ENGLAND 613 ileges were derived from him, asserted in full, and in the plainest language, all those principles for which the English constitution- alists contended as facts not to be questioned. Then began that civil contest which lasted down to 1689 in full force, and which was not utterly at an end till 1746. The foreign policy of James was as vicious as his home policy, and England became of less account in the European world than a second-rate German or Italian principality. James I. died in 1625, and was succeeded by his son Charles L, a monarch who had some elegant tastes, but who apparently could not conceive of any obliga- tions on the part of a king to his subjects. He did not put forward his pretensions so offen- sively as his father, but he adhered to them with a courage and a tenacity that were utterly unknown to James. He set deliberately to work to introduce into England the system of government that prevailed in France, to do in England and Scotland what the Austro-Bur- gundian princes had done in Castile and Aragon. He had been educated in England from his early childhood, had good faculties, and had by his assent to the petition of right expressly agreed not to rule arbitrarily, for a full and solid consid- eration paid into his hands. Yet for 11 years (1629-'40) he called no parliament, and Eng- land was ruled as despotically as France ; and had all his instruments been prudent and able men, it is possible he would have succeeded in his design. His chief instruments were Went- worth, afterward earl of Strafford, and Laud, archbishop of Canterbury ; the former one of the ablest men in an age singularly prolific in able men ; the latter equally distinguished for his narrowness of mind. These two men seem to have been associated only that the wisdom of the one might be confounded by the folly of the other. Laud gave precedence to eccle- siastical tyranny, whereas Wentworth, if he had had entire management of affairs, would have established political despotism, whence religious uniformity would soon have followed. It is very doubtful whether the people could have been stirred up to the fighting point if Reir religious sentiments had remained with- fc serious disturbance until their political
- hts had been totally subverted. Laud sought
fasten the English church polity on Scotland, lich was met by deep and determined resist- ce on the part of the Scotch. War between 3 Scotch people and the English government loilowed, and Charles was compelled to call a parliament, April, 1640. Thus were all Went- worth's sagacious plans set at naught. The parliament, known in history as the short par- liament, lasted but a few days, when it was dissolved. Six months later assembled the famous long parliament, which the king's ne- cessity forced him to call. This parliament punished the king's tools, and forced him to admit that it should not be dissolved without its own consent. It then proceeded to divest the king of much of his power, demanding among other things the control of the militia. The parliamentary party went beyond the limits of the constitution in their desire to preserve the constitution ; but their justification is to be found in the purpose and acts of the king, and in his incurable falsehood. The political leaders of 1640-'42 never counted upon the king's death or deposition, and at no time was it out of his power to have reigned in strength and peace, on the sole condition that he should rule as a constitutional sovereign. It was nat- ural that Charles should refuse to part with power that was legally his ; and it was equally natural that the parliament should refuse to allow it to remain in his hands. Both parties appealed to arms, and what is known as the great civil war began in the latter part of 1642. At first fortune favored the king, but his wrong-headedness rendered him unable to profit therefrom. Gradually the radical party in parliament gained strength, and, under the lead of Vane, Cromwell, and others, rose to power. Cromwell was everywhere victori- ous in the field. Parliament was "purged" of all who showed any disposition to treat with the king. The army became the source of all power. The king was tried, condemned, and executed. Ireland was conquered by Cromwell, who was almost equally successful in Scotland. The battle of Worcester, Sept. 3, 1651, crushed the royalists for nearly nine years. In 1653 Cromwell dissolved the parliament by force, and was master of England for five years, ruling the country more wisely than it had been ruled by Charles or James, but still with an iron hand. He would have ruled constitutionally if he could, but by him the English would not be so ruled. He wished to become king, but this the army would not allow, for it was com- posed of sincere republicans. Yet England then occupied the highest place she had ever known in the world's estimation ; one in stri- king contrast with that which she had held during the 40 years of the rule of James I. and Charles I. The subjection of Ireland had now been consummated. After Cromwell's death, in 1658, dissensions broke out, and the military and civil republicans quarrelled. Eichard, the son of the great protector, who had succeeded his father, but had little ability, resigned, and thus was prepared the way for the restoration of the Stuarts, effected by Gen. Monk in 1660. The reign of Charles II. dates in fact from that year (May 29, when he entered London), though in law it dates from the day of his father's de- capitation. The change was prodigious. The austere Puritans were succeeded by profligate cavaliers. The Puritans had insisted upon ruling the nation into righteousness, and had caused that reaction which ended in the foulest licentiousness. Many of the reforms effected by the long parliament remained permanent. That body had swept away the court of star chamber, the high commission court, and the council of the north, all tremendous instru- ments of royal tyranny, and not one of these
