nces of which were seen only too clearly by men like Hyde and
Falkland--that were the real causes of the rebellion and of the king's
execution. The constitutional and religious grievances were the outward
and visible sign of the corroding suspicions which slowly consumed the
national loyalty. In themselves there was nothing incapable of
settlement either through the spirit of union which existed between
Elizabeth and her subjects, or by the principle of compromise which
formed the basis of the constitutional settlement in 1688. The bond of
union between his people and himself Charles had, however, early broken,
and compromise is only possible between parties both of whom can
acknowledge to some extent the force of the other's position, which can
trust one another, and which are sincere in their endeavour to reach
agreement. Thus on Charles himself chiefly falls the responsibility for
the catastrophe.

His character and motives fill a large place in English history, but
they have never been fully understood and possibly were largely due to
physical causes. His weakness as a child was so extreme that his life
was despaired of. He outgrew physical defects, and as a young man
excelled in horsemanship and in the sports of the times, but always
retained an impediment of speech. At the time of his accession his
reserve and reticence were especially noticed. Buckingham was the only
person who ever enjoyed his friendship, and after his death Charles
placed entire confidence in no man. This isolation was the cause of an
ignorance of men and of the world, and of an incapacity to appreciate
the ideas, principles and motives of others, while it prepared at the
same time a fertile soil for receiving those exalted conceptions of
kingship, of divine right and prerogative, which came into vogue at this
period, together with those exaggerated ideas of his own personal
supremacy and importance to which minds not quite normal are always
especially inclined. His character was marked by a weakness which
shirked and postponed the settlement of difficulties, by a meanness and
ingratitude even when dealing with his most devoted followers, by an
obstinacy which only feigned compliance and by an untruthfulness which
differed widely from his son's unblushing deceit, which found always
some reservation or excuse, but which while more scrupulous was also
more dangerous and insidious because employed continually as a principle
of conduct. Yet Charles