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 Engla nds 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 th e 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 win dows, 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 Court 1 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 tha t 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 red-handed, 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 ways from 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 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 u nwanted 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 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 God. 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 Jame s Stuart.

1 Today, the Hampton Court conference is best remembered for producing the famous King James version of the Bible. 2 Puritans mainly went to Massachusetts; Catholics to Maryland.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS UNDER JAMES I The clash between King James and parliament came ove r 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 became 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 w as suggested by the Duke of Buckingham, one of the kings most trusted advisers. Buckingham suggested that Charles, the Prince of Wales 3 , should propose marriage to the Infanta of Spain. The Infanta was the oldest daughter of the king of Spainone of Europes most militant and uncompromising Catholic rulers. At that moment, there were large contingents of Spanish troops in Germ any 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 tim e 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 af fairs! 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 p arliaments 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. 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 Franceanother 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 Dukeand on himselfCharles 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 s hambleshis incompetence was impossible to conceal or to explain away. So great was the Dukes unpopularity, tha t 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 longestablished 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 Rightwould be presented to the king. He would have to accept or reject it there 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:

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

To the kings most excellent majesty . . . it is declared and enacted by a statute made and enacted in the time of King Edwar d 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 . . . accordin g 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 high-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, parl iament 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 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 Engl and 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 traitor an 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 England 6 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 propos ing 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 wellthen 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 Arc hbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, a militant High Anglican, to viciously persecute Puritans. Archbishop Laud was a man who enthusiastically supported 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 Laud s 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. Previo usly, 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 refus al 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 Hampden the 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, lega lly 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 sho wed weakness by backing away from this fight with the Scots, he might have a revolt in England to deal with as well.
4 the Magna Carta 5 Under English law, impeachment meant not only accusation, but removal from office and punishment without a trial 6 This period in known as the Great Migration in American history.

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 th e king. Strafford badly underestimated how much Charles was hated. Many of Charles strongest cri tics 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 Parliamentand 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 parliament also 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 tak e 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 the 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 thingthe 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 courage. 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 himsel f 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 classeswas 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 virt ually 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. Oliver Cromwells New Model Army crushed them at the Battle of Preston and the English Civil War was finally over. 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 remai n 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 Englandis known as Prides Purge after Colonel Thomas Pride who carried it out on Cromwells 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 advance the king would be found guilty and sentenced to death. The Commons did as Cromwell expected Charles Stuart, formerly King of England, was declared a ty rant, 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.

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