In the spring of 1581, Elizabeth's Fourth Parliament re-enacted many of the provisions against reconciliation with Rome made in 1563, by which it was made high treason to make converts, or aid or conceal those who did so. (1) A fine of 100 marks and a year's imprisonment for hearing Mass, and a fine of 200 marks and a year's imprisonment for saying Mass. (2) A fine of £20 a month for adults. who were absent from Church services. (3) A year's imprisonment for teaching without a licence from the Ordinary, and a fine of £10 for employing unlicensed teachers.

It is saddening to contrast such legislation as this with the policy sketched out by Elizabeth in her grand address to the nation after the Northern rebellion of 1569. Then she had said, "We have no meaning to allow that our subjects be molested either by examination or inquisition in any matter of faith, so long as they profess the Christian faith, not gainsaying the authority of Holy Scripture and of the articles of our faith contained in the Creeds, Apostolic and Catholic; or in any matter of ceremonies, so long as they shall, in their outward conversation, show themselves quiet and conformable, and not manifestly repugnant to laws of our realm, established for frequentation of Divine service in the ordinary Churches." But the Pope was to. blame for mixing up his spiritual claims with temporal claims and trying to secure submission by conspiracy and violence. His invasion of England by secret agents inciting to rebellion and murder

led inevitably to stern measures of repression. It was impossible to treat such a movement as purely religious, and allow it to claim toleration on the plea of liberty of conscience. The Pope had made it impossible for a Protestant government to grant liberty of preaching to Roman Catholics.1 He did not content himself with claiming that Romanists should have equal rights with Protestants: he demanded that all who refused his religion and rule should be handed over to destruction. The future of England was at stake; for the success of the Roman propaganda meant the rule of Mary Stuart under the selfish control of the Pope, instead of the rule of Elizabeth, resting on the goodwill of her subjects and directed towards the well-being of the nation. It was the whole difference between mental and political servitude and mental and political freedom. The Roman missionaries were imprisoned and executed, not because they taught a creed believed to be false, but because they made men traitors to the State.2 It is easier to condemn the persecuting legislation than to suggest an alternative that would have been effectual.

And it is not fair to treat the persecution of

1 See the speech of Sir Walter Mildmay, January 1581 (Hansard, P.H., i. pp. 813 ff.), and Paton's comments (British History and Papal Claims, i. pp. 102 ff.).

"Cases

2 As Walsingham wrote to a correspondent in France; of conscience, when they exceed their bounds and grow to be matter of faction, lose their nature; and sovereign princes ought distinctly to punish their practices and contempt, though coloured with the pretence of conscience and religion."

Romanists under Elizabeth as equal to the persecution of Protestants under Philip and Mary. Mary's bloody work was the work of four years, and Elizabeth reigned for forty-five. Of the 183 Roman Catholics who suffered under Elizabeth, perhaps every one could have saved his life by explicitly denying the right of the Pope to depose the Queen : they were not required to abjure their religion. Nothing short of an abjuration of Protestantism and submission to Rome would have saved any of the three hundred and odd martyrs who were burned under Mary. But persecution, however grievously provoked, is ugly work; and in some of the prosecutions under Elizabeth justice was violated and needless cruelty was inflicted. The history of the sixteenth century teems with cruelty and injustice; and the English Reformation is one of those movements of which it is rightly said, that we must not "forget the goodness of the cause in the badness of the agents, nor the badness of the agents in the goodness of the cause."

A second measure for the putting down Romish recusancy was the establishment in December 1583 of the High Commission Court, with powers which resembled those of the Inquisition. The Act of Supremacy of 1559 had empowered the Queen to exercise her ecclesiastical jurisdiction by Commissioners; and several Commissions had been from time to time appointed. Now, however, a permanent Commission was created; and under the Stuarts it became an instrument of great oppression. It con

sisted of twelve Bishops and thirty-two others: three, of whom one must be a Bishop, formed a quorum.

It should be noted that the ecclesiastical despotism of Elizabeth was a legal despotism, for it was based on powers conferred by Parliament. The despotism of her civil government was illegal, and was known to be so. But people submitted to it, because the perils of the nation and of the Reformed Church made the Commons unwilling to insist upon their rights against a sagacious and patriotic Queen. Protests were sometimes made; and, as the perils diminished, the protests became stronger; until at last Elizabeth and her ministers had to give way.

A third measure of defence against Roman intrigue and violence is more pleasing. A Voluntary Bond of Association was formed, for the protection of the Queen's person and the punishment of all who plotted against her. This Bond was everywhere signed with enthusiasm, and whoever signed was pledged to these objects. In November 1584, Elizabeth's Fifth Parliament gave statutory sanction to the Bond; and it was provided that any attempt to deprive Elizabeth of the crown in favour of another should deprive that other of all right to the succession. Another Act ordered all Jesuits and seminary priests to leave England within forty days; and disobedience was to be treated as treason. The nation was roused, and was terribly in earnest. It was determined to make the transfer of the kingdom to a Romanist Queen and government impossible.

But, as long as Mary of Scots lived, there was danger. She was, to all who had espoused the cause of Elizabeth and of Protestantism, a living menace. Her aim was to get Elizabeth to recognize her as her successor. As Elizabeth would recognize no one as her successor, Mary considered that she had the right to try to secure the crown at once. Her wish to restore Romanism was subsidiary to her desire for the crown. She would have tolerated both religions, if toleration would have made her Queen of England. But her only chance of that was to win Roman Catholic support in England, backed up by the Guises in France and by Philip in Spain. So she posed as a devoted servant of the Papacy and as the foe of Protestantism.

Elizabeth and Mary of Scots are two of the strangest women that ever reigned. Both were very clever, very highly educated, and very ambitious. Both were thoroughly unprincipled, ready to tell any lie, or to ruin anybody, in order to gain their ends. Both were women, and both were Queens: but in Elizabeth it was the Queen who triumphed over the woman, while in Mary it was the woman who triumphed over the Queen. Mary's marriage with the Dauphin was wholly a matter of policy. marriage with Darnley was partly a matter of policy, partly also of passion; and so far as it was a matter of policy, it was a mistake. Her marriage with Bothwell was wholly a matter of passion; and it was a fatal mistake: but she cared more for the man than for the crown. It was a blunder on which

Her