ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION OF 1640.*

M. GUIZOT is well-known in this country as a statesman and historian, and the work before us especially claims our gratitude. So many erroneous opinions and accounts of the English Revolution, its character and objects, prevail, while the leading personages of that day are too often but little understood, that we hail with great joy the appearance, in a popular form, of a work so well calculated to dispel the mystery which prejudice and want of information have cast around the English Revolution. Besides all this, an account, by an impartial writer, involving such great principles, is always interesting, because it enables us more clearly to trace the promulgation and diffusion of that true liberty we now enjoy-to appreciate its blessings or to shun its abuses. We are also thus enabled to discern the causes, both remote and proximate, that induced such a departure from ordinary procedure, and are consequently more prepared to discover and thy rt all designs with a tendency to the same order of things; for it is an erroneous, although common idea, that these revolutions are sudden and unexpected outbreaks, which some mighty spirit then in existence had caused, on account of an idea which fancy had implanted in his brain, of the existence of ove..helming evils and despotism which his destiny doomed him to overthrow. Persons entertaining such ideas, regard them as instances of the miracles of Providence, departing from all rules of nature, and arising entirely from new principles and causes then for the first time called into existence. Because these causes were unobserved by them before such revolutions brought them prominently into notice, they deny their existence, and invariably regard the chief characters of the day as having concocted the revolution, instead of considering that the exigencies and peculiarities of the times formed, in a great measure, the characters of the chief actors who then occupied the prominent places of the political world. The faults and the benefits of the revolution are thus judged of from the character of its leaders, and sometimes charged, too, either with their individual virtues or horrid barbarities. M. Guizot refutes this idea, in the following passage from his preface, while drawing a parallel between the English and French revolutions :

"Far from having interrupted the natural course of events in Europe, neither the English revolution nor our own ever said, wished, or did anything that had not been said, wished, done or attempted a hundred times before they burst forth.They proclaimed the illegality of absolute power. The free consent of the people in reference to laws and taxes, and the right of armed resistance, were elemental principles of the feudal system; and the Church has often repeated those words of St. Isidore, which we find in the canons of the 4th Council of Toledo He is king who rules his people with justice; if he rule otherwise he shall no longer be king. They attacked prerogative, and sought to introduce greater equality into social order. Kings throughout Europe have done the same; and, down to our own times, the various steps in the progress of civil equality have been founded upon the laws and measured by the progress of royalty. They demanded that public offices should be thrown open to the citizens at large; should be distributed according to merit only, and that power should be conferred by election. This is

History of the English Revolution of 1640, commonly called the Great Rebellion, from the accession of Charles I. to his death. By F. Guizot, the Prime Minister of France, author of History of Civilization in Europe," &c, &c. Translated by William Hazlitt. In two volumes. New-York: D. Appleton & Co., 200 Broadway.

[blocks in formation]

the fundamental principle of the internal government of the Church, which not only acts upon it, but has emphatically proclaimed its worth. Whether we consider the general doctrines of the two revolutions, or the results to which they were applied; whether we regard the government of the state or civil legislation-property or persons, liberty or power-nothing will be found of which the invention originated with them; nothing which is not equally met with, or which, at all events, did not come into existence in periods which are called regular. Nor is this all; those principles, those designs, those efforts, which are exclusively to the English Revolution, and to our own, not only preceded them by several centuries, but are precisely the same principles-the same efforts to which society in Europe owes all its progress. Was it by its disorders and its privileges, by its brute force, and by keeping men down beneath its yoke, that the feudal aristocracy took part in the development of nations? No! it struggled against royal tyranny, exercised the right of resistance, and maintained the maxims of liberty. For what have nations blessed kings? Was it for their pretensions to divine right ?—to absolute power? for their profusion? for their courts? No! kings assailed the feudal system and aristocratical privileges. They introduced unity into legislation and into the executive administration; they aided the progress of equality. And the clergy--whence does it derive its power?-How has it promoted civilization? Was it by separating itself from the people; by taking fright at human reason; by sanctioning tyranny in the name of Heaven? No; it gathered together, without distinction, in its churches, and under the law of God, the great and the small, the poor and the rich, the weak and the strong. It honored and fostered science; instituted schools; favored the propagation of knowledge, and gave activity to the mind. Interrogate the history of the masters of the world; examine the influence of the various classes which have decided its destiny ;-whenever any good shall manifest itself; wherever the lasting gratitude of man shall recognise a great service done to humanity, it will be seen that these were the steps toward the object which were pursued by the English Revolution and our own, and we shall find ourselves in the presence of one of the principles they sought to establish."Preface, viii-x.

Our readers must pardon an extract from our author so long, and apparently so remote from our subject; but we wish to be clearly understood as to the manner in which we ought ever to regard these political phenomena. In order to give a general idea of the work before us, we shall follow our author in his history of the causes and results of the revolution, as well as its immediate aspect and the characters it produced. Meanwhile, we cannot avoid remarking that the work itself is an instance of the beneficial results of these revolutions. In the days of French despotism, what press would have dared to publish a work which proved that kings were only loved in proportion as they contributed to the equality and happiness of the people, from whom they derived their rights, instead of supporting their favorite theories of passive obedience and the divine superiority of monarchs.

The remote causes of the English Revolution are discernible as far back as the time when the feudal system prevailed, when the people were divided into two great classes-the serfs and the lords, with their chief the king.— Monarchy then had no power but that derived from the conquering aristocracy. The serfs were the slaves of the lords, alike to till their ground and to follow their banner to the battle-field. Upon them the nobles reeked their vengeance and ground them with oppression. The vassal's only protection was the Church, and the clergy in that dark age alone shielded from oppression and administered food to the moral nature of man. As the instructors of mankind, they acquired a prodigious influence, rivaling that of the lords in its extent. To them the king, tired of depending upon an overbearing aristocracy, applied for assistance. An alliance is formed between royalty and the Church, which surpasses the power of the nobles. In this manner the crown advanced by the aid of the Church, and by its own

inherent vigor, until at last it excites the jealousy of the clergy. Against them the crown had recourse to the diminishing aristocracy and to the people. Thus royalty became predominant with the clergy, and aristocracy subdued beneath it; but in the meantime, during these struggles the people were acquiring knowledge and maturity, not yet sufficiently strong or civilized to assert its rights. By degrees the belligerent powers coalesced and sat down together to divide the spoils of an oppressed people. The invention of printing and the Reformation aided to throw aside the veil from the eyes of the people. They no longer bowed in slavish obedience in spiritual matters to the clergy; they began to search, to learn, to think, and to act for themselves. The aristocracy were, however, still in a great measure the leaders at these events, while the power of the monarch was increased by the addition of ecclesiastical pre-eminence. The crown became enveloped in feebleness-the aristocracy degraded in effeminacy, and forced to seek means, by the sale of their estates to the richer Commons, to support their expensive profligacy. As the nobles, by these means, decreased in wealth and influence, the Commons increased. The extension of privileges, however, did not keep pace with the increase of wealth, and the rights which had hitherto been exercised by the king without dispute, were now inquired into, because felt by a greater number of persons. The Commons asserted their right to prescribe the duties of the crown, which, on the contrary, maintained its divine origin and the necessity of obedience, not inquiry. Thus they were at issue. Gratitude to their sovereigns for the overthrow of Popery at first prevented the people from marking the limits of a power to which they owed so much. Their silence was mistaken by imbecile monarchs and their more imbecile advisers for docile submission and cheerful acquiescence. The consequence was, the despotism of the throne became more intolerable; the remonstrances of the people more dignified nd resolute. They were unheeded, or the authors of them treated with contumelious barbarity. The spark became a flame, and the revolution was at hand. This imperfect and rapid glance at the movements of society will enable us to perceive the origin of those causes which had accumulated, and were now, like a mighty avalanche, about to carry all before them. Such, indeed, was the state of affairs at the demise of James I., very aptly styled "the learned fool." His son, Charles I., ascended the throne with the blessings of all. Never did a monarch enter upon his reign with more propitious circumstances. All eyes were turned towards him. His grave and dignified, but courteous demeanor; his acknowledged piety; his learning and frugality, while they kept his courtiers in awe, pleased his subjects. In him they fancied they beheld one who would preserve the dignity of the crown, and establish the true liberty of the people-one who would arrest the profligacy of his nobles and reform the abuses of the Church-who would in all things consider the interests of his subjects synonymous with his own. They anticipated an end of the disputes between the king and the Parliament, which had so agitated the country in the previous reign. Parliament was convoked 2d April, 1625.

[ocr errors]

"Scarcely was the House of Commons assembled, (18th June,) when a worthy man, who had been reckoned in the last reign one of the opponents of the court, Sir Benjamin Rudyard, rose, (22d of June,) and moved that henceforth nothing should be neglected to maintain a perfect harmony between the king and the people. For,' said he, what may we not expect from him, being king? His good natural disposition, his freedom from vice, his travels abroad, his being bred in Parliament, promise greatly.'"-Vol. I., p. 25.

[ocr errors]

What a melancholy contrast was the close of the reign to this auspicious

commencement! M. Guizot, after alluding to this happy beginning, enters into an elaborate argument, to prove how much the people and the prince were already antagonistic in their opinions. Our space will not allow us to notice his argument, otherwise than merely to mention that he seems to consider very probable that his travels abroad, (in France and Spain,) alluded to by Sir B. Rudyard, instead of having been conducive to the amicable adjustment of the differences in existence between the court and people, filled the mind of Charles with more preposterous ideas of his regal dignity and his own superiority, and that thenceforth the thrones of France and Spain were the precedents he referred to, to sanction all his actions. This, no doubt, was in a great measure the case; but we proceed to trace the history of the Parliament. With a determination to discharge their duty fearlessly, but at the same time with a courteous demeanor towards the king, from whom they expected redress, they began to investigate every department of government, and expose the abuses they discovered. They complained of the royal navy, as inadequate for the protection of English commerce, and of Dr. Montague, the king's chaplain, for defending the Romish Church and preaching passive obedience. The freedom of speech appeared to Charles an encroachment upon his prerogative, but he said nothing, for he wanted money to carry on the war with Spain. If they were granted, the redress of grievances should follow. They granted at first a small subsidy, and the custom duties were voted for a year, contrary to the usual custom, which had hitherto been to vote them for the continuance of the reign. The king and the lords were offended. The vote was regarded as an insult, but the Commons were determined to obtain first the redress of their grievances, and then intended to be more liberal. Charles regarded such conduct as an encroachment upon his prerogative, which he was determined to maintain. He therefore dissolved Parliament, Aug. 12th, and both parted in anger, notwithstanding their mutual good will-both equally satisfied as to the rectitude and legitimacy of their views, and determined, as far as possible, to enforce them. The king now assumed the reins of government. Orders of Council were issued to the several lord-lieutenants of the counties to raise the money for the king by way of loan, at the same time they were to send a report of those rich citizens who should hesitate or refuse to lend their money. A fleet sailed to the Bay of Cadiz, which was filled with vessels richly freighted, but failed; and murmurs were heard. The project for raising the loans also progressed but slowly, so that the king began to think of again consulting Parliament; but, in the meantime, some plan must be adopted to keep away the popular leaders, in whose absence, he had no doubt, but that the Commons would be docile. He was mistaken; for although Sir Edward Coke, Sir Robert Phillips, Sir Thomas Wentworth, Sir Francis Leyman, and other leaders, were made sheriffs of their respective counties, and consequently could not attend, the trick was too bold not to be seen. The same spirit that actuated the leaders pervaded the House. The Commons proved their obedience by impeaching the Duke of Buckingham, the king's favorite, whose overbearing and insolent conduct justly rendered him the object of hatred to all. The character of this remarkable man is thus ably portrayed by our author:

"The Duke was one of those men who seem born to shine in courts, and to displease nations. Handsome, presumptuous, magnificent, frivolous, but daring; sincere and warm in his attachments, open and haughty in his hatreds, alike incapable of virtue and hypocrisy, he governed without a political design, troubling himself neither about the interests of his country, nor even those of power; wholly occupied with his own greatness, and with exhibiting in dazzling display his royalty. On one occasion he had endeavored to render himself unpopular,

and had succeeded; the rupture of the intended marriage of Charles with the Infanta was his work. But public favor was with him only as a means of obtaining ascendency over the king, so that when public favor quitted him he scarcely observed its loss, so full of proud joy was he at retaining over Charles the influence he had insolently exercised over James I. He had no talent whereby to support his ambition; frivolous passions were the sole aim of his intrigues; to seduce a woman, to ruin a rival, he compromised, with arrogant carelessness, now the king, now the country. The empire of such a man seemed to a people becoming day by day more grave and serious, an insult as well as a calamity; and the Duke continued to usurp the highest offices of the state, without ever appearing in the eyes of the populace anything better than an upstart, without glory; a daring and incapable favorite."— Vol. 1., p. 39.

The king espoused the cause of his favorite in the most violent manner. Two of the principal promoters of the impeachment were sent to the Tower for insolence of speech. The Commons refused to act till they were released, and Charles gave way. Encouraged by the feebleness of the king, the Commons began to prepare a general remonstrance, but Charles, who got scent of their design, determined to make another desperate effort to extricate himself from the humiliating position so many defeats had placed him in. Parliament was immediately dissolved, and the remonstrance of the Commons publicly burnt; and whoever possessed a copy thereof was ordered to burn it also. Charles and Buckingham began to govern in good earnest. War was declared against France, and an armament dispatched for the relief of the Protestants at Rochelle, under the command of Buckingham. A general loan was ordered, and the seaports and maritime districts were required to furnish vessels armed and equipped.

"Twenty were demanded from the city of London; the corporation replied, that to repel the Armada of Philip II., Queen Elizabeth had required fewer; the answer to this was, that the precedents in former times were obedience, not directions.""

Passive obedience was ordered to be preached, and severe penalties. followed the refusal. Fresh causes of differences arose every day; nor was the public indignation at all appeased by the news of the disgraceful defeat of the fleet at Rochelle, through the misconduct of Buckingham. Murmurs were heard on every side, until at last, by the advice of Sir Robert Cotton, one of the most inoderate popular leaders, Parliament was again called. The prisons were thrown open, and those who had been lately incarcerated for their resistance to tyranny, were suddenly released, more endeared to the people than ever from their sufferings. Twenty eight of these prisoners were returned to Parliament. The king's opening speech was haughty but conceding-imploring subsidies, accompanied with threats in the event of a

refusal.

"The Commons were not at all disturbed at his threats; thoughts no less proud, no less inflexible than his filled their souls. They were resolved solemnly to proclaim their liberties, to compel power to acknowledge them original and independent; no longer to suffer that any right should pass for a concession, any abuse for a right. Neither leaders nor soldiers were wanting for this great design. The whole nation pressed round the Parliament; within its walls talented and daring men advised together for the national good. Sir Edward Coke, the glory of the bench, no less illustrious for his firmness and his learning; Sir Thomas Wentworth, afterwards earl of Strafford, young, ardent, eloquent, born to command, and whose ambition was then satisfied with the administration of his countryDeugil Hollis, the youngest son of Lord Clare, companion in childhood of Charles, but the sincere friend of liberty, and too proud to serve under a favorite-Pym, a learned lawyer, especially versed in the knowledge of the rights and customs of

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »