BOOK IV.

HOME GOVERNMENT OF ELIZABETH.

 

CHAPTER I.

ELIZABETH AND HOME AFFAIRS.

 

The events of the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign succeeded one another in such quick succession, that in tracing them up to this point we have seen Elizabeth only as a politician. We have seen how, by a cautious though often tortuous, she had managed to preserve her own interests and those of England from foreign attack, and at the same time had fostered at home a feeling of national unity.

In the full light which has lately been thrown upon the events of this time, it is easy enough to find fault with Elizabeth’s policy, to show how selfish and ungenerous it was, to upbraid her with indifference to the great interests of Protestantism in general. But it must be remembered that England, when Elizabeth ascended the throne, was not in a position to interfere decisively in the affairs of Europe. Its entire population barely reached five millions. The queen’s revenues amounted to no more than 500,000£. a year. The treasury was in debt; the coinage was debased. Commerce was languishing; the people were poor; there was a danger that religious difficulties would cause a civil war. It is scarcely reasonable to demand from Elizabeth a bold policy under such circumstances. She was compelled to husband the country’s resources, to avoid war, to play off her enemies against one another. She learnt an economy which soon became habitual to her and degenerated into stinginess. She took care to get from all around her as much as she could in the way of presents, and to make the scantiest returns. She sold her help to the Huguenots and to the Netherlanders at the highest rate she could. When Leicester died, the man for whom she felt as much affection as she was capable of, she dried her tears, and ordered that his goods should be seized in payment of money she had lent him.

So, too, she learned to gain her ends by swagger, by threats, by underhand means, by subterfuges, by bare-faced lies if these were convenient. It may be allowed that a cautious policy was necessary for Elizabeth; but no excuse can be urged for her unblushing deceit. She took to diplomacy with a woman’s thoroughness and a woman’s willfulness. Acting with perfect seriousness, she often by her falseness produced a ridiculous caricature. She told lies that deceived no one. In both her letters and speeches she wrapped up her meaning in ambiguous phrases and complicated sentences, which it was impossible to understand with any precision. She gave orders in such a way that she might disavow them if she pleased. She liked her ministers to act without definite orders, sometimes on their own responsibility, and then to bear the consequences if the scheme failed.

She was averse to war, partly because it cost money, with which she grieved to part; partly because war broke off the opportunities for diplomacy in which she thought that she excelled. But her motive was very greatly a generous feeling for her people, and a true instinct for the national wants. 'No war, my lords', she would often exclaim at the council, striking the table with her fist, 'no war'; and this resolve of hers often checked the great schemes of her more aspiring ministers, and enabled England to grow into its necessary strength. She felt no sympathy for the Netherlanders in their struggle with Philip; their misery in no way appealed to her generosity. She drew out of their misfortunes all the commercial advantages she could to England. She only sent them aid when she was afraid they would cease to resist, and so make Philip too powerful. She never expected for a moment that they would make good their position as against Philip. She advised them to make peace with Philip, and could not understand their persistence about religious freedom; nor did she approve of subjects refusing to obey their prince in such matters. She was even ready to help Philip against them if she could gain thereby an advantageous settlement of England’s difficulties with Spain.

Elizabeth was indeed incapable of generous sympathy with a revolt against religious persecution; for she was not herself a woman of deep religious convictions. She was a Protestant chiefly because it was impossible for the daughter of Anne Boleyn to take her place in Europe as a Catholic sovereign. But though she was a Protestant she hated Puritanism, because she felt that the utterances of such a man as John Knox were widely opposed to her own ideas of a sovereign’s position and power. She wished to see a religious system prevail which should rob Catholicism and Puritanism alike of their fanaticism, yet should be a genuine expression of the religious feeling of the people at large. She was annoyed at any attempts to alter the established ceremonies in either of the extreme directions, and was always ready to administer a corrective. When Puritanism seemed to be growing too strong, she set up a crucifix in her chapel and lit the candles upon the altar. When the Dean of St. Paul’s thought to please her by putting on her cushion a richly illuminated Prayer Book, she frowned and put it from her, and scolded the dean soundly when service was over.

It was, however, very difficult for her to maintain the moderate character which she desired to give to the Established Church. The clergy, who almost all retained their benefices in spite of the religious changes made at Elizabeth’s accession, were, as a body, inclined to the old religion. The most high-minded amongst them had resigned their benefices rather than submit; those who remained were the least zealous. The lower clergy did not number many men of education; the country parishes were even sometimes handed over to the care of one who had been the squire’s butler, or who deserved a pension from him for some service. It was difficult with such men as these to establish the new rites on an orderly footing; and the queen was often angered by the news of some disorders. The marriage of the clergy especially, being a shock at first to the current popular sentiment on the subject, gave rise to many scandals. The clergy married unfit wives, and were not scrupulous how they provided for them. The church vestments and other possessions were sometimes seen turned into ornaments for the clergymen’s wives. This was especially a scandal in the case of cathedral chapters which had been under monastic discipline. The queen forbade any member of a college or cathedral to have his wife living within the precincts. She disliked the marriage of the clergy, and refused to rescind the law prohibiting it which had been passed in Mary’s reign. The marriage of the clergy was connived at, but not legalized; and when the queen paid a visit to Archbishop Parker she took leave of Mrs. Parker, saying, “Madam I may not call you; mistress I am loth to call you; but I thank you for your cheer”

The ecclesiastical difficulties of Elizabeth's position made themselves more and more distinctly felt as her reign went on. At first the idea of separating from the national Church was not one which suggested itself. Though the Catholics objected to Elizabeth’s changes, they did not at first withdraw themselves entirely from the Church services. But as the conflict between the two religions became more definite, no further concessions could be made on either side. The Catholics, though they might not be openly disloyal, were still suspected of desiring the accession of Mary of Scotland; and after the bull of Pope Pius V against Elizabeth, and the Ridolfi plot, the laws against Catholicism were made more severe, and were more rigorously carried out.

Even as against Catholicism, Protestantism in England did not present an undivided front. The Puritan party submitted as little as did the Catholics to the ecclesiastical observances which had been established. They objected that much remained which savoured of superstition. They tried to assert their right to disobedience. But irregularities in the conduct of the Church services seemed to the queen to be intolerable. Conformity in the use of the surplice was required by Archbishop Parker, and those clergymen who refused to comply were suspended from their livings. They soon began to form conventicles, which were suppressed by law (1567). The Puritans, in opposition to the law, began to form themselves into the sects of Protestant Dissenters in England.

The great questions of the sixteenth and seventeenth century were religious questions. The difficulty was how t0 maintain the old political system, when the old ecclesiastical system, which had been so closely connected with it, was overthrown. The reign of Elizabeth shows us how the old system, now everywhere conscious of its danger, was making efforts to reassert its ascendancy. These efforts were repelled at first by the care and caution, afterwards by the vigor and energy, of England. But when England had made good its own position against foes outside, there remained for Elizabeth’s successors the adjustment of the limits between the old political system, as yet but slightly modified, and the new ecclesiastical ideas. This adjustment was hard to make, when the idea of tolerance was equally far from all contending parties. Elizabeth ought not to be too severely found fault with as a persecutor, if, at a time when the nation was going through a fierce struggle for its existence, she demanded a definite basis of unity. The state adapted the old ecclesiastical system, with the fewest possible changes, to the new ecclesiastical ideas, and demanded after this measure of reform the same unconditional obedience as before. Those who were content with the old state of things, and those who wished for further change, were both of them to be reduced to a common measure. The change that had passed over England was not to cause division. She must still offer to her enemies, at a time when ecclesiastical matters were the chief matters of politics, an undivided front. On the one hand there was to be no breach with the old system of European politics; on the other hand there was to be freedom from all that was most degrading and weakening in the old state of things.

These were the views of Elizabeth and her advisers; but they did not and could not know the strength of the forces against which they were contending. Not till after the struggles of more than two centuries was it seen that there are in man convictions too strong to be curbed by motives of political expediency.

Elizabeth’s ecclesiastical system was not a permanent solution of the questions raised by the Reformation. She would neither broaden the basis of the Established Church, nor would she allow the formation of independent sects outside it. She left to her successors the task of solving the difficulties which this policy had wrought. For herself she was determined to keep the clergy in order by means of the bishops. Grindal, who succeeded Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury (1575), found to his cost that the royal supremacy was not a mere empty name. The queen was alarmed at the growth of a custom of clerical meetings, ‘prophesyings’, as they were called. These meetings were meant for discussion, and for practice in readiness of speech, that the clergy might be trained to preaching. The queen, however, did not approve of preaching—to read the Homilies was enough. She did not like clerical discussions in the existing condition of religious opinion. She ordered the bishops to put down these ‘prophesyings’. When Archbishop Grindal refused to interfere he was suspended from his office, and for five years was not allowed to exercise his functions.

Nor did the queen in other matters show to her bishops the respect which she demanded for them from others. She would keep bishoprics vacant, and appropriate their revenues to her own purposes; often she would detach a manor from their possessions in the interest of a favorite. When the Bishop of Ely showed some reluctance to abandon to Sir Christopher Hatton the gardens of Ely House, the queen wrote him a peremptory letter—“Proud prelate, I understand that you are backward in complying with your agreement; but I would have you know that I who made you what you are can unmake you; and if you do not forthwith fulfill your engagement I will immediately unfrock you. Yours, as you demean yourself—Elizabeth”. On another occasion, when the Bishop of London preached before the queen a sermon on the vanity of dress, the queen told her ladies “if the bishop held more discourse on such matters she would soon fit him for heaven; but he should walk thither without a staff and leave his mantle behind him”.

Elizabeth, however, acted wisely in the measures which she took for the restoration of commerce and prosperity within her country. The reign of Elizabeth is the epoch from which dates the naval and commercial greatness of England, and the queen’s care and attention contributed in no slight degree to this result. One of the earliest measures of her reign was the restoration of the coinage, which had been so debased by her predecessors that it was worth only one-third of its nominal value. To call in the debased coinage and melt it down, and to issue a new coinage whose worth should correspond to its intrinsic value, was no easy task for an impoverished exchequer. Yet it was accomplished without causing much hardship, and when it had been done, English merchants could again carry on their business with foreign countries.

The most important branch of English commerce had always been the woolen trade with Flanders. English cloth was exported to the Flemish marts, and there sold to merchants from the rest of Europe. Twice every year the Company of Merchant Adventurers fitted out a fleet of fifty or sixty ships to convey their goods to the Netherlands. It is computed that about 100,000 pieces of cloth were shipped thither annually.

In 1553 a number of merchants and nobles equipped three ships to explore a northern passage to India. Two of them were lost in the ice; but the third, commanded by Richard Chancellor, made its way to Archangel, and laid the foundation of the trade with Russia. In 1557 came an ambassador from the Emperor of Muscovy. The Merchant Adventurers rode forth to meet him in procession, dressed in velvet, with chains of gold around their necks, that they might impress the Muscovite with their wealth, and so make his countrymen desirous of trading with them.

The increasing importance of English commerce was shown in 1560 by the building of the Royal Exchange. Sir Thomas Gresham, a wealthy merchant who had lived long in Flanders, contrasted the splendor of the Flemish traders with the discomfort of London, where all business had to be done by merchants standing, in all weathers, on the narrow pavement of Lombard Street. He accordingly erected a brick building, with a quadrangle inside, round which, on the ground floor was an arched colonnade supported on marble pillars, where the merchants might walk. Below were vaults for merchandize, and on the first floor were shops, from the rent of which Gresham hoped to reimburse himself. The Exchange was visited in state by Elizabeth, who was so pleased with it that she caused it by an herald and a trumpet to be proclaimed the Royal Exchange, and so to be called from thenceforth, and not otherwise.

Commerce, however, is not a thing which it lies in the power of princes to develop by patronage, though they may help it by their general policy. Elizabeth managed to keep England in peace when the rest of Europe was involved in war. Moreover her rule was economical, and the taxes were not oppressive. England under her was relieved from its public debt, and its capital found occupation in trade at a time when the commerce of the Netherlands was checked by internal disturbances.

A spirit of naval adventure took deep root among all classes, and may be seen especially in the voyages of Sir Humphrey Gilbert and Martin Frobisher in quest of a north-west passage to the fabulous region of Cathay. The perils of the Arctic regions were experienced first by English seamen, and the line of investigation then opened out has ever remained peculiar to English enterprise.

 

 

CHAPTER II.

ELIZABETH; HER COURT AND MINISTERS.

 

THE wisdom of Elizabeth was shown in nothing so strongly as in her sagacity in the choice of ministers and her power of using men for her own purposes. The name most closely connected with Elizabeth’s government is that of William Cecil, Lord Burleigh. First as secretary, afterwards as Lord-treasurer, he was a member of the council, and always exercised the chief influence on the affairs of state. In those days the sovereign was his own prime minister, and his confidential advisers were chosen at his own will. Throughout the whole of Elizabeth’s reign Burleigh continued to be her chief minister. His advice was not always followed by the queen, and he had many opponents who never ceased to intrigue against him; but he was the man who did most in molding England’s policy, and he retained the queen’s favor till his death.

William Cecil was born in 1520, and began a political career under Henry VIII. Under Edward VI he was made secretary through the patronage of the Duke of Somerset. He lost his place, when his patron fell, but regained court favor by drawing the articles of impeachment against him. He was restored to office in 1550, and contrived to keep himself so far free from any connection with Northumberland’s plot that he received from Mary a general pardon. He lost his office as secretary, but lived in peace and conformed to the Catholic religion. He attached himself secretly and cautiously to the Princess Elizabeth, and gave her wise counsels to help her in the difficult position in which she was placed. When Elizabeth came to the throne, she at once marked her sense of Cecil’s merit by appointing him a member of her council. “This judgment”, she said to him, “I have of you : that you will not be corrupted with any gift, and that you will be faithful to the state; and that, without respect of my private will, you will give me that counsel that you think best”.

Cecil was not heroic, nor had he any elevation of character; but his wary, cautious, compromising, sensible character commanded Elizabeth’s admiration, because it coincided so well with her own. Elizabeth was partly conscious that her own caprices, or alarms, or fancies occasionally impelled her to acts of folly against her better judgment. Cecil’s calm and deliberate wisdom seemed to her to be the expression of her own higher self. She treated him often as men treat their conscience when it reminds them of unpleasant truths. She browbeat him, and abused him, and contradicted him; she overwhelmed him with reproaches, so that he often left her presence in tears. But she always thought over his advice, and often, after a struggle, allowed it to prevail over her own inclinations. She did not entirely adopt Burleigh’s policy, which was in favor of open opposition to Spain and earnest support to the Protestant cause in Europe. Elizabeth was more cautious in this than her cautious minister. She never forgot that her counselors were, after all, the heads of parties, with their own interests to serve, while to her belonged the care of the interests of her kingdom as a whole. It could not be but that Burleigh should wish to separate England from the Catholic powers, and make the succession of Mary of Scotland impossible; for Mary’s accession would certainly mean his own ruin. Elizabeth was not so clear about the question of the succession; and she knew that the fear of Mary was the strongest bond to attach her ministers loyally to herself.

Cecil’s chief ally was his friend and brother-in-law, Sir Nicolas Bacon, the lord keeper, who by his second wife was father of the illustrious Francis Bacon. More serious and thoughtful than Cecil, he contributed steadfastness and dignity to his friend’s shifty policy. “He was a plain man”, says his son Francis; “direct and constant, without all finesse and doubleness, and one that was of a mind that a man should rest upon the soundness and strength of his own courses, and not upon practice to circumvent others”. His motto, ‘Mediocria firma’, showed his sound common sense. When Elizabeth once remarked that his house was too small for him, “No, madam”, he answered, “but you have made me too big for my house”. He was a man of literary tastes and of refined mind. In the garden of his house at Gorhambury was built a room dedicated to the Seven Sciences; its walls were adorned with an allegorical figure of each science, surrounded by portraits of her most eminent followers.

We may take Cecil and Bacon as the chief representatives of the statesmen who clustered round Elizabeth, and were recommended to their mistress by their wisdom and ability. But Elizabeth's political advisers found their difficulties greatly increased by the power of favorites who were merely courtiers, and owed their influence with the queen to their personal qualities rather than their political wisdom. Elizabeth was fond of magnificence and display. She never appeared in public without a splendid band of followers. Her body of ‘gentlemen pensioners’ contained all the young men of the noblest families in England. Sir John Holies says that he did not know among the number a worse man than himself; and he was possessor of an estate worth 4,000£. a year. The nobles of England flocked to Elizabeth’s court, and were proud to be in attendance upon her. Besides her love of display, she was also glad to strengthen her own position by the personal tie which thus grew up between the nobility and herself.

Thus her courtiers necessarily had great influence with the queen; and her favorites from time to time had great political power. The fact that the queen was unmarried tinged all their relations towards her with a dash of gallantry. There was in those days no conventional bar to the marriage of an English queen and an English noble. The leading favorite approached Elizabeth with a mixture of a lover’s familiarity and a subject’s obedience. Elizabeth’s personal feelings were strong. From political motives she refused to marry; but she keenly felt the loneliness of her position and never ceased to long for intense personal attachment. She demanded of her favorites that they should devote themselves to her, as she had devoted herself to her conception of England’s interest. Their marriages she regarded as so many insults to herself. Giving her affections as a woman she imposed restrictions as a queen, and was continually discovering, with grief and anger, that her favorites only behaved as lovers in her presence, and gave to her as queen the devotion which she longed for as a woman.

The first of these favorites, who occupied the chief place in the queen’s affections until his death in 1588, was Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester. He was the son 0f John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, and is said to have been born on the same day and the same hour as Elizabeth. Recommended by his fine personal appearance and elegant manners, he rose at once in her favor. He was bold, ambitious, and intriguing; but his policy was directed only by self-interest, and the queen’s partiality for him gave a weight to his counsels which they did not deserve. He was the great opponent of Cecil; for he regarded Cecil as an obstacle to his entire power over the queen. It is certain that Elizabeth would gladly have married him, if she could have done so with prudence or even with safety. Leicester put himself at the head of the Puritan party, mainly as a means of political power against Cecil. He was a man destitute of religious principles, and a notorious profligate. He was unpopular, owing to his arrogance, and the blackest stories were told and believed against him. He was popularly believed to have rid himself of his first wife, Amy Robsart, at the time when there was most probability of his marriage with the queen. In a book called ‘Leicester’s Commonwealth’, supposed to have been written by the Jesuit Parsons, he is accused of every kind of murder and assassination. Certainly many of his enemies died most opportunely for his plans. So great was his influence with the queen that she forgave him even his second marriage with the Countess of Essex in 1578. In her rage she at first threatened to imprison him in the Tower, and was with difficulty restrained from making this public display of her feelings. Yet he had become so necessary to her that he was soon restored to her favor.

Still Leicester’s power was by no means unlimited. The queen’s proud spirit could not brook the idea of dependence on any man. When it came to the point, Elizabeth would be roused and act for herself. One day an usher refused admittance to the queen’s presence to a follower of Leicester’s who had no privilege of admission. Leicester threatened the usher with dismissal; whereupon the man stepped before him, and kneeling before the queen told her the story, and asked whether Leicester were king, or her majesty queen. “My lord”, she exclaimed, “I have wished you well, but my favor is not so locked up for you that others shall not partake thereof; for I have many servants, to whom I have, and will at my pleasure, bequeath my favor, and likewise resume the same; and if you think to rule here, I will take a course to see you forthcoming. I will have here but one mistress and no master”.” These words”, adds Naunton, “so quelled my Lord of Leicester, that his feigned humility was long after one of his best virtues”.

Leicester was not the only courtier who owed his position solely to the royal favor. Christopher Hatton, a young student of the Inns of Court, attracted the queen’s attention by his elegant dancing at a masque. He left the study of law and Christopher became a courtier. In due time he was rewarded by no less an office than that of lord chancellor. The lawyers were disgusted; but Hatton was a prudent and an upright man. He used the assistance of learned assessors in the discharge of his legal duties, and filled his high office with credit. He was the only one of the queen’s favorites who died unmarried : but the queen’s conduct to him was capricious; she became tired of him, and he is said to have died of chagrin.

Thus Elizabeth’s court was a scene of wild adventure. Every young man who could gain admission there might hope to win the queen’s attention and secure his own fortunes. Every kind of merit might hope for recognition from a sovereign who could equally appreciate literature, bravery and elegant accomplishments. The queen’s favor, however, had not only to be won, but also to be maintained against all rivals. The adventurous spirit which animated English sailors to perilous voyages in the New World, found occupation at home in more nimble feats of dexterity, in climbing the steep ascent to royal favor and defending the passes to that perilous height. Spenser describes the courtier’s position with vigorous bitterness of feeling:

Full little know you, that hast not tried,

What hell it is in suing long to bide :

To lose good days, that might be better spent;

To waste long nights in pensive discontent;

To speed today, to be put back tomorrow;

To feed on hope, to pine with fear and sorrow;

To fret your soul with crosses and with cares;

To eat your heart through comfortless despairs:

To fawn, to crouch, to wait, to ride, to run,

To spend, to give, to want, to be undone.

Elizabeth was fond of making magnificent public appearances, surrounded by the ladies and gentlemen of her court in their most splendid attire. Sometimes she went on horseback, sometimes borne in a litter on the shoulders of her chiefest nobles. But most often did she go along the only broad highway of London, the royal barge with its rich drapery heading a long procession of attendant boats on the Thames. Sometimes she went with curious pomp, “a thousand men in harness with shirts of mail and corselets and morice-pikes, and ten great pieces carried through the city, with drums and trumpets sounding, and two morrice dancings, and in a cart two white bears”.

Elizabeth thoroughly enjoyed the pleasures of royalty, and realized them to the full in her royal progresses.

During her reign she visited, from time to time, her nobles and the chief cities of her realm. Everywhere her presence was a cause for entertainments and rejoicings. Everywhere she could enjoy the gratification of her vanity in the applause which her affability won or in the admiration which her dignity inspired. Moreover her thrifty mind enjoyed magnificence doubly when she had not to pay for it. A courtier in disgrace knew that there was no better way back to favor than to solicit the costly honor of a royal visit; and Elizabeth was always ready to receive a present from the faithful burgesses whose city she condescended to visit. Sometimes her greed overcame her decorum. When she visited Norwich, the Mayor, after a tedious Latin oration, handed her a silver cup full of gold pieces, saying, “here are a hundred pounds of pure gold”. The queen eagerly took off the cover and looked inside; then with a pleased face handed it to one of her servants, saying,” Look to it; there is a hundred pound”.

We possess full accounts of many of these royal entertainments, from which much is to be learned about the taste and manners of the time. Most notable amongst them are the ‘princely pleasures of at Kenilworth’, where in 1575 the Earl of Leicester entertained the queen for nearly three weeks with a daily succession of shows and banquets. The queen was met some distance off by her host, with a brilliant cavalcade. On nearing the castle a giant porter, armed with a club, refused admittance to all till he saw the queen, when throwing away his club he prostrated himself at her feet and gave up to her his keys. As she entered the castle a floating island on the moat approached the bridge over which she was passing, and a lady who had been in captivity since the days of King Arthur commemorated in a long poem her happy deliverance through the terror of Elizabeth’s name. The bridge itself was ornamented with posts, on each of which were seen the offerings to one of the heathen gods. Birds, fishes, fruits, musical instruments, and armour, all were hung in their order as symbolical gifts to the queen. When the bridge was passed, at the entrance of the inner court a poet appeared, who recited a long Latin poem, explaining to the queen the meaning of all that she had seen. This reception may serve as a sample of the varied amusements which filled up the rest of the queen’s visit. Every day had its own entertainment. Now there was a water party, when Arion on his dolphin drew near and sung the praises of the queen, accompanied by an entire orchestra who were stowed away inside the monstrous fish. Now there was a ride in the woods, where ‘Ombre Selvaggio’, the wild man of the woods, overcome by the queen’s dignity and grace, vowed henceforth to lay aside his savagery and live in her service. Echo too, in answer to appropriate questions, expressed her delight at Elizabeth’s presence. Some days were given up to the chase, to hawking, and to bearbaiting. There were fireworks and tumbling feats when other amusements flagged. Nor were the sports of the common people disregarded. One day the queen was entertained by a band of rustics who represented a country wedding, and afterwards displayed their skill in tilting at the quintain. Another day the men of Coventry fought their mimic tournament, according to a yearly custom, in commemoration of a great victory over the Danes.

Nor did the burgesses of the towns which Elizabeth visited fall short of the nobles in the honors which they paid her. At Norwich, Mercury, attired in blue satin lined with cloth of gold, with wings on his hat and on his heels, descended from a magnificent carriage at the queen's door, and invited her to go and see the revels. There was an elaborate masque representing Venus and Cupid, Wantonness and Riot, who, after many gambols, were put to flight by Chastity and her train.

The queen’s visits to the two Universities were also very characteristic. At Cambridge the Public Orator, on his knees, for more than half-an-hour commemorated the queen’s virtues. At first she counterfeited indignation, shook her head and bit her fingers, exclaiming, “It is not the truth; I would that it were”. When he praised virginity, she called out, “God's blessing of your heart, there continue”. On Sunday, she heard a Latin sermon in the morning, and in the evening saw a representation of the Aulularia of Plautus in the University church. As yet the wave of Puritanism had not swept over England and stamped a rigid Sabbatarianism on the popular mind. She visited all the colleges in turn, hearing at each a Latin oration, and receiving, amongst other presents, a splendidly bound volume full of Latin and Greek verses composed in her honor. She was besought to address the University in Latin; and after a great show of reluctance, with many expressions of diffidence and pleadings of her want of preparation, she delivered an elaborately prepared and turgid Latin speech, in which she held out hopes of imitating her predecessors by founding some new building in the University. Perhaps her promise deceived no one; Elizabeth’s thrift prevented her from leaving any architectural monument of her taste or munificence.

At Oxford there was a similar tedious flow of orations; and brains were racked to patch together a still larger collection of copies of verses than had been made at Cambridge. The queen was so far advanced in erudition that, after another show of bashfulness, she addressed the University in Greek. Better far than her speeches was her ready remark to the vice-chancellor, Dr. Humphreys, a distinguished Puritan who opposed the views of the queen and Archbishop Parker. When he advanced in cap and gown at the head of an academic procession, the queen, as she gave him her hand, said with a smile, “That loose gown, Doctor, becomes you mighty well: I wonder your notions should be so narrow”. It was by sayings such as these that the queen won the hearts of the people, who can always appreciate keen homely wit and readiness of speech.