reins of government, and it is the enormous stride in civilization which
England made during her reign, beset with so many perils, which
constitutes her chief claim to the admiration of mankind. Let it be
borne in mind that she began her rule in perplexities, anxieties, and
embarrassments. The crown was encumbered with debts; the nobles were
ambitious and factious; the people were poor, dispirited, unimportant,
and distracted by the claims of two hostile religions. Only one bishop
in the whole realm was found willing to crown her. Scotland was
convulsed with factions, and was a standing menace, growing out of the
marriage of Mary Stuart with a French prince. Barbarous Ireland was in
a state of chronic rebellion; France, Spain, and Rome were decidedly
hostile; and all Catholic Europe aimed at the overthrow of England.
Philip II. had adopted the dying injunction of his father to extinguish
the Protestant religion, and the princes of the House of Valois were
leagued with Rome for the attainment of this end. At home, Elizabeth had
to contend with a jealous Parliament, a factious nobility, an empty
purse, and a divided people. The people generally were rude and
uneducated; the language was undeveloped; education was chiefly confined
to nobles and priests; the poor were oppressed by feudal laws. No great
work in English history, poetry, or philosophy had yet appeared. The
comforts and luxuries of life were scarcely enjoyed even by the rich.
Chimneys were just beginning to be used. The people slept on mats of
straw; they ate without forks on pewter or wooden platters; they drank
neither tea nor coffee, but drank what their ancestors did in the
forests of Germany,--beer; their houses, thatched with straw, were dark,
dingy, and uncomfortable. Commerce was small; manufactures were in their
infancy; the coin was debased, and money was scarce; trade was in the
hands of monopolists; coaches were almost unknown; the roads were
impassable except for horsemen, and were infested with robbers; only the
rich could afford wheaten bread; agricultural implements were of the
most primitive kind; animal food, for the greater part of the year, was
eaten only in a salted state; enterprise of all kinds was restricted
within narrow limits; beggars and vagrants were so numerous that the
most stringent laws were necessary to protect the people against them;
profane swearing was nearly universal; the methods of executing capital
punishments were revolting; the rudest sports amused the people; the
parochial clergy were ignorant and sensual; country squires sought
nothing higher than fox-hunting; it took several days for letters to
reach the distant counties; the population numbered only four millions;
there was nothing grand and imposing in art but the palaces of nobles
and the Gothic monuments of mediaeval Europe.
Such was "Merrie England" on the accession of Elizabeth to the
throne,--a rude nation of feudal nobles, rural squires, and ignorant
people, who toiled for a mere pittance on the lands of cold,
unsympathetic masters; without books, without schools, without
privileges, without rights, except to breathe the common air and indulge
in coarse pleasures and religious holidays and village fêtes.
On the other hand, it must be admitted that the people were loyal,
religious, and brave; that they had the fear of God before their eyes,
and felt personal responsibility to Him, so that crimes were uncommon
except among the lowest and most abandoned; that family ties were
strong; that simple hospitalities were everywhere exercised; that
healthy pleasures stimulated no inordinate desires; that the people, if
poor, had enough to eat and drink; that service was not held to be
degrading; that churches were not deserted; that books, what few there
were, did not enervate or demoralize; that science did not attempt to
ignore the moral government of God; that laws were a terror to
evil-doers; that philanthropists did not seek to reform the world by
mechanical inventions, or elevate society by upholding the majesty of
man rather than the majesty of God,--teaching the infallibility of
congregated masses of ignorance, inexperience, and conceit. Even in
those rude times there were the certitudes of religious faith, of
domestic endearments, of patriotic devotion, of respect for parents, of
loyalty to rulers, of kindness to the poor and miserable; there were the
latent fires of freedom, the impulses of generous enthusiasm, and
resignation to the ills which could not be removed. So that in England,
in Elizabeth's time, there was a noble material for Christianity and art
and literature to work upon, and to develop a civilization such as had
not existed previously on this earth,--a civilization destined to spread
throughout the world in new institutions, inventions, laws, language,
and literature, binding hostile races together, and proclaiming the
sovereignty of intelligence,--the [Greek: nous kratei] of the old Ionian
philosophers,--with that higher sovereignty which Moses based upon the
Ten Commandments, and that higher law still which Jesus taught upon
the Mount.
Yet with all this fine but rude material for future greatness, it was
nevertheless a glaring fact that the condition of England on the
accession of Elizabeth was most discouraging,--a poor and scattered
agricultural nation, without a navy of any size, without a regular army,
with factions in every quarter, with struggling and contending religious
parties, with a jealous parliament of unenlightened country squires; yet
a nation seriously threatened by the most powerful monarchies of the
Continent, who detested the doctrines which were then taking root in the
land. Against the cabals of Rome, the navies of Spain, and the armies of
France,--alike hostile and dangerous,--England could make but a feeble
show of physical forces, and was protected only by her insular position.
The public dangers were so imminent that there was needed not only a
strong hand but a stout heart and a wise head at the helm. Excessive
caution was necessary, perpetual vigilance was imperative; a single
imprudent measure might be fatal in such exigencies. And this accounts
for the vacillating policy of Elizabeth, so often condemned by
historians. It did not proceed from weakness of head, but from real
necessity occasioned by constant embarrassments and changing
circumstances. According to all the canons of expediency, it was the
sign of a sagacious ruler to temporize and promise and deceive in that
sad perplexity. Governments, thus far in the history of nations, have
been carried on upon different principles from those that bind the
conduct of individuals, especially when the weak contend against the
strong. This, abstractly, is not to be defended. Governments and
individuals alike are bound by the same laws of immutable morality in
their general relations; but the rules of war are different from the
rules of peace. Governments are expediencies to suit peculiar crises and
exigencies. A man assaulted by robbers would be a fool to fall back on
the passive virtues of non-resistance.
Elizabeth had to deal both with religious bigots and unscrupulous kings.
We may be disgusted with the course she felt it politic to pursue, but
it proved successful. A more generous and open course might have
precipitated an attack when she was unprepared and defenceless. Her
dalliances and expediencies and dissimulations delayed the evil day,
until she was ready for the death-struggle; and when the tempest of
angry human forces finally broke upon her defenceless head, she was
saved only by a storm of wind and rain which Providence kindly and
opportunely sent. Had the "Invincible Armada" been permitted to invade
England at the beginning of her reign, there would probably have been
another Spanish conquest. What chance would the untrained militia of a
scattered population, without fortresses or walled cities or military
leaders of skill, have had against the veteran soldiers who were
marshalled under Philip II., with all the experiences learned in the
wars of Charles V. and in the conquest of Peru and Mexico, aided, too,
by the forces of France and the terrors of the Vatican and the money of
the Flemish manufacturers? It was the dictate of self-preservation which
induced Elizabeth to prevaricate, and to deceive the powerful monarchs
who were in league against her. If ever lying and cheating were
justifiable, they were then; if political jesuitism is ever defensible,
it was in the sixteenth century. So that I cannot be hard on the
embarrassed Queen for a policy which on the strict principles of
morality it would be difficult to defend. It was a dark age of
conspiracies, rebellions, and cabals. In dealing with the complicated
relations of government in that day, there were no recognized principles
but those of expediency. Even in our own times, expediency rather than
right too often seems to guide nations. It is not just and fair,
therefore, to expect from a sovereign, in Queen Elizabeth's time, that
openness and fairness which are the result only of a higher national
civilization. What would be blots on government to-day were not deemed
blots in the sixteenth century. Elizabeth must be judged by the standard
of her age, not of ours, in her official and public acts.
We must remember, also, that this great Queen was indorsed, supported,
and even instructed by the ablest and wisest and most patriotic
statesmen that were known to her generation. Lord Burleigh, her prime
minister, was a marvel of political insight, industry, and fidelity. If
he had not the commanding genius of Thomas Cromwell or the ambitious
foresight of Richelieu, he surpassed the statesmen of his day in
patriotic zeal and in disinterested labors,--not to extend the
boundaries of the empire, but to develop national resources and make the
country strong for defence. He was a plodding, wary, cautious,
far-seeing, long-headed old statesman, whose opinions it was not safe
for Elizabeth to oppose; and although she was arbitrary and opinionated
herself, she generally followed Burleigh's counsels,--unwillingly at
times, but firmly when she perceived the necessity; for she was, with
all her pertinacity, open to conviction of reason. I cannot deny that
she sometimes headed off her prime-minister and deceived him, and
otherwise complicated the difficulties that beset her reign; but this
was only when she felt a strong personal repugnance to the state
measures which he found it imperative to pursue. After all, Elizabeth
was a woman, and the woman was not utterly lost in the Queen. It is
greatly to her credit, however, that she retained the services of this
old statesman for forty years, and that she filled the great offices in
the State and Church with men of experience, genius, and wisdom. She
made Parker the Archbishop of Canterbury,--a man of remarkable
moderation and breadth of mind, whose reforms were carried on without
exciting hostilities, and have survived the fanaticisms and hostile
attacks of generations. Walsingham, her ambassador at Paris, and
afterwards her secretary of state, ferreted out the plots of the Jesuits
and the intrigues of hostile courts, and rendered priceless service by
his acuteness and diligence. Lord Effingham, one of the Howards,
defeated the "Invincible Armada." Sir Thomas Gresham managed her
finances so ably that she was never without money. Coke was her
attorney. Sir Nicholas Bacon--the ablest lawyer in the realm, and a
stanch Protestant--was her lord-keeper; while his illustrious son, the
immortal Francis Bacon, though not adequately rewarded, was always
consulted by the Queen in great legal difficulties. I say nothing of
those elegant and gallant men who were the ornaments of her court, and
in some instances the generals of her armies and admirals of her
navies,--Sackville, Raleigh, Sidney, not to mention Essex and
Leicester, all of whom were distinguished for talents and services; men
who had no equals in their respective provinces; so gifted that it is
difficult to determine whether the greatness of her reign was more owing
to the talents of the ministers or to the wisdom of the Queen herself.
Unless she had been a great woman, I doubt whether she would have
discerned the merits of these men, and employed them in her service and
kept them so long in office.
It was by these great men that Elizabeth was ruled,--so far as she was
ruled at all,--not by favorites, like her successors, James and Charles.
The favorites at the court of Elizabeth were rarely trusted with great
powers unless they were men of signal abilities, and regarded as such by
the nation itself. While she lavished favors upon them,--sometimes to
the disgust of the old nobility,--she was never ruled by them, as James
was by Buckingham, and Louis XV. by Madame de Pompadour. Elizabeth was
not above coquetry, it is true; but after toying with Leicester and
Raleigh,--never, though, to the serious injury of her reputation as a
woman,--she would retire to the cabinet of her ministers and yield to
the sage suggestions of Burleigh and Walsingham. At her council-board
she was an entirely different woman from what she was among her
courtiers: _there_ she would tolerate no flattery, and was controlled
only by reason and good sense,--as practical as Burleigh himself, and
as hard-working and business-like; cold, intellectual, and clear-headed,
utterly without enthusiasm.
Perhaps the greatest service which Elizabeth rendered to the English
nation and the cause of civilization was her success in establishing
Protestantism as the religion of the land, against so many threatening
obstacles. In this she was aided and directed by some of the most
enlightened divines that England ever had. The liturgy of Cranmer was
re-established, preferments were conferred on married priests, the
learned and pious were raised to honor, eminent scholars and theologians
were invited to England, the Bible was revised and freely circulated,
and an alliance was formed between learning and religion by the great
men who adorned the universities. Though inclined to ritualism,
Elizabeth was broad and even moderate in reform, desiring, according to
the testimony of Bacon, that all extremes of idolatry and superstition
should be avoided on the one hand, and levity and contempt on the other;
that all Church matters should be examined without sophistical niceties
or subtle speculations.
The basis of the English Church as thus established by Elizabeth was
half-way between Rome and Geneva,--a compromise, I admit; but all
established institutions and governments accepted by the people are
based on compromise. How can there be even family government without
some compromise, inasmuch as husband and wife cannot always be expected
to think exactly alike?
At any rate, the Church established by Elizabeth was signally adapted to
the wants and genius of the English people,--evangelical, on the whole,
in its creed, though not Calvinistic; unobtrusive in its forms, easy in
its discipline, and aristocratic in its government; subservient to
bishops, but really governed by the enlightened few who really govern
all churches, Independent, Presbyterian, or Methodist; supported by the
State, yet wielding only spiritual authority; giving its influence to
uphold the crown and the established institutions of the country;
conservative, yet earnestly Protestant. In the sixteenth century it was
the Church of reform, of progress, of advancing and liberalizing
thought. Elizabeth herself was a zealous Protestant, protecting the
cause whenever it was persecuted, encouraging Huguenots, and not
disdaining the Presbyterians of Scotland. She was not as generous to the
Protestants of Holland and Trance as we could have wished, for she was
obliged to husband her resources, and hence she often seemed
parsimonious; but she was the acknowledged head of the reform movement
in Europe. Her hostility to Rome and Roman influence was inexorable. She
may not have carried reforms as far as the Puritans desired, and who
can wonder at that? Their spirit was aggressive, revolutionary, bitter,
and, pushed to its logical sequences, was hostility to the throne
itself, as proved by their whole subsequent history until Cromwell was
dead. And this hostility Burleigh perceived as well as the Queen, which,
doubtless led to severities that our age cannot pretend to justify.
The Queen did dislike and persecute the Puritans, not, I think, so much
because they made war on the surplice, liturgy, and divine right of
bishops, as because they were at heart opposed to all absolute authority
both in State and Church, and when goaded by persecution would hurl even
kings from their thrones. It is to be regretted that Elizabeth was so
severe on those who differed from her; she had no right to insist on
uniformity with her conscience in those matters which are above any
human authority. The Reformation in its severest logical consequences,
in its grandest deductions, affirms the right of private judgment as the
mighty pillar of its support. All parties, Presbyterian as well as
Episcopalian, sought uniformity; they only differed as to its standard.
With the Queen and ministers and prelates it was the laws of the land;
with the Puritans, the decrees of provincial and national synods. Hence,
if Elizabeth insisted that her subjects should conform to her notions
and the ordinances of Parliament and convocations, she showed a spirit
which was universal. She was superior even in toleration to all
contemporaneous sovereigns, Catholic or Protestant, man or woman.
Contrast her persecutions of Catholics and Puritans with the persecution
by Catherine de Médicis and Charles IX. and Philip II. and Ferdinand
II.; or even with that under the Regent Murray of Scotland, when
churches and abbeys were ruthlessly destroyed. Contrast her Archbishop
of Canterbury with the religious dictator of Scotland. She kindled no
_auto-da-fé,_ like the Spaniards; she incited no wholesale massacre,
like the demented fury of France; she had a loving care of her subjects
that no religious bigotry could suppress. She did not seek to
exterminate Catholics or Puritans, but simply to build up the Church of
England as the shield and defence and enlargement of Protestantism in
times of unmitigated religious ferocity,--a Protestantism that has
proved the bulwark of European liberties, as it was the foundation of
all progress in England. In giving an impulse to this great emancipating
movement, even if she did not push it to its remote logical end,
Elizabeth was a benefactor of her country and of mankind, and is not
unjustly called a nursing-mother of the Church,--being so regarded by
Protestants, not in England merely, but on the Continent of Europe. When
was ever a religious revolution effected, or a national church
established, with so little bloodshed? When have ever such great changes
proved so popular and so beneficial, and, I may add, so permanent? After
all the revolutions in English thought and life for three hundred years,
the Church as established by Elizabeth is still dear to the great body
of English people, and has survived every agitation. And even many
things which the Puritans sought to sweep away--the music of the choir,
organs, and chants, even the holidays of venerated ages--are now revived
by the descendants of the Puritans with ancient ardor; showing how
permanent are such festivals as Christmas and Easter in the heart of
Christendom, and how hopeless it is to eradicate what the Church and
Christianity, from their earliest ages, have sanctioned and commended.
The next great service which Elizabeth rendered to England was a
development of its resources,--ever a primal effort with wise statesmen,
with such administrators as Sully, Colbert, Richelieu. The policy of her
Government was not the policy of aggrandizement in war, which has ever
provoked jealousies and hatreds in other nations, and led to dangerous
combinations, and sowed the seed of future wars. The policy of Napoleon
was retaliated in the conquests of Prussia in our day; and the policy of
Prussia may yet lead to its future dismemberment, in spite of the
imperial realm shaped by Bismarck. "With what measure ye mete, it shall
be measured to you again,"--an eternal law, binding both individuals and
nations, from which there is no escape. The government of Elizabeth did
not desire or aim at foreign conquests,--the great error of European
statesmen on the Continent; it sought the establishment of the monarchy
at home, and the development of the various industries of the nation,
since in these industries are both power and wealth. Commerce was
encouraged, and she girt her island around with those "wooden walls"
which have proved England's impregnable defence against every subsequent
combination of tyrants and conquerors. The East India Company was
formed, and the fisheries of Newfoundland established. It was under
Elizabeth's auspices that Frobisher penetrated to the Polar Sea, that
Sir Francis Drake circumnavigated the globe, that Sir Walter Raleigh
colonized Virginia, and that Sir Humphrey Gilbert attempted to discover
'a northwestern passage to India. Manufactories were set up for serges,
so that wool was no longer exported, but the raw material was consumed
at home. A colony of Flemish weavers was planted in the heart of
England. The prosperity of dyers and cloth-dressers and weavers dates
from this reign, although some attempts at manufactures were made in the
reign of Edward III. A refuge was given to persecuted foreigners, and
work was found for them to do. Pasture-land was converted to
tillage,--not, as is now the case, to parks for the wealthy classes.
Labor was made respectable, and enterprise of all kinds was stimulated.
Wealth was sought in industry and economy, rather than in mines of gold
and silver; so that wealth was doubled during this reign, and the
population increased from four millions to six millions. All the old
debts of the Crown were paid, both principal and interest, and the
debased coin was called in at a great sacrifice to the royal revenue.
The arbitrary management of commerce by foreign merchants was broken up,
and weights and measures were duly regulated. The Queen did not revoke
monopolies, it is true; the principles of political economy were not
then sufficiently understood. But even monopolies, which disgraced the
old Roman world, and are a disgrace to any age, were not so gigantic and
demoralizing in those times as in our own, under our free institutions;
they were not used to corrupt legislation and bribe judges and prevent
justice, but simply to enrich politicians and favorites, and as a reward
for distinguished services.
Justice in the courts was impartially administered; there was security
to property and punishment for crime. No great culprits escaped
conviction; nor, when convicted, were they allowed to purchase, with
their stolen wealth, the immunities of freedom. The laws were not a
mockery, as in republican Borne, where demagogues had the ascendency,
and prepared the way for usurpation and tyranny. All the expenses of the
government were managed economically,--so much so that the Queen herself
received from Parliament, for forty years, only an average grant of
£65,000 a year. She disliked to ask money from the Commons, and they
granted subsidies with extreme reluctance; the result was that between
the two the greatest economy was practised, and the people were not
over-burdened by taxation.