hich the incidents of his misgovernment
were completely forgotten. He soon became in the popular veneration a
martyr and a saint. His fate was compared with the Crucifixion, and his
trials and sufferings to those of the Saviour. Handkerchiefs dipped in
his blood wrought "miracles," and the _Eikon Basilike_, published on the
day of his funeral, presented to the public a touching if not a genuine
portrait of the unfortunate sovereign. At the Restoration the
anniversary of his death was ordered to be kept as a day of fasting and
humiliation, and the service appointed for use on the occasion was only
removed from the prayer-book in 1859. The same conception of Charles as
a martyr for religion appeals still to many, and has been stimulated by
modern writers. "Had Charles been willing to abandon the church and give
up episcopacy," says Bishop Creighton, "he might have saved his throne
and his life. But on this point Charles stood firm, for this he died and
by dying saved it for the future."[6] Gladstone, Keble, Newman write in
the same strain. "It was for the Church," says Gladstone, "that Charles
shed his blood upon the scaffold."[7] "I rest," says Newman, "on the
scenes of past years, from the Upper Room in Acts to the Court of
Carisbrooke and Uxbridge." The injustice and violence of the king's
death, however, the pathetic dignity of his last days, and the many
noble traits in his character, cannot blind us to the real causes of his
downfall and destruction, and a sober judgment cannot allow that Charles
was really a martyr either for the church or for the popular liberties.

The constitutional struggle between the crown and parliament had not
been initiated by Charles I. It was in full existence in the reign of
James I., and distinct traces appear towards the latter part of that of
Elizabeth. Charles, therefore, in some degree inherited a situation for
which he was not responsible, nor can he be justly blamed, according to
the ideas of kingship which then prevailed, for defending the
prerogatives of the crown as precious and sacred personal possessions
which it was his duty to hand down intact to his successors. Neither
will his persistence in refusing to yield up the control of the
executive to the parliament or the army, or his zeal in defending the
national church, be altogether censured. In the event the parliament
proved quite incapable of governing, an army uncontrolled by the
sovereign was shown to constitute a more