CHAPTER II: THE REIGN OF KING JAMES I

The young man who succeeded Queen Elizabeth as ruler of England, in 1603, was already a king. James Stuart became king of ScotlandKing James VIin 1587 when he was still a baby. James was taken from his Catholic mother, Mary Queen of Scots, and raised as a Protestant. On his journey southward from Scotland to claim his new kingdom, James was greeted by large and enthusiastic crowds. They were relieved that England would continue to be ruled by a Protestant. But before James even reached London, his new capital, he was presented with a petition by Englands Puritans asking him to join with them in reforming the Church of England. The Puritans were a faction within the Church of England who thought its beliefs, ceremonies and practices were too close to those of the Catholic Church. They didnt like Catholicism without the pope and wanted to make the Church pureri.e., less Catholic. Puritans believed that by simplifying the Christian religion they would be restoring it to the way it had been in Jesus time, before it became corrupted by popery. Popery was their word for anything that was in some way Catholic. Bishops, saints, stained glass windows, fancy churches, sacraments, elaborate ritualsall of this was popery to the Puritans. Down with popery was the Puritan rallying cry. King James was raised by Scottish Presbyterians, and he knew all about the Puritan outlook from them. He decided to call a conference to settle Englands religious controversy before it divided the kingdom. The conference met at the palace of Hampton Court1 in 1604. Puritans and conservatives argued vehemently. Traditional Anglicans wanted to keep popery. They became known as High Anglicans. The Puritans were called Low Anglicans. Much of the dispute was over the idea of bishops. Low Anglicans, i.e., Puritans, wanted to be rid of all bishops. They wanted the Church of England to be run from below; by its ordinary members. High Anglicans wanted bishops to run the Church as they had traditionally. James had heard all he needed to hear. He decided the issue in favor of the High Anglicans by uttering just four words: No bishop; no king. Everyone understood what the king meant. If common people could run the Church, why not the government too? James realized that the same arguments the Puritans were making against bishops in 1604 could be made against kings in the future. As a king he would be a fool not to defend the intellectual foundations of monarchy. English Catholics were upset too. Before he became king, James had secretly promised to go easy on English Catholics. Now that he was king, he wasnt doing anything. Catholics felt betrayed. A handful of them plotted to assassinate the king and many members of parliament. Their plan was to use a keg of gunpowder to blow up the parliament building while the king was inside. A Catholic nobleman, who was warned not to attend a certain session of parliament, became suspicious and warned the king. King James ordered the basement searched and a Catholic named Guy Fawkes was discovered there along with a large quantity of gunpowder. When Fawkes was caught redhanded, a tidal wave of anti-Catholic hatred swept over England. November 5, the day the notorious Gunpowder Plot was discovered, was celebrated every year thereafter in England as Guy Fawkes Day. The celebration consisted of Protestants venting their hatred for Catholics in a wide variety of waysfrom burning effigies of the pope to actually beating up Catholics and destroying their property. Taken together, the Hampton Court conference and the Gunpowder Plot convinced King James that, when it came to religion, the middle of the road was the safest and best place to be. He would continue to make life difficult and unpleasant for Puritans and Catholics alike. When, in 1607, a group
1 Today, the Hampton Court conference is best remembered for producing the famous King James version of the Bible.

of loyal Englishmanmainly Anglicansestablished a permanent colony in America which they named Jamestown in honor of their king, James was pleased. He knew there was plenty of room in America for additional English colonies. Perhaps America might be a good dumping ground for unwanted and troublesome minorities like Puritans and Catholics.2 KING JAMES VERSUS PARLIAMENT Ever since King John accepted the Magna Carta, in 1215, English kings were expected to abide by the rule of law. But what would happen if a king decided he was above the law and refused to obey it? King James believed in the idea of absolute monarchy. Before he became king of England he wrote a book entitled The True Law of a Free monarchy. By a free monarchy James meant one in which the king was free to do anything he wanted whenever he wanted to do it. Just in case anyone might get the idea that he had changed his mind, James repeated his ideas in a speech before parliament in 1610. These are a few of the words the king spoke on that occasion: The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only Gods lieutenants upon earth and sit upon Gods throne, but even by God himself they are called gods. There are three principal similitudes that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God, and the two others but of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to Divine Power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families, for a king is truly . . . the father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of . . . the body of man. I conclude then this point touching the power of kings with this axiom of divinity, that to dispute what God can do is blasphemy . . . so it is sedition to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power. But just kings will ever be willing to declare what they will do, if they will not incur the curse of God. I will not be content that my power be disputed upon: but I shall ever be willing to make the reason appear of all my doings, and rule my actions according to my laws. . . . Be careful . . . do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft . . . it is undutiful . . . in subjects to press their king wherein they know before he will refuse them. . . . Encroach not upon the prerogative of the crown: if there falls out a question that concerns my prerogative . . . deal not with it . . . for they are transcendent matters. . . . That which concerns . . . a kings power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to take away from the mystical reverence that belongs to them that sit on the Throne of God. . . . It is atheism and blasphemy to dispute what God can do: good Christians content themselves with His Will revealed in His Word; so it is presumption and high contempt in a subject to dispute what a king can do, or say that a king cannot do this or that; but rest in that which is the kings revealed will in his law. Even in the odd and unfamiliar speech of the 17th century, it is impossible to mistake what James believed. Although no member of parliament made a scene by challenging the king to his face, many who listened to his words must have thought James was deliberately looking to provoke a fight with them. England had been ruled jointly by kings and parliaments for hundreds of years. James would surely incite a very serious crisis if he persisted in believing that he had all the power and parliament had none. Although James was badly out of step with the thinking of the people of England and with the parliament, he was very much in step with the times elsewhere in Europe. The seventeenth century was the golden age of royal absolutism all over Europe. In most other countries, kings had already
2 Puritans mainly went to Massachusetts; Catholics to Maryland.

gotten rid of their parliaments for good. Like James, these kings argued that their power was a gift from God and they were answerable to no one except Go d. James believed that he was surely Gods chosen ruler of England, for if God had wanted someone else to rule, that person would be on the throne instead of James Stuart. FOREIGN AFFAIRS UNDER JAMES I The clash between King James and parliament came over the kings conduct of foreign affairs. In 17th century Europe, royal marriages were a very important part of a nations foreign policy. When King James arranged for his daughter, Elizabeth, to marry an important German nobleman, Frederick, the Elector of Hanover, parliament applauded the choice. Frederick was not only a good Protestant, but also he was the leader of a group of powerful German nobles called the Protestant Union. When Frederick was elected King of Bohemia, in 1618, James daughter beca me a Queen. But Fredericks election had dire consequences. It set off a great civil war over religionThe Thirty Years Warin Germany. Even though his daughter was married to one of the main contestants in the war, James kept England out of the conflict even when most of the other powers were drawn in on one side or the other. Many English Protestants, in parliament and in the country at large, were unhappy that James was keeping England out of the Thirty Years War. They thought the fight against Catholicism was their fight too and they wanted England to get into the fight on the Protestant side. Instead of getting into the war, James was persuaded to act as a peacemaker. A bold plan was suggested by the Duke of Buckingham, one of the kings most trusted advisers. Buckingham suggested that Charles, the Prince of Wales3 , should propose marriage to the Infanta of Spain. The Infanta was the oldest daughter of the king of Spain one of Europes most militant and uncompromising Catholic rulers. At that moment, there were large contingents of Spanish troops in Germany fighting against the family of James daughter, Elizabeth. If Charles married the Infanta, James would have a daughter and a son each married to one of the major players in the war. He would then be perfectly positioned to become the peacemaker of Europe. When the public learned of the proposed Spanish Match there was outrage in England. The Protestant majority was vehemently opposed to Charles marriage to the Infanta of Spain. He might as well marry the daughter of the pope! Spain had been Englands bitterest enemy since the time of the Armada in 1588. Furthermore, if the Infanta married Charles, her half-Catholic children would become Englands future rulers. To the public, the Spanish Match was simply out of the questionan outrageous and offensive idea that must have come from the brain of a complete fool! Parliament could not resist talking about the Spanish Match. Several members ridiculed the proposal, and the Duke of Buckingham, who had first suggested it. This made King James furious. How dare parliament discuss his sons prospective marriage! And how dare they meddle in foreign affairs! James royal blood boiledhe threatened to have those members of parliament who had criticized Buckingham or the Spanish Match thrown in jail. Now it was parliaments turn to get angry. Didnt James know that they had a long and honored tradition of complete freedom of speech? Parliament began working on a statementcalled a Protestationthat would serve to remind James of their historic rights. When James learned what they were up to, he angrily dissolved parliament. Then, still enraged, he ordered that their official journal be brought to him. With his own hand he opened the book and tore out the page where parliament had written its Protestation.

3 The Prince of Wales is the title given to the heir to the throne

The king was determined to go ahead with the Spanish Match regardless of what parliament or the country might think. In 1623, Prince Charles, accompanied by the Duke of Buckingham, left for Spain to woo the Infanta face-to-face. Then, the Infanta abruptly turned Charles down. Humiliated before the world, Charles returned to England. Now, it would take a war with Spain to restore the insulted honor of Prince Charles and the English nation. Parliament was eager for a war with Catholic Spain too. The Spanish Match suddenly turned into a Spanish War. As Protestant England happily prepared for war with Catholic Spain, the Duke of Buckingham arranged for Prince Charles to marry Princess Henrietta Marie of France another Catholic. Then, with hostilities and his sons marriage both imminent, King James died suddenly in 1625. Although the country was strongly united in the war against Spain, the quarrel between the monarchy and parliament had not ended. Although temporarily on the back burner, it was still right where it had been beforeunresolved and potentially explosive. Englands new king, King Charles, would have to decide whether it would be better to compromise with parliament or try to eliminate it altogether.

CHAPTER III: TYRANNY AND CIVIL WAR

The first parliament to meet during the reign of King Charles I was not at all cooperative. The members demanded an official investigation of the Duke of Buckinghams role in the outbreak of the war with Spain. Buckingham had had a major behind-the-scenes role in the events leading up to the war. If the whole story of his involvement came out, there would surely be powerful demands that he be fired. To protect his friend Buckingham, Charles put pressure on parliament to call off its investigation. When parliament refused to cooperate, he dissolved them. Then the king put Buckingham in charge of an important military expedition which was to capture and take control of the Spanish port of Cadiz. If the expedition succeeded, it would greatly enhance Buckinghams reputationand probably quiet the demands that he be investigated. When the English expedition got to Cadiz, so many soldiers got drunk on captured Spanish wine that they failed to follow up on their initial success and had to withdraw. The entire expedition quickly collapsed in failure. The Cadiz disaster led to a further sharp decline in Buckinghams badly battered reputation. Money to carry on the war was running short, forcing Charles to call a second parliament to raise additional taxes to pay for it. The House of Commons immediately attacked the Duke of Buckingham. John Eliot, one of Buckinghams severest critics said, Our honor is ruined, our ships are sunk, our men perished; not by the sword, not by the enemy, not by chance, but . . . by those we trust. Since Buckingham had been given his command by Charles, the attack was not only directed against the Duke but also against the king as well. To head off further attacks on the Duke and on himself Charles angrily dissolved his second parliament. Then, once again, Charles put Buckingham in charge of another important military expedition. This one was sent to help the besieged French Huguenots at La Rochelle. There, the Dukes forces were defeated by a much smaller French army. Buckinghams reputation was now in complete shambles his incompetence was impossible to conceal or to explain away. So great was the Dukes unpopularity, that there was now a real danger that the king might be dragged down to ruin with him. Under the circumstances, Charles did not dare to summon another parliament. To pay for the fiasco at La Rochelle, he tried raising money by forced loans. Those who refused to loan the king money were threatenedif they did not come up with all the money demanded of them, soldiers would be quartered in their homes.

The threat of forced loans thoroughly antagonized the upper class, but it did not raise enough money to fight Englands battles. Running out of money, Charles was forced to summon a third parliament. The new parliament soon decided the time had come to confront the king and force him to rule according to the law and long-established English traditions. No more forced loans and no more military commands for Buckingham. But how to challenge Charles? Parliament hit upon what seemed a clever plan. They decided to draw up a written document in which the historic rights and privileges of parliament were clearly spelled out. This documentcalled the Petition of Right would be presented to the king. He would have to accept or reject itthere was no third choice in the matter. Accepting it, would mean that he was in agreement with what was in it. He would then have to abide by it. Should he decide to reject it, everyone would know that he was aiming at establishing an absolute monarchy in England. He would be exposed as a tyrant. The Petition of Right would force Charles to choose between two unacceptable alternatives. What follows are a few important passages from the Petition of Right, which was presented to King Charles I in 1628: To the kings most excellent majesty . . . it is declared and enacted by a statute made and enacted in the time of King Edward I . . . that no tallage or aid [i.e., taxes] should be laid or levied by the king without the good will and consent of . . . parliament . . . and . . . no person shall be compelled to make any loans to the king against his will. . . . And where also by the statute called the Great Charter4 of the liberties of England, it is declared and enacted that no freeman may be taken or imprisoned . . . but by the lawful judgment of his peers. . . . Nevertheless against the tenor of the said statutes and other good laws and statutes of your realm . . . your subjects have of late been imprisoned without any cause shown . . . and they were detained by your majestys special command . . . without being charged with anything . . . according to the law. And whereas of late great companies of soldiers have been dispersed . . . into their houses to the great grievance and vexation of the people. Charles I surprised his enemies in parliament by graciously accepting the Petition of Right, even though it was a severe reprimand and, in a polite sort of way, an insult to his personal honor. But then Charles cleverly deprived parliament of its victory by completely ignoring everything that was stated in the Petition of Right. Parliament had been taken in; they needed another way to show their displeasure with Charles growing arrogance and h igh-handedness. Parliament decided to humiliate the king by attacking his good friend, the Duke of Buckingham. Parliament prepared to impeach 5 Buckingham. To prevent this blow to his own and Buckinghams sagging prestige, Charles decided to adjourn parliament until its members tempers cooled down. Then the king decided to put Buckingham in charge of yet another military expedition. But, before the new mission could get underway, Buckingham was assassinated. His killer was a naval officer who was angry because the Duke refused to award him a promotion. Many members of parliament hated Buckingham, but none of them were in any way involved in his murder. But, as far as the king was concerned, parliament was as much to blame for his friends death as if it had done the bloody deed itself. When parliament was called back into session, the Duke of Buckingham was no longer around to be their whipping boy. Instead, they decided to go after the Queens religion. When Henrietta -Marie
4 the Magna Carta 5 Under English law, impeachment meant not only accusation, but removal from office and punishment without a trial

married Charles, he promised her he would stop enforcing Englands strict anti -Catholic laws. But, when he did, it enraged the powerful Puritan faction in parliament. Parliament decided to go after the Queen by passing a batch of tough, new, anti-Catholic laws. Ordinarily, the king would have dissolved parliament for such insulting behavior, but he was desperate for money to fight the war with Spain and needed parliaments support to raise it. As parliament continued on its anti-Catholic course, Charles decided to order another adjournment to cool off the Puritan hotheads. He sent his messenger to the House of Commons with an order for the Speaker to adjourn the meeting. When the messenger arrived, parliament was in the midst of an angry debate over the kings mishandling of the government. Hearing the messengers knock on the door, the Speaker tried to rise from his chair. His rising would automatically silence the members who were speaking and adjourn the session. To prevent adjournment, some angry members rushed forward and forced the Speaker back into his chair. While the Speaker was being held down, a Puritan member named John Eliot proposed three quick resolutions. They were as follows: Whoever favors popery is a traitor; whoever supports the collection of illegal taxes is a traitor; whoever pays illegal taxes is traitor. The three resolutions passed immediately by a voice vote and the Speaker was then allowed to rise. When Charles heard what happened in the House of Commons, he decided to dissolve his third parliament. He swore never to call another while he was king.

CHARLES I RULES WITHOUT PARLIAMENT

Charles ruled without calling parliament into session from 1629, when he dissolved his third parliament, until 1640, when he was forced against his will to summon a fourth. This stormy period in Englands history is known as the Eleven Years Tyranny. Parliament had been dissolved, and it had no way of calling itself back into session. If the people of England continued to pay their taxes, Charles could rule indefinitely without ever calling another parliament. If they all refused to pay any taxes, they could force the king to call another parliament almost immediately. After all, there wasnt enough space in Englands jails to arrest everyone. Parliament tried its best to spark a national tax revolt when, with its Three Resolutions, it called anyone who collected or paid illegal taxes a traitoran illegal tax being defined as any tax not voted by parliament. In the event, most people were afraid of going to jail and paid their taxes. Many Puritans fled across the ocean to New England6 to avoid having to pay taxes to support Charles tyrannical regime. Everything now depended on public opinion. If the English people wanted to keep their parliament, they would have to turn against their king. If they went along with Charles tyranny then England would most likely become an absolute monarchy like France and many other European countries. Public opinion went against the king because of four unpopular decisions he made in the 1630s. First, John Eliot was put in jail for proposing the Three Resolutions. Charles commanded Eliot to apologize; then he would be allowed to leave prison. Eliot refused. Members of parliament had free speech, and he would not give up that precious right. Eliot grew sick in jail. His doctors thought he might die. Eliot asked Charles for permission to leave jail and get well then he would return to prison. Charles remained obstinateEliot could apologize or die. When Eliot died in jail, he became a martyr to the cause of political freedom. Most of the nation blamed Charles for cruelly allowing a courageous man die a needless death. Charles second decision was to allow the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, a militant High Anglican, to viciously persecute Puritans. Archbishop Laud was a man who enthusiastically supported
6 This period in known as the Great Migration in American history.

popery. Laud detested Puritans, and he made life in England very unpleasant for them. Lauds determined persecution drove many Puritans to America. Others refused to flee, staying in England to carry on the fight against Laud and the tyrannical king. Many moderate Anglicans, who were not Puritans supporters, began to sympathize with the victims of Lauds persecution. They began turning against Archbishop Laud and his master, King Charles. Charles third decision involved another former member of parliament and two of the Three Resolutions. John Hampden refused to pay a new tax Charles imposed on the interior regions of England. The tax was called Ship Money and the money it brought in was used to support the navy. Previously, only coastal-dwelling people had to pay this particular tax. Now, to raise more money, Charles extended it to the interior of the country too. The new tax was clearly illegal. Since the middle ages, under Edward I, parliament had had complete control over new taxes. Hampdens refusal to pay his Ship Money ended up in court. Judges appointed by the king found Hampden guilty and, like Eliot, he was thrown in jail. Public opinion supported Hampdenthe tax resisteragainst King Charlesthe collector of illegal taxes. Charles fourth decision brought a Scottish army into England. Although England and Scotland were both ruled by Charles, legally they were two separate countries under the same king. Scotland had its national religion, Presbyterianism, and England had its, Anglicanism. Because he disliked Calvinism and for the sake of greater uniformity, Archbishop Laud urged Charles to impose the English form of worship on Scotland. As Calvinists, the Scots detested the popery of the Anglican Church. Rather than submit, they rebelled. Charles took Scotlands defiance personally. He muttered, I mean to be obeyed. At issue were not just Scotlands religion, but Charles personal authority and prestige in both Scotland and England. If he showed weakness by backing away from this fight with the Scots, he might have a revolt in England to deal with as well.

CHARLES IS FORCED TO SUMMON PARLIAMENT

In 1640, when the Scots rebelled, there wasnt enough money in the English treasury to fight a war. Charless most trusted adviser, the Earl of Strafford, urged the king to summon a parliament. Strafford believed that the danger of an armed invasion would unite England behind the king. Strafford badly underestimated how much Charles was hated. Many of Charles strongest critics were elected. The defiant parliament refused to vote any money for the war until Charles agreed to make some major concessions. Charles was infuriated by the lack of patriotism shown by parliament. After only three weeks he dissolved parliamentit became known thereafter as the Short Parliament and demanded the voters choose a new, more patriotic group of men. The voters reacted to this demand, by reelecting many men from the Short Parliament who were among Charles bitterest enemies. The new parliamentalso elected in 1640set a record by meeting for the next 13 years, and is known to history as the Long Parliament. The leader of the kings enemies in the House of Commons was John Pym. Pym believed that parliament ought to rule the country; not the king. He said, A parliament is that to the commonwealth which the soul is to the body. Pyms message was clear; parliament intended to take power away from the king permanently. Parliament began by attacking the kings main supporters. They passed a bill of attainder against the kings leading adviser, the Earl of Strafford. If signed by t he king, the bill would put Strafford to death. When the bill came to the king for his signature, Strafford strongly urged the king to sign it, even though this would mean his own death. Strafford argued that if parliament put him to death, they might be satisfied. They would then leave the king and queen alone, and the most important thing the monarchy would be preserved. The king refused to sign the bill at first, but was finally persuaded by the logic of Straffords argument and Straffords great coura ge. No king ever had a more loyal

servant than the Earl of Strafford. With a heavy heart, the king signed the bill of attainder and Strafford prepared to die. On the very day of Straffords execution, another bill came to the kings desk. This bill took away the kings power to dissolve parliament. If the king signed it, parliament could go on meeting forever, if it chose to do so.7 Under ordinary circumstances the king would surely have vetoed the bill. But, confused and emotionally overwrought by Straffords imminent death, the king foolishly signed the bill. By doing so, he threw away his strongest weapon in his battle with parliament. Then parliament passed an act declaring all the taxes that had been collected without their consent during the Eleven Years Tyranny illegal. Parliament went on to pass a Triennial Act, which stated that, henceforth, no king could go longer than three years without summoning a parliament. Parliament also had Archbishop Laud and some other anti-Puritan bishops imprisoned. Then, when the king learned that parliament was about to bring impeachment proceedings against the queen, he decided that time had come to use force. With a detachment of loyal soldiers supporting him, King Charles entered the meeting room of the House of Commons intending to arrest John Pym and four other members who had been leading the opposition. However, Pym and four others had been forewarned, and were already in hiding when the king burst into the room. The two sides now prepared for civil war. Charles was very unpopular in London, so he left the capital and established himself in York, where he had many supporters. Parliament then drew up list of 19 demands for Charles to either accept or reject. The Nineteen Propositions, as they were called, would have forced Charles, and all future English rulers, to submit to the domination of parliament. This, Charles, a firm believer in royal absolutism, would never do. When, in 1642, Charles officially refused to accept the Nineteen Propositions, the English Civil War began.

THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR

On the kings side, in the English Civil War, were those who favored a strong monarchy, an unreformed Anglican Church and a society dominated by its landowning aristocracy. On parliaments side were those who favored a more limited monarchy, a reformed Church and a greater voice in government and society for the middle class. Democracyequal sharing of power by all classes was not a powerful force at that time. To defeat the king, parliament had to form an effective army of its own. Most of the officers of the English army were noblemen and they remained loyal to the king. Parliament had to create an army for itself virtually from scratch. Parliaments army was not as experienced or as professional -looking as the kings but it more than made up for its lack of skill and polish with its high morale and tremendous dedication to the cause of Puritanism and parliamentary rule. Under a talented general named Oliver Cromwell, parliaments armyknown as the New Model armywon most of the battles and eventually won the war. Once Cromwell got the upper hand on the battlefield, the king agreed to enter into negotiations with parliament to salvage as much as he could of his power. During these negotiations Charles showed again and again that he was not a man to be trusted. While pretending that he would be wiling to accept parliaments terms of peace, he was secretly working out an alliance with the Scotshis former enemiesto attack England. In 1648, the Scots invaded. O liver Cromwells New Model Army crushed them at the Battle of Preston and the English Civil War was finally over.

7 The bill applied only to this particular parliamentfuture ones could be dissolved by the king.

Oliver Cromwell, not parliament, was now the real power in England. He personally despised King Charles, referring to him not as a man but as an accursed thing. Some members of the Long Parliament disagreed with Cromwell. They thought Charles should be allowed to remain as king with greatly reduced powers. Cromwell was determined to be totally rid of Charles and the monarchy. He sent a detachment of troops to forcibly remove Charles remaining supporters from the House of Commons. This high-handed actionwhich clearly showed who had the real power in England is known as Prides Purge after Colonel Thomas Pride who carried it out on Cromwell s behalf. After Prides Purge, Cromwell had things entirely his own way. He ordered the House of Commons to put Charles I on trial for treason. Charles trial took place before the House of Commons which acted as a court of law. Everyone knew the outcome in advancethe king would be found guilty and sentenced to death. The Commons did as Cromwell expected Charles Stuart, formerly King of England, was declared a tyrant, traitor, murderer and public enemy and was sentenced to death by beheading. January 30, 1649, was a bitter-cold day in London. The former king, Charles Stuart, requested a second shirt. He did not want to shiver in the cold weather. This would give his enemies the satisfaction of believing that he had trembled in fear on his way to the block. Charles conducted himself with great courage and dignity, as befitting a king. He did not tremble. A huge crowd had gathered to witness the execution. They watched in eerie silence as their former kings head was struck off. Later, even his enemies were forced to agree that Nothing in his life so became him as his manner of leaving it.

CHAPTER IV: REPUBLIC & RESTORATION

As a republica country without an hereditary monarchEngland was a much stronger power than it been for many years. Under Cromwells strong leadership, Englands army and navy won impressive victories over the Scots, the Irish, the Dutch and the Spaniards. But, despite these successes in battle, Cromwell was never able to find a legitimate basis for his rule. People knew Cromwell was in chargehe was given the title Lord Protectorbut by what right did he govern them? He was not a king; nor did he seek to become one. Oliver Cromwell didnt really like monarchy. He was not elected by parliament nor by the English people and he did not want to be. Cromwell didnt like democracy very much either. Surely he was Englands strongest person, but was military strength the sole basis of his rule? If so, he was little more than a dictator in disguise. What would happen when he died? Would the English generals fight it out until one of them won and became the new dictator? Better to have an hereditary monarchy, than to have a civil war every few years. Cromwell grappled with these difficult questions for the rest of his life, but was never able to find a solution. He died in 1658. In his will, he named his son, Richard Cromwell, to be his successor. Richard Cromwell tried ruling England for awhile and failed. Richard knew he wasnt cut out to be a politician; he resigned the post of Lord Protector and left the country. Englands Puritan generals gave some thought to continuing the republic, but soon recognized that the country as a whole wanted to have a king again. Eleven years of Puritan rule had turned the majority of the English people8 against Puritanism. Puritan extremists had vandalized Gothic cathedralsdestroying priceless statues and paintings and smashing stained glass windows. The Puritans had banned the theater. They outlawed games and sports on Sunday. They even banned maypole dancing and mince pies at Christmas time. Englishmen wanted to enjoy life again it was time to put an end to the grim years of Puritan rule.

8 Two minorities who appreciated Cromwell were Jews and Quakers. He stopped legal harassment of both groups.

In 1660, the surviving members of the Long Parliament met for the final time. They, who had voted to behead Charles I in 1649, now took steps to invite his son, Charles II, to return and to rule England as its rightful king.

RADICALISM DURING THE REPUBLIC

It is likely that Oliver Cromwell could have been popularly elected to govern England, but he was opposed to democracy. Cromwell did not trust the common people. He feared that if everyone got the right to vote, the poor would form a political party of their own. Since they were the vast majority of the population, they could easily vote themselves into power. Then, they would use their power to take away the property of the rich. In Cromwells opinion, this would be a form of legalized theft. Oliver Cromwell was a wealthy man. He believed that he and other men like himself had worked hard to get where they were in life. They deserved to be rich, and their wealth should be secure. He wouldnt tolerate any system of government that would put private property at risk. Even though Cromwell disliked democracy, many of the men in his army did not. There was a group known as the Levellers whoas their name suggestswanted to reduce the political power of the rich and increase the power of the poor. One of their leaders was an officer in the New Model Army, Colonel Rainborough. In the quaint language of the 17th century Rainborough said: The poorest he that is in England has a life to live as the greatest he, and therefore . . . every man that is to live under a government ought first by his consent to put himself under that government. There was another group called Diggers who were even more radical. They got the name Diggers because they began to cultivate a communal farm not far from London. Their leader, Gerard Winstanley, said, True freedom lies where a man receives his nourishment and preservation and that it is the use of the earth. Like the Levellers, the Diggers wanted equal political power, but they also wanted wealth and land to be shared equally too. They were the ones Cromwell feared most. He said, You have no other way to deal with these men but to break them in pieces . . . if you do not break them, they will break you. When the radicals in Cromwells army tried to organize a rebellion, he broke them into pieces, just as he had threatened. These radical men and their revolutionary ideas were driven underground in England. In the next century other men, with similar ideas, came forward in Englands American colonies.

THE RESTORATION
Even though everyone knew Charles II had been in exile, safely out of the country when his father diedand that Cromwell had ruled England for several years thereafter no one complained when the new king counted 1649, the year of his fathers unfortunate death, as the beginning of his reign. In a grisly form of revenge, the new king, was allowed to have Oliver Crom wells corpse dug up and hanged. Charles II never forgot for a moment how his fathers reign had ended. He was determined to be easygoing and to get along well with parliament. He became known as the Merry Monarch, a king who loved having a good timeenjoying the company of many mistresses. From the start, Charles II agreed to let parliament decide all the difficult issues left over from the Cromwell era. Parliament decided that all the property that had changed hands while Cromwell was in power would not be returned to its previous owners. Parliament also decided not to go after the people who had voted to behead Charles I. Both sides agreed that The Church of England should become fully Anglican again, with bishops and popery restored. There would not be religious tolerationCatholics and non-conformists9 would be
9 Non-conformists were Protestants who preferred not to join the Church of England.

placed under certain legal restrictions. The first few years of Charles IIs reign were uneventful. King and parliament were getting along just fine. But appearances can sometimes be deceiving: The great question of the 17th centurywho was supreme, king or parliament? had not been addressed or answered. FOREIGN AFFAIRS In the middle of the 17th century, Englands main rival was the Dutch. International trade was the issue. London and Amsterdam each wanted to be the trading and financial center of Europe. The two countries were both Protestant, but this did not stop them from fighting each other in three major naval wars. In 1670, Charles II entered into an alliance with France against the Dutch. The terms were agreed to in the Treaty of Dover. The Treaty of Dover was not popular in England since most Englishmen disliked Catholic France intensely and felt kinship with the Protestant Dutch. If the people of England had learned about the secret part of the Treaty of Dover, they would have been much more unhappy. Parliament never gave Charles II enough money for his personal pleasures. He claimed they were starving him to death. King Louis XIV of France had plenty of money. He agreed to let Charles have some in return for some promises involving religion. In the secret part of the Treaty of Dover, Charles promised that he would switch to the Catholic religion someday. In the meantime, he also promised to do everything in his power to help English Catholics and to do what he could to return England to the Catholic faith someday. Since England was a dyed-in-the-wool Protestant countryand had been for over a centurythese latter promises were virtually impossible to deliver on. Fortunately for Charles II, his secret promises never became known during his lifetime. If they had, it is very likely that he would have followed his father to the block. Trying to keep one of the secret promises made at Dover, got Charles II into a major confrontation with parliament in 1672. He issued a Declaration of Indulgence 10 promising that he would stop enforcing various laws which discriminated against Catholics and non-conformists. [Non-conformists were included in the Declaration to cloud the issuebut, since everyone knew that Charles disliked non-conformists and liked Catholics, this didnt fool anyone.] Parliament was infuriated by the kings unexpected action. It demanded that the king take back his Declaration of Indulgence. Under the circumstances, Charles I would have defied parliament. Charles II, had learned his lesson he meekly took the Declaration of Indulgence back. He didnt want to end up like his father. Parliament was not satisfied. They wanted to humiliate the king. In 1673, parliament passed what became known as the Test Act. To avoid further trouble with parliament, the king signed it into law. To hold any office in the English government or the armed forces, a person had to pass a simple test. The test consisted of receiving Holy Communion in an Anglican Church. If you did, you could be an officer of the state or the military; if you did not, you could not. The law was carefully designed to exclude all Catholics and non-conformists from high positions in either the government or armed forces.11 Actually taking communion, not just membership, was made the test to make absolutely certain that no one would be able to circumvent the law. By agreeing to the Test Act, Charles II thought he would be able to avoid any further religious controversies during the remainder of his reign. In this, he was sadly mistaken.

THE POPISH PLOT

What people believe is often more important than what is actually true. In the late 17th century, English Protestants believed that Catholics were capable of doing anythingthat there was no act so
10 When a king declares his indulgence he promises not to enforce a law. 11 The Test Act did not apply to the king or queenthey were, technically, not officers.

evil that Catholics would refrain from doing it. In this atmosphere of suspicion and hate, it was easy to make things up and have them believed. In 1678, two Anglican clergymen, Titus Oates and Israel Tonge, decided to make up a story about a Catholic conspiracy to murder the king and seize control of the government. They called it the Popish Plot. The entire story was a fabrication, but many people believed in it wholeheartedly. What made it believable was that the men who alleged it were clergymen, and that the kings younger brother James had recently converted to the Catholic faith. Since King Charles II had no legitimate children, his brother James was next-in-line to the throne. If Charles II were assassinated, James would become king and James was definitely a Catholic. An official investigation of Oates and Tonges charges got underway. One of the investigators was murdered under mysterious circumstances. Next some su spicious letters that James private secretary had sent to the French government were discovered. Even though the allegation of a Popish Plot was phony, there were definite indications that something mysterious was going on. Oates and Tonge became celebrities and, in the minds of many Englishmen, national heroes. A political party, Englands first, formed for the sole purpose of keeping James Stuart off the throne when his brother Charles II died. The party called itself the Exclusionists but their ene mies called them the Whigs and that name stuck. The anti-Whigs formed a party of their own to put James on the throne when Charles II died. They were called Tories by their Whig enemies and this name also stuck. The most important long-lasting consequence of the Popish Plot allegation is that it began Englands two-party systema system which, under different names, endures to today. The Whigs were very strong in parliament and they were planning to pass a law excluding James from the throne. To head them off, Charles II dissolved parliament. The Whigs did not give up. Their main problem was to find someone else they could put on the throne in place of James. The obvious choice was Charles illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth. [SEE CHART ON NEXT PAGE] If Monmouth could somehow be made legitimate, he would become king upon his fathers death, and the danger posed by James would be avoided. To make Monmouth legitimate would require the cooperation of the king. Charles II would have to swear that h e was married to Monmouths mother at the time of his birth. Charles cooperation was sought. He adamantly refused to help the Whigs. Then the Whigs received an even worse setback. Inconsistencies and even lies had been discovered in the story Oates and Tonge had been telling. The entire Popish Plot allegation was exposed as a hoax, cleverly designed to keep James off the throne. James was seen as the innocent victim of a conspiracy of lies organized by the Whig party. The antiJames movement collapsed. Protestant England braced itself for its first Catholic ruler since the bad old days of Bloody Mary. In 1685, Charles II lay on his deathbed. Just before he died, he fulfilled his secret promise to LouisXIV and became a Roman Catholic. Then, a few hours later, his Catholic brother James becameKing James II of England. The worst nightmare of the Whigs had come true.

CHAPTER V: THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION

The Whigs only consolation was that King James II was 51 years old. 12 He would die in a few years, and his Protestant daughter Mary would then become Queen. In the meantime, England would have to put up with a Catholic king for a few years, but the country would survive.
12 51 years back then were like 71 years nowadays.

Things began very well for James II. There was no armed uprising by Protestants to keep him off the throne as had been feared. James called for elections for a new parliament and the country responded by electing many Tories and few Whigs. James was openly pleased. He exclaimed that There were not above 40 members13 but such as he himself wished for. The session of parliament was off to a harmonious start, when it was learned that the Duke of Monmouth had landed on Englands south coast with a small army. His obvious purpose was to overthrow his uncle a nd become king. Monmouths army was much too small to win a victory over the kings forces. He was hoping that Protestants in the army and throughout the country would rally to his cause. In all, Monmouth was able to attract only about 6,000 volunteers. His poorly equipped army of amateurs was no match for the royal forces. In the Battle of Sedgmoor, Monmouths forces were easily defeated and he was captured. Monmouth was brought to London where he was tried, convicted and quickly executed. His followers were treated very harshly by James II. A series of trials were held called the Bloody Assize. Many of Monmouths followers were hangedsome were even drawn and quartered. The lucky ones were sent as slaves to the colonies.

JAMES II MAKES ENEMIES

One would think that King James II would be reassured and made much more secure by his easy victory over Monmouth. Instead, the opposite seems to have happened. James was apparently afraid of what might have happened. Suppose the Protestant officers in his army had been disloyal? Suppose they had joined Monmouths side in the middle of the battle? Would they stick by the king if there were another rebellion by Protestants? James decided that the only safe course would be to appoint Catholics to commanding positions in his army. But this would be a clear violation of the Test Act of 1673 which was passed by parliament to head off this very sort of thing. There was a legal sort of way for James to get around the Test Act a loophole in the laws of England. The king had a special power; he could dispense with a lawany lawin certain individual instances. The power to dispense with a law was the power to make an exception in special cases. Suppose the king decided to dispense with the Test Act to appoint a certain Catholic to be an officer in his armywould it be legal? The kings lawyers assured him that it would be. Could he do it over and over again? Could he dispense with the Test Act time after time after time? Could he even ignore it entirely if he wante d to? James decided to go ahead and began dispensing with the Test Act again and again by making Catholic officers, one after another, and appointing them to high positions in the English army. English Protestants were alarmed. Why was the king appointing so many Catholics? Was he planning to establish a military dictatorship? What made James behavior more ominous by far was what had just happened in France. Louis XIVwho was known to be a friend and supporter of James had revoked the Edict of Nantes14 and had begun full-scale persecution of French Protestants. Perhaps there was an international Catholic conspiracy to do something similar in England. The Whigsand even many Toriesin parliament were alarmed for an additional reason. James was not just dispensing with the Test Act, he was acting as if it had never been passed at all. This practice was known as suspending a law, i.e., not abiding by it at all, and this was definitely illegal and contrary to the English Constitution.15 By suspending the Test Act, James II was acting like an

13 At that time, parliament had 526 membersthus over 90% were acceptable to James II. 14 This famous law had given extensive rights to Frances Protestant minority. 15 Englands Constitution was unwrittenbut everyone knew what it did and did not allow.

absolute monarch. He was placing himself above the law. He was acting as if parliament and parliaments lawsdid not exist. Then, as if this piece of high-handedness were not enough, James II issued a Declaration of Indulgence like the one his brother Charles II had issued in 1672. As in the case of Charles IIs Declaration of Indulgence, James II announced that he would stop enforcing laws which discriminated against Catholics and non-conformists. The Anglicans of Englandthe vast majorityrefused to pay any attention to the king. They decided the best strategy would be to completely ignore what James II had said. James knew what they were up to and he refused to be ignored. He ordered the bishops and priests of the Church of England to read his Declaration of Indulgence in their cathedrals and churches on Sunday so that every Anglican in England would be forced to hear it. Seven bishops refused to obey the king. They claimed James did not have the authority to refuse to enforce the laws of England. In other words, he was acting illegally. Since his orders to them were not legal, they would not obey them. They presented the king with a petition, stating their opposition to his Declaration of Indulgence. James acted decisivelyhe had the seven bishops arrested and thrown in prison. They were charged with seditionacting against the authority of the government. While the seven bishops were in jail awaiting their trial, an event of even greater importance took place. On June 10, 1688, James IIs second wife gave birth to a baby boy. They named the child James, and he was christened a Catholic. The birth of baby James slammed the door in the face of James IIs daughter Mary and crushed the hopes of the Protestants of England. The baby boys birth meant that a long line of Catholic kings was now possible. When James II died, James III would take the throneand then, after him, possibly a James IV and a James V. The birth of the baby boy created a Protestant nightmarea long line of Catholic kings ruling over Protestant England possibly forever. Meanwhile the trial of the seven bishops was ending. James II was with his army when the jury handed down its verdict of not guilty. James heard a great shout go up from his troops. He asked what it meant. What was all the excitement about? The king was told the news the seven bishops were found not guilty. From James point of view, the shout was ominous. The soldiers on whom he depended were clearly on the side of his enemies. What would they do in the case of Protestant revolt?

THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION OF 1688-89

James had reason to be worried. English Whigs were in touch with his nephew William of Orange, the leader of the Dutch. William was third in line to the throne of En gland. He was married to James eldest daughter Mary, who was second-in-line. If William could be persuaded to invade England with a Dutch army, James could be ousted and his infant son removed from the succession. The conspirators were in touch with high-ranking Protestant officers who were ready to betray the king. William of Orange was, first and foremost, a Dutch patriot. The Netherlands was in grave danger of being conquered by France. If he became king of England, he would be much stronger and better able to resist the French. William agreed to invade England and seize power. The day was set. The Dutch would land on November 5, Guy Fawkes DayEnglands national anti-Catholic holiday. James II prepared for a decisive battle with his nephew. Fearing he might be defeated, he sent his family to France where they would be safe. Then, on the eve of the battle, James II fled to France. William of Orange won without a fight. Now, with parliaments approval certain, he would soon be king of England.

James II did not abdicate. Technically speaking, he was still Englands king. Technically speaking, only he could summon a parliament. Since he wouldnt summon oneits first act would be to depose himthere was a serious technical problem. No one could legally summon parliament. The problem was not solved; it was side-stepped. William of Orange summoned a parliament. It was called the Convention Parliament to distinguish it from an ordinary parliament. The Convention Parliament met in January, 1689. Its first act was to declare that James II had abdicated and that the English throne was vacant. William and Mary were declared to be joint and equal rulers of England. But, before making William and Mary king and queen, parliament decided to settle, once and for all, the great question of English constitutional history: Who is supreme, king or parliament? Parliament settled this question in favor of itself. William and Mary had to agree that, henceforth, parliament would be supreme over the monarchy. The document defining this new relationship is called the Bill of Rights. It is a contract between parliament and the crown that is binding on both parties. Why would William and Mary consent to parliaments exercising supreme power? There were two reasons; both compelling. William of Orange very much wanted to be king of England because he needed all the help he could get to save his countryThe Netherlandsfrom French aggression. He would have agreed to almost any terms parliament imposed to get Englands help against France. Secondly, William was a man who was used to constitutional limitations. He was not the king of The Netherlandsthe Dutch had no king. William of Orange was Stadhouder of The Netherlands. The Stadhouder was an elected national leaderthe seven Dutch provinces elected him to lead the nation. William easily adapted to the role of constitutional monarch of England. Mary had no objections eithershe generally went along with whatever William wanted. Even after the Bill of Rights went into effect, the ruler still had the power to veto acts of parliament although it was understood by everyone that this power was to be used rarely and with great restraint. It was last used by Queen Anne in 1714. Since then, the royal power to veto laws has disappeared and cannot ever be revived. Because of its great importance in English history some of the more significant portions of the Bill of Rights are included here:

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

. . . the lords spiritual and the commons . . . declare that the pretended power of suspending . . . the execution of laws by regal authority without the consent of parliament is illegal. That the presumed power of dispensing with laws . . . by regal authority . . . is illegal. That levying money for or to the use of the crown . . . without grant of parliament is illegal. That the raising or keeping of a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of parliament, is illegal. That the election of members of parliament ought to be free [of royal interference]. That freedom of speech and debate . . . in parliament ought not to be . . . questioned in any court.

Attached to the Bill of Rights was a provision forbidding any Catholic from ever occupying the throne of England in the future. It also forbade any English monarch from ever marrying a Catholic. These anti-Catholic provisions effectively kept the descendants of James II from claiming the throne in the futureunless, of course, they became Protestants.16

EPILOGUE
When William and Mary agreed to the terms set down in the Bill of Rights, the long power struggle between parliament and the monarch ended for all time. Since 1689, Englands rulers have exercised less and less real power. Today, the British sovereign is a figurehead. The House of Lords has also lost almost all of its power over the years and is now little more than a high class debating society. Its main functions nowadays are ceremon ial. The Lords are also known for their willingness to debate sensitive issues that are too controversial for the Commons to touch being hereditary or appointed, the Lords have no reason to fear the voters. Since 1689, the main story of Englands politics has been the struggle of the English people to get full control over their own parliament. At the time of the Glorious Revolution there were only a handful of people who could vote for members of parliament fewer than 1% of the male population. Almost a hundred years laterat the time of the revolt of American coloniesit was calculated that fewer than 6,000 powerful men actually elected a majority of the House of Commons. In the early 19th century, the right to vote was extended to the middle class then still a minority. Finally, in the late 19th century, working class men got the votethe majority of the male population was finally allowed to vote. Not until after World War I did women get the vote; married women first, then single women. In 1690, parliament passed a Toleration Act which gave complete freedom of religion to all Christians except Catholics and Unitarians. The last restrictions on Catholics were not lifted until 1829. In 1847, a Jew, Baron Lionel de Rothschild, was elected to parliament. He was not allowed to take his seat because a Christian oathwhich he refused to takewas required. Rothschild was reelected by his constituents17 with the same resultuntil 1858, when the oath was changed, and he was finally allowed to take his seat. England and Scotland merged to form Great Britain in 1707. In 1801 Ireland was added to create The United Kingdom. Since then most of Ireland has achieved full independence while Northern Ireland remains part of the UK. Under a process called devolution during Prime Minister Tony Blairs Labour Government, Scotland and Wales were given their own Parliaments in 1997 and Northern Irelands was restored in 2007. These areas are also still represented in the Westminster Parliament in London. Today, Britain still has no written constitution. Because the British constitution is unwritten, tradition becomes all-important. Things are done a certain way because they have been done this way for a very long time. Time-tested traditions are not taken lightlythey are deeply embedded in the hearts and minds of the British people. History is part of the present. Could a written constitution have any safer or surer guarantee than this?

16 James IIs descendants remained loyal to the Catho lic faith; they never gave up their claim to rule England and on two occasions even tried to regain the throne by force. Both attempts failed. 17 They were overwhelmingly Christians.

Questions for Chapter 2 1. Who were the Puritans? What did they want James I to do? 2. What religion was James Is mother? What religion was James I raised as? When he became king of England, what religion did he become part of? 3. What is the difference between a low Anglican and a high Anglican? 4. Who did James I side with, and what did he mean by no bishop, no king? 5. Why were English Catholics upset with King James? 6. What was the Gunpowder Plot and, for centuries, how was Guy Fawkes Day celebrated? 7. In the book written by James I, The True Law of a Free Monarchy, what system was King James advocating? How did he justify it? 8. How were James Is ideas consistent with contemporary ideas elsewhere in Europe, but inconsistent with English traditions? 9. Why did the marriage of James daughter, Elizabeth, to the German nobleman Frederick, the elector of Hanover, lead to religious conflict in Germany and to conflict between James and Parliament? 10. How did the Duke of Buckingham try to turn James into the great peace maker / power broker of Europe? 11. Why were most people in England upset when they learned of the proposed Spanish match? 12. How did James respond to Parliaments dislike and comments of the Spanish match? 13. Why did the Spanish match turn into a war with Spain? Questions for Chapter 3 1. What was the cause of Charles Is first confrontation with Parliament? 2. Why did the Cadiz expedition fail? 3. Why did Charles call and then disband his second Parliament? 4. How was the Duke of Buckingham a liability to Charles I? 5. How did Charles I try to raise money without calling a third Parliament? Was it successful? 6. What was the Petition of Right? How was it a trap for Charles I? 7. How did Charles I respond to the Petition of Right? 8. After his response to the Petition of Right, how did the Parliament try to humiliate Charles I? 9. Who did Charles I blame for the Duke of Buckinghams death? 10. After Buckinghams death, who did the Parliament go after in order to humiliate Charles I? What did the Parliament do? 11. How did members of Parliament prevent Charles I from adjourning Parliament? 12. What three proposals did the Puritan John Eliot make? 13. What was the Eleven Years Tyranny? 14. What four decisions did Charles I make that turned public opinion against him? Give lots of detail. 15. What ended the Eleven Years Tyranny? 16. What was the Short Parliament? 17. Who was the first leader of the Long Parliament? What did he want to do? 18. Why could it be said that no king ever had a more loyal servant than the Earl of Strafford? 19. What bill did the king sign on the day of Straffords execution? 20. What was the Triennial Act?

21. What was the last straw for King Charles before he decided to use loyal soldiers to attack the House of Commons? 22. What were the Nineteen Propositions? 23. What type of society did the people on the kings side in the English civil war advocate? What did the people on Parliaments side favor? 24. What disadvantage did the Parliament face in its military conflict with the crown? 25. Who became the leader of the New Model army? 26. Who did King Charles hope to create an alliance with, to defeat the New Model army? 27. What was Prides purge? Who was behind it? 28. How did Charles Stuart behave at his execution? Questions for Chapter 4 29. Who were the Roundheads and the Cavaliers? TEXTBOOK 30. Was England weakened or strengthened under the Cromwell regime? Explain. 31. What was Cromwells title and was he an autocrat or a democrat? 32. Who did he name as his successor? 33. What were some of the more extreme actions taken by the more zealous Puritans? 34. What two religious groups, other than Puritans, benefited from Cromwells rule? 35. What was the last act of the Long Parliament? 36. Why did Cromwell not like democracy? 37. Who were the Levellers? What did they want? 38. Who were the Diggers? What did they want? 39. When did Charles II date the beginning of his reign? Why? 40. What did Charles II have done to Oliver Cromwells corpse? 41. Why was Charles II called the Merry Monarch? 42. What did Parliament decide to do with the property taken during the Republic? 43. After Charles II was restored, what happened to the Anglican church and the idea of religious tolerance? 44. What is a non-conformist? 45. In the 17th century, who was Englands main rival? 46. What was the Treaty of Dover? Why was it unpopular in England? 47. What was Charles IIs relationship with Louis XIV of France? 48. What was the secret part of the Treaty of Dover? 49. What would likely have happened if the English people discovered the secret part of the Treaty of Dover? 50. What was the Declaration of Indulgence? 51. How did Parliament respond to the Declaration of Indulgence? 52. What was the Test Act? How did Charles II respond to it? 53. What was the Popish Plot? What made it believable? 54. What was the first political party in England? What was its goal? 55. How were this partys opponents referred to? What was their goal? 56. Who did the Whigs want to succeed Charles II? How did they try to make it happen? 57. What did Charles II do just before he died? Chapter V 1. Why should have James felt more secure after the Duke of Monmouth was defeated? 2. What things did James II do to alienate Parliament 3. What was the final straw for Parliament in deciding to get rid of James II? 4. Who took over England in the Glorious Revolution? 5. Why did William of Orange agree to become King of England? 6. What changes were made in England after the Glorious Revolution?