VIII when there had been no money for foreign explorations.



But under Elizabeth, with the country at peace and Mary

Stuart in prison, the sailors could leave their harbour without



fear for the fate of those whom they left behind. While Elizabeth

was still a child, Willoughby had ventured to sail past the



North Cape and one of his captains, Richard Chancellor, pushing

further eastward in his quest of a possible road to the Indies,



had reached Archangel, Russia, where he had established

diplomatic and commercial relations with the mysterious rulers



of this distant Muscovite Empire. During the first years of

Elizabeth's rule this voyage had been followed up by many



others. Merchant adventurers, working for the benefit of a

``joint stock Company'' had laid the foundations of trading



companies which in later centuries were to become colonies.

Half pirate, half diplomat, willing to stake everything on a



single lucky voyage, smugglers of everything that could be

loaded into the hold of a vessel, dealers in men and merchandise



with equal indifference to everything except their profit, the

sailors of Elizabeth had carried the English flag and the fame



of their Virgin Queen to the four corners of the Seven Seas.

Meanwhile William Shakespeare kept her Majesty amused at



home, and the best brains and the best wit of England co-operated

with the queen in her attempt to change the feudalinheritance



of Henry VIII into a modern national state.

In the year 1603 the old lady died at the age of seventy.



Her cousin, the great-grandson of her own grandfather Henry

VII and son of Mary Stuart, her rival and enemy, succeeded



her as James I. By the Grace of God, he found himself the

ruler of a country which had escaped the fate of its continental



rivals. While the European Protestants and Catholics were

killing each other in a hopeless attempt to break the power of



their adversaries and establish the exclusive rule of their own

particular creed, England was at peace and ``reformed'' at



leisure without going to the extremes of either Luther or

Loyola. It gave the island kingdom an enormousadvantage in



the coming struggle for colonial possessions. It assured England

a leadership in international affairs which that country



has maintained until the present day. Not even the disastrous

adventure with the Stuarts was able to stop this normal development.



The Stuarts, who succeeded the Tudors, were ``foreigners''

in England. They do not seem to have appreciated or understood



this fact. The native house of Tudor could steal a horse,

but the ``foreign'' Stuarts were not allowed to look at the



bridle without causing great popular approval" target="_blank" title="n.不赞成；非难">disapproval. Old Queen

Bess had ruled her domains very much as she pleased. In



general however, she had always followed a policy which meant

money in the pocket of the honest (and otherwise) British



merchants. Hence the Queen had been always assured of the

wholehearted support of her grateful people. And small liberties



taken with some of the rights and prerogatives of Parliament

were gladly overlooked for the ulterior benefits which



were derived from her Majesty's strong and successful foreign

policies.



Outwardly King James continued the same policy. But he

lacked that personal enthusiasm which had been so very typical



of his great predecessor. Foreign commerce continued to be

encouraged. The Catholics were not granted any liberties.



But when Spain smiled pleasantly upon England in an effort

to establish peaceful relations, James was seen to smile back.



The majority of the English people did not like this, but

James was their King and they kept quiet.



Soon there were other causes of friction. King James and

his son, Charles I, who succeeded him in the year 1625 both



firmly believed in the principle of their ``divine right'' to

administer their realm as they thought fit without consulting the



wishes of their subjects. The idea was not new. The Popes,

who in more than one way had been the successors of the



Roman Emperors (or rather of the Roman Imperial ideal of

a single and undivided state covering the entire known world),



had always regarded themselves and had been publicly recognised

as the ``Vice-Regents of Christ upon Earth.'' No one



questioned the right of God to rule the world as He saw fit.

As a natural result, few ventured to doubt the right of the



divine ``Vice-Regent'' to do the same thing and to demand the

obedience of the masses because he was the direct representative



of the Absolute Ruler of the Universe and responsible

only to Almighty God.



When the Lutheran Reformation proved successful, those

rights which formerly had been invested in the Papacy were



taken over by the many European sovereigns who became

Protestants. As head of their own national or dynastic



churches they insisted upon being ``Christ's Vice-Regents''

within the limit of their own territory. The people did not question



the right of their rulers to take such a step. They accepted

it, just as we in our own day accept the idea of a representative



system which to us seems the only reasonable and just

form of government. It is unfairtherefore to state that either



Lutheranism or Calvinism caused the particular feeling of

irritation which greeted King-James's oft and loudly repeated



assertion of his ``Divine Right.'' There must have been other

grounds for the genuine English disbelief in the Divine Right



of Kings.

The first positivedenial of the ``Divine Right'' of sovereigns



had been heard in the Netherlands when the Estates General

abjured their lawfulsovereign King Philip II of Spain, in the



year 1581. ``The King,'' so they said, ``has broken his contract

and the King therefore is dismissed like any other unfaithful



servant.'' Since then, this particular idea of a king's

responsibilities towards his subjects had spread among many of the



nations who inhabited the shores of the North Sea. They were

in a very favourable position. They were rich. The poor people



in the heart of central Europe, at the mercy of their

Ruler's body-guard, could not afford to discuss a problem



which would at once land them in the deepest dungeon of the

nearest castle. But the merchants of Holland and England



who possessed the capital necessary for the maintenance of

great armies and navies, who knew how to handle the almighty



weapon called ``credit,'' had no such fear. They were willing

to pit the ``Divine Right'' of their own good money against



the ``Divine Right'' of any Habsburg or Bourbon or Stuart.

They knew that their guilders and shillings could beat the



clumsy feudal armies which were the only weapons of the King.

They dared to act, where others were condemned to suffer



in silence or run the risk of the scaffold.

When the Stuarts began to annoy the people of England



with their claim that they had a right to do what they pleased

and never mind the responsibility, the English middle classes



used the House of Commons as their first line of defence

against this abuse of the Royal Power. The Crown refused to



give in and the King sent Parliament about its own business.

Eleven long years, Charles I ruled alone. He levied taxes



which most people regarded as illegal and he managed his

British kingdom as if it had been his own country estate. He



had capable assistants and we must say that he had the courage

of his convictions.



Unfortunately, instead of assuring himself of the support

of his faithful Scottish subjects, Charles became involved in



a quarrel with the Scotch Presbyterians. Much against his

will, but forced by his need for ready cash, Charles was at



last obliged to call Parliament together once more. It met in

April of 1640 and showed an ugly temper. It was dissolved



a few weeks later. A new Parliament convened in November.

This one was even less pliable than the first one. The members



understood that the question of ``Government by Divine

Right'' or ``Government by Parliament'' must be fought out



for good and all. They attacked the King in his chief councillors

and executed half a dozen of them. They announced that



they would not allow themselves to be dissolved without their

own approval. Finally on December 1, 1641, they presented



to the King a ``Grand Remonstrance'' which gave a detailed

account of the many grievances of the people against their Ruler.



Charles, hoping to derive some support for his own policy

in the country districts, left London in January of 1642. Each



side organised an army and prepared for open warfare between

the absolute power of the crown and the absolute power



of Parliament. During this struggle, the most powerful religious

element of England, called the Puritans, (they were



Anglicans who had tried to purify their doctrines to the most

absolute limits), came quickly to the front. The regiments of



``Godly men,'' commanded by Oliver Cromwell, with their

iron discipline and their profound confidence in the holiness of



their aims, soon became the model for the entire army of the

opposition. Twice Charles was defeated. After the battle



of Naseby, in 1645, he fled to Scotland. The Scotch sold him

to the English.



There followed a period of intrigue and an uprising

of the Scotch Presbyterians against the English Puritan.



In August of the year 1648 after the three-days' battle of

Preston Pans, Cromwell made an end to this second civil war,



and took Edinburgh. Meanwhile his soldiers, tired of further

talk and wasted hours of religious debate, had decided to act



on their own initiative. They removed from Parliament all

those who did not agree with their own Puritan views. Thereupon



the ``Rump,'' which was what was left of the old Parliament,

accused the King of high treason. The House of Lords



refused to sit as a tribunal. A special tribunal was appointed

and it condemned the King to death. On the 30th of January



of the year 1649, King Charles walked quietly out of a window

of White Hall onto the scaffold. That day, the Sovereign



People, acting through their chosen representatives, for the

first time executed a ruler who had failed to understand his own



position in the modern state.

The period which followed the death of Charles is usually



called after Oliver Cromwell. At first the unofficial Dictator