By the provisions of these treaties the Bourbon prince of Anjou was left upon the Spanish throne, but his kingdom was pared away on every side. Gibraltar and the island of Minorca were ceded to England; while Milan, Naples, Sardinia, and the Netherlands (Spanish) were given to Austria. France was forced to surrender to England considerable portions of her possessions in the New World,—Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and the Hudson Bay territory.

DEATH OF THE KING.—Amidst troubles, perplexities, and afflictions, Louis XIV.'s long and eventful reign was now drawing to a close. The heavy and constant taxes necessary to meet the expenses of his numerous wars, and to maintain an extravagant court, had bankrupted the country, and the cries of his wretched subjects clamoring for bread could not be shut out of the royal chamber. Death, too, had invaded the palace, striking down the dauphin, the dauphiness, and two grandsons of Louis, leaving as the nearest heir to the throne his great-grandson, a mere child. On the morning of September 1st, 1715, the Grand Monarch breathed his last, bequeathing to this boy of five years a kingdom overwhelmed with debt, and filled with misery, with threatening vices and dangerous discontent.

THE COURT OF LOUIS XIV.—The Court sustained by the Grand Monarch was the most extravagantly magnificent that Europe has ever seen. Never since Nero erected his Golden House upon the burnt district of Rome, and ensconcing himself amid its luxurious appointments, exclaimed, "Now I am housed as a man ought to be," had prince or king so ostentatiously lavished upon himself the wealth of an empire. Louis had half a dozen palaces, the most costly of which was that at Versailles. Upon this and its surroundings he spent fabulous sums. The palace itself cost what would probably be equal to more than $100,000,000 with us. Here were gathered the beauty, wit, and learning of France. The royal household numbered fifteen thousand persons, all living in costly and luxurious idleness at the expense of the people.



One element of this enormous family was the great lords of the old feudal aristocracy. Dispossessed of their ancient power and wealth, they were content now to fill a place in the royal household, to be the king's pensioners and the elegant embellishment of his court.

As we might well imagine, the life of the French court at this period was shamefully corrupt. Vice, however, was gilded. The scandalous immoralities of king and courtiers were made attractive by the glitter of superficial accomplishment and by exquisite suavity and polish of manner.

But notwithstanding its immorality, the brilliancy of the Court of Louis dazzled all Europe. The neighboring courts imitated its manners and emulated its extravagances. In all matters of taste and fashion France gave laws to the continent, and the French language became the court language of the civilized world.

LITERATURE UNDER LOUIS XIV.—Louis gave a most liberal encouragement to men of letters, thereby making his reign the Augustan Age of French literature. In this patronage Louis was not unselfish. He honored and befriended poets and writers of every class, because he thus extended the reputation of his court. These writers, pensioners of his bounty, filled all Europe with their praises of the Great King, and thus made the most ample and grateful return to Louis for his favor and liberality.

Almost every species of literature was cultivated by the French writers of this era, yet it was in the province of the Drama that the greatest number of eminent authors appeared. The three great names here are those of Corneille (1606-1684), Racine (1639-1699), and Moliere (1622-1673).

DECLINE OF THE FRENCH MONARCHY UNDER LOUIS XV.—The ascendency of the House of Bourbon passed away forever with Louis XIV. In passing from the reign of the Grand Monarch to that of his successor, Louis XV. (1715- 1774), we pass from the strongest and most brilliant reign in French history to the weakest and most humiliating.

France took part, but usually with injury to her military reputation, in all the wars of this period. The most important of these were the War of the Austrian Succession (see p. 644), and the Seven Years' War (see p. 631), known in America as the French and Indian War, which resulted in the loss to France of Canada in the New World and of her Indian possessions in the Old.

Though thus shorn of her colonial possessions in all quarters of the globe, France managed to hold in Europe the provinces won for her by the wars and the diplomacy of Louis XIV., and even made some fresh acquisitions of territory along the Rhenish frontier.

But taken all together, the period was one of great national humiliation: the French fleet was almost driven from the sea; the martial spirit of the nation visibly declined; and France, from the foremost place among the states of Europe, fell to the position of a third or fourth rate power.



CHAPTER LV.

ENGLAND UNDER THE STUARTS: THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION. (1603-1714.)

I. THE FIRST TWO STUARTS.

1. Reign of James the First (1603-1625).

THE "DIVINE RIGHT" OF KINGS AND THE "ROYAL TOUCH."—With the end of the Tudor line (see p. 561), James VI. of Scotland, son of Mary Stuart, came to the English throne, as James I. of England. The accession of the House of Stuart brought England and Scotland under the same sovereign, though each country still retained its own Parliament.

The Stuarts were firm believers in the doctrine of the "Divine Right" of kings. They held that hereditary princes are the Lord's anointed, and that their authority can in no way be questioned or limited by people, priest, or Parliament. James I.'s own words were, "As it is atheism and blasphemy to dispute what God can do, so it is high contempt in a subject to dispute what a king can do, or to say that the king cannot do this or that."

This doctrine found much support in the popular superstition of the "Royal Touch." The king was believed to possess the power—a gift transmitted through the royal line of England from Edward the Confessor—of healing scrofulous persons by the laying on of hands. [Footnote: Consult Lecky, A History of England in the Eighteenth Century, Vol. I. p. 73. The French kings were also supposed to possess the same miraculous power, inherited, as most believed, from Louis the Saint.] It is simply the bearing of this strange superstition upon the doctrine of the divine right of kings that concerns us now. "The political importance of this superstition," observes Lecky, "is very manifest. Educated laymen might deride it, but in the eyes of the English poor it was a visible, palpable attestation of the indefeasible sanctity of the royal line. It placed the sovereignty entirely apart from the categories of mere human institutions."

By bearing this superstition in mind, it will be easier for us to understand how so large a proportion of the people of England could support the Stuarts in their extravagant claims, and could sincerely maintain the doctrine of the sinfulness of resistance to the king.

THE GUNPOWDER PLOT (1605).—In the third year of James's reign was unearthed a plot to blow up with gunpowder the Parliament Building, upon the opening day of the Session, when king, lords, and commons would all be present, and thus to destroy at a single blow every branch of the English Government. This conspiracy, known as the Gunpowder Plot, was entered into by a few Roman Catholics, because they were disappointed in the course which the king had taken as regards their religion. [Footnote: Though son of the Catholic Mary Stuart, James had been educated as a Protestant.] The leader of the conspiracy, Guy Fawkes, was arrested, and after being put to the rack, was executed. His chief accomplices were also seized and punished. The alarm created by the terrible plot led Parliament to enact some very severe laws against all the Roman Catholics of the realm.

COLONIES AND TRADE SETTLEMENTS.—The reign of James I. is signalized by the commencement of that system of colonization which has resulted in the establishment of the English race in almost every quarter of the globe.

In the year 1607 Jamestown, so named in honor of the king, was founded in Virginia. This was the first permanent English settlement within the limits of the United States. In 1620 some Separatists, or Pilgrims, who had found in Holland a temporary refuge from persecution, pushed across the Atlantic, and amidst heroic sufferings and hardships established the first settlement in New England, and laid the foundations of civil liberty in the New World.

Besides planting these settlements in the New World, the English during this same reign established themselves in the ancient country of India. In 1612 the East India Company, which had been chartered by Elizabeth in 1600, established their first trading-post at Surat. This was the humble beginning of the gigantic English empire in the East.

CONTEST BETWEEN JAMES AND THE COMMONS.—We have made mention of James's idea of the divine right of kingship. Such a view of royal authority and privileges was sure to bring him into conflict with Parliament, especially with the House of Commons. He was constantly dissolving Parliament and sending the members home, because they insisted upon considering subjects which he had told them they should let alone.

The chief matters of dispute between the king and the Commons were the limits of the authority of the former in matters touching legislation and taxation, and the nature and extent of the privileges and jurisdictions of the latter.

As to the limits of the royal power, James talked and acted as though his prerogatives were practically unbounded. He issued proclamations which in their scope were really laws, and then enforced these royal edicts by fines and imprisonment, as though they were regular statutes of Parliament. Moreover, taking advantage of some uncertainty in the law as regards the power of the king to collect customs at the ports of the realm, he laid new and unusual duties upon imports and exports. James's judges were servile enough to sustain him in this course, some of them going so far as to say that "the sea-ports are the king's gates, which he may open and shut to whom he pleases."

As to the privileges of the Commons, that body insisted, among other things, upon their right to determine all cases of contested election of their members, and to debate freely all questions concerning the common weal, without being liable to prosecution or imprisonment for words spoken in the House. James denied that these privileges were matters of right pertaining to the Commons, and repeatedly intimated to them that it was only through his own gracious permission and the favor of his ancestors that they were allowed to exercise these liberties at all, and that if their conduct was not more circumspect and reverential, he should take away their privileges entirely.

On one occasion, the Commons having ventured to debate certain matters of state which the king had forbidden them to meddle with, he, in reproving them, made a more express denial than ever of their rights and privileges, which caused them, in a burst of noble indignation, to enter upon their journal a brave protest, known as "The Great Protestation," which declared that "the liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of Parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England, and that the arduous and urgent affairs concerning the king, state, and defence of the realm ... are proper subjects and matter of council and debate in Parliament" (1621).

When intelligence of this action was carried to the king, he instantly sent for the journal of the House, and with his own hands tore out the leaf containing the obnoxious resolution. Then he angrily prorogued Parliament, and even went so far as to imprison several of the members of the Commons. In these high handed measures we get a glimpse of the Stuart theory of government, and see the way paved for the final break between king and people in the following reign.

King James died in the year 1625, after a reign as sovereign of England and Scotland of twenty-two years.

LITERATURE.—One of the most noteworthy literary labors of the reign under review was a new translation of the Bible, known as King James's Version. This royal version is the one in general use at the present day.

The most noted writers of James's reign were a bequest to it from the brilliant era of Elizabeth (see p. 560). Sir Walter Raleigh, the petted courtier of Elizabeth, fell on evil days after her death. On the charge of taking part in a conspiracy against the crown, he was sent to the Tower, where he was kept a prisoner for thirteen years. From the tedium of his long confinement, he found relief in the composition of a History of the World. He was at last beheaded.



The close of the life of the great philosopher Francis Bacon, was scarcely less sad than that of Sir Walter Raleigh. He held the office of Lord Chancellor, and yielding to the temptations of the corrupt times upon which he had fallen, accepted bribes from the suitors who brought cases before him. He was impeached and brought to the bar of the House of Lords, where he confessed his guilt, pathetically appealing to his judges "to be merciful to a broken reed." He lived only five years after his fall and disgrace, dying in 1626.

Bacon must be given the first place among the philosophers of the English- speaking race. His system is known as the Inductive Method of Philosophy. It insists upon experiment and a careful observation of facts as the only true means of arriving at a knowledge of the laws of nature.

2. Reign of Charles the First (1625-1649).

THE PETITION OF RIGHT (1628).—Charles I. came to the throne with all his father's lofty notions about the divine right of kings. Consequently the old contest between king and Parliament was straightway renewed. The first two Parliaments of his reign Charles dissolved speedily, because instead of voting supplies they persisted in investigating public grievances. After the dissolution of his second Parliament Charles endeavored to raise the money he needed to carry on the government, by means of "benevolences" and forced loans. But all his expedients failed to meet his needs, and he was compelled to fall back upon Parliament. The Houses met, and promised to grant him generous subsidies, provided he would sign a certain Petition of Right which they had drawn up. Next after Magna Charta, this document up to this date is the most noted in the constitutional history of England. It simply reaffirmed the ancient rights and privileges of the English people as defined in the Great Charter and by the good laws of Edward I. and Edward III. Four abuses were provided against: (i) the raising of money by loans, "benevolences," taxes, etc., without the consent of Parliament; (2) arbitrary imprisonment; (3) the quartering of soldiers in private houses—a very vexatious thing; and (4) trial without jury.



Charles was as reluctant to assent to the Petition as King John was to affix his seal to the Magna Charta; but he was at length forced to give sanction to it by the use of the usual formula, "Let it be law as desired" (1628).

CHARLES RULES WITHOUT PARLIAMENT (1629-1640).—It soon became evident that Charles was utterly insincere when he put his name to the Petition of Right. He immediately violated its provisions in attempting to raise money by forbidden taxes and loans. For eleven years he ruled without Parliament, thus changing the government of England from a government by king, lords, and commons, to what was in effect an absolute and irresponsible monarchy, like that of France or Spain.

As is always the case under such circumstances, there were enough persons ready to aid the king in his schemes of usurpation. Prominent among his unscrupulous agents were his ministers Thomas Wentworth (Earl of Stafford) and William Laud. Wentworth devoted himself to establishing the royal despotism in civil matters; while Laud, who was made Archbishop of Canterbury, busied himself chiefly with exalting above all human interference the king's prerogatives in religious affairs as the supreme head of the English Church.

All these high-handed and tyrannical proceedings of Charles and his agents were enforced by certain courts that had been wrested from their original purpose and moulded into instruments of despotism. These were known as the Council of the North, the Star Chamber, and the High Commission Court. [Footnote: The first was a tribunal established by Henry VIII., and was now employed by Wentworth as an instrument for enforcing the king's despotic authority in the turbulent northern counties of England. The Star Chamber was a court of somewhat obscure origin, which at this time dealt chiefly with criminal cases affecting the government, such as riot, libel, and conspiracy. The High Commission Court was a tribunal of forty-four commissioners, created in Elizabeth's reign to enforce the acts of Supremacy and Uniformity.] All of these courts sat without jury, and being composed of the creatures of the king, were of course his subservient instruments. Their decisions were unjust and arbitrary; their punishments, harsh and cruel.

JOHN HAMPDEN AND SHIP-MONEY.—Among the illegal taxes levied during this period of tyranny was a species known as ship-money, so called from the fact that in early times the kings, when the realm was in danger, called upon the sea-ports and maritime counties to contribute ships and ship- material for the public service. Charles and his agents, in looking this matter over, conceived the idea of extending this tax over the inland as well as the sea-board counties.

Among those who refused to pay the tax was a country gentleman, named John Hampden. The case was tried in the Exchequer Chamber, before all the twelve judges. All England watched the progress of the suit with the utmost solicitude. The question was argued by able counsel both on the side of Hampden and of the crown. Judgment was finally rendered in favor of the king, although five of the twelve judges stood for Hampden. The case was lost; but the people, who had been following the arguments, were fully persuaded that it went against Hampden simply for the reason that the judges stood in fear of the royal displeasure, and that they did not dare to decide the case adversely to the crown.

The arbitrary and despotic character which the government had now assumed in both civil and religious matters, and the hopelessness of relief or protection from the courts, caused thousands to seek in the New World that freedom and security which was denied them in their own land.

THE COVENANTERS.—England was almost ready to rise in open revolt against the unbearable tyranny. Events in Scotland hastened the crisis. The king was attempting to impose the English liturgy (slightly modified) upon the Scotch Presbyterians. At Edinburgh this led to a riot, one of the women worshippers throwing a stool at the bishop who attempted to read the service. The spirit of resistance spread. All classes, nobles and peasants alike, bound themselves by a solemn covenant to resist to the very last every attempt to make innovations in their religion. From this act they became known as Covenanters (1638).

The king resolved to crush the movement by force, but he soon found that war could not be carried on without money, and was constrained to summon Parliament in hopes of obtaining a vote of supplies. But instead of making the king a grant of money, the Commons first gave their attention to the matter of grievances, whereupon Charles dissolved the Parliament. The Scottish forces crossed the border, and the king, helpless, with an empty treasury and a seditious army, was forced again to summon the two Houses.

THE LONG PARLIAMENT.—Under this call met on November 3, 1640, that Parliament which, from the circumstance of its lasting over twelve years, became known as the Long Parliament. The members of the Commons of this Parliament were stern and determined men, who were resolved to put a check to the despotic course of the king.

Almost the first act of the Commons was the impeachment and trial of Strafford and Laud, as the most prominent instruments of the king's tyranny and usurpation. Both were finally brought to the block. The three iniquitous and illegal courts of which we have spoken (see p. 607) were abolished. And the Commons, to secure themselves against dissolution before their work was done, enacted a law which provided that they should not be adjourned or dissolved without their own consent.

CHARLES'S ATTEMPT TO SEIZE THE FIVE MEMBERS.—An act of violence on the part of Charles now precipitated the nation into the gulf of civil war, towards which events had been so rapidly drifting. With the design of overawing the Commons, the king made a charge of treason against five of the leading members, among whom were Hampden and Pym, and sent officers to effect their arrest; but the accused were not to be found. The next day Charles himself, accompanied to the door of the chamber by armed attendants, went to the House, for the purpose of seizing the five members; but, having been forewarned of the king's intention, they had withdrawn from the hall. The king was not long in realizing the state of affairs, and with the observation, "I see the birds have flown," withdrew from the chamber.

Charles had taken a fatal step. The nation could not forgive the insult offered to its representatives. All London rose in arms. The king, frightened by the storm which he had raised, fled from the city to York. From this flight of Charles from London, may be dated the beginning of the Civil War (Jan. 10, 1642).

Having now traced the events which led up to this open strife between the king and his people, we shall pass very lightly over the incidents of the struggle itself, and hasten to speak of the Commonwealth, to the establishment of which the struggle led.

3. The Civil War (1642-1649).

THE BEGINNING.—After the flight of the king, negotiations were entered into between him and Parliament with a view to a reconciliation. The demands of Parliament were that the militia, the services of the Church, the education and marriage of the king's children, and many other matters should be subject to the control of the two Houses. In making all these demands Parliament had manifestly gone to unreasonable and unconstitutional lengths; but their distrust of Charles was so profound, that they were unwilling to leave in his hands any power or prerogative that might be perverted or abused. Charles refused, as might have been and was expected, to accede to the propositions of Parliament, and unfurling the royal standard at Nottingham, called upon all loyal subjects to rally to the support of their king (Aug. 22, 1642).

THE TWO PARTIES.—The country was now divided into two great parties. Those that enlisted under the king's standard—on whose side rallied, for the most part, the nobility, the gentry, and the clergy—were known as Royalists, or Cavaliers; while those that gathered about the Parliamentary banner were called Parliamentarians, or Roundheads, the latter term being applied to them because many of their number cropped their hair close to the head, simply for the reason that the Cavaliers affected long and flowing locks. The Cavaliers, in the main, favored the Established Church, while the Roundheads were, in general, Puritans. During the progress of the struggle the Puritans split into two parties, or sects, known as Presbyterians and Independents.

For six years England now suffered even greater evils than those that marked that earlier civil strife known as the Wars of the Roses.

OLIVER CROMWELL AND HIS "IRONSIDES."—The war had continued about three years when there came into prominence among the officers of the Parliamentary forces a man of destiny, one of the great characters of history,—Oliver Cromwell. During the early campaigns of the war, as colonel of a regiment of cavalry, he had exhibited his rare genius as an organizer and disciplinarian. His regiment became famous under the name of "Cromwell's Ironsides." It was composed entirely of "men of religion." Swearing, drinking, and the usual vices of the camp were unknown among them. They advanced to the charge singing psalms. During all the war the regiment was never once beaten.

THE SELF-DENYING ORDINANCE (1645).—In the course of the war the Puritans, as has been said, became divided into two parties, the Presbyterians and the Independents. The former desired to reestablish a limited monarchy; the latter wished to sweep aside the old constitution and form a republic.

In the third year of the war there arose a struggle as to which party should have control of the army. By means of what was called the "Self- denying Ordinance," which declared that no member of either House should hold a position in the army, the Independents effected the removal from their command of several conservative noblemen. Cromwell, as he was a member of the House of Commons, should also have given up his command; but the ordinance was suspended in his case, so that he might retain his place as lieutenant-general. Sir Thomas Fairfax was made commander-in-chief. Though Cromwell was nominally second in command, he was now really at the head of the army.

THE "NEW MODEL."—Cromwell at once set about to effect the entire remodelling of the army on the plan of his favorite Ironsides. His idea was that "the chivalry of the Cavalier must be met by the religious enthusiasm of the Puritan." The army was reduced to 20,000 men—all honest, fervent, God-fearing, psalm-singing Puritans. When not fighting, they studied the Bible, prayed and sung hymns. Since Godfrey led his crusaders to the rescue of the Holy Sepulchre, the world had not beheld another such army of religious enthusiasts. From Cromwell down to the lowest soldier of the "New Model," every man felt called of the Lord to strike down all forms of tyranny in Church and State.

THE BATTLE OF NASEBY (1645).—The temper of the "New Model" was soon tried in the battle of Naseby, the decisive engagement of the war. The Royalists were scattered to the winds, and their cause was irretrievably lost. Charles escaped from the field, and ultimately fled into Scotland, thinking that he might rely upon the loyalty of the Scots to the House of Stuart; but on his refusing to sign the Covenant and certain other articles, they gave him up to the English Parliament.

"PRIDE'S PURGE" (1648).—Now, there were many in the Parliament who were in favor of restoring the king unconditionally to his throne, that is, without requiring from him any guaranties that he would in the future rule in accordance with the constitution and the laws of the land. The Independents, which means Cromwell and the army, saw in this possibility the threatened ruin of all their hopes, and the loss of all the fruits of victory. A high-handed measure was resolved upon,—the exclusion from the House of Commons of all those members who favored the restoration of Charles.

Accordingly, an officer by the name of Pride was stationed at the door of the hall, to arrest the members obnoxious to the army. One hundred and forty members were thus kept from their seats, and the Commons thereby reduced to about fifty representatives, all of whom of course were Independents. This performance was appropriately called "Pride's Purge." It was simply an act of military usurpation.

TRIAL AND EXECUTION OF THE KING.—The Commons thus "purged" of the king's friends now passed a resolution for the immediate trial of Charles for treason. A High Court of Justice, comprising 150 members, was organized, before which Charles was summoned. Before the close of a week he was condemned to be executed "as a tyrant, traitor, murderer, and enemy of his country."

II. THE COMMONWEALTH (1649-1660).

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH.—A few weeks after the execution of Charles, the Commons voted to abolish the Monarchy and the House of Lords, and to establish a republic, under the name of "The Commonwealth." The executive power was lodged in a Council of State, composed of forty-one persons. Of this body Bradshaw, an eminent lawyer, was the nominal, but Cromwell the real, head.

TROUBLES OF THE COMMONWEALTH.—The republic thus born of mingled religious and political enthusiasm was beset with dangers from the very first. The execution of Charles had alarmed every sovereign in Europe. Russia, France, and Holland, all refused to have any communication with the ambassadors of the Commonwealth. The Scots, who too late repented of having surrendered their native sovereign into the hands of his enemies, now hastened to wipe out the stain of their disloyalty by proclaiming his son their king, with the title of Charles the Second. The impulsive Irish also declared for the Prince; while the Dutch began active preparations to assist him in regaining the throne of his unfortunate father. In England itself the Royalists were active and threatening.

WAR WITH IRELAND.—The Commonwealth, like the ancient republic of Rome, seemed to gather strength and energy from the very multitude of surrounding dangers. Cromwell was made Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and sent into that country to crush a rising of the Royalists there. With his Ironsides he made quick and terrible work of the conquest of the island. Having taken by storm the town of Drogheda (1649), he massacred the entire garrison, consisting of three thousand men. About a thousand who had sought asylum in a church were butchered there without mercy. The capture of other towns was accompanied by massacres little less terrible. The conqueror's march through the island was the devastating march of an Attila or a Zinghis Khan. The following is his own account of the manner in which he dealt with the captured garrisons: "When they submitted, their officers were knocked on the head, and every tenth man of the soldiers killed, and the rest shipped for Barbadoes [to be sold into slavery]."

WAR WITH SCOTLAND.—Cromwell was called out of Ireland by the Council to lead an army into Scotland. The terror of his name went before him, and the people fled as he approached. At Dunbar he met the Scotch army. Before the terrible onset of the fanatic Roundheads the Scots were scattered like chaff before the wind (1650).

The following year, on the anniversary of the Battle of Dunbar, Cromwell gained another great victory over the Scottish army at Worcester, and all Scotland was soon after forced to submit to the authority of the Commonwealth. Prince Charles, after many adventurous experiences, escaped across the Channel into Normandy.

CROMWELL EJECTS THE LONG PARLIAMENT (1653).—The war in Scotland was followed by one with the Dutch. While this war was in progress Parliament came to an open quarrel with the army. Cromwell demanded of Parliament their dissolution, and the calling of a new body. This they refused; whereupon, taking with him a body of soldiers, Cromwell went to the House, and after listening impatiently for a while to the debate, suddenly sprang to his feet, and, with bitter reproaches, exclaimed: "I will put an end to your prating. Get you gone; give place to better men. You are no Parliament. The Lord has done with you." The soldiers rushing in at a preconcerted signal, the hall was cleared, and the doors locked (1653).

In such summary manner the Long Parliament, or the "Rump Parliament," as it was called in derision after Pride's Purge, was dissolved, after having sat for twelve years. So completely had the body lost the confidence and respect of all parties, that scarcely a murmur was heard against the illegal and arbitrary mode of its dissolution.

THE LITTLE PARLIAMENT.—Cromwell now called a new Parliament, or more properly a convention, summoning, so far as he might, only religious, God- fearing men. The "Little Parliament," as generally called, consisted of 156 members, mainly religious persons, who spent much of their time in Scripture exegesis, prayer, and exhortation. Among them was a London leather-merchant, named Praise-God Barebone, who was especially given to these exercises. The name amused the people, and they nicknamed the Convention the "Praise-God Barebone Parliament."

The Little Parliament sat only a few months, during which time, however, it really did some excellent work, particularly in the way of suggesting important reforms. It at length resigned all its powers into the hands of Cromwell; and shortly afterwards his council of army officers, fearing the country would fall into anarchy, persuaded him—though manifesting reluctance, he probably was quite willing to be persuaded—to accept the title of "Lord Protector of the Commonwealth."



THE PROTECTORATE (1653-1659).—Cromwell's power was now almost unlimited. He was virtually a dictator. His administration was harsh and despotic. He summoned, prorogued, and dissolved parliaments. The nation was really under martial law. Royalists and active Roman Catholics were treated with the utmost rigor. A censorship of the Press was established. Scotland was overawed by strong garrisons. The Irish Royalists, rising against the "usurper," were crushed with remorseless severity. Thousands were massacred, and thousands more were transported to the West Indies to be sold as slaves.

While the resolute and despotic character of Cromwell's government secured obedience at home, its strength and vigor awakened the fear as well as the admiration of foreign nations. He gave England the strongest, and in many respects the best, government she had had since the days of Henry VIII and Elizabeth.

CROMWELL'S DEATH.—Notwithstanding Cromwell was a man of immovable resolution and iron spirit, he felt sorely the burdens of his government, and was deeply troubled by the perplexities of his position. With his constitution undermined by overwork and anxiety, fever attacked him, and with gloomy apprehensions as to the terrible dangers into which England might drift after his hand had fallen from the helm of affairs, he lay down to die, passing away on the day which he had always called his "fortunate day"—the anniversary of his birth, and also the anniversary of his great victories of Dunbar and Worcester (Sept. 3, 1658).

RICHARD CROMWELL (1658-1659).—Cromwell with his dying breath had designated his son Richard as his successor in the office of the Protectorate. Richard was exactly the opposite of his father,—timid, irresolute, and irreligious. The control of affairs that had taxed to the utmost the genius and resources of the father was altogether too great an undertaking for the incapacity and inexperience of the son. No one was quicker to realize this than Richard himself, and after a rule of a few months, yielding to the pressure of the army, whose displeasure he had incurred, he resigned the Protectorate. Had he possessed one-half the energy and practical genius that characterized his father, the crown would probably have become hereditary in the family of the Cromwells, and their house might have been numbered among the royal houses of England.

THE RESTORATION (1660).—For some months after the fall of the Protectorate the country trembled on the verge of anarchy. The gloomy outlook into the future, and the unsatisfactory experiment of the Commonwealth, caused the great mass of the English people earnestly to desire the restoration of the Monarchy. Prince Charles, towards whom the tide of returning royalty was running, was now in Holland. A race was actually run between Monk, the leader of the army, and Parliament, to see which should first present him with the invitation to return to his people, and take his place upon the throne of his ancestors. Amid the wildest demonstrations of joy, Charles stepped ashore on the island from which he had been for nine years an exile. As he observed the preparations made for his reception, and received from all parties the warmest congratulations, he remarked with pleasant satire, "It is my own fault that I did not come back sooner, for I find nobody who does not tell me he has always longed for my return."

1. Puritan Literature.

IT LIGHTS UP THE RELIGIOUS SIDE OF THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION.—No epoch in history receives a fresher illustration from the study of its literature than that of the Puritan Commonwealth. To neglect this, and yet hope to gain a true conception of that wonderful episode in the life of the English people by an examination of its outer events and incidents alone, would, as Green declares, be like trying to form an idea of the life and work of ancient Israel from the Kings and the Chronicles, without the Psalms and the Prophets. The true character of the English Revolution, especially upon its religious side, must be sought in the magnificent Epic of Milton and the unequalled Allegory of Bunyan.

Both of these great works, it is true, were written after the Restoration, but they were both inspired by the same spirit that had struck down Despotism and set up the Commonwealth. The Epic was the work of a lonely, disappointed Republican; the Allegory, of a captive Puritan.

Milton (1608-1674) stands as the grandest representative of Puritanism. He was the greatest statesman of the Revolution, the stoutest champion of English liberties against the tyranny of the House of Stuart. After the beheading of Charles I. he wrote a famous work in Latin, entitled The Defence of the English People, in which he justified the execution of the king.

The Restoration forced Milton into retirement, and the last fourteen years of his life were passed apart from the world. It was during these years that, in loneliness and blindness, he composed the immortal poems Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained. The former is the "Epic of Puritanism." All that was truest and grandest in the Puritan character found expression in the moral elevation and religious fervor of this the greatest of Christian poems.

John Bunyan (1628-1688) was a Puritan non-conformist. After the Restoration, he was imprisoned for twelve years in Bedford jail, on account of non-conformity to the established worship. It was during this dreary confinement that he wrote his Pilgrim's Progress, the most admirable allegory in English literature. The habit of the Puritan, from constant study of the Bible, to employ in all forms of discourse its language and imagery, is best illustrated in the pages of this remarkable work.

III. THE RESTORED STUARTS.

1. Reign of Charles the Second (1660-1685).

PUNISHMENT OF THE REGICIDES.—The monarchy having been restored in the person of Charles II, Parliament extended a general pardon to all who had taken part in the late rebellion, save most of the judges who had condemned Charles I. to the block. Thirteen of these were executed with the revolting cruelty with which treason was then punished, their hearts and bowels being cut out of their living bodies. Others of the regicides were condemned to imprisonment for life. Death had already removed the great leaders of the rebellion, Cromwell, Ireton, and Bradshaw, beyond the reach of Royalist hate; so vengeance was taken upon their bodies. These were dragged from their tombs in Westminster Abbey, hauled to Tyburn in London, and there, on the anniversary of Charles's execution, were hanged, and afterwards beheaded (1661).

THE "NEW MODEL" IS DISBANDED.—This same Parliament, mindful of how the army had ruled preceding ones, took care to disband, as soon as possible, the "New Model." "With them," in the words of the historian Green, "Puritanism laid down the sword. It ceased from the long attempt to build up a kingdom of God by force and violence, and fell back on its truer work of building up a kingdom of righteousness in the hearts and consciences of men."

On the pretext, however, that the disturbed state of the realm demanded special precautions on the part of the government, Charles retained in his service three carefully chosen regiments, to which he gave the name of Guards. These, very soon augmented in number, formed the nucleus of the present standing army of England.

THE CONVENTICLE AND FIVE-MILE ACTS.—Early in the reign the services of the Anglican Church were restored by Parliament, and harsh laws were enacted against all non-conformists. Thus the Conventicle Act made it a crime punishable by imprisonment or transportation for more than five persons besides the household to gather in any house or in any place for worship, unless the service was conducted according to the forms of the Established Church.

The Five-Mile Act forbade any non-conformist minister who refused to swear that it is unlawful to take arms against the king under any circumstance, and that he never would attempt to make any change in Church or State government, to approach within five miles of any city, corporate town, or borough sending members to Parliament. This harsh act forced hundreds to give up their homes in the towns, and, with great inconvenience and loss, to seek new ones in out-of-the-way country places.

PERSECUTION OF THE COVENANTERS.—In Scotland the attempt to suppress conventicles and introduce Episcopacy was stubbornly resisted by the Covenanters, who insisted on their right to worship God in their own way. They were therefore subjected to most cruel and unrelenting persecution. They were hunted by English troopers over their native moors and among the wild recesses of their mountains, whither they secretly retired for prayer and worship. The tales of the suffering of the Scotch Covenanters at the hands of the English Protestants form a most harrowing chapter of the records of the ages of religious persecution.

THE FIRE, THE PLAGUE, AND THE DUTCH WAR.—The years from 1664 to 1667 were crowded with calamities,—with war, plague, and fire. The poet Dryden not inaptly calls the year 1666, in which the Great Fire at London added its horrors to those of pestilence and war, the Annus Mirabilis, or "Year of Wonders."

The war alluded to was a struggle between the English and the Dutch, which grew out of commercial rivalries (1664-1667). Just before the war began, the English treacherously seized the Dutch settlement of New Amsterdam in America, and changed its name to New York in honor of the king's brother, the Duke of York.

Early in the summer of 1665 the city of London was swept by a woeful plague, the most terrible visitation the city had known since the Black Death in the Middle Ages (see p. 485). Within six months 100,000 of the population perished.

The plague was followed, the next year, by the great fire, which destroyed 13,000 houses, and a vast number of churches and public buildings. The fire was afterwards acknowledged to be, like the Great Fire at Rome in Nero's reign, a blessing in disguise. The burnt districts were rebuilt in a more substantial way, with broader streets and more airy residences, so that London became a more beautiful and healthful city than would have been possible without the fire.

CHARLES'S INTRIGUES WITH LOUIS XIV.—Charles inclined to the Catholic worship, and wished to reestablish the Roman Catholic Church, because he thought it more favorable than the Anglican to such a scheme of government as he aimed to set up in England. In the year 1670 he made a secret treaty with the French king, the terms and objects of which were most scandalous. In return for aid which he was to render Louis in an attack upon Holland, he was to receive from him a large sum of money; and in case his proposed declaration in favor of the restoration of the Catholic Church produced any trouble in the island, the aid of French troops. The scheme was never consummated; but these clandestine negotiations, however, becoming an open secret, made the people very uneasy and suspicious. This state of the public mind led to a serious delusion and panic.

THE "POPISH PLOT" (1678).—A rumor was started that the Catholics had planned for England a St. Bartholomew massacre. The king, the members of Parliament, and all Protestants were to be massacred, the Catholic Church was to be reestablished, and the king's brother James, the Duke of York, a zealous Catholic, was to be placed on the throne. Each day the reports of the conspiracy grew more exaggerated and wild. Informers sprang up on every hand, each with a more terrifying story than the preceding. One of these witnesses, Titus Oates by name, a most infamous person, gained an extraordinary notoriety in exposing the imaginary plot. Many Catholics, convicted solely on the testimony of perjured witnesses, became victims of the delusion and fraud.

The excitement produced by the supposed plot led Parliament to pass what was called the Test Act, which excluded Catholics from the House of Lords. (They had already been shut out from the House of Commons by the oath of Supremacy, which was required of commoners, though not of peers.) The disability created by this statute was not removed from them until the present century,—in the reign of George the Fourth.

ORIGIN OF THE WHIG AND TORY PARTIES.—Besides shutting Catholic peers out of Parliament, there were many in both houses who were determined to exclude the Duke of York from the throne. Those in favor of the measure of exclusion were called Whigs, those who opposed it Tories. [Footnote: For the meaning of the names Whig and Tory, see Glossary.] We cannot, perhaps, form a better general idea of the maxims and principles of these two parties than by calling the Whigs the political descendants of the Roundheads, and the Tories of the Cavaliers. Later, they became known respectively as Liberals and Conservatives.

THE KING'S DEATH.—After a reign of just a quarter of a century, Charles died in 1685, and was followed by his brother James, whose rule was destined to be short and troubled.

2. Reign of James the Second (1685-1688).

JAMES'S DESPOTIC COURSE. [Footnote: James was barely seated upon the throne before the Duke of Monmouth, an illegitimate son of Charles II., who had been in exile in the Netherlands, asserted his right to the crown, and at the head of a hundred men invaded England. Thousands flocked to his standard, but in the battle of Sedgemoor (1685) he was utterly defeated by the royal troops. Terrible vengeance was wreaked upon all in any way connected with the rebellion. The notorious Chief Justice Jeffries, in what were called the "Bloody Assizes," condemned to death 320 persons, and sentenced 841 to transportation. Jeffries conducted the so-called trials with incredible brutality.]—James, like all the other Stuarts, held exalted notions of the divine right of kings to rule as they please, and at once set about carrying out these ideas in a most imprudent and reckless manner. Notwithstanding he had given most solemn assurances that he would uphold the Anglican Church, he straightway set about the reestablishment of the Roman Catholic worship. He arbitrarily prorogued and dissolved Parliament. The standing army, which Charles had raised to 10,000 men, he increased to 20,000, and placed Catholics in many of its most important offices. He formed a league against his own subjects with Louis XIV. The High Commission Court of Elizabeth, which had been abolished by Parliament, he practically restored in a new ecclesiastical tribunal presided over by the infamous Jeffries (see note, below).

The despotic course of the king raised up enemies on all sides. No party or sect, save the most zealous Catholics, stood by him. The Tory gentry were in favor of royalty, indeed, but not of tyranny. Thinking to make friends of the Protestant dissenters, James issued a decree known as the Declaration of Indulgence, whereby he suspended all the laws against non- conformists. This edict all the clergy were ordered to read from their pulpits. Almost to a man they refused to do so. Seven bishops even dared to send the king a petition and remonstrance against his unconstitutional proceedings.

The petitioners were thrust into the Tower, and soon brought to trial on the charge of "seditious libel." The nation was now thoroughly aroused, and the greatest excitement prevailed while the trial was progressing. Judges and jury were overawed by the popular demonstration, and the bishops were acquitted. The news of the result of the trial was received not only by the people, but by the army as well, with shouts of joy, which did not fail to reach even the dull ears of the king.

THE REVOLUTION OF 1688.—The crisis which it was easy to see was impending was hastened by the birth of a prince, as this cut off the hope of the nation that the crown upon James's death would descend to his daughter Mary, now wife of the Prince of Orange, Stadtholder of Holland. The prospect of the accession in the near future of a Protestant and freedom loving Prince and Princess had reconciled the people to the misgovernment of their present despotic and Catholic sovereign. The appearance upon the stage of an infant prince gave a wholly different look to affairs, and, as we have said, destroyed all hope of matters being righted by the ordinary course of events.

This led the most active of the king's opponents to resolve to bring about at once what they had been inclined to wait to have accomplished by his death. They sent an invitation to the Prince of Orange to come over with such force as he could muster and take possession of the government, pledging him the united and hearty support of the English nation. William accepted the invitation, and straightway began to gather his fleet and army for the enterprise.

Meanwhile King James, in his blind and obstinate way, was rushing on headlong upon his own destruction. He seemed absolutely blind to the steady and rapid drift of the nation towards the point of open resistance and revolution. At last, when the sails of the Dutch fleet were spread for a descent upon the English shores, then the infatuated despot suddenly realized that absolute ruin was impending over his throne. He now adopted every expedient to avert the threatened evil. He restored to cities the charters he had wrongfully taken from them, reinstated magistrates in the positions from which they had been unjustly deposed, attempted to make friends with the bishops, and promised to sustain the Anglican Church and rule in accordance with the constitution of the realm.

All concessions and promises, however, were in vain. They came too late. The king was absolutely deserted; army and people went over in a body to the Prince of Orange, whose fleet had now touched the shores of the island. Flight alone was left him. The queen with her infant child secretly embarked for France, where the king soon after joined her. The last act of the king before leaving England was to disband the army, and fling the Great Seal into the Thames, in order that no parliament might be legally convened.

The first act of the Prince of Orange was to issue a call for a Convention to provide for the permanent settlement of the crown. This body met January 22, 1689, and after a violent debate declared the throne to be vacant through James's misconduct and flight. They then resolved to confer the royal dignity upon William and his wife Mary as joint sovereigns of the realm.

But this Convention did not repeat the error of the Parliament that restored Charles II., and give the crown to the Prince and Princess without proper safeguards and guaranties for the conduct of the government according to the ancient laws of the kingdom. They drew up the celebrated Declaration of Rights, which plainly rehearsed all the old rights and liberties of Englishmen; denied the right of the king to lay taxes or maintain an army without the consent of Parliament; and asserted that freedom of debate was the inviolable privilege of both the Lords and the Commons. William and Mary were required to accept this declaration, and to agree to rule in accordance with its provisions, whereupon they were declared King and Queen of England. In such manner was effected what is known in history as the Revolution of 1688.

3. Literature of the Restoration.

IT REFLECTS THE IMMORALITY OF THE AGE.—The reigns of the restored Stuarts mark the most corrupt period in the history of English society. The low standard of morals, and the general prodigacy in manners, especially among the higher classes, are in part attributable to the demoralizing example of a shockingly licentious and shameless court; but in a larger measure, perhaps, should be viewed as the natural reaction from the over-stern, repellent Puritanism of the preceding period. The Puritans undoubtedly erred in their indiscriminate and wholesale denunciation of all forms of harmless amusement and innocent pleasure. They not only rebuked gaming, drinking, and profanity, and stopped bear-baiting, but they closed all the theatres, forbade the Maypole dances of the people, condemned as paganish the observance of Christmas, frowned upon sculpture as idolatrous and indecent, and considered any bright color in dress as utterly incompatible with a proper sense of the seriousness of life.

Now all this was laying too heavy a burden upon human nature. The revolt and reaction came, as come they must. Upon the Restoration, society swung to the opposite extreme. In place of the solemn-visaged, psalm-singing Roundhead, we have the gay, roistering Cavalier. Faith gives place to infidelity, sobriety to drunkenness, purity to profligacy, economy to extravagance, Bible-study, psalm-singing and exhorting to theatre-going, profanity, and carousing.

The literature of the age is a perfect record of this revolt against the "sour severity" of Puritanism, and a faithful reflection of the unblushing immorality of the times.

The book most read and praised by Charles II, and his court, and the one that best represents the spirit of the victorious party, is the satirical poem of Hudibras by Samuel Butler. The object of the work is to satirize the cant and excesses of Puritanism, just as the Don Quixote of Cervantes burlesques the extravagances and follies of Chivalry.

So immoral and indecent are the works of the writers for the stage of this period that they have acquired the designation of "the corrupt dramatists." Among the authors of this species of literature was the poet Dryden.

IV. THE ORANGE-STUARTS.

1. Reign of William and Mary (1689-1702).

THE BILL OF RIGHTS.—The Revolution of 1688, and the new settlement of the crown upon William and Mary, marks an epoch in the constitutional history of England. It settled forever the long dispute between king and Parliament—and settled it in favor of the latter. The Bill of Rights,— the articles of the Declaration of Rights (see p. 624) framed into a law, —which was one of the earliest acts of the first Parliament under William and Mary, in effect "transferred sovereignty from the king to the House of Commons." It asserted plainly that the kings of England derive their right and title to rule, not from the accident of birth, but from the will of the people, and declared that Parliament might depose any king, exclude his heirs from the throne, and settle the crown anew in another family. This uprooted thoroughly the pernicious doctrine that princes have a divine and inalienable right to the throne of their ancestors, and when once seated on that throne rule simply as the vicegerents of God, above all human censure and control. We shall hear but little more in England of this monstrous theory, which for so long a time overshadowed and threatened the freedom of the English people.

Mindful of Charles's attempt to reestablish the Roman Catholic worship, the framers of this same famous Bill of Rights further declared that all persons holding communion with the Church of Rome or uniting in marriage with a Roman Catholic, should be "forever incapable to possess, inherit, or enjoy the crown and government of the realm." Since the Revolution of 1688 no one of that faith has worn the English crown.

The other provisions of the bill, following closely the language of the Declaration, forbade the king to levy taxes or keep an army in time of peace without the consent of Parliament; demanded that Parliament should be frequently assembled; reaffirmed, as one of the ancient privileges of both Houses, perfect freedom of debate; and positively denied the dispensing power of the crown, that is, the authority claimed by the Stuarts of exempting certain persons from the penalty of the law by a royal edict.

All of these provisions now became inwrought into the English Constitution, and from this time forward were recognized as part of the fundamental law of the realm.

SETTLEMENT OF THE REVENUE.—The articles of the Bill of Rights were made effectual by appropriate legislation. One thing which had enabled the Tudors and Stuarts to be so independent of Parliament was the custom which prevailed of granting to each king, at the beginning of his reign, the ordinary revenue of the kingdom during his life. This income, with what could be raised by gifts, benevolences, monopolies, and similar expedients, had enabled despotic sovereigns to administer the government, wage war, and engage in any wild enterprise just as his own individual caprice or passion might dictate. All this was now changed. Parliament, instead of granting William the revenue for life, restricted the grant to a single year, and made it a penal offence for the officers of the treasury to pay out money otherwise than ordered by Parliament.

We cannot overestimate the importance of this change in the English Constitution. It is this control of the purse of the nation which has made the Commons—for all money bills must originate in the Lower House—the actual seat of government, constituting them the arbiters of peace and war. By simply refusing to vote supplies, they can paralyze instantly the arm of the king. [Footnote: For the Mutiny Bill, enacted at this time, see Glossary.]

JAMES ATTEMPTS TO RECOVER THE THRONE: BATTLE OF THE BOYNE (1690).—The first years of William's reign were disturbed by the efforts of James to regain the throne which he had abandoned. In these attempts he was aided by Louis XIV., and by the Jacobites (from Jacobus, Latin for James), the name given to the adherents of the exiled king. The Irish gave William the most trouble, but in the decisive battle of the Boyne he gained a great victory over them, and soon all Ireland acknowledged his authority.

PLANS AND DEATH OF WILLIAM.—The motive which had most strongly urged William to respond to the invitation of the English revolutionists to assume the crown of England, was his desire to turn the arms and resources of that country against the great champion of despotism, and the dangerous neighbor of his own native country, Louis XIV. of France.

The conduct of Louis in lending aid to James in his attempts to regain his crown had so inflamed the English that they were quite ready to support William in his wars against him, and so the English and Dutch sailors fought side by side against the common enemy in the War of the Palatinate (see p. 595).

A short time after the Peace of Ryswick, broke out the War of the Spanish Succession (see p. 596). William, as the uncompromising foe of the ambitious French king, urged the English to enter the war against France. An insolent and perfidious act on the part of Louis caused the English people to support their king in this plan with great unanimity and heartiness. The matter to which we refer was this. James II. having died at just this juncture of affairs, Louis, disregarding his solemn promises, at once acknowledged his son, known in history as the "Pretender," as "King of Great Britain and Ireland."

Preparations were now made for the war thus provoked by the double sense of danger and insult. In the midst of these preparations William was fatally hurt by being thrown from his horse (1702). Mary had died in 1694, and as they left no children, the crown descended to the Princess Anne, Mary's sister, who had married Prince George of Denmark.

2. Reign of Queen Anne (1702-1714).

WAR OF THE SPANISH SUCCESSION (1701-1714).—The War of the Spanish Succession covered the whole of the reign of Queen Anne. Of the causes and results of this war, and of England's part in it, we have spoken in connection with the reign of Louis XIV. (see p. 596); and so, referring the reader to the account of the contest there given, we shall pass to speak of another event of a domestic character which signalized the reign of Queen Anne.

UNION OF THE PARLIAMENTS OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND (1707).—We refer to the union of England and Scotland into a single kingdom, under the name of Great Britain (1707). It was only the two crowns that were united when James I. came to the English throne: now the two Parliaments were united. From this time forward the two countries were represented by one Parliament, and in time the name "British" becomes the common designation of the inhabitants of England, Wales, and Scotland. The union was advantageous to both countries; for it was a union not simply of hands, but of hearts.

DEATH OF QUEEN ANNE: THE SUCCESSION.—Queen Anne died in the year 1714, leaving no heirs. In the reign of William a statute known as the Act of Settlement had provided that the crown, in default of heirs of William and Anne, should descend to the Electress Sophia of Hanover (grandchild of James I.), or her heirs, "being Protestants." The Electress died only a short time before the death of Queen Anne; so, upon that event, the crown descended upon the head of the Electress's eldest son George, who thus became the founder of a new line of English sovereigns, the House of Hanover, or Brunswick, the family in whose hands the royal sceptre still remains.

LITERATURE UNDER QUEEN ANNE.—The reign of Queen Anne is an illustrious one in English literature. Under her began to write a group of brilliant authors, whose activity continued on into the reign of her successor, George I. Their productions are, many of them, of special interest to the historian, because during this period there was an unusually close connection between literature and politics. Literature was forced into the service of party. A large portion of the writings of the era is in the form of political pamphlets, wherein all the resources of wit, satire, and literary skill are exhausted in defending or ridiculing the opposing principles and policies of Whig and Tory.

The four most prominent and representative authors of the times were Alexander Pope (1688-1744), Jonathan Swift (1667-1745), Joseph Addison (1672-1719), and Daniel Defoe (1661-1731).

In the scientific annals of the period the name of Sir Isaac Newton (1642- 1727) is most prominent. As the discoverer of the law of gravitation and the author of the Principia, his name will ever retain a high place among the few who belong through their genius or achievements to no single nation or age, but to the world.

V. ENGLAND UNDER THE EARLIER HANOVERIANS. [Footnote: The sovereigns of the House of Hanover are George I. (1714- 1727); George II. (1727-1760); George III. (1760-1820); George IV. (1820- 1830); William IV. (1830-1837); Victoria.(1837-).]

THE SOVEREIGN'S LOSS OF POLITICAL INFLUENCE.—The new Hanoverian king, George I. (1714-1727), was utterly ignorant of the language and the affairs of the people over whom he had been called to rule. He was not loved by the English, but he was tolerated by them for the reason that he represented Protestantism and those principles of political liberty for which they had so long battled with their Stuart kings. On account of his ignorance of English affairs the king was obliged to intrust to his ministers the practical administration of the government. The same was true in the case of George II. (1727-1760). George III. (1760-1820), having been born and educated in England, regained some of the old influence of former kings. But he was the last English sovereign who had any large personal influence in shaping governmental policies. Since his time the English government has been carried on in the name of the king by a prime minister, dependent upon the will of the House of Commons. This marks an important step in the process by which sovereignty has been transferred from the Crown to the People. (For later steps, see Chap. LXIII.)

ENGLAND AND CONTINENTAL AFFAIRS.—It must be borne in mind that the Georges, while kings of England, were also Electors of Hanover in Germany. These German dominions of theirs caused England to become involved in continental quarrels which really did not concern her. Thus she was drawn into the War of the Austrian Succession (see p. 644) in which she had no national interest, and which resulted in no advantage to the English people. Hence these matters may be passed over by us without further notice here.

THE PRETENDERS.—Several times during the eighteenth century the exiled Stuarts attempted to get back the throne they had lost. The last of these attempts was made in 1745, when the "Young Pretender" (grandson of James II.) landed in Scotland, effected a rising of the Scotch Highlanders, worsted the English at Preston Pans, and marched upon London. Forced to retreat into Scotland, he was pursued by the English, and utterly defeated at the battle of Culloden Moor,—and the Stuart cause was ruined forever.

OLD FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR (1756-1763).—Just after the middle of the eighteenth century there broke out between the French and the English colonists in America the so-called Old French and Indian War. The struggle became blended with what in Europe is known as the Seven Years' War (see p. 645). At first the war went disastrously against the English,— Braddock's attempt against Fort Du Quesne, upon the march to which he suffered his memorable defeat in the wilderness, being but one of several ill-starred English undertakings. But in the year 1757, the elder William Pitt (afterwards Earl of Chatham), known as "the Great Commoner," came to the head of affairs in England. Straightway every department of the government was infused with new vigor. His own indomitable will and persistent energy seemed to pass into every subordinate to whom he intrusted the execution of his plans. The war in America was brought to a speedy and triumphant close, the contest being virtually ended by the great victory gained by the English under the youthful Major-General Wolfe over the French under Montcalm upon the Heights of Quebec (1759). By the Treaty of Paris (1763) France ceded to England Canada and all her possessions in North America east of the Mississippi River, save New Orleans and a little adjoining land (which, along with the French territory west of the Mississippi, had already been given to Spain), and two little islands in the neighborhood of Newfoundland, which she was allowed to retain to dry fish on.

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION (1775-1783).—By a violation of one of the principles which the English people had so stoutly maintained against the Stuarts, the ruling powers in England now drove the American colonies to revolt. A majority in Parliament insisted upon taxing the colonists; the colonists maintained that taxation without representation is tyranny,— that they could be justly taxed only through their own legislative assemblies. The Government refusing to acknowledge this principle, the colonists took up arms in defence of those liberties which their fathers had won with so hard a struggle from English kings on English soil. The result of the war was the separation from the mother-land of the thirteen colonies that had grown up along the Atlantic seaboard,—and a Greater England began its independent career in the New World.

LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE OF IRELAND (1782).—While the American War of Independence was going on, the Irish, taking advantage of the embarrassment of the English government, demanded legislative independence. Ireland had had a Parliament of her own since the time of the conquest of the island by the English, but this Irish Parliament was dependent upon the English Parliament, which claimed the power to bind Ireland by its laws. This the Irish patriots strenuously denied, and now, under the lead of the eloquent Henry Grattan, drew up a Declaration of Rights, wherein they demanded the legislative independence of Ireland. The principle here involved was the same as that for which the English colonists in America were at this time contending with arms in their hands. Fear of a revolt led England to grant the demands of the Irish, and to acknowledge the independence of the Irish Parliament.

Thus both in America and in Ireland the principles of the Political Revolution triumphed. In Ireland, however, the legislative independence gained was soon lost (see Chap. LXIII.).



CHAPTER LVI.

THE RISE OF RUSSIA: PETER THE GREAT. (1682-1725.)

GENERAL REMARKS.—The second great struggle between the principles of Liberalism and of Despotism, as represented by the opposing parties in the English Revolution, took place in France. But before proceeding to speak of the French Revolution, we shall first trace the rise of Russia and of Prussia, as these two great monarchies were destined to play prominent parts in that tremendous conflict. We left Russia at the close of the Middle Ages a semi-savage, semi-Asiatic power, so hemmed in by barbarian lands and hostile races as to be almost entirely cut off from intercourse with the civilized world (see p. 508). In the present chapter we wish to tell how she pushed her lines out to the seas on every side,—to the Caspian, the Euxine, and the Baltic. The main interest of our story gathers about Peter the Great, whose almost superhuman strength and energy lifted the great barbarian nation to a prominent place among the powers of Europe.

ACCESSION OF PETER THE GREAT (1682).—The royal line established in Russia by the old Norseman Ruric (see p. 508), ended in 1589. Then followed a period of confusion and of foreign invasion, known as the Troublous Times, after which a prince of the celebrated house of Romanoff came to the throne. For more than half a century after the accession of the Romanoffs, there is little either in the genius or the deeds of any of the line calculated to draw our special attention. But towards the close of the seventeenth century there ascended the Russian throne a man whose capacity and energy and achievements instantly drew the gaze of his contemporaries, and who has elicited the admiration and wonder of all succeeding generations. This was Peter I., universally known as Peter the Great, one of the remarkable characters of history. He was but seventeen years of age when he assumed the full responsibilities of government.

THE CONQUEST OF AZOF (1696).—At this time Russia possessed only one sea- port, Archangel, on the White Sea, which harbor for a large part of the year was sealed against vessels by the extreme cold of that high latitude. Russia, consequently, had no marine commerce; there was no word for fleet in the Russian language. Peter saw clearly that the most urgent need of his empire was outlets upon the sea. Hence, his first aim was to wrest the Baltic shore from the grasp of Sweden, and the Euxine from the hands of the Turks.

In 1695 Peter sailed down the Don and made an attack upon Azof; the key to the Black Sea, but was unsuccessful. The next year, however, repeating the attempt, he succeeded, and thus gained his first harbor on the south.



PETER'S FIRST VISIT TO THE WEST (1697-1698).—With a view to advancing his naval projects, Peter about this time sent a large number of young Russian nobles to Italy, Holland, and England to acquire in those countries a knowledge of naval affairs, forbidding them to return before they had become good sailors.

Not satisfied with thus sending to foreign parts his young nobility, Peter formed the somewhat startling resolution of going abroad himself, and learning the art of ship-building by personal experience in the dockyards of Holland. Accordingly, in the year 1697, leaving the government in the hands of three nobles, he set out incognito for the Netherlands. Upon arriving there he proceeded to Zaandam, a place a short distance from Amsterdam, and there hired out as a common laborer to a Dutch shipbuilder.

Notwithstanding his disguise it was well enough known who the stranger was. Indeed there was but little chance of Peter's being mistaken for a Dutchman. The way in which he flew about, and the terrible energy with which he did everything, set him quite apart from the easy-going, phlegmatic Hollanders.

To escape the annoyance of the crowds at Zaandam, Peter left the place, and went to the docks of the East India Company in Amsterdam, who set about building a frigate that he might see the whole process of constructing a vessel from the beginning. Here he worked for four months, being known among his fellow-workmen as Baas or Master Peter.

It was not alone the art of naval architecture in which Peter interested himself; he attended lectures on anatomy, studied surgery, gaining some skill in pulling teeth and bleeding, inspected paper-mills, flour-mills, printing-presses, and factories, and visited cabinets, hospitals, and museums, thus acquainting himself with every industry and art that he thought might be advantageously introduced into his own country.

From Holland Master Peter went to England to study her superior naval establishment. Here he was fittingly received by King William III., who had presented Peter while in Holland with a splendid yacht fully armed, and who now made his guest extremely happy by getting up for him a sham sea-fight.

Returning from England to Holland, Peter went thence to Vienna, intending to visit Italy; but hearing of an insurrection at home, he set out in haste for Moscow.

PETER'S REFORMS.—The revolt which had hastened Peter's return from the West was an uprising among the Strelitzes, a body of soldiers numbering 20,000 or 30,000, organized by Ivan the Terrible as a sort of imperial body-guard. In their ungovernable turbulence, they remind us of the Praetorians of Rome. The mutiny settled Peter in his determination to rid himself altogether of the insolent and refractory body. Its place was taken by a well-disciplined force trained according to the tactics of the Western nations.

The disbanding of the seditious guards was only one of the many reforms effected by Peter. So intent was he upon thoroughly Europeanizing his country, that he resolved that his subjects should literally clothe themselves in the "garments of Western Civilization." Accordingly he abolished the long-sleeved, long-skirted Oriental robes that were at this time worn, and decreed that everybody save the clergy should shave, or pay a tax on his beard. We are told that Peter stationed tailors and barbers at the gates of Moscow to cut off the skirts and to train the beards of those who had not conformed to the royal regulations, and that he himself sheared off with his own hands the offending sleeves and beards of his reluctant courtiers. The law was gradually relaxed, but the reform became so general that in the best society in Russia at the present day one sees only smooth faces and the Western style of dress.

As additional outgrowths of what he had seen, or heard, or had suggested to him on his foreign tour, Peter issued a new coinage, introduced schools, built factories, constructed roads and canals, established a postal system, opened mines, framed laws modelled after those of the West, and reformed the government of the towns in such a way as to give the citizens some voice in the management of their local affairs, as he had observed was done in the Netherlands and in England.

CHARLES XII. OF SWEDEN.—Peter's history now becomes intertwined with that of a man quite as remarkable as himself, Charles XII. of Sweden, the "Madman of the North." Charles was but fifteen years of age when, in 1697, the death of his father called him to the Swedish throne. The dominions which came under his sway embraced not only Sweden, but Finland, and large possessions along the Southern Baltic,—territory that had been won by the arms of his ancestors.



Taking advantage of Charles's extreme youth, three sovereigns, Frederick IV. of Denmark, Augustus the Strong, Elector of Saxony and King of Poland, and Peter the Great of Prussia, leagued against him (1700), for the purpose of appropriating such portions of his dominions as they severally desired to annex to their own.

THE BATTLE OF NARVA (1700).—But the conspirators had formed a wrong estimate of the young Swedish monarch. Notwithstanding the insane follies in which he was accustomed to indulge, he possessed talent; he had especially a remarkable aptitude for military affairs. With a well-trained force—a veteran army that had not yet forgotten the discipline of the hero Gustavus Adolphus—Charles now threw himself first upon the Danes, and in two weeks forced the Danish king to sue for peace; then he turned his little army of 8,000 men upon the Russian forces of 20,000, which were besieging the city of Narva, on the Gulf of Finland, and inflicted upon them a most ignominious defeat. The only comment of the imperturbable Peter upon the disaster was, "The Swedes will have the advantage of us at first, but they will teach us how to beat them."

THE FOUNDING OF ST. PETERSBURG (1703).—After chastising the Czar [Footnote: Czar is probably a contraction of Caesar. The title was adopted by the rulers of Russia because they regarded themselves as the successors and heirs of the Caesars of Rome and Constantinople.] at Narva, the Swedish king turned south and marched into Poland to punish Augustus for the part he had taken in the conspiracy against him. While Charles was busied in this quarter, Peter was gradually making himself master of the Swedish lands on the Baltic, and upon a marshy island at the mouth of the Neva was laying the foundations of the great city of St. Petersburg, which he proposed to make the western gateway of his empire.

The spot selected by Peter as the site of his new capital was low and subject to inundation, so that the labor requisite to make it fit for building purposes was simply enormous. But difficulties never dismayed Peter. In spite of difficulties the work was done, and the splendid city stands to-day one of the most impressive monuments of the indomitable and despotic energy of Peter.

INVASION OF RUSSIA BY CHARLES XII.—Meanwhile Charles was doing very much as he pleased with the king of Poland. He defeated his forces, overran his dominions, and forced him to surrender the Polish crown in favor of Stanislaus Lesczinski (1706). With sufficient punishment meted out to Frederick Augustus, Charles was ready to turn his attention once more to the Czar. So marvellous had been the success attendant upon his arms for the past few years, nothing now seemed impossible to him. Deluded by this belief, he resolved to march into Russia and dethrone the Czar, even as he had dethroned the king of Poland.

In 1708, with an army of barely 40,000 men, Charles marched boldly across the Russian frontier. At Pultowa the two armies met in decisive combat (1709). It was Charles's Waterloo. The Swedish army was virtually annihilated. Escaping with a few soldiers from the field, Charles fled southward, and found an asylum in Turkey. [Footnote: After spending five years in Turkey, Charles returned to Sweden, and shortly afterwards was killed at the siege of Frederickshall, in Norway (1718). At the moment of his death he was only thirty-six years of age. He was the strangest character of the eighteenth century. Perhaps we can understand him best by regarding him, as his biographer Voltaire says we must regard him, as an old Norse sea-king, born ten centuries after his time.]

CLOSE OF PETER'S REIGN.—In 1721 the Swedish wars which had so long disturbed Europe were brought to an end by the Peace of Nystadt, which confirmed Russia's title to all the Southern Baltic lands that Peter had wrested from the Swedes. The undisputed possession of so large a strip of the Baltic seaboard vastly increased the importance and influence of Russia, which now assumed a place among the leading European powers.

In 1723 troubles in Persia that resulted in the massacre of some Russians afforded Peter a pretext for sailing down the Volga and seizing the southern shore of the Caspian Sea, which now became virtually a Russian lake. This ended Peter's conquests. The Russian colossus now "stood astride, with one foot on the Baltic and the other upon the Caspian."

Two years later, being then in his fifty-fourth year, Peter died of a fever brought on by exposure while aiding in the rescue of some sailors in distress, in the Gulf of Finland (1725).

PETER'S CHARACTER AND WORK.—Peter's character stands revealed in the light of his splendid achievements. Like Charlemagne he was a despotic reformer. His theory of government was a rough, brutal one, yet the exclamation which broke from him as he stood by the tomb of Richelieu [Footnote: In 1716 Peter made a second journey to the West, visiting France, Denmark, and Holland.] discloses his profound desire to rule well: "Thou great man," he exclaimed, "I would have given thee half of my dominion to have learned of thee how to govern the other half." He planted throughout his vast empire the seeds of Western civilization, and by his giant strength lifted the great nation which destiny had placed in his hands out of Asiatic barbarism into the society of the European peoples.

The influence of Peter's life and work upon the government of Russia was very different from what he intended. It is true that his aggressive, arbitrary rule strengthened temporarily autocratic government in Russia. He destroyed all checks, ecclesiastical and military, upon the absolute power of the crown. But in bringing into his dominions Western civilization, he introduced influences which were destined in time to neutralize all he had done in the way of strengthening the basis of despotism. He introduced a civilization which fosters popular liberties, and undermines personal, despotic government.

REIGN OF CATHERINE THE GREAT (1762-1796).—From the death of Peter on to the close of the eighteenth century the Russian throne was held, the most of the time, by women, the most noted of whom was Catherine II., the Great, "the greatest woman probably," according to the admission of an English historian (McCarthy), "who ever sat on a throne, Elizabeth of England not even excepted." But while a woman of great genius, she had most serious faults of character, being incredibly profligate and unscrupulous.

Carrying out ably the policy of Peter the Great, Catherine extended vastly the limits of Russian dominion, and opened the country even more thoroughly than he had done to the entrance of Western influences. The most noteworthy matters of her reign were the conquest of the Crimea and the dismemberment of Poland.



It was in the year 1783 that Catherine effected the subjugation of the Crimea. The possession of this peninsula gave Russia dominion on the Black Sea, which once virtually secured by Peter the Great had been again lost through his misfortunes. Catherine greatly extended the limits of her dominion on the west at the expense of Poland, the partition of which state she planned in connection with Frederick the Great of Prussia and Maria Theresa of Austria. On the first division, which was made in 1772, the imperial robbers each took a portion of the spoils. In 1793 a second partition was made, this time between Russia and Prussia; and then, in 1795, after the suppression of a determined revolt of the Poles under the lead of the patriot Kosciusko, a third and final division among the three powers completed the dismemberment of the unhappy state, and erased its name from the roll of the nations. The territory gained by Russia in these transactions brought her western frontier close alongside the civilization of Central Europe. In Catherine's phrase, Poland had become her "door mat," upon which she stepped when visiting the West.

Besides thus widening her empire, Catherine labored to reform its institutions and to civilize her subjects. Her labors in bettering the laws and improving the administration of the government, have caused her to be likened to Solon and to Lycurgus; while her enthusiasm for learning and her patronage of letters led Voltaire to say, "Light now comes from the North."

By the close of Catherine's reign Russia was beyond question one of the foremost powers of Europe, the weight of her influence being quite equal to that of any other nation of the continent.



CHAPTER LVII.

THE RISE OF PRUSSIA: FREDERICK THE GREAT. (1740-1786.)

THE BEGINNINGS OF PRUSSIA.—The foundation of the Prussian Kingdom was laid in the beginning of the seventeenth century (1611) by the union of two small states in the North of Germany. These were the Mark, or Electorate, of Brandenburg and the Duchy of Prussia. Brandenburg had been gradually growing into prominence since the tenth century. Its ruler at this time was a prince of the now noted House of Hohenzollern, and was one of the seven princes to whom belonged the right of electing the emperor.

THE GREAT ELECTOR, FREDERICK WILLIAM (1640-1688).—Although this new Prussian power was destined to become the champion of German Protestantism, it acted a very unworthy and vacillating part in the Thirty Years' War. But just before the close of that struggle a strong man came to the throne, Frederick William, better known as the Great Elector. He infused vigor and strength into every department of the State, and acquired such a position for his government that at the Peace of Westphalia he was able to secure new territory, which greatly enhanced his power and prominence among the German princes.



The Great Elector ruled for nearly half a century. He laid the basis of the military power of Prussia by the formation of a standing army, and transmitted to his son and successor a strongly centralized and despotic authority.

HOW THE ELECTOR OF BRANDENBURG ACQUIRED THE TITLE OF KING.—Frederick III. (1688-1713), son of the Great Elector, was ambitious for the title of king, a dignity that the weight and influence won for the Prussian state by his father fairly justified him in seeking. He saw about him other princes less powerful than himself enjoying this dignity, and he too "would be a king and wear a crown." The recent elevation of William of Orange, Stadtholder of Holland, to royal honors in England (see p. 624), stimulated the Elector's ambition.

It was necessary of course for Frederick to secure the consent of the emperor, a matter of some difficulty, for the Catholic advisers of the Austrian court were bitterly opposed to having an heretical prince thus honored and advanced, while the emperor himself was not at all pleased with the idea. But the War of the Spanish Succession was just about to open, and the emperor was extremely anxious to secure Frederick's assistance in the coming struggle. Therefore, on condition of his furnishing him aid in the war, the emperor consented to Frederick's assuming the new title and dignity in the Duchy of Prussia, which, unlike Brandenburg, did not form part of the empire.

Accordingly, early in the year 1701, Frederick, amidst imposing ceremonies, was crowned and hailed as king at Koenigsberg. Hitherto he had been Elector of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia; now he is Elector of Brandenburg and King of Prussia.

Thus was a new king born among the kings of Europe. Thus did the house of Austria invest with royal dignity the rival house of Hohenzollern. The event is a landmark in German, and even in European history. The cue of German history from this on is the growth of the power of the Prussian kings, and their steady advance to imperial honors, and to the control of the affairs of the German race.

FREDERICK WILLIAM I. (1713-1740).-The son and successor of the first Prussian king, known as Frederick William I., was one of the most extraordinary characters in history. He was a strong, violent, brutal man, full of the strangest freaks, yet in many respects just the man for the times. He would tolerate no idlers. He carried a heavy cane, which he laid upon the back of every unoccupied person he chanced to find, whether man, woman, or child.

Frederick William had a mania for big soldiers. With infinite expense and trouble he gathered a regiment of the biggest men he could find, which was known as the "Potsdam Giants,"—a regiment numbering 2400 men, some of whom were eight feet in height. Not only were the Goliaths of his own dominions impressed into the service, but big men in all parts of Europe were coaxed, bribed, or kidnapped by Frederick's recruiting officers. No present was so acceptable to him as a giant, and by the gift of a six- footer more than one prince bought his everlasting favor.

Rough, brutal tyrant though he was, Frederick William was an able and energetic ruler. He did much to consolidate the power of Prussia, and at his death in 1740 left to his successor a considerably extended dominion, and a splendid army of 80,000 men.