some measure necessarily extended their benign influence to the inferior classes of society. Those immunities, which are essential to the well-being of civil and social life, gradually became better secured. Injustice was restrained, tyrannical exactions were guarded against, and oppression was no longer sanctioned. This famous deed without any violent innovation, became the mound of property, the pledge of liberty, and the guarantee of independence. As it guarded the rights of all orders of men, from the lowest to the highest, it was vigorously contended for by all; for, if it limited the power of the king, it also confirmed it, by securing the allegiance and fidelity of the subject. It was of inestimable use by giving a determinate form and shape, "such a local habitation and a name," to the spirit of liberty; so that the English, when, as it often happened, they claimed the recognition of their legal rights, were not left to wander in a wide field, without having any specific object, without limitation, and without direction. They knew what to ask for, and, obtaining that, they were satisfied. We surely cannot but be sensible of the advantages which they derived from this circumstance, who have seen the effects of an opposite situation, in this very particular, illustrated so strikingly in the earlier period of the French revolution.

But, rapidity of progress seems, by the very laws of nature, to be precluded, where the benefit is to be radical and permanent. It was not, therefore, until our passion for making war within the territory of France was cured, nor until we left off tearing the bowels of our own country in the dissensions of the Yorkists and Lancastrians, after having, for near four hundred years, torn those of our neighbours; in a word, it was not until both foreign and civil fury began to cool, that in the reign of Henry

VII. the people began to enjoy more real freedom, as the king enjoyed a more settled dominion, and the interests of peace and commerce substantially prevailed. Without ascribing to this king virtues which he did not possess, the view of his reign, with all its faults, affords a kind of breathing time, and sense of repose. It is from this reign that the history of the laws and civil constitution of England become interesting; as that of our ecclesiastical constitution does from the subsequent reign. general acquaintance with the antecedent part of our history may suffice for the royal pupil, but from these periods she cannot possess too detailed a knowledge of it.

A

CHAPTER XIII.

Queen Elizabeth.

IT is remarkable that in France, a nation in which women have always been held in the highest consideration, their genius has never been called to its loftiest exercise. France is perhaps the only country which has never been governed by a woman.

The

mothers, however, of some of her sovereigns, when minors, have, during their regencies, Blanche of Castile especially, discovered talents for government not inferior to those of most of her kings.

Anne of Austria+ has had her eulogists; but in her character there seems to have been more of

* Mother of Louis IX. She died at the age of 56, in 1252.-ED.

† Anne of Austria, eldest daughter of Philip II. of Spain, was married in 1615 to Louis XIII. and in 1643 she became regent of the kingdom, which she governed despotically in the minority of her son Louis XIV. She died in 1666.-ED.

intrigue than of genius, or, at least, than of sound sense; and her virtues were problematical. If her talents had some splendour, they had no solidity. They produced a kind of stage effect, which was imposing, but not efficient; and she was rather an actress of royalty than a great queen. She was not happy in the choice of a friend. The source of all Mazarine's greatness, she supported him with inflexible attachment, and established him in more than regal power. In return, he treated her with respect as long as he stood in need of her protection, and set her aside when her support was become no longer necessary to his confirmed power.

The best queens have been most remarkable for employing great men. Among these, Zenobia, Elizabeth, and Anne stand foremost. Those who wish to derogate from the glories of a female reign, have never failed to urge, that they were owing to the wisdom of the ministers, and not to that of the queen; a censure which involves an eulogium. For is not the choice of sagacious ministers the characteristic mark of a sagacious sovereign?-Would, for instance, Mary di Medici have chosen a Walsingham;† she who made it one of the first acts of her regency to banish Sully, and to employ Concini? Or did it ever enter into the mind of the first Mary of England to take into her councils that Cecil, who so much distinguished himself in the cabinet of her sister?

The daughter of the grand duke of Tuscany, and consort of Henry IV. of France; on whose death she was named to the regency, during the minority of her son Louis XIII., but was supplanted by Richelieu. She died in exile at Cologne, July 3rd. 1642.-ED.

Sir Francis Walsingham, secretary of state to queen Elizabeth, died poor in 1590-ED.

William Cecil was born in 1521 and died in 1598. Queen Elizabeth placed unbounded confidence in this upright minister, and, as he was afflicted with the gout, always made him sit in her presence; "I regard you," said she, "not for your weak limbs, but your good head."-ED.

Elizabeth's great natural capacity was, as has been before observed, improved by an excellent education. Her native vigour of mind had been early called forth by a series of uncommon trials. The circumspection she had been, from childhood, obliged to exercise, taught her prudence. The difficulties which beset her, accustomed her to selfcontrol. Can we, therefore, doubt that the steadiness of purpose, and undaunted resolution which she manifested on almost every occasion during her long reign, were greatly to be attributed to that youthful discipline? She would probably never have acquired such an ascendency over the mind of others, had she not early learned so absolute a command over her own.

On coming to the crown, she found herself surrounded with those obstacles which display great characters, but overset ordinary minds. The vast work of the Reformation, which had been undertaken by her brother Edward, but crushed in the very birth, as far as was within human power, by the bigot Mary, was resumed and accomplished by Elizabeth; and that, not in the calm of security, not in the fulness of undisputed power, but even while that power was far from being confirmed, and that security was liable, every moment, to be shaken by the most alarming commotions. She had prejudices, apparently insurmountable, to overcome; she had heavy debts to discharge; she had an almost ruined navy to repair; she had a debased coin to restore; she had empty magazines to fill; she had a decaying commerce to invigorate; she had an exhansted exchequer to replenish. All these, by the blessing of God on the strength of her mind and the wisdom of her councils, she accomplished. She not only paid her own debts, but, without any great additional burdens on her subjects, she discharged those also which were due to the people from her two

immediate predecessors. At the same time, she fostered genius, she encouraged literature, she attracted all the great talents of the age within the sphere of her own activity. And though she constantly availed herself of all the judgment and talents of her ministers, her acquiescence in their measures was that of conviction, never of implicit confidence.

Her exact frugality may not, by superficial judges, be reckoned among the shining parts of her character. Yet, those who see more deeply, must allow, that it was a quality from which the most important benefits were derived to her people; and without which, all her great abilities would have been comparatively inefficient. The parsimony of her grandfather was the rapine and exaction of an extortioner ; hers, the wise economy of a provident parent. If we are to judge of the value of actions by their consequences, let us compare the effects upon the country of the prodigality, both of her father and of her successor, with her own frugality. As it has been asserted by Plutarch,* that the money, idly thrown away by the Athenians on the representations of two dramatic poets only, amounted to a larger sum than had been expended on all their wars against the Persians, in defence of their liberty; so it has been affirmed, that the first James spent more treasure on his favourites, than it had cost Elizabeth to maintain all her wars. Yet, there have not been wanting historians, who have given the praise of liberality to James, and especially to Henry, while Elizabeth has suffered the imputation of avarice. But we ought to judge of good and evil by their own weight and measure, and not by the specious names which the latter can assume, nor by the

In his inquiry whether the Athenians were more eminent in the arts of war or peace.