A.D. 1603.]

that the Earl of Gowrie and his brother were slain on the spot by the royal attendents. Whether the conspirators really intended to take the life of the sovereign, or only to seize his person, and afterwards to give him up to the English Government, with a view to the administration of affairs in Scotland on a Presbyterian basis, are matters involved in mystery. The whole incident, in truth, is extremely obscure, and, of the various explanations given, not one seems entirely satisfactory. In any case, however, it is improbable that Queen Elizabeth or her ministers had anything to do with the plot. There was nothing to be gained by it; and Cecil was well inclined to support the interests of James.

The reign of Elizabeth was now drawing to a close. The Queen fell into a confirmed melancholy, followed by a lingering distemper, after the execution of the Earl of Essex in 1601; and on the 24th of March, 1603, death terminated her brilliant reign of more than forty-four years—a reign ever memorable in English history for a certain lofty and superb development of the national genius, such as, taken altogether, later times have not equalled. When the ministers who gathered about her bed asked the dying Queen whether the King of Scotland was to be regarded as her successor, a motion of the head gave token of assent; and indeed it had long been known that such was the only legitimate issue. There were other distant relations of Elizabeth who might have advanced a claim; but none had so good a right as James of Scotland. His father, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, was the grandson, while his mother, Mary Stuart, was the granddaughter, of Margaret Tudor, eldest daughter of Henry VII. of England, who married James IV. of Scotland. For the last two years of Elizabeth's life, the English Prime Minister, Sir Robert Cecil, had been in secret correspondence with James on the subject of the succession; and the cause of the Scottish monarch had been previously supported by the Earl of Essex, as it was afterwards by several Englishmen of high position. In fact, no serious opposition existed, and the progress of James from Edinburgh to London was like a triumphal procession. He reached his new capital on the 7th of May, after a journey which had lasted since the 5th of April. His reception at the seat of government was loyal and friendly; and it was only when he showed undue favour to his northern followers that his popularity began to wane.

255

for placing on the throne the Lady Arabella Stuart, a cousin of the King-a conspiracy in which Lord Cobham and Sir Walter Raleigh were implicated; though it is doubtful whether the latter had anything more than a knowledge that some sedition was contemplated. The life of the great adventurer was spared for the time; but for twelve years he was confined in the Tower, where he wrote his "History of the World." Delivered from the danger of a conspiracy which appears to have been prompted by Spain, James I. undertook to settle the disputes which had arisen between the Church of England and the Puritans. The Nonconformists had greatly increased in strength during the latter years of Elizabeth's reign, and the Episcopalians were beginning to regard them with bitter jealousy. It was perhaps not unreasonable, considering his previous association with a Presbyterian country, that the Puritans should have cherished hopeful anticipations of the new sovereign; but the event showed that they had been very ill-informed. Before the end of 1603, they presented a petition to the King for the redress of grievances, and a conference was appointed at Hampton Court. This was held on the 14th, 16th, and 18th of January, 1604, and the Puritan divines were not long in discovering that Calvinistic Scotland had sent them a monarch with very high ideas of ecclesiastical supremacy. siastical supremacy. James told the petitioners that he would have but "one doctrine, one discipline, one religion, in substance and in ceremony." He denied the Dissenters the right of assembly, and the liberty of discussion; and he declared with cynical frankness that he would make them conform, or "harry them out of the land," if not worse, for he afterwards spoke of hanging them. The clergy were delighted with the King's learning, penetration, and skill, as they flatteringly described the characteristics of his disputation; and the Puritans saw that a day of persecution was at hand. This time they were not mistaken.

James prided himself on his accomplishments as a theologian; but many of his views were such as the English and Scottish nations regarded with dislike. He earnestly desired to effect a compromise with the Papal communion, and, in his speech at the opening of Parliament, on the 19th of March, 1604, he made some very significant remarks. "I acknowledge the Roman Church," he said, "to be our mother Church, although defiled with some infirmities and corruptions, as the Jews were when they crucified Christ." He recommended an amelioration of the laws affecting the Catholics, with whom he conceived a Christian union might be established; but for the Non

conformists there was to be nothing but repression. He alluded to the Puritans as 66 a sect rather than a religion "a body "unable to be suffered in any well-governed commonwealth ;" and, with the aid and sanction of the Church, the process of "harrying" the Dissenters out of the land began with great energy soon afterwards. It was carried on in so unrelenting a spirit that at length some escape from extermination seemed imperative. In 1607, a considerable number of these poor sufferers for conscience' sake started from the mouth of the Humber, and joined a body of their countrymen long settled in Holland, whither they had gone to escape the persecutions of Elizabeth. The tyranny of James, however, surpassed that of his predecessor. He endeavoured to prevent the escape of the fugitives, that they might be made to conform, or be subjected to the extreme penalty of the law. Fortunately, conviction has a strength beyond despotism, or the cause of religious freedom in England would have been lost.

The state of war with Spain which had existed for several years was brought to a close on the 18th of August, 1604; but internal peace was less easily secured. Notwithstanding the King's civilities to the Roman Catholics, the members of that body were not conciliated. They very speedily perceived that James was either unwilling or unable to carry out his professed views; for the penal laws, which at first were considerably softened in practice, were afterwards made still more severe. Those laws, passed in the latter years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, bore with great hardship on the Catholics. The exercise of their religion was strictly forbidden; they suffered from heavy fines, and were compelled to attend Protestant places of worship, or were punished for refusing. Like the Puritans, they were subjected to persecution, and the spirit of revenge and hatred found vent in the famous Gunpowder Plot of 1605. The conspiracy which was to terminate on the 5th of November in the blowing-up of both Houses of Parliament, and the substitution of an entirely new Government, with a Romanist sovereign, is too familiarly known to require any detailed description here. The chief agents in the scheme were Robert Catesby, its originator, Thomas Winter, Thomas Percy (a relation of the Earl of Northumberland), Sir Edward Digby, Francis Tresham, and Guido (or Guy) Fawkes, the last of whom has furnished a distinctive name to the plot. Happily, the project was revealed to the Government, though in dark and ambiguous terms, in time to prevent its execution. Tresham was probably the author of the warning; but the secret

history of the transaction is quite unknown. Some executions followed, and the whole body of Catholics became more detestable than ever to the great majority of Englishmen, who identified the principles of Rome with the practice of assassination and incendiarism.

James I. was a man of considerable ability and learning; but his mind was wanting in practical discernment, and he entirely misunderstood the temper of the nation he was called upon to govern. His grotesque appearance, his cowardly and effeminate habits, his pedantry and dictatorial manners, caused him to be heartily disliked, except among the narrow circle of favourites whom his ridiculous affection exalted to power and honour. To these petty and vexatious characteristics he added those despotic tendencies which only the highest genius, or the most manly and attractive ways, can render acceptable to any nation not degraded to a slavish level. Henry VIII. and Elizabeth had undoubtedly acted in many things with the license of tyrants; but some element in their personal character enabled them to tamper with the freedom of their subjects. Elizabeth, in particular, had embodied and emphasised whatever was most distinctive in the English nature, and, with but slight reactions, she preserved her popularity to the end. James, on the contrary, preserved only his power; his popularity was dissipated almost before the acclamations that greeted his arrival had died away. Yet, in face of all the opposition by which he was encountered, he ventured to put the doctrine of the divine right of kings, and the passive obedience of subjects, on a more distinct footing than it had ever occupied before. In a work called "The True Law of Free Monarchies," written in 1598, before his accession to the English throne, he declared that "although a good king will frame his actions to be according to law, yet he is not bound thereto but of his own will, and for example-giving to his subjects."

Upon this pernicious theory James acted, first in Scotland, and afterwards in England; and in both countries he found courtiers base enough to endorse his pretensions. In England, the Church was eager to uphold a doctrine which, so long as the throne was in accordance with the Bishops, worked very well for the repression of Dissent, but which the King might at any moment, had he been so minded, have turned equally well against the Church. From many pulpits and many presses, it was authoritatively proclaimed that the people had no rights at all; that the monarch was invested by God himself with an inalienable prerogative of governing, and that it was the duty of the subject

A.D. 1615.]

to obey. Such were the doctrines laid down by Convocation in 1606, and a layman named Cowell declared that the King, being above the law by his absolute authority, might, not withstanding his oath, alter or suspend any particular statute that in his opinion was hurtful to the commonwealth. This was going a little too far even for those times. The House of Commons remonstrated, and Cowell's writing was suppressed; yet the ethics of despotism spread widely amongst the influential classes. The favourite doctrines of James had frequently been acted on before; but they had never been so formally or so offensively stated. Earlier departures from the habits of English freedom might have been regarded as exceptional; but the principle of tyranny was now sharply defined, and transformed into a rule of political life. It was evident that, if this principle were persistently carried out for a sufficient term of years, a precedent would be established, from which it would be very difficult to escape. In that case, the government of England would have differed but little from the government of the Grand Turk.

The policy of the King in Scotland was as unpopular as that which he pursued in England. In 1617 he revisited the Northern kingdom, and soon became involved in bitter disputes with the clergy. Being wholly devoid of any sympathy with Presbyterianism, he desired to restore Episcopacy to the Church of Scotland, and in this he finally succeeded. A Parliament was summoned, and, after some opposition, gave its assent to various changes which assimilated the Scottish to the English Church. The General Assembly was also induced to sanction these innovations; but there can be no doubt that it was the arbitrary power of the King, and not any alteration in the national feeling, which thus for a time destroyed the work of Knox. Returning to England, James disgraced the year 1618 by one of his most shameful actions. When Raleigh was found guilty (upon doubtful evidence) of participation in the Cobham plot, he was at first condemned to death, but his punishment was afterwards commuted to imprisonment. Twelve weary years of confinement in the Tower had passed away, when, in 1615, Raleigh proposed to make an attack on the Spanish settlement of Guiana in South America, where he said he could open a mine of great richness. The captive was accordingly released, and suffered to equip a fleet. Ultimately, thirteen vessels were got ready, and the coast of Guiana was reached about the middle of November, 1617.

Raleigh was by this time so ill that he could not lead the attacking force in person, and his principal lieutenant, Captain Keymis, landed with

257

a body of two hundred and fifty soldiers. The Spanish town of St. Thomas was hastily attacked; but the assailants were beaten off, and Raleigh's eldest son, Walter, was slain in the conflict. Keymis then went in search of the mine, but, after twenty days' wanderings, failed to discover it, and at length returned to the fleet with a miserable and disheartening tale. Raleigh bitterly reproached him for his ill-success, and the unfortunate officer committed suicide. The expedition then sailed for Newfoundland, to victual and refit; but Raleigh's own crew mutinied, and a return to England was no longer avoidable. Old, worn-out, and dispirited, Raleigh arrived at Plymouth in July, 1618, and was soon afterwards arrested by order of the King. Philip III. of Spain had strongly remonstrated against the attack on one of his colonial possessions, and it is impossible to deny that the act was that of a freebooter. Had James punished the brilliant adventurer for this, nothing could be said against the justice of the sentence, except that the King himself had sanctioned the outrage. As it was, however, he had the extravagant meanness to revive the capital sentence of fifteen years before, and Raleigh was beheaded, in Old Palace Yard, Westminster, on the 29th of October, 1618. James was at that time endeavouring to establish an intimate alliance between England and Spain; and it is said that, while allowing Raleigh to sail on his piratical expedition, he privately gave warning to the Spanish authorities of what was intended, and thus enabled them to defeat the plan. It would be difficult to speak too severely of his conduct in the whole matter.

The prospect of a Spanish alliance was particularly distasteful to the English people, as it was evident that the deadly struggle between the Papacy and the Reformation would shortly be resumed on a still larger scale, and a friendly understanding with Madrid would hamper England as a Protestant Power. On the Continent there had for several years been a marked reaction in favour of Catholicism. The earlier faith had triumphed in Southern Germany. The Walloon provinces of the Low Countries had separated themselves from Holland, that they might preserve the traditions of orthodoxy; and Protestantism thus lost its hold on Flanders and Brabant. In France, the Huguenots were much depressed after the conversion of Henry; and in Poland the division and subdivision of the Reformers into a variety of jarring sects dissipated the strength of the entire body. Mutual antagonism, and bitter disputation about non-essentials, had done incalculable evil to the Protestant communions; and when the first lofty enthusiasm had

by the aid of the conspirator and the assassin. The times were full of danger for all who ventured to resist the dictation of Rome, and the forces of the Continental States seemed gathering for a war of giants.

After the assassination of Henry IV. in 1610, the crown of France descended to his son, Louis XIII., who, being then only nine years of age, was placed under the Regency of his mother, Maria de' Medici. By pensions and promises of favour,

estates. The policy of Maria and her advisers was in favour of an alliance with Spain. The Huguenots, considering that their prospects had been seriously darkened by the death of Henry IV., again showed symptoms of insubordination. The whole of France was convulsed with revolutionary movements, and in the spring of 1614 the Prince of Condé took up arms, but ineffectually, against the supremacy of Maria, and the contemplated co-operation with Spain and Austria. He