Sivut kuvina

was the protection of the nobility against upstarts, (a plan to ruin Burghley had been defeated by the prudence of Elizabeth,) the deliverance of the Duke of Norfolk, the re-establishment of the ancient religion, and the determination of the legal succession to the throne. On their standards a cross and the wounds of Christ were represented, they everywhere destroyed the Bible and Protestant books, and restored the Catholic form of worship. This enterprise appeared to be the more dangerous, because the leaders had entered into connections with Spain and the Duke of Alva, and depended on assistance from the Pope and Charles IX., which Mary had solicited in November, 1568. Alva's preparations for a landing were, however, not completed; (*) the Pope's declarations came too late, and the Duke of Norfolk not only affirmed that he was innocent, but even acted against the Earl of Westmoreland, his brother-in-law, to restore tranquillity. But so great was the respect entertained by the people for Elizabeth's government, and their attachment to the Protestant religion, that the rebels no where met with encouragement, were easily dispersed, and Westmoreland fled to Flanders, and Northumberland to Scotland. Sentence of death was passed on both; but only the latter, who was subsequently taken, was executed, with some others; and Norfolk, who had been committed to the Tower, was set at liberty, after he had humbly

expressed his repentance, and solemnly promised not to engage in any matrimonial or political negociation without Elizabeth's knowledge. In order to justify her government and to inform the people, she issued a proclamation, in which she compares England prosperous and happy, with other countries torn by war and civil dissensions: dwells on the reasonableness of the taxes, rejects every kind of inquisition in matters of religion, (provided the laws were observed,) and declares that she does not wish to govern by violence, but like a father over his children. Though this insurrection had been happily defeated, Elizabeth could not conceal from herself the greatness of the danger, or the probability of the frequent recurrence of such attempts. All Mary's friends had supported the English rebels, all the friends of King James and Murray had declared for Elizabeth. Jesuits slunk about the country in the guise of Puritans, and, under the show of zeal for Protestantism, laboured for the interest of the Catholic religion and of Mary. The Pope had, on the 25th of February, 1569, again excommunicated Elizabeth, in the harshest terms, (*) declaring her hereditary right null and void, and her subjects released from their oath of allegiance; about the same time Mary insisted, more urgently than ever, on a personal interview, and France interfered, very earnestly, to procure her liberation. Elizabeth, in the first place, quieted the minds of the Catholics by the repeated assurance that, every one who obeyed the civil laws should be unmolested in matters of conscience; she punished the Jesuits who were arrested; caused Felton, a zealous papist, who had affixed the bull of excommunication to the gate of the Bishop of London's palace, to be executed; and gave to the King of France, through the ambassador Walsingham, the following answer: “Mary has more danger to apprehend in Scotland than in England, and is more amply and better provided for here than she would be there. I did what honour permitted, what prudence required, and what every other person in my situation would have done. Mary did not execute the treaty of Edinburgh, set up claims to England, married Darnley with evil intentions, despised all warnings with respect to the marriage with Bothwell, &c. Would it not have been a great folly, a palpable blunder, to replace her on the throne against the will of her subjects? It is sufficient that I have saved her life, which she would certainly have lost, in Scotland; and to preserve her honour, have not made public what was produced in the proceedings against her. Thank God I have no need of such means to humble my enemies.” About the same time Elizabeth, in justification of her conduct towards Mary, and to explain the real state of the case between them, gave to Mr. Norris, her ambassador at Paris, the following instructions, which, though on the whole they only repeat what we have already related, are too remarkable not to be inserted here.*(*) “We greet you well, and give you to understand that the French ambassador here resident, certain times this summer, after communicating with us other affairs of his master's, hath also solicited us very earnestly in the Queen of Scots' case, using therein both the name of the King his master, and of the Queen mother: at which time we always made him such answer as we found convenient for our honour; and nevertheless at the same time, we had some occasion to doubt, that the earnestness which he used therein was produced, as much by some others in our realm privately addicted to the said Queen, as by commandment of the King his master. But considering that which you lately advertised us by your letters, dated the 5th of this month, of some special speech used to you by the said King, and now also again finding that ambassador as earnest as before to prosecute his former matter, and joining therewith certain accidents of some things, touching some of the principal noblemen in our council, whereof there may be made reports varying from the truth; upon these considerations which you shall also briefly repeat, we will you shall say to the said King and Queen mother, that we have thought good to advise them by you of our proceedings therein, so as they neither be ignorant, nor, we trust, unsatisfied. And hereupon, after your entry, in this sort you shall say: it is not needful to repeat to them from the beginning the misfortune of the Queen of Scots to have her husband foully murdered; who, indeed, was our nearest kinsman by the King our father's side, in Christendom; and afterwards how the principal murderer was by her also forthwith married, and

* Note of the Translator. M. Von RAUMER, who found an English copy of this note at Paris, published a German translation it in his “Letters from Paris, for the Illustration of the History of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, 1831.” Lord Egerton, however, who translated the letters, has omitted this and some others, on the plea that the originals, being in the British Museum, might be easily consulted. This plea, however valid Lord Egerton may have thought it in his case, cannot avail here; and the public will therefore have, for the first time, the whole of this remarkable document in the original language. There are a few words deficient at the ends of the lines, the leaves having been injured at the edges in some places, but the sense is not obscured. It has been judged best to correct the orthography in the few instances in which it differs from that of the present day. M. Von Raumer, in his letters from Paris, Vol. II., p. 105, quotes Bib. Harl. Caligula, E. VI., copie à Paris. On going to the British Museum to copy the original, we found it not in the Harleian collection, as the above quotation seems to intimate; but in the Cotton library, Caligula, E. VI. page 127. The words in italics are inserted conjecturally to supply the hiatus in the MS.

« EdellinenJatka »