-a

Sir Richard Baker, in his "Chronicle," has recorded a reply made by her extempore to those who questioned her concerning the doctrine of the real presence. This subject, he says, was "the common net at that time for catching Protestants' snare most difficult to escape. The question was asked, “What did she think of the words of Christ, This is my body'? Did it mean that the true body of Christ was in the sacrament ?" She replied:

6

"Christ was the Word that spake it,

He took the bread and brake it;
And what the Word did make it,
That I believe, and take it."

This prudent and cautious reply, at so early an age, speaks the existence of those brilliant talents which, when matured, she exerted with so much success for the welfare of her kingdom. Her first great step as Queen was to restore the reformed religion, for the accomplishment of which she had recourse to means the most judicious and gentle. And we are compelled to admire her boldness and determination in resolving on so important a measure, when she viewed so many considerations tempting her to adopt the opposite policy. Her consistency on this point is sufficiently proved by her refusal of the offer of marriage made her by the Duke of Anjou, who although, as is evident, was even more than acceptable as far as personal considerations are concerned, yet, being a Catholic, she wisely determined to reject him, rather than risk the chance of disturbance to the tranquillity of her subjects. The violent projects set on foot against her, the hatred extended towards her by the faction of the Guises on account of her support of the Huguenots, and the repeated attempts of Pius to upset her rule, dismayed her not; and while with a steady fixedness of purpose she carried out her plans, we must admire the vigilance and foresight with which, when all Europe was in commotion, she quelled all symptoms of disaffection among her own people, and for a long series of years prevented the embroilment of England in the continental quarrels.

It has been said, that, in her general conduct towards the people, as more especially manifested in her treatment of her parliaments, she exceeded the bounds of moderation, and infringed upon those liberties of the subject which are ever to be held sacred; but we think it was not then the idea of trespassing or infringing on the liberty of the subject, which led Elizabeth to treat, we concede, with perhaps a too imperious hand the people, as represented by the parliament, but rather the conviction that it was her duty to transmit unimpaired and unclipped to her successors the full prerogative as received from her predecessors, and which she considered to be one of the unalterable principles of the constitution. The same views were

held by the parliament, as we may discover from the course pursued on several occasions, especially from the debates on the question of monopolies, when the question of the extent of the royal prerogative seems to have been freely discussed. Neither do we find in contemporary writers any opinion expressed that she had infringed the rights of her people. In Shakspere we can find no mention of civil liberty. Camden, the first volume of whose history of her reign appeared in 1615, twelve years after her death, and whose character for integrity and truthspeaking has made him esteemed by the learned of all nations, takes no notice of the rebukes administered to the parliament by Elizabeth as being at all at variance with their privileges. He records a saying of hers, to prove her affection for the people, viz., that "she would lend credit to nothing against them which parents would not believe of their own children." We think, then, that we may safely acquit her of all designs on the liberty of the people.

Her desire to maintain the former existing relations with foreign powers is of an analogous nature with her home policy. In the offers of sovereignty made her by the Netherlands there was a temptation held out which few would have resisted. Yet was she so firmly determined in following out the policy of maintaining the tranquillity and happiness of her own realm, rather than of acquiring increased dominion, as at once to refuse them. And her rejection arose not from motives of parsimony, as some would assert, as on their second application in 1585 we find her affording them such substantial aid (refusing, at the same time, the proffered throne) as to bring down on her the whole power of the enraged Philip, and thus, to quote Camden's report of the King of Sweden's opinion of her decision, "she had taken the diadem from her head, and ventured it upon the doubtful chance of war." She was rather forced to this contest by the just views which she had of foreign policy, and by the earnest solicitions of her ministers, than by a desire of ennobling her own name or that of her people by an empty glory. Hume says, "This princess was rather cautious than enterprising in her natural temper. She needed more to be impelled by the vigour than restrained by the prudence of her ministers; but when she saw an evident necessity, she braved danger with magnanimous courage, and, trusting to her own consummate wisdom, and to the affections, however divided, of her people, she prepared herself to resist, and even to assault, the whole force of the catholic monarch." In her self-reliance, the most prominent element of her character, she had a mountain of strength, and that she fully needed it we may understand by comparing the part in public affairs taken by her, and that by our own gracious Queen. In her time it was for the sovereign to take not only the initiative in all important matters of state, but also with him rested the

decision as to their execution or otherwise; all depended on the crown; but now the history of a reign is a history of the measures undertaken by its various administrations more than an account of the acts of the sovereign.

The selection of her ministers is a point in which we admire her prudence, while in the choice of her favourites we cannot overlook her weakness. On this subject we quote the words of the elegant Robertson, who says:— "Elizabeth's wisdom and penetration were remarkable in the choice of her ministers: in distinguishing her favourites those great qualities were less conspicuous. She was influenced in two cases so opposite by merit of very different kinds. Their capacity for business, their knowledge, their prudence, were the talents to which alone she attended in the choice of her ministers; whereas, beauty and gracefulness of person, polished manners, and courtly address, were the accomplishments on which she bestowed her favour. She acted in one case with the wisdom of a queen, in the other she discovered the weakness of a woman."

The courage almost inseparable from the self-reliance we have before noticed was strongly developed in Elizabeth's mind. In the various steps in the undertaking of the contest with Spain; on the approach of the Armada; when Pius fulminated his bull against her and her throne; in her treatment of all foreign powers, we find the same firm conduct and cool determination, joined to an unflinching perseverance for the attainment of her objects. Her admiration of this quality in others was marked by her liberal rewards of gallantry on all occasions.

As an economist, we must place her the highest among sovereigns, and though her frugality would be construed into parsimony by her detractors, we deny that it can justly be so called. Her object was not to accumulate riches, but to relieve the burdens of her kingdom; and history tells us that, in addition to the discharge of all debts incurred by herself, she left the exchequer freed from those of her father. When the credit of the government, which had been completely lost through want of regularity in the re-imbursements of the loans, and which had been forced to resort to Antwerp to obtain the needful supply of money, she fostered commerce in all its branches; and though the course she adopted of granting monopolies was opposed to justice and the advancement of her subjects' well-being, yet must we excuse her of any intention of damaging their interests. Monopolies were given as rewards to those who in various capacities, civil or military, had rendered service to the state. Elizabeth's revenue did not allow her to compensate these services adequately in money or other presents, and the practice (instances of which in the last Henry's time are not uncommon) rose to a pitch most oppressive for the people. Her sagacity showed her the error which had been committed, and led her at

once to abolish nearly all of them. She was most persevering in extending the trading operations of her subjects, and missed no opportunity of forming commercial treaties with foreign parts.

Over one prominent transaction of Elizabeth's reign we would willingly draw a shade; but, as being truth-seekers and not panegyrists, we must not shrink from recording our opinion on this subject. The facts of the unfortunate Mary Stuart's case are too well known to require to be stated here. As we consider that on this point Elizabeth might have taken a different course without disadvantage to herself or the interests of her kingdom, we attempt not to justify her conduct, but would suggest that the circumstances in themselves offer grounds for palliation. That Mary was wrong in attempting to sustain a claim for the crown is admitted. Her subsequent conduct did nothing to raise our estimation of her character, but rather the contrary; and we can find no word of milder import than criminal by which we may characterize her deeds while under confinement. She rendered herself, by her own acts, amenable to the law of the realm: the question remains, Ought the fullest penalty of that law to have been exercised against her? Let us remember, however, the period, the great frequency of capital punishment, her sister's and father's conduct, and Elizabeth's becomes, by contrast, merciful and even praiseworthy.

Had space allowed, we might have considered her in her relations as a woman only, or have analyzed the principles of her mind; but we have aimed more at bringing the most characteristic points of her life into prominence, looking to abler hands for the more difficult task of treating of her character in the abstract. We trust that we have said enough to support our opinion that England's great Queen Elizabeth merited, in her capacity as sovereign, our esteem and admiration. V. V.

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-I.

THE reign of Elizabeth is one of the most glorious recorded in the annals of England. England was, for the most part, free from wars abroad, and all domestic troubles. "Peace was in all

her walls, and prosperity in all her palaces." In this golden age, arts and literature flourished with unwonted glory. Abroad there were bright lights shining,-Tasso and Cervantes, Camoens and Titian, Galileo, Kepler, and Tycho Brahe; but England could boast of names scarce less illustrious than these,-Sidney and Camden, Beaumont and Fletcher, Massinger and Ford, Marlowe and Green, Drayton and Hooker, Spenser and Shakspere. To this period the Englishman ever looks back with pride, and in his mind, it shines surrounded with a halo of glory. And this halo invests cotemporary events and personages, unworthy of it, with a roseate grandeur. This is especially so with

regard to Elizabeth,-she is represented as the genial sun to whom these stars did splendid homage; she was made famous in the fame of her subjects, as Mecenas in the fame of Horace. The Queen was held in exaggerated estimation in her own day. One poet, after her death, wrote:

"The Queene was brought by water to Whitehall;

At every stroke, the oares teares let fall;

More clung about the barge; fish under water
Wept out their eyes of pearle, and swame blinde after.
I think the bargemen might with easier thighes,

Have rowed her thither in her people's eyes.

Yet, howsoere, thus much my thoughts have scann'd,
She'd come by water, had she come by land."

Though few rise to such a pitch of whimsical extravagance as this, many hailed her with most exaggerated applause. And no wonder. Young, of commanding presence, and somewhat handsome, she followed her gloomy, morose sister, as smiling May succeeds to April storms. The nation, groaning under a harsh rule, and the burden of an imposed religion, to which many thousands were utter enemies, and which few held with a true heart-love, rejoiced to see one come forward who they hoped would redress their grievances in both. To this was added, a knowledge of Elizabeth's sufferings and unhappy state under her cruel sister. No wonder, then, that enthusiastic welcome to the youthful queen sounded through the rejoicing nation. And this enthusiasm she would not suffer to decrease. By ostentatious benefits, which cost nothing, and displays of masculine courage and determination, she won a large hold on the affections of the people. Then, again, the character of the times must be taken into account. It was an age of chivalry-gallantry made the man. No wonder, then, that the maiden queen was the theme of courtly poets, and noble cavaliers, and even of the good old yeomen of England. And so, Elizabeth's popula rity, though ofttimes nearly extinguished, never died out. And now it lives in the productions of that age, and in the minds of those who regard that era with that feeling of mixed love and reverence, which is like the violet haze of evening enveloping a landscape.

This is a world of mutation, and those who were despised in their own generation are the demi-gods of to-day. Fame is a goddess, and, like all females, is fickle. The diadem is torn from the brow of the Corsican, while the slandered Cromwell is crowned with triple honour. Elizabeth shone radiant, but it was in borrowed plumage as perchance a crow would seem, decked with the dove's fair feathers. Elizabeth chose her own judge. At the commencement of her reign, she professed her attachment to the Bible-declared it her chief treasure,-the