because after the shameful waste of the Church property, innumerable parishes in England, Scotland, and Ireland, were without pastors, and every one therefore sought or gave advice and instruction in his own way.

These religious views and relations, which so greatly agitated all minds, naturally became the subject of discussion in Parliament. But when the House of Commons, in the year 1571, debated on changes in the Liturgy, the Queen considered this as an infringement of her rights; she demanded that the bill introduced by Mr. Strickland should be given up, and caused him to be reprimanded by the Privy Council. Some Members, among whom was Mr. Yelverton, spoke boldly against this proceeding; for though, on the one hand, it could not be denied that many similar cases had already occurred, and, in particular, that unbecoming expressions had been severely censured, yet such a violation of the independence and security of the Members was matter of serious consideration. But before the question was carried to the utmost, Mr. Strickland had already resumed his seat in the House, and the bill was left to take its course. According to the rights, in ecclesiastical matters, solemnly given by the Parliament itself to Henry VIII., and to the Queen; there is no doubt that she alone could decide upon the Liturgy, and all similar matters; but if we readily allow that the Parlia

ment had, at that time, acted inconsiderately, in renouncing all salutary participation, yet it was necessary that the amount of all future co-operation should be determined by a law, and in some measure a new compact entered into on the subject; the Parliament, too, on its part, was acting in an equally partial manner, by desiring to proceed without the Clergy assembled in the convocation.(5)

During another session of Parliament in the beginning of 1575, Mr. Thomas Wentworth made a remarkable speech on the rights and privileges of the two Houses, and declared his dissent from the assertion that they should refrain from speaking for or against anything because it pleased or displeased the Queen; he also disapproved of messages, addressed to the Parliament, which contained commands or prohibitions, and interfered with the independence of their debates. Though this speech does not appear offensive according to more recent notions, Mr. Wentworth was not suffered to bring it to a conclusion, but was called to account before a committee of the House of Commons.(6) Though he displayed in his defence equal firmness, ability, and judgment, he was sent, by order of the committee, to the Tower; (7) but Elizabeth declared that she forgave his offence, and left it to the House to set him at liberty.

Both the Queen and the Parliament were fully sensible that mutual interest, as well as the salva

tion of the whole kingdom, depended on their union; and how insignificant do these fleeting shadows appear, which pass over the brilliant face of England, when we reflect that at the same time the atrocities of Alva desolated the Netherlands, and the massacre of St. Bartholomew filled all France with mourning. All that truth, humanity, and her own dignity required, was said by Elizabeth on this occasion to the French Ambassador, but at the same time she was obliged to bear in mind what prudence prescribed, not to impel France and Spain, by her conduct, to a closer union, and thereby increase the danger of her own kingdom and of the whole Protestant world. She therefore, in 1575, renewed the treaty of Blois with Henry III., and, at the same time, assisted the Netherlands, but in such a manner that Philip merely complained, and was contented with the answer, that it was done only to prevent the union of those provinces with France. The King of Spain had besides given occasion for equally wellfounded recriminations by his interference in the Irish troubles.

When Sir Francis Drake returned in 1580 from his enterprising voyage round the world, Philip again complained that he had seized on much property belonging to Spaniards, and had navigated in seas belonging to the King. To this Elizabeth answered, that as soon as it was satisfactorily proved that Drake had taken any property belonging to

the King, or to Spanish subjects, she would restore the goods which had been provisionally sequestrated on that account; but with the deduction, however, of all the expenses which the Irish war, excited by Philip, had occasioned. On the other hand, she could not allow that any part of the sea belonged, by virtue of an invalid papal grant, to the King of Spain; it was the common property of all, like the air. Neither was imposing a name on an extensive line of coast, sufficient to make it any person's property.

༔

In fa

During these dissensions between England and Spain, negociations took place for a marriage between Elizabeth and Francis Duke of Alençon, the only surviving brother of Henry III. vour of this marriage it was argued, that it was highly desirable that Elizabeth should marry, and thereby all doubts and dangers in reference to the future succession to the throne, be happily obviated; that France and England would be cordially reconciled by the proposed marriage, and the Spanish power be counterbalanced by one equally great; that if Elizabeth did not accede to this plan, Alençon, would marry a Spanish Princess, and when he became King of France, on his brother's death, would act in union with Philip for the ruin of England. These and similar arguments, which Burghley brought forward in earnest, and Leicester only for appearance sake, had such an effect upon Elizabeth,

that she entered further into the proposal than she would otherwise have done, nay, even had a contract of marriage drawn up, and presented Alençon with a ring, which many persons considered to be a formal betrothing. But at every step that she unexpectedly advanced, the objections became

more numerous.

It is not personal inclination for our noble Queen, said the objectors, that induces Alençon to press the matter so urgently, but the wish, with her aid, to gain the Netherlands. What shall a foreign Roman Catholic king do in England? Is the fatal marriage between Philip and Mary already forgotten? The Duke, it is said, will be gained over to Protestantism, and a perpetual friendship with France will be established. But both hopes are deceitful and erroneous. Alençon is much more likely to deceive the Hugonots in France, to exalt the Catholics in England, and to educate his children, if he has any, in the Catholic religion. France will attempt to direct the affairs of England as it did those of Scotland, and then, instead of the expected friendship, the bitterest enmity will ensue. Or shall England, if it remains united with France, assist in fighting its quarrels, without any interest of its own, and, in the end, involve itself in a war with Spain, because Alençon aims at the possession of the Netherlands? That all the Catholic powers will unite against England is not to be apprehended, notwithstanding the religious zeal