So the beautiful and interesting Mary dies a martyr to her cause,—­a victim of royal and national jealousy, paying the penalty for alleged crimes against the state and throne.  Had Elizabeth herself, during the life of her sister Mary, been guilty of half they proved against the Queen of Scots, she would have been most summarily executed.  But Elizabeth was wise and prudent, and waited for her time.  Mary Stuart was imprudent and rash.  Her character, in spite of her fascinations and accomplishments, was full of follies, infidelities, and duplicities.  She is supposed to have been an adulteress and a murderess.  She was unfortunate in her administration of Scotland.  She was ruled by wicked favorites and foreign influence.  She was not patriotic, or lofty, or earnest.  She did what she could to root out Protestantism in Scotland, and kept her own realm in constant trouble.  She had winning manners and graceful accomplishments; she was doubtless an intellectual woman; she had courage, presence of mind, tact, intelligence; she could ride and dance well:  but with these accomplishments she had qualities which made her dangerous and odious.  If she had not been executed, she would have been execrated.  But her sufferings and unfortunate death appeal to the heart of the world, and I would not fight against popular affections and sympathies.  Though she committed great crimes and follies, and was supposed to be dangerous to the religion and liberties of England, she died a martyr,—­as Charles I. died, and Louis XVI.,—­the victim of great necessities and great animosities.

The execution of Essex is another of the popular rather than serious charges against Elizabeth.  He had been her favorite; he was a generous, gifted, and accomplished man,—­therefore, it is argued, he ought to have been spared.  But he was caught with arms in his hands.  He was a traitor to the throne which enriched him and the nation which flattered him.  He was at the head of foolish rebellion, and therefore he died,—­died like Montmorency in the reign of Henry IV., like Bassompierre, like Norfolk and Northumberland, because he had committed high-treason and defied the laws.  Why should Elizabeth spare such a culprit?  No former friendship, no chivalrous qualities, no array of past services, ever can offset the crime of treason and rebellion, especially in unsettled times; and Elizabeth would have been worse than weak had she spared so great a criminal, both according to the laws and precedents of England and the verdict of enlightened civilization.  We may compassionate the fate of Essex; but he was rash, giddy, and irritated, and we feel that he deserved his punishment.