Suspension was of course often accidental and involuntary. The two chief

stages of Lutheran growth naturally corresponded with the periods, each

of nine years, when Charles was absent. Deliberate suspension was

usually a consequence of the failure of comprehension. Thus at Augsburg

in 1530 the wide gulf between the Lutheran confession and the Catholic

confutation led to the definite suspensive treaty granted to the

Lutherans at Nuremberg (1532). Charles dared not employ the alternative

of force, because he needed their aid for the Turkish war. In 1541,

after a series of religious conferences, he personally presented a

compromise in the so-called Book of Regensburg, which was rejected by

both parties. He then proposed that the articles agreed upon should be

compulsory, while on others toleration should be exercised until a

national council should decide. Never before nor after did he go so far

upon the path of toleration, or so nearly accept a national settlement.

He was then burning to set sail for Algiers. His last formal suspensive

measure was that of Spires (Speyer) in 1544, when he was marching

against Francis. He promised a free and general council to be held in

Germany, and, as a preparation, a national religious congress. The

Lutherans were privately assured that a measure of comprehension should

be concluded with or without papal approval. Meanwhile all edicts

against heresy were suspended. No wonder that Charles afterwards

confessed that he could scarcely reconcile these concessions with his

conscience, but he won Lutheran aid for his campaign. The peace of Crepy

gave all the conditions required for the employment of force. He had

peace with French and Turk, he won the active support of the pope, he

had deeply divided the Lutherans and reconciled Bavaria. Finding that

the Lutherans would not accept the council summoned by the pope to

Trent, he resorted to force, and force succeeded. At the Armed Diet of

1548 reunion seemed within reach. But Paul III. in direct opposition to

Charles's wish had withdrawn the council from Trent to Bologna. Charles

could not force Lutherans to submit to a council which he did not

himself recognize, and he could not bring himself to national schism.

Thus, falling back upon his old palliatives, he issued the Interim and

the accompanying Reform of the Clergy, pending a final settlement by a

satisfactory general council. These measures pleased neither party, and

Charles at the very height of his power had failed. He was conscious of

failure, and made few attempts even to enforce the Interim. Henceforward

political complications gathered round him anew. The only remedy was

toleration in some form, independent of the papacy and limitless in

time. To this Charles could never assent. His ideal was shattered, but

it was a great ideal, and the patience, the moderation, even at times

the adroitness with which he had striven towards it, proved him to be no

bigot.

The idea of abdication had long been present with Charles. After his

failure to eject the French from Metz he had not shrunk from a wearisome

campaign against Henry II., and he was now tired out. His mother's death

removed an obstacle, for there could now be no question as to his son's

succession to the Spanish kingdoms. Religious settlement in Germany

could no longer be postponed, and he shrank from the responsibility; the

hand that should rend the seamless raiment of God's church must not be

his. To Ferdinand he gave his full authority as emperor, although at his

brother's earnest request formal abdication was delayed until 1558. In

the Hall of the Golden Fleece at Brussels on the 25th of October 1555 he

formally resigned to Philip the sovereignty of his beloved Netherlands.

Turning from his son to the representatives of the estates he said,

"Gentlemen, you must not be astonished if, old and feeble as I am in all

my members, and also from the love I bear you, I shed some tears." In

the Netherlands at least the love was reciprocal, and tears were

infectious among the thousand deputies who listened to their sovereign's

last speech. On the 16th of January 1556, Charles resigned his Spanish

kingdoms and that of Sicily, and shortly afterwards his county of

Burgundy. On the 17th of September he sailed from Flushing on the last

of his many voyages, an English fleet from Portland bearing him company

down the Channel. In February 1557 he was installed in the home which he

had chosen at Yuste in Estremadura.

The excellent books which have been written upon the emperor's

retirement have inspired an interest out of all proportion to its real

significance. His little house was attached to the monastery, but was

not within it. He was neither an ascetic nor a recluse. Gastronomic

indiscretions still entailed their inevitable penalties. Society was not

confined to interchange of civilities with the brethren. His relations,

his chief friends, his official historians, all found their way to

Yuste. Couriers brought news of Philip's war and peace with Pope Paul

IV., of the victories of Saint Quentin and Gravelines, of the French

capture of Calais, of the danger of Oran. As head of the family he

intervened in the delicate relations with the closely allied house of

Portugal: he even negotiated with the house of Navarre for reparation

for the wrong done by his grandfather Ferdinand, which appeared to weigh

upon his conscience. Above all he was shocked by the discovery that

Spain, his own court, and his very chapel were infected with heresy. His

violent letters to his son and daughter recommending immediate

persecution, his profession of regret at having kept his word when

Luther was in his power, have weighed too heavily on his reputation. The

feverish phrases of religious exaltation due to broken health and

unnatural retirement cannot balance the deliberate humanity and honour

of wholesome manhood. Apart from such occasional moments of excitement,

the emperor's last years passed tranquilly enough. At first he would

shoot pigeons in the monastery woods, and till his last illness tended

his garden and his animal pets, or watched the operations of Torriani,

maker of clocks and mechanical toys. After an illness of three weeks the

call came in the early hours of the feast of St Matthew, who, as his

chaplain said, had for Christ's sake forsaken wealth even as Charles had

forsaken empire. The dying man clasped his wife's crucifix to his breast

till his fingers lost their hold. The archbishop held it before his

eyes, and with the cry of "_Ay Jesus!_" died, in the words of his

faithul squire D. Luis de Quijada, "the chief of men that had ever been

or would ever be." Posterity need not agree, but no great man can boast

a more honest panegyric.

In character Charles stands high among contemporary princes. It consists

of pairs of contrasts, but the better side is usually stronger than the

worse. Steadfast honesty of purpose was occasionally warped by

self-interest, or rather he was apt to think that his own course must

needs be that of righteousness. Self-control would give way, but very

rarely, to squalls of passion. Obstinacy and irresolution were fairly

balanced, the former generally bearing upon ends, the latter upon means.

His own ideals were constant, but he could gradually assimilate the

views of others, and could bend to argument and circumstance; yet even

here he had a habit of harking back to earlier schemes which he had

seemed to have definitely abandoned. Intercourse with different

nationalities taught him a certain versatility; he was dignified with

Spaniards, familiar with Flemings, while the material Italians were

pleased with his good sense. His sympathies were neither wide nor quick,

but he was a most faithful friend, and the most considerate of masters.

For all who sought him his courtesy and patience were unfailing. At his

abdication he dwelt with reasonable pride upon his labours and his

journeyings. Few monarchs have lived a more strenuous life. Yet his

industry was broken by fits of indolence, which were probably due to

health. In his prime his confessor warned him against this defect, and

it caused, indeed, the last great disaster of his life. Fortunately he

was conscious of his obstinacy, his irresolution and his indolence. He

would accept admonition from the chapter of the Golden Fleece, would

comment on his failings as a warning to his son. When Cardinal Contarini

politely assured him that to hold fast to good opinions is not obstinacy

but firmness, the emperor replied, "Ah! but I sometimes stick to bad

ones." Charles was not cruel, indeed the character of his reign was

peculiarly merciful. But he was somewhat unforgiving. He especially

resented any slight upon his honour, and his unwise severity to Philip

of Hesse was probably due to the unfounded accusation that he had

imprisoned him in violation of his pledge. The excesses of his troops in

Italy, in Guelders and on the Austrian frontiers caused him acute pain,

although he called himself "hard to weep." No great nobleman, statesman

or financier was executed at Charles's order. He was proud of his

generalship, classing himself with Alva and Montmorenci as the best of

his day. Yet his failures nearly balanced his successes. It is true that

in his most important campaign, that against the League of Schmalkalden,

the main credit must be ascribed to his well-judged audacity at the

opening, and his dogged persistency at the close. As a soldier he must

rank very high. It was said that his being emperor lost to Spain the

best light horseman of her army. At every crisis he was admirably cool,

setting a truly royal example to his men. His mettle was displayed when

he was attacked on the burning sands of Tunis, when his troops were

driven in panic from Algiers, when in spite of physical suffering he

forded the Elbe at Muhlberg, and when he was bombarded by the vastly

superior Lutheran artillery under the walls of Ingolstadt. When blamed

for exposing himself on this last occasion, "I could not help it," he

apologized; "we were short of hands, 1 could not set a bad example."

Nevertheless he was by nature timid. Just before this very action he had

a fit of trembling, and he was afraid of mice and spiders. The force of

his example was not confined to the field. Melanchthon wrote from

Augsburg in 1530 that he was a model of continence, temperance and

moderation, that the old domestic discipline was now only preserved in

the imperial household. He tenderly loved his wife, whom he had married

for pecuniary and diplomatic reasons. Of his two well-known illegitimate

children, Margaret was born before he married, and Don John long after

his wife's death, but he felt this latter to be a child of shame. His

sobriety was frequently contrasted with the universal drunkenness of the

German and Flemish nobles, which he earnestly condemned. But on his

appetite he could place no control, in spite of the ruinous effects of

his gluttony upon his health. In dress, in his household, and in his

stable he was simple and economical. He loved children, flowers, animals

and birds. Professional jesters amused him, and he was not above a joke

himself. Maps and mechanical inventions greatly interested him, and in

later life he became fond of reading. He takes his place indeed among

authors, for he dictated the commentaries on his own career. Of music he

possessed a really fine knowledge, and his high appreciation of Titian

proves the purity of his feeling for art. The little collection of books

and pictures which he carried to Yuste is an index of his tastes.

Charles was undeniably plain. He confessed that he was by nature ugly,

but that as artists usually painted him uglier than he was, strangers on

seeing him were agreeably disappointed. The protruding lower jaw and the

thin pale face were redeemed by the fine open brow and the bright

speaking eyes. He was, moreover, well made, and in youth had an

incomparable leg. Above all no man could doubt his dignity; Charles was

every inch an emperor.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--_Commentaries de Charles-quint_, ed. by Baron Kervyn de

Lettenhove (Brussels, 1862); _Memoirs_ written by Charles in 1550, and

treating somewhat fully of the years 1543-1548; W. Robertson, _History

of the Emperor Charles V._ (latest ed., London, 1887), an English

classic, which needs supplementing by later authorities; F.A. Mignet,

_Rivalite de Francois I et de Charles-quint_ (2 vols., Paris, 1875);

E. Armstrong, _The Emperor Charles V._ (2 vols., London, 1902), to

which reference may be made for monographs and collections of

documents bearing on the reign; H. Baumgarten, _Geschichte Karls V._

(3 vols., Stuttgart, 1885-1893), very full but extending only to 1539;

G. de Leva, _Storia documentata di Carlo V. in correlazione all'

Italia_ (5 vols., Venice, 1862-1894), a general history of the reign,

though with special reference to its Italian aspects, and extending to

1552; article by L.P. Gachard in _Biographie nationale_, vol. iii.,

1872, an excellent compressed account. The life of Charles V. at Yuste

may be studied in L.P. Gachard's _Retraite et mort de Charles-quint au

monastere de Yuste_ (Brussels, 1854-1855), and in Sir W.

Stirling-Maxwell's _The Cloister Life of the Emperor Charles V._

(London, 4 editions from 1852); also in W.H. Prescott's edition of

Robertson's _History_ (1857). (E. Ar.)

CHARLES VI. (1685-1740), Roman emperor, was born on the 1st of October

1685 at Vienna. He was the second son of the emperor Leopold I. by his

third marriage with Eleanore, daughter of Philip William of Neuburg,

elector palatine of the Rhine. When the Spanish branch of the house of

Habsburg became extinct in 1700, he was put forward as the lawful heir

in opposition to Philip V., the Bourbon to whom the Spanish dominions

had been left by the will of Charles II. of Spain. He was proclaimed at

Vienna on the 19th of September 1703, and made his way to Spain by the

Low Countries, England and Lisbon, remaining in Spain till 1711, mostly

in Catalonia, where the Habsburg party was strong. Although he had a

certain tenacity of purpose, which he showed in later life, he displayed

none of the qualities required in a prince who had to gain his throne by

the sword (see SPANISH SUCCESSION, WAR OF). He was so afraid of

appearing to be ruled by a favourite that he would not take good advice,

but was easily earwigged by flatterers who played on his weakness for

appearing independent. In 1708 he was married at Barcelona to Elizabeth

Christina of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel (1691-1750), a Lutheran princess who

was persuaded to accept Roman Catholicism by the assurances of

Protestant divines and of the philosopher Leibnitz, that she could

always give an Evangelical meaning to Catholic ceremonies. On the death

of his elder brother Joseph I. on the 17th of April 1711, Charles

inherited the hereditary possessions of the house of Habsburg, and their

claims on the Empire. The death of Joseph without male issue had been

foreseen, and Charles had at one time been prepared to give up Spain and

the Indies on condition that he was allowed to retain Naples, Sicily and

the Milanese. But when the case arose, his natural obstinacy led him to

declare that he would not think of surrendering any of the rights of his

family. It was with great difficulty that he was persuaded to leave

Spain, months after the death of his brother (on the 27th of September

1711). Only the emphatic refusal of the European powers to tolerate the

reconstruction of the empire of Charles V. forced him to give a sullen

submission to necessity. He abandoned Spain and was crowned emperor in

December 1711, but for a long time he would not recognize Philip V. It

is to his honour that he was very reluctant to desert the Catalans who

had fought for his cause. Some of their chiefs followed him to Vienna,

and their advice had an unfortunate influence on his mind. They almost

succeeded in arousing his suspicions of the loyalty of Prince Eugene at

the very moment when the prince's splendid victories over the Turks had

led to the peace of Passarowitz on the 28th of July 1718, and a great

extension of the Austrian dominions eastward. Charles showed an

enlightened, though not always successful, interest in the commercial

prosperity of his subjects, but from the date of his return to Germany

till his death his ruling passion was to secure his inheritance against

dismemberment. As early as 1713 he had begun to prepare the "Pragmatic

Sanction" which was to regulate the succession. An only son, born on the

13th of April 1716, died in infancy, and it became the object of his

policy to obtain the recognition of his daughter Maria Theresa as his

heiress. He made great concessions to obtain his aim, and embarked on

complicated diplomatic negotiations. His last days were embittered by a

disastrous war with Turkey, in which he lost almost all he had gained by

the peace of Passarowitz. He died at Vienna on the 20th of October 1740,

and with him expired the male line of his house. Charles VI. was an

admirable representative of the tenacious ambition of the Habsburgs, and

of their belief in their own "august greatness" and boundless rights.

For the personal character of Charles VI. see A. von Arneth,

_Geschichte Maria Theresias_ (Vienna, 1863-1879). Dr Franz Krones, R.

v. Marchland, _Grundriss der dsterreichischen Geschichte_ (Vienna,

1882), gives a very copious bibliography.

CHARLES VII. (1697-1745), Roman emperor, known also as Charles Albert,

elector of Bavaria, was the son of the elector Maximilian Emanuel and

his second wife, Theresa Cunigunda, daughter of John Sobieski, king of

Poland. He was born on the 6th of August 1697. His father having taken

the side of Louis XIV. of France in the War of the Spanish Succession

(q.v.), Bavaria was occupied by the allies. Charles and his brother

Clement, afterwards archbishop of Cologne, were carried prisoners to

Vienna, and were educated by the Jesuits under the name of the counts of

Wittelsbach. When his father was restored to his electorate, Charles was

released, and in 1717 he led the Bavarian contingent of the imperial

army which served under Prince Eugene against the Turks, and is said to

have distinguished himself at Belgrade. On the 25th of September 1722 he

was betrothed to Maria Amelia, the younger of the two orphan daughters

of the emperor Joseph I. Her uncle Charles VI. insisted that the

Bavarian house should recognize the Pragmatic Sanction which established

his daughter Maria Theresa as heiress of the Habsburg dominions. They

did so, but with secret protests and mental reservations of their

rights, which were designed to render the recognition valueless. The

electors of Bavaria had claims on the possessions of the Habsburgs under

the will of the emperor Ferdinand I., who died in 1564.

Charles succeeded his father on the 26th of February 1726. As a ruler of

Bavaria, he showed a vague disposition to improve the condition of his

subjects, but his profuse habits and his efforts to rival the splendour

of the French court crippled his finances. His policy was one of much

duplicity, for he was constantly endeavouring to keep on good terms with

the emperor while slipping out of his obligation to accept the Pragmatic

Sanction and intriguing to secure French support for his claims whenever

Charles VI. should die. On hearing of the emperor's last illness, he

ordered his agent at Vienna to renew his claim to the Austrian

inheritance. The claim was advanced immediately after the death of

Charles VI. on the 20th of October 1740. Charles Albert now entered into

the league against Maria Theresa, to the great misfortune of himself and

his subjects. By the help of her enemies he was elected emperor in

opposition to her husband Francis, grand duke of Tuscany, on the 24th of

January 1742, under the title of Charles VII., and was crowned at

Frankfort-on-Main on the 12th of February. But as his army had been

neglected, he was utterly unable to resist the Austrian troops. While he

was being crowned his hereditary dominions in Bavaria were being

overrun. He described himself as attacked by stone and gout, ill,

without money or land, and in distress comparable to the sorrows of

Job. During the War of the Austrian Succession (q.v.) he was a mere

puppet in the hands of the anti-Austrian coalition, and was often in

want of mere necessaries. In the changes of the war he was able to

re-enter his capital, Munich, in 1743, but had immediately afterwards to

take flight again. He was restored by Frederick the Great in October

1744, but died worn out at Munich on the 20th of January 1745.

See A. von Arneth, _Geschichte Maria Theresias_ (Vienna, 1863-1879);

and P.T. Heigel. _Der osterreichische Erbfolgestreit und die

Kaiserwahl Karls VII._ (Munich, 1877).

CHARLES I. (1600-1649), king of Great Britain and Ireland, second son of

James I. and Anne of Denmark, was born at Dunfermline on the 19th of

November 1600. At his baptism he was created duke of Albany, and on the

16th of January 1605 duke of York. In 1612, by the death of his elder

brother Henry, he became heir-apparent, and was created prince of Wales

on the 3rd of November 1616. In 1620 he took up warmly the cause of his

sister the queen of Bohemia, and in 1621 he defended Bacon, using his

influence to prevent the chancellor's degradation from the peerage. The

prince's marriage with the infanta Maria, daughter of Philip III. of

Spain, had been for some time the subject of negotiation, James desiring

to obtain through Spanish support the restitution of his son-in-law,

Frederick, to the Palatinate; and in 1623 Charles was persuaded by

Buckingham, who now obtained a complete ascendancy over him in

opposition to wiser advisers and the king's own wishes, to make a secret

expedition himself to Spain, put an end to all formalities, and bring

home his mistress himself: "a gallant and brave thing for his Highness."

"Steenie" and "Baby Charles," as James called them, started on the 17th

of February, arriving at Paris on the 21st and at Madrid on the 7th of

March, where they assumed the unromantic names of Mr Smith, and Mr

Brown. They found the Spanish court by no means enthusiastic for the

marriage[1] and the princess herself averse. The prince's immediate

conversion was expected, and a complete religious tolerance for the

Roman Catholics in England demanded. James engaged to allow the infanta

the right of public worship and to use his influence to modify the law,

but Charles himself went much further. He promised the alteration of the

penal laws within three years, conceded the education of the children to

the mother till the age of twelve, and undertook to listen to the

infanta's priests in matters of religion, signing the marriage contract

on the 25th of July 1623. The Spanish, however, did not trust to words,

and Charles was informed that his wife could only follow him to England

when these promises were executed. Moreover, they had no intention

whatever of aiding the Protestant Frederick. Meanwhile Buckingham,

incensed at the failure of the expedition, had quarrelled with the

grandees, and Charles left Madrid, landing at Portsmouth on the 5th of

October, to the joy of the people, to whom the proposed alliance was

odious. He now with Buckingham urged James to make war on Spain, and in

December 1624 signed a marriage treaty with Henrietta Maria, daughter of

Henry IV. of France. In April Charles had declared solemnly to the

parliament that in case of his marriage to a Roman Catholic princess no

concessions should be granted to recusants, but these were in September

1624 deliberately promised by James and Charles in a secret article, the

first instance of the duplicity and deception practised by Charles in

dealing with the parliament and the nation. The French on their side

promised to assist in Mansfeld's expedition for the recovery of the

Palatinate, but Louis in October refused to allow the men to pass

through France; and the army, without pay or provisions, dwindled away

in Holland to nothing.

On the 27th of March 1625 Charles I. succeeded to the throne by the

death of his father, and on the 1st of May he was married by proxy to

Henrietta Maria. He received her at Canterbury on the 13th of June, and

on the 18th his first parliament assembled. On the day of his marriage

Charles had given directions that the prosecutions of the Roman

Catholics should cease, but he now declared his intention of enforcing

the laws against them, and demanded subsidies for carrying on the war

against Spain. The Commons, however, responded coldly. Charles had lent

ships to Louis XIII. to be used against the Protestants at La Rochelle,

and the Commons were not aware of the subterfuges and fictitious delays

intended to prevent their employment. The Protestant feelings of the

Commons were also aroused by the king's support of the royal chaplain,

Richard Montagu, who had repudiated Calvinistic doctrine. They only

voted small sums, and sent up a petition on the state of religion and

reflecting upon Buckingham, whom they deemed responsible for the failure

of Mansfeld's expedition, at the same time demanding counsellors in whom

they could trust. Parliament was accordingly dissolved by Charles on the

12th of August. He hoped that greater success abroad would persuade the

Commons to be more generous. On the 8th of September 1625 he made the

treaty of Southampton with the Dutch against Spain, and sent an

expedition to Cadiz under Sir Edward Cecil, which, however, was a

failure. In order to make himself independent of parliament he attempted

to raise money on the crown jewels in Holland, and to diminish the

opposition in the Commons he excluded the chief leaders by appointing

them sheriffs. When the second parliament met, however, on the 6th of

February 1626, the opposition, led by Sir John Eliot, was more

determined than before, and their attack was concentrated upon

Buckingham. On the 29th of March, Charles, calling the Commons into his

presence, accused them of leading him into the war and of taking

advantage of his difficulties to "make their own game." "I pray you not

to be deceived," he said, "it is not a parliamentary way, nor 'tis not a

way to deal with a king. Remember that parliaments are altogether in my

power for their calling, sitting, and dissolution; therefore as I find

the fruits of them good or evil, they are to continue or not to be."

Charles, however, was worsted in several collisions with the two houses,

with a consequent loss of influence. He was obliged by the peers to set

at liberty Thomas Howard, earl of Arundel, whom he had put into the

Tower, and to send a summons to the earl of Bristol, whom he had

attempted to exclude from parliament, while the Commons compelled him,

with a threat of doing no business, to liberate Eliot and Digges, the

managers of Buckingham's impeachment, whom he had imprisoned. Finally in

June the Commons answered Charles's demand for money by a remonstrance

asking for Buckingham's dismissal, which they decided must precede the

grant of supply. They claimed responsible ministers, while Charles

considered himself the executive and the sole and unfettered judge of

the necessities of the state. Accordingly on the 15th Charles dissolved

the parliament.

The king was now in great need of money. He was at war with Spain and

had promised to pay L30,000 a month to Christian IV. of Denmark in

support of the Protestant campaign in Germany. To these necessities was

now added a war with France. Charles had never kept his promise

concerning the recusants; disputes arose in consequence with his wife,

and on the 31st of July 1626 he ordered all her French attendants to be

expelled from Whitehall and sent back to France. At the same time

several French ships carrying contraband goods to the Spanish

Netherlands were seized by English warships. On the 27th of June 1627

Buckingham with a large expedition sailed to the Isle of Re to relieve

La Rochelle, then besieged by the forces of Louis XIII. Though the

success of the French Protestants was an object much desired in England,

Buckingham's unpopularity prevented support being given to the

expedition, and the duke returned to Plymouth on the 11th of November

completely defeated. Meanwhile Charles had endeavoured to get the money

refused to him by parliament by means of a forced loan, dismissing Chief

Justice Crewe for declining to support its legality, and imprisoning

several of the leaders of the opposition for refusing to subscribe to

it. These summary measures, however, only brought a small sum into the

treasury. On the 2nd of January 1628 Charles ordered the release of all

the persons imprisoned, and on the 17th of March summoned his third

parliament.

Instead of relieving the king's necessities the Commons immediately

proceeded to discuss the constitutional position and to formulate the

Petition of Right, forbidding taxation without consent of parliament,

arbitrary and illegal imprisonment, compulsory billeting in private

houses, and martial law. Charles, on the 1st of May, first demanded that

they should "rest on his royal word and promise." He obtained an opinion

from the judges that the acceptance of the petition would not absolutely

preclude in certain cases imprisonments without showing cause, and after

a futile endeavour to avoid an acceptance by returning an ambiguous

answer which only exasperated the Commons, he gave his consent on the

7th of June in the full and usual form. Charles now obtained his

subsidies, but no real settlement was reached, and his relations with

the parliament remained as unfriendly as before. They proceeded to

remonstrate against his government and against his support of

Buckingham, and denied his right to tonnage and poundage. Accordingly,

on the 26th of June they were prorogued. New disasters befell Charles,

in the assassination of Buckingham and in the failure of the fresh

expedition sent to Re. In January 1629 the parliament reassembled,

irritated by the exaction of the duties and seizure of goods during the

interval, and suspicious of "innovations in religion," the king having

forbidden the clergy to continue the controversy concerning Calvinistic

and Arminian doctrines, the latter of which the parliament desired to

suppress. While they were discussing these matters, on the 2nd of March

1629, the king ordered them to adjourn, but amidst a scene of great

excitement the speaker, Sir John Finch, was held down in his chair and

the doors were locked, whilst resolutions against innovations in

religion and declaring those who levied or paid tonnage and poundage

enemies to their country were passed. Parliament was immediately

dissolved, and Charles imprisoned nine members, leaders of the

opposition, Eliot, Holles, Strode, Selden, Valentine, Coryton, Heyman,

Hobart and Long, his vengeance being especially shown in the case of

Eliot, the most formidable of his opponents, who died in the Tower of

consumption after long years of close and unhealthy confinement, and

whose corpse even Charles refused to give up to his family.

For eleven years Charles ruled without parliaments and with some

success. There seemed no reason to think that "that noise," to use

Laud's expression concerning parliaments, would ever be heard again by

those then living. A revenue of about L618,000 was obtained by enforcing

the payment of tonnage and poundage, and while avoiding the taxes,

loans, and benevolences forbidden by the petition of right, by

monopolies, fines for knighthood, and for pretended encroachments on the

royal domains and forests, which enabled the king to meet expenditure at

home. In Ireland, Charles, in order to get money, had granted the Graces

in 1628, conceding security of titles of more than sixty years'

standing, and a more moderate oath of allegiance for the Roman

Catholics, together with the renunciation of the shilling fine for

non-attendance at church. He continued, however, to make various

attempts to get estates into his possession on the pretext of invalid

title, and on the 12th of May 1635 the city of London estates were

sequestered. Charles here destroyed one of the most valuable settlements

in Ireland founded by James I. in the interests of national defence, and

at the same time extinguished the historic loyalty of the city of

London, which henceforth steadily favoured the parliamentary cause. In

1633 Wentworth had been sent to Ireland to establish a medieval monarchy

and get money, and his success in organization seemed great enough to

justify the attempt to extend the system to England. Charles at the same

time restricted his foreign policy to scarcely more than a wish for the

recovery of the Palatinate, to further which he engaged in a series of

numerous and mutually destructive negotiations with Gustavus Adolphus

and with Spain, finally making peace with Spain on the 5th of November

1630, an agreement which was followed on the 2nd of January 1631 by a

further secret treaty, the two kings binding themselves to make war on

the Dutch and partition their territories. A notable feature of this

agreement was that while in Charles's portion Roman Catholicism was to

be tolerated, there was no guarantee for the security of Protestantism

in the territory to be ceded to Spain.

In 1634 Charles levied ship-money from the seaport towns for the

increase of the navy, and in 1635 the tax was extended to the inland

counties, which aroused considerable opposition. In February 1637

Charles obtained an opinion in favour of his claims from the judges, and

in 1638 the great Hampden case was decided in his favour. The apparent

success, however, of Charles was imperilled by the general and growing

resentment aroused by his exactions and whole policy, and this again was

small compared with the fears excited by the king's attitude towards

religion and Protestantism. He supported zealously Laud's rigid Anglican

orthodoxy, his compulsory introduction of unwelcome ritual, and his

narrow, intolerant and despotic policy, which was marked by several

savage prosecutions and sentences in the Star Chamber, drove numbers of

moderate Protestants out of the Church into Presbyterianism, and created

an intense feeling of hostility to the government throughout the

country. Charles further increased the popular fears on the subject of

religion by his welcome given to Panzani, the pope's agent, in 1634, who

endeavoured unsuccessfully to reconcile the two churches, and afterwards

to George Conn, papal agent at the court of Henrietta Maria, while the

favour shown by the king to these was contrasted with the severe

sentences passed upon the Puritans.

The same imprudent neglect of the national sentiment was pursued in

Scotland. Charles had already made powerful enemies there by a

declaration announcing the arbitrary revocation of former church estates

to the crown. On the 18th of June 1633 he was crowned at Edinburgh with

full Anglican ceremonial, which lost him the hearts of numbers of his

Scottish subjects and aroused hostility to his government in parliament.

After his return to England he gave further offence by ordering the use

of the surplice, by his appointment of Archbishop Spotiswood as

chancellor of Scotland, and by introducing other bishops into the privy

council. In 1636 the new _Book of Canons_ was issued by the king's

authority, ordering the communion table to be placed at the east end,

enjoining confession, and declaring excommunicate any who should presume

to attack the new prayer-book. The latter was ordered to be used on the

18th of October 1636, but it did not arrive in Scotland till May 1637.

It was intensely disliked both as "popish" and as English. A riot

followed its first use in St Giles' cathedral on the 23rd of July, and

Charles's order to enforce it on the 10th of September was met by fresh

disturbances and by the establishment of the "Tables," national

committees which now became the real though informal government of

Scotland. In 1638 the national covenant was drawn up, binding those that

signed it to defend their religion to the death, and was taken by large

numbers with enthusiasm all over the country. Charles now drew back,

promised to enforce the canons and prayer-book only in a "fair and legal

way," and sent the marquis of Hamilton as a mediator. The latter,

however, a weak and incapable man, desirous of popularity with all

parties, and unfaithful to the king's interests, yielded everything,

without obtaining the return of Charles's subjects to their allegiance.

The assembly met at Glasgow on the 21st of November, and in spite of

Hamilton's opposition immediately proceeded to judge the bishops. On the

28th Hamilton dissolved it, but it continued to sit, deposed the bishops

and re-established Presbyterianism. The rebellion had now begun, and an

appeal to arms alone could decide the quarrel between Charles and his

subjects. On the 28th of May 1639 he arrived at Berwick with a small and

ill-trained force, thus beginning what is known as the first Bishops'

War; but being confronted by the Scottish army at Duns Law, he was

compelled to sign the treaty of Berwick on the 18th of June, which

provided for the disbandment of both armies and the restitution to the

king of the royal castles, referring all questions to a general assembly

and a parliament. When the assembly met it abolished episcopacy, but

Charles, who on the 3rd of August had returned to Whitehall, refused his

consent to this and to other measures proposed by the Scottish

parliament. His extreme financial necessities, and the prospect of

renewed hostilities with the Scots, now moved Charles, at the

instigation of Strafford, who in September had left Ireland to become

the king's chief adviser, to turn again to parliament for assistance as

the last resource, and on the 13th of April 1640 the Short Parliament

assembled. But on its discussing grievances before granting supplies and

finally refusing subsidies till peace was made with the Scots, it was

dissolved on the 5th of May. Charles returned once more to measures of

repression, and on the 10th imprisoned some of the London aldermen who

refused to lend money. He prepared for war, scraping together what money

he could and obtaining a grant through Strafford from Ireland. His

position, however, was hopeless; his forces were totally undisciplined,

and the Scots were supported by the parliamentary opposition in England.

On the 20th of August the Scots crossed the Tweed, beginning the

so-called second Bishops' War, defeated the king's army at Newburn on

the 28th, and subsequently occupied Newcastle and Durham. Charles at

this juncture, on the 24th of September, summoned a great council of the

peers; and on the 21st of October a cessation of arms was agreed to by

the treaty of Ripon, the Scots receiving L850 a day for the maintenance

of the army, and further negotiations being transferred to London. On

the 3rd of November the king summoned the Long Parliament.

Such was the final issue of Charles's attempt to govern without

parliaments--Scotland in triumphant rebellion, Ireland only waiting for

a signal to rise, and in England the parliament revived with almost

irresistible strength, in spite of the king, by the force of

circumstances alone. At this great crisis, which would indeed have taxed

the resolution and resource of the most cool-headed and sagacious

statesman, Charles failed signally. Two alternative courses were open to

him, either of which still offered good chances of success. He might

have taken his stand on the ancient and undoubted prerogative of the

crown, resisted all encroachments on the executive by the parliament by

legal and constitutional means, which were probably ample, and in case

of necessity have appealed to the loyalty of the nation to support him

in arms; or he might have waived his rights, and, acknowledging the

mistakes of his past administration, have united with the parliament and

created once more that union of interests and sentiment of the monarchy

with the nation which had made England so powerful. Charles, however,

pretended to do both simultaneously or by turns, and therefore

accomplished neither. The illegally imprisoned members of the last

parliament, now smarting with the sense of their wrongs, were set free

to stimulate the violence of the opposition to the king in the new

assembly. Of Charles's double statecraft, however, the series of

incidents which terminated the career of the great Strafford form the

most terrible example. Strafford had come to London in November, having

been assured by Charles that he "should not suffer in his person, honour

or fortune," but was impeached and thrown into the Tower almost

immediately. Charles took no steps to hinder the progress of the

proceedings against him, but entered into schemes for saving him by

bringing up an army to London, and this step exasperated Strafford's

enemies and added new zeal to the prosecution. On the 23rd of April,

after the passing of the attainder by the Commons, he repeated to

Strafford his former assurances of protection. On the 1st of May he

appealed to the Lords to spare his life and be satisfied with rendering

him incapable of holding office. On the 2nd he made an attempt to seize

the Tower by force. On the 10th, yielding to the queen's fears and to

the mob surging round his palace, he signed his death-warrant. "If my

own person only were in danger," he declared to the council, "I would

gladly venture it to save my Lord Strafford's life; but seeing my wife,

children, all my kingdom are concerned in it, I am forced to give way

unto it." On the 11th he sent to the peers a petition for Strafford's

life, the force of which was completely annulled by the strange

postscript: "If he must die, it were a charity to reprieve him until

Saturday." This tragic surrender of his great and devoted servant left

an indelible stain upon the king's character, and he lived to repent it

bitterly. One of his last admonitions to the prince of Wales was "never

to give way to the punishment of any for their faithful service to the

crown." It was regarded by Charles as the cause of his own subsequent

misfortunes, and on the scaffold the remembrance of it disturbed his own

last moments. The surrender of Strafford was followed by another

stupendous concession by Charles, the surrender of his right to

dissolve the parliament without its own consent, and the parliament

immediately proceeded, with Charles's consent, to sweep away the

star-chamber, high commission and other extra-legal courts, and all

extra-parliamentary taxation. Charles, however, did not remain long or

consistently in the yielding mood. In June 1641 he engaged in a second

army plot for bringing up the forces to London, and on the 10th of

August he set out for Scotland in order to obtain the Scottish army

against the parliament in England; this plan was obviously doomed to

failure and was interrupted by another appeal to force, the so-called

Incident, at which Charles was suspected (in all probability unjustly)

of having connived, consisting in an attempt to kidnap and murder

Argyll, Hamilton and Lanark, with whom he was negotiating. Charles had

also apparently been intriguing with Irish Roman Catholic lords for

military help in return for concessions, and he was suspected of

complicity in the Irish rebellion which now broke out. He left Scotland

more discredited than ever, having by his concessions made, to use

Hyde's words, "a perfect deed of gift of that kingdom," and without

gaining any advantage.

Charles returned to London on the 25th of November 1641 and was

immediately confronted by the Grand Remonstrance (passed on the 22nd),

in which, after reciting the chief points of the king's misgovernment,

the parliament demanded the appointment of acceptable ministers and the

constitution of an assembly of divines to settle the religious question.

On the 2nd of January 1642 Charles gave office to the opposition members

Colepeper and Falkland, and at the same time Hyde left the opposition

party to serve the king. Charles promised to take no serious step

without their advice. Nevertheless, entirely without their knowledge,

through the influence of the queen whose impeachment was intended,

Charles on the 4th made the rash and fatal attempt to seize with an

armed force the five members of the Commons, Pym, Hampden, Holies,

Hesilrige and Strode, whom, together with Mandeville (afterwards earl of

Manchester) in the Lords, he had impeached of high treason. No English

sovereign ever had (or has since that time) penetrated into the House of

Commons. So complete and flagrant a violation of parliamentary

liberties, and an appeal so crude and glaring to brute force, could only

be justified by complete success; but the court plans had been betrayed,

and were known to the offending members, who, by order of the House, had

taken refuge in the city before the king's arrival with the soldiers.

Charles, on entering the House, found "the birds flown," and returned

baffled, having thrown away the last chance of a peaceful settlement

(see LENTHALL, WILLIAM). The next day Charles was equally unsuccessful

in obtaining their surrender in the city. "The king had the worst day in

London yesterday," wrote a spectator of the scene, "that ever he had,

the people crying 'privilege of parliament' by thousands and prayed God

to turn the heart of the king, shutting up their shops and standing at

their doors with swords and halberds."[2] On the 10th, amidst general

manifestations of hostility, Charles left Whitehall to prepare for war,

destined never to return till he was brought back by his victorious

enemies to die.

Several months followed spent in manoeuvres to obtain the control of the

forces and in a paper war of controversy. On the 23rd of April Charles

was refused entry into Hull, and on the 2nd of June the parliament sent

to him the "Nineteen Propositions," claiming the whole sovereignty and

government for the parliament, including the choice of the ministers,

the judges, and the control of the army, and the execution of the laws

against the Roman Catholics. The military events of the war are

described in the article GREAT REBELLION. On the 22nd of August the king

set up his standard at Nottingham, and on the 23rd of October he fought

the indecisive battle of Edgehill, occupying Oxford and advancing as far

as Brentford. It seemed possible that the war might immediately be ended

by Charles penetrating to the heart of the enemy's position and

occupying London, but he drew back on the 13th of November before the

parliamentary force at Turnham Green, and avoided a decisive contest.

Next year (1643) another campaign, for surrounding instead of

penetrating into London, was projected. Newcastle and Hopton were to

advance from the north and west, seize the north and south banks of the

river below the city, destroy its commerce, and combine with Charles at

Oxford. The royalist force, however, in spite of victories at Adwalton

Moor (June 30th) and Roundway Down (July 13th), did not succeed in

combining with Charles, Newcastle in the north being kept back by the

Eastern Association and the presence of the enemy at Hull, and Hopton in

the west being detained by their successful holding out at Plymouth.

Being too weak to attempt anything alone against London, Charles marched

to besiege Gloucester, Essex following him and relieving the place.

Subsequently the rival forces fought the indecisive first battle of

Newbury, and Charles failed in preventing the return of Essex to London.

Meanwhile on the 1st of February the parliament had submitted proposals

to Charles at Oxford, but the negotiations came to nothing, and

Charles's unwise attempt at the same time to stir up a rising in his

favour in the city, known as Waller's Plot, injured his cause

considerably. He once more turned for help to Ireland, where the

cessation of the campaign against the rebels was agreed upon on the 15th

of September 1643, and several English regiments became thereby

available for employment by the king in England. Charles also accepted

the proposal for bringing over 2000 Irish. On the 22nd of January 1644

the king opened the rival parliament at Oxford.

The campaign of 1644 began far less favourably for Charles than the two

last, principally owing to the alliance now made between the Scots and

the parliament, the parliament taking the Solemn League and Covenant on

the 25th of September 1643, and the Scottish army crossing the border on

the 19th of January 1644. No attempt was this year made against London,

and Rupert was sent to Newcastle's succour in the north, where the great

disaster of Marston Moor on the 2nd of July ruined Charles's last

chances in that quarter. Meanwhile Charles himself had defeated Waller

at Cropredy Bridge on the 29th of June, and he subsequently followed

Essex to the west, compelling the surrender of Essex's infantry at

Lostwithiel on the 2nd of September. With an ill-timed leniency he

allowed the men to go free after giving up their stores and arms, and on

his return towards Oxford he was confronted again by Essex's army at

Newbury, combined now with that of Waller and of Manchester. Charles

owed his escape here from complete annihilation only to Manchester's

unwillingness to inflict a total defeat, and he was allowed to get away

with his artillery to Oxford and to revictual Donnington Castle and

Basing House.

The negotiations carried on at Uxbridge during January and February 1645

failed to secure a settlement, and on the 14th of June the crushing

defeat of the king's forces by the new model army at Naseby practically

ended the civil war. Charles, however, refused to make peace on Rupert's

advice, and considered it a point of honour "neither to abandon God's

cause, injure my successors, nor forsake my friends." His chief hope was

to join Montrose in Scotland, but his march north was prevented by the

parliamentary forces, and on the 24th of September he witnessed from the

walls of Chester the rout of his followers at Rowton Heath. He now

entered into a series of intrigues, mutually destructive, which,

becoming known to the different parties, exasperated all and diminished

still further the king's credit. One proposal was the levy of a foreign

force to reduce the kingdom; another, the supply through the marquis of

Ormonde of 10,000 Irish. Correspondence relating to these schemes,

fatally compromising as they were if Charles hoped ever to rule England

again, was discovered by his enemies, including the Glamorgan treaty,

which went much further than the instructions to Ormonde, but of which

the full responsibility has never been really traced to Charles, who on

the 29th of January 1646 disavowed his agent's proceedings. He

simultaneously treated with the parliament, and promised toleration to

the Roman Catholics if they and the pope would aid in the restoration of

the monarchy and the church. Nor was this all. The parliamentary forces

had been closing round Oxford. On the 27th of April the king left the

city, and on the 5th of May gave himself up to the Scottish army at

Newark, arriving on the 13th with them at Newcastle. On the 13th of July

the parliament sent to Charles the "Newcastle Propositions," which

included the extreme demands of Charles's acceptance of the Covenants,

the abolition of episcopacy and establishment of Presbyterianism,

severer laws against the Roman Catholics and parliamentary control of

the forces, with the withdrawal of the Irish Cessation, and a long list

of royalists to be exempted from pardon. Charles returned no definite

answer for several months. He imagined that he might now find support in

Scottish royalism, encouraged by Montrose's series of brilliant

victories, but these hopes were destroyed by the latter's defeat at

Philiphaugh on the 3rd of September. The Scots insisted on the Covenant

and on the permanent establishment of Presbyterianism, while Charles

would only consent to a temporary maintenance for three years.

Accordingly the Scots, in return for the payment of part of their army

arrears by the parliament, marched home on the 30th of January 1647,

leaving Charles behind, who under the care of the parliamentary

commissioners was conducted to Holmby House. Thence on the 12th of May

he sent his answer to the Newcastle Propositions, offering the militia

to the parliament for ten years and the establishment of Presbyterianism

for three, while a final settlement on religion was to be reached

through an assembly of twenty divines at Westminster. But in the midst

of the negotiation with the parliament Charles's person was seized, on

the 3rd of June 1647, by Cornet Joyce under instructions of the army,

which soon afterwards occupied London and overpowered the parliament,

placing Charles at Hampton Court.

If Charles could have remained firm to either one or the other faction,

and have made concessions either to Presbyterianism or on the subject of

the militia, he might even now have prevailed. But he had learned

nothing by experience, and continued at this juncture his characteristic

policy of intrigue and double-dealing, "playing his game," to use his

own words, negotiating with both parties at once, not with the object or

wish to arrive at a settlement with either, but to augment their

disputes, gain time and profit ultimately by their divisions. The "Heads

of the Proposals," submitted to Charles by the army on the 28th of July

1647, were terms conceived on a basis far broader and more statesmanlike

than the Newcastle Propositions, and such as Charles might well have

accepted. The proposals on religion anticipated the Toleration Act of

1689. There was no mention of episcopacy, and its existence was thereby

indirectly admitted, but complete religious freedom for all Protestant

denominations was provided, and the power of the church to inflict civil

penalties abolished, while it was also suggested that dangers from Roman

Catholics and Jesuits might be avoided by means other than enforcing

attendance at church. The parliament was to dissolve itself and be

succeeded by biennial assemblies elected on a reformed franchise, not to

be dissolved without their own consent before 120 days, and not to sit

more than 240 days in the two years. A council of state was to conduct

the foreign policy of the state and conclude peace and war subject to

the approval of parliament, and to control the militia for ten years,

the commanders being appointed by parliament, as also the officers of

state for ten years. No peer created since May the 21st, 1642, was to

sit in parliament without consent of both Houses, and the judicial

decisions of the House of Lords were to be ratified by the Commons. Only

five persons were excepted from amnesty, but royalists were not to hold

office for five years and not to sit in the Commons till the end of the

second biennial parliament. Proposals for a series of reforms were also

added. Charles, however, was at the same time negotiating with

Lauderdale for an invasion of England by the Scots, and imagined he

could win over Cromwell and Fairfax by "proffers of advantage to

themselves." The precious opportunity was therefore allowed to slip by.

On the 9th of September he rejected the proposals of the parliament for

the establishment of Presbyterianism. His hopes of gaining advantages by

playing upon the differences of his opponents proved a complete failure.

Fresh terms were drawn up by the army and parliament together on the

10th of November, but before these could be presented, Charles, on the

11th, had escaped to Carisbrooke Castle in the Isle of Wight. Thence on

the 16th he sent a message offering Presbyterianism for three years and

the militia for his lifetime to the parliament, but insisting on the

maintenance of episcopacy. On the 28th of December he refused his assent

to the Four Bills, which demanded the militia for parliament for twenty

years and practically for ever, annulled the honours recently granted by

the king and his declarations against the Houses, and gave to parliament

the right to adjourn to any place it wished. On the 3rd of January 1648

the Commons agreed to a resolution to address the king no further, in

which they were joined by the Lords on the 15th.

Charles had meanwhile taken a further fatal step which brought about his

total destruction. On the 26th of December 1647 he had signed at

Carisbrooke with the Scottish commissioners the secret treaty called the

"Engagement," whereby the Scots undertook to invade England on his

behalf and restore him to the throne on condition of the establishment

of Presbyterianism for three years and the suppression of the

sectarians. In consequence the second civil war broke out and the Scots

invaded England under Hamilton. The royalist risings in England were

soon suppressed, and Cromwell gained an easy and decisive victory over

the Scots at Preston. Charles was now left alone to face his enemies,

with the whole tale of his intrigues and deceptions unmasked and

exposed. The last intrigue with the Scots was the most unpardonable in

the eyes of his contemporaries, no less wicked and monstrous than his

design to conquer England by the Irish soldiers; "a more prodigious

treason," said Cromwell, "than any that had been perfected before;

because the former quarrel was that Englishmen might rule over one

another; this to vassalize us to a foreign nation." Cromwell, who up to

this point had shown himself foremost in supporting the negotiations

with the king, now spoke of the treaty of Newport, which he found the

parliament in the act of negotiating on his return from Scotland, as

"this ruining hypocritical agreement." Charles had engaged in these

negotiations only to gain time and find opportunity to escape. "The

great concession I made this day," he wrote on the 7th of October, "was

made merely in order to my escape." At the beginning he had stipulated

that no concession from him should be valid unless an agreement were

reached upon every point. He had now consented to most of the demands of

the parliament, including the repudiation of the Irish Cessation, the

surrender of the delinquents and the cession of the militia for twenty

years, and of the offices of state to parliament, but remained firm in

his refusal to abolish episcopacy, consenting only to Presbyterianism

for three years. Charles's devotion to the church is undoubted. In April

1646, before his flight from Oxford, inspired perhaps by superstitious

fears as to the origin of his misfortunes, he had delivered to Sheldon,

afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, a written vow (now in the library

of St Paul's cathedral) to restore all church lands held by the crown on

his restoration to the throne; and almost his last injunction to the

prince of Wales was that of fidelity to the national church. His present

firmness, however, in its support was caused probably less by his

devotion to it than by his desire to secure the failure of the whole

treaty, and his attempts to escape naturally weakened the chances of

success. Cromwell now supported the petitions of the army against the

treaty. On the 16th of November the council of officers demanded the

trial of the king, "the capital and grand author of our troubles," and

on the 27th of November the parliamentary commissioners returned from

Newport without having secured Charles's consent. Charles was removed to

Hurst Castle on the 1st of December, where he remained till the 19th,

thence being taken to Windsor, where he arrived on the 23rd. On the 6th

"Pride's Purge" had removed from the Commons all those who might show

any favour to the king. On the 25th a last attempt by the council of

officers to come to terms with him was repulsed. On the 1st of January

the remnant of the Commons resolved that Charles was guilty of treason

by "levying war against the parliament and kingdom of England"; on the

4th they declared their own power to make laws without the lords or the

sovereign, and on the 6th established a "high court of justice" to try

the king. On the 19th Charles was brought to St James's Palace, and on

the next day his trial began in Westminster Hall, without the assistance

of any of the judges, who all refused to take part in the proceedings.

He laughed aloud at hearing himself called a traitor, and immediately

demanded by what authority he was tried. He had been in treaty with the

parliament in the Isle of Wight and taken thence by force; he saw no

lords present. He was told by Bradshaw, the president of the court, that

he was tried by the authority of the people of England, who had elected

him king; Charles making the obvious reply that he was king by

inheritance and not by election, that England had been for more than

1000 years an hereditary kingdom, and Bradshaw cutting short the

discussion by adjourning the court. On the 22nd Charles repeated his

reasoning, adding, "It is not my case alone; it is the freedom and

liberty of the people of England, and do you pretend what you will, I

stand more for their liberties, for if power without law may make laws

... I do not know what subject he is in England that can be sure of his

life or anything that he calls his own." On the 23rd he again refused to

plead. The court was adjourned, and there were several signs that the

army in their prosecution of the king had not the nation at their back.

While the soldiers had shouted "Justice! justice!" as the king passed

through their ranks, the civilian spectators from the end of the hall

had cried "God save the king!" There was considerable opposition and

reluctance to proceed among the members of the court. On the 26th,

however, the court decided unanimously upon his execution, and on the

27th Charles was brought into court for the last time to hear his

sentence. His request to be heard before the Lords and Commons was

rejected, and his attempts to answer the charges of the president were

silenced. Sentence was pronounced, and the king was removed by the

soldiers, uttering his last broken protest: "I am not suffered to speak.

Expect what justice other people will have."

In these last hours Charles, who was probably weary of life, showed a

remarkable dignity and self-possession, and a firm resignation supported

by religious faith and by the absolute conviction of his own innocence,

which, says Burnet, "amazed all people and that so much the more because

it was not natural to him. It was imputed to a very extraordinary

measure of supernatural assistance....; it was owing to something within

himself that he went through so many indignities with so much true

greatness without disorder or any sort of affectation." Nothing in his

life became Charles like the leaving it. "He nothing common did or mean

Upon that memorable scene." On the morning of the 29th of January he

said his last sad farewell to his younger children, Elizabeth and Henry,

duke of Gloucester. On the 30th at ten o'clock he walked across from St

James's to Whitehall, calling on his guard "in a pleasant manner" to

walk apace, and at two he stepped upon the scaffold from a window,

probably the middle one, of the Banqueting House (see ARCHITECTURE,

Plate VI., fig. 75). He was separated from the people by large ranks of

soldiers, and his last speech only reached Juxon and those with him on

the scaffold. He declared that he had desired the liberty and freedom of

the people as much as any; "but I must tell you that their liberty and

freedom consists in having government. ... It is not their having a

share in the government; that is nothing appertaining unto them. A

subject and a sovereign are clean different things." These, together

with his declaration that he died a member of the Church of England, and

the mysterious "Remember," spoken to Juxon, were Charles's last words.

"It much discontents the citizens," wrote a spectator; "ye manner of his

deportment was very resolutely with some smiling countenances,

intimating his willingness to be out of his troubles."[3] "The blow I

saw given," wrote another, Philip Henry, "and can truly say with a sad

heart, at the instant whereof, I remember well, there was such a grone

by the Thousands then present as I never heard before and desire I may

never hear again. There was according to order one Troop immediately

marching fromwards Charing-Cross to Westminster and another fromwards

Westminster to Charing-Cross, purposely to masker" (i.e. to overpower)

"the people and to disperse and scatter them, so that I had much adoe

amongst the rest to escape home without hurt."[4]

Amidst such scenes of violence was at last effected the destruction of

Charles. "It is lawful," wrote Milton, "and hath been held so through

all ages for any one who have the power to call to account a Tyrant or

wicked King and after due conviction to depose and put him to death."[5]

But here (it might well be contended) there had been no "due

conviction." The execution had been the act of the king's personal

enemies, of "only some fifty or sixty governing Englishmen with Oliver

Cromwell in the midst of them" an act technically illegal, morally

unjustifiable because the supposed crimes of Charles had been condoned

by the later negotiations with him, and indefensible on the ground of

public expediency, for the king's death proved a far greater obstacle to

the re-establishment of settled government than his life could have

been. The result was an extraordinary revulsion of feeling in favour of

Charles and the monarchy, in which the incidents of his misgovernment

were completely forgotten. He soon became in the popular veneration a

martyr and a saint. His fate was compared with the Crucifixion, and his

trials and sufferings to those of the Saviour. Handkerchiefs dipped in

his blood wrought "miracles," and the _Eikon Basilike_, published on the

day of his funeral, presented to the public a touching if not a genuine

portrait of the unfortunate sovereign. At the Restoration the

anniversary of his death was ordered to be kept as a day of fasting and

humiliation, and the service appointed for use on the occasion was only

removed from the prayer-book in 1859. The same conception of Charles as

a martyr for religion appeals still to many, and has been stimulated by

modern writers. "Had Charles been willing to abandon the church and give

up episcopacy," says Bishop Creighton, "he might have saved his throne

and his life. But on this point Charles stood firm, for this he died and

by dying saved it for the future."[6] Gladstone, Keble, Newman write in

the same strain. "It was for the Church," says Gladstone, "that Charles

shed his blood upon the scaffold."[7] "I rest," says Newman, "on the

scenes of past years, from the Upper Room in Acts to the Court of

Carisbrooke and Uxbridge." The injustice and violence of the king's

death, however, the pathetic dignity of his last days, and the many

noble traits in his character, cannot blind us to the real causes of his

downfall and destruction, and a sober judgment cannot allow that Charles

was really a martyr either for the church or for the popular liberties.

The constitutional struggle between the crown and parliament had not

been initiated by Charles I. It was in full existence in the reign of

James I., and distinct traces appear towards the latter part of that of

Elizabeth. Charles, therefore, in some degree inherited a situation for

which he was not responsible, nor can he be justly blamed, according to

the ideas of kingship which then prevailed, for defending the

prerogatives of the crown as precious and sacred personal possessions

which it was his duty to hand down intact to his successors. Neither

will his persistence in refusing to yield up the control of the

executive to the parliament or the army, or his zeal in defending the

national church, be altogether censured. In the event the parliament

proved quite incapable of governing, an army uncontrolled by the

sovereign was shown to constitute a more grievous tyranny than Charles's

most arbitrary rule, and the downfall of the church seen to make room

only for a sectarian despotism as intolerable as the Laudian. The

natural inference might be that both conceptions of government had much

to support them, that they were bound sooner or later to come into

collision, and that the actual individuals in the drama, including the

king himself, were rather the victims of the greatness of events than

real actors in the scene, still less the controllers of their own and

the national destiny. A closer insight, however, shows that biographical

more than abstract historical elements determined the actual course and

issue of the Rebellion. The great constitutional and religious points of

dispute between the king and parliament, though doubtless involving

principles vital to the national interests, would not alone have

sufficed to destroy Charles. Monarchy was too much venerated, was too

deeply rooted in the national life, to be hastily and easily extirpated;

the perils of removing the foundation of all government, law and order

were too obvious not to be shunned at almost all costs. Still less can

the crowning tragedy of the king's death find its real explanation or

justification in these disputes and antagonisms. The real cause was the

complete discredit into which Charles had brought himself and the

monarchy. The ordinary routine of daily life and of business cannot

continue without some degree of mutual confidence between the

individuals brought into contact, far less could relations be maintained

by subjects with a king endowed with the enormous powers then attached

to the kingship, and with whom agreements, promises, negotiations were

merely subterfuges and prevarications. We have seen the series of

unhappy falsehoods and deceptions which constituted Charles's

statecraft, beginning with the fraud concerning the concessions to the

Roman Catholics at his marriage, the evasions with which he met the

Petition of Right, the abandonment of Strafford, the simultaneous

negotiation with, and betrayal of, all parties. Strafford's reported

words on hearing of his desertion by Charles, "Put not your trust in

princes," re-echo through the whole of Charles's reign. It was the

degradation and dishonour of the kingship, and the personal loss of

credit which Charles suffered through these transactions--which never

appear to have caused him a moment's regret or uneasiness, but the fatal

consequences of which were seen only too clearly by men like Hyde and

Falkland--that were the real causes of the rebellion and of the king's

execution. The constitutional and religious grievances were the outward

and visible sign of the corroding suspicions which slowly consumed the

national loyalty. In themselves there was nothing incapable of

settlement either through the spirit of union which existed between

Elizabeth and her subjects, or by the principle of compromise which

formed the basis of the constitutional settlement in 1688. The bond of

union between his people and himself Charles had, however, early broken,

and compromise is only possible between parties both of whom can

acknowledge to some extent the force of the other's position, which can

trust one another, and which are sincere in their endeavour to reach

agreement. Thus on Charles himself chiefly falls the responsibility for

the catastrophe.

His character and motives fill a large place in English history, but

they have never been fully understood and possibly were largely due to

physical causes. His weakness as a child was so extreme that his life

was despaired of. He outgrew physical defects, and as a young man

excelled in horsemanship and in the sports of the times, but always

retained an impediment of speech. At the time of his accession his

reserve and reticence were especially noticed. Buckingham was the only

person who ever enjoyed his friendship, and after his death Charles

placed entire confidence in no man. This isolation was the cause of an

ignorance of men and of the world, and of an incapacity to appreciate

the ideas, principles and motives of others, while it prepared at the

same time a fertile soil for receiving those exalted conceptions of

kingship, of divine right and prerogative, which came into vogue at this

period, together with those exaggerated ideas of his own personal

supremacy and importance to which minds not quite normal are always

especially inclined. His character was marked by a weakness which

shirked and postponed the settlement of difficulties, by a meanness and

ingratitude even when dealing with his most devoted followers, by an

obstinacy which only feigned compliance and by an untruthfulness which

differed widely from his son's unblushing deceit, which found always

some reservation or excuse, but which while more scrupulous was also

more dangerous and insidious because employed continually as a principle

of conduct. Yet Charles, in spite of his failings, had many fine

qualities. Clarendon, who was fully conscious of them, who does not

venture to call him a good king, and allows that "his kingly virtues had

some mixture and alloy that hindered them from shining in full lustre,"

declares that "he was if ever any, the most worthy of the title of an

Honest Man, so great a lover of justice that no temptation could dispose

him to a wrongful action except that it was disguised to him that he

believed it just," "the worthiest of gentlemen, the best master, the

best friend, the best husband, the best father and the best Christian

that the age in which he lived produced." With all its deplorable

mistakes and failings Charles I.'s reign belongs to a sphere infinitely

superior to that of his unscrupulous, corrupt, selfish but more

successful son. His private life was without a blemish. Immediately on

his accession he had suppressed the disorder which had existed in the

household of James I., and let it be known that whoever had business

with him "must never approach him by backstairs or private doors."[8] He

maintained a strict sobriety in food and dress. He had a fine artistic

sense, and Milton reprehends him for having made Shakespeare "the

closest companion of his solitudes." "Monsieur le Prince de Galles,"

wrote Rubens in 1625, "est le prince le plus amateur de la peinture qui

soit au monde." He succeeded in bringing together during twenty years an

unrivalled collection, of which a great part was dispersed at his death.

He showed a noble insensibility to flattery. He was deeply and sincerely

religious. He wished to do right, and was conscious of the purity of his

motives. Those who came into contact with him, even the most bitter of

his opponents, were impressed with his goodness. The great tragedy of

his life, to be read in his well-known, dignified, but weak and unhappy

features, and to be followed in his inexplicable and mysterious choice

of baneful instruments, such as Rupert, Laud, Hamilton, Glamorgan,

Henrietta Maria--all in their several ways working out his

destruction--seems to have been inspired by a fateful insanity or

infirmity of mind or will, recalling the great Greek dramas in which the

poets depicted frenzied mortals rushing into their own destruction,

impelled by the unseen and superior powers.

The king's body, after being embalmed, was buried by the few followers

who remained with him to the last, hastily and without any funeral

service, which was forbidden by the authorities, in the tomb of Henry

VIII., in St George's Chapel, Windsor, where his coffin was identified

and opened in 1813. An "account of what appeared" was published by Sir

Henry Halford, and a bone abstracted on the occasion was replaced in the

vault by the prince of Wales (afterwards Edward VII.) in 1888. Charles

I. left, besides three children who died in infancy, Charles (afterwards

Charles II.); James (afterwards James II.); Henry, duke of Gloucester

(1639-1660); Mary (1631-1660), who married William of Orange; Elizabeth

(1635-1650); and Henrietta, duchess of Orleans (1644-1670).

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The leading authority for the life and reign of Charles

I. is the _History of England_ (1883) and _History of the Great Civil

War_ (1893), by S.R. Gardiner, with the references there given. Among

recent works may be mentioned _Memoirs of the Martyr King_, by A. Fea

(1905); _Life of Charles I, 1600-1625_, by E.B. Chancellor (1886);

_The Visits of Charles I. to Newcastle_, by C.S. Terry (1898);

_Charles I._, by Sir J. Skelton, valuable for its illustrations

(1898); _The Manner of the Coronation of King Charles I._, ed. by C.

Wordsworth (Henry Bradshaw Soc., 1892); _The Picture Gallery of

Charles I._, by C. Phillips (1896). See also _Calendars of State

Papers_, _Irish_ and _Domestic Series_; _Hist. MSS. Comm. Series_,

esp. _MSS. of J. Eliot Hodgkin, F.J. Savile Foljambe, Lord Montagu of

Beaulieu, Duke of Rutland at Belvoir Castle, Marquis of Ormonde, Earl

Cowper (Coke MSS.), Earl of Lonsdale_ (note-books of parliaments of

1626 and 1628), _Duke of Buccleuch at Montagu House, Duke of

Portland_, 11th Rep. app. pt. vi., _Duke of Hamilton_, pt. i.,

_Salvetti Correspondence_, 10th Rep. pt. vi., _Lord Braye_; _Add.

MSS._ Brit. Mus., 33,596 fols. 21-32 (keys to ciphers), 34,171,

35,297; _Notes and Queries_, ser. vi., vii., viii., ix. indexes; _Eng.

Hist. Rev._ ii. 687 ("Charles and Glamorgan" by S.R. Gardiner), vii.

176; _Cornhill Mag._ vol. 75, January 1897, "Execution of Charles," by

C.H. Firth. (P. C. Y.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Hist. MSS. Comm._ 11 Rep. app. Pt. iv. 21.

[2] _Hist. MSS. Comm.: MSS. of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu_, 141.

[3] _Notes and Queries_, 7th ser., viii. 326.

[4] _Letters and Diaries of P. Henry_ (1882), 12.

[5] _Tenure of Kings and Magistrates_.

[6] _Lectures on Archbishop Laud_ (1895), p. 25.

[7] _Remarks on the Royal Supremacy_ (1850), p. 57.

[8] Salvetti's Corresp. in _Hist. MSS. Comm._ 11th Rep. app. pt. i.

p. 6.

CHARLES II. (1630-1685), king of Great Britain and Ireland, second son

of Charles I. and Queen Henrietta Maria, was born on the 29th of May

1630 at St James's Palace, and was brought up under the care

successively of the countess of Dorset, William Cavendish, duke of

Newcastle, and the marquess of Hertford. He accompanied the king during

the campaigns of the Civil War, and sat in the parliament at Oxford, but

on the 4th of March 1645 he was sent by Charles I. to the west,

accompanied by Hyde and others who formed his council. Owing, however,

to the mutual jealousies and misconduct of Goring and Grenville, and the

prince's own disregard and contempt of the council, his presence was in

no way advantageous, and could not prevent the final overthrow of the

king's forces in 1646. He retired (17th of February) to Pendennis Castle

at Falmouth, and on the approach of Fairfax (2nd of March) to Scilly,

where he remained with Hyde till the 16th of April. Thence he fled to

Jersey, and finally refusing all the overtures from the parliament, and

in opposition to the counsels of Hyde, who desired the prince to remain

on English territory, he repaired to the queen at Paris, where he

remained for two years. He is described at this time by Mme de

Motteville as "well-made, with a swarthy complexion agreeing well with

his fine black eyes, a large ugly mouth, a graceful and dignified

carriage and a fine figure"; and according to the description circulated

later for his capture after the battle of Worcester, he was over six

feet tall. He received instruction in mathematics from Hobbes, and was

early initiated into all the vices of the age by Buckingham and Percy.

In July 1648 the prince joined the royalist fleet and blockaded the

Thames with a fleet of eleven ships, returning to Holland, where he

received the news of the final royalist defeats and afterwards of the

execution of his father. On the 14th of January 1649 he had forwarded to

the council a signed _carte blanche_, granting any conditions provided

his father's life were spared. He immediately assumed the title of king,

and was proclaimed in Scotland (5th of February) and in some parts of

Ireland. On the 17th of September, after a visit to his mother at St

Germain, Charles went to Jersey and issued a declaration proclaiming his

rights; but, owing to the arrival of the fleet at Portsmouth, he was

obliged, on the 13th of February 1650, to return again to Breda. The

projected invasion of Ireland was delayed through want of funds till it

was too late; Hyde's mission to Spain, in the midst of Cromwell's'

successes, brought no assistance, and Charles now turned to Scotland for

aid. Employing the same unscrupulous and treacherous methods which had

proved so fatal to his father, he simultaneously supported and

encouraged the expedition of Montrose and the royalists, and negotiated

with the covenanters. On the 1st of May he signed the first draft of a

treaty at Breda with the latter, in which he accepted the Solemn League

and Covenant, conceded the control of public and church affairs to the

parliament and the kirk, and undertook to establish Presbyterianism in

the three kingdoms. He also signed privately a paper repudiating Ormonde

and the loyal Irish, and recalling the commissions granted to them. In

acting thus he did not scruple to desert his own royalist followers, and

to repudiate and abandon the great and noble Montrose, whose heroic

efforts he was apparently merely using in order to extort better terms

from the covenanters, and who, having been captured on the 4th of May,

was executed on the 21st in spite of some attempts by Charles to procure

for him an indemnity.

Thus perjured and disgraced the young king embarked for Scotland on the

2nd of June; on the 11th when off Heligoland he signed the treaty, and

on the 23rd, on his arrival at Speymouth, before landing, he swore to

both the covenants. He proceeded to Falkland near Perth and passed

through Aberdeen, where he saw the mutilated arm of Montrose suspended

over the city gate. He was compelled to dismiss all his followers except

Buckingham, and to submit to interminable sermons, which generally

contained violent invectives against his parents and himself. To Argyll

he promised the payment of L40,000 at his restoration, doubtless the sum

owing as arrears of the Scottish army unpaid when Charles I. was

surrendered to the English at Newcastle, and entered into negotiations

for marrying his daughter. In August he was forced to sign a further

declaration, confessing his own wickedness in dealing with the Irish,

his father's blood-guiltiness, his mother's idolatry, and his abhorrence

of prelacy, besides ratifying his allegiance to the covenants and to

Presbyterianism. At the same time he declared himself secretly to King,

dean of Tuam, "a true child of the Church of England," "a true

Cavalier," and avowed that "what concerns Ireland is in no ways

binding"; while to the Roman Catholics in England he promised

concessions and expressed his goodwill towards their church to Pope

Innocent X. His attempt, called "The Start," on the 4th of October 1650,

to escape from the faction at Perth and to join Huntly and the royalists

in the north failed, and he was overtaken and compelled to return. On

the 1st of January 1651 he was crowned at Scone, when he was forced to

repeat his oaths to both the covenants.

Meanwhile Cromwell had advanced and had defeated the Presbyterians at

Dunbar on the 3rd of September 1650, subsequently occupying Edinburgh.

This defeat was not wholly unwelcome to Charles in the circumstances; in

the following summer, during Cromwell's advance to the north, he shook

off the Presbyterian influence, and on the 31st of July 1651 marched

south into England with an army of about 10,000 commanded by David

Leslie. He was proclaimed king at Carlisle, joined by the earl of Derby

in Lancashire, evaded the troops of Lambert and Harrison in Cheshire,

marched through Shropshire, meeting with a rebuff at Shrewsbury, and

entered Worcester with a small, tired and dispirited force of only

16,000 men (22nd of August). Here the decisive battle, which ruined his

hopes, and in which Charles distinguished himself by conspicuous courage

and fortitude, was fought on the 3rd of September. After leading an

unsuccessful cavalry charge against the enemy he fled, about 6 P.M.,

accompanied by Buckingham, Derby, Wilmot, Lauderdale and others, towards

Kidderminster, taking refuge at Whiteladies, about 25 m. from Worcester,

where he separated himself from all his followers except Wilmot,

concealing himself in the famous oak during the 6th of September, moving

subsequently to Boscobel, to Moseley and Bentley Hall, and thence,

disguised as Miss Lane's attendant, to Abbots Leigh near Bristol, to

Trent in Somersetshire, and finally to the George Inn at Brighton,

having been recognized during the forty-one days of his wanderings by

about fifty persons, none of whom, in spite of the reward of L1000

offered for his capture, or of the death penalty threatened for aiding

his concealment, had betrayed him.

He set sail from Shoreham on the 15th of October 1651, and landed at

Fecamp in Normandy the next day. He resided at Paris at St Germain till

June 1654, in inactivity, unable to make any further effort, and living

with difficulty on a grant from Louis XIV. of 600 livres a month.

Various missions to foreign powers met with failure; he was excluded

from Holland by the treaty made with England in April 1654, and he

anticipated his expulsion from France, owing to the new relations of

friendship established with Cromwell, by quitting the country in July.

He visited his sister, the princess of Orange, at Spa, and went to

Aix-la-Chapelle, thence finally proceeding in November to Cologne, where

he was hospitably received. The conclusion of Cromwell's treaty with

France in October 1655, and the war between England and Spain, gave hope

of aid from the latter power. In April 1656 Charles went to Bruges, and

on the 7th of February 1658 to Brussels, where he signed a treaty with

Don John of Austria, governor of the Spanish Netherlands, by which he

received an allowance in place of his French pension and undertook to

assemble all his subjects in France in aid of the Spanish against the

French. This plan, however, came to nothing; projected risings in

England were betrayed, and by the capture of Dunkirk in June 1658, after

the battle of the Dunes, by the French and Cromwell's Ironsides, the

Spanish cause in Flanders was ruined.

As long as Cromwell lived there appeared little hope of the restoration

of the monarchy, and Charles and Hyde had been aware of the plots for

his assassination, which had aroused no disapproval. By the protector's

death on the 3rd of September 1658 the scene was wholly changed, and

amidst the consequent confusion of factions the cry for the restoration

of the monarchy grew daily in strength. The premature royalist rising,

however, in August 1659 was defeated, and Charles, who had awaited the

result on the coast of Brittany, proceeded to Fuenterrabia on the

Spanish frontier, where Mazarin and Luis de Haro were negotiating the

treaty of the Pyrenees, to induce both powers to support his cause; but

the failure of the attempt in England ensured the rejection of his

request, and he returned to Brussels in December, visiting his mother at

Paris on the way. Events had meanwhile developed fast in favour of a

restoration. Charles, by Hyde's advice, had not interfered in the

movement, and had avoided inconvenient concessions to the various

factions by referring all to a "free parliament." He left Brussels for

Breda, and issued in April 1660, together with the letters to the

council, the officers of the army and the houses of parliament and the

city, the declaration of an amnesty for all except those specially

excluded afterwards by parliament, which referred to parliament the

settlement of estates and promised a liberty to tender consciences in

matters of religion not contrary to the peace of the kingdom.

On the 8th of May Charles II. was proclaimed king in Westminster Hall

and elsewhere in London. On the 24th he sailed from the Hague, landing

on the 26th at Dover, where he was met by Monk, whom he saluted as

father, and by the mayor, from whom he accepted a "very rich bible,"

"the thing that he loved above all things in the world." He reached

London on the 29th, his thirtieth birthday, arriving with the

procession, amidst general rejoicings and "through a lane of happy

faces," at seven in the evening at Whitehall, where the houses of

parliament awaited his coming, to offer in the name of the nation their

congratulations and allegiance.

No event in the history of England had been attended with more lively

and general rejoicing than Charles's restoration, and none was destined

to cause greater subsequent disappointment and disillusion. Indolent,

sensual and dissipated by nature, Charles's vices had greatly increased

during his exile abroad, and were now, with the great turn of fortune

which gave him full opportunity to indulge them, to surpass all the

bounds of decency and control. A long residence till the age of thirty

abroad, together with his French blood, had made him politically more of

a foreigner than an Englishman, and he returned to England ignorant of

the English constitution, a Roman Catholic and a secret adversary of the

national religion, and untouched by the sentiment of England's greatness

or of patriotism. Pure selfishness was the basis of his policy both in

domestic and foreign affairs. Abroad the great national interests were

eagerly sacrificed for the sake of a pension, and at home his personal

ease and pleasure alone decided every measure, and the fate of every

minister and subject. During his exile he had surrounded himself with

young men of the same spirit as himself, such as Buckingham and Bennet,

who, without having any claim to statesmanship, inattentive to business,

neglectful of the national interests and national prejudices, became

Charles's chief advisers. With them, as with their master, public office

was only desirable as a means of procuring enjoyment, for which an

absolute monarchy provided the most favourable conditions. Such persons

were now, accordingly, destined to supplant the older and responsible

ministers of the type of Clarendon and Ormonde, men of high character

and patriotism, who followed definite lines of policy, while at the same

time the younger men of ability and standing were shut out from office.

The first period of Charles II.'s reign (1660-1667) was that of the

administration of Lord Clarendon, the principal author of the

Restoration settlement. The king was granted the large revenue of

L1,300,000. The naval and military forces were disbanded, but Charles

managed to retain under the name of guards three regiments, which

remained the nucleus of a standing army. The settlement of estates on a

legal basis provided ill for a large number of the king's adherents who

had impoverished themselves in his cause. The king's honour was directly

involved in their compensation and, except for the gratification of a

few individuals, was tarnished by his neglect to afford them relief.

Charles used his influence to carry through parliament the act of

indemnity, and the execution of some of the regicides was a measure not

more severe than was to be expected in the times and circumstances; but

that of Sir Henry Vane, who was not a regicide and whose life Charles

had promised the parliament to spare in case of his condemnation, was

brought about by Charles's personal insistence in revenge for the

victim's high bearing during his trial, and was an act of gross cruelty

and perfidy. Charles was in favour of religious toleration, and a

declaration issued by him in October 1660 aroused great hopes; but he

made little effort to conciliate the Presbyterians or to effect a

settlement through the Savoy conference, and his real object was to gain

power over all the factions and to free his co-religionists, the Roman

Catholics, in favour of whom he issued his first declaration of

indulgence (26th of December 1662), the bill to give effect to it being

opposed by Clarendon and defeated in the Lords, and being replied to by

the passing of further acts against religious liberty. Meanwhile the

plot of Venner and of the Fifth Monarchy men had been suppressed in

January 1661, and the king was crowned on the 23rd of April. The

convention parliament had been dissolved on the 29th of December 1660,

and Charles's first parliament, the Long Parliament of the Restoration,

which met on the 8th of May 1661 and continued till January 1679,

declared the command of the forces inherent in the crown, repudiated the

taking up of arms against the king, and repealed in 1664 the Triennial

Act, adding only a provision that there should not be intermission of

parliaments for more than three years. In Ireland the church was

re-established, and a new settlement of land introduced by the Act of

Settlement 1661 and the Act of Explanation 1665. The island was excluded

from the benefit of the Navigation Laws, and in 1666 the importation of

cattle and horses into England was forbidden. In Scotland episcopacy was

set up, the covenant to which Charles had taken so many solemn oaths

burnt by the common hangman, and Argyll brought to the scaffold, while

the kingdom was given over to the savage and corrupt administration of

Lauderdale. On the 21st of May 1662, in pursuance of the pro-French and

anti-Spanish policy, Charles married Catherine of Braganza, daughter of

John IV. of Portugal, by which alliance England obtained Tangier and

Bombay. She brought him no children, and her attractions for Charles

were inferior to those of his mistress, Lady Castlemaine, whom she was

compelled to receive as a lady of her bedchamber. In February 1665 the

ill-omened war with Holland was declared, during the progress of which

it became apparent how greatly the condition of the national services

and the state of administration had deteriorated since the Commonwealth,

and to what extent England was isolated and abandoned abroad, Michael de

Ruyter, on the 13th of June 1667, carrying out his celebrated attack on

Chatham and burning several warships. The disgrace was unprecedented.

Charles did not show himself and it was reported that he had abdicated,

but to allay the popular panic it was given out "that he was very

cheerful that night at supper with his mistresses." The treaty of Breda

with Holland (21st of July 1667) removed the danger, but not the

ignominy, and Charles showed the real baseness of his character when he

joined in the popular outcry against Clarendon, the upright and devoted

adherent of his father and himself during twenty-five years of

misfortune, and drove him into poverty and exile in his old age,

recalling ominously Charles I.'s betrayal of Strafford.

To Clarendon now succeeded the ministry of Buckingham and Arlington, who

with Lauderdale, Ashley (afterwards Lord Shaftesbury) and Clifford,

constituted the so-called Cabal ministry in 1672. With these advisers

Charles entered into those schemes so antagonistic to the national

interests which have disgraced his reign. His plan was to render himself

independent of parliament and of the nation by binding himself to France

and the French policy of aggrandizement, and receiving a French pension

with the secret intention as well of introducing the Roman Catholic

religion again into England. In 1661 under Clarendon's rule, the evil

precedent had been admitted of receiving money from France, in 1662

Dunkirk had been sold to Louis, and in February 1667 during the Dutch

war a secret alliance had been made with Louis, Charles promising him a

free hand in the Netherlands and Louis undertaking to support Charles's

designs "in or out of the kingdom." In January 1668 Sir W. Temple had

made with Sweden and Holland the Triple Alliance against the

encroachments and aggrandizement of France, but this national policy was

soon upset by the king's own secret plans. In 1668 the conversion of his

brother James to Romanism became known to Charles. Already in 1662 the

king had sent Sir Richard Bellings to Rome to arrange the terms of

England's conversion, and now in 1668 he was in correspondence with

Oliva, the general of the Jesuits in Rome, through James de la Cloche,

the eldest of his natural sons, of whom he had become the father when

scarcely sixteen during his residence at Jersey. On the 25th of January

1669, at a secret meeting between the two royal brothers, with

Arlington, Clifford and Arundell of Wardour, it was determined to

announce to Louis XIV. the projected conversion of Charles and the

realm, and subsequent negotiations terminated in the two secret treaties

of Dover. The first, signed only, among the ministers, by Arlington and

Clifford, the rest not being initiated, on the 20th of May 1670,

provided for the return of England to Rome and the joint attack of

France and England upon Holland, England's ally, together with Charles's

support of the Bourbon claims to the throne of Spain, while Charles

received a pension of L200,000 a year. In the second, signed by

Arlington, Buckingham, Lauderdale and Ashley on the 31st of December

1670, nothing was said about the conversion, and the pension provided

for that purpose was added to the military subsidy, neither of these

treaties being communicated to parliament or to the nation. An immediate

gain to Charles was the acquisition of another mistress in the person of

Louise de Keroualle, the so-called "Madam Carwell," who had accompanied

the duchess of Orleans, the king's sister, to Dover, at the time of the

negotiations, and who joined Charles's seraglio, being created duchess

of Portsmouth, and acting as the agent of the French alliance throughout

the reign.

On the 24th of October 1670, at the very time that these treaties were

in progress, Charles opened parliament and obtained a vote of L800,000

on the plea of supporting the Triple Alliance. Parliament was prorogued

in April 1671, not assembling again till February 1673, and on the 2nd

of January 1672 was announced the "stop of the exchequer," or national

bankruptcy, one of the most blameworthy and unscrupulous acts of the

reign, by which the payments from the exchequer ceased, and large

numbers of persons who had lent to the government were thus ruined. On

the reassembling of parliament on the 4th of February 1673 a strong

opposition was shown to the Cabal ministry which had been constituted at

the end of 1672. The Dutch War, declared on the 17th of March 1672,

though the commercial and naval jealousies of Holland had certainly not

disappeared in England, was unpopular because of the alliance with

France and the attack upon Protestantism, while the king's second

declaration of indulgence (15th of March 1672) aroused still further

antagonism, was declared illegal by the parliament, and was followed up

by the Test Act, which obliged James and Clifford to resign their

offices. In February 1674 the war with Holland was closed by the treaty

of London or of Westminster, though Charles still gave Louis a free hand

in his aggressive policy towards the Netherlands, and the Cabal was

driven from office. Danby (afterwards duke of Leeds) now became chief

minister; but, though in reality a strong supporter of the national

policy, he could not hope to keep his place without acquiescence in the

king's schemes. In November 1675 Charles again prorogued parliament, and

did not summon it again till February 1677, when it was almost

immediately prorogued. On the 17th of February 1676, with Danby's

knowledge, Charles concluded a further treaty with Louis by which he

undertook to subordinate entirely his foreign policy to that of France,

and received an annual pension of L100,000. On the other hand, Danby

succeeded in effecting the marriage (4th of November 1677) between

William of Orange and the princess Mary, which proved the most important

political event in the whole reign. Louis revenged himself by intriguing

with the Opposition and by turning his streams of gold in that

direction, and a further treaty with France for the annual payment to

Charles of L300,000 and the dismissal of his parliament, concluded on

the 17th of May 1678, was not executed. Louis made peace with Holland

at Nijmwegen on the 10th of August, and punished Danby by disclosing

his secret negotiations, thus causing the minister's fall and

impeachment. To save Danby Charles now prorogued the parliament on the

30th of December, dissolving it on the 24th of January 1679.

Meanwhile the "Popish Plot," the creation of a band of impostors

encouraged by Shaftesbury and the most violent and unscrupulous of the

extreme Protestant party in order to exclude James from the throne, had

thrown the whole country into a panic. Charles's conduct in this

conjuncture was highly characteristic and was marked by his usual

cynical selfishness. He carefully refrained from incurring suspicion and

unpopularity by opposing the general outcry, and though he saw through

the imposture from the beginning he made no attempt to moderate the

popular frenzy or to save the life of any of the victims, his

co-religionists, not even intervening in the case of Lord Stafford, and

allowing Titus Oates to be lodged at Whitehall with a pension. His

policy was to take advantage of the violence of the faction, to "give

them line enough," to use his own words, to encourage it rather than

repress it, with the expectation of procuring finally a strong royalist

reaction. In his resistance to the great movement for the exclusion of

James from the succession, Charles was aided by moderate men such as

Halifax, who desired only a restriction of James's powers, and still

more by the violence of the extreme exclusionists themselves, who headed

by Shaftesbury brought about their own downfall and that of their cause

by their support of the legitimacy and claims of Charles's natural son,

the duke of Monmouth. In 1679 Charles denied, in council, his supposed

marriage with Lucy Walter, Monmouth's mother, his declarations being

published in 1680 to refute the legend of the black box which was

supposed to contain the contract of marriage, and told Burnet he would

rather see him hanged than legitimize him. He deprived him of his

general's commission in consequence of his quasi-royal progresses about

the country, and in December on Monmouth's return to England he was

forbidden to appear at court. In February 1679 the king had consented to

order James to go abroad, and even approved of the attempt of the

primate and the bishop of Winchester to convert him to Protestantism. To

weaken the opposition to his government Charles accepted Sir W Temple's

new scheme of governing by a council which included the leaders of the

Opposition, and which might have become a rival to the parliament, but

this was an immediate failure. In May 1679 he prorogued the new

parliament which had attainted Danby, and in July dissolved it, while in

October he prorogued another parliament of the same mind till January

and finally till October 1680, having resolved "to wait till this

violence should wear off." He even made overtures to Shaftesbury in

November 1679, but the latter insisted on the departure of both the

queen and James. All attempts at compromise failed, and on the

assembling of the parliament in October 1680 the Exclusion Bill passed

the Commons, being, however, thrown out in the Lords through the

influence of Halifax. Charles dissolved the parliament in January 1681,

declaring that he would never give his consent to the Exclusion Bill,

and summoned another at Oxford, which met there on the 21st of March

1681, Shaftesbury's faction arriving accompanied by armed bands. Charles

expressed his willingness to consent to the handing over of the

administration to the control of a Protestant, in the case of a Roman

Catholic sovereign, but the Opposition insisted on Charles's nomination

of Monmouth as his successor, and the parliament was accordingly once

more (28th of March) dissolved by Charles, while a royal proclamation

ordered to be read in all the churches proclaimed the ill-deeds of the

parliament and the king's affection for the Protestant religion.

Charles's tenacity and clever tact were now rewarded. A great popular

reaction ensued in favour of the monarchy, and a large number of loyal

addresses were sent in, most of them condemning the Exclusion Bill.

Shaftesbury was imprisoned, and though the Middlesex jury threw out his

indictment and he was liberated, he never recovered his power, and in

October 1682 left England for ever. The Exclusion Bill and the

limitation of James's powers were no more heard of, and full liberty

was granted to the king to pursue the retrograde and arbitrary policy to

which his disposition naturally inclined. In Scotland James set up a

tyrannical administration of the worst type. The royal enmity towards

William of Orange was increased by a visit of the latter to England in

July. No more parliaments were called, and Charles subsisted on his

permanent revenue and his French pensions. He continued the policy of

double-dealing and treachery, deceiving his ministers as at the treaty

of Dover, by pretending to support Holland and Spain while he was

secretly engaged to Louis to betray them. On the 22nd of March 1681 he

entered into a compact with Louis whereby he undertook to desert his

allies and offer no resistance to French aggressions. In August he

joined with Spain and Holland in a manifesto against France, while

secretly for a million livres he engaged himself to Louis, and in 1682

he proposed himself as arbitrator with the intention of treacherously

handing over Luxemburg to France, an offer which was rejected owing to

Spanish suspicions of collusion. In the event, Charles's duplicity

enabled Louis to seize Strassburg in 1681 and Luxemburg in 1684. The

government at home was carried on principally by Rochester, Sunderland

and Godolphin, while Guilford was lord chancellor and Jeffreys lord

chief justice. The laws against the Nonconformists were strictly

enforced. In order to obtain servile parliaments and also obsequious

juries, who with the co-operation of judges of the stamp of Jeffreys

could be depended upon to carry out the wishes of the court, the borough

charters were confiscated, the charter of the city of London being

forfeited on the 12th of June 1683.

The popularity of Charles, now greatly increased, was raised to national

enthusiasm by the discovery of the Rye House plot in 1683, said to be a

scheme to assassinate Charles and James at an isolated house on the high

road near Hoddesdon in Hertfordshire as they returned from Newmarket to

London, among those implicated being Algernon Sidney, Lord Russell and

Monmouth, the two former paying the death penalty and Monmouth being

finally banished to the Hague. The administration became more and more

despotic, and Tangier was abandoned in order to reduce expenses and to

increase the forces at home for overawing opposition. The first

preliminary steps were now taken for the reintroduction of the Roman

Catholic religion. Danby and those confined on account of participation

in the popish plot were liberated, and Titus Oates thrown into prison. A

scheme was announced for withdrawing the control of the army in Ireland

from Rochester, the lord-lieutenant, and placing it in the king's own

hands, and the commission to which the king had delegated ecclesiastical

patronage was revoked. In May 1684 the office of lord high admiral, in

spite of the Test Act, was again given to James, who had now returned

from Scotland. To all appearances the same policy afterwards pursued so

recklessly and disastrously by James was now cautiously initiated by

Charles, who, however, not being inspired by the same religious zeal as

his brother, and not desiring "to go on his travels again," would

probably have drawn back prudently before his throne was endangered. The

developments of this movement were, however, now interrupted by the

death of Charles after a short illness on the 6th of February 1685. He

was buried on the 17th in Henry VII.'s chapel in Westminster Abbey with

funeral ceremonies criticized by contemporaries as mean and wanting in

respect, but the scantiness of which was probably owing to the fact that

he had died a Roman Catholic.

On his death-bed Charles had at length declared himself an adherent of

that religion and had received the last rites according to the Romanist

usage. There appears to be no trustworthy record of his formal

conversion, assigned to various times and various agencies. As a youth,

says Clarendon, "the ill-bred familiarity of the Scotch divines had

given him a distaste" for Presbyterianism, which he indeed declared "no

religion for gentlemen," and the mean figure which the fallen national

church made in exile repelled him at the same time that he was attracted

by the "genteel part of the Catholic religion." With Charles religion

was not the serious matter it was with James, and was largely regarded

from the political aspect and from that of ease and personal

convenience. Presbyterianism constituted a dangerous encroachment on the

royal prerogative; the national church and the cavalier party were

indeed the natural supporters of the authority of the crown, but on the

other hand they refused to countenance the dependence upon France; Roman

Catholicism at that moment was the obvious medium of governing without

parliaments, of French pensions and of reigning without trouble, and was

naturally the faith of Charles's choice. Of the two papers in defence of

the Roman Catholic religion in Charles's own hand, published by James,

Halifax says "though neither his temper nor education made him very fit

to be an author, yet in this case ... he might write it all himself and

yet not one word of it his own...."

Of his amours and mistresses the same shrewd observer of human

character, who was also well acquainted with the king, declares "that

his inclinations to love were the effects of health and a good

constitution with as little mixture of the _seraphic_ part as ever man

had.... I am apt to think his stayed as much as any man's ever did in

the _lower_ region." His health was the one subject to which he gave

unremitting attention, and his fine constitution and devotion to all

kinds of sport and physical exercise kept off the effects of

uncontrolled debauchery for thirty years. In later years the society of

his mistresses seems to have been chiefly acceptable as a means to avoid

business and petitioners, and in the case of the duchess of Portsmouth

was the price paid for ease and the continuance of the French pensions.

His ministers he never scrupled to sacrifice to his ease. The love of

ease exercised an entire sovereignty in his thoughts. "The motive of his

giving bounties was rather to make men less uneasy to him than more easy

to themselves." He would rob his own treasury and take bribes to press a

measure through the council. He had a natural affability, but too

general to be much valued, and he was fickle and deceitful. Neither

gratitude nor revenge moved him, and good or ill services left little

impression on his mind. Halifax, however, concludes by desiring to

moderate the roughness of his picture by emphasizing the excellence of

his intellect and memory and his mechanical talent, by deprecating a too

censorious judgment and by dwelling upon the disadvantages of his

bringing up, the difficulties and temptations of his position, and on

the fact that his vices were those common to human frailty. His capacity

for king-craft, knowledge of the world, and easy address enabled him to

surmount difficulties and dangers which would have proved fatal to his

father or to his brother. "It was a common saying that he could send

away a person better pleased at receiving nothing than those in the good

king his father's time that had requests granted them,"[1] and his

good-humoured tact and familiarity compensated for and concealed his

ingratitude and perfidy and preserved his popularity. He had good taste

in art and literature, was fond of chemistry and science, and the Royal

Society was founded in his reign. According to Evelyn he was "debonnaire

and easy of access, naturally kind-hearted and possessed an excellent

temper," virtues which covered a multitude of sins.

These small traits of amiability, however, which pleased his

contemporaries, cannot disguise for us the broad lines of Charles's

career and character. How far the extraordinary corruption of private

morals which has gained for the restoration period so unenviable a

notoriety was owing to the king's own example of flagrant debauchery,

how far to the natural reaction from an artificial Puritanism, is

uncertain, but it is incontestable that Charles's cynical selfishness

was the chief cause of the degradation of public life which marks his

reign, and of the disgraceful and unscrupulous betrayal of the national

interests which raised France to a threatening predominance and

imperilled the very existence of Britain for generations. The reign of

his predecessor Charles I., and even of that of his successor James II.,

with their mistaken principles and ideals, have a saving dignity wholly

wanting in that of Charles II., and the administration of Cromwell, in

spite of the popularity of the restoration, was soon regretted. "A lazy

Prince," writes Pepys, "no Council, no money, no reputation at home or

abroad. It is strange how ... everybody do nowadays reflect upon Oliver

and commend him, what brave things he did and made all the neighbour

princes fear him; while here a prince, come in with all the love and

prayers and good liking of his people ... hath lost all so soon...."

Charles II. had no children by his queen. By his numerous mistresses he

had a large illegitimate progeny. By Barbara Villiers, Mrs Palmer,

afterwards countess of Castlemaine and duchess of Cleveland, mistress

_en titre_ till she was superseded by the duchess of Portsmouth, he had

Charles Fitzroy, duke of Southampton and Cleveland, Henry Fitzroy, duke

of Grafton, George Fitzroy, duke of Northumberland, Anne, countess of

Sussex, Charlotte, countess of Lichfield, and Barbara, a nun; by Louise

de Keroualle, duchess of Portsmouth, Charles Lennox, duke of Richmond;

by Lucy Walter, James, duke of Monmouth and Buccleuch, and a daughter;

by Nell Gwyn, Charles Beauclerk, duke of St Albans, and James Beauclerk;

by Catherine Peg, Charles Fitz Charles, earl of Plymouth; by Lady

Shannon, Charlotte, countess of Yarmouth; by Mary Davis, Mary Tudor,

countess of Derwentwater.