declarations show the general consistency of her conduct. Philip himself, with all his means of information, always believed that she would be reconciled with Rome. Even after the pope's bull, he refused to recog nize her excommunication.* The first Parliament which met after her accession enacted laws very hostile to the Catholics; but she was then in a peculiar position, the pope having refused to recognize her title to the throne. The next year she told the Spanish ambassador that she was as good a Catholic as he was, and that she had been compelled to act as she had done. Froude, on the authority of Cecil and Killigrew, thinks that she was then wavering. In 1561, when she was desirous of marrying Dudley, made Earl of Leicester in 1564, the Spanish ambassador was informed by Sir Henry Sidney that if the marriage could be brought about through the influence of Philip, the Catholic religion should be restored. Undoubtedly, Sidney spoke with the authority of the queen. The scheme fell through because the Catholic nobles would not consent to a marriage with a man whom they regarded as an upstart. In 1564, Elizabeth repeated to the Spanish ambassador, De Silva, what she had said about religion to his predecessor.§ In 1566, the pope offered to recog nize the legitimacy of Elizabeth, by reversing the former decree relating to the divorce of her father, if she would re-establish the Romish Church. Thus one great obstacle would have been removed. At this time Parliament *Froude, vii. 13, xi. 26. + Idem, vii. 251. Idem, p. 253. Froude, vii. 316. It was the continued opposition of the Catholic nobles to his union with the queen that ultimately led Dudley to become a prominent friend of the Puritans. Froude, ix. 181. § Idem, viii. 105. ELIZABETH SHIELDS THE CATHOLICS, PERSECUTES THE PURITANS 451 was anxious to make further reforms in the Church. Under the advice of De Silva, Elizabeth interfered, and all action was prevented.* In 1573, and again in 1578, she told the Spanish ambassador that she held the Catholic creed herself, and that her differences with her Catholic subjects were merely political. In 1576, she threatened to make war on the Prince of Orange, and this meant ultimate reconciliation with Rome. These illustrations might be largely multiplied. It may be said that they are only evidence of her duplicity; but they show what she had in mind, and illuminate her public acts, which, read in their light, make all her religious policy consistent. Although during the early years of Elizabeth's reign, before the appearance of the Jesuits, a persecution of the Catholics was carried on, this persecution, it must be remembered, was mild in its character, and due to peculiar circumstances. The Parliaments were largely Puritan in inclination, and passed laws to which, at first, perhaps she did not venture to refuse assent-and possibly they were her own suggestions-as, the pope having denied her title to the crown, she would have been left without any party in the State unless she had allied herself with the Reformers. Later on, when more firmly seated on the throne, she forbade Parliament to interfere in matters of religion, and barred its interference by frequent dissolutions. It must also be remembered that all the opprobrium of enforcing measures of severity against the Catholics she put upon the members of her council, who believed that the Protestantism of the kingdom should be more pronounced. These men accepted the responsibility, for, had the old religion been re-estab *Froude, viii. 339. + Idem, xi. 24, 127. + Idem, xi. 63. lished, they, as well-known Protestants, would have been the first victims of the reaction. They were thus consulting their own safety as well as what they considered the public welfare.* But Elizabeth could always say with plausibility that she had been forced to play the rôle of a persecutor, and that her heart was never in the work. Whenever it was consistent with her own safety, she showed indulgence to the Catholics. Thousands of the old priests were allowed to remain in their livings by an outward conformity to the ritual of the Established Church. It was only the practice of their own form of worship which was punishable by law, and she saw to it that the laws were, as to them, never pressed beyond the letter. But with the Puritans it was very different. They claimed, and with apparent justice, that the laws were always strained for their oppression, not by the civil powers, but by the queen and her Ecclesiastical Commission. As head of the Church, Elizabeth had authority to change the ceremonial, within certain limits; but she never used her power to relieve their tender consciences, nor would she consent that they should have relief from Parliament. Nor was this all. The sagacious statesmen who surrounded Elizabeth believed that the Reformation in England should be pressed to its legitimate conclusion. Merely abjuring the supremacy of the pope, and chang ing the form of religion by statutory enactment, were, to their minds, insufficient. The old abuses of the Church *When Philip organized the Armada, he made out a list of the English statesmen to be hanged after the victory. Froude, xii. 148. Although the saying of mass in private houses was forbidden by law, it was winked at for twenty years after Elizabeth's accession. Froude, xi. 360. CORRUPTION IN THE CHURCH 453 should be done away with, the all-prevailing corruption should be rooted out, and, to accomplish these ends, men of high character and of unblemished life should be selected to control the new establishment. No such counsels met the approval of the queen. She wished subservient tools; and if her bishops were men whose private or official conduct could not bear examination, they would be the more readily controlled, and the more easily turned over to Rome. A few illustrations will show their character. Parker, her favorite Archbishop of Canterbury, left an enormous fortune, which he had accumulated during eighteen years of office by the most wholesale corruption. Among other things, he established a fixed tariff for the sale of benefices in his gift, regulated according to their value and the age of the applicant. The sales were not confined to adults, for even boys under fourteen were allowed to become purchasers, provided they would pay an increased price.* At about the time of Parker's death, in 1576, Hatton, the new favorite of the queen, cast longing eyes upon some property belonging to the Bishop of Ely. That prelate refused to give it up, even after receiving the famous letter in which Elizabeth, with an oath, threatened to unfrock him. He was brought to terms, however, by a summons before the Privy Council, and a notification from Lord North of what would be proved against him. He was to be charged, so the queen directed, with the grossest malversation in office, plundering the Church lands, selling the lead and brick from its houses, dealing dishonestly in leases, and exacting illegal charges from the ministers in his diocese. This threat was sufficient; the bishop suc *Froude, xi. 100. cumbed, and we hear no more of his prosecution or removal.* Nor were these cases at all exceptional. As we study the records of the time, one of their most striking features is the wide-spread corruption among the bishops of the Established Church. Liable to removal or suspension at the pleasure of the crown, they took care to provide for themselves and their families by selling the church timber, making long leases of the ecclesiastical lands, and in every possible manner despoiling their sees of the little property left to them by the early Reformers.† *Froude, xi. 22. The following are a few illustrations taken from Strype's “Annals," the writings of a High-churchman, which bear out the general statements of Hallam, Froude, and others, to some of which I have referred in a former chapter. In 1585, Bishop Scambler was transferred from Peterborough to Norwich. He found that his predecessor had not only disposed of the judicial offices of the sce by a patent, but had just before his departure made many unprecedented leases of the episcopal property. But Scambler's successor in Peterborough found that the same thing had been done in that diocese, the see having been impoverished by spoliations. The same year witressed the death of the Bishop of Chichester. He died a bankrupt, having sold off the church timber until there was hardly sufficient left for firewood. These cases occurred in one year, and are mentioned in one page of Strype's "Annals," iii. 331. See also p. 467 for an account of the mode in which the Welsh bishoprics were "fleeced by the respective bishops;" also p. 463, as to the see of Durham. The bishop of the latter diocese not only despoiled the church property, but was controlled by a brother, his chancellor, "a bad man addicted to covetousness and uncleanness. He was to be bribed by money to pass over crimes presented and complained of.” Aylmer, Bishop of London, cut down and sold his timber until prevented by an injunction. "When he grew old, and reflected that a large sum of money would be due from his family for dilapida |