CHAPTER LV.

ENGLAND UNDER THE STUARTS: THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION. (1603-1714.)

I. THE FIRST TWO STUARTS.

1. _Reign of James the First_ (1603-1625).

THE "DIVINE RIGHT" OF KINGS AND THE "ROYAL TOUCH."--With the end of the

Tudor line (see p. 561), James VI. of Scotland, son of Mary Stuart, came

to the English throne, as James I. of England. The accession of the House

of Stuart brought England and Scotland under the same sovereign, though

each country still retained its own Parliament.

The Stuarts were firm believers in the doctrine of the "Divine Right" of

kings. They held that hereditary princes are the Lord's anointed, and that

their authority can in no way be questioned or limited by people, priest,

or Parliament. James I.'s own words were, "As it is atheism and blasphemy

to dispute what God can do, so it is high contempt in a subject to dispute

what a king can do, or to say that the king cannot do this or that."

This doctrine found much support in the popular superstition of the "Royal

Touch." The king was believed to possess the power--a gift transmitted

through the royal line of England from Edward the Confessor--of healing

scrofulous persons by the laying on of hands. [Footnote: Consult Lecky,

_A History of England in the Eighteenth Century_, Vol. I. p. 73. The

French kings were also supposed to possess the same miraculous power,

inherited, as most believed, from Louis the Saint.] It is simply the

bearing of this strange superstition upon the doctrine of the divine right

of kings that concerns us now. "The political importance of this

superstition," observes Lecky, "is very manifest. Educated laymen might

deride it, but in the eyes of the English poor it was a visible, palpable

attestation of the indefeasible sanctity of the royal line. It placed the

sovereignty entirely apart from the categories of mere human

institutions."

By bearing this superstition in mind, it will be easier for us to

understand how so large a proportion of the people of England could

support the Stuarts in their extravagant claims, and could sincerely

maintain the doctrine of the sinfulness of resistance to the king.

THE GUNPOWDER PLOT (1605).--In the third year of James's reign was

unearthed a plot to blow up with gunpowder the Parliament Building, upon

the opening day of the Session, when king, lords, and commons would all be

present, and thus to destroy at a single blow every branch of the English

Government. This conspiracy, known as the Gunpowder Plot, was entered into

by a few Roman Catholics, because they were disappointed in the course

which the king had taken as regards their religion. [Footnote: Though son

of the Catholic Mary Stuart, James had been educated as a Protestant.] The

leader of the conspiracy, Guy Fawkes, was arrested, and after being put to

the rack, was executed. His chief accomplices were also seized and

punished. The alarm created by the terrible plot led Parliament to enact

some very severe laws against all the Roman Catholics of the realm.

COLONIES AND TRADE SETTLEMENTS.--The reign of James I. is signalized by

the commencement of that system of colonization which has resulted in the

establishment of the English race in almost every quarter of the globe.

In the year 1607 Jamestown, so named in honor of the king, was founded in

Virginia. This was the first permanent English settlement within the

limits of the United States. In 1620 some Separatists, or Pilgrims, who

had found in Holland a temporary refuge from persecution, pushed across

the Atlantic, and amidst heroic sufferings and hardships established the

first settlement in New England, and laid the foundations of civil liberty

in the New World.

Besides planting these settlements in the New World, the English during

this same reign established themselves in the ancient country of India. In

1612 the East India Company, which had been chartered by Elizabeth in

1600, established their first trading-post at Surat. This was the humble

beginning of the gigantic English empire in the East.

CONTEST BETWEEN JAMES AND THE COMMONS.--We have made mention of James's

idea of the divine right of kingship. Such a view of royal authority and

privileges was sure to bring him into conflict with Parliament, especially

with the House of Commons. He was constantly dissolving Parliament and

sending the members home, because they insisted upon considering subjects

which he had told them they should let alone.

The chief matters of dispute between the king and the Commons were the

limits of the authority of the former in matters touching legislation and

taxation, and the nature and extent of the privileges and jurisdictions of

the latter.

As to the limits of the royal power, James talked and acted as though his

prerogatives were practically unbounded. He issued proclamations which in

their scope were really laws, and then enforced these royal edicts by

fines and imprisonment, as though they were regular statutes of

Parliament. Moreover, taking advantage of some uncertainty in the law as

regards the power of the king to collect customs at the ports of the

realm, he laid new and unusual duties upon imports and exports. James's

judges were servile enough to sustain him in this course, some of them

going so far as to say that "the sea-ports are the king's gates, which he

may open and shut to whom he pleases."

As to the privileges of the Commons, that body insisted, among other

things, upon their right to determine all cases of contested election of

their members, and to debate freely all questions concerning the common

weal, without being liable to prosecution or imprisonment for words spoken

in the House. James denied that these privileges were matters of right

pertaining to the Commons, and repeatedly intimated to them that it was

only through his own gracious permission and the favor of his ancestors

that they were allowed to exercise these liberties at all, and that if

their conduct was not more circumspect and reverential, he should take

away their privileges entirely.

On one occasion, the Commons having ventured to debate certain matters of

state which the king had forbidden them to meddle with, he, in reproving

them, made a more express denial than ever of their rights and privileges,

which caused them, in a burst of noble indignation, to enter upon their

journal a brave protest, known as "The Great Protestation," which declared

that "the liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of

Parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the

subjects of England, and that the arduous and urgent affairs concerning

the king, state, and defence of the realm ... are proper subjects and

matter of council and debate in Parliament" (1621).

When intelligence of this action was carried to the king, he instantly

sent for the journal of the House, and with his own hands tore out the

leaf containing the obnoxious resolution. Then he angrily prorogued

Parliament, and even went so far as to imprison several of the members of

the Commons. In these high handed measures we get a glimpse of the Stuart

theory of government, and see the way paved for the final break between

king and people in the following reign.

King James died in the year 1625, after a reign as sovereign of England

and Scotland of twenty-two years.

LITERATURE.--One of the most noteworthy literary labors of the reign under

review was a new translation of the Bible, known as _King James's

Version_. This royal version is the one in general use at the present

day.

The most noted writers of James's reign were a bequest to it from the

brilliant era of Elizabeth (see p. 560). Sir Walter Raleigh, the petted

courtier of Elizabeth, fell on evil days after her death. On the charge of

taking part in a conspiracy against the crown, he was sent to the Tower,

where he was kept a prisoner for thirteen years. From the tedium of his

long confinement, he found relief in the composition of a _History of

the World_. He was at last beheaded.

[Illustration: THE TOWER OF LONDON.]

The close of the life of the great philosopher Francis Bacon, was scarcely

less sad than that of Sir Walter Raleigh. He held the office of Lord

Chancellor, and yielding to the temptations of the corrupt times upon

which he had fallen, accepted bribes from the suitors who brought cases

before him. He was impeached and brought to the bar of the House of Lords,

where he confessed his guilt, pathetically appealing to his judges "to be

merciful to a broken reed." He lived only five years after his fall and

disgrace, dying in 1626.

Bacon must be given the first place among the philosophers of the English-

speaking race. His system is known as the _Inductive Method of

Philosophy_. It insists upon experiment and a careful observation of

facts as the only true means of arriving at a knowledge of the laws of

nature.

2. _Reign of Charles the First_ (1625-1649).

THE PETITION OF RIGHT (1628).--Charles I. came to the throne with all his

father's lofty notions about the divine right of kings. Consequently the

old contest between king and Parliament was straightway renewed. The first

two Parliaments of his reign Charles dissolved speedily, because instead

of voting supplies they persisted in investigating public grievances.

After the dissolution of his second Parliament Charles endeavored to raise

the money he needed to carry on the government, by means of "benevolences"

and forced loans. But all his expedients failed to meet his needs, and he

was compelled to fall back upon Parliament. The Houses met, and promised

to grant him generous subsidies, provided he would sign a certain

_Petition of Right_ which they had drawn up. Next after Magna Charta,

this document up to this date is the most noted in the constitutional

history of England. It simply reaffirmed the ancient rights and privileges

of the English people as defined in the Great Charter and by the good laws

of Edward I. and Edward III. Four abuses were provided against: (i) the

raising of money by loans, "benevolences," taxes, etc., without the

consent of Parliament; (2) arbitrary imprisonment; (3) the quartering of

soldiers in private houses--a very vexatious thing; and (4) trial without

jury.

[Illustration: CHARLES I. (After a painting by A. Vandyke.)]

Charles was as reluctant to assent to the Petition as King John was to

affix his seal to the Magna Charta; but he was at length forced to give

sanction to it by the use of the usual formula, "Let it be law as desired"

(1628).

CHARLES RULES WITHOUT PARLIAMENT (1629-1640).--It soon became evident that

Charles was utterly insincere when he put his name to the Petition of

Right. He immediately violated its provisions in attempting to raise money

by forbidden taxes and loans. For eleven years he ruled without

Parliament, thus changing the government of England from a government by

king, lords, and commons, to what was in effect an absolute and

irresponsible monarchy, like that of France or Spain.

As is always the case under such circumstances, there were enough persons

ready to aid the king in his schemes of usurpation. Prominent among his

unscrupulous agents were his ministers Thomas Wentworth (Earl of Stafford)

and William Laud. Wentworth devoted himself to establishing the royal

despotism in civil matters; while Laud, who was made Archbishop of

Canterbury, busied himself chiefly with exalting above all human

interference the king's prerogatives in religious affairs as the supreme

head of the English Church.

All these high-handed and tyrannical proceedings of Charles and his agents

were enforced by certain courts that had been wrested from their original

purpose and moulded into instruments of despotism. These were known as the

_Council of the North_, the _Star Chamber_, and the _High Commission

Court_. [Footnote: The first was a tribunal established by Henry VIII.,

and was now employed by Wentworth as an instrument for enforcing the

king's despotic authority in the turbulent northern counties of England.

The Star Chamber was a court of somewhat obscure origin, which at this

time dealt chiefly with criminal cases affecting the government, such as

riot, libel, and conspiracy. The High Commission Court was a tribunal of

forty-four commissioners, created in Elizabeth's reign to enforce the acts

of Supremacy and Uniformity.] All of these courts sat without jury, and

being composed of the creatures of the king, were of course his

subservient instruments. Their decisions were unjust and arbitrary; their

punishments, harsh and cruel.

JOHN HAMPDEN AND SHIP-MONEY.--Among the illegal taxes levied during this

period of tyranny was a species known as ship-money, so called from the

fact that in early times the kings, when the realm was in danger, called

upon the sea-ports and maritime counties to contribute ships and ship-

material for the public service. Charles and his agents, in looking this

matter over, conceived the idea of extending this tax over the inland as

well as the sea-board counties.

Among those who refused to pay the tax was a country gentleman, named John

Hampden. The case was tried in the Exchequer Chamber, before all the

twelve judges. All England watched the progress of the suit with the

utmost solicitude. The question was argued by able counsel both on the

side of Hampden and of the crown. Judgment was finally rendered in favor

of the king, although five of the twelve judges stood for Hampden. The

case was lost; but the people, who had been following the arguments, were

fully persuaded that it went against Hampden simply for the reason that

the judges stood in fear of the royal displeasure, and that they did not

dare to decide the case adversely to the crown.

The arbitrary and despotic character which the government had now assumed

in both civil and religious matters, and the hopelessness of relief or

protection from the courts, caused thousands to seek in the New World that

freedom and security which was denied them in their own land.

THE COVENANTERS.--England was almost ready to rise in open revolt against

the unbearable tyranny. Events in Scotland hastened the crisis. The king

was attempting to impose the English liturgy (slightly modified) upon the

Scotch Presbyterians. At Edinburgh this led to a riot, one of the women

worshippers throwing a stool at the bishop who attempted to read the

service. The spirit of resistance spread. All classes, nobles and peasants

alike, bound themselves by a solemn covenant to resist to the very last

every attempt to make innovations in their religion. From this act they

became known as Covenanters (1638).

The king resolved to crush the movement by force, but he soon found that

war could not be carried on without money, and was constrained to summon

Parliament in hopes of obtaining a vote of supplies. But instead of making

the king a grant of money, the Commons first gave their attention to the

matter of grievances, whereupon Charles dissolved the Parliament. The

Scottish forces crossed the border, and the king, helpless, with an empty

treasury and a seditious army, was forced again to summon the two Houses.

THE LONG PARLIAMENT.--Under this call met on November 3, 1640, that

Parliament which, from the circumstance of its lasting over twelve years,

became known as the Long Parliament. The members of the Commons of this

Parliament were stern and determined men, who were resolved to put a check

to the despotic course of the king.

Almost the first act of the Commons was the impeachment and trial of

Strafford and Laud, as the most prominent instruments of the king's

tyranny and usurpation. Both were finally brought to the block. The three

iniquitous and illegal courts of which we have spoken (see p. 607) were

abolished. And the Commons, to secure themselves against dissolution

before their work was done, enacted a law which provided that they should

not be adjourned or dissolved without their own consent.

CHARLES'S ATTEMPT TO SEIZE THE FIVE MEMBERS.--An act of violence on the

part of Charles now precipitated the nation into the gulf of civil war,

towards which events had been so rapidly drifting. With the design of

overawing the Commons, the king made a charge of treason against five of

the leading members, among whom were Hampden and Pym, and sent officers to

effect their arrest; but the accused were not to be found. The next day

Charles himself, accompanied to the door of the chamber by armed

attendants, went to the House, for the purpose of seizing the five

members; but, having been forewarned of the king's intention, they had

withdrawn from the hall. The king was not long in realizing the state of

affairs, and with the observation, "I see the birds have flown," withdrew

from the chamber.

Charles had taken a fatal step. The nation could not forgive the insult

offered to its representatives. All London rose in arms. The king,

frightened by the storm which he had raised, fled from the city to York.

From this flight of Charles from London, may be dated the beginning of the

Civil War (Jan. 10, 1642).

Having now traced the events which led up to this open strife between the

king and his people, we shall pass very lightly over the incidents of the

struggle itself, and hasten to speak of the Commonwealth, to the

establishment of which the struggle led.

3. _The Civil War_ (1642-1649).

THE BEGINNING.--After the flight of the king, negotiations were entered

into between him and Parliament with a view to a reconciliation. The

demands of Parliament were that the militia, the services of the Church,

the education and marriage of the king's children, and many other matters

should be subject to the control of the two Houses. In making all these

demands Parliament had manifestly gone to unreasonable and

unconstitutional lengths; but their distrust of Charles was so profound,

that they were unwilling to leave in his hands any power or prerogative

that might be perverted or abused. Charles refused, as might have been and

was expected, to accede to the propositions of Parliament, and unfurling

the royal standard at Nottingham, called upon all loyal subjects to rally

to the support of their king (Aug. 22, 1642).

THE TWO PARTIES.--The country was now divided into two great parties.

Those that enlisted under the king's standard--on whose side rallied, for

the most part, the nobility, the gentry, and the clergy--were known as

Royalists, or Cavaliers; while those that gathered about the Parliamentary

banner were called Parliamentarians, or Roundheads, the latter term being

applied to them because many of their number cropped their hair close to

the head, simply for the reason that the Cavaliers affected long and

flowing locks. The Cavaliers, in the main, favored the Established Church,

while the Roundheads were, in general, Puritans. During the progress of

the struggle the Puritans split into two parties, or sects, known as

Presbyterians and Independents.

For six years England now suffered even greater evils than those that

marked that earlier civil strife known as the Wars of the Roses.

OLIVER CROMWELL AND HIS "IRONSIDES."--The war had continued about three

years when there came into prominence among the officers of the

Parliamentary forces a man of destiny, one of the great characters of

history,--Oliver Cromwell. During the early campaigns of the war, as

colonel of a regiment of cavalry, he had exhibited his rare genius as an

organizer and disciplinarian. His regiment became famous under the name of

"Cromwell's Ironsides." It was composed entirely of "men of religion."

Swearing, drinking, and the usual vices of the camp were unknown among

them. They advanced to the charge singing psalms. During all the war the

regiment was never once beaten.

THE SELF-DENYING ORDINANCE (1645).--In the course of the war the Puritans,

as has been said, became divided into two parties, the Presbyterians and

the Independents. The former desired to reestablish a limited monarchy;

the latter wished to sweep aside the old constitution and form a republic.

In the third year of the war there arose a struggle as to which party

should have control of the army. By means of what was called the "Self-

denying Ordinance," which declared that no member of either House should

hold a position in the army, the Independents effected the removal from

their command of several conservative noblemen. Cromwell, as he was a

member of the House of Commons, should also have given up his command; but

the ordinance was suspended in his case, so that he might retain his place

as lieutenant-general. Sir Thomas Fairfax was made commander-in-chief.

Though Cromwell was nominally second in command, he was now really at the

head of the army.

THE "NEW MODEL."--Cromwell at once set about to effect the entire

remodelling of the army on the plan of his favorite Ironsides. His idea

was that "the chivalry of the Cavalier must be met by the religious

enthusiasm of the Puritan." The army was reduced to 20,000 men--all

honest, fervent, God-fearing, psalm-singing Puritans. When not fighting,

they studied the Bible, prayed and sung hymns. Since Godfrey led his

crusaders to the rescue of the Holy Sepulchre, the world had not beheld

another such army of religious enthusiasts. From Cromwell down to the

lowest soldier of the "New Model," every man felt called of the Lord to

strike down all forms of tyranny in Church and State.

THE BATTLE OF NASEBY (1645).--The temper of the "New Model" was soon tried

in the battle of Naseby, the decisive engagement of the war. The Royalists

were scattered to the winds, and their cause was irretrievably lost.

Charles escaped from the field, and ultimately fled into Scotland,

thinking that he might rely upon the loyalty of the Scots to the House of

Stuart; but on his refusing to sign the Covenant and certain other

articles, they gave him up to the English Parliament.

"PRIDE'S PURGE" (1648).--Now, there were many in the Parliament who were

in favor of restoring the king unconditionally to his throne, that is,

without requiring from him any guaranties that he would in the future rule

in accordance with the constitution and the laws of the land. The

Independents, which means Cromwell and the army, saw in this possibility

the threatened ruin of all their hopes, and the loss of all the fruits of

victory. A high-handed measure was resolved upon,--the exclusion from the

House of Commons of all those members who favored the restoration of

Charles.

Accordingly, an officer by the name of Pride was stationed at the door of

the hall, to arrest the members obnoxious to the army. One hundred and

forty members were thus kept from their seats, and the Commons thereby

reduced to about fifty representatives, all of whom of course were

Independents. This performance was appropriately called "Pride's Purge."

It was simply an act of military usurpation.

TRIAL AND EXECUTION OF THE KING.--The Commons thus "purged" of the king's

friends now passed a resolution for the immediate trial of Charles for

treason. A High Court of Justice, comprising 150 members, was organized,

before which Charles was summoned. Before the close of a week he was

condemned to be executed "as a tyrant, traitor, murderer, and enemy of his

country."

II. THE COMMONWEALTH (1649-1660).

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH.--A few weeks after the execution of

Charles, the Commons voted to abolish the Monarchy and the House of Lords,

and to establish a republic, under the name of "The Commonwealth." The

executive power was lodged in a Council of State, composed of forty-one

persons. Of this body Bradshaw, an eminent lawyer, was the nominal, but

Cromwell the real, head.

TROUBLES OF THE COMMONWEALTH.--The republic thus born of mingled religious

and political enthusiasm was beset with dangers from the very first. The

execution of Charles had alarmed every sovereign in Europe. Russia,

France, and Holland, all refused to have any communication with the

ambassadors of the Commonwealth. The Scots, who too late repented of

having surrendered their native sovereign into the hands of his enemies,

now hastened to wipe out the stain of their disloyalty by proclaiming his

son their king, with the title of Charles the Second. The impulsive Irish

also declared for the Prince; while the Dutch began active preparations to

assist him in regaining the throne of his unfortunate father. In England

itself the Royalists were active and threatening.

WAR WITH IRELAND.--The Commonwealth, like the ancient republic of Rome,

seemed to gather strength and energy from the very multitude of

surrounding dangers. Cromwell was made Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and

sent into that country to crush a rising of the Royalists there. With his

Ironsides he made quick and terrible work of the conquest of the island.

Having taken by storm the town of Drogheda (1649), he massacred the entire

garrison, consisting of three thousand men. About a thousand who had

sought asylum in a church were butchered there without mercy. The capture

of other towns was accompanied by massacres little less terrible. The

conqueror's march through the island was the devastating march of an

Attila or a Zinghis Khan. The following is his own account of the manner

in which he dealt with the captured garrisons: "When they submitted, their

officers were knocked on the head, and every tenth man of the soldiers

killed, and the rest shipped for Barbadoes [to be sold into slavery]."

WAR WITH SCOTLAND.--Cromwell was called out of Ireland by the Council to

lead an army into Scotland. The terror of his name went before him, and

the people fled as he approached. At Dunbar he met the Scotch army. Before

the terrible onset of the fanatic Roundheads the Scots were scattered like

chaff before the wind (1650).

The following year, on the anniversary of the Battle of Dunbar, Cromwell

gained another great victory over the Scottish army at Worcester, and all

Scotland was soon after forced to submit to the authority of the

Commonwealth. Prince Charles, after many adventurous experiences, escaped

across the Channel into Normandy.

CROMWELL EJECTS THE LONG PARLIAMENT (1653).--The war in Scotland was

followed by one with the Dutch. While this war was in progress Parliament

came to an open quarrel with the army. Cromwell demanded of Parliament

their dissolution, and the calling of a new body. This they refused;

whereupon, taking with him a body of soldiers, Cromwell went to the House,

and after listening impatiently for a while to the debate, suddenly sprang

to his feet, and, with bitter reproaches, exclaimed: "I will put an end to

your prating. Get you gone; give place to better men. You are no

Parliament. The Lord has done with you." The soldiers rushing in at a

preconcerted signal, the hall was cleared, and the doors locked (1653).

In such summary manner the Long Parliament, or the "Rump Parliament," as

it was called in derision after Pride's Purge, was dissolved, after having

sat for twelve years. So completely had the body lost the confidence and

respect of all parties, that scarcely a murmur was heard against the

illegal and arbitrary mode of its dissolution.

THE LITTLE PARLIAMENT.--Cromwell now called a new Parliament, or more

properly a convention, summoning, so far as he might, only religious, God-

fearing men. The "Little Parliament," as generally called, consisted of

156 members, mainly religious persons, who spent much of their time in

Scripture exegesis, prayer, and exhortation. Among them was a London

leather-merchant, named Praise-God Barebone, who was especially given to

these exercises. The name amused the people, and they nicknamed the

Convention the "Praise-God Barebone Parliament."

The Little Parliament sat only a few months, during which time, however,

it really did some excellent work, particularly in the way of suggesting

important reforms. It at length resigned all its powers into the hands of

Cromwell; and shortly afterwards his council of army officers, fearing the

country would fall into anarchy, persuaded him--though manifesting

reluctance, he probably was quite willing to be persuaded--to accept the

title of "Lord Protector of the Commonwealth."

[Illustration: OLIVER CROMWELL]

THE PROTECTORATE (1653-1659).--Cromwell's power was now almost unlimited.

He was virtually a dictator. His administration was harsh and despotic. He

summoned, prorogued, and dissolved parliaments. The nation was really

under martial law. Royalists and active Roman Catholics were treated with

the utmost rigor. A censorship of the Press was established. Scotland was

overawed by strong garrisons. The Irish Royalists, rising against the

"usurper," were crushed with remorseless severity. Thousands were

massacred, and thousands more were transported to the West Indies to be

sold as slaves.

While the resolute and despotic character of Cromwell's government secured

obedience at home, its strength and vigor awakened the fear as well as the

admiration of foreign nations. He gave England the strongest, and in many

respects the best, government she had had since the days of Henry VIII and

Elizabeth.

CROMWELL'S DEATH.--Notwithstanding Cromwell was a man of immovable

resolution and iron spirit, he felt sorely the burdens of his government,

and was deeply troubled by the perplexities of his position. With his

constitution undermined by overwork and anxiety, fever attacked him, and

with gloomy apprehensions as to the terrible dangers into which England

might drift after his hand had fallen from the helm of affairs, he lay

down to die, passing away on the day which he had always called his

"fortunate day"--the anniversary of his birth, and also the anniversary of

his great victories of Dunbar and Worcester (Sept. 3, 1658).

RICHARD CROMWELL (1658-1659).--Cromwell with his dying breath had

designated his son Richard as his successor in the office of the

Protectorate. Richard was exactly the opposite of his father,--timid,

irresolute, and irreligious. The control of affairs that had taxed to the

utmost the genius and resources of the father was altogether too great an

undertaking for the incapacity and inexperience of the son. No one was

quicker to realize this than Richard himself, and after a rule of a few

months, yielding to the pressure of the army, whose displeasure he had

incurred, he resigned the Protectorate. Had he possessed one-half the

energy and practical genius that characterized his father, the crown would

probably have become hereditary in the family of the Cromwells, and their

house might have been numbered among the royal houses of England.

THE RESTORATION (1660).--For some months after the fall of the

Protectorate the country trembled on the verge of anarchy. The gloomy

outlook into the future, and the unsatisfactory experiment of the

Commonwealth, caused the great mass of the English people earnestly to

desire the restoration of the Monarchy. Prince Charles, towards whom the

tide of returning royalty was running, was now in Holland. A race was

actually run between Monk, the leader of the army, and Parliament, to see

which should first present him with the invitation to return to his

people, and take his place upon the throne of his ancestors. Amid the

wildest demonstrations of joy, Charles stepped ashore on the island from

which he had been for nine years an exile. As he observed the preparations

made for his reception, and received from all parties the warmest

congratulations, he remarked with pleasant satire, "It is my own fault

that I did not come back sooner, for I find nobody who does not tell me he

has always longed for my return."

1. _Puritan Literature_.

IT LIGHTS UP THE RELIGIOUS SIDE OF THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION.--No epoch in

history receives a fresher illustration from the study of its literature

than that of the Puritan Commonwealth. To neglect this, and yet hope to

gain a true conception of that wonderful episode in the life of the

English people by an examination of its outer events and incidents alone,

would, as Green declares, be like trying to form an idea of the life and

work of ancient Israel from the _Kings_ and the _Chronicles_, without the

_Psalms_ and the _Prophets_. The true character of the English Revolution,

especially upon its religious side, must be sought in the magnificent Epic

of Milton and the unequalled Allegory of Bunyan.

Both of these great works, it is true, were written after the Restoration,

but they were both inspired by the same spirit that had struck down

Despotism and set up the Commonwealth. The Epic was the work of a lonely,

disappointed Republican; the Allegory, of a captive Puritan.

Milton (1608-1674) stands as the grandest representative of Puritanism. He

was the greatest statesman of the Revolution, the stoutest champion of

English liberties against the tyranny of the House of Stuart. After the

beheading of Charles I. he wrote a famous work in Latin, entitled _The

Defence of the English People_, in which he justified the execution of

the king.

The Restoration forced Milton into retirement, and the last fourteen years

of his life were passed apart from the world. It was during these years

that, in loneliness and blindness, he composed the immortal poems

_Paradise Lost_ and _Paradise Regained_. The former is the "Epic of

Puritanism." All that was truest and grandest in the Puritan character

found expression in the moral elevation and religious fervor of this the

greatest of Christian poems.

John Bunyan (1628-1688) was a Puritan non-conformist. After the

Restoration, he was imprisoned for twelve years in Bedford jail, on

account of non-conformity to the established worship. It was during this

dreary confinement that he wrote his _Pilgrim's Progress_, the most

admirable allegory in English literature. The habit of the Puritan, from

constant study of the Bible, to employ in all forms of discourse its

language and imagery, is best illustrated in the pages of this remarkable

work.

III. THE RESTORED STUARTS.

1. _Reign of Charles the Second_ (1660-1685).

PUNISHMENT OF THE REGICIDES.--The monarchy having been restored in the

person of Charles II, Parliament extended a general pardon to all who had

taken part in the late rebellion, save most of the judges who had

condemned Charles I. to the block. Thirteen of these were executed with

the revolting cruelty with which treason was then punished, their hearts

and bowels being cut out of their living bodies. Others of the regicides

were condemned to imprisonment for life. Death had already removed the

great leaders of the rebellion, Cromwell, Ireton, and Bradshaw, beyond the

reach of Royalist hate; so vengeance was taken upon their bodies. These

were dragged from their tombs in Westminster Abbey, hauled to Tyburn in

London, and there, on the anniversary of Charles's execution, were hanged,

and afterwards beheaded (1661).

THE "NEW MODEL" IS DISBANDED.--This same Parliament, mindful of how the

army had ruled preceding ones, took care to disband, as soon as possible,

the "New Model." "With them," in the words of the historian Green,

"Puritanism laid down the sword. It ceased from the long attempt to build

up a kingdom of God by force and violence, and fell back on its truer work

of building up a kingdom of righteousness in the hearts and consciences of

men."

On the pretext, however, that the disturbed state of the realm demanded

special precautions on the part of the government, Charles retained in his

service three carefully chosen regiments, to which he gave the name of

Guards. These, very soon augmented in number, formed the nucleus of the

present standing army of England.

THE CONVENTICLE AND FIVE-MILE ACTS.--Early in the reign the services of

the Anglican Church were restored by Parliament, and harsh laws were

enacted against all non-conformists. Thus the Conventicle Act made it a

crime punishable by imprisonment or transportation for more than five

persons besides the household to gather in any house or in any place for

worship, unless the service was conducted according to the forms of the

Established Church.

The Five-Mile Act forbade any non-conformist minister who refused to swear

that it is unlawful to take arms against the king _under any

circumstance_, and that he never would attempt to make any change in

Church or State government, to approach within five miles of any city,

corporate town, or borough sending members to Parliament. This harsh act

forced hundreds to give up their homes in the towns, and, with great

inconvenience and loss, to seek new ones in out-of-the-way country places.

PERSECUTION OF THE COVENANTERS.--In Scotland the attempt to suppress

conventicles and introduce Episcopacy was stubbornly resisted by the

Covenanters, who insisted on their right to worship God in their own way.

They were therefore subjected to most cruel and unrelenting persecution.

They were hunted by English troopers over their native moors and among the

wild recesses of their mountains, whither they secretly retired for prayer

and worship. The tales of the suffering of the Scotch Covenanters at the

hands of the English Protestants form a most harrowing chapter of the

records of the ages of religious persecution.

THE FIRE, THE PLAGUE, AND THE DUTCH WAR.--The years from 1664 to 1667 were

crowded with calamities,--with war, plague, and fire. The poet Dryden not

inaptly calls the year 1666, in which the Great Fire at London added its

horrors to those of pestilence and war, the _Annus Mirabilis_, or

"Year of Wonders."

The war alluded to was a struggle between the English and the Dutch, which

grew out of commercial rivalries (1664-1667). Just before the war began,

the English treacherously seized the Dutch settlement of New Amsterdam in

America, and changed its name to New York in honor of the king's brother,

the Duke of York.

Early in the summer of 1665 the city of London was swept by a woeful

plague, the most terrible visitation the city had known since the Black

Death in the Middle Ages (see p. 485). Within six months 100,000 of the

population perished.

The plague was followed, the next year, by the great fire, which destroyed

13,000 houses, and a vast number of churches and public buildings. The

fire was afterwards acknowledged to be, like the Great Fire at Rome in

Nero's reign, a blessing in disguise. The burnt districts were rebuilt in

a more substantial way, with broader streets and more airy residences, so

that London became a more beautiful and healthful city than would have

been possible without the fire.

CHARLES'S INTRIGUES WITH LOUIS XIV.--Charles inclined to the Catholic

worship, and wished to reestablish the Roman Catholic Church, because he

thought it more favorable than the Anglican to such a scheme of government

as he aimed to set up in England. In the year 1670 he made a secret treaty

with the French king, the terms and objects of which were most scandalous.

In return for aid which he was to render Louis in an attack upon Holland,

he was to receive from him a large sum of money; and in case his proposed

declaration in favor of the restoration of the Catholic Church produced

any trouble in the island, the aid of French troops. The scheme was never

consummated; but these clandestine negotiations, however, becoming an open

secret, made the people very uneasy and suspicious. This state of the

public mind led to a serious delusion and panic.

THE "POPISH PLOT" (1678).--A rumor was started that the Catholics had

planned for England a St. Bartholomew massacre. The king, the members of

Parliament, and all Protestants were to be massacred, the Catholic Church

was to be reestablished, and the king's brother James, the Duke of York, a

zealous Catholic, was to be placed on the throne. Each day the reports of

the conspiracy grew more exaggerated and wild. Informers sprang up on

every hand, each with a more terrifying story than the preceding. One of

these witnesses, Titus Oates by name, a most infamous person, gained an

extraordinary notoriety in exposing the imaginary plot. Many Catholics,

convicted solely on the testimony of perjured witnesses, became victims of

the delusion and fraud.

The excitement produced by the supposed plot led Parliament to pass what

was called the Test Act, which excluded Catholics from the House of Lords.

(They had already been shut out from the House of Commons by the oath of

Supremacy, which was required of commoners, though not of peers.) The

disability created by this statute was not removed from them until the

present century,--in the reign of George the Fourth.

ORIGIN OF THE WHIG AND TORY PARTIES.--Besides shutting Catholic peers out

of Parliament, there were many in both houses who were determined to

exclude the Duke of York from the throne. Those in favor of the measure of

exclusion were called Whigs, those who opposed it Tories. [Footnote: For

the meaning of the names Whig and Tory, see _Glossary_.] We cannot,

perhaps, form a better general idea of the maxims and principles of these

two parties than by calling the Whigs the political descendants of the

Roundheads, and the Tories of the Cavaliers. Later, they became known

respectively as Liberals and Conservatives.

THE KING'S DEATH.--After a reign of just a quarter of a century, Charles

died in 1685, and was followed by his brother James, whose rule was

destined to be short and troubled.

2. _Reign of James the Second_ (1685-1688).

JAMES'S DESPOTIC COURSE. [Footnote: James was barely seated upon the

throne before the Duke of Monmouth, an illegitimate son of Charles II.,

who had been in exile in the Netherlands, asserted his right to the crown,

and at the head of a hundred men invaded England. Thousands flocked to his

standard, but in the battle of Sedgemoor (1685) he was utterly defeated

by the royal troops. Terrible vengeance was wreaked upon all in any way

connected with the rebellion. The notorious Chief Justice Jeffries, in

what were called the "Bloody Assizes," condemned to death 320 persons, and

sentenced 841 to transportation. Jeffries conducted the so-called trials

with incredible brutality.]--James, like all the other Stuarts, held

exalted notions of the divine right of kings to rule as they please, and

at once set about carrying out these ideas in a most imprudent and

reckless manner. Notwithstanding he had given most solemn assurances that

he would uphold the Anglican Church, he straightway set about the

reestablishment of the Roman Catholic worship. He arbitrarily prorogued

and dissolved Parliament. The standing army, which Charles had raised to

10,000 men, he increased to 20,000, and placed Catholics in many of its

most important offices. He formed a league against his own subjects with

Louis XIV. The High Commission Court of Elizabeth, which had been

abolished by Parliament, he practically restored in a new ecclesiastical

tribunal presided over by the infamous Jeffries (see note, below).

The despotic course of the king raised up enemies on all sides. No party

or sect, save the most zealous Catholics, stood by him. The Tory gentry

were in favor of royalty, indeed, but not of tyranny. Thinking to make

friends of the Protestant dissenters, James issued a decree known as the

Declaration of Indulgence, whereby he suspended all the laws against non-

conformists. This edict all the clergy were ordered to read from their

pulpits. Almost to a man they refused to do so. Seven bishops even dared

to send the king a petition and remonstrance against his unconstitutional

proceedings.

The petitioners were thrust into the Tower, and soon brought to trial on

the charge of "seditious libel." The nation was now thoroughly aroused,

and the greatest excitement prevailed while the trial was progressing.

Judges and jury were overawed by the popular demonstration, and the

bishops were acquitted. The news of the result of the trial was received

not only by the people, but by the army as well, with shouts of joy, which

did not fail to reach even the dull ears of the king.

THE REVOLUTION OF 1688.--The crisis which it was easy to see was impending

was hastened by the birth of a prince, as this cut off the hope of the

nation that the crown upon James's death would descend to his daughter

Mary, now wife of the Prince of Orange, Stadtholder of Holland. The

prospect of the accession in the near future of a Protestant and freedom

loving Prince and Princess had reconciled the people to the misgovernment

of their present despotic and Catholic sovereign. The appearance upon the

stage of an infant prince gave a wholly different look to affairs, and, as

we have said, destroyed all hope of matters being righted by the ordinary

course of events.

This led the most active of the king's opponents to resolve to bring about

at once what they had been inclined to wait to have accomplished by his

death. They sent an invitation to the Prince of Orange to come over with

such force as he could muster and take possession of the government,

pledging him the united and hearty support of the English nation. William

accepted the invitation, and straightway began to gather his fleet and

army for the enterprise.

Meanwhile King James, in his blind and obstinate way, was rushing on

headlong upon his own destruction. He seemed absolutely blind to the

steady and rapid drift of the nation towards the point of open resistance

and revolution. At last, when the sails of the Dutch fleet were spread for

a descent upon the English shores, then the infatuated despot suddenly

realized that absolute ruin was impending over his throne. He now adopted

every expedient to avert the threatened evil. He restored to cities the

charters he had wrongfully taken from them, reinstated magistrates in the

positions from which they had been unjustly deposed, attempted to make

friends with the bishops, and promised to sustain the Anglican Church and

rule in accordance with the constitution of the realm.

All concessions and promises, however, were in vain. They came too late.

The king was absolutely deserted; army and people went over in a body to

the Prince of Orange, whose fleet had now touched the shores of the

island. Flight alone was left him. The queen with her infant child

secretly embarked for France, where the king soon after joined her. The

last act of the king before leaving England was to disband the army, and

fling the Great Seal into the Thames, in order that no parliament might be

legally convened.

The first act of the Prince of Orange was to issue a call for a Convention

to provide for the permanent settlement of the crown. This body met

January 22, 1689, and after a violent debate declared the throne to be

vacant through James's misconduct and flight. They then resolved to confer

the royal dignity upon William and his wife Mary as joint sovereigns of

the realm.

But this Convention did not repeat the error of the Parliament that

restored Charles II., and give the crown to the Prince and Princess

without proper safeguards and guaranties for the conduct of the government

according to the ancient laws of the kingdom. They drew up the celebrated

Declaration of Rights, which plainly rehearsed all the old rights and

liberties of Englishmen; denied the right of the king to lay taxes or

maintain an army without the consent of Parliament; and asserted that

freedom of debate was the inviolable privilege of both the Lords and the

Commons. William and Mary were required to accept this declaration, and to

agree to rule in accordance with its provisions, whereupon they were

declared King and Queen of England. In such manner was effected what is

known in history as the Revolution of 1688.

3. _Literature of the Restoration_.

IT REFLECTS THE IMMORALITY OF THE AGE.--The reigns of the restored Stuarts

mark the most corrupt period in the history of English society. The low

standard of morals, and the general prodigacy in manners, especially among

the higher classes, are in part attributable to the demoralizing example

of a shockingly licentious and shameless court; but in a larger measure,

perhaps, should be viewed as the natural reaction from the over-stern,

repellent Puritanism of the preceding period. The Puritans undoubtedly

erred in their indiscriminate and wholesale denunciation of all forms of

harmless amusement and innocent pleasure. They not only rebuked gaming,

drinking, and profanity, and stopped bear-baiting, but they closed all the

theatres, forbade the Maypole dances of the people, condemned as paganish

the observance of Christmas, frowned upon sculpture as idolatrous and

indecent, and considered any bright color in dress as utterly incompatible

with a proper sense of the seriousness of life.

Now all this was laying too heavy a burden upon human nature. The revolt

and reaction came, as come they must. Upon the Restoration, society swung

to the opposite extreme. In place of the solemn-visaged, psalm-singing

Roundhead, we have the gay, roistering Cavalier. Faith gives place to

infidelity, sobriety to drunkenness, purity to profligacy, economy to

extravagance, Bible-study, psalm-singing and exhorting to theatre-going,

profanity, and carousing.

The literature of the age is a perfect record of this revolt against the

"sour severity" of Puritanism, and a faithful reflection of the unblushing

immorality of the times.

The book most read and praised by Charles II, and his court, and the one

that best represents the spirit of the victorious party, is the satirical

poem of _Hudibras_ by Samuel Butler. The object of the work is to satirize

the cant and excesses of Puritanism, just as the _Don Quixote_ of

Cervantes burlesques the extravagances and follies of Chivalry.

So immoral and indecent are the works of the writers for the stage of this

period that they have acquired the designation of "the corrupt

dramatists." Among the authors of this species of literature was the poet

Dryden.

IV. THE ORANGE-STUARTS.

1. _Reign of William and Mary_ (1689-1702).

THE BILL OF RIGHTS.--The Revolution of 1688, and the new settlement of the

crown upon William and Mary, marks an epoch in the constitutional history

of England. It settled forever the long dispute between king and

Parliament--and settled it in favor of the latter. The Bill of Rights,--

the articles of the Declaration of Rights (see p. 624) framed into a law,

--which was one of the earliest acts of the first Parliament under William

and Mary, in effect "transferred sovereignty from the king to the House of

Commons." It asserted plainly that the kings of England derive their right

and title to rule, not from the accident of birth, but from the will of

the people, and declared that Parliament might depose any king, exclude

his heirs from the throne, and settle the crown anew in another family.

This uprooted thoroughly the pernicious doctrine that princes have a

divine and inalienable right to the throne of their ancestors, and when

once seated on that throne rule simply as the vicegerents of God, above

all human censure and control. We shall hear but little more in England of

this monstrous theory, which for so long a time overshadowed and

threatened the freedom of the English people.

Mindful of Charles's attempt to reestablish the Roman Catholic worship,

the framers of this same famous Bill of Rights further declared that all

persons holding communion with the Church of Rome or uniting in marriage

with a Roman Catholic, should be "forever incapable to possess, inherit,

or enjoy the crown and government of the realm." Since the Revolution of

1688 no one of that faith has worn the English crown.

The other provisions of the bill, following closely the language of the

Declaration, forbade the king to levy taxes or keep an army in time of

peace without the consent of Parliament; demanded that Parliament should

be frequently assembled; reaffirmed, as one of the ancient privileges of

both Houses, perfect freedom of debate; and positively denied the

dispensing power of the crown, that is, the authority claimed by the

Stuarts of exempting certain persons from the penalty of the law by a

royal edict.

All of these provisions now became inwrought into the English

Constitution, and from this time forward were recognized as part of the

fundamental law of the realm.

SETTLEMENT OF THE REVENUE.--The articles of the Bill of Rights were made

effectual by appropriate legislation. One thing which had enabled the

Tudors and Stuarts to be so independent of Parliament was the custom which

prevailed of granting to each king, at the beginning of his reign, the

ordinary revenue of the kingdom during his life. This income, with what

could be raised by gifts, benevolences, monopolies, and similar

expedients, had enabled despotic sovereigns to administer the government,

wage war, and engage in any wild enterprise just as his own individual

caprice or passion might dictate. All this was now changed. Parliament,

instead of granting William the revenue for life, restricted the grant to

a single year, and made it a penal offence for the officers of the

treasury to pay out money otherwise than ordered by Parliament.

We cannot overestimate the importance of this change in the English

Constitution. It is this control of the purse of the nation which has made

the Commons--for all money bills must originate in the Lower House--the

actual seat of government, constituting them the arbiters of peace and

war. By simply refusing to vote supplies, they can paralyze instantly the

arm of the king. [Footnote: For the _Mutiny Bill_, enacted at this

time, see _Glossary_.]

JAMES ATTEMPTS TO RECOVER THE THRONE: BATTLE OF THE BOYNE (1690).--The

first years of William's reign were disturbed by the efforts of James to

regain the throne which he had abandoned. In these attempts he was aided

by Louis XIV., and by the Jacobites (from _Jacobus_, Latin for James), the

name given to the adherents of the exiled king. The Irish gave William the

most trouble, but in the decisive battle of the Boyne he gained a great

victory over them, and soon all Ireland acknowledged his authority.

PLANS AND DEATH OF WILLIAM.--The motive which had most strongly urged

William to respond to the invitation of the English revolutionists to

assume the crown of England, was his desire to turn the arms and resources

of that country against the great champion of despotism, and the dangerous

neighbor of his own native country, Louis XIV. of France.

The conduct of Louis in lending aid to James in his attempts to regain his

crown had so inflamed the English that they were quite ready to support

William in his wars against him, and so the English and Dutch sailors

fought side by side against the common enemy in the War of the Palatinate

(see p. 595).

A short time after the Peace of Ryswick, broke out the War of the Spanish

Succession (see p. 596). William, as the uncompromising foe of the

ambitious French king, urged the English to enter the war against France.

An insolent and perfidious act on the part of Louis caused the English

people to support their king in this plan with great unanimity and

heartiness. The matter to which we refer was this. James II. having died

at just this juncture of affairs, Louis, disregarding his solemn promises,

at once acknowledged his son, known in history as the "Pretender," as

"King of Great Britain and Ireland."

Preparations were now made for the war thus provoked by the double sense

of danger and insult. In the midst of these preparations William was

fatally hurt by being thrown from his horse (1702). Mary had died in 1694,

and as they left no children, the crown descended to the Princess Anne,

Mary's sister, who had married Prince George of Denmark.

2. _Reign of Queen Anne_ (1702-1714).

WAR OF THE SPANISH SUCCESSION (1701-1714).--The War of the Spanish

Succession covered the whole of the reign of Queen Anne. Of the causes and

results of this war, and of England's part in it, we have spoken in

connection with the reign of Louis XIV. (see p. 596); and so, referring

the reader to the account of the contest there given, we shall pass to

speak of another event of a domestic character which signalized the reign

of Queen Anne.

UNION OF THE PARLIAMENTS OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND (1707).--We refer to the

union of England and Scotland into a single kingdom, under the name of

Great Britain (1707). It was only the two _crowns_ that were united when

James I. came to the English throne: now the two _Parliaments_ were

united. From this time forward the two countries were represented by

one Parliament, and in time the name "British" becomes the common

designation of the inhabitants of England, Wales, and Scotland. The union

was advantageous to both countries; for it was a union not simply of

hands, but of hearts.

DEATH OF QUEEN ANNE: THE SUCCESSION.--Queen Anne died in the year 1714,

leaving no heirs. In the reign of William a statute known as the Act of

Settlement had provided that the crown, in default of heirs of William and

Anne, should descend to the Electress Sophia of Hanover (grandchild of

James I.), or her heirs, "being Protestants." The Electress died only a

short time before the death of Queen Anne; so, upon that event, the crown

descended upon the head of the Electress's eldest son George, who thus

became the founder of a new line of English sovereigns, the House of

Hanover, or Brunswick, the family in whose hands the royal sceptre still

remains.

LITERATURE UNDER QUEEN ANNE.--The reign of Queen Anne is an illustrious

one in English literature. Under her began to write a group of brilliant

authors, whose activity continued on into the reign of her successor,

George I. Their productions are, many of them, of special interest to the

historian, because during this period there was an unusually close

connection between literature and politics. Literature was forced into the

service of party. A large portion of the writings of the era is in the

form of political pamphlets, wherein all the resources of wit, satire, and

literary skill are exhausted in defending or ridiculing the opposing

principles and policies of Whig and Tory.

The four most prominent and representative authors of the times were

Alexander Pope (1688-1744), Jonathan Swift (1667-1745), Joseph Addison

(1672-1719), and Daniel Defoe (1661-1731).

In the scientific annals of the period the name of Sir Isaac Newton (1642-

1727) is most prominent. As the discoverer of the law of gravitation and

the author of the _Principia_, his name will ever retain a high place

among the few who belong through their genius or achievements to no single

nation or age, but to the world.

V. ENGLAND UNDER THE EARLIER HANOVERIANS.

[Footnote: The sovereigns of the House of Hanover are George I. (1714-

1727); George II. (1727-1760); George III. (1760-1820); George IV. (1820-

1830); William IV. (1830-1837); Victoria.(1837-).]

THE SOVEREIGN'S LOSS OF POLITICAL INFLUENCE.--The new Hanoverian king,

George I. (1714-1727), was utterly ignorant of the language and the

affairs of the people over whom he had been called to rule. He was not

loved by the English, but he was tolerated by them for the reason that he

represented Protestantism and those principles of political liberty for

which they had so long battled with their Stuart kings. On account of his

ignorance of English affairs the king was obliged to intrust to his

ministers the practical administration of the government. The same was

true in the case of George II. (1727-1760). George III. (1760-1820),

having been born and educated in England, regained some of the old

influence of former kings. But he was the last English sovereign who had

any large personal influence in shaping governmental policies. Since his

time the English government has been carried on in the name of the king by

a prime minister, dependent upon the will of the House of Commons. This

marks an important step in the process by which sovereignty has been

transferred from the Crown to the People. (For later steps, see Chap.

LXIII.)

ENGLAND AND CONTINENTAL AFFAIRS.--It must be borne in mind that the

Georges, while kings of England, were also Electors of Hanover in Germany.

These German dominions of theirs caused England to become involved in

continental quarrels which really did not concern her. Thus she was drawn

into the War of the Austrian Succession (see p. 644) in which she had no

national interest, and which resulted in no advantage to the English

people. Hence these matters may be passed over by us without further

notice here.

THE PRETENDERS.--Several times during the eighteenth century the exiled

Stuarts attempted to get back the throne they had lost. The last of these

attempts was made in 1745, when the "Young Pretender" (grandson of James

II.) landed in Scotland, effected a rising of the Scotch Highlanders,

worsted the English at Preston Pans, and marched upon London. Forced to

retreat into Scotland, he was pursued by the English, and utterly defeated

at the battle of Culloden Moor,--and the Stuart cause was ruined forever.

OLD FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR (1756-1763).--Just after the middle of the

eighteenth century there broke out between the French and the English

colonists in America the so-called Old French and Indian War. The struggle

became blended with what in Europe is known as the Seven Years' War (see

p. 645). At first the war went disastrously against the English,--

Braddock's attempt against Fort Du Quesne, upon the march to which he

suffered his memorable defeat in the wilderness, being but one of several

ill-starred English undertakings. But in the year 1757, the elder William

Pitt (afterwards Earl of Chatham), known as "the Great Commoner," came to

the head of affairs in England. Straightway every department of the

government was infused with new vigor. His own indomitable will and

persistent energy seemed to pass into every subordinate to whom he

intrusted the execution of his plans. The war in America was brought to a

speedy and triumphant close, the contest being virtually ended by the

great victory gained by the English under the youthful Major-General Wolfe

over the French under Montcalm upon the Heights of Quebec (1759). By the

Treaty of Paris (1763) France ceded to England Canada and all her

possessions in North America east of the Mississippi River, save New

Orleans and a little adjoining land (which, along with the French

territory west of the Mississippi, had already been given to Spain), and

two little islands in the neighborhood of Newfoundland, which she was

allowed to retain to dry fish on.

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION (1775-1783).--By a violation of one of the

principles which the English people had so stoutly maintained against the

Stuarts, the ruling powers in England now drove the American colonies to

revolt. A majority in Parliament insisted upon taxing the colonists; the

colonists maintained that taxation without representation is tyranny,--

that they could be justly taxed only through their own legislative

assemblies. The Government refusing to acknowledge this principle, the

colonists took up arms in defence of those liberties which their fathers

had won with so hard a struggle from English kings on English soil. The

result of the war was the separation from the mother-land of the thirteen

colonies that had grown up along the Atlantic seaboard,--and a Greater

England began its independent career in the New World.

LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE OF IRELAND (1782).--While the American War of

Independence was going on, the Irish, taking advantage of the

embarrassment of the English government, demanded legislative

independence. Ireland had had a Parliament of her own since the time of

the conquest of the island by the English, but this Irish Parliament was

dependent upon the English Parliament, which claimed the power to bind

Ireland by its laws. This the Irish patriots strenuously denied, and now,

under the lead of the eloquent Henry Grattan, drew up a Declaration of

Rights, wherein they demanded the legislative independence of Ireland. The

principle here involved was the same as that for which the English

colonists in America were at this time contending with arms in their

hands. Fear of a revolt led England to grant the demands of the Irish, and

to acknowledge the independence of the Irish Parliament.

Thus both in America and in Ireland the principles of the Political

Revolution triumphed. In Ireland, however, the legislative independence

gained was soon lost (see Chap. LXIII.).

General History for Colleges and High Schools · 第 9 / 17 章