The characteristic excellence of Elizabeth’s reign, as it seems to me, was good government.  She had extraordinary executive ability, directed to all matters of public interest.  Her government was not marked by great and brilliant achievements, but by perpetual vigilance, humanity, economy, and liberal policy.  There were no destructive and wasting wars, no passion for military glory, no successions of court follies, no extravagance in palace-building, no egotistical aims and pleasures such as marked the reign of Louis XIV., which cut the sinews of national strength, impoverished the nobility, disheartened the people, and sowed the seeds of future revolution.  That modern Nebuchadnezzar spent on one palace L40,000,000; while Elizabeth spent on all her palaces, processions, journeys, carriages, servants, and dresses L65,000 a year.  She was indeed fond of visiting her subjects, and perhaps subjected her nobles to a burdensome hospitality.  But the Earl of Leicester could well afford three hundred and sixty-five hogsheads of beer when he entertained the Queen at Kenilworth, since he was rich enough to fortify his castle with ten thousand men; nor was it difficult for the Earl of Derby to feast the royal party, when his domestic servants numbered two hundred and forty.  She may have exacted presents on her birthday; but the courtiers who gave her laces and ruffs and jewelry received monopolies in return.

The most common charge against Elizabeth as a sovereign is, that she was arbitrary and tyrannical; nor can she be wholly exculpated from this charge.  Her reign was despotic, so far as the Constitution would allow; but it was a despotism according to the laws.  Under her reign the people had as much liberty as at any preceding period of English history.  She did not encroach on the Constitution.  The Constitution and the precedents of the past gave her the Star Chamber, and the High Commission Court, and the disposal of monopolies, and the absolute command of the military and naval forces; but these great prerogatives she did not abuse.  In her direst necessities she never went beyond the laws, and seldom beyond the wishes of the people.

It is expecting too much of sovereigns to abdicate their own powers except upon compulsion; and still more, to increase the political power of the people.  The most illustrious sovereigns have never parted willingly with their own prerogatives.  Did the Antonines, or Theodosius, or Charlemagne, or ’Frederic II.?  The Emperor of Russia may emancipate serfs from a dictate of humanity, but he did not give them political power, for fear that it might be turned against the throne.  The sovereign people of America may give political equality to their old slaves, and invite them to share in the legislation of great interests:  it is in accordance with that theory of abstract rights which Rousseau, the creator of the French Revolution, propounded,—­which gospel of rights was accepted by Jefferson and Franklin, The monarchs of