other prominent Puritan clergy were on trial in the Star-Chamber, it was deposed by certain other Puritans in their behalf, "That the defendants have disallowed the immodest and scandalous writings of Martin."1 2 We might suppose that the testimony which we have thus displayed would be sufficiently clear and creditable to give satisfaction; at least sufficient to show that "the great Puritan leaders, when these tracts first appeared, spoke of them with deep dissatisfaction." But we regret to say that it is not so. We regret to find that a modern Churchman can yet aver-whether blindly or perversely we assume not that the chief Puritans were consenting to "the experiment" of Martin, and took no dislike to it "until dislike was produced by fear that their experiment was about to fail, that it had overreached the mark and had disgusted men." We regret that he "does not remember that any disapproval was plainly expressed at the time by the Puritan leaders"; that he can only remember that "they disclaimed Martin after, before the Council-board, with the terrors in the distance of the Tower and the rack, or before the Court of High Commission.” 3 This is only saying, that such men as Cartwright, Udal, and Penry- who were among the most distinguished of their day as scholars, as Christians, as Christian noblemen and Christian heroes were double-faced timeservers; that before tribunals they were craven, and that they there stated what they knew to be false touching matters of fact. We 1 Strype's Whitgift, Appendix, p. 166. * Marsden, 198. are sorry to find that at this day- when the prejudices and antipathies of olden times have seemingly become obsolete, and the jaundiced vision of ecclesiasticism hale, when the Bishop of London, his Grace of Canterbury, and the queen herself, are manifesting the most catholic spirit towards dissenters - even one can be found so tainted with the spirit of bygone controversy, or so ignorant of historical records, as to publish such statements to the world.1 We should have done the Puritans wrong had we shrunk from an ample exhibition of Martin's scurrility. We should have failed to show how great is the stigma which has been attached to their name as originators or approvers of his books. We trust we have made it appear that in no degree, and at no time, were the Puritan leaders or the Puritans as a body responsible for his pen. If we have failed, it has not been for lack of witnesses. 1 If I have been moved to heat, as I certainly have to a course of remark beyond my wont, yet I am sure that to do Mr. Maskell justice requires a power of language of which I am not master. I have not treated him as he treats Mr. Neal, by saying that his words "prove either his utter ignorance or his wilful lying," because I think such an opinion uncharitable and such language indecorous. But I am confident that I have not unfairly represented what Mr. Maskell says. On p. 216 he adds, "It is acknowledged that the Martin Mar-prelate tracts were connived at by the leaders of the Puritan party." We have a right to ask,- When ? Where? By whom? After the evidence which I have brought forward in the text, it is unnecessary to remark upon the statements of D'Israeli, "Quarrels of authors," 512, note, 518 note. It is often charged upon the Puritans, that they chose "to scatter their scandalous pamphlets" just when the nation were threatened by the powerful forces of Spain; and that they thus lost the friendship of Leicester and Walsingham. (E. g. Collier, VII. 74.) Yet Leicester had died, and the Spanish forces had been shattered into fragments several weeks before Martin's first tract appeared. 1 We believe Martin when he says, "I am alone. No man under heaven is privy, or hath been privy, unto my writings against you." We also believe him when he says, "Whosoever Martin is, neither thou nor any man or woman in England shall know while you live, suspect and trouble as many as you will."2 We believe him, because the experiment in which he was engaged involved too great a risk to admit of partnership or confidant, for we think that, had he been discovered, he would have suffered, not the death of a felon, but the awful penalty of a traitor. We believe him, because, notwithstanding the vigorous efforts for his detection, his identity has never been proved, never even indicated. This it is hard to account for, unless, indeed, he wrought alone, and made nor man nor woman his confidant. have cited plausible evidence that he was not a minister, and that he was not a Puritan, we mean in distinction from a Brownist. Further we cannot go. With himself died his secret. Martin Mar-prelate remains a mystery. "STAT NOMINIS UMBRA." 1 "Hay any Work for Cooper," 41, 42. 2 Ibid., 12. We CHAPTER VIII. THE PARLIAMENT OF 1588-9. - THE NATION RESTORED TO QUIET. THE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT. · ABUSES OF PUR - A VEYANCE AND IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER. BILLS AGAINST THEM. COMMITTEE TO JUSTIFY THE BILLS TO HER MAJESTY AND TO URGE HER ALLOWANCE OF THEM.- HER REPLY.· CONFERENCES UPON THESE ABUSES BETWEEN THE LORDS AND THE COMMONS. -MOTION AGAINST GRIEVANCES IN THE CHURCH. RETAINED AND RETURNED BY THE SPEAKER. BILL AGAINST PLURALITIES. DEBATE UPON IT IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.-PARLIAMENT DISSOLVED. - REMARKS UPON THEIR PROCEEDINGS. THE camp at Tilbury had been broken up. The troops under command of Lord Hunsdon had been disbanded. The armed ships had been moored and dismantled. "The Heart of the Court"-"that terrestrial Lucifer" - had been sent foully to his account. The queen, shedding a few hasty tears, had ordered the public sale of his goods to meet the claims of her exchequer;1 and his Countess was already preparing for her nuptials with her reputed paramour.2 The pulse of the nation, so lately throbbing with martial fervor, had subsided to its natural tone; and the voice of the nation had rendered its joyous anthem of praise. In the month of August, the queen had reassembled her Court at St. James's, whence, after a grand military review by way of welcome, she had retired to her manor at Richmond.1 From the peasant to the prince, all had exchanged the harness of war for their ordinary garb; and each rill of life throughout the land had resumed its wonted and peaceful flow. Her Majesty remained at her favorite retreat until the thirtieth day of January, 1588-9, when she returned to Westminster to be in readiness for the assembling of a new Parliament. She came in the evening, that she might give opportunity for one of those gay welcomes often mentioned in the annals of her reign, when the mayor, aldermen, and commoners of her city of London would come out on horseback, wearing velvet coats and golden chains, to escort her by torchlight to her palace.2 On the fourth day of February, with all that public pomp which we have before described, she proceeded to the chamber of the House of Lords to open her Parliament. Sir Thomas Bromley, the late Lord Chancellor, had deceased on the twentyninth day of April, 1587, and the Great Seal had been immediately transferred to the custody of Sir Christopher Hatton. At the opening of the Parliament he stated that there was every reason to look for another hostile expedition from the king of Spain; and that therefore to the assembly of the wisest of the kingdom the question was now submitted, what ways and means should be provided for the com 1 Stow, 750, 751. 2 Ibid., 751. & Ante, Vol. I. pp. 371-373. * D'Ewes, 419. |