John

A rich and patriotic Englishman, named John Hampden, refused to pay his "ship money" tax, which amounted to twenty shillings, and the question Hampden of the lawfulness of "ship money" thus came resists it. before the courts. The judges of that time felt that they were "the lions that supported the King's throne," and must uphold his power; the King, too, had been weeding out judges whom he thought to be unfriendly to his claims. Therefore, the case was decided against Hampden, and the collection of "ship money" continued. The "ship money" case was nevertheless of great importance. It gave to the leading men who opposed the King's claims a chance to speak their minds on the subject, and so to place before the people the dangers of the King's policy. It showed the nation how insecure were their rights of property, under the law as administered by the King's judges.

While the King trampled on the rights of Parliament, and arbitrarily took from his subjects their property, he angered the nation yet more deeply by his religious policies.

Archbishop

religious

Charles appointed as Archbishop of Canterbury a well-meaning but narrow-minded man named William Laud, and allowed him to carry out changes Laud's in the Church, which seemed to the Puritans policy. to pave the way for a restoration of the Catholic faith. Men who wrote and spoke against these changes, or against the power of the bishops, were made to stand in the pillory, had their ears cut off, were branded on the cheek with hot irons, were fined ruinous sums, and were cast into prison. Finally, to complete his folly, Laud and the King tried to “reform” the Church of Scotland, in the same way that they had already "reformed" the Church of England.

Scotland

(1639).

In Scotland, almost the whole nation banded themselves together to resist the changes. The result was a rebellion, called the "Bishops' Wars," in "Bishops' which Charles was defeated. The Scots then Wars" in advanced into England. Charles was obliged to make peace with his Scottish subjects. In this he agreed that the Scots' army should stay in England until the changes which he promised should be carried through, and that he would pay its expenses.

To get money to pay the Scots, Charles was obliged, after eleven years of arbitrary government, at last to summon his Parliament-the famous Long The Long Parliament-which sat (with interruptions) called from 1640 to 1660.

Parliament

(1640).

Charles could not rid himself of the Long Parliament, when it opposed him, as he had done his earlier ones, because in its earlier stages it was backed by the army of the Scots. Later he was prevented from dissolving it, because he had been forced to agree that it should not be dismissed without its own consent.

In both the House of Commons and the House of Lords there was a strong majority against Charles's policies. The leaders of Parliament, therefore, set to work to do three things-to undo the misgovernment of the last eleven years, to punish Charles's ministers, and to pass laws which should make such abuses impossible for the future.

Their hatred was chiefly directed against the Earl of Strafford, who had joined them in opposing the Duke of Buckingham, but had become Charles's Earl of principal adviser after Buckingham's death. Strafford Strafford was honest in his course, but his

executed.

former companions regarded him as a traitor to their cause. They also feared him, for so long as he lived no

victory which they might win over the King could be permanent, nor their lives be safe. Every effort, therefore, was made to have him put to death. He was accused of attempting to overthrow the liberties of the kingdom, and particularly of having advised the King to

make war on his English people. This was held to be treason, and Parliament at last voted that he should be beheaded.

Charles had promised Strafford that he should not suffer in person or in honor, for aiding him. But the outcry of the London mob against Strafford was so great that the King was terrified for the safety of his Queen and

children, and, with tears in his eyes, he at last consented to Strafford's execution.

"Put not your trust in princes!" cried Strafford when this news was brought to him. Nevertheless he had scarcely hoped that he would be spared. He met his death bravely.

He was a pure and able man, and was loyal to what he believed to be his duty. It was his misfortune that his ideas of government were those of a past age, and that his death was a necessity for the people's liberty.

After Strafford's execution, the King and Parliament drifted ever farther and farther apart.

At one time, Charles caused five of the leaders of Parliament to be accused of treason. In violation of their Parliamentary privileges, he came in Attempt person with an armed force to seize them. to arrest When the Speaker of the Commons was asked Parliament. to point out the accused members, he replied, kneeling before the King:

leaders of

"May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak, in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me.”

66

"Well, well," replied the King, 'tis no matter; I think my eyes are as good as another's.”

However, he did not find the men he sought, because, as he said, "the birds were flown.” This attempt did Charles no good, but only caused Parliament and the nation to distrust his intentions.

over militia

Two questions, especially, now separated Charles from his Parliament. One was the government of the Church by bishops, which the Puritans wished Quarrels to cast out, root and branch." The other was the appointment by Parliament of the officers who commanded the county militia.

66

and Church

lead to

war (1642).

Troops

were now being raised to put down a rebellion in Ireland, and members of Parliament were fearful lest Charles should use these to put down Parliament itself.

To the demand for the right to appoint the militia officers, Charles replied:

66

That is a thing with which I would not even trust my wife and children."

On the religious question, he was equally steadfast. In this position he was supported by many members of Parliament who had formerly opposed him. On a measure called the "Grand Remonstrance," which was directed against the King's government, the opposition to Charles had a majority of only eleven votes, in place of the almost unanimous support which they formerly had. Feeling ran so high that swords were actually drawn on the floor of the House of Commons, and bloodshed was narrowly prevented.

The question really at issue was this: Should the King or Parliament control the government?

It was a question which could neither be evaded nor compromised. Matters grew steadily worse and worse; and finally, in 1642, the two parties drifted into civil war.

TOPICS FOR THOUGHT AND SEARCH

1. Why were James I. and Charles I. less successful rulers than Elizabeth?

2. What is meant by "impeachment"? Who are the accusers in such a trial? Who are the judges?

3. Find out what you can about Sir John Eliot. About John Hampden.

4. Was the Earl of Strafford a good man or a bad man? Was he justly or unjustly punished?

5. Was the King or Parliament right in the struggle over the Church question and the militia question? Why?