THE ENGLISH PURITANS-THEIR PLACE IN HISTORY 425

with their development that England was again brought into close relations with the civilization of the Old World, imbibing new ideas of civil liberty, and receiving an impulse which has carried her to the forefront among nations. Later on, they founded New England, giving an impress to the character of untold millions across the ocean. Thus affecting two continents, the Puritans of England have played a part in the world's history which makes the subject of their origin and growth one of unfailing interest.

From the death of Cromwell until within a comparatively recent time, it was the fashion among British writers to ridicule the English Puritans, just as it has been the fashion to ridicule the Hollanders. The Cavaliers, who went down before them in battle, and who saw the Commonwealth raise England to a leading place in European politics, hated, but had an intense respect for, Cromwell and his Ironsides. It was not until after the Restoration, when the Stuarts had bemired the fame and honor of England, that the great virtues of the Puritans seemed to be forgotten, and men thought only of their faults and of those external peculiarities which are so easily caricatured and satirized.* The prejudice against them after the Restoration was not universal, however, for, as in the case of the Hollanders, men were always found to do them honor. Notable among these

*The English Puritans antedated Shakespeare, and during his life played an important part in politics; yet the great dramatist, unlike some of his petty followers, never regarded them as objects of ridicule. We find in his pages almost every type of knave and buffoon, but no snivelling, canting, Puritanical hypocrite or rogue, such as more modern writers have depicted. In fact, although in common use, the word Puritan occurs but a very few times in Shakespeare's plays, and then scarcely in an offensive sense.

men was Hume, the apologist of the Stuarts and the champion of the Tory party.

Speaking of the arbitrary nature of Elizabeth's government, and of the fact that her most violent assaults on the freedom of the people attracted not the least attention from contemporaneous writers, Hume remarks: "So absolute, indeed, was the authority of the crown that the precious spark of liberty had been kindled and was preserved by the Puritans alone; and it was to this sect, whose principles appear so frivolous and habits so ridiculous, that the English owe the whole freedom of their Constitution."* Again, discussing the same question in another place, he says: "It was only during the next generation that the noble principles of liberty took root, and, spreading themselves under the shelter of Puritanical absurdities, became fashionable among the people." +

Such ideas were not fashionable in England when Hume's history was written. As he relates in his autobiography, he "was assailed by one cry of reproach, disapprobation, and even detestation," from every side and from every party. The Tories were indignant that any credit should be given to the Puritans, and the Whigs were no less indignant at the suggestion that English liberty began with the growth of Puritanism; for they had always claimed that the Stuarts had attempted to deprive the people of long-settled, well-established rights.+

Hallam, in his "Constitutional History," questions

"History of England," chap. xl. + Idem, Appendix, vol. iii. How the High-churchmen hated the Puritans is shown in almost every page of Strype's "Annals," written in the early part of the eighteenth century.

DESPOTIC NATURE OF ELIZABETH'S RULE

427

some of the conclusions of Hume, and takes that author severely to task for comparing the government of England during the reign of Elizabeth with the governments of Russia and Turkey. But Hallam himself is one of the best witnesses to the almost despotic character of Elizabeth's rule. Even more fully than Hume himself, he shows how the laws were constantly set aside by royal proclamations; how the courts of justice were mere instruments of tyranny; how trade was shackled by monopolies in every quarter; how imports and exports were taxed by the crown alone; how Parliament was prevented from discussing questions of Church or State, and how its members who attempted to raise forbidden questions were silenced by imprisonment. But, he says, liberty was not dead, because the House of Commons exercised some rights: it insisted on being the judge of the election of its own members; its members were exempt from arrest on civil process; and it claimed the right of punishment for contempt. These privileges, all novel, were to become important in the future, but they were of little value at the time. Elizabeth packed the House by the creation of sixty-two new boroughs, and was willing to let its members play at Parliament, so long as they did nothing to interfere with her prerogative. But Hallam says further that Parliament was not wholly subservient, for, from time to time, voices were raised there against the tyranny of the crown, and that these voices became more numerous as the years rolled on. This is true. They were the voices of the men who, according to Hume, kindled the precious spark of liberty in despotic times.

After all, so far as relates to the influence of the Puritans, these authors differ but slightly. Hume says that they kindled and preserved the spark; Hallam says that

they became "the depositaries of the sacred fire" and "revived the smouldering embers.”*

But whatever may have been the relation of the Puritans to the sacred fire of liberty, certain it is that, within the period of a few years, they worked a revolution in English thought and action which is one of the remarkable phenomena of modern times, and, standing by itself, incapable of comprehension. New ideas were in

*"Const. Hist.," i. 231.

+ Macaulay, the champion of the Whigs, writing nearly a century after Hume, says, in regard to the arbitrary rule of Elizabeth: "It has often been alleged, as an excuse for the misgovernment of her successors, that they only followed her example; that precedents might be found in the transactions of her reign for persecuting the Puritans, for levying money without the sanction of the House of Commons, for confining men without bringing them to trial, for interfering with the liberty of parliamentary debate. All this may be true. But it is no good plea for her successors, and for this plain reason, that they were her successors. She governed one generation, they governed another; and between the two generations there was almost as little in common as between the people of two different countries." Upon the causes of this transformation, however, Macaulay, like other English writers, throws but little light. Essay on Nares's "Memoirs of Burleigh." In this essay, Macaulay also calls in question some of the conclusions of Hume regarding the despotic character of Elizabeth's government. He does not dispute the facts, but argues that her rule could not have been despotic, for had it been so her subjects would have risen against her in successful revolution. This argument, however, proves too much; for, tried by such a test, no monarch could be called a despot, except one who had been deposed by his subjects. As for the affection entertained for Elizabeth by the English, it is sufficient to remark that no monarch, in life and after death, was ever more loved by his people than was Philip II. by the Spaniards. This does not prove that Philip respected any principles of constitutional liberty, but that his Spanish subjects cared nothing for such principles. He was loved by his people because he upheld the papacy, and tried to extend the power of

NOVELTY OF PURITAN PRINCIPLES

429

troduced, and new principles were developed by them, which for a time controlled the nation and left their imprint on the national character, although at no time were they accepted by the body of the people. It was the very novelty of their principles that made the Puritans, when they came into power, so obnoxious to the majority of Englishmen, and that for many after-generations made their name a by-word and reproach. At the restoration of the Stuarts, England seemed to have done with them forever. But, although the prejudice against the name continued, many of their reforms survived, and a few years of the old tyranny were sufficient to breed a new revolution and effect the reinstatement of still more of the Puritan principles in civil matters. These principles have never been adopted in England as fully as in the United States, where they underlie all the institutions; but as the English form of government has become more democratic, the tide has turned, and to-day the name of Puritan is a title of honor.

Yet, with this change of sentiment, there has been little change in the mode of writing English history in one important point. Whether the Puritan is looked upon as kindling the flame, or as reviving the smouldering embers of liberty, England is still represented as the fountain from which have poured forth all the fertilizing streams which have enriched the modern world. One class of writers gives the Puritan the credit of originality; the other endows him with a knowledge of early English in

Spain; in the same way, Elizabeth was loved by her people because she was believed to oppose the papacy, and did extend the power of England. In this connection it may be noticed that Good Queen Bess was no more the idol of her people than was her father, Bluff King Hal, under whom, certainly, there was little liberty.