Thus did this King appear to the Puritans,—­at this time a large and influential party, chiefly Presbyterian, and headed by many men of rank and character, all of whom detested the Roman Catholic religion as the source of all religious and political evils, and who did not scruple to call the Papacy by the hardest names, such as the “Scarlet Mother,” “Antichrist,” and the like.  They had seceded from the Established Church in the reign of Elizabeth, and became what was then called Non-conformists.  Had they been treated wisely, had any respect been shown to their opinions and rights,—­for the right of worshipping God according to individual conscience is the central and basal pillar of Protestantism,—­had this undoubted right of private judgment, the great emancipating idea of that age, been respected, the Puritans would have sought relief in constitutional resistance, for they were conservative and loyal, as English people ever have been, even in Canada and Australia.  They were not bent on revolution; they only desired reform.  So their representatives in Parliament framed the famous “Petition of Right,” in which were reasserted the principles of constitutional liberty.  This earnest, loyal, but angry Parliament, being troublesome, was dissolved, and Charles undertook for eleven years to reign without one,—­against all precedents,—­with Stafford and Laud for his chief advisers and ministers.  He reigned by Star Chamber decrees, High-commission courts, issuing proclamations, resorting to forced loans, tampering with justice, removing judges, imprisoning obnoxious men without trial, insulting and humiliating the Puritans, and openly encouraging a religion of “millineries and upholsteries,” not only illegally, but against the wishes and sentiments of the better part of the nation,—­thus undermining his own throne; for all thrones are based on the love of the people.

The financial difficulties of the King—­for the most absolute of kings cannot extort all the money they want—­compelled him to assemble another Parliament at an alarming crisis of popular indignation which he did not see, when popular leaders began to say that even kings must rule by the people and not without the people.

This new Parliament, with Hampden and Pym for leaders, though fierce and aggressive, would have been contented with constitutional reform, like Mirabeau at one period.  But the King, ill-advised, obstinate, blinded, would not accept reform; he would reign like the Bourbons, or not at all.  The reforms which the Parliament desired were reasonable and just.  It would abolish arbitrary arrests, the Star Chamber decrees, taxes without its consent, cruelty to Non-conformists, the ascendency of priests, irresponsible ministers, and offensive symbols of Romanism.  If these reforms had been granted,—­and such a sovereign as Elizabeth would have yielded, however reluctantly,—­there would have been no English revolution.  Or even if the popular leaders had been more patient, and waited for their time, and been willing to carry out these reforms constitutionally, there would have been no revolution.  But neither the King nor Parliament would yield, and the Parliament was dissolved.