BOOK writing, is therefore satisfactory evidence to me, that the main letter, containing these allusions, was not a forgery. II. On the most impartial review of this contested question, it appears certain that Bothwell and his executed agents were the actual perpetrators of the king's murder. As to the nobles who have been implicated in it, my judgment inclines to think that Maitland, Huntley and Morton were fully privy to Bothwell's intention to destroy the unfortunate victim of their resentment or jealousy, and more or less concerned in it, tho they did not chuse to be among the operating instruments of the catastrophe. I believe that Murray knew of their machinations, but refused to join in them, and yet did nothing to oppose them, and did not apprise the sufferer of the danger or the fate which was impending over him. But tho the lords desired to remove Darnley, they did not intend to make Bothwell their king. Therefore when the queen determined to place him in her bed and throne, they united to expel him. As to Mary, with every wish not to be unfair or uncharitable towards her, I cannot avoid thinking that she brought the king from Glasgow to Edinburgh with a full knowledge and desire that he was to be got rid of by Bothwell and Maitland in some way or other; nor does it seem to me possible that she could have avoided the idea from occasionally occurring to her, that this would be violently done, if violence should be deemed expedient and practicable by Bothwell and his friends. As far, therefore, as the allusions in her celebrated letters, and as her expressions to Paris, in the most temperate and restricted construction of their meaning, imply her privity in the king's destruction, I cannot acquit her memory of this antient and unremoved imputation. But I am unwilling to believe that she knew of the actual mode, time and fact on which the murderous design was at last accomplished. Hence I would infer, that she could safely deny all foreknowlege and immediate participation of the blowing her husband up; tho she was aware that he would be destroyed without much dely in some way or other. CHAP. XXV. WAR BETWEEN HUGUENOTS AND CATHOLICS IN FRANCE- XXV. THE sentence of extirpation which had been pro- CHAP. nounced at Rome against the Protestant Reformation, and the concurring determination of the French and Spanish governments to execute it in their own dominions and elsewhere, brought Elizabeth reluctantly into a union with the Huguenots in France, as afterwards with the Netherlanders; because it became impossible that they should be extinguished, and that her nation and her throne could then be secure. From this inveterate determination of the papacy, the queen of England was living in perpetual jeopardy from its increasing machinations;2 On all sides we meet with intimations of this Romish crusade against the Protestants. In one of Cecil's papers, in 1568, we find these notes from the secretary to our Spanish resident: Mr. Huggins brought news unto my lord ambassador, that the king of Spain was in great likelihood to make peace with the Turk, to aid the king of France, and to persecute with all his power ALL LUTHERANS wheresoever they were, and that a commission was looked for very shortly from the pope, to invade ALL LUTHERANS' goods, and an interdiction for all that should meddle with them.' If in reading this, we ask, why did Philip stoop to be the vindictive arm of the papacy against the Reformation, one sentence in these notes forcibly implies the cause. On some request that had been made by the ambassador, the duke of Feria answered, 'THE KING could not grant it, BEING SUBJECT, AS OTHERS, TO THE INQUISITION.' Haines' State Papers, p. 472. By this terrible institution, which the Spanish kings had suffered to grow up, and which Rome had governed, the popes became the masters of the king of Spain; and sought to establish it in other countries, that they might by the same weapon govern their governments, as our third note will show that he subjected sovereigns to it. Hence Cecil marked it as one of the reasons, in 1565, why Elizabeth should marry the archduke Charles, not only because the BOOK II. Paul IV. had exhibited his resolution to urge this warfare against all the dignities of civil society, and to make the inquisition its interior instrument, in the same year in which Elizabeth acceded:3 and his successor, Pius IV. two years afterwards, not only sent his solicitations to the king of Poland to repress the heretical pestilence, but fixed his pontifical anathema on all the reformers of all descriptions, and in every country, as the last and lasting article of the Catholic profession of faith; which therefore must be still a part of it, unless they no longer believe that the pope acting and speaking officially ex cathedrá is infallible." The popedom 5 queen of Scots pretendeth title to the crown of England, and so did never foreign prince since the conquest, but as the 10th reason, because the pope also, and all his parties, are watching adversaries to the crown.' Haines' State Papers, p. 444. So strongly was the feeling of the courts under the papal influence, then pointed against this queen and England at that time, that even the duke of Alva was sharply written to from the king [of Spain] for having written friendly of England, that lost and undone kingdom [perdido y acabado reyno.] State Papers quoted in note 1. p. 472. To rebuke an Alva, merely for some favorable expression on England, is as striking an instance of implacable hostility as can be adduced. 3 On 13 Feb. 1558, Paul Iv. addressed a brief to the inquisitor general, Valdes, in which he revived all the regulations of the councils and pontiffs, against heretics and schismatics. He commanded him to prosecute them, and to punish them according to the constitution; above all, to DEPRIVE ALL SUCH PERSONS of their dignities and offices, whether they were bishops, archbishops, patriarchs, cardinals or legates, barons, counts, marquesses, dukes, PRINCES, KINGS OR EMPERORS.' Llorente, Hist. Inquisit. 1. 1. c. 19. p. 185. English ed. 4 It was on 22 Feb. 1560, that Pius IV. wrote to Sigismund, Repress the pestilence of heretical pravity in your kingdom, expelle et ejice the heretics and their supporters; even your familiars remove.' Le Plat Concil. Trid. v. 4. p. 618. Luther, Ecolampadius, Zuinglius, Calvin. See it quoted in the next chapter, note 25. 6 Many of the Catholics of the present day have advanced so far, as to limit the infallibility of the pope to his ex cathedrâ acts. And the German and French clergy also maintain the superiority of general councils convened and decreeing with full technicality, to any opposing pontiff; but when the pope commands and decides coin XXV. having settled in the mind and faith of the Roman CHAP. Catholic church, and of its great princes, this irreconcileable and perpetual hostility against all Protestant systems, governments, and nations, compelled thereby every state which preferred the reformed religion, to feel that they were existing like the antient Christians, under a general ban of intended extermination; and therefore to seek and form those alliances with each other, which their common danger from one common enemy should, whenever it more actively pressed and threatened them, make expedient or indispensable. On this principle alone began, and for their mutual conservation only were continued, the intercourse and aids of Elizabeth to the denounced Huguenots of France, as soon as these were forced or fell into the position of maintaining, by their defensive sword, their religious belief and their persecuted lives. The accession of Charles IX. in his tenth year occasioned the government to be in the hands of Catherine, and of her friends. These were principally of the reforming party, to which she then inclined herself,' and this had become more numerous than had been known or anticipated. The first cidingly with former councils, and especially in all such things as articles and professions of faith, I believe every Catholic must consider him to be infallible, and obey him as such, or will become a heretic whenever he adopts a contrary opinion. 7 Laboureur states, that the Catholic party accused her of leaning to the side of heresy; and that if she was not inclined to it, she feigned it well; but that she suffered herself to be instructed and governed by the duchess of Montpensier, a princess of great talents, infected with this venom, who died in August 1561; and that she was also led to it by the duchess of Savoy and the viscountess Rezes.' Lab. Castel. v. i. p. 283. Castlenau's description of its progress is interesting, as that of an adversary and a statesman who was contemporary with what he deli BOOK II. edicts had a peaceful and neutralizing tendency," and a conference was held on the disputed points.10 With the new year the royal permission was granted for the exercise of the Protestant religion," and a peaceful interval for the fair progress of whatever neates: A great portion of the lords and nobility of the kingdom was of this party, and favored the new religion; as, the king and queen of Navarre; the prince and princess of Condé; the admiral Chastillon. his brother D'Andelot, colonel of all the French infantry, and the cardinal Chastillon. The duke of Nemours, peer of France, and the duke of Longueville, were their friends. The chancellor de l'Hopital was wholly favorable to them, and many bishops, whom the pope excommunicated. Besides these, the other magistrates, minor officers, and people of all ranks, who were inclined to this religion, were in greater numbers than was thought.' p. 69. To this statement we may add from Laboureur, also an enemy, that the advantage of letters was on the side of these religionists, who for this reason, and from ignorance, and from the libertine and dissolute life of many even of the highest of the clergy, circulated the poison of their bad doctrine.' p. 275. But what must be the true character of that power and system which could seek to destroy such a mass of the most noble, the most intellectual, and of so many of all the other conditions of life, as pestilential heretics? For the past, une generale abolition.' It was expressly forbidden 'de s'injurier ny mal faire sous ombre de religion.' Preachers were not to excite to sedition; neither public nor private assemblies were to be held, and only the Roman religion was to be exercised. The whole was provisionally remitted to a general council. Castlenau, p. 68. 10 This was 'le Collogue de Poissis,' of which Castlenau, who was one of the active diplomatists of that day, states the issue to have been, that it only occasioned those who heard it, and others, to doubt about their faith. He thinks that discussions favor heresies, and that it is best, like the Mussulman, and the czar of Muscovy, to prohibit all disputations on religion. p. 73. The Romish church afterwards adopted this Mussulman policy, as we have already remarked in our previous note in ch. XV. vol. 3. "It was made 17th January 1561, permitting Protestants to exercise their religion outside of towns, and without arms, enjoining all to se comporter modestement. Castel. 75. The parliament awhile resisted it, but after three royal commands agreed to legalize it. The effect was, 'The ministers preached more boldly; some in the fields; others in gardens, or in old halls and buildings, or barns, because they were forbidden to build churches. The curious people flocked thither from all sides. The sermons were in French, and usually began on the abuses of the church, which no prudent Catholic would defend. But they proceeded to invectives, added prayers to their sermons, and then sang the Psalms in French rhymes, with music and fine voices.' p. 76. |