THE EVOLUTION OF AN EMPIREA BRIEF HISTORICAL SKETCH OF ENGLAND

BYMARY PARMELE

PREFACE. 

Will the readers of this little work please bear in mind thedifficulties which must attend the painting of a very large picture, with multitudinous characters and details, upon a very small canvas!This book is mainly an attempt to trace to their sources some of thecurrents which enter into the life of England to-day; and to indicatethe starting-points of some among the various threads--legislative, judicial, social, etc. --which are gathered into the imposing strand ofEnglish Civilization in this closing 19th Century. 

The reader will please observe that there seem to have been two thingsmost closely interwoven with the life of England. RELIGION and MONEYhave been the great evolutionary factors in her development. 

It has been, first, the resistance of the people to the extortions ofmoney by the ruling class, and second, the violating of their religiousinstincts, which has made nearly all that is vital in English History. 

The lines upon which the government has developed to its presentConstitutional form are chiefly lines of resistance to oppressiveenactments in these two matters. The dynastic and military history ofEngland, although picturesque and interesting, is really only anarrative of the external causes which have impeded the Nation's growthtoward its ideal of "the greatest possible good to the greatestpossible number. "

M. P. 

CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER I. 

Ancient Britain--Caesar's Invasion--Britain a Roman Province--Boadicea--Lyndin or London--Roman Legions Withdrawn--Angles and Saxons--Cerdic--Teutonic Invasion--English Kingdoms Consolidated

CHAPTER II. 

Augustine--Edwin--Caedmon--Baeda--Alfred--Canute--Edward theConfessor--Harold--William the Conqueror

CHAPTER III. 

"Gilds" and Boroughs--William II. --Crusades--Henry I. --Henry II. --Becket's Death--Richard I. --John--Magna Charta

CHAPTER IV. 

Henry III. --Roger Bacon--First True Parliament--Edward I. --Conquest ofWales--of Scotland--Edward II. --Edward III. --Battle of Crecy--RichardII. --Wickliffe

CHAPTER V

House of Lancaster--Henry IV. --Henry V. --Agincourt--Battle of Orleans--Wars of the Roses--House of York--Edward IV. --Richard III. --Henry VII. --Printing Introduced

CHAPTER VI

Henry VIII--Wolsey--Reformation--Edward VI--Mary

CHAPTER VII

Elizabeth--East India Company Chartered--Colonization of Virginia--Flodden Field--Birth of Mary Stuart--Mary Stuart's Death--SpanishArmada--Francis Bacon

CHAPTER VIII

James I--First New England Colony--Gunpowder Plot--Translation ofBible--Charles I--Archbishop Laud--John Hampden--_Petition of Right_--Massachusetts Chartered--Earl Strafford--_Star Chamber_

CHAPTER IX

Long Parliament--Death of Strafford and Laud--Oliver Cromwell--Deathof Charles I. --Long Parliament Dispersed--Charles II. 

CHAPTER X

Act of Habeas Corpus--Death of Charles II. --Milton--Bunyan--James II. --William and Mary--Battle of Boyne

 CHAPTER XI. 

Anne--Marlborough--Battle of Blenheim--House of Hanover--George I. --George II. --Walpole--British Dominion in India--Battle of Quebec--JohnWesley

CHAPTER XII. 

George III. --Stamp Act--Tax on Tea--American Independence Acknowledged--Impeachment of Hastings--War of 1812--First English Railway--GeorgeIV. --William IV. --Reform Bill--Emancipation of the Slaves

CHAPTER XIII. 

Victoria--Famine in Ireland--War with Russia--Sepoy Rebellion--Massacreat Cawnpore

CHAPTER XIV. 

Atlantic Cable--Daguerre's Discovery--First World's Fair--Death ofAlbert--Suez Canal--Victoria Empress of India--Disestablishment ofIrish Branch of Church of England--Present Conditions

HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 

CHAPTER I. 

The remotest fact in the history of England is written in her rocks. Geology tells us of a time when no sea flowed between Dover and Calais, while an unbroken continent extended from the Mediterranean to theOrkneys. 

Huge mounds of rough stones called Cromlechs, have yielded up stillanother secret. Before the coming of the Keltic-Aryans, there dweltthere two successive races, whose story is briefly told in a few humanfragments found in these "Cromlechs. " These remains do not bear theroyal marks of Aryan origin. The men were small in stature, withinferior skulls; and it is surmised that they belonged to the samemysterious branch of the human family as the Basques and Iberians, whose presence in Southern Europe has never been explained. 

When the Aryan came and blotted out these races will perhaps alwaysremain an unanswered question. But while Greece was clothing herselfwith a mantle of beauty, which the world for two thousand years hasstriven in vain to imitate, there was lying off the North and Westcoasts of the European Continent a group of mist-enshrouded islands ofwhich she had never heard. 

Obscured by fogs, and beyond the horizon of Civilization, a branch ofthe Aryan race known as Britons were there leading lives as primitiveas the American Indians, dwelling in huts shaped like beehives, whichthey covered with branches and plastered with mud. While Phidias wascarving immortal statues for the Parthenon, this early Britisher wasdecorating his abode with the heads of his enemies; and could thoseshapeless blocks at Stonehenge speak, they would, perhaps, tell ofcruel and hideous Druidical rites witnessed on Salisbury Plain, agesago. 

[Sidenote: Caesar's Invasion, 55 B. C. Britain a Roman Province, 45 A. D. Boadicea 61 A. D. ]

Rumors of the existence of this people reached the Mediterranean threeor four hundred years before Christ, but not until Caesar's invasion ofthe Island (55 B. C. ) was there any positive knowledge of them. 

The actual conquest of Britain was not one of Caesar's achievements. But from the moment when his covetous eagle-eye viewed the chalk-cliffsof Dover from the coast of Northern Gaul, its fate was sealed. TheRoman octopus from that moment had fastened its tentacles upon thehapless land; and in 45 A. D. , under the Emperor Claudius, it became aRoman province. In vain did the Britons struggle for forty years. Invain did the heroic Boadicea (during the reign of Nero, 61 A. D. ), likeHermann in Germany, and Vercingetorix in France, resist the destructionof her nation by the Romans. In vain did this woman herself lead theBritons, in a frenzy of patriotism; and when the inevitable defeatcame, and London was lost, with the desperate courage of barbarian shedestroyed herself rather than witness the humiliation of her race. 

The stately Westminster and St. Paul's did not look down upon thisheroic daughter of Britain. London at that time was a collection ofmiserable huts and entrenched cattle-pens, which were in Keltic speechcalled the "Fort-on-the-Lake"--or "Llyndin, " an uncouth name in Latinears, which gave little promise of the future London, the Romanshelping it to its final form by calling it Londinium. 

But the octopus had firmly closed about its victim, whose struggles, before the year 100 A. D. , had practically ceased. A civilization whichmade no effort to civilize was forcibly planted upon the island. Wherehad been the humble village, protected by a ditch and felled trees, there arose the walled city, with temples and baths and forum, andstately villas with frescoed walls and tessellated floors, and hot-aircurrents converting winter into summer. 

So Chester, Colchester, Lincoln, York, London, and a score of othercities were set like jewels in a surface of rough clay, the Britonsfilling in the intervening spaces with their own rude customs, habits, and manners. Dwelling in wretched cabins thatched with straw andchinked with mud, they still stubbornly maintained their own uncouthspeech and nationality, while they helplessly saw all they could earnswallowed up in taxes and tributes by their insatiate conquerors. TheKeltic-Gauls might, if they would, assimilate this Roman civilization, but not so the Keltic-Britons. 

The two races dwelt side by side, but separate (except to some extentin the cities), or, if possible, the vanquished retreated before thevanquisher into Wales and Cornwall; and there to-day are found the onlyremains of the aboriginal Briton race in England. 

The Roman General Agricola had built in 78 A. D. A massive wall acrossthe North of England, extending from sea to sea, to protect the Romanterritory from the Picts and Scots, those wild dwellers in the NorthernHighlands. It seems to us a frail barrier to a people accustomed toleaping the rocky wall set by nature between the North and the South;and unless it were maintained by a line of legions extending its entirelength, they must have laughed at such a defence; even when duplicatedlater, as it was, by the Emperor Hadrian, in 120 A. D. ; and still twiceagain, first by Emperor Antoninus, and then by Severus. For the swifttransportation of troops in the defensive warfare always carried onwith the Picts and Scots, magnificent roads were built, which linkedthe Romanized cities together in a network of splendid highways. 

There were more than three centuries of peace. Agriculture, commerce, and industries came into existence. "Wealth accumulated, " but theBriton "decayed" beneath the weight of a splendid system, which had notbenefited, but had simply crushed out of him his original vigor. Together with Roman villas, and vice, and luxury, had also comeChristianity. But the Briton, if he had learned to pray, had forgottenhow to fight, --and how to govern; and now the Roman Empire wasperishing. She needed all her legions to keep Alaric and his Goths outof Rome. 

[Sidenote: Roman Legions Withdrawn, 410 A. D. ]

In 410 A. D. The fair cities and roads were deserted. The tramp of Romansoldiers was heard no more in the land, and the enfeebled native racewere left helpless and alone to fight their battles with the Picts andScots;--that fierce Briton offshoot which had for centuries dwelt inthe fastnesses of the Highlands, and which swarmed down upon them likevultures as soon as their protectors were gone. 

In 446 A. D. The unhappy Britons invited their fate. Like their cousins, the Gauls, they invited the Teutons from across the sea to come totheir rescue, and with result far more disastrous. 

When the Frank became the champion and conqueror of Gaul, he had forcenturies been in conflict or in contact with Rome, and had learnedmuch of the old Southern civilizations, and to some extent adoptedtheir ideals. Not so the Angles and Saxons, who came pouring intoBritain from Schleswig-Holstein. They were uncontaminated pagans. Inscorn of Roman luxury, they set the torch to the villas, and templesand baths. They came, exterminating, not assimilating. The morecomplaisant Frank had taken Romanized, Latinized Gaul just as he foundher, and had even speedily adopted her religion. It was for Gaul achange of rulers, but not of civilization. 

But the Angles and Saxons were Teutons of a different sort. Theybrought across the sea in those "keels" their religion, their manners, habits, nature, and speech; and they brought them for _use_ (just asthe Englishman to-day carries with him a little England wherever hegoes). Their religion, habits, and manners they stamped upon thehelpless Britons. In spite of King Arthur, and his knights, and hissword "Excalibar, " they swiftly paganized the land which had been forthree centuries Christianized; and their nature and speech were soground into the land of their adoption that they exist to-day whereverthe Anglo-Saxon abides. 

From Windsor Palace to the humblest abode in England (and in America)are to be found the descendants of these dominating barbarians whoflooded the British Isles in the 5th Century. What sort of a race werethey? Would we understand England to-day, we must understand them. Itis not sufficient to know that they were bearded and stalwart, fair andruddy, flaxen-haired and with cold blue eyes. We should know what sortof souls looked out of those clear cold eyes. What sort of impulses andhearts dwelt within those brawny breasts. 

Their hearts were barbarous, but loving and loyal, and nature hadplaced them in strong, vehement, ravenous bodies. They were untamedbrutes, with noble instincts. 

They had ideals too; and these are revealed in the rude songs and epicsin which they delighted. Monstrous barbarities are committed, butalways to accomplish some stern purpose of duty. They are cruel inorder to be just. This sluggish, ravenous, drinking brute, with nogleam of poetry, no light-hearted rhythm in his soul, has yet chaoticglimpses of the sublime in his earnest, gloomy nature. He gives littlepromise of culture, but much of heroism. There is, too, a reachingafter something grand and invisible, which is a deep religiousinstinct. All these qualities had the future English nation slumberingwithin them. Marriage was sacred, woman honored. All the members of afamily were responsible for the acts of one member. The sense ofobligation and of responsibility was strong and binding. 

Is not every type of English manhood explained by such an inheritance?From the drunken brawler in his hovel to the English gentleman "takinghis pleasures sadly, " all are accounted for; and Hampden, Milton, Cromwell, John Bright, and Gladstone existed potentially in thosefighting, drinking savages in the 5th Century. 

Their religion, after 150 years, was exchanged for Christianity. Timesoftened their manners and habits, and mingled new elements with theirspeech. But the Anglo-Saxon _nature_ has defied the centuries andchange. _A strong sense of justice_, and a _resolute resistanceto encroachments upon personal liberty_, are the warp and woof ofAnglo-Saxon character yesterday, to-day and forever. The steadyinsistence of these traits has been making English History forprecisely 1, 400 years, (from 495 to 1895, ) and the history of theAnglo-Saxon race in America for 200 years as well. 

Our ancestors brought with them from their native land a simple, just, Teutonic structure of society and government, the base of which was the_individual free-man_. The family was considered the social unit. Several families near together made a township, the affairs of thetownship being settled by the male freeholders, who met together todetermine by conference what should be done. 

This was the germ of the "town-meeting" and of popular government. Inthe "witan, " or "wise men, " who were chosen as advisers and adjustersof difficult questions, exist the future legislature and judiciary, while in the king, or "alder-mann" ("Ealdorman") we see not anoppressor, but one who by superior age and experience is fitted tolead. Cerdic, first Saxon king, was simply Cerdic the "Ealdorman" or"Alder-mann. "

They were a free people from the beginning. They had never bowed theneck to yoke, their heads had never bent to tyranny. Better far was itthat Roman civilization, built upon Keltic-Briton foundation, shouldhave been effaced utterly, and that this strong untamed humanity, evencruel and terrible as it was, should replace it. Roman laws, language, literature, faith, manners, were all swept away. A few mosaics, coins, and ruined fragments of walls and roads are all the record that remainsof 300 years of occupation. 

And the Briton himself--what became of him? In Ireland and Scotland helingers still; but, except in Wales and Cornwall, England knows him nomore. Like the American Indian, he was swept into the remote, inaccessible corners of his own land. It seemed cruel, but it had tobe. Would we build strong and high, it must not be upon _sand_. Wedistrust the Kelt as a foundation for nations as we do sand for ourtemples. France was never cohesive until a mixture of Teuton hadtoughened it. Genius makes a splendid spire, but a poor corner-stone. It would seem that the Keltic race, brilliant and richly endowed, wasstill unsuited to the world in its higher stages of development. InBritain, Gaul, and Spain they were displaced and absorbed by theGermanic races. And now for long centuries no Keltic people ofimportance has maintained its independence; the Gaelic of the ScotchHighlands and of Ireland, the native dialect of the Welsh and ofBrittany, being the scanty remains of that great family of relatedtongues which once occupied more territory than German, Latin, andGreek combined. The solution of the Irish question may lie in the factthat the Irish are fighting against the inevitable; that they belong toa race which is on its way to extinction, and which is intended tosurvive only as a brilliant thread, wrought into the texture of morecommonplace but more enduring peoples. 

It was written in the book of fate that a great nation should ariseupon that green island by the North Sea. A foundation of Roman cement, made by a mingling of Keltic-Briton, and a corrupt, decayedcivilization, would have altered not alone the fate of a nation, butthe History of the World. Our barbarian ancestors brought fromSchleswig-Holstein a rough, clean, strong foundation for what was tobecome a new type of humanity on the face of the earth. A Humanitywhich was not to be Persian nor Greek, nor yet Roman, but to benourished on the best results of all, and to become the standard-bearerfor the Civilization of the future. 

[Sidenote: Teutonic Invasion, 449 A. D. ]

The Jutes came first as an advance-guard of the great Teuton invasion. It was but the prologue to the play when Hengist and Horsa, in 449A. D. , occupied what is now Kent, in the Southeast extremity of England. It was only when Cerdic and his Saxons placed foot on British soil(495A. D. ) that the real drama began. And when the Angles shortly afterwardfollowed and occupied all that the Saxons had not appropriated (thenorth and east coast), the actors were all present and the play began. The Angles were destined to bestow their name upon the land (Angle-land), and the Saxons a line of kings extending from Cerdic toVictoria. 

[Sidenote: English Kingdoms Consolidated. ]

Covetous of each other's possessions, these Teutons fought as brotherswill. Exterminating the Britons was diversified with efforts toexterminate one another. Seven kingdoms, four Anglian and three Saxon, for 300 years tried to annihilate each other; then, finally submittingto the strongest, united completely, --as only children of one householdof nations can do. The Saxons had been for two centuries dominatingmore and more until the long struggle ended--behold, Anglo-SaxonEngland consolidated English under one Saxon king! The other kingdoms--Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Kent, Sussex, and Essex--surviving asshires and counties. 

In 802 A. D. , while Charlemagne was welding together his vast andcomposite empire, the Saxon Egbert (Ecgberht), descendant of Cerdic(the "Alder-mann"), was consolidating a less imposing, but, as it hasproved, more permanent kingdom; and the History of a United England hadbegun. 

While Christianity had been effaced by the Teuton invasion in England, it had survived among the Irish-Britons. Ireland was never paganized. With fiery zeal, her people not alone maintained the religion of theCross at home, but even drove back the heathen flood by sendingmissionaries among the Picts in the Highlands, and into other outlyingterritory about the North Sea. 

Pope Gregory the Great saw this Keltic branch of Christendom, actuallyoutrunning Latin Christianity in activity, and he was spurred to an actwhich was to be fraught with tremendous consequences. 

CHAPTER II. 

[Sidenote: Augustine Came, 597. ]

The same spot in Kent (the isle of Thanet), which had witnessed thelanding of Hengist and Horsa in 449, saw in 597 a band of men, callingthemselves "Strangers from Rome, " arriving under the leadership ofAugustine. 

They moved in solemn procession toward Canterbury, bearing before thema silver cross, with a picture of Christ, chanting in concert, as theywent, the litany of their Church. Christianity had entered by the same, door through which paganism had come 150 years before. 

The religion of Wodin and Thor had ceased to satisfy the expanding soulof the Anglo-Saxon; and the new faith rapidly spread; its charmconsisting in the light it seemed to throw upon the darknessencompassing man's past and future. 

An aged chief said to Edwin, king of Northumbria, (after whom "Edwins-borough" was named, ) "Oh, King, as a bird flies through this hall on awinter night, coming out of the darkness, and vanishing into thedarkness again, even so is our life! If these strangers can tell usaught of what is beyond, let us hear them. "

King Edwin was among the first to espouse the new religion, and in lessthan one hundred years the entire land was Christianized. 

With the adoption of Christianity a new life began to course in theveins of the people. 

[Sidenote: Caedmon Father of English Poetry. ]

Caedmon, an unlettered Northumbrian peasant, was inspired by an Angelwho came to him in his sleep and told him to "Sing. " "He was notdisobedient unto the heavenly vision. " He wrote epics upon all thesacred themes, from the creation of the World to the Ascension ofChrist and the final judgment of man, and English literature was born. 

"Paradise Lost, " one thousand years later, was but the echo of thispoet-peasant, who was the Milton of the 7th Century. 

In the 8th Century, Baeda (the venerable Beda), another Northumbrian, who was monk, scholar, and writer, wrote the first History of hispeople and his country, and discoursed upon astronomy, physics, meteorology, medicine, and philosophy. These were but the earlylispings of Science; but they held the germs of the "BritishAssociation" and of the "Royal Society;" for as English poetry has itsroots in Caedmon, so is English intellectual life rooted in Baeda. 

The culmination of this new era was in Alfred, who came to the throneof his grandfather, Egbert, in 871. 

He brought the highest ideals of the duties of a King, a broad, statesmanlike grasp of conditions, an unsullied heart, and a clear, strong intelligence, with unusual inclination toward an intellectuallife. 

Few Kings have better deserved the title of "great. " With him began thefirst conception of National law. He prepared a code for theadministration of justice in his Kingdom, which was prefaced by the TenCommandments, and ended with the Golden Rule; while in his leisurehours he gave coherence and form to the literature of the time. Taking the writings of Caedmon, Baeda, Pope Gregory, and Boethius;translating, editing, commentating, and adding his own to the views ofothers upon a wide range of subjects. 

He was indeed the father not alone of a legal system in England, but ofher culture and literature besides. The people of Wantage, his nativetown, did well, in 1849, to celebrate the one-thousandth anniversary ofthe birth of the great King Alfred. 

But a condition of decadence was in progress in England, which Alfred'swise reign was powerless to arrest, and which his greatness may evenhave tended to hasten. The distance between the king and the people hadwidened from a mere step to a gulf. When the Saxon kings began to beclothed with a mysterious dignity as "the Lord's anointed, " the peoplewere correspondingly degraded; and the degradation of this class, inwhich the true strength of England consisted, bore unhappy but naturalfruits. 

A slave or "unfree" class had come with the Teutons from their nativeland. This small element had for centuries now been swelled by captivestaken in war, and by accessions through misery, poverty, and debt, which drove men to sell themselves and families and wear the collar ofservitude. The slave was not under the lash; but he was a mere chattel, having no more part than cattle (from whom this title is derived) inthe real life of the state. 

In addition to this, political and social changes had been longmodifying the structure of society in a way tending to degrade thegeneral condition. As the lesser Kingdoms were merged into one largeone, the wider dominion of the king removed him further from thepeople; every succeeding reign raising him higher, depressing themlower, until the old English freedom was lost. 

The "folk-moot" and "Witenagemot" [Footnote: Witenagemot--a Councilcomposed of "Witan" or "Wise Men. "] were heard of no more. The life ofthe early English State had been in its "folk-moot, " and hence restedupon the individual English freeman, who knew no superior but God, andthe law. Now, he had sunk into the mere "villein, " bound to follow hislord to the field, to give him his personal service, and to look to himalone for justice. With the decline of the freeman (or of populargovernment) came Anglo-Saxon degeneracy, which made him an easy prey tothe Danes. 

The Northmen were a perpetual menace and scourge to England andScotland. There never could be any feeling of permanent security whilethat hostile flood was always ready to press in through an unguardedspot on the coast. The sea wolves and robbers from Norway camedevouring, pillaging, and ravaging, and then away again to their ownhomes or lairs. Their boast was that they "scorned to earn by sweatwhat they might win by blood. " But the Northmen from Denmark were of adifferent sort. They were looking for permanent conquest, and haddreams of Empire, and, in fact, had had more or less of a grasp uponEnglish soil for centuries before Alfred; and one of his greatestachievements was driving these hated invaders out of England. In 1013, under the leadership or Sweyn, they once more poured in upon the land, and after a brief but fierce struggle a degenerate England was gatheredinto the iron hand of the Dane. 

[Sidenote: Danish Kings, 1013 to 1042]

Canute, the son of Sweyn, continued the successes of his father, conquering in Scotland Duncan (of Shakespeare's "Macbeth"), andproceeded to realize his dream of a great Scandinavian empire, whichshould include Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and England. He was one ofthose monumental men who mark the periods in the pages of History, andyet child enough to command the tides to cease, and when disobeyed, wasso humiliated he never again placed a crown upon his head, acknowledging the presence of a King greater than himself. 

Conqueror though he was, the Dane was not exactly a foreigner inEngland. The languages of the two nations were almost the same, and arace affinity took away much of the bitterness of the subjugation, while Canute ruled more as a wise native King than as a Conqueror. 

But the span of life, even of a founder of Empire, is short. Canute'ssons were degenerate, cruel, and in forty years after the Conquest hadso exasperated the Anglo-Saxons that enough of the primitive spiritreturned, to throw off the foreign yoke, and the old Saxon line wasrestored in Edward, known as "the Confessor. "

[Sidenote: Edward the Confessor, 1042 to 1066]

Edward had qualities more fitted to adorn the cloister than the throne. He was more of a Saint than King, and was glad to leave the affairs ofhis realm in the hands of Earl Godwin. This man was the first greatEnglish statesman who had been neither Priest nor King. Astute, powerful, dexterous, he was virtual ruler of the Kingdom until KingEdward's death in 1066, when, in the absence of an heir, Godwin's sonHarold was called to the empty throne. 

Foreign royal alliances have caused no end of trouble in the life ofKingdoms. A marriage between a Saxon King and a Norman Princess, inabout the year 1000 A. D. , has made a vast deal of history. ThisPrincess of Normandy, was the grandmother of the man, who was to beknown as "William the Conqueror. " In the absence of a direct heir tothe English throne, made vacant by Edward's death, this descent gave ashadowy claim to the ambitious Duke across the Channel, which he wasnot slow to use for his own purposes. 

He asserted that Edward had promised that he should succeed him, andthat Harold, the son of Godwin, had assured him of his assistance insecuring his rights upon the death of Edward the Confessor. Atremendous indignation stirred his righteous soul when he heard of thecrowning of Harold; not so much at the loss of the throne, as at thetreachery of his friend. 

[Sidenote: Norman Conquest, 1066. Death of King Harold. ]

In the face of tremendous opposition and difficulties, he got togetherhis reluctant Barons and a motley host, actually cutting down the treeswith which to create a fleet, and then, depending upon pillage forsubsistence, rushed to face victory or ruin. 

The Battle of Senlac (or Hastings) has been best told by a woman's handin the famous Bayeux Tapestry. An arrow pierced the unhappy Harold inthe eye, entering the brain, and the head which had worn the crown ofEngland ten short months lay in the dust, William, with wrathunappeased, refusing him burial. 

[Sidenote: William I. , King of England, 1066]

William, Duke of Normandy, was King of England. Not alone that. Heclaimed that he had been rightful King ever since the death of hiscousin Edward the Confessor; and that those who had supported Haroldwere traitors, and their lands confiscated to the crown. As nearly allhad been loyal to Harold, the result was that most of the wealth of theNation was emptied into William's lap, not by right of conquest, but byEnglish law. 

Feudalism had been gradually stifling old English freedom, and the Kingsaw himself confronted with a feudal baronage, nobles claiminghereditary, military, and judicial power independent of the King, suchas degraded the Monarchy and riveted down the people in France forcenturies. With the genius of the born ruler and conqueror, Williamdiscerned the danger, and its remedy. Availing himself of the earlylegal constitution of England, he placed justice in the old localcourts of the "hundred" and "shire, " to which every freeman had access, and these courts he placed under the jurisdiction of the _King_alone. In Germany and France the vassal owned supreme fealty to his_lord_, against all foes, even the King himself. In England, thetenant from this time swore direct fealty to none save his King. 

With the unbounded wealth at his disposal, William granted enormousestates to his followers upon condition of military service at hiscall. In other words, he seized the entire landed property of theState, and then used it to buy the allegiance of the people. By thismeans the whole Nation was at his command as an army subject to hiswill; and there was at the same time a breaking up of old feudaltyrannies by a redistribution of the soil under a new form of landtenure. 

The City of London was rewarded for instant submission by a Charter, signed, --not by his name--but his mark, for the Conqueror of England(from whom Victoria is twenty-fifth remove in descent), could not writehis name. 

He built the Tower of London, to hold the City in restraint. Fortress, palace, prison, it stands to-day the grim progenitor of the Castles andStrongholds which soon frowned from every height in England. 

He took the outlawed despised Jew under his protection. Not as aphilanthropist, but seeing in him a being who was always accumulatingwealth, which could in any emergency be wrung from him by torture, ifmilder measures failed. Their hoarded treasure flowed into the land. They built the first stone houses, and domestic architecture wascreated. Jewish gold built Castles and Cathedrals, and awoke theslumbering sense of beauty. Through their connection with the Jews inSpain and the East, knowledge of the physical sciences also streamedinto the land, and an intellectual life was revived, which bore fruit acentury and a half later in Roger Bacon. 

[Sidenote: "Domesday Book. " Meeting at Salisbury Plain. 1036]

All these things were not done in a day. It was twenty years after theConquest that William ordered a survey and valuation of all the land, which was recorded in what was known as "Domesday Book, " that he mightknow the precise financial resources of his kingdom, and what was duehim on the confiscated estates. Then he summoned all the nobles andlarge landholders to meet him at Salisbury Plain, and those shapelessblocks at "Stonehenge" witnessed a strange scene when 60, 000 men theretook solemn oath to support William as King _even against their ownlords_. With this splendid consummation his work was practicallyfinished. He had, with supreme dexterity and wisdom, blended twoCivilizations, had at the right moment curbed the destructive elementin feudalism, and had secured to the Englishman free access to thesurface for all time. Thus the old English freedom was in fact restoredby the Norman Conquest, by _direct_ act of the Conqueror. 

William typified in his person a transitional time, the old Norseworld, mingling strangely in him with the new. He was the last outcomeof his race. Norse daring and cruelty were side by side with gentlenessand aspiration. No human pity tempered his vengeance. When hides werehung on the City Walls at Alencon, in insult to his mother (thedaughter of a tanner), he tore out the eyes, cut off the hands and feetof the prisoners, and threw them over the walls. When he did this, andwhen he refused Harold's body a grave, it was the spirit of the sea-wolves within him. But it was the man of the coming Civilization, whocould not endure death by process of law in his Kingdom, and whodelighted to discourse with the gentle and pious Anselm, upon themysteries of life and death. 

The _indirect_ benefits of the Conquest, came in enriching streamsfrom the older civilizations. As Rome had been heir to theaccumulations of experience in the ancient Nations, so England, throughFrance became the heir to Latin institutions, and was joined to thegreat continuous stream of the World's highest development. Freshintellectual stimulus renovated the Church. Roman law was planted uponthe simple Teuton system of rights. Every department in State and inSociety shared the advance, while language became refined, flexible, and enriched. 

This engrafting with the results of antiquity, was an enormous savingof time, in the development of a nation; but it did not change theessential character of the Anglo-Saxon, nor of his speech. The ravenousTeuton could devour and assimilate all these new elements and behimself--be Saxon still. The language of Bunyan and of the Bible, isSaxon; and it is the language of the Englishman to-day in childhood andin extremity. A man who is thoroughly in earnest--who is drowning--speaks Saxon. Character, as much as speech, remains unaltered. There isno trace of the Norman in the House of Commons, nor in the meetings atExeter Hall, nor in the home, nor life of the people anywhere. 

The qualities which have made England great were brought across theNorth Sea in those "keels" in the 5th Century. The Anglo-Saxon put onthe new civilization and institutions brought him by the Conquest, ashe would an embroidered garment; but the man within the garment, thoughmodified by civilization, has never essentially changed. 

CHAPTER III. 

It is not in the exploits of its Kings but in the aspirations andstruggles of its people, that the true history of a nation is to besought. During the rule and misrule of the two sons, and grandson, ofthe Conqueror, England was steadily growing toward its ultimate form. 

As Society outgrew the simple ties of blood which bound it together inold Saxon England, the people had sought a larger protection incombinations among fellow freemen, based upon identity of occupation. 

[Sidenote: The "Gilds. "]

The "Frith-Gilds, " or peace Clubs, came into existence in Europe duringthe 9th and 10th Centuries. They were harshly repressed in Germany andGaul, but found kindly welcome from Alfred in England. In their mutualresponsibility, in their motto, "if any misdo, let all bear it, " Alfredsaw simply an enlarged conception of the "_family_, " which was thebasis of the Saxon social structure; and the adoption of this idea of alarger unity, in _combination_, was one of the first phases of anexpanding national life. So, after the conquest, while ambitious kingswere absorbing French and Irish territory or fighting with recalcitrantbarons, the _merchant, craft_, and _church_ "_gilds_"were creating a great popular force, which was to accomplish moreenduring conquests. 

It was in the "boroughs" and in these "gilds" that the true life of thenation consisted. It was the shopkeepers and artisans which brought theright of free speech, and free meeting, and of equal justice across theages of tyranny. One freedom after another was being won, and thebattle with oppression was being fought, not by Knights and Barons, butby the sturdy burghers and craftsmen. Silently as the coral insect, theAnglo-Saxon was building an indestructible foundation for Englishliberties. 

[Sidenote: William II. , 1017-1100. The Crusades Commenced, 1095. HenryI. , 1100-1135]

The Conqueror had bequeathed England to his second son, William Rufus, and Normandy to his eldest son, Robert. In 1095 (eight years afterhis death) commenced those extraordinary wars carried on by thechivalry of Europe against the Saracens in the East. Robert, in orderto raise money to join the first crusade, mortgaged Normandy to hisbrother, and an absorption of Western France had begun, which, by meansof conquest by arms and the more peaceful conquest by marriage, wouldin fifty years extend English dominion from the Scottish border to thePyrenees. 

William's son Henry (I. ), who succeeded his older brother, WilliamRufus, inherited enough of his father's administrative genius tocomplete the details of government which he had outlined. He organizedthe beginning of a judicial system, creating out of his secretaries andRoyal Ministers a Supreme Court, whose head bore the title ofChancellor. He created also another tribunal, which represented thebody of royal vassals who had all hitherto been summoned together threetimes a year. This "King's Court, " as it was called, consideredeverything relating to the revenues of the state. Its meetings wereabout a table with a top like a chessboard, which led to calling themembers who sat, "Barons of the Exchequer. " He also wisely created aclass of lesser nobles, upon whom the old barons looked down withscorn, but who served as a counterbalancing force against the arroganceof an old nobility, and bridged the distance between them and thepeople. 

So, while the thirty-five years of Henry's reign advanced and developedthe purposes of his father, his marriage with a Saxon Princess did muchto efface the memory of foreign conquest, in restoring the old Saxonblood to the royal line. But the young Prince who embodied this hope, went down with 140 young nobles in the "White Ship, " while returningfrom Normandy. It is said that his father never smiled again, and uponhis death, his nephew Stephen was king during twenty unfruitful years. 

But the succession returned through Matilda, daughter of Henry I andthe Saxon princess. She married Geoffrey, Count of Anjou. ThisGeoffrey, called "the handsome, " always wore in his helmet a sprig ofthe broom-plant of Anjou (_Planta genista_), hence their son, Henry II. Of England, was known as Henry _Plante-à-genêt_. 

[Sidenote: Henry II. , 1154-1189. House of Plantagenet, 1154-1399. Thomas à Becket's Death 1170. ]

This first Plantagenet was a strong, coarse-fibred man; a practicalreformer, without sentiment, but really having good governmentprofoundly at heart. 

He took the reins into his great, rough hands with a determinationfirst of all to curb the growing power of the clergy, by bringing itunder the jurisdiction of the civil courts. To this end he created hisfriend and chancellor, Thomas à Becket, a primate of the Church to aidthe accomplishment of his purpose. But from the moment Becket becameArchbishop of Canterbury, he was transformed into the defender of theorganization he was intended to subdue. Henry was furious when he foundhimself resisted and confronted by the very man he had created as aninstrument of his will. These were years of conflict. At last, in amoment of exasperation, the king exclaimed, "Is there none brave enoughto rid me of this low-born priest!" This was construed into a command. Four knights sped swiftly to Canterbury Cathedral, and murdered theArchbishop at the altar. Henry was stricken with remorse, and causedhimself to be beaten with rods like the vilest criminal, kneeling uponthe spot stained with the blood of his friend. It was a brutal murder, which caused a thrill of horror throughout Christendom. Becket wascanonized; miracles were performed at his tomb, and for hundreds ofyears a stream of bruised humanity flowed into Canterbury, seekingsurcease of sorrow, and cure for sickness and disease, by contact withthe bones of the murdered saint. 

But Henry had accomplished his end. The clergy was under thejurisdiction of the King's Court during his reign. He also continuedthe judicial reorganization commenced by Henry I. He divided thekingdom into judicial districts. This completely effaced the legaljurisdiction of the nobles. The Circuits thus defined correspondroughly with those existing to-day; and from the Court of Appeals, which was also his creation, came into existence tribunal aftertribunal in the future, including the "Star Chamber" and "PrivyCouncil. "

But of all the blows aimed at the barons none told more effectuallythan the restoration of a national militia, which freed the crown fromdependence upon feudal retainers for military service. 

In a fierce quarrel between two Irish chieftains, Henry was called uponto interfere; and when the quarrel was adjusted, Ireland found herselfannexed to the English crown, and ruled by a viceroy appointed by theking. The drama of the Saxons defending the Britons from the Picts andScots, was repeated. 

This first Plantagenet, with fiery face, bull-neck, bowed legs, keen, rough, obstinate, passionate, left England greater and freer, and yetwith more of a personal despotism than he had found her. The troublewith such triumphs is that they presuppose the wisdom and goodness ofsucceeding tyrants. 

Henry's heart broke when he learned that his favorite son, John, wasconspiring against him. He turned his face to the wall and died (1189), the practical hard-headed old king leaving his throne to a romanticdreamer, who could not even speak the language of his country. 

Richard (Coeur de Lion) was a hero of romance, but not of history. Thepractical concerns of his kingdom had no charm for him. His eye wasfixed upon Jerusalem, not England, and he spent almost the entire tenyears of his reign in the Holy Land. 

The Crusades, had fired the old spirit of Norse adventure left by theDanes, and England shared the general madness of the time. As a resultfor the treasure spent and blood spilled in Palestine, she received afew architectural devices and the science of Heraldry. But to Europe, the benefits were incalculable. The barons were impoverished, theirgreat estates mortgaged to thrifty burghers, who extorted from theirpoverty charters of freedom, which unlocked the fetters and broke thespell of the dark ages. 

Richard the Lion-Hearted died as he had lived, not as a king, but as aromantic adventurer. He was shot by an arrow while trying to securefabulous hidden treasure in France, with which to continue his wars inPalestine. 

[Sidenote: John, 1199-1216. Prince Arthur's Murder, 1203]

His brother John, in 1199, ascended the throne. His name has come downas a type of baseness, cruelty, and treachery. His brother Geoffrey hadmarried Constance of Brittany, and their son Arthur, named after theKeltic hero, had been urged as a rival claimant for the English throne. Shakespeare has not exaggerated the cruel fate of this boy, whosemonstrous uncle really purposed having his eyes burnt out, being surethat if he were blind he would no longer be eligible for king. Butdeath is surer even than blindness, and Hubert, his merciful protectorfrom one fate, was powerless to avert the other. Some one was foundwith "heart as hard as hammered iron, " who put an end to the young life(1203) at the Castle of Rouen. 

But the King of England, was vassal to the King of France, and Philipsummoned John to account to him for this deed. When John refused toappear, the French provinces were torn from him. In 1204 he saw anEmpire stretching from the English Channel to the Pyrenees vanish fromhis grasp, and was at one blow reduced to the realm of England. 

When we see on the map, England as she was in that day, sprawling inunwieldy fashion over the western half of France, we realize how muchstronger she has been on "that snug little island, that right little, tight little island, " and we can see that John's wickedness helped herto be invincible. 

The destinies of England in fact rested with her worst king. Histyranny, brutality, and disregard of his subjects' rights, induced acrisis which laid the corner-stone of England's future, and buttressedher liberties for all time. 

[Sidenote: Magna Charta, 1215]

At a similar crisis in France, two centuries later, the king (CharlesVII. ) made common cause with the people against the barons or dukes. InEngland, in the 13th Century, the barons and people were drawn togetheragainst the King. They framed a Charter, its provisions securingprotection and justice to every freeman in England. On Easter Day, 1215, the barons, attended by two thousand armed knights, met the Kingnear Oxford, and demanded his signature to the paper. John was awed, and asked them to name a day and place. "Let the day be the 15th ofJune, and the place Runnymede, " was the reply. 

A brown, shrivelled piece of parchment in the British Museum to-day, attests to the keeping of this appointment. That old Oak at Runnymede, under whose spreading branches the name of John was affixed to theMagna Charta, was for centuries held the most sacred spot in England. 

It is an impressive picture we get of John, "the Lord's Anointed, " whenthis scene was over, in a burst of rage rolling on the floor, bitingstraw, and gnawing a stick! "They have placed twenty-five kings overme, " he shouted in a fury; meaning the twenty-five barons who wereentrusted with the duty of seeing that the provisions of the Charterwere fulfilled. 

Whether his death, one year later (1216), was the result of vexation ofspirit or surfeit of peaches and cider, or poison, history does notpositively say. But England shed no tears for the King to whom she owesher liberties in the Magna Charta. 

CHAPTER IV. 

[Sidenote: Henry III. , 1216-1272]

For the succeeding 56 years John's son, Henry III. , was King ofEngland. While this vain, irresolute, ostentatious king was extortingmoney for his ambitious designs and extravagant pleasures, andstruggling to get back the pledges given in the Great Charter, new andhigher forces, to which he gave no heed, were at work in his kingdom. 

Paris at this time was the centre of a great intellectual revival, brought about by the Crusades. We have seen that through the despisedJew, at the time of the Conquest, a higher civilization was broughtinto England. Along with his hoarded gold came knowledge and culture, which he had obtained from the Saracen. Now, these germs had beenrevived by direct contact with the sources of ancient knowledge in theEast during the Crusades; and while the long mental torpor of Europewas rolling away like mist before the rising sun, England felt thewarmth of the same quickening rays, and Oxford took on a new life. 

[Sidenote: Oxford in the Thirteenth Century. ]

It was not the stately Oxford of to-day, but a rabble of roystering, revelling youths, English, Welsh, and Scotch, who fiercely fought outtheir fathers' feuds. 

They were a turbulent mob, who gave advance opinion, as it were, uponevery ecclesiastical or political measure, by fighting it out on thestreets of their town, so that an outbreak at Oxford became a sort ofprelude to every great political movement. 

Impossible as it seems, intellectual life grew and expanded in thistumultuous atmosphere; and while the democratic spirit of theUniversity threatened the king, its spirit of free intellectual inquiryshook the Church. 

The revival of classical learning, bringing streams of thought from oldGreek and Latin fountains, caused a sudden expansion. It was like thediscovery of an unsuspected and greater world, with a body of newtruth, which threw the old into contemptuous disuse. A spirit of doubt, scepticism, and denial, was engendered. They comprehended now whyAbelard had claimed the "supremacy of reason over faith, " and whyItalian poets smiled at dreams of "immortality. " Then, too, the newculture compelled respect for infidel and for Jew. Was it not fromtheir impious hands, that this new knowledge of the physical universehad been received?

[Sidenote: Roger Bacon Writes Opus Majus. ]

Roger Bacon drank deeply from these fountains, new and old, andstruggled like a giant to illumine the darkness of his time, bysystematizing all existing knowledge. His "Opus Majus" was intended tobring these riches to the unlearned. But he died uncomprehended, and itwas reserved for later ages to give recognition to his stupendous work, wrought in the twilight out of dimly comprehended truth. 

Pursued by the dream of recovering the French Empire, lost by hisfather, and of retracting the promises given in the Charter, Henry III. Spent his entire reign in conflict with the barons and the people, whowere closely drawn together by the common danger and rallied to thedefence of their liberties under the leadership of Simon de Montfort. 

[Sidenote: Beginnings of House of Commons, 1265. First true Parliament, 1295. Edward I. , 1272-1307]

It was at the town of Oxford that the great council of barons andbishops held its meetings. This council, which had long been called"Parliament" (from _parler_), in the year 1265 became for thefirst time a representative body, when Simon de Montfort summoned notalone the lords and bishops--but two citizens from every city, and twoburghers from every borough. A Rubicon was passed when the merchant, and the shopkeeper, sat for the first time with the noble and thebishops in the great council. It was thirty years before the change wasfully effected, it being in the year 1295 (just 600 years ago now) thatthe first true Parliament met. But the "House of Lords" and the germ ofthe "House of Commons, " existed in this assembly at Oxford in 1265, anda government "of the people, for the people, by the people, " hadcommenced. 

Edward I. , the son and successor of Henry III. , not only graciouslyconfirmed the Great Charter, but added to its privileges. His expulsionof the Jews, is the one dark blot on his reign. 

[Sidenote: North Wales Conquered, 1213. Conquest of Scotland, 1296. ]

He conquered North Wales, the stronghold where those Keltic Britons, the Welsh, had always maintained a separate existence; and as arecompense for their wounded feelings bestowed upon the heir to thethrone, the title "_Prince of Wales_. "

Westminster Abbey was completed at this time and began to be theresting-place for England's illustrious dead. The invention ofgunpowder, which was to make iron-clad knights a romantic tradition, also belongs to this period, which saw too, the conquest of Scotland;and the magic stone supposed to have been Jacob's pillow at Bethel, andwhich was the Scottish talisman, was carried to Westminster Abbey andbuilt into a coronation-chair, which has been used at the crowning ofevery English sovereign since that time. 

Scottish liberties were not so sacrificed by this conquest as had beenthe Irish. The Scots would not be slaves, nor would they stay conqueredwithout many a struggle. 

[Sidenote: Robert Bruce, Bannockburn, 1314. Edward II. , King 1307-1327. Edward III. , 1327-1377. ]

Robert Bruce led a great rebellion, which extended into the succeedingreign, and Bruce's name was covered with glory by his great victory atBannockburn (1314). 

We need not linger over the twenty years during which Edward II. , byhis private infamies, so exasperated his wife and son that they broughtabout his deposition, which was followed soon after by his murder; andthen by a disgraceful regency, during which the Queen's favorite, Mortimer, was virtually king. But King Edward III. Commenced to rulewith a strong hand. As soon as he was eighteen years old he summonedthe Parliament. Mortimer was hanged at Tyburn, and his queen-mother wasimmured for life. 

We have turned our backs upon Old England. The England of arepresentative Parliament and a House of Commons, of ideals derivedfrom a wider knowledge, the England of a Westminster Abbey, andgunpowder, and cloth-weaving, is the England we all know to-day. Vicious kings and greed of territory, and lust of power, will keep theroad from being a smooth one. But it leads direct to the England ofVictoria; and 1895 was roughly outlined in 1327, when Edward III. Grasped the helm with the decision of a master. 

[Sidenote: Battle of Crecy, 1346]

After completing the subjection of Scotland he invaded France, --thepretext of resisting her designs upon the Netherlands, being merely acover for his own thirst for territory and conquest. The victory overthe French at Crecy, 1346, (and later of Poitiers, ) covered the warlikeking and his son, Edward the "Black Prince, " with imperishable renown. Small cannon were first used at that battle. The knights and thearchers laughed at the little toy, but found it useful in frighteningthe enemies' horses. 

Edward III. Covered England with a mantle of military glory, for whichshe had to pay dearly later. He elevated the kingship to a moredazzling height, for which there have also been some expensivereckonings since. He introduced a new and higher dignity into nobilityby the title of Duke, which he bestowed upon his sons; the greatlandholders or barons, having until that time constituted a body inwhich all were peers. He has been the idol of heroic England. But heawoke the dream of French conquest, and bequeathed to his successors afatal war, which lasted for 100 years. 

The "Black Prince" died, and the "Black Death, " a fearful pestilence, desolated a land already decimated by protracted wars. The valiant oldKing, after a life of brilliant triumphs, carried a sad and brokenheart to the grave, and Richard II. , son of the heroic Prince Edward, was king. 

[Sidenote: Richard II. , 1377-1399. Wat Tyler's Rebellion 1381. ]

This last of the Plantagenets had need of great strength and wisdom tocope with the forces stirring at that time in his kingdom, and wassingularly deficient in both. The costly conquests of his grandfather, were a troublesome legacy to his feeble grandson. Enormous taxesunjustly levied to pay for past glories, do not improve the temper of apeople. A shifting of the burden from one class to another arrayed allin antagonisms against each other, and finally, when the burden fellupon the lowest order, as it is apt to do, they rose in fiercerebellion under the leadership of Wat Tyler, a blacksmith (1381). 

Concessions were granted and quiet restored, but the people had learneda new way of throwing off injustice. There began to be a new sentimentin the air. Men were asking why the few should dress in velvet and themany in rags. It was the first revolt against the tyranny of wealth, when people were heard on the streets singing the couplet

 "When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"

As in the times of the early Saxon kings, the cause breedingdestruction was the widening distance between the king and the people. In those earlier times the people unresistingly lapsed into decadence, but the Anglo-Saxon had learned much since then, and it was not so safeto degrade him and trample on his rights. 

[Sidenote: John Wickliffe, 1324-1384. ]

Then, too, John Wickliffe had been telling some very plain truths tothe people about the Church of Rome, and there was developing asentiment which made Pope and Clergy tremble. There was a spirit ofinquiry, having its centre at Oxford, looking into the title-deeds ofthe great ecclesiastical despotism. Wickliffe heretically claimed thatthe Bible was the one ground of faith, and he added to his heresy bytranslating that Book into simple Saxon English, that men might learnfor themselves what was Christ's message to man. 

Luther's protest in the 16th Century was but the echo of Wickliffe's inthe 14th, --against the tyranny of a Church from which all spirituallife had departed, and which in its decay tightened its grasp upon thevery things which its founder put "behind Him" in the temptation on themountain, and aimed at becoming a temporal despotism. 

Closely intermingled with these struggles was going on another, unobserved at the time. Three languages held sway in England--Latin inthe Church, French in polite society, and English among the people. Chaucer's genius selected the language of the people for itsexpression, as also of course, did Wickliffe in his translation of theBible. French and Latin were dethroned, and the "King's English" becamethe language of the literature and speech of the English nation. 

[Sidenote: 1399 Deposition of Richard II. House of Plantagenet ends 1399. ]

He would have been a wise and great King who could have comprehendedand controlled all the various forces at work at this time. Richard II. Was neither. This seething, tumbling mass of popular discontents wasbesides only the groundwork for the personal strifes and ambitionswhich raged about the throne. The wretched King, embroiled with everyclass and every party, was pronounced by Parliament unfit to reign, thesame body which deposed him, giving the crown to his cousin Henry ofLancaster (1399), and the reign of the Plantagenets was ended. 

CHAPTER V. 

[Sidenote: House of Lancaster, 1399-1461. Henry IV. , 1399-1413. ]

The new king did not inherit the throne; he was _elected_ to it. He was an arbitrary creation of Parliament. The Duke of Lancaster, Henry's father (John of Gaunt), was only a younger son of Edward III. According to the strict rules of hereditary succession, there were twoothers with claims superior to Henry's. Richard Duke of York, hiscousin, claimed a double descent from the Duke Clarence and also fromthe Duke of York, both sons of Edward III. 

This led later to the dreariest chapter in English history, "the Warsof the Roses. "

It is an indication of the enormous increase in the strength ofParliament, that such an exercise of power, the creating of a king, waspossible. Haughty, arrogant kings bowed submissively to its will. Henrycould not make laws nor impose taxes without first summoning Parliamentand obtaining his subjects' consent. But corrupting influences were atwork which were destined to cheat England out of her liberties for manya year. 

The impoverishment of the country to pay for war and royalextravagances, had awakened a troublesome spirit in the House ofCommons. Cruelty to heretics also, and oppressive enactments werefought and defeated in this body. The King, clergy, and nobles, weredrawing closer together and farther away from the people, and weredevising ways of stifling their will. 

If the King might not resist the will of Parliament, he could fill itwith men who would not resist his; so, by a system of bribery and forcein the boroughs, the House of Commons had injected into it enough ofthe right sort to carry obnoxious measures. This was only one of theways in which the dearly bought liberties were being defeated. 

Henry IV. , the first Lancastrian king, lighted the fires of persecutionin England. The infamous "Statute of Heresy" was passed 1401. Its firstvictim was a priest who was thrown to the flames for denying thedoctrine of transubstantiation. 

Wickliffe had left to the people not a party, but a sentiment. The"Lollards, " as they were called, were not an organization, but rather apervading atmosphere of revolt, which naturally combined with thesocial discontent of the time, and there came to be more of hate thanlove in the movement, which was at its foundation a revolt againstinequality of condition. As in all such movements, much that wasvicious and unwise in time mingled with it, tending to give some excusefor its repression. The discarding of an old faith, unless at oncereplaced by a new one, is a time fraught with many dangers to Societyand State. 

[Sidenote: Henry V. 1413-1422]

Such were some of the forces at work for fourteen brief years whileHenry IV. Wore the coveted crown, and while his son, the roystering"Prince Hal, " in the new character of King (Henry V. ) lived out hisbrief nine years of glory and conquest. 

[Sidenote: Agincourt, 1415]

France, with an insane King, vicious Queen Regent, and torn by thedissensions of ambitious Dukes, had reached her hour of greatestweakness, when Henry V. Swept down upon her with his archers, and brokeher spirit by his splendid victory at Agincourt; then married herPrincess Katharine, and was proclaimed Regent of France. The roughwooing of his French bride, immortalized by Shakespeare, throws aglamour of romance over the time. 

But an all-subduing King cut short Henry's triumphs. He was strickenand died (1422), leaving an infant son nine months old, who bore theweight of the new title, "King of England and France, " while Henry'sbrother, the Duke of Bedford, reigned as Regent. 

[Sidenote: Joan of Arc. Battle of Orleans 1429. ]

Then it was, that by a mysterious inspiration, Joan of Arc, a child anda peasant, led the French army to the besieged City of Orleans, and thecrucial battle was won. 

Charles VII. Was King. The English were driven out of France, and theHundred Years' War ended in defeat (1453). England had lost Aquitaine, which for two hundred years (since Henry II. ) had been hers, and hadnot a foot of ground on Norman soil. 

The long shadow cast by Edward III upon England was deepening. Aruinous war had drained her resources and arrested her liberties; andnow the odium of defeat made the burdens it imposed intolerable. Thetemper of every class was strained to the danger point. The wretchedgovernment was held responsible, followed, as usual, by impeachments, murders, and impotent outbursts of fury. 

[Sidenote: Jack Cade's Insurrection, 1450]

While, owing to social processes long at work, feudalism was in fact aruin, a mere empty shell, it still seemed powerful as ever; just as anoak, long after its roots are dead, will still carry aloft a wavingmass of green leafage. The great Earl of Warwick when he went toParliament was still followed by 600 liveried retainers. But when JackCade led 20, 000 men in rebellion at the close of the French war, theywere not the serfs and villeinage of other times, but farmers andlaborers, who, when they demanded a more economical expenditure ofroyal revenue, freedom at elections, and the removal of restrictions ontheir dress and living, knew their rights, and were not going to givethem up without a struggle. 

But the madness of personal ambition was going to work deeper ruin andmore complete wreck of England's fortunes. We have seen that by theinterposition of Parliament, the House of Lancaster had been placed onthe throne contrary to the tradition which gave the succession to theoldest branch, which Richard, the Duke of York, claimed to represent;his claim strengthened by a double descent from Edward III. Through histwo sons, Lionel and Edward. 

[Sidenote: Wars of the Roses 1455-1485]

For twenty-one years, (1450-1471) these wars of the descendants ofEdward III. Were engaged in the most savage war, for purely selfish andpersonal ends, with not one noble or chivalric element to redeem thedisgraceful exhibition of human nature at its worst. Murders, executions, treacheries, adorn a network of intrigue and villany, whichwas enough to have made the "White" and the "Red Rose" forever hatefulto English eyes. 

The great Earl of Warwick led the White Rose of York to victory, sending the Lancastrian King to the tower, his wife and child fugitivesfrom the Kingdom, and proclaimed Edward, (son of Richard Duke of York, the original claimant, who had been slain in the conflict), King ofEngland. 

[Sidenote: Death of Henry VI. House of York, 1461-1485. ]

Then, with an unscrupulousness worthy of the time and the cause, Warwick opened communication with the fugitive Queen, offering her hisservices, betrothed his daughter to the young Edward, Prince of Wales, took up the red Lancastrian rose from the dust of defeat, --brought thecaptive he had sent to the tower back to his throne--only to see himonce more dragged down again by the Yorkists--and for the last timereturned to captivity; leaving his wife a prisoner and his young sondead at Tewksbury, stabbed by Yorkist lords. Henry VI. Died in theTower, "mysteriously, " as did all the deposed and imprisoned Kings;Warwick was slain in battle, and with Edward IV, the reign of the Houseof York commenced. 

Such in brief is the story of the "_Wars of the Roses_" and of theEarl of Warwick, the "_King Maker_. "

[Sidenote: Edward IV. , 1471-1483. ]

At the close of the Wars of the Roses, feudalism was a ruin. The oakwith its dead roots had been prostrated by the storm. The imposingsystem had wrought its own destruction. Eighty Princes of the bloodroyal had perished, and more than half of the Nobility had died on thefield or the scaffold, or were fugitives in foreign lands. The greatDuke of Exeter, brother-in-law to a King, was seen barefoot beggingbread from door to door. 

By the confiscation of one-fifth of the landed estate of the Kingdom, vast wealth poured into the King's treasury. He had no need now tosummon Parliament to vote him supplies. The clergy, rendered feeble andlifeless from decline in spiritual enthusiasm, and by its blindhostility to the intellectual movement of the time, crept closer to thethrone, while Parliament, with its partially disfranchised House ofCommons, was so rarely summoned that it almost ceased to exist. In themidst of the general wreck, the Kingship towered in solitary greatness. 

Edward IV. Was absolute sovereign. He had no one to fear, unless it washis intriguing brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, who, during thetwenty-three years of Edward's reign, was undoubtedly carefullyplanning the bloodstained steps by which he himself should reach thethrone. 

Acute in intelligence, distorted in form and in character, this Richardwas a monster of iniquity. The hapless boy left heir to the throne uponthe death of Edward IV. , his father, was placed under the guardianshipof his misshapen uncle, who until the majority of the young King, Edward V. , was to reign under the title of Protector. 

[Sidenote: Richard III. , 1483-1485. Death of the Princes in the Tower. ]

How this "Protector" protected his nephews all know. The two boys(Edward V. And Richard, Duke of York) were carried to the Tower. Theworld has been reluctant to believe that they were really smothered, ashas been said; but the finding, nearly two hundred years later, of theskeletons of two children which had been buried or concealed at thefoot of the stairs leading to their place of confinement, seems toconfirm it beyond a doubt. 

[Sidenote: Bosworth Field. House of Tudor, 1485-1603. Henry VII. , 1485-1509. ]

Retribution came swiftly. Two years later Richard fell at the battle ofBosworth Field, and the crown won by numberless crimes, rolled under ahawthorn bush. It was picked up and placed upon a worthier head. 

Henry Tudor, an offshoot of the House of Lancaster, was proclaimed KingHenry VII. , and his marriage with Princess Elizabeth of York (sister ofthe princes murdered in the Tower) forever blended the White and theRed Rose in peaceful union. 

[Sidenote: Printing Introduced into England. ]

During all this time, while Kings came and Kings went, the peopleviewed these changes from afar. But if they had no longer any share inthe government, a great expansion was going on in their inner life. Caxton had set up his printing press, and the "art preservative of allarts, " was bringing streams of new knowledge into thousands of homes. Copernicus had discovered a new Heaven, and Columbus a new Earth. Thesun no longer circled around the Earth, nor was the Earth a flat plain. There was a revival of classic learning at Oxford, and Erasmus, thegreat preacher, was founding schools and preparing the minds of thepeople for the impending change, which was soon to be wrought by thatMonk in Germany, whose soul was at this time beginning to be stirred toits mighty effort at reform. 

CHAPTER VI. 

[Sidenote: Henry VIII. , 1509-1517]

When in the year 1509 a handsome youth of eighteen came to the throne, the hopes of England ran high. His intelligence, his frank, genialmanners, his sympathy with the "new learning, " won all classes. Erasmusin his hopes of purifying the Church, and Sir Thomas More in his"Utopian" dreams for politics and society, felt that a friend had cometo the throne in the young Henry VIII. 

Spain had become great through a union of the rival Kingdoms Castileand Aragon; so a marriage with the Princess Katharine, daughter ofFerdinand and Isabella, had been arranged for the young Prince Henry, who had quietly accepted for his Queen his brother's widow, six yearshis senior. 

France under Francis I. Had risen into a state no less imposing thanSpain, and Henry began to be stirred with an ambition to take part inthe drama of events going on upon the greater stage, across theChannel. The old dream of French conquest returned. Francis I. AndCharles V. Of Germany had commenced their struggle for supremacy inEurope. Henry's ambition was fostered by their vying with each other tosecure his friendship. He was soon launched in a deep game ofdiplomacy, in which three intriguing Sovereigns were striving each tooutwit the others. 

What Henry lacked in experience and craft was supplied by hisChancellor Wolsey, whose private and personal ambition to reach thePapal Chair was dexterously mingled with the royal game. The game wasdazzling and absorbing, but it was unexpectedly interrupted; and thegolden dreams of Erasmus and More, of a slow and orderly development inEngland through an expanding intelligence, were rudely shaken. 

Martin Luther audaciously nailed on the door of the Church atWittenberg a protest against the selling of papal indulgences, and thepent-up hopes, griefs and despair of centuries burst into a storm whichshook Europe to its centre. 

[Sidenote: Reformation, 1517]

Since England had joined in the great game of European politics, shehad advanced from being a third-rate power to the front rank amongnations; so it was with great satisfaction that Catholic Europe heardHenry VIII. Denounce the new Reformation, which had swiftly assumedalarming proportions. 

[Sidenote: Marriage with Anne Boleyn, 1533. ]

But a woman's eyes were to change all this. As Henry looked into thefair face of Anne Boleyn, his conscience began to be stirred over hismarriage with his brother's widow, Katharine. He confided his scruplesto Wolsey, who promised to use his efforts with the Pope to secure adivorce from Katharine. But this lady was niece to Charles V. , thegreat Champion of the Church in its fight with Protestantism. It wouldnever do to alienate him. So the divorce was refused. 

Henry VIII. Was not as flexible and amiable now as the youth ofeighteen had been. He defied the Pope, married Anne (1533), and senthis Minister into disgrace for not serving him more effectually. "Therewas the weight which pulled me down, " said Wolsey of Anne, and deathfrom a broken heart mercifully saved the old man from the scaffold hewould certainly have reached. 

The legion of demons which had been slumbering in the King wereawakened. He would break no law, but he would bend the law to his will. He commanded a trembling Parliament to pass an act sustaining hismarriage with Anne. Another permitting him to name his successor, andthen another--making him _supreme head of the Church in England_. ThePope was forever dethroned in his Kingdom, and Protestantism hadachieved a bloodstained victory. 

[Sidenote: His Supremacy. Henry a Protestant. Anne Boleyn's Death, 1536. ]

Henry alone could judge what was orthodoxy and what heresy; but todisagree with _him_, was death. Traitor and heretic went to thescaffold in the same hurdle; the Catholic who denied the King'ssupremacy riding side by side with the Protestant who deniedtransubstantiation. The Protestantism of this great convert waspolitical, not religious; he despised the doctrines of Lutheranism, andit was dangerous to believe too much and equally dangerous to believetoo little. Heads dropped like leaves in the forest, and in three yearsthe Queen who had overturned England and almost Europe, was herselfcarried to the scaffold (1536). 

It was in truth a "Reign of Terror" by an absolutism standing upon theruin of every rival. The power of the Barons had gone; the Clergy werepanic-stricken, and Parliament was a servant, which arose and bowedhumbly to his vacant throne at mention of his name! A member for whomhe had sent knelt trembling one day before him. "Get my bill passed to-morrow, my little man, " said the King, "or to-morrow, this head ofyours will be off. " The next day the bill passed, and millions ofChurch property was confiscated, to be thrown away in gambling, or toenrich the adherents of the King. 

Thomas Cromwell, who had succeeded to Wolsey's vacant place, was hisefficient instrument. This student of Machiavelli's "Prince, " withoutpassion or hate, pity or regret, marked men for destruction, as awoodman does tall trees, the highest and proudest names in the Kingdombeing set down in his little notebook under the head of either "Heresy"or "Treason. " Sir Thomas More, one of the wisest and best of men, wouldnot say he thought the marriage with Katharine had been unlawful, andpaid his head as the price of his fearless honesty. 

Jane Seymour, whom Henry married the day after Anne Boleyn's execution, died within a year at the birth of a son (Edward VI. ). In 1540 Cromwellarranged another union with the plainest woman in Europe, Anne ofCleves; which proved so distasteful to Henry that he speedily divorcedher, and in resentment at Cromwell's having entrapped him, by aflattering portrait drawn by Holbein, the Minister came under hisdispleasure, which at that time meant death. He was beheaded in 1540, and in that same year occurred the King's marriage with KatharineHoward, who one year later met same fate as Anne Boleyn. 

[Sidenote: Katherine Howard's Death 1541. Death of Henry VIII. , 1547. ]

Katharine Parr, the fifth and last wife, and an ardent Protestant andreformer, also narrowly escaped, and would undoubtedly at last havegone to the block. But Henry, who at fifty-six was infirm and wreckedin health, died in the year 1547, the signing of death-warrants beinghis occupation to the very end. 

Whatever his motive, Henry VIII. Had in making her Protestant, placedEngland firmly in the line of the world's highest progress; and strangeto say, that Kingdom is most indebted to two of her worst Kings. 

[Sidenote: Edward VI 1547-1555. Lady Jane Grey's Death, 1553. ]

The crown passed to the son of Jane Seymour, Edward VI. , a feeble boyof sixteen, and upon his death six years later (1553), by the King'swill to Lady Jane Grey, descendant of his sister Mary. This gentle girlof seventeen, sensitive and thoughtful, a devout reformer, who readGreek and Hebrew and wrote Latin poetry, is a pathetic figure inhistory, where we see her, the unwilling wearer of a crown for tendays, and then with her young husband hurried to that fatal Tower, andto death; a brief touching interlude before the crowning of Mary, daughter of Henry and Katharine of Aragon. 

Henry VIII. Stoutly adhered to Protestantism, and preferred that thesuccession should pass out of his own family, rather than into Catholicdominion again. Hence his naming of Jane Grey instead of his owndaughter Mary, in case of the death of his delicate son Edward. 

But Henry was no longer there to stem the tide of Catholic sentiment. Lady Jane Grey was hurried to the block, and the Catholic Mary to thethrone. 

[Sidenote: Mary 1553-1558. Calais Lost, 1558]

Her marriage with Philip II. Of Spain quickly overthrew the work of herfather. Unlike Henry VIII. , Mary was impelled by deep conviction. Shepersecuted to save from what she believed eternal death. Her crueltywas prompted by sincere fanaticism, mingled with the desire to pleasethe Catholic Philip, whose love she craved and could not win. Disappointed in his aim to reign jointly with her, as he had hoped, hewithdrew to Spain. Unlovely and unloved, she is almost an object ofpity, as with dungeon, rack and fagot she strives to restore theReligion she loves, and to win the husband she adores. But Philipremained obdurately in Spain, and while she was lighting up all Englandwith a blaze of martyrs, Calais, the last English possession in France, was lost. Mary died amid crushing disappointments public and personal, after reigning five years (1553-1558). 

CHAPTER VII. 

[Sidenote: Elizabeth, 1558-1603. ]

Elizabeth, daughter of Henry and a disgraced and decapitated Queen, wore the crown of England. If heredity had been as much talked of thenas now, England might have feared the child of a faithless wife, and aremorseless, bloodthirsty King. But while Mary, daughter of Katharine, the most pious and best of mothers, had left only a great blood-spotupon the page of History, Elizabeth's reign was to be the most wise, prosperous and great, the Kingdom had ever known. In her complexcharacter there was the imperiousness, audacity and unscrupulousness ofher father, the voluptuous pleasure-loving nature of her mother, andmingled with both, qualities which came from neither. She was a tyrant, held in check by a singular caution, with an instinctive perception ofthe presence of danger, to which her purposes always instantly bent. 

The authority vested in her was as absolute as her father's, but whileher imperious temper sacrificed individuals without mercy, she ardentlydesired the welfare of her Kingdom, which she ruled with extraordinarymoderation and a political sagacity almost without parallel, softening, but not abandoning, one of her father's usurpations. 

She was a Protestant without any enthusiasm for the religion sheintended to restore in England, and prayed to the Virgin in her ownprivate Chapel, while she was undoing the work of her Catholic sisterMary. The obsequious apologies to the Pope were withdrawn, but theReformation she was going to espouse, was not the fiery one beingfought for in Germany and France. It was mild, moderate, and like herfather's, more political than religious. The point she made was thatthere must be religious uniformity, and conformity to the EstablishedChurch of England--with its new "Articles, " which as she often said, "left _opinion_ free. "

It was in fact a softened reproduction of her terrible father'sattitude. The Church, (called an "Episcopacy, " on account of thejurisdiction of its Bishops, ) was Protestant in doctrine, with gentleleaning toward Catholicism in externals, held still firmly by the "Actof Supremacy" in the controlling hand of the Sovereign. Above all elsedesiring peace and prosperity for England, the keynote of Elizabeth'spolicy in Church and in State was conciliation and compromise. So theChurch of England was to a great extent a compromise, retaining as muchas the people would bear of external form and ritual, for the sake ofreconciling Catholic England. 

The large element to whom this was offensive was reinforced byreturning refugees who brought with them the stern doctrines of Calvin;and they finally separated themselves altogether from a Church in whichso much of Papacy still lingered, to establish one upon simpler andpurer foundation; hence they were called "Puritans, " and"Nonconformists, " and were persecuted for violation of the "Act ofSupremacy. "

The masculine side of Elizabeth's character was fully balanced by herfeminine foibles. Her vanity was inordinate. Her love of adulation andpassion for display, her caprice, duplicity, and her reckless love-affairs, form a strange background for the calm, determined, masterlystatesmanship under which her Kingdom expanded. 

The subject of her marriage was a momentous one. There were plenty ofaspirants for the honor. Her brother-in-law Philip, since theabdication of Charles V. , his father, was a mighty King, ruler overSpain and the Netherlands, and was at the head of Catholic Europe. Hesaw in this vain, silly young Queen of England an easy prey. Bymarrying her he could bring England back to the fold, as he had donewith her sister Mary, and the Catholic cause would be invincible. 

Elizabeth was a coquette, without the personal charm supposed to belongto that dangerous part of humanity. She toyed with an offer of marriageas does a cat with a mouse. She had never intended to marry Philip, butshe kept him waiting so long for her decision, and so exasperated himwith her caprice, that he exclaimed at last, "That girl has tenthousand devils in her. " He little thought, that beneath that surfaceof folly there was a nature hard as steel, and a calm, clear, coolintelligence, for which his own would be no match, and which would oneday hold in check the diplomacy of the "Escurial" and outwit that ofEurope. She adored the culture brought by the "new learning;" delightedin the society of Sir Philip Sidney, who reflected all that was best inEngland of that day; talked of poetry with Spenser; discussedphilosophy with Bruno; read Greek tragedies and Latin orations in theoriginal; could converse in French and Italian, and was besidesproficient in another language, --the language of the fishwife, --whichshe used with startling effect with her lords and ministers when hertemper was aroused, and swore like a trooper if occasion required. 

But whatever else she was doing she never ceased to study the newEngland she was ruling. She felt, though did not understand, theexpansion which was going on in the spirit of the people; butinstinctively realized the necessity for changes and modifications inher Government, when the temper of the nation seemed to require it. 

It was enormous common-sense and tact which converted Elizabeth into aliberal Sovereign. Her instincts were despotic. When she bowedinstantly to the will of the Commons, almost apologizing for seeming toresist it, it was not because she sympathized with liberal sentiments, but because of her profound political instincts, which taught her thedanger of alienating that class upon which the greatness of her Kingdomrested. She realized the truth forgotten by some of her successors, that the Sovereign and the middle class _must be friends_. Shemight resist and insult her lords and ministers, send great Earls andfavorites ruthlessly to the block, but no slightest cloud must comebetween her and her "dear Commons" and people. This it was which madeSpenser's adulation in the "Faerie Queen" but an expression of theintense loyalty of her meanest subject. 

Perhaps it was because she remembered that the whole fabric of theChurch rested upon Parliamentary enactment, and that she herself wasQueen of England by Parliamentary sanction, that she viewed socomplacently the growing power of that body in dealing more and morewith matters supposed to belong exclusively to the Crown, as forinstance in the struggle made by the Commons to suppress monopolies intrade, granted by royal prerogative. At the first she angrily resistedthe measure. But finding the strength of the popular sentiment, shegracefully retreated, declaring, with royal scorn for truth, that "shehad not before known of the existence of such an evil. "

In fact, lying, in her independent code of morals, was a virtue, andone to which she owed some of her most brilliant triumphs in diplomacy. And when the bald, unmitigated lie was at last found out, she felt notthe slightest shame, but only amusement at the simplicity of those whohad believed she was speaking the truth. 

[Sidenote: Massacre of St. Bartholomew's, 1572. East India CompanyChartered, 1606. Colonization of Virginia. ]

Her natural instincts, her thrift, and her love of peace inclined herto keep aloof from the struggle going on in Europe between Protestantsand Catholics. But while the news of St. Bartholomew's Eve seemed togive her no thrill of horror, she still sent armies and money to aidthe Huguenots in France, and to stem the persecutions of Philip in theNetherlands, and committed England fully to a cause for which she feltno enthusiasm. She encouraged every branch of industry, commerce, trade, fostered everything which would lead to prosperity. Listened toRaleigh's plans for colonization in America, permitting the New Colonyto be called "Virginia" in her honor (the Virgin Queen). She charteredthe "Merchant Company, " intended to absorb the new trade with theIndies (1600), and which has expanded into a British Empire in India. 

But amid all this triumph, a sad and solitary woman sat on the throneof England. The only relation she had in the world was her cousin, MaryStuart, who was plotting to undermine and supplant her. 

The question of Elizabeth's legitimacy was an ever recurring one, andafforded a rallying point for malcontents, who asserted that hermother's marriage with Henry VIII. Was invalidated by the refusal ofthe Pope to sanction the divorce. Mary Stuart, who stood next toElizabeth in the succession, formed a centre from which a network ofintrigue and conspiracy was always menacing the Queen's peace, if nother life, and her crown. 

Scotland, since the extinction of the line of Bruce, had been ruled bythe Stuart Kings. Torn by internal feuds between her clans, and by theincessant struggle against English encroachments, she had drawn intoclose friendship with France, which country used her for its own ends, in harassing England, so that the Scottish border was always a point ofdanger in every quarrel between French and English Kings. 

[Sidenote: Flodden Field 1513. Birth of Mary Stuart 1542. ]

In 1502 Henry VIII. Had bestowed the hand of his sister Margaret uponJames IV. Of Scotland, and it seemed as if a peaceful union was at lastsecured with his Northern neighbor. But in the war with France whichsoon followed, James, the Scottish King, turned to his old ally. He waskilled at "Flodden Field, " after suffering a crushing defeat. Hissuccessor, James V. , had maried Mary Guise. Her family was the head andfront of the ultra Catholic party in France, and her counsels probablyinfluenced Edward to a continual hostility to the Protestant Henry, even though he was his uncle. The death of James in consequence of hisdefeat at "Solway Moss" occurred immediately after the birth of hisdaughter, Mary Stuart (1542). 

This unhappy child at once became the centre of intriguing designs;Henry VIII. Wishing to betroth the little Queen to his son, afterwardsEdward VI. , and thus forever unite the rival kingdoms. But the Guisesmade no compromises with Protestants! Mary Guise, who was now Regent ofthe realm, had no desire for a closer union with Protestant England, and very much desired a nearer alliance with her own France. MaryStuart was betrothed to the Dauphin, son of Francis I. , and was sent tothe French Court to be prepared by Catharine de Medici (the Italiandaughter-in-law of Francis I. ) for her future exalted position. 

[Sidenote: Mary Stuart Returns to England. ]

In 1561, Mary returned to England. Her boy-husband had died after areign of two years. She was nineteen years old, had wonderful beauty, rare intelligence, and power to charm like a siren. Her short life hadbeen spent in the most corrupt and profligate of Courts, under thecombined influence of Catharine de Medici, the worst woman in Europe, --and her two uncles of the House of Guise, who were little better. Political intrigues, plottings and crimes were in the very air shebreathed from infancy. But she was an ardent and devout Catholic, andas such became the centre and the hope of what still remained ofCatholic England. 

Elizabeth would have bartered half her possessions for the onepossession of beauty. That she was jealous of her fascinating rivalthere is little doubt, but that she was exasperated at her pretensionsand at the audacious plottings against her life and throne is notstrange. In fact we wonder that, with her imperious temper, she so longhesitated to strike the fatal blow. 

Whether Mary committed the dark crimes attributed to her or not, we donot know. But we do know, that after the murder of her wretchedhusband, Lord Darnley, (her cousin, Henry Stuart), she quickly marriedthe man to whom the deed was directly traced. Her marriage withBothwell was her undoing. Scotland was so indignant at the act, thatshe took refuge in England, only to fall into Elizabeth's hands. 

Mary Stuart had once audaciously said, "the reason her cousin did notmarry was because she would not lose the power of compelling men tomake love to her. " Perhaps the memory of this jest made it easier tosign the fatal paper in 1587. 

[Sidenote: Mary Stuart's Death, 1587. ]

When we read of Mary's irresistible charm, of her audacity, hercunning, her genius for diplomacy and statecraft, far exceedingElizabeth's--when we read of all this and think of the blood of theGuises in her veins, and the precepts of Catharine de Medici in herheart, we realize what her usurpation would have meant for England, andfeel that she was a menace to the State, and justly incurred her fate. Then again, when we hear of her gentle patience in her long captivity, her prayers and piety, and her sublime courage when she walked throughthe Hall at Fotheringay Castle, and laid her beautiful head on theblock as on a pillow, we are melted to pity, and almost revolted at theact. It is difficult to be just, with such a lovely criminal, unlessone is made of such stern stuff as was John Knox. 

[Sidenote: James VI. , King of Scotland. Defeat of Spanish Armada, 1597. ]The son of Mary by Henry Stuart (Lord Darnley) was James VI. OfScotland. With his mother's death, all pretensions to the Englishthrone were forever at rest. But Philip of Spain thought the timepropitious for his own ambitious purposes, and sent an Armada (fleet)which approached the Coast in the form of a great Crescent, one mileacross. The little English "seadogs, " not much larger than smallpleasure yachts, were led by Sir Francis Drake. They worried theponderous Spanish ships, and then, sending burning boats in amongstthem, soon spoiled the pretty crescent. The fleet scattered along theNorthern Coast, where it was overtaken by a frightful storm, and thewinds and the waves completed the victory, almost annihilating theentire "Armada. "

[Sidenote: Francis Bacon. ]

England was great and glorious. The revolution, religious, social andpolitical, had ploughed and harrowed the surface which had beenfertilized with the "New Learning, " and the harvest was rich. While allEurope was devastated by religious wars there arose in ProtestantEngland such an era of peace and prosperity, with all the conditions ofliving so improved that the dreams of Sir Thomas More's "Utopia" seemedalmost realized. The new culture was everywhere. England was garlandedwith poetry, and lighted by genius, such as the world has not seensince, and may never see again. The name of Francis Bacon wassufficient to adorn an age, and that of Shakespeare alone, enough toillumine a century. Elizabeth did not create the glory of the"Elizabethan Age, " but she did create the peace and social order fromwhich it sprang. 

If this Queen ever loved any one it was the Earl of Leicester, the manwho sent his lovely wife, Amy Robsart, to a cruel death in the delusivehope of marrying a Queen. We are unwilling to harbor the suspicion thatshe was accessory to this deed; and yet we cannot forget that she wasthe daughter of Henry VIII. !--and sometimes wonder if the memory of acrime as black as Mary's haunted her sad old age, when sated withpleasures and triumphs, lovers no more whispering adulation in herears, and mirrors banished from her presence, she silently waited forthe end. 

She died in the year 1603, and succumbing to the irony of fate, namedthe son of Mary Stuart--James VI. Of Scotland--her successor. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

[Sidenote: House of Stuart, 1603-1714. ]

The House of Stuart had peacefully reached the long coveted throne ofEngland in the person of a most unkingly King. Gross in appearance andvulgar in manners, James had none of the royal attributes of hismother. A great deal of knowledge had been crammed into a very smallmind. Conceited, vain, pedantic, headstrong, he set to work with theconfidence of ignorance to carry out his undigested views upon allsubjects, reversing at almost every point the policy of his greatpredecessor. Where she with supreme tact had loosened the screws sothat the great authority vested in her might not press too heavily uponthe nation, he tightened them. Where she bowed her imperious will tothat of the Commons, this puny tyrant insolently defied it, andswelling with sense of his own greatness, claimed, "Divine right" forKingship and demanded that his people should say "the King can do nowrong, " "to question his authority is to question that of God. " If heardently supported the Church of England, it was because he was itshead. The Catholic who would have turned the Church authority overagain to the Pope, and the "Puritans" who resisted the "Popishpractices" of the Reformed Church of England, were equally hateful tohim, for one and the same reason; they were each aiming to diminish_his_ authority. 

[Sidenote: First English Colony in New England]

When the Puritans brought to him a petition signed by 800 clergymen, praying that they be not compelled to wear the surplice, nor make thesign of the cross at baptism--he said they were "vipers, " and if theydid not submit to the authority of the Bishops in such matters "theyshould be harried out of the land. " In the persecution implied by thisthreat, a large body of Puritans escaped to Holland with theirfamilies, and from thence came that band of heroic men and women on the"Mayflower, " landing at a point On the American Coast which they called"Plymouth" (1620). A few Englishmen had in 1607 settled in Jamestown, Virginia. These two colonies contained the germ of the future "UnitedStates of America. "

[Sidenote: "Gunpowder Plot, 1605. "]

The persecution of the Catholics led to a plot to blow up ParliamentHouse at a time when the King was present, thinking thus at one stroketo get rid of a usurping tyrant, and of a House of Commons which wasdaily becoming more and more infected with Puritanism. The discovery ofthis "Guy Fawkes gunpowder plot, " prevented its consummation, andimmensely strengthened Puritan sentiment. 

The keynote of Elizabeth's foreign policy had been hostility to Spain, that Catholic stronghold, and an unwavering adherence to ProtestantEurope. James saw in that great and despotic government the mostsuitable friend for such a great King as himself. He proposed amarriage between his son Charles and the Infanta, daughter of the Kingof Spain, making abject promises of legislation in his Kingdomfavorable to the Catholics; and when an indignant House of Commonsprotested against the marriage, they were insolently reprimanded formeddling with things which did not concern them, and were sent home, not to be recalled again until the King's necessities for moneycompelled him to summon them. 

[Sidenote: Francis Bacon. ]

During the early part of his reign the people seem to have beenparalyzed and speechless before his audacious pretensions. Greatcourtiers were fawning at his feet listening to his pedantic wisdom, and humoring his theory of the "Divine right" of hereditary Kingship. And alas!--that we have to say it--Francis Bacon (his Chancellor), with intellect towering above his century, --was his obsequious servantand tool, uttering not one protest as one after another the libertiesof the people were trampled upon!

But this Spanish marriage had aroused a spirit before which a wiser manthan James would have trembled. He was standing midway between twoscaffolds, that of his mother (1587), and his son (1649). Every blow hestruck at the liberties of England cut deep into the foundation of histhrone. And when he violated the law of the land by the imposition oftaxes, without the sanction of his Parliament, he had "sowed the wind"and the "whirlwind, " which was to break on his son's head wasinevitable. Popular indignation began to be manifest, and Puritanmembers of the Commons began to use language the import of which couldnot be mistaken. Bacon was disgraced; his crime, --while ostensibly the"taking of bribes, "--was in reality his being the servile tool of theKing. 

[Sidenote: Translation of Bible. Great Britain. ]

In reviewing the acts of this reign we see a foolish Sovereign ruled byan intriguing adventurer whom he created Duke of Buckingham. We see himfoiled in his attempt to link the fate of England with that of CatholicEurope;--sacrificing Sir Walter Raleigh because he had given offense toSpain, the country whose friendship he most desired. We see numberlessacts of folly, and but three which we can commend. James did authorizeand promote the translation of the Bible which has been in use untiltoday. He named his double Kingdom of England and Scotland "GreatBritain. " These two acts, together with his death in 1625, meet withour entire approval. 

[Sidenote: James' Death 1625. Charles I. , 1625-1649. ]

Charles I. , son of James, was at least one thing which his father wasnot. He was a gentleman. Had it not been his misfortune to inherit acrown, his scholarly refinements and exquisite tastes, hisirreproachable morals, and his rectitude in the personal relations oflife, might have won him only esteem and honor. But these qualitiesbelonged to Charles Stuart the gentleman. Charles the King wasimperious, false, obstinate, blind to the conditions of his time, andignorant of the nature of his people. Every step taken during his reignled him nearer to its fatal consummation. 

No family in Europe ever grasped at power more unscrupulously than theGuises in France. They were cruel and remorseless in its pursuit. Itwas the warm southern blood of her mother which was Mary Stuart's ruin. She was a Guise, --and so was her son James I. --and so was Charles I. , her grandson. There was despotism and tyranny in their blood. Theirvery natures made it impossible that they should comprehend the Anglo-Saxon ideal of civil liberty. 

Who can tell what might have been the course of History, if England hadbeen ruled by English Kings, which it has not been since the Conquest. With every royal marriage there is a fresh infusion of foreign blooddrawn from fountains not always the purest, --until after centuries ofsuch dilutions, the royal line has less of the Anglo-Saxon in it thanany ancestral line in the Kingdom. 

The odious Spanish marriage had been abandoned and Charles had marriedHenrietta, sister of Louis XIII. Of France. 

[Sidenote: Archbishop Laud. ]

The subject of religion was the burning one at that time. It soonbecame apparent that the new King's personal sympathies leaned as faras his position permitted toward Catholicism. The Church of Englandunder its new Primate, Archbishop Laud, was being drawn farther awayfrom Protestantism and closer to Papacy; while Laud in order to secureRoyal protection advocated the absolutism of the King, saying thatJames in his theory of "Divine right" had been inspired by the HolyGhost, thus turning religion into an engine of attack upon Englishliberties. Laud's ideal was a purified Catholicism--retaining auricularconfession, prayers for the dead, the Real Presence in the Sacrament, genuflexions and crucifixes, all of which were odious to Puritans andPresbyterians. He had a bold, narrow mind, and recklessly threw himselfagainst the religious instincts of the time. The same pulpit from whichwas read a proclamation ordering that the Sabbath be treated as aholiday, and not a Holy-day, was also used to tell the people thatresistance to the King's will was "Eternal damnation. "

This made the Puritans seem the defenders of the liberties of thecountry, and drew hosts of conservative Churchmen, such as Pym, totheir side, although not at all in sympathy with a religious fanaticismwhich condemned innocent pleasures, and all the things which adornlife, as mere devices of the devil. Such were the means by which theline was at last sharply drawn. The Church of England and tyranny onone side, and Puritanism and liberty on the other. 

But there was one thing which at this moment was of deeper interest tothe King than religion. He wanted, --he must have, --money. _Religion_ and _money_ are the two things upon which the fateof nations has oftenest hung. These two dangerous factors were bothpresent now, and they were going to make history very fast. 

On account of a troublesome custom prevailing in his Kingdom, Charlesmust first summon his Parliament, and they must grant the neededsupplies. His father had by the discovery of the theory of "Divineright, " prepared the way to throw off these Parliamentary trammels. Butthat could only be reached by degrees. So Parliament was summoned. Ithad no objection to voting the needed subsidies, but, --the King mustfirst promise certain reforms, political and religious, and--dismisshis odious Minister Buckingham. 

Charles, indignant at this outrage, dissolved the body, and appealed tothe country for a loan. The same reply came from every quarter. "Wewill gladly lend the money, but it must be done through Parliament. "The King was thoroughly aroused. If the loan will not be voluntary, itmust be forced. A tax was levied, fines and penalties for itsresistance meted out by subservient judges. 

[Sidenote: John Hampden, Petition of Right. ]

John Hampden was one of the earliest victims. His means were ample, thesum was small, but his manhood was great. "Not one farthing, if it mecost my life, " was his reply as he sat in the prison at Gate House. 

The supply did not meet the King's demand. Overwhelmed with debt andshame and rage, he was obliged again to resort to the hated means. Parliament was summoned. The Commons, with memory of recent outrages intheir hearts, were more determined than before. The members drew up a"_Petition of Right_, " which was simply a reaffirmation of theinviolability of the rights of person, of property and of speech--asort of second "Magna Charta. "

They resolutely and calmly faced their King, the "Petition" in onehand, the granted subsidies in the other. For a while he defied them;but the judges were whispering in his ear that the "Petition" would notbe binding upon him, and Buckingham was urging him to yield. Perhaps itwas Charles Stuart the gentleman who hesitated to receive money inreturn for solemn promises which he did not intend to keep! But Charlesthe King signed the paper, which seven judges out of twelve, in thehighest court of the realm, were going to pronounce invalid because theKing's power was beyond the reach of Parliament. It was inherent in himas King, and bestowed by God. _Any infringement upon his prerogativeby Act of Parliament was void!_

With king so false, and with justice so polluted at its fountain, whathope was there for the people but in Revolution?

[Sidenote: Massachusetts Chartered, 1629]

From the tyranny of the Church under Laud, a way was opened when, in1629, Charles granted a Charter to the Colony of Massachusetts. With aquiet, stern enthusiasm the hearts of men turned toward that refuge inAmerica. Not men of broken fortunes, adventurers, and criminals, butowners of large landed estates, professional men, some of the best inthe land, who abandoned home and comfort to face intolerable hardships. One wrote, "We are weaned from the delicate milk of our Mother Englandand do not mind these trials. " As the pressure increased under Laud, the stream toward the West increased in volume; so that in ten years20, 000 Englishmen had sought religious freedom across the sea, and hadfounded a Colony which, strange to say, --under the influence of anintense religious sentiment, --became itself a Theocracy and a newtyranny, although one sternly just and pure. 

The dissolute, worthless Buckingham had been assassinated, and Charleshad wept passionate tears over his dead body. But his place had beenfilled by one far better suited to the King's needs at a time when hehad determined not again to recall Parliament, but to rule without ituntil resistance to his measures had ceased. 

It was with no sinister purpose of establishing a despotism such as astronger man might have harbored, that he made this resolve. WhatCharles wanted was simply the means of filling his exchequer; and ifParliament would not give him that except by a dicker for reforms, andhumiliating pledges which he could not keep, why then he would find newways of raising money without them. His father had done it before him, he had done it himself. With no Commons there to rate and insult him, it could be done without hindrance. 

He was not grand enough, nor base enough, nor was he rich enough, tocarry out any organized design upon the country. He simply wantedmoney, and had such blind confidence in Kingship, that any very seriousresistance to his authority did not enter his dreams. It was thelimitations of his intelligence which proved his ruin, his inability tocomprehend a new condition in the spirit of his people. Elizabeth wouldhave felt it, though she did not understand it, and would have loosenedthe screws, without regard for her personal preferences, and by doingit, so bound the people to her, that her policy would have been theirpolicy. Charles was as wise as the engineer who would rivet down thesafety-valves!

Sir Thomas Wentworth (Earl Strafford), who had taken the place ofBuckingham, was an apostate from the party of liberty. Disappointed inbecoming a leader in the Commons he had drawn gradually closer to theKing, who now leaned upon him as the vine upon the oak. 

[Sidenote: Earl Strafford. The "Star Chamber. "]

This man's ideal was to build up in England just such a despotism asRichelieu was building in France. The same imperious temper, the sameinvincible will and administrative genius, marked him as fitted for thework. While Charles was feebly scheming for revenue, he was layinglarge and comprehensive plans for a system of oppression, which should_yield_ the revenue, --and for Arsenals and Forts--and a standingArmy, and a rule of terror which should hold the nation in subjectionwhile these things were preparing. He was clear-sighted enough to seethat "absolutism" was not to be accomplished by a system of reasoning. He would not urge it as a dogma, but as a fact. 

The "Star Chamber, " a tribunal for the trying of a certain class ofoffences, was brought to a state of fresh efficiency. Its punishmentscould be anything this side of death. A clergyman accused of speakingdisrespectfully of Laud, is condemned to pay 5, 000 pounds to the King, 300 pounds to the aggrieved Archbishop himself, one side of his noseis to be slit, one ear cut off, and one cheek branded. The next weekthis to be repeated on the other side, and then followed byimprisonment subject to pleasure of the Court. Another who has writtena book considered seditious, has the same sentence carried out, onlyvaried by imprisonment for life. 

These were some of the embellishments of the system called "Thorough, "which was carried on by the two friends and confederates, Laud andStrafford, who were in their pleasant letters to each other all thetime lamenting that the power of the "Star Chamber" was so limited, andjudges so timid! Is it strange that the plantation in Massachusetts hadfresh recruits?

But the more serious work was going on under Strafford's vigorousmanagement. "Monopolies" were sold once more, with a fixed duty onprofits added to the price of the original concession. Every article inuse by the people was at last bought up by Monopolists, who werecompelled to add to the price of these commodities, to compensate forthe tax they must pay into the King's Treasury. 

[Sidenote: Monoplies. Ship Money. ]

"Ship Money" was a tax supposably for the building of a Navy, for whichthere was no accounting to the people, the amount and frequency of thelevy being discretionary with the King. It was always possible andimminent, and was the most odious of all the methods adopted forwringing money from the nation, while resistance to it, as to all othersuch measures, was punished by the Star Chamber in such pleasantfashion as would please Strafford and Laud, whose creatures the judgeswere. 

Hampden, as before, championed the rights of the people in his ownperson, going to prison and facing death, if it were necessary, ratherthan pay the amount of 20 shillings. But that the taxes were paid bythe people is evident, for so successful was this scheme of revenuethat many predicted the King would never again call a Parliament. Whatwould be the need of a Parliament, if he did not require money? TheRoyalists were pleased, and the people were wisely patient, knowingthat such a financial fabric must fall at the first breath of a storm, and then their time would come. 

CHAPTER IX. 

The storm came in the form of a war upon Scotland, to enforce theestablished Church, which it had cast out "root and branch" for thePresbyterianism which pleased it. The Loyalists were alarmed by rumorsthat Scotland was holding treasonable communication with her old ally, France; and after an interval of eleven years, a Parliament wassummoned, which was destined to outlive the King. 

[Sidenote: Long Parliament. Strafford Impeached. ]

The Commons came together in stern temper, Pym standing promptly at theBar of the House of Lords with Strafford's impeachment for HighTreason. The great Earl's apologists among the Lords, his own ingeniousand powerful pleadings, the King's entreaties and worthless promises, all were in vain. 

The King saw the whole fabric of tyranny crumbling before his eyes. Hewas overawed and dared not refuse his signature to the fatal paper. Itis said that as Strafford passed to the block, Laud, who was at thewindow of the room where he too was a prisoner, fainted as his oldcompanion in cruelty stopped to say farewell to him. 

There were a few moments of silence, then, --a wild exultant shout. "Hishead is off--His head is off. "

[Sidenote: Strafford's Death. Death of Laud. ]

The execution of the Archbishop swiftly followed, then the abolition ofthe Star Chamber, and of the High Commission Court; then a bill waspassed requiring that Parliament be summoned once in three years, and alaw enacted _forbidding its dissolution except by its ownconsent_. 

They were rapidly nearing the conception that Parliament does not existby sanction of the King, but the King by sanction of Parliament. 

What could be done with a King whom no promises could bind--who, whilein the act of giving solemn pledges to Parliament in order to saveStrafford, was perfidiously planning to overawe it by military force?The attempted arrest of Hampden, Pym, and three other leaders was partof this "Army Plot, " which made civil war inevitable. The trouble hadresolved itself into a deadly conflict between King and Parliament. Ifhe resorted to arms, so must they. 

If Hampden stands out pre-eminent as the Champion who like a greatGladiator fought the battle of civil freedom, Pym is no lessconspicious in having grasped the principles on which it must befought. He saw that if either Crown or Parliament must go down, betterfor England that it should be the crown. He saw also, that the vitalprinciple in Parliament lay in the House of Commons. If the Kingrefused to act with them, it should be treated as an abdication, andParliament must act without him, and if the Lords obstructed reform, then they must be told that the Commons must act alone, rather than letthe Kingdom perish. 

This was the theory upon which the future action was based. Revolutionary and without precedent it has since been accepted as thecorrect construction of English Constitutional principles. 

[Sidenote: Oliver Cromwell. ]

Better would it have been for Charles had he let the ship sail, whichwas to have borne Hampden and his Cousin, Oliver Cromwell, toward the"Valley of the Connecticut. " He recalled the man who was to be his evilgenius when he gave that order. Cromwell could not so accurately havedefined the constitutional right of his cause as Pym had done, nor makehimself its adored head as was Hampden; but he had a more compellinggenius than either. His figure stands up colossal and grim away aboveall others from the time he raised his praying, psalm-singing army, until the defeat of the King's forces at Naseby (1645), the flight ofthe King and his subsequent surrender. 

It was at this time that Cromwell began to manifest as much ability asa political as he had done as a military leader. Hampden had fallen onthe battlefield, Pym was dead, he was virtual head of the cause. Perhaps it needed just such a terrible, uncompromising instrument, tocarry England over such a crisis as was before her. Notoverscrupulous about means, no troublesome theories about Church orState--no reverence for anything but God and "the Gospel. "

When Parliament halted and hesitated at the last about the trial of theKing, it was the iron hand of Cromwell which strangled opposition, byplacing a body of troops at the door, and excluding 140 doubtfulmembers. A Parliament, with the House of Lords effaced, and with 140obstructing members excluded, leaving only a small body of men of thesame mind, sustained by the moral sentiment of a Cromwellian Army, --canscarcely be called a Representative body; nor can it be consideredcompetent to create a Court for the trial of a King! It was onlyjustifiable as a last and desperate measure of self-defence. 

[Sidenote: Death of Charles I. , 1649]

Charles wins back some of our sympathy and esteem by dying like a braveman and a gentleman. He conducted himself with marvellous dignity andself-possession throughout the trial, and at the end of seven days, laid his head upon the block in front of his royal palace of Whitehall. 

That small body of men, calling itself the "House of Commons, " declaredEngland a "Commonwealth, " which was to be governed without any King orHouse of Lords. Cromwell was "Lord Protector of England, Scotland andIreland. " He scorned to be called King, but no King was ever moreabsolute in authority. It was a righteous tyranny, replacing a viciousone. 

There was no longer an eager hand dipping into the pockets of thepeople, compelling the poor to share his scanty earnings with the King. There was safety, and there was prosperity. But there was rage anddetestation, as Cromwell's soldiers with gibes and jeers, hewed andhacked at venerable altars and pictures, and insulted the religioussentiment of one-half the people. Empty niches, mutilated carvings, andfragments of stained glass, from

 "Windows richly dight, Casting a dim religious light, "

show us to-day the track of those profane fanatics. 

[Sidenote: Long Parliament Dispersed. ]

When the remnant of the House of Commons calling itself a Parliamentwas not alert enough in its obedience, Cromwell marched into the Hallwith a company of musketeers, and calling them names neither choice norflattering, ordered them to "get out, " then locked the door, and putthe key into his pocket. Such was the "dissolution" of a Parliamentwhich had been strong enough to overthrow a Government, and to send aKing to the scaffold! This might be fittingly described as a_personal_ Government!

He was loved by none but the Army. There was no strong current ofpopular sentiment to uphold him as he carried out his arbitrarypurposes; no engines of cruelty to fortify his authority; no "StarChamber" to enforce his order. Men were not being nailed by the ears tothe pillory, nor mutilated and branded, for resisting his will. But thespectacle was for that reason all the more astonishing: a great nation, full of rage, hate and bitterness, but silent and submissive under thespell of one dominating personality. 

He had no experience in diplomatic usages, no skilled ministers tocounsel and warn, but by his foreign policy he made himself the terrorof Europe; Spain, France, and the United Provinces courting hisfriendship, while Protestantism had protection at home and abroad. 

That the man who did this had a commanding genius, all must be agreed. But whether he was the incarnation of evil, or of righteousness, mustever remain in dispute. We shall never know whether or not his death, in 1658, cut short a career which might have passed from a justifiableto an unjustifiable tyranny. 

[Sidenote: Charles II. , 1660. ]

A fabric held up by one sustaining hand, must fall when that hand iswithdrawn. Cromwell left none who could support his burden. CharlesII. , who had been more than once foiled in trying to get in by the backdoor of his father's kingdom, was now invited to enter by the front, and amid shouts of joy was placed on the throne. 

CHAPTER X. 

Time brings its revenges. The instinct for beauty, and for joy andgladness, had been for twenty-one years repressed by harshlyadministered Puritanism. There was a thrill of delight in greeting agracious, smiling king, who would lift the spell of gloom from thenation. Charles did this, more fully than was expected. Never was thelaw of reaction more fully demonstrated! The Court was profligate, andthe age licentious. The reign of Charles was an orgy. When he neededmore money for his pleasures, he bargained with Louis XIV. To join himin a war upon Protestantism in Holland, for the consideration of200, 000 pounds!

We wonder how he dared thus to goad and prod the British Lion, whichhad devoured his Father. But that animal had grown patient since theProtectorate. England treated Charles like a spoiled child whosefollies entertained her, and whose misdemeanors she had not the heartto punish. 

[Sidenote: Act of Habeas Corpus, 1679. ]

The "Roundheads, " who had trampled upon the "Cavaliers, " were nowtrampled upon in return. But even at such a time as this the libertiesof the people were expanding. The Act of "Habeas Corpus" foreverprevented imprisonment, without showing in Court just cause for thedetention of the prisoner. 

[Sidenote: Death of Charles II. , 1685. ]The House of Stuart, those children of the Guises, was always Catholicat heart, and Charles was at no pains to conceal his preferences. Awave of Catholicism alarmed the people, who tried to divert thesuccession from James, the brother of the King, who was extreme andfanatical in his devotion to the Church of Rome. But in 1685, theMasks and routs and revels were interrupted. The pleasure-lovingCharles, who "had never said a foolish thing, and never done a wiseone, " lay dead in his palace at Whitehall, and James II. Was King ofEngland. 

[Sidenote: Milton and Bunyan. ]

Three names have illumined this reign, in other respects so inglorious. In 1666 Newton discovered the law of gravitation and created a newtheory of the Universe. In 1667 Milton published "Paradise Lost, " andin 1672 Bunyan gave to the world his allegory, "Pilgrim's Progress. "There was no inspiration to genius in the cause of King and Cavaliers. But the stern problems of Puritanism touched two souls with the divineafflatus. The sacred Epic of Milton, sublime in treatment as inconception, must ever stand unique and solitary in literature; while"Pilgrim's Progress, " in plain homely dish served the same heavenlyfood. The theme of both was the problem of sin and redemption withwhich the Puritan soul was gloomily struggling. 

The reign of James II. Was the last effort of royal despotism torecover its own. He tried to recall the right of Habeas Corpus;--toefface Parliament--and to overawe the Clergy, while insidiouslystriving to establish Papacy as the religion of the Kingdom. ChiefJustice Jeffries, that most brutal of men, was his efficient aid, andboasted that he had in the service of James hanged more traitors thanall his predecessors since the Conquest!

The names Whig and Tory had come into existence in this struggle. Whig, standing for the opponents to Catholic domination, and Tory for theupholders of the King. But so flagrantly was the Catholic policy ofJames conducted, that his upholders were few. In three years from hisaccession, Whig and Tory alike were so alarmed, that they secretly sentan invitation to the King's son-in-law, William, Prince of Orange, tocome and accept the Crown. 

[Sidenote: James II. Deposed. ]

William responded at once, and when he landed with 14, 000 men, James, paralyzed, powerless, unable to raise a force to meet him, abandonedhis throne without a struggle and took refuge in France. 

[Sidenote: William and Mary, 1689-1702. ]

The throne was formally declared vacant and William and Mary his wifewere invited to rule jointly the Kingdom of England, Ireland andScotland (1689). 

The House of Stuart, which seems to have brought not one single virtueto the throne, was always secretly conspiring with Catholicism inEurope. Louis XIV. , as the head of Catholic Europe at this time, wasthe natural protector of the dethroned King. His aim had long been, tobring England into the Catholic European alliance, and, of course, ifpossible, to make it a dependency of France. A conspiracy with Louis toaccomplish this end occupied England's exiled King during the rest ofhis life. 

[Sidenote: Battle of Boyne, 1690. ]

But European Protestantism had for its leader the man who now sat uponthe throne of England. In fact he had probably accepted that throne inorder to further his larger plans for defeating the expanding power ofLouis XIV. In Europe. Broad and comprehensive in his statesmanship, noble and just in character, an able military leader, England was safein his strong hand. Conspiracies were put down, one French army afteranother, with the despicable James at its head, was driven back; thepurpose at one time being to establish James at the head of anindependent Kingdom in Catholic Ireland. But that would-be King ofIreland was humiliated and sent back to France by the battle of BoyneBattle of Boyne (1690). 

[Sidenote: Bill of Rights]

As important as was all this, things of even greater moment were goingon in the life of England at this time. As a wise householder employsthe hours of sunshine to repair the leaks revealed by the storm, justso Parliament now set about strengthening and riveting the weak spotsrevealed by the storms which had swept over England. 

What the "_Magna Charta_" and "_Petition of Right_" hadasserted in a general way, was now by the "_Bill of Rights_, "established by specific enactments, which one after another declaredwhat the King should and what he should not do. One of these Actstouched the very central nerve of English freedom. 

If _religion_ and _money_ are the two important factors inthe life of a nation, it is _money_ upon which its life from dayto day depends! A Government can exist without money about as long as aman without air! So the act which gave to the House of Commonsexclusive power to grant supplies, and also to determine to what usethey shall be applied, transferred the real authority to the people, whose will the Commons express. 

The struggle between the Crown and Parliament ends with this, and thetheory of Pym is vindicated. The Sovereign and the House of Lords fromthat time could no more take money from the Treasury of England, thanfrom that of France. Henceforth there can be no differences betweenKing and people. _They must be friends. _ A Ministry which forfeitsthe friendship of the Commons, cannot stand an hour, and supplies willstop until they are again in accord. In other words, the Government ofEngland had become a Government _of the people_. 

William regarded these enactments as evidence of a lack of confidencein him. Conscious of his own magnanimous aims, of his power and hispurpose to serve England as she had not been served before, he felthurt and wounded at fetters which had not been placed upon such Kingsas Charles I. And his sons. We wonder that a man so exalted and sosuperior, did not see that it was for future England that these lawswere framed, for a time when perhaps a Prince not generous, and noble, and pure should be upon the throne. 

William was silent, grave, cold, reserved almost to sternness. He hadnone of the qualities which awaken personal enthusiasm. He was one ofthose great leaders who are worshipped from afar. Besides, it is not aneasy task to rule another's household. Benefits however great, reformshowever wise, are sure to be considered an impertinence by some. Then--there might be another "Restoration, " and wary ambitious nobles werecautiously making a record which would not unfit them for its benefitswhen it came. He lived in an atmosphere of conspiracy, suspicion, andloyalty grudgingly bestowed. But these were only the surface currents. Anglo-Saxon England recognized in this foreign King, a man with thesame race instincts, the same ideals of integrity, honor, justice andpersonal liberty, as her own; qualities possessed by few of her nativesovereigns since the good King Alfred. 

The expensive wars carried on against James and his confederate, LouisXIV. , compelled loans which were the beginning of the National Debt. That and the establishing of the Bank of England, form part of thehistory of this reign. 

In 1702 William died, and Mary having also died a few years earlier, the succession passed to her sister Anne, who was to be the lastSovereign of the House of Stuart. 

CHAPTER XI. 

[Sidenote: Anne, Queen of England. ]

William's policy had not been bounded by his Island Kingdom. Itincluded the cause of Protestant Europe. An apparently invincible Kingsat on the throne of France, gradually drawing all adjacent Kingdomsinto his dominion. When in defiance of past pledges he placed hisgrandson upon the vacant throne of Spain, and declared that thePyrenees should exist no more, even Catholic Austria revolted, andbeginning to fear Louis more than Protestantism, new combinations wereformed, England still holding aloof, and striving to keep out of theAlliance. But that all-absorbing King had long ago fixed his eye uponEngland as his future prey, and when he refused to recognize Anne aslawful Queen and declared his intention of placing the "Pretender"(illegitimate son of James) upon the throne, there could be no morehesitation. This Jupiter who had removed the Pyrenees, might wipe outthe English Channel too! Hitherto the name Whig had stood for theadherents to the war policy, and Tory for its opponents. Now, all waschanged. Even the stupid Anne and her Tory friends saw that William'spolicy must be her policy if she would keep her Kingdom. 

[Sidenote: Marlborough. ]

Fortunate was it for England, and for Europe at this time that a"Marlborough" had climbed to distinction by a slender, and not tooreputable ladder. This man, John Churchill, who a few years ago hadbeen unknown, without training, almost without education, was by puregenius fitted to become, upon the death of William, the guiding spiritof the Grand Alliance. 

He had none of the qualities possessed by William, and all thequalities that leader had not. He had no moral grandeur, no sternadherence to principles. Whig and Tory were alike to him, and hefollowed whichever seemed to lead to success, and to the richestrewards. He was perfectly sordid in his aims, invincible in his goodnature, with a careless, easy _bonhomie_ which captured thehearts of Europeans, who called him "the handsome Englishman. " Asadroit in managing men as armies, as wise in planning political movesas campaigns, using tact and diplomacy as effectually as artillery, heassumed the whole direction of the European war; managed everynegotiation, planned every battle, and achieved its great andoverwhelming success. 

[Sidenote: "Battle of Blenheim, 1704. "]

"Blenheim" turned the tide of French victory, and broke the spell ofLouis' invincibility. The loss at that battle was something more thanmen and fortresses. It was _prestige_, and that self-confidencewhich had made the great King believe that nothing could resist hispurposes. It was a new sensation for him to bend his neck, and to saythat he acknowledged Anne Queen of England. 

Marlborough received as his reward the splendid estate upon which wasbuilt the palace of "Blenheim. " Then, when in the sunshine of peaceEngland needed him no more, Anne quarrelled with his wife, her adoredfriend, and cast him aside as a rusty sword no longer of use. But foryears Europe heard the song "Malbrook s'en va-t-en guerre, " and hisawe-inspiring name was used to frighten children in France and inEngland. 

His passionate love for his wife, Sarah Churchill, ran like a goldenthread of romance through Marlborough's stormy career. On the eve ofbattle, and in the first flush of victory, he must first and last writeher; and he would more willingly meet 20, 000 Frenchmen than his wife'sdispleasure! Indeed Sarah seems to have waged her own battles verysuccessfully with her tongue, and also to have had her own diplomatictriumphs. Through Anne's infatuation for her, she was virtually rulerwhile the friendship lasted. But to acquire ascendancy over Anne wasnot much of an achievement. 

It is said that there was but one duller person than the Queen in herKingdom, and that was the royal Consort, George, Prince of Denmark. Happy was it for England that of the seventeen children born into thisroyal household, not one survived. The succession, in the absence ofAnne's heirs, was pledged to George, Elector of Hanover, a remotedescendant of James I. 

It was during Anne's reign that English literature assumed a newcharacter. The stately and classic form being set aside for a stylemore familiar, and which concerned itself with the affairs of everydaylife. Letters showed with a mild splendor, while Steele, Sterne, Swift, Defoe and Fielding were writing, and Addison's "Spectator" was on everybreakfast-table. 

[Sidenote: Anne died, 1714. ]

In the year 1714 Anne died, and George I, of the House of Hanover, wasKing of England, --an England which, thanks to the great soldier andDuke, would never more be molested by the intriguing designs of aFrench King, and which held in her hand Gibraltar, the key to theMediterranean. 

[Sidenote: House of Hanover, 1714. George I. ]

King George I. Was a German grandson of Elizabeth, sister of Charles I. Deeply attached to his own Hanover, this stupid old man came slowly andreluctantly to assume his new honors. He could not speak English; andas he smoked his long pipe, his homesick soul was soothed by the ladiesof his Court, who cut caricature figures out of paper for hisamusement, while Robert Walpole relieved him of affairs of State. Asignorant of the politics of England as of its language, Walpoleselected the King's Ministers and determined the policy of hisGovernment; establishing a precedent which has always been followed. Since that time it has been the duty of the Prime Minister to form theMinistry; and no sovereign since Anne has ever appeared at a CabinetCouncil, nor has refused assent to a single Act of Parliament. 

[Sidenote: Whig rule. ]

Such a King was merely a symbol of Protestantism and of ConstitutionalGovernment. But this stream of royal dulness which set in from Hanoverin 1714, came as a great blessing at the time. It enabled England to beruled for thirty years by the party which had since the usurpation ofJames I. Stood for the rights of the people. Walpole created a WhigGovernment. The Whigs had never wavered from certain principles uponwhich they had risen to power. There must be no tampering with justice, nor with the freedom of the press, nor any attempt to ruleindependently of Parliament. Thirty years of rule under theseprinciples converted them into an integral part of the national life. The habit of loyalty to them was so established by this long Governmentof the Whig party, that Englishmen forgot such things could be, that itwas possible to infringe upon the sacred liberties of the people. 

However much "Whig" and "Tory" have seemed to change since we firsthear of them in the time of James I. , they have in fact remainedessentially the same; the Whigs always tending to limit the power ofthe crown, and the Tories to limit that of the people. At the time ofWalpole the Tories had been the supporters of the Pretender and of theHigh Church party, the Whigs of the policy of William andProtestantism. Their predecessors were the "Cavaliers" and"Roundheads, " and their successors to-day are found in the "Liberals"and "Conservatives. "

[Sidenote: South-Sea Bubble, 1720. ]

There was at last peace abroad and prosperity at home. The latter wasinterrupted for a time in 1720 by the speculative madness created bythe "South-Sea Bubble. " Men were almost crazed by the rise in the valueof shares from 100 pounds to 1, 000 pounds; and then plunged intodespair and ruin when they suddenly dropped to nothing. The sufferingcaused by this wreck of fortunes was great. But industries revived, and prosperity and wealth returned with little to disturb them againuntil the death of George I. In 1727; when another George came overfrom Hanover to occupy the English throne. 

[Sidenote: Death of George, 1727. ]

George II. Had one advantage over his father. He did speak the Englishlanguage. Nor was he content to smoke his pipe and entrust his Kingdomto his Ministers, which was a doubtful advantage for the nation. Buthis clever wife, Queen Caroline, believed thoroughly in Walpole, andwhen she was controlled by the Minister, and then in turn herselfcontrolled the policy of the King, that simple gentleman supposed thathe, --George II. , --was ruling his own Kingdom. His small, narrow mindwas incapable of statesmanship; but he was a good soldier. Methodical, stubborn and passionate, he was a King who needed to be carefullywatched, and adroitly managed, to keep him from doing harm. 

[Sidenote: The "Young Pretender. " Culloden Moor, 1746. ]

There was a young "Pretender" in these days (Charles Edward Stuart), who was conspiring with Louis XV. , as his father had done with LouisXIV. , to get to the English throne. We see him flitting about Europefrom time to time, landing here and there on the British Coast--untilwhen finally defeated at "Culloden Moor, " 1746, this wraith of theHouse of Stuart disappears--dying obscurely in Rome; and "Wha'll beKing but Charlie, " and "Over the Water to Charlie, " linger only as theecho of a lost cause. 

[Sidenote: "Seven Years' War. "]

There was a time of despondency when England seemed to be annexed toHanover, following her fortunes, and sharing her misfortunes in the"seven years' war" over the Austrian succession, as if the GreatKingdom were a mere dependency to the little Electorate; and all toplease the stubborn King. Desiring peace above all things England wasno sooner freed from one entanglement, than she was plunged intoanother. 

In India, the English "Merchant Company, " chartered by Elizabeth in1600, had expanded to a power. One of the native Princes, jealous ofthese foreign intruders in Bengal, and roused, it was said, by theFrench to expel them, committed that deed at which the world hasshuddered ever since. One hundred and fifty settlers and traders, werethrust into an air-tight dungeon--an Indian midsummer. Maddened withheat and with thirst, most of them died before morning, trampling uponeach other in frantic efforts to get air and water. This is the storyof the "Black Hole of Calcutta;" which led to the victories of Clive, and the establishment of English Empire in India, 1757. 

[Sidenote: British Dominion in India, 1757. Battle of Quebec, 1760. ]

Two years later a quarrel over the boundaries of their Americancolonies brought the French and English into direct conflict. Gen. Wolfe, the English Commander, was killed at the moment of victory inscaling the walls of Quebec. Montcalm, the French commander, beingsaved the humiliation of seeing the loss of Canada (1760), by sharingthe same fate. 

The dream of French Empire in America was at an end; and with thecession of Florida by Spain, England was mistress of the eastern halfof the Continent from Nova Scotia to the Gulf of Mexico, and from theAtlantic to the Mississippi. So since the days of Elizabeth, and fromseed dropped by her hand, an Eastern and a Western Empire had beenadded to that island Kingdom, whose highest dream had been to get backsome of her lost provinces in France. Instead of that it was to be herdestiny to girdle the Earth, so that the Sun in its entire courseshould never cease to shine upon British Dominions. 

[Sidenote: John Wesley. ]

Side by side with the aspiration which uplifts a nation, there isalways a tendency toward degradation, which can only be arrested by theinfusion of a higher spiritual life. Strong alcoholic liquors had takenthe place of beer in England (to avoid the excessive tax imposed uponit) and the grossest intemperance prevailed in the early part of thisreign. John Wesley introduced a regenerative force when he went aboutamong the people preaching "Methodism, " a pure and simple religion. Notsince Augustine had the hearts of men been so touched, and a new lifeand new spirit came into being, better than all the prosperity andterritorial expansion of the time. 

Walpole had passed from view long before the stirring changes we havealluded to. A new hand was guiding the affairs of State; the hand ofWilliam Pitt. 

CHAPTER XII. 

At the close of the Seven Years' War, England had driven the French outof Canada, --her ships which had traversed the Pacific from one end tothe other, (Capt. Cook) had wherever they touched, claimed islands forthe Crown; she had projected into the heart of India Englishinstitutions and civilization. 

Mistress of North America, and of the Pacific Isles, and futuremistress of India, she had left in comparative insignificance thoseEuropean States whose power was bounded by a single Continent. And allthis, --in the reign of the puniest King who had ever sat upon herthrone! As if to show that England was great not through--but in spiteof, her Kings. 

[Sidenote: George III. 1760-1820. ]

When in 1760, George III. Came to the throne, thirteen prosperousAmerican Colonies were a source of handsome revenue to the mothercountry, by whom they were regarded as receptacles for surpluspopulation, and a good field for unsuccessful men and adventurers. These children were frequently reminded that they owed England a greatdebt of gratitude. They had cost her expensive Indian and French warsfor which she should expect them to reimburse her as their prosperitygrew. They were to make nothing themselves, not so much as a horseshoe;but to send their raw material to English mills and factories, and whenit was returned to them in wares and manufactured articles, they wereto pay such taxes as were imposed, with grateful hearts to the kindGovernment which was so good as to rule them. 

[Sidenote: Stamp Act, 1765. ]

If the Colonies had still needed the protection of England from theFrench, they might never have questioned the propriety of theirtreatment. They were at heart intensely loyal, and the thought ofseverance from the Mother Country probably did not exist in a singlebreast. But they had since the fall of Quebec a feeling of securitywhich was a good background for independence, if their manhood requiredits assertion. They were Anglo-Saxons, and perfectly understood thelong struggle for civil rights which lay behind them. So when in 1765they were told that they must bear their share of the burden ofNational Debt which had been increased by wars in their behalf, and tothat end a "Stamp Act" had been passed, they very carefully looked intothe demand. This Act required that every legal document drawn in theColonies, will, deed, note, draft, receipt, etc. , be written upon paperbearing an expensive Government stamp. 

The thirteen Colonies, utterly at variance upon most subjects, wereupon this agreed: _They would not submit to the tax. _ They hadread the Magna Charta, they knew that the Stamp Act violated its mostvital principle. This tax had been framed to extort money from men whohad no representation in Parliament, hence without their consent. 

Pitt vehemently declared that the Act was a tyranny, Burke and Foxprotested against it, the brain and the heart of England compelled therepeal of the Act; Pitt declaring that the spirit shown in America wasthe same that in England had withstood the Stuarts, and refused "ShipMoney. " There was rejoicing and ringing of bells over the repeal, butbefore the echoes had died away another plan was forming in the narrowrecesses of the King's brain. 

George III. Had read English History. He remembered that if Parliamentsgrow obstructive, the way is not to fight them but to pack them withthe right kind of material. Tampering with the boroughs, had so filledthe House of Commons with Tories that it had almost ceased to be arepresentative body, and if Pitt would not bow to his wishes, he wouldfind a Minister who would. Another tax was devised. 

[Sidenote: Tax on Tea. ]

Threepence a pound upon tea, shipped direct to America from India, would save the impost to England, bring tea at a cheaper rate to theColonies (even with the added tax), and at the same time yield ahandsome revenue to the Government. 

The Colonists were not at all moved by the idea of getting cheaper tea. They had taken their stand in this matter of taxation withoutrepresentation; they would never move from it one inch. When the cargoof tea arrived in Boston harbor, it was thrown overboard by mendisguised as Indians. 

George III. In a rage closed the port of Boston, cancelled the Charterof Massachusetts, withdrew the right of electing its own council andjudges, investing the _Governor_ with these rights, to whom healso gave the power to send rebellious and seditious prisoners toEngland for trial. Then to make all this sure of fulfilment, he senttroops to enforce the order, in command of General Gage, whom he alsoappointed _Governor_ of Massachusetts. 

Fox said, "How intolerable that it should be in the power of oneblockhead to do so much mischief!" The obstinacy of George III. CostEngland her dearest and fairest possession. It is almost impossible topicture what would be her power to-day if she had continued to bemistress of North America!

All unconscious of his stupendous folly, the King was delighted at hisown firmness. He rubbed his hands in high glee as he said, --"The dieis cast, the Colonies must submit or triumph, " meaning of course that"triumph" was a thing impossible. Pitt (now Earl Chatham), Burke, Fox, even the Tory House of Lords, petitioned and implored in vain. Theconfident, stubborn King stood alone, and upon him lies the wholeresponsibility--Lord North simply acting as his compliant tool. 

The colonies united as one, all local differences forgotten. As theyfought at Lexington and at Bunker Hill, the idea of something more than_resistance_ was born--the idea of _independence_. 

A letter from the Government addressed to the Commander-in-Chief as"George Washington, Esq. , " was sent back unopened. Battles were lostand won, the courage and resources of the Americans holding out foryears as if by miracle, until when reinforced by France the end drewnear; and was reached with the defeat of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown. 

[Sidenote: Independence Acknowledged, 1782. ]

It was a dreary morning in 1782 when a humiliated King stood before theHouse of Lords and acknowledged the independence of the United Statesof America!

Thus ended a contest which the Earl of Chatham had said "was conceivedin injustice, and nurtured in folly. "

It was during the American war that the Press rose to be a greatcounterbalancing power. Popular sentiment no longer finding an outletin the House of Commons, sought another mode of expression. Publicopinion gathered in by the newspapers became a force before whichGovernment dared not stand. The "Chronicle, " "Post, " "Herald" and"Times" came into existence, philosophers like Coleridge, and statesmenlike Canning using their columns and compelling reforms. 

[Sidenote: Impeachment of Warren Hastings, 1788. ]

The impeachment of Warren Hastings, conducted by Burke, Sheridan, andFox, led to such an exposure of the cruelty and corruption of the EastIndia Company, that the gigantic monopoly was broken up. A "Board ofControl" was created for the administration of Indian affairs, thusabsorbing it into the general system of English Government (1784). 

James Watt had introduced (in 1769) steam into the life of England, with consequences dire at first, and fraught with such tremendousresults later, changing all the industrial conditions of England and ofthe world. 

In 1789 England witnessed that terrific outburst of human passions inFrance, which culminated in the death of a King and a Queen. Anappalling sight which made Republicanism seem odious, even to soexalted and just a soul as Burke, who denounced it with words ofthrilling eloquence. Then came Napoleon Bonaparte, and his swift ascentto imperial power, followed by his audacious conquest almost of Europe, until Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, led the allied army atWaterloo, and Napoleon's sun went down. 

In 1812 the United States for a second time declared war againstEngland. That country had claimed the right to search for British-bornseamen upon American ships, in order to impress them into her ownservice and recruit her Navy. The "right of search" was denied, and theBritish forces landed in Maryland, burned the Capitol and CongressionalLibrary at Washington, but met their "Waterloo" at New Orleans, where, under General Andrew Jackson, they were defeated, and the "right ofsearch" is heard of no more. 

Long before this time George III. Had been a prey to blindness, deafness, and insanity, and in 1820 his death came as a welcome event. Had he not been blind, deaf, and insane, in 1775, England might nothave lost her fairest possession. 

The weight of the enormous debt incurred by the long wars fell mostheavily upon the poor. One-half of their earnings went to the Crown. The poor man lived under a taxed roof, wore taxed clothing, ate taxedfood from taxed dishes, and looked at the light of day through taxedwindow-glass. Nothing was free but the ocean. 

But there must not be cheap bread, for that meant reduced rents. Thefarmer was "protected" by having the price of corn kept artificiallyabove a certain point, and further "protected" by a prohibitory taxupon foreign corn, all in order that the landlord might collectundiminished rentals from his farm lands. But, alas! there was no"protection" from starvation. Is it strange that gaunt famine was afrequent visitor in the land?--But men must starve in silence. --To begwas crime. 

 "Alas, that bread should be so dear, And flesh and blood so cheap!"

Children six years old worked fourteen and fifteen hours daily in minesand factories, beaten by overseers to keep them awake over their tasks;while others five and six years old, driven by blows, crawled withtheir brooms into narrow soot-clogged chimneys, and sometimes gettingwedged in narrow flues, were mercifully suffocated and translated to akinder world. 

A ruinous craving was created for stimulants, which took the place ofinsufficient food, and in these stunted, pallid, emaciated beings afoundation was laid for an enfeebled and debased population, whichwould sorely tax the wisdom of statesmanship in the future. 

If such was the condition of the honest working poor, what was that ofthe criminal? It is difficult now to comprehend the ferocity of lawswhich made _235 offenses--punishable with death_, --most of whichwe should now call misdemeanors. But perhaps death was better than theprisons, which were the abode of vermin, disease and filth unspeakable. Jailers asked for no pay, but depended upon the money they could wringfrom the wretched beings in their charge for food and smallalleviations to their misery. In 1773 John Howard commenced his work inthe prisons, and the idea was first conceived that the object ofpunishment should be not to degrade sin-sick humanity, but to reformit. 

Far above this deep dark undercurrent, there was a bright, shiningsurface. Johnson had made his ponderous contribution to letters. Francis Barney had surprised the world with "Evelina;" Horace Walpole, (son of Sir Robert) was dropping witty epigrams from his pen; Sheridan, Goldsmith, Cowper, Burns, Southey, Coleridge, Wordsworth, in tones bothgrave and gay, were making sweet music; while Scott, Byron, Shelleyadded strains rich and melodious. 

[Sidenote: First English Railway, 1830. ]

As all this was passing, George Stephenson was pondering over a daringproject. Fulton had completed his invention in 1807, and in 1819 thefirst steamship had crossed the Atlantic. If engines could be made toplough through the water, why might they not also be made to walk theearth? It was thought an audacious experiment when he put this ironfire-devouring monster on wheels, to draw loaded cars. Not until 1830was his plan realized, when his new locomotive--"The Rocket"--drew thefirst railway train from Liverpool to Manchester, the Duke ofWellington venturing his life on the trial trip. 

In the year 1782 Ireland was permitted to have its own Parliament; butowing to a treasonable correspondence with France, a few years later, she was deprived of this legislative independence, and in 1801, after aprolonged struggle, was reunited to Great Britain, and thenceforth senther representatives to the British Parliament. 

[Sidenote: Oppression of Roman Catholics. Daniel O'Connell. ]

The laws against Roman Catholics which had been enacted as measures ofself-defence from the Stuarts, now that there was no longer a necessityfor them had become an oppression, which bore with special weight uponCatholic Ireland. By the oath of "Supremacy, " and by the declarationsagainst transubstantiation, intercession of Saints, etc. , etc. , theCatholics were shut out from all share in a Government which they weretaxed to support. Such an obvious injustice should not have needed apowerful pleader; but it found one in Daniel O'Connell, who by constantagitation and fiery eloquence created such a public sentiment, that theMinistry, headed by the Duke of Wellington, aided by Sir Robert Peel inthe House, carried through a measure in 1828 which opened Parliament toCatholics, and also gave them free access to all places of trust, Civilor Military, --excepting that of Regent, --Lord Chancellor--and LordLieutenant of Ireland. 

[Sidenote: George IV. , 1820-1830. ]

There is nothing to record of George IV. Except the irregularities ofhis private life, over which we need not linger. He was a dissolutespendthrift. His illegal marriage with Mrs. Fitzherbert, and his legalmarriage with Caroline of Brunswick from whom he quickly freed himself, are the chief events in his history. 

His charming young daughter, the Princess Charlotte, had died in 1817, soon after her marriage with Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg. She hadbeen adored as the future Queen, but upon the death of George IV. In1830, the Crown passed to his sailor brother William. 

[Sidenote: William IV. , 1830-1837. ]

William IV. Was sixty-five when he came to the throne. He was not acourtier in his manners, nor much of a fine gentleman in his tastes. But his plain, rough sincerity was not unacceptable, and his immediateespousal of the Reform Act, then pending, won him popularity at once. 

The efficiency and integrity of the House of Commons had long beenimpaired by an effete system of representation, which had beenunchanged for 500 years. Boroughs were represented which had longdisappeared from the face of the earth. One had for years been coveredby the sea! Another existed as a fragment of a wall in a gentleman'spark, while towns like Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, and nineteenother large and prosperous places, had no representation whatever. These "rotten boroughs" as they were called, were usually in the handsof wealthy landowners; one great Peer literally carrying elevenboroughs in his pocket, so that eleven members went to the House ofCommons at his dictation. --It would seem that a reform so obviouslyneeded should have been easy to accomplish. But the House of Lordsclung to the old system as if the life of the Kingdom depended upon it. And when the measure was finally carried the good old Duke ofWellington said sadly, "We must hope for the best; but the mostsanguine cannot believe we shall ever again be as prosperous. "

By this Act 56 boroughs were disfranchised, and 43 new ones, with 30county constituencies, were created. 

[Sidenote: "Reform Bill, 1832"]

It was in the contest over this Reform Bill that the Tories took thename of "Conservatives" and their opponents "Liberals. " Its passagemarks a most important transition in England. The workingman was by itenfranchised, and the House of Commons, which had hitherto represented_property_, thenceforth represented _manhood_. 

Nor were political reforms the only ones. Human pity awoke from itslethargy. The penalties for wrongdoing became less brutal, the prisonsless terrible. No longer did gaping crowds watch shivering wretchesbrought out of the jails every Monday morning, in batches of twenty andthirty, to be hung for pilfering or something even less. Littlechildren were lifted out of the mines and factories and chimneys andplaced in schools, which also began to be created for the poor. Numberless ways were devised for making life less miserable for theunfortunate, and for improving the social conditions of toiling men andwomen. 

[Sidenote: Slaves Emancipated, 1833. ]

While white slavery in the collieries and factories was thus mitigated, Wilberforce removed the stain of negro slavery from England in securingthe passage of a Bill which, while compensating the owners (whoreceived 20, 000, 000 pounds), set 800, 000 human beings free (1833). 

CHAPTER XIII. 

[Sidenote: Accession of Victoria, 1837. ]

William IV. Died at Windsor Castle, and at 5 o'clock on the morning ofJune 2oth, 1837 (just 58 years from the day this is written), a younggirl of eighteen was awakened to be told she was Queen of Great Britainand Ireland. Victoria was the only child of Edward, Duke of Kent, brother of William IV. Her marriage in 1840 with her cousin, PrinceAlbert of Saxe-Coburg, was one of deep affection, and secured for her awise and prudent counsellor. 

[Sidenote: Famine in Ireland, 1846. ]

On account of the high price of corn, Ireland had for years subsistedentirely upon potatoes. The failure of this crop for several successiveseasons, in 1846 produced a famine of such appalling dimensions thatthe old and the new world came to the rescue of the starving people. Parliament voted 10, 000, 000 pounds for food. But before relief couldreach them, two millions, one-fourth of the population of Ireland, hadperished. The anti-corn measures, championed by Richard Cobden andJohn Bright, which had been bitterly opposed by the Tories under theleadership of Disraeli, were thus reinforced by unexpected argument;foreign breadstuffs were permitted free access and free trade wasaccepted as the policy of England. 

Nicholas, the Czar of Russia, was, after the fashion of hispredecessors (and his successors), always waiting for the right momentto sweep down upon Constantinople. England had become only a land ofshopkeepers, France was absorbed with her new Empire, and with tryingon her fresh imperial trappings. The time seemed favorable for a move. The pious soul of Nicholas was suddenly stirred by certain restrictionslaid by the Sultan upon the Christians in Palestine. He demanded thathe be made the Protector of Christianity in the Turkish Empire, by anarrangement which would in fact transfer the Sovereignty fromConstantinople to St. Petersburg. 

That mass of Oriental corruption known as the Ottoman Empire, heldtogether by no vital forces, was ready to fall into ruin at onevigorous touch. It was an anachronism in modern Europe, where itscruelty was only limited by its weakness. That such an odious, treacherous despotism should so strongly appeal to the sympathies ofEngland that she was willing to enter upon a life-and-death strugglefor its maintenance, let those believe who can. --Her rushing to thedefence of Turkey, was about as sincere as Russia's interest in theChristians in Palestine. 

The simple truth beneath all these diplomatic subterfuges was of coursethat Russia wanted Constantinople, and England would at any costprevent her getting it. The keys to the East must, in any event, notbelong to Russia, her only rival in Asia. 

France had no Eastern Empire to protect, so her participation in thestruggle is at first not so easy to comprehend, until we reflect thatshe had an ambitious and _parvenu_ Emperor. To have Europe see himin confidential alliance with England, was alone worth a war; while avigorous foreign policy would help to divert attention from the recenttreacheries by which he had reached a throne. 

[Sidenote: War with Russia, 1854. ]

Such were some of the hidden springs of action which in 1854 broughtabout the Crimean War, --one of the most deadly and destructive ofmodern times. Two great Christian kingdoms had rushed to the defence ofthe worst Government ever known, and the best blood in England wasbeing poured into Turkish soil. 

The Russians soon found that the English were no less skilled asfighters, than as shopkeepers. They were victorious from the veryfirst, even when the numbers were ill-matched. But one immortal deed ofvalor must have made her tremble before the spirit it revealed. 

Six hundred cavalrymen, in obedience to an order which all knew was ablunder, dashed into a valley lined with cannon, and charged an army of30, 000 men!

 "Was there a man dismayed? Not though the soldiers knew Some one had blundered. Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do, --and die, As into the Valley of Death Rode the six hundred. "

The horrible blunder at Balaklava was not the only one. One incapablegeneral was followed by another, and routine and red-tape were moredeadly than Russian shot and shell. 

Food and supplies beyond their utmost power of consumption, werehurried to the army by grateful England. Thousands of tons of wood forhuts, shiploads of clothing and profuse provision for health andcomfort, reached Balaklava. 

While the tall masts of the ships bearing these treasures were visiblefrom the heights of Sebastopol, men there were perishing for lack offood, fuel and clothing. In rags, almost barefoot, half-fed, oftenwithout fuel even to cook their food, in that terrible winter on theheights, whole regiments of heroes became extinct, because there wasnot sufficient administrative ability to convey the supplies to aperishing army!

So wretched was the hospital service, that to be sent there meantdeath. Gangrene carried off four out of five. Men were dying at a ratewhich would have extinguished the entire army in a year and a half. Itwas Florence Nightingale who redeemed this national disgrace, andbrought order, care and healing into the camps. 

When England recalls with pride the valor and the victories in theCrimea, let her remember it was the _manhood in the ranks_ whichachieved it. When all was over, war had slain its thousands, --butofficial incapacity its tens of thousands!

It was a costly victory: Russia was humiliated, was even shut out fromthe waters of her own Black Sea, where she had hitherto been supreme. To two million Turks was preserved the privilege of oppressing eightmillion Christians; and for this, --twenty thousand British youth hadperished. But--the way to India was unobstructed!

England's career of conquest in India was not altogether of her ownseeking. As a neighboring province committed outrages upon its Britishneighbors, it became necessary in self-defence to punish it; and suchpunishment, invariably led to its subjugation. In this way one provinceafter another was subdued, until finally in the absorption of theKingdom of Oude (1856) the natural boundary of the Himalaya Mountainshad been reached, and the conquest was complete. The little tradingcompany of British merchants had become an Empire, vast and rich beyondthe wildest dreams of romance. 

The British rule was upon the whole beneficent. The condition of thepeople was improved, and there was little dissatisfaction except amongthe deposed native princes, who were naturally filled with hate andbitterness. The large army required to hold such an amount ofterritory, was to a great extent recruited from the native population, the Sepoys, as they were called, making good soldiers. 

[Sidenote: Sepoy Rebellion, 1857-1858. ]

In 1857 the King of the Oude and some of the native princes cunninglydevised a plan of undermining the British by means of their Sepoys, andcircumstances afforded a singular opportunity for carrying out theirdesign. 

A new rifle had been adopted, which required a greased cartridge, forwhich animal grease was used. The Sepoys were told this was a deep-laidplot to overthrow their native religions. The Mussulman was to beeternally lost by defiling his lips with the fat of swine, and theHindu, by the indignity offered to the venerated Cow. These English hadtried to ruin them not alone in this world, but in the next. 

[Sidenote: Massacre at Cawnpore. ]

Thrilled with horror, terror-stricken, the dusky soldiers wereconverted into demons. Mutinies arose simultaneously at twenty-twostations; not only officers, but Europeans, were slaughtered withoutmercy. At Cawnpore was the crowning horror. After a siege of many daysthe garrison capitulated to Nana Sahib and his Sepoys. The officerswere shot, and their wives, daughters, sisters and babes, 206 innumber, were shut up in a large apartment which had been used by theladies for a ballroom. 

After eighteen days of captivity, the horrors of which will never beknown, five men with sabres, in the twilight, were seen to enter theroom and close the door. There were wild cries and shrieks and groans. Three times a hacked and a blunted sabre was passed out of a window inexchange for a sharper one. Finally the groans and moans graduallyceased and all was still. The next morning a mass of mutilated remainswere thrown into an empty well. 

Two days later the avenger came in the person of General Havelock. TheSepoys were conquered and a policy of merciless retribution followed. 

In that well at Cawnpore was forever buried sympathy for the mutinousIndian. When we recall that, we can even hear with calmness of Sepoysfired from the cannon's mouth. From that moment it was the cause of menin conflict with demons, civilization in deadly struggle with cruel, treacherous barbarism. We cannot advocate meeting atrocity withatrocity, nor can we forget that it was a Christian nation fightingwith one debased and infidel. But terrible surgery is sometimes neededto extirpate disease. 

Greed for territory, and wrong, and injustice may have mingled with theacquisition of an Indian Empire, but posterity will see only a majesticuplifting of almost a quarter of the human family from debasedbarbarism, to a Christian civilization; and all through theinstrumentality of a little band of trading settlers from a small far-off island in the northwest of Europe. 

CHAPTER XIV. 

[Sidenote: Atlantic Cable, 1858. ]

But there were other things besides famine and wars taking place in theKingdom of the young Queen. A greater and a subtler force than steamhad entered into the life of the people. A miracle had happened in1858, when an electric wire threaded its way across the Atlantic, andtwo continents conversed as friends sitting hand in hand. 

[Sidenote: Daguerre's Discovery, 1839. ]

Another miracle had then just been achieved in the discovery of certainchemical conditions, by which scenes and objects would imprintthemselves in minutest detail upon a prepared surface. A sort of magicseemed to have entered into life, quickening and intensifying all itsprocesses. Enlarged knowledge opened up new theories of disease andcreated a new Art of healing. Surgery, with its unspeakable anguish, was rendered painless by anaesthetics. Mechanical invention was sostimulated that all the processes of labor were quickened and improved. 

[Sidenote: First World's Fair, 1851. ]

In 1851 the Prince Consort conceived the idea of a great Exposition, which should under one roof gather all the fruits of this marvellousadvance, and Sydenham Palace, a gigantic structure of glass and iron, was erected. 

In literature, Tennyson was preserving English valor in immortal verse. Thackeray and Dickens, in prose as immortal, were picturing the sociallights and shadows of the Victorian Age. 

[Sidenote: Death of Prince Albert, 1861. ]

In 1861 a crushing blow fell upon the Queen in the death of the PrinceConsort. America treasures kindly memory of Prince Albert, on accountof his outspoken friendship in the hour of her need. During the war ofthe Rebellion, while the fate of our country seemed hanging in thebalance, we had few friends in England, where people seemed to lookwith satisfaction upon our probable dismemberment. 

We are not likely to forget the three shining exceptions:--PrinceAlbert--John Bright--and John Stuart Mill. 

[Sidenote: Suez Canal. ]

It was while that astute diplomatist, Disraeli (Lord Beaconsfield) wasPrime Minister, that French money, skill and labor opened up thewaterway between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. It would never doto have France command such a strategic point on the way to the East. England was alert. She lost not a moment. The impecunious Khedive wasoffered by telegraph $20, 000, 000 for his interest in the Suez Canal, nearly one-half of the whole capital stock. The offer was accepted withno less alacrity than it was made. So with the Arabian Port of Aden, which she already possessed, and with a strong enough financial graspupon impoverished Egypt to secure the right of way, should she need it, England had made the Canal which France dug, practically her own. 

[Sidenote: Victoria Crowned Empress of India, 1876]

Lord Beaconsfield had crowned his dramatic and picturesque Ministerialcareer by placing a new diadem on the head of the widowed Queen, whowas now Empress of India. His successor, William Ewart Gladstone, thegreat leader of the Liberal party, was content with a less showy field. He had in 1869 relieved Ireland from the unjust burden of supporting aChurch the tenets of which she considered blasphemous; and one whichher own, the Roman Catholic, had for three centuries been trying tooverthrow. We cannot wonder that the memory of a tyranny so odious isnot easily effaced; nor that there is less gratitude for its removal, than bitterness that it should so long have been. 

[Sidenote: Disestablishment of Irish Branch of Church of England, 1869. ]

The disestablishment of the English Church in Ireland was one of themost righteous acts of this reign. Whether the great English Statesmanwill be equally successful in securing Home Rule for that unhappy land, upon which he has staked the final effort of his life, remains to beseen. 

The Irish question is such a tangled web of wrong and injusticecomplicated by folly and outrage, that the wisest and best-intentionedstatesmanship is baffled. Whether the conditions would be improved bygiving them their own Parliament, can only be determined by experiment;and that experiment England is not yet willing to try. 

History affords few spectacles of its kind more impressive than Mr. Gladstone at 86, with the ardor and energy of youth, battling for ameasure he believes so vitally necessary to the Nation. It is a pitythat for Americans his greatness is tarnished and belief in theinfallibility of his judgment shaken, by the memory that he upheld theattack upon our National life in 1860; and that he, seemingly withoutregret, prophesied our downfall. 

The work of Parliamentary reform commenced in 1832 has moved steadilyon through this reign. By successive acts the franchise has extendedfarther and farther, until a final limit is almost reached; and side byside with this has been a corresponding increase in educationalfacilities, "because, " as a Peer cynically remarked, "we must educateour Masters!"

So many reforms have been accomplished during this reign, the timeseems not far distant when there will be little more for Liberals tourge, or for Conservatives and the House of Lords to obstruct. Monarchyis absolutely shorn of its dangers. The House of Commons, which is theactual ruling power of the Kingdom, is only the expression of thepopular will. 

We are accustomed to regard American freedom as the one supreme type. But it is not. The popular will in England reaches the springs ofGovernment more freely, more swiftly, and more imperiously, than itdoes in Republican America. It comes as a stern mandate, which must beobeyed on the instant. The Queen of England has less power than thePresident of the United States. He can form a definite policy, selecthis own Ministry to carry it out, and to some extent have his own wayfor four years, whether the people like it or not. The Queen cannot dothis for a day. Her Ministry cannot stand an hour, with a policydisapproved by the Commons. Not since Anne has a sovereign refusedsignature to an Act of Parliament. The Georges, and William IV. , continued to exercise the power of dismissing Ministers at theirpleasure. But since Victoria, an unwritten law forbids it, and withthis vanishes the last _remnant of a personal Government_. The endlong sought is attained. 

The history of no other people affords such an illustration of asteadily progressive national development from seed to blossom, compelled by one persistent force. Freedom in England has not beenwrought by cataclysm as in France, but has unfolded like a plant from alife within; impeded and arrested sometimes, but patiently biding itstime, and then steadily and irresistibly pressing outward; one leafafter another freeing itself from the detaining force. Only a few moreremain to be unclosed, and we shall behold the consummate flower offourteen centuries;--centuries in which the most practical nation inthe world has steadily pursued an _ideal_! The ideal of individualfreedom subordinated only to the good of the whole. 

The triumph of England has been the triumph not of genius, nor ofintellect, but of _character_. It is those cross-threads ofstubborn homely traits, the tenacity of purpose, the reluctance tochange, the adherence to habit, usage and tradition, which havetoughened the fabric almost to indestructibility. These traits areillustrated in the persistence of the hereditary principle in the royalline. We look in vain for another such instance. The blood of Cerdic, the first Saxon "Ealdorman" (495), flows in the veins of Victoria. Sheis 38th remove from Egbert, first Saxon King of consolidated England(802), 26th from William the Conqueror (1066), and 9th in descent fromthat picturesque and lovely criminal, Mary Stuart (1587). There havebeen wars, and foreign invasions, --a Danish and a Norman conquest, theoverturning of dynasties, and Revolutions, and a "Protectorate, " andyet--there sits upon the throne to-day a Queen descended by unbrokenline from Cerdic the Saxon!

Queen Victoria is undoubtedly indebted to the wise counsel and guidanceof the Prince Consort in the early decades of her reign. Not one act offolly has marred its even current. She has held up to the nation a highideal of wifehood, motherhood, and of domestic virtue. None of herpredecessors have bound their people to them with ties so human, hergriefs and experiences moving them as their own. We think of her moreas an exalted type of Woman, than as Sovereign of the most marvellousEmpire the World ever saw;--its area three times that of Europe, representing every zone, all products, and every race!

How long England will be capable of sending out a vital currentsufficient to nourish such distant extremities none can tell; orwhether the far-off Colonies of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand willincrease their independent life, until they become detachedSovereignties like the United States. If that day ever comes, like theMother of a generation of grown children, with independent homes oftheir own, --England will sit with folded hands, her life-work done. 

Let no American forget, that England before the Restoration is as muchour England as theirs. That the memories of Crecy, of Blenheim, ofMarston Moor and Naseby, are our great inheritance too. That Chaucer, Milton, Shakespeare, belong to the humblest American as much as toVictoria. 

The branch has grown far from the parent tree since the 17th Century;and the England of Tennyson and Herbert Spencer is only a very distantcousin. She has not always treated us well, has not been chary ofcriticism, nor prodigal of praise, nor did she sympathize with us inthe day of our peril and misfortune. But for all that--sharing thesame great heritage of race and of literature, speaking in the samelanguage the same thoughts and impulses, there must always existbetween us a tie, such as can bind us to no other nation upon theearth.