MACAULAY'S MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS.

It is a common error in politics to confound governs in conformity with certain rules esmeans with ends. Constitutions, charters, pe-tablished for the public benefit; and the sanctitions of right, declarations of right, repre- tion of those rules is, that every Afghan apsentative assemblies, electoral colleges, are not proves them, and that every Afghan is a solgood government; nor do they, even when dier. most elaborately constructed, necessarily produce good government. Laws exist in vain for those who have not the courage and the means to defend them. Electors meet in vain where want renders them the slaves of the landlord; or where superstition renders them the slaves of the priest. Representative assemblies sit in vain unless they have at their command, in the last resort, the physical power which is necessary to make their deliberations free, and their votes effectual.

The Irish are better represented in Parliament than the Scotch, who indeed are not represented at all. But are the Irish better governed than the Scotch? Surely not. This circumstance has of late been used as an argument against reform. It proves nothing against reform. It proves only this; that laws have no magical, no supernatural virtue; that laws do not act like Aladdin's lamp or Prince Ahmed's apple; that priestcraft, that ignorance, that the rage of contending factions may make good institutions useless; that intelligence, sobriety, industry, moral freedom, firm union, may supply in a great measure the defects of the worst representative system. A people whose education and habits are such, that, in every quarter of the world, they rise above the mass of those with whom they mix, as surely as oil rises to the top of water; a people of such temper and self-government, that the wildest popular excesses recorded in their history partake of the gravity of judicial proceedings, and of the solemnity of religious rites; a people whose national pride and mutual attachment have passed into a proverb; a people whose high and fierce spirit, so forcibly described in the haughty motto which encircles their thistle, preserved their independence, during a struggle of centuries, from the encroachments of wealthier and more powerful neighbours, such a people cannot be long oppressed. Any government, however constituted, must respect their wishes, and tremble at their discontents. It is indeed most desirable that such a people should exercise a direct influence on the conduct of affairs, and should make their wishes known through constitutional organs. But some influence, direct or indirect, they will assuredly possess. Some organ, constitutional or unconstitutional, they will assuredly find. They will be better governed under a good constitution than under a bad constitution. But they will be better governed under the worst constitution than some other nations under the best. In any general classification of constitutions, the constitution of Scotland must be reckoned as one of the worst, perhaps as the worst in Christian Euope. Yet the Scotch are not ill governed. And the reason is simply that they will not bear to be ill governed.

In some of the Oriental monarchies, in Afghanistan, for example, though there exists nothing which a European publicist would ail a constitution, the sovereign generally

century was a monarchy of this kind. It is The monarchy of England in the sixteenth called an absolute monarchy, because little respect was paid by the Tudors to those institutions which we have been accustomed to. consider as the sole checks on the power of the sovereign. A modern Englishman can hardly understand how the people can have had any real security for good government un. der kings who levied benevolences and chid chid a pack of dogs. People do not sufficiently the House of Commons as they would have consider that, though the legal checks were feeble, the natural checks were strong. There was one great and effectual limitation on the royal authority-the knowledge that if the pa tience of the nation were severely tried, the nation would put forth its strength, and that its strength would be found irresistible. If a large body of Englishmen became thoroughly discontented, instead of presenting requisitions, holding large meetings, passing resolutions, signing petitions, forming associations and unions, they rose up; they took their halberds and their bows; and if the sovereign was not sufficiently popular to find among his subjects other halberds and other bows to oppose to the rebels, nothing remained for him but a repetition of the horrible scenes of Berkeley and Pomfret. He had no regular army which could by its superior arms and its superior skill overawe or vanquish the sturdy commons of his realm, abounding in the native hardihood of Englishmen, and trained in the simple discipline of the militia.

solute as the Caesars. Never was parallel so It has been said that the Tudors were as abunfortunate. The government of the Tudors was the direct opposite to the government of Augustus and his successors. The Cæsars ruled despotically, by means of a great standing army, under the decent forms of a republican constitution. They called themselves citizens. They mixed unceremoniously with other citizens. In theory they were only the elective magistrates of a free commonwealth. Instead of arrogating to themselves despotic power, they acknowledged obedience to the senate. They were merely the lieutenants of that venerable body. They mixed in debate. They even appeared as advocates before the courts of law. Yet they could safely indulge in the wildest freaks of cruelty and rapacity while their legions remained faithful. Our Tudors, on the other hand, under the titles and forms of monarchical supremacy, were essentially popular magistrates. They had no means of protecting themselves against the public hatred; and they were therefore compelled to court the public favour. To enjoy all the state and all the personal indulgences of absolute to dispose at will of the liberty and even of the power, to be adored with Oriental prostrations, life of ministers and courtiers-this the nation granted to the Tudors. But the condition on which they were suffered to be the tyrants of

Whitehall was, that they should be the mild and paternal sovereigns of England. They were under the same restraints with regard to their people under which a military despot is placed with regard to his army. They would have found it as dangerous to grind their subjects with cruel taxation as Nero would have found it to leave his prætorians unpaid. Those who immediately surrounded the royal person, and engaged in the hazardous game of ambition, were exposed to the most fearful dangers. Buckingham, Cromwell, Surrey, Sudley, Somerset, Suffolk, Norfolk, Percy, Essex, perished on the scaffold. But in general the country gentleman hunted and the merchant traded inly a zealous Protestant party and a zealous peace. Even Henry, as cruel as Domitian but far more politic, contrived, while reeking with the blood of the Lamiæ, to be the favourite with the cobblers.

482

religion were established he estimated at four-
fifths of the nation. We believe this account
to have been very near the truth. We believe
that the people whose minds were made up on
either side, who were inclined to make any
sacrifice or run any risk for either religion,
were very few. Each side had a few enter-
prising champions and a few stout-hearted
martyrs; but the nation, undetermined in its
opinions and feelings, resigned itself implicitly
to the guidance of the government, and lent to
the sovereign for the time being an equally
ready aid against either of the extreme parties.
We are very far from saying that the Eng-
lish of that generation were irreligious. They
held firmly those doctrines which are common
to the Catholic and to the Protestant theology.
But they had no fixed opinion as to the matters
in dispute between the churches. They were
in a situation resembling that of those Bor-
derers whom Sir Walter Scott has described
with so much spirit;

"Who sought the beeves that made their broth
In England and in Scotland both;"

And who

"Nine times outlawed had been

By England's king and Scotland's queen."
They were sometimes Protestants, sometimes
Catholics; sometimes half Protestants, half
Catholics.

common people entertained the strongest prejudices against his order, and that a clergyman had no chance of fair play before a lay tribunal. The London juries, he said, entertained such a spite to the Church, that they would find Abel guilty of the murder of Cain. This was said a few months before the time when Martin Luther began to preach at Wittemberg against indulgences.

As the Reformation did not find the English bigoted Papists, so neither was it conducted in such a manner as to make them zealous Pro testants. It was not under the direction of men like that fiery Saxon, who swore that he would go to Worms, though he had to face as many devils as there were tiles on the houses, or like that brave Switzer, who was struck down while praying in front of the ranks of Zurich. No preacher of religion had the same power here which Calvin had at Geneva, and Knox in Scotland. The government put itself early at the head of the movement, and thus acquired power to regulate, and occasionally to arrest, the movement.

To many persons it appears extraordinary that Henry the Eighth should have been able to maintain himself so long in an intermediate position between the Catholic and Protestant parties. Most extraordinary, it would indeed be, if we were to suppose that the nation consisted of none but decided Catholics and deThe English had not, for ages, been bigoted cided Protestants. The fact is, that the great Papists. In the fourteenth century, the first, mass of the people were neither Catholic nor and perhaps the greatest of the reformers, John Protestant; but was, like its sovereign, midWickliffe, had stirred the public mind to its in- way between the two sects. Henry, in that most depths. During the same century, a very part of his conduct which has been represcandalous schism in the Catholic church had sented as most capricious and inconsistent, diminished, in many parts of Europe, the re- was probably following a policy far more verence in which the Roman pontiffs were pleasing to the majority of his subjects, than held. It is clear that a hundred years before a policy like that of Edward or a policy like the time of Luther, a great party in this king- that of Mary would have been. Down even dom was eager for a change, at least as exten- to the very close of the reign of Elizabeth, the sive as that which was subsequently effected people were in a state somewhat resembling by Henry the Eighth. The House of Com- that in which, as Machiavelli says, the inhamons, in the reign of Henry the Fourth, pro- bitants of the Roman empire were, during the posed a confiscation of ecclesiastical property, transition from Heathenism to Christianity; more sweeping and violent even than that "sendo la maggior parte di loro incerti a quale which took place under the administration of Dio dovessero ricorrere." They were geneThomas Cromwell; and, though defeated in rally, we think, favourable to the royal suprethis attempt, they succeeded in depriving the macy. They disliked the policy of the court clerical order of some of its most oppressive of Rome. Their spirit rose against the interprivileges. The splendid conquests of Henry ference of a foreign priest with their national the Fifth turned the attention of the nation concerns. The bull which pronounced senfrom domestic reform. The Council of Con- tence of deposition against Elizabeth, the plots stance removed some of the grossest of those which were formed against her life, the usurpascandals which had deprived the Church of tion of her titles by the Queen of Scotland, the the public respect. The authority of that hostility of Philip, excited their strongest invenerable synod propped up the sinking au- dignation. The cruelties of Bonner were rethority of the Popedom. A considerable reac-membered with disgust. Some parts of the tion took place. It cannot, however, be doubted, new system, the use of the English language, that there was still much concealed Lollardism for example, in public worship, and the comin England; or that many who did not absolutely dissent from any doctrine held by the Church of Rome, were jealous of the wealth and power enjoyed by her ministers. At the very beginning of the reign of Henry the Eighth, a struggle took place between the clergy and the courts of law, in which the courts of law remained victorious. One of the rishops on that occasion declared, that the

munion in both kinds, were undoubtedly popu lar. On the other hand, the early lessons of the nurse and the priest were not forgotten. The ancient ceremonies were long remembered with affectionate reverence. A large portion of the ancient theology lingered to the last in the minds which had been imbued with it in childhood.

The best proof that the religion of the people

reverence.

NARES'S MEMOIRS OF LORD BURGHLEY.

such marriages were illegitimate till the ac-
cession of James the First.

was of this mixed kind, is furnished by the populace, Elizabeth herself was not exempt drama of that age. No man would bring un- from them. A crucifix, with wax-lights burnpopular opinions prominently forward in a ing round it, stood in her private chapel. She play intended for representation. And we may always spoke with disgust and anger of the safely conclude, that feelings and opinions marriage of priests. "I was in horror," says which pervade the whole dramatic literature Archbishop Parker, "to hear such words to learned conscience, as she spake concerning of an age, are feelings and opinions of which come from her mild nature and Christian the men of that age generally partook. The greatest and most popular dramatists of God's holy ordinance and institution of matrithe Elizabethan age treat religious subjects in a mony." Burghley prevailed on her to connive very remarkable manner. They speak respect- at the marriages of churchmen. But she would fully of the fundamental doctrines of Chris-only connive; and the children sprung from tianity. But they speak neither like Catholics That which is, as we have said, the great nor like Protestants, but like persons who are wavering between the two systems; or who have made a system for themselves out of stain on the character of Burghley, is also the parts selected from both. They seem to hold great stain on the character of Elizabetn some of the Romish rites and doctrines in high Being herself an Adiaphorist, having no scrurespect. They treat the vow of celibacy, for ple about conforming to the Romish churcn. example, so tempting, and, in after times, so when conformity was necessary to her own common a subject for ribaldry, with mysterious safety, retaining to the last moment of her life The members of religious orders a fondness for much of the doctrine and much whom they introduce are almost always holy of the ceremonial of that church, she yet subWe remember in their jected that church to a persecution even more and venerable men. plays nothing resembling the coarse ridicule odious than the persecution with which her with which the Catholic religion and its minis-sister had harassed the Protestants. We say ters were assailed, two generations later, by more odious. For Mary had at least the plea dramatists who wished to please the multitude. of fanaticism. She did nothing for her reliWe remember no Friar Dominic, no Father Foigard, among the characters drawn by those great poets. The scene at the close of the Knight of Malta might have been written by a fervent Catholic. Massinger shows a great fondness for ecclesiastics of the Romish church; and has even gone so far as to bring a virtuous and interesting Jesuit on the stage. Ford, in that fine play, which it is painful to read, and scarcely decent to name, assigns a highly creditable part to the Friar. The partiality of Shakspeare for Friars is well known. In Hamlet, the Ghost complains that he died without extreme unction, and, in defiance of the article which condemns the doctrine of purgatory, declares that he is

"Confined to fast in fires,

Til: the foul crimes, done in his days of nature,
Are burnt and purged away."

gion which she was not prepared to suffer for
it. She had held it firmly under persecution.
She fully believed it to be essential to salva-
tion. If she burned the bodies of her subjects,
it was in order to rescue their souls. Eliza-
beth had no such pretext. In opinion, she was
little more than half a Protestant. She had
professed, when it suited her, to be wholly a
Catholic. There is an excuse, a wretched ex-
cuse, for the massacre of Piedmont and the
autos-da-fe of Spain. But what can be said in
defence of a ruler who is at once indifferent
and intolerant?

If the great queen, whose memory is still possessed sufficient virtue and sufficient enheld in just veneration by Englishmen, had largement of mind to adopt those principles which More, wiser in speculation than in action, had avowed in the preceding generation, These lines, we suspect, would have raised and by which the excellent l'Hospital regua tremendous storm in the theatre at any time lated his conduct in her own time, how dif during the reign of Charles the Second. They ferent would be the colour of the whole history were clearly not written by a zealous Protest-of the last two hundred and fifty years! She ant, or for zealous Protestants. Yet the author of King John and Henry the Eighth was surely no friend to papal supremacy.

There is, we think, only one solution of the
phenomena which we find in the history and
The religion of
in the drama of that age.
England was a mixed religion, like that of the
Samaritan settlers, described in the second
book of Kings, who "feared the Lord, and
served their graven images;" like that of the
Judaizing Christians, who blended the ceremo-
nies and doctrines of the synagogue with those
of the church; like that of the Mexican In-
dians, who, for many generations after the sub-
jugation of their race, continued to unite with
the rites learned from their conquerors, the
worship of the grotesque idols which had been
adored by Montezuma and Guatemozin.

These feelings were not confined to the

had the happiest opportunity ever vouchsafed
dom of conscience throughout her dominions,
to any sovereign, of establishing perfect free-
without danger to her government, or scandal
to any large party among her subjects. The
nation, as it was clearly ready to profess either
religion, would, beyond all doubt, have been
ready to tolerate both. Unhappily for her own
glory and for the public peace, she adopted a
policy, from the effects of which the empire is
still suffering. The yoke of the Established
To the
Church was pressed down on the people til
Another reaction followed.
they would bear it no longer. Then a reaction
came.
tyranny of the establishment succeeded the tu-
multuous conflict of sects, infuriated by man.
To the conflict of sects succeeded again he
fold wrongs, and drunk with unwonted freedom.
cruel domination of one persecuting church.

At length oppression put off its most horrible he would have dissolved the Parliament, and form, and took a milder aspect. The penal imprisoned the most popular members He laws against dissenters were abolished. But would have called another Parliament. He exclusions and disabilities still remained. would have given some vague and delusive These exclusions and disabilities, after having generated the most fearful discontents, after having rendered all government in one part of the kingdom impossible, after having brought the state to the very brink of ruin, have, in our times, been removed; but, though removed, have left behind them a rankling which may last for many years. It is melancholy to think with what ease Elizabeth might have united all the conflicting sects under the shelter of the same impartial laws and the same paternal throne; and thus have placed the nation in the same situation, as far as the rights of conscience are concerned, in which we at length stand, after all the heart-burnings, the persecutions, the conspiracies, the seditions, the revolutions, the judicial murders, the civil wars, of ten generations.

promises of relief in return for subsidies.
When entreated to fulfil his promises, he
would have again dissolved the Parliament,
and again imprisoned his leading opponents.
The country would have become more agi-
tated than before. The next House of Com-
mons would have been more unmanageable
than that which preceded it.
The tyrant
would have agreed to all that the nation de-
manded. He would have solemnly ratified an
act abolishing monopolies forever. He would
have received a large supply in return for this
concession; and within half a year new pa-
tents, more oppressive than those which had
been cancelled, would have been issued by
scores. Such was the policy which brought
the heir of a long line of kings, in early youth
the darling of his countrymen, to a prison and
a scaffold.

close upon her promise. She did not treat the nation as an adverse party; as a party which had an interest opposed to hers; as a party to which she was to grant as few advantages as possible, and from which she was to extort as much money as possible. Her benefits were given, not sold; and when once given, they were not withdrawn. She gave them, too, with a frankness, an effusion of heart, a princely dignity, a motherly tenderness, which enhanced their value. They were received by the sturdy country gentleman, who had come up to Westminster full of resentment, with tears of joy and shouts of God save the Queen. Charles the First gave up half the prerogatives of his crown to the Commons; and the Commons sent him in return the Grand Remonstrance.

This is the dark side of her character. Yet she surely was a great woman. Of all the Elizabeth, before the House of Commons sovereigns who exercised a power which was could address her, took out of their mouths the seemingly absolute, but which in fact depend- words which they were about to utter in the ed for support on the love and confidence of name of the nation. Her promises went betheir subjects, she was by far the most illus-yond their desires. Her performance followed trious. It has often been alleged, as an excuse for the misgovernment of her successors, that they only followed her example;-that precedents might be found in the transactions of her reign for persecuting the Puritans, for levying money without the sanction of the House of Commons, for confining men without bringing them to trial, for interfering with the liberty of parliamentary debate. All this may be true. But it is no good plea for her successors, and for this plain reason, that they were her successors. She governed one generation, they governed another; and between the two generations there was almost as little in common as between the people of two different countries. It was not by looking at the particular measures which Elizabeth had adopted, but by looking at the great general principles of her government, that those who followed her were likely to learn the art of managing untractable subjects. If, instead of searching the records of her reign for precedents which might seem to vindicate the mutilation of Prynne and the imprisonment of Eliot, the Stuarts had attempted to discover the fundamental rules which guided her conduct in all her dealings with her people, they would have perceived that their policy was then most unlike to hers when, to a superficial We had intended to say something concerning observer, it would have seemed most to resem- the dexterous Walsingham, the impetuous Oxble hers. Firm, haughty, sometimes unjust and ford, the elegant Sackville, the all-accomplishcruel in her proceedings towards individuals ed Sidney; concerning Essex, the ornament of or towards small parties, she avoided with the court and of the camp, the model of chivalcare, or retracted with speed, every measure ry, the munificent patron of genius, whom great which seemed likely to alienate the great mass virtues, great courage, great talents, the favour of the people. She gained more honour and of his sovereign, the love of his countrymen— more love by the manner in which she repair-all that seemed to insure a happy and glorious ed her errors, than she would have gained by life, led to an early and an ignominious death. never committing errors. If such a man as concerning Raleigh, the soldier, the sailor, the Chanes the First had been in her place when scholar, the courtier, the orator, the poet, the whole nation was crying out against the historian, the philosopher, sometimes reviewmonopolies, he would have refused all redress:ing the queen's guards sometimes giving

We had intended to say something concernis the central figure-that group which the ing that illustrious group of which Elizabeth last of the bards saw in vision from the top of Snowdon, encircling the Virgin Queen—

"Many a baron bold,

And gorgeous dames, and statesmen old
In bearded majesty."