New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-09-01

teal functionaries OF Divine appointment, Dut aso
as the supporters Of something very like absolute
monarchical authority: He wanted them TO or
dain n lawful clergy but he also wanted them
TO tune the pulpits' that is to say, TO preVenV
the free EXPRESSION of the only kind OF opinion
which had in his time any hold upon the masseS'
lest il should lead TO an uprising against hoh-
archy. When he spoke OF monarchy ne mc"n'
the monarchy of Henry VIII and Elizaoeti, ho'
the monarchy Of William III and Victoria he
was hankerng after the restoration OF the system
which Laud had praised and which Stranoru hau
supported" 1t is possible to admit the tfuuh VI
this, perhaps without surrendering the lasC rem
nants of belief in the religious sincerity Oh 'he
King: but il is certainly not easy to do so. III
Charles thought first of the police potenuahtes
of episcopacy and appreciated its Divine origin
only as it supported the secular advantages oi
the system, it can scarcely be doubted that MS
stubborn clinging to the Church was due 10 purely
selfish and dynastic purposes. But MT. uaruIher
does NOT exclude a more liberal and charltapie
view altogether, and those who are pleaseu 10
consider Charles the First as having IN MN some
Of the shirt which makes martyrs may continue
to entertain that view.
The present volume ends with the delivery OF
the King TO the Parliament by the Scottish army
and Mr.. Gardiner examines this event with great
care for the purpose of refutng the accusation oil
treachery which was at the time brought against
the Scots He makes it perfectly apparent thal
in the circumstances those who held the King had
no other alternative. There was no reason why
the Scots should have refused TO surrender tne
King in the first place. He had no claim upon
them, and his persistent refusal TO yleld on the
vital question of Presbyterianisn necessarily ue-
prived him of Scotch sympathy. 10 nave hei'
him in defiance of the Parliament wouiu haNo
meant war between the two countries, ana ior tla
Scotland had no motive, since Charles repeatedly
refused the least concession in regard TO rehgoh'
Nor was there any question of bribery in the affair
Money was paid to the Scots, no DOUBT puC IL
was simply an instalment of the debt long due
from the Parliament, or part OF the Pron,lS0u
Subsidy wberewith the Scottish army was to have
been subsisted, and the withholding OF which hau
forced the northern troops to live on the country
to the great Inconvenience and loss OF the Ehelish
population. The Scots, rover, as Mr.. Gardiner
observes, on the authority of the dispatches OF
Montreuil and Bellievre, would Willingly have
renounced the English gold and have defed the
| English army to do its worst if Charles would
have complied with the conditions on which
alone-even if they had been personally willing
to come to his help without them-it was possible
| for them TO raise forces in his defence Ihat
was what paralyzed Scottish sympathy and rem
dered Scottish action impossible, and for that
! Charles himself was solely responsible.
Mr. Gardiner says further on this head: II
was not for the sake OF a peaceful retreat that
| Charles thought at one time of accompanying the
army to Scotland. What he wanted, as Montreull,
who knew him well, declared, to give en-
coura cement TO the Scottish Royaists, and above
all to bring about quarrel between the t"o
nations Were the Scots TO be blamed because
they refused to expose themselves to such danger
Were they even under obligation TO allow the
King to escape 70 the Continent ~ Is PfopaaoH
the course which posterity would be inclined 10
recommend Yet, knowing as we do the Whoie
network of Charlcss foreign intrigues and his
continual expectation Of aid from foreign armies,
il is not for US to feel surprised If Scots ana
English alike shrank, as Elizabeth had shrunk In
the very similar of Charles grandmother
from mourning evident danger" Ihere was
in fact no possibility of treaty or compromise WIN
Charles At the end OF the war, when his power
was wholly gone, he stood out as stliiiy as IN the
beginning for terms which nothing but the posi-
ton of a conqueror could have supported, ana he
refused to the last to agree TO the only condlohs
upon which an alliance capable of eXtrlcatlne MN
from his difficulties would have been possible 10
him.
In concluding our review of this volume, word
requires to be said concerning the methods ana
manner of the historian. MIR. Gardiner has es-
tablshed world nae reputation rs ohe Oh oIiI
able,t writers of that school OF history
by Freeman and Stubs. lie never seeks after
picturesqueness or brlliancy, but aims solely at
The discovery of the truth. without respect OF
persons or parties. His style is perfectly simple
and as perfectly lucid. He is never rhetorical or
emotional Ills conclusions are expressed with
judicial GOODNESS and impartaty, and his aIl-
thoriteS are always carefully marshalled; In
describing military events concerning which no
precise and trustworthy evidence is TO be had he
points out every doubtful passage and incident,
as in the interesting appendix on the battle OF
seby and thu notes on Montrose's engagements
testimony is scrupulouslv Sifted. The general
effect Of his work i decidedly pleasing and the
simplicity of his style defracts NOTHING from IFS
interest Time may extend the field of knowledge
on the subject of the great civil war Of England
by bringing TO light hitherto undiscovered an
thorities, but it is not probable that the iudg
mentS formed on the basis Of the evidence used in
his work will need serious modification.