ENGLISH HISTORY. ELIZABETH. Mary Stuart. (Continued from page 86.) THE first ten years of the reign of Elizabeth were troubled by her contests with France, and other circumstances, chiefly arising from the state of Scottish affairs. But a deeper and more deadly contest was preparing; her struggle with the Papacy which involved every sort of warfare, national and private, open battles of armies, secret conspiracies, craft and stratagem, turmoil and deception. Soon after the peace of Passau in 1552, the Papacy appeared likely to regain much of that influence which had been shaken by the establishment of the Reformation in Germany. The proceedings of the Council of Trent, and other matters exclusively connected with the history of the nations on the Continent, must be here passed by. With regard to the British islands, Popery fully regained its sway, under the reign of Mary, while the alliance between France and Scotland kept down the northern reformers. But Scotland was roused. Popery had there been exhibited in its worst forms; as a political, as well as a religious system, it excited the utmost abhorrence, Knox and others were made instrumental in leading their countrymen to throw off the yoke of Popery; while the death of Mary set Englishmen at liberty to declare their abhorrence of idolatry and persecution. The pope at that time was Paul Iv., a cruel character, who encouraged and urged Mary of England to follow her merciless course. To check the progress of Lutheranism in Italy, he established the Inquisition at Rome; but his career was soon stopped, he died in August 1559, when the populace destroyed the prison of the inquisition, and liberated his victims. The accession of Elizabeth was a bitter event to him; every circumstance connected with her birth and early life, placed her in direct opposition to the see of Rome. The pope, indeed, invited the new queen to cast herself upon his clemency, and to sue for her crown as his gift; but nothing short of the most abject submission and direct apostasy could ensure his confirmation of that inheritance, which she claimed as the descendant of a marriage, the validity of which would not for a moment be admitted by the Papacy. Such submission must have caused Elizabeth M to lose the hearts of her subjects, while | the nation rejoiced to receive her as the Protestant daughter of Henry VIII., and the day was past when the pope could obtrude a vassal, either by force or fraud, upon the throne of England. Pius iv. followed the track marked out by his predecessor, though with more measured steps. He re-established the Inquisition, and prepared that declaration of faith, which under the title of the creed of pope Pius, embodies the principles of Popery to the present day. In this document, the leading errors of the church of Rome, its peculiar articles of faith, are added to those of the apostles' creed, and taught as of equal authority, concluding with an anathema against all Protestants, that is, declaring them accursed, and to be persecuted to death here, and asserting their eternal condemnation. Pius IV. urged the kings of France and Spain to persecute their Protestant subjects; he was willingly obeyed by the latter. In France, he endeavoured to set the leaders of the nation at variance, which ended in massacre and civil warfare; the pope taking part by sending troops to act against the Huguenots. By the final decrees of the Council of Trent, which he re-assembled, Pius iv. effectually prevented any reformation in the church of Rome, and fixed its doctrines and practice in that form, which they have ever since maintained. This gave him additional power to pursue his great design for extirpating Protestantism. Having in vain attempted to win over Elizabeth, by a direct offer to establish and confirm her royal authority, provided she would submit to his control, (a promise which she and her ministers knew would be kept no longer than might suit the views of the Papacy,) nothing remained but to destroy her, and overturn the religious system which she was establishing in England, although she earnestly desired to arrange matters, so as to comprehend the adherents of the church of Rome, provided they would only engage not to obey the mandates of a foreign power in temporal affairs, in preference to the laws of their own kingdom. We have not space here to relate all the steps by which the pope proceeded. That his design went forward is plain; an emissary was sent from Rome in 1566 to Mary of Scotland, to prevent her from coming to any agreement with | her Protestant nobles, urging that "all Catholic princes were banded to root them, (the Protestants,) out of all Europe.' Elizabeth never listened for a moment to the blandishments or threats of the Vatican. She stedfastly refused to admit a nuncio or ambassador from Rome. Her council stated her full persuasion that such an emissary would attempt to raise a rebellion. Some inferior agents, however, found admittance into Ireland, where they took an active part in exciting rebellious proceedings. One obtained admission to Mary in Scotland, in the garb of a merchant; he encouraged her in the mistaken course she was pursuing; but his stay was short, and he escaped with some difficulty. It is painful to observe the quick succession of popes, when we reflect that the atrocious proceedings of the Papacy were almost invariably the acts of men, whose last hour was at hand! Pius IV. died in 1565. Pius v. was equally firm of purpose with his predecessor; he was also more unhesitating and implacable in his proceedings. If an unscrupulous adoption of atrocious measures, pursued with unwearying perseverance, gives evidence that a man is a follower of Satan, this infallible head of the church of Rome, styling himself, "Holiness, was undoubtedly one. He, too, was an inquisitor; he was chosen Pope, because the cardinals believed he would not hesitate to carry out into action the violent plans of his predecessor. He did so; for this he was afterwards declared a saint, miracles were said to have been wrought by him; the first of May is appointed for paying religious worship to him. In the collect for that day's service he is declared to have been chosen of God "to depress the enemies of the church;" as it is expressed in the gentler phrase of the English missal; but the original, as used in the Latin public service, is to "crush the enemies of the church;" the phrase is applicable to the destruction of noisome and poisonous reptiles, such the church of Rome declares Protestants to be. This was the spirit in which Pius v. entered into open contest with Elizabeth; it was his own seeking, and his own letters show the implacable ferocity with which he sought her destruction. In them, he urged the kings and nobles subject to his power, to extirpate, even by "massacre," those whom he calls the "enemies of God." In a letter to the cardinal of Lorraine, he directs him to convince the king of France that he cannot satisfy the Redeemer, unless he shows himself inexorable to all who plead for those most wicked of men. How different this from the language of Christ, the Redeemer himself. Consider his words recorded in the volume of Divine inspiration:-"This is my commandment, That ye love one another as I have loved you," John xv. 12—“Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea;" and solemnly declared, "I say unto you, Love your enemies,” adding an injunction not to curse, but to "pray for them which despitefully use you,' "Matt. v. 44. Then say whether it is possible that this pretended "vicar of the Son of God," could be a believer in that blessed book, unless indeed as the devils are said to "believe and tremble." Letter after 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." In one letter, this pope rebuked a commander, because he had not put to death "murdered," using the very word, a Huguenot commander taken prisoner by his troops! or 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 considered by him as a heretic, and that they were not bound to obey her. In February 1570, a papal bull was published, in which, by virtue of the power assumed by Pius, he 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 we may say the land has been blessed in that deed. 66 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 had long been neglected by historians, others have been recently brought forward. The biographer of Pius v. has left sufficient statements to show 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 degree of success he obtained we shall see hereafter. 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 of the counsellors of Elizabeth, at the moment, were inclined to wish that she should leave the kingdom, and for some weeks she had the opportunity to do so. But farther consideration still more plainly showed the difficulties in which the question was involved on every side. If she were allowed to remain in England free from restraint, it was obvious that this 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 as countenancing 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 in the control of the members a readiness to expose herself to all perils of the papal conspiracy a powerful in- in hope of victory. The thing she most strument for the furtherance of their thirsteth after is victory, and it seemeth designs, while it would subject Scotland to be indifferent to her to have her eneto the horrors of foreign invasion, in mies diminished, either by the sword of addition to those of civil warfare, and her friends, or by the liberal promises open a way for the pope's confederates and rewards of her purse, or by divisions to attack England. Nor was Elizabeth and quarrels raised among themselves; in the situation of a private individual. so that for victory's sake, pain and perils Upon the decision of her government in seem pleasant to her, and in respect of this matter, rested the lives and fortunes victory, wealth and all things seem to not only of the great majority of her her contemptuous and vile." It is plain own subjects, but those of the Protest- that by "victory," Knollys meant reants of Europe in general. It was now venge, and well might he add, "Now plain that the life and power of Eliza- what is to be done with such a lady and beth were the great supports of Protest-princess, or whether such a lady and antism, and her duties and responsibility were increased thereby. 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, a mere student at the university of Louvain, and detained him a prisoner in Spain twenty-eight years, because his father pleaded for the rights of his Protestant countrymen. But Elizabeth chose to meet the inconveniences 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. The character of Mary Stuart also must be taken into consideration. She is thus described by sir Francis Knollys, one of the counsellors sent to her at Carlisle. "This lady and princess is a notable woman. She 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 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 her thirst after revenge when 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 romance, 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 into 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 enjoyed 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 wished Mary should be freed from the charges against her; he privately advised Murray not to produce the documents substantiating his charges, unless Elizabeth agreed to pronounce a condemnatory sentence against Mary if the accusations were proved. He knew, from his confidential situation, that Elizabeth was not prepared to proceed so far. This stopped the inquiry; Norfolk then engaged Murray to withdraw his accusations, promising he should be confirmed in the regency of Scotland, and proposing that Norfolk and Murray should support each other in obtaining influence over their respective queens. Elizabeth had some intimation of the underhand proceedings of Norfolk; she caused the conference to be removed to Hampton Court; there Cecil and Bacon were added to the commission. Murray's agent then produced the accusatory papers, but declined to give them in, when they were snatched from him by the bishop of Orkney, who was not in the secret, and delivered to the commission ers. The proceedings then could not be stopped, the letters were examined with the depositions of some witnesses, and there appeared full proof that they were genuine. The agents of Mary refused to answer, but required that Elizabeth should admit Mary into her presence to defend herself. The English queen, with becoming spirit, refused to do this, till Mary had cleared herself from the charges of adultery, and the murder of her husband, who was a relative of Elizabeth. She wrote to Mary, expressing her regret that such documents had been produced, but that she wished to cover these matters, and had stayed any judgment upon them. As there appeared full reason to believe that Mary would be proved guilty, it was best to stay the inquiry. She had so misconducted herself, as to render it improper that she should be replaced on the throne of Scotland; this was clear without entering upon the accusation of murder; but as yet, nothing was established to exclude her or her son from being considered in the succession to the English throne. Murray returned home, but found it necessary to avail himself of the protection of Norfolk, by whose influence with Mary, orders were issued to the Nortons and others who were prepared to intercept and murder the Scottish regent in his return through Yorkshire, directing them to allow him to pass unmolested. Such influence did Mary at this time exercise in England, and so deeply was she enraged against Murray for being the cause of the production of her letters to Bothwell. The bishop of Ross was her agent in this affair. In January, 1569, Mary was removed to Tutbury, where she remained under the care of the earl of Shrewsbury, with a retinue of fifty of her own attendants, |