King, Charles I : a study / by Walter Phelps Dodge

King Charles I : a Study

ALSO BY THE SAME AUTHOR

THE SEA OF LOVE
THE CRESCENT MOON

JOHN LONG, LIMITED, LONDON

KING CHARLES I

FROM THE PORTRAIT IX MIDDLE TEMPLE HALL

By permission of the Treasurer and Masters of the Bench

King Charles I

A Study

By

Walter Phelps Dodge

Of the M';ddle Temple, Barrister-at-La<w

Author of "Piers Gaveston," "From Squire to Prince,"
" The Real Sir Richard Burton "

With Frontispiece

London

John Long, Limited

Norris Street, Haymarket

MCMXII

First published in 1912

TO

ADA, vSTUART AND ROSEMARY

Contents

CHAP. PAGE

I. THE STUARTS . . 13

II. KING JAMES I . 19

III. CHARLES PRINCE OF WALES . . 24

IV. THE ACCESSION OF KING CHARLES I 34
V. THE KING AND THE COMMONS . 39

VI. THE KING . . . 47

VII. UNPEACEFUL YEARS . . 56

VIII. THE BEGINNING OF THE END . . 64

IX. REBELLION . . • • 75

X. THE DEATH OF THE KING . . 85

XI. REACTION . . 90

XII. THE VERDICT OF HISTORY . . 93

Author's Note

OLIVER CROMWELL has for so long been
overpraised that the reaction was bound to
come. Modern interest in English history
turns from the Puritan to the Cavalier, and
the world realizes that the deification of the
Huntingdon Squire has been overdone — a
mere temporary eclipse of the more en-
during fame of the White King.

One finds endless books on Cromwell,
ancient and modern ; few writers, however,
have devoted themselves to Charles I. For
this reason the Author hopes that there
may be room for a study of the Stuart
King.

REFORM CLUB, LONDON
June i$tfi, 1912

ii

King Charles I : a Study

CHAPTER I
THE STUARTS

A WORLD of romance, of loyalty, of faith-
fulness unto death belongs to those words
" The Stuarts." Was ever such a family
known before ? Will ever such a family
come again into the ken of sordid poli-
ticians prating ape-like of a " democracy "
they fail to understand ? Mary Queen of
Scots — Charles I — The Old Chevalier —
Bonnie Prince Charlie — and perhaps one
might add Charles II, the Merry Monarch.
Three dour Stuarts only add to the lustre
of the others — James I, James II, and
Henry — de Jure the Ninth — Cardinal
York.

What was the charm of the Stuarts ?
13

14 King Charles I : a Study

Why did men die for them blithely with
" God Save the King " on their lips ? The
Stuart charm was subtle, elusive, magnetic
— the charm of a dignity of long descent
added to a very human chain of faults,
faults that were generous always. To use
a modern word, the Stuarts were victims of
temperament — an obstinate vein of sadness
pursued their gayest moments, a haunting
sense of tragedy paralysed too often their
efforts. One might almost say that Pre-
destination was the fly in their ointment.

Charles I would have been a better King
north of the Tweed. He was more of a
Scot than an Englishman. It is too often
forgotten that he was, in a sense, a foreign
Prince, a foreign King.

The average man knows that James I
was the successor of Queen Elizabeth and
that Mary Queen of Scots was his mother.
He knows also that the Stuarts were
reigning in Scotland when the vacant
English Throne came to King James. It

The Stuarts i 5

is odd that the dry bones of History are so
seldom clothed with even a tithe of the
interest belonging to them. The average
historian is accurate but uninteresting. The
Stuarts were Scottish nobles before they
were Scottish Kings. On the whole, in
spite of the ever-present rivalry of the
powerful House of Douglas, who origin-
ally claimed the Scottish Throne, they
ruled firmly if not wisely. The poetic
imaginative strain in the Stuarts appealed
to Gael and Celt, if not to smug Low-
landers. Quick at a jest, they never lost
their level of kingly dignity. The Stuart
charm was at its best in Mary Queen of
Scots, who, as she showed most clearly the
virtues of the race, betrayed too plainly
their faults. Brave but obstinate, clever
but vacillating, persistent but persuadable,
she — like all the Stuarts — could not play a
waiting game. Her cleverness was im-
patient of lesser men with smaller minds,
and the intolerable self-sufficiency of that

1 6 King Charles I : a Study

overrated man John Knox gave rise to un-
wisely scathing comments on his mind, body
and estate — comments that cost her and her
successors dear. Nothing feeds hatred like
ridicule, and the Stuart sense of humour
was unfortunately too keen for the heavy
wits of Edinburgh and London. There
was ever a pinch of Attic salt in the witti-
cisms of the Stuarts, and their jests were too
often at the expense of their friends. Too
much has been written — and imagined — of
the Stuart belief in rule by Divine Right.
On the other hand, if the Stuart Kings had
believed less in themselves and more in
Divine Right, their story would be more
commonplace and less interesting. The
least of the Stuarts, James I, was the most
convinced that he reigned by direct wish of
the Creator. Had his mother, Mary Queen
of Scots, succeeded Elizabeth the prospects
opening before the family would have been
brighter. According to Skelton, Fortune
played a scurvy trick in bringing first to

The Stuarts 17

the English Throne the only Stuart who
was a grotesque and undignified pedant.
He was the son of his father more than his
mother. No trace of her fatal fascination
lurked in his heavy features and heavier
wits. Much undeserved sympathy for his
mother's execution hung around him, but
Romance was far to seek in him or his.
The tendency of the Stuarts towards
favourites was both a misfortune and a
fault ; although the melancholy ghost of
Piers Gaveston might have wailed a warn-
ing. Having ruled Scotland for centuries,
the problem before the House of Stuart at
the " setting of that bright Occidental Star
Queen Elizabeth" — as the King James
Version of the Prayer Book has it — was the
ruling of England for centuries to come.
A stronger man than James I would have
doubted ; but he, strong in his conceit,
brave in his vanity, calmly mounted the
vacant Throne, and laid the foundation-
stone of the tragedy of Whitehall. It

1 8 King Charles I : a Study

must not be forgotten that the Stuarts
reaped the whirlwind where the Tudors
had sowed the wind. The misrule of
Henry VIII, the tyranny of Queen Mary,
the absolute rule of Queen Elizabeth — all
these had roused a spirit of opposition in
the Commons and in the country.

The Tudors were followed by the Stuarts,
and curiously enough the first of the Eng-
lish Stuarts was Tudor in all but name. In
this way King Charles I was heavily handi-
capped when he came to the Throne.

CHAPTER II
KING JAMES I

To understand Charles I, the character and
reign of his father, James I, must be con-
sidered, little as it tempts the student of
the House of Stuart.

James I, the son of Mary Queen of Scots
and Darnley, was born soon after the killing
of Rizzio in 1566. In 1589 he wooed and
married Anne of Denmark with the one
faint touch of romance in the whole of his
dull and gloomy character — the wisest fool
in Christendom, as Sully called him. The
chroniclers of the day speak of him as " gey
ill to live wi'."

Of the five children three survived : Henry

Prince of Wales, born in 1594 ; Charles,

born at Dunfermline in 1600 ; and Elizabeth,

who married the Elector Palatine and became

19

2O King Charles I : a Study

the ancestress of King George V, who may
claim, in a sense, to be a " Stuart King."

The accession of King James was popular
with Catholics, Puritans and Anglicans alike.
He was welcomed by the adherents of the
" Old Faith " as the son of that Mary Queen
of Scots who had been a faithful Daughter
of the Church. The Puritans thought as a
Scot he would sympathize with their views,
while the Anglicans — having regard to his
education in Protestant theology and his
partially successful attempts to super-impose
Episcopacy on the Scotch Presbytery — gave
way to joyful anticipations of his probable
course. How he disappointed each and all
in turn may be read in the monumental
pages of Rawson Gardiner. The Puritanic
leaven in the Commons was not well disposed
to James as time went on, and there wanted
not Members to whisper that the King's
title to the Throne was not a parliamentary
title, Henry VIII having preferred the
family of his sister Mary to the family of

King James I 21

his sister Margaret. James, however, was
King, and took good care not to lose sight
of the fact. The constant quarrel between
King and Commons related chiefly to sub-
sidies— a sordid ground of contention. The
Commons in their small-minded jealousy of
the King cannot be defended. In their wish
to rule they neglected the foreign interests
of the country — predecessors of the " Little
Englanders " of to-day. Both Commons
and people complained that the King ignored
the popular prejudice against Spain and a
Spanish marriage for the heir to the Crown.
The Armada was not forgotten in England.
To James, however, suprema lex regis voluntas,
and he was content in his fatuous self-
sufficiency. Indeed the sacrifice of Sir
Walter Raleigh to please the King of Spain
was regretted by no less a person than
Henry Prince of Wales, who angrily asked,
" Why does my father keep such a bird in
the cage ? "

Sir Walter Scott in the Fortunes of Nigel

22 King Charles I : a Study

gives a capital picture of the Court of King
James, while Calderwood in his Collections
is illuminating.

The domestic life of the King was not
ideal. Anne, the Queen, was frivolous and
only eager for amusement. Their oldest
son, Henry Prince of Wales, was brave and
determined, giving promise of a strong
character to come. He was generous and
lovable, protecting always his delicate younger
brother Charles, whom he promised half in
jest to make Archbishop of Canterbury. The
Prince of Wales was not fond of books, but
liked an open-air life,andwishedtobeasoldier,
and more especially a sailor. He was devoted
to his sister Elizabeth, and knightly to all
women. A letter from Charles to Henry
has been preserved showing the relations
between the brothers as well as giving a
glimpse of the Royal writer : —

" Sweet, sweet brother, I thank you for
your letter. I will give anything that 1 have
to you, both my horses and my books and

King James I 23

my pieces or my crossbows or anything that
you would have. Good brother, love me
and I shall ever love and serve you."

It was a sad day for England and for the
Stuarts when Henry was struck down by a
fierce attack of typhoid from which he failed
to recover. His death in time made Charles
King.

CHAPTER III
CHARLES PRINCE OF WALES

WHEN he was baptized Charles had been
created Duke of Albany December 23rd,
1600 ; he was made Duke of York Janu-
ary 1 6th, 1605, and upon the death of his
elder brother he was in due course created
Prince of Wales. As a child he was weak
and fragile, and gave his medical attendants
much worry. It was chiefly owing to his
governess, Lady Carey, that Charles out-
grew his childish ailments, as well as the
lisp he had inherited from his father. From
a shy and delicate boy he grew into a stately,
thoughtful youth, fond of outdoor sports
and the possessor of sturdy health. Of his
sister Elizabeth Charles was fond, and his

devotion was returned by the fascinating
24

Charles Prince of Wales 25

future Queen of Bohemia, who had much
of the charm of her grandmother, the Queen
of Scots.

The influence of the King and Queen
over their surviving son was less than
nothing. The frivolous Queen, rushing
from ballroom to cloister, always at one
extreme or the other, did not understand her
grave and meditative son ; while the clown-
ing of the King jarred the princely dignity of
Charles. The Prince talked too little — his
reticence grew into silence as he advanced
in age, while his Royal father talked too
much. It was a curious Court ; the King
pedantically wise and foolish by turns,
familiar, lacking in dignity ; the Queen
flighty, religious ; the Prince of Wales
walking apart with a melancholy mien and
disdainful air, while the witty Princess
Elizabeth made fun of each and all. The
shrewd Scotch common sense of which the
King had a share, was partly lacking in

26 King Charles I : a Study

the Prince of Wales. The suppressed anger
felt by Charles at his father's lack of dignity
found a vent in complaints to Buckingham,
who was his favourite, as well as his father's.
A noble nature driven in upon itself by
uncongenial surroundings, is apt to sour
or smoulder until an ill-advised explosion
gives relief. Charles was never soured,
but his lack of self-control at times was
dangerous to himself and not safe for Eng-
land. Why his father called him " Baby
Charles" is hard to guess, for his character
is ill-defined by the clumsy pet name.
Buckingham was a clever man to be loved
alike by men so different as the first James
and the first Charles. His sudden rise
destroyed the perfect balance of his mind.
He was " Steenie" to both, and posed
as the best friend of the lonely Prince.
Buckingham's influence over Charles was
not so bad as some historians infer. His
counsels were indeed rash and dangerous,

Charles Prince of Wales 27

but not actively bad. At times the King
endeavoured to impress his views of the
divine right of kingship upon his heir —
11 That which concerns the mystery of the
King's power is not lawful to be disputed,"
may be called a sententious summing up of
the views of the King.

In time the King grew tired of Buck-
ingham, particularly after the Spanish fiasco ;
but he retained his affection for " Steenie "
to the end.

In theology Charles took but little in-
terest, although he had his grandmother's
dislike for sour Puritanism, that Puritanic
spirit so often serving as a cloak for
cold-blooded dissipation — your full-blooded
Puritan is ever a hypocrite.

As a linguist Charles was distinguished ;
he was well grounded in law and mathe-
matics, and a good classical scholar. Music
and art claimed him actively as well as
a patron. His collection of pictures was

28 King Charles I : a Study

priceless — a collection afterwards dispersed
by the boorish spite of Cromwell.

Charles was a man of medium height.
An indefinable air of haunting sadness clings
about the mournful dignity of all his
portraits. His grey eyes contrasted with
his chestnut hair and dark colouring, while
his high forehead showed intellect of no
mean order. His smile was fascinating,
and his address winning. He was called
by Browning " the man with the mild
voice and the mournful eyes," while the
changing intonations of his speech gave his
least word a charm it hardly deserved. In
disputing Charles was quick, yet solid ;
his arguments carefully marshalled, well
reasoned and well put ; often he astonished
a disputant by his instant grasp of a situa-
tion. He was a clever man of good judg-
ment ; but a certain mental laziness, added
to a lack of self-control, often made him
take a course insufficiently thought out. A

Charles Prince of Wales 29

clean delicacy of mind distinguished the
Prince of Wales from his early years,
enabling him to walk unstained through the
corruption of his father's Court, and made
him, as a young man, able to blush like a girl
at broad expressions. As he grew older,
the Prince often listened to the debates in
the House of Lords, and constantly settled
disputes between the haughty Buckingham
and the older peers, affronted by his mete-
oric rise. When he chose to exert himself
Charles showed a wonderful tact and power
of managing men. He knew his powers,
but often his scorn of feebler minds led
him to ignore situations he might easily
have dominated.

As Charles approached maturity the ques-
tion of his marriage became more pressingly
important. Here the King was tactless.
He ignored the dislike for Spain inherent
in English minds since Queen Mary had
married the King of Spain. The Spanish

30 King Charles I : a Study

diplomat Gondomar was a clever man, and
looked forward to another Royal Spanish
alliance with England. The Infanta her-
self, however, was not anxious for the
match, and her brother Philip disliked the
idea, as did Philip's greatest and most trusted
Minister Olivarez. Charles had fallen in
love with an exquisitely painted miniature
of the Infanta in 1622, and the romance of
the possible marriage of a Prince of Wales
to a Spanish Princess appealed strongly to
him, so that Buckingham's suggestion of a
sudden visit to Spain was welcomed.

Rawson Gardiner, with a great lack of
historical perspective, unduly blames Charles
for his share in this knight errantry. On
their way to Madrid the Prince and Buck-
ingham passed through Paris, where they
caught a glimpse of the Princess Henrietta
Maria, daughter of Henry IV and Marie
de Medicis, and future Queen of England.
At this time, however, the thoughts of

Charles Prince of Wales 3 1

Charles were fixed on the Spanish Alliance,
both on account of his romantic passion for
the Infanta and because he thought such a
marriage would consolidate his sister's posi-
tion as wife of the Elector Palatine. Once,
however, arrived at Madrid, Charles found
that amateur diplomacy even when evolved
from the astute mind of George Villiers,
Duke of Buckingham, was a broken reed.
The Palatinate was sacrificed and the In-
fanta was adamant. She wished to marry
no heretic Prince. This rebuff was un-
wholesome for Charles, and angered in-
tensely the King of England. Charles is
said to have welcomed the fleet that was to
carry him home with enthusiasm ; while
Buckingham became the bitter foe of Spain
and the Spanish Royal House. King James,
seriously disturbed, resolved to lose no fur-
ther time ; and an Embassy was at once
despatched to Paris to demand the hand of
the Princess Henrietta Maria from the

32 King Charles I : a Study

Queen Mother, and from her brother King
Louis XIII.

At this time the Princess was in her
fifteenth year, and is described by the
Special Ambassador as " a lovely, sweet
young creature. Her growth is not great
yet but her shape is perfect." The Prin-
cess, on her part, mused long and happily
over a miniature of the Prince of Wales.
The marriage was of course a political one —
a move on the European chessboard. A
matrimonial alliance between France and
England would cry " Check " to the am-
bitions of Spain ; and the Prince of Wales
would secure a lovely and youthful bride,
half in love with his miniature. Of course
King James and his Ministers got the worst
of the long-drawn-out negotiations. Riche-
lieu was more than a match for them all.
Finally the marriage treaty was signed on
December I2th, 1624. But now the weary
old King was ready to lay down his burden

Charles Prince of Wales 33

of Empire ; as a King he had been a pathetic
failure, as a man he was not a success.
Deep learning was his, but no useful know-
ledge ; undignified, yet claiming more than
Royal dignity, the son of Mary Queen of
Scots went down to his grave unmourned,
unhonoured and unwept. James I died
on March 2yth, 1625, and Charles I reigned
in his stead.

CHAPTER IV
THE ACCESSION OF KING CHARLES I

THE Prince of Wales had been a haughty,
dreamy youth, disdainful of his father's
Court — a stately, lonely figure with a touch
of the mysterious sadness that genius often
shows — magnetic alike to man and woman
— the embodied spirit of romance. Such
was Charles the Prince ; what of Charles
the King ? A very serious sense of the
responsibilities of kingship had been de-
veloped in the Prince of Wales, but he
somehow failed to realize the spirit of the
times. In the full-blooded Henry VIII
the people had rejoiced. Edward VI was
beloved as one understanded of the people.
Mary's reign was not a success. England
was proud of her Virgin Queen — but James I
had appealed neither to the State nor to party

34

Accession of King Charles 135

or faction. With the irritation induced by
his reign his unfortunate and well-meaning
son had to contend. It was a bitter heri-
tage.

The beginning of the new reign was
auspicious. About six weeks after the
death of King James, Princess Henrietta
Maria was married by proxy to Charles
King of England on May ist, 1625, before
the great west door of Notre Dame. On
the 1 6th of June the Queen arrived in
London and received a great popular wel-
come. All things promised well for the
House of Stuart.

The political creed to which Charles
during his reign was consistent has its
admirers as well as its opponents ; to this
day there is an element in English public
life that finds it hard to keep its temper
when Charles I is praised ; and, on the
other hand, the absurd and ridiculous Legiti-
mist and Jacobite Societies and Leagues are
out of court. They hardly exist. It is,

36 King Charles I : a Study

however, hard to defend the Commons
during the reign.

Rawson Gardiner says of the Lower
House, " it was as yet but an incoherent
mass." Mistakes were made by King and
Commons alike. Both were at fault.
Charles, however, acted with a single eye
to the interests of his country ; the Com-
mons had a whole-souled devotion to their
own. When an irresistible force meets an
immovable rock, something is apt to hap-
pen, and happen many things did. John
Richard Green, in his distorted view of
this reign, glorified the Puritans, who were
gradually coming to the front in Parlia-
ment. Macaulay, however, takes the saner
view, in giving as a reason for the Puritans'
dislike of bear-baiting, not the pain suffered
by the bear, but the pleasure felt by the on-
lookers.

The first twenty years of the reign had
many crowded hours. Events marched

Accession of King Charles I 37

rapidly, and there was no pause in the
procession of important happenings.

The Royal Marriage Alliance with France
had proved a stumbling-block to Spain.
Neither Gondomar nor Philip proved a
match for Richelieu — the Master Diplomat.
Later, indeed, Cromwell's mistaken foreign
policy — so bitterly analysed by Bolingbroke
— in strengthening the French power has
been strongly criticized by later writers.
According to Skelton, the political situation
in England may be separated into three
periods — the first, one of constitutional
development on normal lines ; the second,
showing a disregard for constitutional prece-
dent ; the third, a period of civil war
culminating in the farcical trial and murder
of the King — leading to a Restoration.

The first mistake of the new reign was
the predominance of Buckingham. His
foreign adventures were more or less
failures ; as one studies the course of events
in Holland, before Cadiz, at Rochelle, one

38 King Charles I : a Study

marvels at the lack of judgment shown by
the Duke. Brilliant — erratic — self-sufficient,
George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, drove
by his ill success and insolence the first nail
in the oncoming scaffold at Whitehall. The
King (less haughty as King than he had
been as Prince) and Queen (" nimble and
black-eyed, brown-haired, and in a word
a brave lady ") were personally popular ;
and it needed the four years of Bucking-
ham's control to diminish the love of the
people for their King. It was, however, a
bad four years for England ; Buckingham
was the evil genius of the King.

CHAPTER V
THE KING AND THE COMMONS

THE first Parliament of Charles was not un-
like the last Parliament of James. As usual
the Commons lost no time in asserting
themselves. At the beginning of a new
reign the great permanent revenues of the
Crown were voted for life by means of a
grant known as " tonnage and poundage."
In their insolence — an insolence no Tudor
Sovereign would have stood for a moment
— in defiance of precedent, the Commons
voted this grant for one year only — an impu-
dent encroachment on Constitutional usage.
The new Bill, however, did not get
through the House of Lords — then, as
now, the vigilant guardian of the public
interest ; and the duties were levied as
before by Crown officers.
39

40 King Charles I : a Study

The request of the King for " subsidies "
having been only partially granted, the
Finance Minister — at the King's order —
renewed the request when the Houses met
at Oxford. The King himself condescended
to make a personal request. His whole
revenues had been exhausted in the public
service ; he was cramped for means to pay
the Royal obligations — he was young and at
the beginning of his reign. If he now met
with kind and dutiful usage it would en-
dear the Parliament to him and preserve a
perfect accord between himself and his
subjects.

But the faithful Commons were stubborn.
They cherished legends of the contemptuous
way in which they had been flouted by
Queen Elizabeth, and thirsted for revenge.
Their reasons for refusal were commonplace
— they objected to Buckingham's foreign
policy, they did not approve of the war,
and pretended they were acting in the
public interest.

The King and the Commons 41

Charles' strong Anglicanism was suspect
by the narrow Puritans in the Commons.
They wished to establish eternal damnation
by Statute, and Calvin was their patron
saint. It is a curious commentary on their
success that there is now in America — of all
places — a " Church of St. Charles the
Martyr."

The King made a mistake in beginning
his relations with the Commons by a request.
Henry VIII would have ordered where
Charles I entreated. It was too late when
Charles, conscious of his mistake, dissolved
abruptly his first Parliament. Charles be-
came King in March, 1625, and before 1630
three separate Parliaments had been sum-
moned and dissolved. Comment is need-
less.

The situation — rapidly becoming a crisis
— speaks for itself. The Commons would
not grant supplies until their so-called
" grievances " were redressed.

At this time injudicious writers widened

42 King Charles I : a Study

the breach by foolish books on the doctrine
(they made it a dogma) of Divine Right
and the virtue of passive obedience. As
always — they were "plus Royalistes que le
Roi " and did the Royal Stuart no good
service.

The Commons were wrong from the
standpoint of constitutional law and legal
history — their refusal to grant supplies made
it difficult for the King to keep his treaty
engagements with Gustavus Adolphus and
Christian of Denmark.

The hired assassins of Tilly swept like
locusts over the cities of Northern Germany,
because the Commons of England refused
to follow precedent. It is admitted now
that the Commons went too far for public
safety in their attempted grasp of power ;
and the Petition of Right was the only
legislative fruit — rare but unrefreshing — of
these successive Parliaments which is worthy
of mention. It was technically a " declar-
atory Statute," and was the cause of much

The King and the Commons 43

argument among gentlemen of the long robe.
The question at issue was simple : could a
subject be imprisoned by the King unless
the cause of imprisonment appeared on the
warrant ? Naturally there were cases where
it was against the public interest to state the
cause, and this was generally admitted. A
Resolution was passed by the Lords to the
effect that the power of the King was regal
as well as legal ; this, however, was dis-
pleasing to the Commons, more tender of
their privileges than of their honour, and an
impasse was averted. Finally both Houses
declared that the Act was not to be con-
sidered as affecting the Prerogative — a
lawyer's futile compromise.

Rawson Gardiner aptly says that many a
compensating change would be needed before
the real preponderance in the Constitution
passed from King to Commons.

Sir John Eliot was the only leader of any
weight in these short-lived early Parliaments
of Charles I. The absurd praise lavished

44 King Charles I : a Study

on him is to be wondered at ; he was an
average orator, and possessed many of the
elements of the party hack. His jealousy
of Buckingham resulted in a torrent of
invective, strewn with false accusations un-
supported by any proof. His ridiculous
comparison of Buckingham with Sejanus of
Tacitus was cleverly characterized by the
King, who said, when dissolving Parliament,
"If the Duke is Sejanus I must be Tiberius."
Eliot's attack on Buckingham was the direct
cause of the Duke's murder by the half-
witted Felton, who brooded over what he
supposed to be his country's wrongs until
his mind gave way ; and a knife-thrust at
Portsmouth ended the brilliant life of the
favourite.

The disputes with the Commons fretted
Charles and did not improve his temper.
More than once he went down to the House
and reproved the Members : —

" Mr. Speaker, here is much time spent
in enquiring into grievances. I would have

The King and the Commons 45

more time bestowed in preventing and re-
dressing them."

The childish charges of " bad faith " made
against the King arose in connection with
his supposed mental reservations in con-
nection with the Petition of Right — a
measure he naturally, holding to his Royal
Prerogative, regarded with little favour. But
who could define the " mental reservations
of the King " ? The charge refutes itself.
That the King acted hastily in ordering
Eliot's arrest for words spoken in the House
is true, but that Eliot was a " Parliamentary
Martyr " is absurdly untrue.

Charles was wiser in addressing the
Commons on the Petition of Right. He
said : —

" And I assure you that my maxim is that
the people's liberties strengthen the King's
prerogatives, and that the King's prerogative
is to defend the people's liberties."

King and people were alike wearied by
constant Parliamentary quarrels. The coun-

46 King Charles I : a Study

try was as tired of the Commons as the
King. Little blame attaches to Charles for
his decision to try personal rule for a time.
The country had confidence in its King and
little or none in its Commons. How would
the experiment succeed ?

CHAPTER VI

THE KING

THE period of personal rule from 1629 to
1640 was peaceful and prosperous. These
eleven years without a Parliament gave a
much-needed rest to the country, sick of
wrangling and talk for talk's sake. Even
in these enlightened days an eleven-years'
rest from dreary debates would not be un-
welcome, particularly as in this year of
Grace 1912 the House of Commons is
notoriously unrepresentative of the people.
As a benevolent despot King Charles I was
more of a success than as a King with a
Parliament. The years between the Parlia-
ments were among the most pleasant in the.,
life of Charles. Political persecutions were
unknown, tonnage and poundage were
quietly levied, and there was peace in the

47

48 King Charles I : a Study

land. True, the electoral franchise was
paralysed for the moment, but nobody was
a penny the worse ; and private judgment
was unlimited.

An illuminating example of the difference
between historians is found in the opinion
of the Puritans — they were fanatics who
misclaimed the name — expressed by Carlyle
and Hume. To the former they were heroes,
to the latter eccentrics. As a matter of fact
they were to a certain extent both.

Cromwell was called by Hume a fanatical
hypocrite — no bad description of the man
who was to his enemies the arch-traitor ;
who boasted "a sturdy red ridge of nose
and a coarse fleshy face, swollen and dark."
Contrast this description with a contemporary
one of the King. " King Charles looked
well — a stately melancholy in his delicate
features, that saddened the beholder bend-
ing low before him."

There is a baffling something in the
personality of the King that defies analysis.

The King 49

No one — with the possible exception of his
grandmother, Mary Queen of Scots — has
been so bitterly blamed. No one has been
so unwisely praised. Yet undeserved censure
and unwise praise have failed — both — to
lower the prestige of the most tragic King
in history.

What was the character — what was the
aim — of this King who dismissed his Parlia-
ments and ruled alone ? The acts of Charles
were of two kinds ; those dictated by his
heart and those instigated by his head.
Where his feelings were concerned the
King was hasty and rash. His mind worked
slowly but clearly and showed the discretion
of a statesman. Because his mental pro-
cesses were slow, he was often irresolute and
acted before he had really decided. His
enemies called him insincere — as a matter
of fact he was merely undecided. With
a strong Minister at his elbow Charles I
would have been a great King. Unfortun-
ately he was King and Prime Minister

50 King Charles I : a Study

both — a Wilhelm I without his Bismarck.
This lack of statesman-like counsel explains
many mistakes of the reign.

The Court was serious, far from extrava-
gant and favoured no immorality. After
the death of Buckingham the King got on
better with the Queen when she had ceased
to miss the intriguing French Catholics who
had come with her to England. A loyal and
affectionate Queen was the reward of the
King's devotion, and the influence of Hen-
rietta Maria remained paramount with her
husband up to the end. The King's melan-
choly dissolved before the gay vivacity of
the Queen, and his manner grew more
gracious as he saw more of his charming
Consort. A fairly large family shared the
King's love. Charles Prince of Wales ;
James Duke of York (afterwards Charles II
and James II) ; Princess Henrietta, Prin-
cess Mary, the little Duke of Gloucester,
and Princess Elizabeth — a charming family
group.

The King 5 i

For the administrative side of his king
ship Charles had a decided gift including
great executive ability. He insisted upon
a close examination of all State papers, and
was intolerant of errors, whether of judg-
ment or merely technical.

To Buckingham's influence succeeded
that of Wentworth and Laud — the Earl of
Strafford and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
They soon became sworn friends, and at the
same time confidential Ministers of their
Royal master. Strafford was a great states-
man ; devoid of personal ambition, he was
content to remain what he was, a great noble
working for the State. As such, he was in-
tolerant of the Commons, and wished the
King to rule without their aid. " The grand
manner" was his by right, and his influence
over men was immense — by the force of
character that was in him. His foreign
policy was peaceful. He shared the views
of Montrose, who wrote to the King from

52 King Charles I : a Study

Scotland : " They will never rest until they
have made you a man of straw."

Strafford had made a success of his Com-
missions. As Lord Deputy of Ireland, he
had guided his Irish Parliaments with the
iron hand in the velvet glove. He might
have done the same in England. He was
a born administrator — a strong, sincere, fear-
less servant of the King.

Laud was equally as sincere, but his dis-
cretion was less. In 1633 he who was Bishop
of London, became Archbishop of Canter-
bury, an honour due to the great church-
man. Unfortunately for him the Puritans,
with their usual lack of intelligence, sus-
pected him of leaning towards Rome — an
unfounded but a dangerous feeling. The
oft-quoted opinion expressed by Laud on
the King is apocryphal, "A mild and gracious
Prince who knows not how to be, or to be
made, great." Such was Laud — a burning
flame — ignis ardens — in his zeal for the

The King 53

Church, unconscious that his religious fire
was to consume both himself and his King.

During the peaceful interval of eleven
years, the triumvirate — the King, Laud, and
Strafford — governed, and governed with suc-
cess. The King — gentle, gracious, good,
and with a strong sense of duty ; Strafford
— brave, forcible, relentless, sincere, reaction-
ary ; Laud— faithful to King and Church,
intolerant of any opposition to either.

Until 1636 there was perfect quiet in
England, and during these peaceful years,
on the Slepe Hall Estate, living the mono-
tonous life so well described by Carlyle was
a sturdy fanatic in the making ; a " solid,
substantial, inoffensive farmer of St. Ives,"
who was more or less of a hypochondriac,
tainted with the ideas — or lack of ideas — of
the Fifth Monarchy Men — one Oliver
Cromwell, the man who, if he had failed,
would have been branded as a rebel and
a traitor ; the man who, as he succeeded at
the sacrifice of his honour, became Lord

54 King Charles I : a Study

Protector of England — the most overrated
man in history, and the pet of those modern
English " Democrats " whom he would have
been the first to despise and exile.

Imagine Cromwell and Bernard Shaw !
Think of Cromwell's comment on the
" Lives " of him written by Lord Rosebery
and Mr. Roosevelt and Lord Morley,
" Lives " in which more of the author than
the subject appears.

Cromwell's mind compared with that of
his contemporary, Lord Falkland, is like
water compared with wine — and rather
muddy water — yet who knows of Falk-
land ?

Cromwell's religious fervour was partly
real religious mania and partly pose. He
began as a sincere but unsuccessful reformer,
he ended as an insincere but successful
politician — a possible good man gone wrong.

Until the end of 1636, peace brooded
over England. Then came distant mur-
murs of the coming storm. The advertising

The King 55

Hampden, the Labour Member of the time,
was to call in question the legality of ship-
money ; and the loyal Scots were troubled
by the incredible folly of Laud in pressing
his Prayer Book upon the Church of St.
Giles in 1637. Thunder was in the air.

CHAPTER VII
UNPEACEFUL YEARS

UNTIL 1637, when there was trouble in
Scotland, the personal rule of Charles had
been a success. The loyalty of the Scots
had been shown at the Coronation in 1633
at Holyrood when Charles was crowned
King of Scots ; but there was even then a
hint of the troubles to come — troubles
of which Laud was the far from innocent
cause. In the days to come the loyalty
of the Scots proved a broken reed for the
King, although for his son and grandson
it revived in all its former strength. There
is no doubt that the King was unjustly
blamed for the acts of the Archbishop of
Canterbury.

As one authority well puts it, the differ-
56

Unpeaceful Years 57

ence between the possible Church of the
Commons and the actual Church of Laud,
was one of organic principle — the Commons
insisted on uniformity of belief, while
the Archbishop was satisfied with uni-
formity of ritual, a distinction clearly with
a difference. There had been some out-
cry over the famous " Declaration " that
after service on Sundays the people
might enjoy their sports in good old English
fashion. The Puritans made a great scandal
over this, considering it more fitting that
the people should sit at home in Sunday
gloom and praise the Lord by getting
drunk. The Declaration on Uniformity also
(still found in the Prayer Book) was criticized
as well. Laud of course was the instigator
of both Declarations. The outcry against
Laud was machine - made, although he
weakened his position by having the Declara-
tion of Sports read in churches — an act
hardly necessary, although it must be re-

58 King Charles I : a Study

membered the Declaration had first been
made in the reign of James I.

Up to now in the contest between King
and Commons the nation had sided with
the King, whose position was in accordance
with precedent.

So much drivel has been written by time-
serving party hacks who called themselves
" historians " on the encroachment by the
King on the Constitution, that it is hard
to remember that the Commons were en-
croaching on the powers of the King.
Falkland on behalf of the King saw this
clearly, and stated it without the hysteria
that weakened Cromwell's arguments for
the Commons. Gardiner says, " Never
since the accession of the Stuart Dynasty
had the finances been in so flourishing a
condition as in 1638." If financial pros-
perity is a test of success, Charles' personal
rule was no failure.

The greatest mistake made by the King

Unpeaceful Years 59

was his decision to add to his revenues by
levying ship-money. There was little public
excitement over the levy until Hampden
and a few others courted publicity by refus-
ing to pay the tax. The absurd eulogy
lavished on this passive resister for his non-
payment of a county rate is dear to dema-
gogues of all ages — but it is rather ridiculous.
If immortality is the reward of failure to
pay one's taxes, Olympus must be over-
crowded.

English counties bordering on the sea
were forced to provide a certain number of
ships for the King to protect the narrow
seas. Charles, however, made a change in
announcing that he would accept a money
payment instead. This money payment
was exacted from the inland counties, and
in their case was of doubtful legality, as
there was no precedent. The judges, how-
ever, did not consider precedent binding.
There is much to be said on both sides.

60 King Charles I : a Study

England, however, needed a navy. Parlia-
ment was not in session, and patriotism
should not have balked at technicalities.
The whole country was interested in the
navy. Why should the sea-board counties
bear the whole burden ? In this connection
it should be noted that the proceeds of all
the levies made by the King were used for
the benefit of the nation and not for his own
pleasure or profit. The logical course of
events is here curious. The agitation against
the levy of ship-money would have died
down had not Parliament been summoned
in 1640.

Parliament was called together on ac-
count of the Scotch troubles, for which
Laud was responsible — hence the meeting
of Parliament was the cause of the re-
bellion.

The riots of July, 1637, when the Prayer
Book was introduced at St. Giles', led to the
Glasgow Assemblies and the Solemn League

Unpeaceful Years 61

and Covenant. The signers of the Covenant
were Royalists as a rule, loyal to the Stuarts,
but fiercely intolerant of any interference
with their religion. Scotland was in a tur-
moil of confusion ; several provisional
Governments were in existence and border
raids were imminent.

Twice Charles was defeated by the
Covenanters — once in 1637, once in 1640,
and the fanatical Calvinists were not soothed
by their successes. Had Charles been vic-
torious he could easily have crushed out the
smouldering embers of discontent in Eng-
land ; defeated, the flames grew slowly, but
bit deeply into the national edifice.

The Treaty of Ripon was a confession of
failure ; the two northern counties were to
remain in charge of the Scots until the pro-
visions of the Treaty were fulfilled, the Scots
army meanwhile receiving ^25,000 for its
successful treason — the Scots were ever
philanthropists. North of the Tay, how-

62 King Charles I : a Study

ever, the clans were loyal, and the High-
landers, unlike the Lowlanders, had little in
common with the ten lost tribes, guided as
they were by James Graham, Duke of Mont-
rose, who was no huckster.

Charles' finances were now exhausted, and
on Strafford's advice he summoned the
"Short Parliament" on April I3th, 1640,
and dissolved it again on May 5th.

Another mistake was made by the King
in dismissing this Parliament, which was
strongly Royalist and well disposed to His
Majesty. According to Clarendon, it was
the fault of Sir Harry Vane, who was jealous
of Strafford and a friend of Pym. The King
wished to have twelve " subsidies " in ex-
change for ship-money, which was to be
abandoned, but StrafFord persuaded him to
let Vane tell the Commons he would be con-
tent with eight. Vane, however, played a
double game. He informed the Commons
that the King was displeased with them, and

Unpeaceful Years 63

then gave the King to understand that the
Commons were disloyal. Upon this Charles
with promptitude and acting from his heart
instead of from his head dissolved Parlia-
ment. It was a fatal error.

CHAPTER VIII
THE BEGINNING OF THE END

AND now naked and unashamed the ghost
of rebellion stalked through Merrie England.
Religious imbeciles prated of themselves as
the weapons of God, and blasphemed against
the Most High. Their name for the Cava-
liers was " Malignants " — an echo of their
own malignancy. Indeed, the epidemic
form of morbid Puritanism resembled in
no slight degree the epidemic of tarantella
dancing in the kingdom of Naples and the
Two Sicilies — a pity it did not take the form
of sleeping-sickness. Strafford now came
to the fore ; he had come from his Irish
Lordship to help the King whose funds were
exhausted, and his first practical act was to
raise ^20,000 for the public services. The
64

The Beginning of the End 65

King, however, found the expenses of an
army enormous ; and with reluctance, and
ungraciously, the King was forced to sum-
mon another Parliament, much less loyal
than the "Short Parliament." Public senti-
ment was craftily stirred against the King;
play was made of his Scottish defeats, and
there was much criticism of the sudden
dissolution of Parliament.

On a drear November day — the 3rd — in
1640, the ill-omened "Long Parliament"
met in London.

The Royalists (the Anglicans) and the
Parliament men (chiefly Presbyterians) were
face to face ; and wise men all through
England prayed for agreement and hoped
that the spectre of rebellion might pass
from their fair land. Their prayer, how-
ever, was not to be granted, although keener
minds could see hope for the future in the
dislike of the frothing mouthy Independents
for the Presbyterians.

66 King Charles I : a Study

At the outset the chances were balanced,
but the Puritans did not hesitate to doctor
the weights to bring the balance down on
their side. They struck heavily and at
once. After one week Strafford was im-
peached. Strafford's defence was brilliant ;
it was a record of unbroken success ; yet it
availed him little. The influence of Pym
was paramount with this Parliament, and
Pym was jealous of Stratford. Pym — a
man with a small mind, petty, revengeful-
saw his chance, and Strafford and Laud
were sent to the Tower. At one time
Pym and Strafford had been friends, when
both were opposed to Buckingham ; but,
when their careers parted, Strafford's lead-
ing to power and Pym's to obscurity, Pym
had made a threat Strafford would have
done well to heed : —

" You are going to leave us I see ; but
we will never leave you while you have a
head on your shoulders."

The Beginning of the End 67

Here the King may be justly criticized.
Strafford, in feeble health, had not wished
to come to London. He knew that in
Yorkshire among his own people Pym
was powerless, but he dreaded London
town. The King was persistent, naturally
anxious to have his powerful Minister by
his side ; he promised the Earl that if he
came not a hair of his head should be in
danger.

Trusting to his Sovereign's word the
fated man hurried to Westminster — to
lodge in the Tower.

During the time of his impeachment and
trial Straffbrd, according to an authority,
behaved very nobly, and ate his heart out
imputing blame to no one.

The King never forgave himself for his
surrender to the morbid fanatics who
clamoured for Strafford's death, and re-
garded his own murder as in a sense an
act of expiation for Strafford's execution.

68 King Charles I : a Study

That the childish charges against the Earl
of Strafford should culminate in an accusa-
tion of high treason is almost unbelievable.
If there was any traitor, it was Pym, not
Strafford, who is now restored to his proper
place in history. Every lying art was suc-
cessfully used to obtain a verdict of guilty,
and every pressure brought to bear on the
King and Queen to confirm the verdict.
The House of Lords acted, as judges, with
fairness ; but when the Commons, fearful
that the frivolity of their evidence would
be recognized, resorted to an Act of At-
tainder, a small majority carried the Act,
and Lords became equally guilty with Com-
mons in the ignominious proceedings. It
was a hard matter to get Charles' consent,
but it was finally wrung from him on the
only ground that led him to consent — that
so England might be saved from civil war.
He was warned that the Queen's life was
m peril, and in his agony for country and

The Beginning of the End 69

Queen, he passed the Bill — and at Strafford's
own request. He had written to the King :
" So now to set Your Majesty's con-
science at liberty I do most humbly be-
seech Your Majesty to pass this Bill. . . .
Sir, my consent shall more acquit you
herein to God than all the world can do
besides. To a willing man there is no in-
jury done."

Strafford was sincere in what he had
written, but believed the King would pro-
tect him to the end. " Put not your trust
in Princes," he said, when he heard that the
unhappy King had consented — more anxious
for the King's honour than for his own life.
He was ready to go. For his country he
had done his best, his King — honestly
anxious to keep civil war from his people —
had failed him ; his health had broken, there
was little to live for. He had wished to
say farewell to his venerable friend Laud,
Archbishop of Canterbury, but the Lieu-

70 King Charles I : a Study

tenant of the Tower refused permission ;
but from the window of his cell Laud
blessed his friend as the sad procession
passed on at dawn to Tower Hill. From
the headsman's block Strafford sent his fare-
wells. " I thank God," said he, " I am not
afraid of death, nor daunted with any
discouragement, but do as cheerfully
put off my doublet at this time as ever
I did when I went to bed." Such was the
end of the Earl of Strafford on May i2th,
1641.

The King paid bitterly for his mistake
in consenting to the execution. Firmness
at that time would have curbed the insolent
Commons ; this giving in only encouraged
their greed for more and greater concessions.
During the next fourteen months the con-
test between the King and the coming re-
bellion, personified in Pym, was bitter to a
degree.

The rebellion broke out in the summer

The Beginning of the End 7 1

of 1642, and the King went into camp at
Nottingham on August 22nd, a step re-
gretted most by Falkland and his followers.
The country at large was tired of the ten-
sion, and was eager for acts and some form
of settlement that would confirm either King
or Commons in authority — the people did
not much care which, although loyalty to
King was a more tangible and satisfactory
thing than loyalty to a sour abstraction like
a Parliament. StrafFord's death convinced
the King that Parliament wished to deprive
him of all the constitutional privileges vested
in the Sovereign. Pym — the Parliament
incarnate — believed (or said he believed)
that Charles was aiming at despotic power.
No via media could bridge such different
ways of thought, and each side hastened
with grim joy to the arbitrament of the
sword.

The Commons had passed a Bill which
provided that Parliament could not be dis-

72 King Charles I : a Study

solved without its own consent. It is an
awful thought — that the Long Parliament
might be sitting yet ! This is merely one
instance of the encroachment upon the Royal
prerogative — one of many. The Court ,of

r

Star Chamber, by this time abolished, never
deserved the hard things said of it — too
much importance has been attached to what
was merely a peg on which to hang de-
nunciations of the King.

The actual cause of the raising of the
Royal Standard at Nottingham was the
seizure of the munitions of war at Hull,
stored by the King for his northern expedi-
tion. On the 1 8th of August the Parlia-
ment had the incredible audacity to denounce
as traitors all who gave aid to the King.
Traitors were good judges of treachery.
This followed hard on the King's natural
refusal to accept the policy of the egregious
Pym set forth in written propositions, placed
before His Majesty on June 3rd. These

The Beginning of the End 73

absurd claims of Parliament included the
following conditions : —

No new Peers were to be allowed to sit
without the consent of the Commons.

The children of Catholics were to be
educated as Protestants.

The Commons were to select the Judges,
the King's Guard, the King's Council, and
the King's officials.

These conditions were, of course, offered
to be declined — they were to be used as an
excuse to start what the Puritans called a
" war " — but it was a traitors' war. Charles
throughout preserved a wonderful self-con-
trol. After StrafFord's execution he went to
Scotland at Montrose's instigation, and was
well received. This was a wise act ; but it
was neutralized by his attempt to arrest the
five, members. His visit to the Commons
by the Queen's advice was a fatal error.

74 King Charles I : a Study

The arrest would have been illegal, even if
successful ; as a failure, the attempt was
worse than illegal. Nothing remained but
to fight it out.

I

CHAPTER IX
REBELLION

THE question as to who was responsible for
the outbreak of armed rebellion is easy to
answer.

Hallam, prejudiced as he was against the
King, admits that the absurd claim of
Parliament for the control of the militia
could not be entertained by a constitutional
monarch.

The Commons were not fighting for the
liberties of the people, they were fighting for
their own power as they would never have
dared to fight against Henry VIII or
Elizabeth.

The first rebellion began when the Royal
Standard was raised at Nottingham on
August 22nd, 1642 ; it virtually ended at
75

76 King Charles I : a Study

Naseby on June I4th, 1645 — though there
were desultory engagements till the end of
the year. The tide of battle ebbed and
flowed during these years within well-defined
limits. Before the fighting began the
Parliament men professed to believe that
one short campaign would convince the
King of their overwhelming superiority.
Probably there were men with the King who
were hardly less confident. Both were
mistaken. The hostile forces, so far as we
can judge, were not unequally matched.
Before many weeks had passed it was found
that the main strength of the Puritans lay
in the eastern and south-eastern counties,
the main strength of the King in the
northern, the south-western and the Welsh.
At one time a line drawn from Berwick-on-
Tweed to the Isle of Wight would have
separated the districts friendly or hostile to
Charles ; as the Royalists grew strong the
line might have been drawn from Bridling-

Rebellion 77

ton Bay to the Solent ; as their strength
waned, from Chester to Exeter along the
borders of Wales. But even when the
fortunes of the Puritans were at their
darkest a narrow band of Parliamentary
counties — Lancaster, Cheshire, Stafford,
Warwick — divided the Royalist north from
the Royalist south. The separation was
always a grave misfortune for Charles — he
was strong at York, he was strong at
Oxford ; but going from one to the other
he had to pass through an enemy's country.
London was the Parliamentary capital,
Oxford the Royalist ; but soon after the
commencement of the war the great cities of
Bristol, York, and Exeter declared for, or
were captured by, the King ; and each
became a separate base of operations for the
Royalists' generals. It may be said with
confidence that without London the Par-
liament would have been powerless ; and it
was only on its democratic handicraftsmen

78 King Charles I : a Study

and truculent apprentices that they could
count with confidence. The moneyed men
were mostly for the King. Prince Rupert —
Rupert of the Rhine — was a strong asset of
the King ; a dashing cavalry leader, he
harassed the sneaking Roundheads and won
some glorious victories. His boldness
spoiled his strategy, or he would have won
Edgehill and London. So Marston Moor
was lost — so Naseby. The other two great
Royalist generals were Brentford and Hopton.
The King himself was a soldier King and
brave, like all the Stuarts. It must be
admitted that he bore himself well through-
out the war. He was ready to welcome
any overture for peace. He made the first
advances ; he would, in his own words, "take
the honey out of the gall." Some hysterical
historians insist that he was unduly obstinate.
The pretensions of the Parliament, however,
as we have seen, were exorbitant, and it
cannot be said that they were abated by

Rebellion 79

disaster. No basis for peace could be found
in such an attitude.

The propositions submitted on various
occasions by the Parliament to the King,
with a victorious army and a clear half of
England behind him, were simply prepos-
terous. When the tide began to turn in
their favour their conditions of peace became
more and more intolerable. After the first
eighteen months the fortunes of the Royal-
ists began to decline, especially at Marston
Moor on July 2nd, 1644, and at Naseby on
June I4th, 1645.

At this time Cromwell, now more of a
soldier and less of a zealot, began to re-
model his army, and the discipline of his
well-paid mercenaries carried the day.
Cromwell was not a great general, he was a
lucky one ; the highest praise would call him
an efficient drill sergeant.

In the first rebellion the Queen herself
was active in the field. A woman of

8o King Charles I : a Study

supreme energy, she was never idle. On
land or on water, she was equally in her
element. Under the hottest fire of the
enemy, or in the wildest winter weather, she
proved herself the daughter of Henry of
Navarre. On one occasion, we are told, she
lay tossing for nine days on the boisterous
North Sea. Never losing the high spirits
which accompanied her in every position in
which she was placed, she laughed heartily
at the fears of her attendant ladies. " Com-
fort yourselves, my dears," she said, "Queens
of England are never drowned." The
Commons were furious ; they framed a Bill
of Attainder ; had they caught her, she
would have gone the way that StrafFord and
Laud had gone.

Next to Prince Rupert came a brilliant
soldier who never failed to acquit himself
with distinction. Montrose was the Scottish
Falkland. When he entered public life he
felt that the popular liberties were in peril ;
and like Falkland and Strafford, he took

Rebellion 8 1

the popular side. But as soon as the sus-
picion crossed his mind that Argyle and the
confederates were playing the King false,
that they were aiming at political change
rather than religious liberty, he quitted
them at once and finally.

His Scotch campaign was the last glow of
the setting sun of the fortunes of the King.
Thereafter there was naught but gloom.

During the war, although Parliament was
in session, its authority was lessening day
by day. Even before the close of the first
rebellion the army disdained what it con-
sidered the do-nothing policy of " the
Rump." Cromwell, filling his army with
Independents to the exclusion of Presby-
terians, looked on them with suspicion ; and
their only act of note was the execution of
Laud, who had languished in the Tower for
many weary months. When Charles left
Oxford on April 2yth, 1646, the struggle
was practically over, particularly when he
chose to go to the Scots army then before

82 King Charles I : a Study

Newark. The Scots had informally in-
timated their desire to come to terms with
him ; but he might have known that the
question of religion would present a barrier.
They were fanatical Presbyterians — far more
fanatical than the English ; and Charles's
obstinate loyalty to the Anglican Church
never wavered. Even as a fugitive he
would consent to no compromise that
might weaken his Church. He would
probably have fared better had he trusted
himself to one or other of the English
parties. The continued presence of a Scots
army in England (when the war had ceased)
was on all hands viewed with disfavour ; and
when it was found that the King was in
their camp, the desire to be rid of this flock
of locusts naturally grew. Nor were the
Scots unwilling to go. They had eaten up
the northern counties. If they could get
their bill settled, there was no reason why
they should remain. But what was to be
done with Charles ? It can be justly charged

Rebellion 83

against the Scots that they sold their King
for ,£400,000. It is certainly not correct to
say that the Scots sold Charles as Judas sold
our Lord ; it would be nearer the mark to
say that they held him as a " material
guarantee " for payment of the debt due
to them by the English Parliament. It
does not admit of doubt that the possession
of Charles's person tended, to say the least,
to a prompt settlement of accounts. Unless
they had got paid, the Scots would not have
retired ; unless they had got Charles, the
English would not have paid — at least till
later. On the retirement of the Scots,
Charles was sent by the Parliament to Holm-
by House, in Northamptonshire. After, he
was in the custody of the rabid Indepen-
dents. Thence it was but a step to West-
minster Hall and the scaffold at Whitehall.
That the King made a mistake in trusting
the Scots under the circumstances is true.
In ordinary times and during normal hap-
penings the Stuarts could trust their northern

84 King Charles I : a Study

subjects, but at this time the irritation
caused by Laud's unwise attempts to ritual-
ize the Kirk was too recent, the pain of
recent religious wounds too keen, to allow
the dormant loyalty of the Scots full play
— sunt lachrymae rerum.

CHAPTER X
THE DEATH OF THE KING

A BRASS plate on the floor of Westminster
Hall marks the spot where the King of
England stood before his self-appointed
judges and confounded their basely un-
sound platitudes. At the trial the King
refused to plead, alleging the illegality of
the Court.

So set were these regicides on the death
of the King and their own advancement
vthat the Clerk of the Court, one John
Phelps, a barrister of the Middle Temple,
scrawled his name an unnecessary number
of times over the formal writings of the
Court.

After the trial the regicides issued a
warrant as follows : —

85

86 King Charles I : a Study

"TO COLONEL FRANCIS HACKER, COL-
ONEL HUNCKS, AND LIEUTENANT-
COLONEL PHAYR,

"AND TO EVERY OF THEM.

" At the High Court of Justice
for the Trying and Judging
of Charles Stuart, King of
England, 29th January, 1648.

"WHEREAS Charles Stuart, King of
England, is and standeth convicted, attainted
and condemned of High Treason and other
high Crimes ; and Sentence upon Saturday
last was pronounced against him by this
Court, To be put to death by the severing
of his head from his body ; of which
Sentence execution yet remaineth to be
done :

" These are therefore to will and require
you to see the said Sentence executed, in
the open Street before Whitehall, upon the
morrow, being the Thirtieth day of this
instant month of January, between the
hours of Ten in the morning and Five in

The Death of the King 87

the afternoon, with full effect. And for so
doing, this shall be your warrant.

" And these are to require all Officers
and Soldiers, and others the good People
of this Nation of England, to be assisting
unto you in this service.

" Given under our hands and seals,
"JoHN BRADSHAW,
" THOMAS GREY c LORD GROBY,'
" OLIVER CROMWELL."
(And Fifty-six others.)

The trial was farce, the murder was
tragedy. Never did Charles Stuart appear
so great, never did the inborn nobility of
the man appear to better advantage than
before the little men of little minds who
acted as his judges ; and nowadays in West-
minster Hall who thinks of the "judges"
— who even remembers their names ? It is
of the murdered King one thinks — not of
his murderers. And the last scene of all :
the Majesty of England on the scaffold at

88 King Charles I : a Study

Whitehall ! Pearls before swine ! And yet
Charles the King was never more King of
England than on the day of his murder.
His speech on the scaffold is illuminating :
he said, " And truly I desire their liberty
and freedom as much as anybody whoso-
ever ; but I must tell you that their liberty
and freedom consists in having of govern-
ment those laws by which their life and
their good may be most their own. It is
not having share in government, sirs ; that
is nothing pertaining to them." The death
of the Sovereign was the doom of Cromwell.
England might forgive rebels — she could
not pardon murderers. More than this —
the killing of Charles I re-established
monarchy in England for all time. When
the head of Charles I was severed from his
body England trembled. The King died
like a king, like a Stuart, and like a man.
Small wonder that the Royal Martyr's fate
made Royalists of Roundheads. Small

The Death of the King 89

wonder that the Royal Ghost kept sleep
from Cromwell's eyes.

" He nothing common did or mean
Upon that memorable scene,

But with his keener eye

The axe's edge did try ;
Nor called the gods with vulgar spite
To vindicate his helpless right,

But bowed his comely head

Down — as upon a bed."

CHAPTER XI
THE REACTION

WITH the murder of the King a dark pall
of remorse and sorrow came heavily down
on England. Cromwell had gone too far.
From a so-called defender of the people's
liberties he had become a regicide, and no
diadem of Lord Protector could hide the
mark of Cain upon his brow. Apart from
the act considered as a crime, it was a
political blunder from Cromwell's point of
view. The tragic pathos of the last scene,
the kingly dignity shown by " the Man
Charles Stuart " on the scaffold, went home
to unimaginative Englishmen as a lifelong
imprisonment would not have done. The
death at Whitehall relighted the torch of
monarchy in England ; and Charles II was
proclaimed in place of Charles I. The mid-
go

The Reaction 91

night funeral at Windsor in a snowstorm,
when the White King was borne to his rest,
only intensified the sense that a crime had
been done by the nation. It must be re-
membered that to the great inarticulate mass
of the English people the killing of the
King was " the greatest murder committed
that ever story mentioned except the crucify-
ing of our Saviour." Nor was the reaction
slow in coming. England stirred itself in
its sleep, and a slow, dull sense of wicked-
ness was abroad in the body politic. The
dour Scotch Presbyterians shuddered at
what they had done ; and only the fanatic
Anabaptists and Independents forbore to
shed a tear at England's shame. The
gentle, knightly, dauntless King was gone,
and the scheming Squire of Huntingdon
governed in his stead — governed a restless,
bitter people, a people turning in the blind-
ness of its agony to the next Stuart.

How Oliver Cromwell relentlessly forced
England to obey by sheer force of numbers ;

92 King Charles I : a Study

how he intrigued with the Scotch and killed
the Irish ; how Richard, his son, tried to
imitate him and failed — (for while Oliver
Cromwell had a certain factitious strength,
the whole Cromwell family was mercenary
and feeble to a degree)— how Monck was
loyal to his King and brought hkn back to
his adoring subjects, every schoolboy knows.
As the bells pealed and the crowds shouted
at the homecoming of the Merry Monarch,
here and there a few skulking figures
affronted the glad light of day — the pitiful
remnants of" Cromwell's Ironsides," — most
of them new gilded by Court favour.
Charles Stuart was avenged.

CHAPTER XII
THE VERDICT OF HISTORY

HISTORY has summed up the case and given
the verdict.

Charles I was a statesman, not a politician.
Had he been both he would have saved his
head and lost his reputation. The irritation
of the nation, smarting under the clumsy
and goading rule of James I — more clown
than king — wanted a vent. This feeling,
properly directed, would have been satisfied
in foreign conquests, but direction of any
kind, safe or otherwise, was lacking. The
King, trusting his subjects, was misled by
traitors working for their own ends, and was
too gentle with the mob. As man Charles I
was too good for his people, as King he was
not strong enough.

The verdict of history has taken a con-
93

94 King Charles I : a Study

crete form. Looking up Whitehall, on a
charger, sceptre in hand, Le Sueur's statue
of the White King dominates the scene of
his martyrdom. Of all the Royal statues in
London this is beyond all doubt the most
impressive, not on account of its artistry or
the tragic site, but because it is the statue
of Charles the Martyr King.

What names of his reign rank with the
King's? Laud? StrafFord ? — victims of
abortive ambition both. Pym ? Hampden ?
— successful Jack Cade and Wat Tyler.
Oliver Cromwell ? — here we are on different
ground. A man of mediocre abilities, quick
to seize a chance, he reaped where the Stuarts
had sown — a cuckoo in the Royal nest. In
spite of the nauseous mid-Victorian hero-
worship lavished on the " Lord Protector "
(he protected his family well), he remains
an accident in English History, while the
discords of the jangling air of democracy
he played on an imitation Royal harp have

The Verdict of History 95

hardly yet died away. Even among his
soldiers Cromwell was not the idol
" democrat " historians have asserted. How
absurd was the description " Cromwell's
Ironsides " is shown by the fact that Monck
proved them to be laths painted to look
like iron when he proclaimed King Charles
II. Praise of Cromwell is a slowly dying
fashion, but the Stuarts are coming into
their own again. It has been a common
error to call them ungrateful, but if the
Stuarts had been less generous and more
forgetful there would be three more English
Kings in History — a James III, a Charles
Edward, and a Henry IX. If King Charles I
had directly succeeded his grandmother,
Mary Queen of Scots, England would have
escaped the unfortunate reign of James I,
and English History, lacking the Common-
wealth, would be a cleaner thing. James,
for the time, destroyed the dignity of Royalty.
Charles restored it, but at the cost of his life.

96 King Charles I : a Study

In spite of his mistakes, in spite of his mis-
placed trust in Roundhead and Cavalier alike,
" the Man Charles Stuart " remains the
King of Romance — the tragic King — the
great — but the unfortunate — >King of
England.

FINIS

*

WILLIAM BRENDOX AND SON, LTD.
PRINTERS. PLYMOUTH

UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY

A 000053026 1