Scotland became also the accepted king of England (under the
title of James I.), by virtue of his descent from that
daughter of Henry VII. and sister of Henry VIII., Margaret
Tudor, who married James IV. king of Scots. His grandfather
was James V.; his mother was Marie Stuart, or Mary, Queen of
Scots, born of her marriage with Lord Darnley. He was the
ninth in the line of the Scottish dynasty of the Stuarts, or
Stewarts, for an account of the origin of which see SCOTLAND:
A. D. 1370. He had been carefully alienated from the religion
of his mother and reared in Protestantism, to make him an
acceptable heir to the English throne. He came to it at a time
when the autocratic spirit of the Tudors, making use of the
peculiar circumstances of their time, had raised the royal
power and prerogative to their most exalted pitch; and he
united the two kingdoms of Scotland and England under one
sovereignty. "The noble inheritance fell to a race who,
comprehending not one of the conditions by which alone it was
possible to be retained, profligately misused until they lost
it utterly. The calamity was in no respect foreseen by the
statesman, Cecil, to whose exertion it was mainly due that
James was seated on the throne: yet in regard to it he cannot
be held blameless. He was doubtless right in the course he
took, in so far as he thereby satisfied a national desire, and
brought under one crown two kingdoms that with advantage to
either could not separately exist; but it remains a reproach
to his name that he let slip the occasion of obtaining for the
people some ascertained and settled guarantees which could not
then have been refused, and which might have saved half a
century of bloodshed. None such were proposed to James. He was
allowed to seize a prerogative, which for upwards of fifty
years had been strained to a higher pitch than at any previous
period of the English history; and his clumsy grasp closed on
it without a sign of question or remonstrance from the leading
statesmen of England. 'Do I mak the judges? Do I mak the
bishops?' he exclaimed, as the powers of his new dominion
dawned on his delighted sense: 'Then, God's wauns! I mak what
likes me, law and gospel!' It was even so. And this license to
make gospel and law was given, with other far more
questionable powers, to a man whose personal appearance and
qualities were as suggestive of contempt, as his public acts
were provocative of rebellion. It is necessary to dwell upon
this part of the subject; for it is only just to his not more
culpable but far less fortunate successor to say, that in it
lies the source and explanation of not a little for which the
penalty was paid by him. What is called the Great Rebellion
can have no comment so pregnant as that which is suggested by
the character and previous career of the first of the Stuart
kings."
_J. Forster,
Historical and Biographical Essays,
p.227._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.
The Hampton Court Conference.
James I. "was not long seated on the English throne, when a
conference was held at Hampton Court, to hear the complaints
of the puritans, as those good men were called who scrupled to
conform to the ceremonies, and sought a reformation of the
abuses of the church of England. On this occasion, surrounded
with his deans, bishops, and archbishops, who breathed into
his ears the music of flattery, and worshipped him as an
oracle, James, like king Solomon, to whom he was fond of being
compared, appeared in all his glory, giving his judgment on
every question, and displaying before the astonished prelates,
who kneeled every time they addressed him, his polemic powers and
theological learning. Contrasting his present honours with the
scenes from which he had just escaped in his native country,
he began by congratulating himself that, 'by the blessing of
Providence, he was brought into the promised land, where
religion was professed in its purity; where he sat among
grave, learned, and reverend men; and that now he was not, as
formerly, a king without state and honour, nor in a place
where order was banished, and beardless boys would brave him
to his face.'
{846}
After long conferences, during which the king gave the most
extraordinary exhibitions of his learning, drollery, and
profaneness, he was completely thrown off his guard by the
word presbytery, which Dr. Reynolds, a representative of the
puritans, had unfortunately employed. Thinking that he aimed
at a 'Scotch presbytery,' James rose into a towering passion,
declaring that presbytery agreed as well with monarchy as God
and the devil. 'Then,' said he, 'Jack and Tom, and Will and
Dick, shall meet, and at their pleasures censure me and my
council, and all our proceedings. Then Will shall stand up and
say, It must be thus: Then Dick shall reply, and say, Nay
marry, but we will have it thus. And, therefore, here I must
once reiterate my former speech, Le Roy s'avisera (the king
will look after it). Stay, I pray you, for one seven years
before you demand that of me; and if you then find me pursy
and fat, and my wind-pipes stuffed, I will perhaps hearken to
you; for let that government be once up, I am sure I shall be
kept in breath; then we shall all of us have work enough, both
our hands full. But, Dr. Reynolds, till you find that I grow
lazy, let that alone." Then, putting his hand to his hat, 'My
lords the bishops,' said his majesty, 'I may thank you that
these men plead for my supremacy; they think they can't make
their party good against you, but by appealing unto it. But if
once you are out, and they in place, I know what would become
of my supremacy; for no bishop, no king, as I said before.'
Then rising from his chair, he concluded the conference with,
'If this be all they have to say, I'll make them conform, or
I'll harry them out of this land, or else do worse.' The
English lords and prelates were so filled with admiration at
the quickness of apprehension and dexterity in controversy
shown by the king, that, as Dr. Barlow informs us, 'one of
them said his majesty spoke by the instinct of the Spirit of
God; and the lord chancellor, as he went out, said to the dean
of Chester, I have often heard that Rex est mixta persona cum
sacerdote (that a king is partly a priest), but I never saw
the truth thereof till this day!' In these circumstances,
buoyed up with flattery by his English clergy, and placed
beyond the reach of the faithful admonitions of the Scottish
ministry, we need not wonder to find James prosecuting, with
redoubled ardour, his scheme of reducing the church of
Scotland to the English model."
_T. McCrie,
Sketches of Scottish Church History,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
chapter 1, sections 3._
_G. G. Perry,
History of the Church of England,
volume 1, chapter 2._
_T. Fuller,
Church History of Britain,
book 10, section 1 (volume 3)._
England: A. D. 1605.
The Gunpowder Plot.
"The Roman Catholics had expected great favour and indulgence
on the accession of James, both as he was descended from Mary,
whose life they believed to have been sacrificed to their
cause, and as he himself, in his early youth, was imagined to
have shown some partiality towards them. ... Very soon they
discovered their mistake; and were at once surprised and
enraged to find James, on all occasions, express his intention
of strictly executing the laws enacted against them, and of
persevering in all the rigorous measures of Elizabeth.
Catesby, a gentleman of good parts and of an ancient family,
first thought of a most extraordinary method of revenge; and
he opened his intention to Piercy, a descendant of the
illustrious house of Northumberland. In vain, said he, would
you put an end to the king's life: he has children. ... To
serve any good purpose, we must destroy, at one blow, the
king, the royal family, the Lords, the Commons, and bury all
our enemies in one common ruin. Happily, they are all
assembled on the first meeting of Parliament, and afford us
the opportunity of glorious and useful vengeance. Great
preparations will not be requisite. A few of us, combining,
may run a mine below the hall in which they meet, and choosing
the very moment when the king harangues both Houses, consign over
to destruction these determined foes to all piety and
religion. ... Piercy was charmed with this project of Catesby;
and they agreed to communicate the matter to a few more, and
among the rest to Thomas Winter, whom they sent over to
Flanders, in quest of Fawkes, an officer in the Spanish
service, with whose zeal and courage they were all thoroughly
acquainted. ... All this passed in the spring and summer of
the year 1604; when the conspirators also hired a house in
Piercy's name, adjoining to that in which the Parliament was
to assemble. Towards the end of that year they began their
operations. ... They soon pierced the wall, though three yards
in thickness; but on approaching the other side they were
somewhat startled at hearing a noise which they knew not how
to account for. Upon inquiry, they found that it came from the
vault below the House of Lords; that a magazine of coals had
been kept there; and that, as the coals were selling off, the
vault would be let to the highest bidder. The opportunity was
immediately seized; the place hired by Piercy; thirty-six
barrels of powder lodged in it; the whole covered up with
faggots and billets; the doors of the cellar boldly flung
open, and everybody admitted, as if it contained nothing
dangerous. ... The day [November 5, 1605], so long wished for,
now approached, on which the Parliament was appointed to
assemble. The dreadful secret, though communicated to above
twenty persons, had been religiously kept, during the space of
near a year and a half. No remorse, no pity, no fear of
punishment, no hope of reward, had as yet induced any one
conspirator, either to abandon the enterprise or make a
discovery of it." But the betrayal was unwittingly made, after
all, by one in the plot, who tried to deter Lord Monteagle
from attending the opening session of Parliament, by sending
him a mysterious message of warning. Lord Monteagle showed the
letter to Lord Salisbury, secretary of state, who attached
little importance to it, but who laid it before the king. The
Scottish Solomon read it with more anxiety and was shrewdly
led by some expressions in the missive to order an inspection
of the vaults underneath the parliamentary houses. The
gunpowder was discovered and Guy Fawkes was found in the
place, with matches for the firing of it on his person. Being
put to the rack he disclosed the names of his accomplices.
They were seized, tried and executed, or killed while
resisting arrest.
_D. Hume,
History of England,
volume 4, chapter 46._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of England,
chapter 6, (volume 1)._
_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 9, chapter 1._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1606.
The chartering of the Virginia Company, with its London and
Plymouth branches.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.
{847}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.
The Monopoly granted to the Council for New England.
See NEW ENGLAND: A.. D. 1620-1623.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.
The exodus of the Pilgrims and the planting of their colony at
New Plymouth.
See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH COLONY): A. D. 1620.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1621.
Claims in North America conflicting with France.
Grant of Nova Scotia to Sir William Alexander.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1623-1638.
The grants in Newfoundland to Baltimore and Kirke.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1625.
The Protestant Alliance in the Thirty Years War.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1625.
The gains of Parliament in the reign of James I.
"The commons had now been engaged [at the end of the reign of
James I.], for more than twenty years, in a struggle to
restore and to fortify their own and their fellow subjects'
liberties. They had obtained in this period but one
legislative measure of importance, the late declaratory act
against monopolies. But they had rescued from disuse their
ancient right of impeachment. They had placed on record a
protestation of their claim to debate all matters of public
concern. They had remonstrated against the usurped
prerogatives of binding the subject by proclamation, and of
levying customs at the out-ports. They had secured beyond
controversy their exclusive privilege of determining contested
elections of their members. They had maintained, and carried
indeed to an unwarrantable extent, their power of judging and
inflicting punishment, even for offences not committed against
their house. Of these advantages some were evidently
incomplete; and it would require the most vigorous exertions
of future parliaments to realize them. But such exertions the
increased energy of the nation gave abundant cause to
anticipate. A deep and lasting love of freedom had taken hold
of every class except perhaps the clergy; from which, when
viewed together with the rash pride of the court, and the
uncertainty of constitutional principles and precedents,
collected through our long and various history, a calm
by-stander might presage that the ensuing reign would not pass
without disturbance, nor perhaps end without confusion."
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 6._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1625.
Marriage of Charles with Henrietta Maria of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624--1626.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1625-1628.
The accession of Charles I.
Beginning of the struggle of King and Parliament.
"The political and religious schism which had originated in
the 16th century was, during the first quarter of the 17th
century, constantly widening. Theories tending to Turkish
despotism were in fashion at Whitehall. Theories tending to
republicanism were in favour with a large portion of the House
of Commons. ... While the minds of men were in this state, the
country, after a peace of many years, at length engaged in a
war [with Spain, and with Austria and the Emperor in the
Palatinate] which required strenuous exertions. This war
hastened the approach of the great constitutional crisis. It
was necessary that the king should have a large military
force. He could not have such a force without money. He could
not legally raise money without the consent of Parliament. It
followed, therefore, that he either must administer the
government in conformity with the sense of the House of
Commons, or must venture on such a violation of the
fundamental laws of the land as had been unknown during
several centuries. ... Just at this conjuncture James died
[March 27, 1625]. Charles I. succeeded to the throne. He had
received from nature a far better understanding, a far
stronger will, and a far keener and firmer temper than his
father's. He had inherited his father's political theories,
and was much more disposed than his father to carry them into
practice. ... His taste in literature and art was excellent,
his manner dignified though not gracious, his domestic life
without blemish. Faithlessness was the chief cause of his
disasters, and is the chief stain on his memory. He was, in
truth, impelled by an incurable propensity to dark and crooked
ways. ... He seems to have learned from the theologians whom
he most esteemed that between him and his subjects there could
be nothing of the nature of mutual contract; that he could
not, even if he would, divest himself of his despotic
authority; and that, in every promise which he made, there was
an implied reservation that such promise might be broken in
case of necessity, and that of the necessity he was the sole
judge. And now began that hazardous game on which were staked
the destinies of the English people. It was played on the side
of the House of Commons with keenness, but with admirable
dexterity, coolness and perseverance. Great statesmen who
looked far behind them and far before them were at the head of
that assembly. They were resolved to place the king in such a
situation that he must either conduct the administration in
conformity with the wishes of his Parliament, or make
outrageous attacks on the most sacred principles of the
constitution. They accordingly doled out supplies to him very
sparingly. He found that he must govern either in harmony with
the House of Commons, or in defiance of all law. His choice
was soon made. He dissolved his first Parliament, and levied
taxes by his own authority. He convoked a second Parliament
[1626] and found it more intractable than the first. He again
resorted to the expedient of dissolution, raised fresh taxes
without any show of legal right, and threw the chiefs of the
opposition into prison. At the same time a new grievance,
which the peculiar feelings and habits of the English nation
made insupportably painful, and which seemed to all discerning
men to be of fearful augury, excited general discontent and
alarm. Companies of soldiers were billeted on the people; and
martial law was, in some places, substituted for the ancient
jurisprudence of the realm. The king called a third Parliament
[1628], and soon perceived that the opposition was stronger
and fiercer than ever. He now determined on a change of
tactics. Instead of opposing an inflexible resistance to the
demands of the commons, he, after much altercation and many
evasions, agreed to a compromise which, if he had faithfully
adhered to it, would have averted a long series of calamities.
The Parliament granted an ample supply. The King ratified, in
the most solemn manner, that celebrated law which is known by
the name of the Petition of Right, and which is the second
Great Charter of the liberties of England."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_J. R. Green,
History of the English People,
book 7, chapter 5 (volume 3)._
_F. P. Guizot,
History of the English Revolution,
book 1._
{848}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1627-1628.
Buckingham's war with France and expedition to La Rochelle.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.
The Petition of Right.
"Charles had recourse to many subterfuges in hopes to elude
the passing of this law; rather perhaps through wounded pride,
as we may judge from his subsequent conduct, than much
apprehension that it would create a serious impediment to his
despotic schemes. He tried to persuade them to acquiesce in
his royal promise not to arrest anyone without just cause, or
in a simple confirmation of the Great Charter and other
statutes in favour of liberty. The peers, too pliant in this
instance to his wishes, and half receding from the patriot
banner they had lately joined, lent him their aid by proposing
amendments (insidious in those who suggested them, though not
in the body of the house) which the commons firmly rejected.
Even when the bill was tendered to him for that assent which
it had been necessary, for the last two centuries, that the
king should grant or refuse in a word, he returned a long and
equivocal answer, from which it could only be collected that
he did not intend to remit any portion of what he had claimed
as his prerogative. But on an address from both houses for a
more explicit answer, he thought fit to consent to the bill in
the usual form. The commons, of whose harshness towards Charles
his advocates have said so much, immediately passed a bill for
granting five subsidies, about £350,000; a sum not too great
for the wealth of the kingdom or for his exigencies, but
considerable according to the precedents of former times, to
which men naturally look. ... The Petition of Right, ... this
statute is still called, from its not being drawn in the
common form of an act of parliament." Although the king had
been defeated in his attempt to qualify his assent to the
Petition of Right, and had been forced to accede to it
unequivocally, yet "he had the absurd and audacious
insincerity (for we can use no milder epithets), to circulate
1,500 copies of it through the country, after the prorogation,
with his first answer annexed; an attempt to deceive without
the possibility of success. But instances of such ill-faith,
accumulated as they are through the life of Charles, render
the assertion of his sincerity a proof either of historical
ignorance or of a want of moral delicacy."
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 7._
The following is the text of the Petition of Right: