ITS EARLY SUCCESS-THE PEOPLE OPEN TO CONVICTION 423

centuries; while the great majority were indifferent, and so open to conviction.* Men in dwelling upon the past are inclined to retain only their pleasurable recollections. When these young priests, themselves pure of life and devoted wholly to the Church, opened their crusade, the abuses of the former system were largely forgotten, while its beauties and benefactions were well remembered.

Taking all the conditions together, there is nothing strange about the early successes of the Jesuits in their effort to bring England back to the ancient faith, or in the fact that they fully believed in the ultimate

*The question of the proportion of Catholics to Protestants in England during the reign of Elizabeth is one as to which authorities differ widely, and which, from its nature, never can be determined. Froude thinks that the Catholics were in a very large majority; on the other hand, Hallam estimates the Protestants to have made up two thirds of the nation, while Lingard is of opinion that in the middle of the reign the two parties were about equally divided. Such estimates, founded merely on the opinions of modern writers as to the general predispositions of the people, are of very little significance. As Macaulay has well said, the important question is, how many of the nation had made up their minds on either side and were willing to run any risks for their opinions? The history of the times shows conclusively that these were very few. Cardinal Bentivoglio, who was papal nuncio at Brussels from 1607 to 1616, estimated the number of earnest Catholics in England during that period at about one thirtieth of the nation. The people who would without scruple become Catholic if the Catholic religion were established, he estimated at four fifths of the nation. With this estimate Macaulay concurs, and he expresses the opinion that at the accession of Elizabeth not one twentieth of the people had any earnest convictions in either direction. Essay on Nares's "Memoirs of Burleigh." The great problem of the time, therefore, was the determination of the question which party should develop and increase so as to control the State.

triumph of their cause. But there were obstacles in their path which proved insuperable.

In the first place, the religious question could not be separated from the political one. Campian and his associates might preach only the doctrines of a Church, which, freed from its abuses, appealed to some of the noblest elements in human nature. But back of them stood a power to which they had sworn unquestioning obedience-a power that claimed the right of deposing monarchs, and was now coming to be recognized as the foe of the national existence. Most of her troubles Elizabeth had brought upon herself, but they were no less real on that account. Already she had been excommunicated by the pope. Across the Channel, the Guises were plotting for the release of Mary Stuart, and Philip of Spain was being goaded into action by the aggressions of the British pirates. What was going on in Ireland and Scotland, where the pope was also at work, will be shown in a later chapter. When the peaceful missionaries had prepared the way, a foreign invasion would make short work of English nationality.

All this is apparent enough to the modern historian, as it was to the English statesmen of the time, who set out with ruthless ferocity to crush the Catholic revival.· But the love of nationality, on which they relied, would have availed little against religious zeal had there not been another party in the State, made up of men as earnest, as devoted, and as zealous as the Catholics themselves. These were the Puritans. To Elizabeth they were much more obnoxious than the papists ever were, and yet but for them she never would have died peacefully upon the throne. It was largely through their labors that her ministers were enabled to stay the tide of the returning Catholicism which threatened to ingulf the land. It was

THE ENGLISH PURITANS THEIR PLACE IN HISTORY

425

with their development that England was again brought into close relations with the civilization of the Old World, imbibing new ideas of civil liberty, and receiving an impulse which has carried her to the forefront among nations. Later on, they founded New England, giving an impress to the character of untold millions across the ocean. Thus affecting two continents, the Puritans of England have played a part in the world's history which makes the subject of their origin and growth one of unfailing interest.

From the death of Cromwell until within a comparatively recent time, it was the fashion among British writers to ridicule the English Puritans, just as it has been the fashion to ridicule the Hollanders. The Cavaliers, who went down before them in battle, and who saw the Commonwealth raise England to a leading place in European politics, hated, but had an intense respect for, Cromwell and his Ironsides. It was not until after the Restoration, when the Stuarts had bemired the fame and honor of England, that the great virtues of the Puritans seemed to be forgotten, and men thought only of their faults and of those external peculiarities which are so easily caricatured and satirized.* The prejudice against them after the Restoration was not universal, however, for, as in the case of the Hollanders, men were always found to do them honor. Notable among these

*The English Puritans antedated Shakespeare, and during his life played an important part in politics; yet the great dramatist, unlike some of his petty followers, never regarded them as objects of ridicule. We find in his pages almost every type of knave and buffoon, but no snivelling, canting, Puritanical hypocrite or rogue, such as more modern writers have depicted. In fact, although in common use, the word Puritan occurs but a very few times in Shakespeare's plays, and then scarcely in an offensive sense.

men was Hume, the apologist of the Stuarts and the champion of the Tory party.

Speaking of the arbitrary nature of Elizabeth's government, and of the fact that her most violent assaults on the freedom of the people attracted not the least attention from contemporaneous writers, Hume remarks: "So absolute, indeed, was the authority of the crown that the precious spark of liberty had been kindled and was preserved by the Puritans alone; and it was to this sect, whose principles appear so frivolous and habits so ridiculous, that the English owe the whole freedom of their Constitution." Again, discussing the same question in another place, he says: "It was only during the next generation that the noble principles of liberty took root, and, spreading themselves under the shelter of Puritanical absurdities, became fashionable among the people."+

*

Such ideas were not fashionable in England when Hume's history was written. As he relates in his autobiography, he "was assailed by one cry of reproach, disapprobation, and even detestation," from every side and from every party. The Tories were indignant that any credit should be given to the Puritans, and the Whigs were no less indignant at the suggestion that English liberty began with the growth of Puritanism; for they had always claimed that the Stuarts had attempted to deprive the people of long-settled, well-established rights.+

Hallam, in his "Constitutional History," questions

"History of England," chap. xl. + Idem, Appendix, vol. iii. How the High-churchmen hated the Puritans is shown in almost every page of Strype's "Annals," written in the early part of the eighteenth century.

DESPOTIC NATURE OF ELIZABETH'S RULE

427

some of the conclusions of Hume, and takes that author severely to task for comparing the government of England during the reign of Elizabeth with the governments of Russia and Turkey. But Hallam himself is one of the best witnesses to the almost despotic character of Elizabeth's rule. Even more fully than Hume himself, he shows how the laws were constantly set aside by royal proclamations; how the courts of justice were mere instruments of tyranny; how trade was shackled by monopolies in every quarter; how imports and exports were taxed by the crown alone; how Parliament was prevented from discussing questions of Church or State, and how its members who attempted to raise forbidden questions were silenced by imprisonment. But, he says, liberty was not dead, because the House of Commons exercised some rights: it insisted on being the judge of the election of its own members; its members were exempt from arrest on civil process; and it claimed the right of punishment for contempt. These privileges, all novel, were to become important in the future, but they were of little value at the time. Elizabeth packed the House by the creation of sixty-two new boroughs, and was willing to let its members play at Parliament, so long as they did nothing to interfere with her prerogative. But Hallam says further that Parliament was not wholly subservient, for, from time to time, voices were raised there against the tyranny of the crown, and that these voices became more numerous as the years rolled on. This is true. They were the voices of the men who, according to Hume, kindled the precious spark of liberty in despotic times.

After all, so far as relates to the influence of the Puritans, these authors differ but slightly. Hume says that they kindled and preserved the spark; Hallam says that