History of Charles the First and the English revolution, from the accession of Charles the First to his execution ... Translated by A. R. Scoble. New edition, revised and enlarged

Front matter

CnARLES THE FIRST AND THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION. CHARLES THE FIRST AND THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION, FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES THE FIRST TO HIS EXECUTION. By M. GrUIZOT. TRANSLATED BY ANDREW R. SCOBLE. NEW EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. I. LONDON: RICHARD BENTLEY, NEW BURLINGTON STREET, in ©rtitiinnj to T&cx Jfflafestn. 1854. I'TIINTFD RY w. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.

ADVERTISEMENT.

TO THE NEW EDITION. The history of the English Revolution, its origin and consequences, extends over a period of sixty-three years, — from the accession of Charles I., in 1625, to the fall of James II., in 1688 ; and is naturally divided, by the great events which it includes, into four periods. The first of these comprehends the reign of Charles I., his conflict with the Long Parlia ment, his defeat and death ; the second contains the history of the Commonwealth, under the Long Parliament and Cromwell; the third is marked by the Restoration of the Monarchy, after the brief Protectorate of Richard CromweU ; and the fourth comprises the reign of Charles II. and James IL, and the final fall of the royal race of Stuart. Each of these four periods will form the subject of a special Work by M. Guizot. The first of these is now republishcd *, the second has also appeared ; and VI

Preface

. Some years since, I published a collection of original Memoirs relatiug to the English Revolution : I now publish its history. Until the occurrence of the French Revolution, it was the greatest event in the annals of modern Europe. I have no fear that its importance will be under rated : the French Revolution exceeded it in magni tude, but did not lessen its intrinsic greatness ; both victories were won in the same war, and tended to the furtherance of the same cause ; and instead of eclipsing each other, they become magnified by com parison. I am more fearful that mistakes may be made as to their true character, and that their proper place will not be assigned to them, in the world's history. If we are to put faith in an opinion which is very prevalent at the present day, it would seem that these two Revolutions were extraordinary events, which

PREFACE.

. VIII emanated from unheard-of principles, and aimed at unprecedented designs ; which forced society out of its ancient and natural course ; which, like whirlwinds or earthquakes, were mysterious phenomena guided by laws unknown to men, and bursting forth suddenly, like providential coups d'etat, possibly to destroy, and possibly to revivify the earth. Both friends and enemies, panegyrists and detractors, employ the same language on this point : according to the former, these glorious crises brought truth, liberty, and justice to light, for the first time ; before their occurrence, absurdity, iniquity, and tyranny prevailed, and the human race is indebted to them alone for its deliver ance from those evils ; according to the latter, these deplorable catastrophes interrupted a long era of wisdom, virtue, and happiness ; their authors pro claimed principles, set up pretensions, and committed crimes previously unparalleled ; the two nations, in a fit of madness, deviated from their accustomed path, and an abyss opened immediately beneath their feet.

Thus, whether they are extolled or deplored, blessed or execrated, all agree in forgetting every other consideration in presence of these revolutions, in isolating them completely from the past, in ren dering them responsible for the destiny of the world, and in loading them alone with curses or with glory.

PREFACE.

. IX It is time to have done with such puerile and false declamations. Far from having broken off the natural course of events in Europe, neither the English nor the French Revolution asserted, attempted, or effected anything which had not been already asserted, attempted, or effected a hundred times before their occurrence. They proclaimed the illegitimacy of absolute power : but free consent to laws and taxes, and the right of armed resistance, were among the constituent principles of the feudal system ; and the Church had often repeated these words of St. Isidore, to be found in the canons of the fourth Council of Toledo : " He is king who rules his people justly ; if he does other wise, he shall be no longer king." They attacked privilege, and laboured to introduce more equality into the social system : but, throughout all Europe, kings have done the same ; and to our own day, the pro gress of civil equality has been based on the laws, and measured by the progress of royalty.

They demanded that public employments should be thrown open to all citizens, and be bestowed on merit alone, and that the government should consent to this com petition ; but this is the fundamental principle of the internal constitution of the Church ; and the Church has not only carried it into effect, but has openly professed it. Whether we consider the general doctrines of the two revolutions, or the applications

PREFACE.

. X which they made of them — whether we contemplate the government of the State or civil legislation, property or persons, liberty or power — we shall find nothing of their own invention, nothing which is not to be met with, and which did not at least originate, in more regular times. Nor is this all : the principles, designs, and efforts which are exclusively attributed to the French and English Revolutions, not only preceded them by several centuries, but are the same principles and efforts to which society in Europe is indebted for all its progress. Was it by its disorders and privileges, by its brute force, and its subjugation of other men beneath its yoke, that the feudal aristocracy con tributed to the development of nations ? No : but it struggled against royal tyranny ; it availed itself of the right of resistance, and maintained the maxims of liberty.

And why have nations blessed their kings? For their pretensions to divine right, their assumptions of absolute power, their lavish ex penditure, or their luxurious courts ? No : but kings attacked the feudal system and aristocratic privilege ; they introduced unity into legislation and into the administration of affairs ; they promoted the development of equality. And whence have the clergy derived their strength ? In what way have they helped forward civilization ? By separating themselves from the people, by affecting to dread

PREFACE.

. XI human reason, and by sanctioning tyranny in the name of Heaven ? No : but by assembling the great and the little, the rich and the poor, the strong and the weak, beneath the roof of the same church, and under the same law of God ; by honouring and cultivating learning, instituting schools, favouring the diffusion of knowledge, and rewarding activity of mind. Consult the history of the masters of the world; analyze the influence of the various classes that have determined its fate ; wherever any good is manifest, whenever the continued gratitude of mankind bears witness to a service rendered to humanity — a step has been taken towards the object aimed at by the French and English Revolutions ; we are in presence of one of the principles which they endeavoured to render victorious. Let us then cease to portray these revolutions as monstrous apparitions in the history of Europe ; let us hear no more of their unprecedented pretensions and infernal inventions; they helped civilization to advance along the road which it has been pursuing for fourteen centuries; they professed the maxims, and pushed forward the labours to which man has, in all ages, been indebted for the development of his nature and the improvement of his condition ; they did that which has in turn constituted the chief merit and glory of clergy, nobles, and kings. I do not think men can long persist in condemning

PREFACE.

. them absolutely, because they are laden with errors, calamities, and crimes : in this particular, we must make every concession to their adversaries, and even surpass them in severity, looking at their accusations only to supply their omissions, and then requiring them, in their turn, to prepare a list of the errors, crimes, and evils of those times and governments which they have taken under their patronage. I doubt whether they would accept the challenge. If it be asked in what respect these two revolutions are distinguished from every other epoch : what is the reason that, while they merely continued the common work of all ages, they deserved their name, and positively changed the face of the world ? This is my answer — Various powers have successively held sway in European society, and marched in turn at the head of civilization.

After the fall of the Roman Empire and the invasion of the barbarians, amidst the dissolution of all social ties and the destruction of all recognized powers, the predominance everywhere fell to daring and brutal force ; the conquering aristocracy took possession of everything, persons and lands, people and country. In vain did a few great men, Charlemagne in France, and Alfred in England, endeavour to reduce this chaos to the unity of a monarchical system. All unity was impossible. The feudal hierarchy was the only form which society would

PREFACE.

. XIII consent to accept. This hierarchy prevailed universally, in the Church as well as in the State ; the bishops and abbots became barons; the king was the chief seigneur. ' In spite of the rude and unstable character of this organization, Europe was indebted to it for its first steps out of barbarism. It was among the proprietors of fiefs — in their mutual relations, laws, customs, feelings, and ideas — that European civilization commenced. The fief-holders were a great burden on the people. The clergy alone endeavoured to claim for all a little reason, justice, and humanity. Those who had no place in the feudal hierarchy could find no asylum but the churches, and no protectors but the priests. This protection, though insufficient, was nevertheless an immense boon, for it was the only one.

The priests, moreover, alone offered any sustenance for the moral nature of man, for that unconquerable necessity of thinking, knowing, hoping, and believing, which overcomes all obstacles, and survives all misfortunes. The Church soon acquired prodigious power through out all Europe. Royalty, then in its infawy, lent it fresh strength by borrowing its assistance. The predominance passed from the hands of the conquering aristocracy into those of the clergy. With the assistance of the Church, and by its own inherent strength, the royal power increased, and raised itself above its rivals ; but the clergy had no

PREFACE.

. sooner assisted it, than they attempted to subjugate it. In this new emergency, the royal power invoked the help, sometimes of the now less formidable barons, but more frequently of the people : the townsmen, who were already strong enough to be valuable allies, though not sufficiently powerful to require a high price for their services. By their aid, the royal power triumphed in its second conflict, and became in its turn the dominant power, invested with the confidence of the nations. Such is the history of old Europe : the feudal aristocracy, the clergy, and the royal power, alternately possessed it, and successively presided over its destiny and progress. To their coexistence and conflict it was long indebted for all the liberty, prosperity, and enlightenment it had obtained ; in a word, for the development of its civilization.

In England in the seventeenth century, and in France in the eighteenth, all conflict between these three powers had ceased ; they were living together in peace and tranquillity. We might almost say that they had lost their historical character, and even their recollection of the labours which had formerly given them strength and renown. The aristocracy no longer defended public liberties, it did not even defend its own ; the royal power no longer laboured to abolish aristocratic privilege, it seemed even to have become favourable to the possessors of that

PREFACE.

. XV privilege in return for their servility ; and the clergy, the spiritual power, was afraid of the human mind, and, being unable to lead it, endeavoured to arrest its progress by menaces. Meanwhile, civilization pursued its course, and daily became more general and active. Abandoned by their old leaders, surprised at their apathy and ill. temper, and indignant at finding that less was done for them as their desires and strength grew greater, the people began to think that it was their duty to attend to their own interests; and assuming the entire responsibility of their affairs, about which no one seemed any longer to care, they simultaneously demanded liberty from the crown, equality from the aristocracy, and intellectual freedom from the clergy. Then revolutions broke forth. They effected, for the benefit of a new power, a change which Europe had already witnessed on several occasions : they gave society leaders who were willing and able to guide it in its progress.

On this ground alone, the aristocracy, the church, and the king, had in turn possessed the preponderance. The people now seized it in virtue of the same right, by the same means, and in the name of the same necessities. Such is the real work, the true character, of both the English and French Revolutions. After having considered them as absolutely alike, it has been said that they were similar only in appearance. The

PREFACE.

. XVI English Revolution, we are told, was political rather than social; the French Revolution attempted to change both society and the government together ; — the one sought to establish liberty, the other equality ; — the one was rather religious than political, and merely substituted one set of dogmas for another, and one church for another church ; the other was pre-eminently philosophical, and asserted the complete independence of reason. The comparison is ingeni ous, and not altogether void of truth ; but it is almost as superficial and frivolous asthe opinion which it assumes to supersede. Just as great differences are visible beneath the external resemblance of the two revolutions, so an even deeper resemblance is concealed beneath their differences. From the very causes which produced its ebullition more than a century before the Revolution in France, the English Revolu tion, it is true, retained a deeper impress of the old social condition of the country ; there, free institu tions, born amid barbarism, had survived even the despotism which they had been unable to" prevent; the feudal aristocracy, in part, at least, had made common cause with the people.

The royal power, ■even in the days of its predominance, had never been fully or undisturbedly absolute ; the national Church had itself commenced the work of religious reform, and stimulated the minds of the people to boldness of inquiry and speculation. Everywhere, in the laws

PREFACE.

. XVII manners, and creed of the nation, the Revolution found its work half effected; and from the govern ment which it aspired to change, it derived, at the same time, both succour and obstruction, useful allies and powerful adversaries. Thus it presented a singular combination of elements apparently the most diverse ; it was at once aristocratic and popular, religious and philosophical, invoking laws and theories by turns ; sometimes announcing a new yoke for consciences, sometimes proclaiming their entire liberty ; now narrowly confined within the limits of fact, and now indulging in the most daring specula tions, — it was, in a word, placed between the old and new state of society, rather as a bridge to connect than as an abyss to separate them. In the French Revolution, on the other hand, the most terrible unity prevailed ; the spirit of innovation held undivided sway over its proceedings ; the ancien regime, far from taking its proper place and part in the movement, sought only to defend itself against it, and succeeded scarcely for a moment in the attempt, for it was equally destitute of strength and virtue.

On the day on which the Revolution broke out, one fact alone remained positive and influential, and that was the general civilization of the country. In this great but solitary result were concentred all the old institutions, all the old manners, beliefs, and recollections— indeed, the whole life of the nation. The many active and vol. i. b

PREFACE.

. glorious centuries which had elapsed had produced nothing but France. Hence arose the immensity of the results of the Revolution, and the portentous magnitude of its errors ; — it possessed absolute power. The difference is certainly great, and well worthy of consideration ; it is particularly striking when we consider the two Revolutions in themselves as isolated events, when we detach them from general history, and endeavour to distinguish their peculiar phsyiog nomy and individual character. But, if they resume their place in the course of time, — if we examine what they have done for the development of European civilization — we shall see the resemblance reappear, and rise above all diversities. Originating in the same causes, by the decay of the feudal aristocracy, the Church, and the royal power, they laboured to effect the same work, — to secure the domination of the people in public affairs They struggled for liberty against absolute power, for equality against privilege, for progressive and general interests against stationary and individual interests.

Their positions were different, and their strength unequal ; what the one clearly perceived, the other saw only imperfectly ; in the career which the one followed to the end, the other soon stopped short ; on the same field of battle, the one found victory and the other defeat ; the one erred from cynicism, the other from hypocrisy; the one was marked by great

PREFACE.

. XIX prudence, the other by great power ; but they varied only in the means they employed, and the success they achieved ; they were the same in tendency and in origin; their desires, efforts, and progress aimed at the same object ; all that the one attempted or accomplished, the other also effected or attempted. Although guilty of religious persecution, the English Revolution unfurled the banner of liberty of con science ; in spite of its aristocratic alliances, it established the predominance of the Commons ; as its chief occupation was with civil order, it demanded a simpler legislative system, parliamentary reform, the abolition of entails and of the right of primogeniture ; and although deceived in many premature expectations, it liberated English society, to an immense extent, from the monstrous inequality of the feudal regime ; — in a word, such is the analogy between the two Revolutions, that the first would never have been properly understood unless the second had occurred.

In our own days, indeed, the history of the English Revolution has assumed an altered aspect. Hume1 had succeeded in forming the opinion of Europe regarding it ; and notwithstanding the support of Mira beau, the declamations of Mrs. Macaulay2 had been 1 Hume's History of England under the House of Stuart was pub lished in 1754-6. 2 Mrs. Macaulay's work was to have been a History of England from the accession of James I. to that of the Brunswick line, but it termi nates with the fall of James II. It was published in England in 1763-

PREFACE.

. XX unable to shake his authority. Suddenly, however, the minds of men regained their independence, and a host of works have attested not only that this epoch of English history was again becoming the object of strong sympathy, but that the narratives and opinions of Hume had ceased to satisfy the imagination and reason of the public. A great orator, Charles James Fox,1 and many distinguished writers, Laing,2 Mac- Diarmid,3 Brodie,4 Lingard,5 and Godwin,6 hastened to satisfy the newly-awakened curiosity. The movement, originating in France, could not fail to produce its effects in that country also ; M. Yillemain's His toire de Cromwell, and M. Mazure's Histoire de la Revolution de 1688, evidently prove that, among our selves, Hume has ceased to be a sufficient authority ; and I was able to publish a voluminous collection of original Memoirs' relating to the period, without 1783.

Two volumes of a translation of this work were published in France, in 1791, under the name of Mirabeau. 1 Fox's History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II. was published in London in 1808. 2 Laing's History of Scotland, from the Union of the Crowns to the Union of the Kingdoms, in four volumes. 3 MacDiarmid's Lives of British Statesmen, in two volumes; the second volume contains the lives of Strafford and Clarendon. 4 Brodie's History of the British Empire from the Accession of Charles I. to the Restoration of Charles IL, in four volumes. " Lingard's History of England ; the ninth and tenth volumes relate to the reigns of James I. and Charles I. 6 Godwin's History of the Commonwealth of England, in four volumes. 7 This collection consists of twenty-five volumes.

PREFACE.

. XXI wearying the attention or exhausting the curiosity of my readers. It would ill become me, in this place, to enter upon a detailed examination of these works ; but I do not hesitate to affirm that, but for the French Revolution, but for the strong light which it has cast on the struggle between the house of Stuart and the people of England, they would not possess the new merits which distinguish them from previous histories. In proof of this, I need only point to the difference which is to be remarked between those works which Great Britain has produced, and those which had their origin in France. With whatever patriotic interest the authors of the former may be inspired by the Revolution of 1640, even when they range themselves under the standard of one particular party, historical criticism presides over their labours ; they apply themselves chiefly to an accurate investigation of facts, to a careful comparison and discussion of evidence ; what they relate is to them an old history with which they are well acquainted, not a drama in which they bear a part — a past era, already far distant, which they spare no pains to understand thoroughly, but in the midst of which they do not live.

Mr. Brodie shares all the prejudices, suspicions, and dislikes of the sternest Puritans, on reference to Charles I. and the Cavaliers, and notices none of the faults and errors of his Puritanic friends. It would seem likely that such partiality would produce a most animated narrative,

PREFACE.

. in which the party which awakened so much sympathy in the writer's soul would be portrayed with truth and warmth. This is not the case ; notwithstanding the vehemence of his prejudices, Mr. Brodie studies but does not see, discusses but does not paint ; he admires the popular party without bringing it into bold relief, and his work is a learned and useful dis sertation, not a moral and living history. Mr. Lin gard shares in none of the opinions and partialities of Mr. Brodie ; he leans neither to the King nor to the Parliament ; he pleads no cause, and makes no special effort to refute the errors of his predecessors ; he boasts of not having opened Hume's history since he began his own ; he has written, he says, with the help of original documents only, placing himself always in presence of the period he had to describe, and with a firm resolution to set aside all systematic schemes.

Is his history lifelike, in consequence of this impartiality ? No ; Mr. Lingard's impartiality is mere indifference ; a Catholic priest, it matters little to him whether Anglicans or Presbyterians are triumphant : his indif ference has, therefore, proved as incapable as Mr. Brodie's passion to penetrate beyond the external and material forms of events ; and the chief merit of his work is, that he has carefully investigated facts, col lected them with considerable completeness, and ar ranged them with skill. Mr. Malcolm Laing has shown greater sagacity in discovering the political character of the Revolution ; he shows very plainly

PREFACE.

. XXIII that, without clearly comprehending its purpose, it aspired, from the very outset, to change the seat of power, to bring it down to the House of Commons, and to substitute parliamentary for regal government ; and that, short of this result, it could not rest in peace. But the moral aspect of the period, the reli gious enthusiasm, the popular passions, the party in trigues, the personal rivalries, all the scenes in which human nature displays itself, unrestrained by either laws or manners, find no record in his work ; it is like a report from a clear-headed judge, who has seen only the written depositions, but before whom neither the actors nor the witnesses have appeared in person. I might thus pass in review all the works relating to this subject, with which English literature has recently been enriched ; they would all present the same character — an unmistakable revival of interest in this great crisis of the national life, a more attentive study of the facts relating to it, a stronger feeling of its merits, and a fresher appreciation of its causes and consequences: but nothing more than the ordi nary results of meditation and study — an erudite or philosophical work.

I should look in vain for that natural sympathy between the author and his sub ject, which imparts light and life to history ; and if Hampden or Clarendon were to return to existence, I think they would find it difficult to recognize, in these works, the times in which they lived and acted.

PREFACE.

. When I open M. Villemain's Histoire de Cromwell, I find myself in presence of a very different spectacle ; it is less complete, less learned, and less accurate than many of those works which I have just men tioned ; but it everywhere displays a quick and lively comprehension of revolutionary opinions, passions and vicissitudes, of public tendencies, individual cha racters, and the indomitable nature and changing forms of parties ; the reason of the historian embraces all the positions and ideas with which he has to deal ; his imagination is kindled by all real and sincere im pressions ; his impartiality, though perhaps somewhat too sceptical, is nevertheless frequently more animated than even the passion of the exclusive advocates of one cause ; and although the Revolution appears, in his book, confined within the narrow limits of a biography, it is there portrayed more clearly and vividly than in any other work.

This arises from the fact that, independently of any advantages of talent, M. Tillemain also had those of position : he considered and judged the English Re volution from the midst of the French Revolution : in the events and men that passed before his own eyes, he found the key to those he had to describe ; he has transfused the life of his own age into the times which he wished to resuscitate. I must not pursue these observations to a greater length : I have only ventured them in order to show more clearly what a deep analogy there is between

PREFACE.

. XXV the two epochs, and also to explain why a-Frenchman may believe that the history of the English Revolu tion has not yet been written in a fully satisfactory manner, and that he may be permitted to attempt to supply the deficiency. I have carefully studied nearly all the old and new books relating to the sub ject ; I had no fear that their perusal would modify the sincerity of my impressions or the independence of my judgment ; there is, I think, excessive timidity in so readily believing that an auxiliary may become a master, or excessive pride in thus absolutely refusing all assistance. Nevertheless — and this will, I think, be at once perceived — original documents have been my chief guides. I have nothing to say, in this place, with regard to my collection of Memoirs : in the notices which I prefixed to them on their publication, I endeavoured thoroughly to explain their character and merits ; and those which I have not included in my collection, though I have referred to them in my history, do not seem to me of sufficient importance to require further comment.

Collections of official acts aud papers are very numerous, and though they have often been laid under contribution, still abound in unknown treasures ; I have made frequent use of the State Papers of Rushworth and Thurloe, of the Journals of both Houses, of the old Parliamentary History as well as the more recent work of Mr. Cobbett, of the State Trials, and of a great number of other works of the same kind which it would be tedious to enumerate. c VOL. I.

PREFACE.

. XXVI I have also found many curious facts in contemporary pamphlets, published in France as well as in England ; for the French people took a far greater interest in the English Revolution than is commonly imagined ; many treatises were published on both sides, and the Frondeurs frequently availed themselves of its example to check Mazarin and the Court. I must not forget to add, as an act of justice to a man and a work now too much neglected, that I have very often consulted Rapin's History of England with great advantage, and that, notwithstanding the inferiority of the author's talent, he better understood and has more completely described the English Revolution than most of his successors. Finally, let me here give expression to my grati tude to all those persons, both in France and England, who have bestowed their anticipatory favour on my work, and lent me the most valuable assistance.