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.