 Chapter 5 The King and His Prerogative The great difficulty in governing without a parliament was the raising of funds by the old customs and laws of the realm, attacks upon the people could only be levied by the action of the House of Commons, and the great object of the King and Council during Buckingham's life in summoning parliaments from time to time was to get their aid in this respect. But as Charles found that one parliament after another withheld the grants and spent their time in complaining of his government, he would dissolve them, successively, after exhausting all possible means of bringing them to a compliance with his will, he would then be thrown upon his own resources. The King had some resources of his own, these were certain estates and lands and other property in various parts of the country which belonged to the Crown, the income of which the King could appropriate, but the amount which could be derived from this source was very small. Then there were certain other modes of raising money, which had been resorted to by former monarchs in emergencies at distant intervals, but still in instances so numerous that the King considered presidents enough had been established to make the power to resort to these modes a part of the prerogative of the Crown. The people, however, considered these acts of former monarchs as irregularities or use of patience. They denied the King's right to resort to these methods, and they threw so many difficulties in the way of the execution of his plans that finally he would call another parliament and make new efforts to lead them to conform to his will. The more the experiment was tried, however, the worse it succeeded, and at last the King determined to give up the idea of parliaments altogether, and to compel the people to submit to his plans of raising money without them. The final dissolution of parliament, by which Charles entered upon his new plan of government, was attended with some resistance, and the affair made great difficulty. It seems that one of the members, asserted Mr. Rolls, had had some of his goods seized for payment of some of the King's irregular taxes, which he had refused to pay willingly. Now, it had always been considered the law of the land in England that the person and the property of a member of parliament were sacred during the session, on the ground that while he was giving his attendance at a council meeting called by his sovereign, he ought to be protected from molestation on the part either of his fellow subjects or his sovereign, in his person and in his property. The House of Commons considered, therefore, the seizure of the goods of one of the members of the body as a breach of their privilege, and took up the subject with a view to punish the officers who acted. The King sent a message immediately to the House, while they were debating the subject, saying that the officer acted in seizing the goods in obedience to his own direct command. This produced great excitement and long debates. The King, by taking the responsibility of the seizure upon himself, seemed to be the House's defiance. They brought up this question. Whether the seizing of Mr. Rolls's goods was not a breach of privilege? When the time came for a decision, the speaker, that is, the presiding officer, refused to put the question to vote. He said he had been commanded by the King not to do it. The House were indignant, and immediately adjourned for two days, probably for the purpose of considering and perhaps consulting their constituents on what they were to do in so extraordinary an emergency as the King's coming into their own body and interfering with the functions of one of their own officers. They met on the day to which they had adjourned, prepared to insist on the speakers putting the question. But he, immediately on the House coming to order, said that he had received the King's command to adjourn the House for a week and put no question whatever. He was then about to leave the chair, but two of the members advanced to him and held him in his place while they read some resolutions which had been prepared. There was great confusion and clamour. Some insisted that the House was adjourned. Some were determined to pass the resolutions. The resolutions were very decided. They declared that whoever should counsel or advise the laying of taxes, not granted by Parliament, or be an actor or instrument in collecting them, should be counted an innovator and a capital enemy to the Kingdom and Commonwealth. And also that if any person whatever should voluntarily pay such taxes, he should be counted a capital enemy also. These resolutions were read in the midst of great uproar. The King was informed of the facts and sent for the Sergeant of the House, one of the highest officers, but the members locked the door and would not let the Sergeant go. Then the King sent one of his own officers to the House with a message. The members kept the door locked and would not let him in until they had disposed of the resolutions. Then the House adjourned for a week. The next day several of the leading members who were supposed to have been active in these proceedings were summoned to appear before the Council. They refused to answer out of Parliament for what was said and done by them in Parliament. The Council sent them to prison in the Tower. The week passed away and the time for the reassembling of the Houses arrived. It had been known during the week that the King had determined on dissolving Parliament. It is usual in dissolving a Parliament for the Sovereign not to appear in person, but to send his message of dissolution by some person commissioned to deliver it. This is called dissolving the House by commission. The dissolution is always declared in the House of Lords, the Commons being summoned to attend. In this case however the King attended in person. He was dressed magnificently in his royal robes and wore his crown. He would not deign however to send for the Commons. He entered the House of Peers and took his seat upon the throne. Several of the Commons however came in of their own accord and stood below the bar at the usual place assigned them. The King then rose and read the following speech. The antiquity of the language gives it an air of quaintness now which it did not possess then. My Lords, I never came here upon so unpleasant an occasion, it being the dissolution of a Parliament. Therefore men may have some cause to wonder why I should not rather choose to do this by commission, it being a general maxim of kings to leave harsh commands to their ministers, themselves only executing pleasing things. Yet considering that justice as well consists in reward and praise of virtue, as punishing of vice, I thought it necessary to come here today and to declare to you and all the world that it was merely the undutiful and seditious courage in the lower House that had made the dissolution of this Parliament. And you, my Lords, are so far from being any causes of it that I take as much comfort in your dutiful demeanour as I am justly distasted with their proceedings. Yet to avoid their mistakeings, let me tell you that it is so far from me to adjudge all the House alike guilty that I know there are many there as dutiful subjects as any in the world, it being but some few vipers among them that did cast this mist of undutifulness over most of their eyes. Yet to say truth there was a good number there that could not be infected with this contagion. To conclude, as those vipers must look for their reward of punishment, so you, my Lords, may justly expect from me that favour and protection that a good King oweeth to his loving and faithful nobility. And now, my Lord Keeper, do what I have commanded you. Then the Lord Keeper pronounced the Parliament dissolved. The Lord Keeper was the keeper of the Great Seal, one of the highest officers of the Crown. Of course, this affair produced a fever of excitement against the King throughout the whole realm. This excitement was kept up and increased by the trials of the members of Parliament who had been imprisoned. The courts decided against them and they were sentenced to long imprisonment and to heavy fines. The King now determined to do without Parliament entirely and, of course, he had to raise money by his royal prerogative altogether, as he had done in fact before, a great deal, during the intervals between the successive Parliaments. It will not be very entertaining, but it will be very useful to the reader to peruse carefully some account of the principle methods resorted to by the King. In order, however, to diminish the necessity for money as much as possible, the King prepared to make peace with France and Spain, and as they, as well as England, were exhausted with the wars, this was readily affected. One of the resorts adopted by the King was to a system of loans, as they were called, though these loans differed from those made by governments at the present day, in being apportioned upon the whole community according to their liability to taxation, and in being made, in some respects, compulsory. The loan was not to be absolutely collected by force, but all were expected to lend, and if any refused, they were to be required to make oath that they would not tell anybody else that they had refused, in order that the influence of their example might not operate upon others. Those who did refuse were to be reported to the government. The officers appointed to collect these loans were charged not to make unnecessary difficulty, but to do all in their power to induce the people to contribute freely and willingly. This plan had been before adopted in the time of Buckingham, but it met with little success. Another plan which was resorted to was the granting of what was called monopolies, that is, the government would select some important and necessary articles in general use, and give the exclusive right of manufacturing them to certain persons, on their paying a part of the profits to the government. Soap was one of the articles thus chosen. The exclusive right to manufacture it was given to a company on their paying for it, so with leather, salt, and various other things. These persons, when they once possessed the exclusive right to manufacture an article which the people must use, would abuse their power by deteriorating the article or charging enormous prices. Nothing prevented their doing this, as they had no competition. The effect was that the people were injured much more than the government was benefited. The plan of granting such monopolies by governments is now universally odious. Another method of taxation was what was called tonnage and poundage. This was an ancient tax, assessed on merchandise brought into the country in ships, like the duties now collected at our custom houses. It was called tonnage and poundage because the merchandise on which it was assessed was reckoned by weight, veers, the ton and the pound. A former king, Edward III, first assessed it to raise money to suppress piracy on the seas. He said it was reasonable that the merchandise protected should pay the expense of the protection and in proper proportion. The parliament in that day opposed this tax. They did not object to the tax itself but to the kings assessing it by his own authority. However, they granted it themselves afterward and it was regularly collected. Subsequent parliaments had granted it and generally made the law, once and for all, to continue in force during the life of the monarch. When Charles commenced his reign, the peers were for renewing the law as usual to continue throughout his reign. The commons desired to enact the law only for a year at a time so as to keep the power in their own hands. The two houses thus disagreed and nothing was done. The king then went on to collect the tax without any authority except his own prerogative. Another mode of levying money adopted by the king was what was called ship money. This was a plan for raising a navy by making every town contribute a certain number of ships or the money necessary to build them. It originated in ancient times and was at first confined to seaport towns which had ships. These towns were required to furnish them for the king's service, sometimes to be paid for by the king, at other times by the country and at other times not to be paid for at all. Charles revived this plan, extending it to the whole country. A tax was assessed on all the towns, each one being required to furnish money enough for a certain number of ships. The number at one time required of the city of London was 20. There was one man who made his name very celebrated then and it has continued very celebrated since by his refusal to pay his ship money and by his long and determined contest with the government in regard to it in the courts. His name was John Hampton. He was a man of fortune and high character. His tax for ship money was only 20 shillings but he declared that he would not pay it without a trial. The king had previously obtained the opinion of the judges that he had a right in case of necessity to assess and collect the ship money and Hampton knew therefore that the decision would certainly in the end be against him. He knew however that the attention of the whole country would be attracted to the trial and that the arguments which he should offer to prove that the act of collecting such a tax on the part of the king's government was illegal and tyrannical would be spread before the country and would make a great impression although they certainly would not alter the opinion of the judges who holding their offices by the king's appointment were strongly inclined to take his side. It resulted as Hampton had foreseen. The trial attracted universal attention. It was a great spectacle to see a man of fortune and of high standing making all those preparations and incurring so great expense on account of a refusal to pay five dollars knowing too that he would have to pay it in the end. The people of the realm were convinced that Hampton was right and they applauded and honored him very greatly for his spirit and courage. The trial lasted 12 days. The illegality and injustice of the tax were fully exposed. The people concurred entirely with Hampton and even some of the judges were convinced. He was called the patriot Hampton and his name will always be celebrated in English history. The whole discussion however though it produced a great effect at the time would be of no interest now since it turned mainly on the question of what the king's rights actually were according to the ancient customs and usages of the realm. The question before mankind now is a very different one. It is not what the powers and prerogatives of government have been in times past but what they ought to be now and in time to come. The king's government gained the victory ostensibly in this contest and Hampton had to pay the money. Very large sums were collected or so from others by this tax and a great fleet was raised. The performances and exploits of the fleet had some influence in quieting the murmurs of the people. The fleet was the greatest which England had ever possessed. One of its exploits was to compel the Dutch to pay a large sum for the privilege of fishing in the narrow seas about Great Britain. The Dutch had always maintained that these seas were public and open to all the world and they had a vast number of fishing boats called herring buses that used to resort to them for the purpose of catching herring which they had made a business of preserving and sending all over the world. The English ships attacked these fleets of herring buses and drove them off and as the Dutch were not strong enough to defend them they agreed to pay a large sum annually for the right to fish in the seas in question protesting however against it as an extortion for they maintained that the English had no control over any seas beyond the bays and estuaries of their own shores. One of the chief means which Charles depended upon during the long period that he governed without a parliament was a certain famous tribunal or court called the Star Chamber. This court was a very ancient one having been established in some of the earliest reigns but it never attracted any special attention until the time of Charles. His government called it into action a great deal and extended its powers and made it a means of great injustice and oppression as the people thought or as Charles would have said a very efficient means of indicating his prerogative and punishing the stubborn and rebellious. There were three reasons why this court was a more convenient and powerful instrument in the hands of the king and his council than any of the other courts in the kingdom. First it was by its ancient constitution composed of members of the council with the exception of two persons who were to be judges in the other courts. This plan of having two judges from the common law courts seems to have been adopted for the purpose of securing some sort of conformity of the Star Chamber decisions with the ordinary principles of English jury's prudence. But then as these two law judges would always be selected with reference to their disposition to carry out the king's plans and as the other members of the court were all members of the government itself of course the court was almost entirely under governmental control. The second reason was that in this court there was no jury. There had never been juries employed in it from its earliest constitution. The English had contrived the plan of trial by jury as a defense against the severity of government. If a man was accused of crime the judges appointed by the government that he had offended were not to be allowed to decide whether he was guilty or not. They would be likely not to be impartial. The question of his guilt or innocence was to be left to twelve men taken at hazard from the ordinary walks of life and who consequently would be likely to sympathize with the accused if they saw any disposition to oppress him rather than to join against him with a tyrannical government. Thus the jury as they said was a great safeguard. The English have always attached great value to their system of trial by jury. The plan is retained in this country though there is less necessity for it under our institutions. Now in the Star Chamber it had never been the custom to employ a jury. The members of the court decided the whole question and as they were entirely in the interest of the government the government of course had the fate of every person accused under their direct control. The third reason consisted in the nature of the crimes which had always been customary to try in this court. It had jurisdiction in a great variety of cases in which men were brought into collision with the government such as charges of riot, sedition, libel, opposition to the edicts of the council, and to proclamations of the king. These and similar cases had always been tried by the Star Chamber and these were exactly the cases which ought not to be tried by such a court for persons accused of hostility to government ought not to be tried by government itself. There has been a great deal of discussion about the origin of the term Star Chamber. The hall where the court was held was in a palace at Westminster and there were a great many windows in it. Some think that it was from this that the court received its name. Others suppose it was because the court had cognizance of a certain crime, the Latin name of which has a close affinity with the word Star. Another reason is that certain documents called Starra used to be kept in the hall. The prettiest idea is a source of tradition that the ceiling of the hall was formally ornamented with stars and that this circumstance gave name to the hall. This supposition, however, unfortunately, has no better foundation than the others for there were no stars on the ceiling in Charles's time and there had not been any for a hundred years nor is there any positive evidence that there ever were. However, in the absence of any real reason for preferring one of these ideas over the other, mankind seemed to have wisely determined on choosing the most picturesque so that it is generally agreed that the origin of the name was the ancient decoration of the ceiling of the hall with gilded stars. However, this may be the court of the Star chamber was an engine of prodigious power in the hands of Charles's government. It aided them in two ways. They could punish their enemies and where these enemies were wealthy they could fill up the treasury of the government by imposing enormous fines upon them. Sometimes the offenses for which these fines were imposed were not of a nature to deserve such severe penalties. For instance, there was a law against turning tillage land into pastureage. Land that is tilled supports men. Land that is pastured supports cattle and sheep. The former were a burden sometimes to landlords. The latter are means of wealth. Hence there was then as there is now a tendency in England in certain parts of the country for the landed proprietors to change their tillage land to pasture and thus drive the peasants away from their homes. There were laws against this but a great many persons had done it not withstanding. One of these persons was fine four thousand pounds an enormous sum. The rest were alarmed and made compositions as they were called. That is they paid at once a certain sum on condition of not being prosecuted. Thirty thousand pounds were collected in this way which was then a very large amount. There were in those days as there are now certain tracts of land in England called the king's forests. Though a large portion of them are now without trees. The boundaries of these lands had not been very well defined but the government now published decrees specifying the boundaries and extending them so far as to include in many cases the buildings and improvements of other proprietors. They then prosecuted these proprietors for having encroached as they called it upon the crown lands and the star chamber assessed very heavy fines upon them. The people said all this was done merely to get pretexts to extort money from the nation to make up for the want of a parliament to assess regular taxes but the government said it was a just and legal mode of protecting the ancient and legitimate rights of the king. In these and similar modes large sums of money were collected as fines and penalties for offences more or less real. In other cases very severe punishments were inflicted for various sorts of offences committed against the personal dignity of the king or the great lords of his government. It was considered highly important to repress all appearance of disrespect or hostility to the king. One man got into some contention with one of the king's officers and finally struck him. He was fined ten thousand pounds. Another man said that a certain archbishop had incurred the king's displeasure by desiring some toleration for the Catholics. This was considered a slander against the archbishop and the offender was sentenced to be fined a thousand pounds to be whipped imprisoned and to stand in the pillory at Westminster and at three other places in various parts of the kingdom. A gentleman was following a chaser suspectator, the hounds belonging to a nobleman. The huntsman, who had charge of the hounds ordered him to keep back and not come so near the hounds and in giving him disorder spoke, as the gentleman alleged, so insolently that he struck him with his riding whip. The huntsman threatened to complain to his master, the nobleman. The gentleman said that if his master should justify him in such insulting language as he had used, he would serve him in the same manner. The star chamber fined him ten thousand pounds for speaking so disrespectfully of a lord. By these and similar proceedings large sums of money were collected by the star chamber for the king's treasury and all expression of discontent and dissatisfaction on the part of the people was suppressed. This last policy, however, the suppression of expressions of dissatisfaction is always a very dangerous one for any government to undertake. Discontent, silenced by force, is exasperated and extended. The outward signs of its existence disappear, but its inward workings become widespread and dangerous, just in proportion to the weight by which the safety valve is kept down. Charles and his court of the star chamber rejoiced in the power and efficacy of their tremendous tribunal. They issued proclamations and decrees and governed the country by means of them. They silenced all murmurs, but they were, all the time, disseminating through the whole length and breadth of the land a deep and inveterate enmity to royalty, which ended in a revolution of the government and the decapitation of the king. They stopped the hissing of the steam for the time, but caused an explosion in the end. Charles was king of Scotland as well as of England. The two countries were, however, as countries distinct, each having its own laws, its own administration, and its own separate dominions. The sovereign, however, was the same. A king could inherit two kingdoms, just as a man can, in this country, inherit two farms, which may, nevertheless, be at a distance from each other and managed separately. Now, although Charles had, from the death of his father, exercised sovereignty over the realm of Scotland, he had not been crowned, nor had even visited Scotland. The people of Scotland felt somewhat neglected. They murmured that their common monarch gave all his attention to the sister and rival kingdom. They said that if the king did not consider the Scottish crown worth coming after, they might perhaps look out for some other way of disposing of it. The king, accordingly in 1633, began to make preparations for a royal progress into Scotland. He first issued a proclamation requiring a proper supply of provisions to be collected at the several points of his proposed route and specified the route and the length of stay which he should make in each place. He set out on the 13th of May with a splendid retinue. He stopped at the seats of several of the nobility on the way to enjoy the hospitalities and entertainments which they had prepared for him. He proceeded so slowly that it was a month before he reached the frontier. Here all his English servants and retinue retired from their posts and their places were supplied by Scotch men who had been previously appointed and who were awaiting his arrival. He entered Edinburgh with great pomp and parade, all Scotland flocking to the capital to witness the festivities. The coronation took place three days afterward. He met the Scotch parliament and for form's sake took a part in the proceedings so as actually to exercise his royal authority as king of Scotland. This being over he was conducted in great state back to Berwick which is on the frontier and then he returned by rapid journeys to London. The king dissolved his last parliament in 1629. He had now been endeavouring for four or five years to govern alone. He succeeded tolerably well so far as external appearances indicated up to this time. There was however beneath the surface a deep-seated discontent which was constantly widening and extending and soon after the return of the king from Scotland real difficulties gradually arose by which he was in the end compelled to call a parliament again. What these difficulties were will be explained in the subsequent chapters. End of Chapter 5 Chapter 6 of Charles I. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Ruth Golding. Charles I by Jacob Abbott. Chapter 6 Archbishop Lord. In getting so deeply involved in difficulties with his people King Charles did not act alone. He had, as we have already explained, a great deal of help. There were many men of intelligence and rank who entertained the same opinions that he did or who were at least willing to adopt them for the sake of office and power. These men he drew around him, he gave them office and power, and they joined him in the efforts he made to defend and enlarge the royal prerogative and to carry on the government by the exercise of it. One of the most prominent and distinguished of these men was Lord. The reader must understand that the Church in England is very different from anything that exists under the same name in this country. Its bishops and clergy are supported by revenues derived from a vast amount of property which belongs to the Church itself. This property is entirely independent of all control by the people of the parishes. The clergyman, as soon as he is appointed, comes into possession of it in his own right, and he is not appointed by the people but by some nobleman or high officer of state who has inherited the right to appoint the clergyman of that particular parish. There are bishops also who have very large revenues likewise independent, and over these bishops is one great dignitary who presides in lofty state over the whole system. This officer is called the Archbishop of Canterbury. There is one other Archbishop called the Archbishop of York, but his realm is much more limited and less important. The Archbishop of Canterbury is styled the Lord Primate of all England. His rank is above that of all the peers of the realm. He crowns the kings. He has two magnificent palaces, one at Canterbury and one at London, and has very large revenues also to enable him to maintain a style of living in accordance with his rank. He has the superintendence of all the affairs of the church for the whole realm, except a small portion pertaining to the Archbishopric of York. His palace in London is on the bank of the Thames opposite Westminster. It is called Lambeth Palace. The city of Canterbury, which is the chief seat of his dominion, is south-east of London, not very far from the sea. The cathedral is there, which is the Archbishop's church. It is more than five hundred feet in length, and the tower is nearly two hundred and fifty feet high. The magnificence of the architecture and the decorations of the building correspond with its size. There is a large company of clergymen and other officers attached to the service of the cathedral. There are more than a hundred in number. The palace of the Archbishop is near. The church was, thus, in the days of Charles, a complete realm of itself, with its own property, its own laws, its own legislature and courts and judges, its own capital, and its own monarch. It was entirely independent of the mass of the people in all these respects, as all these things were wholly controlled by the bishops and clergy, and the clergy were generally appointed by the noblemen and the bishops by the king. This made the system almost entirely independent of the community at large, and as there was organised under it a vast amount of wealth and influence and power, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who presided over the whole, was as great in authority as he was in rank and honour. Now, Lord was Archbishop of Canterbury. King Charles had made himself. He had observed that Lord, who had been advanced to some high stations in the church by his father, King James, was desirous to enlarge and strengthen the powers and prerogatives of the church, just as he himself was endeavouring to do in respect to those of the throne. He accordingly promoted him from one post of influence and honour to another, until he made him at last Archbishop of Canterbury. Thus he was placed upon the summit of ecclesiastical grandeur and power. He commenced his work, however, of strengthening and aggrandising the church before he was appointed to this high office. He was Bishop of London for many years, which is a post, in some respects, second only to that of Archbishop of Canterbury. While in this station he was appointed by the King to many high civil offices. He had great capacity for the transaction of business and for the fulfilment of high trusts, whether of church or state. He was a man of great integrity and moral worth. He was stern and severe in manners, but learned and accomplished. His whole soul was bent on what he undoubtedly considered the great duty of his life, supporting and confirming the authority of the King and the power and influence of English episcopacy. Notwithstanding his high qualifications, however, many persons were jealous of the influence which he possessed with the King, and murmured against the appointment of a churchman to such high offices of state. There was another source of hostility to Lord. There was a large part of the people of England who were against the Church of England altogether. They did not like a system in which all power and influence came, as it were, from above downward. The King made the nobleman, the nobleman made the bishops, the bishops made the clergy, and the clergy ruled their flocks. The flocks themselves having nothing to say or do but to submit. It is very different with episcopacy in this country. The people here choose the clergy, and the clergy choose the bishops, so that power in the church, as in everything else here, goes from below upward. The two systems, when at rest, look very similar in the two countries, but when in action the current of life flows in contrary directions, making the two diametrically opposite to each other in spirit and power. In England, episcopacy is an engine by which the people are ecclesiastically governed. Here it is the machinery by which they govern. Thus, though the forms appear similar, the action is very diverse. Now in England there was a large and increasing party that hated and opposed the whole episcopal system. Lord, to counteract this tendency, attempted to define and enlarge and extend that system as far as possible. He made the most of all the ceremonies of worship, and introduced others which were indeed not exactly new, but rather ancient ones revived. He did this conscientiously, no doubt, thinking that these forms of devotion were adapted to impress the soul of the worshipper, and lead him to feel in his heart the reverence which his outward action expressed. Many of the people, however, bitterly opposed these things, they considered it a return to popery. The more that Lord and those who acted with him attempted to magnify the rights and the powers of the church, the more these persons began to abhor everything of the kind. They wanted Christianity itself in its purity, uncontaminated as they said by these popish and idolatrous forms. They were called Puritans. There were a great many things which seemed to us at the present day of very little consequence which were then the subjects of endless disputes, and of the most bitter animosity. For instance, one point was whether the place where the Communion was to be administered should be called the Communion-table or the altar, and in what part of the church it should stand, and whether the person officiating should be called a priest or a clergyman, and whether he should wear one kind of dress or another. Great importance was attached to these things, but it was not on their own account, but on account of their bearing on the question whether the Lord's supper was to be considered only a ceremony commemorative of Christ's death, or whether it was, whenever celebrated by a regularly authorized priest, a real renewal of the sacrifice of Christ as the Catholics maintained. Calling the Communion-table an altar, and the officiating minister a priest, and clothing him in a sacerdotal garb, countenance the idea of a renewal of the sacrifice of Christ. Lord and his co-adjectors urged the adoption of all these and similar usages. The Puritans detested them, because they detested and abhorred the doctrine which they seemed to imply. Another great topic of controversy was the subject of amusements. It is a very singular circumstance that in those branches of the Christian Church, where rites and forms are most insisted upon, the greatest latitude is allowed in respect to the gayities and amusements of social life. Catholic Paris is filled with theatres and dancing, and the Sabbath is a holiday. In London, on the other hand, the number of theatres is small. Dancing is considered as an amusement of a more or less equivocal character, and the Sabbath is rigidly observed. And among all the simple democratic churches of New England, to dance or to attend the theatre is considered almost morally wrong. It was just so in the days of Lord. He wished to encourage amusements among the people, particularly on Sunday after church. This was partly for the purpose of counteracting the efforts of those who were inclined to Puritan views. They attached great importance to their sermons and lectures, for in them they could address and influence the people. But by means of these addresses, as Lord thought, they put ideas of insubordination into the minds of the people, and encroached on the authority of the church and of the king. To prevent this, the High Church Party wished to exalt the prayers in the church service, and to give as little place and influence as possible to the sermon, and to draw off the attention of the people from the discussions and exhortations of the preachers by encouraging games, dances, and amusements of all kinds. The judges in one of the counties at a regular court held by them once passed an order forbidding certain revels and carousels connected with the church service, on account of the immoralities and disorders as they alleged, to which they gave rise. And they ordered that public notice to this effect should be given by the bishop. The Archbishop, Lord, considered this an interference on the part of the civil magistrates with the powers and prerogatives of the church. He had the judges brought before the council and censured there. And they were required by the council to revoke their order at the next court. The judges did so, but in such a way as to show that they did it simply in obedience to the command of the king's council. The people, or at least all of them who were inclined to puritan views, sided with the judges, and were more strict in abstaining from all such amusements on Sunday than ever. This, of course, made those who were on the side of Lord more determined to promote these gayities. Thus, as neither party pursued in the least degree a generous or conciliatory course toward the other, the difference between them widened more and more. The people of the country were fast becoming either bigoted high churchmen or fanatical puritans. Lord employed the power of the Star Chamber a great deal in the accomplishment of his purpose of enforcing entire submission to the ecclesiastical authority of the church. He even had persons sometimes punished very severely for words of disrespect or for writings in which they censured what they considered the tyranny under which they suffered. This severe punishment for the mere expression of opinion only served to fix the opinion more firmly and disseminate it more widely. Sometimes men would glory in their sufferings for this cause and bid the authority's defiance. One man, for instance, named Lilburn, was brought before the Star Chamber charged with publishing seditious pamphlets. Now, in all ordinary courts of justice, no man is called upon to say anything against himself. Unless his crime can be proved by the testimony of others, it cannot be proved at all. But in the Star Chamber, whoever was brought to trial had to take an oath at first that he would answer all questions asked, even if they tended to discriminate himself. When they proposed this oath to Lilburn, he refused to take it. They decided that this was contempt of court and sentenced him to be whipped, put in the pillory, and imprisoned. While they were whipping him, he spent the time in making a speech to the spectators against the tyranny of bishops, referring to Lord whom he considered as the author of these proceedings. He continued to do the same while in the pillory. As he passed along, too, he distributed copies of the pamphlets which he was prosecuted for writing. The Star Chamber, hearing that he was haranguing the mob, ordered him to be gagged. This did not subdue him. He began to stamp with his foot and gesticulate, thus continuing to express his indomitable spirit of hostility to the tyranny which he opposed. This single case would be of no great consequence alone, but it was not alone. The attempt to put Lilburn down was a symbol of the experiment of coercion, which Charles in the State and Lord in the Church were trying upon the whole nation. It was a symbol both in respect to the means employed and to the success attained by them. One curious case is related, which turned out more fortunately than usual for the parties accused. Some young lawyers in London were drinking at an evening entertainment, and among other toasts they drank confusion to the Archbishop of Canterbury. One of the waiters who heard them mentioned the circumstance, and they were brought before the Star Chamber. Before their trial came on, they applied to a certain nobleman to know what they should do. Where was the waiter, asked the nobleman, when you drank the toast? At the door. Oh, very well then, said he. Tell the court that he only heard a part of the toast, as he was going out, and that the words really were confusion to the Archbishop of Canterbury's enemies. By this ingenious plea, and by means of a great appearance of humility and deference in the presence of the Archbishop, the lawyers escaped with a reprimand. Lord was not content with establishing and confirming throughout all England the authority of the Church, but attempted to extend the same system to Scotland. When King Charles went to Scotland to be crowned, he took Lord with him. He was pleased with Lord's endeavours to enlarge and confirm the powers of the Church, and wished to aid him in the work. There were two reasons for this. One was that the same class of men, the Puritans, were the natural enemies of both, so that the King and the Archbishop were drawn together by having one common foe. Then, as the places in the Church were not hereditary, but were filled by appointments from the King and the Great Nobles, whatever power the Church could get into its hands, could be employed by the King to strengthen his own authority, and keep his subjects in subjection. We must not, however, censure the King and his advisors too strongly for this plan. They doubtless were ambitious, they loved power, they wished to bear sway, unresisted and unquestioned over the whole realm. But then the King probably thought that the exercise of such a Government was necessary for the order and prosperity of the realm, besides being his inherent and indefensible right. Good and bad motives were doubtless mingled here, as in all human action. But then the King was, in the main, doing what he supposed it was his duty to do. In proposing therefore to build up the Church in Scotland, and to make it conform to the English Church in its rites and ceremonies, he and Lord Doubtless supposed that they were going greatly to improve the Government of the Sister Kingdom. There was in those days as now in the English Church a certain prescribed course of prayers and psalms and scripture lessons for each day, to be read from a book by the minister. This was called the liturgy. The Puritans did not like a liturgy. It tied men up, and did not leave the individual mind of the preacher at liberty to range freely, as they wished it to do, in conducting the devotional services. It was on this very account that the friends of strong Government did like it. They wished to curtail this liberty which, however, they called license, and which they sought made mischief. In extemporaneous prayers it is often easy to see that the speaker is aiming much more directly at producing a salutary effect on the minds of his hearers than at simply presenting petitions to the supreme being. But notwithstanding this evil, the existence of which no candid man can deny, the enemies of forms, who are generally friends of the largest liberty, think it best to leave the clergyman free. The friends of forms, however, prefer forms on this very account. They like what they consider the wholesome and salutary restraints which they imposed. Now there has always been a great spirit of freedom in the Scottish mind. That people have ever been unwilling to submit to coercional restraints. There is probably no race of men on earth that would make worse slaves than the Scotch. Their sturdy independence and determination to be free could never be subdued. In the days of Charles they were particularly fond of freely exercising their own minds, and of speaking freely to others on the subject of religion. They thought for themselves, sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but they would think and they would express their thoughts. And their being thus unaccustomed in one particular to submit to restraints rendered them more difficult to be governed in others. Lord thought consequently that they particularly needed a liturgy. He prepared one for them. It was varied somewhat from the English liturgy, though it was substantially the same. The king proclaimed it and required the bishops to see that it was employed in all the churches in Scotland. The day for introducing the liturgy was the signal for riots all over the kingdom. In the principal church in Edinburgh they called out a pope, a pope, when the clergyman came in with his book and his pontifical robes. The bishop ascended the pulpit to address the people to appease them, and a stool came flying through the air at his head. The police then expelled the congregation and the clergyman went through with the service of the liturgy in the empty church, the congregation outside in great tumult, accompanying the exercises with cries of disapprobation and resentment, and with volleys of stones against the doors and windows. The scotch sent a sort of ambassador to London to represent to the king that the hostility to the liturgy was so universal and so strong that it could not be enforced. But the king and his council had the same conscientious scruples about giving up in a contest with subjects that a teacher or a parent in our day would feel in the case of resistance from children or scholars. The king sent down a proclamation that the observance of the liturgy must be insisted on. The scotch prepared to resist. They sent delegates to Edinburgh and organised a sort of government. They raised armies. They took possession of the king's castles. They made a solemn covenant, binding themselves to insist on religious freedom. In a word, all Scotland was in rebellion. It was the custom in those days to have connected with the court some half-witted person who used to be fantastically dressed and to have great liberty of speech, and whose province was to amuse the courtiers. He was called the king's jester, or more commonly the fool. The name of King Charles's fool was Archie. After this rebellion broke out, and all England was aghast at the extent of the mischief which Lord's liturgy had done, the fool, seeing the Archbishop go by one day, called out to him, My Lord, who is the fool now? The Archbishop, as if to leave no possible duct in respect to the proper answer to the question, had poor Archie tried and punished. His sentence was to have his coat pulled up over his head, and to be dismissed from the king's service. If Lord had let the affair pass, it would have ended with a laugh in the street, but by resenting it he gave it notoriety, caused it to be recorded, and has perpetuated the memory of the jest to all future times. He ought to have joined in the laugh, and rewarded Archie on the spot for so good a witticism. The scotch, besides organising a sort of civil government, took measures for summoning a general assembly of their church. This assembly met at Glasgow. The nobility and gentry flocked to Glasgow at the time of the meeting, to encourage and sustain the assembly, and to manifest their interest in the proceedings. The assembly very deliberately went to work, and not content with taking a stand against the liturgy which Charles had imposed, they abolished the fabric of episcopacy, that is, the government of bishops, altogether. Thus Lord's attempt to perfect and to confirm the system resulted in expelling it completely from the kingdom. It has never held up its head in Scotland since. They established Presbyterianism in its place, which is a sort of republican system, the pastors being all officially equal to each other, though banded together under a common government administered by themselves. The King was determined to put down this rebellion at all hazards. He had made such good use of the various irregular modes of raising money, which have been already described, and had been so economical in the use of it, that he had now quite a sum of money in his treasury. And had it not been for the attempt to enforce the unfortunate liturgy upon the people of Scotland, he might perhaps have gone on reigning without a Parliament to the end of his day. He had now about two hundred thousand pounds, by means of which, together with what he could borrow, he hoped to make one single demonstration of force which would bring the rebellion to an end. He raised an army and equipped a fleet. He issued a proclamation, summoning all the peers of the realm to attend him. He moved with this great concourse from London towards the North, the whole country looking on as spectators to behold the progress of this great expedition, by which their monarch was going to attempt to subdue again his other kingdom. Charles advanced to the city of York, the great city of the North of England. Here he paused and established his court with all possible pomp and parade. His design was to impress the Scots with such an idea of the greatness of the power which was coming to overwhelm them as to cause them to submit at once. But all this show was very hollow and delusive. The army felt a greater sympathy with the Scots than they did with the King. The complaints against Charles's government were pretty much the same in both countries. A great many Scotsman came to York while the King was there, and the people from all the country round flocked thither too, drawn by the gay spectacles connected with the presence of such a court and army. The Scotsman disseminated their complaints thus among the English people, and finally the King and his council, finding indications of so extensive a disaffection, had a form of an oath prepared, which they required all the principal persons to take, acknowledging allegiance to Charles, and denying that they had any intelligence or correspondence with the enemy. The Scotsman all took the oath very readily, though some of the English refused. At any rate the state of things was not such as to intimidate the Scots and lead them, as the King had hoped, to sue for peace. So he concluded to move on toward the borders. He went to Newcastle and thence to Berwick. From Berwick he moved along the banks of the Tweed, which here forms the boundary between the two kingdoms. And finding a suitable place for such a purpose, the King had his royal tent pitched, and his army encamped around him. Now, as King Charles had undertaken to subdue the Scots by a show of force, it seems they concluded to defend themselves by a show too, though theirs was a cheaper and more simple contrivance than his. They advanced with about three thousand men to a place distant perhaps seven miles from the English camp. The King sent an army of five thousand men to attack them. The Scots, in the meantime, collected great herds of cattle from all the country around, as the historians say, and arranged them behind their little army in such a way as to make the whole appear a vast body of soldiers. A troop of horsemen, who were the advanced part of the English army, came in sight of this formidable host first, and finding their numbers so much greater than they had anticipated, they fell back, and ordered the artillery and foot soldiers who were coming up to retreat, and altogether came back to the encampment. There were two or three military enterprises of similar character, in which nothing was done, but to encourage the Scots, and dishearten the English. In fact, neither officers, soldiers, nor King wished to proceed to extremities. The officers and soldiers did not wish to fight the Scots, and the King, knowing the state of his army, did not really dare to do it. Finally, all the King's council advised him to give up the pretended contest, and to settle the difficulty by a compromise. Accordingly, in June negotiations were commenced, and before the end of the month articles were signed. The King probably made the best terms he could, but it was universally considered that the Scots gained the victory. The King disbanded his army and returned to London. The Scots leaders went back to Edinburgh. Soon after this the Parliament and the General Assembly of the Church convened, and these bodies took the whole management of the realm into their own hands. They sent commissioners to London to see and confer with the King, and these commissioners seemed almost to assume the character of ambassadors from a foreign state. These negotiations, and the course which affairs were taking in Scotland, soon led to new difficulties. The King found that he was losing his kingdom of Scotland altogether. It seemed, however, as if there was nothing that he could do to regain it. His reserved funds were gone, and his credit was exhausted. There was no resource left but to call a Parliament and ask for supplies. He might have known, however, that this would be useless, for there was so strong a fellow feeling with the Scots in their alleged grievances among the people of England, that he could not reasonably expect any response from the latter in whatever way he might appeal to them. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriFox.org. During the time that the King had been engaged in the attempt to govern England without Parliaments he had, besides Lod, a very efficient co-operator known in English history by the name of the Earl of Stratford. This title of Earl of Stratford was conferred upon him by the King as a reward for his services. His father's name was Wentworth. He was born in London, and the Christian name given to him was Thomas. He was educated at the University of Cambridge, and was much distinguished for his talents and his personal accomplishments. After finishing his education he travelled for some time on the continent, visiting foreign cities and courts, and studying the languages, manners and customs of other nations. He returned at length to England. He was made a knight. His father died when he was about twenty-one and left him a large fortune. He was about seven years older than King Charles, so that all these circumstances took place before the commencement of Charles's reign. For many years after this he was very extensively known in England as a gentleman of large fortune and great abilities by the name of Sir Thomas Wentworth. Sir Thomas Wentworth was a member of Parliament in those days, and in the contest between the King and the Parliament he took the side of Parliament. Charles used to maintain that his power alone was hereditary and sovereign, that the Parliament was his counsel, and that they had no powers or privileges except what he himself or his ancestors had granted and allowed them. Wentworth took very strong ground against this. He urged Parliament to maintain that their rights and privileges were inherent and hereditary as well as those of the King, that such powers as they possessed were their own, and were entirely independent of royal grant or permission, and that the King could no more encroach upon the privileges of Parliament than Parliament upon the prerogatives of the King. This was in the beginning of the difficulties between the King and the Commons. It will perhaps be recollected by the reader that one of the plans which Charles adopted to weaken the opposition to him in Parliament was by appointing six of the leaders of this opposition to the office of sheriff in several counties. As the general theory of all monarchies is that the subjects are bound to obey and serve the King, these men were obliged to leave their seats in Parliament and go home to serve as sheriffs. Charles and his councils supposed that the rest would be more quiet and submissive when the leaders of the party opposed to him were taken away. But the effect was the reverse. The Commons were incensed at such a mode of interfering with their action and became more hostile to the royal power than ever. Wentworth himself, too, was made more determined in his opposition by this treatment. A short time after this the King's plan of a forced loan was adopted, which has already been described. That is, a sum of money was assessed in the manner of attacks upon all the people of the Kingdom, and each man was required to lend his proportion to the Government. The King admitted that he had no right to make people give money without the action of Parliament, but claimed the right to require them to lend it. As Sir Thomas Wentworth was a man of large fortune, his share of the loan was considerable. He absolutely refused to pay it. The King then brought him before a court which was entirely under royal control, and he was condemned to be imprisoned. Knowing, however, that this claim on the part of the King was very doubtful, they mitigated the punishment by allowing him first a range of two miles around his place of confinement, and afterward they released him entirely. He was chosen a member of Parliament again, and he returned to his seat more powerful and influential than ever. Buckingham, who had been his greatest enemy, was now dead, and the King, finding that he had great abilities and a spirit that would not yield to intimidation or force, concluded to try kindness and favours. In fact, there are two different modes by which sovereigns in all ages and countries endeavour to neutralise the opposition of popular leaders. One is by intimidating them with threats and punishments, and the other buying them off with appointments and honours. Some of the King's high officers of state began to cultivate the acquaintance of Wentworth and to pay him attentions and civilities. He could not but feel gratified with these indications of their regard. They complimented his talents and his powers and represented to him that such abilities ought to be employed in the service of the State. Finally, the King conferred upon him the title of Baron. Common gratitude for these marks of distinction and honour held him back from any violent opposition to the King. His enemy said he was bought off by honours and rewards. No doubt he was ambitious, and like all other politicians, his supreme motive was love of consideration and honour. This was doubtless his motive in what he had done in behalf of the Parliament, but all that he could do as a popular leader in Parliament was to acquire a general ascendancy over men's minds and make himself a subject of fame and honour. All places of real authority were exclusively under the King's control and he could only rise to such stations through the sovereign's favour. In a word, he could acquire only influence as a leader in Parliament while the King could give him power. Kings can exercise accordingly a great control over the minds of legislators by offering them office, and King Charles, after finding that his first advances to Wentworth were favourably received, appointed him one of his privy council. Wentworth accepted the office, his former friends considered that in doing this he was deserting them and betraying the cause which he had at first espoused and defended. The country at large were much displeased with him finding that he had forsaken their cause and placed himself in a position to act against them. Persons who change sides in politics or in religion are very apt to go from one extreme to another. Their former friends revile them, and they, in retaliation, act more and more energetically against them. It was so with Strafford, he gradually engaged more and more fully and earnestly in upholding the King. Finally the King appointed him to a very high station, called the Presidency of the North. His office was to govern the whole North of England, of course under the direction of the King and Council. There were four counties under his jurisdiction and the King gave him a commission which clothed him with enormous powers. Powers greater as all the people thought than the King had any right to bestow. Strafford proceeded to the North and entered upon the government of his realm there, with a determination to carry out all the King's plans to the utmost. From being an ardent advocate of the rights of the people, as he was at the commencement of his career, he became a most determined and uncompromising supporter of the arbitrary power of the King. He insisted on the collection of money from the people, in all the ways that the King claimed the power to collect it by authority of his prerogative, and he was so strict and exacting in doing this that he raised the revenue to four or five times what any of his predecessors had been able to collect. This, of course, pleased King Charles and his government extremely, for it was at a time during which the King was attempting to govern without a parliament, and every accession to his funds was of extreme importance. Lod, too, the Archbishop, was highly gratified with his exertions and his success, and the King looked upon Lod and Wentworth as the two most efficient supporters of his power. They were, in fact, the two most efficient promoters of his destruction. Of course the people of the North hated him, while he was earning the applause of the Archbishop and the King, and entitling himself to few honors and increased power, he was sowing the seeds of the bitterest animosity in the hearts of the people everywhere. Still he enjoyed all the external marks of consideration and honor. The President of the North was a sort of King. He was clothed with great powers and lived in great state and splendor. He had many attendants and the great nobles of the land who generally took Charles' sight in the contests of the day, envied Wentworth's greatness and power, and applauded the energy and success of his administration. Ireland was, at this time, in a disturbed and disordered state, and Lod proposed that Wentworth should be appointed by the King to the Government of it. A great proportion of the inhabitants were Catholic and were very little disposed to submit to Protestant rule. Wentworth was appointed Lord Deputy, and afterward Lord Lieutenant, which made him King of Ireland in all but the name. Everything, of course, was done in the name of Charles. He carried the same energy into his Government here, that he had exhibited in the North of England. He improved the condition of the country astonishingly in respect to trade, to revenue, and to public order. But he governed in the most arbitrary manner, and he boasted that he had rendered the King as absolute a sovereign in Ireland as any Prince in the world could be. Such a boast from a man who had once been a very prominent defender of the rights of the people against this very kind of sovereignty, was fitted to produce a feeling of universal exasperation and desire of revenge. The murmurs and muttered threats which filled the land, though suppressed, were very deep and very strong. The King, however, and Lod, considered Wentworth as their most able and efficient co-agitor. And when the difficulties in Scotland began to grow serious, they recalled him from Ireland and put that country into the hands of another ruler. The King then advanced him to the rank of an Earl. His title was the Earl of Stratford. As the subsequent parts of his history attracted more attention than those preceding his elevation to this Earldom, he has been far more widely known among mankind by the name of Stratford than by his original name of Wentworth, which was, from this period, nearly forgotten. To return now to the Troubles in Scotland, the King found that it would be impossible to go on without supplies, and he accordingly concluded, on the whole, to call a Parliament. He was in serious trouble. Lod was in serious trouble, too. He had been indefatigably engaged for many years in establishing Episcopacy all over England, and in putting down, by force of law, all disposition to dissent from it. And in attempting to produce, throughout the realm, one uniform system of Christian faith and worship. This was his idea of the perfection of religious order and right. He used to make an annual visitation to all the bishoprics in the realm, inquire into the usages which prevailed there, put a stop so far as he could to all irregularities, and confirm and establish by the most decisive measures the Episcopal authority. He sent in his report to the King of the results of his inquiries, asking the King's aid where his own powers were insufficient, for the more full accomplishment of his plans. But not withstanding all this diligence and zeal, he found that he met with very partial success. The irregularities, as he called them, which he suppressed in one place, would break out in another. The disposition to throw off the dominion of bishops was getting more and more extensive and deeply seated. And now the result of the religious revolution in Scotland and of the general excitement which it produced in England was to widen and extend this feeling more than ever. He did not, however, give up the contest. He employed an able writer to draw up a defense of Episcopacy as the true and scriptural form of church government. The book, when first prepared, was moderate in its tone and allowed that in some particular cases a Presbyterian mode of government might be admissible. But Lord, in revising the book, struck out these concessions as unnecessary and dangerous, and placed Episcopacy in full and exclusive possession of the ground, as the divinely instituted and only admissible form of church government and discipline. He caused this book to be circulated, but the attempt to reason with the refractory, after having failed in the attempt to coerce them is not generally very successful. The Archbishop, in his report to the King this year, of the state of things throughout his province, represents the spirit of nonconformity to the Church of England, as getting too strong for him to control without more efficient help from the civil power. But whether it would be wise, he added, to undertake any more effectual coercion in the present distracted state of the kingdom he left it for the King to decide. Lord proposed that the Council should recommend to the King the calling of a Parliament. At the same time they passed a resolution that, in case the Parliament should prove peevish and refuse to grant supplies, they would sustain the King in the resort to extraordinary measures. This was regarded as a threat and did not help to prepossess the members favorably in regard to the feeling with which the King was to meet them. The King ordered the Parliament to be elected in December, but did not call them together until April. In the meantime he went on raising an army so as to have his military preparations in readiness. He, however, appointed a new set of officers to the command of this army, neglecting those who were in command before, as he had found them so little disposed to act efficiently in his cause. He supplied the leader's place with Stratford. This change produced very extensive murmurs of dissatisfaction, which added to all the other causes of complaint made the times look very dark and stormy. The Parliament assembled in April. The King went into the House of Lords, the Commons being as usual summoned to the bar. He addressed them as follows, My Lords and Gentlemen, there was never a King who had a more great and weighty cause to call his people together than myself. I will not trouble you with the particulars. I have informed my Lord Keeper and now command him to speak, and I desire your attention. The Keeper referred to was the Keeper of the King Sills, who was, of course, a great officer of State. He made a speech informing the Houses in general terms of the King's need of money, but said that it was not necessary for him to explain minutely the monarch's plans, as they were exclusively his own concern. We may as well quote his words in order to show what light the position and province of a British Parliament was considered in those days. His Majesty's kingly resolutions, said the Lord Keeper, are seated in the ark of his sacred breast, and it were a presumption of too high a nature for any ousa uncalled to touch it. Yet his Majesty is now pleased to lay by the shining beams of Majesty, as Phoebus did to Phaeton, that the distance between sovereignty and subjection should not bar you of that filial freedom to access to his person and councils. Only let us beware, how, with the Son of Clemeny, we aim not at the guiding of the chariot, as if that were the only testimony of fatherly affection. And let us remember that though the King sometimes lays by the beams and rays of Majesty, he never lays by Majesty itself. When the Keeper had finished his speech, the King confirmed it by saying that he had exaggerated nothing, and the houses were left to their deliberations. Instead of proceeding to the business of raising money, they commenced an inquiry into the grievances, as they called them, that is, all the unjust acts and the maladministration of the government, of which the country had been complaining for ten years, during which there had been an intermission of Parliament. The King did all in his power to arrest this course of procedure. He sent them message after message, urging them to leave these things, and take up first the question of supplies. He then sent a message to the House of Peers, requesting them to interpose and exert their influence to lead the Commons to act. The Peers did so. The Commons sent them back a reply that their interference in the business of supply, which belonged to the Commons alone, was a breach of their privileges, and, they added, therefore the Commons desired their Lord ships in their wisdom to find out some way for the reparation of their privileges broken by that act and to prevent the like infringement in future. Thus repulsed on every hand, the King gave up the hope of accomplishing anything through the action of the House of Commons, and he suddenly determined to dissolve Parliament. The session had continued only about three weeks, and dissolving the Parliament the King took no notice of the Commons whatever, but addressed the Lords alone. The Commons and the whole country were incensed at such capricious treatment of the National Legislature. The King and his Council tried all summer to get the Army ready to be put in motion. The great difficulty, of course, was want of funds. The convocation, which was the great Council of the Church, and which was accustomed in those days to sit simultaneously with the Parliament, continued their session afterward in this case and raised some money for the King. The nobles of the Court subscribed a considerable amount also, which they lent him. They wished to sustain him in his Contest with the Commons on their own account, and then besides, they felt a personal interest in him and a sympathy for him in the troubles which were thickening around him. The summer months passed away in making the preparations and getting the various bodies of troops ready, and the military stores collected at the place of Rendezvous in York and Newcastle. The Scots, in the meantime, had been assembling their forces near the borders, and being somewhat emboldened by their success in the previous campaign, crossed the frontier and advanced boldly to meet the forces of the King. They published a manifesto, declaring that they were not entering England with any hostile intent toward their sovereign, but were only coming to present to him their humble petitions for a redress of their grievances, which they said they were sure he would graciously receive as soon as he had opportunity to learn from them how great their grievances had been. They respectfully requested that the people of England would allow them to pass safely and without molestation through the land, and promise to conduct themselves with the utmost propriety and decorum. This promise they kept. They avoided molesting the inhabitants in any way and purchased fairly everything they consumed. When the English officers learned that the scotch had crossed the tweed, they sent on immediately to London, to the King, urging him to come north at once and join the army, with all the remaining forces at his command. The King did so, but it was too late. He arrived at York. From York he went northward to reach the ban of his army, which had been posted at Newcastle. But on his way he was met by messengers saying that they were in full retreat and that the scotch had got possession of Newcastle. The circumstances of the battle were these. Newcastle is upon the time. The banks at Newcastle are steep and high, but about four miles above the town is a place called Newburn, where was a meadow near the river and a convenient place to cross. The scotch advanced in a very slow and orderly manner to Newburn and encamped there. The English sent a detachment from Newcastle to arrest their progress. The scotch begged them not to interrupt their march as they were only going to present petitions to the King. The English general, of course, paid no attention to this pretext. The scotch army then attacked them and soon put them to flight. The routed English soldiers fled to Newcastle and were there joined by all that portion of the army which was in Newcastle in a rapid retreat. The scotch took possession of the town but conducted themselves in a very orderly manner and bought and paid for everything they used. The poor King was now in a situation of the utmost imminent and terrible danger. Rebel subjects were in full possession of one kingdom and were now advancing at the head of victorious armies into the other. He himself had entirely alienated the infections of a large portion of his subjects and had openly quarreled with and dismissed the legislature. He had no funds and had exhausted all possible means of raising funds. He was half distracted with the perplexities and dangers of his position. His deciding on dissolving parliament in the spring was a hasty step and he bitterly regretted it the moment the deed was done. He wished to recall it. He deliberated several days about the possibility of summoning the same members to meet again and constituting them again a parliament. But the lawyers insisted that this could not be done. A dissolution was a dissolution. The parliament once dissolved was no more. It could not be brought to life again. There must be new orders to the country to proceed to new elections. To do this at once would have been too humiliating for the King. He now found, however, that the necessity for it could no longer be postponed. There was such a thing in the English history as a Council of Peers alone, called in a sudden emergency which did not allow of time for the elections necessary to constitute the House of Commons. Charles called such a Council of Peers to meet at York and they immediately assembled. In the meantime the scotch sent ambassadors to York, saying to the King that they were advancing to lay their grievances before him. They expressed great sorrow and regret at the victory which they had been compelled to gain over some forces that had attempted to prevent them from getting access to their sovereign. The King laid this communication before the Lords and asked their advice what to do, and also asked them to counsel him how he should provide funds to keep his army together until a parliament could be convened. The Lords advised him to appoint commissioners to meet the scotch and endeavour to compromise the difficulties and to send to the City of London asking that corporation to lend him a small sum until Parliament could be assembled. This advice was followed. A temporary treaty was made with the rebels, although making a treaty with rebels is perhaps the most humiliating thing that a hereditary sovereign is ever compelled to do. The Earl of Stratford was, however, entirely opposed to this policy. He urged the King most earnestly not to give up the contest without a more decisive struggle. He represented to him the danger of beginning to yield to the torrent which he now began to see would overwhelm them all if it was allowed to have its way. He tried to persuade the King that the scots might yet be driven back and that it would be possible to get along without a parliament. He dreaded a parliament. The King, however, and his other advisors, thought that they must yield a little to the storm. Stratford then wanted to be allowed to return to his post in Ireland where he thought that he should probably be safe from the terrible enmity which he must have known that he had awakened in England and which he thought a parliament would concentrate and bring upon his devoted head. But the King would not consent to this. He assured Stratford that if a parliament should assemble he would take care that they should not herd a hair of his head. Unfortunate monarch! How little he foresaw that that very parliament, from whose violence he thus promised to defend his favourite servant so completely as to ensure him from the slightest injury, would begin by taking off his favourite's head and end with taking off his own. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibraVox.org. Recording by Shane Nolan. Charles I by Jacob Abbott. Chapter 8. Downfall of Stratford and Laud. The parliament assembled in November 1640. The King proceeded to London to attend it. He left Stratford in command of the army at York. Active hostilities had been suspended as a sort of temporary truce had been concluded with the Scots to prepare the way for a final treaty. Stratford had been entirely opposed to this, being still full of energy and courage. The King, however, began to feel alarmed. He went to London to meet with the parliament which he had summoned. But he was prepared to meet them in a very different spirit from that which he had manifested on former occasions. He even gave up all the external circumstances of pomp and parade with which the opening of parliament had usually been attended. He had been accustomed to go to the House of Lords in state with a numerous retinue and grape parade. Now he was conveyed from his palace along the river in a barge in a quiet and an ostentatious manner. His opening speech, too, was moderate and conciliatory. In a word, it was pretty evident to the Commons that the proud and haughty spirit of their royal master was beginning to be pretty effectually humbled. Of course, now in proportion as the King should falter, the Commons would grow bold. The House immediately began to attack Lod and Stratford in their speeches. It is the theory of the British Constitution that the King can do no wrong. Whatever criminality at any time attaches to the acts of his administration belongs to his advisors, not to himself. The speakers condemned in most decided terms the arbitrary and tyrannical course which the government had pursued during the intermission of parliaments, but charged it all, not to the King, but to Stratford and Lod. Stratford had been, as they considered, the responsible person in civil and military affairs and Lod in those of the Church. These speeches were made to try the temper of the House and of the country and see whether there was hostility enough to Lod and Stratford in the House and in the country and boldness enough in the expression of it to warrant their impeachment. The attacks that's made in the House against the two ministers were made very soon. Within a week after the opening of Parliament, one of the members, after declaiming a long time against the enrochements and tyranny of Archbishop Lod, whose title, according to English usage, was his grace. Said he hope that before the year ran round, his grace with you have more grace or no grace at all. For, he added, our manifold griefs do fill a mighty and vast circumference, yet in such a manner that from every part our lines of sorrow do meet in him and point at him the center, from whence our miseries in this Church and many of them in the Commonwealth do flow. He said also that if they must submit to a pope, he would rather obey one that was far off as the Tiber than to have him come near as the Thames. Similar denunciations were made against Stratford and they awakened no opposition. On the contrary, it was found that the feeling of hostility against both the ministers was so universal and so strong that the leaders began to think seriously of an impeachment on a charge of high treason. High treason is the greatest crime known to the English law and the punishment for it, especially in the case of a peer of the realm is very terrible. This punishment was generally inflicted by what was called a bill of attainder, which brought with it the worst of penalties. It implied the perfect destruction of the criminal in every sense. He was to lose his life by having his head cut off upon a block. His body, according to the strict letter of the law, was to be mutilated in a manner too shocking to be here described. His children were disinherited and his property all forfeited. This was considered as the consequence of the attaining of the blood, which rendered it corrupt and incapable of transmitting an inheritance. In fact, it was the intention of the bill of attainder to brand the wretched object of it with complete and perpetual infamy. The proceedings too in the impeachment and trial of a high minister of state were always very imposing and solemn. The impeachment must be moved by the commons and tried by the peers. A peer of the realm could be tried by no inferior tribunal. When the commons proposed bringing articles of impeachment against an officer of the state, they sent first a messenger to the House of Peers to ask them to arrest the person whom they intended to accuse and to hold him for trial until they should have their articles prepared. The House of Peers would comply with this request and a time would be appointed for the trial. The commons would frame the charges and appoint a certain number of their members to manage the prosecution. They would collect evidence and get everything ready for the trial. When the time arrived the chamber of the House of Peers would be arranged as a courtroom or they would assemble in some other hall more suitable for the purpose. The prisoner would be brought to the bar and the commissioners on their part of the commons would appear where there are documents and their evidence. Persons of distinction would be assembled to listen to the proceedings and the trial would go on. It was in accordance with this routine that the commons commenced proceedings against the Earl of Stafford. Very soon after the opening of the session, by appointing a committee to inquire whether there was any just cause to accuse him of treason, the committee reported to the House that there was just cause. The House then appointed a messenger to go to the House of Lords saying that they had found that there was just cause to accuse the Earl of Stafford of high treason and to ask that they would sequester him from the House as the phrase was and hold him in custody until they could prepare the charges and the evidence against him. All these proceedings were in secret session in order that Stafford might not get warning and fly. The commons then nearly all accompanied their messenger to the House of Lords to show how much in earnest they were. The Lords complied with the request. They caused the Earl to be arrested and committed to the charge of the usher of the black fraud and sent two officers to the commons to inform them that they had done so. The usher of the black rod is a very important officer of the House of Lords. He is a sort of sheriff to execute the various behest of the House, having officers to serve under him for this purpose. The badge of his office has been for centuries a black rod with a golden line at the upper end which is born before him as the emblem of his authority. A peer of the realm when charged with treason is committed to the custody of this officer. In this case he took the Earl of Stafford under his charge and kept him at his house properly guarded. The commons went on preparing the articles of impeachment. This was in November during the winter following the party struggled one against another. Lord doing all in his power to strengthen the position of the king and to avert the dangers which threatened himself and Stafford. The animosity however which was felt against him was steadily increasing. The House of Commons did many things to discountenance the rights and usages of the Episcopal Church and to make them odious. The excitement among the populace increased and mobs began to interfere with the service in some of the churches in London and Westminster. At last a mob of five hundred persons assembled around the Arch Bishop's Palace at Lambeth. This palace as has been before stated is on the bank of the Thames just above London opposite to Westminster. The mob were there for two hours beating at the doors and windows in an attempt to force admission but in vain. The palace was very strongly guarded and the mob were at length repulsed. One of the ringleaders was taken and hanged. One would have thought that this sort of persecution would have awakened some sympathy in the Archbishop's favor but it was too late. He had been bearing down so mercilessly himself upon the people of England for so many years suppressing by the severest measures all expressions of discontent that the hatred had become entirely uncontrollable. It's breaking out at one point only promoted it's breaking out in another. The House of Commons and to Messenger to the House of Lords as they had done in the case of straffers saying that they had found good cause to accuse the Archbishop of Canterbury of treason and asked that he might be sequestered from the House and held in custody till they could prepare their charges and the evidence to sustain them. The Archbishop was at that time in his seat he was directed to withdrawal before leaving the chamber he asked leave to say a few words. Permission was granted and he said in substance that he was truly sorry to have awakened in the hearts of his countrymen such a degree of displeasure as was obviously excited against him. He was most unhappy to have lived to see the day in which he was made subject to a charge of treason. He begged their lordships to look at the whole course of his life and he was sure that they would be convinced that there was not a single member of the House of Commons who could really think him guilty of such a charge. Here one of the Lords interrupted him to say that by speaking in that manner he was uttering slander against the House of Commons charging them was solemnly bringing accusations which they did not believe to be true. The Archbishop then said that if the charge must be entertained he hoped that he should have a fair trial according to the ancient parliamentary usages of the realm. Another of the Lords interrupted him again saying that such a remark was improper as it was not for him to prescribe the manner in which the proceedings should be conducted. He then withdrew while the House should consider what course to take. Presently he was summoned back to the Bar of the House and they are committed to the charge of the Usher of the Black Rod. The Usher conducted him to his house and he was kept there for 10 weeks in close confinement. At last the time for the trial of Stratford came on while Lod was in confinement. The interest felt in the trial was deep and universal. There were three kingdoms as it were combined against one man. Various measures were resorted to by the Commons to diminish the possibility that the accused should escape conviction. Some of them have since been thought to be unjust and cruel. For example, several persons who were strong friends of Stratford and who as was supposed might offer testimony in his favor were charged with treason and confined in prison until the trial was over. The Commons appointed 13 persons to manage the prosecution. These persons were many months preparing the charges and the evidence keeping their whole proceedings profoundly secret during all the time. At last the day approached and Westminster Hall was fitted up and prepared to be the scene of the trial. Westminster Hall has the name of being the largest room whose roof is not supported by pillars in Europe. It stands in the region of the palaces and the houses of Parliament at Westminster and has been for seven centuries. The scene of pageants and ceremonies without number. It is said that 10,000 persons have been accommodated in an adab banquet. This great room was fitted up for the trial. Seats were provided for both houses of Parliament. For the Commons were to be present as accusers and the lords as the court. There was as usual a chair of stage or throne for the king as a matter of forum. There was also a private gallery screened from the observation of the spectators where the king and queen could sit and witness the proceedings. They attended during the whole trial. One would have supposed that the deliberate solemnity of these preparations would have calmed the animosity of Stratford's enemies and led them to be satisfied at last with something less than his utter destruction. But this seems not to have been the effect. The terrible hostilities which had been gathering strength so long seemed to rage and all the more fiercely now that there was a prospect of their gratification. And yet it was very hard to find anything sufficiently distinct and tangible against the accused to warrant his conviction. The commissioners who had been appointed to manage the case divided the charges amongst them. When the trial commenced they stated and urged these charges in a succession. Stratford who had not known beforehand what they were to be replied to them one by one with calmness and composure and yet with great eloquence and power. The extraordinary abilities which he had shown through the whole course of his life seemed to shine out with increased splendor amid the awful solemnities which were now darkening its course. He was firm and undaunted and yet respectful and submissive. The natural excitements of the occasion, the imposing assembly, the breathless attention, the magnificent hall, the consciousness that the opposition which he was struggling to stem before that great tribunal was the combined hostility of three kingdoms and that the tort was flooring from a reservoir which had been accumulating for many years and that the whole civilized world were looking on with great interest to watch the results and perhaps more than all that he was in the unseen presence of his sovereign whom he was accustomed to look upon as the greatest personage on earth. These and the other circumstances of the scene filled his mind with strong emotions and gave animation and energy and a lofty eloquence to all that he said. The trial lasted 18 days the excitement increasing continually to the end. There was nothing proved which could with any propriety be considered as treason. He had managed the government it is true with one set of views in respect to the absolute prerogatives and powers of the king while those who now were in possession of power held opposite views and they considered it a matter of necessity that he should die. The charge of the treason was a pretext to bring the case somewhat within the reach of the formalities of the law. It is one of the necessary incidents of all governmental systems founded on force and not on the consent of the governed that when great and fundamental questions of policy arise they often bring the country to a crisis in which there can be no real settlement of the dispute without the absolute destruction of one party of the other. It was so now as the popular leaders supposed they had determined that stern necessity required that Lod and Stratford must die and the only object of going through the formality of a trial was to soften the violence of the proceedings a little by doing all that can be done toward establishing a legal justification of the deed. The trial as it has been said lasts at 18 days during all this time the leaders were not content was simply urging the proceedings forward energetically in Westminster Hall. They were maneuvering and managing in every possible way to secure the final vote but notwithstanding this Stratford's defense was so able and the failure to make out the charge of treason against him was so clear that it was doubtful what the results would be. Accordingly without waiting for the decision of the peers on the impeachment a bill of attainder against the Earl was brought forward in the House of Commons. This bill of attainder was passed by a large majority yeas 204, nays 59. It was then sent to the House of Lords. The Lords were very unwilling to pass it. While they were debating it the King sent a message to them to say that in his opinion the Earl had not been guilty of treason or of any attempt to subvert the laws and that several things which had been alleged in the trial and on which the bill of attainder chiefly rested were not true. He was willing however if it would satisfy the enemies of the Earl to have him convicted of a misdemeanor and made incapable of holding any public office from that time but he protested against his being punished by a bill of attainder on a charge of treason. This interposition of the King and Strafford's flavor awakened loud expressions of displeasure. They called it an interference with the action of one of the houses of parliament. The enemies of Strafford created a great excitement against him out of doors. They raised climbers calls for his execution among the populace. The people made blacklist of the names of persons who were in the Earl's favor and posted them up in public places calling such persons Straffordians and threatening them with public vengeance. The lords who would have been willing to have saved Strafford's life if they had dared began to find that they could not do so without endangering their own. When at last the vote came to be taken in the house of lords out of 80 members who had been present at the trial only 46 were present to vote and the bill was passed by a vote of 35 to 11. The 34 who were absent were probably all against the bill but were afraid to appear. The responsibility now devolved upon the King. An act of parliament must be signed by the King. He really an accent. The action of the two houses is in theory only a recommendation of the measure to him. The King was determined on no account to give his consent to Strafford's condemnation. He however laid the subject before his privy council. They, after deliberating upon it, recommended that he should sign the bill. Nothing else they said could allay the terrible storm which was raging and the King ought to prefer the peace and safety of the realm to the life of any one man however innocent he may be. The populace in the meantime crowded around the King's palace at Whitehall calling out justice justice and filling the air with threats and imprecations and preachers and their pulpits urged the necessity of punishing offenders and discounted on the inequity which those magistrates committed who allowed great transgressors to escape the penalty due for their crimes. The Queen too was alarmed. She begged the King with tears not any longer to attempt to withstand the torrent which threatened to sweep them all away in its fury. While things were in this state Charles received the letter from Strafford in the Tower expressing his consent and even his request that the King should yield and sign the bill. The Tower of London is very celebrated in English history though called simply by the name of the Tower it is in fact as will be seen by the engraving in the frontispiece an extended group of buildings which are of all ages sizes and shapes and covering an extensive area. It is situated below the city of London having been originally built as a fortification for the defense of the city. Its use for this purpose has however long since passed away. Strafford said in his letter to the King to set your majesty's conscience at liberty I do most humbly beseech your majesty for prevention of eels which may happen by your refusal to pass this bill sir my consent shall more quit you here into God than all the world can do besides to a willy man there is no injury done and as by God's grace I forgive all the world with the calmness and meekness of infinite contentment to my dislodging soul so sir to you I can give the life of this world with all the cheerfulness imaginable in the just acknowledgement of your exceeding favors and only beg that in your goodness you would vouchsafe to cast your gracious regard upon my poor son and his three sisters less or more and no otherwise than as their unfortunate father may hereafter appear more or less guilty of this death god long preserve your majesty on receiving this letter the king caused the bill to be signed he would not do it with his own hands but commissioned two of his counsel to do it in his name he then sent a messenger to strafford to announce the decision and to inform him that he must prepare to die the messenger observed that the earl seemed surprised and after hearing that the king had signed the bill he quoted in a tone of despair the words of scripture but not your trust in princes nor in the sons of man for in them is no salvation historians have thought it strange that strafford should have expressed his disappointment when he himself requested the king to resist the popular will no longer and that they infer from him that he was not sincere in the request but supposed that the king would regard it as an act of nobleness and generosity on his part that would render him more unwilling than ever to consent to his destruction and that he was accordingly surprised and disappointed when he found out that the king had taken him at his word it is said however by some historians that this letter was a forgery and that it was written by some of strafford's enemies to lead the king to resist no longer the reader by perusing the letter again can perhaps form some judgment whether such a document was more likely to have been fabricated by enemies or really written by the unhappy prisoner himself the king did not entirely give up the hope of saving his friend even after the bill of attainder was signed he addressed the following message to the house of lords my lords i did yesterday satisfy the justice of this kingdom by passing the bill of attainder against the earl of strafford but mercy being as inherent and inseparable to a king as justice i desire this time in some measure to show that likewise by suffering that unfortunate man to fulfill the natural course of his life in a close imprisonment yet so if ever he make the least offer to escape or offer directly or indirectly to meddling any sort of public business especially with me by either message or letter it shall cost him his life without further process this if it may be done without the discontentment of my people will be an unspeakable contentment to me i will not say that you're complying with me and this my intended mercy shall make me more willing but certainly it will make me more cheerful in granting your just grievances but if no less than his life can satisfy my people i must say let justice be done thus again recommending the consideration of my intention to you i rest your unalterable and affectionate friend charles are the lords were inexorable three days from the time of signing the bill arrangements were made for the conducting of the prisoner to the scaffold lord who had been his friend and fellow laborer in the king's service was confined also in the tower awaiting his turn to come to trial they were not allowed to visit each other but strafford sent word to laud requesting him to be at his window at the time when he was to pass to bid him farewell and to give him his blessing laud accordingly appeared at the window and strafford as he passed asks for the prelates prayers and for his blessing the old man for laud was now nearly 70 years of age attempted to speak but he could not command himself sufficiently to express what he was to say and he fell back into the arms of his attendants god protect you said strafford and walked calmly on he went to the place of execution with the composure and courage of a hero he spoke freely to those around him asserted his innocence sent messages to his absent friends and said he was ready and willing to die the scaffold in such executions as this is the platform slightly raised with a block and chairs upon it all covered with black cloth a part of the dress has to be removed just before the execution in order that the neck of the sufferer may be fully exposed to the impending blow strafford made these preparations himself and said as he did so that he was in no wise afraid of death but that he should lay his head upon the block as cheerfully as he ever did upon his pillow charles found his position in no respect improved by the execution of strafford the commons finding their influence and power increasing grew more and more bold and were from this time so absorbed in the event connected with the progress of their quarrel with the king that they left laud to pine in his prison for about four years they then found time to act over again the solemn and awful scene of a trial for treason before the house of peers the passing of a bill of attainder and an execution on tower hill laud was over 70 years of age when the axe fell upon him he submitted to his fate with a calmness and heroism in keeping with his age and his character he said in fact that none of his enemies could be more desirous to send him out of this life than he was to go end of chapter eight recording by Shane Nolan Los Angeles California