THE STUARTS AND PARLIAMENT

England in 1603

As long as England was in danger from outside attack, the people forgot their religious and political differences and united for the defence of their land. But when the pressure had been removed by the victory over the Armada in 1588, they began to think about these differences and to define their religious and political views more exactly. The Anglicans, led by Whitgift and afterward by Bancroft and Laud, gave more exact form to their doctrine and their church organization, and drew farther and farther away from the Presbyterians and the Independents. During the next forty years these religious parties became more hostile to each other. On the political side the attitude of the people toward their sovereign was undergoing a change. The middle class, merchants, traders, and lawyers, had come to the front, and not only was this class influenced by new interests, such as those of trade and commerce, but it was actuated by new ideas which had come from the Renaissance and the Reformation. The representatives of this middle class were taking the lead in the House of Commons. This house in the older days of the Lancastrians, when parliament had seemed to be very powerful, had been always subordinate to the House of Lords. But now it was to assume an independent position and to take up the struggle with monarchy, in order to see whether in the king or in the representative of the people lay the final authority in matters of government.

The people of England had accepted the absolutism of the Tudors because they knew that a strong monarchy was needed to raise the kingdom to a position of political and religious independence. After 1588, England had attained this position and an absolute monarch was no longer required, as it had been in the days of Henry VII and Henry VIII. During the last years of Elizabeth's reign parliament had become restless, and had occasionally expressed its dissatisfaction with Elizabeth's methods of governing. As long as the queen lived, however, the nation remained loyal to the sovereign whose reign had brought it peace and prosperity. But neither parliament nor nation were willing to yield so submissively to the wishes of her successor.

James I (VI of Scotland)

James I, son of Mary Queen of Scots, was Elizabeth's successor, and the man called upon to face this difficult situation in 1603. His right to the throne was based not on parliamentary act' nor on any other title than that of heredity and the fact that he had been designated by Elizabeth on her death-bed as her successor. She probably had little knowledge of his character or of his fitness to rule the English people. From his birth James had lived in Scotland and knew nothing of the English except by hearsay. He had not been particularly successful there, and would never have been selected as king of England because of any special qualifications that he had shown himself to possess. He was good-natured, fond of peace, and opposed to extremes of any kind. Probably at heart he was a coward. He was learned in his way, a poet, a writer on theological and other questions, and, in his own opinion, an authority upon a good many of the troubled questions of the time.

But unfortunately he had not the qualities of a ruler such as England needed if she were to go forward increasing her prosperity and influence at home and abroad. He was conceited, too often dogmatic, and very easily angered if any one opposed him. He never was able to take a large view of any dispute, and his judgment was often influenced by petty details. more serious still, he did not understand the new spirit of the English people, and had none of Elizabeth's sympathy and tact; none of her instinctive sense of what the people wanted. He was obstinate, never knew how to yield at the right time, and looked on one who differed with him as an enemy.

More important still were his views on kingship. He had been born a king and had well-developed ideas of the royal prerogative. He believed that the king's powers were from God, and that his right to rule came from God alone. This belief led him to take a high stand regarding his kingly rights, and to assert, often very loudly, that he was above parliament and was not bound by the will of that body or the laws of the land. This doctrine, which was that of the Tudors, and it may be added, of kings generally at that time, was accepted as the true theory of kingship by the majority of the English and Scottish people. It was only after this principle had been abused by James's successor that the real conflict between the rights of the king and rights of parliament, that is, between monarchy by divine right and monarchy limited by law, broke out. During the reign of James serious trouble was avoided, and the king, though never popular, was on the whole not disliked.

Attitude of James toward Puritans and Roman Catholics

Each of the extreme parties, Puritans and Roman Catholics, looked forward with expectation to the coming of James, because it was known that he did not sympathize with the persecutions of Roman Catholics and Dissenters permitted by Elizabeth during the last years of her reign. But James very soon let it be known that he proposed to uphold the established church. While on his way from Scotland to London, the Puritans presented to him a petition, called the Millenary Petition, because a thousand clergymen were supposed to have signed it. In this petition they asked for certain moderate changes in the service and the practices of the church. In answer, James summoned a conference at Hampton Court, where representatives of the Anglicans and the Presbyterians had a lengthy debate. But the discussion only aroused in James himself a controversial spirit, and he abruptly dismissed the disputants saying, "If this is all that they (the Presbyterians) have to say, I will make them conform themselves or I will harry them out of the land, or else do worse." From this time forward the Puritans had little to expect from the king.

Toward the Roman Catholics, James showed himself more tolerant. He did not like the penal laws passed under Eliza, beth, and remitted many fines imposed for not attending the parish churches. In his opening speech to parliament in 1604, he declared in favor of moderating these laws; but that body, instead of doing as the king wished, made the laws increasingly severe. It is possible that James would have executed the laws with mildness had not two or three plots at the beginning of his reign destroyed all hope of toleration.

The Cobham Plot, said to have been planned to abduct the king and place Lady Arabella, niece of Lord Darnley, on the throne, is chiefly famous because Sir Walter Ralegh was implicated, though whether justly or not is uncertain. Ralegh was sentenced to death, but was reprieved by the king, and remained twelve years in the Tower. More famous still, and scarcely better understood, is the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. This was a plot to blow up the houses of parliament, by means of gunpowder placed in the cellar vaults, and so destroy the king, his sons, and the members of both houses. The traditional story has it that one of the conspirators, hoping to save a cousin, Lord Monteagle, member of the House of Lords, wrote him a warning letter, which Monteagle sent to the king.

Poster

GUY FAWKES' LANTERN.

The poster behind the lantern contains a picture of the conspirators (beginning at the right, John Wright, Catesby, Guy Fawkes, Percy, Thomas Winter, Christopher Wright, Robert Winter, and a servant), a description of each, and a facsimile of the letter to Lord Monteagle. It is a copy of a very rare contemporary print. The lantern was presented to Oxford University by Robert Heywood in 1641.

The cellars were searched and one Guy Fawkes was found guarding the powder. The government made a great deal of the plot, encouraging the general suspicion that it was part of a great Roman Catholic conspiracy. That it was so, has, however, never been proved; but the immediate results were all that parliament could have desired. Fawkes and others were cruelly executed, and the penal and recusancy laws were made much more severe. From this time toleration for Roman Catholics became impossible, and the hatred of them felt during the century that followed may be traced to the impression that the Gunpowder Plot left on the minds of the English people.