THE REIGN OF CHARLES I. TO THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR.
1625-1642.
The accession of Charles I. made a profound change in the destinies
of England, for though the new king had the same policy and the
same notions of government in Church and State as his father, yet
his personal character was wholly different. James had been before
all things a coward: he seldom dared to translate his theories into
action, and hence it came that he died peacefully in his bed. His son,
on the other hand, was not lacking in courage, and he was recklessly
obstinate; nothing could bend his will or teach him submission;
therefore he died on the scaffold.
[Sidenote: =Character of Charles I.=]
Yet Charles was in every way superior to his father. He was a man of
handsome face and stately carriage; though reared in a profligate
and vicious court, he had grown up with all the private virtues; as
a father and husband, he was admirable. He was sincerely religious,
and ardently loved the Church of England. He was a wise and judicious
patron of art and letters, but his tastes never led him into personal
extravagance. If he had been born a peer instead of a prince, he
would have been one of the best men of his day. But, unfortunately
for England and for himself, he inherited a crown and not a coronet.
He came to the helm of State fully persuaded of the truth of the two
maxims that his father had taught him--that the royal prerogative
overrode all the ancient national rights, and that the king ought to
judge for himself in all things, and follow his own ideas, not the
advice of his Parliament.
The accession of Charles was saluted with joy on all sides. The nation
thought that the young, chivalrous, and enterprising prince would
reverse all his father's policy--he would cast away the hated Spanish
alliance, and place England at the head of the Protestant powers of
Europe, the position that she had held in Elizabeth's day. It was hoped
that he would relegate the upstart Buckingham to the background, and
rule for himself, but in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of
the nation.
[Sidenote: =Continued ascendency of Buckingham.=]
The first jarring note was struck when it became evident that the king
was still under the control of his father's favourite. Villiers had
somehow contrived to master the mind of the staid and firm Charles
no less than that of the timid and irresolute James. When the first
Parliament of the new reign was summoned, it found him in full
possession of the king's ear, and dictating all his enterprises.
[Sidenote: =Demands for money refused by the Commons.=]
The enormous demands for money which Charles laid before the Commons
were enough to dash their spirits. The late king had left some
£800,000 of debts, and in addition to the sum required to discharge
them, £1,000,000 more was asked for purposes of war with Spain and
the Emperor. To the disgust of Charles and Buckingham, Parliament
voted only two subsidies, about £150,000, and granted "Tunnage and
Poundage"--the customs revenue of the kingdom--for one year only,
though it had been usual, in late reigns, to give it for the whole term
of the king's life.
[Sidenote: =Expedition against Cadiz.=]
The want of confidence which the Commons showed in Buckingham's
administrative capacity was thoroughly justified. His first military
adventure was a great expedition against the Spanish arsenal of Cadiz.
A large fleet was sent out, but the generals were incapable, and the
armament returned in a few months, without having accomplished anything
save the capture of a single Spanish fort (1625).
[Sidenote: =Loan of ships for the siege of La Rochelle.=]
Meanwhile a new trouble was brewing. Charles had carried out
Buckingham's scheme for an alliance with France, and had taken to wife
the Princess Henrietta Maria, sister of Lewis XIII., the moment that
the mourning for his father was over. Shortly after, his brother-in-law
asked him for the loan of eight men-of-war, for the French navy was
small and weak. The request was granted, and the French government
then proceeded to use the ships against the rebellious Huguenots of La
Rochelle, who were in arms against the king.
Now, the English nation had always felt much sympathy with the French
Protestants, their old companions-in-arms in the days of Elizabeth, and
the news that the royal navy was being used to coerce the Huguenots
caused a great outcry throughout the country. All the blame was laid on
Buckingham, as was but natural. He had also to face another accusation.
Unable to get enough money from Parliament to fit out the unhappy
expedition to Cadiz, the king had raised large sums by "benevolences"
and forced loans--the old expedient of Edward IV.
[Sidenote: =Parliament attacks Buckingham.=]
When, therefore, the second Parliament of the reign assembled in 1626,
it proceeded, not to grant subsidies for the war, but to petition
against Buckingham. The king took the matter in the most haughty and
high-handed manner. "I must let you know," he exclaimed, "that I will
not let any of my servants be questioned by you--much less those
that are of eminent place, and near to me." He denied, in short, the
ancient right of the House to petition against unpopular ministers--a
right which it had used fifty times in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries. But the Commons hardened their hearts, and proceeded to
impeach the duke for having raised illegal taxes, sold public offices
to unworthy persons, and lent the ships to France contrary to the
interests of the realm and the Protestant faith. The king's reply was
to dissolve them (June, 1626).
[Sidenote: =The French alliance broken off.=]
But the king and the duke had been seriously moved by the outcry
against the loan of the ships to King Lewis. In a vain attempt to
conciliate public opinion, and put themselves right with the nation,
they suddenly reversed their policy of the last two years, and resolved
to break with France, even though the Spanish war was still on their
hands. With inconceivable frivolity and thoughtlessness, Buckingham
proceeded to pick a quarrel with the French government, and to announce
his intention of aiding the Huguenot rebels in La Rochelle against
their sovereign.
[Sidenote: =Expedition in aid of La Rochelle.=]
War was declared against France, and Buckingham undertook to lead in
person a great armament which was to raise the siege of La Rochelle,
now closely beleaguered by the royal armies. This expedition came to a
bad end, like everything else which the headstrong and incapable duke
took in hand. He landed on the Isle of Rhé, opposite La Rochelle, to
drive off the French troops which shut the city in on the side of the
sea. But there he suffered a fearful disaster: part of his army was cut
to pieces, part compelled to surrender, and, after losing 4000 men, the
duke hastily re-embarked for England (October, 1627).
[Sidenote: =Buckingham assassinated.=]
But Buckingham was as obstinate as he was incompetent. He swore that
he would still save La Rochelle, and began to gather a second army at
Portsmouth to renew his attempt to raise the siege. While employed in
organizing his new troops, he was stabbed and mortally wounded by John
Felton, a discontented officer who had served under him in Rhé, and
wished to avenge his private wrongs and free the country of a tyrant by
this single blow (August, 1628).
By the death of his arrogant minister, the king obtained a splendid
opportunity of setting himself right with the nation and turning over
a new leaf. For men had agreed to consider Buckingham personally
answerable for the disasters and illegalities of the two last years,
and to hold the king guilty of nothing more than a misplaced confidence
in his favourite.
[Sidenote: =The Parliament of 1628.=]
Charles soon showed that he was not wiser nor more teachable than the
duke. He took no new favourite into his confidence, and proceeded
to act as his own prime minister, so that he made himself clearly
responsible for all that followed. He had summoned his third Parliament
early in 1628, hoping to extract from it the sums necessary to defray
Buckingham's projected second expedition to La Rochelle. The Commons
met in no pleasant mood, and were far more set on protesting against
the doings of Buckingham than on granting money. The new House
contained many men who were to be notable in after-years as the chief
opponents of the king's misrule: Oliver Cromwell appeared for the
first time to represent Huntingdon; Hampden, Pym, and Eliot were also
numbered among the members--all three considerable personages, who had
already protested against the methods of the king's administration.
[Sidenote: =The Petition of Right.=]
Instead of waiting to be attacked, the Parliament of 1628 took
the initiative, by presenting to the king the celebrated Petition
of Right--a document which demanded that certain ancient rights of
Englishmen should be formally conceded by the king, namely, that no
benevolences or forced loans should be demanded, no soldiers billeted
on citizens without payment, no man imprisoned except on a specified
and definite charge, and no martial law proclaimed in time of peace.
Unless this petition was granted, they intimated that no supplies
of money should be forthcoming (May 28). After some quibbling and
hesitation, Charles gave his assent; money was absolutely necessary to
him, and he was determined to have it. The subsidies were granted, and
then in a few months he proceeded to break his plighted word.
[Sidenote: =Parliament dissolved.=]
When the Parliament met after its adjournment in January, 1629, it
found that the king had already begun raising Tunnage and Poundage,
which had not yet been legally granted him, and was imprisoning those
who refused to pay. Their indignation was thoroughly roused, and they
displayed such a combative spirit, that Charles determined to dissolve
them at once. While his messenger was knocking at the door of the
House, the Commons passed a hasty resolution, "that any one who should
countenance Popery, or advise the levying of subsidies not granted
by Parliament, should be reputed a capital enemy to the kingdom and
commonwealth." This declaration had hardly been carried, when the
notice of dissolution was proclaimed (March 10, 1629).
[Sidenote: =Personal government.=]
After waging such bitter war with three successive Parliaments,
Charles resolved to try the unprecedented experiment of governing
without Parliaments at all. For eleven years he refused to summon the
two Houses, and ruled autocratically without any check on his will
(1629-1640). He marked his sense of the late Parliament's conduct by
apprehending several of its members, and sending three of them to the
Tower. Sir John Eliot, the most prominent of these captives, and one
of the best men of his day, languished to death in his prison, after a
confinement of no less than three years.
After this cruel and unconstitutional beginning, Charles persevered in
his evil ways. He chose a body of ministers who would obey his every
command, displaced such judges and officials as showed any regard for
the old customs of the realm, and governed like a Continental tyrant.
He was not a vicious or a malevolent man, but he was fully convinced
that his prerogative covered every illegal act that he might commit,
and he was persuaded that all who opposed him must be not only foolish
but evil-disposed persons. As to the Petition of Right, he managed to
forget that he had ever signed it.
[Sidenote: =Archbishop Laud.=]
The two chief councillors of the king in this unhappy period were
William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Thomas Wentworth, Lord
Strafford. The former was an honest but narrow-minded man, who had
made a great reputation at Oxford as President of St. John's College,
and had grown to note as the head of the High Church party in the
University. He was a good scholar and an excellent organizer, but a
martinet to the backbone. He accepted the archbishopric with the fixed
idea of suppressing and crushing the Puritan party in and out of the
Church of England. He hated the Puritan ideal of Church government on
republican lines without king or bishop, and he equally detested the
Calvinistic doctrine of predestination,[38] which was the shibboleth
of Puritan theology. The king was a good Churchman, and gave Laud
his full confidence; Laud, in return, became the zealous servant of
Charles in secular no less than in religious matters. Not only did
he teach consistently that it was a subject's duty to submit without
question to a divinely ordained king, not only did he devote himself
to molesting and harassing Puritans in the Church Courts, but he made
himself the most prominent personage among the king's ministers.
His name is signed at the top of every unwise ordinance that the
Privy Council ever produced. He sat regularly in the two ancient
but unconstitutional courts, the Star Chamber and the Court of High
Commission, which punished those who had offended King Charles in
matters secular or spiritual. Hence it came that he was hated, not only
as an ecclesiastical tyrant, but as a temporal oppressor. Yet at bottom
he was an honest and well-meaning man, who did but follow the dictates
of his somewhat pedantic conscience.
[Sidenote: =The Earl of Strafford.--"Thorough."=]
It is difficult to give even this moderate praise to the other great
minister who served King Charles. Sir Thomas Wentworth had been a
great enemy of Buckingham in Parliament, but after the duke's death
he suddenly went over to the king, and enlisted in his service.
Wentworth loved power above all things, and sold himself to Charles
for high promotion. It was this desertion of his old party that made
him so well hated by the friends of liberty. The king gave him the
title of Strafford, and entrusted him first with the "Presidency of
the North"--the government of the counties beyond the Humber; and
afterwards with the Lord-Deputyship of Ireland. Strafford was a very
capable man, with a hard hand and a great talent for organization.
He called his system the policy of "_Thorough_," by which he meant a
resolute persistence in ignoring all checks of custom or constitutional
usage which might restrain the king's action, and a determination to
crush all who dared to stand in his way.
[Sidenote: =Strafford's Irish policy.=]
The tale of Strafford's government in Ireland best illustrates what
"Thorough" implied. He reduced the island to a more perfect obedience
than it had ever known before, made its revenue and expenditure
balance, kept up a large and efficient army, and encouraged trade and
manufactures. But this was done at the cost of a ruthless disregard
alike for law and morality. Strafford bullied and cheated the Irish
Parliament; he set up illegal courts of justice; he dragooned the
Scottish settlers in Ulster into accepting episcopacy. His worst
measures, however, were reserved for the native Irish. On the
preposterous plea that the landlords of Connaught could show no valid
title-deeds for their estates, he proposed to confiscate the whole of
that province, and settle it up with English. As a matter of fact,
Connaught was mostly in the hands of ancient Celtic houses, who could
show a tenure of many centuries, but had never consigned their claims
to parchment. Strafford proposed to take heavy fines from a few of
the unfortunate landholders, and to wholly evict the rest from their
ancestral estates. And he would have done it, if troubles in England
had not called him away from his task.
[Sidenote: =Tyrannous measures of the king.=]
To enumerate all the unconstitutional acts of Charles I. in his
eleven years of tyranny would be tedious. He had resolved to raise a
sufficient revenue without Parliamentary grants, and to secure it he
discovered the most monstrous devices. He established monopolies in
the commonest products of trade, such as soap, linen, and leather. He
declared whole districts of England to be under forest law, though the
forests had disappeared centuries before, and took heavy fines from the
inhabitants. He revived the old law of Edward I., which compelled all
owners of £40 a year in land to receive knighthood, and made them pay
exorbitant fees for the honour. The arbitrary Star Chamber was set to
inflict heavy fines on rich men for offences which did not come under
the letter of any law, it strained angry words into libel or treason,
and made family broils or personal quarrels a fruitful source of
revenue. The fines ran up as high as £20,000.
[Sidenote: =Ship-Money.=]
Another invention of the king was the celebrated Ship-Money. In ancient
times sea-coast districts had been wont to pay a special contribution
in time of war, to provide vessels for the royal navy. Charles, in full
time of peace, proposed to raise this tax from every county in England,
as an annual imposition. John Hampden, the member for Buckinghamshire
in the last Parliament, refused to pay the twenty shillings at which he
was assessed, and took the case before the courts. But the subservient
judges decided in the king's favour, and Hampden was rigorously fined
(1637).
[Sidenote: =The Repression of Puritans.--Bastwick's case.=]
Beside financial extortion, the king countenanced much oppression
of other sorts. Laud and his spiritual courts were always at work
against the Puritans. The net result of their work was that the whole
Calvinistic party in the Church of England went over to Nonconformity,
and became for the most part Presbyterians. Few but the "Arminian"[39]
High Churchmen remained in the Establishment. It is probable that these
eleven years tripled the number of schismatics in the country. To
illustrate the dealings of the Government with clamorous Puritans, the
case of Dr. John Bastwick may be taken as an example. He accused the
bishops of a tendency to Popery in a tract called "The New Litany." For
this he was sentenced to lose both his ears, to stand in the pillory,
to be fined £5000, and to be imprisoned till his death (1637).
[Sidenote: =The Star Chamber.--Prynne's case.=]
Such sentences, however, were not uncommon in the Court of Star
Chamber; nor were they reserved for offenders against spiritual peers
only. A case may be quoted even more astonishing than that of Bastwick.
A lawyer named William Prynne wrote a book called "Histriomastix,"
protesting against the growing immorality of the stage. It contained
words supposed to reflect on Queen Henrietta Maria, who was very fond
of plays, and had sometimes acted in masques herself. For this Prynne
was condemned to the same penalty as Bastwick--the pillory, the loss of
his ears, and a fine of £5000.
It is not unnatural that England grew more and more disloyal as the
years went by. The whole country was seething with discontent. Yet it
was not south but north of the Tweed that the first blow was to be
struck; it seemed that English wrath needed a Parliament to make its
voice articulate. The Scots, on the other hand, found their centre of
resistance in the strong local organization of their Kirk.
[Sidenote: =Attempt to force Episcopacy on Scotland.=]
The cause of the Scottish outbreak was the king's attempt to force
Episcopal government and High Church doctrine on the Kirk of Scotland,
which was deeply attached to its Presbyterian constitution, and wholly
committed to Calvinistic theology. Both James I. and Charles in his
earlier years had made spasmodic attempts to bring the northern Church
up to the same level of faith and ritual as that which prevailed in the
south. They had been sturdily resisted, but the struggle had not grown
quite desperate till 1637, when Charles and Laud seriously took in hand
the conversion of Scotland. The first grievance was the issue, by royal
authority alone, of a set of "canons"--or Church rules--drawn up by
Laud (1636). They were universally disregarded, but in the following
year matters came to a head when the king ordered a new Book of Common
Prayer, drawn up on an Anglican model, to be taken into use in all the
churches of Scotland. The attempt to introduce it led to the celebrated
riot in St. Giles's, Edinburgh, where (as the story goes) the turmoil
was started by an old woman hurling her stool at the dean's head, with
the war-cry, "Will you say the Mass in my lug?" (ear). All the clergy
who attempted to use the new Service-book were hustled and driven away
(July, 1637).
[Sidenote: =The National Covenant.=]
It was evident that Charles would bitterly resent this national
outburst, and in self-defence the Scots--nobles, ministers, and
burgesses alike--entered into the "National Covenant," a solemn sworn
agreement to stand by each other to resist tyranny and Popery. Soon
after, the General Assembly of the Kirk met at Glasgow, declared the
Scottish bishops tainted with Romanism, condemned the king's new canons
and Book of Prayer, and proclaimed that Episcopacy was altogether
opposed to the rules of faith.
[Sidenote: =The Scots take up arms.=]
This was open rebellion in the king's eyes, and he immediately began
to make preparations for a military expedition against Scotland. The
whole country was in the hands of the Covenanters, save some of the
wild Highland districts, and it was evident that a national war was
impending. At the first news of the king's movements, the Scots raised
an army of more than 20,000 men, led by veteran officers who had served
on the Protestant side in the wars of Germany. This formidable force
advanced to Dunse Law, in Berwickshire, and prepared to defend the
line of the Tweed. The king had no standing army, save the troops whom
Strafford had organized in Ireland: he was therefore compelled to call
out the gentry and militia of the northern counties. It soon became
apparent that he would not be able to rely on any willing service from
these levies. Half England thought the Scots in the right; the men
came in unwillingly and in inadequate numbers; and Charles found at
York only a raw discontented force, quite unready to take the field.
Dismayed at his weakness, he began to negotiate with the insurgents
(June, 1639), but they would take no compromise, and as neither men nor
money were forthcoming, the king was forced to take the desperate step
of summoning a Parliament to grant him supplies.
[Sidenote: =The Short Parliament.=]
The two Houses met in the spring of 1640, in no placable frame of
mind. Eleven years of tyranny had maddened the nation, and now that
England had found her voice again, it spoke with no uncertain sound.
Her mood was quickly shown. Led by John Pym, the member for Tavistock,
the Commons at once announced that they were come together to discuss
grievances before thinking of grants of supply. Charles immediately
dissolved the Parliament ere it had sat three weeks. Hence it is known
as the "Short Parliament" (April-May, 1640).
[Sidenote: =The Rout of Newburn.=]
Hardening his heart, Charles raised a few thousand pounds by
ship-money and other illegal devices, and launched his disaffected and
undisciplined army against the Scots. But the men disbanded themselves
at the first shot, and, after the disgraceful rout of Newburn, the
Covenanters were able to occupy Northumberland and Durham, and
established their head-quarters at Newcastle (August, 1640). The king
had already summoned Strafford from Ireland, and the great Lord-Deputy
had come over, but without his army. He was now given command of the
wrecks of the levies in the north; but even he could not compel that
discontented host to stand or fight. In despair, the king saw that
he must make concessions to the nation, and called a new Parliament
(November 3, 1640).
[Sidenote: =The Long Parliament.=]
For the fifth time Charles found himself confronted with the angry
representatives of the nation that he had wronged. But this time the
engagement was to be no short skirmish, but a long and desperate
battle, destined to endure for eight years, and to end only with his
overthrow and death. The "Long Parliament," unlike its predecessors,
was to exist for many years. With it the king was to fight out the
great dispute for the "sovereignty" of England--to settle whether, for
the future, the royal prerogative or the will of the Commons was to be
the stronger factor in the governance of the realm. In the existing
crisis Charles felt that he was, for the moment, entirely at the mercy
of the two Houses. The exchequer was empty, the army disloyal, an
active enemy was in possession of the Northern counties. He shrank from
playing his last stake by bringing over Strafford's troops from Ireland
to resist the Scots, though the stern Lord-Deputy strongly urged him to
take that measure.
[Sidenote: ="King Pym."=]
When Parliament met, the same men who had been seen as members in
1628, and in the "Short Parliament" of the last spring, stood forward
to confront the king. Pym at once marshalled all the forces of
discontent into a compact host; so great was the power over them which
he displayed, that he soon was nicknamed "King Pym" by the friends of
Charles. He and his confidants were already in secret communication
with the Scots, and spoke all the more boldly, because they knew that
they could call down the Covenanting host on London, if the king should
dare to withstand them.
[Sidenote: =Arrest of Strafford and Laud.=]
The "Long Parliament" met on November 3. It at once proceeded to
business. Eight days later, Pym moved that Strafford should be
impeached for treason, and, in the following month, Laud was also
arraigned on the same charge. Both were arrested, and sent to the
Tower. The king made no attempt to defend them. Apparently, he was so
conscious of his helplessness, and so dismayed by the riotous mob of
London, and the fierce words of the Commons, that he had completely
lost his head. It is certain that, if he had resisted, none but a few
courtiers would have backed him. He sank in the most extraordinary way,
in six months, from an autocrat into a nerveless, hunted creature,
amazed at the wrath he had roused, and quite unable to defend himself.
[Sidenote: =Trial and execution of Strafford.=]
The dealings of the Parliament with the two great ministers, the
archbishop and the Lord-Deputy, were summary and harsh, even to
injustice. It is true that both Laud and Strafford had been cruel
enemies of the liberties of England, but it would have been well, in
punishing them, to proceed on the best constitutional precedents, and
to let the course of justice be clear and calm. Strafford was impeached
before the peers, and there was brought against him a vast weight of
evidence to prove that, both as President of the North and as Governor
of Ireland, he had committed scores of illegal, arbitrary, and cruel
acts. But that the acts amounted to treason was not evident, and Pym
and his friends were determined to find Strafford guilty of nothing
less. After fourteen days' sittings, the accusers suddenly determined
to change their procedure. Dropping the method of impeachment,
they determined to crush Strafford by a simple declaratory bill of
attainder, which stated that he had committed treason, and was worthy
of death. This bill was brought into the House of Commons on April
10, and all its three readings were carried in eleven days. The main
point on which the charge of treason was founded, was Strafford's
advice to the king to bring over the Irish army, and the only proof of
that advice was a paper of notes made in the Privy Council, which had
surreptitiously come into Pym's hands.[40] Strafford had said, "Your
Majesty has an army in Ireland, that you may employ to reduce this
kingdom to obedience." It was not even certain that "this kingdom"
meant England, and not Scotland, but on that evidence Strafford was
convicted of plotting to levy war against the State. The vast majority
of the Commons were determined to have his blood; 204 members voted for
the bill, only 59 against it, and the names of the minority were soon
placarded all over London as traitors to the commonwealth. The House
of Lords approved the bill of attainder, and it was sent to the king.
Charles had secretly given Strafford a pardon for all his acts, and
promised to save his life. But in a moment of alarm, with the angry
shouts of the Londoners ringing in his ears, he gave his assent to the
bill. It was an inexcusably selfish and cowardly act, the one deed in
all his life which we must stamp as mean and perfidious, as well as
unwise. Strafford suffered on Tower Hill, with the stern courage that
had marked all his acts, muttering, "Put not your trust in princes"
with his last breath (May 12, 1641).
[Sidenote: =Impeachment of Laud and others.=]
It was now the turn of the old archbishop. He was impeached on the 15th
of December, both for illegal acts in the Star Chamber and the Court
of High Commission, of which he was undoubtedly guilty, and for secret
encouragement of Popery, of which he was as undoubtedly innocent. The
articles drawn up against him were approved by the vote of both Houses,
but he was not at once tried, but allowed to linger in the Tower, where
he was to spend more than two years. Several minor ministers of the
Crown were also impeached--Windebank, the secretary of state; Finch,
the lord keeper; and the judges who had given the unrighteous decision
in the ship-money case. The more prominent of these tools of the king
saved themselves by flying over-sea.
[Sidenote: =Measures of reform.=]
But while bent on vengeance for the past, the Long Parliament was also
desirous of securing good governance for the future. The spring and
summer of 1641 saw the abolition of most of the machinery which Charles
had used to carry out his tyranny. The two great unconstitutional
courts, the Star Chamber and the Court of High Commission, were
abolished by a law passed in July. By another, carried in February, it
was provided that Parliaments should be triennial, and that, if the
king refrained for three years from calling the two Houses together,
they should have the right to meet without his summons. In June a
bill was drawn up, declaring illegal the exaction of ship-money,
benevolences, and the rest of the king's favourite forms of extortion.
An excellent device for keeping the law-courts free from royal
interference was found by making the judges hold their office, not
during the king's pleasure, but "_dum se bene gesserint_"--as long as
they faithfully discharged their office. This swept away the power
which the Stuarts had habitually used, of displacing every judge who
gave decisions against the prerogative.
[Sidenote: =The "Root-and-Branch" Bill.=]
If the Long Parliament had halted here, we should owe it nothing but
thanks and praise. Unfortunately, however, it soon began to press on
from redressing national grievances to pandering to party animosities.
Most of its leading members were Puritans, and of them a majority was
formed by those who had left the Church and taken to Presbyterianism.
These Nonconformists were burning to revenge themselves on the Church
of England for the tyranny which Laud and the Court of High Commission
had exercised over them. The first symptom of their wrath was a bill
for excluding the bishops from the House of Lords; this was afterwards
enlarged into a scheme for abolishing the bishops altogether, and
reorganizing the Church on a Presbyterian basis. In this form it was
popularly known as the "Root-and-Branch" Bill, from a term used in a
great London petition in its favour.
[Sidenote: =Split in the Parliamentary party.=]
This sweeping party measure at once threw all the moderate men in
the House, who remained loyal Churchmen, though they were also
constitutional reformers, into a violent opposition to the majority.
After much fierce debating, Pym and his friends passed the second
reading by a small majority (138 to 105) in May, 1641. The third
reading was bitterly debated all through the summer, but never carried
through; in face of the danger of splitting the party of reform, the
promoters of the bill wisely dropped it (August, 1641). But they
never succeeded in reuniting the Churchmen to themselves in the firm
alliance that had existed before. Men like Lord Falkland, Edward Hyde,
John Colepepper, and others of equally liberal views, began to doubt
the wisdom of continuing to act with a party which was tending to
appear more like a synod of fanatics than a committee of constitutional
reformers.
[Sidenote: =Position of the king.=]
It was the appearance of this split in the Parliament that first
brought some comfort to the disconsolate Charles. After giving a weak
and insincere assent to every bill that was sent up to him in the
summer, he began to pluck up his heart in the autumn of 1641. It was
now his cue to assume the position of a constitutional king, and to
accept the present position of affairs. But in his heart he was, no
doubt, beginning to dream of ridding himself of his oppressors by the
aid of the Church party and the moderate men. He spent the autumn in a
visit to Scotland, where he endeavoured to conciliate the Covenanters
by granting every request that they laid before him. But, at the same
time, he was in secret negotiation with those of the Scottish nobles
who disliked the domination of the Kirk, and was endeavouring to build
up a Royalist party in the land.
[Sidenote: =The Irish Rebellion.=]
It was while Charles lay in the north that there burst out troubles
in Ireland, which were fated to do him no small harm. The iron hand
of Strafford had kept the Irish down for a space, in spite of all the
wrongs and injustice which he had committed. When Strafford, however,
was gone, the wrath of the oppressed natives boiled over, with all the
more vigour because of this cruel repression. In October, 1641, there
broke out a great national and religious rebellion, such as had not
been seen since the days of Elizabeth. The old Irish clans rose to
cast out and slay the English colonists. The Anglo-Irish Catholics of
the Pale took arms at the same time, not to make Ireland independent,
but to compel the king to take off all laws against Romanism, and turn
the island into a Catholic country. In the North of Ireland, where the
plantation of Ulster had worked the cruelest wrongs, the rising was
attended with horrible atrocities. The natives, headed by Sir Phelim
O'Neil, a distant kinsman of the old Earls of Tyrone, slew some 5000 of
the unarmed colonists in cold blood. Many thousands more died from cold
and starvation, being cast out of their dwellings and hunted away naked
in the cold autumn weather. Unhappily for the king, the rebels thought
it wise to give out that they acted by his permission in taking arms,
and that they only struck at the English Parliament and the Protestant
religion. Phelim O'Neil even showed a letter purporting to come from
Charles, and bearing the royal seal of Scotland, where the king at that
moment was staying. It was a forgery, and the seal was taken from an
old deed; but the English Puritans would believe anything of Charles,
and jumped to the conclusion that he was guilty of fostering the
rising, and therefore of authorizing the massacre.
[Sidenote: =The Grand Remonstrance.=]
Under the stress of the news from Ireland, the Long Parliament
reassembled in the winter of 1641-42, in no amiable frame of mind. They
signalized their reassembly by putting forth the "Grand Remonstrance,"
a kind of historical summary of all the illegalities which Charles had
committed since his accession, followed by a list of their own reforms
already carried out, and a scheme for further reforms to come. These
last were to include a bill to make the king choose no ministers or
officials save such as Parliament should recommend to him, another for
the complete suppression of Romanism, and a third for the "reformation"
of the Church of England in the direction of pure Protestantism,
that is, of extreme Puritanism. The first half of the "Remonstrance"
passed the Commons with little opposition, but the last clauses,
which practically bound the House to abolish Episcopacy and turn the
Established Church into a Presbyterian Kirk, were hotly opposed by
all the moderate party. In the end they passed by a narrow majority
of eleven. But the victory of the Puritans involved a complete schism
in the House. All the Church party now resolved that they would go no
further; they would rather trust the king, in spite of all his faults,
than the fanatical Presbyterians. For the first time in his life,
Charles found himself allied to a powerful party in the Lower House.
[Sidenote: =Attempted arrest of the five members.=]
He might have regained much of his authority if he had now played his
cards wisely. But unwisdom was always his characteristic. Taking heart
at the divisions among the Commons, he resolved to attempt a _coup
d'état_. On January 4, 1642, he suddenly came down to the House, with a
great armed retinue of three or four hundred men, intending to arrest
the five chiefs of the Puritan party--Pym, Hampden, Holles, Hazelrig,
and Strode. They had received warning of his approach, and fled to the
City, where the London militia armed in thousands to protect them.
The king looked round the House, and noted that the five members were
not present. "I see the birds are flown," he exclaimed, and, after an
awkward speech of apology, left the House.
[Sidenote: =Charles leaves London.=]
The plan had completely failed. The Puritans were warned that the king
was ready to resume his old illegal habits, and had not learnt his new
position as a constitutional ruler. Charles himself was so mortified
at the frustration of his scheme, that he hastily decamped, abandoning
his capital to the Parliament and its enthusiastic supporters, the
merchants and burgesses of the City.
[Sidenote: =Preparations for war.--The Royalist party.=]
The die was now cast. The next six months were occupied by both sides
in preparations for war, which was evidently at hand. Every man had
now to choose his side and make up his mind. The king went round the
Midlands, holding conferences with all whom he thought might be induced
to support him. He found more encouragement than he had expected. A
large majority of the peerage were on his side. They objected to being
ruled by a House of Commons which had grown violent and fanatical.
Almost the whole body of Churchmen all over the kingdom were also ready
to join him. When forced to choose between a king who had been guilty
of oppression and unwisdom, but who was undoubtedly a good Churchman
like themselves, and a Parliament ruled by schismatics who wished to
wreck the old Church, they reluctantly but firmly threw in their lot
with Charles. There were whole shires where the Puritans were few and
the Church was strong, and in these the king found promise of steady
support. There were thousands who were moved by the old instinct
of loyalty, and thousands more who hoped--unwisely perhaps, but
whole-heartedly--that their master had learnt moderation, and would, if
triumphant, never return to his old courses. Meanwhile Charles took a
step which showed that he was preparing for the worst. He sent his wife
over-sea, with all the money he could collect, and his crown jewels,
bidding her spend the whole in buying munitions of war in France and
Holland.
[Sidenote: =The Commons claim control of the militia.=]
The Parliamentarians also were making their preparations. They were
determined to get possession of the armed force of the nation--the
militia, or "train-bands" of the shires and boroughs. With this object
they sent the king proposals, which they could hardly expect him to
accept, that for the future the right to call out and officer the
militia should be vested in the two Houses, and not in the Crown. The
negative answer was promptly sent them back from Newmarket. They then
proceeded to pass an ordinance, arrogating to themselves the right to
nominate the lord-lieutenants, the official commanders of the militia,
and ordering military authorities to look for their orders to the
Houses, and not to the king. This ordinance never received the royal
sanction, and was, of course, illegal in form; nevertheless, it was
acted upon.
[Sidenote: =Charles at Hull.=]
The crisis began when, in April, the king called on Sir John Hotham,
governor of Hull, to admit him within the walls of that town, and make
over to him a store of arms and munitions which lay there. Hotham shut
the gates, and answered that he took orders from the Parliament alone.
The next two months were spent by both parties in gathering armies.
In June the king sent "commissions of array" to trustworthy persons
in every county, bidding them muster men in his name. The Parliament
replied, not only by putting the militia under arms, but by raising new
levies for permanent service in the field, under officers whom they
could trust. They gave the supreme command to the Earl of Essex, the
man who thirty years before had been so cruelly wronged by James I. and
his favourite Somerset.
On August 22 the king set up his standard at Nottingham, and bade all
his friends come to meet him. At the same time, Essex marched north
from London. The war had begun.
FOOTNOTES:
[38] The theory that all men are born to salvation or perdition,
according to God's will, and have no share or responsibility in their
own fate.
[39] Arminius was a Dutch divine who violently opposed the doctrine of
predestination; hence those who denied it were often called Arminians.
[40] The notes were made by Sir H. Vane, one of the council, and a
strong Royalist. But they came into the hands of his son, a bitter
opponent of the king, who gave them to Pym.