CHAPTER 1.
CHARLES THE FIRST.
Two centuries have elapsed—a short period in the history of national revolutions, since CHARLES THE FIRST ascended the throne of England, and the name of this monarch still awakens the most conflicting opinions. Yet a right understanding of the character and conduct of one who involuntarily became a most eminent actor in a mighty revolution, can never be a matter of indifference to the philosopher and the politician ; nor should such an exhibition of human nature, where the ennobling and the degrading passions are at the same time called forth, fail to interest the sympathies of man.
Charles the First ascended the throne under circumstances in which no monarch had hitherto been placed.
The course of events had rendered necessary a great change in the condition of mankind throughout Europe ; for the social system was constructed on a scale which bore no relation to the increased and complicated interests of society. The impending Revolution was not to be a partial change, as had sometimes happened, when the rule and power had been merely transferred to the aristocracy, or to the hierarchy, or assumed by the absolute sovereign ; nor was it to be a temporary concession to the excited apathy of a suffering people, a change which merely reduced the privileges of the few and the miseries of the many. But it was a total and perfect change of all the principles of human action. It contradicted the fundamental doctrines of the existing order. It was to mark out new classes in society, to form new interests, to define new rights, and to substitute new modes of thinking. And chiefly and finally, it was to develope the true principles of government, and to explain and confirm the source and object of all delegated authority.
It was long doubtful in which country the great Revolution was to commence. The minority of Louis the Thirteenth, in the ambition of the turbulent princes of France, and the republican spirit of the Duke of Rohan and the Hugonots, exhibits some faint outlines of the Revolution under our Charles the First, which it had preceded. In an ingenious parallel, we might detect some very apt resemblances. Long afterwards, the Frondeurs under the administration of Mazarine, often appealed to the English revolt under Charles the First ; and finally the vast concussion of France opened in imitation of our own, and terminated with a similar catastrophe. The genius of one man directed for a time the tempest from France, and consequently from the Continent ; for there are reasons to believe that the social condition of the Continent of Europe will never be materially affected, except through the agency of our great neighbour.
There were peculiar reasons which might have justified the supposition, that England would be the spot in which the important struggle would commence. The establishment of the reformed faith had habituated the English to a greater freedom of inquiry than their neighbours, a freedom of inquiry unknown in preceding times, when authority was the sole test of opinion ; and a long and luxuriant peace had raised up among the Commons of England a new class of men ;—new, by possessing a weight and influence in society which they had never before held. There were other causes, which, though not so evident, were scarcely less influential, but which must be developed as we proceed. It was fated that England should be the theatre of the first of a series of Revolutions which is not yet finished.
Authorised by the doctrines of the age, by his consequent education, and by the natural gravity and elevation of his own mind, to ascend the throne as the anointed of his Creator, it was the doom of Charles the First to witness the divine authority of his crown trampled upon, the might of his magnificent hierarchy overwhelmed, the civil institutions of his realm swept away, all that he deemed sacred profaned, all that he held received denied, all that he considered established subverted ; and in their stead new doctrines and new practices introduced, much of which was monstrous, and all extraordinary.
In this unparalleled state of affairs, for we must never forget that in our Revolution history afforded no parallel to instruct and to warn, instead of disappearing from the stage, like an insignificant actor overwhelmed by the unexpected importance of his part, we find, on the contrary, the English monarch the most eminent, the most energetic, and the most interesting personage, during the long, the fearful, and the dubious struggle. When the struggle was over the King came forward, and closed his career by a most memorable death—dying with the same decision with which he had lived ; and while he was covered with execration and obloquy as the TYRANT by one party, who feared that if he were not a tyrant they might perhaps be considered traitors, he was hailed by the greater portion of the nation with prayers and tears as the MARTYR.
It is difficult to believe, that a man who thus lived and thus died could have been the individual whom it has always been the supposed interest of a successful party to represent him. Tyrant and Martyr are rarer characters than mankind is accustomed to consider them ; and they often vanish before the impartial student, who, searching neither for the tyrant nor the martyr, dares to seek into history for the man.
We have hitherto obtained but a slight acquaintance with the personal character of CHARLES THE FIRST ; for it has been assumed by those who have been unable to make the King despicable, that the private character of a monarch stands unconnected with his public one. But it is as impossible to form a just conception of the character of a king without becoming acquainted with his private history, his motives as well as his conduct, as it is to form a just conception of the individual, without becoming acquainted with the times in which he lived. We are not, therefore, surprised that those who maintain that the private character of Charles the First is unconnected with his public one, have judged of that public character as if he were their contemporary.
The characteristic of the mind of CHARLES THE FIRST was that inflexible firmness to which we attach the idea of strength of character. Constancy of purpose, perseverance to obtain it, and fortitude to suffer for it, this is the beautiful unity of a strong character. We should, however, observe, that this strength of character is not necessarily associated with the most comprehensive understanding, any more than the most comprehensive understanding is necessarily supported by this moral force. Hence the stronger the character of the man the stronger may be its errors, and thus its very strength may become its greatest infirmity. In speculating upon the life of Charles the First, through all the stages of his varied existence from the throne to the scaffold, we may discover the sane intellectual and moral being. Humiliated by fortune, beneath the humblest of his people, the King himself remained unchanged ; and whether we come to reproach, or to sympathise, something of pity and terror must blend with the story of a noble mind wrestling with unconquerable Fate.