hypocritical, or false, or mean.  She was just, honest, and straightforward in her ordinary dealings; she was patriotic, enlightened, and magnanimous; she loved learning and learned men; she had at heart the best interests of her subjects; she was true to her cause.  Surely these great virtues, which it is universally admitted she possessed, should more than balance her defects and weaknesses.  See how tender-hearted she was when required to sign death-warrants, and what grief she manifested when Essex proved unworthy of her friendship!  See her love of children, her readiness of sympathy, her fondness for society,—­all feminine qualities in a woman who is stigmatized as masculine, as she perhaps was in her mental structure, in her habits of command, and aptitude for business:  a strong-minded woman at the worst, yet such a woman as was needed on a throne, especially in stormy times and in a rude state of society.

And when we pass from her private character to her public services, by which the great are judged, how exalted her claims to the world’s regard!  Where do we find a greater or a better queen?  Contrast her with other female sovereigns,—­with Isabella, who with all her virtues favored the Inquisition; with her sister Mary, who kindled the fires of Smithfield; with Catherine de Medicis, who sounded the tocsin of St. Bartholomew; with Mary of Scotland, who was a partner in the murder of her husband; with Anne of Austria, who ruled through Italian favorites; with Christiana of Sweden, who scandalized Europe by her indecent eccentricities; with Anne of Great Britain, ruled by the Duchess of Marlborough.  There are only two great sovereigns with whom she can be compared,—­Catherine II. of Russia, and Maria Theresa of Germany, illustrious, like Elizabeth, for courage and ability.  But Catherine was the slave of infamous passions, and Maria Theresa was a party to the partition of Poland.  Compared with these even, the English queen appears immeasurably superior; they may have wielded more power, but their moral influence was less.  It is not the greatness of a country which gives greatness to its exalted characters.  Washington ruled our empire in its infancy; and Buchanan, with all its majestic resources,—­yet who is dearest to the heart of the world?  No countries ever produced greater benefactors than Palestine and Greece, when their limits were scarcely equal to one of our States.  The fame of Burleigh burns brighter than that of the most powerful of modern statesmen.  The names of Alexander Hamilton and Daniel Webster may outshine the glories of any statesmen who shall arise in this great country for a hundred years to come.  Elizabeth ruled a little island; but her memory and deeds are as immortal as the fame of Pericles or Marcus Aurelius.