1603] THREE VIEWS OF ROYALTY 583 occupied by any other feudal lord, would regard him as absolute possessor of the land over which he ruled, subject only to some superior authority, if such could be found. There thus arose the notion that the King was the real possessor of the country, and thus, in the time of Henry VIII., the King was allowed to deal with the kingdom by will, exactly as ordinary property was dealt with. This may be called the proprietary idea of sovereignty. But the theory, pushed even beyond the King, gave rise to the medieval notions of the still higher authority of either Emperor or Pope. Schism, maladministration, and loss of practical power prevented men from any longer accepting either of these superiors. When the question then was asked, Who then is the superior lord of the King? the only answer that could be given was "God." There thus arose the idea of the Divine right of kings. And these two were the only theories of royalty as yet prevalent. His Divine right. But reverting to the second feudal notion, the connection of authority with the possession of land, everywhere, in England more especially, judicial and executive authority had been divorced from land, and had been placed in the hands of officials. In many The idea of offinstances those officials were elective. Thus the feudal cial royalty. notion with regard to authority had received a death-blow. Moreover, the agitation of the Reformation had given birth to Presbyterianism, or Church government by the congregation, as contrasted with the government by divinely-ordained priests; and thus even in the sphere of religion the idea of official government had begun to supplant the idea of authority based upon Divine right. There then arose the question, Is not the King after all, instead of being the proprietor, an official? and if an official, whence is his authority derived, if not from the source of all official authority, the people? There thus arose, in the place of territorial royalty, or Divine right royalty, the idea of official royalty depending on the will of the nation, in other words, of constitutional royalty. Such was the view held by the Puritan party, and later on by the Whig party. And most of the events which happened during the reign of the Stuart Kings are closely connected with this change of ideas. The new King entered upon his kingdom with the fullest idea of his own prerogative and belief in the Divine right of kings. Nothing else could be expected. Elizabeth had, to all appearance, regained, after its temporary relaxation in the reign of her sister, the absolute position of the Tudors. The separation from Rome which had followed her accession had re-established James's view of her power over the Church. That authority had been his prerogative. wielded with determination, and the close of her reign appeared to exhibit her as mistress alike of Church and State. But even in Henry VIII.'s reign signs had been visible that the great personal power of the Crown rested at bottom upon the national approbation. It was because his will was so much in harmony with that of his people that Henry had been allowed to become so entirely its representative. In Elizabeth's reign this connection was even more evident. The ease with which, on several occasions, she yielded to the demands of the Commons showed that she was herself conscious of it. The growth of the Puritan party, and the political ideas indissolubly connected with their religious creed, had given back to the Commons something of their former independence. But the grandeur and success of the reign, the general popularity of the Queen, and the pride which the people, as a whole, felt in her greatness, had veiled the amount of influence which popular feeling had exerted upon her. It was the misappreciation of this power which was the mistake of James and the ruin of his house. Strong in his Divine right, in his evident mastery of both Church and State, he attempted to carry out his views without regard to the people's wishes. The inevitable consequence arose. The Parliament-more freely elected than it had hitherto been, grown more powerful by the increased wealth of the middle classes, and Puritan in its tendencies-found itself opposed instead of being humoured, and began to remember its old greatness. Traditions of its position under the Plantagenets and Lancastrians began to gain ground, and the rival ideas of a King, the official head of a national legislative body, and a King whose Divine right authorized him to pursue an independent course of his own, and to act if he chose even in opposition to the advice of his Parliament, came into inevitable collision. The increased importance of Parliament is visible from the very beginning of the reign. It is no longer the King, but the Parliament, against which the efforts of the Jesuits were directed. But it was not till the line of conduct adopted by James in his foreign policy directly crossed the national wishes that the rising opposition found its first formidable expression in the great Protest of 1622. Rising opposition of Parliament. James well received by The death of Elizabeth was reported at once to James. But he acted in accordance with Cecil's advice, waited until the information was formally sent him by the English Council, and even then showed no unseemly hurry to take possession of his inheritance. There was indeed no danger to be dreaded; Cecil's view proved quite correct. Not Puritans and Catholics. 1603. 1603] THE MAIN PLOT 585 only were the people, as a whole, willing to receive their new King, but both extreme parties looked forward with hope to his accession. He had been educated among the Presbyterians, and had often expressed himself as an admirer of the Scotch Kirk; and the Puritans could not know that he was at heart very weary of the meddling dictatorial character of its chief members, and likely to use his new opportunities to oppose them; they hoped from him a relaxation of those restraints which Elizabeth had put upon them. At the same time, his feelings with regard to royalty, and his book entitled "The Basilicon Doron," gave Catholics reason to believe that he would ameliorate the penal laws. It was the disappointment of these hopes which led to the disturbances at the beginning of his reign. Both France his alliance. At the same time the uncertainty which hung over the probable conduct of the new King again gave opportunity for the intrigues of foreign courts. Again France and Spain entered the lists to secure the friendship of England. Thus, immediately upon his accession, Henry IV. of France despatched his great and Spain seek minister, Sully, to demand a continuance of the friendly relations between France and England, while Spain, in the same way and for the same object, sent over its minister, Aremberg. While Sully was himself in England, his character and address secured the success of his mission. He even induced James to go so far in opposition to the Spanish as secretly to supply the Dutch (still engaged in their war of independence) with money. But when Sully left the country, James's natural inclinations came into play. His great wish was for a general peace; his great principle the supremacy of royalty. He did not see why he should continue the war with Spain; he had little fancy for supporting the cause of rebel subjects. He therefore, In the following year, after some little negotiations, made a treaty with Spain also. Advantage was taken of the eager rivalry of foreign ambassadors at the English Court by those who were displeased with the turn affairs had taken. The enemies of Cecil had hoped much from the change of dynasty, but found their enemy as firmly established and as influential as ever. Raleigh, Cobham and Northumberland entered into correspondence with the French ambassador, and attempted to induce him to assist them in overthrowing their rival, but the French Court, feeling that it was gaining its end by diplomatic means, rejected their overtures. Upon this Northumberland withdrew, but Raleigh and Cobham addressed themselves to Count Aremberg, who, deeply anxious to gain England for the Spanish interests on the Continent, and aware that Cecil inclined towards French and Protestant alliances, listened to their pro The Main Plot. The Bye Plot. positions. From this correspondence arose what is known as the "Main Plot," the object of which was probably the overthrow of Cecil, perhaps even a more complete revolution, by the establishment of Arabella Stuart1 on the throne by means of Spanish influence. There was at the same time a second plot set on foot, known as the "Bye" or Surprise Plot. The chief conspirators were a gentleman called Markham, and George Brooke, Lord Cobham's brother. Their idea, as that of Essex had been, was to join the extreme parties, who had already begun to see that their hopes of favour were likely to be disappointed. They therefore joined with themselves Watson, a Catholic missionary, prominent among the English Roman Catholic party, and Lord Grey, a staunch Puritan. Their project was to surprise and take possession of the King's person, and to win by violence that toleration which they desired. But the combination was ill-cemented; and Watson formed a plan of his own, intending with his Catholics to rescue the King after he had been seized, and thus to win his object from the royal gratitude. He communicated the plan to the Jesuits, who did not approve of it, and informed Cecil. Cecil gets rid of his rivals by mixing the plots. That minister at once saw the opportunity for destroying his rivals. The presence of Brooke, Cobham's brother, in the lesser plot seemed sufficient ground to connect the two. Raleigh, Cobham and Grey were apprehended. The two plots were artfully mixed by Coke, the Attorney-General, and the conviction of all the leaders, both Commoners and Lords, was secured. Much mystery hangs over the story, caused chiefly by this union of the plots and by the strange conduct of Cobham, a man of extreme weakness, who repeatedly confessed, and as often withdrew his confession. Even on the trial of Raleigh, two letters were produced, in one of which Cobham declared that Raleigh was wholly guiltless, in the other that he was the chief instigator in the business, and the very person who had persuaded Cobham to join it. Whatever the truth may have been, the verdicts were obtained-Watson and another priest were executed; Raleigh imprisoned for many years, and Cobham, Grey, and Markham, by a curious trick of the King, brought each separately to the scaffold, there induced, as usual, to confess, and then withdrawn. Finally, to their great astonishment, they were all three produced simultaneously, and reprieved. The failure of this political intrigue opened the eyes of those Puritans whose hopes had been raised by James's toleration of the Scotch Presbyterians. 1 See page 355. 1604] CHURCH CONFERENCE Jan. 1604. 587 A conference was almost immediately opened between the Puritans and the Bishops at Hampton Court. This conference Conference at was held in consequence of a great petition, which had Hampton Court. been presented to James during his progress from Scotland, known as the Millenary Petition, so called because it was intended to represent the feelings of a thousand Puritan clergy; it demanded the abolition of those ceremonies which they could not conscientiously accept. These Puritans, it must be remembered, were not Dissenters, but members of the Church of England. But James had now the opportunity of displaying his real feelings on religious matters. Four ministers were called to meet the King and the Bishops and other Church dignitaries. It has been frequently said that this was a very unfair arrangement, throwing the whole weight of authority on one party. It is more just to regard it as the natural and proper way of discussing the petition among the leaders of the Church, a certain number of the petitioners being allowed to be present to support their claims. But though justly formed, it soon became evident that the result was predetermined. Smarting under the restraint which the Church had put upon him in his own country, James was charmed with the obsequiousness of the English Bishops; for in England the Church was before all things a creation of the royalty. He was delighted too with the opportunity of displaying his theolcgical erudition. He threw himself heartily on the side of the High Church party, and condescended to enter per- High Church sonally into the dispute. The English Churchmen were much pleased, and lowered themselves to the basest flattery. The King, they declared, was speaking by the direct inspiration of the Spirit. As a natural consequence, the claims of the petitioners, though they were confined really to slight matters which to us appear almost immaterial, were rejected, and the only upshot of the conference worth mentioning was the project of the Authorized Version of the Bible. The rejection of the claims of the Puritans was followed by an outrageous infraction of law-the imprisonment of ten of those who had presented the petition, the Star Chamber having declared that it tended to sedition and rebellion. Triumph of the party. Such conduct showed the fixed intention of the King in Church matters, opened the eyes of the Puritans, and caused a bitter discontent, which speedily found means to show itself in Parliament. Even in Elizabeth's reign the Parliament had been inclined to Puritanism. The love of political liberty in fact went hand in hand with dislike of an arbitrary and ceremonious Church. And the Commons, |