letter of this pope, printed by Romish historians, show that he was a murderer; that he urged others to deeds of blood, and thus sought to forward the work of his 'father the devil."

66

In one letter, this pope rebuked a commander, because he had not put to death, or "murdered," using the very word, a Huguenot commander, taken prisoner by his troops!

In 1569, the pope sent Nicholas Norton, with authority to declare privately to some of the English nobility who still professed the Romish faith, that Elizabeth was a heretic, and that they were not bound to obey her. In February, 1570, a papal bull was published, in which Pius declared Elizabeth to be a slave of wickedness, and a pretended queen, deprived her of her kingdom, absolved all her subjects from their allegiance, forbade any one to obey her laws, and declared all who should act contrary to the papal decrees liable to the same severities. Among other charges was one which Turner, who gives a full account of this papal conspiracy, justly points out as a valuable testimony to the character and practice of Elizabeth it denounced her for affording refuge to the persecuted of other lands. This has repeatedly been the glory of Britain, and truly may it be said, that the land has been blessed in that deed.

Much light has been of late years thrown upon the real history of Elizabeth's reign, by documents published by Romanists themselves, many of which were long neglected by historians, others have been recently brought forward. The biographer of Pius v. has left statements, showing the extent to which his machinations against this illustrious princess were carried. The pope gave regular pay to many of the English nobility and gentry; he sent pecuniary aid and counsel to the supporters of Mary in Scotland; he animated the English papists to rebel against Elizabeth, and to plot her deposition, with a view of placing Mary on the throne, even recommending them "to take off" her

whom he stigmatized as "the slave of wickedness." This evidently sanctioned designs for the death of Elizabeth. To forward these plans, a Florentine named Ridolfi often visited England as a merchant. The despatches of the French ambassador at this period notice Ridolfi as having charge and commandment from the pope in person, to treat with the English Roman Catholic noblemen for the restoration of the Roman Catholic religion.

This conspiracy of the popish powers had begun to be acted upon before May, 1568, when Mary Stuart took refuge in England. Considerable embarrassment was caused by her arrival: several councillors of Elizabeth, at the moment, wished that she would leave the kingdom, and for some weeks she had the opportunity to do so. But further consideration plainly showed the difficulties in which the question was involved on every side. To allow her to remain in England, free from restraint, would afford many advantages for carrying into effect the papal conspiracy to place Mary on the English throne. The heavy charges against her moral character increased the difficulty. By treating Mary with regal honours as a fugitive queen, Elizabeth would declare herself convinced of Mary's innocence, or countenance her crimes if she were proved guilty. If Mary were compelled to return to Scotland, that would excite a civil warfare, and be considered as betraying her into the hands of her enemies. Should she be allowed to seek an asylum in France or Spain, it would place within the control of the members of the papal conspiracy, a powerful instrument for the furtherance of their designs, while it would subject Scotland to the horrors of foreign invasion, in addition to those of civil warfare, and open a way for the pope's confederates to attack England. Nor was Elizabeth in the situation of a private individual. Upon the decision of her government in this matter rested the lives and fortunes, not only of the great majority of her own subjects, but those of the

Protestants of Europe in general. It was plain that the life and power of Elizabeth were the great supports of Protestantism, and her duties and responsibility were thereby increased. There cannot be a greater mistake than to consider the differences between Mary Stuart and Elizabeth merely as a quarrel between two rival queens. They were rivals, but their quarrel was heightened and rendered deadly by the vast interests in which they were involved; from their political, and not from their personal situations.

Under these conflicting circumstances, what course was the government of Elizabeth to pursue? Had the case been reversed, there can be little doubt what the papists would have done. The punishment of an illegitimate pretender to a crown would have been summary; such they considered the daughter of Henry VIII. to be. Philip did not scruple to seize the son of the prince of Orange, when a student at the university of Louvain, and detained him prisoner in Spain twentyeight years, because his father pleaded for the rights of his Protestant countrymen. But Elizabeth chose to meet the incoveniencies of her position, rather than to seek to remove a rival by unlawful means. Had she not felt compassion for Mary, she might have driven her back to Scotland; her fate there would have been certain.

She

The character of Mary Stuart also must be taken into consideration. She is thus described by sir Francis Knollys, one of the councillors sent to her at Carlisle : "This lady and princess is a notable woman. seemeth to regard no ceremonious honour beside the acknowledging of her regal state. She showeth a disposition to speak much, to be bold, to be pleasant, and to be very familiar. She showeth a great desire to be avenged of her enemies; she showeth a readiness to expose herself to all perils in hope of victory. The thing she most thirsteth after is victory, and it seemeth to be indifferent to her to have her enemies diminished either by the sword of her friends, or by the liberal

66

promises and rewards of her purse, or by divisions and quarrels raised among themselves: so that for victory's sake, pain and perils seemed pleasant to her, and in respect of victory, wealth and all things seem to her contemptuous and vile." It is plain that by victory Knollys meant revenge; and well might he add, "Now what is to be done with such a lady and princess, or whether such a lady and princess be to be nourished in one's bosom, or whether it be good to halt and dissemble with such a lady, I refer to your judgment." We have seen Mary's thirst after revenge while in Scotland; and on more than one occasion while there, she assumed the arms and clothing of a man, desiring to head her troops herself. The Mary Stuart of history was a very different being from the gentle, lovely, feminine character, delineated by the authors of romances, and the apologists for her vices and crimes.

Cecil, to whom this appeal was made, saw the difficulty, but did not hesitate to meet it. His views on the subject were expressed in a paper dated June 20. That she ought to be helped, having come to England of her own accord, trusting to receive aid. That she had not been lawfully condemned, and that she had offered to clear herself of the crimes laid to her charge, if allowed access to Elizabeth; and that she brought charges against her subjects who had deposed her. But, on the other hand, that she was, by the general voice of her subjects, charged with participating in the murder of her husband, and with protecting the murderer from the law. She had procured Bothwell to be divorced from his lawful wife, and had herself married him, and protected him from those who would have called him to account for his evil deeds. Surely this was not an unfair view of the subject; yet Cecil has been misrepresented as being an enemy of Mary from her childhood.

Mary demanded either to be reinstated in her power, by assistance from England, or to be allowed to proceed to France. It was not right to do the first, till she had

cleared herself from the strong appearances of guilt, and had shown that she would not act treacherously in return for such service. It was not safe to permit her to engage France to aid an invasion of Scotland, which must lead to war with England, and be most injurious to both nations.

Mary's residence at Carlisle proved objectionable; her subjects being allowed freely to resort to her, so many came as to endanger that important border fortress. If she continued there, she must have been subjected to more personal restraint than Elizabeth desired, or than would be needful in a place further south. It was therefore proposed that she should remove to Tutbury, a large mansion in Staffordshire; but Mary being averse to proceed so far inland, Bolton Castle, in Yorkshire, was fixed upon for her residence, to which she went about July 16. Here she could be detained, and yet enjoy freedom from personal restraint; she hunted and amused herself as she pleased, under the care of those appointed to attend her.

Finding that Elizabeth would not engage in warfare with the Scots, to replace her on the throne, as matters then stood, Mary desired that the Scottish nobles, her accusers, might be sent for, to state before some of the English nobility on what grounds they had deposed her. She sought at this time to gain Elizabeth to favour her cause, by attending the Protestant worship, and pretending to be inclined to favour that faith. Elizabeth consented to her request for an investigation, determining to take no active part in the inquiry, but to reserve any decision, or further proceedings, till she heard what was brought forward.

The duke of Norfolk, the earl of Sussex, and sir Ralph Sadler, were the commissioners appointed by Elizabeth. The earl of Murray, with other Scottish nobles, appeared before them early in October; but the proceedings were soon involved in difficulty by the treacherous conduct of the duke of Norfolk. He desired to marry the Scottish queen, therefore wishing