the nature of the
romantic enterprise in which, as we have already said, Prince Charles
embarked when he was a little over twenty years of age, we must
premise that Frederic, the German prince who married Charles's sister
Elizabeth some years before, was the ruler of a country in Germany
called the Palatinate. It was on the banks of the Rhine. Frederic's
title, as ruler of this country, was Elector Palatine. There are a
great many independent states in Germany, whose sovereigns have
various titles, and are possessed of various prerogatives and powers.
Now it happened that, at this time, very fierce civil wars were raging
between the Catholics and the Protestants in Germany. Frederic got
drawn into these wars on the Protestant side. His motive was not any
desire to promote the progress of what he considered the true faith,
but only a wish to extend his own dominions, and add to his own
power, for he had been promised a kingdom, in addition to his
Palatinate, if he would assist the people of the kingdom to gain the
victory over their Catholic foes. He embarked in this enterprise
without consulting with James, his father-in-law, knowing that he
would probably disapprove of such dangerous ambition. James was, in
fact, very sorry afterward to hear of Frederic's having engaged in
such a contest.
The result was quite as disastrous as James feared. Frederic not only
failed of getting his new kingdom, but he provoked the rage of the
Catholic powers against whom he had undertaken to contend, and they
poured a great army into his own original territory, and made an easy
conquest of it. Frederic fled to Holland, and remained there a
fugitive and an exile, hoping to obtain help in some way from James,
in his efforts to recover his lost dominions.
The people of England felt a great interest in Frederic's unhappy
fate, and were very desirous that James should raise an army and give
him some efficient assistance. One reason for this was that they were
Protestants, and they were always ready to embark, on the Protestant
side, in the Continental quarrels. Another reason was their interest
in Elizabeth, the wife of Frederic, who had so recently left England a
blooming bride, and whom they still considered as in some sense
pertaining to the royal family of England, and as having a right to
look to all her father's subjects for protection.
But King James himself had no inclination to go to war in such a
quarrel. He was inactive in mind, and childish, and he had little
taste for warlike enterprises. He undertook, however, to accomplish
the object in another way. The King of Spain, being one of the most
powerful of the Catholic sovereigns, had great influence in all their
councils. He had also a beautiful daughter, Donna Maria, called, as
Spanish princesses are styled, the Infanta. Now James conceived the
design of proposing that his son Charles should marry Donna Maria, and
that, in the treaty of marriage, there should be a stipulation
providing that the Palatinate should be restored to Frederic.
These negotiations were commenced, and they went on two or three years
without making any sensible progress. Donna Maria was a Catholic, and
Charles a Protestant. Now a Catholic could not marry a Protestant
without a special dispensation from the pope. To get this
dispensation required new negotiations and delays. In the midst of it
all, the King of Spain, Donna Maria's father, died, and his son, her
brother, named Philip, succeeded him. Then the negotiations had all to
be commenced anew. It was supposed that the King of Spain did not wish
to have the affair concluded, but liked to have it in discussion, as
it tended to keep the King of England more or less under his control.
So they continued to send embassies back and forth, with drafts of
treaties, articles, conditions, and stipulations without number. There
were endless discussions about securing to Donna Maria the full
enjoyment of the Catholic religion in England, and express agreements
were proposed and debated in respect to her having a chapel, and
priests, and the right to celebrate mass, and to enjoy, in fact, all
the other privileges which she had been accustomed to exercise in her
own native land. James did not object. He agreed to every thing; but
still, some how or other, the arrangement could not be closed. There
was always some pretext for delay.
At last Buckingham proposed to Charles that they two should set off
for Spain in person, and see if they could not settle the affair.
Buckingham's motive was partly a sort of reckless daring, which made
him love any sort of adventure, and partly a desire to circumvent and
thwart a rival of his, the Earl of Bristol, who had charge of the
negotiations. It may seem to the reader that a simple journey from
London to Madrid, of a young man, for the purpose of visiting a lady
whom he was wishing to espouse, was no such extraordinary undertaking
as to attract the attention of a spirited young man to it from love of
adventure. The truth is, however, that, with the ideas that then
prevailed in respect to royal etiquette, there was something very
unusual in this plan. The prince and Buckingham knew very well that
the consent of the statesmen and high officers of the realm could
never be obtained, and that their only alternative was, accordingly,
to go off secretly and in disguise.
It seemed, however, to be rather necessary to get the king's consent.
But Buckingham did not anticipate much difficulty in this, as he was
accustomed to manage James almost like a child. He had not, however,
been on very good terms with Charles, having been accustomed to treat
him in the haughty and imperious manner which James would usually
yield to, but which Charles was more inclined to resist and resent.
When Buckingham, at length, conceived of this scheme of going into
Spain, he changed his deportment toward Charles, and endeavored, by
artful dissimulation, to gain his kind regard. He soon succeeded, and
then he proposed his plan.
He represented to Charles that the sole cause of the delays in
settling the question of his marriage was because it was left so
entirely in the hands of embassadors, negotiators, and statesmen, who
involved every thing in endless mazes. "Take the affair into your own
hands," said he, "like a man. Set off with me, and go at once into
Spain. Astonish them with your sudden and unexpected presence. The
Infanta will be delighted at such a proof of your ardor, courage, and
devotion, and will do all in her power to co-operate with you in
bringing the affair at once to a close. Besides, the whole world will
admire the originality and boldness of the achievement."
Charles was easily persuaded. The next thing was to get the king's
consent. Charles and Buckingham went to his palace one day, and
watching their opportunity when he was pretty merry with wine,
Charles said that he had a favor to ask, and wished his father to
promise to grant it before he knew what it was. James, after some
hesitation, half in jest and half in earnest, agreed to it. They made
him promise that he would not tell any one what it was, and then
explained their plan. The king was thunderstruck; his amazement
sobered him at once. He retracted his promise. He never could consent
to any such scheme.
Buckingham here interposed with his aid. He told the king it was
perfectly safe for the prince to go, and that this measure was the
only plan which could bring the marriage treaty to a close. Besides,
he said, if he and the prince were there, they could act far more
effectually than any embassadors in securing the restoration of the
Palatinate to Frederic. James could not withstand these entreaties and
arguments, and he finally gave a reluctant consent to the plan.
He repented, however, as soon as the consent was given, and when
Charles and Buckingham came next to see him, he said it must be given
up. One great source of his anxiety was a fear that his son might be
taken and kept a prisoner, either in France or Spain, and detained a
long time in captivity. Such a captive was always, in those days, a
very tempting prize to a rival power. Personages of very high rank may
be held in imprisonment, while all the time those who detain them may
pretend not to confine them at all, the guards and sentinels being
only marks of regal state, and indications of the desire of the power
into whose hands they have fallen to treat them in a manner comporting
with their rank. Then there were always, in those days, questions and
disputes pending between the rival courts of England, France, and
Spain, out of which it was easy to get a pretext for detaining any
strolling prince who might cross the frontier, as security for the
fulfillment of some stipulation, or for doing some act of justice
claimed. James, knowing well how much faith and honor were to be
expected of kings and courts, was afraid to trust his son in French or
Spanish dominions. He said he certainly could not consent to his
going, without first sending to _France_, at least, for a
safe-conduct--that is, a paper from the government, pledging the honor
of the king not to molest or interrupt him in his journey through his
dominions.
Buckingham, instead of attempting to reassure the king by fresh
arguments and persuasions, broke out into a passion, accused him of
violating his promise not to reveal their plan to any one, as he knew,
he said, that this new opposition had been put into his head by some
of his counselors to whom he had made known the design. The king
denied this, and was terrified, agitated, and distressed by
Buckingham's violence. He wept like a child. His opposition at length
gave way a second time, and he said they might go. They named two
attendants whom they wanted to go with them. One was an officer of the
king's household, named Collington, who was then in the anteroom. They
asked the king to call him in, to see if he would go. When Collington
came in, the king accosted him with, "Here's Steeny and Baby Charley
that want to go to Spain and fetch the Infanta. What think you of it?"
Collington did not think well of it at all. There followed a new
relapse on the part of the king from his consent, a new storm of anger
from Buckingham, more sullen obstinacy on the part of Charles, with
profane criminations and recriminations one against another. The whole
scene was what, if it had occurred any where else than in a palace,
would have been called a brawl.
It ended, as brawls usually do, in the triumph of the most
unreasonable and violent. James threw himself upon a bed which was in
the room, weeping bitterly, and saying that they would go, and he
should lose his Baby Charley. Considering that Charles was now the
monarch's only child remaining at home, and that, as heir to the
crown, his life was of great consequence to the realm, it is not
surprising that his father was distressed at the idea of his exposing
himself to danger on such an expedition; but one not accustomed to
what is behind the scenes in royal life would expect a little more
dignity and propriety in the mode of expressing paternal solicitude
from a king.
Charles and Buckingham set off secretly from London; their two
attendants were to join them in different places--the last at Dover,
where they were to embark. They laid aside all marks of distinction in
dress, such as persons of high rank used to wear in those days, and
took the garb of the common people. They put on wigs, also, the hair
of which was long, so as to shade the face and alter the expression of
their countenances. These external disguises, however, were all that
they could command. They could not assume the modest and quiet air
and manner of persons in the ordinary walks of life, but made such
displays, and were so liberal in the use of their money, and carried
such an air and manner in all that they did and said, that all who had
any intercourse with them perceived that they were in disguise. They
were supposed to be wild blades, out on some frolic or other, but
still they were allowed to pass along without any molestation.
They were, however, stopped at Dover, where in some way they attracted
the attention of the mayor of the town. Dover is on the Channel,
opposite to Calais, at the narrowest point. It was, of course,
especially in those days, the point where the principal intercourse
between the two nations centered. The magistrates of the two towns
were obliged, consequently, to be on the alert, to prevent the escape
of fugitives and criminals, as well as to guard against the efforts of
smugglers, or the entrance of spies or other secret enemies. The Mayor
of Dover arrested our heroes. They told him that their names were Tom
Smith and Jack Smith; these, in fact, were the names with which they
had traveled through England thus far. They said that they were
traveling for amusement. The mayor did not believe them. He thought
they were going across to the French coast to fight a duel. This was
often done in those days. They then told him that they were indeed
persons of rank in disguise, and that they were going to inspect the
English fleet. He finally allowed them to embark.
On landing at Calais, they traveled post to Paris, strictly preserving
their incognito, but assuming such an air and bearing as to create the
impression that they were not what they pretended. When they reached
Paris, Buckingham could not resist the temptation of showing Charles a
little of life, and he contrived to get admitted to a party at court,
where Charles saw, among other ladies who attracted his attention, the
Princess Henrietta. He was much struck with her beauty and grace, but
he little thought that it was this princess, and not the Infanta whom
he was going in pursuit of, who was really to become his wife, and the
future Queen of England.
The young travelers thought it not prudent to remain long in Paris,
and they accordingly left that city, and pressed forward as rapidly as
possible toward the Spanish frontier. They managed, however, to
conduct always in such a way as to attract attention. Although they
were probably sincerely desirous of not having their true rank and
character known, still they could not resist the temptation to assume
such an air and bearing as to make people wonder who they were, and
thus increase the spirit and adventure of their journey. At Bourdeaux
they received invitations from some grandees to be present at some
great gala, but they declined, saying that they were only poor
gentlemen traveling to inform their minds, and were not fit to appear
in such gay assemblies.
At last they approached Madrid. They had, besides Collington, another
attendant who spoke the Spanish language, and served them as an
interpreter. They separated from these two the day before they entered
Madrid, so as to attract the less attention. Their attendants were to
be left behind for a day, and afterward were to follow them into the
city. The British embassador at Madrid at this time was the Earl of
Bristol. He had had charge of all the negotiations in respect to the
marriage, and to the restoration of the Palatinate, and believed that
he had brought them almost to a successful termination. He lived in a
palace in Madrid, and, as is customary with the embassadors of great
powers at the courts of great powers, in a style of the highest pomp
and splendor.
Buckingham took the prince directly to Bristol's house. Bristol was
utterly confounded at seeing them. Nothing could be worse, he said, in
respect to the completion of the treaty, than the prince's presence in
Madrid. The introduction of so new and extraordinary an element into
the affair would undo all that had been done, and lead the King of
Spain to begin anew, and go over all the ground again. In speaking of
this occurrence to another, he said that just as he was on the point
of coming to a satisfactory conclusion of his long negotiations and
toils, a demon in the shape of Prince Charles came suddenly upon the
stage to thwart and defeat them all.
The Spanish court was famous in those days--in fact, it has always
been famous--for its punctilious attention to etiquette and parade;
and as soon as the prince's arrival was known to the king, he
immediately began to make preparations to welcome him with all
possible pomp and ceremony. A great procession was made through the
Prado, which is a street in Madrid famous for promenades, processions,
and public displays of all kinds. In moving through the city on this
occasion, the king and Prince Charles walked together, the monarch
thus treating the prince as his equal. There was a great canopy of
state borne over their heads as they moved along. This canopy was
supported by a large number of persons of the highest rank. The
streets, and the windows and balconies of the houses on each side,
were thronged with spectators, dressed in the gay and splendid court
dresses of those times. When they reached the end of the route, and
were about to enter the gate of the palace, there was a delay to
decide which should enter first, the king and the prince each
insisting on giving the precedence to the other. At last it was
settled by their both going in together.
If the prince thus, on the one hand, derived some benefit in the
gratification of his pride by the Spanish etiquette and parade, he
suffered some inconvenience and disappointment from it, on the other
hand, by its excluding him from all intercourse or acquaintance with
the Infanta. It was not proper for the young man to see or to speak to
the young lady, in such a case as this, until the arrangements had
been more fully matured. The formalities of the engagement must have
proceeded beyond the point which they had yet reached, before the
bridegroom could be admitted to a personal interview with the bride.
It is true, he could see her in public, where she was in a crowd, with
other ladies of the court, and where he could have no communication
with her; but this was all. They arranged it, however, to give Charles
as many opportunities of this kind as possible. There were shows, in
which the prince could see the Infanta among the spectators; and they
arranged tiltings and ridings at the ring, and other athletic sports,
such as Charles excelled in, and let him perform his exploits in her
presence. His rivals in these contests did not have the incivility to
conquer him, and his performances excited expressions, at least, of
universal admiration.
But the prince and Buckingham did not very willingly submit to the
stiffness and formality of the Spanish court. As soon as they came to
feel a little at home, they began to act with great freedom. At one
time the prince learned that the Infanta was going, early in the
morning, to take a walk in some private pleasure grounds, at a country
house in the neighborhood of Madrid, and he conceived the design of
gaining an interview with her there by stealth. He accordingly
repaired to the place, got admitted in some way within the precincts
of the palace, and contrived to clamber over a high wall which
separated him from the grounds in which the Infanta was walking, and
so let himself down into her presence. The accounts do not state
whether she herself was pleased or alarmed, but the officer who had
her in charge, an old nobleman, was very much alarmed, and begged the
prince to retire, as he himself would be subject to a very severe
punishment if it were known that he had allowed such an interview.
Finally they opened the door, and the prince went out. Many people
were pleased with this and similar adventures of the prince and of
Buckingham, but the leading persons about the court were displeased
with them. Their precise and formal notions of propriety were very
much shocked by such freedoms.
Besides, it was soon found that the characters of these high-born
visitors, especially that of Buckingham, were corrupt, and their lives
very irregular. Buckingham was accustomed to treat King James in a
very bold, familiar, and imperious manner, and he fell insensibly into
the same habits of intercourse with those about him in Spain. The
little reserve and caution which he manifested at first soon wore off,
and he began to be very generally disliked. In the mean time the
negotiation was, as Bristol had expected, very much put back by the
prince's arrival. The King of Spain formed new plans, and thought of
new conditions to impose. The Catholics, too, thought that Charles's
coming thus into a Catholic country, indicated some leaning, on his
part, toward the Catholic faith. The pope actually wrote him a long
letter, the object of which was to draw him off from the ranks of
Protestantism. Charles wrote a civil, but rather an evasive reply.
In the mean time, King James wrote childish letters from time to time
to his two dear boys, as he called them, and he sent them a great many
presents of jewelry and splendid dresses, some for them to wear
themselves, and some for the prince to offer as gifts to the Infanta.
Among these, he describes, in one of his letters, a little mirror, set
in a case which was to be worn hung at the girdle. He wrote to Charles
that when he gave this mirror to the Infanta, he must tell her that it
was a picture which he had had imbued with magical virtue by means of
incantations and charms, so that whenever she looked into it, she
would see a portrait of the most beautiful princess in England,
France, or Spain.
At last the great obstacle in the way of the conclusion of the treaty
of marriage, which consisted in the delays and difficulties in getting
the pope's dispensation, was removed. The dispensation came. But then
the King of Spain wanted some new guarantees in respect to the
privileges of Catholics in England, under pretense of securing more
perfectly the rights of the Infanta and of her attendants when they
should have arrived in that country. The truth was, he probably wished
to avail himself of the occasion to gain some foothold for the
Catholic faith in England, which country had become almost entirely
Protestant. At length, however, all obstacles seemed to be removed,
and the treaty was signed. The news of it was received with great joy
in England, as it seemed to secure a permanent alliance between the
two powerful countries of England and Spain. Great celebrations took
place in London, to do honor to the occasion. A chapel was built for
the Infanta, to be ready for her on her arrival; and a fleet was
fitted out to convey her and her attendants to her new home.
In the mean time, however, although the king had signed the treaty,
there was a strong party formed against the marriage in Spain.
Buckingham was hated and despised. Charles, they saw, was almost
entirely under his influence. They said they would rather see the
Infanta in her grave than in the hands of such men. Buckingham became
irritated by the hostility he had awakened, and he determined to break
off the match entirely. He wrote home to James that he did not believe
the Spanish court had any intention of carrying the arrangement really
into effect; that they were procrastinating the affair on every
possible pretext, and that he was really afraid that, if the prince
were to attempt to leave the country, they would interpose and detain
him as a prisoner. King James was very much alarmed. He wrote in the
greatest trepidation, urging "the lads" to come away immediately,
leaving a proxy behind them, if necessary, for the solemnization of
the marriage. This was what Buckingham wanted, and he and the prince
began to make preparations for their departure.
The King of Spain, far from interposing any obstacles in the way, only
treated them with greater and higher marks of respect as the time of
their separation from his court drew nigh. He arranged great and
pompous ceremonies to honor their departure. He accompanied them, with
all the grandees of the court, as far as to the Escurial, which is a
famous royal palace not far from Madrid, built and furnished in the
most sumptuous style of magnificence and splendor. Here they had
parting feasts and celebrations. Here the prince took his leave of the
Infanta, Bristol serving as interpreter, to translate his parting
speeches into Spanish, so that she could understand them. From the
Escurial the prince and Buckingham, with a great many English noblemen
who had followed them to Madrid, and a great train of attendants,
traveled toward the seacoast, where a fleet of vessels were ready to
receive them.
[Illustration: THE ESCURIAL.]
They embarked at a port called St. Andrew. They came very near being
lost in a storm of mist and rain which came upon them while going out
to the ships, which were at a distance from the shore, in small boats
provided to convey them. Having escaped this danger, they arrived
safely at Portsmouth, the great landing point of the British navy on
the southern shores of England, and thence proceeded to London.
They sent back orders that the proxy should not be used, and the match
was finally abandoned, each party accusing the other of duplicity and
bad faith. King James was however, very glad to get his son safe back
again, and the people made as many bonfires and illuminations to
celebrate the breaking up of this Catholic match, as they had done
before to do honor to its supposed completion. As all hope of
recovering the Palatinate by negotiation was now past, the king began
to prepare for the attempt to conquer it by force of arms.
CHAPTER III.
ACCESSION TO THE THRONE.
1625
James prepares for war.--He falls ill.--Suspicions.--Death of
James.--Accession of Charles.--Different ideas of the nature and
end of government.--Hereditary succession illustrated by an
argument.--Property and prerogatives.--Hereditary succession an
absolute right.--Three things hereditary in England.--The
Stuarts.--Parliament.--The Legislature in the United States.--The
nature of Parliament.--The nobles.--The House of Commons.--Its humble
position.--The king's power over Parliament.--His responsibility.--An
illustration.--James's message to Parliament.--Its high
tone.--Privileges of the House of Commons.--The king's
prerogatives.--Charles's contest with Parliament.--Present condition
of the Commons.--Its vast influence.--Old forms still retained.--Will
probably be changed.--Effects of a demise of the crown.--All offices
expire.--Westminster.--The Strand.--Temple Bar.--Somerset
House.--James's funeral.--Marriage of Charles.--Imposing
ceremonies.--Arrival of the bride at London.--Her residence.
King James made slow progress in his military preparations. He could
not raise the funds without the action of Parliament, and the houses
were not in very good humor. The expenses of the prince's visit to
Spain had been enormous, and other charges, arising out of the pomp
and splendor with which the arrangements of the court were maintained,
gave them a strong feeling of discontent. They had other grievances of
which they were disposed to complain, and they began to look upon this
war, notwithstanding its Protestant character, as one in which the
king was only striving to recover his son-in-law's dominions, and,
consequently, as one which pertained more to his personal interests
than to the public welfare of the realm.
While things were in this state the king fell sick. The mother of the
Duke of Buckingham undertook to prescribe for him. It was understood
that Buckingham himself, who had, in the course of the Spanish
enterprise, and since his return, acquired an entire ascendency over
Charles, was not unwilling that his old master should leave the stage,
and the younger one reign in his stead; and that his mother shared in
this feeling. At any rate, her prescriptions made the king much worse.
He had the sacrament administered to him in his sick chamber, and said
that he derived great comfort from it. One morning, very early, he
sent for the prince to come and see him. Charles rose, dressed
himself, and came. His father had something to say to him, and tried
to speak. He could not. His strength was too far gone. He fell back
upon his pillow, and died.
Charles was, of course, now king. The theory in the English monarchy
is, that the king never dies. So soon as the person in whom the royal
sovereignty resides ceases to breathe, the principle of supremacy
vests immediately in his successor, by a law of transmission entirely
independent of the will of man. The son becomes king by a divine
right. His being proclaimed and crowned, as he usually is, at some
convenient time early in his reign, are not ceremonies which _make_
him king. They only acknowledge him to be so. He does not, in any
sense, derive his powers and prerogatives from these acts. He only
receives from his people, by means of them, a recognition of his right
to the high office to which he has already been inducted by the fiat
of Heaven.
It will be observed, thus, that the ideas which prevailed in respect
to the nature and province of government, were very different in
England at that time, from those which are entertained in America at
the present day. With us, the administration of government is merely a
_business_, transacted for the benefit of the people by their
agents--men who are put in power for this purpose, and who, like other
agents, are responsible to their principals for the manner in which
they fulfill their trusts. But government in England was, in the days
of the Stuarts--and it is so to a great extent at the present day--a
_right_ which one family possessed, and which entitled that family to
certain immunities, powers, and prerogatives, which they held entirely
independent of any desire, on the part of the people, that they should
exercise them, or even their _consent_ that they should do so. The
right to govern the realm of Great Britain was a sort of estate which
descended to Charles from his ancestors, and with the possession and
enjoyment of which the community had no right to interfere.
This seems, at first view, very absurd to us, but it is not
particularly absurd. Charles's lawyers would say to any plain
proprietor of a piece of land, who might call in question his right to
govern the country, The king holds his crown by precisely the same
tenure that you hold your farm. Why should you be the exclusive
possessor of that land, while so many poor beggars are starving?
Because it has descended to you from your ancestors, and nothing has
descended to them. And it is precisely so that the right to manage the
fleets and armies, and to administer the laws of the realm, has
descended, under the name of _sovereignty_, to him, and no such
political power has descended to you.
True, the farmer would reply; but in matters of government we are to
consider what will promote the general good. The great object to be
attained is the welfare and happiness of the community. Now, if this
general welfare comes into competition with the supposed rights of
individuals, arising from such a principle as hereditary succession,
the latter ought certainly to yield.
But why, might the lawyer reply, should rights founded on hereditary
succession yield any more readily in the case of _government_ than in
the case of _property_? The distribution of property influences the
general welfare quite as much as the management of power. Suppose it
were proved that the general welfare of your parish would be promoted
by the division of your land among the destitute there. You have
nothing to oppose to such a proposition but your hereditary right. And
the king has that to oppose to any plan of a division of his
prerogatives and powers among the people who would like to share them.
Whatever may be thought of this reasoning on this side of the
Atlantic, and at the present day, it was considered very satisfactory
in England two or three centuries ago. The true and proper
jurisdiction of an English monarch, as it had existed from ancient
times, was considered as an _absolute right_, vesting in each
successive inheritor of the crown, and which the community could not
justly interfere with or disturb for any reasons less imperious than
such as would authorize an interference with the right of succession
to private property. Indeed, it is probable that, with most men at
that time, an inherited right to _govern_ was regarded as the most
sacred of the two.
The fact seems to be, that the right of a son to come into the place
of his father, whether in respect to property, power, or social rank,
is not a natural, inherent, and indefeasible right, but a _privilege_
which society accords, as a matter of convenience and expediency. In
England, expediency is, on the whole, considered to require that all
three of these things, viz., property, rank, and power, in certain
cases, should descend from father to son. In this country, on the
other hand, we confine the hereditament to property, abrogating it in
the case of rank and power. In neither case is there probably any
absolute natural right, but a conventional right is allowed to take
its place in one, or another, or all of these particulars, according
to the opinion of the community in respect to what its true interests
and the general welfare, on the whole, require.
The kings themselves of this Stuart race--which race includes Mary
Queen of Scots, the mother of the line, and James I., Charles I.,
Charles II., and James II.--entertained very high ideas of these
hereditary rights of theirs to govern the realm of England. They felt
a determination to maintain these rights and powers at all hazards.
Charles ascended the throne with these feelings, and the chief point
of interest in the history of his reign is the contest in which he
engaged with the English people in his attempts to maintain them.
The body with which the king came most immediately into conflict in
this long struggle for ascendency, was the Parliament. And here
American readers are very liable to fall into a mistake by considering
the houses of Parliament as analogous to the houses of legislation in
the various governments of this country. In our governments the chief
magistrate has only to execute definite and written laws and
ordinances, passed by the Legislature, and which the Legislature may
pass with or without his consent; and when enacted, he must be
governed by them. Thus the president or the governor is, in a certain
sense, the agent and officer of the legislative power of the state, to
carry into effect its decisions, and this _legislative_ power has
really the control.
By the ancient Constitution of England, however, the Parliament was
merely a body of counselors, as it were, summoned by the king to give
him their advice, to frame for him such laws as he wished to have
framed, and to aid him in raising funds by taxing the people. The king
might call this council or not, as he pleased. There was no necessity
for calling it unless he needed more funds than he could raise by his
own resources. When called, they felt that they had come, in a great
measure, to aid the king in doing his will. When they framed a law,
they sent it to him, and if he was satisfied with it, he _made it
law_. It was the king who really enacted it. If he did not approve the
law, he wrote upon the parchment which contained it, "The king will
think of it," and that was the end. The king would call upon them to
assess a tax and collect the money, and would talk to them about his
plans, and his government, and the aid which he desired from them to
enable him to accomplish what he had himself undertaken. In fact, the
king was the government, and the houses of Parliament his instruments
to aid him in giving effect to his decrees.
The nobles, that is, the heads of the great families, and also the
bishops, who were the heads of the various dioceses of the Church
formed one branch of this great council. This was called the House of
Lords. Certain representatives of the counties and of the towns
formed another branch, called the House of Commons. These delegates
came to the council, not from any right which the counties and towns
were supposed to possess to a share in the government, but simply
because they were summoned by the king to come and give him their aid.
They were to serve without pay, as a matter of duty which they owed to
the sovereign. Those that came from counties were called knights, and
those from the towns burgesses. These last were held in very little
estimation. The towns, in those days, were considered as mere
collections of shopkeepers and tradesmen, who were looked down upon
with much disdain by the haughty nobles. When the king called his
Parliament together, and went in to address them, he entered the
chamber of the House of Peers, and the commons were called in, to
stand where they could, with their heads uncovered, to hear what he
had to say. They were, in a thousand other ways, treated as an
inferior class; but still their counsels might, in some cases, be of
service, and so they were summoned to attend, though they were to meet
always, and deliberate, in a separate chamber.
As the king could call the Parliament together at any time and place
he pleased, so he could suspend or terminate their sittings at any
time. He could intermit the action of a Parliament for a time, sending
the members to their homes until he should summon them again. This was
called a _prorogation_. Or he could dissolve the body entirely at any
time, and then require new elections for a new Parliament whenever he
wished to avail himself of the wisdom or aid of such a body again.
Thus every thing went on the supposition that the real responsibility
for the government was with the king. He was the monarch, and the real
sovereignty vested in him. He called his nobles, and a delegation from
the mass of the people, together, whenever he wanted their help, and
not otherwise. He was responsible, not to them nor to the people at
large, but to God only, for the acts of his administration. The duty
of Parliament was limited to that of aiding him in carrying out his
plans of government, and the people had nothing to do but to be
obedient, submissive, and loyal. These were, at any rate, the ideas of
the kings, and all the forms of the English Constitution and the
ancient phraseology in which the transactions are expressed,
correspond with them.
We can not give a better proof and illustration of what has been said
than by transcribing the substance of one of King James's messages to
his Parliament, delivered about the close of his life, and, of course,
at the period of which we are writing. It was as follows:
"My Lords spiritual and temporal, and you the Commons: In my last
Parliament I made long discourses, especially to them of the
Lower House. I did open the true thought of my heart. But I may
say with our Savior, 'I have piped to you and ye have not danced;
I have mourned to you and you have not lamented;' so all my
sayings turned to me again without any success. And now, to tell
the reasons of your calling and of this meeting, apply it to
yourselves, and spend not the time in long speeches. Consider
that the Parliament is a thing composed of a head and a body; the
monarch and the two estates. It was, first, a monarchy; then,
after, a Parliament. There are no Parliaments but in monarchical
governments; for in Venice, the Netherlands, and other free
governments there are none. The head is to call the body
together; and for the clergy the bishops are chief, for shires
their knights, for towns and cities their burgesses and citizens.
These are to treat of difficult matters, and counsel their king
with their best advice to make laws[A] for the commonweal and the
Lower House is also to petition the king and acquaint him with
their grievances, and not to meddle with the king's prerogative.
They are to offer supply for his necessity, and he to distribute,
in recompense thereof, justice and mercy. As in all Parliaments
it is the _king's_ office to make good laws, whose fundamental
cause is the people's ill manners, so at this time.
[Footnote A: Meaning advice to him how he shall make laws, as is
evident from what is said below.]
"For a supply to my necessities, I have reigned eighteen years,
in which I have had peace, and I have received far less supply
than hath been given to any king since the Conquest. The last
queen had, one year with another, above a hundred thousand pounds
per annum in subsidies; and in all my time I have had but four
subsidies and six fifteens[B]. It is ten years since I had a
subsidy, in all which time I have been sparing to trouble you. I
have turned myself as nearly to save expenses as I may. I have
abated much in my household expenses, in my navies, and the
charge of my munition."
[Footnote B: Species of taxes granted by Parliament.]
After speaking about the affairs of the Palatinate, and calling upon
the Parliament to furnish him with money to recover it for his
son-in-law, he adds:
"Consider the trade for the making thereof better, and show me
the reason why my mint, these eight or nine years, hath not gone.
I confess I have been liberal in my grants; but if I be informed,
I will amend all hurtful grievances. But whoever shall hasten
after grievances, and desire to make himself popular he hath the
spirit of Satan. I was, in my first Parliament, a novice; and in
my last, there was a kind of beasts, called _undertakers_, a
dozen of whom undertook to govern the last Parliament, and they
led me. I shall thank _you_ for your good office, and desire that
the world may say well of our agreement."
This kind of harangue from the king to his Parliament seems not to
have been considered at the time, at all extraordinary; though, if
such a message were to be sent, at the present day, to a body of
legislators, whether by a king or a president, it would certainly
produce a sensation.
Still, notwithstanding what we have said, the Parliament did contrive
gradually to attain to the possession of some privileges and powers of
its own. The English people have a great deal of independence and
spirit, though Americans traveling there, with ideas carried from this
country, are generally surprised at finding so little instead of so
much. The knights and burgesses of the House of Commons, though they
submitted patiently to the forms of degradation which the lords and
kings imposed upon them, gradually got possession of certain powers
which they claimed as their own, and which they showed a strong
disposition to defend. They claimed the exclusive right to lay taxes
of every kind. This had been the usage so long, that they had the same
right to it that the king had to his crown. They had a right too, to
petition the king for a redress of any grievances which they supposed
the people were suffering under his reign. These, and certain other
powers and immunities which they had possessed, were called their
_privileges_. The king's rights were, on the other hand, called his
_prerogatives_. The Parliament were always endeavoring to extend,
define, and establish their privileges. The king was equally bent on
maintaining his ancient prerogatives. King Charles's reign derives its
chief interest from the long and insane contest which he waged with
his Parliament on this question. The contest commenced at the king's
accession to the throne, and lasted a quarter of a century: it ended
with his losing all his prerogatives and his head.
This circumstance, that the main interest in King Charles's reign is
derived from his contest with his Parliament, has made it necessary to
explain somewhat fully, as we have done, the nature of that body. We
have described it as it was in the days of the Stuarts; but, in order
not to leave any wrong impression on the mind of the reader in regard
to its present condition, we must add, that though all its external
forms remain the same, the powers and functions of the body have
greatly changed. The despised and contemned knights and burgesses,
that were not worthy to have seats provided for them when the king was
delivering them his speech, now rule the world; or, at least, come
nearer to the possession of that dominion than any other power has
ever done, in ancient or modern times. They decide who shall
administer the government, and in what way. They make the laws, settle
questions of trade and commerce, decide really on peace and war, and,
in a word, hold the whole control, while the nominal sovereign takes
rides in the royal parks, or holds drawing-rooms in the palaces, in
empty and powerless parade. There is no question that the British
House of Commons has exerted a far wider influence on the destinies of
the human race than any other governmental power that has ever
existed. It has gone steadily on for five, and perhaps for ten
centuries, in the same direction and toward the same ends; and
whatever revolutions may threaten other elements of European power,
the British House of Commons, in some form or other, is as sure as any
thing human can be of existence and power for five or ten centuries to
come.
And yet it is one of the most remarkable of the strange phenomena of
social life, that this body, standing at the head, as it really does,
of all human power, submits patiently still to all the marks and
tokens of inferiority and degradation which accompanied its origin. It
comes together when the sovereign sends writs, _ordering_ the several
constituencies to choose their representatives, and the
representatives to assemble. It comes humbly into the House of Peers
to listen to the instructions of the sovereign at the opening of the
session, the members in a standing position, and with heads
uncovered.[C] It debates these suggestions with forms and in a
phraseology which imply that it is only considering what _counsel_ to
give the king. It enacts nothing--it only recommends; and it holds its
existence solely at the discretion of the great imaginary power which
called it into being. These forms may, very probably, soon be changed
for others more true to the facts; and the principle of election may
be changed, so as to make the body represent more fully the general
population of the empire; but the body itself will doubtless continue
its action for a very long period to come.
[Footnote C: Even in the case of a committee of conference between the
two houses, the lords have _seats_ in the committee-room and wear
their hats. The members from the commons must _stand_, and be
uncovered during the deliberations!]
According to the view of the subject which we have presented, it
would of course follow, as the real sovereignty was mainly in the
king's hands, that at the death of one monarch and the accession of
another, the functions of all officers holding their places under the
authority of the former would cease. This was actually the case. And
it shows how entirely the Parliament was considered as the instrument
and creation of the king, that on the death of a king, the Parliament
immediately expired. The new monarch must make a new Parliament, if he
wished one, to help him carry out his own plans. In the same manner
almost all other offices expired. As it would be extremely
inconvenient or impossible to appoint anew all the officers of such a
realm on a sudden emergency, it is usual for the king to issue a
decree renewing the appointments of the existing incumbents of these
offices. Thus King Charles, two days after his father's death, made it
his first act to renew the appointments of the members of his father's
privy council, of the foreign embassadors, and of the judges of the
courts, in order that the affairs of the empire might go on without
interruption. He also issued summonses for calling a Parliament, and
then made arrangements for the solemnization of his father's funeral.
[Illustration: ST. STEPHEN'S.]
The scene of these transactions was what was, in those days, called
Westminster. Minster means cathedral. A cathedral church had been
built, and an abbey founded, at a short distance west from London,
near the mouth of the Thames. The church was called the West
_minster_, and the abbey, Westminster Abbey. The town afterward took
the same name. The street leading to the city of London from
Westminster was called the Strand; it lay along the shore of the
river. The gate by which the city of London was entered on this side
was called Temple Bar, on account of a building just within the walls,
at that point, which was called the Temple. In process of time, London
expanded beyond its bounds and spread westward. The Strand became a
magnificent street of shops and stores. Westminster was filled with
palaces and houses of the nobility, the whole region being entirely
covered with streets and edifices of the greatest magnificence and
splendor. Westminster is now called the West End of London, though the
jurisdiction of the city still ends at Temple Bar.
Parliament held its sessions in a building near the shore, called St.
Stephen's. The king's palace, called St. James's Palace, was near.
The old church became a place of sepulture for the English kings,
where a long line of them now repose. The palace of King James's wife,
Anne of Denmark, was on the bank of the river, some distance down the
Strand. She called it, during her life, Denmark House, in honor of her
native land. Its name is now Somerset House.
King James's funeral was attended with great pomp. The body was
conveyed from Somerset House to its place of repose in the Abbey, and
attended by a great procession. King Charles walked as chief mourner.
Two earls attended him, one on each side, and the train of his robes
was borne by twelve peers of the realm. The expenses of this funeral
amounted to a sum equal to two hundred thousand dollars.
One thing more is to be stated before we can consider Charles as
fairly entered upon his career, and that is the circumstance of his
marriage. His father James, so soon as he found the negotiations with
Spain must be finally abandoned, opened a new negotiation with the
King of France for his daughter Henrietta Maria. After some delay,
this arrangement was concluded upon. The treaty of marriage was made,
and soon after the old king's death, Charles began to think of
bringing home his bride.
He accordingly made out a commission for a nobleman, appointed for the
purpose, to act in his name, in the performance of the ceremony at
Paris. The pope's dispensation was obtained, Henrietta Maria, as well
as the Infanta, being a Catholic. The ceremony was performed, as such
ceremonies usually were in Paris, in the famous church of Notre Dame,
where Charles's grandmother, Mary Queen of Scots, had been married to
a prince of France about seventy years before.
There was a great theater, or platform, erected in front of the altar
in the church, which was thronged by the concourse of spectators who
rushed to witness the ceremony. The beautiful princess was married by
proxy to a man in another kingdom, whom she had never seen, or, at
least, never known. It is not probable that she observed him at the
time when he was, for one evening, in her presence, on his journey
through Paris. The Duke of Buckingham had been sent over by Charles to
conduct home his bride. Ships were waiting at Boulogne, a port nearly
opposite to Dover, to take her and her attendants on board. She bade
farewell to the palaces of Paris, and set out on her journey.[D]
[Footnote D: See portrait at the commencement of this volume.]
The king, in the mean time, had gone to Dover, where he awaited her
arrival. She landed at Dover on the day after sailing from Boulogne,
sea-sick and sad. The king received his bride, and with their
attendants they went by carriages to Canterbury, and on the following
day they entered London. Great preparations had been made for
receiving the king and his consort in a suitable manner; but London
was, at this time, in a state of great distress and fear on account of
the plague which had broken out there. The disease had increased
during the king's absence, and the alarm and anxiety were so great,
that the rejoicings on account of the arrival of the queen were
omitted. She journeyed quietly, therefore, to Westminster, and took up
her abode at Somerset House, which had been the residence of her
predecessor. They had fitted it up for her reception, providing for
it, among other conveniences, a Roman Catholic chapel, where she could
enjoy the services of religion in the forms to which she had been
accustomed.
CHAPTER IV.
BUCKINGHAM.
1625-1628
Charles's accession.--Leading events of his reign.--Buckingham.--His
influence over the king.--General system of government.--His
majesty.--Every thing done in the king's name.--The Privy Council.--It
represents the king.--Constitution and functions of the Privy
Council.--Restrictions on the royal power.--A new Parliament.--The new
Parliament meets at Oxford.--Difficulties commence between the king
and Parliament.--Demands of Parliament, and the king's answers.--The
king and the Commons both in the wrong.--The king promises every
thing.--His insincerity.--Commons not satisfied.--Parliament
dissolved.--New one called.--Subterfuges of the king.--Parliament
again dissolved.--The breach between the king and the Parliament
widens.--Impeachment of Buckingham.--The king interferes.--Another
dissolution.--Buckingham's reckless conduct.--The Round Robin.--Return
of the English fleet.--The officers and men desert.--Expedition to
Spain.--Buckingham's egregious folly.--The expedition ends in
disaster.--Buckingham's quarrel with Richelieu.--He resolves
on war.--The French servants dismissed.--War declared
against France.--Expedition to France abortive.--Another
projected.--Assassination of Buckingham.--The king not
sorry.--Buckingham's monument the universal execration of his
countrymen.
Charles commenced his reign in 1625. He continued to reign about
twenty-four years. It will assist the reader to receive and retain in
mind a clear idea of the course of events during his reign, if we
regard it as divided into three periods. During the first, which
continued about four years, Charles and the Parliament were both upon
the stage, contending with each other, but just at open war. Each
party intrigued, and maneuvered, and struggled to gain its own ends,
the disagreement widening and deepening continually, till it ended in
an open rupture, when Charles abandoned the plan of having Parliaments
at all, and attempted to govern alone. This attempt to manage the
empire without a legislature lasted for ten years, and is the second
period. After this a Parliament was called, and it soon made itself
independent of the king, and became hostile to him, the two powers
being at open war. This constitutes the third period. Thus we have
four years spent in getting into the quarrel between the king and
Parliament, ten years in an attempt by the king to govern alone, and,
finally, ten years of war, more or less open, the king on one side,
and the Parliament on the other.
The first four years--that is, the time spent in getting really into
the quarrel with Parliament, was Buckingham's work, for during that
time Buckingham's influence with the king was paramount and supreme;
and whatever was done that was important or extraordinary, though done
in the king's name, really originated in him. The whole country knew
this and were indignant that such a man, so unprincipled, so low in
character, so reckless, and so completely under the sway of his
impulses and passions, should have such an influence over the king,
and, through him, such power to interfere with and endanger the mighty
interests of so vast a realm.
It must not be supposed, however, in consequence of what has been said
about the extent of the regal power in England, that the daily care
and responsibility of the affairs of government, in its ordinary
administration, rested directly upon the king. It is not possible that
any one mind can even comprehend, far less direct, such an enormous
complication of interests and of action as is involved in the carrying
on, from day to day, the government of an empire. Offices,
authorities, and departments of administration spring up gradually,
and all the ordinary routine of the affairs of the empire are managed
by them. Thus the navy was all completely organized, with its
gradations of rank, its rules of action, its records, its account
books, its offices and arrangements for provisionment and supply, the
whole forming a vast system which moved on of itself, whether the king
were present or absent, sick or well, living or dead. It was so with
the army; it was so with the courts; it was so with the general
administration of the government, at London. The immense mass of
business which constituted the work of government was all systematized
and arranged, and it moved on regularly, in the hands of more or less
prudent and careful men, who governed, themselves, by ancient rules
and usages, and in most cases managed wisely.
Every thing, however, was done in the king's _name_. The ships were
his majesty's ships, the admirals were his majesty's servants, the
war was his majesty's war, the court was the _King's_ Bench. The idea
was, that all these thousands of officers, of all ranks and grades,
were only an enormous multiplication of his majesty; that they were to
do his will and carry on his administration as he would himself carry
it on were he personally capable of attending to such a vast detail;
subject, of course, to certain limits and restrictions which the laws
and customs of the realm, and the promises and contracts of his
predecessors, had imposed. But although all this action was
theoretically the king's action, it came to be, in fact, almost wholly
independent of him. It went on of itself, in a regular and systematic
way, pursuing its own accustomed course, except so far as the king
directly interposed to modify its action.
It might be supposed that the king would certainly take _the general
direction_ of affairs into his own hands, and that this charge, at
least, would necessarily come upon him, as king, day by day. Some
monarchs have attempted to do this, but it is obvious that there must
be some provision for having this general charge, as well as all the
subordinate functions of government, attended to independently of the
king, as his being always in a condition to fulfill this duty is not
to be relied upon. Sometimes the king is young and inexperienced;
sometimes he is sick or absent; and sometimes he is too feeble in
mind, or too indolent, or too devoted to his pleasures, to exercise
any governmental care. There has gradually grown up, therefore, in all
monarchies, the custom of having a central board of officers of state,
whom the king appoints, and who take the general direction of affairs
in his stead, except so far as he chooses to interfere. This board, in
England, is called the Privy Council.
The Privy Council in England is a body of great importance. Its nature
and its functions are, of course, entirely different from those of the
two houses of Parliament. _They_ represent, or are intended to
represent, the nation. The Parliament is, in theory, the nation,
assembled at the king's command, to give him their advice. The Privy
Council, on the other hand, represents the king. It is the king's
Privy Council. They act in his name. They follow his directions when
he chooses to give any. Whatever they decide upon and decree, the king
signs--often, indeed, without any idea of its nature. Still he signs
it, and all such decrees go forth to the word as the king's orders in
council. The Privy Council, of course, would have its meetings, its
officers, its records, its rules of proceeding, and its various
usages, and these grew, in time, to be laws and rights; but still it
was, in theory, only a sort of expansion of the king, as if to make a
kind of artificial being, with one soul, but many heads and hands,
because no natural human being could possibly have capacities and
powers extensive and multifarious enough for the exigencies of
reigning. Charles thus had a council who took charge of every thing,
except so far as he chose to interpose. The members were generally
able and experienced men. And yet Buckingham was among them. He had
been made Lord High Admiral of England, which gave him supreme command
of the navy, and admitted him to the Privy Council. These were very
high honors.
This Privy Council now took the direction of public affairs, attended
to every thing, provided for all emergencies, and kept all the
complicated machinery of government in motion, without the necessity
of the king's having any personal agency in the matter. The king might
interpose, more or less, as he was inclined; and when he did
interpose, he sometimes found obstacles in the way of immediately
accomplishing his plans, in the forms or usages which had gradually
grown into laws.
For instance, when the king began his reign, he was very eager to have
the war for the recovery of the Palatinate go on at once; and he was,
besides, very much embarrassed for want of money. He wished,
therefore, in order to save time, that the old Parliament which King
James had called should continue to act under his reign. But his Privy
Council told him that that could not be. That was _James's_
Parliament. If he wanted one for his reign, he must call upon the
people to elect a new Parliament for him.
The new Parliament was called, and Charles sent them a very civil
message, explaining the emergency which had induced him to call them,
and the reason why he was so much in want of money. His father had
left the government a great deal in debt. There had been heavy
expenses connected with the death of the former king, and with his own
accession and marriage. Then there was the war. It had been engaged in
by his father, with the approbation of the former Parliament; and
engagements had been made with allies, which now they could not
honorably retract. He urged them, therefore, to grant, without delay,
the necessary supplies.
The Parliament met in July, but the plague was increasing in London,
and they had to adjourn, early in August, to Oxford. This city is
situated upon the Thames, and was then, as it is now, the seat of a
great many colleges. These colleges were independent of each other in
their internal management, though united together in one general
system. The name of one of them, which is still very distinguished,
was Christ Church College. They had, among the buildings of that
college, a magnificent hall, more than one hundred feet long, and very
lofty, built in a very imposing style. It is still a great object of
interest to all who visit Oxford. This hall was fitted up for the use
of Parliament, and the king met the two houses there. He made a new
speech himself, and others were made by his ministers, explaining the
state of public affairs, and gently urging the houses to act with
promptness and decision.
The houses then separated, and each commenced its own deliberations.
But, instead of promptly complying with the king's proposals they sent
him a petition for redress of a long list of what they called
grievances. These grievances were, almost all of them, complaints of
the toleration and encouragement of the Catholics, through the
influence of the king's Catholic bride. She had stipulated to have a
Catholic chapel, and Catholic attendants, and, after her arrival in
England, she and Buckingham had so much influence over the king, that
they were producing quite a change at court, and gradually through all
ranks of society, in favor of the Catholics. The Commons complained of
a great many things, nearly all, however, originating in this cause.
The king answered these complaints, clause by clause, promising
redress more or less distinctly. There is not room to give this
petition and the answers in full, but as all the subsequent troubles
between Charles and the people of England arose out of this difficulty
of his young wife's bringing in so strong a Catholic influence with
her to the realm, it may be well to give an abstract of some of the
principal petitions, with the king's answers.
The Commons said:
That they had understood that popish priests, and other Catholics,
were gradually creeping in as teachers of the youth of the realm,
in the various seminaries of learning, and they wished to have
decided measures taken to examine all candidates for such
stations, with a view to the careful exclusion of all who were not
true Protestants.
_King._--Allowed. And I will send to the archbishops and all the
authorities to see that this is done.
_Commons._--That more efficient arrangements should be made for
appointing able and faithful men in the Church--men that will
really devote themselves to preaching the Gospel to the people;
instead of conferring these places and salaries on favorites,
sometimes, as has been the case, several to the same man.
The king made some explanations in regard to this subject, and
promised hereafter to comply with this requisition.
_Commons._--That the laws against sending children out of the
country to foreign countries to be educated in Catholic seminaries
should be strictly enforced, and the practice be entirely broken
up.
_King._--Agreed; and he would send to the lord admiral, and to all
the naval officers on the coast, to watch very carefully and stop
all children attempting to go abroad for such a purpose; and he
would issue a proclamation commanding all the noblemen's children
now on the Continent to return by a given day.
_Commons._--That no Catholic (or, as they called him, popish
_recusant_, that is, a person _refusing_ to subscribe to the
Protestant faith, recusant meaning _person refusing_) be admitted
into the king's service at court; and that no _English_ Catholic
be admitted into the queen's service. They could not refuse to
allow her to employ her own _French_ attendants, but to appoint
English Catholics to the honorable and lucrative offices at her
disposal was doing a great injury to the Protestant cause in the
realm.
The king agreed to this, with some conditions and evasions.
_Commons._--That all Jesuits and Catholic priests, owing
allegiance to the See of Rome, should be sent away from the
country, according to laws already existing, after fair notice
given; and if they would not go, that they should be imprisoned in
such a manner as to be kept from all communication with other
persons, so as not to disseminate their false religion.
_King._--The laws on this subject shall be enforced.
The above are sufficient for a specimen of these complaints and of the
king's answers. There were many more of them, but they have all the
same character--being designed to stop the strong current of Catholic
influence and ascendency which was setting in to the court, and
through the court into the realm, through the influence of the young
queen and the persons connected with her. At the present day, and in
this country, the Commons will be thought to be in the wrong, inasmuch
as the thing which they were contending against was, in the main,
merely the toleration of the Catholic religion. But then the king was
in the wrong too, for, since the laws against this toleration stood
enacted by the consent and concurrence of his predecessors, he should
not have allowed them to be infracted and virtually annulled through
the influence of a foreign bride and an unworthy favorite.
Perhaps he felt that he was wrong, or perhaps his answers were all
framed for him by his Privy Council. At all events, they were entirely
favorable to the demands of the Commons. He promised every thing. In
many things he went even beyond their demands. It is admitted,
however, on all hands, that, so far as he himself had any agency in
making these replies, he was not really sincere. He himself, and
Buckingham, were very eager to get supplies. Buckingham was admiral of
the fleet, and very strongly desired to enlarge the force at his
command, with a view to the performing of some great exploit in the
war. It is understood, therefore, that the king intended his replies
as promises merely. At any rate, the promises were made. The Commons
were called into the great hall again, at Christ Church, where the
Peers assembled, and the king's answers were read to them. Buckingham
joined in this policy of attempting to conciliate the Commons. He went
into their assembly and made a long speech, explaining and justifying
his conduct, and apologizing, in some sense, for what might seem to be
wrong.
The Commons returned to their place of deliberation, but they were not
satisfied. They wanted something besides promises. Some were in favor
of granting supplies "in gratitude to his majesty for his gracious
answer." Others thought differently. They did not see the necessity
for raising money for this foreign war. They had greater enemies at
home (meaning Buckingham and popery) than they had abroad. Besides, if
the king would stop his waste and extravagance in bestowing honors and
rewards, there would be money enough for all necessary uses. In a
word, there was much debate, but nothing done. The king, after a short
time, sent a message to them urging them to come to a decision. They
sent him back a declaration which showed that they did not intend to
yield. Their language, however, was of the most humble character. They
called him "their dread sovereign," and themselves "his poor commons."
The king was displeased with them, and dissolved the Parliament. They,
of course, immediately became private citizens, and dispersed to their
homes.
After trying some ineffectual attempts to raise money by his own royal
prerogatives and powers, the king called a new Parliament, taking some
singular precautions to keep out of it such persons as he thought
would oppose his plans. The Earl of Bristol, whom Buckingham had been
so jealous of, considering him as his rival, was an influential member
of the House of Peers. Charles and Buckingham agreed to omit him in
sending out the royal writs to summon the peers. He petitioned
Parliament, claiming a right to his seat. Charles then sent him his
writ, but gave him a command, as his sovereign, not to attend the
session. He also selected four of the prominent men in the House of
Commons, men whom he considered most influential in opposition to him
and to Buckingham, and appointed them to offices which would call them
away from London; and as it was the understanding in those days that
the sovereign had a right to command the services of his subjects,
they were obliged to go. The king hoped, by these and similar means,
to diminish the influence against him in Parliament, and to get a
majority in his favor. But his plans did not succeed. Such measures
only irritated the House and the country. After another struggle this
Parliament was dissolved too.
Things went on so for four or five years, the breach between the king
and the people growing wider and wider. Within this time there were
four Parliaments called, and, after various contentions with them,
they were, one after another, dissolved. The original subject of
disagreement, viz., the growing influence of the Catholics, was not
the only one. Other points came up, growing out of the king's use of
his prerogative, and his irregular and, as they thought, illegal
attempts to interfere with their freedom of action. The king, or,
rather, Buckingham using the king's name, resorted to all sorts of
contrivances to accomplish this object. For instance, it had long been
the custom, in case any member of the House of Peers was absent, for
him to give authority to any friend of his, who was also a member, to
vote for him. This authority was called a _proxy_. This word is
supposed to be derived from _procuracy_, which means action in the
place of, and in behalf of, another. Buckingham induced a great number
of the peers to give him their proxies. He did this by rewards,
honors, and various other influences, and he found so many willing to
yield to these inducements, that at one time he had thirty or forty
proxies in his hands. Thus, on a question arising in the House of
Lords, he could give a very large majority of votes. The House, after
murmuring for some time, and expressing much discontent and vexation
at this state of things, finally made a law that no member of the
House should ever have power to use more than _two_ proxies.
One of the Parliaments which King Charles assembled at length brought
articles of impeachment against Buckingham, and a long contest arose
on this subject. An impeachment is a trial of a high officer of state
for maladministration of his office. All sorts of charges were brought
against Buckingham, most of which were true. The king considered their
interfering to call one of his ministers to account as wholly
intolerable. He sent them orders to dismiss that subject from their
deliberations, and to proceed immediately with their work of laying
taxes to raise money, or he would dissolve the Parliament as he had
done before. He reminded them that the Parliaments were entirely "in
his power for their calling, sitting, and dissolution, and as he found
their fruits were for good or evil, so they were to continue, or not
to be." If they would mend their errors and do their duty,
henceforward he would forgive the past; otherwise they were to expect
his irreconcilable hostility.
This language irritated instead of alarming them. The Commons
persisted in their plan of impeachment. The king arrested the men
whom they appointed as managers of the impeachment, and imprisoned
them. The Commons remonstrated, and insisted that Buckingham should be
dismissed from the king's service. The king, instead of dismissing
him, took measures to have him appointed, in addition to all his other
offices, Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, a very exalted
station. Parliament remonstrated. The king, in retaliation, dissolved
the Parliament.
Thus things went on from bad to worse, and from worse to worse again;
the chief cause of the difficulties, in almost all cases, being
traceable to Buckingham's reckless and arbitrary conduct. He was
continually doing something in the pursuit of his own ends, by the
rash and heedless exercise of the vast powers committed to him, to
make extensive and irreparable mischief. At one time he ordered a part
of the fleet over to the coast of France, to enter the French service,
the sailors expecting that they were to be employed against the
Spaniards. They found, however, that, instead of going against the
Spaniards, they were to be sent to Rochelle. Rochelle was a town in
France in possession of the Protestants, and the King of France
wished to subdue them. The sailors sent a remonstrance to their
commander, begging not to be forced to fight against their brother
Protestants. This remonstrance was, in form, what is called a _Round
Robin_.
In a Round Robin a circle is drawn, the petition or remonstrance is
written within it, and the names are written all around it, to prevent
any one's having to take the responsibility of being the first signer.
When the commander of the fleet received the Round Robin, instead of
being offended, he inquired into the facts, and finding that the case
was really as the Round Robin represented it, he broke away from the
French command and returned to England. He said he would rather be
hanged in England for disobeying orders than to fight against the
Protestants of France.
Buckingham might have known that such a spirit as this in Englishmen
was not to be trifled with. But he knew nothing, and thought of
nothing, except that he wished to please and gratify the French
government. When the fleet, therefore, arrived in England, he
peremptorily ordered it back, and he resorted to all sorts of pretexts
and misrepresentations of the facts to persuade the officers and men
that they were not to be employed against the Protestants. The fleet
accordingly went back, and when they arrived, they found that
Buckingham had deceived them. They were ordered to Rochelle. One of
the ships broke away and returned to England. The officers and men
deserted from the other ships and got home. The whole armament was
disorganized, and the English people, who took sides with the sailors,
were extremely exasperated against Buckingham for his blind and
blundering recklessness, and against the king for giving such a man
the power to do his mischief on such an extensive scale.
At another time the duke and the king contrived to fit out a fleet of
eighty sail to make a descent upon the coast of Spain. It caused them
great trouble to get the funds for this expedition, as they had to
collect them, in a great measure, by various methods depending on the
king's prerogative, and not by authority of Parliament. Thus the whole
country were dissatisfied and discontented in respect to the fleet
before it was ready to sail. Then, as if this was not enough,
Buckingham overlooked all the officers in the navy in selecting a
commander, and put an officer of the army in charge of it; a man
whose whole experience had been acquired in wars on the land. The
country thought that Buckingham ought to have taken the command
himself, as lord high admiral; and if not, that he ought to have
selected his commander from the ranks of the service employed. Thus
the fleet set off on the expedition, all on board burning with
indignation against the arbitrary and absurd management of the
favorite. The result of the expedition was also extremely disastrous.
They had an excellent opportunity to attack a number of ships, which
would have made a very rich prize; but the soldier-commander either
did not know, or did not dare to do, his duty. He finally, however,
effected a landing, and took a castle, but the sailors found a great
store of wine there, and went to drinking and carousing, breaking
through all discipline. The commander had to get them on board again
immediately, and come away. Then he conceived the plan of going to
intercept what were called the Spanish galleons, which were ships
employed to bring home silver from the mines in America, which the
Spaniards then possessed. On further thoughts he concluded to give up
this idea, on account of the plague, which, as he said, broke out in
his ships. So he came back to England with his fleet disorganized,
demoralized, and crippled, and covered with military disgrace. The
people of England charged all this to Buckingham. Still the king
persisted in retaining him. It was his prerogative to do so.
After a while Buckingham got into a personal quarrel with Richelieu,
who was the leading manager of the French government, and he resolved
that England should make war upon France. To alter the whole political
position of such an empire as that of Great Britain, in respect to
peace and war, and to change such a nation as France from a friend to
an enemy, would seem to be quite an undertaking for a single man to
attempt, and that, too, without having any reason whatever to assign,
except a personal quarrel with a minister about a love affair. But so
it was. Buckingham undertook it. It was the king's prerogative to make
peace or war, and Buckingham ruled the king.
He contrived various ways of fomenting ill will. One was, to alienate
the mind of the king from the queen. He represented to him that the
queen's French servants were fast becoming very disrespectful and
insolent in their treatment of him, and finally persuaded him to send
them all home. So the king went one day to Somerset House, which was
the queen's residence--for it is often the custom in high life in
Europe for the husband and wife to have separate establishments--and
requested her to summon her French servants into his presence, and
when they were assembled, he told them that he had concluded to send
them all home to France. Some of them, he said, had acted properly
enough, but others had been rude and forward, and that he had decided
it best to send them all home. The French king, on hearing of this,
seized a hundred and twenty English ships lying in his harbors in
retaliation of this act, which he said was a palpable violation of the
marriage contract, as it certainly was. Upon this the king declared
war against France. He did not ask Parliament to act in this case at
all. There was no Parliament. Parliament had been dissolved in a fit
of displeasure. The whole affair was an exercise of the royal
prerogative. Nor did the king now call a Parliament to provide means
for carrying on the war, but set his Privy Council to devise modes of
doing it, through this same prerogative.
The attempts to raise money in these ways made great trouble. The
people resisted, and interposed all possible difficulties. However
some funds were raised, and a fleet of a hundred sail, and an army of
seven thousand men, were got together. Buckingham undertook the
command of this expedition himself, as there had been so much
dissatisfaction with his appointment of a commander to the other. It
resulted just as was to be expected in the case of seven thousand men,
and a hundred ships, afloat on the swelling surges of the English
Channel, under the command of vanity, recklessness, and folly. The
duke came back to England in three months, bringing home one third of
his force. The rest had been lost, without accomplishing any thing.
The measure of public indignation against Buckingham was now full.
Buckingham himself walked as loftily and proudly as ever. He equipped
another fleet, and was preparing to set sail in it himself, as
commander again. He went to Portsmouth, accordingly, for this purpose,
Portsmouth being the great naval station then, as now, on the southern
coast of England. Here a man named Felton, who had been an officer
under the duke in the former expedition, and who had been extremely
exasperated against him on account of some of his management there,
and who had since found how universal was the detestation of him in
England, resolved to rid the country of such a curse at once. He
accordingly took his station in the passage-way of the house where
Buckingham was, armed with a knife. Buckingham came out, talking with
some Frenchmen in an angry manner, having had some dispute with them,
when Felton thrust the knife into his side as he passed, and, leaving
it in the wound, walked away, no one having noticed who did the deed.
Buckingham pulled out the knife, fell down, and died. The bystanders
were going to seize one of the Frenchmen, when Felton advanced and
said, "I am the man; you are to arrest me; let no one suffer that is
innocent." He was taken. They found a paper in his hat, saying that he
was going to destroy the duke, and that he could not sacrifice his
life in a nobler cause than by delivering his country from so great an
enemy.
King Charles was four miles off at this time. They carried him the
news. He did not appear at all concerned or troubled, but only
directed that the murderer--he ought to have said, perhaps, the
_executioner_--should be secured, and that the fleet should proceed
to sail. He also ordered the treasurer to make arrangements for a
splendid funeral.
The treasurer said, in reply, that a funeral would only be a temporary
show, and that he could hereafter erect a _monument_ at half the cost,
which would be a much more lasting memorial. Charles acceded.
Afterward, when Charles spoke to him about the monument, the treasurer
replied, What would the world say if your majesty were to build a
monument to the Duke before you erect one for your father? So the plan
was abandoned, and Buckingham had no other monument than the universal
detestation of his countrymen.
CHAPTER V.
THE KING AND HIS PREROGATIVE.
1628-1636
Difficulty in raising funds.--The king's resources.--Modes of raising
money.--Parliaments abandoned.--The government attaches the property
of a member of Parliament.--Confusion in the House of
Commons.--Resolutions.--The Commons refuse to admit the king's
officers.--Members imprisoned.--Dissolution of Parliament.--The king
in the House of Lords.--The king's speech on dissolving
Parliament.--The king resolves to do without Parliaments.--Forced
loans.--Monopolies of the necessaries of life.--Tonnage and
poundage.--Ship money.--Origin of these taxes.--John Hampden.--He
refuses to pay ship money.--Hampden's trial.--He is compelled to
pay.--A fleet raised.--Its exploits among the herring-busses.--Court
of the Star Chamber.--Its constitution.--Trial by jury.--No jury in
the Star Chamber.--Crimes tried by the Star Chamber.--Origin of the
term.--Immense power of the Court of Star Chamber.--Oppressive
fines.--King's forests.--Offenses against the king and his lords.--A
gentleman fined for resenting an insult.--Murmurs silenced.--The
kingdom of Scotland.--The king visits Scotland.--He is crowned
there.--The king returns to London.--Increasing discontent.
The great difficulty in governing without a Parliament was the raising
of funds. By the old customs and laws of the realm, a tax upon the
people could only be levied by the action of the House of Commons; and
the great object of the king and council during Buckingham's life, in
summoning Parliaments from time to time, was to get their aid in this
respect. But as Charles found that one Parliament after another
withheld the grants, and spent their time in complaining of his
government, he would dissolve them, successively, after exhausting all
possible means of bringing them to a compliance with his will. He
would then be thrown upon his own resources.
The king had _some_ resources of his own. These were certain estates,
and lands, and other property, in various parts of the country, which
belonged to the crown, the income of which the king could appropriate.
But the amount which could be derived from this source was very
small. Then there were certain other modes of raising money, which had
been resorted to by former monarchs, in emergencies, at distant
intervals, but still in instances so numerous that the king considered
precedents enough had been established to make the power to resort to
these modes a part of the prerogative of the crown. The people,
however, considered these acts of former monarchs as irregularities or
usurpations. They denied the king's right to resort to these methods,
and they threw so many difficulties in the way of the execution of his
plans, that finally he would call another Parliament, and make new
efforts to lead them to conform to his will. The more the experiment
was tried, however, the worse it succeeded; and at last the king
determined to give up the idea of Parliaments altogether, and to
compel the people to submit to his plans of raising money without
them.
The final dissolution of Parliament, by which Charles entered upon his
new plan of government, was attended with some resistance, and the
affair made great difficulty. It seems that one of the members, a
certain Mr. Rolls, had had some of his goods seized for payment of
some of the king's irregular taxes, which he had refused to pay
willingly. Now it had always been considered the law of the land in
England, that the person and the property of a member of Parliament
were sacred during the session, on the ground that while he was giving
his attendance at a council meeting called by his sovereign, he ought
to be protected from molestation on the part either of his
fellow-subjects or his sovereign, in his person and in his property.
The House of Commons considered, therefore, the seizure of the goods
of one of the members of the body as a breach of their privilege, and
took up the subject with a view to punish the officers who acted. The
king sent a message immediately to the House, while they were debating
the subject, saying that the officer acted, in seizing the goods, in
obedience to his own direct command. This produced great excitement
and long debates. The king, by taking the responsibility of the
seizure upon himself, seemed to bid the House defiance. They brought
up this question: "Whether the seizing of Mr. Rolls's goods was not a
breach of privilege?" When the time came for a decision, the speaker,
that is, the presiding officer, refused to put the question to vote.
He said he had been commanded _by the king_ not to do it! The House
were indignant, and immediately adjourned for two days, probably for
the purpose of considering, and perhaps consulting their constituents
on what they were to do in so extraordinary an emergency as the king's
coming into their own body and interfering with the functions of one
of their own proper officers.
They met on the day to which they had adjourned, prepared to insist on
the speaker's putting the question. But he, immediately on the House
coming to order, said that he had received the king's command to
adjourn the House for a week, and to put no question whatever. He was
then about to leave the chair, but two of the members advanced to him
and held him in his place, while they read some resolutions which had
been prepared. There was great confusion and clamor. Some insisted
that the House was adjourned, some were determined to pass the
resolutions. The resolutions were very decided. They declared that
whoever should counsel or advise the laying of taxes not granted by
Parliament, or be an actor or instrument in collecting them, should be
accounted an innovator, and a capital enemy to the kingdom and
Commonwealth. And also, that if any person whatever should voluntarily
pay such taxes, he should be counted a capital enemy also. These
resolutions were read in the midst of great uproar. The king was
informed of the facts, and sent for the sergeant of the House--one of
the highest officers--but the members locked the door, and would not
let the sergeant go. Then the king sent one of his own officers to the
House with a message. The members kept the door locked, and would not
let him in until they had disposed of the resolutions. Then the House
adjourned for a week.
The next day, several of the leading members who were supposed to have
been active in these proceedings were summoned to appear before the
council. They refused to answer out of Parliament for what was said
and done by them in Parliament. The council sent them to prison in the
Tower.
The week passed away, and the time for the reassembling of the Houses
arrived. It had been known, during the week, that the king had
determined on dissolving Parliament. It is usual, in dissolving a
Parliament, for the sovereign not to appear in person, but to send his
message of dissolution by some person commissioned to deliver it. This
is called dissolving the House by commission. The dissolution is
always declared in the House of Lords, the Commons being summoned to
attend. In this case, however, the king attended in person. He was
dressed magnificently in his royal robes, and wore his crown. He would
not deign, however, to send for the Commons. He entered the House of
Peers, and took his seat upon the throne. Several of the Commons,
however, came in of their own accord, and stood below the bar, at the
usual place assigned them. The king then rose and read the following
speech. The antiquity of the language gives it an air of quaintness
now which it did not possess then.
"My Lords,--I never came here upon so unpleasant an occasion, it
being the Dissolution of a Parliament. Therefore Men may have
some cause to wonder why I should not rather chuse to do this by
Commission, it being a general Maxim of Kings to leave harsh
Commands to their Ministers, Themselves only executing pleasing
things. Yet considering that Justice as well consists in Reward
and Praise of Virtue as Punishing of Vice, I thought it necessary
to come here to-day, and to declare to you and all the World,
that it was merely the undutiful and seditious Carriage in the
Lower House that hath made the dissolution of this Parliament.
And you, my Lords, are so far from being any Causers of it, that
I take as much comfort in your dutiful Demeanour, as I am justly
distasted with their Proceedings. Yet, to avoid their Mistakings,
let me tell you, that it is so far from me to adjudge all the
House alike guilty, that I know there are many there as dutiful
subjects as any in the World it being but some few Vipers among
them that did cast this mist of Undutifulness over most of their
Eyes. Yet to say Truth, there was good Number there that could
not be infected with this Contagion.
"To conclude, As those Vipers must look for their Reward of
Punishment, so you, my Lords, may justly expect from me that
Favor and Protection that a good King oweth to his loving and
faithful Nobility. And now, my Lord Keeper, do what I have
commanded you."
Then the lord keeper pronounced the Parliament dissolved. The lord
keeper was the keeper of the great seal, one of the highest officers
of the crown.
Of course this affair produced a fever of excitement against the king
throughout the whole realm. This excitement was kept up and increased
by the trials of the members of Parliament who had been imprisoned.
The courts decided against them, and they were sentenced to long
imprisonment and to heavy fines. The king now determined to do without
Parliaments entirely; and, of course, he had to raise money by his
royal prerogative altogether, as he had done, in fact, before, a great
deal, during the intervals between the successive Parliaments. It will
not be very entertaining, but it will be very useful to the reader to
peruse carefully some account of the principal methods resorted to by
the king. In order, however, to diminish the necessity for money as
much as possible, the king prepared to make peace with France and
Spain; and as they, as well as England, were exhausted with the wars,
this was readily effected.
One of the resorts adopted by the king was to a system of _loans_, as
they were called, though these loans differed from those made by
governments at the present day, in being apportioned upon the whole
community according to their liability to taxation, and in being made,
in some respects, compulsory. The loan was not to be absolutely
collected by force, but all were expected to lend, and if any refused,
they were to be required to make oath that they would not tell any
body else that they had refused, in order that the influence of their
example might not operate upon others. Those who did refuse were to be
reported to the government. The officers appointed to collect these
loans were charged not to make unnecessary difficulty, but to do all
in their power to induce the people to contribute freely and
willingly. This plan had been before adopted, in the time of
Buckingham, but it met with little success.
Another plan which was resorted to was the granting of what was called
monopolies: that is, the government would select some important and
necessary articles in general use, and give the exclusive right of
manufacturing them to certain persons, on their paying a part of the
profits to the government. Soap was one of the articles thus chosen.
The exclusive right to manufacture it was given to a company, on their
paying for it. So with leather, salt, and various other things. These
persons, when they once possessed the exclusive right to manufacture
an article which the people must use, would abuse their power by
deteriorating the article, or charging enormous prices. Nothing
prevented their doing this, as they had no competition. The effect
was, that the people were injured much more than the government was
benefited. The plan of granting such monopolies by governments is now
universally odious.
Another method of taxation was what was called _tonnage and poundage_.
This was an ancient tax, assessed on merchandise brought into the
country in ships, like the _duties_ now collected at our
custom-houses. It was called tonnage and poundage because the
merchandise on which it was assessed was reckoned by weight, viz., the
ton and the pound. A former king, Edward III., first assessed it to
raise money to suppress piracy on the seas. He said it was reasonable
that the merchandise protected should pay the expense of the
protection, and in proper proportion. The Parliament in that day
opposed this tax. They did not object to the tax itself, but to the
king's assessing it by his own authority. However, they granted it
themselves afterward, and it was regularly collected. Subsequent
Parliaments had granted it, and generally made the law, once for all,
to continue in force during the life of the monarch. When Charles
commenced his reign, the Peers were for renewing the law as usual, to
continue throughout his reign. The Commons desired to enact the law
only for a year at a time, so as to keep the power in their own hands.
The two houses thus disagreed, and nothing was done. The king then
went on to collect the tax without any authority except his own
prerogative.
Another mode of levying money adopted by the king was what was called
_ship money_. This was a plan for raising a navy by making every town
contribute a certain number of ships, or the money necessary to build
them. It originated in ancient times, and was at first confined to
seaport towns which had ships. These towns were required to furnish
them for the king's service, sometimes to be paid for by the king, at
other times by the country, and at other times not to be paid for at
all. Charles revived this plan, extending it to the whole country; a
tax was assessed on all the towns, each one being required to furnish
money enough for a certain number of ships. The number at one time
required of the city of London was twenty.
There was one man who made his name very celebrated then, and it has
continued very celebrated since, by his refusal to pay his ship money,
and by his long and determined contest with the government in regard
to it, in the courts. His name was John Hampden. He was a man of
fortune and high character. His tax for ship money was only twenty
shillings, but he declared that he would not pay it without a trial.
The king had previously obtained the opinion of the judges that he had
a right, in case of necessity, to assess and collect the ship money,
and Hampden knew, therefore, that the decision would certainly, in the
end, be against him. He knew, however, that the attention of the whole
country would be attracted to the trial, and that the arguments which
he should offer, to prove that the act of collecting such a tax on the
part of the king's government was illegal and tyrannical, would be
spread before the country, and would make a great impression, although
they certainly would not alter the opinion of the judges, who, holding
their offices by the king's appointment, were strongly inclined to
take his side.
It resulted as Hampden had foreseen. The trial attracted universal
attention. It was a great spectacle to see a man of fortune and of
high standing, making all those preparations, and incurring so great
expense, on account of a refusal to pay five dollars, knowing too,
that he would have to pay it in the end. The people of the realm were
convinced that Hampden was right, and they applauded and honored him
very greatly for his spirit and courage. The trial lasted twelve days.
The illegality and injustice of the tax were fully exposed. The people
concurred entirely with Hampden, and even some of the judges were
convinced. He was called the patriot Hampden, and his name will always
be celebrated in English history. The whole discussion, however,
though it produced a great effect at the time, would be of no interest
now, since it turned mainly on the question what the king's rights
actually were, according to the ancient customs and usages of the
realm. The question before mankind now is a very different one; it is
not what the powers and prerogatives of government have been in times
past, but what they ought to be now and in time to come.
The king's government gained the victory, ostensibly, in this contest,
and Hampden had to pay the money. Very large sums were collected,
also, from others by this tax, and a great fleet was raised. The
performances and exploits of the fleet had some influence in quieting
the murmurs of the people. The fleet was the greatest which England
had ever possessed. One of its exploits was to compel the Dutch to pay
a large sum for the privilege of fishing in the narrow seas about
Great Britain. The Dutch had always maintained that these seas were
public, and open to all the world; and they had a vast number of
fishing boats, called herring-busses, that used to resort to them for
the purpose of catching herring, which they made a business of
preserving and sending all over the world. The English ships attacked
these fleets of herring-busses, and drove them off; and as the Dutch
were not strong enough to defend them, they agreed to pay a large sum
annually for the right to fish in the seas in question, protesting,
however, against it as an extortion, for they maintained that the
English had no control over any seas beyond the bays and estuaries of
their own shores.
One of the chief means which Charles depended upon during the long
period that he governed without a Parliament, was a certain famous
tribunal or court called the _Star Chamber._ This court was a very
ancient one, having been established in some of the earliest reigns;
but it never attracted any special attention until the time of
Charles. His government called it into action a great deal, and
extended its powers, and made it a means of great injustice and
oppression, as the people thought; or, as Charles would have said, a
very efficient means of vindicating his prerogative, and punishing the
stubborn and rebellious.
There were three reasons why this court was a more convenient and
powerful instrument in the hands of the king and his council than any
of the other courts in the kingdom. First, it was, by its ancient
constitution, composed of members of the _council_, with the exception
of two persons, who were to be judges in the other courts. This plan
of having two judges from the common law courts seems to have been
adopted for the purpose of securing some sort of conformity of the
Star Chamber decisions with the ordinary principles of English
jurisprudence. But then, as these two law judges would always be
selected with reference to their disposition to carry out the king's
plans, and as the other members of the court were all members of the
government itself, of course the court was almost entirely under
governmental control.
The second reason was, that in this court there was no jury. There had
never been juries employed in it from its earliest constitution. The
English had contrived the plan of trial by jury as a defense against
the severity of government. If a man was accused of crime, the judges
appointed by the government that he had offended were not to be
allowed to decide whether he was guilty or not. They would be likely
not to be impartial. The question of his guilt or innocence was to be
left to twelve men, taken at hazard from the ordinary walks of life,
and who, consequently, would be likely to sympathize with the accused,
if they saw any disposition to oppress him, rather than to join
against him with a tyrannical government. Thus the jury, as they said,
was a great safeguard. The English have always attached great value to
their system of trial by jury. The plan is retained in this country,
though there is less necessity for it under our institutions. Now, in
the Star Chamber, it had never been the custom to employ a jury. The
members of the court decided the whole question; and as they were
entirely in the interest of the government, the government, of
course, had the fate of every person accused under their direct
control.
The third reason consisted in the nature of the crimes which it had
always been customary to try in this court. It had jurisdiction in a
great variety of cases in which men were brought into collision with
the government, such as charges of riot, sedition, libel, opposition
to the edicts of the council, and to proclamations of the king. These
and similar cases had always been tried by the Star Chamber, and these
were exactly the cases which ought not to be tried by such a court;
for persons accused of hostility to government ought not to be tried
by government itself.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the origin of the term
Star Chamber. The hall where the court was held was in a palace at
Westminster, and there were a great many windows in it. Some think
that it was from this that the court received its name. Others suppose
it was because the court had cognizance of a certain crime, the Latin
name of which has a close affinity with the word star. Another reason
is, that certain documents, called _starra_, used to be kept in the
hall. The prettiest idea is a sort of tradition that the ceiling of
the hall was formerly ornamented with stars, and that this
circumstance gave name to the hall. This supposition, however,
unfortunately, has no better foundation than the others; for there
were no stars on the ceiling in Charles's time, and there had not been
any for a hundred years; nor is there any positive evidence that there
ever were. However, in the absence of any real reason for preferring
one of these ideas over the other, mankind seem to have wisely
determined on choosing the most picturesque, so that it is generally
agreed that the origin of the name was the ancient decoration of the
ceiling of the hall with gilded stars.
However this may be, the court of the Star Chamber was an engine of
prodigious power in the hands of Charles's government. It aided them
in two ways. They could punish their enemies, and where these enemies
were wealthy, they could fill up the treasury of the government by
imposing enormous fines upon them. Sometimes the offenses for which
these fines were imposed were not of a nature to deserve such severe
penalties. For instance, there was a law against turning tillage land
into pasturage. Land that is tilled supports men. Land that is
pastured supports cattle and sheep. The former were a burden,
sometimes, to landlords, the latter a means of wealth. Hence there was
then, as there is now, a tendency in England, in certain parts of the
country, for the landed proprietors to change their tillage land to
pasture, and thus drive the peasants away from their homes. There were
laws against this, but a great many persons had done it
notwithstanding. One of these persons was fined four thousand pounds;
an enormous sum. The rest were alarmed, and made _compositions_, as
they were called; that is, they paid at once a certain sum on
condition of not being prosecuted. Thirty thousand pounds were
collected in this way, which was then a very large amount.
There were in those days, as there are now, certain tracts of land in
England called the king's forests, though a large portion of them are
now without trees. The boundaries of these lands had not been very
well defined, but the government now published decrees specifying the
boundaries, and extending them so far as to include, in many cases,
the buildings and improvements of other proprietors. They then
prosecuted these proprietors for having encroached, as they called
it, upon the crown lands, and the Star Chamber assessed very heavy
fines upon them. The people said all this was done merely to get
pretexts to extort money from the nation, to make up for the want of a
Parliament to assess regular taxes; but the government said it was a
just and legal mode of protecting the ancient and legitimate rights of
the king.
In these and similar modes, large sums of money were collected as
fines and penalties for offenses more or less real. In other cases
very severe punishments were inflicted for various sorts of offenses
committed against the personal dignity of the king, or the great lords
of his government. It was considered highly important to repress all
appearance of disrespect or hostility to the king. One man got into
some contention with one of the king's officers, and finally struck
him. He was fined ten thousand pounds. Another man said that a certain
archbishop had incurred the king's displeasure by desiring some
toleration for the Catholics. This was considered a slander against
the archbishop, and the offender was sentenced to be fined a thousand
pounds, to be whipped, imprisoned, and to stand in the pillory at
Westminster, and at three other places in various parts of the
kingdom.
A gentleman was following a chase as a spectator, the hounds belonging
to a nobleman. The huntsman, who had charge of the hounds, ordered him
to keep back, and not come so near the hounds; and in giving him this
order, spoke, as the gentleman alleged, so insolently, that he struck
him with his riding-whip. The huntsman threatened to complain to his
master, the nobleman. The gentleman said that if his master should
justify him in such insulting language as he had used, he would serve
him in the same manner. The Star Chamber fined him ten thousand pounds
for speaking so disrespectfully of a lord.
By these and similar proceedings, large sums of money were collected
by the Star Chamber for the king's treasury, and all expression of
discontent and dissatisfaction on the part of the people was
suppressed. This last policy, however, the suppression of expressions
of dissatisfaction, is always a very dangerous one for any government
to undertake. Discontent, silenced by force, is exasperated and
extended. The outward signs of its existence disappear, but its inward
workings become wide-spread and dangerous, just in proportion to the
weight by which the safety-valve is kept down. Charles and his court
of the Star Chamber rejoiced in the power and efficacy of their
tremendous tribunal. They issued proclamations and decrees, and
governed the country by means of them. They silenced all murmurs. But
they were, all the time, disseminating through the whole length and
breadth of the land a deep and inveterate enmity to royalty, which
ended in a revolution of the government, and the decapitation of the
king. They stopped the hissing of the steam for the time, but caused
an explosion in the end.
Charles was King of Scotland as well as of England. The two countries
were, however, as countries, distinct, each having its own laws, its
own administration, and its own separate dominions. The sovereign,
however, was the same. A king could inherit two kingdoms, just as a
man can, in this country, inherit two farms, which may, nevertheless,
be at a distance from each other, and managed separately. Now,
although Charles had, from the death of his father, exercised
sovereignty over the realm of Scotland, he had not been crowned, nor
had even visited Scotland. The people of Scotland felt somewhat
neglected. They murmured that their common monarch gave all his
attention to the sister and rival kingdom. They said that if the king
did not consider the Scottish crown worth coming after, they might,
perhaps, look out for some other way of disposing of it.
The king, accordingly, in 1633, began to make preparations for a royal
progress into Scotland. He first issued a proclamation requiring a
proper supply of provisions to be collected at the several points of
his proposed route, and specified the route, and the length of stay
which he should make in each place. He set out on the 13th of May with
a splendid retinue. He stopped at the seats of several of the nobility
on the way, to enjoy the hospitalities and entertainments which they
had prepared for him. He proceeded so slowly that it was a month
before he reached the frontier. Here all his English servants and
retinue retired from their posts, and their places were supplied by
Scotchmen who had been previously appointed, and who were awaiting his
arrival. He entered Edinburgh with great pomp and parade, all Scotland
flocking to the capital to witness the festivities. The coronation
took place three days afterward. He met the Scotch Parliament, and,
for form's sake, took a part in the proceedings, so as actually to
exercise his royal authority as King of Scotland. This being over, he
was conducted in great state back to Berwick, which is on the
frontier, and thence he returned by rapid journeys to London.
The king dissolved his last Parliament in 1629. He had now been
endeavoring for four or five years to govern alone. He succeeded
tolerably well, so far as external appearances indicated, up to this
time. There was, however, beneath the surface, a deep-seated
discontent, which was constantly widening and extending, and, soon
after the return of the king from Scotland, real difficulties
gradually arose, by which he was, in the end, compelled to call a
Parliament again. What these difficulties were will be explained in
the subsequent chapters.
CHAPTER VI.
ARCHBISHOP LAUD.
1633-1639
Archbishop Laud.--The Church.--System of the English Church.--The
Archbishop of Canterbury.--Canterbury.--The
Cathedral.--Officers.--Laud made archbishop.--His business
capacity.--Laud's character.--Episcopacy in England and the
United States.--Opposition to the Established Church.--The
Puritans.--Disputes about the services of the Church.--Controversy
about amusements on Sunday.--Laud's contention with the
judges.--Severe punishments for expression of opinion.--Case
of Lilburne.--His indomitable spirit.--The young lawyer's
toast.--Ingenious plea.--Laud's designs upon the Scotch
Church.--Motives of Laud and the king.--The Liturgy.--The
Scotch.--Laud prepares them a Liturgy.--Times of tumult.--Preaching
to an empty church.--The Scotch rebel.--The king's fool.--A
general assembly called in Scotland.--The king's expedition to the
north.--The army at York.--The oath.--The king's march.--Artifice
of the Scots.--The compromise.--The army disbanded.--The king's
difficulties.--He thinks of a Parliament.
In getting so deeply involved in difficulties with his people, King
Charles did not act alone. He had, as we have already explained, a
great deal of help. There were many men of intelligence and rank who
entertained the same opinions that he did, or who were, at least,
willing to adopt them for the sake of office and power. These men he
drew around him. He gave them office and power, and they joined him in
the efforts he made to defend and enlarge the royal prerogative, and
to carry on the government by the exercise of it. One of the most
prominent and distinguished of these men was Laud.
The reader must understand that _the Church_, in England, is very
different from any thing that exists under the same name in this
country. Its bishops and clergy are supported by revenues derived from
a vast amount of property which belongs to the Church itself. This
property is entirely independent of all control by the people of the
parishes. The clergyman, as soon as he is appointed, comes into
possession of it in his own right; and he is not appointed by the
people, but by some nobleman or high officer of state, who has
_inherited_ the right to appoint the clergyman of that particular
parish. There are bishops, also, who have very large revenues,
likewise independent; and over these bishops is one great dignitary,
who presides in lofty state over the whole system. This officer is
called the Archbishop of Canterbury. There is one other archbishop,
called the Archbishop of York; but his realm is much more limited and
less important. The Archbishop of Canterbury is styled the Lord
Primate of all England. His rank is above that of all the peers of the
realm. He crowns the kings. He has two magnificent palaces, one at
Canterbury and one at London, and has very large revenues, also, to
enable him to maintain a style of living in accordance with his rank.
He has the superintendence of all the affairs of the Church for the
whole realm, except a small portion pertaining to the archbishopric of
York. His palace in London is on the bank of the Thames, opposite
Westminster. It is called Lambeth Palace.
[Illustration: LAMBETH PALACE.]
The city of Canterbury, which is the chief seat of his dominion, is
southeast of London, not very far from the sea. The Cathedral is
there, which is the archbishop's church. It is more than five hundred
feet in length, and the tower is nearly two hundred and fifty feet
high. The magnificence of the architecture and the decorations of the
building correspond with its size. There is a large company of
clergymen and other officers attached to the service of the Cathedral.
They are more than a hundred in number. The palace of the archbishop
is near.
The Church was thus, in the days of Charles, a complete realm of
itself, with its own property, its own laws, its own legislature, and
courts, and judges, its own capital, and its own monarch. It was
entirely independent of the mass of the people in all these respects,
as all these things were wholly controlled by the bishops and clergy,
and the clergy were generally appointed by the noblemen, and the
bishops by the king. This made the system almost entirely independent
of the community at large; and as there was organized under it a vast
amount of wealth, and influence, and power, the Archbishop of
Canterbury, who presided over the whole, was as great in authority as
he was in rank and honor. Now Laud was Archbishop of Canterbury.
King Charles had made him so. He had observed that Laud, who had been
advanced to some high stations in the Church by his father, King
James, was desirous to enlarge and strengthen the powers and
prerogatives of the Church, just as he himself was endeavoring to do
in respect to those of the throne. He accordingly promoted him from
one post of influence and honor to another, until he made him at last
Archbishop of Canterbury. Thus he was placed upon the summit of
ecclesiastical grandeur and power.
He commenced his work, however, of strengthening and aggrandizing the
Church, before he was appointed to this high office. He was Bishop of
London for many years, which is a post, in some respects, second only
to that of Archbishop of Canterbury. While in this station, he was
appointed by the king to many high civil offices. He had great
capacity for the transaction of business, and for the fulfillment of
high trusts, whether of Church or state. He was a man of great
integrity and moral worth. He was stern and severe in manners but
learned and accomplished. His whole soul was bent on what he
undoubtedly considered the great duty of his life, supporting and
confirming the authority of the king and the power and influence of
English Episcopacy. Notwithstanding his high qualifications, however,
many persons were jealous of the influence which he possessed with the
king, and murmured against the appointment of a churchman to such high
offices of state.
There was another source of hostility to Laud. There was a large part
of the people of England who were against the Church of England
altogether. They did not like a system in which all power and
influence came, as it were, from above downward. The king made the
noblemen, the noblemen made the bishops, the bishops made the clergy,
and the clergy ruled their flocks; the flocks themselves having
nothing to say or do but to submit. It is very different with
Episcopacy in this country. The people here choose the clergy, and the
clergy choose the bishops, so that power in the Church, as in every
thing else here, goes from below upward. The two systems, when at
rest, look very similar in the two countries; but when in action, the
current of life flows in contrary directions, making the two
diametrically opposite to each other in spirit and power. In England,
Episcopacy is an engine by which the people are ecclesiastically
governed. Here, it is the machinery by which they govern. Thus, though
the forms appear similar, the action is very diverse.
Now in England there was a large and increasing party that hated and
opposed the whole Episcopal system. Laud, to counteract this tendency,
attempted to define, and enlarge, and extend that system as far as
possible. He made the most of all the ceremonies of worship, and
introduced others, which were, indeed, not exactly new, but rather
ancient ones revived. He did this conscientiously, no doubt, thinking
that these forms of devotion were adapted to impress the soul of the
worshiper, and lead him to feel, in his heart, the reverence which his
outward action expressed. Many of the people, however, bitterly
opposed these things. They considered it a return to popery. The more
that Laud, and those who acted with him, attempted to magnify the
rites and the powers of the Church, the more these persons began to
abhor every thing of the kind. They wanted Christianity itself, _in
its purity_, uncontaminated, as they said, by these popish and
idolatrous forms. They were called _Puritans_.
There were a great many things which seem to us at the present day of
very little consequence, which were then the subjects of endless
disputes and of the most bitter animosity. For instance, one point was
whether the place where the communion was to be administered should be
called the communion table or the altar; and in what part of the
church it should stand; and whether the person officiating should be
called a priest or a clergyman; and whether he should wear one kind of
dress or another. Great importance was attached to these things; but
it was not on their own account, but on account of their bearing on
the question whether the Lord's Supper was to be considered only a
ceremony commemorative of Christ's death, or whether it was, whenever
celebrated by a regularly authorized priest, _a real renewal_ of the
sacrifice of Christ, as the Catholics maintained. Calling the
communion table an altar, and the officiating minister a priest, and
clothing him in a sacerdotal garb, countenanced the idea of a renewal
of the sacrifice of Christ. Laud and his co-adjutors urged the adoption
of all these and similar usages. The Puritans detested them, because
they detested and abhorred the doctrine which they seemed to imply.
Another great topic of controversy was the subject of amusements. It
is a very singular circumstance, that in those branches of the
Christian Church where rites and forms are most insisted upon, the
greatest latitude is allowed in respect to the gayeties and amusements
of social life. Catholic Paris is filled with theaters and dancing,
and the Sabbath is a holiday. In London, on the other hand, the number
of theaters is small, dancing is considered as an amusement of a more
or less equivocal character, and the Sabbath is rigidly observed; and
among all the simple Democratic churches of New England, to dance or
to attend the theater is considered almost morally wrong. It was just
so in the days of Laud. He wished to encourage amusements among the
people, particularly on Sunday, after church. This was partly for the
purpose of counteracting the efforts of those who were inclined to
Puritan views. They attached great importance to their sermons and
lectures, for in them they could address and influence the people. But
by means of these addresses, as Laud thought, they put ideas of
insubordination into the minds of the people, and encroached on the
authority of the Church and of the king. To prevent this, the
High-Church party wished to exalt the _prayers_ in the Church service,
and to give as little place and influence as possible to the sermon,
and to draw off the attention of the people from the discussions and
exhortations of the preachers by encouraging games, dances, and
amusements of all kinds.
The judges in one of the counties, at a regular court held by them,
once passed an order forbidding certain revels and carousals connected
with the Church service, on account of the immoralities and disorders,
as they alleged, to which they gave rise; and they ordered that public
notice to this effect should be given by the bishop. The archbishop,
Laud, considered this an interference on the part of the civil
magistrates, with the powers and prerogatives of the Church. He had
the judges brought before the council, and censured there; and they
were required by the council to revoke their order at the next court.
The judges did so, but in such a way as to show that they did it
simply in obedience to the command of the king's council. The people,
or at least all of them who were inclined to Puritan views, sided
with the judges, and were more strict in abstaining from all such
amusements on Sunday than ever. This, of course, made those who were
on the side of Laud more determined to promote these gayeties. Thus,
as neither party pursued, in the least degree, a generous or
conciliatory course toward the other, the difference between them
widened more and more. The people of the country were fast becoming
either bigoted High-Churchmen or fanatical Puritans.
Laud employed the power of the Star Chamber a great deal in the
accomplishment of his purpose of enforcing entire submission to the
ecclesiastical authority of the Church. He even had persons sometimes
punished very severely for words of disrespect, or for writings in
which they censured what they considered the tyranny under which they
suffered. This severe punishment for the mere expression of opinion
only served to fix the opinion more firmly, and disseminate it more
widely. Sometimes men would glory in their sufferings for this cause,
and bid the authorities defiance.
One man, for instance, named Lilburne, was brought before the Star
Chamber, charged with publishing seditious pamphlets. Now, in all
ordinary courts of justice, no man is called upon to say any thing
against himself. Unless his crime can be proved by the testimony of
others, it can not be proved at all. But in the Star Chamber, whoever
was brought to trial had to take an oath at first that he would answer
all questions asked, even if they tended to criminate himself. When
they proposed this oath to Lilburne, he refused to take it. They
decided that this was contempt of court, and sentenced him to be
whipped, put in the pillory, and imprisoned. While they were whipping
him, he spent the time in making a speech to the spectators against
the tyranny of bishops, referring to Laud, whom he considered as the
author of these proceedings. He continued to do the same while in the
pillory. As he passed along, too, he distributed copies of the
pamphlets which he was prosecuted for writing. The Star Chamber,
hearing that he was haranguing the mob, ordered him to be gagged. This
did not subdue him. He began to stamp with his foot and gesticulate;
thus continuing to express his indomitable spirit of hostility to the
tyranny which he opposed. This single case would be of no great
consequence alone, but it was not alone. The attempt to put Lilburne
down was a symbol of the experiment of coercion which Charles in the
state, and Laud in the Church, were trying upon the whole nation; it
was a symbol both in respect to the means employed, and to the success
attained by them.
One curious case is related, which turned out more fortunately than
usual for the parties accused. Some young lawyers in London were
drinking at an evening entertainment, and among other toasts they
drank confusion to the Archbishop of Canterbury. One of the waiters,
who heard them, mentioned the circumstance, and they were brought
before the Star Chamber. Before their trial came on, they applied to a
certain nobleman to know what they should do. "Where was the waiter,"
asked the nobleman, "when you drank the toast?" "At the door." "Oh!
very well, then," said he; "tell the court that he only heard a part
of the toast, as he was going out; and that the words really were,
'Confusion to the Archbishop of Canterbury's enemies.'" By this
ingenious plea, and by means of a great appearance of humility and
deference in the presence of the archbishop, the lawyers escaped with
a reprimand.
Laud was not content with establishing and confirming throughout all
England the authority of the Church, but attempted to extend the same
system to Scotland. When King Charles went to Scotland to be crowned,
he took Laud with him. He was pleased with Laud's endeavors to enlarge
and confirm the powers of the Church, and wished to aid him in the
work. There were two reasons for this. One was, that the same class of
men, the Puritans, were the natural enemies of both, so that the king
and the archbishop were drawn together by having one common foe. Then,
as the places in the Church were not hereditary, but were filled by
appointments from the king and the great nobles, whatever power the
Church could get into its hands could be employed by the king to
strengthen his own authority, and keep his subjects in subjection.
We must not, however, censure the king and his advisers too strongly
for this plan. They doubtless were ambitious; they loved power; they
wished to bear sway, unresisted and unquestioned, over the whole
realm. But then the king probably thought that the exercise of such a
government was necessary for the order and prosperity of the realm,
besides being his inherent and indefeasible right. Good and bad
motives were doubtless mingled here, as in all human action; but then
the king was, in the main, doing what he supposed it was his duty to
do. In proposing, therefore, to build up the Church in Scotland, and
to make it conform to the English Church in its rites and ceremonies,
he and Laud doubtless supposed that they were going greatly to improve
the government of the sister kingdom.
There was in those days, as now, in the English Church, a certain
prescribed course of prayers, and psalms, and Scripture lessons, for
each day, to be read from a book by the minister. This was called the
Liturgy. The Puritans did not like a Liturgy. It tied men up, and did
not leave the individual mind of the preacher at liberty to range
freely, as they wished it to do, in conducting the devotional
services. It was on this very account that the friends of strong
government _did_ like it. They wished to curtail this liberty, which,
however, they called license, and which they thought made mischief. In
extemporaneous prayers, it is often easy to see that the speaker is
aiming much more directly at producing a salutary effect on the minds
of his hearers than at simply presenting petitions to the Supreme
Being. But, notwithstanding this evil, the existence of which no
candid man can deny, the enemies of forms, who are generally friends
of the largest liberty, think it best to leave the clergyman free. The
friends of forms, however, prefer forms on this very account. They
like what they consider the wholesome and salutary restraints which
they impose.
Now there has always been a great spirit of freedom in the Scottish
mind. That people have ever been unwilling to submit to coercion or
restraints. There is probably no race of men on earth that would make
worse slaves than the Scotch. Their sturdy independence and
determination to be free could never be subdued. In the days of
Charles they were particularly fond of freely exercising their own
minds, and of speaking freely to others on the subject of religion.
They thought for themselves, sometimes right and sometimes wrong; but
they would think, and they would express their thoughts; and their
being thus unaccustomed, in one particular, to submit to restraints,
rendered them more difficult to be governed in others. Laud thought,
consequently, that _they_, particularly, needed a Liturgy. He prepared
one for them. It was varied somewhat from the English Liturgy, though
it was substantially the same. The king proclaimed it, and required
the bishops to see that it was employed in all the churches in
Scotland.
The day for introducing the Liturgy was the signal for riots all over
the kingdom. In the principal church in Edinburgh they called out "_A
pope! A pope!_" when the clergyman came in with his book and his
pontifical robes. The bishop ascended the pulpit to address the people
to appease them, and a stool came flying through the air at his head.
The police then expelled the congregation, and the clergyman went
through with the service of the Liturgy in the empty church, the
congregation outside, in great tumult, accompanying the exercises with
cries of disapprobation and resentment, and with volleys of stones
against the doors and windows.
The Scotch sent a sort of embassador to London to represent to the
king that the hostility to the Liturgy was so universal and so strong
that it could not be enforced. But the king and his council had the
same conscientious scruples about giving up in a contest with
subjects, that a teacher or a parent, in our day, would feel in the
case of resistance from children or scholars. The king sent down a
proclamation that the observance of the Liturgy must be insisted on.
The Scotch prepared to resist. They sent delegates to Edinburgh, and
organized a sort of government. They raised armies. They took
possession of the king's castles. They made a solemn covenant, binding
themselves to insist on religious freedom. In a word, all Scotland was
in rebellion.
It was the custom in those days to have, connected with the court,
some half-witted person, who used to be fantastically dressed, and to
have great liberty of speech, and whose province was to amuse the
courtiers. He was called the _king's jester_, or, more commonly, _the
fool_. The name of King Charles's fool was Archy. After this rebellion
broke out, and all England was aghast at the extent of the mischief
which Laud's Liturgy had done, the fool, seeing the archbishop go by
one day, called out to him, "My lord! who is the fool now!" The
archbishop, as if to leave no possible doubt in respect to the proper
answer to the question, had poor Archy tried and punished. His
sentence was to have his coat pulled up over his head, and to be
dismissed from the king's service. If Laud had let the affair pass,
it would have ended with a laugh in the street; but by resenting it,
he gave it notoriety, caused it to be recorded, and has perpetuated
the memory of the jest to all future times. He ought to have joined in
the laugh, and rewarded Archy on the spot for so good a witticism.
The Scotch, besides organizing a sort of civil government, took
measures for summoning a general assembly of their Church. This
assembly met at Glasgow. The nobility and gentry flocked to Glasgow at
the time of the meeting, to encourage and sustain the assembly, and to
manifest their interest in the proceedings. The assembly very
deliberately went to work, and, not content with taking a stand
against the Liturgy which Charles had imposed, they abolished the
fabric of Episcopacy--that is, the government of bishops--altogether.
Thus Laud's attempt to perfect and confirm the system resulted in
expelling it completely from the kingdom. It has never held up its
head in Scotland since. They established Presbyterianism in its place,
which is a sort of republican system, the pastors being all officially
equal to each other, though banded together under a common government
administered by themselves.
The king was determined to put down this rebellion at all hazards. He
had made such good use of the various irregular modes of raising money
which have been already described, and had been so economical in the
use of it, that he had now quite a sum of money in his treasury; and
had it not been for the attempt to enforce the unfortunate Liturgy
upon the people of Scotland, he might, perhaps, have gone on reigning
without a Parliament to the end of his days. He had now about two
hundred thousand pounds, by means of which, together with what he
could borrow, he hoped to make one single demonstration of force which
would bring the rebellion to an end. He raised an army and equipped a
fleet. He issued a proclamation summoning all the peers of the realm
to attend him. He moved with this great concourse from London toward
the north, the whole country looking on as spectators to behold the
progress of this great expedition, by which their monarch was going to
attempt to subdue again his _other_ kingdom.
Charles advanced to the city of York, the great city of the north of
England. Here he paused and established his court, with all possible
pomp and parade. His design was to impress the Scots with such an
idea of the greatness of the power which was coming to overwhelm them
as to cause them to submit at once. But all this show was very hollow
and delusive. The army felt a greater sympathy with the Scots than
they did with the king. The complaints against Charles's government
were pretty much the same in both countries. A great many Scotchmen
came to York while the king was there, and the people from all the
country round flocked thither too, drawn by the gay spectacles
connected with the presence of such a court and army. The Scotchmen
disseminated their complaints thus among the English people, and
finally the king and his council, finding indications of so extensive
a disaffection, had a form of an oath prepared, which they required
all the principal persons to take, acknowledging allegiance to
Charles, and denying that they had any intelligence or correspondence
with the enemy. The Scotchmen all took the oath very readily, though
some of the English refused.
At any rate, the state of things was not such as to intimidate the
Scotch, and lead them, as the king had hoped, to sue for peace. So he
concluded to move on toward the borders. He went to Newcastle, and
thence to Berwick. From Berwick he moved along the banks of the Tweed,
which here forms the boundary between the two kingdoms, and, finding a
suitable place for such a purpose, the king had his royal tent
pitched, and his army encamped around him.
Now, as King Charles had undertaken to subdue the Scots by a show of
force, it seems they concluded to defend themselves by a show too,
though theirs was a cheaper and more simple contrivance than his. They
advanced with about three thousand men to a place distant perhaps
seven miles from the English camp. The king sent an army of five
thousand men to attack them. The Scotch, in the mean time, collected
great herds of cattle from all the country around, as the historians
say, and arranged them behind their little army in such a way as to
make the whole appear a vast body of soldiers. A troop of horsemen,
who were the advanced part of the English army, came in sight of this
formidable host first, and, finding their numbers so much greater than
they had anticipated, they fell back, and ordered the artillery and
foot-soldiers who were coming up to retreat, and all together came
back to the encampment. There were two or three military enterprises
of similar character, in which nothing was done but to encourage the
Scotch and dishearten the English. In fact, neither officers,
soldiers, nor king wished to proceed to extremities. The officers and
soldiers did not wish to fight the Scotch, and the king, knowing the
state of his army, did not really dare to do it.
Finally, all the king's council advised him to give up the pretended
contest, and to settle the difficulty by a compromise. Accordingly, in
June, negotiations were commenced, and before the end of the month
articles were signed. The king probably made the best terms he could,
but it was universally considered that the Scots gained the victory.
The king disbanded his army, and returned to London. The Scotch
leaders went back to Edinburgh. Soon after this the Parliament and the
General Assembly of the Church convened, and these bodies took the
whole management of the realm into their own hands. They sent
commissioners to London to see and confer with the king, and these
commissioners seemed almost to assume the character of embassadors
from a foreign state. These negotiations, and the course which affairs
were taking in Scotland, soon led to new difficulties. The king found
that he was losing his kingdom of Scotland altogether. It seemed,
however, as if there was nothing that he could do to regain it. His
reserved funds were gone, and his credit was exhausted. There was no
resource left but to call a Parliament and ask for supplies. He might
have known, however, that this would be useless, for there was so
strong a fellow-feeling with the Scotch in their alleged grievances
among the people of England, that he could not reasonably expect any
response from the latter, in whatever way he might appeal to them.
CHAPTER VII.
THE EARL OF STRAFFORD.
1621-1640
The Earl of Strafford.--His early life.--Strafford's course in
Parliament.--His opposition to the king.--The leaders removed.--The
opposition still continues.--Wentworth imprisoned.--His return
to Parliament.--Wentworth is courted.--He goes over to the king.--The
king appoints Wentworth to office.--Wentworth is appointed President
of the North.--Wentworth appointed to the government of
Ireland.--Wentworth's arbitrary government.--He is made an
earl.--Difficulties.--Laud's administration of his office.--Defense
of Episcopacy.--Progress of non-conformity.--A Parliament
called.--Strafford appointed commander-in-chief.--Meeting of
Parliament.--The king's speech.--Address of the lord
keeper.--Grievances.--Messages.--Parliament dissolved.--The Scots
cross the borders and invade England.--March of the Scots.--The king
goes to York.--Defeat of the English.--Perplexities and dangers.--The
king calls a council of peers.--Message from the Scots.--The king
compromises with the Scots.--Opposition of Strafford.--Strafford
desires to return to Ireland.--The king's promised protection.
During the time that the king had been engaged in the attempt to
govern England without Parliaments, he had, besides Laud, a very
efficient co-operator, known in English history by the name of the
Earl of Strafford. This title of Earl of Strafford was conferred upon
him by the king as a reward for his services. His father's name was
Wentworth. He was born in London, and the Christian name given to him
was Thomas. He was educated at the University of Cambridge, and was
much distinguished for his talents and his personal accomplishments.
After finishing his education, he traveled for some time on the
Continent, visiting foreign cities and courts, and studying the
languages, manners, and customs of other nations. He returned at
length to England. He was made a knight. His father died when he was
about twenty-one, and left him a large fortune. He was about seven
years older than King Charles, so that all these circumstances took
place before the commencement of Charles's reign. For many years after
this he was very extensively known in England as a gentleman of large
fortune and great abilities, by the name of Sir Thomas Wentworth.
Sir Thomas Wentworth was a member of Parliament in those days, and in
the contests between the king and the Parliament he took the side of
Parliament. Charles used to maintain that _his_ power alone was
hereditary and sovereign; that the Parliament was his council; and
that they had no powers or privileges except what he himself or his
ancestors had granted and allowed them. Wentworth took very strong
ground against this. He urged Parliament to maintain that their rights
and privileges were inherent and hereditary as well as those of the
king; that such powers as they possessed were their own, and were
entirely independent of royal grant or permission; and that the king
could no more encroach upon the privileges of Parliament, than
Parliament upon the prerogatives of the king. This was in the
beginning of the difficulties between the king and the Commons.
It will, perhaps, be recollected by the reader, that one of the plans
which Charles adopted to weaken the opposition to him in Parliament
was by appointing six of the leaders of this opposition to the office
of sheriff in their several counties. And as the general theory of all
monarchies is that the subjects are bound to obey and serve the king,
these men were obliged to leave their seats in Parliament and go home,
to serve as sheriffs. Charles and his council supposed that the rest
would be more quiet and submissive when the leaders of the party
opposed to him were taken away. But the effect was the reverse. The
Commons were incensed at such a mode of interfering with their action,
and became more hostile to the royal power than ever.
Wentworth himself, too, was made more determined in his opposition by
this treatment. A short time after this, the king's plan of a forced
loan was adopted, which has already been described; that is, a sum of
money was assessed in the manner of a tax upon all the people of the
kingdom, and each man was required to lend his proportion to the
government. The king admitted that he had no right to make people
_give_ money without the action of Parliament, but claimed the right
to require them to _lend_ it. As Sir Thomas Wentworth was a man of
large fortune, his share of the loan was considerable. He absolutely
refused to pay it. The king then brought him before a court which was
entirely under royal control, and he was condemned to be imprisoned.
Knowing, however, that this claim on the part of the king was very
doubtful, they mitigated the punishment by allowing him first a range
of two miles around his place of confinement, and afterward they
released him entirely.
He was chosen a member of Parliament again, and he returned to his
seat more powerful and influential than ever. Buckingham, who had been
his greatest enemy, was now dead, and the king, finding that he had
great abilities and a spirit that would not yield to intimidation or
force, concluded to try kindness and favors.
In fact, there are two different modes by which sovereigns in all ages
and countries endeavor to neutralize the opposition of popular
leaders. One is by intimidating them with threats and punishments, and
the other buying them off with appointments and honors. Some of the
king's high officers of state began to cultivate the acquaintance of
Wentworth, and to pay him attentions and civilities. He could not but
feel gratified with these indications of their regard. They
complimented his talents and his powers, and represented to him that
such abilities ought to be employed in the service of the state.
Finally, the king conferred upon him the title of baron. Common
gratitude for these marks of distinction and honor held him back from
any violent opposition to the king. His enemies said he was bought off
by honors and rewards. No doubt he was ambitious, and, like all other
politicians, his supreme motive was love of consideration and honor.
This was doubtless his motive in what he had done in behalf of the
Parliament. But all that he could do as a popular leader in Parliament
was to acquire a general ascendency over men's minds, and make himself
a subject of fame and honor. All places of real authority were
exclusively under the king's control, and he could only rise to such
stations through the sovereign's favor. In a word, he could acquire
only _influence_ as a leader in Parliament, while the king could give
him _power_.
Kings can exercise, accordingly, a great control over the minds of
legislators by offering them office; and King Charles, after finding
that his first advances to Wentworth were favorably received,
appointed him one of his Privy Council. Wentworth accepted the office.
His former friends considered that in doing this he was deserting
them, and betraying the cause which he had at first espoused and
defended. The country at large were much displeased with him, finding
that he had forsaken their cause, and placed himself in a position to
act against them.
Persons who change sides in politics or in religion are very apt to go
from one extreme to another. Their former friends revile them, and
they, in retaliation, act more and more energetically against them. It
was so with Strafford. He gradually engaged more and more fully and
earnestly in upholding the king. Finally, the king appointed him to a
very high station, called the Presidency of the North. His office was
to govern the whole north of England--of course, under the direction
of the king and council. There were four counties under his
jurisdiction, and the king gave him a commission which clothed him
with enormous powers--powers greater, as all the people thought, than
the king had any right to bestow.
Strafford proceeded to the north, and entered upon the government of
his realm there, with a determination to carry out all the king's
plans to the utmost. From being an ardent advocate of the rights of
the people, as he was at the commencement of his career, he became a
most determined and uncompromising supporter of the arbitrary power of
the king. He insisted on the collection of money from the people, in
all the ways that the king claimed the power to collect it by
authority of his prerogative; and he was so strict and exacting in
doing this, that he raised the revenue to four or five times what any
of his predecessors had been able to collect. This, of course, pleased
King Charles and his government extremely; for it was at a time during
which the king was attempting to govern without a Parliament, and
every accession to his funds was of extreme importance. Laud, too, the
archbishop, was highly gratified with his exertions and his success,
and the king looked upon Laud and Wentworth as the two most efficient
supporters of his power. They were, in fact, the two most efficient
promoters of his destruction.
Of course, the people of the north hated him. While he was earning the
applause of the archbishop and the king, and entitling himself to new
honors and increased power, he was sewing the seeds of the bitterest
animosity in the hearts of the people every where. Still he enjoyed
all the external marks of consideration and honor. The President of
the North was a sort of king. He was clothed with great powers, and
lived in great state and splendor. He had many attendants, and the
great nobles of the land, who generally took Charles's side in the
contests of the day, envied Wentworth's greatness and power, and
applauded the energy and success of his administration.
Ireland was, at this time, in a disturbed and disordered state, and
Laud proposed that Wentworth should be appointed by the king to the
government of it. A great proportion of the inhabitants were
Catholics, and were very little disposed to submit to Protestant rule.
Wentworth was appointed lord deputy, and afterward lord lieutenant,
which made him king of Ireland in all but the name. Every thing, of
course, was done in the name of Charles. He carried the same energy
into his government here that he had exhibited in the north of
England. He improved the condition of the country astonishingly in
respect to trade, to revenue, and to public order. But he governed in
the most arbitrary manner, and he boasted that he had rendered the
king as absolute a sovereign in Ireland as any prince in the world
could be. Such a boast from a man who had once been a very prominent
defender of the rights of the people against this very kind of
sovereignty, was fitted to produce a feeling of universal exasperation
and desire of revenge. The murmurs and muttered threats which filled
the land, though suppressed, were very deep and very strong.
The king, however, and Laud, considered Wentworth as their most able
and efficient co-adjutor; and when the difficulties in Scotland began
to grow serious, they recalled him from Ireland, and put that country
into the hands of another ruler. The king then advanced him to the
rank of an earl. His title was the Earl of Strafford. As the
subsequent parts of his history attracted more attention than those
preceding his elevation to this earldom, he has been far more widely
known among mankind by the name of Strafford than by his original name
of Wentworth, which was, from this period, nearly forgotten.
To return now to the troubles in Scotland. The king found that it
would be impossible to go on without supplies, and he accordingly
concluded, on the whole, to call a Parliament. He was in serious
trouble. Laud was in serious trouble too. He had been indefatigably
engaged for many years in establishing Episcopacy all over England,
and in putting down, by force of law, all disposition to dissent from
it; and in attempting to produce, throughout the realm, one uniform
system of Christian faith and worship. This was his idea of the
perfection of religious order and right. He used to make an annual
visitation to all the bishoprics in the realm; inquire into the usages
which prevailed there; put a stop, so far as he could, to all
irregularities; and confirm and establish, by the most decisive
measures, the Episcopal authority. He sent in his report to the king
of the results of his inquiries, asking the king's aid, where his own
powers were insufficient, for the more full accomplishment of his
plans. But, notwithstanding all this diligence and zeal, he found that
he met with very partial success. The irregularities, as he called
them, which he suppressed in one place, would break out in another;
the disposition to throw off the dominion of bishops was getting more
and more extensive and deeply seated; and now, the result of the
religious revolution in Scotland, and of the general excitement which
it produced in England, was to widen and extend this feeling more than
ever.
He did not, however, give up the contest, He employed an able writer
to draw up a defense of Episcopacy, as the true and scriptural form of
Church government. The book, when first prepared, was moderate in its
tone, and allowed that in some particular cases a Presbyterian mode of
government might be admissible; but Laud, in revising the book, struck
out these concessions as unnecessary and dangerous, and placed
Episcopacy in full and exclusive possession of the ground, as the
divinely instituted and only admissible form of Church government and
discipline. He caused this book to be circulated; but the attempt to
reason with the refractory, after having failed in the attempt to
coerce them, is not generally very successful. The archbishop, in his
report to the king this year of the state of things throughout his
province, represents the spirit of non-conformity to the Church of
England as getting too strong for him to control without more
efficient help from the civil power; but whether it would be wise, he
added, to undertake any more effectual coercion in the present
distracted state of the kingdom, he left it for the king to decide.
Laud proposed that the council should recommend to the king the
calling of a Parliament. At the same time, they passed a resolution
that, in case the Parliament "should prove peevish, and refuse to
grant supplies, they would sustain the king in the resort to
extraordinary measures." This was regarded as a threat, and did not
help to prepossess the members favorably in regard to the feeling with
which the king was to meet them. The king ordered the Parliament to be
elected in December, but did not call them together until April. In
the mean time, he went on raising an army, so as to have his military
preparations in readiness. He, however, appointed a new set of
officers to the command of this army, neglecting those who were in
command before, as he had found them so little disposed to act
efficiently in his cause. He supplied the leader's place with
Strafford. This change produced very extensive murmurs of
dissatisfaction, which, added to all the other causes of complaint,
made the times look very dark and stormy.
The Parliament assembled in April. The king went into the House of
Lords, the Commons being, as usual, summoned to the bar. He addressed
them as follows:
"My Lords and gentlemen,--There was never a King who had a more
great and weighty Cause to call his People together than myself. I
will not trouble you with the particulars. I have informed my lord
keeper, and now command him to speak, and I desire your
Attention."
The keeper referred to was the keeper of the king's seals, who was, of
course, a great officer of state. He made a speech, informing the
houses, in general terms, of the king's need of money, but said that
it was not necessary for him to explain minutely the monarch's plans,
as they were exclusively his own concern. We may as well quote his
words, in order to show in what light the position and province of a
British Parliament was considered in those days.
"His majesty's kingly resolutions," said the lord keeper, "are
seated in the ark of his sacred breast, and it were a presumption
of too high a nature for any Uzzah uncalled to touch it. Yet his
Majesty is now pleased to lay by the shining Beams of Majesty, as
Phoebus did to Phaeton, that the distance between Sovereignty and
Subjection should not bar you of that filial freedom of Access to
his Person and Counsels; only let us beware how, with the Son of
Clymene, we aim not at the guiding of the Chariot, as if that were
the only Testimony of Fatherly Affection; and let us remember,
that though the King sometimes lays by the Beams and Rays of
Majesty, he never lays by Majesty itself."
When the keeper had finished his speech, the king confirmed it by
saying that he had exaggerated nothing, and the houses were left to
their deliberations. Instead of proceeding to the business of raising
money, they commenced an inquiry into the grievances, as they called
them--that is, all the unjust acts and the maladministration of the
government, of which the country had been complaining for the ten
years during which there had been an intermission of Parliaments. The
king did all in his power to arrest this course of procedure. He sent
them message after message, urging them to leave these things, and
take up first the question of supplies. He then sent a message to the
House of Peers, requesting them to interpose and exert their influence
to lead the Commons to act. The Peers did so. The Commons sent them
back a reply that their interference in the business of supply, which
belonged to the Commons alone, was a breach of their privileges.
"And," they added, "therefore, the Commons desire their lordships in
their wisdom to find out some way for the reparation of their
privileges broken by that act, and to prevent the like infringement in
future."
Thus repulsed on every hand, the king gave up the hope of
accomplishing any thing through the action of the House of Commons,
and he suddenly determined to dissolve Parliament. The session had
continued only about three weeks. In dissolving the Parliament the
king took no notice of the Commons whatever, but addressed the Lords
alone. The Commons and the whole country were incensed at such
capricious treatment of the national Legislature.
The king and his council tried all summer to get the army ready to be
put in motion. The great difficulty, of course, was want of funds.
The _Convocation_, which was the great council of the Church, and
which was accustomed in those days to sit simultaneously with
Parliament, continued their session afterward in this case, and raised
some money for the king. The nobles of the court subscribed a
considerable amount, also, which they lent him. They wished to sustain
him in his contest with the Commons on their own account, and then,
besides, they felt a personal interest in him, and a sympathy for him
in the troubles which were thickening around him.
The summer months passed away in making the preparations and getting
the various bodies of troops ready, and the military stores collected
at the place of rendezvous in York and Newcastle. The Scots, in the
mean time, had been assembling their forces near the borders, and,
being somewhat imboldened by their success in the previous campaign,
crossed the frontier, and advanced boldly to meet the forces of the
king.
They published a manifesto, declaring that they were not entering
England with any hostile intent toward their sovereign, but were only
coming to present to him their humble petitions for a redress of their
grievances, which they said they were sure he would graciously
receive as soon as he had opportunity to learn from them how great
their grievances had been. They respectfully requested that the people
of England would allow them to pass safely and without molestation
through the land, and promised to conduct themselves with the utmost
propriety and decorum. This promise they kept. They avoided molesting
the inhabitants in any way, and purchased fairly every thing they
consumed. When the English officers learned that the Scotch had
crossed the Tweed, they sent on immediately to London, to the king,
urging him to come north at once, and join the army, with all the
remaining forces at his command. The king did so, but it was too late.
He arrived at York; from York he went northward to reach the van of
his army, which had been posted at Newcastle, but on his way he was
met by messengers saying that they were in full retreat, and that the
Scotch had got possession of Newcastle.
The circumstances of the battle were these. Newcastle is upon the
Tyne. The banks at Newcastle are steep and high, but about four miles
above the town is a place called Newburn, where was a meadow near the
river, and a convenient place to cross. The Scotch advanced in a very
slow and orderly manner to Newburn, and encamped there. The English
sent a detachment from Newcastle to arrest their progress. The Scotch
begged them not to interrupt their march, as they were only going to
_present petitions to the king_! The English general, of course, paid
no attention to this pretext. The Scotch army then attacked them and
soon put them to flight. The routed English soldiers fled to
Newcastle, and were there joined by all that portion of the army which
was in Newcastle, in a rapid retreat. The Scotch took possession of
the town, but conducted themselves in a very orderly manner, and
bought and paid for every thing they used.
The poor king was now in a situation of the most imminent and terrible
danger. Rebel subjects were in full possession of one kingdom, and
were now advancing at the head of victorious armies into the other. He
himself had entirely alienated the affections of a large portion of
his subjects, and had openly quarreled with and dismissed the
Legislature. He had no funds, and had exhausted all possible means of
raising funds. He was half distracted with the perplexities and
dangers of his position.
His deciding on dissolving Parliament in the spring was a hasty step,
and he bitterly regretted it the moment the deed was done. He wished
to recall it. He deliberated several days about the possibility of
summoning the same members to meet again, and constituting them again
a Parliament. But the lawyers insisted that this could not be done. A
dissolution was a dissolution. The Parliament, once dissolved, was no
more. It could not be brought to life again. There must be new orders
to the country to proceed to new elections. To do this at once would
have been too humiliating for the king. He now found, however, that
the necessity for it could no longer be postponed. There was such a
thing in the English history as a council of peers alone, called in a
sudden emergency which did not allow of time for the elections
necessary to constitute the House of Commons. Charles called such a
council of peers to meet at York, and they immediately assembled.
In the mean time the Scotch sent embassadors to York, saying to the
king that they were advancing to lay their grievances before him! They
expressed great sorrow and regret at the victory which they had been
compelled to gain over some forces that had attempted to prevent them
from getting access to their sovereign. The king laid this
communication before the lords, and asked their advice what to do; and
also asked them to counsel him how he should provide funds to keep his
army together until a Parliament could be convened. The lords advised
him to appoint commissioners to meet the Scotch, and endeavor to
compromise the difficulties; and to send to the city of London, asking
that corporation to lend him a small sum until Parliament could be
assembled.
This advice was followed. A temporary treaty was made with the rebels,
although making a treaty with rebels is perhaps the most humiliating
thing that a hereditary sovereign is ever compelled to do. The Earl of
Strafford was, however, entirely opposed to this policy. He urged the
king most earnestly not to give up the contest without a more decisive
struggle. He represented to him the danger of beginning to yield to
the torrent which he now began to see would overwhelm them all if it
was allowed to have its way. He tried to persuade the king that the
Scots might yet be driven back, and that it would be possible to get
along without a Parliament. He dreaded a Parliament. The king,
however, and his other advisers, thought that they must yield a little
to the storm. Strafford then wanted to be allowed to return to his
post in Ireland, where he thought that he should probably be safe from
the terrible enmity which he must have known that he had awakened in
England, and which he thought a Parliament would concentrate and bring
upon his devoted head. But the king would not consent to this. He
assured Strafford that if a Parliament should assemble, he would take
care that they should not hurt a hair of his head. Unfortunate
monarch! How little he foresaw that that very Parliament, from whose
violence he thus promised to defend his favorite servant so completely
as to insure him from the slightest injury, would begin by taking off
his favorite's head, and end with taking off his own!
CHAPTER VIII.
DOWNFALL OF STRAFFORD AND LAUD
1640-1641
Opening of the new Parliament.--The king's speech.--Attacks on
Strafford and Laud.--Speeches against them.--Feelings of
hostility.--Bill of attainder.--Mode of proceeding.--The
trial.--Proceedings against Strafford.--Arrest of Strafford.--Usher of
the black rod.--Laud threatened with violence.--Arrest of Laud on the
charge of treason.--Laud's speech.--His confinement.--Trial of
Strafford.--Unjust conduct of the Commons.--Arrangements at
Westminster Hall.--Charges.--Imposing scene.--Strafford's able and
eloquent defense.--The charge of treason a mere pretext.--Vote on the
bill of attainder.--Interposition of the king.--Clamor of the
populace.--Condemnation.--The king hesitates about signing the
bill.--The Tower.--Strafford's letter to the king.--The king signs the
bill.--Strafford's surprise.--The king asks mercy for
Strafford.--Mercy refused.--Strafford's message to Laud.--Composure of
Strafford.--His execution.--Execution of Laud.--His firmness.
The Parliament assembled in November, 1640. The king proceeded to
London to attend it. He left Strafford in command of the army at York.
Active hostilities had been suspended, as a sort of temporary truce
had been concluded with the Scots, to prepare the way for a final
treaty. Strafford had been entirely opposed to this, being still full
of energy and courage. The king, however, began to feel alarmed. He
went to London to meet the Parliament which he had summoned, but he
was prepared to meet them in a very different spirit from that which
he had manifested on former occasions. He even gave up all the
external circumstances of pomp and parade with which the opening of
Parliament had usually been attended. He had been accustomed to go to
the House of Lords in state, with a numerous retinue and great parade.
Now he was conveyed from his palace along the river in a barge, in a
quiet and unostentatious manner. His opening speech, too, was
moderate and conciliatory. In a word, it was pretty evident to the
Commons that the proud and haughty spirit of their royal master was
beginning to be pretty effectually humbled.
Of course, now, in proportion as the king should falter, the Commons
would grow bold. The House immediately began to attack Laud and
Strafford in their speeches. It is the theory of the British
Constitution that the king can do no wrong; whatever criminality at
any time attaches to the acts of his administration, belongs to his
_advisers_, not to himself. The speakers condemned, in most decided
terms, the arbitrary and tyrannical course which the government had
pursued during the intermission of Parliaments, but charged it all,
not to the king, but to Strafford and Laud. Strafford had been, as
they considered, the responsible person in civil and military affairs,
and Laud in those of the Church. These speeches were made to try the
temper of the House and of the country, and see whether there was
hostility enough to Laud and Strafford in the House and in the
country, and boldness enough in the expression of it, to warrant their
impeachment.
The attacks thus made in the House against the two ministers were
made very soon. Within a week after the opening of Parliament, one of
the members, after declaiming a long time against the encroachments
and tyranny of Archbishop Laud, whose title, according to English
usage, was "his Grace," said he hoped that, before the year ran round,
his grace would either have more grace or no grace at all; "for," he
added, "our manifold griefs do fill a mighty and vast circumference,
yet in such a manner that from every part our lines of sorrow do meet
in him, and point at him the center, from whence our miseries in this
Church, and many of them in the Commonwealth, do flow." He said, also,
that if they must submit to a pope, he would rather obey one that was
as far off
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/26734