CHAPTER XXVIII CHARLES I AND THE PRECIPITATION OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN KING AND PEOPLE (1625-1640) Personal Traits of Charles I. Charles I had many of the qualities of a popular Sovereign. Handsome and of a noble presence, he was a skillful athlete and bore himself with the courage of a thoroughbred. Keenly appreciative of all that was beautiful in the world about him, he was at the same time deeply religious, and lived unspotted amidst the dissipations of his Court. On the other hand, he lacked that power of reading the temper of the times and that gift of voicing the feelings of his subjects which had made the Tudors so irresistible. Without the imagination and sympathy necessary to the understanding of other men's views, he regarded every one who differed from him as an enemy; while he prided himself on the legality of his measures he failed to see that what had the sanction of the law might at times be absolutely inexpedient. Much influenced by the few to whom he gave his confidence, he clung obstinately to an opinion. he had once formed. Worse than all, he was secretive and evasive; he made promises which he found himself unable to keep, and sometimes even entered into engagements with mental reservations which would enable him to elude what he did not consider to be for the public good. Political Problems. - Spurred on by Buckingham he had aroused popular enthusiasm by forcing the timid old King to abandon his peace policy, but he and his favorite planned to conduct the war in a manner quite out of accord with that advocated by Parliament; they entered into engagements which that body was not asked to approve, and they conducted their military operations with a rashness, an incompetence, and a lack of success which forfeited the confidence of the nation. Consequently, the Commons, when they were called together, would not grant the supplies necessary to meet the situation. This forced the King to resort to the irregular measures which, in conjunction with his religious policy, led to the revolt which finally cost him his head. Religious Problems. While the Puritans had failed to receive under James the concessions which they desired, they had not been. actively persecuted. Silently but effectively their views were being preserved and spread by means of Bible reading, prayer, and services in private houses. Already chafing under restraint, the victories of the Catholics in the Continental war, the King's marriage, and the relaxation of the penal laws aroused their gravest apprehensions. Furthermore, while James had been content with the existing Establishment, Charles was a High Churchman, who wanted, so far as possible, to restore the liturgy and the ecclesiastical organization of the pre-Reformation days, partly because he loved the splendid ancient ceremonial, but chiefly because of the chance to strengthen his royal powers. The high Anglican divines, as a means of securing the great offices in Church and State and counteracting the Puritan tendencies of the people, sought his ear and magnified the prerogative to ridiculous heights. So the issue was not merely religious, it was political as well. Two parties were ranged against each other, one in close alliance with the Crown, the other with Parliament. The Puritan Parliamentary Party. Though the Puritan party included high-souled cultivated gentlemen, poets, and scholars, its general attitude was hard and ungracious. The spirit of the Renascence appealed but little to them. The old English Sunday with its picturesque and boisterous merriment was an abomination in their eyes. Standing for the literal interpretation of the Scriptures, many had scant sympathy for philosophical and historical studies. They wanted to enter the lists against the great Catholic combination on the Continent, but only after the King had redressed domestic grievances and had agreed upon a plan of hostilities of which they approved. At home they insisted upon the enforcement of the penal laws, and, as the event proved, they desired also to put down the Anglicans as well as various sects of religious extremists which had recently sprung up. They did not oppose an Established Church as such, but they opposed one upheld by the Crown and Bishops - a Church which they held responsible for the prevailing moral laxness, particularly at Court, a Church with ceremonies which they denounced as "popish " idolatries imposed by authority. The Puritans fought, not for any principle of toleration, but for their own supremacy; yet, in so doing, they deepened the spiritual independence of the people, they struck at despotism, and, if they did not gain the ascendancy at which they aimed, they secured a large measure of political freedom for their country and prepared the way for a religious liberty that came slowly but none the less surely. The High Church Royalist Party. - The High Church party, ranged against them, stood for a revival of medieval ceremonialism and held exalted views regarding the origin and functions of the Church. While the Puritan regarded the Bible as the sole source of Christian truth, this party insisted that it must be interpreted according to the writings of the early Fathers and of the customs of the primitive Church. They laid stress on the divine origin of Episcopacy, and maintained that the observance of the Sacraments of the Church was as essential to salvation as personal holiness. While the standpoint of the royalist party was broader than that of the Puritans, it was unfortunate that they sought to impose their views by insisting upon absolute conformity and by magnifying the King's prerogative in Church and State as a means of crushing their opponents. Yet both parties were equally intolerant and both were equally aggressive. The Royal Advisers. Incompetent himself to deal with the political and religious problems which confronted him, Charles was peculiarly unfortunate in his advisers. Indeed, it is an evidence of his incapacity that he should have chosen such men. Buckingham was rash, self-confident, and incapable, and he was largely responsible for the foreign disasters and the constant conflicts with Parliament which marked the four years of his ascendancy from 1624 to 1628. Worse still was Queen Henrietta Maria, who proved an evil genius to the King and the country; bred in an atmosphere of absolutism and Catholicism, ignorant of the ways and temper of Englishmen, and dominated by papal agents, she put worthless men into office, and egged Charles on to some of his rashest and most unpopular acts, culminating in a disastrous policy of foreign intrigue. Abler far than these mischievous councilors and the group of religious enthusiasts who surrounded the throne were Charles's two later councilors, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, and William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, though they pushed him still further toward his final ruin. Charles's First Parliament. - The royal supporters in Charles's first Parliament, which met 18 June, 1625, were few and weak, while the King made the fatal mistake of not explaining at once what he meant to do, how much he needed, and for what objects. The Opposition, counting many effective leaders, had no sympathy with a Continental war, they were determined to keep control of the taxes, and were bitterly suspicious of relaxations in favor of the Roman Catholics. So, after voting an absolutely inadequate supply, they fell to discussing grievances and foreign policy. When they began to express their distrust of the royal advisers, especially Buckingham, who had aroused such enthusiasm in James's last Parliament, Charles ordered a dissolution, 12 August. The Cadiz Expedition, 1625. — That autumn, Charles and Buckingham, hoping to increase their scanty funds by rich booty and to recover their lost prestige by a glorious success, sent an expedition against Cadiz. The invaders were unable to take the town, or to capture the ships in the harbor, and allowed a treasure fleet to slip by them. The troops got drunk on Spanish wine and became unruly. Stormtossed, starving, and sick, the expedition straggled back to Plymouth late in November, another miserable failure. Charles's Second Parliament and the Impeachment of Buckingham (1626). -Pressed by his financial needs, Charles very reluctantly called a second Parliament, which met 6 February, 1626. To guard against resistance the leaders of the Opposition in the last Parliament had been disqualified for reëlection, but an unexpected opponent came to the front, Sir John Eliot, vice-admiral of Devon. Though he had formerly been a friend of Buckingham, the shameless miscarriage of the Cadiz expedition and the deplorable condition of the returning soldiers and sailors had inflamed his wrath and stirred his pity. At once he forced the fighting by demanding an inquiry into the "recent disaster," denouncing Buckingham as the cause of all the mischief. Eliot, though violent and partisan, was a lofty-minded patriot, not in any sense a republican but an advocate of a form of monarchy in which Parliament should be supreme. Following his attack, articles of impeachment against Buckingham were framed, in which he was accused, among other things, of gross neglect and mismanagement of public affairs. Although the King had supported the favorite in all his acts, and, by assuming the responsibility, placed an insurmountable obstacle in the way of conviction, nevertheless, Buckingham's mismanagement and incompetence were publicly exposed, while, for the first time since the pre-Tudor period, the Commons had ventured, on grounds of public policy, to assail a Minister enjoying the unlimited confidence of the Sovereign. To be sure, Charles finally stopped the impeachment by a dissolution, but, in so doing, he lost the grant which the Commons had resolved to vote him. Hard put to it for money he tried all sorts of devices, and at length resorted to a forced loan, dismissing Chief Justice Crewe because he would not declare it legal. Some eighty gentlemen, including Eliot and Wentworth, were imprisoned for refusing to lend, while many of the commoner sort were pressed as soldiers. Out of £350,000 asked for £236,000 was secured, but at the price of sullen and widespread discontent. The War with France and the Expedition to Rhé (1627). In the spring of 1627 a war with France which had long been brewing was declared. Toward the close of the last reign Richelieu had exacted an impossible promise that the English would loan him a fleet to be used "against whomsoever except the King of Great Britain." When it became clear that he was to employ it to reduce the Huguenots at La Rochelle who were in revolt, Charles and Buckingham, unable to face the popular outcry, had tried to elude the obligation by instigating the Admiral in command to stir his crews to mutiny. Eventually the French got the ships without the men. Such double dealing accentuated the distrust of the English and alienated the French. Two other causes of friction were: that French ships trading with Spain and the Netherlands were searched and condemned even before formal trial in the English prize courts, and that King Charles was not only unable to relax the penal laws against the English Catholics but was even obliged to dismiss the Queen's French attendants, and, after much shuffling, to declare himself the protector of the French Huguenots. As a stroke against France, Buckingham, in June, 1627, sent an expedition which landed on the island of Rhé, opposite La Rochelle, with the object of securing a base for assisting the beleaguered citizens and for attacking the French coast and shipping. Buckingham himself showed both courage and energy in the undertaking, but the English, resenting the forced loan and without confidence in the leader, gave him grudging support. As a result the French, in October, drove the invaders from the island. 1 The Five Knights' Case (1627). Following this fresh humiliation, five knights, who were among those imprisoned for refusing to contribute to the recent loan, brought their case to trial by suing for a writ of Habeas Corpus. Fearing to state the reason for their detention, Charles had assigned no cause except the command of the King. The judges decided to send the knights back to prison, although they did not commit themselves on the general question as to whether the Sovereign might, under all circumstances, hold the subject in confinement, solely by virtue of his royal command. Nevertheless, the decision was ominous for the subject who looked to the protection of 1 One of them was Sir Thomas Darnel, hence the case is sometimes called Darnel's Case. As it was against the spirit of English law for a subject to be detained in prison without cause shown, the writ of Habeas Corpus had been devised, in order that the judges might inquire into the case and, in view of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence, release the prisoner, admit him to bail, or remand him to prison. It had always been the custom for the Sovereign, for reasons of State, to order the arrest of persons dangerous to the public safety without any further reason than the royal command. In the present instance, however, no one was conspiring against the State; the only offense of those imprisoned was resistance to unparliamentary taxation. |