Chapter II (2)

Further information respecting the amount and nature of these
vexatious impositions will be found in _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._
vol. xiii. p. 24, vol. xiv. p. 118; _Sainte-Aulaire_, _Hist. de
la Fronde_, vol. i. p. 125; _Tocqueville_, _Ancien Régime_, pp.
135, 191, 420, 440; _Sully_, _[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. ii. p.
412, vol. iii. p. 226, vol. iv. p. 199, vol. v. pp. 339, 410,
vol. vi. p. 94; _Relat. des Ambassad. Vénit._ vol. i. p. 96;
_Mably_, _Observations_, vol. iii. pp. 355, 356;
_Boulainvilliers_, _Ancien Gouvernement_, vol. iii. p. 109; _Le
Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. p. 29; _Mém. d'Omer
Talon_, vol. ii. pp. 103, 369; _Mém. de Montglat_, vol. i. p. 82;
_Tocqueville_, _Règne de Louis XV_, vol. i. pp. 87, 332;
_[OE]uvres de Turgot_, vol. i. p. 372, vol. iv. pp. 58, 59, 74,
75, 242, 278, vol. v. pp. 226, 242, vol. vi. p. 144, vol. viii.
pp. 152, 280.

[320] So deeply rooted were these feelings, that, even in 1789, the very
year the Revolution broke out, it was deemed a great concession
that the nobles 'will consent, indeed, to equal taxation.' See a
letter from Jefferson to Jay, dated Paris, May 9th, 1789, in
_Jefferson's Corresp._ vol. ii. pp. 462, 463. Compare _Mercier
sur Rousseau_, vol. i. p. 136.

[321] 'Les nobles, qui avaient le privilége exclusif des grandes
dignités et des gros bénéfices.' _Mém. de Rivarol_, p. 97: see
also _Mém. de Bouillé_, vol. i. p. 56; _Lemontey_,
_Etablissement Monarchique_, p. 337; _Daniel_, _Hist. de la
Milice Françoise_, vol. ii. p. 556; _Campan_, _Mém. sur
Marie-Antoinette_, vol. i. pp. 238, 239.

[322] 'L'ancien régime n'avait admis que des nobles pour officiers.'
_Mém. de Roland_, vol. i. p. 398. Ségur mentions that, early in
the reign of Louis XVI., 'les nobles seuls avaient le droit
d'entrer au service comme sous-lieutenans.' _Mém. de Ségur_, vol.
i. p. 65. Compare pp. 117, 265-271, with _Mém. de Genlis_,
vol. iii. p. 74, and _De Staël_, _Consid. sur la Rév._ vol. i.
p. 123.

[323] Thus, De Thou says of Henry III., 'il remet sous l'ancien pied la
cavalerie ordinaire, qui n'étoit composée que de la noblesse.'
_Hist. Univ._ vol. ix. pp. 202, 203; and see vol. x. pp. 504,
505, vol. xiii. p. 22; and an imperfect statement of the same
fact in _Boullier_, _Hist. des divers Corps de la Maison
Militaire des Rois de France_, Paris, 1818, p. 58, a superficial
work on an uninteresting subject.

[324] M. Tocqueville (_L'Ancien Régime_, p. 448) mentions, among other
regulations still in force late in the eighteenth century, that
'en Dauphiné, en Bretagne, en Normandie, il est prohibé à tout
roturier d'avoir des colombiers, fuies et volière; il n'y a que
les nobles qui puissent avoir des pigeons.'

Circumstances like these are valuable, as evidence of the state of society to which they belong; and their importance will become peculiarly obvious, when we compare them with the opposite condition of England.

For in England, neither these nor any similar distinctions have ever been known. The spirit of which our yeomanry, copyholders, and free burgesses were the representatives, proved far too strong for those protective and monopolizing principles of which the aristocracy are the guardians in politics, and the clergy in religion. And it is to the successful opposition made by these feelings of individual independence that we owe our two greatest national acts--our Reformation in the sixteenth, and our Rebellion in the seventeenth century. Before, however, tracing the steps taken in these matters, there is one other point of view to which I wish to call attention, as a further illustration of the early and radical difference between France and England.

In the eleventh century there arose the celebrated institution of chivalry,[325] which was to manners what feudalism was to politics. This connexion is clear, not only from the testimony of contemporaries, but also from two general considerations. In the first place, chivalry was so highly aristocratic, that no one could even receive knighthood unless he were of noble birth;[326] and the preliminary education which was held to be necessary was carried on either in schools appointed by the nobles, or else in their own baronial castles.[327] In the second place, it was essentially a protective, and not at all a reforming institution. It was contrived with a view to remedy certain oppressions as they successively arose; opposed in this respect to the reforming spirit, which, being remedial rather than palliative, strikes at the root of an evil by humbling the class from which the evil proceeds, passing over individual cases in order to direct its attention to general causes. But chivalry, so far from doing this, was in fact a fusion of the aristocratic and the ecclesiastical forms of the protective spirit.[328] For, by introducing among the nobles the principle of knighthood, which, being personal, could never be bequeathed, it presented a point at which the ecclesiastical doctrine of celibacy could coalesce with the aristocratic doctrine of hereditary descent.[329] Out of this coalition sprung results of great moment. It is to this that Europe owes those orders, half aristocratic half religious,[330] the Knights Templars, the Knights of St. James, the Knights of St. John, the Knights of St. Michael: establishments which inflicted the greatest evils on society; and whose members, combining analogous vices, enlivened the superstition of monks with the debauchery of soldiers. As a natural consequence, an immense number of noble knights were solemnly pledged to 'defend the church;' an ominous expression, the meaning of which is too well known to the readers of ecclesiastical history.[331] Thus it was that chivalry, uniting the hostile principles of celibacy and noble birth, became the incarnation of the spirit of the two classes to which those principles belonged. Whatever benefit, therefore, this institution may have conferred upon manners,[332] there can be no doubt that it actively contributed to keep men in a state of pupilage, and stopped the march of society by prolonging the term of its infancy.[333]

[325] 'Dès la fin du onzième siècle, à l'époque même où commencèrent les
croisades, on trouve la chevalerie établie.' _Koch_, _Tab. des
Révolutions_, vol. i. p. 143; see also _Sainte-Palaye_, _Mém. sur
la Chevalerie_, vol. i. pp. 42, 68. M. Guizot (_Civilis. en
France_, vol. iii. pp. 349-354) has attempted to trace it back to
an earlier period; but he appears to have failed, though of
course its germs may be easily found. According to some writers
it originated in northern Europe; according to others in Arabia!
_Mallet's Northern Antiquities_, p. 202; _Journal of Asiat. Soc._
vol. ii. p. 11.

[326] 'L'ordre de chevalerie n'étoit accordé qu'aux hommes d'un sang
noble.' _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. iv. p. 204.
Compare _Daniel_, _Hist. de la Milice_, vol. i. p. 97, and
_Mills' Hist. of Chivalry_, vol. i. p. 20.

[327] 'In some places there were schools appointed by the nobles of the
country, but most frequently their own castles served.' _Mills'
Hist. of Chivalry_, vol. i. p. 31; and see _Sainte-Palaye_, _Mém.
sur l'Anc. Chevalerie_, vol. i. pp. 30, 56, 57, on this
education.

[328] This combination of knighthood and religious rites is often
ascribed to the crusades; but there is good evidence that it took
place a little earlier, and must be referred to the latter half
of the eleventh century. Compare _Mills' Hist. of Chivalry_, vol.
i. pp. 10, 11; _Daniel_, _Hist. de la Milice_, vol. i. pp. 101,
102, 108; _Boulainvilliers_, _Ancien Gouv._ vol. i. p. 326.
Sainte-Palaye (_Mém. sur la Chevalerie_, vol. i. pp. 119-123),
who has collected some illustrations of the relation between
chivalry and the church, says, p. 119, 'enfin la chevalerie étoit
regardée comme une ordination, un sacerdoce.' The superior clergy
possessed the right of conferring knighthood, and William Rufus
was actually knighted by Archbishop Lanfranc: 'Archiepiscopus
Lanfrancus, eo quòd eum nutrierat, et militem fecerat.' _Will.
Malmes._ lib. iv., in _Scriptores post Bedam_, p. 67. Compare
_Fosbroke's British Monachism_, 1843, p. 101, on knighting by
abbots.

[329] The influence of this on the nobles is rather exaggerated by Mr.
Mills; who, on the other hand, has not noticed how the
unhereditary element was favourable to the ecclesiastical spirit.
_Mills' Hist. of Chivalry_, vol. i. pp. 15, 389, vol. ii. p. 169;
a work interesting as an assemblage of facts, but almost useless
as a philosophic estimate.

[330] 'In their origin all the military orders, and most of the
religious ones, were entirely aristocratic.' _Mills' Hist. of
Chivalry_, vol. i. p. 336.

[331] _Mills' Hist. of Chivalry_, vol. i. pp. 148, 338. About the year
1127, St. Bernard wrote a discourse in favour of the Knights
Templars, in which 'he extols this order as a combination of
monasticism and knighthood.... He describes the design of it as
being to give the military order and knighthood a serious
Christian direction, and to convert war into something that God
might approve.' _Neander's Hist. of the Church_, vol. vii. p.
358. To this may be added, that, early in the thirteenth century,
a chivalric association was formed, and afterwards merged in the
Dominican order, called the Militia of Christ: 'un nouvel ordre
de chevalerie destiné à poursuivre les hérétiques, sur le modèle
de celui des Templiers, et sous le nom de Milice de Christ.'
_Llorente_, _Hist. de l'Inquisition_, vol. i. pp. 52, 133, 203.

[332] Several writers ascribe to chivalry the merit of softening
manners, and of increasing the influence of women.
_Sainte-Palaye_, _Mém. sur la Chevalerie_, vol. i. pp. 220-223,
282, 284, vol. iii. pp. vi. vii. 159-161; _Helvétius de
l'Esprit_, vol. ii. pp. 50, 51; _Schlegel's Lectures_, vol. i. p.
209. That there was such a tendency is, I think, indisputable;
but it has been greatly exaggerated; and an author of
considerable reading on these subjects says, 'The rigid treatment
shown to prisoners of war in ancient times strongly marks the
ferocity and uncultivated manners of our ancestors, and that even
to ladies of high rank; notwithstanding the homage said to have
been paid to the fair sex in those days of chivalry.' _Grose's
Military Antiquities_, vol. ii. p. 114. Compare _Manning on the
Law of Nations_, 1839, pp. 145, 146.

[333] Mr. Hallam (_Middle Ages_, vol. ii. p. 464) says, 'A third
reproach may be made to the character of knighthood, that it
widened the separation between the different classes of society,
and confirmed that aristocratical spirit of high birth, by which
the large mass of mankind were kept in unjust degradation.'

On this account, it is evident that, whether we look at the immediate or at the remote tendency of chivalry, its strength and duration become a measure of the predominance of the protective spirit. If, with this view, we compare France and England, we shall find fresh proof of the early divergence of those countries. Tournaments, the first open expression of chivalry, are of French origin.[334] The greatest and, indeed, the only two great describers of chivalry are Joinville and Froissart, both of whom were Frenchmen. Bayard, that famous chevalier, who is always considered as the last representative of chivalry, was a Frenchman, and was killed when fighting for Francis I. Nor was it until nearly forty years after his death that tournaments were finally abolished in France, the last one having been held in 1560.[335]

[334] _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. iv. pp. 370, 371, 377;
_Turner's Hist. of England_, vol. iv. p. 478; _Foncemagne_, _De
l'Origine des Armoiries_, in _Mém. de l'Académie des
Inscriptions_, vol. xx. p. 580. Koch also says (_Tableau des
Révolutions_, vol. i. p. 139), 'c'est de la France que l'usage
des tournois se répandit chez les autres nations de l'Europe.'
They were first introduced into England in the reign of Stephen.
_Lingard's England_, vol. ii. p. 27.

[335] Mr. Hallam (_Middle Ages_, vol. ii. p. 470) says they were
'entirely discontinued in France' in consequence of the death of
Henry II.; but according to _Mills' Hist. of Chivalry_, vol. ii.
p. 226, they lasted the next year; when another fatal accident
occurred, and 'tournaments ceased for ever.' Compare
_Sainte-Palaye sur la Chevalerie_, vol. ii. pp. 39, 40.

But in England, the protective spirit being much less active than in France, we should expect to find that chivalry, as its offspring, had less influence. And such was really the case. The honours that were paid to knights, and the social distinctions by which they were separated from the other classes, were never so great in our country as in France.[336] As men became more free, the little respect they had for such matters still further diminished. In the thirteenth century, and indeed in the very reign in which burgesses were first returned to parliament, the leading symbol of chivalry fell into such disrepute, that a law was passed obliging certain persons to accept that rank of knighthood which in other nations was one of the highest objects of ambition.[337] In the fourteenth century, this was followed by another blow, which deprived knighthood of its exclusively military character; the custom having grown up in the reign of Edward III. of conferring it on the judges in the courts of law, thus turning a warlike title into a civil honour.[338] Finally, before the end of the fifteenth century, the spirit of chivalry, in France still at its height, was in our country extinct, and this mischievous institution had become a subject for ridicule even among the people themselves.[339] To these circumstances we may add two others, which seem worthy of observation. The first is, that the French, notwithstanding their many admirable qualities, have always been more remarkable for personal vanity than the English;[340] a peculiarity partly referable to those chivalric traditions which even their occasional republics have been unable to destroy, and which makes them attach undue importance to external distinctions, by which I mean, not only dress and manners, but also medals, ribbons, stars, crosses, and the like, which we, a prouder people, have never held in such high estimation. The other circumstance is, that duelling has from the beginning been more popular in France than in England; and as this is a custom which we owe to chivalry, the difference in this respect between the two countries supplies another link in that long chain of evidence by which we must estimate their national tendencies.[341]

[336] Mr. Hallam (_Middle Ages_, vol. ii. p. 467) observes, that the
knight, as compared with other classes, 'was addressed by titles
of more respect. _There was not, however, so much distinction in
England as in France._' The great honour paid to knights in
France is noticed by Daniel (_Milice Française_, vol. i. pp. 128,
129) and Herder (Ideen zur Geschichte, vol. iv. pp. 226, 267)
says, that in France chivalry flourished more than in any other
country. The same remark is made by Sismondi (_Hist. des
Français_, vol. iv. p. 198).

[337] The _Statutum de Militibus_, in 1307, was perhaps the first
recognition of this. Compare _Blackstone's Comment._ vol. ii. p.
69; _Barrington on the Statutes_, pp. 192, 193. But we have
positive evidence that compulsory knighthood existed in the reign
of Henry III.; or at least that those who refused it were obliged
to pay a fine. See _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. i. p. 421, and
_Lyttleton's Hist. of Henry II._ vol. ii. pp. 238, 239, 2nd edit.
4to. 1767. Lord Lyttleton, evidently puzzled, says, 'Indeed it
seems a deviation from the original principle of this
institution. For one cannot but think it a very great
inconsistency, that a dignity, which was deemed an accession of
honour to kings themselves, should be forced upon any.'

[338] In _Mills' Hist. of Chivalry_, vol. ii. p. 154, it is said, that
'the judges of the courts of law' were first knighted in the
reign of Edward III.

[339] Mr. Mills (_Hist. of Chivalry_, vol. ii. pp. 99, 100) has printed
a curious extract from a lamentation over the destruction of
chivalry, written in the reign of Edward IV.; but he has
overlooked a still more singular instance. This is a popular
ballad, written in the middle of the fifteenth century, and
called the Turnament of Tottenham, in which the follies of
chivalry are admirably ridiculed. See _Warton's Hist. of English
Poetry_, edit. 1840, vol. iii. pp. 98-101; and _Percy's Reliques
of Ancient Poetry_, edit. 1845, pp. 92-95. According to Turner
(_Hist. of England_, vol. vi. p. 363), 'the ancient books of
chivalry were laid aside' about the reign of Henry VI.

[340] This is not a mere popular opinion, but rests upon a large amount
of evidence, supplied by competent and impartial observers.
Addison, who was a lenient as well as an able judge, and who had
lived much among the French, calls them 'the vainest nation in
the world.' _Letter to Bishop Hough_, in _Aikin's Life of
Addison_, vol. i. p. 90. Napoleon says, 'vanity is the ruling
principle of the French.' _Alison's Hist. of Europe_, vol. vi. p.
25. Dumont (_Souvenirs sur Mirabeau_, p. 111) declares, that 'le
trait le plus dominant dans le caractère français, c'est l'amour
propre;' and Ségur (_Souvenirs_, vol. i. pp. 73, 74), 'car en
France l'amour propre, ou, si on le veut, la vanité, est de
toutes les passions la plus irritable.' It is moreover stated,
that phrenological observations prove that the French are vainer
than the English. _Combe's Elements of Phrenology_, 6th edit.
Edinb. 1845, p. 90; and a partial recognition of the same fact in
_Broussais_, _Cours de Phrénologie_, p. 297. For other instances
of writers who have noticed the vanity of the French, see
_Tocqueville_, _l'Ancien Régime_, p. 148; _Barante_, _Lit. Franç.
au XVIII^e. Siècle_, p. 80; _Mém. de Brissot_, vol. i. p. 272;
_Mézéray_, _Hist. de France_, vol. ii. p. 933; _Lemontey_,
_Etablissement Monarchique_, p. 418; _Voltaire_, _Lettres
inédites_, vol. ii. p. 282; _Tocqueville_, _Règne de Louis XV_,
vol. ii. p. 358; _De Staël sur la Révolution_, vol. i. p. 260,
vol. ii. p. 258.

[341] The relation between chivalry and duelling has been noticed by
several writers; and in France, where the chivalric spirit was
not completely destroyed until the Revolution, we find occasional
traces of this connexion even in the reign of Louis XVI. See, for
instance, in _Mém. de Lafayette_, vol. i. p. 86, a curious letter
in regard to chivalry and duelling in 1778. In England there is,
I believe, no evidence of even a single private duel being fought
earlier than the sixteenth century, and there were not many till
the latter half of Elizabeth's reign; but in France the custom
arose early in the fifteenth century, and in the sixteenth it
became usual for the seconds to fight as well as the principals.
Compare _Montlosier_, _Monarc. Franç._ vol. ii. p. 436, with
_Monteil_, _Hist. des divers Etats_, vol. vi. p. 48. From that
time the love of the French for duelling became quite a passion
until the end of the eighteenth century, when the Revolution, or
rather the circumstances which led to the Revolution, caused its
comparative cessation. Some idea may be formed of the enormous
extent of this practice formerly in France, by comparing the
following passages, which I have the more pleasure in bringing
together, as no one has written even a tolerable history of
duelling, notwithstanding the great part it once played in
European society. _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. ix. pp. 592, 593,
vol. xv. p. 57; _Daniel_, _Milice Française_, vol. ii. p. 582;
_Sully_, _[OE]conomies_, vol. i. p. 301, vol. iii. p. 406, vol.
vi. p. 122, vol. viii. p. 41, vol. ix. p. 408; _Carew's State of
France under Henry IV._, in _Birch's Historical Negotiations_, p.
467; _Ben Jonson's Works_, edit. Gifford, vol. vi. p. 69;
_Dulaure_, _Hist. de Paris_ (1825 3rd edit.), vol. iv. p. 567,
vol. v. pp. 300, 301; _Le Clerc_, _Bibliothèque Univ._ vol. xx.
p. 242; _Lettres de Patin_, vol. iii. p. 536; _Capefigue_, _Hist.
de la Réforme_, vol. viii. p. 98; _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol.
i. p. 63; _Des Réaux_, _Historiettes_, vol. x. p. 13; _Mém. de
Genlis_, vol. ii. p. 191, vol. vii. p. 215, vol. ix. p. 351;
_Mem. of the Baroness d'Oberkirch_, vol. i. p. 71, edit. Lond.
1852; _Lettres inédites d'Aguesseau_, vol. i. p. 211; _Lettres de
Dudeffand à Walpole_, vol. iii. p. 249, vol. iv. pp. 27, 28, 152;
_Boullier_, _Maison Militaire des Rois de France_, pp. 87, 88;
_Biog. Univ._ vol. v. pp. 402, 403, vol. xxiii. p. 411, vol.
xliv. pp. 127, 401, vol. xlviii. p. 522, vol. xlix. p. 130.

The old associations, of which these facts are but the external expression, now continued to act with increasing vigour. In France, the protective spirit, carried into religion, was strong enough to resist the Reformation, and preserve to the clergy the forms, at least, of their ancient supremacy. In England, the pride of men, and their habits of self-reliance, enabled them to mature into a system what is called the right of private judgment, by which some of the most cherished traditions were eradicated; and this, as we have already seen, being quickly succeeded, first by scepticism, and then by toleration, prepared the way for that subordination of the church to the state, for which we are pre-eminent, and without a rival, among the nations of Europe. The very same tendency, acting in politics, displayed analogous results. Our ancestors found no difficulty in humbling the nobles, and reducing them to comparative insignificance. The wars of the Roses, by breaking up the leading families into two hostile factions, aided this movement;[342] and, after the reign of Edward IV., there is no instance of any Englishman, even of the highest rank, venturing to carry on those private wars, by which, in other countries, the great lords still disturbed the peace of society.[343] When the civil contests subsided, the same spirit displayed itself in the policy of Henry VII. and Henry VIII. For, those princes, despots as they were, mainly oppressed the highest classes; and even Henry VIII., notwithstanding his barbarous cruelties, was loved by the people, to whom his reign was, on the whole, decidedly beneficial. Then there came the Reformation; which, being an uprising of the human mind, was essentially a rebellious movement, and thus increasing the insubordination of men, sowed, in the sixteenth century, the seeds of those great political revolutions which, in the seventeenth century, broke out in nearly every part of Europe. The connexion between these two revolutionary epochs is a subject full of interest; but, for the purpose of the present chapter, it will be sufficient to notice such events, during the latter half of the sixteenth century, as explain the sympathy between the ecclesiastical and aristocratic classes, and prove how the same circumstances that were fatal to the one, also prepared the way for the downfall of the other.

[342] On the effect of the wars of the Roses upon the nobles, compare
_Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. i. p. 10; _Lingard's Hist. of
England_, vol. iii. p. 340; _Eccleston's English Antiq._ pp. 224,
320: and on their immense pecuniary, or rather territorial,
losses, _Sinclair's Hist. of the Revenue_, vol. i. p. 155.

[343] 'The last instance of a pitched battle between two powerful
noblemen in England occurs in the reign of Edward IV.' _Allen on
the Prerogative_, p. 123.

When Elizabeth ascended the throne of England, a large majority of the nobility were opposed to the Protestant religion. This we know from the most decisive evidence; and, even if we had no such evidence, a general acquaintance with human nature would induce us to suspect that such was the case. For, the aristocracy, by the very conditions of their existence, must, as a body, always be averse to innovation. And this, not only because by a change they have much to lose and little to gain, but because some of their most pleasurable emotions are connected with the past rather than with the present. In the collision of actual life, their vanity is sometimes offended by the assumptions of inferior men; it is frequently wounded by the successful competition of able men. These are mortifications to which, in the progress of society, their liability is constantly increasing. But the moment they turn to the past, they see in those good old times which are now gone by, many sources of consolation. There they find a period in which their glory is without a rival. When they look at their pedigrees, their quarterings, their escutcheons; when they think of the purity of their blood, and the antiquity of their ancestors--they experience a comfort which ought amply to atone for any present inconvenience. The tendency of this is very obvious, and has shown itself in the history of every aristocracy the world has yet seen. Men who have worked themselves to so extravagant a pitch as to believe that it is an honour to have had one ancestor who came over with the Normans, and another ancestor who was present at the first invasion of Ireland--men who have reached this ecstacy of the fancy are not disposed to stop there, but, by a process with which most minds are familiar, they generalize their view; and, even on matters not immediately connected with their fame, they acquire a habit of associating grandeur with antiquity, and of measuring value by age; thus transferring to the past an admiration which otherwise they might reserve for the present.

The connexion between these feelings and those which animate the clergy is very evident. What the nobles are to politics, that are the priests to religion. Both classes, constantly appealing to the voice of antiquity, rely much on tradition, and make great account of upholding established customs. Both take for granted that what is old is better than what is new; and that in former times there were means of discovering truths respecting government and theology which we, in these degenerate ages, no longer possess. And it may be added, that the similarity of their functions follows from the similarity of their principles. Both are eminently protective, stationary, or, as they are sometimes called, conservative. It is believed that the aristocracy guard the state against revolution, and that the clergy keep the church from error. The first are the enemies of reformers; the others are the scourge of heretics.

It does not enter into the province of this Introduction to examine how far these principles are reasonable, or to inquire into the propriety of notions which suppose that, on certain subjects of immense importance, men are to remain stationary, while on all other subjects they are constantly advancing. But what I now rather wish to point out, is the manner in which, in the reign of Elizabeth, the two great conservative and protective classes were weakened by that vast movement, the Reformation, which, though completed in the sixteenth century, had been prepared by a long chain of intellectual antecedents.

Whatever the prejudices of some may suggest, it will be admitted, by all unbiassed judges, that the Protestant Reformation was neither more nor less than an open rebellion. Indeed, the mere mention of private judgment, on which it was avowedly based, is enough to substantiate this fact. To establish the right of private judgment, was to appeal from the church to individuals; it was to increase the play of each man's intellect; it was to test the opinions of the priesthood by the opinions of laymen; it was, in fact, a rising of the scholars against their teachers, of the ruled against their rulers. And although the reformed clergy, as soon as they had organised themselves into a hierarchy, did undoubtedly abandon the great principle with which they started, and attempt to impose articles and canons of their own contrivance, still, this ought not to blind us to the merits of the Reformation itself. The tyranny of the Church of England, during the reign of Elizabeth, and still more during the reigns of her two successors, was but the natural consequence of that corruption which power always begets in those who wield it, and does not lessen the importance of the movement by which the power was originally obtained. For men could not forget that, tried by the old theological theory, the church of England was a schismatic establishment, and could only defend itself from the charge of heresy by appealing to that private judgment, to the exercise of which it owed its existence, but of the rights of which its own proceedings were a constant infraction. It was evident that if, in religious matters, private judgment were supreme, it became a high spiritual crime to issue any articles, or to take any measure, by which that judgment could be tied up; while, on the other hand, if the right of private judgment were not supreme, the church of England was guilty of apostacy, inasmuch as its founders did, by virtue of the interpretation which their own private judgment made of the Bible, abandon tenets which they had hitherto held, stigmatize those tenets as idolatrous, and openly renounce their allegiance to what had for centuries been venerated as the catholic and apostolic church.

This was a simple alternative; which might, indeed, be kept out of sight, but could not be refined away, and most assuredly has never been forgotten. The memory of the great truth it conveys was preserved by the writings and teachings of the Puritans, and by those habits of thought natural to an inquisitive age. And when the fulness of time had come, it did not fail to bear its fruit. It continued slowly to fructify; and before the middle of the seventeenth century, its seed had quickened into a life, the energy of which nothing could withstand. That same right of private judgment which the early Reformers had loudly proclaimed, was now pushed to an extent fatal to those who opposed it. This it was which, carried into politics, overturned the government, and, carried into religion, upset the church.[344] For, rebellion and heresy are but different forms of the same disregard of tradition, the same bold and independent spirit. Both are of the nature of a protest made by modern ideas against old associations. They are as a struggle between the feelings of the present and the memory of the past. Without the exercise of private judgment, such a contest could never take place; the mere conception of it could not enter the minds of men, nor would they even dream of controlling, by their individual energy, those abuses to which all great societies are liable. It is, therefore, in the highest degree natural that the exercise of this judgment should be opposed by those two powerful classes who, from their position, their interests, and the habits of their mind, are more prone than any other to cherish antiquity, cleave to superannuated customs, and uphold institutions which, to use their favourite language, have been consecrated by the wisdom of their fathers.

[344] Clarendon (_Hist. of the Rebellion_, p. 80), in a very angry
spirit, but with perfect truth, notices (under the year 1640) the
connexion between 'a proud and venomous dislike against the
discipline of the church of England, and so by degrees (as the
progress is very natural) an equal irreverence to the government
of the state too.' The Spanish government, perhaps more than any
other in Europe, has understood this relation; and even so late
as 1789, an edict of Charles IV. declared, 'qu'il y a crime
d'hérésie dans tout ce qui tend, ou contribue, à propager les
idées révolutionnaires.' _Llorente_, _Hist. de l'Inquisition_,
vol. ii. p. 130.

From this point of view we are able to see with great clearness the intimate connexion which, at the accession of Elizabeth, existed between the English nobles and the Catholic clergy. Notwithstanding many exceptions, an immense majority of both classes opposed the Reformation, because it was based on that right of private judgment of which they, as the protectors of old opinions, were the natural antagonists. All this can excite no surprise; it was in the order of things, and strictly accordant with the spirit of those two great sections of society. Fortunately, however, for our country, the throne was now occupied by a sovereign who was equal to the emergency, and who, instead of yielding to the two classes, availed herself of the temper of the age to humble them. The manner in which this was effected by Elizabeth, in respect, first to the Catholic clergy, and afterwards to the Protestant clergy,[345] forms one of the most interesting parts of our history; and in an account of the reign of the great queen, I hope to examine it at considerable length. At present, it will be sufficient to glance at her policy towards the nobles--that other class with which the priesthood, by their interests, opinions, and associations, have always much in common.

[345] The general character of her policy towards the Protestant English
bishops is summed up very fairly by Collier; though he, as a
professional writer, is naturally displeased with her disregard
for the heads of the church. _Collier's Eccles. Hist. of Great
Britain_, vol. vii. pp. 257, 258, edit. Barham, 1840.

Elizabeth, at her accession to the throne, finding that the ancient families adhered to the ancient religion, naturally called to her councils advisers who were more likely to uphold the novelties on which the age was bent. She selected men who, being little burdened by past associations, were more inclined to favour present interests. The two Bacons, the two Cecils, Knollys, Sadler, Smith, Throgmorton, Walsingham, were the most eminent statesmen and diplomatists in her reign; but all of them were commoners; only one did she raise to the peerage; and they were certainly nowise remarkable, either for the rank of their immediate connexions, or for the celebrity of their remote ancestors. They, however, were recommended to Elizabeth by their great abilities, and by their determination to uphold a religion which the ancient aristocracy naturally opposed. And it is observable that, among the accusations which the Catholics brought against the queen, they taunted her, not only with forsaking the old religion, but also with neglecting the old nobility.[346]

[346] One of the charges which, in 1588, Sixtus V. publicly brought
against Elizabeth, was, that 'she hath rejected and excluded the
ancient nobility, and promoted to honour obscure people.'
_Butler's Mem. of the Catholics_, vol. ii. p. 4. Persons also
reproaches her with her low-born ministers, and says that she was
influenced 'by five persons in particular--all of them sprung
from the earth--Bacon, Cecil, Dudley, Hatton, and Walsingham.'
_Butler_, vol. ii. p. 31. Cardinal Allen taunted her with
'disgracing the ancient nobility, erecting base and unworthy
persons to all the civil and ecclesiastical dignities.' _Dodd's
Church History_, edit. Tierney, 1840, vol. iii. appendix no. xii.
p. xlvi. The same influential writer, in his _Admonition_, said
that she had injured England, 'by great contempt and abasing of
the ancient nobility, repelling them from due government,
offices, and places of honour.' _Allen's Admonition to the
Nobility and People of England and Ireland_, 1588 (reprinted
London, 1842), p. xv. Compare the account of the Bull of 1588, in
_De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. x. p. 175: 'On accusoit Elisabeth
d'avoir au préjudice de la noblesse angloise élevé aux dignités,
tant civiles qu'ecclésiastiques, des hommes nouveaux, sans
naissance, et indignes de les posséder.'

Nor does it require much acquaintance with the history of the time to see the justice of this charge. Whatever explanation we may choose to give of the fact, it cannot be denied that, during the reign of Elizabeth, there was an open and constant opposition between the nobles and the executive government. The rebellion of 1569 was essentially an aristocratic movement; it was a rising of the great families of the north against what they considered the upstart and plebeian administration of the queen.[347] The bitterest enemy of Elizabeth was certainly Mary of Scotland; and the interests of Mary were publicly defended by the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Northumberland, the Earl of Westmoreland, and the Earl of Arundel; while there is reason to believe that her cause was secretly favoured by the Marquis of Northampton, the Earl of Pembroke, the Earl of Derby, the Earl of Cumberland, the Earl of Shrewsbury, and the Earl of Sussex.[348]

[347] To the philosophic historian this rebellion, though not
sufficiently appreciated by ordinary writers, is a very important
study, because it is the last attempt ever made by the great
English families to establish their authority by force of arms.
Mr. Wright says, that probably all those who took a leading part
in it 'were allied by blood or intermarriage with the two
families of the Percies and Neviles.' _Wright's Elizabeth_, 1838,
vol. i. p. xxxiv.; a valuable work. See also, in _Parl. Hist._
vol. i. p. 730, a list of some of those who, in 1571, were
attainted on account of this rebellion, and who are said to be
'all of the best families in the north of England.'

But the most complete evidence we have respecting this struggle,
consists of the collection of original documents published in
1840 by Sir C. Sharpe, under the title of _Memorials of the
Rebellion of 1569_. They show very clearly the real nature of the
outbreak. On 17th November 1569, Sir George Bowes writes, that
the complaint of the insurgents was that 'there was certaine
counsellors cropen' (_i.e._ crept) 'in aboute the prince, which
had excluded the nobility from the prince,' &c., _Memorials_, p.
42; and the editor's note says that this is one of the charges
made in all the proclamations by the earls. Perhaps the most
curious proof of how notorious the policy of Elizabeth had
become, is contained in a friendly letter from Sussex to Cecil,
dated 5th January 1569 (_Memorials_, p. 137), one paragraph of
which begins, 'Of late years few young noblemen have been
employed in service.'

[348] _Hallam_, i. p. 130; _Lingard_, v. pp. 97, 102; _Turner_, xii.
pp. 245, 247.

The existence of this antagonism of interests could not escape the sagacity of the English government. Cecil, who was the most powerful of the ministers of Elizabeth, and who was at the head of affairs for forty years, made it part of his business to study the genealogies and material resources of the great families; and this he did, not out of idle curiosity, but in order to increase his control over them, or, as a great historian says, to let them know 'that his eye was upon them.'[349] The queen herself, though too fond of power, was by no means of a cruel disposition; but she seemed to delight in humbling the nobles. On them her hand fell heavily; and there is hardly to be found a single instance of her pardoning their offences, while she punished several of them for acts which would now be considered no offences at all. She was always unwilling to admit them to authority; and it is unquestionably true that, taking them as a class, they were, during her long and prosperous reign, treated with unusual disrespect. Indeed, so clearly marked was her policy, that when the ducal order became extinct, she refused to renew it; and a whole generation passed away to whom the name of duke was a mere matter of history, a point to be mooted by antiquaries, but with which the business of practical life had no concern.[350] Whatever may be her other faults, she was on this subject always consistent. Although she evinced the greatest anxiety to surround the throne with men of ability, she cared little for those conventional distinctions by which the minds of ordinary sovereigns are greatly moved. She made no account of dignity of rank; she did not even care for purity of blood. She valued men neither for the splendour of their ancestry, nor for the length of their pedigrees, nor for the grandeur of their titles. Such questions she left for her degenerate successors, to the size of whose understandings they were admirably fitted. Our great queen regulated her conduct by another standard. Her large and powerful intellect, cultivated to its highest point by reflection and study, taught her the true measure of affairs, and enabled her to see, that to make a government flourish, its councillors must be men of ability and of virtue; but that if these two conditions are fulfilled, the nobles may be left to repose in the enjoyment of their leisure, unoppressed by those cares of the state for which, with a few brilliant exceptions, they are naturally disqualified by the number of their prejudices and by the frivolity of their pursuits.

[349] _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. i. p. 241; an interesting passage.
Turner (_Hist. of England_, vol. xii. p. 237) says, that Cecil
'knew the tendency of the great lords to combine against the
crown, that they might reinstate the peerage in the power from
which the house of Tudor had depressed it.'

[350] In 1572 the order of dukes became extinct; and was not revived
till fifty years afterwards, when James I. made the miserable
Villiers, duke of Buckingham. _Blackstone's Commentaries_, vol.
i. p. 397. This evidently attracted attention; for Ben Jonson, in
one of his comedies in 1616, mentions 'the received heresy that
England bears no dukes.' _Jonson's Works_, edit. Gifford, 1816,
vol. v. p. 47, where Gifford, not being aware of the extinction
in 1572, has made an unsatisfactory note.

After the death of Elizabeth, an attempt was made, first by James, and then by Charles, to revive the power of the two great protective classes, the nobles and the clergy. But so admirably had the policy of Elizabeth been supported by the general temper of the age, that it was found impossible for the Stuarts to execute their mischievous plans. The exercise of private judgment, both in religion and in politics, had become so habitual, that these princes were unable to subjugate it to their will. And as Charles I., with inconceivable blindness, and with an obstinacy even greater than that of his father, persisted in adopting in their worst forms the superannuated theories of protection, and attempted to enforce a scheme of government which men from their increasing independence were determined to reject, there inevitably arose that memorable collision which is well termed The Great Rebellion of England.[351] The analogy between this and the Protestant Reformation, I have already noticed; but what we have now to consider, and what, in the next chapter, I will endeavour to trace, is the nature of the difference between our Rebellion, and those contemporary wars of the Fronde, to which it was in some respects very similar.

[351] Clarendon (_Hist. of the Rebellion_, p. 216) truly calls it 'the
most prodigious and the boldest rebellion, that any age or
country ever brought forth.' See also some striking remarks in
_Warwick's Memoirs_, p. 207.