Asa H. Craig, (Asa Hollister), 1847-1934
Edward VI.
Lady Jane Grey.
Queen Mary.
Queen Elizabeth.
Mary, Queen of Scots.
James I.
IN the complication of Henry VIII’s many marriages and divorces, the question of succession to the throne of England became one of a peculiar controversy, therefore Parliament passed a decree conferring upon Henry the right to determine by will this line of succession, which was declared as follows:
He directed the right of the crown to fall first upon his only son, Edward, by Jane Seymour. If Edward should die without issue, then it would fall to Mary, daughter of Catherine of Aragon, and with Mary dying without children, then the crown would fall upon Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn. Strange as it may seem, yet each of these lines of succession occupied the throne and died without leaving descendants.
EDWARD VI.
Henry VIII died in 1547, and Edward, then a child of only nine years, was declared by the provisions of the will the successor to Henry as the rightful heir to the throne. But as the child was not of sufficient age the government was vested in a board of regents, composed of both Protestants and Catholics. In this selection the will was disregarded, and selections were made by Parliament as, in their judgment, would best fill the requirements for the harmony of the people.
In this board of regents, the Protestants usurped authority and conducted the government in the interest of their party. They overruled the advice and religious desires of the Catholic minority, and sought by every means in their power to teach Protestantism wherever possible. The young king was carefully instructed in the doctrine of the Reformers, and changes were made in the creed and service of the new Church of England.
In order that there might be a systematic service in the teachings of this form of worship, Archbishop Cranmer prepared the Catechism of the English Book of Common Prayer, and the first copy was issued in 1549. In the preparation of this Prayer-Book the Archbishop called together a commission of bishops and learned theologians, and in using the missals and breviaries of the Catholic Church, to some extent quieted the convictions and sentiments of the Catholic people. While it was designed to cunningly deceive and to cover up the real principles and tenets of this new faith, yet to the ardent Catholic there was plainly written the full object desired, and a determined resistance was made manifest. This book was a translation of the old Latin service books with changes sufficient to conform to the new doctrine, and is the same that is in use to-day by the Anglican Church.
In 1552, forty-two Articles of Religion were published for a full government of faith and its proper observance. These articles were finally reduced to thirty-nine, and remain to the present time as a compendious creed of the Church of England. To enforce an observance of these sweeping changes all teachers and clergymen were compelled to subscribe to these articles and publicly proclaim this new faith. A refusal to submit to these royal edicts was met with severe punishment and penalties of imprisonment. In the enactment of “Acts for the Uniformity of Service,” a stringent la/w was posted and a long line of punishments declared.
In the adoption of the new articles of worship a royal decree was instituted by which the Churches were despoiled of their emblems of faith. All pictures, images, and crucifixes were removed, and the use of tapers, incense, and holy water forbidden. The veneration of the Virgin Mary, and the invocation of the saints were prohibited, while Purgatory was denounced as a superstition, and prayers for the dead interdicted. Besides these denials of faith, the established usage of celibacy of the priests was annulled, the real or bodily presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the sacrament denied, and that the service of the Church should no longer be said in Latin, but in the language of the people.
Many persons were imprisoned for a disobedience or refusal to conform to this new worship. While a persecution to death was not a penalty for infidelity to law, yet in two instances, at least, “heretics and contemners [one who shows contempt] of the Book of Common Prayer” were burned. Still, it can be said of the government of Edward VI that persecutions were at a standstill, as only those who most desperately declared against this new innovation were punished.
Probably no quieter or more determined resistance against the adoption of the faith of the Church of England could be found than was exhibited by Mary, daughter of Catherine of Aragon. Repeated attempts were made to entreat her to adopt the religion of her father, Henry VIII, and her half-brother, Edward, now on tin throne. She was warned that the toleration of Mass even in her own private chapel could not be endured. For two years Emperor Charles V labored in vain to prevent this individual persecution, even declaring he would wage war against England. Still the almost incessant torment of threats and appeals went on.
The Protestant Party saw the failing health of Edward, and in a very short time, according to the will of Henry, Mary must become the reigning queen. To pass from a Protestant to a Catholic government, was debated with great alarm. Many intrigues and plots were devised to circumvent this more than possibility. Edward was anxious to continue his father’s religion, and with his own hand drew a proposed law which was to regulate the succession to his throne. After preparing this proposition, he summoned his judges with the attorney and solicitor-general, and laid the matter before them. They hesitated to acknowledge his right to declare succession, but the king commanded them, to prepare an act for Parliament. The Duke of Northumberland became angry and passionately declared he would not submit to this usurping of authority. Even Cranmer was at first opposed, but the young king became so earnest in his declarations to maintain his father’s religion that he prevailed. The act was prepared, and all the members of the council gave it their approval, and the great seal was placed upon it.
Again, attempts were made to induce Mary to give up her determination to remain faithful to the Catholic Church. The young king bewailed himself over the obstinacy of his sister and that of allowing Mass in any part of his kingdom, but Mary remained constant and determined in her resolution. She said: “If the chaplain cannot say Mass, I shall not hear it, but the new service shall not be established in my house. If it is introduced there by force I shall leave the place.”
Mary continued to receive her priests, and without question in the private sanctity of her own chapel she continued to hear Mass, and to nourish in her heart an enduring love for the Catholic faith. While Mary was never seeking to induce others to accept her religion, yet others were constantly seeking to impress upon her that there was a duty she owed England and her father, to follow in the adopted church of her government. To this she would never consent. Her love was her duty, and her future power should be to sustain it.
On the 6th of July, 1553, at the age of fifteen and one-half years, the king of England, Edward VI, died. A question now arose which was most interesting to all the people of England. Would the reigning sovereign be a Protestant, or would it revert to the control of the Catholics? If, according to the act of Parliament under Henry VIII, the will of Henry is recognized, then Mary has the right of succession, but if under the sovereign law of Edward, then. Lady Jane Grey would become queen and the Protestant Party would prevail. But in this the Protestants were doomed to disappointment.
We now open a new history in the great reformation of England. Henry VIII had established an independent religion. He had severed his government, both spiritual and temporal, from the Church of Rome, and in the establishment of the Church of England he had destroyed the last existing tie between him and the Pope. He had been excommunicated and in return had renounced forever his allegiance to the Holy See. Edward had died, and in the line of his own succession Mary was the rightful heir and must be crowned Queen of England. The attempt of the Duke of Northumberland and others, to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne, met with disfavor from Protestants and Catholics alike, and in the reaction disaster overtook the leaders of the movement, and being convicted of treason were executed.
For the benefit of history, it is but proper to state that Lady Jane Grey belonged to the royal family of Henry VIII, and is explained as follows:
Henry VII, King of England, had three children, Henry VIII, Margaret, and Mary. To Henry VIII belonged Ed- ward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth; to Margaret, Mary Stuart, by James V of Scotland; and to Mary, Lady Jane Grey, by the Duke of Suffolk.
It is, therefore, easy to see that through the illegal marriages of Henry VIII, that both lines of his sisters, Margaret and Mary, might legally succeed to the throne.
After the death of Edward the conspiracy of the Duke of Northumberland was put into immediate effect. He appeared before Lady Jane Grey and informed her of his plans and expectations. He said: “Lady Jane Grey, the King, your cousin, and our sovereign lord, has surrendered his soul to God, but before his death, and in order to preserve his kingdom from the infection of Popery, he resolved to set aside his sisters, Mary and Elizabeth, declared illegitimate by an act of Parliament, and he has commanded us to proclaim your Grace as queen and sovereign to succeed him/’ At this moment the Lords and Council knelt before her and swore fidelity to the cause of Lady Jane. So impressed and startled was she by this revelation that she fell to the floor, but on being restored to consciousness she raised her head with modest confidence and said: “If the right is mine, I hope that God will give me strength to bear the scepter for his glory and the happiness of the people of England.”
She was immediately conducted to the Tower, the place where sovereigns usually reside before their coronation. Criers were sent through the streets proclaiming the death of Edward. They also proclaimed the act of Parliament making the succession of Mary and Elizabeth illegal and that of Lady Jane Grey the rightful claimant to the throne, and as such she was now in waiting to be crowned queen. No enthusiasm was made manifest by these declarations. The people did not wish to change the line of succession as adopted, and they whispered among themselves that Mary was the rightful heir.
In the country the people became intensely interested, and being largely Catholic in sentiment were determined to protect Mary in her demand to the Council for recognition of her rights. Mary had promised to change none of the laws instituted by Edward; therefore, many Protestants were earnest in their declarations of fealty. The Earl of Pembroke declared that, “If reasons do not suffice, this sword shall make Mary queen, or I shall die in her cause.” Even the Duke of Suffolk joined in his profession of loyalty to Mary and basely deserted his own daughter.
The streets of London were again listening, but this time to the declarations of those who stood by Mary and loudly applauded her rights to the throne. At St. Paul’s Cross, where a week before Bishop Ridley preached in favor of Protestant succession, they now cheered the apparent triumphs of the Catholics. Mary was everywhere declared the sovereign queen of England, and no force could change the verdict.
Lady Jane was arrested on the charge of treason by the usurping of power, having been queen ten days, and was imprisoned. The Duke of Northumberland, Sir John Gates, and Sir Thomas Palmer, the leaders of this high-treason, were arrested, tried, and executed. Queen Mary was repeatedly urged to rid herself of Lady Jane, but declined, as she pitied the little usurper, declaring that she was more the tool of others than an instrument in herself.
The Catholic Party was now triumphant. Mary was an earnest Christian, and sought to establish worship in all the realm. She had forgotten her promise not to undo the laws of Edward, but in her Catholic zeal she could see only the establishment of her faith and worship. The Emperor Charles V was her constant adviser, and recommended prudence, leniency, and a toleration of worship. Severity was set aside as not a wise policy in the administration of religious affairs. The Emperor counseled moderation, and besought Mary to be slow in demanding radical changes in the worship of the people. But the fervent convictions of Mary could not be stifled. She said: “God protected me in all my misfortunes, it is in Him that I confide. I will not testify my gratitude slowly and in secret, but at once and openly.”
Parliament voted that the nation should return to its obedience to the Papal See, and in testimony of their sincerity they fell upon their knees to receive the hands of the legate sent from Rome. They asked for absolution from the sin of heresy and schism, and in the gratitude of their sincerity they repealed all the acts of Henry and Edward relating to the new worship that had been established. Parliament was now declared Catholic, and there was great rejoicing in Rome. The persecutions of the English Church were at an end. Mass was established in all the churches in London, the people were loud in their declarations of loyalty, and even Princess Elizabeth could not withstand the current of restoration of all things Catholic, and in humility, and in obedience to her conscience, renounced the practice of Protestant worship and returned to the Catholic faith. She accompanied her sister to Mass, and even established a chapel in her private residence. Was this act of Elizabeth one of deceit, or was it from the sincerity of the heart?
Scarcely a month had elapsed after the meeting of Parliament before the religious structure of Henry and Edward had fallen to pieces, and although they refused to restore the confiscated Church lands, which were now in the hands of the lords and commoners, vet they were anxious and willing to undo everything not in conflict with the restoration of these vast estates. Mary, to prove her loyalty to the Church of Rome, restored a great part of the property still in the possession of the crown, and restored many of the ruined monasteries, abbeys, schools and institutions of learning.
Parliament set aside the Prayer Book; abolished the Church service in the language of the people, and returned to the established usage. The marriage of priests was prohibited; communion discontinued, and where bishops had married, or still remained in favor of the Reform doctrine, they were deprived of their sees. The marriage of Henry VIII with Catherine of Aragon was declared the only legal marriage, thus establishing by an act of Parliament that Mary was the only lawful and legal heir to the throne.
The queen retained the title of the Head of the Church, not so much for its honor and power, as for continuing the people in the belief that it was not too severely Catholic. Where priests refused to give up their Protestant faith and who refused to say Mass they were replaced. A mild enforcement of the laws against heresy was being executed, and the prisons were being filled with those who were refractory. It was the beginning of a new religious storm. Mary had been raised under the influences of persecution, and her thoughts of heresy were black and bitter. To deny the religion of Christ was to her a treason more dangerous than any national crime.
And now, from the standpoint of to-day, let us for a moment consider the question of heresy as seen and believed by the people of those times. In their religious fervor Catholics and Protestants, alike, regarded heresy as a greater crime than treason. They were educated in the belief that it was an unpardonable sin, a dangerous crime against Christ, against the Church, and against the government, and must be suppressed. They were taught that there could be no toleration, no compromise, and no pardon except pardon by a full and public acknowledgment of the sin and error. Not only did these people regard the laws against heresy as necessary for the promotion of Christianity, but they regarded it as an absolute duty to suppress it, and any neglect by those in authority was to imperil their hope of heaven and of salvation. They honestly believed their own souls were in danger of God’s wrath, and to countenance an outspoken heretic was not only to endanger the souls of other men, but in their belief, they must be held responsible for allowing this monstrous treason.
In believing this is it any wonder that Edward sought to establish and to continue his father’s creed, and is it any wonder that Mary should with equal zeal seek to subdue the heresy that was dividing the Church of Rome? As sovereign, it became her duty under the law to force its execution, and while she did not exhibit the spirit of revenge, yet in her intoleration she became earnest almost to fanaticism, and in her persecutions against Protestants she did what she believed was her duty to do.
Again, let us cover these wild scenes of intoleration with the cloak of ignorance, superstition, and zealous duty. They were ignorant of any means of stamping out the teachings of Atheism, or the open revolt against their Christianity, except by force. The human heart had not been nourished in the cradle of compassion, pity, and benevolence. Theirs was the education of wars and conquests. Christ’s love and compassion was seen only as all men were forced to bow down and worship Him. It had been the continuation of the ages of strength. Nations were sustained only by the power of the sword, and in the warfare of men it was the establishment of religion that enthused them to action. The world was a vast field of intoleration and persecution. The followers of Mahomet sought to crush out Christianity and in return Christianity sought to establish its teachings of Christ and its mode of worship in all the countries of the earth. They had not arisen to the plane of the education of to-day. To them it was God’s displeasure and the abandonment of their soul’s salvation, and in believing this they could not consistently do anything less than to labor against heresy by the persecution of force. To them the ax, the sword, and the flame, were the weapons of a wrathful Heaven to exterminate, and to remove from God’s earth the poisonous sting and venom of an unholy, vicious, and treasonable heresy.
A new measure of uneasiness was being fomented in all England. Mary had decided to marry Philip, Prince of Spain, and son of Charles V. Protestations against this alliance were being circulated, and even Parliament had sent an address to the queen to abandon this proposed marriage, and to choose her husband from her own realm. These protests only aroused her obstinacy, and throwing herself upon her knees before the altar, railed God to witness her plighted troth to Philip.
Conspirators were secretly Lacking to overthrow the queen. France was jealous of this alliance, and urged a revolution to stay its consummation. Some wished to enthrone Elizabeth, while others were desirous of releasing Lady Jane Grey and again proclaiming her Queen of England. An armed opposition was raised to prevent the landing of Philip. Sir Peter Carew had rebelled in Devonshire, and Sir Thomas Wyat, a Catholic, was raising a rebellion in Kent. Wyat had conceived a most violent horror of Spain, and was supporting the Princess Elizabeth. He was the boldest conspirator in all the insurrection. He defeated the Duke of Norfolk at Rochester and then moved upon the defenses of the City of London, but here he failed to produce the uprising he anticipated. He was defeated, captured, and sent to the Tower. The courage of Mary was ceaseless and undaunted. She declared she would never yield to a traitor like that, and would die in the cause she had espoused. The leniency of her previous conduct was changed to an unrelenting punishment. Wyat and many of his followers were executed. Mary was now determined to rid herself of the possibility of the power of Lady Jane Grey, and consequently, on the 12th of February, 1554, she was executed.
‘‘She died in the faith which she had believed from childhood, serene and grave, without a complaint or tear, simply avowing to the few spectators of her execution that she deserved death for having consented, although with regret, to serve as an instrument to the ambition of others. She implored the mercy of God and delivered herself up into the hands of the executioner, moving all hearts by her constancy and meekness.”
So great was the excitement that even Elizabeth was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower, but by her earnest declaration of innocence she was removed to Woodstock, where she remained closely watched by the officers of Mary. Execution followed execution until it seemed as though all were ‘engaged in this revolt. But not alone was it confined to the Protestants. The name Spaniard was hated almost to desperation by the people of England, and even Catholics protested and arose in revolt against the union of English blood with Spain. It was not a revolt against Mary because she was a Catholic, but because of the horror of Spanish affiliation. And in return these executions by Mary were not because they were Protestants but because they were in rebellion. In this we have no right to accuse Mary of any fanatic religious zeal, but only the right of government to subdue an insurrection. In this neither Protestants nor Catholics have any right to complain. It was but the chances of war. They cast their lot against Spain, and in the conflict, theirs was the destiny of defeat.
On the 28th of July, 1554, Mary was united in marriage to Philip. Parliament was suspicious of Spanish influence and took precautions against it. Cardinal Pole was sent by the Pope to effect a full reconciliation between the people of England and the Church of Rome. By a petition of Parliament Pole pronounced this reconciliation by absolution, and the works of Henry VIII and Edward VI were declared void, and the efforts of Mary to return to the Catholic faith were accomplished.
The year 1555 was one of extreme intolerance in the punishment of heresy. Prisons were filled with the accused, and a court commissioned to try heretics was formed. Condemnations and executions were increasing every day. Rogers, Hooper, and Ferrar were executed, and the fanaticism of Mary and Philip urged a more rapid enforcement of the laws. Cardinal Pole sought in vain to induce Mary to listen to moderation. She had endured plots, conspiracies, and persecutions, and now in the zeal of religious fury she would burn and execute those who oppose her. The conscience of Mary was pledged to restore England to the Roman Catholic faith, and she would do it, by force, if not otherwise. The strength of the two religions was about equal, and the task she had undertaken grew greater and greater. Ridley, Latimer, and Cranmer were convicted for heresy. Cranmer was called to Rome, while Ridley and Latimer, on October 16, 1556, were burned near Baliol College, where stands a monument which commemorates their execution. These eminent prelates were fastened back-to-back, and as’ the flames encircled them, Latimer, with superhuman strength, cried aloud: “Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man, and we shall this day light such a candle by God’s grace in England as I trust shall never be put out.”
Cranmer did not appear in Rome, but efforts were made to induce him to recant, and in a measure these efforts were successful. By these shameful acts of recantation, he believed he was purchasing liberty. He had condemned his religion, signed in rapid succession six abjurations, and in the expectation of liberty was coolly informed that his repentance only absolved him from punishment in eternal life, but not the punishment that had been imposed upon him, and upon the 21st of March following he was condemned to die. Cranmer now greatly regretted his recantation, for he had not redeemed his life from the penalty of death, but had instead perjured his word, his honor, and his soul.
As an example of his deep humility, and in punishment of his false denunciation of his faith, he thrust the hand that had signed his abjuration into the raging flames as he approached the stake and cried: “This hand hath offended.” He protested against his infidelity to the Reform faith and died a willing victim of heresy and persecution. The last courage of Cranmer won for him the forgiveness of his followers for the vacillations and inconsistencies of his life.
In quoting from Guizot’s history, one of the most uncompromising Protestant historians, and an escaped Huguenot from Paris, we find that:
“Eighty-four persons perished that year by the flames, nor did the living only suffer condemnation; the bones of Martin Eucer, who had died in England, whither he had been summoned by Cranmer during the reign of Edward VI, were disinterred and publicly burned. The body of the wife of Pierce, the martyr, suffered the same outrage; her grave was first desecrated, and she was afterwards buried in a dunghill. The reign of Mary lasted only five years; but in this short space of time two hundred and eighty-eight persons were legally condemned to execution on account of religion, and it would be impossible to enumerate the obscurer martyrs who died of hunger or suffering in the prisons. Most of the victims belonged to the middle class and to the people; it was here that was manifested the most faithful attachment to the doctrines of the Reformation. The great, enriched by the spoliation and governmental reform of Henry VIII, cared only to retain their possessions. The poor defended in their way their precious faith by dying for it. Secret discontent was great even among the Roman Catholic population; the Spaniards were detested; crimes increased. Notwithstanding the stern repression which they had undergone in the time of Henry VIII — seventy-two thousand murderers, thieves or vagabonds had, it is said, perished upon the gallows during his long reign — the executioners of Queen Mary had also much to do. Repeatedly men of good family, who had degraded themselves to the condition of highwaymen, were detected and seized. Certain parts of the kingdom remained in a state of dull discontent; it was amid this general uneasiness that Philip, who had become king of Spain in 1556, upon the abdication of the Emperor Charles V, at length succeeded in involving his wife and England in his quarrels with France.”
The war with France was unpopular. For once the people of England were opposed to a new conflict. In the struggle they lost every foot of ground they possessed in France. Calais was captured after being in their possession for two hundred and eleven years. This loss was bitterly painful to the queen and her people. During this struggle Mary was taken ill, and, on the 17th of November, 1558, at the age of forty-three, she died. She sighed so bitterly at the last that the ladies asked her if she were suffering, commiserating her for the absence of King Philip. “Not that only/’ she said, “but when I am dead and opened you shall find Calais lying in my heart.”
“The following morning, at nearly the same hour, Cardinal Pole died at Lambeth. The two pillars of the Catholic Church in England fell at the same time. Pole had hoped to ensure triumph of his cause by gentleness and justice; Mary had supported it by steel and fire. Both were equally sincere and conscientious. Mary was of a religious mind; her character, naturally stern and determined, had been embittered by injustice and suffering; but she was upright and honest, avoiding the subterfuges and deceits which Queen Elizabeth too often practiced. She was animated by a fervent faith, which she deemed was her right and duty to impose by force upon all her subjects. The sufferings of heretics excited little compassion in her breast; she was hardened against them, but in her private life, and towards her servants, she was kind and generous, capable of affection and of devotion. She blindly loved her husband, who neglected and despised her on account oi her age, and the few charms which nature had bestowed upon her. Mary, however, was learned; she spoke pure Latin, she had studied Greek, and spoke French, Spanish, and Italian with ease. She was a good musician, and danced gracefully. Her household was a model of order and regularity. The queen set an example of piety and virtue. The memory of these good qualities and misfortunes pales in the presence of a supreme fault: a terrible stain remains imprinted upon the brow of the unfortunate queen by her fanaticism and her conscientious cruelty. She persecuted piously; she burnt sincerely; her acts, more than her character, merit the odious name which history has given her. On examining her life closely, one is tempted to pity ‘Bloody Mary.”
The object in quoting from Guizot, the most radical Protestant historian known, is to place before the readers of this publication the very extreme of charges made against Queen Mary. While it has been the aim of the author to put aside prejudiced ideas, bigoted statements, and misrepresented history, yet in this case, as Protestants declare the reign of Mary to be one of terrible bloodshed and persecution, to give their strongest statements and then ask them to compare the acts of Mary with those of her sister Elizabeth.
As previously stated, Mary’s reign was not a long period of sovereignty, nor did she come into possession of the crown in a peaceable manner. A conspiracy was conceived by the Protestant party in order to prevent the government from passing into Mary’s hands because she was a Catholic, and in this opposition Lady Jane Grey was formally announced by the conspirators to be the successor to Edward VI, and was crowned Queen of England, thus attempting to deprive Mary of her rightful inheritance.
To punish this act of treason many important personages were executed, not as is usually charged, because they were Protestants, but because they sought to usurp a power not lawfully theirs. Here is a marked injustice, and I must ask, why is it that Protestants are continually referring to Mary as the terrible reign of Protestant persecution, when for three hundred years the Catholics of Britain and Ireland were subjected to almost every indignity which tyrannical power could devise? Read the history of Ireland from the establishment of the Church of England, in 1534, to the time of the Catholic emancipation in 1829, when on April 13th, a bill became a law whereby Catholics were eligible to all offices, civil, municipal, and military, except the office of Regent, of Lord Chancellor, of Viceroy of Ireland, and the Royal Commissioner of the General Assembly of Scotland. Read the chapter, “Irish Persecution,” found elsewhere in this book. Read the following history of Elizabeth, and then if you can draw a comparison by which Mary is a blacker demon than those who have for so many years darkened the pages of English history, you can do that which has never yet been done.
The fact is, there is not, nor can there be, any reasonable comparison. Mary occupied the throne during a stormy period of revolt, while Elizabeth persecuted because all opposition to the Church of England must be subdued by the power of force. Her hands were steeped in the blood of Catholics, Puritans, and Anabaptists. To be a Catholic was to be an enemy to the government, to the Church, and to Elizabeth, and as such must be denied the freedom of worship, or if influential, expelled from the country, or condemned for heresy and executed.
Why have these cruelties, these persecutions, these intolerations, been hidden in the background, or glossed over with the brush of injustice, while the literature of the whole Protestant world is filled with the acts of “Bloody Mary”? Is it because persecution becomes an act of justice when Catholics are the victims? Or is it because Catholics, from hundreds of years of tyranny, have become insensible to torture? Is it because one form of Christianity seeks to build itself upon the fallen fortunes of another?
If we weigh in the scales of impartial justice the reigns of these two sisters, what do we find? What is this comparison?
If Mary was unyielding and exacting in her demands for the reestablishment of the Catholic Church, what can you say of Elizabeth, who knew no toleration, no purity of life, and no compassion? For a moment let us draw a few of the many worthy comparisons:
Mary reigned only five years and four months, while Elizabeth’s reign was forty-four years and four months, a period almost nine times longer than her elder sister. The victims of Catholic persecution under Elizabeth outnumber those of Mary in proportion as was the time she wielded the power of sovereign greater than that of her sister. Therefore, when we lay at the feet of Mary the record of one suffering Protestant, we must lay at the feet of Elizabeth nine suffering Catholics.
The historian, Hallam, asserts that “the rack seldom stood idle in the Tower for all the latter part of Elizabeth’s reign.”
The most unpardonable act of Mary’s life, in the judgment of her critics, was the execution of Lady Jane Grey, and yet this lady, at the time of her execution, declared that she deserved death for being the tool of a conspiracy where she usurped the throne of England, which she occupied for nine days. While the execution of Lady Jane has been much deplored, yet it was but the execution of law against treason.
In contrast, we find that Elizabeth put to death her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots, after a long imprisonment, on a charge of aspiring to the English throne, and yet this charge was not sustained. Thus, we find that the execution of Lady Jane Grey was the result of treason, while Elizabeth’s execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, was a cold-blooded murder of a defenseless woman who fled to her for protection.
Mary’s zeal was exercised in behalf of the religion of her forefathers, which had been the recognized and loved form of worship for more than one thousand years. Elizabeth’s zeal was employed in extending the new creed, introduced by her father in a moment of passion, and modified by him. The one had been in existence from the date of England’s conversion to Christianity a thousand years previous, and had ever been cherished in the hearts of the people. The other was the result of a sinful intercourse and the refusal of the Pope of Rome to sanction the crime.
While Mary sought to restore the time-honored faith and worship of the Catholic Church, Elizabeth, with a most violent and unrelenting rigor, declared that no Catholic worship should be tolerated.
The elder sister was propagating what she believed was the true and infallible doctrine of Christ, but the younger sister was propagating her own religion, and that of her father. The one had been tried since the days of the Apostle Peter; the other was that winch Henry VIII had instituted when he rebelled from the Church of Rome.
While Mary had no private or personal motives in oppressing Protestants, Elizabeth’s hostility to the Catholic Church was intensified, if not instigated, by her hatred of the Pope, who had declared her illegitimate. Her legitimacy before the world depended on the success of the new religion, which had legalized her father’s divorce from Catherine.
Hence, as Macaulay says: “Mary was sincere in her religion; Elizabeth was not. Having no scruple about conforming to the Roman Church when conformity was necessary to her own safety, retaining to the last moment of her life a fondness for much of the doctrine and much of the ceremonial of that Church, she yet subjected that Church to a persecution even more odious than the persecution with which her sister had harassed the Protestants. Mary did nothing for her religion which she was not prepared to suffer for. She had held it firmly under persecution. She fully believed it to be essential to salvation. Elizabeth, in opinion, was but little more than half a Protestant. She had professed, when it suited her, to be wholly Catholic.”
Thus, we find, as we understand the controlling motives of Mary and Elizabeth, that their actions are based upon different principles of justice, and in the rendering of judgment on them, we must decide, that if you condemn the five years of Mary’s reign you must also condemn the forty-four years of Elizabeth’s persecutions.
QUEEN ELIZABETH.
By the death of Queen Mary, the crown, by virtue of the succession granted to Henry VIII, fell to Elizabeth, the daughter of Anne Boleyn. Her professions of faith under the reign of Mary were more of hypocrisy than ardent truth, as her future acts will prove. In her pretense of renouncing the Reform worship of her father she acted from policy. Her social relations with her sister Mary were cold and indifferent. While Mary was a Catholic almost to fanaticism, and would yield to no opposition to establish her faith, yet Elizabeth was cunning, artful, and designing. Not naturally hard in heart and determined in persecution, but as history informs us: “Along with her good and queenly qualities and accomplishments, Elizabeth had many unamiable traits and unwomanly ways. She was capricious, treacherous, unscrupulous, ungrateful, and cruel. She seemed almost devoid of a moral or religious sense. Deception and falsehood were her usual weapons in diplomacy.”
“In the profusion and recklessness of her lies,” declares Green, “Elizabeth stood without a peer in all Christendom.” Besides the practice of deceit and hypocrisy, her moral life was notoriously corrupt. She toyed with the Lords and nobles as the cat plays with its mouse. Her fascinating charms surrounded her with the corruption of court and the scandal of the nation. Her designs were to institute favor, excite passion, and to hold in her power the nobility of the kingdom. In contrast to Mary, she was as black is to white. The religious, moral, and conscientious character of Mary is in marked contrast with the disgraceful, corrupt, and insincere motives of Elizabeth. In the pursuit of pleasure, ambition, or power, she was active and determined. She was quick to devise ways and means to accomplish her purposes, and although Protestant in faith, yet in the dissembling character of her nature, it is a question if she even thought of God m her heart.
Her title to the crown was denied by every true Catholic in England, because she was the child of Anne Boleyn, that marriage which the Pope had forbidden under pain of the anathemas of the Church. Therefore, she had little to expect from the Catholics, and very naturally looked to the Protestant Party for sympathy and loyalty. With this question raised against her lawful heirship, it is easily seen that her prejudices must largely work in favor of the Reform Church, and although Catholics were in hopes she would continue the work of Mary, yet they were disappointed, when, like Mary, who undid the work of Henry VIII and Edward VI, she undid the work of Mary. It was a game of tit for tat. Mary had restored the Catholic worship, and now Elizabeth would overthrow it and restore the Church of England.
Elizabeth was strong in character, courageous, and determined. She possessed admirable judgment, was far-seeing, and in politics sustained a wonderful tact. By these qualities her government became one of the strongest, and most illustrious in the history of England’s sovereigns. She raised the nation from a position of insignificance to one of the most active among the States of Europe. One of the secrets of her strength was by her selection of strong, earnest men for her advisers. She gathered around her Council board the wisest and most eminent men of her empire. In the selection of Sir William Cecil (Lord Burleigh) she found a man of extensive knowledge, a man of great sagacity, and of ceaseless industry. To him, more than to any other person, is largely due the success of her administration. This man stood at the head of the Queen’s Council for more than forty years.
The first act of Elizabeth was to dissolve the two religious houses established by Mary, and to elect a new Parliament, by which two new Acts were established — the Act of Supremacy, and the Act of Uniformity — which re-laid the foundation of the Anglican Church. By this Act of Supremacy all the clergy, and every person holding office, were required to take an oath of allegiance declaring the Queen to be the supreme authority in all things spiritual as well as temporal, and at the same time renouncing the authority or jurisdiction of any foreign prince or prelate. For refusing to take this oath many Catholics were persecuted, imprisoned, and even suffered death. While Elizabeth did not resort to the conscientious persecution of Mary, yet her reign is filled with the history of crime and bloodshed.
The Act of Uniformity forbade clergymen from using any but the Anglican liturgy. It also required every person to attend the Established Church on Sundays and other holy days.
For a violation of this act, each absence recorded a fine of one shilling. The persecution which arose under this law caused many Catholics to seek freedom of worship in other countries. The Catholics were not alone in their disobedience of this Act. There were Protestant Non-Conformists, called Puritans, and Separatists. These organizations were stronger in the reforms of the Church and believed that the Anglican was only half-reformed. The Puritans were more the followers of John Calvin and his doctrine, while the Separatists were even more rigid in discipline than the Puritans. They flung away every semblance of Roman worship, and severed all connections with the Established Church. Under this Act they were persecuted and forced to leave England. Many went to Holland, where, in after years, they became the Pilgrim Fathers of the New World.
The forms of persecution were small and inconsiderate in many instances, but annoying and aggravating. Spies were sent to question into the private life of Catholics, and those not in proclaimed sympathy with the movements of Elizabeth. It was a low, disgusting scrutiny of the private lives of the people. No one was secure in his home conversation, or his private worship. A secret system of detective work was going on everywhere, and while its results were not often a sacrifice of life, yet in its persecution the people were harassed in mind and conscience, not knowing what charge might arise and the verdict of imprisonment would be their lot.
As an instance of this determined persecution we find recorded that, as early as in 1561, Sir Edward Waldegrave and his wife were sent to the Tower for having received and entertained a Catholic priest at their home. A Puritan was scourged for having said in his private family that he would never recognize the Church of England. This evidence was obtained by listening at the keyhole. A petition signed by bishops imploring Elizabeth to follow the example of her sister Mary was received with indignation and the petitioners sent to prison. Offers of position and rich estates were made to those imprisoned bishops, and many were thus converted to the Reform faith. Bonner refused to yield and died in prison. The monasteries that were restored by Mary were now dosed and their valuable possessions again confiscated. The whole effort of Elizabeth was to restore the work of Cranmer and Edward VI. Elizabeth was losing the quiet insincere life of her past retirement, and was yielding to the demands and public opinions of the Protestant Party.
Political motives were now being considered by Elizabeth. France and Spain were united by the marriage of Philip II to Elizabeth, daughter of Henry II. Scotland was in a ferment of religious revolution, and their young queen, Mary Stuart, was an ardent Catholic. From the standpoint of the illegality of Henry VIIIs marriage with Anne Boleyn, Mary Stuart, being the daughter of James V of Scotland, by right of birth, according to all Catholics, who denied the validity of the marriage of Anne Bolcyn with Henry VIII, was the next in direct succession to the crown of England, after Mary Tudor. Politically, the three countries — France, Spain, and Scotland — were to form an alliance and overthrow Elizabeth and her English government, and in the overthrow Mary Stuart would become heir to the throne. So strong became the apparent motives of this alliance that Elizabeth declared she would take a husband, and as she describes: ‘‘I will take a husband who shall cause the head of the King of France to ache; he does not know what a rebuff I intend to give him.”
Advances were immediately made to the Earl of Arran, the heir-presumptive to the throne of Scotland after the Stuarts. The Earl had become an ardent Protestant and this union would strengthen the bonds of government, but Elizabeth was too fickle in mind to form either a political or matrimonial alliance, and although repeatedly solicited by Parliament to take a husband, yet she could never settle her mind on which would be the ‘most available in all the long line of royal candidates.
As she was handsome, brilliant in diplomacy, and witty and fascinating in court, she was greatly admired, and her strength of will and purpose did much to hold the confidence of Europe and the love and esteem of her people. In matters of religion, she was extremely Protestant, and her persecutions of Catholics were cruel and inhuman. Her greatest fear was, that in the succession to the throne of England, the government might again fall into the hands of her religious enemies. She feared Mary Stuart, because she was a Catholic, and because she was next in the line of succession. The twenty years’ imprisonment was not that Mary had committed a crime, but that she might, through her Catholic influence, establish a revolt against the Protestant Reformation, overthrow the religious government of England and Scotland, and restore the Catholic faith. It was this, fear that sustained Elizabeth in her persecutions, and made her despotic and tyrannical. So great was her fear that her suspicions often governed her inconsistencies, and in a number of instances she caused to be executed some of her most trusted advisers.
She realized that her birth was not a clear title to the throne of England; that from a point of morality it was base and ignoble, while from the law of the Catholic Church it was declared illegal and void. Twice did the Pope issue an edict of excommunication and declared her subjects no longer legally bound to her will. Knowing these conditions, we cannot wonder at her deep solicitude for her own safety, as well as that of her chosen religion.
In a short review we have this history of England as it affected the Catholic and Protestant religions of that empire:
1st. Henry VIII, from motives of revenge, and to establish the legitimacy of his own licentious passions, overthrew the Catholic Church, and in the strength of might established a new line of nobility and a new doctrine of worship. He confiscated the property of the Church, robbed monasteries, and denied the free worship of God.
2nd. Edward VI, the son of Jane Seymour, continued the persecution, established a ritual creed in the faith of his father, and commanded a religious observance of it. He also established the English Book of Common Prayer, and the forty-two articles of faith that became the standard of doctrine of the English Church. Edward died at the age of fifteen- and one-half years.
3rd. Mary, the daughter of Catherine of Aragon, the only lawful marriage of Henry VIII. She became known in Protestant history as “Bloody Mary.” Being an ardent Catholic, she overturned the religious governments of Henry and Edward, re-established the monasteries, restored estates, and through a series of zealous determinations, bulk up the Catholic faith. Under her reign the whole structure of faith was Catholic. Even Parliament was anxious to vote that the nation should return to the obedience of the Papal See, and in their anxiety to seek absolution fell upon their knees in the presence of the legate of the Pope. Mary’s was a reign of an established Catholic power.
4th. Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn, was the next in succession, and from the Catholic law could not be a lawful child of marriage. Under this reign Elizabeth exercised a more bitter and inconsistent persecution than we find in Mary, but being Protestant her efforts were directed against the Catholic Church and those in opposition to her. By her the English Church was firmly established, never again to be overthrown. While Protestant teachings exclaim with horror over the persecutions of Mary, yet in her sister, Elizabeth, we find the same fanatic zeal to overturn and persecute the followers of Mary and her established religion.
5th. By a conspiracy of Protestant followers and to prevent Catholic Mary from taking the throne, Lady Jane Grey was announced the lawful sovereign of England, and for nine days she was declared by the insurrection Queen of England, but the line of succession as established by Henry VIII could not be broken and she was arrested as a usurper, tried for treason and in after years was executed.
6th. Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots was, from the declaration of Catholic authority, the lawful heir to the throne of England, but as she was Catholic, under the trumped-up charge of being accessory to the murder of her husband, was forced to abdicate in favor of her infant son, James VI, of Scotland. Mary fled to England and asked for protection of her cousin Elizabeth, who fearing her legal line of ancestry and her Catholic following, cast her into prison, where she remained for twenty years and was then executed.
7th. We now arrive at the sovereign reign of King James I, known in history as James VI of Scotland, son of Mary Stuart.
MARY STUART, QUEEN OF SCOTS.
Much of the history of Queen Elizabeth’s reign is so closely connected with Mary Stuart, that to write one is to write both, and by the Catholic legality of birth Mary stood as a rival to the throne of England.
Scotland was virtually in the hands of the Protestant Reformers, known as the followers of John Calvin, or Presbyterians, and while Mary sought to sustain her Catholic faith, yet the Protestant doctrine was growing stronger and stronger, and in force was the controlling religion of the kingdom.
The Scottish Queen married Lord Darnley, an ardent Catholic, against the loud protestations of the Protestant preachers and other reformers. Mary was earnestly petitioned to renounce everything Catholic and unite herself with the Protestant faith. Plot after plot was instituted to overthrow this new Catholic influence, and as Darnley was weak in affection, vulgar, unmannerly, dissolute and violent at times, he soon lost the love and esteem of Mary, and in its place grew aversion and contempt. Darnley realized that his uncouth brutality had deeply wounded the sensitive nature of his wife and sought, during his drunken revelries, to devise means of allaying the scorn of the court for his unmannerly conduct. He knew his disgrace and must seek some means of redeeming his faults. To do this there must be some excuse invented, some attack to produce a suspicion, a court talk that Darnley had grievances, that he was wronged, that there were excuses, and after all the pure, sweet Mary may not be exactly what she seemed. In this study Darnley seized upon one Rizzio, an Italian musician, and court favorite. The Italian was handsome, graceful, and a musician. Darnley grew jealous of his accomplishments and even basely taunted his wife of infidelity. The proud spirit of Mary turned away in disgust from these low insinuations of her depraved husband.
She had borne his vulgar, drunken orgies with loathing and shame, but now a reflection was cast upon her honor, and she felt it too humiliating to even respond to these heart thrusts of a wicked and sensuous husband.
Darnley communicated his pretended grievances to his friends, and a bold scheme of assassination was declared as the only means of ridding the court of his presence. Rizzio was indeed a court favorite, and being an Italian, willing hands were waiting to avenge the honor of one who had no honor. At the head of this conspiracy stood Lord Ruthven and Lord Morton, chancellor of the kingdom. Besides this conspiracy, there was another motive that induced these prominent Lords to plot against the life of Rizzio and the character of Mary. They sought to recall the Earl of Murray and other exiled Lords, and by threats of persecution their plot would be successful.
The time selected for this assassination was while the Queen and her ladies were at supper and Rizzio was in the room. Darnley would have his wife see the consummation of this plotted villainy, and thus produce fear and consternation. Darnley entered the dining-room, followed by Ruthven and others. Ruthven ordered Rizzio to leave the apartment, and an angry altercation followed in which Mary defended Rizzio in this unjust demand. Darnley seized the hands of his wife, and in the melee the table was overturned and Rizzio stabbed with a dagger. Morton guarded the doors of the palace with a troop of armed men, thus cutting off any assistance which might come to the support of the Queen.
If we follow this conspiracy, we will find that the Earl of Bothwell and Lord Huntley came to the assistance of Mary with an armed force of eighteen thousand men, and that Morton and Ruthven fled. Soon after this event Mary gave birth to a son, who was to become James VI of Scotland, and James I of England. The coldness between Mary and Darnley increased. The brutality of Darnley might be overlooked, but being an accomplice in crime and the defamer of his wife’s character, was too black to be trusted, or to be forgiven. But the end was soon to come. The house in which Darnley was spending the night was blown up and he was killed. Suspicion immediately rested upon Bothwell, and he was arrested, tried for murder, but acquitted. Bothwell was known to be desperately enamored with Mary, and court talk assumed phases not complimentary to him or to her. So great was his infatuation that Mary’s personal friends warned her against him, and even wrote to her saying: “Bothwell will kill you; retire before he comes within this place.”
Bothwell had sought powerful allies among the members of Parliament, and at a banquet of all the principal members, protested his innocence of the murder of Damley, and then announced his intention of marrying Mary. Whether from fear or otherwise, Bothwell obtained their signature? recommending this union, and they also undertook to use their influence in his behalf. It had been Bothwell’s scheme to force a union with Mary, and to accomplish this he had obtained a separation from his wife. Darnley was dead, and current opinion was that he was the means of his death.
Four days from the time Bothwell secured the signatures of the principal members of Parliament he intercepted Mary while she was returning from Stirling, and with his powerful escort forced her to accompany him to Dunbar Castle, where he held her captive for five days. At the moment of her capture Bothwell exclaimed that he would marry the Queen, “who would or who would not; yea, whether she would herself or not.” His determination was now fixed. He had surmounted the difficulties that lay between them, and now she was his prisoner. What promise he received from her was never revealed, but upon her release she appeared before the sessions court, and there declared before the chancellor that notwithstanding the outrages which he had made her suffer, she was disposed to pardon him and to raise him to still greater honors, and in this unexplained mysterious influence Bothwell had obtained control over Mary’s mind and on the 15th of May they were united in marriage. Thus had the murderer obtained the object of his crime.
Open revolt was now precipitated and Bothwell was publicly declared the murderer of Damley. So strong was this declaration of murder that the Lords demanded an abdication of the throne in favor of the little prince. At first Mary refused to sign, but when Lord Lindsay grasped her arm and cried: “Sign, if you do not wish to die as your husband’s murderer,” she took the pen and without looking at the paper signed the document, and on the 20th of June the little prince was crowned James VI, and on the 22d of August the Earl of Murray was elected regent. These acts of Mary have been used as weapons of calumnies against her character as a true, virtuous, and honorable woman. If we consider from one point alone, there may be reasons for suspicion, but when we know the historic facts of Darnley’s dissolute and villainous character; when we know that Both well, by force or otherwise, compelled this marriage, we can only pity Mary Stuart for submitting to this unholy union. Mary was Queen only in name. Her kingdom was in Protestant revolt. Parliament and the nobility were against her. Every force was brought to induce her to renounce her religion and accept the Presbyterian faith. The demand of Lord Lindsay to abdicate was the demand of power against the weak. The threat horrified Mary, and without even looking at the document she signed it. But why was this demand made? Why were threats made to imperil her life? Why was this reaction when Parliament, as individual members, had signed a request for this union? There can be but one answer. By her abdication the child prince became king of Scotland, and a Protestant Regent is appointed to reign instead. To cover these acts of treachery there must be some further persecution to continue this semblance of crime. Mary had abdicated, Lord Murray was elected regent, and the whole political system was in the hands of the Reformers. Efforts must be made to hold the people in excitement and to disgrace the sovereign power, and under the crime of Bothwell they would continue the persecution of Mary.
In December Mary Stuart was arrested for the murder of Darnley and cast into prison, but escaped and raised a body of troops, declared her abdication void because of force and threats, and proceeded to regain her throne by force. She was defeated and escaped into England, where she sought the mercy of Elizabeth and beseeched her to assist in restoring her throne. Agents of Elizabeth everywhere demanded that Mary should be held in prison and not allowed to foment new troubles. Sir Henry Morris wrote from Paris: “Her Majesty now holds the wolf that would destroy her. It is said that there is a conspiracy between the King of France, the King of Spain, and the Pope to ruin her Majesty, and to put the Queen of Scotland in her place.” Elizabeth began to believe in the crime of Mary, and if the crime is proven she must suffer the penalty. But the die was cast. With Mary restored to the throne of Scotland, Elizabeth would always be in danger. Mary in prison was a greater security to the aspirations of Elizabeth than Mary at will. Repeatedly she had requested Mary to relinquish the crown and live a peaceful life as a retired subject, but in vain. She positively declined, and declared she would rather suffer death than surrender her claims.
Plots and counterplots were being formed. Spanish armies had made designs upon invasion, and the people were becoming alarmed and suspicious of different Lords and nobles. The Duke of Norfolk, the staunch defender of Elizabeth, was declared in treason and conspiracy, and was executed. The Earl of Northumberland was also condemned to death and all Protestant England was crying for the execution of Mary Stuart as the only means of preserving the peace of the country. Mary was a Catholic, and while she lived there would be only dissension, insurrection, and bloodshed. The bishops advised her execution, as she was the “origin and source of all evil.”
The massacre of the Protestant Huguenots in France on St. Bartholomew’s Day only incensed the English Reformers to a greater excitement, and greater demands upon Elizabeth to continue her persecutions against Mary and all opposition. New attempts were made to rescue her, but she was removed from prison to prison, and each day more closely confined, and each day treated with less respect and consideration. Her appeals to her son, now king of Scotland, received but little attention. Mary saw her days were numbered and in the sincerity of her Catholic faith she exclaimed: “There are two things, sir, which you cannot take from me — the royal blood that gives me the right to the succession, and the attachment that unites me to the faith of my ancestors.” Amid all the stormy periods of her life she had been a devout Catholic, and in the purification of imprisonment and long suffering she was to die a Catholic, and in her death we see her rival, Elizabeth, responsible for the odious stain of execution.
Mary Stuart was tried for conspiracy against Elizabeth, or, in other words, treason against the throne of England. On the 14th of October, 1586, she was confronted with commissioners and judges, who were surrounded with assistants, tables, and documents, but to Mary there was granted nothing, yet for two days she held in check the ablest lawyers of England, but without friends, or testimony, and with perjured witnesses, who gave their evidence in secret, there was no chance to escape. The verdict for years had been established by her enemies, and now, through the formality of law, it would be executed. As a condemned criminal, Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, was now deprived of all the honor due her station, and in defense of her royal dignity she exclaimed: “I am an anointed Queen. In spite of the Queen of England, her Council, and her heretical Judges, I will die a Queen.”
Numerous attempts were made to stay the sentence, but of no avail. Her own son, James VI, was solicited to intercede, but his coldness was a scandal unto himself. He appeared to have no feeling, no pity, and no honorable manhood. Sir Robert Melville accompanied an ambassy sent to labor with Elizabeth, and in his conversation asked: “Why does the Queen of Scots seem so dangerous to you?” Elizabeth responded: “Because she is a Papist, and they say she shall succeed to my throne.”
The hour of execution was near at hand. The Earl of Shrewsbury had arrived, and as the sentence was being read, Mary made the sign of the cross and quietly said, that after twenty years of imprisonment she did not expect this from her cousin Elizabeth, but — and she placed her hand upon a Bible near her, and swore that she never contemplated harm to Elizabeth. The Earl of Kent brutally responded that, as it was a Pope’s Bible, her oath was of no value. With flashing eyes Mary said: “It is a Catholic testament, and, therefore, my Lord, as I believe it to be the true version, my oath is the more to be relied upon.” “Your death will be the life of our religion,” said Kent, “as, contrariwise, your life would have been its death.”
The condemned Queen spent the night in the company of her servants and in prayer. She bade them farewell, and as the sheriff arrived, she arose from her devotions, took the crucifix from the altar and without faltering followed the officer from the room. At the door she found her faithful servant, Melville, who fell upon his knees weeping and sobbing. “Cease to lament, good Melville,” said the Queen, “for thou shaft now see a final period to Mary Stuart’s troubles; the world, my servant, is all but vanity, and subject to more sorrow than an ocean of tears can wash away. But I pray thee, take this message when thou go, that I die true to my religion, to Scotland, and to France. Commend me to my son, and tell him that I have done nothing to prejudice the kingdom of Scotland.”
She asked that her servants might accompany her to her execution, but the overbearing Kent refused. “I know my cousin Elizabeth would not have denied me so small a matter, that my women might be present even for honor of womanhood,” she said. At the last moment she cried: “I am fixed in the ancient religion, and, by God’s grace, I will shed my blood for it.” She prayed for the Church, her son, and Elizabeth and as she kissed the crucifix the Earl of Kent exclaimed: “Madam, you would better put such Poperish trumpery out of your hand and carry Christ in your heart.” In reply Mary modestly said: “I can hardly bear this emblem in my hand without at the same time bearing Him in my heart.” The ax fell, and her spirit took its flight to her God. Thus, closed the life of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots. Her chief persecution in life was because she was a Catholic, and even in death the unrelenting and unforgiving persecution followed her. As her bleeding head was raised from the block these words were uttered: “God save Queen Elizabeth.” “Thus perish all her enemies.” Fitting words to express the cruelty, the crimes, and the persecutions of her enemies. She had lived a life of fidelity to Christ, to humanity, and to Christian faith. The twenty years’ imprisonment only served to establish her religion more firmly in her mind and conscience. She realized the source of her troubles, and in the fervency of Christian fortitude she forgave her enemies, knowing that it was the persecution of Christ’s love she bore in her heart.
Again, let us refer to the hypocrisy and deceit of Elizabeth. She had given the order for the execution of Mary Stuart, and yet she feigned great anger and compassion when informed of her death. She ordered the arrest of several ministers and caused their disgrace. Davidson was sent to the Tower, where he remained until his death, a victim of deceit. His fortune was confiscated to pay the fine imposed upon him. Even Burleigh was accused of conspiring against Mary, the whole being an assumed pretense of placing the crime from off her own shoulders.
King Jaimes was also deeply incensed, and swore he would move heaven and earth for vengeance, but when Elizabeth added to his pension, and the throne of England came so much nearer in the line of succession, he forgot his mother and his wrath. His consolation was individual benefits and
aspirations. The words of Mary were now answered: “Could an only son forget his mother.”
Let us return for a moment to the closing scenes of Elizabeth. She had rendered assistance to the Huguenots of France, and the Protestant rebellion of the Netherlands. The Spanish invasion had been defeated by the destruction of her “Invincible Armada.” Her vessels had traversed the globe,
made important expeditions to the New World, and for a generation acted more the part of piracies than those of a peaceful trade. The crippling of the naval power of Spain left England mistress of the seas. New life was infused in her daring exploits. The old Norse blood burned with feverish impatience for adventure and glory.
It was a reign of universal triumphs. She had overcome her enemies, thwarted plots for her destruction, combined the cunning of policy with her apparent ardent love for her people. She had governed England despotically, but with such skillfulness that she was enabled to turn the dangerous corners when necessity required it, but always the patron and protector of the Protestant Reformation. But, as brilliant as were her achievements, yet her glory was tarnished and sullied by feminine follies and evil passions, while obstinately refusing to accept the duties and legitimate happiness of a woman’s life. Brave, proud, far-sighted, and persevering, she displayed much intellectual ability, and certain fine moral qualities, but rarely or never the tender and modest virtues which inspire and retain private affection. And yet for many years she was able to inspire sentiments of another nature. When she died, the evils and dangers inherent in absolute power had done their work; the English nation was beginning to grow weary of the rule of its great Queen, and to dream of political and religious liberties which had no place in the mind or in the heart of Elizabeth Tudor.
The closing days of Elizabeth’s reign were, to her personally, dark, and gloomy. As she looked back over her long life of public ambitions, cares, and responsibilities, she saw the gaunt specter of persecutions rise up before her. She saw the patient, uncomplaining Mary Stuart, her own cousin, confined for twenty years in a prison. She saw her headless form wildly beseeching for mercy, and then praying for the forgiveness of those who were persecuting her. She saw the Earl of Essex, her chief favorite, sent to the block, and in her secret grief she saw her pride only the stepping stone to the misery of others. She saw her shameful life at court without even the semblance of reward. She saw her past, only as an empty vision, a barren oak, and a soul without reward. And while she had been the instrument of national success, yet there were no heart pleasures to gladden her declining years.
In the loneliness of family ties, she was a fit subject for pity and compassion. Her persecutions were not from a love of faith and devotion, but from the determination to raise her name from the ignominy of a denied birth. She knew that her father and mother were denied by the Church of Rome, and she would raise her voice and hand against it. She was one of the bitterest enemies of the Church and ever sought to overthrow it. She lived in the rigor of intoleration, and ended her days with the burden of a secret grief.
She died March 24th, 1603, in the seventieth year of her age, and the forty-fifth year of her reign. With her ended the Tudor line of English sovereigns.