66 great. A striking account is given by the French ambassador, who proceeded to court to deliver the official account sent by his monarch to palliate the atrocity : A gloomy sorrow," he says, "sat on every face. Silence, as in the dead of the night, reigned through all the chambers of the royal apartments: the ladies and courtiers were ranged on each side, all clad in deep mourning; and as I passed through, not one bestowed on me a civil look, or made the least return to my salutes." Sensible of the national disgrace, the ambassador declared himself ashamed to bear the name of Frenchman, and when commanded by Charles IX. to explain matters to Elizabeth, remonstrated, saying, it would be making himself an accomplice: "those who had advised it should be sent on such an errand." Elizabeth was obliged to listen to the French king's excuses; but she did not hesitate to tell the ambassador, that appearances were against his master, adding, that "if the king shall not use his power to make some amends for so much blood, so horribly shed, God, who seeth the hearts of all, as well princes as others, will show his justice in time and place, when his honour shall therein be glorified, as the author of all justice, and the revenger of all blood-shedding of the innocents.” Burghley wrote to Walsingham, the ambassador at Paris, in strong terms, adding, "We have great cause, in these times, to doubt all fair speeches.' Though Charles IX. at first desired to be thought innocent of this atrocity, in a short time his approval was avowed by a medal being struck, commemorative of the event, which the inscription spoke of as an act of justice, excited by piety! The pope, also, in express terms, lauded the deed, which was enumerated as the first and principal cause for a jubilee and public thanksgiving ordered by the pontiff; a medal struck at Rome undeniably fixes him with guilt, as an accessory to the horrid massacre. Popish historians in vain represent it as a sudden and unpremeditated act, and even would unblushingly ascribe it to the proceedings of the French Protestants! There is undoubted evidence, in written documents, to prove that it was a regularly laid design, an act of premeditated treachery, a branch of the general plot against the Protestants throughout Europe, and that it was intended to have been still more murderous than it was possible for the perpetrators to make it. Medal struck by order of pope Gregory XIII., in commemoration of the massacre of the Protestants at Paris. One beneficial result, however, ensued from this deed of blood. The Protestants in every country in Europe were awakened to a sense of their danger. The English statesmen were convinced that there was no safety for their nation but in being fully prepared for defence, and that it was useless to listen to any pro fessions of amity from those who were leagued for the destruction of the true faith; while the extent of danger likely to result from Mary Stuart was also more than ever manifest. The French court made several profes sions of amity, but Elizabeth repelled them, though she continued at peace with France, and reluctantly acceded to the personal request of the French queen, that she would be godmother to an infant daughter. She gave shelter to many fugitive Protestants, and refused to compel them to depart when urged to do so. The news of the massacre in France also excited much horror in Scotland. There the direful effects of popish intrigue had been recently shown in bloodshed. Lennox, the new regent, the grandfather of the infant king, was slain in a tumult about a year after the murder of his predecessor. The earl of Mar, next chosen regent, sunk under the painful state of affairs. Knox also departed from this life, but it was in peace: though the papists often planned his death, they never were able to carry their designs into execution. Of him it is sufficient here to say, that he was one of the most pious and excellent men of his day, unblemished in moral character. He regretted the measure of hard duties he was called to discharge, yet he shrunk not from what Providence willed him to go forward to perform. On such a subject it is needful to speak decidedly surely no real Christian, who fairly examines the history of this great and pious man, can be deceived by the manner in which the literary partisans of Mary Stuart endeavour to sacrifice his memory, in their vain attempts to exculpate the goddess of their idolatry. If one or the other must be condemned, let the evidence of those who knew both be fairly weighed; the result is not doubtful. : 66 The massacre of St. Bartholomew's day rendered it most important to prevent the preponderance of the French party in Scotland, for the English papists were eagerly looking out for what they termed their golden day." Under the immediate pressure of alarm, well knowing that Mary Stuart was the instrument best suited for the purposes of the conspiracy against the Protestants, and that it was daily found that the continuance of the queen of Scots in England was more and more dangerous, both for the person of the queen's majesty and her state, "secret instructions were given (by Elizabeth's council) to Killigrew, sent as an especial envoy to Scotland, to endeavour to negotiate for her being received there, meaning as a criminal or prisoner, liable to judgment." We cannot wonder at this, though we do not defend it; and after full consideration no such proceeding was adopted. Mary was retained in England with daily danger to Elizabeth. At that time, "all men cried out" respecting her, but no measures against her were carried on, although this course would have been very popular with the English nation in general; and, certainly, the late massacre at Paris gave plausible grounds for such proceedings. Bills of attainder against Mary were actually brought forward in the House of Commons; but Elizabeth interposed her authority, commanding that they should be withdrawn. It is evident to all unprejudiced per sons, that Elizabeth did not seek occasions to put her rival to death. The public attention was further drawn to Mary about this time, by the publication and circu lation of the writings of bishop Lesley in her favour, and those of Buchanan against her. Both may be con sidered as the writings of partisans, rather than dispassionate statements of the truth. Far from any mea sures being adopted against Mary in the following year, she was allowed to go to Buxton for the use of the medicinal waters. Lord Burghley happening to be in that neighbourhood at the same time, on account of his sufferings from the gout, insinuations were conveyed to Elizabeth that her minister was inclined to befriend Mary. On this account he found it necessary to leave the place; so unfounded are the ideas that he was, on all occasions, a persecutor of the unhappy Mary. In writing to lord Shrewsbury, Burghley said, that the queen had reproved him sharply as a favourer of the queen of Scots; but he declared, that though he had no evil meaning towards her, yet if she should plot any evil against Elizabeth, he must and would impeach her. The steadiness with which Elizabeth continued her favour, during forty years, to lord Burghley, against whom many efforts were made by the older nobility, is one proof, among many others, that the not a capricious, ungovernable character. queen was In the autumn of 1572, apprehensions were excited by the illness of Elizabeth. It appears to have been the small-pox, but she passed through the disease favourably. In 1573, another negotiation with France was entered upon, for the marriage of Elizabeth to a French prince, the duke of Alençon. This union was very unsuitable from disparity of years, even had there been no other objection. But the treaty was continued for some time; it gave Elizabeth an opportunity of interfering in behalf of the French Protestants; and even the discerning Walsingham wrote from the French court, "Whether this marriage be sincerely meant or no, it is a hard point to judge, where dissimulation taketh so deep root." This remark is important: however blamable Elizabeth and her councillors may have been for dissimulation, they had to do with those who practised the arts of deceit still more. Walsingham was shortly after recalled, and made secretary of state: the increasing dangers that threatened England required the direction of the ablest statesmen. He was fully equal to meet the crafty expedients of the age, and succeeded in obtaining intelligence of the most secret proceedings of the pope and his confederate princes. It is with reluctance that the reader is referred to the dissensions which increasingly prevailed in matters of religion. In 1571, when a member of the House of Commons, named Strickland, urged further reformation in the church, the queen interfered and prevented it. The endeavour to comprehend the papists, and the harsh measures against the Puritans, had done much to bring the public profession of religion into a state deeply to be deplored. Strype says, 66 The state of the church and religion, at this time, was but low, and sadly neglected, occasioned, in a great measure, by these unhappy controversies about the church's government, and other external matters in religion, which so employed the thoughts and zeal of both clergy and laity, that the better and more substantial parts of it were very little regarded. The churchmen heaped up many benefices upon themselves, and resided upon none, neglecting their cures; many of them |
