ELIZABETH.
{1568.} Of all the European churches which shook off the yoke of papal
authority, no one proceeded with so much reason and moderation as the
church of England; an advantage which had been derived partly from the
interposition of the civil magistrate in this innovation, partly from
the gradual and slow steps by which the reformation was conducted in
that kingdom. Rage and animosity against the Catholic religion was as
little indulged as could be supposed in such a revolution: the fabric
of the secular hierarchy was maintained entire: the ancient liturgy was
preserved, so far as was thought consistent with the new principles:
many ceremonies, become venerable from age and preceding use were
retained: the splendor of the Romish worship, though removed, had at
least given place to order and decency: the distinctive habits of
the clergy, according to their different ranks, were continued: no
innovation was admitted merely from spite and opposition to former
usage: and the new religion, by mitigating the genius of the ancient
superstition, and rendering it more compatible with the peace and
interests of society, had preserved itself in that happy medium which
wise men have always sought, and which the people have so seldom been
able to maintain.
But though such in general was the spirit of the reformation in
that country, many of the English reformers, being men of more warm
complexions and more obstinate tempers, endeavored to push matters to
extremities against the church of Rome, and indulged themselves in the
most violent contrariety and antipathy to all former practices. Among
these, Hooper, who afterwards suffered for his religion with such
extraordinary constancy, was chiefly distinguished. This man was
appointed, during the reign of Edward, to the see of Glocester, and
made no scruple of accepting the episcopal office; but he refused to
be consecrated in the episcopal habit, the cymar and rochet, which had
formerly, he said, been abused to superstition, and which were thereby
rendered unbecoming a true Christian. Cranmer and Ridley were surprised
at this objection, which opposed the received practice, and even the
established laws; and though young Edward, desirous of promoting a man
so celebrated for his eloquence, his zeal, and his morals, enjoined them
to dispense with this ceremony, they were still determined to retain it.
Hooper then embraced the resolution, rather to refuse the bishopric
than clothe himself in those hated garments; but it was deemed requisite
that, for the sake of the example, he should not escape so easily. He
was first confined to Cranmer’s house, then thrown into prison, till he
should consent to be a bishop on the terms proposed: he was plied with
conferences, and reprimands, and arguments: Bucer and Peter Martyr, and
the most celebrated foreign reformers, were consulted on this important
question: and a compromise, with great difficulty, was at last made,
that Hooper should not be obliged to wear commonly the obnoxious robes,
but should agree to be consecrated in them, and to use them during
cathedral service;[*] a condescension not a little extraordinary in a
man of so inflexible a spirit as this reformer.
The same objection which had arisen with regard to the episcopal habit,
had been moved against the raiment of the inferior clergy; and the
surplice in particular, with the tippet and corner cap, was a great
object of abhorrence to many of the popular zealots.[**]
* Burnet, vol. ii. p. 152. Heylin, p. 90.
** Strype, vol. i. p. 416.
In vain was it urged, that particular habits, as well as postures and
ceremonies, having been constantly used by the clergy, and employed
in religious service, acquire a veneration in the eyes of the people,
appear sacred in their apprehensions, excite their devotion, and
contract a kind of mysterious virtue, which attaches the affections of
men to the national and established worship: that in order to produce
this effect, a uniformity in these particulars is requisite, and even a
perseverance, as far as possible, in the former practice: and that the
nation would be happy, if, by retaining these inoffensive observances,
the reformers could engage the people to renounce willingly what was
absurd or pernicious in the ancient superstition. These arguments, which
had influence with wise men, were the very reasons which engaged the
violent Protestants to reject the habits. They pushed matters to a total
opposition with the church of Rome; every compliance, they said, was a
symbolizing with Antichrist.[*] And this spirit was carried so far by
some reformers, that, in a national remonstrance, made afterwards by the
church of Scotland against these habits, it was asked, “What has
Christ Jesus to do with Belial? What has darkness to do with light? If
surplices, corner caps, and tippets have been badges cf idolaters in
the very act of their idolatry, why should the preacher of Christian
liberty, and the open rebuker of all superstition, partake with the
dregs of the Romish beast? Yea, who is there that ought not rather to be
afraid of taking in his hand, or on his forehead, the print and mark of
that odious beast?”[**] But this application was rejected by the English
church.
There was only one instance in which the spirit of contradiction to the
Romanists took place universally in England: the altar was removed from
the wall, was placed in the middle of the church, and was thenceforth
denominated the communion table. The reason why this innovation met with
such general reception was, that the nobility and gentry got thereby
a pretence for making spoil of the plate, vestures, and rich ornaments
which belonged to the altars.[***]
* Strype, vol. i. p. 416.
** Keith, p. 565. Knox, p. 402.
*** Heylin, Preface, p. 3. Hist. p. 106.
These disputes, which had been started during the reign of Edward, were
carried abroad by the Protestants who fled from the persecutions of
Mary; and as the zeal of these men had received an increase from the
furious cruelty of their enemies, they were generally inclined to carry
their opposition to the utmost extremity against the practices of the
church of Rome. Their communication with Calvin, and the other reformers
who followed the discipline and worship of Geneva, confirmed them in
this obstinate reluctance; and though some of the refugees, particularly
those who were established at Frankfort, still adhered to King Edward’s
liturgy, the prevailing spirit carried these confessors to seek a still
further reformation. On the accession of Elizabeth, they returned to
their native country; and being regarded with general veneration, on
account of their zeal and past sufferings, they ventured to insist
on the establishment of their projected model; nor did they want
countenance from many considerable persona in the queen’s council. But
the princess herself, so far from being willing to despoil religion
of the few ornaments and ceremonies which remained in it, was rather
inclined to bring the public worship still nearer to the Romish
ritual;[*] and she thought that the reformation had already gone too far
in shaking off those forms and observances, which, without distracting
men of more refined apprehensions, tend, in a very innocent manner, to
allure, and amuse, and engage the vulgar.
* “When Nowel, one of her chaplains, had spoken less
reverently, in a sermon preached before her, of the sign of
the cross, she called aloud to him from her closet window,
commanding him to retire from the ungodly digression, and
to return unto his text. And on the other side, when one of
her divines had preached a sermon in defence of the real
presence, she openly gave him thanks for his pains and
piety.” Heylin, p. 124. She would have absolutely forbidden
the marriage of the clergy, if Cecil had not interposed.
Strype’s Life of Parker, p. 107, 108, 109. She was an enemy
to sermons; and usually said, that she thought two or three
preachers were sufficient for a whole county. It was
probably for these reasons that one Doring told her to her
face from the pulpit, that she was like an untamed heifer,
that would not be ruled by God’s people, but obstructed his
discipline See Life of Hooker, prefixed to his works.
She took care to have a law for uniformity strictly enacted: she was
empowered by the parliament to add any new ceremonies which she thought
proper: and though she was sparing in the exercise of this prerogative,
she continued rigid in exacting an observance of the established laws,
and in punishing all nonconformity. The zealots, therefore, who harbored
a secret antipathy to the Episcopal order, and to the whole liturgy,
were obliged, in a great measure, to conceal these sentiments, which
would have been regarded as highly audacious and criminal; and they
confined their avowed objections to the surplice, the confirmation
of children, the sign of the cross in baptism, the ring in marriage,
kneeling at the sacrament, and bowing at the name of Jesus. So fruitless
is it for sovereigns to watch with a rigid care over orthodoxy, and to
employ the sword in religious controversy, that the work, perpetually
renewed, is perpetually to begin; and a garb, a gesture, nay, a
metaphysical or grammatical distinction, when rendered important by the
disputes of theologians and the zeal of the magistrate, is sufficient
to destroy the unity of the church, and even the peace of society. These
controversies had already excited such ferment among the people, that in
some places, they refused to frequent the churches where the habits
and ceremonies were used; would not salute the conforming clergy; and
proceeded so far as to revile them in the streets, to spit in their
faces, and to use them with all manner of contumely.[*] And while the
sovereign authority checked these excesses, the flame was confined, not
extinguished; and burning fiercer from confinement, it burst out in the
succeeding reigns to the destruction of the church and monarchy.
* Strype’s Life of Whitgift, p. 460
All enthusiasts, indulging themselves in rapturous flights ecstasies,
visions, inspirations, have a natural aversion to episcopal authority,
to ceremonies, rites, and forms which they denominate superstition, or
beggarly elements, and which seem to restrain the liberal effusions of
their zeal and devotion: but there was another set of opinions adopted
by these innovators, which rendered them in a peculiar manner the
object of Elizabeth’s aversion. The same bold and daring spirit which
accompanied them in their addresses to the Divinity, appeared in their
political speculations; and the principles of civil liberty, which
during some reigns had been little avowed in the nation, and which were
totally incompatible with the present exorbitant prerogative, had
been strongly adopted by this new sect. Scarcely any sovereign before
Elizabeth, and none after her, carried higher, both in speculation
and practice, the authority of the crown; and the Puritans (so these
sectaries were called, on account of their pretending to a superior
purity of worship and discipline) could not recommend themselves
worse to her favor, than by inculcating the doctrine of resisting or
restraining princes. From all these motives, the queen neglected no
opportunity of depressing those zealous innovators; and while they were
secretly countenanced by some of her most favored ministers, Cecil,
Leicester, Knolles, Bedford, Walsingham, she never was, to the end of
her life, reconciled to their principles and practices.
We have thought proper to insert in this place an account of the rise
and the genius of the Puritans; because Camden marks the present year as
the period when they began to make themselves considerable in England.
We now return to our narration.
{1569.} The duke of Norfolk was the only peer that enjoyed the highest
title of nobility; and as there were at present no princes of the blood,
the splendor of his family, the opulence of his fortune, and the extent
of his influence, had rendered him, without comparison, the first
subject in England. The qualities of his mind corresponded to his high
station:--beneficent, affable, generous, he had acquired the affections
of the people; prudent, moderate, obsequious, he possessed, without
giving her any jealousy, the good graces of his sovereign. His
grandfather and father had long been regarded as the leaders of the
Catholics; and this hereditary attachment, joined to the alliance of
blood, had procured him the friendship of the most considerable men
of that party; but as he had been educated among the reformers, was
sincerely devoted to their principles, and maintained that strict
decorum and regularity of life by which the Protestants were at that
time distinguished, he thereby enjoyed the rare felicity of being
popular even with the most opposite factions. The height of his
prosperity alone was the source of his misfortunes, and engaged him in
attempts from which his virtue and prudence would naturally have forever
kept him at a distance.
Norfolk was at this time a widower; and being of a suitable age, his
marriage with the queen of Scots had appeared so natural, that it
occurred to several of his friends and those of that princess: but the
first person who, after Secretary Lidington, opened the scheme to the
duke, is said to have been the earl of Murray, before his departure for
Scotland.[*] That nobleman set before Norfolk, both the advantage of
composing the dissensions in Scotland by an alliance which would be
so generally acceptable, and the prospect of reaping the succession of
England; and in order to bind Norfolk’s interest the faster with Mary’s,
he proposed that the duke’s daughter should also espouse the young
king of Scotland. The previously obtaining of Elizabeth’s consent was
regarded, both by Murray and Norfolk, as a circumstance essential to
the success of their project; and all terms being adjusted between them,
Murray took care, by means of Sir Robert Melvil, to have the design
communicated to the queen of Scots. This princess replied, that the
vexations which she had met with in her two last marriages, had made her
more inclined to lead a single life; but she was determined to sacrifice
her own inclinations to the public welfare: and therefore, as soon as
she should be legally divorced from Bothwell, she would be determined
by the opinion of her nobility and people in the choice of another
husband.[**]
* Lesley, p. 36, 87.
** Lesley, p. 40, 41.
It is probable that Murray was not sincere in this proposal. He had two
motives to engage him to dissimulation. Heknew the danger which he must
run in his return through the north of England, from the power of the
earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland, Mary’s partisans in that
country; and he dreaded an insurrection in Scotland from the duke of
Chatelrault and the earls of Argyle and Huntley, whom she had appointed
her lieutenants during her absence. By these feigned appearances
of friendship, he both engaged Norfolk to write in his favor to the
northern noblemen,[*] and he persuaded the queen of Scots to give her
lieutenants permission, and even advice, to conclude a cessation of
hostilities with the regent’s party.[**]
The duke of Norfolk, though he had agreed that Elizabeth’s consent
should be previously obtained before the completion of his marriage, had
reason to apprehend that he never should prevail with her voluntarily
to make that concession. He knew her perpetual and unrelenting jealousy
against her heir and rival; he was acquainted with her former reluctance
to all proposals of marriage with the queen of Scots; he foresaw that
this princess’s espousing a person of his power, and character, and
interest, would give the greatest umbrage; and as it would then become
necessary to reinstate her in possession of her throne on some tolerable
terms, and even to endeavor the reëstablishing of her character, he
dreaded lest Elizabeth, whose politics had now taken a different
turn, would never agree to such indulgent and generous conditions. He
therefore attempted previously to gain the consent and approbation of
several of the most considerable nobility; and he was successful with
the earls of Pembroke, Arundel, Derby, Bedford, Shrewsbury, Southampton,
Northumberland, Westmoreland, Sussex.[***] Lord Lumley and Sir Nicholas
Throgmorton cordially embraced the proposal: even the earl of Leicester,
Elizabeth’s declared favorite, who had formerly entertained some views
of espousing Mary, willingly resigned all his pretensions, and seemed
to enter zealously into Norfolk’s interests.[****] There were other
motives, besides affection to the duke, which produced this general
combination of the nobility.
* State Trials, p. 76, 78.
** Lesley, p. 41.
*** Lesley, p. 55. Camden, p. 419. Spotswood, p. 230.
**** Haynes, p. 535.
Sir William Cecil, secretary of state, was the most vigilant, active,
and prudent minister ever known in England; and as he was governed by
no views but the interests of his sovereign which he had inflexibly
pursued, his authority over her became every day more predominant. Ever
cool himself, and uninfluenced by prejudice or affection, he checked
those sallies of passion, and sometimes of caprice, to which she was
subject; and if he failed of persuading her in the first movement, his
perseverance, and remonstrances, and arguments were sure at last to
recommend themselves to her sound discernment. The more credit he gained
with his mistress, the more was he exposed to the envy of her other
counsellors; and as he had been supposed to adopt the interests of the
house of Suffolk, whose claim seemed to carry with it no danger to the
present establishment, his enemies, in opposition to him, were naturally
led to attach themselves to the queen of Scots. Elizabeth saw without
uneasiness this emulation among her courtiers, which served to augment
her own authority: and though she supported Cecil whenever matters
came to extremities, and dissipated every conspiracy against him,
particularly one laid about this time for having him thrown into the
Tower on some pretence or other,[*] she never gave him such unlimited
confidence as might enable him entirely to crush his adversaries.
Norfolk, sensible of the difficulty which he must meet with in
controlling Cecil’s counsels, especially where they concurred with the
inclination as well as interest of the queen, durst not open to her his
intentions of marrying the queen of Scots, but proceeded still in the
same course of increasing his interest in the kingdom, and engaging more
of the nobility to take part in his measures. A letter was written to
Mary by Leicester, and signed by several of the first rank, recommending
Norfolk for her husband, and stipulating conditions for the advantage of
both kingdoms; particularly, that she should give sufficient surety
to Elizabeth, and the heirs of her body, for the free enjoyment of the
crown of England, that a perpetual league, offensive and defensive,
should be made between their realms and subjects; that the Protestant
religion should be established by law in Scotland; and that she should
grant an amnesty to her rebels in that kingdom.[**]
* Camden, p. 417.
** Lesley, p. 50. Camden, p. 420. Haynes, p. 535, 539
When Mary returned a favorable answer to this application, Norfolk
employed himself with new ardor in the execution of his project; and
besides securing the interests of many of the considerable gentry and
nobility who resided at court, he wrote letters to such as lived at
their country seats, and possessed the greatest authority in the several
counties.[*] The kings of France and Spain, who interested themselves
extremely in Mary’s cause, were secretly consulted, and expressed their
approbation of these measures.[**] And though Elizabeth’s consent
was always supposed as a previous condition to the finishing of this
alliance, it was apparently Norfolk’s intention, when he proceeded such
lengths without consulting her, to render his party so strong, that it
should no longer be in her power to refuse it.[***]
It was impossible that so extensive a conspiracy could entirely escape
the queen’s vigilance and that of Cecil. She dropped several intimations
to the duke, by which he might learn that she was acquainted with his
designs; and she frequently warned him to beware on what pillow he
reposed his head:[****] but he never had the prudence or the courage to
open to her his full intentions. Certain intelligence of this dangerous
combination was given her first by Leicester, then by Murray,[v] who, if
ever he was sincere in promoting Norfolk’s marriage, which is much to be
doubted, had at least intended for his own safety and that of his party,
that Elizabeth should in reality, as well as in appearance, be entire
arbiter of the conditions, and should not have her consent extorted by
any confederacy of her own subjects. This information gave great alarm
to the court of England; and the more so, as those intrigues were
attended with other circumstances, of which, it is probable, Elizabeth
was not wholly ignorant.
* Lesley, p. 62.
** Lesley, p. 63.
*** State Trials, vol. i. p. 82.
**** Camden, p. 420. Spotswood, p. 231.
v Lesley, p. 71. It appears by Haynes, (p. 521, 525,) that
Elizabeth had heard rumors of Norfolk’s dealing with Murray;
and charged the latter to inform her of the whole truth,
which he accordingly did. See also the earl of Murray’s
letter produced on Norfolk’s trial.
Among the nobility and gentry that seemed to enter into Norfolk’s views,
there were many who were zealously attached to the Catholic religion,
who had no other design than that of restoring Mary to her liberty, and
who would gladly, by a combination with foreign powers, or even at the
expense of a civil war, have placed her on the throne or England. The
earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland, who possessed great power
in the north, were leaders of this party; and the former nobleman made
offer to the queen of Scots, by Leonard Dacres, brother to Lord Dacres,
that he would free her from confinement, and convey her to Scotland,
or any other place to which she should think proper to retire.[*] Sir
Thomas and Sir Edward Stanley, sons of the earl of Derby, Sir Thomas
Gerrard, Rolstone, and other gentlemen whose interest lay in the
neighborhood of the place where Mary resided, concurred in the same
views; and required that, in order to facilitate the execution of the
scheme, a diversion should in the mean time be made from the side of
Flanders.[**] Norfolk discouraged, and even, in appearance, suppressed
these conspiracies; both because his duty to Elizabeth would not allow
him to think of effecting his purpose by rebellion, and because he
foresaw that, if the queen of Scots came into the possession of these
men, they would rather choose for her husband the king of Spain, or some
foreign prince, who had power, as well as inclination, to reestablish
the Catholic religion.[***]
* Lesley, p. 76.
** Lesley, p. 98.
*** Lesley, p. 77.
When men of honor and good principles, like the duke of Norfolk, engage
in dangerous enterprises, they are commonly so unfortunate as to be
criminal by halves; and while they balance between the execution of
their designs and their remorses, their fear of punishment and their
hope of pardon, they render themselves an easy prey to their enemies.
The duke, in order to repress the surmises spread against him, spoke
contemptuously to Elizabeth of the Scottish alliance; affirmed that his
estate in England was more valuable than the revenue of a kingdom wasted
by civil wars and factions; and declared, that when he amused himself
in his own tennis-court at Norwich amidst his friends and vassals, he
deemed himself at least a petty prince, and was fully satisfied with
his condition.[*] Finding that he did not convince her by these
asseverations, and that he was looked on with a jealous eye by the
ministers, he retired to his country seat without taking leave.[**] He
soon after repented of this measure, and set out on his return to court,
with a view of using every expedient to regain the queen’s good graces;
but he was met at St. Albans by Fitz-Garret, lieutenant of the band of
pensioners by whom he was conveyed to Burnham, three miles from Windsor,
where the court then resided.[***]
* Camden, p. 420
** Haynes, p. 528.
*** Haynes, p. 339.
He was soon after committed to the Tower, under the custody of Sir Henry
Nevil. [*] Lesley, bishop of Ross, the queen of Scots’ ambassador, was
examined, and confronted with Norfolk before the council.[**] The
earl of Pembroke was confined to his own house: Arundel, Lumley, and
Throgmorton were taken into custody. The queen of Scots herself was
removed to Coventry; all access to her was, during some time, more
strictly prohibited; and Viscount Hereford was joined to the earls of
Shrewsbury and Huntingdon in the office of guarding her.
A rumor had been diffused in the north of an intended rebellion; and
the earl of Sussex, president of York, alarmed with the danger, sent
for Northumberland and Westmoreland, in order to examine them: but not
finding any proof against them, he allowed them to depart. The report,
meanwhile, gained ground daily; and many appearances of its reality
being discovered, orders were despatched by Elizabeth to these two
noblemen, to appear at court, and answer for their conduct.[***] They
had already proceeded so far in their criminal designs, that they dared
not to trust themselves in her hands: they had prepared measures for
a rebellion; had communicated their design to Mary and her
ministers;[****] had entered into a correspondence with the duke of
Alva, governor of the Low Countries; had obtained his promise of a
reënforcement of troops, and of a supply of arms and ammunition; and
had prevailed on him to send over to London Chiapino Vitelii, one of his
most famous captains, on pretence of adjusting some differences with
the queen, but in reality with a view of putting him at the head of the
northern rebels.
* Camden, p. 421. Haynes, p. 540.
** Lesley, p. 80.
*** Haynes, p. 552.
**** Haynes, 595. Strype, vol. ii. Append, p. 30. MS. in the
Ad socates’ Library from Cott. Lib. Cal. c. 9.
The summons sent to the two earls precipitated the rising before they
were fully prepared; and Northumberland remained in suspense between
opposite dangers, when he was informed that some of his enemies were on
the way with a commission to arrest him. He took horse instantly, and
hastened to his associate Westmoreland, whom he found surrounded with
his friends and vassals, and deliberating with regard to the measures
which he should follow in the present emergence. They determined to
begin the insurrection without delay; and the great credit of these two
noblemen, with that zeal for the catholic religion which still prevailed
in the neighborhood, soon drew together multitudes of the common people.
They published a manifesto, in which they declared that they intended
to attempt nothing against the queen, to whom they vowed unshaken
allegiance: and that their sole aim was to reëstablish the religion of
their ancestors, to remove evil counsellors, and to restore the duke
of Norfolk and other faithful peers to their liberty and to the queen’s
favor.[*] The number of the malecontents amounted to four thousand foot
and sixteen hundred horse; and they expected the concurrence of all the
Catholics in England.[**]
The queen was not negligent in her own defence, and she had beforehand,
from her prudent and wise conduct, acquired the general good will of
her people, the best security of a sovereign; insomuch that even the
Catholics in most counties expressed an affection for her service;[***]
and the duke of Norfolk himself, though he had lost her favor, and lay
in confinement, was not wanting, as far as his situation permitted, to
promote the levies among his friends and retainers. Sussex, attended
by the earls of Rutland, the lords Hunsdon, Evers, and Willoughby of
Parham, marched against the rebels at the head of seven thousand men,
and found them already advanced to the bishopric of Durham, of which
they had taken possession. They retired before him to Hexham; and
hearing that the earl of Warwick and Lord Clinton were advancing against
them with a greater body, they found no other resource than to disperse
themselves without striking a blow. The common people retired to
their houses: the leaders fled into Scotland. Northumberland was found
skulking in that country, and was confined by Murray in the Castle of
Lochlevin. Westmoreland received shelter from the chieftains of the Kers
and Scots, partisans of Mary; and persuaded them to make an inroad into
England, with a view of exciting a quarrel between the two kingdoms.
After they had committed great ravages, they retreated to their own
country. This sudden and precipitate rebellion was followed soon after
by another still more imprudent, raised by Leonard Uacres. Lord Hunsdon,
at the head of the garrison of Berwick, was able, without any other
assistance, to quell these rebels. Great severity was exercised against
such as had taken part in these rash enterprises. Sixty-six petty
constables were hanged;[****] and no less than eight hundred persons are
said, on the whole, to have suffered by the hands of the executioner.[v]
* Cabala, p. 169. Strype, vol. i. p. 547.
** Stowe, p. 663.
*** Cabala, p, 170. Digges, p. 4.
**** Camden, p, 423.
v Lesley, p. 82.
But the queen was so well pleased with Norfolk’s behavior, that she
released him from the Tower; allowed him to live, though under some show
of confinement, in his own house; and only exacted a promise from
him not to proceed any further in his negotiations with the queen of
Scots.[*]
Elizabeth now found that the detention of Mary was attended with all
the ill consequences which she had foreseen when she first embraced that
measure. This latter princess recovering, by means of her misfortunes
and her own natural good sense, from that delirium into which she seems
to have been thrown during her attachment to Bothwell, had behaved
with such modesty and judgment, and even dignity, that every one who
approached her was charmed with her demeanor; and her friends were
enabled, on some plausible grounds, to deny the reality of all those
crimes which had been imputed to her.[**]
* Lesley, p. 98. Camden, p. 429. Haynes, p. 597.
** Lesley, p. 232. Haynes, p. 511, 548.
Compassion for her situation, and the necessity of procuring her
liberty, proved an incitement among all her partisans to be active
in promoting her cause; and as her deliverance from captivity, it was
thought, could nowise be effected but by attempts dangerous to
the established government, Elizabeth had reason to expect little
tranquillity so long as the Scottish queen remained a prisoner in her
hands. But as this inconvenience had been preferred to the danger of
allowing that princess to enjoy her liberty, and to seek relief in
all the Catholic courts of Europe, it behoved the queen to support the
measure which she had adopted, and to guard, by every prudent expedient,
against the mischiefs to which it was exposed. She still flattered Mary
with hopes of her protection, maintained an ambiguous conduct between
that queen and her enemies in Scotland, negotiated perpetually
concerning the terms of her restoration, made constant professions of
friendship to her; and by these artifices endeavored, both to prevent
her from making any desperate efforts for her deliverance, and to
satisfy the French and Spanish ambassadors, who never intermitted their
solicitations, sometimes accompanied with menaces, in her behalf.
This deceit was received with the same deceit by the queen of Scots:
professions of confidence were returned by professions equally
insincere: and while an appearance of friendship was maintained on both
sides, the animosity and jealousy, which had long prevailed between
them, became every day more inveterate and incurable. These two
princesses, in address, capacity, activity, and spirit, were nearly a
match for each other; but unhappily, Mary, besides her present forlorn
condition, was always inferior in personal conduct and discretion, as
well as in power, to her illustrious rival.
Elizabeth and Mary wrote at the same time letters to the regent.
The queen of Scots desired, that her marriage with Bothwell might be
examined, and a divorce be legally pronounced between them. The queen of
England gave Murray the choice of three conditions; that Mary should be
restored to her dignity on certain terms; that she should be associated
with her son, and the administration remain in the regent’s hands, till
the young prince should come to years of discretion; or that she should
be allowed to live at liberty as a private person in Scotland, and
have an honorable settlement made in her favor.[*] Murray summoned a
convention of states, in order to deliberate on these proposals of the
two queens. No answer was made by them to Mary’s letter, on pretence
that she had there employed the style of a sovereign, addressing herself
to her subjects; but in reality, because they saw that her request
was calculated to prepare the way for a marriage with Norfolk, or some
powerful prince, who could support her cause, and restore her to the
throne. They replied to Elizabeth that the two former conditions were so
derogatory to the royal authority of their prince, that they could not
so much as deliberate concerning them: the third alone could be
the subject of treaty. It was evident that Elizabeth, in proposing
conditions so unequal in their importance, invited the Scots to a
refusal of those which were most advantageous to Mary; and as it was
difficult, if not impossible, to adjust all the terms of the third, so
as to render it secure and eligible to all parties, it was concluded
that she was not sincere in any of them.[**]
* MSS. in the Advocates’ Library. A. 329, p. 137, from Cott.
Lib. Catal. c. 1.
** Spotswood, p. 230, 231. Lesley, p. 71.
{1570.} It is pretended, that Murray had entered into a private
negotiation with the queen, to get Mary delivered into his hands;[*] and
as Elizabeth found the detention of her in England so dangerous, it
is probable that she would have been pleased, on any honorable or safe
terms, to rid herself of a prisoner who gave her so much inquietude.[**]
[15] But all these projects vanished by the sudden death of the regent,
who was assassinated in revenge of a private injury, by a gentleman of
the name of Hamilton. Murray was a person of considerable vigor,
abilities, and constancy; but though he was not unsuccessful, during his
regency, in composing the dissensions in Scotland, his talents shone out
more eminently in the beginning than in the end of his life. His manners
were rough and austere; and he possessed not that perfect integrity
which frequently accompanies, and can alone atone for, that unamiable
character.
By the death of the regent, Scotland relapsed into anarchy. Mary’s
party assembled together, and made themselves masters of Edinburgh. The
castle, commanded by Kirkaldy of Grange, seemed to favor her cause; and
as many of the principal nobility had embraced that party, it became
probable, though the people were in general averse to her, that her
authority might again acquire the ascendant. To check its progress,
Elizabeth despatched Sussex with an army to the north, under color of
chastising the ravages committed by the borderers. He entered Scotland,
and laid waste the lands of the Kers and Scots, seized the Castle of
Hume, and committed hostilities on all Mary’s partisans, who, he said,
had offended his mistress by harboring the English rebels. Sir William
Drury was afterwards sent with a body of troops, and he threw down
the houses of the Hamiltons, who were engaged in the same faction. The
English armies were afterwards recalled by agreement with the queen
of Scots, who promised, in return, that no French troops should
be introduced into Scotland, and that the English rebels should be
delivered up to the queen by her partisans.[***]
But though the queen, covering herself with the pretence of revenging
her own quarrel, so far contributed to support the party of the young
king of Scots, she was cautious not to declare openly against Mary;
and she even sent a request, which was equivalent to a command, to the
enemies of that princess, not to elect, during some time, a regent in
the place of Murray.[****] Lenox, the king’s grandfather, was therefore
chosen temporary governor, under the title of lieutenant.
* Camden, p. 425. Lesley, p. 83.
** See note O, at the end of the volume.
*** Lesley, p. 91.
**** Spotswood, p. 240.
Hearing afterwards that Mary’s partisans, instead of delivering up
Westmoreland and the other fugitives, as they had promised, had allowed
them to escape into Flanders, she permitted the king’s party to give
Lenox the title of regent,[*] and she sent Randolph, as her resident, to
maintain a correspondence with him. But notwithstanding this step, taken
in favor of Mary’s enemies, she never laid aside her ambiguous conduct,
nor quitted the appearance of amity to that princess. Being importuned
by the bishop of Ross and her other agents, as well as by foreign
ambassadors, she twice procured a suspension of arms between the
Scottish factions, and by that means stopped the hands of the regent,
who was likely to obtain advantages over the opposite party.[**] By
these seeming contrarieties she kept alive the factions in Scotland,
increased their mutual animosity, and rendered the whole country a scene
of devastation and of misery.[***] She had no intention to conquer the
kingdom, and consequently no interest or design to instigate the parties
against each other; but this consequence was an accidental effect of her
cautious politics, by which she was engaged, as far as possible, to
keep on good terms with the queen of Scots, and never to violate the
appearances of friendship with her, at least those of neutrality.[****]
[16]
* Spotswood, p. 241.
** Spotswood, p. 243.
*** Crawford, p. 136.
**** See note P, at the end of the volume.
The better to amuse Mary with the prospect of an accommodation, Cecil
and Sir Walter Mildmay were sent to her with proposals from Elizabeth.
The terms were somewhat rigorous, such as a captive queen might expect
from a jealous rival; and they thereby bore the greater appearance of
sincerity on the part of the English court. It was required that the
queen of Scots, besides renouncing all title to the crown of England
during the lifetime of Elizabeth, should make a perpetual league,
offensive and defensive, between the kingdoms; that she should marry no
Englishman without Elizabeth’s consent, nor any other person without the
consent of the states of Scotland; that compensation should be made for
the late ravages committed in England; that justice should be executed
on the murderers of King Henry; that the young prince should be sent
into England, to be educated there; and that six hostages, all of them
noblemen, should be delivered to the queen of England, with the Castle
of Hume, and some other fortress, for the security of performance.[*]
Such were the conditions upon which Elizabeth promised to contribute her
endeavors towards the restoration of the deposed queen. The necessity of
Mary’s affairs obliged her to consent to them; and the kings of France
and Spain, as well as the pope, when consulted by her, approved of her
conduct chiefly on account of the civil wars, by which all Europe was
at that time agitated, and which incapacitated the Catholic princes from
giving her any assistance.[**]
Elizabeth’s commissioners proposed also to Mary a plan of accommodation
with her subjects in Scotland; and after some reasoning on that head,
it was agreed that the queen should require Lenox, the regent, to send
commissioners, in order to treat of conditions under her mediation. The
partisans of Mary boasted, that all terms were fully settled with the
court of England, and that the Scottish rebels would soon be constrained
to submit to the authority of their sovereign; but Elizabeth took care
that these rumors should meet with no credit, and that the king’s party
should not be discouraged, nor sink too low in their demands. Cecil
wrote to inform the regent, that all the queen of England’s proposals,
so far from being fixed and irrevocable, were to be discussed anew in
the conference; and desired him to send commissioners who should be
constant in the king’s cause, and cautious not to make concessions which
might be prejudicial to their party.[***] Sussex, also, in his letters,
dropped hints to the same purpose; and Elizabeth herself said to the
abbot of Dunfermling, whom Lenox had sent to the court of England, that
she would not insist on Mary’s restoration, provided the Scots could
make the justice of their cause appear to her satisfaction; and that,
even if their reasons should fall short of full conviction, she would
take effectual care to provide for their future security.[****]
* Spotswood, p. 245. Lesley p. 101.
** Lesley, p. 109, etc.
*** Spotswood, p, 246.
**** Spotswood, p. 247, 248.
{1571.} The parliament of Scotland appointed the earl of Morton and Sir
James Macgill, together with the abbot of Dunfermling, to manage the
treaty. These commissioners presented memorials, containing reasons for
the deposition of their queen; and they seconded their arguments with
examples drawn from the Scottish history, with the authority of laws,
and with the sentiments of many famous divines. The lofty ideas which
Elizabeth had entertained of the absolute, indefensible right of
sovereigns, made her be shocked with these republican topics; and she
told the Scottish commissioners, that she was no wise satisfied with
their reasons for justifying the conduct of their countrymen; and that
they might therefore, without attempting any apology, proceed to open
the conditions which they required for their security.[*] They replied
that their commission did not empower them to treat of any terms which
might infringe the title and sovereignty of their young king; but they
would gladly hear whatever proposals should be made them by her majesty.
The conditions recommended by the queen were not disadvantageous
to Mary; but as the commissioners still insisted that they were not
authorized to treat in any manner concerning the restoration of that
princess,[**] the conferences were necessarily at an end; and Elizabeth
dismissed the Scottish commissioners, with injunctions that they
should return, after having procured more ample powers from their
parliament.[***] The bishop of Ross openly complained to the English
council that they had abused his mistress by fair promises and
professions; and Mary herself was no longer at a loss to judge of
Elizabeth’s insincerity. By reason of these disappointments, matters
came still nearer to extremities between the two princesses; and the
queen of Scots, finding all her hopes eluded, was more strongly incited
to make, at all hazards, every possible attempt for her liberty and
security.
An incident also happened about this time, which tended to widen the
breach between Mary and Elizabeth, and to increase the vigilance and
jealousy of the latter princess. Pope Pius V., who had succeeded Paul,
after having endeavored in vain to conciliate by gentle means the
friendship of Elizabeth, whom his predecessor’s violence had irritated,
issued at last a bull of excommunication against her, deprived her of
all title to the crown, and absolved her subjects from their oaths of
allegiance.[****]
* Spotswood, p. 248, 249.
** Haynes, p. 623.
*** Spotswood. p. 249, 250, etc. Lesley, p. 133, 136.
Camden, p, 431, 432.
**** Camden, p. 427.
It seems probable that this attack on the queen’s authority was made in
concert with Mary, who intended by that means to forward the northern
rebellion; a measure which was at that time in agitation.[*] John Felton
affixed this bull to the gates of the bishop of London’s palace; and
scorning either to fly or to deny the fact, he was seized and condemned
and received the crown of martyrdom, for which he seems to have
entertained so violent an ambition.[**]
A new parliament, after five years’ interval, was assembled at
Westminster; and as the queen, by the rage of the pope against her, was
become still more the head of the ruling party, it might be expected,
both from this incident and from her own prudent and vigorous
conduct, that her authority over the two houses would be absolutely
uncontrollable. It was so in fact; yet is it remarkable, that it
prevailed not without some small opposition; and that too arising
chiefly from the height of zeal for Protestantism; a disposition of the
English which, in general, contributed extremely to increase the queen’s
popularity. We shall be somewhat particular in relating the transactions
of this session, because they show, as well the extent of the royal
power during that age, as the character of Elizabeth, and the genius of
her government. It will be curious also to observe the faint dawn of the
spirit of liberty among the English, the jealousy with which that
spirit was repressed by the sovereign, the imperious conduct which was
maintained in opposition to it, and the ease with which it was subdued
by this arbitrary princess.
The lord keeper Bacon, after the speaker of the commons was elected,
told the parliament, in the queen’s name, that she enjoined them not to
meddle with any matters of state:[***] such was his expression; by
which he probably meant, the questions of the queen’s marriage, and the
succession, about which they had before given her some uneasiness; for
as to the other great points of government, alliances, peace and war,
or foreign negotiations, no parliament in that age ever presumed to take
them under consideration, or question, in these particulars, the conduct
of their sovereign, or of his ministers.
In the former parliament, the Puritans had introduced seven bills for a
further reformation in religion; but they had not been able to prevail
in any one of them.[****] This house of commons had sitten a very few
days, when Stricland, a member, revived one of the bills--that for the
amendment of the liturgy.[v]
* Camden, p. 441, from Cajetanus’s Life of Pius V.
** Camden, p. 428.
*** D’Ewes, p. 141.
**** D’Ewes, p. 185.
v D’Ewes p. 156, 157.
The chief objection which he mentioned, was the sign of the cross
in baptism. Another member added the kneeling at the sacrament; and
remarked, that if a posture of humiliation were requisite in that act of
devotion, it were better that the communicants should throw themselves
prostrate on the ground, in order to keep at the widest distance from
former superstition.[*]
Religion was a point of which Elizabeth was, if possible, still more
jealous than of matters of state. She pretended, that in quality of
supreme head or governor of the church, she was fully empowered, by her
prerogative alone, to decide all questions which might arise with regard
to doctrine, discipline, or worship; and she never would allow her
parliaments so much as to take these points into consideration.[**] The
courtiers did not forget to insist on this topic: the treasurer of
the household, though he allowed that any heresy might be repressed by
parliament, (a concession which seems to have been rash and unguarded,
since the act investing the crown with the supremacy, or rather
recognizing that prerogative, gave the sovereign full power to reform
all heresies,) yet he affirmed, that it belonged to the queen alone,
as head of the church, to regulate every question of ceremony in
worship.[***] The comptroller seconded this argument; insisted on the
extent of the queen’s prerogative; and said that the house might, from
former examples, have taken warning not to meddle with such matters. One
Pistor opposed these remonstrances of the courtiers. He was scandalized,
he said, that affairs of such infinite consequence (namely, kneeling,
and making the sign of the cross) should be passed over so lightly.
These questions, he added, concern the salvation of souls, and interest
every one more deeply than the monarchy of the whole world. This cause
he showed to be the cause of God; the rest were all but terrene, yea,
trifles in comparison, call them ever so great: subsidies, crowns,
kingdoms, he knew not what weight they had, when laid in the balance
with subjects of such unspeakable importance.[****] Though the zeal of
this member seems to have been approved of, the house, overawed by
the prerogative, voted upon the question, that a petition should be
presented to her majesty for her license to proceed further in this
bill; and in the mean time that they should stop all debate or reasoning
concerning it.[v]
* D’Ewes, p. 167.
** D’Ewes, p. 158.
*** D’Ewes, p. 166.
**** D’Ewes, p. 166.
v D’Ewes, p. 167.
Matters would probably have rested here, had not the queen been so
highly offended with Stricland’s presumption in moving the bill for
reformation of the liturgy, that she summoned him before the council,
and prohibited him thenceforth from appearing in the house of
commons.[*] This act of power was too violent even for the submissive
parliament to endure. Carleton took notice of the matter; complained
that the liberties of the house were invaded; observed that Stricland
was not a private man, but represented a multitude: and moved that he
might be sent for, and if he were guilty of any offence, might answer
for it at the bar of the house, which he insinuated to be the only
competent tribunal.[**] Yelverton enforced the principles of liberty
with still greater boldness. He said, that the precedent was dangerous;
and though, in this happy time of lenity, among so many good and
honorable personages as were at present invested with authority, nothing
of extremity or injury was to be apprehended, yet the times might alter;
what now is permitted, might hereafter be construed as duty, and might
be enforced even on the ground of the present permission. He added, that
all matters not treasonable, or which implied not “too much” derogation
of the imperial crown, might, without offence, be introduced into
parliament; where every question that concerned the community must be
considered, and where even the right of the crown itself must finally be
determined. He remarked, that men sat not in that house in their private
capacities, but as elected by their country; and though it was proper
that the prince should retain his prerogative, yet was that prerogative
limited by law: as the sovereign could not of himself make laws, neither
could he break them merely from his own authority.[***]
* D’Ewes, p. 175.
** D’Ewes, p. 175.
*** D’Ewes, p. 175, 176.
These principles were popular, and noble, and generous; but the open
assertion of them was, at this time, somewhat new in England; and the
courtiers were more warranted by present practice, when they advanced
a contrary doctrine. The treasurer warned the house to be cautious in
their proceedings; neither to venture further than their assured warrant
might extend, nor hazard their good opinion with her majesty in any
doubtful cause. The member, he said, whose attendance they required,
was not restrained on account of any liberty of speech, but for his
exhibiting a bill in the house against the prerogative of the queen; a
temerity which was not to be tolerated. And he concluded with observing,
that even speeches made in that house had been questioned and examined
by the sovereign.[*] Cleere, another member, remarked, that the
sovereign’s prerogative is not so much as disputable, and that the
safety of the queen is the safety of the subject. He added, that in
questions of divinity, every man was for his instruction to repair to
his ordinary; and he seems to insinuate, that the bishops themselves,
for their instruction, must repair to the queen.[**] Fleetwood observed,
that in his memory, he knew a man who, in the fifth of the present
queen, had been called to account for a speech in the house. But lest
this example should be deemed too recent, he would inform them, from the
parliament rolls, that, in the reign of Henry V., a bishop was committed
to prison by the king’s command, on account of his freedom of speech;
and the parliament presumed not to go further than to be humble suitors
for him: in the subsequent reign, the speaker himself was committed,
with another member; and the house found no other remedy than a like
submissive application. He advised the house to have recourse to the
same expedient, and not to presume either to send for their member, or
demand him as of right.[***] During this speech, those members of the
privy council who sat in the house whispered together; upon which
the speaker moved that the house should make stay of all further
proceedings: a motion which was immediately complied with. The queen,
finding that the experiment which she had made was likely to excite a
great ferment, saved her honor by this silence of the house; and lest
the question might be resumed, she sent next day to Stricland her
permission to give his attendance in parliament.[****]
* D’Ewes, p. 175.
** D’Ewes, p. 175.
*** D’Ewes, p. 176.
**** D’Ewes, p. 176.
Notwithstanding this rebuke from the throne, the zeal of the commons
still engaged them to continue the discussion of those other bills which
regarded religion; but they were interrupted by a still more arbitrary
proceeding of the queen, in which the lords condescended to be her
instruments. This house sent a message to the commons, desiring that
a committee might attend them. Some members were appointed for that
purpose; and the upper house informed them, that the queen’s majesty,
being informed of the articles of reformation which they had canvassed,
approved of them, intended to publish them, and to make the bishops
execute them by virtue of her royal authority, as supreme head of the
church of England; but that she would not permit them to be treated
of in parliament.[*] The house, though they did not entirely stop
proceedings on account of this injunction, seem to have been nowise
offended at such haughty treatment; and in the issue, all the bills came
to nothing.
A motion made by Robert Bell, a Puritan, against an exclusive patent
granted to a company of merchants in Bristol,[**] gave also occasion to
several remarkable incidents. The queen, some days after the motion was
made, sent orders, by the mouth of the speaker, commanding the house
to spend little time in motions, and to avoid long speeches. All the
members understood that she had been offended, because a matter had been
moved which seemed to touch her prerogative.[***] Fleetwood accordingly
spoke of this delicate subject. He observed, that the queen had a
prerogative of granting patents; that to question the validity of any
patent was to invade the royal prerogative; that all foreign trade
was entirely subjected to the pleasure of the sovereign; that even the
statute which gave liberty of commerce, admitted of all prohibitions
from the crown; and that the prince, when he granted an exclusive
patent, only employed the power vested in him, and prohibited all others
from dealing in any particular branch of commerce. He quoted the clerk
of the parliament’s book to prove, that no man might speak in parliament
of the statute of wills, unless the king first gave license; because the
royal prerogative in the wards was thereby touched. He showed, likewise,
the statutes of Edward I., Edward III., and Henry IV., with a saving of
the prerogative. And in Edward VI.’s time, the protector was applied to
for his allowance to mention matters of prerogative.[****]
* D’Ewes, p. 180, 185.
** D’Ewes, p. 185.
*** D’Ewes, p. 159.
**** D’Ewes, p. 160.
Sir Humphrey Gilbert, the gallant and renowned sea adventurer, carried
these topics still further. He endeavored to prove the motion made by
Bell to be a vain device, and perilous to be treated of; since it tended
to the derogation of the prerogative imperial, which whoever should
attempt so much as in fancy, could not, he said, be otherwise accounted
than an open enemy. For what difference is there between saying, that
the queen is not to use the privilege of the crown and saying, that she
is not queen? And though experience has shown so much clemency in her
majesty, as might, perhaps, make subjects forget their duty, it is not
good to sport or venture too much with princes. He reminded them of the
fable of the hare, who, upon the proclamation that all horned beasts
should depart the court, immediately fled, lest his ears should be
construed to be horns; and by this apologue he seems to insinuate, that
even those who heard or permitted such dangerous speeches, would not
themselves be entirely free from danger. He desired them to beware, lest
if they meddled further with these matters, the queen might look to
her own power; and finding herself able to suppress their challenged
liberty, and to exert an arbitrary authority, might imitate the example
of Lewis XI. of France, who, as he termed it, delivered the crown from
wardship.[*]
Though this speech gave some disgust, nobody, at the time, replied any
thing, but that Sir Humphrey mistook the meaning of the house, and of
the member who made the motion: they never had any other purpose, than
to represent their grievances, in due and seemly form, unto her majesty.
But in a subsequent debate, Peter Wentworth, a man of a superior free
spirit, called that speech an insult on the house; noted Sir Humphrey’s
disposition to flatter and fawn on the prince; compared him to the
chameleon, which can change itself into all colors, except white; and
recommended to the house a due care of liberty of speech, and of the
privileges of parliament.[**]
* D’Ewes, p. 168.
** D’Ewes, p. 175.
It appears, on the whole, that the motion against the exclusive patent
had no effect. Bell, the member who first introduced it, was sent for by
the council, and was severely reprimanded for his temerity. He returned
to the house with such an amazed countenance, that all the members, well
informed of the reason, were struck with terror; and during some time no
one durst rise to speak of any matter of importance, for fear of giving
offence to the queen and council. Even after the fears of the commons
were somewhat abated, the members spoke with extreme precaution; and
by employing most of their discourse in preambles and apologies, they
showed their conscious terror of the rod which hung over them. Wherever
any delicate point was touched, though ever so gently; nay, seemed to
be approached, though at ever so great a distance; the whisper ran about
the house, “The queen will be offended; the council will be extremely
displeased:” and by these surmises men were warned of the danger to
which they exposed themselves. It is remarkable that the patent, which
the queen defended with such imperious violence, was contrived for the
profit of four courtiers, and was attended with the utter ruin of seven
or eight thousand of her industrious subjects.[*]
Thus every thing which passed the two houses was extremely respectful
and submissive; yet did the queen think it incumbent on her, at the
conclusion of the session, to check and that with great severity, those
feeble efforts of liberty which had appeared in the motions and speeches
of some members. The lord keeper told the commons, in her majesty’s
name, that though the majority of the lower house had shown themselves
in their proceedings discreet and dutiful, yet a few of them had
discovered a contrary character, and had justly merited the reproach of
audacious, arrogant, and presumptuous: contrary to their duty, both as
subjects and parliament men; nay, contrary to the express injunctions
given them from the throne at the beginning of the session; injunctions
which it might well become them to have better attended to; they had
presumed to call in question her majesty’s grants and prerogatives. But
her majesty warns them, that since they thus wilfully forget themselves,
they are otherwise to be admonished: some other species of correction
must be found for them; since neither the commands of her majesty,
nor the example of their wiser brethren, can reclaim their audacious,
arrogant, and presumptuous folly, by which they are thus led to meddle
with what nowise belongs to them, and what lies beyond the compass of
their understanding.[**]
* D’Ewes, p. 242.
** D’Ewes, p. 151
In all these transactions appears clearly the opinion which Elizabeth
had entertained of the duty and authority of parliaments. They were not
to canvass any matters of state; still less were they to meddle with the
church. Questions of either kind were far above their reach, and were
appropriated to the prince alone, or to those councils and ministers
with whom he was pleased to intrust them. What then was the office of
parliaments? They might give directions for the due tanning of leather,
or milling of cloth; for the preservation of pheasants and partridges;
for the reparation of bridges and highways; for the punishment of
vagabonds or common beggars. Regulations concerning the police of the
country came properly under their inspection; and the laws of this
kind which they prescribed, had, if not a greater, yet a more durable
authority, than those which were derived solely from the proclamations
of the sovereign. Precedents or reports could fix a rule for decisions
in private property, or the punishment of crimes; but no alteration or
innovation in the municipal law could proceed from any other source than
the parliament; nor would the courts of justice be induced to change
their established practice by an order of council. But the most
acceptable part of parliamentary proceedings was the granting of
subsidies; the attainting and punishing of the obnoxious nobility, or
any minister of state after his fall; the countenancing of such great
efforts of power, as might be deemed somewhat exceptionable, when they
proceeded entirely from the sovereign. The redress of grievances were
sometimes promised to the people; but seldom could have place, while it
was an established rule, that the prerogatives of the crown must not
be abridged, or so much as questioned and examined in parliament.
Even though monopolies and exclusive companies had already reached an
enormous height, and were every day increasing to the destruction of all
liberty, and extinction of all industry, it was criminal in a member
to propose, in the most dutiful and regular manner, a parliamentary
application against any of them.
These maxims of government were not kept secret by Elizabeth, nor
smoothed over by any fair appearances or plausible pretences. They
were openly avowed in her speeches and messages to parliament; and
were accompanied with all the haughtiness, nay, sometimes bitterness of
expression, which the meanest servant could look for from his offended
master. Yet, notwithstanding this conduct, Elizabeth continued to be the
most popular sovereign that ever swayed the sceptre of England; because
the maxims of her reign were conformable to the principles of the
times, and to the opinion generally entertained with regard to the
constitution. The continued encroachments of popular assemblies on
Elizabeth’s successors have so changed our ideas in these matters, that
the passages above mentioned appear to us extremely curious, and even,
at first, surprising; but they were so little remarked, during the
time, that neither Camden, though a contemporary writer, nor any other
historian, has taken any notice of them. So absolute, indeed, was the
authority of the crown, that the precious spark of liberty had been
kindled, and was preserved, by the Puritans alone; and it was to this
sect, whose principles appear so frivolous, and habits so ridiculous,
that the English owe the whole freedom of their constitution. Actuated
by that zeal which belongs to innovators, and by the courage which
enthusiasm inspires, they hazarded the utmost indignation of their
sovereign, and employing all their industry to be elected into
parliament,--a matter not difficult while a seat was rather regarded
as a burden than an advantage--they first acquired a majority in that
assembly, and then obtained an ascendent over the church and monarchy.
The following were the principal laws enacted this session. It was
declared treason, during the lifetime of the queen, to affirm that she
was not the lawful sovereign, or that any other possessed a preferable
title, or that she was a heretic, schismatic, or infidel, or that the
laws and statutes cannot limit and determine the right of the crown and
the successor thereof: to maintain, in writing or printing, that any
person, except the “natural issue” of her body, is, or ought to be, the
queen’s heir or successor, subjected the person and all his abettors,
for the first offence, to imprisonment during a year, and to the
forfeiture of half their goods: the second offence subjected them to
the penalty of a præmunire.[*] This law was plainly levelled against the
queen of Scots and her partisans; and implied an avowal, that Elizabeth
never intended to declare her successor. It may be noted, that the usual
phrase of “lawful issue,” which the parliament thought indecent towards
the queen, as if she could be supposed to have any other, was changed
into that of “natural issue.” But this alteration was the source of
pleasantry during the time; and some suspected a deeper design, as
if Leicester intended, in case of the queen’s demise, to produce some
bastard of his own, and affirm that he was her offspring.[**]
* 13 Eliz. c. I.
** Camden, p. 436.
It appeared this session, that a bribe of four pounds had
been given to a mayor for a seat in parliament. D’Ewes, p.
181. It is probable that the member had no other view than
the privilege of being free from arrests.
It was also enacted, that whosoever by bulls should publish absolutions
or other rescripts of the pope, or should, by means of them, reconcile
any man to the church of Rome, such offenders, as well as those who were
so reconciled, should be guilty of treason. The penalty of a præmunire
was imposed on every one who imported any Agnus Dei, crucifix, or such
other implement of superstition, consecrated by the pope.[*] The former
laws against usury were enforced by a new statute.[**] A supply of one
subsidy and two fifteenths was granted by parliament. The queen, as she
was determined to yield to them none of her power, was very cautious in
asking them for any supply. She endeavored, either by a rigid frugality
to make her ordinary revenues suffice for the necessities of the crown,
or she employed her prerogative, and procured money by the granting of
patents, monopolies, or by some such ruinous expedient.
* 13 Eliz. c. 2.
** 13 Eliz. c. 8.
Though Elizabeth possessed such uncontrolled authority over her
parliaments, and such extensive influence over her people; though,
during a course of thirteen years, she had maintained the public
tranquillity, which was only interrupted by the hasty and ill-concerted
insurrection in the north; she was still kept in great anxiety, and felt
her throne perpetually totter under her. The violent commotions excited
in France and the Low Countries, as well as in Scotland, seemed in one
view to secure her against any disturbance; but they served, on more
reflection, to instruct her in the danger of her situation, when
she remarked that England, no less than these neighboring countries,
contained the seeds of intestine discord; the differences of religious
opinion, and the furious intolerance and animosity of the opposite
sectaries.
The league, formed at Bayonne in 1566, for the extermination of the
Protestants, had not been concluded so secretly but intelligence of it
had reached Condé, Coligny, and the other leaders of the Hugonots; and
finding that the measures of the court agreed with their suspicions,
they determined to prevent the cruel perfidy of their enemies, and
to strike a blow before the Catholics were aware of the danger. The
Hugonots, though dispersed over the whole kingdom, formed a kind of
separate empire; and being closely united, as well by their religious
zeal as by the dangers to which they were perpetually exposed, they
obeyed with entire submission the orders of their leaders, and were
ready on every signal to fly to arms. The king and queen mother
were living in great security at Monceaux, in Brie, when they found
themselves surrounded by Protestant troops, which had secretly marched
thither from all quarters; and had not a body of Swiss come speedily to
their relief, and conducted them with great intrepidity to Paris,
they must have fallen, without resistance, into the hands of the
malecontents. A battle was afterwards fought in the plains of St.
Denis; where, though the old constable, Montmorency, the general of the
Catholics, was killed combating bravely at the head of his troops, the
Hugonots were finally defeated. Condé, collecting his broken forces and
receiving a strong reënforcement from the German Protestants, appeared
again in the field; and laying siege to Chartres, a place of great
importance, obliged the court to agree to a new accommodation.
So great was the mutual animosity of those religionists, that even had
the leaders on both sides been ever so sincere in their intentions for
peace, and reposed ever so much confidence in each other, it would have
been difficult to retain the people in tranquillity; much more where
such extreme jealousy prevailed, and where the court employed every
pacification as a snare for their enemies. A plan was laid for seizing
the person of the prince and admiral; who narrowly escaped to Rochelle,
and summoned their partisans to their assistance.[*]
* Davila, lib. iv.
The civil wars were renewed with greater fury than ever, and the parties
became still more exasperated against each other. The young duke of
Anjou, brother to the king, commanded the forces of the Catholics; and
fought in 1569, a great battle at Jarnac with the Hugonots, where the
prince of Condé was killed, and his army defeated. This discomfiture,
with the loss of so great a leader, reduced not the Hugonots to despair.
The admiral still supported the cause; and having placed at the head of
the Protestants the prince of Navarre, then sixteen years of age, and
the young prince of Condé, he encouraged the party rather to perish
bravely in the field, than ignominiously by the hands of the
executioner. He collected such numbers, so determined to endure every
extremity, that he was enabled to make head against the duke of Anjou;
and being strengthened by a new reënforcement of Germans, he obliged
that prince to retreat and to divide his forces.
Coligny then laid siege to Poietiers; and as the eyes of all France were
fixed on this enterprise, the duke of Guise, emulous of the renown which
his father had acquired by the defence of Metz, threw himself into the
place, and so animated the garrison by his valor and conduct, that the
admiral was obliged to raise the siege. Such was the commencement of
that unrivalled fame and grandeur afterwards attained by this duke of
Guise. The attachment which all the Catholics had borne to his father,
was immediately transferred to the son; and men pleased themselves in
comparing all the great and shining qualities which seemed, in a manner,
hereditary in that family. Equal in affability, in munificence, in
address, in eloquence, and in every quality which engages the affections
of men; equal also in valor, in conduct, in enterprise, in capacity;
there seemed only this difference between them, that the son, educated
in more turbulent times, and finding a greater dissolution of all law
and order, exceeded the father in ambition and temerity, and was engaged
in enterprises still more destructive to the authority of his sovereign,
and to the repose of his native country.
Elizabeth, who kept her attention fixed on the civil commotions of
France, was nowise pleased with this new rise of her enemies, the
Guises; and being anxious for the fate of the Protestants,
whose interests were connected with her own,[*] she was engaged,
notwithstanding her aversion from all rebellion, and from all opposition
to the will of the sovereign, to give them secretly some assistance.
Besides employing her authority with the German princes, she lent money
to the queen of Navarre, and received some jewels as pledges for the
loan. And she permitted Henry Champernon to levy, and transport over
into France, a regiment of a hundred gentlemen volunteers; among whom
Walter Raleigh, then a young man, began to distinguish himself, in that
great school of military valor.[**]
* Haynes, p. 471.
** Camden, p. 423.