Charles’s own position was clear enough. He had read with approval and admiration the Bishop of Chichester’s Appelo Caesarem which identified Popery with tyranny and Puritanism with anarchy, and which concluded, ‘poperie is originall of Superstition; puritanisme, the high-way into prophaneness; both alike [are] enemies unto piety.’ This stated his own views precisely. They were much like those of his father and of his father’s predecessor, Queen Elizabeth. In a speech to Parliament, in which he condemned the doctrines of the radical Puritans, he called for the Church’s return to the ‘purest times of Queen Elizabeth’s days’. He had abhorred the behaviour and beliefs of his own Queen’s priests; but he regarded with even more distaste the opinions of the Puritan landowners and merchants in the House of Commons and of the Puritan preachers whose disrupting, provocative sermons could be heard all over London. It was his firm belief, as it had been his father’s, that attacks on the bishops were attacks on the King, and that insults to the Book of Common Prayer must not be tolerated. When, in a later year, an unruly congregation in Essex knocked the Prayer Book out of the hands of their curate and kicked it about the church, he undoubtedly hoped, on turning to the House of Lords to condemn the outrage, that they would do more than merely insist upon the submission of the ‘poor and silly men’ who had committed it.
As Eliot and his friends in the House of Commons belaboured in ever stronger terms the High Church bishops for poisoning the purity of the true faith, accusing the Bishop of Winchester in particular of preaching ‘flat popery’ and refusing to confirm the Crown’s right to its traditional revenues until they had debated a resolution that ‘the affairs of the King of Earth must give way to the affairs of the King of Heaven’, the King decided he must také a firm line.
He sent orders to the Speaker to ask the House to adjourn. Its militant Members refused to accept the request, shouting defiantly ‘No! No!’ in the Speaker’s face. Sir John Eliot rose to insist that it was for the Commons to adjourn themselves. But, protested the Speaker, it had been the King’s command: the House must adjourn, there could be no more speeches, and if there were he would leave the chair. So saying, he stood up and prepared to leave the chamber; but immediately two of Eliot’s supporters sprang at him and forced him back into his seat. ‘God’s wounds!’ one of them, Denzil Holles, a childhood friend of the King and now the impetuous Member for Dorchester, bellowed above the roar, ‘God’s wounds! You shall sit till we please to rise.’ Another Member locked the door and put the key in his pocket.
In growing pandemonium, which on occasions came close to hysteria, the House passed resolutions against the religious policy of the Government and against both the levy and the payment of the customs duties, known as tonnage and poundage, without Parliamentary sanction. Each resolution was met by deafening shouts of ‘Aye! Aye!’ Then the doors were unlocked and the Members emerged, some of them elated by their bold defiance, many others, who would have slipped away earlier had the door not been locked, in evident apprehension.
Charles was at once appalled and indignant. Condemning the ‘undutiful and seditious’ behaviour of the Commons, and referring to its most unruly Members as ‘vipers’, he ordered the arrest of Sir John Eliot who was left to languish in the Tower where, suffering from tuberculosis, he died three years later, his pleas for release denied or ignored.
If few others could share the strength of the King’s feelings against Eliot and his indignation at the behaviour of his supporters in the Commons, there were those, even among the Puritans, who agreed with the diarist Simonds D’Ewes that ‘divers fiery spirits in the House’ had been ‘very faulty’. For D’Ewes himself the day of this fateful clash between King and Parliament in 1629 was the ‘most gloomy, sad, and dismal day for England that [had] happened in five hundred years’.
The Parliament which dispersed in such tumult in 1629 was the last which was to meet for eleven years; and the King contrived to persuade himself that his political troubles were over. So, too, were the unhappy years of his marriage. There had been a slight improvement in his relations with his wife after her French attendants had been sent home in 1626 and her household had come under the direction of kindly, sensible English ladies whose rooms were frequently visited by the tactful and attractive French ambassador who helped to bring the King and Queen closer together. The reconciliation had become surer and firmer when the Duke of Buckingham’s military campaigns had deprived Charles of his friend’s companionship for a longer period than he had ever had to bear. In his loneliness he had been driven to seek the consolation of his now less cantankerous wife. And, after Buckingham’s murder, in the agony of his grief was conceived a new love. Formerly the Queen had displayed a physical aversion to a husband without either the imagination or the humour, the experience or the sensuality to overcome the nervousness and shrinking reluctance of an unawakened and underdeveloped girl; now they had reached ‘such a degree of kindness’, the court jester, Archie Armstrong, told the Earl of Carlisle, that the king was ‘a wooer again’. He gazed at his wife with soulful desire, repeatedly gave her presents, evidently felt restless and unfulfilled when they were apart, and when they were together, so an ambassador reported to his government, kissed her ‘a hundred times’ in an hour.
Her first baby died within an hour of its christening; but the mother soon recovered and her husband was so kind and considerate that she felt not only ‘the happiest princess’, but ‘the happiest woman in the world’. A few months later she was pregnant again, with a pre-natal craving for shellfish. The baby, born on 29 May 1630,. another boy, was big and healthy. He was christened Charles. Other children followed him with the most satisfying regularity, a princess, Mary, the next year; another son, Prince James, in 1633; a second daughter, Princess Elizabeth in 1635; then a third daughter in 1636; and a third son in 1640. They were all healthy children, and their mother, her years of unhappiness now far behind her, settled down to a life of full contentment. Year by year the King’s affection for her deepened; and her influence over him was to have the most fateful consequences in the future. He made no public protest when various people at court were converted to Roman Catholicism under her influence, nor when she took her two elder sons to mass. Edward Hyde, later first Earl of Clarendon, then a successful young lawyer who was to know them both well, observed, ‘the King’s affection to the Queen was of a very extraordinary alloy; a composition of conscience and love and generosity and gratitude…insomuch as he saw with her eyes and determined by her judgement.’
The country being at peace, the King was able to pay his way without the necessity of calling Parliament, resorting to all manner of devices for raising money – some of doubtful legality, all of them unpopular – for the ordinary costs of government. Customs duties were collected as of right; obsolete laws were resurrected to extract money from those who had breached their provisions; Crown lands were managed with the utmost severity, and royal forests extended; monopolies were sold to companies and corporations since the law forbade their sale to individuals; fines were imposed upon all owners of freehold land worth £40 a year or more who had not applied for knighthood at the King’s coronation; and Ship Money, a tax which had been levied by ancient right upon maritime towns and counties to meet naval expenses, was extended to inland areas also.
As in the past when advised by Buckingham, the King was not so widely blamed for these impositions as were his ministers and advisers, in particular Thomas Wentworth, the future Earl of Strafford, and William Laud, who was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, the one a hard, intelligent, impatient and energetic man, the son of an ancient family and owner of huge estates in Yorkshire, whose great wealth had been increased by none too scrupulous methods, the other