It cannot be imagined that a people who had in their own hands the means of checking their princes would suffer any prince to impose upon them a religion generally detested.  It is absurd to suppose that, if the nation had been decidedly attached to the Protestant faith, Mary could have re-established the Papal supremacy.  It is equally absurd to suppose that, if the nation had been zealous for the ancient religion, Elizabeth could have restored the Protestant Church.  The truth is, that the people were not disposed to engage in a struggle either for the new or for the old doctrines.  Abundance of spirit was shown when it seemed likely that Mary would resume her father’s grants of church property, or that she would sacrifice the interests of England to the husband whom she regarded with unmerited tenderness.  That queen found that it would be madness to attempt the restoration of the abbey lands.  She found that her subjects would never suffer her to make her hereditary kingdom a fief of Castile.  On these points she encountered a steady resistance, and was compelled to give way.  If she was able to establish the Catholic worship and to persecute those who would not conform to it, it was evidently because the people cared far less for the Protestant religion than for the rights of property and for the independence of the English crown.  In plain words, they did not think the difference between the hostile sects worth a struggle.  There was undoubtedly a zealous Protestant party and a zealous Catholic party.  But both these parties were, we believe, very small.  We doubt, whether both together made up, at the time of Mary’s death, the twentieth part of the nation.  The remaining nineteen twentieths halted between the two opinions, and were not disposed to risk a revolution in the government, for the purpose of giving to either of the extreme factions an advantage over the other.

We possess no data which will enable us to compare with exactness the force of the two sects.  Mr. Butler asserts that, even at the accession of James the First, a majority of the population of England were Catholics.  This is pure assertion; and is not only unsupported by evidence, but, we think, completely disproved by the strongest evidence.  Dr. Lingard is of opinion that the Catholics were one-half of the nation in the middle of the reign of Elizabeth.  Rushton says that, when Elizabeth came to the throne, the Catholics were two-thirds of the nation, and the Protestants only one-third.  The most judicious and impartial of English historians, Mr. Hallam, is, on the contrary, of opinion, that two-thirds were Protestants and only one-third Catholics.  To us, we must confess, it seems, incredible that, if the Protestants were really two to one, they should have borne the government of Mary, or that, if the Catholics were really two to one, they should have borne the government of Elizabeth.  We are at a loss to conceive how a sovereign who has no standing