An Introduction to the History of Western Europe Part 52

Charles II was quite as fond as his father of having his own way, but he was a man of more ability. He disliked to be ruled by Parliament; but, unlike his father, he was unwilling to arouse the nation against him. He did not propose to let anything happen which would send him on his travels again. He and his courtiers were fond of pleasure of a light-minded and immoral kind. The licentious dramas of the Restoration seem to indicate that those who had been forced by the Puritans to give up their legitimate pleasures now welcomed the opportunity to indulge in reckless gayety without regard to the bounds imposed by custom and decency.

[Sidenote: Religious measures adopted by Parliament.]

[Sidenote: The Act of Uniformity.]

[Sidenote: The Dissenters.]

Charles' first Parliament was a moderate body, but his second was made up almost wholly of Cavaliers, and it got along, on the whole, so well with the king that he did not dissolve it for eighteen years. It did not take up the old question, which was still unsettled, as to whether Parliament or the king was really supreme. It showed its hostility, however, to the Puritans by a series of intolerant acts, which are very important in English history. It ordered that no one should hold a munic.i.p.al office who had not received the Eucharist according to the rites of the Church of England. This was aimed at both the Presbyterians and the Independents. By the Act of Uniformity (1662), every clergyman who refused to accept everything contained in the Book of Common Prayer was to be excluded from holding his benefice. Two thousand clergymen thereupon resigned their positions for conscience' sake. These laws tended to throw all those Protestants who refused to conform to the Church of England into a single cla.s.s, still known as Dissenters. It included the Independents, the Presbyterians, and the newer bodies of the Baptists, and the Society of Friends, commonly known as Quakers.

These sects abandoned any idea of controlling the religion or politics of the country, and asked only that they might be permitted to wors.h.i.+p in their own way outside of the English Church.

[Sidenote: Toleration favored by the king.]

[Sidenote: The Conventicle Act.]

[Sidenote: The Test Act.]

Toleration found an unexpected ally in the king, who, in spite of his dissolute habits, had interest enough in religion to have secret leanings toward Catholicism. He asked Parliament to permit him to moderate the rigor of the Act of Uniformity by making some exceptions.

He even issued a declaration in the interest of toleration, with a view of bettering the position of the Catholics and nonconformists. Suspicion was, however, aroused lest this toleration might lead to the restoration of "popery," and Parliament pa.s.sed the harsh Conventicle Act (1664).

Any adult attending a conventicle--that is to say, any religious meeting not held in accordance with the practice of the English Church--was liable to penalties which culminated in transportation to some distant colony. Samuel Pepys, who saw some of the victims of this law upon their way to a terrible exile, notes in his famous diary: "They go like lambs without any resistance. I would to G.o.d that they would conform or be more wise and not be catched." A few years later Charles issued a declaration giving complete religious liberty to Roman Catholics as well as to Dissenters. Parliament not only forced him to withdraw this enlightened measure but pa.s.sed the Test Act, which excluded every one from public office who did not accept the Anglican views.

[Sidenote: War with Holland.]

The old war with Holland, begun by Cromwell, was renewed under Charles II, who was earnestly desirous to increase English commerce and to found new colonies. The two nations were very evenly matched on the sea, but in 1664 the English seized some of the West Indian Islands from the Dutch and also their colony on Manhattan Island, which was renamed New York in honor of the king's brother. In 1667 a treaty was signed by England and Holland which confirmed these conquests. Three years later Charles was induced by Louis XIV to conclude a secret treaty, by which he engaged to aid Louis in a fresh war upon Holland. Louis cherished a grudge against Holland for preventing him from seizing the Spanish Netherlands, to which he a.s.serted a claim on behalf of his Spanish wife.[347] In return for Charles' promised aid, Louis was to support him with money and troops whenever Charles thought fit publicly to declare himself a Catholic--he had already acknowledged his conversion to a select circle. But Charles' nephew, William of Orange,--the great-grandson of William the Silent,--who was later to become king of England, encouraged the Dutch to withstand, and Louis was forced to relinquish his purpose of conquering this stubborn people. Peace was concluded in 1674, and England and Holland soon became allies against Louis, who was now recognized as the greatest danger which Europe had to face.

[Sidenote: James II, 1685-1688.]

190. Upon Charles' death he was succeeded by his brother James, who was an avowed Catholic and had married, as his second wife, a Catholic, Mary of Modena. He was ready to reestablish Catholicism in England regardless of what it might cost him. Mary, James' daughter by his first wife, had married William, Prince of Orange, the head of the United Netherlands.

The nation might have tolerated James so long as they could look forward to the accession of his Protestant daughter. But when a son was born to his Catholic second wife, and James showed unmistakably his purpose of favoring the Catholics, messengers were dispatched by a group of Protestants to William of Orange, asking him to come and rule over them.

Charles I, m. Henrietta Maria (1625-1649) | | +-------+------------------+-----------------+ | | | Charles II Mary, m. William II Anne Hyde, m. James II, m. Mary of Modena (1660-1685) | Prince of | (1685-1688)| | Orange | | | +------+-------+ | | | | | William III, m. Mary Anne James Francis Edward, (1688-1702) (1702-1714) the Old Pretender

[Sidenote: The revolution of 1688 and the accession of William III, 1688-1702.]

William landed in November, 1688, and marched upon London, where he received general support from all the English Protestants, regardless of party. James started to oppose William, but his army refused to fight, and his courtiers deserted him. William was glad to forward James'

flight to France, as he would hardly have known what to do with him had James insisted on remaining in the country. A new Parliament declared the throne vacant, on the ground that King James II, "by the advice of the Jesuits and other wicked persons, having violated the fundamental laws and withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, had abdicated the government."

[Sidenote: The Declaration of Rights.]

A Declaration of Rights was then drawn up, condemning James' violation of the const.i.tution and appointing William and Mary joint sovereigns.

The Declaration of Rights, which is an important monument in English const.i.tutional history, once more stated the fundamental rights of the English nation and the limitations which the Pet.i.tion of Right and Magna Charta had placed upon the king. By this peaceful revolution of 1688 the English rid themselves of the Stuarts and their claims to rule by divine right, and once more declared themselves against the domination of the Church of Rome.

General Reading.--GARDINER, _The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution_ (Charles Scribner's Sons, $1.00). GARDINER, _Const.i.tutional Doc.u.ments of the Puritan Revolution_ (Clarendon Press, $2.25). For Cromwell, CARLYLE, "The Hero as King" in _Heroes and Hero Wors.h.i.+p_. MORLEY, _Oliver Cromwell_ (The Century Company, $3.50). For the Puritans, CAMPBELL, _The Puritans in Europe, Holland, England, and America_ (2 vols., Harper, $5.00). FISKE, _The Beginnings of New England_ (Houghton, Mifflin & Co., $2.00).

MACAULAY, _Essay on Milton_.

CHAPTER x.x.xI

THE ASCENDENCY OF FRANCE UNDER LOUIS XIV

[Sidenote: France at the accession of Louis XIV, 1643-1715.]

191. Under the despotic rule of Louis XIV (1643-1715) France enjoyed a commanding influence in European affairs. After the wars of religion were over, the royal authority had been reestablished by the wise conduct of Henry IV. Richelieu had solidified the monarchy by depriving the Huguenots of the exceptional privileges granted to them for their protection by Henry IV; he had also destroyed the fortified castles of the n.o.bles, whose power had greatly increased during the turmoil of the Huguenot wars. His successor, Cardinal Mazarin, who conducted the government during Louis XIV's boyhood, was able to put down a last rising of the discontented n.o.bility.[348]

[Sidenote: What Richelieu and Mazarin had done for the French Monarchy.]

When Mazarin died in 1661, he left to the young monarch a kingdom such as no previous French king had enjoyed. The n.o.bles, who for centuries had disputed the power with Hugh Capet and his successors, were no longer feudal lords but only courtiers. The Huguenots, whose claim to a place in the state beside the Catholics had led to the terrible civil wars of the sixteenth century, were reduced in numbers and no longer held fortified towns from which they could defy the king's agents.

Richelieu and Mazarin had successfully taken a hand in the Thirty Years'

War, and France had come out of it with enlarged territory and increased importance in European affairs.

[Sidenote: The government of Louis XIV.]

Louis XIV carried the work of these great ministers still farther. He gave that form to the French monarchy which it retained until the French Revolution. He made himself the very mirror of kings.h.i.+p. His marvelous court at Versailles became the model and the despair of other less opulent and powerful princes, who accepted his theory of the absolute power of kings but could not afford to imitate his luxury. By his incessant wars of aggression he kept Europe in turmoil for over half a century. The distinguished generals who led his newly organized troops, and the wily diplomats who arranged his alliances and negotiated his treaties, made France feared and respected by even the most powerful of the other European states.

[Sidenote: The theory of the 'divine right' of kings in France.]

192. Louis XIV had the same idea of kings.h.i.+p that James I had tried in vain to induce the English people to accept. G.o.d had given kings to men, and it was His will that monarchs should be regarded as His lieutenants and that all those subject to them should obey them absolutely, without asking any questions or making any criticisms; for in yielding to their prince they were really yielding to G.o.d Himself. If the king were good and wise, his subjects should thank the Lord; if he proved foolish, cruel, or perverse, they must accept their evil ruler as a punishment which G.o.d had sent them for their sins. But in no case might they limit his power or rise against him.[349]

[Sidenote: Different att.i.tude of the English and French nations toward absolute monarchy.]

Louis had two great advantages over James. In the first place the English nation has always shown itself far more reluctant than France to place absolute power in the hands of its rulers. By its Parliament, its courts, and its various declarations of the nation's rights, it had built up traditions which made it impossible for the Stuarts to establish their claim to be absolute rulers. In France, on the other hand, there was no Great Charter or Bill of Rights; the Estates General did not hold the purse strings, and the king was permitted to raise money without asking their permission or previously redressing the grievances which they chose to point out. They were therefore only summoned at irregular intervals. When Louis XIV took charge of the government, forty-seven years had pa.s.sed without a meeting of the Estates General, and a century and a quarter was still to elapse before another call to the representatives of the nation was issued in 1789.

Moreover, the French people placed far more reliance upon a powerful king than the English, perhaps because they were not protected by the sea from their neighbors, as England was. On every side France had enemies ready to take advantage of any weakness or hesitation which might arise from dissension between a parliament and the king. So the French felt it best, on the whole, to leave all in the king's hands, even if they suffered at times from his tyranny.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Louis XIV]

[Sidenote: Personal characteristics of Louis XIV.]

Louis had another great advantage over James. He was a handsome man, of elegant and courtly mien and the most exquisite perfection of manner; even when playing billiards he retained an air of world mastery. The first of the Stuarts, on the contrary, was a very awkward man, whose slouching gait, intolerable manners, and pedantic conversation were utterly at variance with his lofty pretensions. Louis added to his graceful exterior a sound judgment and quick apprehension. He said neither too much nor too little. He was, for a king, a hard worker and spent several hours a day attending to the business of government. It requires, in fact, a great deal of energy and application to be a real despot. In order really to understand and to solve the problems which constantly face the ruler of a great state, a monarch must, like Frederick the Great or Napoleon, rise early and toil late. Louis was greatly aided by the able ministers who sat in his council, but he always retained for himself the place of first minister. He would never have consented to be dominated by an adviser, as his father had been by Richelieu. "The profession of the king," he declared, "is great, n.o.ble, and delightful if one but feels equal to performing the duties which it involves,"--and he never harbored a doubt that he himself was born for the business.

[Sidenote: The king's palace at Versailles.]

193. Louis XIV was careful that his surroundings should suit the grandeur of his office. His court was magnificent beyond anything that had been dreamed of in the West. He had an enormous palace constructed at Versailles, just outside of Paris, with interminable halls and apartments and a vast garden stretching away behind it. About this a town was laid out, where those who were privileged to be near his majesty or supply the wants of the royal court lived. This palace and its outlying buildings, including two or three less gorgeous residences for the king when he occasionally tired of the ceremony of Versailles, probably cost the nation about a hundred million dollars, in spite of the fact that thousands of peasants and soldiers were forced to turn to and work without remuneration. The furnis.h.i.+ngs and decorations were as rich and costly as the palace was splendid. For over a century Versailles continued to be the home of the French kings and the seat of their government.

[Ill.u.s.tration: The King's Bedroom in the Palace of Versailles]

[Sidenote: Life at Louis XIV's court.]

This splendor and luxury helped to attract the n.o.bility, who no longer lived on their estates in well-fortified castles, planning how they might escape the royal control. They now dwelt in the effulgence of the king's countenance. They saw him to bed at night and in stately procession they greeted him in the morning. It was deemed a high honor to hand him his s.h.i.+rt as he was being dressed, or, at dinner, to provide him with a fresh napkin. Only by living close to the king could the courtiers hope to gain favors, pensions, and lucrative offices for themselves and their friends, and perhaps occasionally to exercise some little influence upon the policy of the government. For they were now entirely dependent upon the good will of their monarch.[350]

[Sidenote: The reforms of Colbert.]

The reforms which Louis carried out in the earlier part of his reign were largely the work of the great financier, Colbert, to whom France still looks back with grat.i.tude. He early discovered that Louis'

officials were stealing and wasting vast sums. The offenders were arrested and forced to disgorge, and a new system of bookkeeping was introduced similar to that employed by business men. He then turned his attention to increasing the manufactures of France by establis.h.i.+ng new industries and seeing that the older ones kept to a high standard, which would make French goods sell readily in foreign markets. He argued justly that if foreigners could be induced to buy French goods, these sales would bring gold and silver into the country and so enrich it. He made rigid rules as to the width and quality of cloths which the manufacturers might produce and the dyes which they might use. He even reorganized the old mediaeval guilds; for through them the government could keep its eye on all the manufacturing that was done, and this would have been far more difficult if every one had been free to carry on any trade which he might choose. There were serious drawbacks to this kind of government regulation, but France accepted it, nevertheless, for many years.[351]

[Sidenote: Art and literature in the reign of Louis XIV.]