The House of Stuart had peacefully reached the long coveted throne of
England in the person of a most unkingly King. Gross in appearance and
vulgar in manners, James had none of the royal attributes of his
mother. A great deal of knowledge had been crammed into a very small
mind. Conceited, vain, pedantic, headstrong, he set to work with the
confidence of ignorance to carry out his undigested views upon all
subjects, reversing at almost every point the policy of his great
predecessor. Where she with supreme tact had loosened the screws so
that the great authority vested in her might not press too heavily upon
the nation, he tightened them. Where she bowed her imperious will to
that of the Commons, this puny tyrant insolently defied it, and
swelling with sense of his own {98} greatness, claimed "Divine right"
for Kingship and demanded that his people should say "the King can do
no wrong," "to question his authority is to question that of God." If
he ardently supported the Church of England, it was because he was its
head. The Catholic who would have turned the Church authority over
again to the Pope, and the "Puritans" who resisted the "Popish
practices" of the Reformed Church of England, were equally hateful to
him, for one and the same reason; they were each aiming to diminish his
authority.
When the Puritans brought to him a petition signed by 800 clergymen,
praying that they be not compelled to wear the surplice, nor make the
sign of the cross at baptism--he said they were "vipers," and if they
did not submit to the authority of the Bishops in such matters "they
should be harried out of the land." In the persecution implied by this
threat, a large body of Puritans escaped to Holland with their
families, and thence came that band of heroic men and women on the
"Mayflower," landing at a point on the American Coast which they {99}
called "Plymouth" (1620). A few Englishmen had in 1607 settled in
Jamestown, Virginia. These two colonies contained the germ of the
future "United States of America."
The persecution of the Catholics led to a plot to blow up Parliament
House at a time when the King was present, thinking thus at one stroke
to get rid of a usurping tyrant, and of a House of Commons which was
daily becoming more and more infected with Puritanism. The discovery
of this "Guy Fawkes gunpowder plot," prevented its consummation, and
immensely strengthened Puritan sentiment.
The keynote of Elizabeth's foreign policy had been hostility to Spain,
that Catholic stronghold, and an unwavering adherence to Protestant
Europe. James saw in that great and despotic government the most
suitable friend for such a great King as himself. He proposed a
marriage between his son Charles and the Infanta, daughter of the King
of Spain, making abject promises of legislation in his Kingdom
favorable to the Catholics; and when an indignant House {100} of
Commons protested against the marriage, they were insolently
reprimanded for meddling with things which did not concern them, and
were sent home, not to be recalled again until the King's necessities
for money compelled him to summon them.
During the early part of his reign the people seem to have been
paralyzed and speechless before his audacious pretensions. Great
courtiers were fawning at his feet listening to his pedantic wisdom,
and humoring his theory of the "Divine right" of hereditary Kingship.
And alas!--that we have to say it--Francis Bacon (his Chancellor), with
intellect towering above his century,--was his obsequious servant and
tool, uttering not one protest as one after another the liberties of
the people were trampled upon!
But this Spanish marriage had aroused a spirit before which a wiser man
than James would have trembled. He was standing midway between two
scaffolds, that of his mother (1587), and his son (1649). Every blow
he struck at the liberties of England cut deep into the foundation of
his throne. {101} And when he violated the law of the land by the
imposition of taxes, without the sanction of his Parliament, he had
"sowed the wind" and the "whirlwind," which was to break on his son's
head was inevitable. Popular indignation began to be manifest, and
Puritan members of the Commons began to use language the import of
which could not be mistaken. Bacon was disgraced; his crime,--while
ostensibly the "taking of bribes,"--was in reality his being the
servile tool of the King.
In reviewing the acts of this reign we see a foolish Sovereign ruled by
an intriguing adventurer whom he created Duke of Buckingham. We see
him foiled in his attempt to link the fate of England with that of
Catholic Europe;--sacrificing Sir Walter Raleigh because he had given
offense to Spain, the country whose friendship he most desired. We see
numberless acts of folly, and but three which we can commend. James
did authorize and promote the translation of the Bible which has been
in use until to-day. He named his double Kingdom of England and
Scotland "Great Britain." {102} These two acts, together with his death
in 1625, meet with our entire approval.
Charles I., son of James, was at least one thing which his father was
not. He was a gentleman. Had it not been his misfortune to inherit a
crown, his scholarly refinements and exquisite tastes, his
irreproachable morals, and his rectitude in the personal relations of
life, might have won him only esteem and honor. But these qualities
belonged to Charles Stuart the gentleman. Charles the King was
imperious, false, obstinate, blind to the conditions of his time, and
ignorant of the nature of his people. Every step taken during his
reign led him nearer to its fatal consummation.
No family in Europe ever grasped at power more unscrupulously than the
Guises in France. They were cruel and remorseless in its pursuit. It
was the warm southern blood of her mother which was Mary Stuart's ruin.
She was a Guise,--and so was her son James I.--and so was Charles I.,
her grandson. There was despotism and tyranny in their blood. Their
very natures made it impossible that they should {103} comprehend the
Anglo-Saxon ideal of civil liberty.
Who can tell what might have been the course of History, if England had
been ruled by English Kings, which it has not been since the Conquest.
With every royal marriage there is a fresh infusion of foreign blood
drawn from fountains not always the purest,--until after centuries of
such dilutions, the royal line has less of the Anglo-Saxon in it than
any ancestral line in the Kingdom.
The odious Spanish marriage had been abandoned and Charles had married
Henrietta, sister of Louis XIII. of France.
The subject of religion was the burning one at that time. It soon
became apparent that the new King's personal sympathies leaned as far
as his position permitted toward Catholicism. The Church of England
under its new Primate, Archbishop Laud, was being drawn farther away
from Protestantism and closer to Papacy; while Laud in order to secure
Royal protection advocated the absolutism of the King, saying that
James in his theory of "Divine right" had {104} been inspired by the
Holy Ghost, thus turning religion into an engine of attack upon English
liberties. Laud's ideal was a purified Catholicism--retaining
auricular confession, prayers for the dead, the Real Presence in the
Sacrament, genuflexions and crucifixes, all of which were odious to
Puritans and Presbyterians. He had a bold, narrow mind, and recklessly
threw himself against the religious instincts of the time. The same
pulpit from which was read a proclamation ordering that the Sabbath be
treated as a holiday, and not a Holy-day, was also used to tell the
people that resistance to the King's will was "Eternal damnation."
This made the Puritans seem the defenders of the liberties of the
country, and drew hosts of conservative Churchmen, such as Pym, to
their side, although not at all in sympathy with a religious fanaticism
which condemned innocent pleasures, and all the things which adorn
life, as mere devices of the devil. Such were the means by which the
line was at last sharply drawn. The Church of England and tyranny on
one {105} side, and Puritanism and liberty on the other.
But there was one thing which at this moment was of deeper interest to
the King than religion. He wanted,--he must have,--money. _Religion_
and _money_ are the two things upon which the fate of nations has
oftenest hung. These two dangerous factors were both present now, and
they were going to make history very fast.
On account of a troublesome custom prevailing in his Kingdom, Charles
must first summon his Parliament, and they must grant the needed
supplies. His father had by the discovery of the theory of "Divine
right," prepared the way to throw off these Parliamentary trammels.
But that could only be reached by degrees. So Parliament was summoned.
It had no objection to voting the needed subsidies, but,--the King must
first promise certain reforms, political and religious, and--dismiss
his odious Minister Buckingham.
Charles, indignant at this outrage, dissolved the body, and appealed to
the country for a loan. The same reply came from {106} every quarter.
"We will gladly lend the money, but it must be done through
Parliament." The King was thoroughly aroused. If the loan will not be
voluntary, it must be forced. A tax was levied, fines and penalties
for its resistance meted out by subservient judges.
John Hampden was one of the earliest victims. His means were ample,
the sum was small, but his manhood was great. "Not one farthing, if it
cost me my life," was his reply as he sat in the prison at Gate House.
The supply did not meet the King's demand. Overwhelmed with debt and
shame and rage, he was obliged again to resort to the hated means.
Parliament was summoned. The Commons, with memory of recent outrages
in their hearts, were more determined than before. The members drew up
a "_Petition of Right_," which was simply a reaffirmation of the
inviolability of the rights of person, of property and of speech--a
sort of second "Magna Charta."
They resolutely and calmly faced their King, the "Petition" in one
hand, the {107} granted subsidies in the other. For a while he defied
them; but the judges were whispering in his ear that the "Petition"
would not be binding upon him, and Buckingham was urging him to yield.
Perhaps it was Charles Stuart the gentleman who hesitated to receive
money in return for solemn promises which he did not intend to keep!
But Charles the King signed the paper, which seven judges out of
twelve, in the highest court of the realm, were going to pronounce
invalid because the King's power was beyond the reach of Parliament.
It was inherent in him as King, and bestowed by God. _Any infringement
upon his prerogative by Act of Parliament was void_!
With king so false, and with justice so polluted at its fountain, what
hope was there for the people but in Revolution?
From the tyranny of the Church under Laud, a way was opened when, in
1629, Charles granted a Charter to the Colony of Massachusetts. With a
quiet, stern enthusiasm the hearts of men turned toward that refuge in
America. Not men of broken fortunes, adventurers, and criminals, but
{108} owners of large landed estates, professional men, some of the
best in the land, who abandoned home and comfort to face intolerable
hardships. One wrote, "We are weaned from the delicate milk of our
Mother England and do not mind these trials." As the pressure
increased under Laud, the stream toward the West increased in volume;
so that in ten years 20,000 Englishmen had sought religious freedom
across the sea, and had founded a Colony which, strange to say,--under
the influence of an intense religious sentiment,--became itself a
Theocracy and a new tyranny, although one sternly just and pure.
The dissolute, worthless Buckingham had been assassinated, and Charles
had wept passionate tears over his dead body. But his place had been
filled by one far better suited to the King's needs at a time when he
had determined not again to recall Parliament, but to rule without it
until resistance to his measures had ceased.
It was with no sinister purpose of establishing a despotism such as a
stronger man might have harbored, that he made this {109} resolve.
What Charles wanted was simply the means of filling his exchequer; and
if Parliament would not give him that except by a dicker for reforms,
and humiliating pledges which he could not keep, why then he would find
new ways of raising money without them. His father had done it before
him, he had done it himself. With no Commons there to rate and insult
him, it could be done without hindrance.
He was not grand enough, nor base enough, nor was he rich enough, to
carry out any organized design upon the country. He simply wanted
money, and had such blind confidence in Kingship, that any very serious
resistance to his authority did not enter his dreams. It was the
limitations of his intelligence which proved his ruin, his inability to
comprehend a new condition in the spirit of his people. Elizabeth
would have felt it, though she did not understand it, and would have
loosened the screws, without regard for her personal preferences, and
by doing it, so bound the people to her, that her policy would have
been their policy. Charles was as wise as the {110} engineer who would
rivet down the safety-valves!
Sir Thomas Wentworth (Earl Strafford), who had taken the place of
Buckingham, was an apostate from the party of liberty. Disappointed in
becoming a leader in the Commons he had drawn gradually closer to the
King, who now leaned upon him as the vine upon the oak.
This man's ideal was to build up in England just such a despotism as
Richelieu was building in France. The same imperious temper, the same
invincible will and administrative genius, marked him as fitted for the
work. While Charles was feebly scheming for revenue, he was laying
large and comprehensive plans for a system of oppression, which should
_yield_ the revenue,--and for Arsenals and Forts--and a standing Army,
and a rule of terror which should hold the nation in subjection while
these things were preparing. He was clear-sighted enough to see that
"absolutism" was not to be accomplished by a system of reasoning. He
would not urge it as a dogma, but as a fact.
The "Star Chamber," a tribunal for the {111} trying of a certain class
of offences, was brought to a state of fresh efficiency. Its
punishments could be anything this side of death. A clergyman accused
of speaking disrespectfully of Laud, is condemned to pay L5,000 to the
King, L300 to the aggrieved Archbishop himself, one side of his nose is
to be slit, one ear cut off, and one cheek branded. The next week this
to be repeated on the other side, and then followed by imprisonment
subject to pleasure of the Court. Another who has written a book
considered seditious, has the same sentence carried out, only varied by
imprisonment for life.
These were some of the embellishments of the system called "Thorough,"
which was carried on by the two friends and confederates, Laud and
Strafford, who were in their pleasant letters to each other all the
time lamenting that the power of the "Star Chamber" was so limited, and
judges so timid! Is it strange that the plantation in Massachusetts
had fresh recruits?
But the more serious work was going on under Strafford's vigorous
management. {112} "Monopolies" were sold once more, with a fixed duty
on profits added to the price of the original concession. Every
article in use by the people was at last bought up by Monopolists, who
were compelled to add to the price of these commodities, to compensate
for the tax they must pay into the King's Treasury.
"_Ship Money_" was a tax supposably for the building of a Navy, for
which there was no accounting to the people, the amount and frequency
of the levy being discretionary with the King. It was always possible
and imminent, and was the most odious of all the methods adopted for
wringing money from the nation, while resistance to it, as to all other
such measures, was punished by the Star Chamber in such pleasant
fashion as would please Strafford and Laud, whose creatures the judges
were.
Hampden, as before, championed the rights of the people in his own
person, going to prison and facing death, if it were necessary, rather
than pay the amount of 20 shillings. But that the taxes were paid by
the people is evident, for so {113} successful was this scheme of
revenue that many predicted the King would never again call a
Parliament. What would be the need of a Parliament, if he did not
require money? The Royalists were pleased, and the people were wisely
patient, knowing that such a financial fabric must fall at the first
breath of a storm, and then their time would come.
{114}